It's useful against tanks, especially ones that lack anti-infantry weapons. It means they can't just steamroller you, and it becomes much harder for them to hit you with explosives when you can duck behind cover. But I'm not sure it offers enough of an advantage vs. walls as a gameplay mechanic to be worth the time to model, implement, etc.
I have already been over this, concealed cover works just as well against tanks as would this. Built in weapons have been tried before and nobody used them. If the rifleman with concealment fires, either he will kill the other rifleman in cover, or the rifleman in cover will duck so fast that he won't know where the shot came from, or the rifleman in cover isn't visible, in which case why fire on him? You can already fire without abandoning your cover, you would simply be stupid not to, because then people know where you are and will simply wait for you to expose yourself again, or simply fire at your cover so that you can't. Moving from cover to cover is much more effective, as I have to keep repeating because it doesn't seem to sink in.
It's entirely possible to fire at the rifleman with cover and not kill him. It's also entirely possible that the rifleman can deduce his opponent's location by sound, seeing the bullet tracers, and the bullet impacts. That and the muzzle flash usually attract enough attention to make concealment fairly moot once you open fire. (Remember the axiom: If you can see them, they can see you.) Shooting and killing is not a sure thing in Empires, especially not with the rifles and smgs, which are inaccurate enough that cover can negate a large percentage of their already questionable effectiveness. Now, if we were talking about sniping scouts the issue would be different, but they are not the only instance of infantry combat, or even the most significant. Nor have we touched on grenadiers, who would be almost completely ineffective against this type of cover. (As it is, you can still land a mortar next to someone hiding behind a wall.) As for "moving from cover to cover", I believe you're referring specifically to using cover as concealment while moving. (That's the only context you mentioned it in previous posts.) I get that. However, I disagree that it's the only use of cover as relevant to infantry.
If you're going to make a seperate thread just for a poll, ask a moderator to merge it into the main thread afterwards, it helps keep the forum clean.
If I can target an enemy with my AR, I kill him with the first burst, the only time this isn't true is if I were to spray while running forward. The ARs are highly accurate in most situations, and do enough damage to kill anything if you use them properly. SMGs are designed for close use, and as such don't work at range anyway. Assuming the enemy does somehow survive, they will not be able to figure out where you are, because they first have to see the tracers, second have to be able to remember exactly where they came from, third have to assume that you did not move from that position, and fourth have to be able to see you in your concealment to determine if they are aiming correctly, because as previously mentioned, there is little to no bullet spread to make their aim less important. And whether you disagree or not, I'm right about it, you aren't.
But your camo enplacement requires that the opponent hasent memorized the terrain. The human mind is exilent at discovering discrepencies. I mean How many cloaked scouts have you killed. I've killed dozens. Cover is more effective in this instance beacause of map limitations. Effective Concielment is dang near impossible.
No it doesn't, it should be almost indistinguishable from the terrain, although that is difficult to do. The human eye is not very good at distinguishing slight variations in blocks of colour or repeating patterns, which is why jpeg artefacting doesn't appear to affect photographs. And I think perhaps you don't actually know what concealment means, it means something which hides you, paradoxially, hide does not actually hide you unless you are practically invisible, it simply makes you semitransparent, which doesn't do anything.
2 things 1. It really does look like a washing machine 2. I think this would be pretty damn useless..I'm not going to read this whole thread so if its been said before oh well butttt This this will just promote camping and non the less, its going to be a horrible spot to camp. If these things were to be implemented, everytime I saw one I would just pop a burst into all 3 holes or however many you want and kill them all Bad idea
But is it a front or top-loader? As far as concealment goes, I've always wondered how well the func_occluder brush entity would work for camouflage. Completely invisible, one-sided, albeit rather unconventional. Actually, it isn't true if you fire: ...While standing past 1k units or so, ...While ducking past 2k units or so, ...While prone past 4k units or so, ...While moving. Assuming you're using iron sights. If you include the accuracy upgrade, double the ranges. Your target will benefit from being partially concealed by cover in all these cases. Also, the SMG1s are surprisingly useful at ranges up to 3k units, even if not at the same level as the rifles. Finally, your opinion on how right you are doesn't matter to me. It only bogs down interesting arguments.
So you mean if you don't know how to actually use the gun it becomes useful? Well I'll be sure to note that when I'm firing at something I can hardly see. It sort of assumes that you are going to get into the effective range of your gun before using it, if you don't, then you'd die anyway. And the argument isn't interesting, it's stupid, and I shouldn't have to explain all of this to you.
the flaw dose not lay with us. The odds are stacked against you. Your opinion has been shared. nowlet the devs decide.
Im all for cover > consealment. because in empires the comm target ability and the cameras make concealment 90% of time useless. With targeting stuff, chirs is right. For example you can kill people with one burst, standing in iron sight with the brenodi heavy assault rifle over a distance the enemy is nothing more than 5 pixel. That should give you a impression how accurate the weapons in empires are.
I spend a lot of time fighting people who either don't have comm targeting or who aren't actually paying attention, even if they do it isn't as good as it seems, as it's very difficult to tell the distance your target is at if you cannot see it, so your screen is basically full of little red diamonds and you don't know where they actually are, just their direction. Essentially the system I use works, which is why I have it, shoot them before they notice you and you win, get noticed before you shoot them and you lose.
This idea works in other games, but it is terrible in Empires. I don't want my team to ever start turtling, even when defending.
Which is precisely why I suggest that the mapper provide the means to defend the areas he wants to be defensible. And also why I ask the team for more ways of doing that. I see it as the only feasible method of introducing a defensive aspect to empires.
Okay, it seems that everyone is against the idea of bunkers/defensive structures. I think i'll stop pushing the idea for now; maybe when aircraft are added and you can get omgwtf pwned from the sky by raining lead, bunkers will have more appeal and reason to be implemented. However, I do still have one point i'd like to make in this thread before i'm done. Chris, you do know that not everyone is an Empires veteran with 98.5% accuracy, and knows all the perfect hiding spots, right? And not everyone goes riflemen in these maps, most go engineer, which has a less-accurate SMG than a rifleman's rifle.
