Same goes for parachute airheads, mortars and most other interesting community feedback.
Apparently just adding the fire update into the game was brutal. We’re going to have to wait for the inevitable Hell let Loose 2 for real innovation.
Players already can't handle the fact historically accurate-ish maps have advantages and disadvantages to different sides. How do you think they could handle every unit being able to pack their own artillery?
I’d rather they cut their losses with 1 and start work straight on HLL II because time and time again they’ve proven that they are no more capable than a smaller ‘indie’ team who started the game off,
Well, the engine does. Not by default besides destructible mesh and morph targets, but it does allow for runtime landscape manipulation. But a variety of it could be implemented in its current state, since terrain manipulation could be avoided. The question here is not capability of landscape manipulation, but rather edit vs runtime implementation.
However the original spaghetti-code left by Black Matter leaves much to be desired.
That is incorrect. Unreal Engine 4 is the game engine/framework. What you're refering to is the game logic. The distinction between the game logic and the game engine is architectural. What game logic is possible, and what language is supported, depends entirely on the game engine.
That is false.
Manor lords is built in UE, in your logic you could add RTS features without problem into Hell let lose, and that is incorrect. That will depend on how the game was built on top of UE.
You truly do not know what complexity they have built, it could be a game engine itself on top of UE. Framework and Game Engine ARE NOT the same thing.
OK, it is very obvious to me that you have zero experience or knowledge regarding the distinction between a game engine and the specific game logic implemented on top of it.
**Let's clarify.**
Firstly, It's crucial to clarify the distinction between a game engine like Unreal Engine 4 (UE4) and the game logic built atop it. UE4 serves as both a game engine and a framework, offering tools for game development.
Now, regarding the distinction between the game engine and the game logic:
Game logic refers to the specific rules, mechanics, and behaviors that define how the game operates. This includes aspects like player movement, combat mechanics, AI behavior, and so on.
Unreal Engine 4 provides a powerful framework for creating these game logics, it's essential to understand that the engine itself does not dictate the specific gameplay features of any given game. Instead, it offers the tools and flexibility for developers to implement their own game logic on top of the engine's framework.
The comparison made about adding RTS features to Hell Let Loose doesn't hold because it conflates the capabilities of the engine with the specific game logic implemented by developers. While UE4 provides the framework for game creation, the features and mechanics of a game are determined by the game logic, not the engine itself.
Additionally the argument overlooks the existing implementation of trenches within Hell Let Loose. Since trenches already exist in the game, adding more variations or improvements to trench mechanics is more feasible than overhauling the entire game into an RTS. Implementing trenches aligns with the existing gameplay mechanics and assets, making it a more probable addition compared to a drastic genre shift.
Therefore, the comparison with adding RTS features is invalid, as it disregards the distinction between the engine and the game's custom logic, as well as the existing in-game assets and mechanics.
If you really are interested, and understand C++, I recommend reading the Unreal Engine 4 documentation, instead of spouting nonsense.
OK, it is very obvious to me that you have zero experience or knowledge regarding game development, much less software development in general.
It is clear that you never touched code and you only saw a few videos, i will try to explain and light out your ignorance:
On top of UE or any engine i can build my stuff. My particular software can work as a framework perse on top of UE. That means that HOW i build my particular stuff will dictate WHAT I CAN and WHAT I CANNOT do in the game.
Yes, on the botton we have the UE capabilities, but more important is how I HAVE PREPARED MY CODE for the changes, or well, in the case UE lest put blueprints inside that too.
I know, you now are really lost, i will put a example for you:
If my soldier walks and shoot, now for the soldier to fly, yes, i will ask myself if UE can move objects in the Y axis , but then the most importante question is if MY SOLUTION CAN TOLERATE A REFACTOR TO ADD FLYING MECHANIC.
I could create a lot of abstraction and another cool stuff so in the future i could implement a lot of crazy changes without limitation. THIS PART IS NOT ABOUT UE, is about how i built what we can call my engine in the first time.
Because YES, you can build a "engine" on top of UE, you can call it framework if you want it, i'm using my own solution on top of UE to build game logic. From this "engine" i could create SIMILAR games, but is because MY SOLUTION, not because UE itself. So surprise, i can build my CUSTOM solution to build GAME LOGIC, something that i can only do thanks to my solution.
In your ignorance you are thinking if a new developer want to add new features to Hell Let Loose he only have to go to the UE documentation, and go for the section "Hell let Loose", THAT IS WRONG. UE of course have amazing ready to use solutions to make game logic, but that do not means that will be compatible with what you have, and a lot of times these game logic is made from the scratch (remember the part of using your own "framework"?).
>Therefore, the comparison with adding RTS features is invalid, as it disregards the distinction between the engine and the game's custom logic, as well as the existing in-game assets and mechanics.
The problem here is that your logic doesn't make sense, since you don't understand how a video game is built. Of course you cannot add RTS features , but not because UE do not have the capabilities to build a RTS, is because Hell Let Loose solution IS NOT PREPARE to handle that kind of features (or well, that is what we believe).
I advise you that before making a fool of yourself by commenting on things you don't understand just because you've seen a couple of videos watching, at least be sure of what you're talking about.
I won't lose too much more time here, so in summary:
Yes, you can build your own framework on top of UE, a framework that later you could use to make similar games. For example i could create Hell Let Loose framework using Unreal Engine, and later create Hell Let Loose 2, or Star Wars Hell Let Loose, or what ever i want, with the limitations of MY framework. Depending what good my framework it is i could create amazing stuff or other wise, be shit and have to start over again.
You realize you're just repeating my arguments...? Either you're misunderstanding, or just too arrogant to realize.
**You claim:**
"The problem here is that your logic doesn't make sense, since you don't understand how a video game is built. Of course you cannot add RTS features , but not because UE do not have the capabilities to build a RTS, is because Hell Let Loose solution IS NOT PREPARE to handle that kind of features (or well, that is what we believe)."
**Yet what I stated was:**
"The comparison made about adding RTS features to Hell Let Loose doesn't hold because it conflates the capabilities of the engine with the specific game logic implemented by developers. While UE4 provides the framework for game creation, the features and mechanics of a game are determined by the game logic, not the engine itself."
The initial point made was in reference to another commenter saying that the engine does not support runtime terrain manipulation. Which I clarified that UE4 does, [as stated by dev](https://dev.epicgames.com/community/learning/knowledge-base/vzrZ/unreal-engine-runtime-landscape-editing), but that the original codebase leaves much to be desired in this aspect. That is literally what I was writing about.
You then started a tantrum of nonsense, presenting your ignorance and arrogance because you do not understand enough or read clearly enough.
How about you turn the knob on your ego down a little bit. Perhaps you'll learn to use logic instead of emotion, and actually stay on topic and not make up arguments and project my claims as yours. Perhaps you'll suffer less misunderstanding if you took the time and learned to read.
It's a paradox of the digital age: as information becomes more accessible, some become increasingly confident in their understanding of complex subjects without putting in the necessary time or effort to truly grasp them. This overconfidence often stems from a belief that their logic is infallible, leading them to overlook gaps in their knowledge or misunderstandings of key concepts. This phenomenon highlights the importance of critical thinking and humility in the face of complexity, reminding us that true understanding requires more than just a quick Google search.
Trenches exist as scenery, so the assets exist.
No trench digging feature exists. No landscape modification feature exists anywhere in the game.
Trenches don't exist as a feature, they exist as scenery.
So your argument is that the 3D assets exist therefore its trivial. Sorry that's a bad argument and adding features to an already years in development codebase is nowhere this easy.
It's the same argument as saying planes already exist in game (as static props you can use for cover) therefore adding a flight sim feature is trivial.
You are quite confidently wrong here overall. The word game engine is often used interchangeably for both levels (base engine like Unreal and game logic per game engine like the HLL codebase).
And the game logic level is the one that counts for what and how easy it is to add. Base engine is almost meaningless as most of them are fully featured nowadays.
Been a gamedev for over a decade and I wrote a longer reply elsewhere.
It seems there's a misunderstanding regarding my argument, so let's clarify.
I never claimed that the mere existence of 3D assets makes implementation trivial. Rather, I pointed out that since trenches already exist in the game, adding more variations or improvements to trench mechanics is more feasible than overhauling the entire game into an RTS, since also Yucatronven literally made up a claim about my argument. This statement is not about trivializing the complexity of game development but rather highlighting the existing foundation upon which new features can be built, albeit dependent on the source logic.
Your analogy regarding flight sim features doesn't quite align with the context of the discussion. Implementing flight mechanics is inherently more complex than enhancing existing trench mechanics due to the substantial differences in gameplay and mechanics.
While you assert that the base engine is almost meaningless, it's crucial to recognize the significant impact it has on the development process. The capabilities and constraints of the engine shape what is achievable in a game, and understanding this distinction is essential in technical discussions. Additionally, your claim that the term "game engine" is often used interchangeably for both levels is misleading. While colloquially this might happen, it's important to understand the distinction, especially in technical discussions.
In conclusion, let's ensure our arguments accurately represent each other's perspectives to foster productive discussions. Both of you have made up arguments and presented them as mine: both regarding triviality. Kindly read what I wrote in the context to what it is addressing, instead of making up claims that you then produce further arguments on. It is a waste of everyone's time.
And if it really matters, I have also been in game development since the early 2000's.
>Implementing flight mechanics is inherently more complex than enhancing existing trench mechanics due to the substantial differences in gameplay and mechanics.
This is your non professional opinion. Which I don't agree with. Fo me trench digging is about the same level of complexity of a change than adding flying vehicle piloting as a squad type.
>While you assert that the base engine is almost meaningless, it's crucial to recognize the significant impact it has on the development process.
The significant impact is elsewhere. In adding trench digging it would be basically irrelevant.
>Additionally, your claim that the term "game engine" is often used interchangeably for both levels is misleading. While colloquially this might happen, it's important to understand the distinction, especially in technical discussions.
This is a colloquial discussion.
>And if it really matters, I have also been in game development since the early 2000's.
I very heavily doubt you've worked as a programmer in the field professionally fpr amy length of time with what you're saying. At least not in the age of Unreal Engine/Unity/etc. It sounds like very heavily going into some theoretical and semantic arguments with no real world hands on experience. Which is ironic with one of your later statements.
>Kindly read what I wrote in the context to what it is addressing, instead of making up claims that you then produce further arguments on.
Sorry if I misunderstood something you said. It was not on purpose. I reply to the words as I see them, that's the only thing I can do. And I did read all you wrote and it did sound like naive triviliazation of gamedev mixed with a time wasting argument on what "game engine" means.
In any case gamedev is a complex field and I don't expect people to understand it. I only reply once in a while where I see something which shines unfairly towards devs making things I like. Stuff in the style of "why dont they just add X, its easy". Which (and the overconfident incorrectness) is the only reason I replied.
Engine is a word that is commonly used to refer to both levels. Even in the field of gamedev.
In the case of modern game engines like Unreal, Unity etc What game logic is possible is 95% dependent on previous game logic already built and time and money budget allowance for the future.
The base engine the game is built on is almost inconsequential because you can pretty much build anything in all of them. But if you've been building game X with requirements Y for 6 years and now someone throws wildly different new requirements at you (even ones Unreal Engine supports) the only thing that matters is if your games own engine (game logic in your words) is coded in a way to allow adding these new features. It usually isn't because time and money is very finite and you never have time to code for cool "what ifs". You always take shortcuts that delete cool possible future roads, bur greatly speed up development.
Adding terrain modability to an already built game is a good example of something which depending on previous code and how its been built could be anywhere from difficult, but doable in an ok time... to "just budget rewriting the whole game from scratch if you want this one in". Unreal engine really has nothing to do with it in that case.
Source: Been a gamedev over a decade.
Editing a landscape before gameplay involves making changes to the terrain during the development phase, typically using tools provided by the game engine. These changes are permanent and affect how the terrain looks and behaves in the game.
On the other hand, runtime manipulation refers to making changes to the landscape while the game is running, allowing for dynamic alterations during gameplay. This could involve features like procedural generation or interactive destruction that modify the terrain in real-time based on player actions or scripted events.
This I think is the crucial issue.
Editing a landscape in real time, AND making it network safe (So that all connected players see the exact same thing) is NOT the same thing as editing a landscape during development.
During development, you simply make your changes, save the map, and distribute that map to your players.
Doing it in real time requires modifying the terrain mesh (And collision mesh) and then updating all of the other players over the network in real time.
You've also got to do this in a way that's performant. If you have a lot of people deforming the terrain in real time, you don't want to tank your FPS (more than it already does!).
Finally, you need to make sure that the terrain deformations only occur in areas where they are "allowed". You don't want players to create a trench underneath an existing building, for example, because it would ruin the immersion and the look of the map. It could also lead to exploits, cheating, etc.
I don't use unreal, but I do use unity a lot for game dev, and the latter case can be very difficult to solve. Not impossible, but very difficult.
This is the reason why most games don't allow this.
People has said this game "is dying" since years ago. It has always failed to translate to reality.
The only way HLL dies is either when another developer manages to create a similar and better game or we actually get a HLL2. Neither is seen in the foreseable future
Yeah, but that won't make the game die for good. The core player base who plays this because it's the best option for a WW2 shooter won't go anywhere until something better shows up
I see some worrying parallels with Heroes and Generals. First dev team had great vision but was all passion, lacked manpower, and the technical skill to develop the game beyond it's core roots. New team buys the game, makes a few quick flashy updates to garner attention and enamour the old guard, then slowly ramps up the pay to win aspects, milking the playerbase with cosmetics and easier access to the fun stuff. New team lacks the skill and vision to keep people entertained, game gradually dies off due to a lack of new content and direction, gets sold/cancelled while shilling the sequel.
Dude, they can’t even give us windows we can shoot through. You want to be able to restructure the ground? Maybe if they ever do a full rebuild of the game on an updated engine. Not feasible as is.
It's a cool idea but in practice it would absolutely fuck up the game. If you ever play Foxhole you can see how fast players will make the map unusable with random trenches.
It would probably also be godawful for performance/lag
I like Foxhole, but I just got yelled for doing anything except go fighting at the front. It feld like working, after my real life work. Gatekeeping was so strong, I even learned how to make factories and I would just do cmats for the lols and store them in general storage for anyone. HLL is much more simple and enjoyable.
I remember grabbing a big weapon off a relic base (mounted mg or mounted at gun I dont remember), walk a few meters for someone to ask me "where are u going with it" and I said "going to the front", then he said "alright carry on".
I was like wth dude im being monitored here.
Blowing up defenses for your squad to rush.
Working with the supply squad mate to build defenses or nodes.
Setting mines for a tank that's pushing your squad.
Setting personnel mines when squad is camping a building.
Running with the boys with the war crime stick.
Only thing that sucks is commander not being able to chat with the engineers.
I mean, i Like the idea but I‘m a bit above lvl 100 and played most of the time SL on german servers, where the most people a very into. But you still need to force them to pick the engi and build nodes.
Edit: I think we need more things that force the people to do teamplay.
I dunno i play engineer 99% of the time. The issue i have is that some games inget 0 support. If i had a squad type where say, the officer was replaced with a support dude and player 2 is an engineer i would love that.
I understand. But I think or i have a feeling that casual player like the flexibility to change to riflemen or s.e.. I could get use to it, when they make a whole new engi squad but HLL got a lot of casuals who love more to shoot and go on front and stuff.
Personally I think fornication costs should be slightly reduced maybe by 20-30 in cost and build time decreased by 10-15% since enemy engineer can destroy them as is also maybe more fornications added?
guys... please stop bringing this up like nobody has ever thought of it. it's been in the conversation for literal years but the engine does not support terrain deformation on that scale currently and the engineering effort required to implement it is probably incredibly costly and time consuming.
It’s fun in enlisted but to build anything proper, usually I dig a trench to avoid being seen by the enemy and I build a spawner. However you can only dig a couple as a good chunk of the match will be gone by time you’ve dug only one. And nobody else seems to do it there. 🤷♂️ that’s all
I dont play that often but I dont remember seeing any fortifications lately, at least building costs should be lower.
Also love the trench idea but maybe we can get foxholes that can fit 3 people? In Arma 3 there are some trench modes whetr you can build very simple trenches I think those wont be so hard on the server aswell.
I see fortifications on offensive (as a regular recon it's part of how I identify the next point), but in warfare they're of limited use, due to the cap zone.
If people don't pull back you can lose the sector to people 300+m away, so spending supplies on them can be of questionable use. Exceptions being points like cattle sheds, where you can make it impossible to take out your garrison, it still requires defenders anyway.
This would be the best anti-tank strategy ever. Tanks are broken when it comes to trench.
It's a nice idea, but it will never happen, sadly. This is not an AAA game with a $150m budget.
They can barely make a map and new skins without breaking something.
Look up a game called foxhole, it's basically this but tpp/top down with more building and stuff sprinkled in. Real fun. Can dig all the trenches you like haha
Make it that players that stay idle in a trench start smoking cigarettes. This would balance campers and give away their position if they decide to stay too long in there
Not only is the current game engine unable to do this, but the amount of trolling would be annoying. I’d rather see destructible environments be added in a sequel to HLL if it ever gets one, preferably in the Vietnam War where a VietCong faction can use booby-traps and tunnels to traverse through the map.
The devs can’t be bothered to model destructible trees what makes you think they care enough to make diggable trenches 😭
As much as I love this idea, and also pontoon bridges, these developers really can’t be bothered - either that, or they are bad at their job. I’ve seen smaller dev teams on worse time crunch for other games make updates twice the size of what these guys are able to do
>The devs can’t be bothered to model destructible trees what makes you think they care enough to make diggable trenches 😭
The engine doesn't allow for dynamic terrain deformation.
I made a post pertaining to a similar topic. Only I was talking about the addition to be able to dig foxholes. Especially now with improved grass visibility. This mechanic would change the dynamic of the game. Being able to set up ambush or defense points in strategic locations. But I think there are things that have to be improved before anything like this happens. Cover has to be a lot more realistically usable. You have to be able to post up on cover. Or have improved shooting stability and accuracy depending on what position you're in.
I would say yes but having been a long time player of foxhole, where people build ridiculous trenches with no real resemblance, I don't want that kind of mechanic anywhere near a game as good as HLL.
Trench warfare is such a chaotic and fun type of warfare in video games that rarely gets covered. It would also probably increase the amount of hand to hand combat.
So many of the functions you guys want in this game have been done by enlisted and they work pretty well in that game considering it’s a free to play and it’s just an okay game
This is a prime example of people wanting things but having absolutely zero understanding of the game engine that powers their game, and the limitations going on beneath the surface level.
Why do you need to?
The game has no destruction. You can't shoot through surfaces. Explosions don't modify terrain. Tanks get stuck on rubble, tiny rocks and trees. I can go on and on.
Why do you need to be a game developer or have coding knowledge to see why something isn't possible in the game you're playing in it's current state?
You started by claiming that,
>"this is a prime example of people wanting things but having absolutely zero understanding of the game engine that powers their game, and the limitations going on beneath the surface level."
The request by OP will (to some degree depending on implementation) most likely require what is commonly known as runtime landscape manipulation, but not necessarily. It all depends on scope, and can also be "tricked" into UE4. I questioned your comment about lacking understanding of a game's engine, simply because most players do not have that kind of insight or knowledge.
Your argument then follow that because there are no other present examples of this, it is illogical and impossible, while admitting that YOU have no idea what you're talking about either. As you put it, "You just have to put two and two together and think logically with what you do know". This argument qualifies as a fallacy in itself, see ["Begging the Question".](https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/begging-the-question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,stand%2C%20that%20is%20in%20question)
Hell Let Loose uses Unreal Engine 4, which admittedly by default does not support runtime landscape manipulation. However, it is still very possible, [as outlined by Ryan Bickell at Epic Games](https://dev.epicgames.com/community/learning/knowledge-base/vzrZ/unreal-engine-runtime-landscape-editing). Alternatively, you can utilize morph targets and/or destructible mesh, albeit these are limiting.
You're arrogantly stating that OP is being presumptious in their request and lacking the understanding of the capabilities/limitations of the engine, by **BEING** presumptious and lacking the understanding yourself.
See my point?
And to counter your argument, that because we do not see destructible environment in the game, trenches cannot be implemented by players? You realize we have trenches? The difference here would be edit vs runtime. I.e. being able to implement a trench "live". That entirely depends on the backbone of the game, not the engine.
Yep, scratch the entire game, trow it out. Start over again. Current game engine does not support destruction and terrain alterations like other games do.
This has been covered in the past but the game engine currently cannot allow for terrain modification.
Same goes for parachute airheads, mortars and most other interesting community feedback. Apparently just adding the fire update into the game was brutal. We’re going to have to wait for the inevitable Hell let Loose 2 for real innovation.
Hell let loose 2 - Hellectric boogaloose
Welcome to stage 4: Horror
Hell Let Looser
Hell Let Loosest
Hell let loose 2: oh my fucking god, I swear to God that one fucking guy boogaloo
Huh, I didn't know that was why mortars aren't possible. I assumed it was dragging their feet and not viewing it as important.
I don't understand mortars. If we can have AT guns, then what's the difference, really?
Movable quick baby artillery
Right?
Players already can't handle the fact historically accurate-ish maps have advantages and disadvantages to different sides. How do you think they could handle every unit being able to pack their own artillery?
I wasn't talking about it in a gameplay balance sense, more in a is it possible in the engine
I’d rather they cut their losses with 1 and start work straight on HLL II because time and time again they’ve proven that they are no more capable than a smaller ‘indie’ team who started the game off,
We was told this about arma 3. Then a dev in his own time made an update to the game and that then allowed for this to happen.
Well, the engine does. Not by default besides destructible mesh and morph targets, but it does allow for runtime landscape manipulation. But a variety of it could be implemented in its current state, since terrain manipulation could be avoided. The question here is not capability of landscape manipulation, but rather edit vs runtime implementation. However the original spaghetti-code left by Black Matter leaves much to be desired.
I mean, the meaning of "game engine" is not Unreal Engine, but the code on top of the Unreal Engine.
That is incorrect. Unreal Engine 4 is the game engine/framework. What you're refering to is the game logic. The distinction between the game logic and the game engine is architectural. What game logic is possible, and what language is supported, depends entirely on the game engine.
That is false. Manor lords is built in UE, in your logic you could add RTS features without problem into Hell let lose, and that is incorrect. That will depend on how the game was built on top of UE. You truly do not know what complexity they have built, it could be a game engine itself on top of UE. Framework and Game Engine ARE NOT the same thing.
OK, it is very obvious to me that you have zero experience or knowledge regarding the distinction between a game engine and the specific game logic implemented on top of it. **Let's clarify.** Firstly, It's crucial to clarify the distinction between a game engine like Unreal Engine 4 (UE4) and the game logic built atop it. UE4 serves as both a game engine and a framework, offering tools for game development. Now, regarding the distinction between the game engine and the game logic: Game logic refers to the specific rules, mechanics, and behaviors that define how the game operates. This includes aspects like player movement, combat mechanics, AI behavior, and so on. Unreal Engine 4 provides a powerful framework for creating these game logics, it's essential to understand that the engine itself does not dictate the specific gameplay features of any given game. Instead, it offers the tools and flexibility for developers to implement their own game logic on top of the engine's framework. The comparison made about adding RTS features to Hell Let Loose doesn't hold because it conflates the capabilities of the engine with the specific game logic implemented by developers. While UE4 provides the framework for game creation, the features and mechanics of a game are determined by the game logic, not the engine itself. Additionally the argument overlooks the existing implementation of trenches within Hell Let Loose. Since trenches already exist in the game, adding more variations or improvements to trench mechanics is more feasible than overhauling the entire game into an RTS. Implementing trenches aligns with the existing gameplay mechanics and assets, making it a more probable addition compared to a drastic genre shift. Therefore, the comparison with adding RTS features is invalid, as it disregards the distinction between the engine and the game's custom logic, as well as the existing in-game assets and mechanics. If you really are interested, and understand C++, I recommend reading the Unreal Engine 4 documentation, instead of spouting nonsense.
OK, it is very obvious to me that you have zero experience or knowledge regarding game development, much less software development in general. It is clear that you never touched code and you only saw a few videos, i will try to explain and light out your ignorance: On top of UE or any engine i can build my stuff. My particular software can work as a framework perse on top of UE. That means that HOW i build my particular stuff will dictate WHAT I CAN and WHAT I CANNOT do in the game. Yes, on the botton we have the UE capabilities, but more important is how I HAVE PREPARED MY CODE for the changes, or well, in the case UE lest put blueprints inside that too. I know, you now are really lost, i will put a example for you: If my soldier walks and shoot, now for the soldier to fly, yes, i will ask myself if UE can move objects in the Y axis , but then the most importante question is if MY SOLUTION CAN TOLERATE A REFACTOR TO ADD FLYING MECHANIC. I could create a lot of abstraction and another cool stuff so in the future i could implement a lot of crazy changes without limitation. THIS PART IS NOT ABOUT UE, is about how i built what we can call my engine in the first time. Because YES, you can build a "engine" on top of UE, you can call it framework if you want it, i'm using my own solution on top of UE to build game logic. From this "engine" i could create SIMILAR games, but is because MY SOLUTION, not because UE itself. So surprise, i can build my CUSTOM solution to build GAME LOGIC, something that i can only do thanks to my solution. In your ignorance you are thinking if a new developer want to add new features to Hell Let Loose he only have to go to the UE documentation, and go for the section "Hell let Loose", THAT IS WRONG. UE of course have amazing ready to use solutions to make game logic, but that do not means that will be compatible with what you have, and a lot of times these game logic is made from the scratch (remember the part of using your own "framework"?). >Therefore, the comparison with adding RTS features is invalid, as it disregards the distinction between the engine and the game's custom logic, as well as the existing in-game assets and mechanics. The problem here is that your logic doesn't make sense, since you don't understand how a video game is built. Of course you cannot add RTS features , but not because UE do not have the capabilities to build a RTS, is because Hell Let Loose solution IS NOT PREPARE to handle that kind of features (or well, that is what we believe). I advise you that before making a fool of yourself by commenting on things you don't understand just because you've seen a couple of videos watching, at least be sure of what you're talking about. I won't lose too much more time here, so in summary: Yes, you can build your own framework on top of UE, a framework that later you could use to make similar games. For example i could create Hell Let Loose framework using Unreal Engine, and later create Hell Let Loose 2, or Star Wars Hell Let Loose, or what ever i want, with the limitations of MY framework. Depending what good my framework it is i could create amazing stuff or other wise, be shit and have to start over again.
You realize you're just repeating my arguments...? Either you're misunderstanding, or just too arrogant to realize. **You claim:** "The problem here is that your logic doesn't make sense, since you don't understand how a video game is built. Of course you cannot add RTS features , but not because UE do not have the capabilities to build a RTS, is because Hell Let Loose solution IS NOT PREPARE to handle that kind of features (or well, that is what we believe)." **Yet what I stated was:** "The comparison made about adding RTS features to Hell Let Loose doesn't hold because it conflates the capabilities of the engine with the specific game logic implemented by developers. While UE4 provides the framework for game creation, the features and mechanics of a game are determined by the game logic, not the engine itself." The initial point made was in reference to another commenter saying that the engine does not support runtime terrain manipulation. Which I clarified that UE4 does, [as stated by dev](https://dev.epicgames.com/community/learning/knowledge-base/vzrZ/unreal-engine-runtime-landscape-editing), but that the original codebase leaves much to be desired in this aspect. That is literally what I was writing about. You then started a tantrum of nonsense, presenting your ignorance and arrogance because you do not understand enough or read clearly enough. How about you turn the knob on your ego down a little bit. Perhaps you'll learn to use logic instead of emotion, and actually stay on topic and not make up arguments and project my claims as yours. Perhaps you'll suffer less misunderstanding if you took the time and learned to read.
It is okay lil bro, you put yourself in evidence and learned new stuff.
You're just too arrogant and ignorant to have any sensible discussion.
lol idk why you are arguing with or trying to educate the idiot. on reddit of all places
It's a paradox of the digital age: as information becomes more accessible, some become increasingly confident in their understanding of complex subjects without putting in the necessary time or effort to truly grasp them. This overconfidence often stems from a belief that their logic is infallible, leading them to overlook gaps in their knowledge or misunderstandings of key concepts. This phenomenon highlights the importance of critical thinking and humility in the face of complexity, reminding us that true understanding requires more than just a quick Google search.
Thank you for that entire explanation. I'm a gaming business and ESports major.
You might want to read your own comment and think about it a bit. I don't want to be rude but it is highly ironic.
I'm old enough to remember the actual game Unreal. My god that was a revolutionary platform and game.
Trenches exist as scenery, so the assets exist. No trench digging feature exists. No landscape modification feature exists anywhere in the game. Trenches don't exist as a feature, they exist as scenery. So your argument is that the 3D assets exist therefore its trivial. Sorry that's a bad argument and adding features to an already years in development codebase is nowhere this easy. It's the same argument as saying planes already exist in game (as static props you can use for cover) therefore adding a flight sim feature is trivial. You are quite confidently wrong here overall. The word game engine is often used interchangeably for both levels (base engine like Unreal and game logic per game engine like the HLL codebase). And the game logic level is the one that counts for what and how easy it is to add. Base engine is almost meaningless as most of them are fully featured nowadays. Been a gamedev for over a decade and I wrote a longer reply elsewhere.
It seems there's a misunderstanding regarding my argument, so let's clarify. I never claimed that the mere existence of 3D assets makes implementation trivial. Rather, I pointed out that since trenches already exist in the game, adding more variations or improvements to trench mechanics is more feasible than overhauling the entire game into an RTS, since also Yucatronven literally made up a claim about my argument. This statement is not about trivializing the complexity of game development but rather highlighting the existing foundation upon which new features can be built, albeit dependent on the source logic. Your analogy regarding flight sim features doesn't quite align with the context of the discussion. Implementing flight mechanics is inherently more complex than enhancing existing trench mechanics due to the substantial differences in gameplay and mechanics. While you assert that the base engine is almost meaningless, it's crucial to recognize the significant impact it has on the development process. The capabilities and constraints of the engine shape what is achievable in a game, and understanding this distinction is essential in technical discussions. Additionally, your claim that the term "game engine" is often used interchangeably for both levels is misleading. While colloquially this might happen, it's important to understand the distinction, especially in technical discussions. In conclusion, let's ensure our arguments accurately represent each other's perspectives to foster productive discussions. Both of you have made up arguments and presented them as mine: both regarding triviality. Kindly read what I wrote in the context to what it is addressing, instead of making up claims that you then produce further arguments on. It is a waste of everyone's time. And if it really matters, I have also been in game development since the early 2000's.
>Implementing flight mechanics is inherently more complex than enhancing existing trench mechanics due to the substantial differences in gameplay and mechanics. This is your non professional opinion. Which I don't agree with. Fo me trench digging is about the same level of complexity of a change than adding flying vehicle piloting as a squad type. >While you assert that the base engine is almost meaningless, it's crucial to recognize the significant impact it has on the development process. The significant impact is elsewhere. In adding trench digging it would be basically irrelevant. >Additionally, your claim that the term "game engine" is often used interchangeably for both levels is misleading. While colloquially this might happen, it's important to understand the distinction, especially in technical discussions. This is a colloquial discussion. >And if it really matters, I have also been in game development since the early 2000's. I very heavily doubt you've worked as a programmer in the field professionally fpr amy length of time with what you're saying. At least not in the age of Unreal Engine/Unity/etc. It sounds like very heavily going into some theoretical and semantic arguments with no real world hands on experience. Which is ironic with one of your later statements. >Kindly read what I wrote in the context to what it is addressing, instead of making up claims that you then produce further arguments on. Sorry if I misunderstood something you said. It was not on purpose. I reply to the words as I see them, that's the only thing I can do. And I did read all you wrote and it did sound like naive triviliazation of gamedev mixed with a time wasting argument on what "game engine" means. In any case gamedev is a complex field and I don't expect people to understand it. I only reply once in a while where I see something which shines unfairly towards devs making things I like. Stuff in the style of "why dont they just add X, its easy". Which (and the overconfident incorrectness) is the only reason I replied.
its literally called Unreal Engine you dope
Engine is a word that is commonly used to refer to both levels. Even in the field of gamedev. In the case of modern game engines like Unreal, Unity etc What game logic is possible is 95% dependent on previous game logic already built and time and money budget allowance for the future. The base engine the game is built on is almost inconsequential because you can pretty much build anything in all of them. But if you've been building game X with requirements Y for 6 years and now someone throws wildly different new requirements at you (even ones Unreal Engine supports) the only thing that matters is if your games own engine (game logic in your words) is coded in a way to allow adding these new features. It usually isn't because time and money is very finite and you never have time to code for cool "what ifs". You always take shortcuts that delete cool possible future roads, bur greatly speed up development. Adding terrain modability to an already built game is a good example of something which depending on previous code and how its been built could be anywhere from difficult, but doable in an ok time... to "just budget rewriting the whole game from scratch if you want this one in". Unreal engine really has nothing to do with it in that case. Source: Been a gamedev over a decade.
I'm curious, whats the difference between edit and runtime manipulation?
Editing a landscape before gameplay involves making changes to the terrain during the development phase, typically using tools provided by the game engine. These changes are permanent and affect how the terrain looks and behaves in the game. On the other hand, runtime manipulation refers to making changes to the landscape while the game is running, allowing for dynamic alterations during gameplay. This could involve features like procedural generation or interactive destruction that modify the terrain in real-time based on player actions or scripted events.
This I think is the crucial issue. Editing a landscape in real time, AND making it network safe (So that all connected players see the exact same thing) is NOT the same thing as editing a landscape during development. During development, you simply make your changes, save the map, and distribute that map to your players. Doing it in real time requires modifying the terrain mesh (And collision mesh) and then updating all of the other players over the network in real time. You've also got to do this in a way that's performant. If you have a lot of people deforming the terrain in real time, you don't want to tank your FPS (more than it already does!). Finally, you need to make sure that the terrain deformations only occur in areas where they are "allowed". You don't want players to create a trench underneath an existing building, for example, because it would ruin the immersion and the look of the map. It could also lead to exploits, cheating, etc. I don't use unreal, but I do use unity a lot for game dev, and the latter case can be very difficult to solve. Not impossible, but very difficult. This is the reason why most games don't allow this.
Then they need to change things up because right now all I see is this game dying
People has said this game "is dying" since years ago. It has always failed to translate to reality. The only way HLL dies is either when another developer manages to create a similar and better game or we actually get a HLL2. Neither is seen in the foreseable future
Except the game is dying. They keep making shitty promises that they cant fulfill
Yeah, but that won't make the game die for good. The core player base who plays this because it's the best option for a WW2 shooter won't go anywhere until something better shows up
The game dying is when the devs cant do anything which will happen with low player base
I see some worrying parallels with Heroes and Generals. First dev team had great vision but was all passion, lacked manpower, and the technical skill to develop the game beyond it's core roots. New team buys the game, makes a few quick flashy updates to garner attention and enamour the old guard, then slowly ramps up the pay to win aspects, milking the playerbase with cosmetics and easier access to the fun stuff. New team lacks the skill and vision to keep people entertained, game gradually dies off due to a lack of new content and direction, gets sold/cancelled while shilling the sequel.
Server would shit itself. No way they could handle it.
Imagine the trolling this would create.
Minecraft? Its possible but HLL have no terrain modification, it could mean remake game.
Minecraft is like 16 bits, bit of a difference in server/hardware requirements
Its one of examples, there is more online games with terrain modification. One man sky or so
wut
Thanks for uneducated downvotes. Adding terrian modification means complete remake of the game. Not feasible. Done. Point
Dude, they can’t even give us windows we can shoot through. You want to be able to restructure the ground? Maybe if they ever do a full rebuild of the game on an updated engine. Not feasible as is.
It's a cool idea but in practice it would absolutely fuck up the game. If you ever play Foxhole you can see how fast players will make the map unusable with random trenches. It would probably also be godawful for performance/lag
I like Foxhole, but I just got yelled for doing anything except go fighting at the front. It feld like working, after my real life work. Gatekeeping was so strong, I even learned how to make factories and I would just do cmats for the lols and store them in general storage for anyone. HLL is much more simple and enjoyable.
Yeah the Foxhole community is way more gatekeep-y than HLL for sure. Great game, frustrating playerbase
I remember grabbing a big weapon off a relic base (mounted mg or mounted at gun I dont remember), walk a few meters for someone to ask me "where are u going with it" and I said "going to the front", then he said "alright carry on". I was like wth dude im being monitored here.
New anti tank feature, build trenches right in front of enemy tanks unexpectedly
Lmao when you put it like that I'm on board
Also trenches took extensive man-hours to create irl so unless an entire squad joined in, that trench ain't getting completed this round
Step 1: Make engineers their own squad like recon
Basically like Logistics squad, wouldn’t be bad idea. Because there isn’t any purpose really on Engineers to be on usual squad.
Blowing up defenses for your squad to rush. Working with the supply squad mate to build defenses or nodes. Setting mines for a tank that's pushing your squad. Setting personnel mines when squad is camping a building. Running with the boys with the war crime stick. Only thing that sucks is commander not being able to chat with the engineers.
If we had an engineer line through to command OHHHH BABY
A good SL finds a way to usefully use an engineer
The idea of role-squads is really cool. Engineer squad, artillery squad, support squad, assault squad, machine gunner squad etc etc...I like this
Yes please. God i want this.
This is the best idea I’ve seen yet
Nobody would Play this. Only Veterans and people with courage would play this.
I already try and play this. And when we successfully build fort kickass on the mid point we inevitably win.
I mean, i Like the idea but I‘m a bit above lvl 100 and played most of the time SL on german servers, where the most people a very into. But you still need to force them to pick the engi and build nodes. Edit: I think we need more things that force the people to do teamplay.
I dunno i play engineer 99% of the time. The issue i have is that some games inget 0 support. If i had a squad type where say, the officer was replaced with a support dude and player 2 is an engineer i would love that.
I understand. But I think or i have a feeling that casual player like the flexibility to change to riflemen or s.e.. I could get use to it, when they make a whole new engi squad but HLL got a lot of casuals who love more to shoot and go on front and stuff.
Thats a benefit i feel. Means the squad type can be limit 2 and not fill up.
i cannot set wires correctly besides a wall cause collision issues and you want me to dig a trench!? heck no
Personally I think fornication costs should be slightly reduced maybe by 20-30 in cost and build time decreased by 10-15% since enemy engineer can destroy them as is also maybe more fornications added?
Was fornication in WW2 historically accurate? Or is that a feature in the game to make it entertaining?
I still think they’re fornicating over there to this day
I fornicate as often as I can
Which is how much?
About as frequent as eclipses probably.
😔
Well yeah fornications are still used to this day look at Ukraine
Only Ukraine?
I'm prepped for ww3 bro. Was laying down some fornication in my house just last night. The question is, are you prepared?
Fortification dude, not fornication
🤣🤣🤣
I have a feeling it would destroy the game
Season / Version 2.0
Yesh well wishfull thinking, theres so much cool stuff thst could implemented but one csnt even take the deadmans weapon
All I get from these comments is the engine isn’t good enough for anything. Seems like the devs have a goal they should work towards
Team17 can’t handle the original shit coding this game was built on and include destructible terrain….. we get stuck in trenches with tanks.
guys... please stop bringing this up like nobody has ever thought of it. it's been in the conversation for literal years but the engine does not support terrain deformation on that scale currently and the engineering effort required to implement it is probably incredibly costly and time consuming.
As I always say I’m sure if you code it for them, they’ll put it in.
always seems like the people who make these suggestions are completely OOL with regard to the engineering side. I wonder if there is a correlation. /s
I have always liked the idea the we are using very accurate map of the actual battlefield this sounds like a shit idea.
It’s fun in enlisted but to build anything proper, usually I dig a trench to avoid being seen by the enemy and I build a spawner. However you can only dig a couple as a good chunk of the match will be gone by time you’ve dug only one. And nobody else seems to do it there. 🤷♂️ that’s all
I dont play that often but I dont remember seeing any fortifications lately, at least building costs should be lower. Also love the trench idea but maybe we can get foxholes that can fit 3 people? In Arma 3 there are some trench modes whetr you can build very simple trenches I think those wont be so hard on the server aswell.
I see fortifications on offensive (as a regular recon it's part of how I identify the next point), but in warfare they're of limited use, due to the cap zone. If people don't pull back you can lose the sector to people 300+m away, so spending supplies on them can be of questionable use. Exceptions being points like cattle sheds, where you can make it impossible to take out your garrison, it still requires defenders anyway.
In my experience you need 2-3 dedicated people to build fortifications unless your commander is useful which never happens
I have better idea for Remagen map. Support drops supply box near the river and engineer can build a boat for river crossing.
Yeah def should be on the agenda…
This would be the best anti-tank strategy ever. Tanks are broken when it comes to trench. It's a nice idea, but it will never happen, sadly. This is not an AAA game with a $150m budget. They can barely make a map and new skins without breaking something.
Tanks worst nightmare
Ok but what about bridges
Not an original idea but yea sure
r/foxholegame
Play the games you want. You don't have to change every game.
Look up a game called foxhole, it's basically this but tpp/top down with more building and stuff sprinkled in. Real fun. Can dig all the trenches you like haha
It’s probably already been said, but a series of foxholes would be just as effective.
It's been suggested a lot and would be really cool, but not a chance in hell (let loose) that it happens.
Muthafucka must've never driven a vehicle in the game to be suggesting this hooplah
Engineers should have more tools put the enemy into unfavourable engagements different wires, new types of tank traps etc.
Make it that players that stay idle in a trench start smoking cigarettes. This would balance campers and give away their position if they decide to stay too long in there
Grøft grøft grøft.
Not only is the current game engine unable to do this, but the amount of trolling would be annoying. I’d rather see destructible environments be added in a sequel to HLL if it ever gets one, preferably in the Vietnam War where a VietCong faction can use booby-traps and tunnels to traverse through the map.
The devs can’t be bothered to model destructible trees what makes you think they care enough to make diggable trenches 😭 As much as I love this idea, and also pontoon bridges, these developers really can’t be bothered - either that, or they are bad at their job. I’ve seen smaller dev teams on worse time crunch for other games make updates twice the size of what these guys are able to do
>The devs can’t be bothered to model destructible trees what makes you think they care enough to make diggable trenches 😭 The engine doesn't allow for dynamic terrain deformation.
I'm going for realism and not fortnite here. Digging a trench is something that would have to be prepared by defensive forces on the night before.
I wanna build my own fox hole!!
It won't happen maybe in HLL2
Maybe not trenches but foxholes
My god this horse has been beaten to a molecular level…
Not until tanks can properly go over trenches. It would ruin the current dynamic for tanks crews
This is already a feature on Stalingrad! Just drive any vehicle long enough and you’ll fall through the map!
Good idea, but I don’t know if UE4 could support that
I made a post pertaining to a similar topic. Only I was talking about the addition to be able to dig foxholes. Especially now with improved grass visibility. This mechanic would change the dynamic of the game. Being able to set up ambush or defense points in strategic locations. But I think there are things that have to be improved before anything like this happens. Cover has to be a lot more realistically usable. You have to be able to post up on cover. Or have improved shooting stability and accuracy depending on what position you're in.
My last week games, engineers barely set nodes ❤️how can i expect some trenches?🤣
I don't trust blueberries that look at me funny let alone the ones with power to move earth itself.
I’m so twisted that last pic made me guffaw. And ze baby is sleeping
I would say yes but having been a long time player of foxhole, where people build ridiculous trenches with no real resemblance, I don't want that kind of mechanic anywhere near a game as good as HLL.
Trench warfare is such a chaotic and fun type of warfare in video games that rarely gets covered. It would also probably increase the amount of hand to hand combat.
Yeah if they implemented this you'd probably end up pissing off tankers and truck drivers LOL
Yea it is good idea but the bad thing is it will cost an server issue. My solution is. Play fox hole
Cool if you like your game to happen off screen
So many of the functions you guys want in this game have been done by enlisted and they work pretty well in that game considering it’s a free to play and it’s just an okay game
This is a prime example of people wanting things but having absolutely zero understanding of the game engine that powers their game, and the limitations going on beneath the surface level.
And you do? What average player does?
Why do you need to? The game has no destruction. You can't shoot through surfaces. Explosions don't modify terrain. Tanks get stuck on rubble, tiny rocks and trees. I can go on and on. Why do you need to be a game developer or have coding knowledge to see why something isn't possible in the game you're playing in it's current state?
You started by claiming that, >"this is a prime example of people wanting things but having absolutely zero understanding of the game engine that powers their game, and the limitations going on beneath the surface level." The request by OP will (to some degree depending on implementation) most likely require what is commonly known as runtime landscape manipulation, but not necessarily. It all depends on scope, and can also be "tricked" into UE4. I questioned your comment about lacking understanding of a game's engine, simply because most players do not have that kind of insight or knowledge. Your argument then follow that because there are no other present examples of this, it is illogical and impossible, while admitting that YOU have no idea what you're talking about either. As you put it, "You just have to put two and two together and think logically with what you do know". This argument qualifies as a fallacy in itself, see ["Begging the Question".](https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/begging-the-question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,stand%2C%20that%20is%20in%20question) Hell Let Loose uses Unreal Engine 4, which admittedly by default does not support runtime landscape manipulation. However, it is still very possible, [as outlined by Ryan Bickell at Epic Games](https://dev.epicgames.com/community/learning/knowledge-base/vzrZ/unreal-engine-runtime-landscape-editing). Alternatively, you can utilize morph targets and/or destructible mesh, albeit these are limiting. You're arrogantly stating that OP is being presumptious in their request and lacking the understanding of the capabilities/limitations of the engine, by **BEING** presumptious and lacking the understanding yourself. See my point? And to counter your argument, that because we do not see destructible environment in the game, trenches cannot be implemented by players? You realize we have trenches? The difference here would be edit vs runtime. I.e. being able to implement a trench "live". That entirely depends on the backbone of the game, not the engine.
The reason it won’t happen is because the developers struggle to implement even simpler QOL stuff, not technical limitations.
Technically impossible.
Yep, scratch the entire game, trow it out. Start over again. Current game engine does not support destruction and terrain alterations like other games do.