On the other hand, I disagree with these suggestions: there's already a lot of control considerations needed for the game as is, including parrying, blocking, dodging, aiming, zooming, etc., which require their own control keybinds to be activated, especially on mouse and keyboard. Adding stuff like crouch would add further complexity to the controls that quite frankly can be overwhelming, especially when a lot of the actions mentioned above are time-sensitive actions meaning you want to have your fingers on them at all times to make them work, and additional controls would require significantly more work to implement. There is also no guarantee that adding said feature would even make players use it, due to the nature of the game especially with randoms. Hell I've played multiplayer games that do have crouch, and most of the time in a random team you don't really see people consider your own line of fire just because they can crouch. 

Also, I feel like adding stuff like crouch, cover and lean misses the point of the game completely: Space Marine 2 and its prequel has always been about push-forward stand-up-and-fight combat charging headlong into the enemy guns blazing as a pure old-fashioned action game - hell, one of the official marketing images of the last game mocked the then-current trend of cover shooters with their "Cover is for the weak" tagline.

 Crouch and cover may be more at home in a slower, more tactically-oriented game with an emphasis on ranged attacks, or in a military-themed shooter, but Space Marine is a game with equal consideration for both melee and ranged battle, with a good lean towards melee combat and executing enemies up close. Crouching should be the last thing players should do, and would slow down the pace of the game. 

LGear wrote:

On the other hand, I disagree with these suggestions: there's already a lot of control considerations needed for the game as is, including parrying, blocking, dodging, aiming, zooming, etc., which require their own control keybinds to be activated, especially on mouse and keyboard. Adding stuff like crouch would add further complexity to the controls that quite frankly can be overwhelming, especially when a lot of the actions mentioned above are time-sensitive actions meaning you want to have your fingers on them at all times to make them work, and additional controls would require significantly more work to implement. There is also no guarantee that adding said feature would even make players use it, due to the nature of the game especially with randoms. Hell I've played multiplayer games that do have crouch, and most of the time in a random team you don't really see people consider your own line of fire just because they can crouch. 

Also, I feel like adding stuff like crouch, cover and lean misses the point of the game completely: Space Marine 2 and its prequel has always been about push-forward stand-up-and-fight combat charging headlong into the enemy guns blazing as a pure old-fashioned action game - hell, one of the official marketing images of the last game mocked the then-current trend of cover shooters with their "Cover is for the weak" tagline.

 Crouch and cover may be more at home in a slower, more tactically-oriented game with an emphasis on ranged attacks, or in a military-themed shooter, but Space Marine is a game with equal consideration for both melee and ranged battle, with a good lean towards melee combat and executing enemies up close. Crouching should be the last thing players should do, and would slow down the pace of the game. 

​I understand your concerns regarding control complexity in Space Marine 2. However, I'd like to emphasize why a crouching mechanic and cover-based shooting could enrich the experience without undermining the core "push-forward" philosophy of the game.

Crouching Mechanic for Tactical Clarity: In higher difficulty levels, precision and resource management are critical. When a frontline ally unintentionally blocks the line of fire, especially during crucial moments involving heavy weapons like Heavy Plasma, Multi-Melta, or Heavy Bolter, the outcome of battles can be affected. This leads to wasted shots, critical moments lost, and, sometimes, mission failure. By incorporating a crouching mechanic, players can consciously position themselves to ensure their allies maintain clear sightlines. This wouldn't slow down the game; rather, it would add a strategic dimension, fostering teamwork and situational awareness. After all, effective squad coordination should never feel like a hindrance but rather an empowering aspect of battle.

Cover-Based Shooting for Tactical Depth: While it's true that Space Marine leans heavily into fast-paced combat, adding a dynamic cover system would not transform it into a "slow tactical shooter." Instead, it would create brief, tactical moments where players can assess their options, peek out, and unleash devastating attacks before charging back into melee. This blend of action and cover-based engagement would maintain the series' trademark intensity while enhancing player immersion and choice. Furthermore, allowing players to strategically peek and position themselves would create memorable moments, making combat feel more layered and immersive.

To dismiss these features as slowing down gameplay overlooks how they can enable more thoughtful engagements, especially with random teams where clear lines of fire are paramount. It's not about copying slower-paced shooters but rather offering tools to amplify Space Marine's core experience—unleashing fury upon the enemy while thinking two steps ahead.

https://youtu.be/O7hgjuFfn3A?si=d3nIAGzJCAbrWetf&t=207​

​

​

ICrusaderI wrote:

LGear wrote:

On the other hand, I disagree with these suggestions: there's already a lot of control considerations needed for the game as is, including parrying, blocking, dodging, aiming, zooming, etc., which require their own control keybinds to be activated, especially on mouse and keyboard. Adding stuff like crouch would add further complexity to the controls that quite frankly can be overwhelming, especially when a lot of the actions mentioned above are time-sensitive actions meaning you want to have your fingers on them at all times to make them work, and additional controls would require significantly more work to implement. There is also no guarantee that adding said feature would even make players use it, due to the nature of the game especially with randoms. Hell I've played multiplayer games that do have crouch, and most of the time in a random team you don't really see people consider your own line of fire just because they can crouch. 

Also, I feel like adding stuff like crouch, cover and lean misses the point of the game completely: Space Marine 2 and its prequel has always been about push-forward stand-up-and-fight combat charging headlong into the enemy guns blazing as a pure old-fashioned action game - hell, one of the official marketing images of the last game mocked the then-current trend of cover shooters with their "Cover is for the weak" tagline.

 Crouch and cover may be more at home in a slower, more tactically-oriented game with an emphasis on ranged attacks, or in a military-themed shooter, but Space Marine is a game with equal consideration for both melee and ranged battle, with a good lean towards melee combat and executing enemies up close. Crouching should be the last thing players should do, and would slow down the pace of the game. 

​I understand your concerns regarding control complexity in Space Marine 2. However, I'd like to emphasize why a crouching mechanic and cover-based shooting could enrich the experience without undermining the core "push-forward" philosophy of the game.

Crouching Mechanic for Tactical Clarity: In higher difficulty levels, precision and resource management are critical. When a frontline ally unintentionally blocks the line of fire, especially during crucial moments involving heavy weapons like Heavy Plasma, Multi-Melta, or Heavy Bolter, the outcome of battles can be affected. This leads to wasted shots, critical moments lost, and, sometimes, mission failure. By incorporating a crouching mechanic, players can consciously position themselves to ensure their allies maintain clear sightlines. This wouldn't slow down the game; rather, it would add a strategic dimension, fostering teamwork and situational awareness. After all, effective squad coordination should never feel like a hindrance but rather an empowering aspect of battle.

Cover-Based Shooting for Tactical Depth: While it's true that Space Marine leans heavily into fast-paced combat, adding a dynamic cover system would not transform it into a "slow tactical shooter." Instead, it would create brief, tactical moments where players can assess their options, peek out, and unleash devastating attacks before charging back into melee. This blend of action and cover-based engagement would maintain the series' trademark intensity while enhancing player immersion and choice. Furthermore, allowing players to strategically peek and position themselves would create memorable moments, making combat feel more layered and immersive.

To dismiss these features as slowing down gameplay overlooks how they can enable more thoughtful engagements, especially with random teams where clear lines of fire are paramount. It's not about copying slower-paced shooters but rather offering tools to amplify Space Marine's core experience—unleashing fury upon the enemy while thinking two steps ahead.

https://youtu.be/O7hgjuFfn3A?si=d3nIAGzJCAbrWetf&t=207​

​

​There is another mechanic already in the game that allows allies to gain clear sightlines when firing: 

Standing aside. 

If you keep watch of where your allies are, and you take care not to get in their way, your allies' sight lines and firing lanes remain clear. Most of the time when people block another person's line of fire, it's not because they were standing up, but because they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be, namely at the front. And the majority of such incidents where the other player is at the front is because they were engaging an enemy in melee combat, which is one of the major combat mechanics that the game heavily emphasizes and is even built around. In such a situation, where the allied player is engaged in melee combat with a chainsword or other melee weapon against another enemy, are we going to ask them to crouch just so the Heavy or the Sniper behind them has a clear line of fire? The answer obviously is no, because you're asking the other person to essentially put themselves at risk for no real advantage, and if you just want them to get out of your line of fire then you could ask them to just dodge out of the way, or reposition. In other situations, if all three of you are in a firing line shooting at an enemy from far away obviously none of you are going to be in front or behind the other, all of you will be side by side as is logical, and thus no crouching is needed to retain clear sight and firing lines. And if you as a team are already coordinated enough to know where to properly position so as not to block each other's shots, then why would crouching be needed? 

Cover systems meanwhile also seem to be a suggestion that misunderstands the game: the majority of the time ranged combat isn't done behind cover, and going by my experience in other similar games cover systems in games that heavily feature swarms of melee enemies only lead to clunky interactions where you try to get away but the cover system becomes a liability due to the input delay it introduces from a player needing to extricate themselves from a cover point. Cover systems work in games where ranged weapons are the primary mode of combat, against enemies who also mainly engage at range, and where melee enemies are there mainly to keep you on your toes instead of being the main enemy strategy. I've played coop cover-shooters like the amazing Mass Effect 3 multiplayer so I know a cover-based system works, but that game had the elements I mentioned above that make cover shooting work in its favor, combined with stuff like AoE crowd-control on demand and melee being mostly a tertiary backup weapon instead of the main combat mode (with the exception of a few classes). Space Marine 2 is not such a game, it was not built with the considerations of cover shooting in mind, and thus the gameplay mechanics are made and paced for a more fast-paced open combat model of gameplay.  There's a reason games with "push-foward" gameplay like the recent Doom games or Boltgun or the old Space Marine game did not have cover-shooting as part of their gameplay model, and that's because the games are made so cover is achieved by moving behind a tall object so as not to kill the player's momentum, instead of making them duck behind a waist-high wall. 

Frankly, the main issue I have is this thinking that adding Crouching and Cover systems to Space Marine 2 is somehow a magical panacea that'll bring increased and improved tactical gameplay and team coordination, when even by examples of other coop games the presence of such systems do not guarantee that such elements will occur, and that the addition of these elements not only fail to account for the kind of combat systems that the game is built around, but also the seeming intent of what Space Marine 2's combat system is supposed to achieve. If I'm playing a military combat sim FPS, I'm not going to advocate adding "heal half of my health on kill"  or regenerating armor into the mix because that's not what those kinds of games are about, and in the same vein cover systems and crouching are not elements that Space Marine 2's gameplay is meant to be about. 

​

​Thank you for sharing your perspective, even though I respectfully disagree with several points raised. Let's break this down with some clarity:

1. On Complexity and Controls: While it’s true that Space Marine 2 already demands players juggle various actions like parrying, dodging, and aiming, adding a crouching mechanic need not overcomplicate the controls. We’re talking about a single additional input a feature implemented successfully across numerous modern third-person shooters without overwhelming players. The idea that such a mechanic would overwhelm seasoned gamers in 2024 suggests a surprising lack of confidence in player adaptability. It’s hardly a lol.... Herculean task to integrate, and claiming otherwise downplays the capabilities of today’s gaming community. Also... On Melee Engagements and Player Positioning: When I suggest the addition of a crouching mechanic, I am not implying that players engaged in melee combat need to interrupt their fight to crouch for the convenience of others. Quite the opposite. In the heat of battle, melee combatants have their role, and repositioning to create clear firing lanes falls on those handling ranged weapons, such as snipers or heavies. However, what I’m addressing is a common, and often frustrating, scenario: allies who position themselves directly in front of a firing teammate oblivious to the consequences. In these instances, a crouching mechanic would allow for smoother battlefield dynamics, granting those behind a clearer line of sight without forcing risky forward movement or awkward positioning adjustments that disrupt momentum.
   ​

2. On Intent and Playstyle: The assertion that crouching or cover mechanics undermine the ‘push-forward’ philosophy of Space Marine 2 overlooks a key aspect of strategic depth. Tight corridors, chokepoints, and narrow pathways are present throughout many levels in Space Marine 2. Suggesting players simply move “aside” assumes ideal conditions that rarely match the reality of chaotic engagements. In these confined spaces, forcing players to run forward or risk obstructing allies is not a hallmark of intentional design it’s an opportunity for improvement. Providing options like crouching enhances player agency and situational awareness without breaking the pace of combat.
   ​

3. On Team Coordination and Tactical Elements: It’s naïve to dismiss crouching or cover systems on the premise that random players may ignore them. The suggestion implies all players will fail to coordinate a sweeping generalization that ignores the variety of playstyles and teamwork in cooperative games. The presence of a crouching mechanic doesn’t guarantee tactical perfection but empowers teams that do wish to engage strategically. Moreover, it respects the investment and diversity of playstyles among players.
   ​

4. On Game Philosophy: While Space Marine 2 thrives on its fast-paced, melee-forward combat, there’s room for mechanics that make tactical positioning matter. Players crouching to give snipers or heavies behind them a clear line of fire does not betray the game’s core it deepens it. The suggestion that crouching would ruin the momentum is shortsighted; momentum and tactical positioning can coexist, and when done well, they enhance one another. In fact, modern games blend these elements seamlessly, creating opportunities for emergent gameplay that rewards skill and smart positioning.

To conclude, dismissing crouching or cover mechanics as inherently incompatible with Space Marine 2’s design philosophy is, at best, a limited perspective. Expanding player options doesn’t detract from the game’s core it allows it to evolve. When applied thoughtfully, such mechanics can maintain the intensity and momentum of battle while adding layers of depth for those who seek it.

​Let’s consider this: Space Marines are not meant to break formation, recklessly dash forward, and weave through enemy lines just to provide a better shot for their allies. The image of a Tactical Marine disengaging from their team, charging through swarms of Tyranids, and then spinning around 180 degrees to fire is ludicrous—not to mention highly unrealistic given their combat discipline and tactical training. Unlike lizards, Space Marines cannot cling to walls to magically clear lanes in tight quarters. Such actions undermine the immersion and cohesion of battles that the game strives to deliver, and frankly, it doesn’t respect the gravity of being a Space Marine.

​

So you are suggesting that Melee characters will have to crouch to make sure to not block the line of sight of team mates?
And how do you think that would work in practice?
Imagine a melee characters trying to get in range of an enemy while crouching. And if we're to take how crouch usually works in games that means their movement is slowed down, making them far more vulnerable to enemy fire while slowly crouching forward.

Seeing how Space Marine 2 is made with no cover-based shooting in mind, if they were to implement such a feature that means they would have to readjust the damage enemies do to compensate that. And that would leave those poor crouching melee classes even more vulnerable.

In short, this is not something that would work in SM2 I'm afraid. It's just not made with it in mind.
Heck, back in Space Marine 1 the devs responded to people talking about a cover system like Gears of War that "Space Marines don't take cover. They are mini-tanks". Or something along those lines.

Like LGear said, standing aside is already a working "feature".
It's just that people don't play SM2 as a team game and focus on themselves. Which is also why so many had a problem with pre-nerf Lethal when it still had the Coherency tether.
I finished all 7/7 Operations with 0 losses and that's because I was lucky at getting people who played as a team and made sure to work together.
If people would stop using the "power fantasy" mindset and instead start playing like it's a tactical shooter then I think a lot more would come to find out that it's not as difficult as it once was.

​

Rexipher wrote:

So you are suggesting that Melee characters will have to crouch to make sure to not block the line of sight of team mates?
And how do you think that would work in practice?
Imagine a melee characters trying to get in range of an enemy while crouching. And if we're to take how crouch usually works in games that means their movement is slowed down, making them far more vulnerable to enemy fire while slowly crouching forward.

Seeing how Space Marine 2 is made with no cover-based shooting in mind, if they were to implement such a feature that means they would have to readjust the damage enemies do to compensate that. And that would leave those poor crouching melee classes even more vulnerable.

In short, this is not something that would work in SM2 I'm afraid. It's just not made with it in mind.
Heck, back in Space Marine 1 the devs responded to people talking about a cover system like Gears of War that "Space Marines don't take cover. They are mini-tanks". Or something along those lines.

Like LGear said, standing aside is already a working "feature".
It's just that people don't play SM2 as a team game and focus on themselves. Which is also why so many had a problem with pre-nerf Lethal when it still had the Coherency tether.
I finished all 7/7 Operations with 0 losses and that's because I was lucky at getting people who played as a team and made sure to work together.
If people would stop using the "power fantasy" mindset and instead start playing like it's a tactical shooter then I think a lot more would come to find out that it's not as difficult as it once was.

Well , i think this would be great to have into the game and add another more immersive and tactical layer to the game. You stated yourself that the game should be played as a tactical shooter or at least with a more tactical approach, and thats why the crouch mechanic would instead work really well in my opinion. The narrow spaces you find yourself to be  in the maps often have the problem of your ranged team mates to be forced to stay in front of you in many situations, resulting in alot of ammos (and decisive shots in many occasions) going wasted . Thats why i think it would be a nice addition to solve this problem out , other than giving you the opportunity to make a proper , diverse, tactical and more immersive formation setup, now this would be obviously intended for ranged players mostly .. its obvious that melee players are gonna melee so they maybe wont use that feature that much, but ranged classes would benefit alot from it. Thats my opinion on that

​

Rexipher wrote:

So you are suggesting that Melee characters will have to crouch to make sure to not block the line of sight of team mates?
And how do you think that would work in practice?
Imagine a melee characters trying to get in range of an enemy while crouching. And if we're to take how crouch usually works in games that means their movement is slowed down, making them far more vulnerable to enemy fire while slowly crouching forward.

Seeing how Space Marine 2 is made with no cover-based shooting in mind, if they were to implement such a feature that means they would have to readjust the damage enemies do to compensate that. And that would leave those poor crouching melee classes even more vulnerable.

In short, this is not something that would work in SM2 I'm afraid. It's just not made with it in mind.
Heck, back in Space Marine 1 the devs responded to people talking about a cover system like Gears of War that "Space Marines don't take cover. They are mini-tanks". Or something along those lines.

Like LGear said, standing aside is already a working "feature".
It's just that people don't play SM2 as a team game and focus on themselves. Which is also why so many had a problem with pre-nerf Lethal when it still had the Coherency tether.
I finished all 7/7 Operations with 0 losses and that's because I was lucky at getting people who played as a team and made sure to work together.
If people would stop using the "power fantasy" mindset and instead start playing like it's a tactical shooter then I think a lot more would come to find out that it's not as difficult as it once was.

I have to say, it’s quite clear you didn’t actually read my post or if you did, you completely missed the point. Read my previous post on point 1),  There’s no point in criticizing other people’s posts if you don’t bother to fully read them and instead offer your own childish interpretation. 

My suggestion regarding a crouching mechanic was never intended to imply that melee characters should be forced to crawl forward while engaged in combat, leaving themselves vulnerable. Rather, the intent was to offer an option for players to maintain clear lines of sight and tactical maneuverability in a firefight, which could benefit ranged characters and enhance coordinated teamwork in specific scenarios.

Your reference to "Space Marines as mini-tanks" and their lack of a cover-based system is certainly a well-known characteristic from the first game. However, Space Marine 2 is a sequel, and expanding upon existing mechanics while introducing new layers of tactical depth doesn't inherently contradict the established lore—it evolves it. While Space Marines are indeed formidable warriors, tactical acumen and adaptability have always been part of their legacy.

Now, let's address your own stance on teamwork and tactical play. You commend players who approach SM2 with a tactical shooter mindset and decry the "power fantasy" mentality. Yet, you seem to dismiss outright a suggestion that could potentially foster precisely the kind of tactical engagement you champion. Encouraging players to strategically position themselves, even with mechanics like crouching to avoid obstructing teammates, aligns well with the idea of tactical cooperation, as opposed to the all-guns-blazing approach that prioritizes individual glory.

Your claim that "standing aside" is an already working feature overlooks the nuances that a crouching mechanic could offer. It's a refinement of movement and engagement, not a constraint. Tactical shooters and team-based games across the spectrum employ such mechanics with great success, enhancing immersion and strategic depth.

I encourage you to revisit the discussion with an open mind. Critiquing ideas is valuable, but doing so without fully understanding the proposal, and while inadvertently undermining your own advocacy for teamwork and tactical play, does your argument no favors.

​

ICrusaderI wrote:

​

Rexipher wrote:

So you are suggesting that Melee characters will have to crouch to make sure to not block the line of sight of team mates?
And how do you think that would work in practice?
Imagine a melee characters trying to get in range of an enemy while crouching. And if we're to take how crouch usually works in games that means their movement is slowed down, making them far more vulnerable to enemy fire while slowly crouching forward.

Seeing how Space Marine 2 is made with no cover-based shooting in mind, if they were to implement such a feature that means they would have to readjust the damage enemies do to compensate that. And that would leave those poor crouching melee classes even more vulnerable.

In short, this is not something that would work in SM2 I'm afraid. It's just not made with it in mind.
Heck, back in Space Marine 1 the devs responded to people talking about a cover system like Gears of War that "Space Marines don't take cover. They are mini-tanks". Or something along those lines.

Like LGear said, standing aside is already a working "feature".
It's just that people don't play SM2 as a team game and focus on themselves. Which is also why so many had a problem with pre-nerf Lethal when it still had the Coherency tether.
I finished all 7/7 Operations with 0 losses and that's because I was lucky at getting people who played as a team and made sure to work together.
If people would stop using the "power fantasy" mindset and instead start playing like it's a tactical shooter then I think a lot more would come to find out that it's not as difficult as it once was.

I have to say, it’s quite clear you didn’t actually read my post or if you did, you completely missed the point. Read my previous post on point 1),  There’s no point in criticizing other people’s posts if you don’t bother to fully read them and instead offer your own childish interpretation. 

My suggestion regarding a crouching mechanic was never intended to imply that melee characters should be forced to crawl forward while engaged in combat, leaving themselves vulnerable. Rather, the intent was to offer an option for players to maintain clear lines of sight and tactical maneuverability in a firefight, which could benefit ranged characters and enhance coordinated teamwork in specific scenarios.

Your reference to "Space Marines as mini-tanks" and their lack of a cover-based system is certainly a well-known characteristic from the first game. However, Space Marine 2 is a sequel, and expanding upon existing mechanics while introducing new layers of tactical depth doesn't inherently contradict the established lore—it evolves it. While Space Marines are indeed formidable warriors, tactical acumen and adaptability have always been part of their legacy.

Now, let's address your own stance on teamwork and tactical play. You commend players who approach SM2 with a tactical shooter mindset and decry the "power fantasy" mentality. Yet, you seem to dismiss outright a suggestion that could potentially foster precisely the kind of tactical engagement you champion. Encouraging players to strategically position themselves, even with mechanics like crouching to avoid obstructing teammates, aligns well with the idea of tactical cooperation, as opposed to the all-guns-blazing approach that prioritizes individual glory.

Your claim that "standing aside" is an already working feature overlooks the nuances that a crouching mechanic could offer. It's a refinement of movement and engagement, not a constraint. Tactical shooters and team-based games across the spectrum employ such mechanics with great success, enhancing immersion and strategic depth.

I encourage you to revisit the discussion with an open mind. Critiquing ideas is valuable, but doing so without fully understanding the proposal, and while inadvertently undermining your own advocacy for teamwork and tactical play, does your argument no favors.

I did read but I don't think you understand that a crouching mechanic would slow down the game.
Like why would Melee classes by choice crouch when they want to be in melee fighting?

Would they stay crouched and wait for the enemies to come to them? Or should they disengage a fight and crouch so the people behind them can shoot?
I fail so see where this crouch to let people behind shoot comes into the flow of the game.
If you would be so kind to give me an example where this feature would be in effect where both Melee and Ranged benefits from it I'd be thankful.

I can only speak from personal experience when playing ranged, in this case Tactical since it's my last experience.
I run using Auto Bolter and rarely are the times when I don't have anything to shoot at that isn't obstructed by another player.
But I don't focus my fire where my team mates currently are but rather around them.
Your point 1; "it can be frustrating when a frontline ally—whether it's a Bulwark, an Assault Marine, or even a Tactical Marine engaging in melee—unintentionally blocks the line of fire"​  literally shows an examply where you want to shoot into where they are, not at other targets around them.
And if there aren't any targets around them? What's the issue? I'm sure your team mates in melee can handle the handful of enemies that are currently left. Seeing how there can't be many since they are "blocking your shots".

I just recently finished this Termination on Lethal using the Auto Bolter.
Was a weird one as the Bulwark didn't run the usual "Healer Banner". So we had to rely on Stims only.
But as seen I had no problems finding enemies to shoot at.
Sure, there was 1 less player to "block my shots" due to all that time being incapacitated.. But I've had other games with around the same scores with no or 1-2 deaths in the run.
I just think that people don't know how to​ prioritize their targets.

If people are in Melee don't shoot there, focus on targets around instead.
Any player worth their salt at higher tiers knows how to block/parry so they can surely survive in melee while you shoot at other stuff.
And this is a map with narrow paths in caves and the sewer yet I had no issues finding targets that weren't blocked to shoot at while the other 2 Melee was fighting.

​

ICrusaderI wrote:

Rexypher, it seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding here, and your 'literal' approach to the discussion isn't helping to clarify it. When I talk about the blocking of a line of fire caused by a frontline ally whether it's a Bulwark, an Assault Marine, or a Tactical Marine engaging in melee I'm not suggesting that we want to shoot 'where they are,' as you so passionately claimed. I invite you to reread my points carefully, perhaps without adding personal interpretations. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension or a careful use of the dictionary might be a good place to start.

The aim here is to address the positioning issue that, when poorly managed, obstructs teammates during or before an engagement. This isn’t about randomly kneeling or waiting around; it’s about using positioning to ensure tactical fluidity and broader engagement opportunities. So no, it doesn’t require an entire platoon of Assault Marines kneeling in reverence of the next enemy; rather, it’s an option to create maneuvering space and a more responsive gameplay.

I understand that the concept of 'tactical coordination' might seem complex when taken 'literally,' but a little effort to grasp the context would prevent such bizarre interpretations. I hope this explanation is clear enough to avoid any more 'creative' quotes of my point

​

Indeed, there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here.
So if you could provide a scenario for during or before an engagement where melee can perform their role and not be in the way using the suggested crouching mechanic, that would be helpful to understand.

​

IHaveMaxedTheGameDontAtMe wrote:

​

Aurellian wrote:

​

Rexipher wrote:

So you are suggesting that Melee characters will have to crouch to make sure to not block the line of sight of team mates?
And how do you think that would work in practice?
Imagine a melee characters trying to get in range of an enemy while crouching. And if we're to take how crouch usually works in games that means their movement is slowed down, making them far more vulnerable to enemy fire while slowly crouching forward.

Seeing how Space Marine 2 is made with no cover-based shooting in mind, if they were to implement such a feature that means they would have to readjust the damage enemies do to compensate that. And that would leave those poor crouching melee classes even more vulnerable.

In short, this is not something that would work in SM2 I'm afraid. It's just not made with it in mind.
Heck, back in Space Marine 1 the devs responded to people talking about a cover system like Gears of War that "Space Marines don't take cover. They are mini-tanks". Or something along those lines.

Like LGear said, standing aside is already a working "feature".
It's just that people don't play SM2 as a team game and focus on themselves. Which is also why so many had a problem with pre-nerf Lethal when it still had the Coherency tether.
I finished all 7/7 Operations with 0 losses and that's because I was lucky at getting people who played as a team and made sure to work together.
If people would stop using the "power fantasy" mindset and instead start playing like it's a tactical shooter then I think a lot more would come to find out that it's not as difficult as it once was.

Well , i think this would be great to have into the game and add another more immersive and tactical layer to the game. You stated yourself that the game should be played as a tactical shooter or at least with a more tactical approach, and thats why the crouch mechanic would instead work really well in my opinion. The narrow spaces you find yourself to be  in the maps often have the problem of your ranged team mates to be forced to stay in front of you in many situations, resulting in alot of ammos (and decisive shots in many occasions) going wasted . Thats why i think it would be a nice addition to solve this problem out , other than giving you the opportunity to make a proper , diverse, tactical and more immersive formation setup, now this would be obviously intended for ranged players mostly .. its obvious that melee players are gonna melee so they maybe wont use that feature that much, but ranged classes would benefit alot from it. Thats my opinion on that

You do not listen and are too stupid to understand. THE GAME IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THE MECHANICS YOU ARE ASKING FOR AND WOULD REQUIRE FAR TOO MUCH WORK TO IMPLEMENT. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Indeed Brother.  The Emperor failed to provide the devs  the strenght to overcome such a tremendous task and the omnissiah didnt bless them with the right construction patterns and maps schematics. Totally my fault to fail to comprehend this