“We’re still holding back some elements of what we’re doing, but as a whole, we have tried really hard to ensure that this is a really destructive environment.”
Does anyone want them to hold back? I loved BC2 and part of what made it so enjoyable was the sheer amount of environmental destruction.
After BC2 with BF3/4 things were held back, you couldn’t level many things in the game and the main thing said was so that you wouldn’t end up with a “leveled” battlefield.
Does ANYONE care about that? I mean really. This isn’t a persistent game world, when you play a new map everything resets. Who cares if every-single-thing can be destroyed?
Nothing can break that sense quicker then driving a tank and running into something that stops you dead in your tracks and it ends up being something like a tree or a small fence that is for some reason immune to breaking.
So am I the only one who thinks that environmental destruction should just be completely open to everything, going even further than BC2 did in that regard? Trees, fences, terrain, buildings, everything. With the amoutn dependent on the force applied to it and what is used (IE a rifle wouldn’t do much to a tree compared to a tank running it over. Just where it makes sense.
That was hell.
I’m cool with more destruction as long as the maps still allow tactical play after everything that could be destroyed is destroyed. More destruction sounds good. Maps that are useless afterwards are no fun.
Just have 80-90% of the map be destructible. Important structures around capture points can’t be completely knocked down so the infantry still has some cover.
I agree that driving into/over a small tree or fence and getting stuck was infuriating. Tanks should be able to bulldoze most obstacles.
Hold back full destruction. But being able to wreck everything would look nice. Dents and holes etc. A “plane” was flown into the pentagon but did not fully destroy. True or not. That type of damage would be nice. Then some things could be flattened
Yeah I’m just glad with urban maps there won’t be as many rooftop snipers as BF4 or atleast I’m hoping so. Even still though no elevators and I can’t imagine the buildings being to high up. I think golumond railway the little town for a and b or c is the perfect about of destruction. A
Blow stuff up but still have cover.
i want it to be as realistic as possible in this aspect, where small arms can eventually do major structural damage and the maps can potentially be leveled
Maps can be designed to play well with terrain shape and piles of rubble and ruins alone. Then just make it play awesomely with intact structures and buildings. Also, explosions on the ground can even add cover for the infantry and prevent ground vehicles from advancing easily. Besides, if the map is large, ain’t nobody got time to level it completely.
Edit: Also, the “health” value of the structures could set to very high, so it’d require lots of damage to destroy them.
I don’t mind rooftop snipers or vertical gameplay. It just means I have to be careful. It also helps with immersion. I’m always reminded of films where they’re met with snipers in the roofs of the alleys.
Grand Bazaar 1918 anyone?
I had an issue with BF3’s destruction. Destruction can and has hurt the balance of maps and modes. In BF3, destruction did nothing but take away from the map. BF4 had a nice idea with levolution, but that did nothing to re-balance a destroyed map.
Balancing destruction is a really tough challenge, and if that can’t be done - limiting it is the next best thing. My hope is that BF1 limits it on a per mode basis, on top of limiting it on certain maps like they’ve already done. TDM definitely needs limits.
“You also mentioned on stage that your destruction effects will be broader. This is something which you have reigned in on, at least a little, in recent Battlefields. Just how destructive will environments be in Battlefield 1?”
So it’s not about the game as a whole, but about specifically destruction.
“We’re still holding back some elements of what we’re doing, but as a whole, we have tried really hard to ensure that this is a really destructive environment.”
I would love full destruction, and have the debris be places for snipers and mgs to settup for support. And with debris falling it can cut off paths for tanks and cars.
I STRONGLY preferred BC2’s full destruction. Not from a realism point of view, but because the gameplay felt so ridiculously emergent. Anyone who says “does a map with zero cover and tons of wide open space sound fun?” has never played Bad Company 2. That game was SO much fun and there was always cover because the debris of the destruction remained. There was still natural terrain like cliffsides that could be used as cover, and beyond that you can build trenches with C4.
I just don’t have fun playing maps like Seine Crossing or Grand Bazaar where the map is set in stone and there is zero emergent gameplay. I think the “complete destruction ruins game balance” is a cop-out argument due to technical constraints. Bad Company 2 felt very good and balanced despite its total destruction.