I hate you 1337101

Does anyone remember the Bridge-Wars? The fact that the bridge was destractable ruind the whole map. The griefers would usually destroy the bridge after like 15 minutes and it would turn into shity a shity Floating Rectangles Wars.
I support this idea by 100%. But I do not think that all the blocks are to be replaced with indestractable blocks so for example you can make only the upper platform of the bridge indestractable.

intel forts wouldn't be indestructible, the blocks would be editor only, and intel is randomly placed on the map. Only what the map editor wants indestructible, would be.
If a map is good it will be played and hosted.

actually, i was kicked lol. don't like clans anywaya
point is that feature is going to be abused etc etc until it becomes normal and every decent map is going to be run by 1 block high griefer patrols, indestructible intel forts, etc etc etc etctetctet

because every admin is hell bent on making everyones life unenjoyable so they leave the server

in any case we all know such a feature is going to be abused by said editors making it impossible for a team to effectively destroy a enemy base (or etc) which completely destroys the point of the game

why this would happen:
Clan Admin: "If teams dont get balanced now i'm gonna start kicking random people" - real quote from server ive been to

That's because the PySpades feature prevents ANY editor-placed block from being broken, which is lame. My idea would only call for a few editor-placed blocks being unbreakable. If you've got real problems with a structure, you could still reduce it to a hollow box of supports. The idea is to prevent griefers from taking out an entire building simply by removing one layer of blocks.

i ran into a glorious server using a similar feature op is talking about (with psyspades) and it was the most AIDs stricken awful servef because of it

@1337101 Everytime for a bro like you.

Thank you for that wonderful constructive contribution to the conversation, Mr.Kaputtnik.

You are aware of Lexsym's hacking past, right? Fortunately she's changed to scripting for more useful purposes.

By the way, Lexsym, did you ever go by the username [VIP]Banner, or was that someone else?

It's better when there is no bridge. That's it. You guys suck.

I giggled when you said scriptkiddies.

That's why I'd want it to be placable only by the map editing program, so that players couldn't place them. Thus, indestructable blocks remain in the same place from the moment the server comes up to the moment it shuts off. Of course, I'm sure a few scriptkiddies would try to make a hack to allow players to place indestructable blocks, but that might be impossible with the current server-side calculation of blocks. As long as it's a serverside program and not a clientside one that governs the properties of blocks, we should be fine.

well from the sound of the OP itll be only in the level editor, so people cant add them. in addition itll mainly for for the frames, similar to how russia used concrete for the frames in their buildings so when Germans bombed them it just launched bricks out.

The thing about having user indestructible blocks is that invariably, griefers are going to use a mechanic like that to grief with. Covering the intel, CP, other structures in indestructible blocks.... you know where I'm going with this.

Oh, what I meant to imply was that to me, building is not fun. I back the indestructible block idea 100%.

"@Fluttershy: You don't get it, huh? You can't build anything and expect it to stay there because all people do is grief. If this was the case and we had utopian servers where nothing would get destroyed, fuck yeah it would be fun, but that will never be the case."

i was replying to machete who from his post makes it sound like he wont be able to build anymore if this was implemented. this idea wont affect his ability to build bridges and he can continue to do so even if this was implemented, which is what i was pointing out.

I think it's important to remember with any suggested improvement that AoS is a shooter in a sandbox, not a sandbox with guns. The primary focus is combat, not building (except on a build-only server). The entire point of being able to build is that you can change the comabt dynamics that way. Enemies keep storming the same place? Build some bunkers to protect yourself while you throw lead in their faces. Keep getting killed crossing a river? Clear out the area with some friends and build a covered bridge to make it easier on yourself. Tunnelers near your intel? Elevate it and give it some side supports, or go digging yourself to try and find (and hopefully kill) the tunnelers.

Basically, the building's enhancing the combat, not the other way around. When griefers can come around and screw up all the structures and fortifications, it detracts from the building, and therefore the combat. Adding a small amount of non-player-usable indestructable blocks to a map could really cut down on griefing, without upsetting the dynamic, flexible nature of the sandbox building aspects of the game.

Of course, the entire debate's pointless if Ben doesn't implement it. I'd really like to know what you think of this if you're reading it, Mr. Aksoy. It's your game... I'm curious as to where it's going.

Yeah sure, it's fun to build bridges and stuff, ON A BUILD SERVER, where your shit isn't going to just get wrecked in 5 seconds by the random deuce that comes on and starts griefing.

You want a bridge map with no bridge? Fine, go into voxed and edit the map to have no bridge and host it, and see how many people want to play it. I guarantee any "player made" bridge isn't going to last 5 seconds.

@Fluttershy: You don't get it, huh? You can't build anything and expect it to stay there because all people do is grief. If this was the case and we had utopian servers where nothing would get destroyed, fuck yeah it would be fun, but that will never be the case.

because this idea affects you ability to build bridges AT ALL.

>fun to build bridges
>fun to build
>fun

NOPE

Now you're just trolling.

There are even more people when the bridge is gone. It's just more fun to build an own bridge with your team.

You're making it sound like it, defending the idea and all.

Notice how a bridge map goes from having 20+ people to having like 3 once the bridge is gone? I think that goes without saying nobody wants to play bridge with no bridge.

Do you think I grief maps or what?

Not really no. If you want a flat map, go ask someone to host it. Seriously, fuck off and quit flattening my fun maps.

@Kaede-chan That's actually something I like. BridgeWars without a bridge and default maps with flat ground are maps where you get creative.

+1 ^

edit: oops that was a kaede

That's what I thought. My chief concern is that it'll probably be a huge pain for Ben to implement.