The term lazy cover refers to things like crates and scenery objects (as I understand it), and it's considered poor level design to use these for cover. It is said that proper level design requires real structures for cover, such as walls and pillars. Why? Why is a large crate considered poor level design when it actually fits into the theme of the map and provides tactical value to the portion of the map it exists on? This has never made sense to me and I am now thinking such logic is terribly flawed. Can someone tell me why I am wrong?
I don't believe that its a matter of a large crate being poor level design but rather using something like a large crate as a "simple solution" to poor design. For example, If you have a long open hallway, its very easy to just place down a large crate, rather than reworking the design as a whole. Crates aren't a bad thing to use if they make sense in the space and are used sparingly. Its when they're overly used as a solution to poor sightline balance.
I wasn't sure if I should post this question here. Your response only reinforced my perception that I would only get ridiculed at this site. You didn't answer the question. If you understood the genesis of this question then you might have appreciated why I asked at all. Good game. --- Double Post Merged, Jan 28, 2017 --- But what is wrong with having a crate in a hallway if its purpose is to break up the line of sight or provide cover? If that is the purpose and it was part of the design, why would it be wrong? (I mean you can't just say, there is a crate in the hallway, it is a bad design, because after all it probably was thrown in to fix a line of sight problem or something.) And what about a pile of crates, if the theme of the map supports such a pile? That isn't sparingly, but I can see where it would be good for the map. I guess what I am saying is that no matter what anyone says about crates being used for cover or breaking up line of sight, you can find a map just like it that was intentionally designed that way. How would you be able to say it was bad or not bad? What is the real criteria used to say it is wrong to use crates?
They only become a problem when they're used excessively. I personally don't like the way those objects in particular affect movement and unnecessarily prolong battles. And it's not something that's exclusive to forge maps. I've never liked the tombstones on Hand em High, the rocks on Sanctuary, etc. There are better ways to accomplish the purpose they're supposed to serve in most cases. So while they're not innately 'bad', they usually aren't a 'good' option either. Again, I'm only referring to excessive use of them. They work well in certain circumstances, and can be helpful in developing a theme.
Do you remember ever seeing my map that was for infection, it had a grave yard with lots of tomb stones? They were not lined up perfectly at all like those on Hang em High. I would not want to line them up like on Hang em High because those looked artificial by the sheer lack of randomness. But on my map they were so random they didn't look intentionally like cover, but some of them could be used as cover. I didn't think for one moment that using them as cover was bad. I put up rocks for cover also, never thought it was wrong, because my priority was first to make it look natural, then second if possible use it for cover. The reason I ask is precisely because I made a map some time back in which I intentionally wanted crates, but someone said to me, crates are lazy cover, you need to replace them with structure. And I thought, why? That would break the theme of my map. I have heard a lot of explanations as to why you never use crates. no one has ever been able to explain to me how their criteria would be provable. For example, crates shouldn't be on this map because they were an after thought to fix some problems. Even if they were an after thought, if they work well, what is wrong with them? If they are the best solution to the design, if they improve the design, why would they be wrong? and how can someone claim to know if they were an after thought or an intentional aspect of the design? so far no one has given me a concrete set of rules or "concept" to make it a science.
Ugh, okay This block is doing nothing but blocking the sightline between these two doors. It's lazy as **** regardless of whether it's a block, a crate, or a wedge of cheese It's less lazy now because it has a different purpose: it gets you to that second level window. But that is still an amateur solution. Here we have a pillar that comes off of that second story, and we've moved the jump up. Neither of them are directly blocking that doorway, but they still serve the purpose of blocking sightlines while offering something else to the map. Here's another way to do it. That should get the point across, unless someone wants to debate the logistics behind this 5 minute sketchup demo. There's a million ways to add "cover" before you end up throwing a lazy fix at it. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that until it negatively impacts the map.
What if I wanted nothing but a line of sight blocker that doesn't allow me to jump up to the ledge, that doesn't stop me from tossing a grenade from one door to another, that doesn't limit me from passing only one way around it? Who decides that such a design is "bad"? You can argue that it is beginning level design, but what if it was entirely intentional? What if for that one room the designer felt that would produce the best game play? No ledge. Just a crate between the two doors.
Nobody "decides". It either works or it doesn't, and at that point you look at the whole rather than the sum of the parts.
So then I am correct? The first pic you gave would be the best solution if it made the map play the best?
Yes, but just because it looks burnt doesn't mean it doesn't taste bad either. let me try that one again... Just because it doesn't have your favorite jelly on top doesn't mean you won't enjoy it.
I remember when you converted me to a "non-lazy cover" forger. It's gone a long way, and I'm not going back. lmao
I agree it fulfills its purpose as a cover piece. I just find the concept of cover stupid. Haven't used "cover" in any map as far back as Reach I think. It just isn't interesting, especially in a game like Halo with shitty cqc, long kill times, recharging health, low shooting skill. Etc. If cover based combat played as well in Halo as it does in Gears or Counter Strike I would agree, yes. There's nothing wrong with that.
This also depends on what game type you're designing for. Imo, Infection benefits from smaller cover such as crates and other props more than slayer. Having said that, there are exceptions for everything, if your map benefits from a crate or two, plop em down brother.