Types of cover

[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]

Originally Posted by arclegger

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

[Bags]

Now about our payment...

[KTNApollo]

Originally Posted by Pozidriv

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

But chest high walls are da best!

[The Janitor]

Originally Posted by Pozidriv

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 )


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]

Originally Posted by arclegger

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.