Planetside 2 Needs Prone

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by LegioX

Dolphin diving excuse is really getting annoying. There are plenty of ways to make prone, without having people hump the ground every 2-3 sec like in COD.

not with higby looking to mirror it it isnt.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Well, you pretty much completely missed my point and most others I'd guess, I said no prone because it encourages camping and slows down gameplay.

Please read all the posts before commenting. I mentioned I didn't want to reiterate points over. I was just compiling a list of main complaints by people. Also your fascination with BF3 was evident in your posts comparing a possible prone implementation to BF3 and other games. You're fixated on that implementation and are blinded to other ones. (Not the only person. I remember the words "dolphin diving" coming up a few times so I jotted it down as something people didn't want).

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Some people just want to watch the world burn. And by that I mean there are some people from BF3 who just want every single lame and stupid feature from "modern" FPS games. (edit Prone isn't stupid it just doesn't fit in the game, everything else is) Or just a carbon copy of BF3 on a massive scale.

The implementation I defined would fit perfectly into Planetside 2 allowing more complex gameplay. The biggest problem in BF3 wasn't the implementation directly. It was the TTK that revolved around it which made it so effective. You'll find this in other games also where prone takes over crouch in effectiveness showing off the design flaw. There's a line where with a low TTK and how easy the prone is to use that it crosses into the point where using it offers no disadvantage. Most any game with a prone that can be activated with a diving prone crosses into this. There's no noticeable advantage between using it and crouch. There's where Planetside 2 would need to make the difference. Forcing a player to go from a crouch to prone and back in a delayed animation greatly separates the uses.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I'm not complaining about it slowing down gameplay, I'm complaining about the uses being dolphin diving and camping. You KNOW for a fact that that's what the vast majority of people will use it for.

Camping is a legitimate tactic. With a high TTK using camping in a CQC region doesn't affect the game much. People will just throw a grenade in or go in for a headshot on the guy on the ground. You only see camping being a problem when the TTK allows someone to pick off people before they can react at a door. This is all in the game's implementation. I've written very long explanations in the past relating TTK and the number of choices a player has to make as a justification for allowing more complex tactics.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The game has already been designed without prone in mind so I think we're okay. Crouching won't be a problem since terrain and cover objects will be tall enough to protect you. There, no reason for having prone now. You can escape enemy fire, and since apparently all you want it for, crouch takes that role.

The game is hardly designed at this point. We just got asked by arclegger a few days ago about what cover options we want. Most of it is still in flux about how cover and combat will play out. It's a moot argument to try to say "we don't have time to make the game better".

Originally Posted by Zulthus

That's so true. God damn. I remember when games used to be good. But sadly we have these people that want every damned game to be a cookie cutter piece of shit.

From all of the comments on youtube, to most of the new people on this forum, 'It looks like halo" "lawlz BF ripoff" "where iz the m16 and stuffz?" "PUT EVERYTHING FROM BATTLEFIELD IN TO THIS GAME"

Go away.

As I said you expect an implementation to be identically take 1:1 from the BF series. It just wouldn't work and I've agreed with you on that already. Same reason most of the gameplay has to be tweaked for a larger amount of players (and balanced during beta). I think these kind of comments accent your fear of BF gameplay mechanics. It's essentially like a beginner joining and going "we can't have planes in the game. Look at what they do to soldiers in BF3. They get 100 kills a match" where you're wise enough to know that they are indeed not similar at all. Same goes for say a sniper rifle. Nobody expects a BF3 sniper rifle in the game with the same balance. (Or when I've analyzed threads in the past only a few people said they wanted that). It's a realization that anything that is adapted from other games is going to be different and ultimately unique to Planetside 2 because of what it is.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

PS2's terrain and cover was designed with crouch only gameplay in mind. This will not be a problem. Crouch now fills the role prone did.

Notice, though, how in BFBC2 camping was not nearly as much a problem as it was in BF3, and its combat was much more fun because people were actually running around instead of sitting in one spot.

Crouch doesn't fill the role prone did. There was no prone. Crouch fills its own role of allowing players the choice of trading mobility for a smaller profile and more accuracy. Now all prone does is add onto that and says "if you want to take the time you can get more accuracy and an even lower profile but you have to give up almost all your mobility. When you bring in broken implementations with diving prone you cloud what the true implementation should be and what the developers should be aiming for.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

That's your opinion. Many, many hardcore BF fans loved the game and I did too. I've played every BF since 1942 and I think that BC2 was more fun than BF3. BF2142 was the absolute best, however. It took everything great about BF2 and made it prettier with more toys to play with.

To me it sounded like you had played BF games too much and what you want is a better BF game and are assuming that any prone implementation has to follow older BF prone implementations or be taken out completely. It's a very narrow way to look at gameplay implementations.

[Cosmical]

I suppose people have addressed the fact that to do prone right you have to spread the persons body mass along the floor. COD does this, it ensures that the player cannot hide in places unrealistically, and that their legs dont clip through the wall giving away their possition outside the building. But doing this adds a whole range of other problems.

Best example of prone being implimented are between Bad Company and Battlefield 3. If you ask yourself honestly how much does it change combat, its not alot. Once you get passed the ability to hide in bushes. Which i did in Vietnam quite successfully anyway.

[Zulthus]

You took that much time to reply to me? I don't see why, but I might as well reply back.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Please read all the posts before commenting. I mentioned I didn't want to reiterate points over. I was just compiling a list of main complaints by people. Also your fascination with BF3 was evident in your posts comparing a possible prone implementation to BF3 and other games. You're fixated on that implementation and are blinded to other ones. (Not the only person. I remember the words "dolphin diving" coming up a few times so I jotted it down as something people didn't want).

Not just BF3. In general, I dislike any prone in any game other than something like ARMA. It slows down gameplay and is almost never used productively, and almost always leads to people camping doorways, hallways, etc. There is no real use to it other than that. Digging down can be done by crouching, there's no need to go prone to defend a point.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

The implementation I defined would fit perfectly into Planetside 2 allowing more complex gameplay. The biggest problem in BF3 wasn't the implementation directly. It was the TTK that revolved around it which made it so effective. You'll find this in other games also where prone takes over crouch in effectiveness showing off the design flaw. There's a line where with a low TTK and how easy the prone is to use that it crosses into the point where using it offers no disadvantage. Most any game with a prone that can be activated with a diving prone crosses into this. There's no noticeable advantage between using it and crouch. There's where Planetside 2 would need to make the difference. Forcing a player to go from a crouch to prone and back in a delayed animation greatly separates the uses.

The TTK between BF3 and PS2 seems nearly identical, maybe a difference of .5 seconds. What do you propose as separate uses for crouch and prone? I honestly cannot think of any. Accuracy is not a good argument because I should not be forced to hit the floor to line up a good shot. Give good aimed accuracy to a crouched stance and there isn't even a reason to think about putting it in.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Camping is a legitimate tactic. With a high TTK using camping in a CQC region doesn't affect the game much. People will just throw a grenade in or go in for a headshot on the guy on the ground. You only see camping being a problem when the TTK allows someone to pick off people before they can react at a door. This is all in the game's implementation. I've written very long explanations in the past relating TTK and the number of choices a player has to make as a justification for allowing more complex tactics.

Campers don't sit in the middle of an open area where they can be headshotted or blown up by a grenade. I'm sorry, I don't and never will find camping to be a legitimate tactic. You shouldn't rack up score because you're sitting in a corner mowing people down with your LMG before they knew what hit them. The TTK difference between PS2 and BF3 isn't significant enough to say they'd be able to react before they were killed.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

The game is hardly designed at this point. We just got asked by arclegger a few days ago about what cover options we want. Most of it is still in flux about how cover and combat will play out. It's a moot argument to try to say "we don't have time to make the game better".

If you looked back at the thread you'd notice he only mentioned crouch. The game is not being designed around being able to prone. It simply is not needed. What do you mean the game is hardly designed, anyway? It's extremely far in development. Sure, we have time to make the game better, but putting prone in isn't necessarily "Better".

Originally Posted by Sirisian

As I said you expect an implementation to be identically take 1:1 from the BF series. It just wouldn't work and I've agreed with you on that already. Same reason most of the gameplay has to be tweaked for a larger amount of players (and balanced during beta). I think these kind of comments accent your fear of BF gameplay mechanics. It's essentially like a beginner joining and going "we can't have planes in the game. Look at what they do to soldiers in BF3. They get 100 kills a match" where you're wise enough to know that they are indeed not similar at all. Same goes for say a sniper rifle. Nobody expects a BF3 sniper rifle in the game with the same balance. (Or when I've analyzed threads in the past only a few people said they wanted that). It's a realization that anything that is adapted from other games is going to be different and ultimately unique to Planetside 2 because of what it is.

Just like the minimap and squad bar, eh... and yes, I do fear some BF mechanics. If you've ever played 64 man CQC on BF3 you'd know how bad of a problem camping is. Let me use Metro as an example... it's seems to be similar to some of they layouts we've seen with all of the stairs and rooms... it's literally impossible to count the amount of people you'll see lined up prone just farming people who attempt to run in any door accessing their side. This would very likely be amplified with the amount of players fighting CQC in PS2... 400 in a base maybe? Oh god, the nightmares...

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Crouch doesn't fill the role prone did. There was no prone. Crouch fills its own role of allowing players the choice of trading mobility for a smaller profile and more accuracy. Now all prone does is add onto that and says "if you want to take the time you can get more accuracy and an even lower profile but you have to give up almost all your mobility. When you bring in broken implementations with diving prone you cloud what the true implementation should be and what the developers should be aiming for.

I never said there was prone in PS1, if that's what you're implying. I worded that to mean if there was prone in PS2. But as I said earlier, why should I be forced to be slow and rolling around on the ground just to get a good shot lined up? Again, promotes camping because you are not mobile on the ground. Just give crouching the accuracy bonus and that already speeds up gameplay.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

To me it sounded like you had played BF games too much and what you want is a better BF game and are assuming that any prone implementation has to follow older BF prone implementations or be taken out completely. It's a very narrow way to look at gameplay implementations.

No, it's a matter of personal preference. The entirety of yours and my arguments is completely subjective. I'd love a game that mixed BFBC2 and 2142, however... the fast pace of BC2 due to significantly less campers and the gadgets and setting of 2142... that'd be great...

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

Realism in video games is reason enough not to have it in.

I don't understand your logic. I've spent my time on the real ground and being prone was very much a part of it.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

I don't understand your logic. I've spent my time on the real ground and being prone was very much a part of it.

I don't see what realism has to do with video games, if you want realism, don't play a video games.

[Stardouser]

removed

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

You took that much time to reply to me? I don't see why, but I might as well reply back.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Not just BF3. In general, I dislike any prone in any game other than something like ARMA. It slows down gameplay and is almost never used productively, and almost always leads to people camping doorways, hallways, etc. There is no real use to it other than that. Digging down can be done by crouching, there's no need to go prone to defend a point.

You just said there's a reason to crouch. We had games not too long ago where people couldn't crouch at all. Suddenly that then modern FPS tactic became mainstream because people liked the option to use it.

Also you make the assumption it's used for defense. It could very well be used for offense outdoors. I honestly don't see it being useful indoors especially with maxes and grenades being flung through every door.

Honestly if I was playing I probably wouldn't use prone at a defensive point. I'd just crouch behind a piece of cover so I could continue moving. However, if I was outside flanking the enemy (very common in PS1) I'd love to just lie down for some added accuracy and unload on the enemy for headshots from a range. I could crouch, but if I had the choice I'd rather go prone for the lower profile.

I agree with you 100% about when it should be used and when it really shouldn't be used. However if you get killed by a sniper crouching behind a box you might go "oh he's camping using crouching". Personally I don't see the difference if a person is standing, crouch, or prone behind cover and shooting at the enemy. If anything attacking a person using prone you're more often to get headshots since the target isn't strafing. It's a huge disadvantage and choice a player could make.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The TTK between BF3 and PS2 seems nearly identical, maybe a difference of .5 seconds. What do you propose as separate uses for crouch and prone? I honestly cannot think of any. Accuracy is not a good argument because I should not be forced to hit the floor to line up a good shot. Give good aimed accuracy to a crouched stance and there isn't even a reason to think about putting it in.

I wouldn't go by what we saw in the alpha footage as the end TTK. We saw planes hitting tanks with like 5 rockets to destroy them. Also the TTK we saw in many of the videos at more than 15 meters were rather large. In the GDC video we saw players taking shots at each other for a while. Any ranged shot and you'll notice especially with the GDC roof footage where both players go through full clips while shooting and strafing. Imagine if the guy on the roof was prone. He would have gotten hit a lot especially if the other player is aware and actively dodging the rounds.

It's both the trade-off of mobility for accuracy and the lesser profile. Same reason why people crouch. If all the guns had perfect accuracy while standing would there be a reason to crouch? Of course. There's situations where your standing in a place where it's advantageous. You lower your profile by nearly a half. Now prone is another case. In a courtyard with infantry streaming out to defend a base. You might prefer the lower profile when shooting rather than crouching. Basically giving up almost any mobility for 1/4 or less of the normal profile. Would everyone use it? No, but it's open to players that see the moment where those tactics are useful. Just like no one will be forced to crouch all the time. They can walk toward the enemy and aim down the sights if they feel that will work better.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Campers don't sit in the middle of an open area where they can be headshotted or blown up by a grenade. I'm sorry, I don't and never will find camping to be a legitimate tactic. You shouldn't rack up score because you're sitting in a corner mowing people down with your LMG before they knew what hit them. The TTK difference between PS2 and BF3 isn't significant enough to say they'd be able to react before they were killed.

You don't need to be prone to camp then. You're simply projecting a flawed gameplay decision on prone. Crouching as I mentioned before has absolutely no difference in that scenario. Even standing up at that point doesn't make a difference. If the game's TTK is broken to the point players can't react to anything when assaulting a base it will be handled in beta.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

If you looked back at the thread you'd notice he only mentioned crouch. The game is not being designed around being able to prone. It simply is not needed. What do you mean the game is hardly designed, anyway? It's extremely far in development. Sure, we have time to make the game better, but putting prone in isn't necessarily "Better".

I mean the interiors lack any cover. In the tower video and tech plant video (I think that was the building) there's nothing inside really for cover meaning only the basic layout was developed so far. Also arclegger mentioned in IRC how trivial it is to move around objects in the map to reposition them. Most of the same cover one might use for prone, like rocks and barrels, are already there for cover.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

If you've ever played 64 man CQC on BF3 you'd know how bad of a problem camping is. Let me use Metro as an example... it's seems to be similar to some of they layouts we've seen with all of the stairs and rooms... it's literally impossible to count the amount of people you'll see lined up prone just farming people who attempt to run in any door accessing their side. This would very likely be amplified with the amount of players fighting CQC in PS2... 400 in a base maybe? Oh god, the nightmares...

You do realize we did this in PS1 right in the basement and at every interlink facility? You walked into the basement with 100 TR maxes lines around the door or people behind crates gunning anyone that walked through the door. It is absolutely no different than in BF3 in metro when people crouched behind the wooden paper pallet things. You really don't need prone to camp and it doesn't even make it easier in most cases. With prone most of the time you leave your whole body exposed so someone rushing in at close range will get an easy kill. That and defending is a whole different ballgame in Planetside 2. The capture points are fairly open. The ones we saw in the videos were in buildings with two open doors. Doesn't look all that camper friendly. Especially the huge open stairs in some of the buildings.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I never said there was prone in PS1, if that's what you're implying. I worded that to mean if there was prone in PS2. But as I said earlier, why should I be forced to be slow and rolling around on the ground just to get a good shot lined up? Again, promotes camping because you are not mobile on the ground. Just give crouching the accuracy bonus and that already speeds up gameplay.

I wasn't implying that. You said "crouch now fills the role prone did" which is an odd statement to make. Well odder than "PS2's terrain [...] was designed with crouch only gameplay in mind." which I totally ignored because it make no sense to me how terrain is designed for only crouch. It's identical to real world terrain pretty much.

You wouldn't be forced to be "rolling around on the ground just to get a good shot lined up". If you're shooting insanely far distances with a normal rifle and want the added accuracy go for it. For close range camping in a base you might as well just crouch with ADS. Chances are it's much easier and you can still strafe to dodge rounds as people run into the room.

Originally Posted by Zulthus

No, it's a matter of personal preference. The entirety of yours and my arguments is completely subjective. I'd love a game that mixed BFBC2 and 2142, however... the fast pace of BC2 due to significantly less campers and the gadgets and setting of 2142... that'd be great...

I might be subjective by saying with the right TTK prone can be a useful choice for players along with crouching, but I'm trying to explain why as objectively as possible.

BF2142 prone worked extremely well. I used prone probably all the time time in that game with the engineer shield and turret. Throwing down that shield as I get hit by an enemy and sitting behind it was one of the best experiences I had in a game since with the game's relatively high TTK it allowed players to make choices that one normally wouldn't find in other FPS games. I can't remember of any instances where prone was overly powerful either. (Turret and shield at the same time was overpowered though ). Also we're looking at situations where players hopefully aren't mowing down tons of people in a row. If the game is like that then we'll need to solve it during beta since camping will be an unavoidable frustration if it's too common.

[IHateMMOs]

No prone, not only does is it annoying when you're in a firefight and your opponent decides to go prone becoming harder to hit, but also, going prone may cause you to clip out of the map in some corner since you flat on the ground. Prone should not be in Planetside 2 under any circumstances. Only dampens the gameplay.

[fishirboy]

Please watch this video BF3 is the topic but this game is NOT REALISTIC but it gives good points why prone is good and how you "get around people that are prone"



People freak out when some one said prone and then they just receive hate. They say that it's to hard to kill the person or that prone is op... so your telling me that my legs can't bend and lay down, and now if I fall I can't get up? Also people say that dolphin dives are evil and should never happen! Well first off no there not bad and should be there because this is supposed to be strategic i thought. I as a player should be able to dive out of the way of oncoming bullets and be able to do a matrix dive into a hall way and shoot some one around the corner. Also I can hide behind smaller cover easily and that prevents me from dieing! This is not evil, or bad, or will destroy the game, it will make it so you can have a better way to support and hide from the enemy.

1. What I have gathered from people and what they say 2. then i say my reason why it's wrong in my own opinion:

Originally Posted by Raymac

No. It doesn't. PS1 didn't need prone.

You guys never had prone and does not mean you did not need it, Just that the game worked fine with out it. That does not mean you did not need it, prone makes you harder to hit and makes people mad because they think that they should have that kill. It helps with not dieing from a long distance sniper rifle. Go watch some arma2 videos and see the major differences between prone and a crouch.

Originally Posted by Warborn

If your signature is bigger than your post you need to reconsider your priorities.

Not having prone discourages camping-style gameplay. Planetside has always been a more aggressive sort of shooter than something like BF3, and this is one area I don't mind them keeping the same.

Actually I have to discourage with this stance because no, it does not discourage camping, it makes it harder to camp but does not discourage it. also this is a tactical game camping is vital to killing more men then the other team helping your team. camping is also a stupid word. If your in the army you know that sniping from a high spot and killing targets saves lives and that is what prone will help do.

Originally Posted by Bags

I hate prone. I've found little reason to use anything but it 90% of the time in BF3.

What? why do you hate it then if you use it? Like many have said "if you don't like it, don't do it"

Originally Posted by neonlazer

I will also laugh if they added prone...how will you use your minigun while prone? will it be sitting on the ground? HAHA

There is no why that devs would do this in the first place, and some guns would ether not allow you to crouch, wait untell you put that gun away to crouch or put that gun away when you do crouch.

Originally Posted by Zenben

This is not BF3/COD, no prone please.

Of corce this is not don't cry, nor is it any other FPS that has prone like, well lest say i could name a lot. So pritty much what your saying is that if a game has prone its a BF3/COD right away? Interesting

PAGE 2!!!

Originally Posted by Fuse

PlanetSide has never been realistic. I don't know where you got that idea.

Soooo.... your saying prone should not be there because it's realistic? So we should take out walking, tanks, running, crouching, airplains, and well were at it the floor can go to!

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Okay, but these need to be put in too:

-Damage taken while prone is doubled.

-Because of the extreme surface contact with the ground, infiltrators can only get to about 50% stealth maximum, even with no weapon drawn.

-Unable to use AV weapons.

-Unable to throw grenades more than 15 meters.

-Able to be trampled by friendlies and enemies, causing damage and inflicting grief on any trampling friendlies.

-Takes 1 second to get to crouching from prone. Certs can reduce that to half a second.

AV, takes 1 second to get down are fine ideas but the rest have problems. You should never take 2 times damage from going prone, the reason for it is to AVOID damage. It makes the enemy have to aim strait, and because you cant hit the bride side of a drop ship does not mean you need to have a handy-cap. I think i can through grenades a little farther then that when on the ground. Also for the infiltrators thing so, let if you have feet, that brings your stealth down to 90%?

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Yay for another feature that isn't need

/sarcasm

Prone never works proper in any game, and tends to lead to similar frustrations as bunnyhopping does.

Actually no your wrong with that one, if you see some arma 2 videos then that is the greatest pron I have ever seen, you can eather run and pron or slowly get prone, you cant just press up to see some one on the top of a building next to you (you would need your spine gone to do that haha) and being able to make yourself smaller in a battle field is needed.

Originally Posted by NCLynx

In a game with this scale I feel like more things could go wrong than right if prone was added. The last thing I want is to see hundreds of people laying down in a base fight cluttering up the place.

So people in Battle field just lay down when they capture a spawn point and guard it, usually what I see is people running around and moving to find the next kill. Prone wont make people be hiding ****** and you dont need to be afraid grasshopper haha.

Side Note: LOVE THIS POST!!!

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Camping is a legitimate tactic, and to support the removal of a feature based on discouraging legitimate gameplay or the inclusion of features that artificially render a legitimate gameplay tactic pointless is the same as forcing others to play the way YOU like.

People who hate camping want you to duel them on the main street at high noon. That's not what a wargame is all about.

Originally Posted by Razicator

Hell no. Cloaking snipers with prone? And 200+meter tall cliffs to hide on? Worse than BF3's campers...

If your afraid of that then stay indoors haha, that is what the heat sensor scope if for! killing the sniper will be much easier. This game is "Team Based" for a reason.

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

I am thoroughly in the gamist camp when it comes to Planetside. So no, realism is not something I'm after (I've been surprised by threads indicating that gunners can be headshotted out of MANA turrets; I assumed they'd become part of the turret).

Prone looks terrible on the miniature tabletop and it looks equally bad in a game. Toons should be running and gunning, not standing still.

AHEM! sir! Run and gun supposes at halo chief tactic. Not a team tactic that we have been hearing from the devs. This game is better played with a team and going rouge is supposed to get you killed so the gun and run will kill you I think. People are so spoiled with fast, fast, fast all the time, they don't think, wait, think this through, and then slowly aprotch this. Its like the army, you see them running in like there high?

Originally Posted by The Janitor

Can't prone in a cockpit or gunner seat. I have no use for this. And on that note, being prone isn't going to save you from the myriad of vehicles in this game with explosive weapons.

Ya your right about the vehicular thing but, I think that your got this backwards, this is a prone thing for infantry fights not giant metal scrap you RT and NC have. Ducking from a bullet and staying hidden will help you stay alive that is what prone is used for, so that you can get behind cover were cover is not provided when your crouching.

Originally Posted by Tigersmith

Please no prone. The last thing we need is snipers laying down the entire game..look at battlefield 3..thats all they do

watch this: the game is not relistic, but that means if we want 0 realism or have very little then lets take out running, jumping, and crouching.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Really Hamma? Apart from maybe kwiuiqck kniefves this is the thing that most obviously doesn't need beta testing to know whether it's bad.

It's bad, do not even consider, and ban anyone who supports it from the forums.

Actualy no it's not, if the majority of you hate it when beta come out and they just add it in for a week and it does not make things worce (witch won't happen) and makes things better then why are you companing? Big guy cant spray and pray no more???


This is my opinion on the haters that are afraid that it will kill the game if it comes in to the game. easy way to not die from a sniper is to take another way around, get in a party and have some one with a heart beat sensor or body heat sensor. This game has more then 1000 players playing on it because your supposed to be in groups, stop being terrified by snipers in cloke because you cant hit them. that is the whole point of them being hidden. and what is the difference of having some one in cloke crouching or prone you still see the fire coming from there and just go around and kill them. Hate on me all you want for ether repeating others but I want my opinion on prone and that if it was in gaming at the same time as crouching you guys would not be complaining. It would be like having no crouch and then having it for the first time in PS2, you would all go crazy!

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by IHateMMOs

No prone, not only does is it annoying when you're in a firefight and your opponent decides to go prone becoming harder to hit, but also, going prone may cause you to clip out of the map in some corner since you flat on the ground. Prone should not be in Planetside 2 under any circumstances. Only dampens the gameplay.

GOING PRONE IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU HARDER TO HIT!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! the clipping is just bugs that needs to be fixed

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Raymac

No. It doesn't. PS1 didn't need prone.

this isnt a copy and paste of ps1 this is what i always fear about hardcore fans of a game who almost never goes out there to play another game ive been playing Ps1 for years but stop playing it since the gameplay wasent suitable anymore for me !

Planetside 2 and planetside 1 gameplay wise are 2 different game

planetside 2 gameplay wise is now a more like BF3 game or MAG game or COD game and all those game feature prone

BFBC battlefield bad company was a Pain in the ass because of the No prone stuff as a infantry you werent able to use the terrain properly to cover urself if you take cover behind a crate sometime ur head is expose and boom you die whiout a chance to manage to survive because you dont have the proper tool to do so !


MY ONLY concern about all this is how it can turn with infiltrator cloak

but u can also implement a mechanics where if a infiltrator go prone he loose is Cloak BE creative guys

SO Infiltrator will not ruin the feature Infiltrator prone = No cloak possible

infiltrator have to be croutch or stand position to be able to use their cloak is thats sound good ?

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by fishirboy

Lots of words

[fishirboy]

To all of you that say prone will "slow down game play" how do you know? Does prone slow down game play in COD?????? NOPE haha, you guys just arn't giving that a chance. The main point of prone is to make your body harder to hit, so all of you say its to hard try it! BF3 is not slowed down by pron eater, NOT one game has ever been slowed down by this development. I wont you to name one!!!

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

yes haha