Do you support dynamic/more complex building Destruction?

[RainOfPain125]

//So I recently made this regarding bullet holes

Bullet Holes & Ammo Animation

Certain textures/walls should have different sized bullet holes. The walls/textures themselves could have a multiplier built-in. That way, say, weaker walls would have bigger holes when shot for cool effect, and really sturdy things have smaller holes because it did less of an impact. Certain weapons should have data on bullet hole size multipliers as well. This way bigger caliber guns will produce bigger holes, and even things like advanced alien tech could produce much, much larger holes. …

and a lot of people are talking about destroying walls. Which I was sorta gonna add to the original post, and talk about in the comments, but surely it deserves its own post entirely.

I’ve thought of many ways that the 3.0 destruction mechanics can be improved and upgraded, and everyone has different interpretations and ideas.

Rainbow Six Siege Destruction
Some people want things like R6 Siege, where you can make tiny cuts and holes in walls, to which you can peek out. However, I completely disagree with this as tiny pixel holes would be horrible for gunplay and make camping 9999% worse. Heres what @anon24515308 and @GreatHeroJ had to say.

@anon24515308

It’s not that R6:S has over the top destruction mechanics, it’s that the play space mostly focuses on the highly destructible interior walls of buildings. I’ll grant that pixel peek bullet holes are obnoxious

@GreatHeroJ

as opposed to full obstacle destruction that you see in games like R6S. Personally I find R6S to be way over the top in this regard, and would much rather have only very weak surfaces like glass and plywood be broken like that, unless explosives, anti-materiel weapons, or heavy melee weapons are involved.

So no this isn’t just an R6S-inspired nightmare.

Dynamic Destruction

For example, some people want a wall to be split up into multiple break-able sections, possibly with the added idea of “stability” or breaking enough of the wall will cause the whole thing to fall apart and collapse. I think this is sorta cool, but I think this is a bit far fetched and possibly exploitable. Why break the entire wall when you can break 1/9th of it and slide your way in? so on.

Destructible Map Buildings
Some people, like me, want the map-object buildings to be destructible in the same way I mentioned above where certain places are split up into sections. I however, would like to see a better way. IMO I think all buildings, or chunks of buildings should have HP, and when the HP hits zero the buildings model is replaced with a “broken” model and will recover back to normal later - or perhaps never recover unless players intentionally fix it.

A big reason I’d like sections of buildings breakable, or “broken” versions is to prevent the absolutely annoying scenarios that every Unturned player has encountered, where players simply hide behind invincible yet small objects like the Hesco’s at Military Bases and so on, or camping behind any wall on the map. This could help players counter campers and encourage people to build Real bases instead of fortifying the hell out of a map object where 90% of the base is invincible.

• Destruction is fine as it is, with small useless things being destructible is enough like 3.0.
• Destruction mechanics should definitely be added to map objects or buildings, unless in special circumstances.
• Destruction mechanics should definitely NOT be added to map objects or buildings, unless in special circumstances.

Destroyed Building Mechanics & Content
Maybe Nelson could add drawbacks for leaving buildings in a broken state. Maybe they spawn less loot. Maybe the overall design of the building is much more open and revealing than the good building state, so if you loot it often you’d be encouraged to fix it for your own protection.

Another small incentive and content-addition is NPCs inside of towns giving you quests to repair certan things, or etc. “The generators been out and we need the power!”

Or perhaps, infrastructure like lighting will not work within a building. Perhaps furthermore players may repair infrastructure around town to restore power to the town (fixing poles, breakers, power switch, power lines, power transformers, etc). Nelson has said before he wanted towns or such to be occupied by players or something like that

• Destroyed map objects or buildings should automatically regenerate to their original state over time, just like trees.
• (Some?) Destroyed map objects should require players to repair them, possibly with incentives to do so.

Destruction Graphics
I’m sure everybody would like to see better Destruction physics/animation. Instead of a giant wooden wall falling over, we’d all love to see it break or smash into pieces and crumble to the ground. Far more realistic and graphically pleasing if done right.

We could also do far better for the “particles” that come from destroying objects. For example, in 3.0 smashing a cash register will just emit some 2D money particles. It would be much cooler if instead it were 3D notes that slowly sailed down to the ground (air friction at play). These particles could be revamped all across the board, not just for cash registers.

• Destruction animations/graphics should definitely be changed to be more realistic and pleasing.
• Destruction animations/graphics like 3.0 are just fine.

im not sure how to end this. so like… if i missed any sort of mechanic or detail just comment lmao

[Aj_Gaming]

Sounds gud

[RainOfPain125]

@Llamaturkey101 @iiTitanitronic @anon67155151 you seem to be the only ones that didn’t vote with the majority on some poles. Care to explain what you think should be done? Anything special?

[anon24515308]

@RainOfPain125

Why break the entire wall when you can break 1/9th of it and slide your way in?

The amount of damage it takes to break completely through a section of a wall would have to be balanced compared to the amount of damage it takes to break down the whole wall, but I don’t think that’s an unmanageable requirement.

[LeMaKoTi]

Buildings that are apart of the map shouldnt be destructable except some parts like windows, doors, etc, but you shouldnt be able to blow a hole in map buildings. Better destruction does work for man made buildings.

[anon24515308]

@RainOfPain125

A big reason I’d like sections of buildings breakable, or “broken” versions is to prevent the absolutely annoying scenarios that every Unturned player has encountered, where players simply hide behind invincible yet small objects like the Hesco’s at Military Bases and so on, or camping behind any wall on the map.

Replacing a model with a broken one doesn’t get rid of small invincible objects, it just makes them smaller. The real solution would be to get rid of the object, or allow attacks to penetrate through it (or atleast penetrate through it’s broken version.) The real potential of destruction is that it makes the world more dynamic and interactive. (Which is why I voted against destructible objects regenerating like 3.X trees, in order for 3.X tree stumps to not be buggy as hell the player is prevented from standing or walking over them, which prevents the dynamism of being able to create new paths.

[RainOfPain125]

@anon24515308

Replacing a model with a broken one doesn’t get rid of small invincible objects

Well there could be multiple implications of ‘broken’ buildings, including tiers, where the last tier of a broken building is no building perhaps. I would still very much like the building to still be there in one state or another, so your idea of allowing attacks to penetrate sounds very good. Broken buildings could also introduce many more entrances, making basing in them less ideal unless you know where to board up all those entries. Giving us more points of entry/raiding at-least sounds better than having to force my way through a single door, like some Military Barracks do.

@anon24515308

(Which is why I voted against destructible objects regenerating like 3.X trees, in order for 3.X tree stumps to not be buggy as hell the player is prevented from standing or walking over them, which prevents the dynamism of being able to create new paths.

Well thats just because of the crappy invisible collision box that trees have. I’m not sure why they have them, but such buildings probably wouldn’t need them.

[anon24515308]

@RainOfPain125

I’m not sure why they have them, but such buildings probably wouldn’t need them.

If you could stand where a tree or wall is going to generate, it opens the possibility for people to end up inside of that wall or tree, (which in turn opens possibilities for players and their loot to end up in places that aren’t accessible.)

[RainOfPain125]

I’m sure theres much more clever, less lazy ways to prevent such problems…

[anonimoanbu]

I really liked the topic, although I have some other ideas on how to improve, (how to leave the colored letters?)

[RainOfPain125]

@anonimoanbu

(how to leave the colored letters?)

colored letters? wdym.

[RainOfPain125]

Also, addition to Destruction Graphics

We could also do far better for the “particles” that come from destroying objects. For example, in 3.0 smashing a cash register will just emit some 2D money particles. It would be much cooler if instead it were 3D notes that slowly sailed down to the ground (air friction at play). These particles could be revamped all across the board, not just for cash registers.

[Raieus]

For small objects like fences, chairs, pots, etc… I think destruction is fine. They are small enough that players can destroy and not notice a big difference or drive through a fence and keep going.

As for huge objects like buildings, HESCO blocks, etc… I disagree with them being dynamically destructible. Reasoning being is that its invulnerability to destruction willl allow the players to tell which buildings/objects are put in the map or player-made. The invulnerability to destruction should also be an obstacle for players to work around, rather than just detonating explosives or shooting it to get through.

Looting would be a nightmare for people without gear, because if a town is fully destroyed, assuming destruction affects the loot, there will be little to none the player can find. This is a huge bottleneck for players who just spawned, and until someone fixes the building or it resets, it is not going to be a fun time.

Fixed openings such as windows and doors are also places for players to look out for when they suspect someone camping in a building. Dynamic destruction only adds more holes that players have to worry about, as good as this sounds in paper (and executed in R6S), I think players should look out for building camping players around doors, window, corners, and walls in this survival game - where players naturally suspect other players to be. I think this gives more emphasis to survival because of intuition and map knowledge, rather than “I died because he made a hole in a wall that wasn’t there before”.

As for particles, I think 3.0 particles are fine, however I do not mind remaking it and improving the particles. Either way is good.

EDIT
Having a destruction entity that players can use in map making would be nice though.

[RainOfPain125]

@Raieus

I disagree with them being dynamically destructible. Reasoning being is that its invulnerability to destruction willl allow the players to tell which buildings/objects are put in the map or player-made.

Does it really matter if its apart of the map or player made? Players cant create 99.9% of map objects like HESCOs anyway, and I can assume the same for 4.0, whereby players will have their own unique buildables to build with. Even if they had similar ones, does it really matter?

@Raieus

rather than just detonating explosives or shooting it to get through.

Actually, if you’ve ever played 3.0 you would know thats the only legitimate way to get into any base that has nobody online

@Raieus

The invulnerability to destruction should also be an obstacle for players to work around

Actually, if you’ve ever played 3.0 you would know that you cant simply “work around” a fully fortified one-way structure like the bunker at Holman Isle. Telling us to “work around” is such a silly idea. Do you want us to sit there for hours and have a war of attrition? Really dont know the work around in that situation, and many others like it.

@Raieus

Looting would be a nightmare for people without gear, because if a town is fully destroyed, assuming destruction affects the loot, there will be little to none the player can find.

Looted players who wish to loot towns would be encouraged to fix them so that they spawn more. (Maybe destroyed versions of buildings have normal spawns, and fixed ones have better spawns. It can be both ways) Everyone would have incentives.

I also claimed (or atleast in the poll) that maybe only certain buildings would have such characteristics as to spawning less or being destructible. Maybe only unique buildings that may have special items necessary for more complex things, like a mechanic’s stealy wheely’s. This entire idea is very open to interpretation, thought and changes. No need to interpret it in the worst light.

@Raieus

Fixed openings such as windows and doors are also places for players to look out for when they suspect someone camping in a building. Dynamic destruction only adds more holes that players have to worry about

Thats… thats the point. Broken buildings, more holes, more points of entry. Blown-in walls, broken roofs, caved in basements, etc. They should worry more, and again, if they loot such a place often its in their best interests to repair it so its much safer (subjectively safe to them) to navigate.

Thats literally the players decision to loot a building or an area that has lots of exposure. And its fun to make decisions.

@Raieus

Dynamic destruction only adds more holes that players have to worry about, as good as this sounds in paper (and executed in R6S)

I made the entire first part to disapprove of R6S’s system of tiny holes or anything like it coming to Unturned because it would be a gameplay nightmare.

@Raieus

I think players should look out for building camping players around doors, window, corners, and walls in this survival game - where players naturally suspect other players to be.

I think it would be cool if players did this however possible. And they would do this with broken down buildings as well. Its just more tactical and skillful to take advantage of weak-points, whats the problem in that?

Personally if two looted teams were at a stalemate against someone in an impenetrable fortress like the Hospital from 3.0 it would seem like a very smart idea to start damaging the building to create more points of entry for them to worry about, possibly forcing them to come out and commence a fight.

@Raieus

I think this gives more emphasis to survival because of intuition and map knowledge, rather than “I died because he made a hole in a wall that wasn’t there before”.

The holes themselves would not be dynamic. I think I explained this when I claimed there would be a “ruined” model version of structures, which could mean the new entries are static and always at the same places. Of course, it might be cool as-well to introduce sectional & dynamic destruction and do things like that, how you envision.

[anon67155151]

The problem with reinforcing is the broken buildable system with plates and stuff, not the buildings themselves. Being able to destroy real buildings would be weird trolls would probably run around blowing everything up.

[RainOfPain125]

@anon67155151

trolls would probably run around blowing everything up.

Trolls would go around blowing up lots of bases. But do they? Raiding takes lots of dedication and resources. I doubt trolls will take time to get tons of resources just to grief a bunch of map buildings for no good reason.

[Yarrrr]

Damages could both be instantly repaired after a long time (7 in-game days?), and manually repaired by the player. Maybe you need common crafting ingredients to repair them (e.g. Bricks for building walls, planks for wooden structures, wire for metal fences). Or a certain tool, like give the hammer that entire functionality (Similar to the Blowtorch). You would have to hold press a button to begin repairing it which can take 10 or so second.

I believe trolling wouldn’t be a concern if the gameplay itself wasn’t as easy as 3.0 in terms of looting, such as inventory carry limitations (Weight tolerance and slot size) and the enemies you would deal with before gaining items safely.

[RainOfPain125]

@Yarrrr

Damages could both be instantly repaired after a long time (7 in-game days?), and manually repaired by the player.

Of course. That would be cool, too.

@Yarrrr

Maybe you need common crafting ingredients to repair them (e.g. Bricks for building walls, planks for wooden structures, wire for metal fences).

Which is great, because it would appreciate the value of such items that are used for repair which is also very good. I didn’t think much of this, and thought of (in my mind) a dumb scenario where people would just blowtorch a building back to life lmao

@Yarrrr

Or a certain tool, like give the hammer that entire functionality (Similar to the Blowtorch).

y e s. more tools that are unique and serve unique purposes. A Sledgehammer, for instance, could be a great tool for obviously smashing down objects and buildings.

cough The Sledgehammer is depressingly underwhelming

@Yarrrr

You would have to hold press a button to begin repairing it which can take 10 or so second.

Timed repair would be great as to prevent players from abusing some instant-repair, just like they do with blowtorches (obviously albeit not to 100% hp)

[Raieus]

@RainOfPain125

Does it really matter if its apart of the map or player made?

Yes. I just prefer objects to be indestructible really, that’s it.

@RainOfPain125

Actually, if you’ve ever played 3.0 you would know thats the only legitimate way to get into any base that has nobody online

For player-made bases. Not objects.

@RainOfPain125

Actually, if you’ve ever played 3.0 you would know that you cant simply “work around” a fully fortified one-way structure like the bunker at Holman Isle.

Well you’re right.

@RainOfPain125

destroyed versions of buildings have normal spawns, and fixed ones have better spawns.

If it ever comes down to having dynamic buildings, this sounds good.

@RainOfPain125

This entire idea is very open to interpretation, thought and changes. No need to interpret it in the worst light.

I like how these 2 sentences contradict each other in a way, but I get your point.

@RainOfPain125

Thats… thats the point.

That’s not kosher in how I want to play a map.

@RainOfPain125

whats the problem in that?

There is no problem at all.

I just prefer having static points of entry and visual, and indestructible map objects.

[TigerSurvivor]

I completely agree with the idea! But what about the Turneds? Can they also use the holes made by the players, or even break (a special example, such as a mega-zombie from Unturned 3.0)?