Jump to content


Why soft cover and destroyable environment is good for the game and why there should be more of it

soft physics cover

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Derethim #1 Posted 30 September 2017 - 06:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16426 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

A lot of people rightfully complain about corridor maps and heavy meta and the prime reason for it is the maps like Paris and Pilsen, which are just horrid in design and Paris is just unfixable.

I think the easy way to solve this, without making heavies underpowered and overexposed, is adding more maps with soft cover and adding soft cover, that is more resistant to fire.

Of course, with better map design, which is still important.

Heavies will get their corridor combat and meds and light can scout/move fast without being too exposed.

There should also be cover and objects, that only certain tank classes/heavy fire can break through.

All of this would also make arty less likely to land a direct hit and would need to invest some shells into breaking cover.

 

This boils down to one point - the game needs better physics.

It would fix a lot of issues - mountaingoating, being one of them. Why are there even impassably-looking mountains, when you can just get on top of them and see the whole map from up there?

Not to mention some newbies or bad players in general, who see someone else do it and who will then spend the whole match trying to get there and get artied once they reach the top.

 

It would also tackle the heavy meta a bit, it would still be here, but it wouldn't be so bad, if you could just break a part of that building, the Maus is hiding it's side armor behind, or just make a hole in it.

HE shells would become more useful, as they would be a lot more effective to take out heavy cover. Heavy cover, which is atm indestructible, shouldn't be completely destroyable though.

I like how THQ handled building destruction Company of Heroes. Buildings collapse if destroyed completely, leaving impassable rubble, that doubles as cover, altough it's less effective, this time it's not destroyable. This would be great for the game, imho, plus, there is already a mesh and a texture for the rubble - it's spread all over Himmelsdorf and Ruinberg. Of course, wooden and countryside structures should have a different one. Example:

As you can see a game, that was made in 2006 has more effects and detail than current WoT. There are reflections in the windows, the interior of the house is rendered, there is complete destruction of the environment including permanent craters actually changing the level of the ground, not just being painted on temporary textures. Parts of destroyed tank and vehicle wrecks staying permanently, like charred trackwheels, pieces of armor and so on, if a tank knocks over a wooden bench and crushes it, the bench stays there for the rest of the match, destroyed and much more! It's the same engine WoT was supposed to have. Now I know 15 and 30 players on one map would put a lot more strain on the engine, but first of all, it's 2017, not 2006 and second, it only needs simplistic version of the physics.

 

But this engine can't handle it. Getting a new one would also probably help the potatoware computers out there handle the game.

 

TLDR; New physics engine would positively impact the gameplay.


Edited by Derethim, 30 September 2017 - 06:58 PM.


Eaglax #2 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:10 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18973 battles
  • 3,481
  • Member since:
    01-12-2012

CoH is an entirely different game...comparing it with WOT is just stupid (no offence), and it shows that you have no clue how physic engines/games work (again no offence). What you dream of is nearly impossible to implement in a short time...

yes, it would be nice to have a new physics engine, but as said it's just a dream...



Obsessive_Compulsive #3 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:13 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23547 battles
  • 8,048
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

You should know better OP. we had more open maps and more cover.. and we were getting buildings you could blow up..

 

 



Jigabachi #4 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,637
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

I already suggested long ago that they should add more destructive buildings and to actually turn them into "tanks" with HP and modules, so small guns would need a few shots to level a building while big guns would either shoot through or destroy most of it.

Prokho is a good example, fighting your way through the village with all those destructible houses can be quite fun.



Derethim #5 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16426 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostConor_Notorious_McGregor, on 30 September 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

You should know better OP. we had more open maps and more cover.. and we were getting buildings you could blow up..

 

 

 

Yup I know, i've seen the tech demo.

Here it is for those, who don't know about it:

Should've included it in the post, my mistake.

View PostEaglax, on 30 September 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

CoH is an entirely different game...comparing it with WOT is just stupid (no offence), and it shows that you have no clue how physic engines/games work (again no offence). What you dream of is nearly impossible to implement in a short time...

yes, it would be nice to have a new physics engine, but as said it's just a dream...

 

It's not impossible (see above video) and game development usually takes a lot of time. I do know how game physics work actually and anyone, who doesen't can read up on, for example, the Physx engine Havok uses.

Imagine the possibilities! Working ice in winter maps, working mud in wet maps, destructible environment..


Edited by Derethim, 30 September 2017 - 07:30 PM.


Dis4ster #6 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:31 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27944 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012

WG already has 2 versions of this game, HD and SD just for those russian potato PCs, its to much work to create a 3rd version for high end PCs and to do that without increasing the minimum requirements of the other 2 versions might be impossible.

So as long as WG intends to keep the bot like players with their 5 FPS PCs in this game, we can't expect to get more than OP premium tanks from WG.

 

However they are working on HD maps, so maybe the maps are going to get better. But every additional bush, house, rock and destructibles might lower the FPS of the potato PCs, so WG won't add extras to the HD maps that they can't add to SD maps.


Edited by Dis4ster, 30 September 2017 - 07:56 PM.


Pandabird #7 Posted 30 September 2017 - 08:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33973 battles
  • 4,517
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View PostDerethim, on 30 September 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

 

Yup I know, i've seen the tech demo.

Here it is for those, who don't know about it:

Should've included it in the post, my mistake.

 

It's not impossible (see above video) and game development usually takes a lot of time. I do know how game physics work actually and anyone, who doesen't can read up on, for example, the Physx engine Havok uses.

Imagine the possibilities! Working ice in winter maps, working mud in wet maps, destructible environment..

 

1:35

 

BRING IT BACK



Xaltu #8 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:14 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 11750 battles
  • 89
  • [A-W-F] A-W-F
  • Member since:
    12-17-2016
I am still amazed that in places I can flatten a big building, but in others I can grind to a halt by drying in to a low solid object. From a game perspective viewing both these items for the first time I only discovered their properties the hard way.

ZlatanArKung #9 Posted 26 October 2017 - 06:52 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostDis4ster, on 30 September 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

WG already has 2 versions of this game, HD and SD just for those russian potato PCs, its to much work to create a 3rd version for high end PCs and to do that without increasing the minimum requirements of the other 2 versions might be impossible.

So as long as WG intends to keep the bot like players with their 5 FPS PCs in this game, we can't expect to get more than OP premium tanks from WG.

 

However they are working on HD maps, so maybe the maps are going to get better. But every additional bush, house, rock and destructibles might lower the FPS of the potato PCs, so WG won't add extras to the HD maps that they can't add to SD maps.

It isn't due to customer PC but WGS incompetence at creating maps.

 

The best maps in WoT are the ones from the beginning.

 

Less solid cover is needed. More bushes on some spots, removed on other.

Removal of base camping positions.

 



Derethim #10 Posted 26 October 2017 - 07:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16426 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

Dat necro



Geno1isme #11 Posted 27 October 2017 - 09:50 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40053 battles
  • 6,625
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostDerethim, on 30 September 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

It's not impossible (see above video) and game development usually takes a lot of time. I do know how game physics work actually and anyone, who doesen't can read up on, for example, the Physx engine Havok uses.

 

It's not about adding physics stuff, but synchronizing the effects on the collision model between client and server that is the big problem.

Which is why they've only added Havok for clientside (pure visual) stuff on the HD maps now.

 

View PostXaltu, on 01 October 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

I am still amazed that in places I can flatten a big building, but in others I can grind to a halt by drying in to a low solid object. From a game perspective viewing both these items for the first time I only discovered their properties the hard way.

 

Yeah, stuff like the pillars near the (encounter/assault) cap on Ruinberg bein indestructible are really annoying.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users