Should stability from cover be reduced?

[gameshoes]

So I've played this game a little while now and I've been observing the great benefits of the cover system.
Yeah, it gives you cover but it also gives weapon benefits. But I kind of think that the weapon benefits are excessive.
Yes, I like the idea that cover gives benefits, but I really think that it gives too much benefits.
It makes your gun a a laser beam shooter! The recoil reduction is huge and I think this may have been the cause of why I thought SMGs were so **** accurate.
It's kind of funny that I never connected this to the SMG before, but yeah, this applies to almost every weapon.

I think we should slash the given bonuses by 20% and see what happens. I think it'll be a really nice experiment.

[Ragnar_Kon]

But I like my 1000 rounds per minute laser beam :(

In all honesty, yeah they should be reduced a bit. I use a grip on just about all of my weapons, which kills many of the benefits of cover, but even with reducing those benefits, cover is amazing. I don't think the numbers should be reduced as much as BeefJerkyHunter is suggesting, but they yes they should be reduced.

Another option would to have cover benefit some weapons more than others to better reflect the role of that weapon. For example, snipers gain the most benefit from cover, while submachine guns benefit the least from cover. May not be the best solution, but it is an option.

[KegaroOne]

Don't reduce the benefits of cover. Then I would never be able to hit anything with my LMG. As it is now I have to spray half a clip at someone to land 4 rounds. :p

[gameshoes]

Another option would to have cover benefit some weapons more than others to better reflect the role of that weapon. For example, snipers gain the most benefit from cover, while submachine guns benefit the least from cover. May not be the best solution, but it is an option.
That's brilliant!!!!

[chemzero]

I'd rather see cover keep the benefits and have some of the enabling factors of run-and-gunning be reduced. People should want to be in cover, not running around the map all nimbly bimbly jumpin' from tree to tree.

[gameshoes]

I'd rather see cover keep the benefits and have some of the enabling factors of run-and-gunning be reduced. People should want to be in cover, not running around the map all nimbly bimbly jumpin' from tree to tree.
Mobility has been key in this game. Whoever can move around the enemy wins.
In almost every game, position is the way to victory. GRO does not ignore that fundamental. Those who move around are going to reach better areas to fight from.
Cover is great, but it's not going to win you games if you solely are in cover.

But anyway, Ragnar_Kon said some really nice ideas that I would like to see in the game. Some guns should gain different amounts of benefits from cover.

[hoak]

This is one place I think more 'realism' generally plays well if it's properly adhered to; use of cover should (as it does) greatly enhance stability, what it should not allow is instant highly accurate snap shots i.e. you should not be able to snap to aim and back to cover to get your precise point of aim (with literally less then a second exposure), then when your target pops up, snap up and dead eye him... This aspect of the cover system has turned what would be interesting sustained fire-fights with suppression and clever maneuver fire into dull quick draw contests where the outcome is more down to who had the more accurate and higher damage weapon and timed the shot best... Lot of skill and fun that could be part of cover based fire-fights will never be part of the game, if it's all down to insta-snap-shooting and the only thing that mitigates anything is weapon accuracy...

:confused:

[Ragnar_Kon]

BeefJerkyHunter is right, mobility is key in this game. But leaving cover should feel like a risk. I don't necessarily feel that cover needs the numbers reduced, but some weapons just perform too well under cover. So I suppose it is more of a weapon balance issue than a cover issue.

Regardless, any change that is made to the cover system should still make cover the dominant aspect of the game, with run-and-gun reduced as much as possible. Leaving cover should be a calculated risk; if you do it right you get rewarded, and if you do it wrong you die and risk losing the point. GRO almost feels like a chess match and I really really enjoy that feeling. So as long as that feeling is retained, I am happy.

[chemzero]

BeefJerkyHunter is right, mobility is key in this game. But leaving cover should feel like a risk. I don't necessarily feel that cover needs the numbers reduced, but some weapons just perform too well under cover. So I suppose it is more of a weapon balance issue than a cover issue.

Regardless, any change that is made to the cover system should still make cover the dominant aspect of the game, with run-and-gun reduced as much as possible. Leaving cover should be a calculated risk; if you do it right you get rewarded, and if you do it wrong you die and risk losing the point. GRO almost feels like a chess match and I really really enjoy that feeling. So as long as that feeling is retained, I am happy.

Regardless I'm personally very, very addicted. I prefer TPS games, I love Dead Space 2's multi, and I have a ton of fun in ME3 Co-Op, but I've foregone both of those in favor of Ghost Recon Online many times :P

[cra2yazn]

I agree with Ragnar on this one, moving out of cover should be a risk instead of just a simple breeze to flank. Staying in cover is the safe bet and going out of cover should be high risk-high reward since u may be able to sneak behind 4 people. It does seems strange that all weapons across the board gain the same benefits from cover. Dont see why a SMG is comparably as accurate as a full length assault rifle with a bipod behind cover but has the benefit of also dealing with close range targets due to its higher handling rating.