Destructable Environment?
- Thread starter Disco~Fire
- Start date
That depends on the Map Designer. If custom Map Makers do not bother with Destructible Environments you can have the Tank stopped by Fence syndrom. If they go overboard with Destruction the Map will LAG, no really LAG.
So laggy that even an IS-2 will not be able to be an IS-2 ^^
Thats one of the Reasons BF:BC2 got only 32 Players, and the horrible stats Data hog.
I would rather play realistically with 32 players than have my opponents survive an artillery-strike by sitting in a wooden shed or not being able to move my tank over a barbed-wire fence.
I would rather play realistically with 32 players than have my opponents survive an artillery-strike by sitting in a wooden shed or not being able to move my tank over a barbed-wire fence.
I heartly agree about those fences
It mostly depends upon in how many "chunks" you seperate the Destroyable objects, lets take your Wooden Shed.
One could model it in a way that every wooden plank can be destroyed on its own, with only two states (intact/destroyed) or something in between. Since every Client connected needs to know the status of each destroyable part of the Shed, this can be an enourmous resource hog.
As the Vids show, Fences are destroyable by Artillery.
So i guess we won't be stopped by fences, just that we didn't see a vid yet showing us a Tank driving over fences doesn't mean it ain't in.
AFAIK the system doesn't work so inefficiently, in fact the destruction seems much more abrupt for performance reasons.
That's why you see whole houses swapping with a destroyed mesh instead of doing each individual wall or something like BC2.
That's why you see whole houses swapping with a destroyed mesh instead of doing each individual wall or something like BC2.
Your thinking about it the wrong way
but first, No I would NOT want to play 32 player "more realistically". In this sense. May as well play 2 player as realistic as possible. I'm sorry...what? Battles were thought with 32 people? No...lets not think small. Think bigger. We already have 5 or 6 games out there on the market which have decided to go with 32 players or less when 10 years ago we were racking up 128 players.
We have new technology people, and better internet connections. We can do more than what we did 10 years ago...
-
Explosions do "Splash" damage.There is no reason to suggest why a bomb dropping on top of a wooden shack should make the person inside completely immune from harm. The shack could be set to be "non" protective meaning that it won't stop any sort of blast radius damage.
I've seen plenty of games where things go through walls. Its crude but its better than the alternative....surviving big bombs whilst hiding cleverly under a twig.
but first, No I would NOT want to play 32 player "more realistically". In this sense. May as well play 2 player as realistic as possible. I'm sorry...what? Battles were thought with 32 people? No...lets not think small. Think bigger. We already have 5 or 6 games out there on the market which have decided to go with 32 players or less when 10 years ago we were racking up 128 players.
We have new technology people, and better internet connections. We can do more than what we did 10 years ago...
-
Explosions do "Splash" damage.There is no reason to suggest why a bomb dropping on top of a wooden shack should make the person inside completely immune from harm. The shack could be set to be "non" protective meaning that it won't stop any sort of blast radius damage.
I've seen plenty of games where things go through walls. Its crude but its better than the alternative....surviving big bombs whilst hiding cleverly under a twig.