Planetside 2 Needs Prone

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by Cuross

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

Even though I disagree with the opinion represented by this poll, this is correct.

Facts and empirical methods must always be regarded as superior to any other argument else all issues become intransigent.

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by Khrusky

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.

Well I think a pure tactical gameplay model is not what most FPSers desire. Teamwork yes, but tatical on the level of a Ghost recon type thing? Not so much. You want the player to feel he has a chance you know, not that it just matters who saw who first.

Yes campers are going to camp. But the effectiveness of a crouched camper is a bit. A prone camper is much more dangersous. Now prone with camo and foliage. Even experienced players will have a tough time picking out the camper, much less newbies. You have that person crouched and now it is a valid tactic but not an overwhelming one.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Cuross

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

this poll is also not public no we cant see whos voting multiples accont can be involve on both side and even thats

if you look at battlefield forums the number of player asking form prone and cursing for it ws around 90 % lol so yeah

[Cuross]

Originally Posted by Khrusky

Even though I disagree with the opinion represented by this poll, this is correct.

Facts and empirical methods must always be regarded as superior to any other argument else all issues become intransigent.

Lol even correct use of statistics leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth. I see the appeal of prone, but I don't find it necessary as I mentioned in my earlier post, but I decided to leave out the fact that there are a great plenty reasons why the results are what they are.

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by mirwalk

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.

I do agree that it would be much harder to remove it than add it in.
However, I feel that the same number of people would leave based on it either being in or not in. Very few people don't play games based on these sorts of reasons.

As I said earlier about new players, OSOK headshots, which are in the game already, have much more of an effect on the 'unfairness' of sniping for new players than prone.

Countering prone players is basically the same as countering camping players that are hidden well that are merely crouched: Watch for muzzle flare, watch the bullet trajectory, try and think about where is the best place for a sniper to be, and communicate well. Preparing in advance for an engagement, and securing advantageous territory, should be rewarded.

I've had lots of good moments with prone, hiding from tanks inside buildings. Also just hugging the ground when being shot at by snipers or people with machine-guns. The tension is great!

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Cuross

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

Well...over at the Mordor forums, things like Disabling, 3D spotting, killcam etc were constantly defeated in 300-400 person polls. A lot people argued that Mordor was too many PC players, BF2/2142 vets, and other things, to be a valid sample. The same could be said of here, for being a disproportionate sample of PS1 vets.

With that said, they started running polls on Battlelog, that have gotten over 50,000 responses each. There have, to my knowledge, only been two polls that directly go up against a similar poll on Mordor: One for suppression and one for killcam.

The results of the suppression poll on Battlelog were archived here:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...l#post20873946

And here is the companion poll for Mordor on which 212 voted:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...ppression.html

Mordor's 212 voted the opposite of the 77k.

Unfortunately I don't think they archived the killcam poll on Battlelog but it was similar. 40% voted they liked it as is in BF3, with the rest scattered among various levels of remove it/change it, whereas on Mordor, remove would have been the most popular vote.

I always maintained that we needed massive polls to determine if Mordor's opinion was that of the majority. Frankly, it looks like it wasn't, painful to admit though that may be, though killcam and suppression are only 2 polls and not enough to be conclusive. I'm pretty sure if a disabling poll were done, the 80000 on Battlelog would vote the same as Mordor.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by mynameismud

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.

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.

you seams to not understand the Prone position isnt a game feature from a specific game its a stand position

and while implemented become a game mechanics wich can be well made or badly implement a poor prone implementation lead to exploits and bad gameplay experience GOOD prone implementations lead to more options more freedoms of moovements for the players !

this have nothing to do with wich games have it or not its like games where you cant jump like golden eye 64 or rainbowsix black arrow etc.. in those shooter game wher u cant jump when you simply enconter a lilttle box on the ground its a insurmountable obstacle and thats silly it makes you feel like an incompetent !

Its almost the same with the NO prone mechanics when their is no prone you see an object that you might get used to hide for a second , just to reload your gun but no you are a prisoner of the mechanics of game that will not let you act as you want it just lead to frustration and lack of freedom of moovement ! wich are natural for us

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well...over at the Mordor forums, things like Disabling, 3D spotting, killcam etc were constantly defeated in 300-400 person polls. A lot people argued that Mordor was too many PC players, BF2/2142 vets, and other things, to be a valid sample. The same could be said of here, for being a disproportionate sample of PS1 vets.

With that said, they started running polls on Battlelog, that have gotten over 50,000 responses each. There have, to my knowledge, only been two polls that directly go up against a similar poll on Mordor: One for suppression and one for killcam.

The results of the suppression poll on Battlelog were archived here:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...l#post20873946

And here is the companion poll for Mordor on which 212 voted:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...ppression.html

Mordor's 212 voted the opposite of the 77k.

Unfortunately I don't think they archived the killcam poll on Battlelog but it was similar. 40% voted they liked it as is in BF3, with the rest scattered among various levels of remove it/change it, whereas on Mordor, remove would have been the most popular vote.

I always maintained that we needed massive polls to determine if Mordor's opinion was that of the majority. Frankly, it looks like it wasn't, painful to admit though that may be, though killcam and suppression are only 2 polls and not enough to be conclusive. I'm pretty sure if a disabling poll were done, the 80000 on Battlelog would vote the same as Mordor.

good exemple grats

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by mirwalk

Well I think a pure tactical gameplay model is not what most FPSers desire. Teamwork yes, but tatical on the level of a Ghost recon type thing? Not so much. You want the player to feel he has a chance you know, not that it just matters who saw who first.

Yes campers are going to camp. But the effectiveness of a crouched camper is a bit. A prone camper is much more dangersous. Now prone with camo and foliage. Even experienced players will have a tough time picking out the camper, much less newbies. You have that person crouched and now it is a valid tactic but not an overwhelming one.

The thing I like about prone is that it encourages thinking before the fight even starts, making it much less about who saw who first (I'm not sure I understood what you said correctly so I apologise if you meant something else).

I agree that most players probably find preparing ahead and thinking into tactics as much as I enjoy doing so to be too much of a chore for a leisure activity. However, I would argue that prone makes little difference compared to the TTK. I feel that prone alone gives more enjoyment to the user than it takes from their targets. (the disappointment comes from being killed before they can react, a TTK thing; you see the same issues with shotguns in close-range battles)

[Cuross]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well...over at the Mordor forums, things like Disabling, 3D spotting, killcam etc were constantly defeated in 300-400 person polls. A lot people argued that Mordor was too many PC players, BF2/2142 vets, and other things, to be a valid sample. The same could be said of here, for being a disproportionate sample of PS1 vets.

With that said, they started running polls on Battlelog, that have gotten over 50,000 responses each. There have, to my knowledge, only been two polls that directly go up against a similar poll on Mordor: One for suppression and one for killcam...

Lol, do people actually say "statistically speaking" without always cringing as they say it? After I took statistics last year I have almost always attributed statistical analysis with distrust. I just want to point out that no matter who is starting off a sentence with "statistically speaking", you can never take the results wholly serious as there are great many reasons why they can be skewed.

But is no one going to offer me any counterpoints to my argument? I was hoping that I could see some brilliance that didn't revolve around camping or "in this game this and that game that", lol.

[fishirboy]

this is why we need prone only the first min but it is a good example

[mirwalk]

Originally Posted by Khrusky

I do agree that it would be much harder to remove it than add it in.
However, I feel that the same number of people would leave based on it either being in or not in. Very few people don't play games based on these sorts of reasons.

As I said earlier about new players, OSOK headshots, which are in the game already, have much more of an effect on the 'unfairness' of sniping for new players than prone.

Countering prone players is basically the same as countering camping players that are hidden well that are merely crouched: Watch for muzzle flare, watch the bullet trajectory, try and think about where is the best place for a sniper to be, and communicate well. Preparing in advance for an engagement, and securing advantageous territory, should be rewarded.

I've had lots of good moments with prone, hiding from tanks inside buildings. Also just hugging the ground when being shot at by snipers or people with machine-guns. The tension is great!

Tension is ok, but I feel you can get enough of that will some regular cover, not needing prone.

I may be blowing it out of proportion due to the amount of MAXs and vehicles that are usually around.

Usually I defeat campers and prone people with a few grenades, but with me having to use resources for them. I am less inclined to spam them to clear areas. I do this since I can't really see through a window or doorway and see a prone person.

Or like those moments in BF3 that someone is prone and just laying down a constant stream of fire into a doorway. Makes a very hard target. That may be defused by MAXes

[Khrusky]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

[Data]

I appreciate you spending the time to pull up that information. It's very interesting.

[mynameismud]

Originally Posted by Stew

you seams to not understand the Prone position isnt a game deature form a specific game its a stand position

oh my god dude seriously? the only game i want to specifically talk about is planetside 2. You are the one bringing up all this bull from other games. Your the one posting all the "pro" footage from games not called planetside.

You totally ignored my entire point, of you caring what a bunch of people say on a different forum for a different game just because it supports your opinion.

All while disregarding the opinions of the people in the very forum you are in because they're opinion isnt the same as yours. I listen to other people's discussions and thoughts cause they make sense and they listen to other people.

You just hold your hand over your ears and babble on about pointless other games you like that support prone.

This is why i dont want to get into this with you, you make little to no sense. But you yammer on as if you think if you post more people will think the majority want prone.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Cuross

But is no one going to offer me any counterpoints to my argument? I was hoping that I could see some brilliance that didn't revolve around camping or "in this game this and that game that", lol.

All I can say about that is that even if you don't think of camping as a playstyle, some of the people here do. I say this because I've seen "camping" and "slow gameplay"(which does seem more descriptive of a playstyle than "camping") grouped in the same sentence. I kind of get the feeling people want the game to be a constant back and forth with bases falling quickly and the front line moving back and forth constantly with no long battles. I rather thought that should be left up to skills and strategies than artificial limitations. Because, as I said before, prone is just a proxy argument for camping/slow gameplay. When lack of prone doesn't achieve the desired effect on game pace, what's next? Return of killcam? That's why a line in the sand is being drawn on prone, at least for me, not just on the merits of prone itself.

Not a brilliant argument by any means, but it's all I have for you