Make Cover Destructibility Meet Player Expectations
complete
Chris Connors
I remember early on in the Backer Builds, when the heavys were exchanging machine gun fire, you could see the scoring and small puncture holes on metal cover and I thought, "damn, this is gonna be an awesome game!" Then it seemed they sadly dumbed it all down and just made everything evaporate when shot at. Hopefully, they go back to how it was early on.
Vit Barta
complete
Phoenix Point v. 1.11 Behemoth - May 25 2021
We’ve made multiple improvements and rebalanced the toughness of all destructible objects like walls, doors, windows, etc. The toughness of objects should take into account a better calculation of the size and material type (metal, concrete, wood, etc.) when determining if a shot is able to destroy it.
Danny W
Can we also do something about indestructible buildings? esp for vehicles getting through certain chokepoints on maps
Vit Barta
in progress
We are revisiting our asset toughness. In general, it will make the cover more durable.
We are not sure yet if it will be ready for the next patch.
Y
Yme
Vit Barta: Thanks! Will this change give players an indication whether an object (wall, cover) is "pierce-able" by bullets?
Architectus
Vit Barta: I hope that the piercing stat that some weapons have (such as the New Jericho piercing weapons like the Raven, Piranha and VDM Enforcer) is taken into consideration when damaging and penetrating cover, instead of the piercing stat just ignoring a certain amount of armour.
I remember how in Backer Build 5 it was possible to use a Raven SR13 Sniper Rifle to penetrate thin cover to hit enemies on the other side of it, without destroying the cover. It was even possible to use a Raven SR13 to shoot through walls to hit enemies on the other side of them, that was fun.
J.J
i think cover should be handled as ARMOR... it should not have any Hitpoints, only Armor value. Therefore incoming projectile would be either stopped (if armor value is higher than projectile damage) or reduced by the cover Armor value, then it would hit whoever is behind cover... each object should have armor value based on material resistance (Glass, wood be weakest, steel & concrete strongest).
Cover would then be only destroyed, if its Armor value is reduced to zero (so even multiple bursts from AR would not obliterate cover with the first hit). weapons with Shred and explosives would destroy cover better than other weapons..
This way, cover would be consistent, player would know what to expect, Body armor would be useful (because it would prevent bullets that penetrated cover to harm the soldier) same way as body armor is in reality..
J.J
i would also like to see slightly less 1998 physics type of item destruction where pieces of material are flying around like they weight nothing.... its very strange to see a large piece of wall fly into air when hit with a bullet....
Kareem Harper
J.J: But futuristic, scifi, high caliber weapons fire with enough force that can send even large chunks of heavily weighted materials flying, thanks to this thing called momentum. Even a heavy object can be tossed like it weighs nothing when it encounters enough force at the right velocity. Yaaay, physics.
J.J
Kareem Harper: no, not really. problem with the game destruction model lies in material types not having proper attributes.. they are way too solid, therefore you end up with a "ping pong" effect... in real life, projectile hitting a wall would pierce through creating a small hole, and wall would stay intact... weaker the material, easier it is to pierce it....
Kareem Harper
J.J: Depends on size of projectile and type of material struck, but I may be slightly more forgiving than you of debris and particles flying due to impact (ala The Matrix) in a sci fi game with futuristic weapons, equipment and horrors from the deep sea.
This being the destructible environments from "realistic" earlier Battlefield games, I'd be all with you - Rainbow 6 Siege does a good job of showing realistic penetration impacts through most materials.
J.J
Kareem Harper: main problem is the fact that if you hit an object, it will get destroyed completely.. so in game, where cover should be sort of a protection, you cant rely on it - single hit would obliterate it, and then you stand in the open....
I would rather like to see objects to reduce the penetrative power of projectiles that hit, but then stay intact instead of spectacular destruction.... you would be able to shoot the cover to hit enemy behind it, but based on cover material resulting damage to it would wary, and cover would stay there.... same thing - if you are covering behind a barrel, and pandoran shoots at you, barrel gets penetrated, weakened projectile hits you, but barrel would stay there, and your soldier would still be covering behind it instead of barrel disappearing and your soldier standing in the open....
Vit Barta
planned
Vit Barta
under review
We're currently investigating this issue with the possibility of making future changes. Issues marked 'under review' are not guaranteed to be actioned and will have their status updated once a decision is made.
D
Djoles77
I can understand that scylas and chirons can destroy some smaller buildings but I can't understand that they walk through big solid buildings like they are made from paper.
E
Eric Stelle
As it stands now, one can shoot or grenade cover and destroy it with impunity. I'm not a fan of how rock and other hard cover disintegrates instantly when shot. I think of scenes in many shootouts where somebody takes cover and the cover gets whittled down in an ablative way which would be easy to implement.
If each piece of cover had some HP value (which we don't see) or armor value (for hardened things), that would allow for progressive cover degradation. This would do a few things in the tactical layer.
First, it'd be neat if cover would crumble progressively as it takes shots instead of looking like legos that get knocked over. Even if it's just three images for that (i.e. big coral (hard cover), little coral (soft cover), and going to be gone in the next shot or two coral. A player could then see that a full shield degraded to a half shield and know they have to get their soldier out of there. It would be harder to turtle and serve to stimulate dynamic soldier movement.
Secondly, it would make weapons like the Hel II Cannon important even if only for breaking down walls/cover. It already does that but if it were more effective than, say, a sniper rifle, a Heavy with the Hel II Cannon could be an effective "door maker" or "cover smasher" and other weapons like the Ares AR-1 would be less effective. This serves to diversify the soldier roles more.
Finally, it would make finding those hardened structures for cover on the procedural maps important.
Load More
→