Do you support dynamic/more complex building Destruction?

[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)?

[iiTitanitronic]

well, actually only 1 poll for me, but it’s because the players would probably be too lazy to fix everything and it’d require a lot of resources anyway

[Mr.Snowy]

It would require a lot of resources indeed but i dont think the buildings would be very fragile , i imagine they would be as sturdy (if not sturdier) then a player made base and i hope the repair cost would be low enough for people to have a reason to fix the building

[RainOfPain125]

@Raieus

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

Support no durability mechanics either?

@Raieus

For player-made bases. Not objects.

In reference to player-made bases that occupy map objects?

@TigerSurvivor

Can they also use the holes made by the players

It would be very cool if Turned had the ability (and animation) to make their way through larger holes in broken buildings/objects. I’d imagine when creating a model, you could designate a location and direction that zombies could come from.

This is actually really nice, and adds more mobility to zombies. Better pathfinding imo

@TigerSurvivor

or even break

I think of course zombies should be able to break their way to your if theres absolutely no other way to get to you or etc.

@iiTitanitronic

too lazy to fix everything

thats why it can be incentivized, aka give you rewards for repairing.

And now that I think about it, building repairs could be a quest given by NPCs of towns or etc!

@iiTitanitronic

and it’d require a lot of resources anyway

Nobody said it would require a ton of resources. It could be a few wood, or a lot of complex materials depending on whats being fixed. A floor board would just be some wooden planks, but repairing a lamp pole would cost wood, industrial light-bulbs, some metal, some copper for electricity, and other components possibly.

[Raieus]

@RainOfPain125

Support no durability mechanics either?

What do you mean? Do you mean item durability?

@RainOfPain125

In reference to player-made bases that occupy map objects?

I meant anything placed by a player. Apologies, I generalised it with player made base.

Ahdsf haisufh uisa Safari fucking sucks to use Discourse on.

[Aj_Gaming]

A few ideas of mine~

1. If someone hasn’t visited an area with destroyed building is, they will slowly repair themselves (ex. Completely destroyed to mostly destroy, mostly to partially.) they would probably stay as partially destroyed to make it look as if the building was damaged but not destroyed.

2. Damaged influences the structural integrity of a building(so if someone builds a next to unreadable base on the top floor of a skyscraper, you can destroy the first floor to make the skyscraper collapse at least parrially)

3. Perhaps “hives” (which is an idea suggested by other people multiple times) would be setup In a building and the building would be partially repaired from the hive being in there. Or something. I dunnk

[RainOfPain125]

@Raieus

What do you mean? Do you mean item durability?

Yeah.

@Raieus

Safari

why the fuck are you using safari

I use Brave, which is like google canary (which is google chrome but way faster) except it has a built-in amazing ad-block, makes all sites https instead of http, and blocks scripts, trackers, so on.

Secure, Fast, & Private Web Browser with Adblocker | Brave

[Raieus]

Ah yes.
I think weapons should deteriorate as the player uses it until it is either broken or malfunction all the time. Either way works.

As for suppressors, continuous fire will destroy the suppressor.

—

Stuck with an iPad atm. I use Firefox with add-ons on my PC because of privacy and ad block concerns, but is functionally inferior to Chromium browsers.

[RainOfPain125]

Just a reminder that the current graphics for destruction are basically the same as 3.0, so its not really an improvement so far. Which is sad : (

[DeusExMachina]

Persoanlly I’d like to see caliber based holes, proper penetration and visual damage at launch.
Possible proper (partial) destruction latr down the road, but so long as the ground work is done I really don’t need that as a launch feature, much less in the limited-scope beta.

[anon42100029]

i think this should apply more to bases rather than structures in the map. raiding bases would be more fun and challenging with destruction and physics.

In 3.0 you just shoot a wall and it disappears, or leaves a weird ragdoll. Actual physics based demolition would be very cool.

[Azzaholic]

Destruction being added to a building seems like a terrible idea. It could easily abused and would take away the fun of looting towns if buildings and walls were torn down before you got there.

[Mr.Snowy]

I totally agree with you unless the map would have worn down buildings to begin with and i would like to see that if the action of unturned II takes place like a year or so after unturned I