WYP
News Guru
Let's have a look at the destruction mechanics in Battlefield 1. Can everything be destroyed?
Read more on Battlefield 1's level destruction.
Read more on Battlefield 1's level destruction.
Battlefield 1 Destruction Analysis
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
If it is indeed more like BC2's destruction system, then i'm all for it. That's what made that game so fun!
shambles1980
New member
its not going to be one of those stupid 1st person shooters where people get lvls and better guns and stuff is it??
because they aren't any fun.
Also pay to win (buy better guns) is no fun either.. Hopefully its nothing like that either..
I like ones where at the start you chose what load out you want. "gun type or charicter type, which decides your armament" and then off you go to snipe/machine gun/garrotte the other players, and no RPG lvl up elements.
and no buying Uber Gun 90000 and 1 shot killing every one with one bullet to the foot..
because they aren't any fun.
Also pay to win (buy better guns) is no fun either.. Hopefully its nothing like that either..
I like ones where at the start you chose what load out you want. "gun type or charicter type, which decides your armament" and then off you go to snipe/machine gun/garrotte the other players, and no RPG lvl up elements.
and no buying Uber Gun 90000 and 1 shot killing every one with one bullet to the foot..
Have you ever played a match of BC2 with loads of engineers or just had a long round? It's not all that much fun anymore when every building is knocked down and there's no cover left. Full destruction kills map design.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Yes and that's what made it fun for me and my friends. Now some maps and gametypes full destruction doesn't work so well, but more often than not it did.
It never worked well, you just ended up playing on a pretty much flat surface. If there are a couple of buildings which collapse that's fine, but the basic structure of the map needs to be preserved.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
That's your opinion. As I said before, me and my friends still had a lot of fun.
shambles1980
New member
i think everything should be fully destroy-able. but it should have realistic damage thresholds.
and i think maps should be Much bigger. with 300 or so ppl in a server.
and i think maps should be Much bigger. with 300 or so ppl in a server.
ricksavoie
New member
It makes no sense for a tank not to be able to crush a fence! If it isn't realistic in 2016+ it's a farce!
It's a game, if you want to play a realistic shooter, play ArmA. In every other game it's gameplay > realism. I also said nothing about fences not being destructible, i said that certain buildings shouldn't be fully destructible to keep the mapstructure alive.
shambles1980
New member
As i mentioned, I think you should be able to level everything, but it should have a high damage threshold and fall down in bits.. And leave rubble. this would leave plenty of hiding spots and cover and so on, and you wouldn't just spend all the game trying to fully level everything.
I really dont see an argument against it. its a building i shoot it with a tank some of it needs to fall down. I shoot it again other bits should fall down, and it should continue untill its a pile of rubble, i should also be able to shot a structural/load bearing section and watch most of it fall down in one shot.
Bombs being dropped on it should blow it to bits, and rubble should fly around like projectiles
Nothing should be indestructible. it just breaks immersion, and as i mentioned already I really dont see how it would detract from the game play, sections of wall would usually be left standing because you arent going to meticulously flatten everything 100% "although you should be able too if you wanted" and even if they were 100% flattened there would be rubble and craters where the building used to be.
Again i will say that i think the maps need to be a lot bigger and have a lot more players.
I used to enjoy a game called aces high, and then it became aces high 2.
The maps were HUGE, and had hundreds of people playing at the same time, and it would take a good 12 hours "if all went well" to take control of the entire map, so you would jump on in the morning fly your sorties shoot down other pilot then fly a 10min flight to drop bombs or troops on the airfield you were all trying to take over. And log off.
you would come back 8-10 hours later, and the tide of war had changed and you then jumped in a tank to go try and protect an airfield that was under attack. or man a flack gun. possibly attempt to fly a plane from the air field that was under attack if there were any hangars left and if there were hope you had reasonable planes.
This could go on for days until you won or lost.
And because there were so many players and the game lasted so long you had to try and keep places you wanted to take over intact so you could use them..
So it just worked.
So i do believe the maps need to be bigger and have more players, and multiple HQ's that people try to take over, and people should chose which die they want to fight for and then they are that side till the war is won or lost. (with forced player balance) and people should be able to join and leave anytime they want.
and if they want to demolish everything they should be able too. but given the fact that if they take that area over they have to then defend it and possibly for days. they will be less likely to destroy it. And it would be more fun more tactical and more realistic.
Syncing proper destruction in a multiplayer environment is very tough on the servers and the bandwidth, what you are suggesting with the debris creating dynamic new cover is pretty much not doable without shafting the server owners. When you have destruction in Battlefield games it's always the same, the buildings have a couple of states they can be in and all the debris flying around and the collapsing animation is client side, for the server the building just switches from one state to another somewhere while the animation is going on. Battlefield's netcode is already far from great because fast projectile netcode is very tough and hence resource intensive, the same applies to large playercounts and mapsizes. I don't see either one increasing significantly in the near future simply due to hardware and cost restrictions.
The argument against it is that Battlefield is not a warsimulator, hence your immersion should be broken the second your weapon doesn't start flailing around when you pull the trigger. As pretty much everyone who has spent a significant amount of time in BC2 has experienced at some point, when the entire map is destructible you will run into situations where you can't do anything because all the cover around the objective is blown to bits. Not to mention that gamedesign is taught at university for a reason, random bits of cover don't make a good map. Battlefield is an arcade shooter, you can't just ignore elements of game design in favor of realism in some places and expect it to work. People really need to get away from thinking that gamedesign is just dreaming up things which would be cool, there are plenty of restrictions and everything you implement can have a negative effect on the gameplay in some way you didn't think of.
I've never played Aces High, but from a quick youtube search it seems to be a completely different type of game, it doesn't even have infantry, so it doesn't compare all that well to Battlefield.
shambles1980
New member
i dunno you seem outnumbered in this thread about the destruction thing. so im not sure you are qualified to decide what makes a good map.
I made hundreds of maps for delta force 2 when i used to play that. and the most well received ones had less buildings.. but i guess times have changed a lot since then.
but i suppose its why i stopped playing first person shooters.. they just went in a different direction to what i considered fun.
I made hundreds of maps for delta force 2 when i used to play that. and the most well received ones had less buildings.. but i guess times have changed a lot since then.
but i suppose its why i stopped playing first person shooters.. they just went in a different direction to what i considered fun.
The majority isn't always right, it quite often isn't. In games plenty of people don't give a second thought to map design because it doesn't really matter when you only scratch the surface of an FPS. A map with a collapsing skyscraper is going to sell over a well structured but less flamboyant map to most. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to get involved deeper in a game, but it doesn't make for a well educated opinion either.
In the FPS games i play balance ranks first, second and third on the list of criteria a good game/map needs to fulfill. It's not that hard to make a map which is visually appealing and has some cool concepts, but people usually figure out ways to break it fairly quickly, finding a map balance which works is very difficult. That's why usually in a competitive environment out of thousands of maps roughly 5 are played in 99% of the matches.
I'm one of those people who'll either drop a game after 15 minutes or play it religiously for years to figure out all of its details and get as close to the skill ceiling as possible, usually those games are FPS, so i think at least when it comes to balance i'm fairly qualified to judge FPS gamedesign.
The fps genre is spread fairly wide, just because the most popular games don't tick your boxes doesn't mean the subgenre you like is dead, i don't like where FPS development is going either. But still, even CPMA got a successor and that game only has a couple hundred active players. In the world of indie development there's a game for everyone. It might not be the most popular one, but what does it matter as long as you can get a full server.
