Leaning in Planetside.

[Blackwolf]

After Basti's decidedly hasty closure of the previous thread (the discussion was mostly about lean, something that hasn't been spoken of much in the game) I decided to make my own post and poll.

I'm less leery about lean then prone. If they added lean though, the game play would turn more Mass Effect, which could be potentially awesome, and at the same time a complete disaster.

I'll agree that lean has merits and encourages the use of cover > run and gun and could improve the game.

But I suspect that implementing a cover system at this stage of the game would be difficult. Also considering you can use cover without a lean feature, and use quicker movement to avoid full exposure for long periods of time to "glance" around corners, an entire system for this just isn't needed.

As it stands, the game is too complicated. Wouldn't mind seeing it in beta if this was an easy system to put in, but it just isn't worth the work without solid data, hence this poll. Something like this would be better off being tried and tested in the alpha stages tbh.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing lean in this game. Mass Effect had lean and was built around a very good cover mechanic, and it did not have prone. Judging by my enjoyment of that game I'd say lean would be cool, but again not absolutely vital.

Aim & Shoot: Allow players the ability to lean, aim, and shoot while minimizing (by 50% or so) the amount of visible body.

Just Look: A quick peek, either forced timer (2 seconds) or as long as the button is held.

Absalutely no leaning: Self explanatory.

Cover Mechanic: A system that can be as simple as crouch near an object would automatically put you into a position for leaning. You keep your head below cover and hope no one has a good angle on you. While "in cover" A and D would lean left or right, if crouched behind a low wall or whatever, W would raise your head and shoulders above. Un-crouch to exit cover.

No Cover Mechanic: Free movement without locking into a set position. Would require additional buttons for leaning left or right, and higher sources of cover so people could stand to shoot. This might affect game play too much to effectively add an actual lean feature.

Multiple choice for a better idea what people are talking about, because no one ever mentions what they have in mind.

No repeating arguments please. If you say camping, explain what you mean and/or give an example because that is just a very very weak argument.

[captainkapautz]

I'm for lean, but only if prone is added as well.

[Bags]

While we're at it let's add a sliding system, and a multi jump system, and a ceiling climbing system too.

[thegreekboy]

No leaning because it would make the character models look silly since it hasn't been built in from the start, plus it is not necessary.

Though if it is put in will I cry about it? No.

[PlaceboCyanide]

yes to leaning
yes to firing while leaning
no to cover mechanics, they are rarely done well and feel restrictive

[Blackwolf]

While we're at it let's add a sliding system, and a multi jump system, and a ceiling climbing system too.

Yanno Bags, I can understand why you are so negative about it. I really can. But if you don't have a useful point to make beyond the "camper" argument, please just vote and don't post.

Not looking for a huge hate fest.

[SpcFarlen]

While we're at it let's add a sliding system, and a multi jump system, and a ceiling climbing system too.

Oh you :lol:

I dont really know how well a cover or lean system would really do. Id prefer to be if able to be shot at i can return fire just as effectively back. Though like a quick peak only kind of lean i wouldnt be apposed to.

I didnt really care for the ability to look around corners in third person in PS, or really any game. It did give that slight edge to one person over another. Also lead to some interting stalemates with people crouching in stairways :doh:

[Zenben]

Eh, as far as leaning I could take it or leave it. I've played games with it and rarely find myself using it, and I might in PS2 if it's implemented, and if others want to that's fine. As for cover mechanics, a huge hell to the no. God I loathe cover systems with a passion. Let me decide where I'll stand on the wall, thanks.

[Phellix]

Yanno Bags, I can understand why you are so negative about it. I really can. But if you don't have a useful point to make beyond the "camper" argument, please just vote and don't post.

Not looking for a huge hate fest.

You're asking for it really, how long will this thread last i wonder.

[Blackwolf]

You're asking for it really, how long will this thread last i wonder.

Dunno. I just thought it was unfair of Basti to not give the lean discussion a chance. Not many mentions of prone and some of the arguments actually made me regret my snap "no to tactics" choice.

[Stew]

I would prefer to have prone instead of leaning and anyway the funny thing is people complain about prone will make some people camp more lol but lean could do the same as well people will camp corner lean and shot

but anyway

if they have to invest any time in caracter mechanics i want prone over lean !

[Whiteknight]

I am highly in favor of the No Cover option for where you stand. Thanks, but I hated the mechanics for it in RE:ORC. Just horrible...
As for being able to lean and fire around a corner.... I think that it is just a bad idea. But, that's just my opinion. I can't really give a concrete solid reason behind it, other than it just feels wrong to me for PS2.
Being able to lean around a corner to look, I kinda like. So that way it would just be an observation tool, and could potentially get your head blown off. It would also let you peek, while exposing less of yourself to counter-fire. But I am still against aiming & firing while leaning.

[Otleaz]

Meh, the arguments against prone were weak enough... Now we have this baseless hatred of leaning.

[QuantumMechanic]

I want to be able to go prone as light assault and then fire up my jump boosters!
(helmet visor down, of course)

[Blackwolf]

I would prefer to have prone instead of leaning and anyway the funny thing is people complain about prone will make some people camp more lol but lean could do the same as well people will camp corner lean and shot

but anyway

if they have to invest any time in caracter mechanics i want prone over lean !

See I'm against prone because it requires nothing. Lean requires some type of cover, and limits who can use it. Two people at a corner, one would have to step around the leaner and crouch and shoot, making themselves a better target.

Prone is also far more restrictive movement wise, and I suspect it would cause more problems then benefits. It also just wouldn't be used as much by players in a PS environment.

Cover would cause problems, no argument here. Like I said it might be disastrous for the game. All I know is that in Mass Effect, the entire system was awesome and felt very real to me. Gave me a sense that I should preserve myself and use my surroundings as much as possible.

[Aesir]

How about a different approach, since we don't have 3rd person anymore, why not add it in form of a stance, were you can't shoot but move, and you are locked in it for 0,5-1,5 sec before you can switch back to ego perspective.

It would allow you to look around a corner, it would make leaning somewhat obsolete, provide the info of what is around you, maybe add a "looking-around"-animation that every one sees you are in third person.

And it would make you vulnerable for a short period of time, so it has pro's and drawbacks to balance it out.

About the prone, I don't want prone directly in the game, maybe for snipers and stationary weapon modes on some heavier stuff. Ever tried lay down in armor? I know how it is to run around in 35kg's of metal armor, you don't want to get prone in that.

[Blackwolf]

How about a different approach, since we don't have 3rd person anymore, why not add it in form of a stance, were you can't shoot but move, and you are locked in it for 0,5-1,5 sec before you can switch back to ego perspective.

It would allow you to look around a corner, it would make leaning somewhat obsolete, provide the info of what is around you, maybe add a "looking-around"-animation that every one sees you are in third person.

And it would make you vulnerable for a short period of time, so it has pro's and drawbacks to balance it out.

About the prone, I don't want prone directly in the game, maybe for snipers and stationary weapon modes on some heavier stuff. Ever tried lay down in armor? I know how it is to run around in 35kg's of metal armor, you don't want to get prone in that.

I had an idea of using 3rd person as a very close up image of your face and a bit around either side of you. If used right it could be a good way to quickly glance over your shoulder and possibly around a corner. The downside to this (and why I didn't add it to this poll) is that the avatar itself wouldn't move and therefore couldn't be detected or shot.

I still firmly stand against any sort of 3rd person mode, locked or not. There is just no point for it while lean has serious consequences to it and can be detected and countered.

[MrKWalmsley]

While we're at it let's add ... a multi jump system, and a ceiling climbing system too.

Those are not realistic or simple functions of the human body, and things that are used by soldiers, leaning around corners so you are not fully exposed is a realistic function. That's the difference. So adding leaning does not lead to ceiling climbing. Slippery slope fallacy anyone?

[Reborn]

leaning usually allows ur gun to glitch through walls and slows down gameplay..so Im against it Id rather have a more fast paced game

[Crator]

PSU has a no lean no prone policy... So, just going to stay quite about this....

[Blackwolf]

leaning usually allows ur gun to glitch through walls and slows down gameplay..so Im against it Id rather have a more fast paced game

That would be one of my biggest fears about implementing it. Using a cover system that the game itself isn't built around is tricky, and adding it later would complicate things even more.

I already know the odds of seeing it put into PS2 are microscopic. I just honestly think it would have been a huge improvement to PS1's game play.

[Landtank]

I vote yes to leaning, I gave a lot of good reasons in the other thread.

It's something that I would really like to see, but I won't cry if it isn't in the game.

I don't like the idea of having to throw my whole body in front of a firefight to take a few shots. I didn't like it in Planetside, and I would rather not have to in PS2.

[ArbitraryDemise]

I vote yes to leaning, after the first F.E.A.R. I always found myself disappointed that more games did not implement a lean function.

[Aesir]

I had an idea of using 3rd person as a very close up image of your face and a bit around either side of you. If used right it could be a good way to quickly glance over your shoulder and possibly around a corner. The downside to this (and why I didn't add it to this poll) is that the avatar itself wouldn't move and therefore couldn't be detected or shot.

I still firmly stand against any sort of 3rd person mode, locked or not. There is just no point for it while lean has serious consequences to it and can be detected and countered.

I see your point why you are against 3rd person, but leaning/prone, those are major bonis for a defending force, it offers less bonis for a force that actually want's to capture a point.

The defender mainly camp's it out near cover, give him leaning or prone and he can dig in better, while the 3rd person stance concept also gives bonis for an attacker, to peek out defenses, it was a common tactic in PS1 to use 3rd person in hallways and stairs.

I understand the reasons behind it not being in PS2, since it only has advantages in the form it was in PS1, so why not add drawbacks to it's use.

It's just an idea, I will not start playing PS2 just because they add any of that stuff, it's just my personal opinion.

[Poser]

Dunno. I just thought it was unfair of Basti to not give the lean discussion a chance. Not many mentions of prone and some of the arguments actually made me regret my snap "no to tactics" choice.

Ironically, I don't even think he even read the thread. But tread carefully my friend, it would be unwise to get banned before the beta even starts.

[JimmyOmaha]

I could play it either way. If a lean was added I would use it a lot; especially since we're locked into first-person in infantry. Could also add some fun to indoor fights and entrances.

A resounding 'No' to a cover mechanic though. They always feel strange in FPS and never seem to add anything other than a few seconds to enter/exit cover, so often I don't use it anyways.

[Blackwolf]

I see your point why you are against 3rd person, but leaning/prone, those are major bonis for a defending force, it offers less bonis for a force that actually want's to capture a point.

The defender mainly camp's it out near cover, give him leaning or prone and he can dig in better, while the 3rd person stance concept also gives bonis for an attacker, to peek out defenses, it was a common tactic in PS1 to use 3rd person in hallways and stairs.

I understand the reasons behind it not being in PS2, since it only has advantages in the form it was in PS1, so why not add drawbacks to it's use.

It's just an idea, I will not start playing PS2 just because they add any of that stuff, it's just my personal opinion.

The difference between a 3rd person option and lean is that lean can be seen and shot. 3rd person can't. Any 3rd person implementation is exploitable for ambush and easy kills. It also is not effectively counter-able. And by counter-able I mean spotted and attacked. It also made boomering people impossible since they could just magically see around the doorway without risking death.

Lean on the other hand requires that you be visible when you look or glance or whatever. You can be seen and shot, and if you aren't shot before you duck back, grenades are inevitable. You don't hold a serious advantage of full information without the disadvantage of giving away your position. And the amount of information you receive is entirely based on what you could actually see in first person.

Prone has completely different uses then lean does. And does not fit in PS2. Lean has the potential to fit and no it doesn't give the defenders any more of an advantage then the attackers because attackers can use cover and lean too.

Ironically, I don't even think he even read the thread. But tread carefully my friend, it would be unwise to get banned before the beta even starts.

I agree I don't think he read it either. I also don't think the poll options were easily understood, caught a lot of people misinterpreting them.

And it wouldn't matter to me if I was banned from PSU honestly. I'm a vet an apparently that means I'll be in beta whether or not an unaffiliated fansite likes me.

I also want to point out that a cover mechanic does add hindrances, but it reduces the number of key bindings needed for standard infantry combat (or it could), and gives advantages to people assaulting the cover point. Grenades and, hell, jet packs can easily get you over or around said cover and the person covering would have to exit cover in order to evade those counters. So the merits and flaws, IMO, weigh well against each other.

[Poser]

How about a different approach, since we don't have 3rd person anymore, why not add it in form of a stance, were you can't shoot but move, and you are locked in it for 0,5-1,5 sec before you can switch back to ego perspective.

It would allow you to look around a corner, it would make leaning somewhat obsolete, provide the info of what is around you, maybe add a "looking-around"-animation that every one sees you are in third person.

And it would make you vulnerable for a short period of time, so it has pro's and drawbacks to balance it out.

About the prone, I don't want prone directly in the game, maybe for snipers and stationary weapon modes on some heavier stuff. Ever tried lay down in armor? I know how it is to run around in 35kg's of metal armor, you don't want to get prone in that.

This.

[Synapse]

Imo, leaning could be quite good, and its silly to me that in a game where we have detailed bullet and flight physics we still can't bend at the hip.

[Sirisian]

I don't feel like lean needs a cover mechanic to be good. Simply allowing players to place themselves is fine with q and e or some other binding for leaning. (5 button mice work well).

I'm a huge fan of tactical play which is why I prefer giving players as many possible choices when dealing with a situation. If someone wants to lean out from a box rather than fully revealing themselves or standing up that should be their choice. I digress since I've already described my opinion in the prone thread when discussing balanced designed. (See signature).

Also if you bring up arguments against prone at least go read the prone thread that was locked and realize you were wrong before rehashing things.

[Goldeh]

I want to be able to go prone as light assault and then fire up my jump boosters!
(helmet visor down, of course)

Then fly superman style imiright?

[Blackwolf]

Imo, leaning could be quite good, and its silly to me that in a game where we have detailed bullet and flight physics we still can't bend at the hip.

Far enough to aim a gun around a corner? I don't think the human body could do that very well either. :)

So far the polls are showing me that a lean mechanic isn't needed btw. I don't want people thinking I'm just manipulating the results.

Most people favor being able to aim and shoot, and don't favor a cover mechanic. Depending on how the actual game plays and how much you expose when you scoot out far enough to shoot people, a lean mechanic just isn't needed. If it works like PS1, I would say we don't need it at all. Especially after seeing that base cap video.

[Aesir]

The difference between a 3rd person option and lean is that lean can be seen and shot. 3rd person can't. Any 3rd person implementation is exploitable for ambush and easy kills. It also is not effectively counter-able. And by counter-able I mean spotted and attacked. It also made boomering people impossible since they could just magically see around the doorway without risking death.

Lean on the other hand requires that you be visible when you look or glance or whatever. You can be seen and shot, and if you aren't shot before you duck back, grenades are inevitable. You don't hold a serious advantage of full information without the disadvantage of giving away your position.

Prone has completely different uses then lean does. And does not fit in PS2. Lean has the potential to fit and no it doesn't give the defenders any more of an advantage then the attackers because attackers can use cover to

The guy leaning around the corner shows himself, and is like you said countered by that, but can quickly hide again from the danger.

The pace at which you run around in those bases, atleast from the E3 footage, shows that you easy run into a capture point within 1-3 sec from a vehicle, someone that peeks around the corner in 3rd person, watching for incoming troops on his own, will have a quick death if he is locked down and a Gal drop happens right above his point or someone just rushes in.

The gameplay is way faster paced than PS1, if you are locked for 1-1,5's, you can easily die.

[indirect]

Leaning would be nice with the removal of 3rd person

[Sirisian]

Most people favor being able to aim and shoot, and don't favor a cover mechanic. Depending on how the actual game plays and how much you expose when you scoot out far enough to shoot people, a lean mechanic just isn't needed. If it works like PS1, I would say we don't need it at all. Especially after seeing that base cap video.
I think you're reading that wrong. People seem interested in lean, but don't believe a cover mechanic where you are locked to a wall while performing it is necessary. It doesn't add anything to the game and feels out of place with a lot of players for me personally. If I'm running in the game and stop behind a wall and want to lean a little bit to shoot around the wall I can position myself without snapping into place. Or if I choose to crouch I don't want to snap into place.

[Blackwolf]

I think you're reading that wrong. People seem interested in lean, but don't believe a cover mechanic where you are locked to a wall while performing it is necessary. It doesn't add anything to the game and feels out of place with a lot of players for me personally. If I'm running in the game and stop behind a wall and want to lean a little bit to shoot around the wall I can position myself without snapping into place. Or if I choose to crouch I don't want to snap into place.

I'm not trying to read whether or not people want it. I'm just trying to read whether or not it's needed.

If people wanted a system to be able to look around the corner without shooting, quick glance or not, or wanted a cover mechanic (and I guess there are a lot more bad ones out there then good ones. Mass Effect's was awesome but I think 2 and 3 were built around it while 1 was something of a major consideration, but not entirely designed around it, putting that into PS2 would probably be a major overhaul of the entire infantry system, and likely would not be worth it), then I would say yeah a system could be useful and might be needed to reflect that desire.

However voters favor being able to shoot, and a cover mechanic is not exactly in high favor (after Swtor, I can't blame them. That was crap!). You can edge around a corner and shoot people just fine without a lean function.

I'll admit that adding 2 more buttons and a cheap system could improve the game a lot. But I doubt I'd utilize such a system myself. In fact I see it being a little bit more of a detriment to the kind of combat the DEVs seem to be driving for.

That being more maneuvering and less organized shoot outs.

And, for the record, I voted Aim & Shoot, Peek, and Cover Mechanic. I'd prefer a system that is a little bit more complex then a 45 degree tilt that most people couldn't pull off standing or crouching with heavy gear/armor and a weapon.

See right now it's 57 no lean, no mechanic. 45 shoot, peek, and mechanic. See where I'm coming from? I think it's a little bit more honest then a flat out yes or no. Granted it's way to early to tell at this point.

[Synapse]

Far enough to aim a gun around a corner? I don't think the human body could do that very well either. :)

So far the polls are showing me that a lean mechanic isn't needed btw. I don't want people thinking I'm just manipulating the results.

Most people favor being able to aim and shoot, and don't favor a cover mechanic. Depending on how the actual game plays and how much you expose when you scoot out far enough to shoot people, a lean mechanic just isn't needed. If it works like PS1, I would say we don't need it at all. Especially after seeing that base cap video.

...so basically you're trying to tell me this guy isn't doing what he's doing? Because the human body definitely can't lean....right...right?
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/613708/613708,1279105186,40/stock-photo-israeli-infantry-soldiers-looking-around-the-corner-in-an-urban-drill-in-the-army-this-is-part-of-57491983.jpg

[Aesir]

One thing I also want to add, I'm not directly against leaning, I'm in favor of more options, while also adding my personal thought on the subject.

What I don't want to see is leaning with the ability to aim/shot, as a "look around the corner"-tool is not a so far off idea.

Why not combine leaning with 3rd person and a 0,2-0,5 sec lockdown, I can't remember the title of the fps game I saw that in, you could go to a corner, hit an action key, the camera zoomed out of your ego perspective, which took somewhat 0,2 sec, your character peeked around the corner or over a box, but hitting any of the movement key's almost instantly took you back into ego perspective. If there was no surface close enough to peek around, the camera didn't go into 3rd person.

[Baneblade]

Do you know what lean looks like in an online game? It looks like bunny hopping, except better business for chiropractors.

[Sirisian]

If people wanted a system to be able to look around the corner without shooting, quick glance or not, or wanted a cover mechanic [...] then I would say yeah a system could be useful and might be needed to reflect that desire.
It seems odd. Your ideal system seems to be non-combat oriented. A system where players snap to corners and use it only to look around a corner. That sounds like a wasted implementation when it could be so much more.


However voters favor being able to shoot, and a cover mechanic is not exactly in high favor [...]. You can edge around a corner and shoot people just fine without a lean function.
Indeed, but you open yourself up when moving out of cover. It's the whole idea why some of us wanted prone and why many of us love crouch. You give players these small tactical choices they can make outside or inside for combat that make all the difference for squads in different situations.

If I'm outside behind a rock and some guy is shooting from a doorway I have many decisions at that point. Stand and shoot, crouch and reveal myself, lean, or if prone is implemented go prone and shuffle out to put a high accuracy shot in their direction. That's the whole idea behind a lot of choices. Not everyone will use them, but some people will find uses if their implementation is correct. (Implementations for all of these were proposed in previous threads).

I'll admit that adding 2 more buttons and a cheap system could improve the game a lot. But I doubt I'd utilize such a system myself. In fact I see it being a little bit more of a detriment to the kind of combat the DEVs seem to be driving for.
What if you had to be standing still to use it? For instance, if you stop moving and press q or e your player will lean with their gun. Granted it might look silly if you aren't behind cover, but it would cause a slight delay in their movement. That is they'd be forced to release the lean before they can move again (maybe with a 200 ms delay).

This allows an almost cover-like implementation for more players who stand or crouch behind cover already to then put as little of their body in harms way as possible. (For instance, aiming out of a doorway at enemies). That and if a player wants they can then use ADS to aim while in that position essentially doing a quick look if they don't use ADS to bring up their gun so they aren't shooting the wall.


See right now it's 57 no lean, no mechanic. 45 shoot, peek, and mechanic. See where I'm coming from? I think it's a little bit more honest then a flat out yes or no. Granted it's way to early to tell at this point.
You realize you can't read the poll like that right? It's 19 against lean. You can't just add duplicate values up.

[Poser]

One thing I also want to add, I'm not directly against leaning, I'm in favor of more options, while also adding my personal thought on the subject.

What I don't want to see is leaning with the ability to aim/shot, as a "look around the corner"-tool is not a so far off idea.

Why not combine leaning with 3rd person and a 0,2-0,5 sec lockdown, I can't remember the title of the fps game I saw that in, you could go to a corner, hit an action key, the camera zoomed out of your ego perspective, which took somewhat 0,2 sec, your character peeked around the corner or over a box, but hitting any of the movement key's almost instantly took you back into ego perspective. If there was no surface close enough to peek around, the camera didn't go into 3rd person.

If they add a 3rd person view, I won't play this game. Being able to pan out is downright game breaking in a shooter. :rolleyes:

[Blackwolf]

Do you know what lean looks like in an online game? It looks like bunny hopping, except better business for chiropractors.

I had to laugh. See this is a huge reason why I'm against just adding Q and E as lean buttons. It just looks redonkules. Spelling intentional.

[Papscal]

Leaning is just an animation. May as well add a purchasable cert named steady shot. Its all the same stuff distance, accuracy, DPS.

[Sirisian]

I had to laugh. See this is a huge reason why I'm against just adding Q and E as lean buttons. It just looks redonkules. Spelling intentional.
As I mentioned a proper implementation doesn't allow misuse really. Simple constraints like you can't be moving to initiate a lean operation and having proper delays in places make the animations look natural even when not used behind cover. The only times it looks odd is when the implementation allows one to run while press q and e or other pointless things.

This is why I've stressed on numerous occasions that when thinking about these topics you need to think about all the possible implementations and what the developers would be doing to make the system work.

[Blackwolf]

It seems odd. Your ideal system seems to be non-combat oriented. A system where players snap to corners and use it only to look around a corner. That sounds like a wasted implementation when it could be so much more.


My ideal system would offer both. And allow you to duck behind cover that has already been built into the game to be used from a crouching position. A Mechanic that lets you crouch behind the cover and puts you in such a position where your head is down and you are fully concealed. From there you can lift up and shoot as normal from a crouch, or pop up real quick and glance around before ducking back down.

If you hit the button at a corner, you automatically take a stance facing towards the corner. Pop out with A/D and you can aim your weapon and shoot, or just snap back into position. You would be almost completely visible but the mechanic gives you faster movement in and out so if you need to duck back, you do so almost instantly.

You don't have a grasp on what I'd like to see in the game, that much is obvious. Please stop making arguments based on such assumptions. Tell me what you yourself would want to see, don't attempt to make a compromise, that's the whole point of the poll.


Indeed, but you open yourself up when moving out of cover. It's the whole idea why some of us wanted prone and why many of us love crouch. You give players these small tactical choices they can make outside or inside for combat that make all the difference for squads in different situations.

If I'm outside behind a rock and some guy is shooting from a doorway I have many decisions at that point. Stand and shoot, crouch and reveal myself, lean, or if prone is implemented go prone and shuffle out to put a high accuracy shot in their direction. That's the whole idea behind a lot of choices. Not everyone will use them, but some people will find uses if their implementation is correct. (Implementations for all of these were proposed in previous threads).


If I was the guy at the door, and knew you were there. I wouldn't be shooting the rock. I would be circling wide around it or tossing a grenade or assaulting your position since you are at a serious disadvantage at this point. It does not matter how you attempt to come at me, you have to move to do it and the moment you move you will be shot. PS1 didn't give you time to make these kinds of choices and actions. The other player is going to go offensive or fall back and lure you into a trap, he's not going to sit and wait for you to position yourself while he blindly shoots the rock. Kinda makes prone and lean a bit redundant.

What if you had to be standing still to use it? For instance, if you stop moving and press q or e your player will lean with their gun. Granted it might look silly if you aren't behind cover, but it would cause a slight delay in their movement. That is they'd be forced to release the lean before they can move again (maybe with a 200 ms delay).

This allows an almost cover-like implementation for more players who stand or crouch behind cover already to then put as little of their body in harms way as possible. (For instance, aiming out of a doorway at enemies). That and if a player wants they can then use ADS to aim while in that position essentially doing a quick look if they don't use ADS to bring up their gun so they aren't shooting the wall.


Again you are attempting to compromise with me. This is why I honestly don't like discussions with you Siri. I don't decide whether or not this gets into the game, or how it's implemented. The DEVs will make the final decision. If people wanted this system, they would share their ideas on how it can be put in. If a majority wants it in then the DEVs will decide how they want to put it in. Right now all you are trying to do is sway my personal opinion and it's very irritating to me.

You realize you can't read the poll like that right? It's 19 against lean. You can't just add duplicate values up.

It's multiple choice. I read it as X number of people don't want an actual cover mechanic, these people are likely going to vote no for leaning in general as well. People that want lean, but vote for no mechanic are likely going to vote for either aim & shoot, or peek as well, so their vote is still being counted. People who vote for mechanic obviously want a lean feature and will vote for either aim & shoot or peek.

Either way, the poll is meant to show whether or not a lean feature is actually needed. So far people favor a system that doesn't really need an actual feature.

[ArbitraryDemise]

Far enough to aim a gun around a corner? I don't think the human body could do that very well either. :)


I do this all the time in paintball :P

[Aesir]

If they add a 3rd person view, I won't play this game. Being able to pan out is downright game breaking in a shooter. :rolleyes:

PS1 had a instant third person switch, you could even shoot while doing so, but you had no crosshair and the camera was locked on the vertical axis. While still being a shooter.

Let's see it from a real perspective.

The idea behind the whole mechanic is to scout around cover, while reducing the danger to yourself, like a real soldier would do, my personal experience there was that you almost never go prone in an urban area, because it's to open and flanks switch to quickly to lose all the mobility from being in a crouching/standing position is considered bad, atleast in the Austrian military during my time there.

To lean around the corner, rifles are also somewhat in your way and there are 2 ways a real soldier does overcome it, either be further away from the cover he want's to peek around or to just peek with his head, while lowering the weapon. Also, the recoil kicks slightly harder if you shoot while leaning because you are in a less balanced stance.

Those are the real facts, in a universe were you just respawn after death, soldiers will probably don't even bother using cover to it's full potential, so leaning and 3rd person is actually useless if you consider those fact's, infantry will just rush around crying "For the Motherland!".

Now from the dev's point of view, they want to make it fast paced action, way faster than PS1 was, leaning, be it with the ability to shoot or not, may make it feel more realistic, but will slow down the pace. Now what can we add that does not slow down the pace, but still that scouting feature, why not give infiltrates with a certain skill set the ability to mark target's for your squad/platoon and don't add leaning/3rd person.

So, basically, I just made my own 3rd person concept useless :lol:

[Sirisian]

It's multiple choice. I read it as X number of people don't want an actual cover mechanic, these people are likely going to vote no for leaning in general as well. People that want lean, but vote for no mechanic are likely going to vote for either aim & shoot, or peek as well, so their vote is still being counted. People who vote for mechanic obviously want a lean feature and will vote for either aim & shoot or peek.
Are you serious? This is why I've been advocating for not using polls and letting people express what they want and then counting up the results. Think hard about this statement: "these people are likely going to vote no for leaning in general as well". Now look back at your poll. If the people voting no for a lock on cover mechanic would be voting no for lean you would see identical numbers for both stats, but you don't see that. Not to mention they are independent variables!

You included 2 polls in one with an opt-out option for both:
Aim and Shoot While Leaning (which includes look)
Just Look

Cover Mechanic
No Cover Mechanic

Absolutely No Leaning (opt-out)

The true expanded options of your poll are:
Aim and Shoot or Look While leaning and Cover Mechanic
Aim and Shoot or Look While leaning and No Cover Mechanic
Just Look and Cover Mechanic
Just Look and No Cover Mechanic
No Leaning (opt-out)

So why did you make it a checkbox system if there are so few choices? Because of your broken poll design these variables in the poll are completely independent variables (aim and shoot and look vs just look is independent of cover or no cover mechanic). We can do statistical analysis between people that chose one or the other, but the best we could find is a positive or negative correlation and nothing useful from the data can be determined except the independent stats. You cannot make any judgement about aim and shoot with a cover mechanism which makes this whole poll completely worthless.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Have to say I'm against leaning. honestly, the character models in this game already look pretty goofy sometimes and I don't think the would help any, lol :D

[Blackwolf]

Let's see it from a real perspective.

The idea behind the whole mechanic is to scout around cover, while reducing the danger to yourself, like a real soldier would do, my personal experience there was that you almost never go prone in an urban area, because it's to open and flanks switch to quickly to lose all the mobility from being in a crouching/standing position is considered bad, atleast in the Austrian military during my time there.

To lean around the corner, rifles are also somewhat in your way and there are 2 ways a real soldier does overcome it, either be further away from the cover he want's to peek around or to just peek with his head, while lowering the weapon. Also, the recoil kicks slightly harder if you shoot while leaning because you are in a less balanced stance.

Those are the real facts, in a universe were you just respawn after death, soldiers will probably don't even bother using cover to it's full potential, so leaning and 3rd person is actually useless if you consider those fact's, infantry will just rush around crying "For the Motherland!".

Now from the dev's point of view, they want to make it fast paced action, way faster than PS1 was, leaning, be it with the ability to shoot or not, may make it feel more realistic, but will slow down the pace. Now what can we add that does not slow down the pace, but still that scouting feature, why not give infiltrates with a certain skill set the ability to mark target's for your squad/platoon and don't add leaning/3rd person.

So, basically, I just made my own 3rd person concept useless :lol:

OMG! I did not think I would say this (at least not in this thread) but Aesir you are awesome.

See I never had military training. Never been in war. I've paintballed once. But even I know that what Aesir here just said is exactly why I had problems with everything from 3rdPoV to prone and yes even leaning.

Using cover is vital, but using it while fighting back is incredibly difficult and awkward while pressed up against the wall. Mass Effect used a system where you pivoted into and out of cover, or stood up and ducked down.

And yet everything that he mentioned to the very letter can be done without special features like a whole lean mechanic. And were very doable in PS1 if you needed to do them.

Personally, I'd love to see a good solid cover system put in. But if people want a system that can be accomplished free form without an actual cover mechanic and all they really want is a lean, why bother? Especially if we are going to complicate said system with rules like "you can't move while leaning". Frankly we can just deci-pop around a corner and pop back if we need a peek, or crouch and scoot around to try and keep yourself protected from as much enemy fire as possible while clearing the area from side to side.

[Blackwolf]

So why did you make it a checkbox system if there are so few choices? Because of your broken poll design these variables in the poll are completely independent variables (aim and shoot and look vs just look is independent of cover or no cover mechanic). We can do statistical analysis between people that chose one or the other, but the best we could find is a positive or negative correlation and nothing useful from the data can be determined except the independent stats. You cannot make any judgement about aim and shoot with a cover mechanism which makes this whole poll completely worthless.

Do you know why democracy fails? Because everyone only gets one vote. It fails because it inevitably leads to a two party system, oh look at that, it's democrats vs republics... again...

My poll gives a set of options. What would you like to see in it. And let's face it, the way I interpret it is very biased and heavily favors some kind of mechanic over none at all (3 options that can and probably are doubled up over 2?). And yet what I see is exactly the opposite. What the majority of the >FAVORED< options are, and that we don't need a special system for them.

I'm pretty sure if you just asked for a lean system (with or without shooting) with a yes or no, the no's would have it, majority might vote for peeking without shooting. I'm positive if you had a poll asking for a cover system, the no's would have it. And I'm pretty sure that only you would be obsessive enough to read through every post and give a bare minimum summary that leaves others dissatisfied with how you viewed their thoughts on the matter.

Again, I'm not trying for a yes or no. I'm more interested in seeing if a mechanic is needed to represent the favored desires of the 70+ people that voted so far (thank you btw), not if it's wanted.

May I ask what you voted for Siri?

[Sirisian]

Let's see it from a real perspective.

The idea behind the whole mechanic is to scout around cover, while reducing the danger to yourself, like a real soldier would do, my personal experience there was that you almost never go prone in an urban area, because it's to open and flanks switch to quickly to lose all the mobility from being in a crouching/standing position is considered bad, atleast in the Austrian military during my time there.
Exactly! If the game can correctly simulate these transitions and these benefits then it'll make a world of difference. Even subtle delays changes when certain choices are viable than others. I used to play airsoft outside and that really captures when you want to lean or go prone. Standing behind a tree you don't want to put yourself in danger. You just want to lean out with your rifle while taking shots. If you're crouched behind a piece of wood you just want to lean out from the side. You end with very simple constraints from the real world. The first one which I already said is you can't move while leaning left or right and must transition back from leaning before you can stand up or crouch or begin moving again. I can't remember having to lean when running to the next piece of cover. Planetside 2 can easily simulate these state transitions. You also mention that getting flanked is a huge difference. In the previous treads I along with others kept mentioning delays for transitions. These delays are what make leaning and crouching a tactical choice. If you can just crouch instantly or prone instantly for that matter (aka dolphin diving) it is no longer a difficult choice in situations.

This idea of delays was also brought up in a very old thread when someone mentioned slowing your rotation speed when crouched. That means if you're guarding two doors you are more vulnerable when crouched. The same was suggested numerous times for lowering the mobility for prone. Maybe these are difficult to imagine in people's heads if they haven't played airsoft or paintball or done military excersizes I guess. It seems obvious to me at this point.


Again you are attempting to compromise with me. This is why I honestly don't like discussions with you Siri. I don't decide whether or not this gets into the game, or how it's implemented. The DEVs will make the final decision. If people wanted this system, they would share their ideas on how it can be put in. If a majority wants it in then the DEVs will decide how they want to put it in. Right now all you are trying to do is sway my personal opinion and it's very irritating to me.
I know what you mean. Having played all the games that everyone else has I can easily jump on the bandwagon and just list off all the worst possible implementations from other games. Or I could list off a balanced solution that I personally would prefer. I'd be lying if I wasn't trying to persuade you, but it's more just to see the complexities of a possible implementation.

It's important to realize that translating the mechanics from one game into an MMOFPS might require changes or gameplay constraints to make sure they work well. You listed off how it worked in other games but at no point said how you'd expect it to function in Planetside 2. These are the kind of things I think about. When would I personally use it or when would other classes find it useful. Is there any significant drawbacks to an ideal implementation that would make the gameplay mechanic impossible to implement? You can't just go "nah can't have it since in Gears of War it was annoying". It makes a direct assumption on the implementation. I'm glad not too many people are doing it in this thread. The prone thread was fill with those types of arguments instead of merely using them as spring boards toward a "so what I'd prefer is".


And let's face it, the way I interpret it is very biased
I'm saying you can't interpret independent variables like the ones you included. You can't make any claim that because one person voted for the first part of the poll that they voted such a way for the other part. You need to take a basic statistics class or something if the concept isn't clear.

May I ask what you voted for Siri?
I don't vote in polls usually, but for this one I made fun of it by voting just for "Aim & Shoot while leaning" to show that the way you designed your poll allowed me to not vote for the second set of options. :lol:

[Craftyatom]

I'm not the best to debate on the "leaning" topic, but in terms of cover, imo, there's already a cover mechanic in the game, you know, the one where you take cover behind something.

[Baneblade]

I'm not the best to debate on the "leaning" topic, but in terms of cover, imo, there's already a cover mechanic in the game, you know, the one where you take cover behind something.

You must be joking! Telling me I have to run behind something and manually crouch?!

Next you will be telling me I have to reload my own gun myself...

[Blackwolf]

I know what you mean. Having played all the games that everyone else has I can easily jump on the bandwagon and just list off all the worst possible implementations from other games. Or I could list off a balanced solution that I personally would prefer. I'd be lying if I wasn't trying to persuade you, but it's more just to see the complexities of a possible implementation.

It's important to realize that translating the mechanics from one game into an MMOFPS might require changes or gameplay constraints to make sure they work well. You listed off how it worked in other games but at no point said how you'd expect it to function in Planetside 2. These are the kind of things I think about. When would I personally use it or when would other classes find it useful. Is there any significant drawbacks to an ideal implementation that would make the gameplay mechanic impossible to implement? You can't just go "nah can't have it since in Gears of War it was annoying". It makes a direct assumption on the implementation. I'm glad not too many people are doing it in this thread. The prone thread was fill with those types of arguments instead of merely using them as spring boards toward a "so what I'd prefer is".

See I don't think of how I would use it personally. I focus more on impact and worth. How it effects large scale battle and whether or not that effect would be worth developer time (and money) to put into the game. The last thing I want is to argue for a system that could very well just be half assed into the game and that I'd hate or not use.

I came to the conclusion that prone would be all but useless and a death trap not based on how it worked in other games. But directly on scenarios and thought experiments I run through my head. At the pace PS1 played at (which was slow I guess) nobody would use prone. Except maybe inexperienced snipers. The game didn't have many places where a prone person would be awesome. It was designed without prone in mind to begin with, and I know that the reason wasn't for game pace or stupidification. The reason was most likely that the game didn't need it, and the DEVs didn't want to design little hidey holes in bases or cover that capitalized on someone being prone. Crouch was enough.

PS2 has the same scenario going. There's probably not enough places to go prone and be at all effective. And with combat being the way it is, going prone just begs the LA ahead of you to jump up and capitalize on a serious height advantage over your suddenly very exposed body. In reality people go prone more to avoid being obliterated by shrapnel from explosions (and explosions themselves) then improve accuracy and make themselves into a smaller target while at close range. At long range they use it for accuracy, but in PS1 the sniper's biggest threat was cloakers, and you did NOT want to be immobile when one is nearby.

A cover system had potential, but lean... The more I think about it the more I feel it has no real PLACE in PS1 or 2.

I honestly think you are a very intelligent person Siri. It's just you have a habit of trying to compromise or trying to force your own idea. I tried avoiding giving any kind of idea on what I personally wanted. I wanted to see if I could uncover whether or not it would be a cause worth arguing for in general. And to be honest, it's not. A lot of people have already said it, it's a "could take it or leave it" issue.


I'm saying you can't interpret independent variables like the ones you included. You can't make any claim that because one person voted for the first part of the poll that they voted such a way for the other part. You need to take a basic statistics class or something if the concept isn't clear.

Why not? The way I voted was I put down for the ability to aim and shoot, as well as the ability to just peek. I wanted a system that would let me do either or and not lock me into a position for an hour and a half. I also put that I'd like a cover mechanic because what I had in mind put all 3 of these things into a neat package in my head. And I'm pretty sure others did the same thing.

As my boss enjoys saying "it'll come out in the wash".

I don't vote in polls usually, but for this one I made fun of it by voting just for "Aim & Shoot while leaning" to show that the way you designed your poll allowed me to not vote for the second set of options. :lol:

That's fine, you still put your vote in favor of a mechanic of some sort. And I'm assuming that you ARE in favor of a mechanic, right? I'd just assume that as an individual, you don't care if there is a cover mechanic attached to it or not.

Yeah I know this set up has flaws, it's messy and sloppy. But it's the unwashed masses, you can't use precision and scientific analysis to understand the opinions of everyone. Hell I doubted that this thread would stay open this long. But I'm not the scientific analysis type. The poll gave me the insight I wanted and the simple conclusion is that no, a system isn't really needed. Most people don't want the features that would actually call for a mechanic (quick peek is almost as low in popularity as cover mechanic is).

[Aesir]

To be honest, after all the thinking about cover system, 3rd person, leaning or be it what ever else goes (gadget's, skills to name some more), I came to my personal conclusion of either adding nothing of those, or one, well thought out, balanced and mainly working system that does fit into the game but does not destroy any of it's core gameplay, which is practically very unlikely to happen, but maybe someone thinks of something so very good that it will happen.

Currently it only feels like people only want a certain feature because they think it's cool, well I have to grab me on my own nose for thinking a locked 3rd person system would be cool, it would add a cool looking way of peeking around a corner, but really, does it add so much more depth to the game, for so much effort to even make it remotely work? No probably not, the same goes for many other ideas, if you think in the bigger picture, which should not discourage us from thinking about them, share them and openly discuss them, that's what a forum is, or should be.

A simple lean mechanic alone, like tactical shooters got does not fit in the core gameplay, which is massive battles, if everyone hides behind something and only peeks around it for such a little time, you lose the "massive" effect because you don't see anyone. Sure you should make use of cover, but it's not a core element of the gameplay. So to make it work you need something on top of it and integrates it into the core gameplay, what that is differs from opinion to opinion. Same goes for prone.

Basically, to make it part of the core gameplay, would call for a total change of the current infantry movement system.

This of course is my own and personal view on this.

[Mr DeCastellac]

Planetside (1 and 2) already has a cover mechanic. What I mean here is that the game trusts you to be smart enough to walk behind a wall or duck behind cover with having to super-glue you to the wall.

Don't get me wrong, cover mechanics work great in single player games. (http://tinyurl.com/2e7slft)

I just don't think they should be used in PvP shooters, especially Planetside.

[Pillar of Armor]

Nope, not a fan at all. Lean and cover slows down the pace way too much. I could deal with prone (maybe), but if lean is introduced... I would not play PS2. All combat would happen from cover and I have never encountered a cover/lean mechanic that worked 100% how I expected it to work. The moment I start dying because lean/cover pointed my face at a wall or it looked the wrong direction is the moment I put down the game and don't come back. As soon as lean is introduced, it will be the only viable method for fighting and I seriously dislike the idea of lean/cover in any FPS game.

[DerFurst]

Leaning is a perfect mechanic for a realism shooter like Insurgency, but I don't think it fits here.

[Pillar of Armor]

Leaning is a perfect mechanic for a realism shooter like Insurgency, but I don't think it fits here.

I should clarify, lean doesn't belong in multiplayer FPS. Lean is a good mechanic in campaign, but I am heavily against it in multiplayer.

[Sirisian]

I came to the conclusion that prone would be all but useless and a death trap not based on how it worked in other games. But directly on scenarios and thought experiments I run through my head. At the pace PS1 played at (which was slow I guess) nobody would use prone. Except maybe inexperienced snipers. The game didn't have many places where a prone person would be awesome. It was designed without prone in mind to begin with, and I know that the reason wasn't for game pace or stupidification. The reason was most likely that the game didn't need it, and the DEVs didn't want to design little hidey holes in bases or cover that capitalized on someone being prone. Crouch was enough.

PS2 has the same scenario going. There's probably not enough places to go prone and be at all effective. And with combat being the way it is, going prone just begs the LA ahead of you to jump up and capitalize on a serious height advantage over your suddenly very exposed body. In reality people go prone more to avoid being obliterated by shrapnel from explosions (and explosions themselves) then improve accuracy and make themselves into a smaller target while at close range. At long range they use it for accuracy, but in PS1 the sniper's biggest threat was cloakers, and you did NOT want to be immobile when one is nearby.

I think you get it. That's the whole idea with prone and other gameplay mechanics. They don't have to be silver bullets for every situation. Going prone inside of a base on a roof might be a good choice, but you leave youself stationary and an easy target. Outside if you see someone running though you might not feel like spraying bullets. Especially if they don't see you at night. You can easily choose to crouch then transition to prone and shoot at the enemy then stand back up. Huge tactical advantage when you don't have an obvious form of cover for longer range shots. This goes hand in hand with a proper implementation. If you've read my other threads or anyone elses that supported prone or was against it no one wanted dolphin diving. We all unanimously voted for a simple crouch to prone animation to keep things sane with proper collision support when prone. I digress the other threads beat this into the ground.

It's just you have a habit of trying to compromise or trying to force your own idea.
I've read every gameplay related post on this forum and lean and cover mechanics have come up before. It might look like I'm forcing "my" idea. I'm actually taking everyone's comments about what they don't want in the game. For instance, many people have talked about cover systems in the past and locking animations. This came up in the knife thread even and many people raised their voice to say they wanted Planetside 2 to feel fluid with no locked in animations.

Actually I get tired of linking threads since no one reads them. Here's a leaning thread we already had (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=37120). People also brought it up in this cover thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=41589) by accident. There was also a TTK thread that had a random Rainbow Six discussion in it about cover systems.

Also it's because when I suggest "my" idea it's because I feel like it is a very clean solution that allows lean in every foreseeable use case for it. People can use it to look or to shoot without making it feel cheap if it can only be activated when not moving and leaves the player somewhat exposed by removing mobility. (Because not moving as we saw could get you killed very quick).


Why not? The way I voted was I put down for the ability to aim and shoot, as well as the ability to just peek. I wanted a system that would let me do either or and not lock me into a position for an hour and a half. I also put that I'd like a cover mechanic because what I had in mind put all 3 of these things into a neat package in my head. And I'm pretty sure others did the same thing.
It seems like a cover mechanic isn't necessary. Also I'd rather be able to lean without being next to a wall. If I'm standing behind someone who is leaning out a door I might want to crouch a little ways back to only reveal the top part of my character. Forcing my character to be next to a wall to activate such a stationary option doesn't seem necessary. Especially if we assume I'm not moving then I don't need my hands on a and d and can just use q and e to perform the lean. This is under my assumption that lean can only be activated when not moving and uses a very slight delay in the animation.

[Blackwolf]

I think you get it. That's the whole idea with prone and other gameplay mechanics. They don't have to be silver bullets for every situation. Going prone inside of a base on a roof might be a good choice, but you leave youself stationary and an easy target. Outside if you see someone running though you might not feel like spraying bullets. Especially if they don't see you at night. You can easily choose to crouch then transition to prone and shoot at the enemy then stand back up. Huge tactical advantage when you don't have an obvious form of cover for longer range shots. This goes hand in hand with a proper implementation. If you've read my other threads or anyone elses that supported prone or was against it no one wanted dolphin diving. We all unanimously voted for a simple crouch to prone animation to keep things sane with proper collision support when prone. I digress the other threads beat this into the ground.


The example you give is a fairly rare occurrence. Think battlefield conditions, you wouldn't want to drop prone because an enemy might already be aiming at you. Or at least I wouldn't. First shot fired would attract the runner's attention, and while being prone would give you a serious advantage, especially a night, it would attract more then just the runner's attention. Crouching serves the same purpose and maintains mobility.


Also it's because when I suggest "my" idea it's because I feel like it is a very clean solution that allows lean in every foreseeable use case for it. People can use it to look or to shoot without making it feel cheap if it can only be activated when not moving and leaves the player somewhat exposed by removing mobility. (Because not moving as we saw could get you killed very quick).



You present a mechanic that is complicated, yet does nothing that simply crouch walking around the corner with a sweeping field of fire couldn't accomplish. And it tactically offers less protection since the lean function you describe is pretty universal in terms of how much exposure you give, while crouch walking around gradually opens up your field while giving you a chance to stop and gun down opponents as you see them. That works for long range or open areas. Close Quarters you'll want to move faster because the enemy will see you before you see them and accuracy isn't a concern at those ranges.

It's not about providing a variety of options for every situation. It's about finding the most effective ones given basic circumstances. And a simple lean function adds nothing that can't be done without it, or done better with other tactics.


It seems like a cover mechanic isn't necessary. Also I'd rather be able to lean without being next to a wall. If I'm standing behind someone who is leaning out a door I might want to crouch a little ways back to only reveal the top part of my character. Forcing my character to be next to a wall to activate such a stationary option doesn't seem necessary. Especially if we assume I'm not moving then I don't need my hands on a and d and can just use q and e to perform the lean. This is under my assumption that lean can only be activated when not moving and uses a very slight delay in the animation.

Again these are tactics that could be done without a lean function. Crouched person goes around the corner and a stander swings around behind him. Also these kinds of situations probably won't happen in PS2. When people use cover in PS1, it's in standing or crouched positions in nichs and behind crates, taking advantage of choke points and kill zones rather then actual cover.

The game isn't meant to simulate paramilitary tactics. It's meant to create a large scale battlefield. Small mechanics like lean just aren't needed.

If a cover system were used then it would basically just improve the speed at which you pivot out of and into cover, so you aren't relying on normal infantry movement to pop in and out of cover. It's a tougher system to implement and very prone to bugs, but short of such a system I see no reason for cheaper mechanics.

In PS1 (and I can already tell this will be the case in PS2), you will rely on cover to reduce your firing range and therefore reduce the number of enemies that can shoot at you. As a means of reducing your exposure to enemies directly in front of you, not so much. The weapons are too accurate for it to be useful in that sense.

[The Kush]

I don't like leaning or cover like in gears but that's my opinion. I see no place for this in planetside.

[Landtank]

I don't like leaning or cover like in gears but that's my opinion. I see no place for this in planetside.

I agree, but leaning with the q and e keys has its uses. I don't like the idea of being stuck to a wall either.

[Sirisian]

You present a mechanic that is complicated, yet does nothing that simply crouch walking around the corner with a sweeping field of fire couldn't accomplish. And it tactically offers less protection since the lean function you describe is pretty universal in terms of how much exposure you give, while crouch walking around gradually opens up your field while giving you a chance to stop and gun down opponents as you see them. That works for long range or open areas. Close Quarters you'll want to move faster because the enemy will see you before you see them and accuracy isn't a concern at those ranges.
If you crouched and walked out you were force yourself to reveal pretty much your whole character to the enemy. With a lean mechanism you reveal the top part and only what you want and can rather quickly unlean after firing. It's a much cleaner solution. Also if you're in close ranges no you might not want to use it. Like I said stop treating everything like a silver bullet that must be viable everywhere. That's not what tactical choices are for.

Also why would you say it's complicated? It's just q and e being used. You can't really get much more simple than that. Especially assuming in my proposed implementation you can't move when you activate it. It's no more complicated than using q and e to strafe a BFR in PS1. Your argument seem rather unfounded. It's like you assume anything added to the game must be used for every situation:
Again these are tactics that could be done without a lean function. Crouched person goes around the corner and a stander swings around behind him. Also these kinds of situations probably won't happen in PS2. When people use cover in PS1, it's in standing or crouched positions in nichs and behind crates, taking advantage of choke points and kill zones rather then actual cover.
You're basically using an argument of "it isn't in PS1 thus it was never used and wouldn't be used in PS2". That's not even a valid argument. Just because something wasn't in PS1 doesn't mean it wouldn't turn into a viable strategy in Planetside 2. Also you're 100% correct. A person could crouch and step out from a doorway or simply stand and strafe out from a rock or something. The point is lean would give them the choice to handle the situation a different way. Without testing an implementation it's hard to say if it would make for a viable mechanic that would be enjoyable for everyone.


The game isn't meant to simulate paramilitary tactics. It's meant to create a large scale battlefield. Small mechanics like lean just aren't needed.
I don't know why you're trying to over-inflate the concept of a character leaning. You then say it's a "small" mechanic. I think the small details are what makes the game. If Planetside 2 successfully implemented leaning and prone into such a fast paced game it would really change people's perspectives on what's possible in an MMOFPS. You'd have a game that effectively gives you nearly full control of your character.

The only big things missing as Bags pointed out with his slippery slope argument is sliding. The Crysis 2 slide was one of the coolest things in that game. Didn't happen often and if we could get that kind of stuff into the game for engineer and medics and light assault we'd see some epic cover systems. The ability for players go from a sprint into a sliding crouch behind cover would be amazing.

[Blackwolf]

If you crouched and walked out you were force yourself to reveal pretty much your whole character to the enemy. With a lean mechanism you reveal the top part and only what you want and can rather quickly unlean after firing. It's a much cleaner solution. Also if you're in close ranges no you might not want to use it. Like I said stop treating everything like a silver bullet that must be viable everywhere. That's not what tactical choices are for.

Also why would you say it's complicated? It's just q and e being used. You can't really get much more simple than that. Especially assuming in my proposed implementation you can't move when you activate it. It's no more complicated than using q and e to strafe a BFR in PS1. Your argument seem rather unfounded. It's like you assume anything added to the game must be used for every situation:

You're basically using an argument of "it isn't in PS1 thus it was never used and wouldn't be used in PS2". That's not even a valid argument. Just because something wasn't in PS1 doesn't mean it wouldn't turn into a viable strategy in Planetside 2. Also you're 100% correct. A person could crouch and step out from a doorway or simply stand and strafe out from a rock or something. The point is lean would give them the choice to handle the situation a different way. Without testing an implementation it's hard to say if it would make for a viable mechanic that would be enjoyable for everyone.

I'm getting tired so I'll keep my reply simple.

It's complicated because it uses rules, rules that don't give it any more of an advantage then going without it.

And no I'm not just saying "it wasn't in PS1". Look at the situations where you might use lean in PS1. Do you see any in which you could have won a fight you had lost if only you had the use of a lean function? I don't. Except sniper duels. But then it wouldn't be a duel. It would be that episode of Desert Punk where he fights Sand Spider for the first time.

The more I think about it the more I agree with everyone else. Even a simple lean function would kill PS2's potentially fast paced game. A cover system would do the same thing. Tactically a cover system would be great, could use it for corners and barricades alike. Game flow wise, no. It would stagnate combat and reduce it to taking turns shooting at each other's cover while LA dominates.

So this is my last post for the day, this subject, and this thread. Gnite all.

[WNxThentar]

Where has anyone read that there will be no leaning in PS2? Since there is no 3rd person view except in vehicles I'd be surprised if there is no leaning since it is a standard feature of FPS games these days.

Can you provide a link to a post, tweet or video where someone at SOE said there will be no leaning?

[Blackwolf]

Where has anyone read that there will be no leaning in PS2? Since there is no 3rd person view except in vehicles I'd be surprised if there is no leaning since it is a standard feature of FPS games these days.

Can you provide a link to a post, tweet or video where someone at SOE said there will be no leaning?

damnit... bed...

Hey if someone posts evidence that it's in, yay. If not, yay. The point of poll and thread was discussing whether it was wanted, or needed.

Bullets are standard in FPS games, leaning really isn't...

[Trafalgar]

Most games that I've played that do have cover systems make your character stand up / step out of cover to shoot for some bizarre reason, unless you're behind a wall, don't use the cover system, and just move sideways enough to get your gun to the right/left of the end of the wall so you can shoot anyone past it, and use third person view to see what's over there. :|

The cover systems I've seen don't work as well as anyone intelligent using real life cover (why would you expose most of your body when you can expose as little as possible and still be just as accurate)? The games that lack cover systems frequently expect you to just not use cover (Halo) unless you need to wait for shields/health regeneration.

Of course, even if you can only see a person's gun and head, and they can only see yours, in practice that's not going to stop one of you from shooting the other in the head within a few seconds... (Large trees make surprisingly good cover when you only have to worry about just one person, by the way)

[Envenom]

I am the biggest advocate of prone, however I do not support leaning. I remember the old Medal Of Honour Allied Assault days... yikes. Pretty much ruined multiplayer for me seeing people flop around and lean as they ran.

[Trafalgar]

That's why I'd tend to prefer a properly-implemented cover system of some kind. Of course, it could be complicated to do at this stage, so I could see why it wouldn't be something that would be considered.

[Sirisian]

I am the biggest advocate of prone, however I do not support leaning. I remember the old Medal Of Honour Allied Assault days... yikes. Pretty much ruined multiplayer for me seeing people flop around and lean as they ran.
C'mon read the thread and the proposed solutions. Mine suggested that player could only use it while not moving either standing or crouched. Simple stuff.

[Envenom]

Sorry, I've never been a fan of lean regardless.

[xnorb]

Where is this "we need lean mechanics" coming from ? ArmA ?

Cover systems - they way the are implemented in many games - are plain
stupid. When i'm behind cover i can't magically switch to 3rd person view
and see what i'm shooting.

Leaning itself ... come on ... step out of that cover, shoot, get back
to cover ... chances of getting hit are about the same.

IMO it's close to impossible to get a cover system right without making
it nearly completely useless. I absolutely do NOT want a system that
enables you to present the enemy only 4 pixels, but you on your side have
all the abilities (looking, shooting) - this simply sucks.

Same goed for prone - i strongly advise not to put it in except it's ensured
that dolphin-diving, ground-spinning, drop-shooting and alike aren't possible.

Cover-mechanics, prone ... those things need to be implemented as a
1 on 1 copy of the real world. Else they get abused badly and destroy the game.

[Landtank]

And the debate rages on. Who's winning?

People will always be too stubborn to be wrong, but that's what makes this forum so great in all seriousness. Lot's of strong opinions and ideas.

[Kran De Loy]

No leaning, no real reason behind my opinion other than I just do not like the idea of PS2 becoming even more complex.

No cover system, none at all please. Sticky cover systems are rarely implemented well and are always heavily restrictive to the player using them.

[Vancha]

And the debate rages on. Who's winning?
Depending on how many people voted for both lean and shoot and lean without shooting, lean without shooting might technically be winning.

Lets say people voted exclusively for lean and shoot or lean without shooting, then assuming everyone who voted for lean and shoot would rather have lean without shooting over no lean at all, then lean without shooting would be more popular than no leaning at all...

If the poll was public I could see how much overlap there is, but it isn't, so I can't.

[Poser]

And the debate rages on. Who's winning?

Discussions should be encouraged. As new users join the forums, old topics are bound to get rehashed. Relax. :)

[I SandRock]

While we're at it let's add a sliding system, and a multi jump system, and a ceiling climbing system too.

And BFRs! :D

I wouldn't mind a just look option.

[xnorb]

Depending on how many people voted for both lean and shoot and lean without shooting, lean without shooting might technically be winning.

Aim & Shoot while leaning. 51
Just look. 17

So we got 68 votes for leaning.


Absalutely no leaning. 43
No Cover Mechanic. 57

So we got 100 votes against any sort of cover


No clue where you took your numbers from.
The vote tells us that no lean/cover is leading by about 45%.

[Coreldan]

I don't personally see leaning as a "cover mechanic". To me a "cover mechanic" is one of these automated things on a button press, much like Mass Effect or Gears of War kinda thing.

[Dreamcast]

Guys SOE won't risk it a cover system or Leaning....They just won't.


Even tho I think a cover system like Medal of Honor Airborne would be amazing for this game.


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

Can pop ur head as much as u want top and side.

[Machine]

leaning worked very well in americas army, a game as old as planetside. then again prone worked well with side to side single roll. so yeah its all good stuff, but it isnt really neccessary or anything.

[xnorb]

I don't personally see leaning as a "cover mechanic". To me a "cover mechanic" is one of these automated things on a button press, much like Mass Effect or Gears of War kinda thing.

Well ya, poll is majorly messed up by those options.

[Vancha]

Aim & Shoot while leaning. 51
Just look. 17

So we got 68 votes for leaning.


Absalutely no leaning. 43
No Cover Mechanic. 57

So we got 100 votes against any sort of cover


No clue where you took your numbers from.
The vote tells us that no lean/cover is leading by about 45%.
Why would you include "No Cover Mechanic" as nos for leaning? I voted yes for leaning, no for cover mechanics. Leaning and cover mechanics are two entirely different things.

By your logic/definition, everyone who voted for no cover mechanic doesn't want Planetside 2 to have crouch.

[Mastachief]

No Lean no cover. Want cover? hide behind a suitably large object.

[Toppopia]

Why would you include "No Cover Mechanic" as nos for leaning? I voted yes for leaning, no for cover mechanics. Leaning and cover mechanics are two entirely different things.

By your logic/definition, everyone who voted for no cover mechanic doesn't want Planetside 2 to have crouch.

When i voted, i chose lean, as in press q/e or some along those lines, then i think voted for cover mechanic because i think i thought it meant i wanted leaning, or i wanted something like rainbow six, or Ghost Recon Island Thunder, can't remember, but this poll is a bit odd.

[Sledgecrushr]

Leaning is a bonus for defenders, and because of just that slight difference in variables I have to vote no.

[Coreldan]

Leaning is a bonus for defenders, and because of just that slight difference in variables I have to vote no.

It's a bigger bonus for the attackers, though.

[vampyro]

No leaning, sniping will already be lethal as it is...

[Trafalgar]

Cover systems - they way the are implemented in many games - are plain
stupid. When i'm behind cover i can't magically switch to 3rd person view
and see what i'm shooting.

[Stuff about how if cover system presents only 4 pixels it is very bad.]


What? You've played games with cover systems that aren't in third person or don't switch you to third person when you go into cover? The horror, the horror! Why would anyone do that?

When the player is behind cover and fires out:
Presenting 4 pixels: bad, but I don't think I've ever seen a game that did that except Gears of War, when you blind-fired, and you can't hit anything if blind firing anyways
Presenting your head: realistic and you can still get shot in the head
Presenting half your body: What is this I don't even

No cover system: I'll just stand completely behind cover and poke my gun just far enough out past this wall that my shots don't hit the wall, having the same effect as the 4 pixels solution. Good luck hitting me.

[xnorb]

No cover system: I'll just stand completely behind cover and poke my gun just far enough out past this wall that my shots don't hit the wall, having the same effect as the 4 pixels solution. Good luck hitting me.

Aye, as leaning does nothing else -> no need for leaning.

No clue what you wanted to say with the rest of the post, i guess it was
some sort of "I don't agree with your opinion".


I'd love to see PS2 making projectiles being fired from the gun and not
from my eyes - that would give cover a completely different value as you
could hide behind cover and see the enemy, but you can't use it as "haha,
you only see 4 pixel of my head, my gun is shooting in the wall, but i can
perfectly shoot you with my eyes" unfair advantage.

[Trafalgar]

No clue what you wanted to say with the rest of the post, i guess it was
some sort of "I don't agree with your opinion".

Possible ways of presenting the player when they shoot from cover using cover systems.

Er... Why would bullets come from your eyes in this day and age?

[Pillar of Armor]

Most of the discussion here is about whether the leaning mechanic would work or could be implemented. Of course it would work and of course it can. Despite my severe dislike for it in multiplayer, there are aspects of it that would even be fun. The real question is: does it fit PlanetSide?

The main aspect of the PlanetSide that defined the game for so many players was the epic battles. And I mean epic in the original sense of the word... large scale, massive. The mechanics of PlanetSide combat forced players to go head to head with large charges, and those were the defining moments of the game. When 50 attackers were forced to face 50 defenders out in the open, the battles were intense, frantic, and forged some of my favorite memories out of any game I've played.

As soon as lean/cover/prone are added, the combat will become much more methodical. There's nothing wrong with methodical and tactical combat, but the pacing changes and it disincentivizes the kind of open head to head combat that defined PlanetSide and made it stand out after all this time.

[Electrofreak]

I'm not sure how I feel about lean. On one side, with the TTK as short as it is in the current alpha build, something like lean could make survivability a little higher.

That said, PS was always a very aggressive game. Not dying because of a few shots to the head made it a game where you could afford to step out from behind cover and assault a target. Focus was placed upon a player's ability to aim (in most circumstances) and their equipment/implant loadout.

With lean I worry that some of the combat could become too stagnant with people electing to stay behind their cover and the relative safety afforded by leaning and firing compared to crouch-and-strafe.

But still, I'm on the fence about it because as long as the crowd mentality doesn't become focused upon survival rather than assault tactics I see it as potentially another useful ability to keep combat dynamic and interesting.

Remember, Auraxis is a world where soldiers die and are reborn. The emphasis on combat is typically assault; if defenders have too many tools at their disposal that make capturing a base difficult, battles will drag out for too long and things will become boring. So ultimately it will depend upon whether abilities like lean and prone would tip that scale too far in either direction.

[Ductape]

I really dont see leaning being that important. It will be nice once in a blue moon, but for the most part, I feel that if you are leaning on attack, your doing something wrong. You should be moving forward, or taking cover to let your shields recharge. When you stop to lean, you are slowing your momentum. On defense it would be more useful, but I still think that it wont have that big of an effect.

[Zolan]

I really don't care about leaning. It's one of those things that people make a big deal about for no good reason.

It'll probably make things worse for players in terms of defense now that registered head-shots are in, as you'll convince the greenhorns to shoot at your head and not your feet.

[Zolan]

I forgot about cover/cover mechanic.

Absolutely not...

It works in single player games, but not in MMOs.

Cite: SWTOR

[Otleaz]

I really don't care about leaning. It's one of those things that people make a big deal about for no good reason.

I'm not saying it will necessarily be good for the game, but often times it is a big deal. Seemingly insignificant features could drastically change the way the game plays and feels.

Look at Diablo 2 and Diablo 3.

Diablo 2 has been called and is still called a masterpiece.
Diablo 3 is a piece of garbage and a waste of money.

They are practically the same game, with only the small "insignificant" features removed or changed. Those small unnecessary features are what made Diablo 2 fantastic... Unfortunately nobody thought to hire someone from the D2 team to work on D3.

[basti]

After Basti's decidedly hasty closure of the previous thread (the discussion was mostly about lean, something that hasn't been spoken of much in the game) I decided to make my own post and poll.

I'm less leery about lean then prone. If they added lean though, the game play would turn more Mass Effect, which could be potentially awesome, and at the same time a complete disaster.

I'll agree that lean has merits and encourages the use of cover > run and gun and could improve the game.

But I suspect that implementing a cover system at this stage of the game would be difficult. Also considering you can use cover without a lean feature, and use quicker movement to avoid full exposure for long periods of time to "glance" around corners, an entire system for this just isn't needed.

As it stands, the game is too complicated. Wouldn't mind seeing it in beta if this was an easy system to put in, but it just isn't worth the work without solid data, hence this poll. Something like this would be better off being tried and tested in the alpha stages tbh.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing lean in this game. Mass Effect had lean and was built around a very good cover mechanic, and it did not have prone. Judging by my enjoyment of that game I'd say lean would be cool, but again not absolutely vital.

Aim & Shoot: Allow players the ability to lean, aim, and shoot while minimizing (by 50% or so) the amount of visible body.

Just Look: A quick peek, either forced timer (2 seconds) or as long as the button is held.

Absalutely no leaning: Self explanatory.

Cover Mechanic: A system that can be as simple as crouch near an object would automatically put you into a position for leaning. You keep your head below cover and hope no one has a good angle on you. While "in cover" A and D would lean left or right, if crouched behind a low wall or whatever, W would raise your head and shoulders above. Un-crouch to exit cover.

No Cover Mechanic: Free movement without locking into a set position. Would require additional buttons for leaning left or right, and higher sources of cover so people could stand to shoot. This might affect game play too much to effectively add an actual lean feature.

Multiple choice for a better idea what people are talking about, because no one ever mentions what they have in mind.

No repeating arguments please. If you say camping, explain what you mean and/or give an example because that is just a very very weak argument.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do a proper thread on a hot topic.

[CTheRain]

If I wanted realism in a shooter I'd join the Army... O wait

[Poser]

I'm not saying it will necessarily be good for the game, but often times it is a big deal. Seemingly insignificant features could drastically change the way the game plays and feels.

Yup. Removing lean and adding regen, ruined the pacing of Call of Duty. It made all the small maps* unplayable.

[Rago]

I Dislike Leaning in Every Game, so i go for No LEANING.

I like it more the UT,Quake,Nexuiz Style of Game...
As for COD i dont like it, dont hate me for That.

Dont get me Wrong "realistic" Games like CS are fun for a Day, but Imho i prefer "Fun over Realism, its okay to take a Hit or two without being Dead.

Free Movement is Freedom for me.