Planetside 2 Needs Prone

[Vancha]

I'm not sure I've seen a single explanation as to how this would benefit the game.

That said, I'd be okay with this on two conditions.

1: No ground shuffling, it looks ridiculous. Once you're on the ground, you can move forward and back, slowly, and you can move your crosshair maybe 20-30* left/right.

2: Sizable getting down and getting up animations. Having people fall to the ground and somehow being able to keep their gun lined up is also ridiculous. Your gun is out of action while you're getting down and then it takes time to re-aim.

Edit: And for crying out loud, stop with the BF3 or real life comparisons. Bf3 is an entirely different beast, and real war isn't fun and doesn't make for a good game.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Fuse

Explain to me how not being able to go prone means you have to always be moving.

Not that you're correct in saying forcing a player to do something is always bad. Making generalizations, that's always bad.

Removing prone when games have had it for years(therefore, not just "modern" FPS) is being done specifically for the purpose of stopping prone because some people want to force others to run and gun and duel them out in the open. Forcing may not always be bad but when it's done to promote one legit gameplay style over another, it's bad.

And as I say, camping in BF3 isn't happening because of prone, that's laughable, it's happening because of KDR-centric players, and an unreasonably low TTK, 3D spotting and killcam.

And others have explained it better than me, I particularly like the explanation someone above said about how you can't avoid headshots.

[Fuse]

Originally Posted by MacXXcaM

It simulates a futuristic war.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid... Mario Kart simulates racing go-karts on shrooms, that doesn't make it a simulation game.

Sim: MS Flight Simulator
Not Sim: Crimson Skies

[QuantumMechanic]

If implemented properly, prone could be a good thing. Make it a class perk - say something that only combat medics and combat engineers can do. Make sure the standing to prone and prone to standing transition takes time and you are vulnerable.

Honestly this is one of the few gameplay elements that I *wish* PS2 borrowed from BF3 and the like.

[Whalenator]

Prone slows down gameplay.
While I would love it for realism, it's far too late to try and wrap the base design around having prone in-game. Not to mention the pace of PS2 is going to be slow enough what with the huge numbers of players present.

[Rbstr]

I don't really care either way. I don't understand the hate prone gets.

Crouching sucks, games don't need crouching, You want a crouching system?
Just make cover as tall as a person and poke out.

I don't see much more than a semantic difference.

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Prone made the battlefield franchise worse. It isn't needed in PlanetSide 2, there's no reason to add it, and the game will be much better off without it.

I have to disagree on the comment that prone made BF worse. I don't care if its in PS2 or not, but I thought they did justice by adding prone into BF3.

In the 70 hours I've played BF3 (not a lot i know) i've seen 2 people camping in the corner with a LMG. If they were lucky enough to shoot me in the back it was hardly an effort to locate them when I respawned and kill them.

I thought the lack of prone in BFBC2 encouraged snipers to get cheap shots on me while i knelt behind a block that didn't cover my head. In BF3 If I'm suppressed I can go prone, lay down a med kit and come up prefiring. Hardly camping. If anything it protects me from camping snipers, AT whores and Noob tubers.

[Envenom]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The problem with prone is how it changes the gameplay style.

Compare BFBC2 to BF3.

BFBC2 had a lot more action, more attack, more movement. Since there was no prone in BFBC2 cover was higher and facilitated attack & move style gameplay. Hiding was harder and it encouraged more assault and thus more action. Camping in corners while making yourself small as possible wasn't an issue.

Gameplay with BFBC2 was quite awesome, fast paced, and fun.

BF3 had less cover (because of prone), more camping (because of prone), and less action (because prone rewards camping), and attack was discouraged due to prone putting attackers at more of a disadvantage. The targets shooting at them were smaller, harder to hit, and harder to spot.

Prone made the battlefield franchise worse. It isn't needed in PlanetSide 2, there's no reason to add it, and the game will be much better off without it.

And BF2, the greatest game of all of them in the franchise, used it to great effect with outstandingly positive feedback from the community. BC2 was heavily criticized for omitting this feature and it was a feature DEMANDED by the audience for BF3. And so it was put in. I'm not sure where you're getting this false notion that it made the franchise worse? This must be your misinformed opinion. This is one of the most beloved features of the BF series.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Kurtz

I have to disagree on this one.

In the 70 hours I've played BF3 (not a lot i know) i've seen 2 people camping in the corner with a LMG. If they were lucky enough to shoot me in the back it was hardly an effort to locate them when I respawned and kill them.

I thought the lack of prone in BFBC2 encouraged snipers to get cheap shots on me while i knelt behind a block that didn't cover my head. In BF3 If I'm suppressed I can go prone, lay down a med kit and come up prefiring. Hardly camping. If anything it protects me from camping snipers, AT whores and Noob tubers.

As far as corner camping goes, that's just as good crouched as prone. Perhaps better crouched, since a non-prone system makes the crouch position be the lowest cone of fire stance, and, since you won't be proning for that extra accuracy, you retain maneuverability.

Originally Posted by Envenom

And BF2, the greatest game of all of them, used it to great effect with outstandingly positive feedback from the community. BC2 was heavily criticized for omitting this feature and it was a feature DEMANDED by the audience for BF3. And so it was put in. I'm not sure where you're getting this false notion that it made the franchise worse? This must be your misinformed opinion. This is one of the most beloved features of the BF series.

A lot of people didn't like prone in BF2 but for a reason that no one would guess- Prone diving/dolphin diving. There are ways to not have prone diving besides complete excision of prone from the game.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Removing prone when games have had it for years(therefore, not just "modern" FPS) is being done specifically for the purpose of stopping prone because some people want to force others to run and gun and duel them out in the open. Forcing may not always be bad but when it's done to promote one legit gameplay style over another, it's bad.

And as I say, camping in BF3 isn't happening because of prone, that's laughable, it's happening because of KDR-centric players, and an unreasonably low TTK, 3D spotting and killcam.

And others have explained it better than me, I particularly like the explanation someone above said about how you can't avoid headshots.

Prone's not being removed... as far as we can tell it's not even in the game. Laying down on the ground is not a legitimate gameplay style in a game that calls itself Planetside.

Planetside was never a tactical warfare sim... it was a large scale strategic arcade shooter, and that's the way it ought to stay.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Prone's not being removed... as far as we can tell it's not even in the game. Laying down on the ground is not a legitimate gameplay style in a game that calls itself Planetside.

Planetside was never a tactical warfare sim... it was a large scale strategic arcade shooter, and that's the way it ought to stay.

Being able to prone is simply freedom of movement. In no way shape or form am I in support of anything that should bring up the word "sim".

[Fuse]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Removing prone when games have had it for years(therefore, not just "modern" FPS) is being done specifically for the purpose of stopping prone because some people want to force others to run and gun and duel them out in the open. Forcing may not always be bad but when it's done to promote one legit gameplay style over another, it's bad.

Who cares if other games let you prone? I'm not playing Americas Army, why steal features from other games if you don't feel they serve a distinct purpose in yours? Lots of games have bullet penetration, too, but I don't see that in any of our feature lists.

You think this is why they did it to ruin your play style. Some other random players think this is why the did it. Did anyone from the PS2 team say, "We're not doing prone because we want you to always be moving"? I don't think so. There are more factors than I care to list or could probably come up with that go in to this decision. The bottom line is that it adds little and requires a game to be designed with it in mind, not to mention the frustrations in game play that will arise because of it.

Besides, you can prone in CoD, it hasn't stopped anyone from running and gunning.

Not directly related: If a game's designers want a game to play a certain way then they design the mechanics to FORCE the player to play that way. Almost every design choice that goes in to a game is about either encouraging or forcing a player to act a certain way in at least some aspect.

[PoisonTaco]

A little torn on prone. On one hand PS2 seems like a game about movement and prone could make battles too static with lots of people camping. It could slow down the gameplay but that's something for beta to figure out. On the other hand prone could help infantry take cover from everything being shot at them.

Though giving snipers a short cloak AND prone? Hell no. Also I'd take the cloak over prone because cloaking is AWESOME.

[Envenom]

Originally Posted by Fuse

Not sure if trolling or just stupid... Mario Kart simulates racing go-karts on shrooms, that doesn't make it a simulation game.

Sim: MS Flight Simulator
Not Sim: Crimson Skies

The point he's trying to make is, though it's not a 'super doooper military shooter sim' compared to the rest of your mainstream shooters on the market today, Planetside would be considered more hardcore and realistic of the bunch.

If you think PS is arcadey, clearly you've never been in a CoD or BF match. It makes PS look pretty damn 'realistic'.

[MacXXcaM]

Originally Posted by Fuse

Not sure if trolling or just stupid... Mario Kart simulates racing go-karts on shrooms, that doesn't make it a simulation game.

Sim: MS Flight Simulator
Not Sim: Crimson Skies

Why would it not simulate a futuristic war? I see 3 factions battling with combined arms and different weapons over territories. It simulates a war in it's own logic as most war fps games do.

The amount of realism to it is a debatable point though. Same would go for BF3