I know that moving doors are a no go...

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by libbmaster, Jan 20, 2014.

  1. libbmaster

    ...So how about a different approach?

    Take an opaque shield. Like the ones on amp-stations... only you can't see through it.

    Make said shield fit in a door frame, and then put small control panels on ether side of the door frame.

    The defenders can interact with the panels to open/close the door. When the door "Opens" the shield deactivates, letting people/bullets through. When "closed" the shield is active, and no-one can see through/move through/shoot through it.

    Attacking infiltrators can hack the panels.

    I can see how it might get resource intensive with many doors in a base, but it cannot be worse than the new shield bridges, and I know it is much more feasible than actual moving doors.

    P.S. I saw someone else suggest this somewhere. If I'm stealing your idea, just let me know.
    • Up x 16
  2. doombro

    I've had this idea as well. I might even be the guy you're taking it from. Even so, I approve.

    We need doors.
    • Up x 6
  3. Takoita

    I am all for it, but seeing as how PS2 is a resource hog that doesn't look like it'll lessen its appetites any time soon, maybe a more simple implementation could suffice in the meantime.

    For example, door-shields function like SCU ones do and don't have a pair of personal panels on both sides of them - there is a central control hub that can be interacted with by enemy infiltrators and/or engineers instead; individual shields can be 'phased through' by infiltrators or 'disrupted' by an engineer deployable but there is only one 'switch' per base.

    And friendlies shouldn't be able to do anything to their own base shields but repair/re-capture them back because everybody being able to open/close the thing sounds like a grief opportunity we could live without.
  4. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    I really don't see how it would cost that much performance to activate and deactivate a texture with a collision box.
    • Up x 4
  5. libbmaster

    Same as the shields on the amp stations.

    Might want to limit the count to a few strategic places, but hey that's better than what we have.
  6. Doomzzg

  7. Cirevam

    One of the devs (I can't remember which, sorry) hinted that there's a performance hit when there are too many interactive objects in the world, like generators and terminals. That's why they removed a bunch of terminals in one of the performance updates. Interactive doors, even if they're just textures with collision boxes, might cause some strain on the server depending on whether they have a hackable lock at each door or if there's a central door locking computer. I think doors could -- and should -- be implemented, but I feel like the devs don't want to try it and have us start whinging about our framerates.

    Honestly, they could remove unnecessary terminals in spawn rooms, as most have at least two, and add an equal amount of doors and locks. Do we really need two infantry terminals on the first floor of an amp station/tech plant/bio lab spawn room, and two more on the second floor? No! Some people have probably never walked up to the second floor on these spawn rooms, so the terminals are a waste.
    • Up x 4
  8. libbmaster

    That counts as another player.

    Clegg said that during the FNO he was on. They have the tech, it just kills frame rates when you have a dozen of those + players.
    • Up x 1
  9. stalkish

    I hear alot of this 'it'll affect performance'' i think thats become a cruch for lazy / time stricken devs to use as an excuse for not implementing something.
    And if performance realy is this big of an issue lower the player count, take a platoon off each empire or something. The term 'bit off more than they can chew' comes to mind.

    EDIT: I like this idea, infact i suggested this exact same thing during BETA, it got no attention from devs or players.....
    • Up x 1
  10. libbmaster

    Uh... no.

    The performance concerns are very real. If the dev team had not dropped everything and busted butt for a few months on overhauling the game's core engine, it would be unplayable right now. They still have to walk a tight rope when it comes to content/performance simply because of the size of the battles in game.

    If SoE does not implement this, and it is likely that they won't because of how many times it's been suggested, I will be okay. To be honest, I will take decent frames per second over doors any day of the week... It's just a suggestion, that's all.
    • Up x 1
  11. Torok

    Np it's cool and you actually formulated it fully, let's see if we can have any of this one day :)
    • Up x 1
  12. Gapis

    Haha i had exacly same idea one day. Exept the fact, that you should be able to see through these "doors".

    Openable windows (we already have window "panels" in most bases) would be also nice.
  13. bPostal

    There could still be an issue with latency so I propose a small change; A 'warm up' period of a couple seconds to let everyone know the state of the door (open/closed) is about to change.
    This change DOES remove some of the "I'm about to sneak up and murder the crap outta this guy" in favor of removing some of the "Holy **** that dude just shot me through a closed door! /report"
  14. doombro

    If we had 20+ doors on every building in every base, they would no doubt cause performance issues. However, that's not really what we're asking for here. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with these open air buildings. The infantry fights would be in tunnels, away from the tank spammers. Only the tunnel entrances would need doors, leaving maybe 2 or 3 doors per base maximum. My FPS certainly doesn't drop to 20 when I walk into a room with 4 terminals.
  15. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    A few things to consider:
    - A door that is solid instead of permeable (solid texture with no shader effects, no projectile can pass through) might actually cost less performance than the shields we have now
    - Small bases often have less content, and are frequently fought over by less players (or quickly overrun), so there's a bit of breathing air there. Makes sense to install the fancy shield tech on the large bases, no?
    - If an actual, moving door counts as an other player, having one or two in a base that is frequently visited by a hundred or so, I think that's a performance hit we can risk, given I trust the devs will do a tad bit more optimizing in the future.
    It's probably more risky than solid textures, though.
    That said, performance IS more important than doors. And yeah, removing one of the terminals on the high floor of large spawns probably won't hurt people that much, and might prove a tiny advantage.
    • Up x 1
  16. FigM

    It's 2014, how can we still not have moving parts in level design?
    • Up x 1
  17. libbmaster

    No, again clegg explained it in the FNO he was on.

    They have the tech, it's just the massive strain of supporting 100vs100 players keeps them from adding cool stuff, as every drop of performance is needed.
  18. FigM

    a single moving part is no more strain than 1 extra person, even less than that. So if we can support 101vs101, we can support a moving door with 100vs100
  19. TheBlazing

    I refuse to believe that 6 moving doors in a base kills framerate. If they do, then the Devs need to implement a better movement system.

    Seriously, there is no physical simulation involved, no AI, just "brute" movement where an object is forcibly translated from point A to point B, ignoring physics. It could just literally remove any entitiy blocking it, and also kill players and exploding vehicles (obviously) and removing their model or moving it to one side of the door.

    A single infantry soldier is (or should) be much more complex than a door. For infantry you have to simulate several complex animations, physics (for falling, climbing etc...), overhead indicator... And there are hundreds of infantry being simulated in your average battle, so doors are not, or at least should not be in any decently programmed game, a framerate killer.
  20. stalkish

    Let me just quote a part of what you quoted but possibly didnt read: