Originally Posted by Gandhi
Nope I for one don't, and I don't see any legitimate reasons for it either. It's purely a game design decision, because you can have a perfectly good system without prone and a perfectly good system with prone. Make that decision early and you can build the rest of the game around it easily enough, including offering sufficient cover for crouched players where cover is intended.
The only fact here is that implementing prone takes time, quite a lot of time. It means several new sets of animations and a whole new branch of collision testing to make sure you don't have peoples legs clipping through walls or rocks or ground. It's not a simple addition, it's a lot of work.
|
the legitimate reason for it is having more possibility gameplay wise iam a runer and gunners and front line assault guy and i use prone a lots in order to suceed my multiples assault it help to have situational awareness also help me to resuply heal reload etc.. while always mooving foward
i understand the whole point of prone implementation if its badly implemented i prefer to not have it as well
but if its well done i will greatly apreciate it as a tool for me to get advantage of the terrain and will make my play session a way more tactical and fair having cover who just lets a part of your head uncover and u get kill while reloading because of thats its frustrating for no reason because with prone i could avoid these thing