Firing from cover

As opposed to standing in a open field? Doing pitch battles? Cover will, in my opinion, always provide better conditions for shooting, who ever made that game doesn't know what their at, I don't think.

>>31063880
I'm not a professional or anything, but I'm almost certain that it's hard to shoot accurately through things.

>>31063880

Only if you're fat. Maybe the game maker is fat.

>>31063931
when you have "hard cover" you can rest your rifle against it and makes it easier to hit your target look at bench rests at a rifle range

>>31063924
That's the weird thing, the game itself is super accurate (for an RPG), they even go as far as to say that plasma weapons have a dangers tenancy to overheat in a vacuum after 2 shots cause of the lack of atmosphere to help vent heat.
>>31063931
It's not about shooting through, It's from shooting from.
>>31063969
Well, that's assuming you can rest it, what if you're shooting from behind a wall?

>>31064019
>That's the weird thing, the game itself is super accurate (for an RPG), they even go as far as to say that plasma weapons have a dangers tenancy to overheat in a vacuum after 2 shots cause of the lack of atmosphere to help vent heat.

What game is this?

File: 1458346144145.jpg (164KB, 1758x917px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1758x917px

>>31063880
Depends on the cover, target location and degree of cover utilization. For example soldier could lean on window frame get stable shooting position and actually get positive bonus (in terms of RPG) for accuracy. But this is not right way for fully utilizing cover, he well get much more protection and especially camouflage if he do it right way. But right way: backing up leaves him without support and even may lead to conventional shooting stance that deviates from standard standing/kneeling/prone position because line of sight to the target in optimally covered position does not corresponds to the standard shooting position eyes height so negative bonus. Also cover generally restricts vision and leads to negative bonus to perception depended actions (observation, reaction etc).

>>31064019
>what if you're shooting from behind a wall?
use the wall to stabilize your shooting.

I don't understand what you mean by "negative modifier".

File: 1471283149481.png (675KB, 689x693px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 689x693px

>>31063880
Does it differentiate between different kinds of cover? If there are different types then that can help us.

>>31063880

Did nine months of infantry training and we were always told to try and shoot from cover. And having tested both things I cant really say there is much of a difference.

>>31063880
You can brace off most types of cover so if anything shooting from cover should give you a bonus.

>>31064193
This. Positive modifiers is whats needed here.

>>31063880
Kind of, it depends what the modifier does. Shooting from behind cover can definitely limit your field of vision, but you're also generally going to have a stable shooting platform to shoot from. So a decrease in awareness, or at least where you can shoot, but generally increased accuracy.

Even more so if you're taking cover in the prone.

If anything it sounds like a balance issue. Sometimes games just have to trade realism to give the game a better balance.

Maybe the negative is based on assuming you're hiding and snapping out to shoot, having less time to find your target and aim, or generally using a poor stance/support?

If you're having the weapon people's up on the cover I would expect a positive.

>>31064193
>You can brace off most types of cover
Not really is some cases you can in others you don't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEHCD5OK4A
Leaning also is less stable position than vertical standing or kneeling. Also full utilization of vertical cover requires switching hands in 50% of cases and this is clean "negative bonus " if character doesn't have ambidextrous trait.

File: eclipsephase_cover_phs.jpg (330KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 900x1165px

>>31064139
Eclipse Phase.
>>31064177
>Also cover generally restricts vision and leads to negative bonus to perception depended actions (observation, reaction etc).
True, but this is a sci-fi scenario. Most firearms have a smartlink system that utilizes a camera that can be used to fire around corners, vision doesn't seem like an issue.
>>31064178
You're less accurate.
>>31064187
That looks like the answer I need
>>31064288
See, that's my thought, cause (IIRC) Aiming is a separate action.

>>31064497
Looks neato

>>31063880
Whoever wrote the rules did this for "game balance" and is a fucking cock licking fairy faggot.

>>31063880
It doesn't matter where the game is accurate elsewhere, it doesn't matter what special technology is available. There is no reason whatsoever firing from cover will impede your ability to shoot vs standing in the open. It's utter bullshit, at the end of the day you can just go prone / kneeling / stand behind the cover. Same as you would in the open.

As in, shooting itself? yeah, never done it. But i suppose that it would be more annoying to do so having to keep in mind being behind an object.

But that's nothing compared to the advantage of not getting shot at so easily, making your body frame most likely smaller, and making it harder for people to spot you

>>31063880
in general:

shooting supported is better than shooting unsupported

opening fire is better than returning fire

>>31064439
>Also full utilization of vertical cover requires switching hands in 50% of cases and this is clean "negative bonus " if character doesn't have ambidextrous trait.
Clever

>>31063880
You should give positive modifiers for accuracy and defense and negative modifiers to mobility.

File: 1458346144145.jpg (82KB, 1660x384px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1660x384px

>>31064497
>Most firearms have a smartlink system that utilizes a camera that can be used to fire around corners, vision doesn't seem like an issue.
This is universal rule: if you see you you can be seen too. if your eyes are gun than it is that thing that could be seen, gun. Look at example if solder backs from cover it limits his vision but also he limits angle from which he could be seen and shoot. he can stick out camera-gun behind wall sure, and get full 180 degrees vision but at the same time this gun and camera could be seen form the same 180 degrees angle. Also gun camera thing has problem if you stick it on outstretched arms around cover its is not sable and very cumbersome position comparing to the proper shouldering of the gun so negative bonus is full justified.

>>31064599
Lol, maybe it was a typo.

>>31064639
Well, you can always hold it out with 2 hands

>>31064497
>EP

Huh. That's a weird rule then.

>>31064505
Here's the short version if you're interested.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qnrh0w7H0Jl2_CSsySRxcs4ugw27xsBIk5MYwXq2nDQ/edit

>>31064177
This is why you try and set up a support inside the room itself.

>>31064692
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1S1fI2RVlo

>>31064497
In a setting were aiming is done through weapon mounted cameras we could assume that when shooting from cover a character would stay entirely behind cover exposing only the weapon. The penalty would be due to the odd way you'd have to hold the weapon to do this.

>>31064439
You do know you can switch shoulders and not change hands to shoot around cover right? No need for ambidexterity.