Remove bridges in water hazard

[DJ Logicalia]

I'm not a programmer, and I have a very limited knowledge in the area, but I'm pretty sure the bridges have very little to do with your increased load time. They're pretty insignificant by my standards, unless they have some sort of hidden property that I'm not aware of.

I should think that the increased load time would be because of the rain, rather than the bridges

[Arturo Sanchez]

I'm not a programmer, and I have a very limited knowledge in the area, but I'm pretty sure the bridges have very little to do with your increased load time. They're pretty insignificant by my standards, unless they have some sort of hidden property that I'm not aware of.

I should think that the increased load time would be because of the rain, rather than the bridges

refinery loads faster than water hazard by about 10 seconds faster. and thats the map with the most shadows and clouds and effects. (it does kill framerate though)

plus my texture settings are low. The rain isn't loaded.

[Indreams]

This brings up a good idea: what about destructible terrain?

If bridges could be rammed or shot down, that should solve mobility and "making sense" problems while keeping the game interesting.

That won't help with your lag though... Make sure pretty much everything is disabled or low. One or two of them can make a huge difference with lags.

[Arturo Sanchez]

This brings up a good idea: what about destructible terrain?

If bridges could be rammed or shot down, that should solve mobility and "making sense" problems while keeping the game interesting.

That won't help with your lag though... Make sure pretty much everything is disabled or low. One or two of them can make a huge difference with lags.

yeah everything is set to low.

But yeah in terms of raw data for destructible terrain. you would need to code a subroutine that checks the state of in game objects in a similar way to ships. But instead of just ships. Its the whole map, like a literal copy pasta of the code that checks the state of ships, but rewrote to accomodate for the nature of terrain.

That is alot of data to keep track of, where per game it is redundant to actually check the whole map's state as only a minor % of the terrain will actually be effected. As opposed to merely assets that need to load, applying static hit boxes and painting it all with the same characteristic.

Like I get why the bridges act the way they are as solid invincible objects, its to save both time and data efficiency. But in terms of practicality and immersion they're kinda iffy.

[ShadedExalt]

Practicality?  How is an invincible bridge NOT practical?

[Arturo Sanchez]

Practicality?  How is an invincible bridge NOT practical?

lore wise sure. invincible ROPE bridges are god like marvels.

But in terms of gameplay... do I gotta repeat the reasons?

[DJ Logicalia]

I'm not sure why we're complaining about realism as far those bridges go. You do remember that the most prevalent game mechanic involves fixing parts by whacking them with various tools, right?

[Arturo Sanchez]

I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.

Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.

1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.

2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.

[DJ Logicalia]

I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.

Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.

1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.

2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.

1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.

I wish we could get a programming dev in on this

[Arturo Sanchez]

I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.

Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.

1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.

2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.

1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.

I wish we could get a programming dev in on this

Yeah queso should clear this up nicely.

On point 1 though, I wouldn't make it if alternatives were so close by. If it were an a series of isolated assets I would agree on your point. But frankly, a quick kero and you've jumped behind the next dike. I really don't see you thinking to yourself that you are much safer hiding behind the bridges than the solid mountain nearby.

I completely see you flying straight for that mountain as quick as possible.

[Dutch Vanya]

Aren't you reaching when it comes to finding issues with this game? there are many more prominent issues that should be fixed.

[Wundsalz]

Regarding 1: I consider the bridges to be among the most interesting entities on waterhazard as a lot of stuff can be done with them. Stating the spikes were "superior" is just silly as the bridges allow qualitatively different maneuvers compared to rock cover. E.g. It's possible to shield a junkers or mobulas balloon with the bridges while pointing your guns to a huge open space. You can use them to move from spike to spike with decent cover. They can be used to shake enemies, etc. There are many ways to integrate the bridges into your tactical positioning. If "trapping urself in a cage of easily breakable bridges" really is the only thing you can use them for, feel free to keep a safe distance yourself, but please don't try to dull down the map for all of us.

Regarding 2: So far I've assumed you mentioned this argument as some sort of joke. I think it to be utterly ridiculous and would be really suprised if loading the bridge model would take longer than a couple of ms. If the ammount of entities in water hazard really was problematic (something you are not able to tell) I'd suggest to get rid of a couple of houses in the north western village instead. A region I've not had a single encounter in yet after more than 5000 matches played.

[Indreams]

So, as I do, I went testing Water Hazard.

After a few games on it, I can say two things.

First, things load slower on Water Hazard than other maps. It takes about a full second longer (on my PC) to render things in Water Hazard compare to other maps.

Second, the bridge is a little glitchy. Sometimes, the textures missing. Sometimes, they look like rainbows. Sometimes, they are jagged triangles.


But my conclusion is that none of these are game breaking. First few seconds, and sometimes few minutes, in GOIO is introductions and strategies; longer load time isn't a significant deal. Bridges are glitchy, but that makes it something to be fixed, not removed.

I for one find the bridges and structures in Water Hazard aesthetically pleasing. Others seem to find tactical use in them. Bridges should not be removed in Water Hazard.

[Queso]

Water Hazard is definitely one of the higher budget maps in the game. The bridges by themselves aren't going to change load times too crazily though.

[Indreams]

Btw, what about Canyon? Its a map that takes just as long to render, and I met some people who have had trouble playing on it. Given its complexity, I imagine its about as expensive as Hazard.