Ben, would it be at all possible to make some sort of editor-placable indestructable block? I realize this would mean recoding the game AND the editor, which will be a huge pain the <redacted>, but ultimately I think it would really add to the gameplay.

As it is now, everything is destrucable. That can be fun, but griefers can quickly ruin the whole thing by levelling entire buildings, mountains, fortresses, etc.

With Pyspades, all preexisting blocks can be made indestructable. This protects structures somewhat better, but the cost in terms of fun is immense. No tunnels, no dug-in bunkers, and no trenches makes for a run-of-the-mill shooter. Alternatively, tunnels, bunkers, and trenches can be pre-built, in which case they're indestrucable and thus overpowered.

Imagine, however, that map creators could make building frames indestructable, and then add destruable walls. This way, map creators could make maps where core mechanics remain unchanged throughout the server's runtime. Mountains with a thick layer of dirt over impenetrable rock could put an end to the dreaded "levelled" maps. Castles with solid rock walls, and skyscrapers with solid, ungriefable frames are just a few possibilities.

This could add a bit of realism to the game, since standard real-world entrenchment tools have their limits as well. It may or may not be worth the trouble to implement, but I'm just throwing this idea out there for consideration.

i can already think of a few maps thatd benefit greatly from something like this.

That is one of the biggest fun factors in aos, most of the maps just wouldn't be fun anymore.

aslong as its like he said, AKA only frames, then it would likely be lots of fun to have :)

Well, if EVERYTHING was grief-proof, then it'd be lame (PySpades coder, take note!), and yes, sometimes there can be legitimate reasons for taking down an entire building. Nothing's more hilarious than killing a sniper on Harbor Urban by collapsing the entire building he's camping in. Still, all in all giving map editors the ability to do this could prevent a lot of griefing, and preserve the intended mechanics of their maps. Plus, if the vanilla maps aren't changed, there'd still be the option of playing there with the fully dynamic terrain. Ultimately, giving map creators this ability could really help the fun of custom maps.

Yeah because playing bridge without a bridge is fun, playing faceoff where both sides are flat is fun, playing king of the hill without a hill is fun, playing..... etc.

The only "peoples" fun this will ruin is griefers.

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

+1 ^

edit: oops that was a kaede

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

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

Do you think I grief maps or what?

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.

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

Now you're just trolling.

>fun to build bridges
>fun to build
>fun

NOPE

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

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.

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.

"@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I giggled when you said scriptkiddies.

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

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?

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

@1337101 Everytime for a bro like you.

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

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.