Types of cover

[Zenben]

Arclegger just posted a question on Twitter about what kind of cover we prefer.

"Which crouch height cover would YOU rather have. Crouch and be able to shoot over (no protection from headshots) OR be covered completely." He does point out that PS2 will have both types.

https://twitter.com/Arclegger/status/207292834020208640
https://twitter.com/Arclegger/status/207292900730605568

Personally, I liked the stacks of 3 crates that you found on the walls in PS1 where if you were standing in the middle, you had partial cover and could fire. If you were crouched in the middle, you had full cover but could not fire. And if you were crouched on the sides, you had partial cover and could fire. What would you guys prefer?

[Stardouser]

It's important that both types exist, and, more importantly, due to the omission of prone, it's very important that you be able to move kind of quickly in crouch - see Bad Company 2 for good crouch speed.

Also, I would say that cover which leaves your head exposed should probably be dominant, but - it's also important that there be meaningful recoil and deviation so that you can't blow heads off with an assault rifle as if it were a sniper rifle.

[SKYeXile]

i like full cover and stand to shoot, but their should defiantly be both.

also i wonder if this will make a difference with the hip slung weapons that are fired from lower down?

[Zenben]

also i wonder if this will make a difference with the hip slung weapons that are fired from lower down?

I was wondering the same thing. Hopefully at least this time it will be balanced. You couldn't fire the MCG while standing behind most cover, but you could always fire the Lasher, and you could fire the JH most of the time.

[Bags]

I liked combined cover, where part of it blocks you, part doesn't, like in PS1. Good options.

[Electrofreak]

Arclegger just posted a question on Twitter about what kind of cover we prefer.

"Which crouch height cover would YOU rather have. Crouch and be able to shoot over (no protection from headshots) OR be covered completely." He does point out that PS2 will have both types.

https://twitter.com/Arclegger/status/207292834020208640
https://twitter.com/Arclegger/status/207292900730605568

Personally, I liked the stacks of 3 crates that you found on the walls in PS1 where if you were standing in the middle, you had partial cover and could fire. If you were crouched in the middle, you had full cover but could not fire. And if you were crouched on the sides, you had partial cover and could fire. What would you guys prefer?

http://www.geocities.ws/electr0freak/SGSec3.htm <- Terrain and cover section from my PS1 sniper guide. :p

Hard to say which is my favorite. I'll probably agree to the stacks of crates where you can move from full coverage to partial coverage without leaving crouch. Doorways and also the edges of walls are also a good bet.

[Graywolves]

Definitely both. Need places that are ideal to shoot from and places to reload/recover.

[ArbitraryDemise]

Both, as both types have their uses.

[Sirisian]

I'd prefer merged cover concepts. Something as simple as cover with holes in it or cover that ****** into the ground on the sides. This allows a person to just move and come out of the cover as much as they want. A box for instance usually requires a person to be either in cover or completely out of cover depending on how they are stacked. The best example of this that I can think of was how the gun positions on the original Planetside 1 bases were designed. They went up and had small stairs which provided cover for players as they moved around protecting them from one side. Complex architecture can really help this since it invariably adds cover when the designs are more abstract. Slanted walls connecting to concrete columns for instance give the same effect as I mentioned previously. Allowing one to move between full cover and partial cover quickly all in the same design.

[Toppopia]

This ^

And The best solution would be to have a cover system, but them it becomes very hard to balance everything and not to mention the coding. So I say we need multiple heights of cover, an added bonus would be to add a leaning system so that walls function better. But that will hopefully be added post release.

[Semisel]

Personally Toppopia, I dislike the idea of a cover system, given my impression of PS2 so far. For one, it's a coding hassle, and it slows down gameplay at the unit level, since one would have to enter/exit cover instead of just pressing a button to immediately crouch. Smart design, which in some cases means something as elemental as making a building structurally and physically sound, should easily create all of the cover necessary without adding an unintuitive and potentially inhibitive system.

[Zenben]

Very much dislike the idea of a cover system. I don't really see how it's superior to free-form cover in any way for a first person game. It drove me CRAZY running around in Mass Effect and it would automatically put me behind cover, or roll to another piece of cover that I didn't want to move to. Just let me move myself and crouch on my own, please.

[SKYeXile]

Cover systems can F themselves in the A, they make for clunky play. seriously don't even consider adding it to PS, im not going to talk about a cover system any more because its a waste of time discussing a terrible mechanic.

[Brusi]

I would be pretty happy to not overcomplicate the mechanics of the game with leaning and active cover systems...

Too many games don't manage to pull it off seamlessly.

I definitely agree that with the doorways having a sort of T-shape to them. Thats great cover for defending/breaching :)

[Nabeshin]

Cover systems can F themselves in the A, they make for clunky play. seriously don't even consider adding it to PS, im not going to talk about a cover system any more because its a waste of time discussing a terrible mechanic.

This^

I am reminded of Gears of War I believe. I will pass on my ass being glued to a wall, and when trying to get out of it I fly all over the place instead of getting away from the cover.

[T MAN]

Since were talking about types of cover, for the Crouch and be able to shoot over (no protection from headshots). I think it would be a good time to bring up "Head clipping/glitching", Battelfield 3 has it as does Call of Duty.

Basically when your aiming over cover with your head barely over top of cover your shooting from your face/or eyes and not your gun, mean while the other guy looking your way cant see your head and if he does see your head it's just the top part of head "eyes".

Very annoying glitch in alot of FPS, if i'm not mistaken in BFBC2 the bullets came out of your gun making this "head clipping/glitching" impossible. There are a few things from that game i wish had transferred over to BF3.

Here's an a example of what im talking about:
The Clinic Ep 4: The Head Glitch - YouTube

[RSphil]

id say both. cover is always handy when defending a base. if you need to reload then cover is handy, also if you are the attacker then cover aids with tactics, like cover and maneuver for example.

battlefield 3 aint to bad for giving cover. but then again all cover can be destroyed which makes it more interesting.

but as with most questions we will ave to see what they put in the game and make up our minds then.

[UKSwiFT]

I really liked the Red Orchestra 2 cover system of CTRL snapping you into a concealed cover, then aiming would pop you out of it to peek over the side. Giving you vision but also exposing your head. I'm not sure it would be worth implementing into PS2 though, but I'm fine with both types of passive crouch cover, either way.

[MacXXcaM]

I really liked the Red Orchestra 2 cover system of CTRL snapping you into a concealed cover, then aiming would pop you out of it to peek over the side. Giving you vision but also exposing your head. I'm not sure it would be worth implementing into PS2 though, but I'm fine with both types of passive crouch cover, either way.

RO1 also had this when you aim you raise your head a little bit which I really liked.
In fact I think RO2's cover system is superior to any other atm.

[Figment]

I would just like to remind him that in PlanetSide 1, certain boxes and base wall edges weren't proper cover for all types of weapons. In some cases, your weapon would be lower than it appeared to be and you'd hit your cover, rather than the target, even if it seemed your weapon would be over it.

I'm not entirely sure which MA guns suffered from that again, but there were several at least.


Similarly, the Striker lock on would work poorly when aimed upwards, since it tried to launch at people's feet if I recall correctly. Which was a problem to the TR (lock on would hit obstacle, inaccurate dumbfire), but not the VS (line of sight) or NC (guided missile or inaccurate dumbfire).

Any "low" hanging guns might need a different type of cover as well.

[Dreamcast]

The best cover system I have used was with medal of honor airborne...You hold a button and you could peek or rise as much as you needed to.

Here's a Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQin4AaPwJw

More Console games and PC games should use this mechanic, it was quite fun.

Of course I doubt they could put this in the game, I think it will be way too hard....but seeing how the game gun movement pace is slow as hell(people stand still when shooting), this cover system will work.

[Redshift]

I'd like to see both tbh. Deciding what cover is best at that specific moment is a skill.

[Sabot]

Both thanks. And no cover system... it's not GW, it's not Splinter Cell. However I wouldn't be against simple leaning in door ways... it's as easy as crouching, but if you don't like it and never use it, just don't bind those keys.

[Dreamcast]

Both thanks. And no cover system... it's not GW, it's not Splinter Cell. However I wouldn't be against simple leaning in door ways... it's as easy as crouching, but if you don't like it and never use it, just don't bind those keys.

Why no cover systems?....In case u havn't noticed the game Gun combat movement is slow....

People stand when shooting in the open...A cover system will be perfect for this game from the footage I have seen so far.

I doubt they will put it in however.

[Toppopia]

Why no cover systems?....In case u havn't noticed the game Gun combat movement is slow....

People stand when shooting in the open...A cover system will be perfect for this game from the footage I have seen so far.

I doubt they will put it in however.

There are times where a cover system if done properly and is actually cool to use, would be really helpful, but for this fast paced game, just leaning will be good enough.

[Dreamcast]

There are times where a cover system if done properly and is actually cool to use, would be really helpful, but for this fast paced game, just leaning will be good enough.

Fast paced?...are you kidding?...Have you seen the footage of the game


have you not seeing people standing shooting at eachother....with no movement at all.


How in the hell is that fast paced?

[UKSwiFT]

Fast paced?...are you kidding?...Have you seen the footage of the game


have you not seeing people standing shooting at eachother....with no movement at all.


How in the hell is that fast paced?

We've seen minimal infantry combat, but even that was in a testing environment where people aren't playing competitively. From what I saw from Higby and TB playing, they were moving pretty quickly while firing. Even jetting and shooting.

[Coreldan]

I definitely do not want any cover system! They are fucking horrible. EDIT: As an avid RO fan, I do agree that RO2 did it OK, but it did also glitch quite often which was really annoying. It had some really cool tactical things to it (needed, cos in RO you usually dont live to eat that second shot), but I don't really think it's worth it in PS2 cos the TTK is so different and while the cover system of RO2 was cool, it also had a lot of problems.

As for the topic itself, both would be nice. Too many head revealing covers and you get a snipers paradise, too many full covers and you get those never ending cartoon shootouts :D

Those headrevealing covers are quite nasty though cos even when you do take cover, you are not safe. It's somehow annoying to be able to get shot without being able to shoot back :D

[Zenben]

I've only seen a cover system (as in you get stuck to the wall) implemented in an over-the-shoulder type shooter. If this is what people are talking about, I don't know how this would be implemented in a first person game. For that kind of system to work, don't you kind of need to see around the corner? We all know we don't want that.

[Coreldan]

I've only seen a cover system (as in you get stuck to the wall) implemented in an over-the-shoulder type shooter. If this is what people are talking about, I don't know how this would be implemented in a first person game. For that kind of system to work, don't you kind of need to see around the corner? We all know we don't want that.

As mentioned above, it works OK in RO2 (the only gave I havnt absolutely hated it) but even there most of the time I opted out to use it and just went with the old school manual crouching/leaning kinda of thing, cos in some places using the cover system wouldve revealed ur head, which was quite problematic when majority of the server has pinpoint accurate bolt lock rifles :D

Which reminds me, I hope they would implement leaning. I can't believe that game like BF3 left it out o.o

[Dreamcast]

We've seen minimal infantry combat, but even that was in a testing environment where people aren't playing competitively. From what I saw from Higby and TB playing, they were moving pretty quickly while firing. Even jetting and shooting.

I saw a bunch of standing around while shooting or minimal movement...Didn't see any fast pace combat at all...Just because you could jet and shoot don't make it fast combat.

Plz show me where this fast paced action took place.


I know they are testing but you can tell it just isn't that fast movement type game....

[Sabrak]

Personally, I liked the stacks of 3 crates that you found on the walls in PS1

This.

So, both options.

[UKSwiFT]

As mentioned above, it works OK in RO2 (the only gave I havnt absolutely hated it) but even there most of the time I opted out to use it and just went with the old school manual crouching/leaning kinda of thing, cos in some places using the cover system wouldve revealed ur head, which was quite problematic when majority of the server has pinpoint accurate bolt lock rifles :D

Which reminds me, I hope they would implement leaning. I can't believe that game like BF3 left it out o.o

Yeah, I always felt a lot safer manually crouching as opposed to using the cover. Especially on Fallen Fighters, where a sliver of the top of your helmet was enough from 6 million miles away. :lol:

I would also absolutely LOVE leaning. Slight tilt to the left and right with Q and E. I really got used to using this when I played ArmaII and now I have a hard time clearing corners without it.

[Toppopia]

Fast paced?...are you kidding?...Have you seen the footage of the game


have you not seeing people standing shooting at eachother....with no movement at all.


How in the hell is that fast paced?

And comparing to other games with a proper cover system, this is quite fast, like Rainbow Six Vegas (1 and 2), and others which i can't think of at the moment, even compared to BF3 this is faster, maybe not as fast as COD, but still fast.

[UKSwiFT]

I saw a bunch of standing around while shooting or minimal movement...Didn't see any fast pace combat at all...Just because you could jet and shoot don't make it fast combat.

Plz show me where this fast paced action took place.


I know they are testing but you can tell it just isn't that fast movement type game....

You can't really tell, no, because there isn't anywhere near the amount of players represented in the extremely little we've seen to judge that. The only examples of what you say, that I've seen, is a few players that have chosen to stand still whilst firing, which is reflective of their skill and not the games pace. The fact that you can move and fire, even jet and fire says the game speed allows for high pace.

Seriously, If I see a granny rolling down the street at 10mph in an F1 McLaren. It doesn't mean the car is as slow as fuck, does it?

[Figment]

Another type of cover we've not really discussed here is obscuring vision, like foilage.

What types of cover should we expect?

[MacXXcaM]

I absolutely love RO2's cover system and I'm wondering why there aren't more shooter games that use it... I think RO2 has a too low TTK but the cover system works out great imo.

But I can live without it in a game like PS2 since it doesn't seem to aim for too much a realistic shooter experience...

[SKYeXile]

Another type of cover we've not really discussed here is obscuring vision, like foilage.

What types of cover should we expect?

Game needs invisible tanks, rage is insured.

[Figment]

Game needs invisible tanks, rage is insured.

NOD stealth tanks! :D


Invisible TDs? Yum. ;3

Nah, a stealth camo system like in WoT is not really that nice as it doesn't allow you to use your eyes to detect an enemy at all. Just obscuring vision, rather than not rendering would be decent IMO. Hiding is after all an important element of ambushes.

[SKYeXile]

yea nah, a system like that in PS2 would be sooooo wrong lol.

[Figment]

As an infil, I think of WoT TDs like what an infil with sniper rifle will be in PS2 though. Once hit, you might get a visual, but that's often going to be too little too late. At range the distortion won't be obvious and if you position well you should blurr in with the background anyway even when visible.

Got between 55 and 70% winrates on most of those light armoured invisible high damage dealing snipy ambush tanks for good reason.

[SKYeXile]

As an infil, I think of WoT TDs like what an infil with sniper rifle will be in PS2 though. Once hit, you might get a visual, but that's often going to be too little too late. At range the distortion won't be obvious and if you position well you should blurr in with the background anyway even when visible.

Got between 55 and 70% winrates on most of those light armoured invisible high damage dealing snipy ambush tanks for good reason.

Yes well, the avg winrate for a TD is far highter than a normal tank, also the sniper in global agenda is by far the best kill whoring class...there could just be a connection between been invisible and been overpowered.

[Alderego]

Hmm, my 2 cents on this whole thing:

manually going into cover (aka you hold your crouch key to hide behind something): yes
Pushing a button and then being glued to something untill you push said button again doesn't feel right to me in a game with this pace. (Yeah yeah, I read your comments on how this game is slow paced in the other thread as well, based on the vids that are out there. But I could make a similar video about BF3 or CoD where you would draw the same conclusion, yet neither game is slow paced)

As for the height of the stuff we can hide behind: both would be nice. certainly if it would be coupled with materials: a wooden box just isn't going to stop a bullet/slow it down as nicely as a metal one for example.
I'm not calling for big destructible things like in battlefield though, that would make things too complicated for a persistent world. Just some materials to make it a tad bit more interesting might be nice. (after all: a small tree stopping a tank-shell while you pop out to shoot rockets at it all the time isn't right, is it? :p)

[Whiskey Jack]

My only gripe with partial cover is when you run into the old PS1 hill sniper situation. For anyone who doesn't remember, this was when snipers would set up just peeking over a hill so they could fire, but didn't have their character model exposed enough to be hit.

It just can get a little wonky when only the top of someone's head is exposed but they have a clear line of fire. But that is more of a technical issue then an issue with cover.

[Figment]

Yes well, the avg winrate for a TD is far highter than a normal tank, also the sniper in global agenda is by far the best kill whoring class...there could just be a connection between been invisible and been overpowered.

But how could we possibly know that in advance, he asked, mildly ironic, largely sarcastic. ;)

Agreed, I'd feel overpowered with a full shotgun or competitive smg in mêlee, let alone long range high damage high accuracy units.

Would rather see a sniper suit, if we go the class way anyway.

[MrBloodworth]

Why are some of you responding like hes referring to the lock-on cover systems?

I do not think he is.

"Which crouch height cover would YOU rather have. Crouch and be able to shoot over (no protection from headshots) OR be covered completely."

[arclegger]

Thanks for all the great feedback, this community rocks!

[Pozidriv]

Thanks for all the great feedback, this community rocks!

Yay us! Also to stay on the subject, i really like variable cover. As in containers / bawkses stacked in differing heights. Really helps in defending but also in attacking, you can trick your opponent by moving around and peeking from different angles.

Can't really do that with this

http://www.berg-sauso.com/kuvat2/images/22.jpg

[Bags]

Now about our payment...

[KTNApollo]

Yay us! Also to stay on the subject, i really like variable cover. As in containers / bawkses stacked in differing heights. Really helps in defending but also in attacking, you can trick your opponent by moving around and peeking from different angles.

Can't really do that with this

http://www.berg-sauso.com/kuvat2/images/22.jpg

But chest high walls are da best!

[The Janitor]

As in containers / bawkses stacked in differing heights.

MEHTAL BAWKSES are for COWARDS and FEWLZ! We.... we should take away... the mehtal bawkses....
(Google Soulstorm - Firaeveus Carron and the Metal Boxes :evil:)


But no, really, is constructable/destructible terrain ever going to wiggle it's way into the game(even if it is in the form of stacking mehtal bawkses)? I know that's tough on the game itself, what with the hundreds of players and whatnot. Then again, it might turn the whole thing into Minecraft: Planetside. Which actually sounds kinda awesome, truth be told, but I'm getting off track here...

[IMMentat]

In terms of combat/movement pace, I like it so far. Planetside is a warzone not a quake 3 arena map so a less frantic run-speed is preferable.
Sprinting should be fast, low, prevent jumping and short lived (cover to cover not marathon running).

I want all types of cover.

I want WW2 style entrenchments and bunkers protecting some small rural outposts and base killzones (complete with firing steps/ramps to allow some folks to take cover while others shoot).
I want towers with parapets, arrow/gun slots and murder holes (to drop grenades through) topping important avenues of approach.
I want courtyards with debris, boxes and barricades placed to help and hinder combatants.
I want gangways and bridges to shoot from and defend while meters above the battlefield.
I want walls and tunnels with embedded firing slots to allow overlapping fields of fire.
I want buildings with windows and multiple entrances to encourage co-ordinated teamplay.

I want a playworld where most of the effective defensive structures of the ages can be seen and used for their original purpose (To make being killed while holding a patch of land a lot harder to acomplish).

And I want the planes, explosives, jetpacks and deployables (cover, smokescreens, close range mortars?) to make assulting these fortreses thrilling.

What I don't want is a cover system, the terrain should be good enough to protect without the ability or need to shoot around corners.

[IMMentat]

Some scripted terrain/structure damage would also be an interesting addition for later (e.g. Blow a hole in a "weakened" building wall to provide an extra entrance, similar to the recent Batman games)

[Figment]

Thanks for all the great feedback, this community rocks!

Here's some more feedback about cover and level design in general! :P

For starters though, I really love what has been done with the protection for infantry and vehicles regarding walls and bridges. That should make those much more fun to advance along without having to deal with threats from all angles continuously, without being able to dodge some of it.
The only thing about the walls I'm not sure of is the stair well and launch pad design (and tbh, I'd make sure the walls are fully connected, even if there's launchpads, just to provide alternatives and make things less predictable, every alternative makes it less predictable: nobody likes landing on a boomer without any choice than walk aaaaaaall the way around by ground! ;)).

Regarding bases, what can we look forward to in terms of exit cover? Will we be able to adapt the base design by adding destructable improvements to the base designs, such as cover over doors, tank trap obstructions, etc? I also hope you take a close look to how cave combat flow is currently in PS1, because exit cover for spawnpoints where you are forced to go outside in order to reach important capture points usualy end up in top down camping. Especially if people get jetpacks. Meaning corridors and internal base connections are also a form of cover. Underground corridors and halls (with wider corridors than in PS1) leading and exiting to different parts of a base would create excellent infantry cover and also lead to more diverse potential combat routes for attackers and defenders.


Another thing about base-outpost cover, do you have infantry protective cover in terms of anti-air bombing protection at vehicle creation pads? One issue we had was in PS1 that pads would get crowded with people waiting in line and these would get OSed, Flailed, "Liberated" and of course Galaxies and Lodestars flown into the crowd for nice festive fireworks.



Could you also tell us something about use of vegetation as camouflage or cover? We've seen a lot of rocky desert/canyon terrain so far, but at least one of the conceptarts showed thick jungle. Can we expect forests to be thick enough that from above you really can't do much against ground units (if even see them)? We've also seen trees, could we possibly climb them? Will foilage be large enough to hide tanks in for ambushes?


Do you have - aside from rocks, cactii, trees and perhaps the occasional house or shed remnants - any cover for infantry in the field against aircraft? Will there be deployables for instance that create anti-missile roofs/bombs/bunkers/shelters?

What about deployable field cover for vehicles? Meaning things like (sandbag/concrete)walls to retreat behind and repair. Also things like sandbagging a vehicle into a turret position would be awesome, especially if said vehicle was a Tank Destroyer or a (mobile) gun emplacement deployed by an engineer (or say for upgrading a howitzer left behind by a buggy *wink wink nudge nudge*).

Could these be upgraded with shields and static weapons like the deployable guns we've seen before?

:3

[SurgeonX]

Another aspect of cover could be to consider allowing vehicle wrecks or debris to be used.

If destroyed vehicles persisted forever, but had a fraction of the original vehicles hit points, then that could be considered to be destroyable cover.

If permanence was a problem then the wrecks could be on a timer, albeit a longer one than in PS, but still allow them to be destroyed and removed from the battlefield.

[Toppopia]

Imagine being to dig foxholes or make trenches? But then it would be prone to abuse, so maybe make it only around a certain distance from the base/tower etc, to add an extra layer of defence.

[Redshift]

I'd like to see different thicknesses of cover too, maybe boxes that stop AR fire but sniper bullets pass through at reduced dmg

[Toppopia]

I'd like to see different thicknesses of cover too, maybe boxes that stop AR fire but sniper bullets pass through at reduced dmg

Didn't BF3 say that you could shoot through cover at one point? And we all see how that turned out, couldn't hit anyone through anything, even if i was using a fletchete grenade launcher, i couldn't hit people hiding behind a thin cardboard wall, even COD had better bullet piercing mechanics then BF3.

[Bags]

I killed someone through an opened door in metro with an m16.