102 réponses à ce sujet

[Spartas Husky]

Lumikki wrote...

I did not like crounching in ME1. I mean, idea is nice, but how it worked, was not so good. Remember those time when you automaticly crounched behind something and wanted to leave from there, you where still doing crounching movement. Had to hit key to get normal movement back.

Like others things, Majo, crouching. They needed refinment not downright dissapearing

[Collider]

I would like to be able to crouch. Why - makes Shepard a smaller, possibly mobile target and improves accuracy. Plus, it's...cool.

[LPPrince]

Collider wrote...

I would like to be able to crouch. Why - makes Shepard a smaller, possibly mobile target and improves accuracy. Plus, it's...cool.

Yes, squatting like I have to take a dump in the middle of combat with enemies that can throw me across the map is really cool.

ME1's system needed refinement. But its removal was better suited to ME2's levels and gameplay.

[Shotokanguy]

Yes, I definitely want crouch back on the left stick click. In fact, I also want it to be the "go into cover button".

This frees up the A button for hopefully much easier and fluid movement throughout the battlefield.

Are you reading this, devs?

Should I go post this in the ME3 wishes topic?

LPPrince wrote...

Collider wrote...

I would
like to be able to crouch. Why - makes Shepard a smaller, possibly
mobile target and improves accuracy. Plus, it's...cool.

Yes, squatting like I have to take a dump in the middle of combat with enemies that can throw me across the map is really cool.

ME1's system needed refinement. But its removal was better suited to ME2's levels and gameplay.

Closer to the ground = harder to move. A biotic throw wouldn't send you flying anymore crouching than if you were standing. That's just physics.

Modifié par Shotokanguy, 20 mai 2010 - 11:24 .

[LPPrince]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Yes, I definitely want crouch back on the left stick click. In fact, I also want it to be the "go into cover button".

This frees up the A button for hopefully much easier and fluid movement throughout the battlefield.

Are you reading this, devs?

Should I go post this in the ME3 wishes topic?

LPPrince wrote...

Collider wrote...

I would
like to be able to crouch. Why - makes Shepard a smaller, possibly
mobile target and improves accuracy. Plus, it's...cool.

Yes, squatting like I have to take a dump in the middle of combat with enemies that can throw me across the map is really cool.

ME1's system needed refinement. But its removal was better suited to ME2's levels and gameplay.

Closer to the ground = harder to move. A biotic throw wouldn't send you flying anymore crouching than if you were standing. That's just physics.

That's my point buddy-

It doesn't really make a difference.

I wouldn't mind if it was back-I'd be willing to take the negatives.

But I can't remember ONE part of ME2 where I wished I could crouch.

[Shotokanguy]

Even if you won't use crouch, having a setting for going into cover different from the A button would be so much better. I could go storming up to cover, holding A, and vault over it immediately without fumbling with the going in/out of cover part of it.



If I was behind some cover and wanted to quickly move diagonally I wouldn't have to hit B to get out (since you can only vault straight forward and it takes a few seconds), I could just hit A and start running out.

[Pathetisad]

Do I miss crouching? Only when I'm trying to bloody run away when my health has almost gone and 'take cover' instead.



Speaking of running, where's the fatugue meter gone too



Also,anyone else miss your squad putting their weapons away when you do, or being able to whip them out anywhere/anytime when they're equipped?

[kregano]

I really wish crouching was in ME2 simply because of the innumerable times I was shot whenever I peaked over cover, moved, or was thrown back from cover. On higher difficulties such as Hardcore or Insanity, anytime you get out of cover, you lose tons of health, so that's a big negative. Plus it really annoys me that whenever I want to sneak around and nail someone with a sniper rifle, I can only do it peaking around corners, which really cuts down my mobility.

[dielveio]

Do I miss crouching? Yes I do, and I want it BACK!

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

For what purpose would you need to crouch other than the above mentioned abusive tactic Ecael mentioned?

Sorry immersion doesn't count here.

So I don't have to get shot to hell every time I move from cover to cover. It's ludicrous for any one in combat to stand up straight when trying to advance/retreat on an enemy while they are shooting at you. Did you even read my post? As far as abuse goes, I'm sure that there could have been a way to solve that issue without removing crouch. Having a bigger combat environment  or having enemies who will lay prone when their cover is not enough to protect them.

So you basically want to move around with impunity. Gotcha.

Is the game too hard for you?

Wow! Did you figure that out all by yourself? 
Please! If you honestly think that my reason is based on your narrow and incorrect interpretation then you really need to learn how to read. Crouching or laying prone is something anybody would do (especially if you are an infantryman) when you are under fire. Standing up straight  is just gonna make you an easy (and dead) target. My issue has less to do with difficulty an more to do with practicality. (I'll get to my views on difficulty)


What would you do if you were in a paintball game or actual combat. I would hope that if you are moving form cover to cover or trying to get a good vantage point that you would either crouch or lay prone. Especially with Machine gun fire.

As far as difficulty goes, I'm a glutton for punishment. I LOVE challenges, It makes me think. Most action/shooters aren't challenging or long enough to fulfill. Removing crouch for me was an annoyance at best. Nothing more. Removing crouch is not a way to add challenge in any meaningful way. It's a handicap. Bioware had a legitimate issue with how crouch was problematic in gameplay and removed it. It's a handicap. Crouching doesn't protect you from enemy fire it decreases your chances of being hit by making you a smaller target. Wherever you got the idea that I would want to waltz around a battlefield with impunity is beyond me. I wouldn't want that. Idealistically, I would hope that crouch and prone be included but you still are at risk of taking enemy fire. I would actually want destructible cover since I think the cover system worked too well In my opinion.

Oh and I have one question for you: where in my post(s) have I indicated that the difficulty was too much? I'm just curious.  

[Sajuro]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

For what purpose would you need to crouch other than the above mentioned abusive tactic Ecael mentioned?

Sorry immersion doesn't count here.

tea bagging fallen mercenaries

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

LPPrince wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I never needed to use crouch in ME1, and definitely never wished it was implemented in ME2.

Is the game so hard for some people they NEED a crouch option?

Seriously, its just as unnecessary in ME2 as a jump button.

no, but makes the game more likable.

Instead of me running to cover, which is kool in its own right. I would also like to crouch from a distance, and move slowly to cover.

WHy not have the option? is really the only way to get into cover be some sort of rambo running amongst enemy fire.



Is not hard but why not.

It IS hard. Its implementing a completely new feature to movement.

It changes the pace of gameplay, introduces exploits gamers can use to make the game's difficulty trivial, and would create issues with the already in place cover system.

Better without it. We're not losing anything with it being omitted.

Its not hard running from cover to cover without being shot at. Its a pain on Insanity, but that's the point of Insanity's existence.

I hope I'm not making it sound like I think crouching is poisonous or anything.

Its just not a necessity. Just like the helmet toggle isn't.

But then, that's left to opinion. I'd love a helmet toggle for alt armors, but I'd care less for crouching.

The opposite is true for others. So there's my 2 cents.

Why is this even becoming an issue of difficulty? It's not. Seeing as how I and other have also made an issue about having more improved AI (I miss snipers) bringing up difficulty is irrelevant to this topic. As far as shooters go, having practical combat mobility is essential to gameplay.  

[LPPrince]

Difficulty is being brought up because it shoots down your argument.



The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.



Its similar to why people hate "drop shotters"(people who suddenly go prone before shooting back) on multiplayer shooters.



If you can find spots to crouch and never get hit, it makes the game too easy.



No crouch? No problem.

[CatatonicMan]

LPPrince wrote...

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

It would be more accurate to say that crouching was removed because Bioware didn't have the time and/or desire to put forth the effort to make the AI capable of dealing with a player behind cover but not glued to it.

[LPPrince]

CatatonicMan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

It would be more accurate to say that crouching was removed because Bioware didn't have the time and/or desire to put forth the effort to make the AI capable of dealing with a player behind cover but not glued to it.

That sounds harsher than that has to be.

[CatatonicMan]

LPPrince wrote...

That sounds harsher than that has to be.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm a whale biologist.

[LPPrince]

CatatonicMan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

That sounds harsher than that has to be.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm a whale biologist.

So a Sperm whale is............don't answer that.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

LPPrince wrote...

Difficulty is being brought up because it shoots down your argument.

Hardly. My issue isn't difficulty nor is it some loophole.  It's an issue I have with moving from cover to cover. Reading my OP will clearly state that. In case you didn't, I will repeat it: My biggest issue in removing crouch is my inability to avoid enemy fire when moving from cover to cover when advancing or retreating.

Clearly you don't know what my argument is if you think bringing up an irrelevant topic negates my point. It doesn't.
 

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

Its similar to why people hate "drop shotters"(people who suddenly go prone before shooting back) on multiplayer shooters.

If you can find spots to crouch and never get hit, it makes the game too easy.

No crouch? No problem.

No one wants an easy game, least of all me. It was a practical reason due to an oversight during development. There's no need to spell it out. This is not relevant to the bigger issue I have with combat. I hoped that I would save it for another post But I'll address it here since there is so much misunderstanding:
Combat in general has improved a lot but there have been some steps back that I hope Bioware keeps in mind for ME3. My main issue is the size of combat zones. In some cases ME1 had areas of combat that were much less confined. (Bring Down the Sky and many of the Geth Incursions side missions) It allowed combat to take place at a longer range. In that case you still were vulnerable to enemy fire even when crouched. However I do think the maps were too big and were filled with empty space. 

ME2 combat zones (I won't say too small) weren't big enough to allow long range combat. Cover was also very obvious. (Like ME1) My third issue is that the cover system is too effective. I would be open to seeing destructible cover to counter this.
This is the bulk of the the issue that  I have with my favorite game. 

[LPPrince]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Difficulty is being brought up because it shoots down your argument.

Hardly. My issue isn't difficulty nor is it some loophole.  It's an issue I have with moving from cover to cover. Reading my OP will clearly state that. In case you didn't, I will repeat it: My biggest issue in removing crouch is my inability to avoid enemy fire when moving from cover to cover when advancing or retreating.

Clearly you don't know what my argument is if you think bringing up an irrelevant topic negates my point. It doesn't.
 

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

Its similar to why people hate "drop shotters"(people who suddenly go prone before shooting back) on multiplayer shooters.

If you can find spots to crouch and never get hit, it makes the game too easy.

No crouch? No problem.

No one wants an easy game, least of all me. It was a practical reason due to an oversight during development. There's no need to spell it out. This is not relevant to the bigger issue I have with combat. I hoped that I would save it for another post But I'll address it here since there is so much misunderstanding:
Combat in general has improved a lot but there have been some steps back that I hope Bioware keeps in mind for ME3. My main issue is the size of combat zones. In some cases ME1 had areas of combat that were much less confined. (Bring Down the Sky and many of the Geth Incursions side missions) It allowed combat to take place at a longer range. In that case you still were vulnerable to enemy fire even when crouched. However I do think the maps were too big and were filled with empty space. 

ME2 combat zones (I won't say too small) weren't big enough to allow long range combat. Cover was also very obvious. (Like ME1) My third issue is that the cover system is too effective. I would be open to seeing destructible cover to counter this.
This is the bulk of the the issue that  I have with my favorite game. 

1. Its not shooting down your argument specifically. Its shooting down the argument of having the cover system in the first place.

2a. There were many open areas for long range combat in ME2. Not as long range as ME1, but still long range.

2b. Yeah, cover was pretty obvious. Wish they could disguise it better.

2c. There was plenty of destructible cover. Not everywhere, but in many places, there was.

Modifié par LPPrince, 21 mai 2010 - 02:09 .

[Atmosfear3]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Oh and I have one question for you: where in my post(s) have I indicated that the difficulty was too much? I'm just curious.  

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

So I don't have to get shot to hell every time I move from cover to cover. It's ludicrous for any one in combat to stand up straight when trying to advance/retreat on an enemy while they are shooting at you. 

Thats the indication right there. In essence you are worried about getting shot when moving from cover to cover but thats really a trivial thing considering shields regenerate as does health (plus you can expedite the process with medi-gel when upgraded).

While I understand the practically in your reasoning, it is completely unneeded considering you're crouched when you are in low cover. Crouching while moving would simply make you move slower and you'll be shot for even longer periods of time. On the higher difficulties, where all enemies are crack-marksmen, you would probably end up taking more damage as opposed to sprinting from cover to cover.

What you're probably looking for is a move-from-cover type feature like they have in Gears of War. If you haven't played either of the series basically when you are at the edge of a piece of cover, by holding towards the direction of the next piece of cover and press A (or I suppose space bar on PC?) you would quickly transition to it tactically. Unfortunately, Bioware did not have that feature.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

I definately miss crouch. It was quite fun being able to change your position whilst behind cover, and also the biggest use of it for me was for when you found yourself in combat outside of cover. At least then you could crouch, making yourself a smaller target and getting better accuracy.



That's probably why it was removed anyway. ME1's accuracy mechanic, or at least the on-screen representation, showed quite clearly why crouching was useful. In ME2 however they doesn't exist anymore. Personally I want it back though.

[Lougi]

I miss it. I didn't mind too much on normal, but when I started insanity, I felt it a bit more. Would have made moving around a lot easier in some spots.



Overall though, not a big loss. I do want it back, yeah, but it doesn't make or break anything for me.

[RGFrog]

LPPrince wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

It would be more accurate to say that crouching was removed because Bioware didn't have the time and/or desire to put forth the effort to make the AI capable of dealing with a player behind cover but not glued to it.

That sounds harsher than that has to be.

Only because it is absolutely correct.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I used crouching a lot in ME1, and I mean a LOT. However, I think the improved combat system in ME2 compensates for that to a degree. Still, would have liked it, but I don't really mind not having it with the new combat system.

[LPPrince]

RGFrog wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

The reason crouching is not in ME2 is BECAUSE of difficulty. People were finding ways to kill everything without ever getting hit through an exploit. That's not how the game's meant to be played.

It would be more accurate to say that crouching was removed because Bioware didn't have the time and/or desire to put forth the effort to make the AI capable of dealing with a player behind cover but not glued to it.

That sounds harsher than that has to be.

Only because it is absolutely correct.

Even if it is, it implies Bioware are the bad guys here.

In truth, combat works perfectly fine here without crouch.

People don't seem to realize that the layouts of battlefields in ME2 are WAY different than in ME1.

Why do you think we need to arc biotics now?

Honestly, the cover system that ME1 had works for ME1, but sure as hell wouldn't in ME2.