Implementing manual kneeling (part 2)

Might I suggest perhaps a compromise of sorts, just for discussion. Perhaps taking a shot from behind cover gives the opposition less chance of a reaction shot? This represents them not being able to see you fully, and therefore not being able to tell what you're going to do. This allows cover to protect you even while you are being offensive, rather than making you a better shot. Good compromise, or not what people are looking for?

I certainly prefer that idea over an accuracy boost. It makes sense and is quite subtle at the same time. Yeah I'm on board.

As far as I remember there will be no private forum. The idea was to let others in on the discussion and let them see what they are missing out on. I don't know if plans have changed though. It might produce too many spoilers when the balancing begins? There I go off topic. *hides from sathra behind a transformer*

Perhaps you've found a bug in the animation? Can you recreate it?

If the cover is full size not half size they don't use it as cover, it is just a big thing to stand behind.

If that was what you were standing behind it might explain it.

If its the greebly silver box things north of the landing site, then those are cover objects.

Soldier up the top is leaning, soldier at the bottom is auto-crouching.

Yeah, for me they were all just autocrouching, they were't leaning at all

Okay, given this thread a read. Here's my thoughts:

Firstly, I've moved towards a manually-triggered cover system recently, completely independently of this discussion. The trigger was putting in the vaulting mechanics, which basically leads to soldiers autokneeling a lot when you're trying to jump over things and it just gets annoying. Whether or not this discussion had taken place I think I'd be looking seriously at manual triggering, so you guys are in luck as this removes the main obstacle for manual kneeling.

AnotherDevil - your system has some good ideas in it. I don't like the extra rotation cost for being in cover, but the increased stopping value for obstacles is a good idea and probably was the missing piece of the puzzle in my head. It means that kneeling is the ideal thing to do when out in the open in big open battlefield (which would make sense), but if you're trying to snipe an alien oast several obstacles, you want to be standing up. The accuracy bonus vs the increase in cover given to the enemy is a good tradeoff in my book.

I like the suggestion that AP turning cost could be doubled when kneeling as well as in cover too. I don't like penalising people for being behind cover specifically, but having kneeling soldiers require more APs to turn (as well as the 4AP spent kneeling and 4AP spent standing) would cancel out the suvivability gain.

Also, we already plan to put something in where height levels give a reduction to the target's cover save, so that's already on the cards.

In my new system, then, cover would just be a defensive bonus for anyone in that tile. They'd recieve say half of it if they were standing up, and all of it if they're crouching in that tile.

In terms of animations, this is literally going to be the worst thing ever. We've scrapped all the kneeling fire animations, and in this case we'd have to put them all back in. That's no small ask, but I guess if we have to do it then we'd have to do it. Ugh. Something I could really do without though.

I think we'd probably just entirely scrap the cover lean animations as needlessly confusing if we go ahead with this.

In my new system, then, cover would just be a defensive bonus for anyone in that tile. They'd recieve say half of it if they were standing up, and all of it if they're crouching in that tile.

I like that idea.

Even standing up behind a wall you are technically a smaller target.

That'll make [whoever's concept it was that was like that] happy. (Tweakd? AD?).

I'm a bit confused by your comment though. Is any kind of kneeling going to have a turning cost increase? Or just kneeling-in-cover?

Yeah, poor leaning animations. But they weren't working all that well.

Firstly, I've moved towards a manually-triggered cover system recently, completely independently of this discussion. The trigger was putting in the vaulting mechanics, which basically leads to soldiers autokneeling a lot when you're trying to jump over things and it just gets annoying. Whether or not this discussion had taken place I think I'd be looking seriously at manual triggering, so you guys are in luck as this removes the main obstacle for manual kneeling.

As a fix to this, you could perhaps tell the game that if the unit moves beyond the cover (as in the player has told them to move up to cover, over it and move on all in one button press) then the soldier should not duck into cover before vaulting. That way the soldier would only duck into cover if he was told to stop by cover...

AnotherDevil - your system has some good ideas in it. I don't like the extra rotation cost for being in cover, but the increased stopping value for obstacles is a good idea and probably was the missing piece of the puzzle in my head. It means that kneeling is the ideal thing to do when out in the open in big open battlefield (which would make sense), but if you're trying to snipe an alien oast several obstacles, you want to be standing up. The accuracy bonus vs the increase in cover given to the enemy is a good tradeoff in my book.

Yay! @Sathra, it was Tweakd's idea, I just helped refine it

In terms of animations, this is literally going to be the worst thing ever. We've scrapped all the kneeling fire animations, and in this case we'd have to put them all back in. That's no small ask, but I guess if we have to do it then we'd have to do it. Ugh. Something I could really do without though.

Oh No! Do you not have backups of the animations?

@Sathra, I think turning while kneeling anywhere costs more, after all it's harder to shuffle round while crouched than it is while standing

Sounds good Chris. Additional AP to turn while kneeling, whether in cover or not, certainly makes sense but will likely be annoying to me. But a realistic tradeoff, losing maneuverable distance to become a smaller target and vice-versa makes a lot of sense

Bummer about the increased work load to implement though

Excellent!

I'm sorry it means you guys have to start again with the animation but I have complete confidence it's the best option. It gives more freedom when tackling the gameplay elements and avoids a few other issues at the same time. After all gameplay is paramount and the autocover system, although good on paper, seemed to just get in the way.

The end result is more options for the player. Sadly the first result is new art. Or at least resurrected art.

As Sathra said though I'm unsure if you want to implement a turning cost or not?

In my new system, then, cover would just be a defensive bonus for anyone in that tile. They'd recieve say half of it if they were standing up, and all of it if they're crouching in that tile.

Exactly what I wanted to see.

Oh and AD i'm happy we finally agreed on something

Yes, I want to implement double turning cost when the soldier is crouched. It just didn't make sense to apply it only when the soldier was crouched in cover and not when out in the open.

Yeah that'll avoid confusion too, as to why something costs more than the same thing (essentially) elsewhere