|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
   |
Posted - 2012.12.08 10:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
I had a couple of examples in detail for and against going prone but my phone is being stupid so:
More options in the field are a good thing.
+1
Though depending on how it's used it could slow down game play. That is a valid concern.
Option is the key word. It would just be an option. Use it or don't.
That would be up to the player.
It does have a practical and tactical use though. |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 11:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
I wish I did have a fix but sadly no. Only two programming classes so far and its really not my fort+¬... I'll leave it for smarter people than I. Though I do like as many options as possible... may be why I have so many low tier skills... I wouldn't want lots of options at the expense of ruining the game though. Maybe after release and the dust settles...
No pun intended... |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 22:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think the ability to go prone could be a good thing as it allows different tactics and responses to said tactics and with it's use would force a rethink of currently heavily used tactics on the fly. Only if it is used however. I would in no way agree to a mandatory prone situation. If it could be implemented successfully as an OPTION without the problems Garrett brings up what could be wrong with that? Use it or not, adapt or die. That goes for both sides. Other than Garrett who put up a valid argument against, if there are other reasons why it shouldn't be included state them and try and convince those of us who want it, that it's a bad thing. BUT, if those things Garrett mentioned could be fixed somewhere down the line why shouldn't it be included? Again, convince me. I'm generally not an unreasonable individual and I'm allowed to change my mind with new information. |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 01:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
It should be limited to something, perhaps minimum weight or weapon equiped. Amount of armor plates used. Something.
And a heavy going prone would be great, like a turtle on it's back! Sprint into fatty's legs and watch 'em spin! |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 08:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
And that's where sensors and skills and such come in.
Stealth and distance is part of the sniper game.
Heavies that are properly equipped, that I can't send screaming back to a CRU with a sniper round to the head are annoying.
Should they be limited to the amount of armor or shields they can equip or have to make my job easier?
Why would you want to limit a given roles capabilities in those roles? |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 08:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
^ That is true and valid.
So if there was a counter to going prone whether it was a skill or equipment or whatever, would you be okay with prone being added to the game? ASSUMING the issues Garrett mentioned above could be fixed of course...
For the record:
I don't want a broken class (any of them) or a game that's out of balance even if that gives my chosen role an advantage. I'd rather have the challenge and the fun that comes with it... broken is no fun. |
Khal V'Rani
Nephilim Initiative
90
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 09:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Whoa, the name thing got me... there's two of you?
It might not be right for this game, you're right. Pacing and all. And no counter to speak of atm, plus the inherent issues with making it balanced. I would like to give it a shot in game. If it ends up being messed up then yank it. Completely okay with that.
I just wouldn't say it's messed up because I personally don't have a counter to it assuming there was a counter put in as well. That sort of "reasoning" just bothers the hell out of me. |
|
|
| |
|