Bombs

[Karnak]

not if they are "persistent destructible" objects, which would probably be the best way to make the trees and bushes destructible. they wouldn't reset unless the map is reset.

wonder how much it take to accomplish and implement on existing terrains...  

That only removes the respawn timer.  It doesn't do anything to address the need to track damage states.  Without damage state tracking trees would need to be immune to a certain class of weapon and below, probably 20mm, 30mm, 37mm or 40mm and below would do nothing and anything above would simply destroy it.

[gyrene81]

That only removes the respawn timer.  It doesn't do anything to address the need to track damage states.  Without damage state tracking trees would need to be immune to a certain class of weapon and below, probably 20mm, 30mm, 37mm or 40mm and below would do nothing and anything above would simply destroy it.

could be accomplished by assigning trees different damage classes based on size instead of tracking ammo types. it would be easier. damage ratings are already assigned to ammunition types/calibers.

[Lusche]

The runways take 125k to kill ( I only checked one map). In your example of "40 500lbers" it would take over 6 B29s with that load out in quick succession (to avoid the repair aspect of the supply system) to take out a runway.  Thats why you don't see it done.

It doesn't work at all. No matter how low you set the requirement in the arena settings, the runways will not be destroyed at all.
And if you try to destroy the runway via "kill objects", you won't even find any "runway" object at all.

[Karnak]

could be accomplished by assigning trees different damage classes based on size instead of tracking ammo types. it would be easier. damage ratings are already assigned to ammunition types/calibers.

That would add another field the database needs to track per tree.  The problem is the sheer number of trees being too much to track destruction states.

[kvuo75]

sheer number of trees being too much to track destruction states.

for example, the map in the arena right now is a small map.. smpizza, its ~250*250 miles.. 62500 square miles.. how many trees per sq mile? '

its a lot of squealing trees.

[gyrene81]

That would add another field the database needs to track per tree.  The problem is the sheer number of trees being too much to track destruction states.

what database? there isn't a database for trees and hedges now. even still, with a parameter of persistent destructible object, the only tracking that would need to be done is on (undamaged)/off (destroyed). the servers aren't even taxed hardware wise the way they sit right now with 300+ players all over the place firing weapons, dropping bombs, etc... the added parameters using on/off persistent until the map is reset wouldn't add much overhead.

[Karnak]

what database? there isn't a database for trees and hedges now. even still, with a parameter of persistent destructible object, the only tracking that would need to be done is on (undamaged)/off (destroyed). the servers aren't even taxed hardware wise the way they sit right now with 300+ players all over the place firing weapons, dropping bombs, etc... the added parameters using on/off persistent until the map is reset wouldn't add much overhead.

No, you need a database entry for each and every tree and bush that can be destroyed.  If you don't have such a database there is no way to communicate to the clients what has been destroyed.

[Tinkles]

No, you need a database entry for each and every tree and bush that can be destroyed.  If you don't have such a database there is no way to communicate to the clients what has been destroyed.

Perhaps have a slightly different color and design for destructable trees?

For example, not all trees should be destructable (right now) there is no reason.   Now, I can see some random noob upping a lanc just to kill random trees in the middle of nowhere, since I've seen them kill-shot themselves via friendly fire more times than I can count.

However, perhaps have a series of trees only destructable where we know the combat will be?  Like, trees 3k around all GV spawnpoints, and sort of funneled outward.  In the direction of the base and town, then 3k around those areas (since tanks can and will camp around those areas).   

Or maybe (if we are able to or HTC has a system of doing it) 10k around all spawn points for destructable trees ( to ensure tanks dont hide behind indestructable trees).



I know it's not the 100% realism we want.  But, at least we would have destructable trees in an area that we know they would get shot at ( ), that wouldn't be too much work for HTC.  But at least we would have destructable trees.



In terms of napalm, perhaps HTC could 'invent' a smaller fire than what we have presented when hangers are destroyed?  Instead of (estimate) 40ft+ strong flames, perhaps 5-10 foot (at least for now) tall flames?  Then when either more players are able to expand to better systems (myself included) or HTC being able to 'invent' fire, we can have more napalm stuffs.

In the mean time I think the above is doable, it would definitely take most of their work force (unless they are able to drag n click and say "all this highlighted shalt be destructable", otherwise I assume it is individually like Karnak mentioned).  But in my opinion, it would be worth it, and add more combat diversity in terms of ground combat, and air vs ground, because of bombs/napalm etc.

Thanks for reading through all that, opinions?

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

[Arlo]

You do realize that the "bridges" in question are part of the supply system of the game and have nothing to do with GVing at all. Some of the custom maps that Ranger has built I believe have bridges used as choke points in terrains, but none of the MA maps do.

Nope, didn't know. Still, I believe all bridges are objects and, being such, are either destructible
or not via settings.