Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggle?

Can we make wreckage blocking / physics simulations / ghosted wreckage a server-side game toggle? It seems pretty obvious that we're not going to get consensus and that people feel very strongly about the options... between the 'super poll' and the older one.

As I see it, there should be the following options:

Wreckage Behavior:
BLOCKING - ("TA" Style) Wreckage blocks all movement for all normal units. Wrecks must be destroyed or reclaimed to clear the way, or alternative attack vectors must be used. Flying units, or units equipped with jump-jets would be able to bypass wreckage, possibly other special units as well (maybe 'spider units' ... original or third-party)

SIMULATED - Physics 'simulated' wreckage that behaves in a believable and realistic manner. Certain units can climb over certain wreckage, certain units can push certain wreckage out of the way, and so on. The specifics of which units can climb over which wreckage and so-on should be determined in some way from both the climber/pusher unit as well as the wreck of the other unit. Some people have suggested some ideas based on 'scale of units', but it could also be based off of 'mass' or some other metric. Consequently, it should be possible to develop a modded unit that blocks all other units from climbing over or pushing it, and similarly, a unit that can push all other wrecks out of the way, or climb over all wrecks.

NON-BLOCKING - Wreckage might slow down units (up to Uber Entertainment) -- but wreckage will never stop units. It is possible that wreckage may be destroyed in the process of a unit (e.g., a tank) going through or over it, but ultimately, wreckage doesn't stop any unit from progressing. Some units may go over wreckage faster than others, but wreckage doesn't stop any army from moving.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

I voted for blocking/non-blocking options. I do not believe I would enjoy the physically simulated wrecks and I believe they would add quite a bit to development difficulty. Smaller units would have to use different pathfinding priorities etc.

Pathfinding needs to be as fast as possible, and the more options or complexity you add, the slower it becomes. I have made pathfinding algorithms and have optimized them to a point where I started seeing if I could remove 1 more if/else check... Every if/else (and thus, every feature) you add makes it slower.

Also, your non-blocking is still different from what I'd like to see. I would like to see wrecks only playing the role of reclaimable mass, and not have any other effect on your units or on the battle.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

Thanks for the catch. Edited the non-blocking option to reflect that it might slow down units, but that this was up to Uber Entertainment.

Basically the three options can be distilled to:

1) All units can be blocked
2) Some units can be blocked
3) No units will be blocked.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

I haven't yet seen a suggestion for this that actually think it all the way through.
- A unit climbing over a wreck that's likely just as big as itself would look silly at best.
- Pushing other units out of the way is going to be a micromanagement disaster. Two armies on the front line headed towards each other, they'll push the wreckage until the wrecks hit each other, forming a solid barrier many units thick. Is it then a tug-of war match, trying to get more units on your side to push the wreck the other way?

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

Presumably not; you'd either have to blow through it (or reclaim it) at some point (in that scenario) or use units capable of getting over it.

I'm just listing the options listed from the last poll here -- any simulation-based option will obviously have pros and cons relative to blocking and non-blocking options.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

Sorry I voted no on general principle.

The devs need to make a decision in this area and enforce it, they can always alter it in future patches if need be, but it needs to be standardised.

If even a fraction of the proposed 'make it an option' requests were granted this game would be so mutable as to make it an impossibility to balance and support.
It simply can not be an all things to all people roll-your-own RTS sandbox.

Stick to trying to make a compelling arguments in favour of your prefered option in the hope the cards will fall your way.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

I just proposed a slightly different method here:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=35322&p=609439#p609439

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

Would wreckage block shots until destroyed?

If so then I would be good with it (Voted for maximum options per server).

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

Great question; so obvious now I think of it, but didn't consider that when the idea came to me earlier. I suppose it could also "kill" or "sink" wreckage as well.

Maybe wrecks would have certain "health"? Or simply a threshold single quantity. Once it's breached in more than one single shot it explodes/sinks. Lots of different ways to approach that actually. Not sure.

As I type I'm slightly favouring the simplest way, maybe each has X hit-points. But it's not cumulative (too complex) so some units simply can't destroy it with their weapons.

Or, actually, maybe it's set by weapon ID (type). So perhaps a Lv1 Laser wouldn't sink a wreck, nor a very high projectile – but powerful direct cannon-fire would?

Something like this.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

After a lot of experience with game options such as these I think they are bad. Balance will have to be done in terms of one set of game mechanics so toggling those mechanics would cause players to play a broken game. Non-standard options such as these can often get be forgotten unless someone sneakily sets them.

As for modding I think the blocking or non-blocking status of a wreckage should be set in it's definition.

Re: Can wreckage blocking/physics simulation/etc. be a toggl

on the topic of wreckage:
my view is, that if you have wreckage at all (e.g. units aren't blasted to nothing), then wreckage should have a gameplay effect in terms of some form of blocking/slowing behaviour.
To avoid too much influence on pathfinding/micro management, I would go for unmovable and completely blocking until destroyed, which would put them somewhere in the category of buildings pathfinding-wise. (you could have a size relation which allows large enough units to just move through the wreckage, which would also make sense for small enough buildings (e.g. some small turret or so)).

on the topic of options, I have to aggree with this:

I don't know where the actual count for proposed optional features is by now, at least two dozen, from which at least a dozen have dependencies and side effects on other options. If you want to test the game for stability, performance and balance, this will be fun and that doesn't even cover the issue of finding a "standard" set of options without fracturing available games in an online setting.