Because it would increase the camping capabilities of infantry in a game that is already camp-centric
more like it adds an even larger list of things to consider with balancing gun play and base design, just like leaning.
Game moves too fast for prone to be useful. Also would cause issues for base design and terrain design. Its not really that important of a feature in a numbers based FPS.
I not know, Pytor, why does impossible eat space pumpkin seed in game? Non, sir, you must call """""""campers""""""" positioners, otherwise you're marginalizing their plight from the general disfavor of the FPS gaming community by perpetuating an oppressive slur. But, seriously, SOE has reservations, and rightly so. They're not fond of the programming challenge, making all the terrain compatible, re-doing bases, or the design challenge of overhauling systems to make the game still feel fun and not like TACTICOOL POSITIONFEST 2015
From what I remember about the debate for leaning/prone back in beta, the general consensus at the time was.. 1) It was not in Planetside 1 so it is not a good idea 2) Everyone would rather huddle together behind conveniently large rocks and trees 3) If said large rocks and trees were not required for cover it would slow the games pace down too much 4) Cover mechanics would encourage more effective weapons, and map designs which would not be appreciated in a game with a lot of players
I imagine a group of heavy assaults armed with lashers on a hill laying down large amounts of suppressive while laying down. The counter sniper wouldn't be able to see because of the disco balls.
During beta Higby said he preferred a more run and gun, fast paced playstyle for the game and that prone would be contrary to that end.
