Planetside 2 Needs Prone

[Ieyasu]

Originally Posted by Algo

Or, you know, make friends to play with you, i know it's hard for some tho.

nah, faster to just respawn.

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

2) Visibility would be ruined, especially in night(This is an assumption)Almost 90% of the kills and deaths I got in the 20 or so minutes I've played MW2, MW3, Black ops and BF3 combined on a console was by prone, either because their postion is already hard enough to hit, but because they have prone they are nearly impossible to hit other than a stray headshot(s) (and I might add the current kick of the according to the E3 showcase weapons could make this even harder.) or decreasing visibility by a huge margin. The most obvious example of this would be the night ops.

Again, if they're not firing at you then they're not a problem, they're not going to be 100% accurate and they fire tracer rounds. Add muzzle flare and they're definitely not hard to see at night.

Prone means they are stationary. They will out-shoot you if you're also stationary and non-prone, but being mobile gives enough of an advantage to balance that.

If you're talking about short-range encounters, grenades and popping in and out of cover are the way to play against this (you know where their head will be, they don't, so you have an advantage in the split second after you pop out).
Long-range encounters involve using cover and distracting them while a team-mate flanks them. You shouldn't expect to be able to win a fire-fight when you've walked straight into an area someone else has prepared to defend. They should reliably win that situation.

If I've misrepresented your position then please can you clarify it.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

I've only played Bad company 2(and a bit of battlefield 2 but it was offline, although it was a blast) so I'm not sure if I should speak of this. Also in the servers I played in people only camp during base camping till one or two players capture the point on the edge of the map.

Over time the camping in Bad company 2 really got out of hand because the sniper rifles were too unrealistically precise. So at the end half the teams were camping snipers, even though prone was not in the game.

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

and battlefield 2 played much better than battlefield 3 IMO

We definitely can agree on that! BF3 is an insult to BF2 vets. In fact, many BF2 vets have high hopes that PS2 will become the spiritual successor to BF2/2142, as they are so frustrated with DICE/EA. If the PS2 developers keep their promises and continue to listen to their fanbase, I and many other BF2 vets will permanently switch over to PS2 as their main game. Furthermore, if I am treaty fairly I also don't have any problem to financially support PS2 at all. I would do it on mere principle.

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

But still, there was no reason for adding prone unless there is airducts.(If there are airducts that you can sneak in, I approve of prone_

Edit: Also, most stealth games use crouching as sneak, and not prone.

Well, Bad company 2 is a sorry excuse for a Battlefield game (as is BF3). In BF2 or Arma1/2 the prone position significantly adds to the experience. But, of course, you are entitled to have a different opinion on that matter.

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by fishirboy

could you at least read some one the opinions on this and how it would be taken care of like mine?

Lest say prone was coming into the game for a temperary trial? What would there be restrictions on,

Will first off maxes and and big weapons could not go prone unless you switched to a smaller weapon and got prone.

There would be NO dolphin dives, because we all know that jumping into a door way with a camper/tactically placed person is just to easy.

There would be a 1 second duration from up to down and back to up.

Infultratiors have to have 50% of there cloak off or just all of it because people can't move as a group and have an inferred scoop person that can detect the sniper, because heaven forbid that you move in Groups!

You could only see as far up as your spine will let you because it's not really fair.

You can only move slowly turning on the ground so that you can't do a 360 in a second moving. Good example for prone would be arma 2 if any one watches it.

I did post this before I read about 20 some odd pages. So allow me to elaborate.

I am not against dolphin diving as much as some people. With the sheer amount of players that will be fighting, its not that big of an issue. I remember in PS1 people getting into odd spots to defend bases. Tops of doors, ledges, ect. This was in no way a hack... It was a good tactical decision and made it more difficult to overpower.

As you may have seen in the live stream, people were getting onto the Amp station's arms (for the lack of a better word atm) and shooting down on other players. Usually this person would be killed by air or someone behind them. Also LA's with their jump packs can get in some weird places.

Add to the above with camo, some cloaking, and prone, you end up having a number of situations start where the opposing player is ambushed and has little chance of fighting back. Even with a longer TTK.

The reduction of hit space, the angles, the visibility, the camo, the cloak, all add up to where I feel most people will be in MAX suits as much as possible since you will be getting ambushed at all times. With the lack of kill cam it can be quite difficult to locate where the fire is coming from. I feel that yes it does slow down gameplay, give more help to defenders, and make everyone quite a bit more cautious. But the BIGGEST impact is that it will turn off more players to the game then what would be turned off by the lack of that ability. The newer players will be getting blasted and sniped out of nowhere, they may even come back for more 3 or 4 times for the same thing, then just say forget it and move back to another game.

BF3 and other games were limited on avenues and space most of the time. Combined with a kill cam, a person couldn't stick around in one spot for long before someone hunted them down. In PS2 there is a HUGE map, no killcam and the chaos of large scale battle, These people will be largely unmolested. Save via someone stumbling across them or air people just generally pounding a base and getting these people in the spam.

The other thing that comes into play is like people said earlier there is the question of where the bullets come from on a character. If you put in prone, the gun needs to react fully with the environment. Otherwise you can generate a larger field of fire then you could if you were actually at a location. Think of being prone on a ledge. You would need to have your gun past the ledge and a good chunk of your body to get out enough to actually shoot downwards. Not to mention your accuracy would go to hell. But in the gameworld, you can usually get by with very little body showing.

So for these reasons I think prone should not be included in the game. If it is I think it will be more difficult to balance and unbug. And would drive off players that would have otherwise have stayed around. Many people here want prone added but if it is left out I think a good number will still play. So on aggregate it is a better decision to not have it.

[Stardouser]

Duck season!

[MadPenguin]

Originally Posted by Stew

having this logic will lead in this kind of thing ...

Why tank do not have the ability to fly ? If you are so averse to tank going Fly because it looks silly, then in the spirit of fairness, no one should be able to Fly ...

pretty much it

MAX for sure is a mostly a vehicules need to be repair so this isnt a infantry its a mini mechwarior ! SO no prone automatically

for the heavy assault its not that iam againt is its thats HA have the MMguns and i dont know how it should be possible for them to use is while prone or if they go prone they cant use the MMgun just their regular LMG

And anyway i do not want prone as a offensive thing u can break up compleatly the shooting mechanics while prone i do not care !

the important thing about prone is mostly be able to use the terrain to get cover in many dangerous situation ! to reload safely etc..

No, you're abusing the logic and turning it into something unrecognisable. If the classes are currently balanced, then giving certain classes beside the HA the ability to go prone suddenly unbalances the situation and makes HA worse off.

So i said either give all these classes (beside max ofc) prone or non of them. Or if you insist on giving the others prone but not HA, then they also need something extra for balance.

i.e if 2 things, A and B, are balanced, and you improve A, then in order to keep things balanced you do one of 3 things:
1)give B the same upgrade.
2)take the upgrade away from A
3)give B something extra as an upgrade

You cant just take 2 things that are balanced, improve one and leave it at that.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

No, you're abusing the logic and turning it into something unrecognisable. If the classes are currently balanced, then giving certain classes beside the HA the ability to go prone suddenly unbalances the situation and makes HA worse off.

So i said either give all these classes (beside max ofc) prone or non of them. Or if you insist on giving the others prone but not HA, then they also need something extra for balance.

i.e if 2 things, A and B, are balanced, and you improve A, then in order to keep things balanced you do one of 3 things:
1)give B the same upgrade.
2)take the upgrade away from A
3)give B something extra as an upgrade

You cant just take 2 things that are balanced, improve one and leave it at that.

It will be enough of a balanced to simply do not allow HA to use the MMgun while prone he will have a pistol and a LMG to use while prone Fair enough for me !

[Cuross]

Well, here is the only piece of real discussion I'm going to offer.

I'm never opposed to prone so long as there is an animation of you doing it or a couple seconds where you can't fire your weapon so that you don't just belly flop to avoid being killed in the middle of combat which happens in every single game that allows it. But this is in response to the argument of cover. Let's look at all the footage and all the videos that we've currently seen. The argument is that there is a need to prone to avoid gunfire in a situation where cover is unavailable. So far as I've seen, there has been cover aplenty. Everywhere.

I'm not going to touch the camping issue, not with a ten foot poll (see what I did there?), but tactical advantages are available to prone, however, 1) going prone lowers your mobility so you're pretty much dead meat against anyone who knows you're there 2) going prone indoors will most likely get you killed faster 3) with all the cover already available to you on the map, most people will not be using it anyway because it's simply quicker to crouch around objects, get the kill, and sprint toward the objective 4) prone gives you even worse area of effect since your line of sight is now obstructed by pretty much all the cover that I've previously mentioned because I have seen so many waist high walls that you're either crouched or in the open 5) and finally, Liberators. I'm not even going to bother with an explanation for point 5.

Now, prone is not a bad mechanic if pulled off right, but the mechanic itself will be superfluous as the flow of combat shifts and changes due to situations that I can guarantee most people will forget it even exists. Here's why: Prone against infantry=survival rate doesn't change. Prone against MAX=survival rate goes down. Prone against tank=survival rate nearly 0%. Prone against aircraft=survival rate goes down.

Static gameplay is not bad gameplay, but you can't pull MBT's, MAX suits, or customize your gear without resources that require you to capture bases and prone doesn't = static gameplay. Once again, there are tactical advantages to prone that I'm not mentioning, but it will be a superfluous mechanic in a shifting battlefield.

NOW! for the sake of "discussion" that is and/or will happen, someone offer counterpoints to these in regards to PS2, not BF3 or Arma or whatever nonsense! And keep camping out of it, this is just regarding a mechanic, not a playstyle.

[mynameismud]

Originally Posted by mirwalk

But the BIGGEST impact is that it will turn off more players to the game then what would be turned off by the lack of that ability.

This, not adding in prone will affect people who want it sure, adding it in on the other hand will exponentially more affect those who don't want it.

Amount of potential players lost without prone added < amount of potential players lost with prone added.

[Karriz]

I think prone fits perfectly well in slower-paced tactical games. You're not supposed to be running around all the time, sometimes the best solution is simply to crawl and be quiet.

I don't see how camping could ruin the game, as there are so many different tactics, and to be succesfull you must capture bases.
It's not like Call of Duty where maps and gameplay mechanics encourage KDR padding.

So, prone is being included in many different games, from CoD to ARMA. In terms of tactics and scale, Planetside 2 is closer to ARMA (although gameplay itself is not that complicated and slow).

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mynameismud

This, not adding in prone will affect people who want it sure, adding it in on the other hand will exponentially more affect those who don't want it.

Amount of potential players lost without prone added < amount of potential players lost with prone added.

i will say thats this thing i saw now is unusual

on battlefield forums people where MAD at dice to not have implement prone in BFBC lol

so if you take the 1 000 000 potential players who are going to play planetside iam pretty much sure most of them will want prone

people who are going to play planetside arent just the planetside 1 players like me or like the vets who even play it these days but considering ive play over 1900 hours in 3 years ive play a lots lol

but a 300 votes poll will certainly not represent all those potential millions of players comming from games like battlefield , MAG , Killzone , call of duty , arma , and many more

so i think most of those people will actually want prone in

so anyway we will see give it a chance and if its really dont work they will remoove it

[Cuross]

Originally Posted by Stew

but a 300 votes poll will certainly not represent all those potential millions of players

Statistically speaking, three hundred votes is enough of a sample group to represent the population.

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by mirwalk

I did post this before I read about 20 some odd pages. So allow me to elaborate.

I am not against dolphin diving as much as some people. With the sheer amount of players that will be fighting, its not that big of an issue. I remember in PS1 people getting into odd spots to defend bases. Tops of doors, ledges, ect. This was in no way a hack... It was a good tactical decision and made it more difficult to overpower.

As you may have seen in the live stream, people were getting onto the Amp station's arms (for the lack of a better word atm) and shooting down on other players. Usually this person would be killed by air or someone behind them. Also LA's with their jump packs can get in some weird places.

Add to the above with camo, some cloaking, and prone, you end up having a number of situations start where the opposing player is ambushed and has little chance of fighting back. Even with a longer TTK.

The reduction of hit space, the angles, the visibility, the camo, the cloak, all add up to where I feel most people will be in MAX suits as much as possible since you will be getting ambushed at all times. With the lack of kill cam it can be quite difficult to locate where the fire is coming from. I feel that yes it does slow down gameplay, give more help to defenders, and make everyone quite a bit more cautious. But the BIGGEST impact is that it will turn off more players to the game then what would be turned off by the lack of that ability. The newer players will be getting blasted and sniped out of nowhere, they may even come back for more 3 or 4 times for the same thing, then just say forget it and move back to another game.

BF3 and other games were limited on avenues and space most of the time. Combined with a kill cam, a person couldn't stick around in one spot for long before someone hunted them down. In PS2 there is a HUGE map, no killcam and the chaos of large scale battle, These people will be largely unmolested. Save via someone stumbling across them or air people just generally pounding a base and getting these people in the spam.

The other thing that comes into play is like people said earlier there is the question of where the bullets come from on a character. If you put in prone, the gun needs to react fully with the environment. Otherwise you can generate a larger field of fire then you could if you were actually at a location. Think of being prone on a ledge. You would need to have your gun past the ledge and a good chunk of your body to get out enough to actually shoot downwards. Not to mention your accuracy would go to hell. But in the gameworld, you can usually get by with very little body showing.

So for these reasons I think prone should not be included in the game. If it is I think it will be more difficult to balance and unbug. And would drive off players that would have otherwise have stayed around. Many people here want prone added but if it is left out I think a good number will still play. So on aggregate it is a better decision to not have it.

I think my main point of contention here is that I think ambushes and low TTKs are good things as they mean that thinking tactically outweighs motor skills as the determining factor in who wins an engagement. If you prepare before an engagement, get a good location, know where the enemy is coming from (doing some recon) then you should win hands down to someone who just stumbles onto the battlefield.

I do, however, agree that this seems rather unfriendly to new players. I would think that removing the OSOK headshots fromthe sniper rifle to be the main problem though, as new players won't even be able to spot snipers who are just crouched, most of the time. Prone, I think, makes little difference to new players while this is still a feature in the game.

As I've said before about the pace of the game, campers gonna camp. We'd have to mark that as an unresolvable point if you think that campers only camp because of prone, or that prone makes campers more likely to camp.

[mynameismud]

Originally Posted by Stew

i will say thats this thing i saw now is unusual

on battlefield forums people where MAD at dice to not have implement prone in BFBC lol

Because it was an existing franchise that previously had prone no?

Which is the exact opposite in which case is exactly why you are hearing majority say they dont want prone here you know in the actual forum WE are talking in.

You say a forum vote here matters little but what some people said on another forum from a completely different game all the sudden matters to you? So when a majority from a completely different forum from a completely different game matters when it supports your opinion. But all the opinions here dont matter cause they dont agree with yours?

This is not battlefield. If you want to play battlefield then you are free to do so.

Like I said I am not debating back and forth with you anymore for you have a lack of reading comprehension and common sense. Just because you have a lot to say does not make a single thing you said worth reading.

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by Stew

i will say thats this thing i saw now is unusual

on battlefield forums people where MAD at dice to not have implement prone in BFBC lol

so if you take the 1 000 000 potential players who are going to play planetside iam pretty much sure most of them will want prone

people who are going to play planetside arent just the planetside 1 players like me or like the vets who even play it these days but considering ive play over 1900 hours in 3 years ive play a lots lol

but a 300 votes poll will certainly not represent all those potential millions of players comming from games like battlefield , MAG , Killzone , call of duty , arma , and many more

so i think most of those people will actually want prone in

so anyway we will see give it a chance and if its really dont work they will remoove it

The allure of Planetside is more in its scale and myriad of options. I think if prone is not included people may want it. But if they like the game it will be a gripe but not a reason that causes people to quit.

While the inverse is that if you put it in, once in, it will be difficult to remove as players will not be happy to see it leave. The people who left because of prone will not be around to talk about it.

A good player can use prone to great effect and as I stated earlier it changes the flow of gameplay. If the first timers feel like they are just being destroyed by other players, they would usually leave instead of fighting through it to become good enough to feel like a worthy player. Without prone this is a smaller curve.

I know I come across as a genie out of the bottle type thing when discussing prone. Maybe I am just a bit biased. Most of my good moments in FPSs didn't count prone as a necessary part. A good number of my bad moments did count prone as a part. Usually the issue of locating an enemy when they are prone, once they start firing, and dying before I had a chance to do much. Or an area being defended by two or three prone snipers in bush cover, where it is near impossible to see them or return fire.

Maybe it could work out swimmingly, I feel once you put it in, its too late. It will never get pulled back out and the decision has been made. People will give up on the game instead of going to the forums and demanding you remove prone. If the devs feel this is what is causing an issue, you will get current players demanding prone remain since the only ones left are those who like it.