I’m an (indie) game dev myself and when I made a racing game last year, I spent probably over a month just programming the suspension. Implementing really good bicycle/motorcycle physics is probably even more complicated. Bicycles sort of have to be jerky, because the only suspension they have are the tires.
I’ve spoken to one of the designers at Dice, who said that the biggest challenge when making Battlefield 1942 was to make multiple players be able to sit in the same vehicle. Apparently, until EA execs saw that it actually worked, they didn’t believe it was even doable. Probably easier now, but perhaps still a major obstacle to overcome.
I doubt that there’s anything about the Apex engine that’s preventing vehicles from happening. It’s more a matter of resources. Adding vehicles would require high-quality vehicle models, it would require programming of everything from physics to additional net code to enemy behavior and potentially even bespoke enemy types.
I’d put my money on vehicles becoming available through some sort of paid DLC or even sequel.
as it seems to me this is nonsense) well, let the transport have a real reservation. so that everyone went to an armored personnel carrier or a tank, received only one missile and the entire crew died along with the equipment - then yes, you can. the game has enough bike and then, rarely use it
Last year’s end of the year dev stream showed Pontus playing that very same mission and in there, timer was still present in the game. Since there hasn’t been any updates since, that timer can’t magically disappear.
Yet again, please read the first post in this thread. Players being able to just get into any vehicle would be game breaking. As a series of rewards made available later on in the game, they’d work very well, particularly if they’d be part of a DLC with a new game area designed around using them.
Why would everyone in the vehicle die from a single missile? In this game, players on foot can survive multiple missiles to the face. The point of a vehicle would be to gain MORE protection and more firepower.
My idea is for vehicles to work as mules. Basically, players will be able to load them up with loot The drawback being that if the vehicle is blown up, all the loot stored within is lost. Also, there could be a really long repair time, or you might actually need to use crafting materials to repair a vehicle once destroyed.
Thats your opinion, based on your experience. And although valid, partaining to you, it is not so with everyone. I, have seen several posts from people who say that fast travel actually detracts from the game, and they would much rather drive in a car. So, that too is valid partaining to them. So, why not add cars, and then just not drive them if you dont want to. Whats the big deal with adding a car for the large amount of people who want one? Its not like anybodies forcing someone to drive one.
Hogge also makes a good point. If a person can take a missle salvo to the face, and keep fighting, an armored car should be able to do the same.
the game does not need firepower and protection. the character already has tremendous strength sufficient to withstand dozens of tanks or any other enemies at the same time without dying. yes, moreover, cartridges are 10 + k, they simply have nowhere to use. you need to strengthen enemies, give them new weapons and intelligence, and not work on protecting the character
Where did you get that the amount of people having the urge for drivable vehicles in GZ is large? From what I count (from October 2020 till today, going further back doesn’t make much sense since some of the people might not be interested in GZ anymore) it’s just 5 people.
A full missile salvo on Guerilla basically means: use an adrenaline shot and several medkits. And this is a good thing. While the devs made some things in the world a bit harder to destroy (cars and tvs need more bullets now for some reason) a full salvo from any tank or harvester should destroy a car immediately. In addition what would you do with a punctured tire? Run flat tires weren’t common in the 80s.
Imagine you drive into a group of hunters. Turning a car on a paved road is no task that would be done in a few seconds. This is good time for the machines opening fire and destroying the car and the player with it.
Let’s pretend the car would survive an ambush like that, how would you implement repairing a vehicle? You need more material which means more scavenging, a bigger resource storage, things you could scavenge (vehicles left behind). When this will be implemented the devs need to implement to save the vehicles already scavenged also imo.
It’s not “just” adding drivable cars to the game. The implementation of the car mechanics go way further if the devs would need to implement all the wishes that were expressed here.
I’m still opposed to the implementation of vehicles since it will cost precious development time needed for fixes and more useful implementations like a new island-DLC, better machine AI, improved sorting in the inventory screens etc.
As far as I’m concerned the devs could copy & paste the driving mechanics from the bikes to the cars but that’s it XD
U[quote=“Fwerkie, post:275, topic:14190”]
So, why not add cars, and then just not drive them if you dont want to.
[/quote]
Of course, if there were vehicles then they would be used. It’s exactly the same principle as when someone asked for a horse on live stream. Yes, someone genuinely asked for a horse, in this game.
What I remember is that the extent and complications in creating a moving, controllable “vehicle” in game. DayZ has a vehicle you have to literally - put together. Panels, batteries, water to cool it, tyres - it’s a full project to build and a big time consuming task - just to be able to navigate the map. Because…it’s HUGE and has no safe houses at all. It justifies the need for one, not the want for one.
I’ll also chip in that’s it’s appalling to drive, and control. Has constant issues glitching across the map, and this is a massive company and still can’t get it right. If your going to have solid state cars available to drive, the game must always be in a state for you ready to drive them, which puts load on the system.
This in itself causes a major red flag, because if you haven’t noticed recently in game, the machines have been retired. 7 out of 9 hotspots have been completely nerfed. Why? So the game can run properly, or as best as it can do. Putting this into the game will absolutely ruin it.
Same could be said about the Plundra and wanting more storage. If you can’t manage with what they give you, you just gotta adapt.
Ive seen many posts, (i dot know the exact number) but, your also assuming Im only talking about forum. I know people who, literally bought the game, and a week later deleted it, simply because there were not any vihicles besides bikes. Also, why do you think they’er not interested in GZ anymore? Could it be, perhaps that they got so annoyed by the fact that the only mechanical tranportation is a wimpy bike, that they stopped playing? Again, I know people who literally said “its so anoying that they only have bikes in the game. In fact, im probably gonna delete it” And they did.
What Im saying about the missle salvo is, yes you can revive. So, since you dont get completelly obliterated like in real life, and its going to be unrealistik enough to let you revive, then they should make a car be able to take one missle salvo. Also, I keep saying this. ARMORED CARS, not the standars cars. I agree that a normal car would not fair well against a tank.
This isnt Dayz, its GZ. Nobody asked for a car to be so complex that you literally have to build one from the ground up. Also, it makes perfect sence not to add horses. Also, your talking about a completelly different game that, from what Ive heard, is notoriusly buggy. If somebody makes a game, thats already buggy, doesnt fix it (at least, to some degree), then adds cars, that are yet another complex part of an already complex game, of course your gonna costantly have rediculous things happening. GZ is a smaller map than DayZ, and its not as buggy as it used to be. So adding cars would not nessisariyl be a huge problem. And if it turns out to be glitchy, but not game breaking, then it could be patched.
All im saying is give it a chance, and think about the possibilities, rather than just dismising it, because it “might make things complicated.”
Of course, implementing vehicles is a pretty considerable task. As I mentioned before.
Also, where did you get DayZ from? Who the hell suggested that level of complexity= Nothing else in the game is that realistic, so why should this be? And even if it were, it’s not something that’ll have a noticably adverse impact on performance. Making okay vehicle handling isn’t hard if you know what you’re doing. Of course, making AMAZING handling is harder, but this isn’t a racing sim.
As I mentioned in the original post, vehicles would be featured as a form of reward, something the game severely lacks right now. I’m also all for reducing the amount of safe houses. Particularly now that crafting and other systems have been implemented, the amount of safe houses is just silly. Who the f**k brings a damned sewing machine, an IKEA trunk and a bicycle repair station when he goes camping in the woods?
I personally envision vehicles as mules. That players will take their cars or whatever and drive to settlements with no nearby safe houses, grab more loot than they can carry and unload it into their car, then bring it back to a safehouse. With the penalty of losing all of the loot if the vehicle is destroyed.
It can be done and if it’s done well, it will greatly enhance the game experience. But of course, it can be done poorly, in which case it’ll just be a waste of time for the devs.
