So ,did anyone play battlefield 1. If you dis, you know that some buildings can be destroyed by explosive. Can’t we add that? I don’t see why not.
Pros: more realistic, high calliber he can have more uses (most high explosive won’t destroy a room, let alone a full building), no more campers, waiting to get “0”, they could finally add self propelled heavy artillery (bunker buster vehicles) (Brummbär, Su/ISU 152, etc.)
Cons: Airplanes (or more specificly bombs) will get crazy, though bombs should get a bit of a buff since, if you’re playing in a city map (berlin, stalingrad) you’re kinda fucked, since most capture points are in buildings (low calliber bombs like the german 50’s should barely taje out a room, the 1000lbs and 500kg should take maybe half a building), since aircraft are gonna be somewhat op, we will also need new aa’s, maybe even some new spaa’s. And finally, and I know that this is gonna piss someone off, after a lot of artillery and boms, most maps will look like the Battle of the Somme, but that’s ok. Let me explaine. We could benefit from this if we had bigger, so we problably need that to, not saying we should add new maps, at least enlarge the already old ones. It would give the shovel a new role, since we would need cover, we will have to dig some trenches (imposible in city maps though, since you know, hard ground)
And all of thus would work bery well in those (forget how they’re called) common points maps with tickets.
Also (this is urellated) should we get those kinds of maps from battlefield 1 too, like if you’re defending on a map, and you lose the battle, you get a new map to play in imediadly and if you’re attacking and you can’t fet the map within the limitz you just lose
We already have destructible assets in this game it’s just the devs don’t plan to use it otherwise we will just have people spawn killing people
- it would make capping points impossible. you would basically just flatten out the objectives so nobody could take cover.
- it would impose bigger strain on both server and client side.
- it would make most cap points pretty pointless cause there would be no more strategic value in them.
I for one think it would be an interesting addition, HOWEVER, it would need a LOT of balancing to make it fair. Engineer fortifications would need an overhaul like you have never even imagined, which I’m not opposed to mind you!
It would also pretty much require much larger maps, friendly fire to be enabled, and a host of other things for FULLY destructible maps.
That said, I do think the game would benefit from partial destruction, specifically on objectives that currently are too exposed in their post-destruction state. Specific examples are most bunkers on Normandy, where a section has already been broken, and even the big monastery wall in Moscow.
Not only would they benefit from have a pre-broken state (which can be broken using aircraft bombs, or enough other ordinance, ONLY DIRECT BLAST DAMAGE would effect it, not FRAGMENTATION), and the post-broken state, but ALSO be able to have a “repaired” state.
- The “Repaired” State would come in the form of a pre-designed structure that stays in that location, and can be filled in by engineers. The more materials and time spent to construct it, the more damage it would withstand.
This would help defenders actually be capable of holding objectives that were meant to be bastions that were difficult to overrun.
Instead of taking the whole building down maybe just destroy the walls. It would create more ways to enter fortified buildings but at the same time it wouldnt make defending impossible
Defenders have it hard enough as it is we do not need to give them more reasons to quit unless they start buffing the defenders fortifications.
Making the caps larger would help. It is way too hard to defend one shitty moscow hut.
We’ve been asking for that for who knows how long and they haven’t done it yet So what makes you think they gonna change their mind now.
I am just giving ideas. They will probably not do it but nothing can stop me from dreaming
I wish our Ideas came true more often instead of just more disappointments