Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?

[raykor]

The pace of combat in a shooter—both the TTK and general pace of activity on the battlefield—is crucial in defining the personality of an FPS.

I love the pace of combat in PS1. It is one of the key features the original devs got right.

During my 7 years of on-and-off play, I often logged 4+ hour sessions. I’ll even admit to quite a few 10+ hour marathon sessions. The short breaks in action are what made long play sessions enjoyable. I would NEVER play for that long in a constant action, fast-paced shooter. They literally nauseate me after a while. (Mind you, I have my copy of BF3 pre-ordered and I do enjoy modern shooter pacing…but only to a point.)

The devs have stated that they feel PS1’s 2-3 sec. TTK is simply too long. I think it is perfect. It allowed for meaningful one-on-one encounters where strafing and aim mattered. A shorter TTK will result in the first person to shoot getting the kill nearly every time and thus a whole lot of camping. It will also result in many nearly instant deaths from enemies you rarely even see.

PS1’s reasonable 2-3 sec TTK allowed you to stay alive just barely long enough to encourage pushing down a heavily defended stairwell. In PS2 you will die the instant you turn a corner before the enemy characters are even drawn on your screen. What the devs don’t seem to realize is that PS1’s TTK was in practice often much shorter as you were usually being shot by multiple players.





P.S. The insta-gibbing headshot sniper kills (after 1.7 years of training the appropriate skills) are also going to be a disaster.

[Vash02]

I think its going too far down the battlefield road. Classes(probably only there for the console kids), one man tanks, faster TTK, etc.

I liked being able to push up on foot with the armour in PS1 those battles were great. but a faster TTK would mean that infantry would get shredded in less than a second and its a long run back from the AMS/galaxy to where you were.

[SgtMAD]

I think its going too far down the battlefield road. Classes(probably only there for the console kids), one man tanks, faster TTK, etc.

I liked being able to push up on foot with the armour in PS1 those battles were great. but a faster TTK would mean that infantry would get shredded in less than a second and its a long run back from the AMS/galaxy to where you were.

no, what it means is that you have to use cover and play smart and not depend on painfully slow TTKs to support a ridiculous playstyle.

I am amazed we are already seeing the "it killed me too fast,nerf it plz"posts/threads,I figured we would be flooded by these immediately after release

[Bags]

It's faster than PS1, slower than BF.

[Talek Krell]

The short breaks in action are what made long play sessions enjoyable.Judging from the way modern shooters seem to work, I suspect that fewer and fewer devs understand the idea of setting a baseline in an experience. Kind of a shame, really.

[Vash02]

no, what it means is that you have to use cover and play smart and not depend on painfully slow TTKs to support a ridiculous playstyle.

I am amazed we are already seeing the "it killed me too fast,nerf it plz"posts/threads,I figured we would be flooded by these immediately after release
I'm sorry, do you think in PS1 infantry could just walk around like tanks or something?

what I'm talking about is the change from having a chance to get into cover once shot at to having zero chance.

[CutterJohn]

They didn't say ttks were being increased across the board. At the fast end they were 1s. This is fine. At the slow end.. It was not fine. Painfully harsh damage degradation, rexo buff, pshield, everyone having medpacks, cont bennies, the suppressor, etc.

The high end of ps1 needs to be brought down bigtime. The low end is fine.

[Accuser]

I can't say how much I'm looking forward to faster TTKs. Speed and accuracy should be able to beat superior numbers. If you (as a non-cloaker) get the first shot on someone and hold the crosshairs on him, he shouldn't be able to turn around and kill you, regardless of his armor or weapon type.

[Raymac]

Increased TTKs is one of the better improvements they are making. I can't tell you how many times I unloaded a whole clip from my Gauss at somebody at max range and felt like I would have done more damage if I just hurled insults instead. I think there is plenty room for them to pick up the pace without it getting out of hand.

[Furret]

But the problem everyone's having isnt those 200m fights with an assault rifle, its the 10m fights with plasma, radiators, bullets, rockets, etc. flying at you where you wont stand a chance if you step out behind your wall. The faster TTK works really well in 1v1 situations, if you get to your cover and have better aim, you'll win. But in 20v20 there'll be people who die instantly, then the next time they wont step into the fire for fear of dying, and eventually nobody wants to push.

[Crazyduckling]

increased TTK is not a bad thing. PS1 has probably the slowest TTK around. A faster TTK is not only there to attract players from a different market, but to help with the overall gameplay pace.

all i can really say is: wait until beta to see how TTKs will feel. hopefully they will adjust it accordingly.

i do feel the BF series can be a little ridiculous at times. if Bags is right, i think this game will be perfect.

[kaffis]

I'm a little concerned, but that's more that I'm worried they'll shorten it too much than because I don't want it to be at all faster.

I enjoyed that PS1 had a relatively slow time to kill. I think it worked well with the cone of fire, and I love the cone of fire. I like that the best way to kill is with controlled bursts, and I want it to take 3-5 controlled bursts to kill at medium range.

When you start comparing to BF and CoD, though, I get concerned that we'll see things like 1-2 controlled burst kills, at which point, there's no point to using controlled burst, because the first 3 shots out of a spray-and-pray mentality are identical to the controlled burst that a more disciplined marksman would be using.

[Bags]

They've stated it's faster than PS1, slower than BFBC2

[Captain B]

But the problem everyone's having isnt those 200m fights with an assault rifle, its the 10m fights with plasma, radiators, bullets, rockets, etc. flying at you where you wont stand a chance if you step out behind your wall. The faster TTK works really well in 1v1 situations, if you get to your cover and have better aim, you'll win. But in 20v20 there'll be people who die instantly, then the next time they wont step into the fire for fear of dying, and eventually nobody wants to push.

That's how it is in PS1 last I checked (a few months ago, granted). People don't want to push because of dying, when combat is pretty slow as it is and K/D means nothing anyway. My fiancee' and I often just ran in and soaked up the bullets to encourage NCers to drop their balls and follow in. I'm hoping this time the entire environment is changed where people can use cover a little more than just "crouch and shoot down the tunnel" and "PUSH PUSH PUSH" into the bullet storm.

Should be using cover and tactics to begin with, not going "Well, it takes roughly 11 shots from this weapon to drop a Rexo..."

[NCLynx]

Have I thought about it? Yes. Worried? Eh maybe a little but I also know things are bound to change during Beta so what might start off as iffy might turn awesome real quick.

[Xyntech]

I'm hoping that a slight increase in TTK will make rifles more meaningful.

Ideally, I think Heavy Assault should lay down the cover fire and mow down large clusters of infantry, but it shouldn't take someone 50m away very long to drop that same HA before he can do much damage.

I don't think getting the drop on someone should be everything, but it should count for a lot and the current mechanics don't allow for that. Surprise is an important element of tactics and it is severely lacking in Planetside. The closes we really get to effective ambushing is using third person to guard corners, which is an idiotic exploit of game mechanics that I will be glad to see gone.

[Captain B]

I hope we can shoot dudes in buggies and kill them, or anyone else exposed for that matter. That'd be sweet.

[Sirisian]

We had a thread like this already (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37314).

Let me begin that I agree 100% with the OP. Just got done playing a few matches of BF3 with my friend and I'm done. I don't want to keep playing today. The spawn and death cycle is very quick so in a 10 minute game you will have people with 15 kills and 10 deaths. I've said this a lot, but I prefer to take a few bullets then move back behind cover. You can somewhat do that in BF3, but most of the time it's too late and is 50% luck.

In PS1 you had focused fire to kill other players. In BF3 you don't really need that. Lot of "wtf" moments where you'd be walking then die instantly with no time to react. Never been a big fan of that. (Lot of spawn death also. Where you spawn and take two steps and die).

It's kind of obvious why the developers want the TTK to be longer than BF. I'm just not sold on why it needs to be less than PS1.

One thing relating to BF3 though is the amount of ammo players have. Perfect. After like 4 kills you often find yourself running low on ammo (I spray a lot) and you have to switch to a pistol. I have a thread on such a thing for PS2 (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37230), and I think it's such a nice system for promoting teamwork and artificially limited kill streaks.

Though if you've read my posts before I've explained why I prefer a long TTK so that you can't just run into a room and kill 3 people. Very possible in BF3 to just spray off a magazine into a group. (Did it. Got 2 kills and the 3rd guy killed me. They were moving all tactically around a corner and I just busted in). When it takes 15 of a 25 round magazine in a rifle to kill someone suddenly it becomes a lot more difficult and you really need to work with a team. Especially when 3 people using focused fire is going to down you much faster than you can fire.

So yeah a longer TTK than BF is definitely the way to go. I agree partially with the people that say we can solve this in beta.

[cellinaire]

No. Not worried at all. At least try to understand the dev's position/market research on this one. ;)

[Talek Krell]

If SOE would like to share it's marketing calculations with the fanbase then we can discuss them too.

[DviddLeff]

I love the pace of combat in PS1. It is one of the key features the original devs got right.

Original devs yes, but after the Rexo buff and the 10% air cav armour increase it got messed up; MA weapons were no longer effective against HA users close up and air cav dominated outdoors.

During my 7 years of on-and-off play, I often logged 4+ hour sessions. I’ll even admit to quite a few 10+ hour marathon sessions. The short breaks in action are what made long play sessions enjoyable. I would NEVER play for that long in a constant action, fast-paced shooter. They literally nauseate me after a while.

Agreed that the down time in PS1 was good, but in some ways rather than others. A half hour drive in a Sunderer across the length of Esamir a few weeks after release with my outfit sticks in my mind; it was great to just kick back and chat, getting to know each other. But for your solo player or one with limited time, that kind of downtime is a killer.

The devs have stated that they feel PS1’s 2-3 sec. TTK is simply too long. I think it is perfect. It allowed for meaningful one-on-one encounters where strafing (ADDAAADDDDAAAADDDAADDD) and aim mattered. A shorter TTK will result in the first person to shoot getting the kill nearly every time and thus a whole lot of camping and tactical play. It will also result in many nearly instant deaths from enemies you rarely even see. If you don't see your enemy, you are playing the game wrong, or are surrounded in which case you are in trouble either way.

PS1’s reasonable 2-3 sec TTK allowed you to stay alive just barely long enough to encourage pushing down a heavily defended stairwell. In PS2 you will die the instant you turn a corner before the enemy characters are even drawn on your screen.
What it also allowed was the injured to fall back and heal/repair, creating a blockage in the stairwell which slowed down stairwell fights to stalemates that could last far too long.

What the devs don’t seem to realize is that PS1’s TTK was in practice often much shorter as you were usually being shot by multiple players.

Yes, but if you put yourself in a position where multiple enemies are shooting at you individually you deserve to die.

P.S. The insta-gibbing headshot sniper kills (after 1.7 years of training the appropriate skills) are also going to be a disaster.
Why? With proper trajectories and even wind affecting bullets, this is not going to be a major problem, especially with all the cover we have seen in the screen shots so far. And if you are having a problem with a sniper, just send in a Reaver/Mossie/Hoover to sort them out. And if you are worried about players using sniper rifles as shotguns, many games have already worked that out.

I am really, really pleased that they are reducing the TTK; it will make game play much less zerg like and encourage tactics and teamwork.

[Bags]

Waaaa, my 4-cert cheaper MA doesn't counter HA where HA is supposed to shine, what bad balance!

Just sayin'. Agree with most of your yellow other than that though.

[CutterJohn]

Waaaa, my 4-cert cheaper MA doesn't counter HA where HA is supposed to shine, what bad balance!

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.

[cellinaire]

If SOE would like to share it's marketing calculations with the fanbase then we can discuss them too.

Not likely to happen hehe. And while I also don't have research graphs and numbers, I think it's a common sense. A bit faster paced? I can live with that. Take less time to die? Don't like. The term 'fast-paced' doesn't necessarily need to mean 'you're going to die faster and a lot more' IMO. And it seems majority of gamers nowadays wanna get to the fun part with less delay. :cool:

[Sirisian]

I am really, really pleased that they are reducing the TTK; it will make game play much less zerg like and encourage tactics and teamwork.
You're using sarcasm? (If you are then ignore the next few sentences, they aren't directed at you).

I mean you've played COD, BF, CS:S probably. The fast TTK generates a spawn/death zerg rush that's massive. It's caused by nothing else really other than the fast movement (unlimited sprint) and the TTK.

When you increase the TTK you force teamwork since two players are suddenly more of a challenge. Sure you might get the jump on one of them, but you don't usually kill them both unless you use tactics. (As explained in previous threads, grenades, boomers, etc). When you take a group of 5 people down a stairway you also have less of a change of losing 2 people to spray and pray. (One of the things I hate in MP FPS games since it's so effective).

Also, and this should be obvious, the bases are larger now. It's been hinted, but not confirmed that we might not have bottlenecks anymore so the flood of people retreating after being damaged shouldn't be that big of a deal. Honestly I liked seeing that. It showed teamwork in that medics and engineers were helping damaged soldiers. (BF3 the only time you see a medic it's to revive you). Then again with the new shield over health system we only have medics which I believe is because they found armor would only stop 1 or 2 bullets so repairing it has little incentive for the reward. That sadden me a little.

Yes, but if you put yourself in a position where multiple enemies are shooting at you individually you deserve to die.
Indeed. A longer TTK allows that and that's what he's basically saying. With a faster TTK the person doesn't always die. They might kill a person before that point. Happens a lot in the more twitch based FPS games.

Also stop doing that color quote stuff. If you don't want people to reply to you then don't post.

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.
Then you suck. If they have a shotgun and you go point blank up to them with an MA you are asking to die. They came better equipped to that fight.

[DviddLeff]

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.

That is what I was getting at Bags :p The Rexo buff just tipped it over a point where that was possible and happened a lot of the time, whereas before it wasn't unless your aim was really shitty.

[Captain B]

Quick reminder:

Faster is not "fast". It's faster. I run faster than a penguin waddles, but I wouldn't say I run "fast", not where marathon runners are concerned.

I agree about the HA issue. I jump down off a wall, start going at a guy with my Gauss, they turn around, minigun revs up, and then I'm dead. Like, what? I think the iron sights and hit locations will help with this naturally, though.

Someone mentioned in one of the threads (maybe this one) how HA should be for suppressing fire and mowing down clumps of troops. I agree with this. With the faster pace, hit locations, and so on, getting sprayed at with those weapons will be scary, and force people to duck for cover. In PS1, someone starts spraying at me, sure, I'll duck behind some cover, but I'm not shaken (or worse, dead) if I take a few rounds (or 5) beforehand. I'm just clipped, no biggie. Stimpak and back in the game.

[Redshift]

I think it will all depend on map design tbh, a low TTK in current bases would have been an annoyance, where you can open a door and be massacred in less than your ping.
If the bases are built in such a way that there are not 20 guns pointed at one door it should be fine.

[Mirror]

I'm sure that after a few hours of playing you will get used to the TTK.

[CutterJohn]

Then you suck. If they have a shotgun and you go point blank up to them with an MA you are asking to die. They came better equipped to that fight.

No, MA sucks. If we see each other at the same time, and we're within 20m, he should win most times. If its outside of 20m, I should win most times. If either of us gets the drop on the other it should mean you win unless you royally screw up. I don't care if its a cloaker with a pistol. Unless I'm phenomenally lucky, some who catches me completely off guard should win the fight. Why? Because its my job not to be caught completely off guard.

The weapons should be better at certain roles. Not useless outside of them. That becomes fitting screen combat.

[Hamma]

It's faster than PS1, slower than BF.

They've stated it's faster than PS1, slower than BFBC2

:lol:

I am not to worried about this overall, I think it needed to be faster - but I think to fast would be bad for PlanetSide. Since they have stated they are planning to go somewhere in between I am cool with that.

[Traak]

Okay, hypothetically, let's contrast two TTK levels:

TTK of Instagib

TTK of a knife-on-primary-mode wielded by two HA's

Instagib: You spawn, equip, run to the action, get splattered. No armor degradation, no time to duck, nothing, just boom splat. You respawn. Equip, run to th...get splattered. Respawn, equ...get splattered. Respaw...splatter. Re...splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter.

If you are pwnz0rzing: You spawn, equip, find the spot where the fodder are running through, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, splatter, etc. Reload. Splatter, splatter, etc.


Ultra-long TTK: Spawn, equip, run to the action. see your enemy, start shooting. He ducks and covers, you reload, he pops a medkit, you repair armor. Face off again, you are degrading his armor, but he is doing the same to yours. You run out off PS, SW, medkits, and eventually, life. In this battle you had to manage:
Ammo
Health
Armor
Medkits
Implants
Position
Aim
Weapon choice
Stance
Ammo type

While considering the enemy's next moves and what he might be reloading or repairing/healing. What was he equipping? Etc.

Lowering the TTK, to me, makes us spend more time spawning and running, and less time actually shooting. This is a first-person shooter. More time should be spent shooting, and stuff that tips the balance away from making out with the inside of a spawn tube/squad spawn/whatever, fondling an eq term, and running back to battle, and more time actually SHOOTING, to me, would rationally be the best choice.

Battles shouldn't last fractions of a second to appeal to the pre-pubescent Lords of Ritalin. That does not lead to involvement, dedication, or teamwork. It leads to servers clogged with gobs of idiots, followed swiftly by empty servers as they go for the next flashy new thing.

Catering to those with the attention span of a gnat will result in an endless cycle of having to try to introduce new brightly colored polyhedral objects to keep them hypnotized week on week, or watching them grow tired and move on to the next toy.

More TTK means more quality of gameplay. Less TTK means the game becomes a relatively mindless reflex contest.

Hollywood knows this. Ever seen a hero one-shot the Big Revenge Enemy Who Killed His Family? The whole movie builds up, then Bad Guy steps out of his car, and the hero punches him in the face so hard he falls over dead. Credits? Ever seen that? If so, how often?

No, movie fights go on and on and on, ridiculously, unrealistically long. With replays, multiple camera angles, etc. Why?

Because instagib is BOOOORINNGG. Can you imagine Rocky stepping into the ring, after all the training, hard work, acting lessons, whatever, Dolf Lundgren steps up, they touch gloves, Rocky jumps up and floors him with one punch. No replay, no slow-mo, no different angles, nothing. Just KO'd. Credits.

So. Yeah, Captain Ritalin and his lieutenants Dave Noshave, Bucky Braces, and Training Bra Betty can find a different game to OMGPWNZ0RZZZZZZZZZZZ and pile up kill stats. Planetside is for people capable of coherent thoughts, not just idiot-savants whose only ability in life is to point and click, and who have to be locked in a padded room for the other hours of the day so they don't try to eat the mucilage glue or harm themselves with scissors.

You have just been killed again by someone who is so retarded he has to have someone change his diaper, but he is the king of the server due to his single-focused mental (dis-)ability to point and click with shocking accuracy. His teammates hear him on voice comms. "Gu-huh-huh-huh. (slurps drool) I beat you! huh huh huh huh. I farted! hehehehe. I made a peepeee!"

Wow, no. No, I want Planetside to be far more demanding than the cursor-focused dolts whose talent, whose ONLY talent in life, may be to point and click can manage.

Am I against skilled players? No. I am for a game that rewards a variety of skills, and low TTK's only reward ONE THING: Point and click.

Nah. Go play Unreal Tournament. Play Duck Hunt. Play with your dolls. Just don't get near Planetside, please.

[Raymac]

Hollywood knows this. Ever seen a hero one-shot the Big Revenge Enemy Who Killed His Family? The whole movie builds up, then Bad Guy steps out of his car, and the hero punches him in the face so hard he falls over dead. Credits? Ever seen that? If so, how often?

No, movie fights go on and on and on, ridiculously, unrealistically long. With replays, multiple camera angles, etc. Why?

Because instagib is BOOOORINNGG. Can you imagine Rocky stepping into the ring, after all the training, hard work, acting lessons, whatever, Dolf Lundgren steps up, they touch gloves, Rocky jumps up and floors him with one punch. No replay, no slow-mo, no different angles, nothing. Just KO'd. Credits.


Actually, I think one of the greatest fight scenes of all time was the one in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where he shoots the guy with the sword, but thats a bit off-topic.

Your argument is a classic strawman fallacy. Don't drag it through the mud and then complain about it being dirty. This isn't going to be UT fast, or Counterstrike fast, or COD fast, or even BFBC2 fast. It's just going to be a little bit faster than the relatively extremely slow PS1. That's the goal, and that's what they will aim for in balancing.

Plus, we've all played the game so we've all been focus fired and killed quickly, and that will never change. It is an mmofps not just an fps after all.

[Redshift]

Actually, I think one of the greatest fight scenes of all time was the one in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark where he shoots the guy with the sword, but thats a bit off-topic.

QFT

[Traak]

I understand your points. I was exaggerating for effect, and I took it from the perspective of the two polar opposites we might have experienced, or, at least, could imagine.

[Bags]

:lol:

I am not to worried about this overall, I think it needed to be faster - but I think to fast would be bad for PlanetSide. Since they have stated they are planning to go somewhere in between I am cool with that.

I had to post it twice because after I posted it people kept talking about two shot kills!

[DviddLeff]

Been thinking about this today and lower time to kill leads to the following changes:

Individual skill requirement – less sustained accuracy is needed but faster reflexes are rewarded.
Team play requirement – combined fire needed less, but using players to sweep and clear areas for lone enemies that could cause trouble is more vital.
Tactics requirement – more important as cover is needed, suppressing fire is more effective so flanking is more useful.
Weapon choice – less important as each weapon will be more useful in more situations.

[Graywolves]

Waaaa, my 4-cert cheaper MA doesn't counter HA where HA is supposed to shine, what bad balance!

Just sayin'. Agree with most of your yellow other than that though.

I kill HA all the time with MA....well...40% of the time I kill them all the time.

[Bags]

I kill HA all the time with MA....well...40% of the time I kill them all the time.

Exactly. Even skill, you'll lose with MA. Most other times you have a good chance with MA.

[Sirisian]

[amazing points]
Exactly. It's amazing how few people understand this.

Been thinking about this today and lower time to kill leads to the following changes:

Individual skill requirement – less sustained accuracy is needed but faster reflexes are rewarded.
Team play requirement – combined fire needed less, but using players to sweep and clear areas for lone enemies that could cause trouble is more vital.
Tactics requirement – more important as cover is needed, suppressing fire is more effective so flanking is more useful.
Weapon choice – less important as each weapon will be more useful in more situations.

Really good points. I for one want to reward skill, but not just "how fast can I put my cursor to the player's head". You have a lot of choices like "which weapon should I use for X situation". When you make them all basically the same it really destroys their uniqueness. I'd argue that cover isn't as important. You're better off just charging and shooting them since it only takes a few bullets. It's not like the enemy can get behind cover fast enough and do anything really if the TTK is too low. (Imagine uncrouching and taking a few rounds then trying to crouch down behind cover. It really depends on the TTK if that can be accomplished or if you just get killed before you can react).

[MasterChief096]

I fail to see how PlanetSide's pacing was "extremely" slow. Maybe nowadays it is with the clutter of useless shit that isn't needed (BFRs, all the extra CE that was added, viruses, maelstrom and radiator spam which makes people afraid to push, cave locks that give ridiculously overpowered benefits to a base, and the fact that BFRs for whatever god forsaken reason don't require a tech plant to pull). To me its those unnecessary game additions that make the pacing of the game slow, not the actual TTK itself.

Before cave locks you didn't have infantry that stagnated at the shield of a gate at a facility. People didn't retreat from the spawn level stairwell in a bio to the top level once a single guy with a maelstrom started spamming it into the hallway. Aircraft didn't afterburn away to avoid death if they started getting pinged by a Cerberus Spitfire from 100m away.

Back when PlanetSide launched the pacing was relatively fast. During base fights, you often died as fast as you could spawn regardless of the fact that there wasn't all those features. Tanks used to drop instantly when 10-15 AV users focused their fire. What's it going to be like with 10-15 AV users shooting your vehicle now in PS2 with a lower TTK? Not sure I wanna know.

If I play beta and the TTK somehow allows for shit loads of people on my screen at once and doesn't also have the added effect of instant death anytime I turn a corner, then I won't care. But for now, I'm going to have to draw a comparison and say, "Gee, what if the TTK in PlanetSide was lower? Boy wouldn't that mean that I get gibbed as soon as I enter a stairwell battle and the first thumper round hits near my foot? Would my vanguard even last 10 seconds against five guys with a lancer?"

[Bags]

Exactly. It's amazing how few people understand this.

I think DviddLeff just listed off a lot of the things we don't want to see in the game. Really good points there.

His points were really good except for one thing; there's not going to be instagibbing by infantry (except sniper hs).

BFBC2 < PS2 < PS1

is the TTK

[DviddLeff]

As it stands in PS1 we have a high TTK which leaves us with:


Individual skill requirement – sustained accuracy is needed making faster reflexes less important.
Team play requirement – combined fire needed, individual players make less of an impact.
Tactics requirement – cover is useful, but suppressing fire is not generally effective making flanking and group tactics less useful.
Weapon choice – vital to succeed in any given area.


Now there are other factors; suppressing fire wastes precious ammo for example.

Traak's exaggerated rant hits a key thing; "Captain Ritalin". We want to get the masses into the game, we want the real twitch gamers to get in the game and stick with it due to the massive scale that other shooters can't compete with. We need to have a balance between PS1's slow and CoDs fast TTK to cater for more people and have a wider player base, so that there's more cash for continued development. BF sits between CoD and PS pace wise; there's still the time to think about tactics if you wish to and set out from the base, but if all you want to do is fight and spawn right in the fight you can.

[FIREk]

I'm sure I wrote it a million times in other identical threads :p, but nothing stops me from doing this again. ;)

The original statement about pacing is that it will be a bit slower than Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (BFBC2).
The latest statement summed the pacing as "similar to BFBC2".

This game's pacing isn't fast, and is way slower than of Modern Warfare, for instance.
This may be due to some (real or imagined) hit detection glitches, but overall if you got hit, and you weren't moving though open terrain like a moron, you had a good chance of ducking behind cover before they could finish you off.
Up close you needed to land a good shot with a pump-action shotgun to kill someone, or two slightly worse shots.
At longer ranges you could actually kill with an assault rifle, which can't be said for PS1's damage degradation which turned lead into rubber after 50 meters. :P
I thought BFBC2 was slow at first, but then decided that the pacing is perfect for a game with both troops and vehicles.

PS1's pacing, on the other hand, was laughable, especially during long range encounters. You would rin through open ground, get hit a few times, and have plenty of time to find some sort of cover, waltz behind it, heal, repair and go prance about under fire again.

Faster pacing promotes thinking ahead, and thinking fast when thinking ahead didn't work. Personally, I think that's great. :)

BF3's pacing, though, is just retarded, but we won't be seeing that kind of crap in PS2. Two-shot kills won't work in a game with so many guns.

[Dreamcast]

Planetside was too slow IMO.....Heal or repair yourself behind things most of the time.


It needs to get faster, not too fast of course but a nice balance.

[FIREk]

Individual skill requirement – sustained accuracy is needed making faster reflexes less important.
"Sustained accuracy"? While in BFBC2 your target would start sprinting to cover after the first hit, making sustained fire difficult, in PS1 they would keep moving at a snail's pace, or quickly get bumped out of Surge due to per-hit Stamina degradation.
There's as much skill involved in "sustained accuracy" in PS1 as there is in resizing a window, or dragging a file.

Team play requirement – combined fire needed, individual players make less of an impact.
Which mostly means "individuals are useless" and "whoever is under fire doesn't need to think unless he's up against ridiculous odds".
If my target is a moron who can't use cover, and I have a good shot, why would I need to coordinate with two buddies to drop him?

Tactics requirement – cover is useful, but suppressing fire is not generally effective making flanking and group tactics less useful.
I don't understand this point. Is it for or against high-TTK games?

Weapon choice – vital to succeed in any given area.
Which is different from faster-paced games how?

[FIREk]

I for one want to reward skill, but not just "how fast can I put my cursor to the player's head".
I just can't understand the paranoia about headshots. Aside from PS2's pacing not being so fast, there aren't that many players that can pop instant, consecutive headshots all the time. Most of them are professional gamers and won't bother playing an MMO. :P

You have a lot of choices like "which weapon should I use for X situation".
I also can't understand the point of pretending that something as trivial as this is an important choice, and something that can only happen in a slow game. Especially a game that only gave you obvious "choices" like PlanetSide.

I'd argue that cover isn't as important. You're better off just charging and shooting them since it only takes a few bullets.
Accuracy degradation while moving. Whoever you're charging will likely be stationary, and therefore more accurate. Also, I'm assuming that you're wide-open while running at them guns-blazing, intentionally disregarding nearby cover (since the TTK is so fast you think you wouldn't need it anyway).

Have you ever played any game other than PlanetSide? I'm not trying to insult you in any way, it's just that I don't feel like your observations are based on any first-hand experience, just conjecture and concern/fear of what you're not used to.

[Sirisian]

"Sustained accuracy"? While in BFBC2 your target would start sprinting to cover after the first hit, making sustained fire difficult, in PS1 they would keep moving at a snail's pace, or quickly get bumped out of Surge due to per-hit Stamina degradation.
There's as much skill involved in "sustained accuracy" in PS1 as there is in resizing a window, or dragging a file.
PS1 you needed to hit a player multiple times meaning you needed sustained accuracy to make a kill because it took a few bullets. In faster paced games that isn't the case. You simply burst a few rounds at the enemy and they drop.

Which mostly means "individuals are useless" and "whoever is under fire doesn't need to think unless he's up against ridiculous odds".
If my target is a moron who can't use cover, and I have a good shot, why would I need to coordinate with two buddies to drop him?
What you're describing is a 1v1 fight. You would still probably win and wouldn't need to coordinate with another player.

If you are 1 player against 2 you can't simply bust in hoping for an easy fight unless you have the proper weapon or tactics. For instance throwing a grenade at them and then shooting them with a shotgun are valid. SA weaponry comes into play here.

Which is different from faster-paced games how?
They tend to all handle generally the same. The differences are usually minor between the rifles.

I just can't understand the paranoia about headshots. Aside from PS2's pacing not being so fast, there aren't that many players that can pop instant, consecutive headshots all the time. Most of them are professional gamers and won't bother playing an MMO. :P
Not talking about headshots. I'm talking about the weight toward twitch gameplay. The amount of advantage a player gets for aiming at the player faster. So pretend I said put the cursor on their body.


I also can't understand the point of pretending that something as trivial as this is an important choice, and something that can only happen in a slow game. Especially a game that only gave you obvious "choices" like PlanetSide.
Obvious choices? You could throw a grenade fall back and work with others or charge forward among many other choices given to you by weapons and items.

[FIREk]

PS1 you needed to hit a player multiple times meaning you needed sustained accuracy to make a kill because it took a few bullets. In faster paced games that isn't the case. You simply burst a few rounds at the enemy and they drop.
You forget that, unlike obsolete slow games, modern fast games have plenty of recoil, making sustained fire on a moving target all that more difficult, especially at range when you're using iron sights.
In PS1 you had slow targets and only had to tap the mouse to control your CoF bloom. Aiming itself was laughably easy.

What you're describing is a 1v1 fight. You would still probably win and wouldn't need to coordinate with another player.
I wasn't, actually. :) Since I think the original post was about forcing teamwork, so that I really need a buddy or two firing with me to reliably kill any enemy at range, I argued that I shouldn't need their help if the target was at a disadvantage. In PS1, even if the target was at a disadvantage, he could eat up enough rubber bullets from one gun to drop behind cover and heal up, even if he deserved to get killed for not using cover.

They tend to all handle generally the same. The differences are usually minor between the rifles.
The differences are big enough for certain weapons to emerge as the favorites, or just plain OP cookie-cutter guns. ;) If the differences were so trivial, weapon usage would be spread evenly, and that isn't the case.
In PS1, however, in my opinion you only really had two weapons indoors (HA and Thumper) and two weapons outdoors (MA and Bolt-Driver). The Thumper and Bolt-Driver don't so much represent different weapons, as different play styles.
For typical, direct engagements, if you're not into spamming or sniping, you can only "choose" between one weapon per area (indoors or outdoors), which isn't much of a choice at all.

Not talking about headshots. I'm talking about the weight toward twitch gameplay. The amount of advantage a player gets for aiming at the player faster. So pretend I said put the cursor on their body.
Understood. I still think that it's a valuable skill, and not something that can't be learned by someone who finds it difficult. Practice makes perfect - not giving up helps, too. ;)

CoD and BFBC2 aside, the recent quote on Reddit suggests that TTK won't be that much faster in PS2 than in PS1.
Notice that they typically used the word "pacing" instead of just TTK. So, the "pacing" will be slightly slower than BFBC2, but that includes the downtime between engagements, getting from respawn to a fight etc.

I may be opposed to rallying against fast TTK, but, to be completely honest the ideal TTK for a massive game like PS2 would be:
- per-hit TTK slightly slower than in PS1 (something between APB: Reloaded and PS2),
- with assault rifles that punish at long range (almost no damage degradation over distance),
- with bonus damage to headshots (not insta-kill for most weapons) to promote good aim,
- with one-shot headshots from sniper rifles, assuming that bullet ballistics will make those headshots really difficult.

[Geist]

Only read the first couple pages...

I have a feeling that the increased TTK is so we need more teamwork for attacking/defending. Those MAX spearheads aren't just a luxury now, they are a necessity for getting into a crowded room, Rexo will live up to their role as shock troopers, and everyone who can't survive has to come in after.

At least, that's what I think, and I agree with everyone else, wait until beta and they'll fix anything that's wrong with it.

[CutterJohn]

Not talking about headshots. I'm talking about the weight toward twitch gameplay. The amount of advantage a player gets for aiming at the player faster. So pretend I said put the cursor on their body.

Explain to me how that is not a skill exactly like anything else? You perceive it as too brainless?


Have you ever actually played quake or CS or anything like it? Aiming is a big deal, yeah. But if you're not smart and use cover and the terrain to your advantage die fast. These games require just as much strategy and teamwork to win as any other.

Why even bother with an FPS engine if the skill of a players aim is to be rendered moot? You could do everything just as well with a diceroll system and have a lot of extra bandwidth to play around with.

[Sifer2]

Yes I am worried. Because not an interview seems to go by where they don't say the pacing is like Bad Company 2 or Call of Duty. And I know for a fact that kind of pacing is not going to work for an MMO.

All of these games they seem to be shamelessly basing their new design off of having something in common. An that is they were designed for short 20 minute long at the most matches with fast respawns an maybe 64 players on the field max. Planetside is a whole other ball game an so obviously the same game mechanics are not going to work.

If they make the TTK too short then its going to be like others are already saying. Indoor combat is going to be extremely sloppy. Out door combat will be Sniper/Tank only. An both will be heavily dominated by campers. Of course they already know that which is why there is now Kill Cam. The ability to push forward an actually be aggressive in any way will be severely hampered.

That's how I suspect PS2 will be except the walls will be indestructible so you have to send troops into the indoor meatgrinder an probably nothing but a max will be able to get in the door. Especially since I doubt they will include Smoke Grenades due to performance issues. So long as there are ammo kits indoors you could probably hold chokes forever.

[Elude]

No I'm not worried, TTK means nothing so long as the weapons, vehicles, and classes are properly balanced. Map design also plays a huge role, even if the TTK were greater then that of PS1, players could still potentially be afraid to push forward if there is absolutely no cover, and no Z axis fighting.

BF3 is a horrible comparison considering the TTK in BF3 is FAR LESS then that of even BFBC2. To hear that PS2's TTK is greater then BFBC2 is wonderful and quite a shocker to see people still thinking it's not enough.

The closest game I can think of that could fit between the TTK of BFBC2 and PS1 would be Quake 3 right off a fresh respawn.

[Sirisian]

I wasn't, actually. :) Since I think the original post was about forcing teamwork, so that I really need a buddy or two firing with me to reliably kill any enemy at range, I argued that I shouldn't need their help if the target was at a disadvantage. In PS1, even if the target was at a disadvantage, he could eat up enough rubber bullets from one gun to drop behind cover and heal up, even if he deserved to get killed for not using cover.
Fair enough. I actually like that ability to take damage from guns and find cover. Depends how far away they are from cover. Using my punisher it only took 9 shots to take down an agile user (13 for rexo) which was basically just bursts of 3 rounds and they'd go down. Gave them enough time to jump behind a tree by which time I'd launch a grenade and kill them usually. Those kinds of choices I enjoy since it gives us both a lot of choices. They can sprint away to heal or try to heal behind the tree among other things.

Explain to me how that is not a skill exactly like anything else? You perceive it as too brainless?
I never said that. I said the "weight" given toward that skill. Should it be all that matters in an FPS or should other variable come into play. In CS:S it can be argued it's the only thing that matters. (This is true if you've ever watched a professional CS:S player. Their situational awareness and ability to place the sights on a target is what defines the win). I just feel the game shouldn't weight that as much. For instance, the type of weapon should matter. If you have MA it should ideally be in your best interest to sit back and fire from over 10 meters. While a person with a shotgun might get shot a few times but they can use their more close range weapon to win at less than 10 meters.

[CutterJohn]

For instance, the type of weapon should matter. If you have MA it should ideally be in your best interest to sit back and fire from over 10 meters. While a person with a shotgun might get shot a few times but they can use their more close range weapon to win at less than 10 meters.

So you're saying quake doesn't have a wide array of weapons with different functions that alters the strategies the player uses?

[Rbstr]

There's nothing I hate more in a game than getting the drop on someone, putting down the first hit and having them get away or turn around and use a heavier gun's lower TTK to get me. PS1 is a prime example of that nonsense. I can tap a guy in the head a half dozen times with an assault rifle and he can still turn around and jackhammer my face off.

Situational awareness should be damn near everything. If you're not paying attention to your flanks, not realizing that you're totally exposed to snipers, not watching radar...you deserve that headshot/stabbing/deathwithoutshootingback.

BF3 is a horrible comparison considering the TTK in BF3 is FAR LESS then that of even BFBC2. To hear that PS2's TTK is greater then BFBC2 is wonderful and quite a shocker to see people still thinking it's not enough.
BC2 Hardcore is ~BF3. I can only imagine what BF3's hardcore works like.

I do have a vested interest in lower TTK...I tend to do much better that way because it magnifies my skills: It seems like people are really shitty at paying attention to what happens around them in most games. I nearly always get the drop on someone or the first shots lined up in a snap. In long TTK the averaging that takes place dulls that advantage significantly.

To think that's somehow less skill full than getting in the dudes face with an HA weapon and occasional letting off the trigger to let COF boom clear up is just silly. It's different skills, and certainly not less or more brainless.

On shotguns/MA
Shotguns are a perfectly viable BC3/BF3 weapon even though a rife can take out down in only a couple hits. You just have to play to the gun's style...more sprinting, more pistol-using, more flanking.

Man, deadly pistols would be so nice to have. That way you can really up the situational restrictions on snipers/shottys and other things but still have some semblance of versatility, as long as you remember the pistol exists.

[Sirisian]

So you're saying quake doesn't have a wide array of weapons with different functions that alters the strategies the player uses?
I wouldn't say that no. Quake's weapons were varied enough so that if someone had a rocket launcher you'd react to them differently than a rail gun.

There's nothing I hate more in a game than getting the drop on someone, putting down the first hit and having them get away or turn around and use a heavier gun's lower TTK to get me. PS1 is a prime example of that nonsense. I can tap a guy in the head a half dozen times with an assault rifle and he can still turn around and jackhammer my face off.
I've said this before that I hated the HA weapons. However, that concept of getting killed by someone using a shotgun at close range even though you got a small "jump" as in you hit them once or twice isn't a big enough advantage to overwhelm your poor choice of weapons in that situation which is excellent in my opinion.

It's kind of like killing a sniper at 100m with an assault rifle. You really shouldn't be able to without sneaking up since they have the obvious weapon advantage.

That and dying to a special assault weapon indoors. (Big fan of limited ammo on those).

Situational awareness should be damn near everything. If you're not paying attention to your flanks, not realizing that you're totally exposed to snipers, not watching radar...you deserve that headshot/stabbing/deathwithoutshootingback.
I'm with you on some of that. Take PS1 for instance. You could flank a target that's sitting behind a tree and use your rifle or sniper and hit them. Sometimes they wouldn't know what's happening and you'd get the kill. Other times they'd move to block your clear shot. You have choices and they have choices and time to react. This is really a difference of opinions. I totally understand wanting to get that kill. You flanked them and landed some shots. However, I'm a big fan of being able to react when getting shot especially in an MMO with a lot of players shooting.

A good example of this comes from watching a PS sniper video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpJ9qm8lDJk#t=20s) or remembering back and doing that. You have choices because you need to keep moving around and the enemy has choices. It's not always such a obvious outcome.

Man, deadly pistols would be so nice to have. That way you can really up the situational restrictions on snipers/shottys and other things but still have some semblance of versatility, as long as you remember the pistol exists.
Yeah always wanted a quick-draw pistol in PS1. There's a thread about that in the PS2 Idea threads.


On another tangent I mentioned this a very long time ago, but I also like controlling the bloom of my gun. When you need to line up and land 9-13 rounds like in PS1 it really changes how you play the game since you have to control the CoF bloom and so does your enemy. With a lower TTK it becomes a lot less important. Spraying with a high CoF and hoping for a random hit will be a lot more advantageous.

[Xyntech]

Man, deadly pistols would be so nice to have. That way you can really up the situational restrictions on snipers/shottys and other things but still have some semblance of versatility, as long as you remember the pistol exists.

I'm excited to see how the balance plays out in PS2. Faster TTK's but not much faster. Head shots that do anywhere from a lot of extra damage to none at all. Knives that give extra damage for back stabs.

We already know that engineer and infiltrator will be two separate classes. We haven't gotten any clear indication on ACEs/remote explosive packs, but while I hope infiltrators still get this option (hopefully we can stick them to anything now), I'm going to assume for the time being that the class restrictions will prevent this.

Considering that ACEs were one of the only very effective ways to consistently kill people as in infiltrator in PS1, I am excited to see how pistols and knives fair in PS2s new dynamics.

My guess for head shot multiplier would be:

Sniper Rifle > Pistol > Rifle > with HA, explosives, vehicles and everything else receiving no bonus at all. Maybe non HA shotguns could receive a small bonus if they connect more than %66 of their pellets with the enemies head.

Spy can be fun to play in TF2, but it's a totally different game and the spy would be way too overpowered in Planetside, especially given the firendly fire, but I don't think Infiltrators would need a one hit kill for backstabs to become a lethal tool. It would be nice if Infiltrators in PS2 were one of the biggest deterrents for running around solo as a foot soldier.

Edits: Holy shit, that was a lot of typos. I should probably consider sleeping sometime this week.

[ThGlump]

Fast ttk encourage camping as is too dangerous move out of cover. Even if you play as a team and moving from cover to cover, half the squad dont make it due random hits.
Similar is indoors where it encourage rambo style. Even when your team is covering every entrances, it takes 1 guy to rush inside and land few lucky shots at the one covering that door and then he can freely kill rest of team from behind before they can turn around.

It really takes away team play from battle as only time you benefit from team is outside of battle (ressing, squad spawn).

It also mitigate differences from different weapon as you can kill fast enough with anything - if PS1 had fast ttk nobody would waste 4 cert for HA if you can kill as fast with MA - one reason that you wont have to sacrifice anything for better weapon in PS2 as they open to you eventually like in bf/cod.

[Kalbuth]

It also mitigate differences from different weapon as you can kill fast enough with anything - if PS1 had fast ttk nobody would waste 4 cert for HA if you can kill as fast with MA - one reason that you wont have to sacrifice anything for better weapon in PS2 as they open to you eventually like in bf/cod.

Or maybe we can try to see HA as something else than just "the best infantry weapon", and give it a true role, like supressive fire.
You don't expect SA to kill faster than MA, do you? Why HA should absolutely be better? Can't it have a dedicated role apart from "better at CQB" (which is ridiculous if it is its current role and you see the current HAs)?
I'd really like to have a game where simple rifle combat is only determined by skill and wit, not the weapon you're wielding. Having HA rexoshield absorb half the shots needed to die (which is still a lot in PS1) just to turn around and kill you even so you had the perfect situation for you and barely missed (on top of you being forced to immobility to control your CoF while he zips around shooting at you) is really something I don't want to see again in PS2.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I can't believe people are still saying it will be like CoD. It's been almost 3 months since they started giving out info at Fan Fair, and every time they say it is between PS1 and BC2.

If it were CoD TTKs Yes I would have a problem with that, but its only slightly faster than PS1, and that is a good thing.

[NivexQ]

The only thing I'm worried about when it comes to the "faster pace" changes is the removal of sanctuaries, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Traak]

Wellz, I think HA will kill faster than other weapons, plus carry the bonus of having to have more armor, making HA players true heavy-weapons sluggers.

Like the joke "I went to a bodybuilding contest... and a baseball game broke out!"

[WellWisherELF]

A shorter TTK will result in the first person to shoot getting the kill nearly e

This. It's indisputable that the quicker the TTK is, the more camping there'll be. While some camping is always expected and unavoidable, it shouldn't ever become the best option for every situation.

[Traak]

I'm all for this: more time gunning.
Less time spawning, equipping, running, positioning, waiting, dying, respawning and yawning.

You can pick up the pace of this game and have LONGER TTK's if you work on the whole death/respawn/get ready/OK, Fight! cycle.

I am not recommending longer TTK's, just making a point that faster pace of gameplay does not mean drastically lower TTK's.

[Ant001]

Shorter TTK means that ping will be crucial.
Anything over 30-40 ping will put you at a disadvantage ask any player who has played fps in leagues or compititions.
It's the one reason that players in europe can still play on the US server. If it was the same TTK as say "cod:bo" then you would have NO eu players still playing PS.

[Captain B]

Maybe it'll be faster pace 'cause it won't take 15 shots to kill someone, but instead 7-10 to the chest and 2-4 to the face (all dependent on class of course). Faster TTK but still not "fast". Right now it's just... well, PlanetSide.

And I'm sorry, I may be the extreme minority here, but PS was not remembered for its infantry-vs-infantry combat to me. The game was fun, but infantry combat left a lot to be desired. I'm still hoping I can shoot someone who's exposed in a vehicle, like a buggy or turret, which would make armor upgrades even more useful.

[Gandhi]

For me, what I hated about the infantry combat in PS was the third person camera, ADAD spam and bad hit detection. Also the lasher, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I wouldn't mind a faster TTK, as long as it's not overdone, but it wasn't really a concern for me. Removing the ability to heal and repair yourself so easily would already go a long way to making combat faster. I just think it's something that should be tested in beta, play around with the TTK settings a bit and see what works best.

[ThGlump]

Less time spawning, equipping, running, positioning, waiting, dying, respawning and yawning.

Well aside that faster ttk = more frequent deats = more time spend in spawning :)

But the rest was good for gameplay. If i wanted to spawn and instantly shoot at ppl i would go play UT. I dont want PS2 to be a mindless shooter

[Redshift]

Well aside that faster ttk = more frequent deats = more time spend in spawning :)

But the rest was good for gameplay. If i wanted to spawn and instantly shoot at ppl i would go play UT. I dont want PS2 to be a mindless shooter

Yea i hear that, was playing tf2 last night in att/def gameplay like that 24/7 would drive me nuts

[Bags]

It's faster than PS1 (10 - 20 shots depending on weapon and range) and slower than BFBC2.

[Accuser]

And I'm sorry, I may be the extreme minority here, but PS was not remembered for its infantry-vs-infantry combat to me.

Yeah, I hate most of the unique parts of PS1 infantry combat as well.
1. CoF as opposed to scope-down (I don't mean quick scope)
2. ADADAADDDAADADAAADDDAA
3. 3rd person view
4. everyone can heal/repair themselves
5. looooooooong TTK
6. Inability to track targets with a bolt driver
7. Damage degradation based on range
8. Situationally worthless weapons (Lasher at range, gauss up close)

I'm expecting PS2 to change almost all of those and make infantry combat a lot more appealing for me and other people. And with the news that BF3 has a short TTK like CoD, we might get an influx of people who miss the BFBC2 TTK and want to play PS2!

[Bags]

Accuser sounds like Planetside is not the game for you.

[basti]

Yeah, I hate most of the unique parts of PS1 infantry combat as well.
1. CoF as opposed to scope-down (I don't mean quick scope)
2. ADADAADDDAADADAAADDDAA
3. 3rd person view
4. everyone can heal/repair themselves
5. looooooooong TTK
6. Inability to track targets with a bolt driver
7. Damage degradation based on range
8. Situationally worthless weapons (Lasher at range, gauss up close)

I'm expecting PS2 to change almost all of those and make infantry combat a lot more appealing for me and other people. And with the news that BF3 has a short TTK like CoD, we might get an influx of people who miss the BFBC2 TTK and want to play PS2!

i agree with 2 and 3, but the rest? COF is awesome, self heal/rep works until a certain point, TTK times where awesome, you suck with a bolt driver, damage degradation was awesome, no weapon was ever worthless if you knew how to use it in a strange situation.

In short: you are just a bad player. Learn to adapt, or fade into the abyss.

Captain, shooting someone in an open vehicle may make sense, but imagine what a Vanguard shell would do to you. They need to balance that stuff right, or it should stay out of the game.

[FIREk]

6. Inability to track targets with a bolt driver

I don't get this one. Snapping with a Bolt Driver was indeed impossible, but tracking?

[Talek Krell]

you suck with a bolt driverThat reminds me. I picked up sniper last month to play around with it and found that when I zoomed in more than 8x I had to jerk the mouse to get the rifle to move. So small adjustments were impossible. Is that a "feature" or just me?



And now we return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

[Wahooo]

That reminds me. I picked up sniper last month to play around with it and found that when I zoomed in more than 8x I had to jerk the mouse to get the rifle to move. So small adjustments were impossible. Is that a "feature" or just me?



And now we return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Mouse sensitivity and an old game designed for old drivers.
To make the cross-hairs move nice and smooth you need to have in-game sensitivity all the way up. Make sure in Windows the sensitivity is right in the middle and disable any mouse acceleration. Some optical mice seem to make this option very hard to deal with and now you will be hyper-sensitive ok for turrets and maxes but crap for grunting. Long ago I used an MS1 ball mouse for grunting and sniping and an old cheapo optical mouse for Maxes/turrets. Now I have a G9x with on the fly sensitivity settings. I think i'm around 300DPI for planetside.

OT have to agree 100% with Basti. ADADADAD and in general glitching movement I hate in anygame... like insta-prone to make people miss and constant bunnyhopping in all those more "realistic" shooters.

I loved the need in Planetside to GET THE RIGHT TOOL to do the job.

[Bags]

no weapon was ever worthless if you knew how to use it in a strange situation.
.

Agree with everything but this in particular. I killed people all the time outdoors at range with a lasher and people indoors with a rifle.

[Rbstr]

I don't get this one. Snapping with a Bolt Driver was indeed impossible, but tracking?

Yeah, the COF blooms when you move the mouse, you cannot pan and reliably hit targets.

[Wahooo]

Yeah, the COF blooms when you move the mouse, you cannot pan and reliably hit targets.

Yes you can. As long as you are not spastic in your movements, and lead enough to let the bloom come back down to an apporpiate place to make the shot.

[Sirisian]

Always enjoyed the CoF system especially with the bolt driver. Forced you to lead a target exactly then fire. Not sure what you mean about tracking. If you keep your cursor on a running player the CoF doesn't really bloom noticeably. I tended to just whip my cursor to where I thought they were going then fire a round. Much faster.

Damage degredation was an awesome feature. Really made weapons useful for their main roles and varied them while still allowing them to do damage outside their intended range.

[Graywolves]

Gauss is almost on par with Sweeper up-close. If anything the sweeper is far more situational than the gauss...I love the gauss. Loot it off people all the time.


ADADADADADADAD strafing only works because it confuses the server/client or something and causes bullets to not register as hitting you. Don't think this will happen in PS2.

[ThGlump]

3. 3rd person view
7. Damage degradation based on range
8. Situationally worthless weapons (Lasher at range, gauss up close)


3rd view can be good if done properly. Like need to have implant/armor upgrade with cameras so you can see around you. Or that you can see around corner when one of your squad mates can see there - its future, their visual systems should be interconnected - one of benefit of good positioning your squad.

7 and 8 are similar. Pick your weapon according to situation. You dont take pistol if you want kill tank. Same with shotgun for long range. I would hate if there is almost no difference between weapons like in "modern" shooters.

[FIREk]

Yeah, the COF blooms when you move the mouse, you cannot pan and reliably hit targets.

Depends on how fast you move your mouse. There is a glitch in the game, where at 8x zoom the mouse would be "sticky" (as in it has a kind of "dead zone" like a joystick). You can get around that by cranking up the in-game sensitivity to maximum (and not a pixel less) and compensate by reducing system sensitivity or mouse DPI setting.

Won't work on the implanted 12x zoom, though.

Anyways, this helps make those tiny adjustments with the Bolt-Driver without much CoF bloom.

[Accuser]

In short: you are just a bad player. Learn to adapt, or fade into the abyss.


First off, that was a list of things that I hate about infantry combat in PS1. Like math, I'm pretty good at it, but I still hate it.

Yeah, the COF blooms when you move the mouse, you cannot pan and reliably hit targets.

^ That's what I meant about sniping. I meant I hate the way the CoF bloom prevents you from tracking a target and firing. Predicting where someone will be in advance is different than tracking with the mouse and firing at the correct moment. Again, that was a list of opinions ;)

As for strafing: the issue with ADADAD is that un-scoped, full-speed movement doesnt significantly hurt your CoF as it would in other shooters. So when scope-down limits or eliminates your CoF in PS2, it will prevent you from dashing from side to side as you fire... if you want any accuracy.

Accuser sounds like Planetside is not the game for you.

As I said, those were the things I didn't like about -infantry- combat. Vehicle combat is where I spend all of my time :groovy: But what's nice is that PS2 -will- be the game for me, since pretty much everything that I mentioned is currently expected to be changed!

[Malorn]

From what Higby said on lethality being between PS1 and BFBC2 I think that seems right. PS1 was a bit slow, but BFBC2 (which had a good pace for its own type of game) wouldn't quite work for PS IMO. Something in between seems good.

But that's just lethality - "pacing" is a lot more than just TTK.

Its respawn rates (5s, or 30s? Penalty for dying quickly? Bonus for resources/facilities?)
Respawn options (squad spawn, beacons, AMS, towers, bunkers, etc)
Its tower & base design (how quickly can you exit a base/bunker/tower from the moment you spawn?)
Its vehicle construction rate (how quickly can you get a vehicle rolling?)
Its vehicle spawn options (only at bases? or can some be made at towers or special player-constructed entities?)
Its shield regeneration rate & delay and medic healing rate. (how quickly you can recover from a non-fatal attack and resume and how long you are vulnerable after being wounded)
Its distance between respawn locations. (affects distance from A to B)
Its movement speed. (affects time to move from A to B)
Its terrain difficulty (affects time to move from A to B)
Its amount of cover in the terrain and bases (affects damage you can take and how easy it is to move around, flank, etc)

Tons of factors influence pacing. Lethality is but one small one.

I think faster pacing is a good thing. More action. Less waiting. Faster people get back to a fight the more 'massive' that fight is going to seem. 30 people can seem like 10 with slow pacing and long distances. 30 can also seem like 60 with faster pacing. But too high and progress comes to a halt. So you need a good balance.

I think the proposed pacing seems about right to me. The only thing that concerns me is whether all the other factors are also increased (many of which are incorporated into map/terrain/base design and layout). Lethality alone would be a bad thing to increase, but if we have shorter respawn timers and other things that improve the rate at which people get back into the fight like closer together hard spawn points, and things like one-way teleporters from spawn rooms to vehicle pads or stuff like that it could work out quite well.

What I don't want to see is higher lethality but everything else staying the same. Then we just spend more time getting ot a fight and less time enjoying it. I'm pretty sure Higby and friends get that, so I'm not really worried about that. It would be rather obvious if they screwed it up - the game would feel sluggish and boring. They won't ship that way so, no...not really worried.

[ThGlump]

I fear that they could take that faster pace too far so distance wont matter and you could get really fast anywhere on whole continent, making it feel small. It was stated that they dont want ppl to spent time traveling to battle. Squad spawn takes out a lot of traveling, and there was even mention about spawning into tank as a gunner.

[Xyntech]

I fear that they could take that faster pace too far so distance wont matter and you could get really fast anywhere on whole continent, making it feel small. It was stated that they dont want ppl to spent time traveling to battle. Squad spawn takes out a lot of traveling, and there was even mention about spawning into tank as a gunner.

Don't forget that they also intend for us to fight over more parts of the map than in PS1.

What was the point of having so much distance between bases and towers in Planetside when the space wasn't used for much of anything? I'd rather feel like the map is big because there is a lot of ground to capture, not because it takes me an hour to cross a map.

[Captain B]

Captain, shooting someone in an open vehicle may make sense, but imagine what a Vanguard shell would do to you. They need to balance that stuff right, or it should stay out of the game.

I would imagine it would do the same thing it does to the buggy - blows it up!

Also, Talek Krell, I had similar issues at longer ranges with the rifle. I just moved left and right a bit instead of moving the mouse. That seemed to help, but I don't know why. Maybe your computer is as crap as mine?

I doubt it, but are you, too, using an atari with a phone cord duct taped to the back or rabbit ears resting on top?

[Hamma]

3rd person was easily one of the most broken things in PS. Glad it's not going to be in PS2.

[akiadan]

I really dont find the faster pace to disturbing, it's still gonna be an epic game either way. Whatever happens I'll probably be enjoying the game.

[Talek Krell]

I doubt it, but are you, too, using an atari with a phone cord duct taped to the back or rabbit ears resting on top?
Negative, mine is fairly more recent. Although still old enough that I have to type from memory due to the white labels having worn off the keyboard. Who knew those middle school computer classes would actually come in handy?!

[Captain B]

Oh man... I totally nailed that class, and my teacher always asked how I learned to type so fast without using the "proper" typing method. I had to explain to him how in UO, I always had to multi-task running away from PKers with my mouse while quickly typing out bribes and pleas to spare my life all simultaneously while watching where I was running. He didn't get it.

Back on topic, I do love where this game's going, over all.

New Conglomerate: Fuck Yeah.

[Traak]

http://www.usbtypewriter.com/

This, but with an old, bare CRT for the screen, that only does Sepia-toned black and white for video.

[Xyntech]

Oh man... I totally nailed that class, and my teacher always asked how I learned to type so fast without using the "proper" typing method. I had to explain to him how in UO, I always had to multi-task running away from PKers with my mouse while quickly typing out bribes and pleas to spare my life all simultaneously while watching where I was running. He didn't get it.

Back on topic, I do love where this game's going, over all.

New Conglomerate: Fuck Yeah.

Lol, I never had anything quite so dramatic but I totally learned to type during heated moments in online games.

Homeworld being the first, Planetside being another big contributor later on.

[Graywolves]

I was not very good at my typing classes, never took it seriously. I type really well know from all the online gameplay and forumsiding.

Only I don't often use the traditional homekeys, I can never keep my left hand off of wasd.

[CutterJohn]

Damage degredation was an awesome feature. Really made weapons useful for their main roles and varied them while still allowing them to do damage outside their intended range.

Except weapons had the triple whammy of DD, CoF, and armor absorption.

When you shot at someone at long range with MA, your cof was larger than the character, so most of your shots missed. Then the bullets that actually hit did 1/3 to 1/2 damage. And the bullets damage was so low, it was only doing armor damage and a maybe a tickle of health damage.


It would take 5 or 10x longer to get a kill at long range. Things were worthless outside of 100m.

[Xyntech]

Except weapons had the triple whammy of DD, CoF, and armor absorption.

When you shot at someone at long range with MA, your cof was larger than the character, so most of your shots missed. Then the bullets that actually hit did 1/3 to 1/2 damage. And the bullets damage was so low, it was only doing armor damage and a maybe a tickle of health damage.


It would take 5 or 10x longer to get a kill at long range. Things were worthless outside of 100m.

This is the ultimate failing of damage degradation.

Let COF or kickback or accuracy in general take care of how long a range a weapon is useful at. It will still take a lot longer to drop a guy if you can't hit them with most of your shots.

If someone is so low on health that a stray shot from a short range weapon at long range can kill them, so what? It's not like they were likely to survive anyways.

I'd like to see the range of effective, deadly, faster paced combat be extended from short range up to medium range.

[NapalmEnima]

I'd like to see the range of effective, deadly, faster paced combat be extended from short range up to medium range.

I suspect the iron sights will do precisely that.

[Sirisian]

Things were worthless outside of 100m.
Might I suggest using an HSR or Sniper Rifle. Pick your weapons wisely.

The main problem I've mentioned before is that the game really lacked weapon choices with different strengths and weaknesses. I fear PS2 is going to go to the extreme and introduce only a few weapons for players making fights extremely deterministic.

This damage degradation also forces players to push forward using cover. You can't just make kills at "100m" by spraying at players.

[Xyntech]

Might I suggest using an HSR or Sniper Rifle. Pick your weapons wisely.

The main problem I've mentioned before is that the game really lacked weapon choices with different strengths and weaknesses. I fear PS2 is going to go to the extreme and introduce only a few weapons for players making fights extremely deterministic.

This damage degradation also forces players to push forward using cover. You can't just make kills at "100m" by spraying at players.

I'm not saying planetside 2 should be based solely on real life, however way back in WWII, a soldier with an unscoped rifle could easily kill someone at 100m.

I don't want all of the meaningful combat to take place at close range. There will already be enough close range combat happening inside of bases. I don't want to have to rely on sniper rifles to do my fighting at 100m, I'd like those to be the weapon of choice at 200m or 300m.

You still won't be hitting someone with a rifle at 100m as often as you will at 30m. Missing more often than not or having to shoot in much smaller bursts is all the damage drop off I think will be needed.

[Captain B]

Not to mention iron sights and red dot scopes aren't going to make it much easier to get headshots, so most of your rounds will pepper chests, meaning more rounds to drop the target outside of stray shots at longer distances anyway.

[SKYeXile]

Faster pace of combat could just mean the pacing of PS at launch rather than how it is now.

[CutterJohn]

Might I suggest using an HSR or Sniper Rifle. Pick your weapons wisely.

I don't mind weapons behaving differently, with different strengths and weaknesses depending on your motion and range to target, but PS weapons held to that structure far too rigidly. Any rifle or machine gun should be able to countersnipe decently, and every gun should have a chance at close range, even a sniper rifle.. Just give it two fire modes, a regular semi auto thats as fast as you pull the trigger, and a much slower rail assist mode. Machine guns like an MCG should be sending out a stream of bullets you can just walk to the target, while obviously making yourself a giant stationary target.

Otherwise you just have RPG fitting screen combat. oops! You picked the wrong loadout, you lose!

[Traak]

Machine guns like an MCG should be sending out a stream of bullets you can just walk to the target...

That makes me wonder if bullet impact points will show up in the new game. Aim, fire, miss high, see bullet impact, lower aim by same amount, score a hit.

[Sirisian]

Otherwise you just have RPG fitting screen combat. oops! You picked the wrong loadout, you lose!
That's actually how I prefer things. One of the reasons I wanted the sniper projectile to charge its damage as it went through the air to more balance its purpose. Anyway regarding the "RPG" damage mechanism I like where the shotgun does a lot of damage up close and very little far away. Then you have the MA weapons doing average damage 0 to 70m. Pistols doing the same damage 0 to 50m. (They can fire further but they start to drop due to gravity and damage degradation starts to take effect). Anyone remember that scene from Judge Dread where he's standing in the street and quotes the maximum effective range of the enemy's weapons? Basically it's like that. If I'm 100 meters away from the enemy (put my cursor over them and it tells me the range) and he starts shooting all I'll see is slow bullets hitting around me. They might hurt, but it's not the same as being within the 70 m range. Then you'd have the sniper rifle. If you saw someone using one you could run at them if you knew their gun only gained full damage past 50 m.

A long TTK makes those kinds of damage systems more evident, but I've already mentioned that a lot.

A good example of weapons and damage would be Rage. I've been playing that game for a while now and the weapon balance is amazing.

[Kalbuth]

That's actually how I prefer things. One of the reasons I wanted the sniper projectile to charge its damage as it went through the air to more balance its purpose. Anyway regarding the "RPG" damage mechanism I like where the shotgun does a lot of damage up close and very little far away. Then you have the MA weapons doing average damage 0 to 70m. Pistols doing the same damage 0 to 50m. (They can fire further but they start to drop due to gravity and damage degradation starts to take effect). Anyone remember that scene from Judge Dread where he's standing in the street and quotes the maximum effective range of the enemy's weapons? Basically it's like that. If I'm 100 meters away from the enemy (put my cursor over them and it tells me the range) and he starts shooting all I'll see is slow bullets hitting around me. They might hurt, but it's not the same as being within the 70 m range. Then you'd have the sniper rifle. If you saw someone using one you could run at them if you knew their gun only gained full damage past 50 m.

A long TTK makes those kinds of damage systems more evident, but I've already mentioned that a lot.

A good example of weapons and damage would be Rage. I've been playing that game for a while now and the weapon balance is amazing.

Please, no. PS2 is a FPS. Let skill be able to overcome a loadout issue. It's needless to make it a FPS otherwise, make it 3rd person, let player control his caracter position by mouse and select appropriate action on needed target like WoW does. If the aiming part is needless to you, remove it, as simple as that.

It is a FPS for a reason, because being in first person, and aiming and shooting is paramount to the game. If it is a non factor because of your loadout, it's not an FPS anymore

[Sirisian]

It is a FPS for a reason, because being in first person, and aiming and shooting is paramount to the game. If it is a non factor because of your loadout, it's not an FPS anymore
Did you just build a strawman 3rd person argument and attack it to try to redefine the FPS genre as being more than a first person perspective with shooting? :lol:

Ignoring that, so having weapons that are situational means the game isn't an FPS? I think you read into what I said a bit too much. I'm just not a fan of the shotgun being identical to a rifle. I like unique weapons and rewarding players who use the right weapons for situations. I get what you're probably thinking. That a rifle a that range is just as effective, but I'm saying it shouldn't be. Personal preference basically.

[Kalbuth]

Otherwise you just have RPG fitting screen combat. oops! You picked the wrong loadout, you lose!

That's actually how I prefer things.

From what it seems, you're not advocating weapon specificities, you're advocating that loadout should decide the outcome of a fight

[Sirisian]

From what it seems, you're not advocating weapon specificities, you're advocating that loadout should decide the outcome of a fight
What are "weapon specificities"? While you're at it, how is that different than the loadout a person has and the the general strengths/disadvantages of that loadout. :confused:

[MasterChief096]

I think what Sirisian (although I disagree with 50% of what posts, agree with 25% and am indifferent to the other 25%) is trying to advocate switching the damage degradation rules around.

Lets take PlanetSide 1 for example. If you shoot a gauss rifle at someone point blank it does full 10 health damage. If you shoot at them at its maximum range where the bullet even renders, then it does maybe like 5-6 health damage (not sure on the numbers).

I think all Sirisian wants is for a sniper rifle to have reversed damage degradation. So basically if a sniper shoots someone 300m away and gets a headshot, its instant death, but if that same sniper shoots someone in the head from 5 meters away it might only do like 1/3 health or 1/2 health damage. The damage degradation would work in reverse to the other weapons, to give OSOK snipers a disadvantage to being able to actually have the OSOK feature.

This I wouldn't mind that much. It would force snipers to play smart and find good areas where they are at a distance from everyone else, and prevent people from becoming those halo/COD quick headshot twitch based killers that so many of them are.

It could be easily explained in the lore as an energy projectile that fires more slowly as soon as it leaves the weapon but accumulates momentum rapidly until 100-300m is its deadliest range, then dies down again after that again or something.

[Traak]

Reminds me of the rocket pistol that someone invented. The best defense for it was to run towards the wielder, because the rocket-propelled bullets would gain speed as they accelerated towards you through the air.

[NapalmEnima]

That's easy to explain. A projectile that continues to accelerate can be called a rocket.

As far as loadout dictating victory, I'm not so sure.

Lets throw some numbers around just for funsies.

Generic Shotgun can kill you (and then some) in two shots at point blank, which takes 1.2 seconds due to its rate of fire. Lets say each round does 75% of the damage needed to kill.

Generic rifle can kill you in 10 shots at point blank, which takes 1.5 seconds at point blank. Each round does 10% of the damage needed to kill.

Simply standing their and slugging it out, Generic Shotgun will win at close quarters, as it should, though not by a terribly wide margin.

If Generic Rifle gets the drop on someone with a Generic Shotgun, that shotgun has 0.3 seconds to orient and return fire in order to get a tie, less than that to come out on top. Theoretically possible, but only if your Damned Good.

Lets presume our two soldiers are both Damned Good, and can in fact orient and fire in precisely 0.3 seconds when someone starts shooting them in the back.

Slugging match outcome:
Rifle dies, shotty has 20% damage left.

Rifle gets the drop on shotty:
Both die (this is a rather stilted example, aiming for this very outcome)

Shotty gets the drop on rifle:
Rifle dies, shottys survives with 40% damage.


Okay, but we're on a battlefield. That first exchange isn't going to be your only one (unless you die of course), and not every exchange is going to be To The Death. You might take a stray rifle round or two going from A to B, perhaps a bit of shrapnel from a grenade. If the rifleman shows up with more than 25% damage, he's going to die to the first blast. A shotty-man with 25% damage can take two less bullets (8 instead of 10). That is huge.

And coming out the other side of such an exchange with Moar Health Left is likewise a Big Deal. If you don't get a chance to be patched up, you'll last that much longer the next time someone starts shooting at you.

Now this is heavily simplified, and leaves out lots of things like shield max/recharge, med kits, accuracy, cover, head shots, CoF bloom, and so on.

And if these numbers weren't tailored to make the "rifleman gets the drop on shottyman" perfectly even, it's quite possible the rifleman would win, after eating a single blast (ouch). In that scenario, victory is all about getting the drop on the other guy (in other words: "tactical" player skill). Ass-u-me'ing that every shot lands where it'll do max damage is ignoring "twitch" gamer skill, which isn't so kosher either.

So things can be balanced such that loadout might not dictate the outcome of a First Exchange, but it could certainly have an impact just a little down the road, or in a conflict that isn't simply mano-a-mano.

And this is an MMOFPS we're talking about here.

Fer instance: with the above numbers in a 3 rifles vs 3 shotguns slugging match:

0 seconds: 3 riflemen fire on a single target, doing damage fairly linearly at ~210% per second.
2 shotgun men fire on a single rifleman, instantly killing him. He fired a single round. The other shotgun man puts a round into rifleman #2.
0 & 1/7th seconds: first shotgunner has taken 50% damage
2/7: 70%
3/7: 90%
4/7: shotty 1: dead, shotty 2: 10%
5/7: 30%
6/7: 50%
1 second: 70%
1 1/7 : 90%
1.2: 2 remaining shottys fire again, killing rifleman #2, wounding #3: 75%.
1 2/7: shotty #2 dies

It'll take another 10/7ths of a second to kill shotty #3. After 8/7ths, that shotgunner will fire again, killing rifleman #3.

Result: a single shotgunner survives, with 20% health. I'm genuinely surprised at the outcome here. I figured that taking out one of the riflemen at the word "go" would make it a shoe-in for the shotgunners. I wonder if I'm missing Something Important here.

Ah. The "finer grained" damage of the riflemen allows them to lose less to overkill. If one of the shotgunners could put half his damage into each of two targets (unrealistic, some of the pellets would just miss), the shotgun opening volley could kill two of the riflemen, meaning when 1.2 seconds rolls around, that third rifleman will die to two mostly-healthy shotgunners.

Do this again with CQB high-RoF SMGs with the same DPS as the shotgun (150 @ 1.2 = 750 @ 6 = 125 DPS). 25 rps at 5 damage each gives the same DPS as a shotgun, but a better TTK (0.75 seconds instead of 1.2 (and a LOT of extra net traffic/hit detection)).

As far as net traffic is concerned, you can greatly reduce amount of vector data you send... eh... Idea Thread Time.

[CutterJohn]

I think what Sirisian (although I disagree with 50% of what posts, agree with 25% and am indifferent to the other 25%) is trying to advocate switching the damage degradation rules around.

Lets take PlanetSide 1 for example. If you shoot a gauss rifle at someone point blank it does full 10 health damage. If you shoot at them at its maximum range where the bullet even renders, then it does maybe like 5-6 health damage (not sure on the numbers).

I think all Sirisian wants is for a sniper rifle to have reversed damage degradation. So basically if a sniper shoots someone 300m away and gets a headshot, its instant death, but if that same sniper shoots someone in the head from 5 meters away it might only do like 1/3 health or 1/2 health damage. The damage degradation would work in reverse to the other weapons, to give OSOK snipers a disadvantage to being able to actually have the OSOK feature.

This I wouldn't mind that much. It would force snipers to play smart and find good areas where they are at a distance from everyone else, and prevent people from becoming those halo/COD quick headshot twitch based killers that so many of them are.

It could be easily explained in the lore as an energy projectile that fires more slowly as soon as it leaves the weapon but accumulates momentum rapidly until 100-300m is its deadliest range, then dies down again after that again or something.

I prefer a TF2 solution. Have two fire modes, the low dps but extreme alpha charged shot, and a higher dps but low alpha/no headshot/crazy cof semi auto mode that is more useful at close ranges. You can differentiate between the two by saying the weapon is a semi automatic rifle with a gauss assist that ramps up the damage considerably but has a considerable charge time between full power shots. Without the charge it can act rather like an MA rifle, though of course it has a more limited ammo supply in pack and a more limited clip size, so it is definitely not an MA replacement. That would be a great sniper rifle imo.


But yeah.. Fitting screen combat sucks. AA guns can and should be useful against light armor. Shotguns should have slugs. Battle rifles should be able to countersnipe decently. Sniper rifles should be able to spam a close target if necessary. AV launchers should be able to take on air. Its not only fine, but preferable to have weapons be multirole. They just shouldn't perform as well as the equipment designed specifically for that role. There is a large difference between not performing as well and not performing at all, and can encompass variables that do not include DPS.

PSU seems to hate BF recently, but I love that game. The various major archtypes of weapons all share the same dps potential, they just differ severely in other attributes.. COF/Recoil, having a scope or not, ammo supply, amount of ammo in the mag. They all do good damage at long ranges. Yeah, they are different, but having a battle rifle doesn't preclude shooting at that sniper half the map away. It means you're disadvantaged in the contest, not that it can't be done. In PS it just can't be done, because not only does the bullet suffer massive degradation, it has a huge cof and simply stops existing well short of the max range of sniper rounds.

[Bags]

All the guns in BF feel the same to me... lol

Not knocking it for that, just sayin'.

[CutterJohn]

Largely because they go for a realistic model, and most guns just plain shoot the same. Take any battle rifle, slap a 100 round box mag on it, and you have yourself an LMG. Slap a scope on it, and you have a good sniper. Cut down the barrel, and use a short stock and a front pistol grip and you have a CQC weapon.

It won't be the best at any of those roles of course. A proper LMG will have a heavier barrel and a way to quickly change barrels, and more mass to dampen recoil. A proper sniper will have closer tolerances for better accuracy and use a heavier bullet to make wind less of a factor and improve performance at range. A proper CQC will be even lighter and use pistol bullets with less recoil and speed since at that range it doesn't matter. And those weapons can be used in other roles. M-249s are carried around(usually by someone burly) in CQC situations. The M-14 is a commonly used by designated marksmen, but was also at one time the standard issue rifle for the US army. Some weapons just have no other use of course.. M-95s are simply too large and heavy to be anything other than a sniper/anti material rifle, and shotguns, well, are shotguns. Slugs can aid in range, but its still not a rifled barrel.

[MasterChief096]

I don't think anyone is advocating the extreme of "if the weapon doesn't fit the role, it should do zero damage." I think everyone is just interested in how much of an advantage should a guy have over another guy who has the right gear for the situation compared to someone who doesn't, and vice versa. For example, if I have an MA rifle and am 75m away from a dude with a sniper rifle, how much at a disadvantage should I be at based on the weapon's stats?

You can't say, "None, it should rely on player skill" because that is essentially saying that every weapon should be the same, and none should be better at certain situations or ranges than others.

[Accuser]

I don't think anyone is advocating the extreme of "if the weapon doesn't fit the role, it should do zero damage."

That's how PS1 feels. Snipers at long range, MA at medium (maybe chaingun as well), HA at short, SA under cover... If you don't have the right weapon or don't like using one of those weapons, you're effectively locked out of that range/situation.

I think there's a good reason Battlefield's classes are popular in modern shooters. They're specialized to give you an advantage in their role, but skill can overcome having the wrong kit for the situation.

[Gandhi]

I think there's a good reason Battlefield's classes are popular in modern shooters. They're specialized to give you an advantage in their role, but skill can overcome having the wrong kit for the situation.
If that's what you're after just play TR and slap an MCG in every preset ;)

[Xyntech]

I'd like to see HA dominate at short range, be somewhat effective at medium range and nearly useless at long range. The opposite for snipers.

Rifles I'd like to never really see dominate at any range, but be viable at all ranges. Obviously they would be the best choice at medium range, but I'd like to see them make a HA think twice about rushing in wildly at close range and be able to make snipers duck their heads even at long range.

I'd really like to see ambushing tactics encouraged though. Give someone at short range with a rifle a good chance of dropping someone with HA who didn't notice them. Likewise, if someone with HA got the drop on 2 or 3 people with rifles at short range, he should be able to kill at least a couple of them.

Sniping could be further kept in check if 3 or 4 riflemen could pin a sniper down at all but the longest sniping distances. Add in an element where a snipers aim is thrown off for a sec when they get hit, along with the obvious issue that they would need to retreat to heal if they took enough damage and snipers would need to be careful not to get in over their heads.

[Sirisian]

I'd like to see HA dominate at short range, be somewhat effective at medium range and nearly useless at long range. The opposite for snipers.
I'd prefer them to be long range spray and pray weapons that do less damage than other weapons. Like the TR machine gun should just spray tons of bullets with a 200 round clip but do generally less damage overall with a huge gravity effect on the rounds and a little bit of reverse damage degredation. Basically just massive cover fire.

Never been a fan of the whole close range HA combat. I'd prefer if people used a common pool shotgun for CQC or chose a rifle. See I always pictured a heavy assault player as carrying around a huge machine gun. So like all the empire would have their own version and it would slow the player down when it began firing because of the recoil. The lack of sights means it starts with a poor accuracy and stays generally the same.

[Kalbuth]

I'd prefer them to be long range spray and pray weapons that do less damage than other weapons. Like the TR machine gun should just spray tons of bullets with a 200 round clip but do generally less damage overall with a huge gravity effect on the rounds and a little bit of reverse damage degredation. Basically just massive cover fire.

Never been a fan of the whole close range HA combat. I'd prefer if people used a common pool shotgun for CQC or chose a rifle. See I always pictured a heavy assault player as carrying around a huge machine gun. So like all the empire would have their own version and it would slow the player down when it began firing because of the recoil. The lack of sights means it starts with a poor accuracy and stays generally the same.

I'm completely in line with this. Never liked the idea that HA should "dominate" anything. I'd much prefer seeing HA as a support, suppression weapon, making you slower and less agile (you turn slower), for example. And making the cert more accessible. In fact, HA guy should be behind assault guys, providing suppressive fire while the assault people are going to the target unchecked.
Currently, HA is just a (more or less CQB depending on empire) "MA of holy pwnage +3", and I don't really like this RPG-like system in a FPS. It overlaps MA usage, without much drawback (it just costs more cert points, and 1 more inventory space)... well, not what I would have done with "Heavy Assault" in mind, personally

[SKYeXile]

oh yea, its going to be heaps more fun sitting back with 30 people spamming lasher and pulsar when compared to a platoon of rexo lobby pushing in a blaze of MCG fire and strafing. *roles eyes*

[I SandRock]

I think killing time had to be shortened compared to PS1, but not by a ton. One interview says its equal to BFBC2 one says its in between PS1 and BFBC2, i hope its the latter.
Base fights with 20 people standing next to eachother and quick killing time... just seems like a massacre to me. And PS was always about more than just the ability to aim and shoot somebody. There was more room for tactics.

APB:R went with a faster TTK than APB and it didn't do the game any good. I don't think a BFBC2 kill time has room in PS. BFBC2 is 32vs32 but even then you are always behind cover trying to move unseen. In PS this was hardly always possible. With 320vs320vs320 not being seen by anyone is gonna be tough cookie. A few stray bullets, or one guy putting his fire on you and you'd be dead before you could even react, like in BFBC2.



As for the HA discussion. I think BF3 has one major awesome feature -> suppresive fire mechanic. If you are being shot at, but not hit, your screen still blurs, because you are being suppressed. I think this is a really great mechanic that gives a role to LMG-type weapons. Spray an area for cover fire, even though YOU won't kill anyone it will inhibit the enemies performance and allow your own team to kill more easily.

[Kalbuth]

oh yea, its going to be heaps more fun sitting back with 30 people spamming lasher and pulsar when compared to a platoon of rexo lobby pushing in a blaze of MCG fire and strafing. *roles eyes*

Where did you read pulsar guys were sitting back? Re-read, plz. Suppressive fire is meant to permit your pulsar guys to push forward, not sit back....
The way I see it, I prefer everyone having a go at CQB fight, instead of CQB being reserved for HA people.

[Xyntech]

The way I see it, I prefer everyone having a go at CQB fight, instead of CQB being reserved for HA people.

Base design and layouts could be an important factor here. I'd love to get a look inside the new bases.

[Bags]

The sweeper can easily compete with HA.

[PrISM]

It better be faster. I'm tired of waiting twenty minutes to switch weapons.

[Kalbuth]

The sweeper can easily compete with HA.

People are so obsessed with PS1 they can't envision something even remotely different :)
If ttk are going to be lower, and general speed faster, would it be so bad if HA are not just giving raw advantage in TTK over general assault rifles? Why do we need a "better ttk" anyway? I would prefer a more even playing field in terms of general assault rifles, and have HA with a purpose. They may be better in terms of TTK, but with drawback (like movement/agility penalties).
Why would we need so badly a "better TTK, period" weapon in the first hand?

[Bags]

Because I like using heavy assault and don't want it turned into a skilless weapon designed to just spray bullets everywhere. There's no need for anything "even remotely different". At all.

I also like the

HA > MA > Sniper range paradigm we have now.

[Traak]

For Land. For Power. Forever. :D

[Kalbuth]

Because I like using heavy assault and don't want it turned into a skilless weapon designed to just spray bullets everywhere. There's no need for anything "even remotely different". At all.

I also like the

HA > MA > Sniper range paradigm we have now.

What do you like in "using Heavy Assault"? Because I don't see much specific over "using MA in CQB", apart that it kills faster. Even more, if you translate PS1 weapons into PS2 systems, MA looks to me far more skillfull, they are the precise ones rewarding headshots.
You would end up, in CQB, using some empire Medium Assault or common pool thing (like a sweeper), and what will be changed?

[Bags]

The fact that the MCG, Jackhammer, and Lasher are cool and rifles are lame?

I play games for fun, not for realistic combat scenarios.

Change for the sake of change is dumb. It worked in PS1, it will work in PS2.

[Kalbuth]

I don't play for realism either, that's not why I seek headshots, there's ArmA3 coming next year for realism.
I like headshot for they reward aim. PS1 JH, MCG and Lasher do not strike me as rewarding headshots from their current incarnation, they reward spamming in nme chest, not more
That said, if they keep HA without headshots vs MA with headshots, that'd be fine by me

[Bags]

That's what Higby has been hinting at; headshots and headshot bonus damage will be on a per weapon basis. I imagine sniper will be OSOK, MA will probably 2 - 3 shot enemies if you get headshots, and HA probably won't be able to get any HS.

[Xyntech]

I'm in favor of HA still doing the most damage at short range, I just don't think it should be so effective as to negate other more average weapons from being useful in close quarters.

Again, base layout will be a huge factor here.

[Bags]

I'm in favor of HA still doing the most damage at short range, I just don't think it should be so effective as to negate other more average weapons from being useful in close quarters.

Again, base layout will be a huge factor here.

That's how HA currently is. If you're good with the Gauss, Pulsar or Sweeper you can go toe to toe with the average HA user.

[Sirisian]

That's how HA currently is. If you're good with the Gauss, Pulsar or Sweeper you can go toe to toe with the average HA user.
Maybe the sweeper. I've never had good luck with the pulsar vs MCG or Jackhammer. The punisher on the other hand has a faster TTK with the grenade and shoot combo so I tended to use that as my primary weapon.

Because I like using heavy assault and don't want it turned into a skilless weapon designed to just spray bullets everywhere. There's no need for anything "even remotely different". At all.
Well it wouldn't be skilless. With the reverse damage degradation it allows the firerate to increase to a much higher rate without making it a CQC weapon. You'd see a target, crouch down, then unload leading in front of the target. The person on the receiving end would see a huge slew of bullets hitting around them that at a range of say 50m would do a lot of damage.

A big reason I prefer that is because I personally never used the Lasher much as a VS. The Jackhammer on the NC was basically role overlapped with the sweeper and the MCG was the only effective weapon since it was amazing at CQC, awesome for outdoor combat using burst fire, and could kill at a decent range. So it might be nice as TR to say "yeah let me keep it", but you have to think from the other empires perspective also.

That and using a MCG as a suppressive fire weapon would still net you kills. If there's as much outdoor combat as they're saying like in the trailer it would be a very powerful weapon with its own role.

Basically you end up with:
Shotgun - Rifle - Sniper
For range which is a more logical setup for an FPS game.

[Redshift]

The Jackhammer on the NC was basically role overlapped with the sweeper and the MCG was the only effective weapon since it was amazing at CQC, awesome for outdoor combat using burst fire, and could kill at a decent range.

The jackhammer was far from role overlap, it was massivly better than a sweeper.

The MCG was alright but tbh not great at either long or short range, it was kind of nice to have a weapon that could be used at both but outside it had nothing on MA and inside it was weaker than the JH by a long way.

When i was on my TR i pretty much just pulled MCG anytime we were near a base, on NC i took a MA or a HA depending on exactly where we were because they're ranges didn't overlap at all.

[Bags]

Maybe the sweeper. I've never had good luck with the pulsar vs MCG or Jackhammer. The punisher on the other hand has a faster TTK with the grenade and shoot combo so I tended to use that as my primary weapon.

Well obviously if you go against a great player and hit every shot with a Gauss or Pulsar you'll lose, but thankfully every fight isn't a 1v1 against an equally skilled player on equal footing.


Well it wouldn't be skilless. With the reverse damage degradation it allows the firerate to increase to a much higher rate without making it a CQC weapon. You'd see a target, crouch down, then unload leading in front of the target. The person on the receiving end would see a huge slew of bullets hitting around them that at a range of say 50m would do a lot of damage.

Getting "suppression" assists in BF3 doesn't require any skill. I have no idea why it would be different in PS2.

A big reason I prefer that is because I personally never used the Lasher much as a VS.

Your loss.

The Jackhammer on the NC was basically role overlapped with the sweeper

It was better against large groups due to rate of fire and ammo capacity. Also the best CQC HA.


and the MCG was the only effective weapon since it was amazing at CQC, awesome for outdoor combat using burst fire, and could kill at a decent range.

It wasn't "awesome" for outdoor combat; it was decent. I'd take an MA rifle any day, or in the TR's case since the cycler sucked, the heavy scouting rifle. You won't kill a halfways competent MA user with an MCG past 10m.


So it might be nice as TR to say "yeah let me keep it", but you have to think from the other empires perspective also.

I've played all three empires a lot (BR28 and 18 on TR, BR24 and 22 on NC, BR24 and 21 on VS). I like all three empire's heavy assault.

That and using a MCG as a suppressive fire weapon would still net you kills. If there's as much outdoor combat as they're saying like in the trailer it would be a very powerful weapon with its own role.

Spraying and praying across a large distance is not fun.

Basically you end up with:
Shotgun - Rifle - Sniper
For range which is a more logical setup for an FPS game.

That's like, your opinion, man.


The jackhammer was far from role overlap, it was massivly better than a sweeper.

The MCG was alright but tbh not great at either long or short range, it was kind of nice to have a weapon that could be used at both but outside it had nothing on MA and inside it was weaker than the JH by a long way.

When i was on my TR i pretty much just pulled MCG anytime we were near a base, on NC i took a MA or a HA depending on exactly where we were because they're ranges didn't overlap at all.


And this. If I was outside a base or tower I'd pull an MCG on TR, or the appropriate (and better for the situation) HA/MA on the VS or NC.

[SKYeXile]

I dont see why the game needs to be changed into a clone of every other "realistic" "tactical" shooter where rifles are the primary killing weapon, sure make HA move slower, perhaps even make it rexo only(hence rexo moving slower then Agile) but god sakes if you want realism, why in the year whatever the hell it is are front line infantry indoors at close range wearing heavy plate armour firing shitty ass 9mm and energy at eachother with rifles....no they would take BFG's.

[Graywolves]

Weapons used for suppressive fire are also the highest casualty producing weapons.


I didn't really like the way HA was done in PS1. It worked and everything and I could still beat some people with my MA. The HA just felt too much like an upgrade I suppose. Gotta wait and see how it is in PS2.

[Talek Krell]

I'm sort of neutral on the jh and lasher, but I wouldn't mind if the mcg ended up sort of like the minigun/inferno cannon in Global Agenda. For those unaware: It's capable of dealing incredible damage for an extended period of time. It loses accuracy quickly with range however, has a spin/charge up time before it starts firing, and slows or roots you depending on which firing mode you use. In practice you'd often see it used to suppress and distract enemies, but when maneuvered into a good position it can also mow down groups of them (there is no "oh shit" moment quite like hearing an inferno cannon charge up behind you).

Not to mention using one made you feel like a complete badass. >_>

[Kalbuth]

I dont see why the game needs to be changed into a clone of every other "realistic" "tactical" shooter where rifles are the primary killing weapon, sure make HA move slower, perhaps even make it rexo only(hence rexo moving slower then Agile) but god sakes if you want realism, why in the year whatever the hell it is are front line infantry indoors at close range wearing heavy plate armour firing shitty ass 9mm and energy at eachother with rifles....no they would take BFG's.

I say again : this is nothing to do with realism, I don't want realism, I'll play ArmA3 for realism

[Accuser]

It loses accuracy quickly with range however, has a spin/charge up time before it starts firing, and slows or roots you depending on which firing mode you use.

That sounds like a perfect Heavy Assault weapon. Short->Medium range, small charge time, optional(?) root effect and massive damage.

I really like the charge time and root effect... that would prevent HA from being the only choice for indoors. While HA would be able to lay down the most firepower at close range with the strongest armor, he or she does have to come out of cover and "hold the line" for a moment to put that damage downrange.

[Bags]

Why is HA being the only choice indoors (even though it isn't) a bad thing? Next you'll be complaining that rifles are the only good thing at medium range?

[SKYeXile]

real killwhores use the thumper.

[Accuser]

Why is HA being the only choice indoors (even though it isn't) a bad thing? Next you'll be complaining that rifles are the only good thing at medium range?

A few reasons:
1. If I go medic to support my team, I'd like to have some chance against enemies indoors.

2. Everyone using the same weapon indoors is dull. Having unique weapons which have upsides and downsides is interesting. Yes, those are opinions, but I don't think I'm alone in them.

3. If I put lots of certs into agile for exterior mobility, I don't want to be completely worthless indoors compared to 100% superior rexo/HA. Yes there's a tradeoff for those agile abilities, but a HA specialist should be able to help push outdoors and an MA specialist should be able to help push indoors.

4. Insufficient versatility will lead to people dropping out of a location to go to a fight that uses their specialization. For example: If I was certed up to be a great tanker and we clear the CY, is there any motivation for me to go be fodder for enemy HA indoors? Unless HA had some downsides that a tank-certed player could take advantage of, I might as well drive my tank to the next exterior fight.

[NapalmEnima]

Given a Really Long TTK, you actually lose something, tactically speaking: The initial contact loses value. Maneuvering loses value.

You don't see as much manuvering because it's kinda pointless. So what if you spent five minutes sneaking around to the enemy's flank? All one can reasonably expect is maybe one kill and force the others to redeploy. And they'll happily break cover because doing so only hurts them in the long run.

I WANT that tense sprint from one position to the next, not knowing for sure if I'll make it... But knowing that if I sit still for too long I'll be flanked and killed.

I WANT the character caught with their pants down to pay for it with their life. Infantry out in the open with no cover NEED to die to people with superior planing and patience.

If I want to manage resources, I'll go play a strategy game. This is supposed to be an FPS.

I'm not asking for instagib. I would like a couple three well place rifle bursts to drop me at 50 meters. On the one hand, If someone charges out depending on naught but reflexes and bunny-hopping to keep them alive, then they should DIE.

On the other hand, sitting tight in one spot might net you some kills, but as soon as someone flanks you, you're done.

Good tactics (and accuracy-including-headshots, and landing the first shot) should matter. The scenario Trac describes BOTHERS me. If you walk into an ambush you shouldn't be all "gee, I'd better get behind cover so I can fully heal/repair myself and try again", you should be all DEAD.

[SKYeXile]

they have said they you would be able to specilise in mutiple stuff, but it would require a terminal to change....this may however take some to to be able to specilise in multiple things.

but this is the same case in BR20-25 planetside, you choose your specilisation, while tank driver is relitivly cheap, things like Heavy infantry are not. but with rexo and HA you can still go toe to with them, i dont think it would be any different in PS2 in this reguard.

[Talek Krell]

optional(?) root effect and massive damage.Yeah. "Ammo" is a recharging pool in GA. Primary fire uses up "ammo" at the normal rate but allows you to plod forward while spitting bullets. Secondary fire roots you, but it drains "ammo" much more slowly and slightly increases your damage.

[Traak]

real killwhores use the thumper.

If they have free to play, since I like the Thumper, I can just grieflock, new account, grieflock, new account, ad infinitum?

Wow, the Thumper is born anew!

[Bags]

A few reasons:
1. If I go medic to support my team, I'd like to have some chance against enemies indoors.

You do. It's called the Gauss Rifle if you're NC, or the Sweeper if you're TR or VS. The Thumper is also decent indoors too. Someone spec'd to be heavy infantry should be better at infantry combat than a medic. Sorry, you can't have everything.

2. Everyone using the same weapon indoors is dull. Having unique weapons which have upsides and downsides is interesting. Yes, those are opinions, but I don't think I'm alone in them.

Plenty of people snipe indoors, in addition to the weapons I listed above. Weapons commonly used indoors: Gauss, Cycler, Pulsar, Sweeper, Thumper, Radiator, Maelstrom, Bolt Driver, and Flamethrower.

3. If I put lots of certs into agile for exterior mobility, I don't want to be completely worthless indoors compared to 100% superior rexo/HA. Yes there's a tradeoff for those agile abilities, but a HA specialist should be able to help push outdoors and an MA specialist should be able to help push indoors.

You aren't 100% useless. Using non-HA, assuming equal skill, you have maybe 70 - 90% combat effectiveness indoors.

4. Insufficient versatility will lead to people dropping out of a location to go to a fight that uses their specialization. For example: If I was certed up to be a great tanker and we clear the CY, is there any motivation for me to go be fodder for enemy HA indoors? Unless HA had some downsides that a tank-certed player could take advantage of, I might as well drive my tank to the next exterior fight.

You really seem to be in the mindset that you cannot compete without HA.


TLDR of my red: stop whining and spec properly if you want to compete 100% indoors.

[Accuser]

Why is HA being the only choice indoors (even though it isn't) a bad thing?

^ You asked why HA being the only choice indoors would be a bad thing... When I explained, you went on to say how lots of other things should be viable. So thanks for proving my point about how things should be in PS2.

[Bags]

^ You asked why HA being the only choice indoors would be a bad thing... When I explained, you went on to say how lots of other things should be viable. So thanks for proving my point about how things should be in PS2.

I never said they should be viable, I said they are viable.

[Kalbuth]

You do. It's called the Gauss Rifle if you're NC, or the Sweeper if you're TR or VS. The Thumper is also decent indoors too. Someone spec'd to be heavy infantry should be better at infantry combat than a medic. Sorry, you can't have everything.
[...]
TLDR of my red: stop whining and spec properly if you want to compete 100% indoors.(nota as intro : add Pulsar to the list of good MA indoor weapon, it has the best CoF control of the 3 ESMA, can be fired on the move without losing accuracy, and CQB negates its damage degradation disadvantage to other ESMA. To me the best CQB ESMA, tbh)

I'd prefer the heavy infantry being "better at infantry combat" because he has more tools at his disposal for this, not necessarily better tools. More grenades, secondary weapon slot, you name it. If he has "better weapons", they should have drawbacks (and PS1 experience tells you range is no drawback)
Not having headshots, movement penalty, these are drawbacks.

PS1 was unique because going up in levels did not give you really better tools, it opened your possibilities, you could do more things, not necessarily really better.

I dislike this RPG mindset stating that you should be better because you "certed" into something. You're better than your opponent because you have better FPS skills. That includes aim, movement & evasion, situational awareness, knowing your team mates positions and your own, using crossfire as much as you can, etc... So reading "I should be better because I have cert X" makes me cringe a bit ;)

[kidriot]

you should be better indoors if you've spec'd and are using proper weapons for it. that only makes sense. why not award the person that has the foresight to equip properly? you want "twitch" to overcome "smarts' and that doesn't make sense to me.

the RPG mindset is that of a person spending more time doing something. experience is the best teacher and knowing what how to approach a situation should give you the upper hand.

remember the 7 P's

proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance

[Kalbuth]

And because you are having grenades, more diverse, because you have a secondary support/supression weapon, because you have armor allowing for 1 more implant, etc..., being specced correctly gives you the edge, through planning more than just "being specced", you can use your grenade, your additional weapon, your implant, you have an advantage over the other (who has another advantage, for example he can heal, or repair...) without this "specced" actually changing too much the core of the FPS between you and your foe, aka the shooting.
In other words, if you're heavy infantry specced but don't use your specificities, you'll end up on equal foot with a non infantry specced character. This would require from you actually MORE planification than just "being specced, thus having the weapon auto-magically giving you the edge".
Ofc, I'm making things bigger than they are in PS1, HA is not automatic win currently. I just ask for the best possible shooting experience for average grunt, and that goes, imho, through lowering as much as possible imbalances in the very core of the FPS game, shooting.

Speccing is not being smart, it's easy and doesn't require much brain, tbh.

[Captain B]

Well, what we've been told (whether we "know" it or not is still speculative) is that the highly armored class will have the heavy assault weapons, and that probably includes AV weapons. Whether the agile suit (engineer class?) will have 'em too is up in the air, but likely. Looking at the weapons from PS1 and then considering them for PS2, they more than likely will not benefit from things like sights (imagine hefting a minigun or a jackhammer to shoulder - if you do pull the trigger it would insta-gib you or at the least rip your arm off).

I'm imagining this will balance it. Yeah, minigun's got more bullets and "spray and pray"; jackhammer will probably insta-someone at near point blank ranges (and rightfully so if it's nearly useless in the open). But ultimately, someone with a Gauss or a Cycler or whatever should be able to bring up their sights or scope, put the crosshairs on someone's face, and choke the trigger.

I'm just hoping at medium-long ranges the assault rifle outperforms the heavy assault, statistically. I think they should all be rather close-quarters oriented in that regard (filling a hall with three barrels of buckshot, fanning 200 rounds in a nice arc to suppress troops behind cover or explosive lasers that kill indiscriminately). In open field combat they can still provide support, but their killing power is reduced (the jackhammer would be the odd man out with a shotgun in an open field scenario, but would more than make up for it in a building with triple-tapping kills).

[Traak]

How about adjustable chokes on the shotguns that can adjust pattern for distance? This isn't exactly new technology, and the shottie MAX used it.

[Captain B]

Maybe for the sweeper, that'd be cool. I think the Jackhammer could have a moderate spread as normal and go wild with the triple shot for close range kills.

[Bags]

I dislike this RPG mindset stating that you should be better because you "certed" into something.

So everyone should be as good as healing as a medic? Because it's not fair that a medic is the best at healing because he certed into it.

Either show up with the right equipment or expect to lose, assuming equal skill.

[Kalbuth]

So everyone should be as good as healing as a medic? Because it's not fair that a medic is the best at healing because he certed into it.

Either show up with the right equipment or expect to lose, assuming equal skill.

I explained above how I would like to see Infantry specced implemented. You apparently skipped over it :)

[ThGlump]

Help he is specced as MAX. I cant kill him with my pistol as fast as other soldiers. Specializations will matter.

Choose your weapon for specific situations. Or you dont want some variability in weapons and all should be indistinguishable?

[Kalbuth]

You guys only read what you want to read :)
I never said I want all weapons equal and limit variety in weapons. Stop putting words in my mouth
I'm just, and only, talking about the infantry fight, and how I don't see why, in this area, you cannot give an edge to specialized heavy infantry without having to give him a weapon "only" better than others.
Against a MAX, AV doesn't make you suddenly better than the MAX, it brings you on par with the MAX. SA is only giving you another option above your primary weapon.

Why HA having a drawback is bad?

[Bags]

HA does have a draw back. It's the most expensive single cert in the game.

[Xyntech]

HA does have a draw back. It's the most expensive single cert in the game.

That's a weak draw back. That is BFR and CR5 Orbital Strike balancing logic.

Things in an FPS should first be balanced against every other item and only after that should they have an appropriate price tag put on them. This is even more true in Planetside 2 considering that, as far as we know, everyone will have access to (more or less) everything, all the time once they earn or purchase them.

I agree that HA is cool, but every weapon should be cool. Pistols are fucking stupid in Planetside, although that did make it a lot cooler to get kills with them. I'd like every grenade to have common situations where it makes me feel like a badass, not just jammers. I'd like pistols to be a viable option for non infiltrators if they happen to have their main slots filled by non AI weapons.

I'd just like to see more of the weapons more useful in more situations. Some guns should always be better in certain situations, I just don't want it to feel like the only viable choice. HA surgile was the combo of choice for a while, and then HA/rexo/personal shield. I'd like the balance to be such that there is a little more flexibility, where there isn't some common knowledge best combo. Maybe players would know that they'd be as good as dead if they didn't have a couple MAXes or HA rexos in their squad when they enter a base, but ideally they would also want a rifleman or two as well if the game made such mixed units valuable. Planetsides way of 20 vs 20 with at least 30 HA weapons between them is boring and repetitive.

I'd like to go into a base and see a half dozen enemies, all with HA and think "shit, you don't see that every day" and have to think fast to counter them with something else, maybe some grenades if they move slowly when firing. That many people with HA should be unusual, scary and, most importantly, extremely vulnerable to a lot of things.

That's my personal preference of course. It's probably a little early to be getting so specific about points of balance that we know so little about for PS2. Some of the new pacing and TTK's may completely change my outlook.

[Bags]

That's a weak draw back. That is BFR and CR5 Orbital Strike balancing logic.

Never heard anyone whine about OS being OP.

I agree that HA is cool, but every weapon should be cool. Pistols are fucking stupid in Planetside, although that did make it a lot cooler to get kills with them. I'd like every grenade to have common situations where it makes me feel like a badass, not just jammers. I'd like pistols to be a viable option for non infiltrators if they happen to have their main slots filled by non AI weapons.

I never said pistols shouldn't be "Cool". Grenades are good enough in PS1, IMO.

I'd just like to see more of the weapons more useful in more situations. Some guns should always be better in certain situations, I just don't want it to feel like the only viable choice. I'd like the balance to be such that there is a little more flexibility, where there isn't some common knowledge best combo. Maybe players would know that they'd be as good as dead if they didn't have a couple MAXes or HA rexos in their squad when they enter a base, but ideally they would also want a rifleman or two as well if the game made such mixed units valuable. Planetsides way of 20 vs 20 with at least 30 HA weapons between them is boring and repetitive.

Heavy assault is not the only viable weapon indoors. Rifles see plenty of use indoors.

I'd like to go into a base and see a half dozen enemies, all with HA and think "shit, you don't see that every day" and have to think fast to counter them with something else, maybe some grenades if they move slowly when firing. That many people with HA should be unusual, scary and, most importantly, extremely vulnerable to a lot of things.

Grenades work fine right now.

Nerf snipers because I can't kill them with heavy assault.

[Crator]

I don't think OS is OP, when limited in it's use. But when every player has OS on the same continent it gets pretty ridiculous. Especially with the low pop situations we have now in PS1.

[Xyntech]

Nerf snipers because I can't kill them with heavy assault.

Yes, because snipers should totally pwn indoors and HA should be mowing down the enemy half way across the continent :rolleyes:

I want more variety in PS2 CQC, that's all. A little more of that rock paper scissors that we all seem to enjoy so much about the outdoor combat.

There are other viable weapons indoors in PS1, but they are by far the exception. HA shouldn't be so far and away superior that it's the majority of what you see.

I don't want HA to become stupid or useless or lose any of it's wow factor. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing HA kicked up a few notches, being even more intimidating to go up against, as long as it had enough significant draw backs to make it not be the only option in most players minds for indoor fighting.

I haven't been playing Planetside for as long as you though. Maybe that means I don't have as much of a say. As the populations dwindled, so did my interest in the game. The big battles were Planetsides main draw for me, but a lot of the other game mechanics left something to be desired.

I didn't mind some of the things as much at the time, but I think PS2 can be so much better now. I'd like to see a lot of things improved, some of which a lot of veterans will argue aren't broken and don't need fixing. I disagree. I'm not saying change everything just for the sake of change, just maybe tweak a few things here and there.

It doesn't need to be broken to have room for improvement.

Don't reinvent the wheel, but maybe give it a better tire.

[SKYeXile]

HA maybe the most used thing indoors, for soloing 3 or more people at once there is nothing better....except say a MAX...and none of the muppets have AV...lawls. but combinded arms will always triump.

MAX leading to get enimies to draw AV, REXO HA behind, to push past the maxes when AV is drawn , thumpers behind them to provide preasure and any MA in the back. throw an AV max in there to counter any AI maxes..and win.

[SgtMAD]

HA maybe the most used thing indoors, for soloing 3 or more people at once there is nothing better....except say a MAX...and none of the muppets have AV...lawls. but combinded arms will always triump.

MAX leading to get enimies to draw AV, REXO HA behind, to push past the maxes when AV is drawn , thumpers behind them to provide preasure and any MA in the back. throw an AV max in there to counter any AI maxes..and win.

the smartest thing I have ever seen posted on these forums,its why Dreamer always told me to pull my max LOL

[SKYeXile]

the smartest thing I have ever seen posted on these forums,its why Dreamer always told me to pull my max LOL

Your strat is probably better....EQUAL THEIR NUMBERS IN MAXES! :P

[Xyntech]

HA maybe the most used thing indoors, for soloing 3 or more people at once there is nothing better....except say a MAX...and none of the muppets have AV...lawls. but combinded arms will always triump.

MAX leading to get enimies to draw AV, REXO HA behind, to push past the maxes when AV is drawn , thumpers behind them to provide preasure and any MA in the back. throw an AV max in there to counter any AI maxes..and win.

Meh, I guess Planetside had it pretty good as far as rewarding mixed units. It's just hard to remember sometimes with populations being so low nowadays.

Damn it, I don't care if it's a carbon copy of PS1 in all but netcode and graphics, I want my big battles back.

[Accuser]

Maybe players would know that they'd be as good as dead if they didn't have a couple MAXes or HA rexos in their squad when they enter a base, but ideally they would also want a rifleman or two as well if the game made such mixed units valuable. Planetsides way of 20 vs 20 with at least 30 HA weapons between them is boring and repetitive.


I want more variety in PS2 CQC, that's all. A little more of that rock paper scissors that we all seem to enjoy so much about the outdoor combat.

There are other viable weapons indoors in PS1, but they are by far the exception. HA shouldn't be so far and away superior that it's the majority of what you see.

double QFT
I think Bags is still talking about PS1. This is PS2 discussion.
In PS2 everyone will be able to switch to the Heavy Weapons class and flood the enemy base with HA/Rexo IF that is distinctively superior. In PS1 you have to cert for it, so some people don't have access to HA. In PS2 EVERYONE will roll HA/Rexo if it's far and away better than anything else for fighting indoors. That's why it needs to have drawbacks and be somewhat balanced against MA/Agile and Medic indoors. I have confidence the devs will be more aware of that than Bags is.

[Bags]

It isn't far and away better than anything indoors, and there's no reason to believe it will be that way in Planetside 2.

And bases are far bigger and more open in PS2. Also, as of right now it sounds as though only heavy armor can use HA, and I'd assume it's slower.

[Xyntech]

And bases are far bigger and more open in PS2. Also, as of right now it sounds as though only heavy armor can use HA, and I'd assume it's slower.

Yeah, those things alone will go a long way towards mixing it up indoors.

I hope there are some pretty large rooms inside bases in PS2. Having agiles with jump jets be strategically useful in some indoors environments would be pretty interesting.

[Hamma]

Via Reddit (Higby):
I don't dislike COD games, I think they're great games, but they're definitely not Planetside. I love Unreal Tournament and Q3A also, I got my start in FPS games playing competitive Quake 2 CTF and Rocket Arena, but they're not Planetside either.

Having played a lot of Battlefield 3 recently, I'd say we're leaning more towards Bad Company 2 in terms of pacing, not as fast as BF3 and certainly not as fast as COD.
Thanks sandrock for telling me I put this on the wrong thread.. haha fail.

[Metalsheep]

Somewhere between PS and BFBC2 in pacing along with recharging shields and osok head shot sniper rifle sounds a lot like Halo to me. Which really doesn't have that bad of TTKs depending on what weapons you use. Someone who just picked up a turret (like the MCG) Takes a good 3 or 4 seconds of constant fire to break shields then kill their opponent at medium and long ranges, its a bit faster up close. And medium range rifles take 5 or 6 shots ending with a head shot (or three extra body shots), which if you pace and don't spam, also takes about 2 or 3 seconds (Add about 1.5 seconds if you don't hit the head). Though i just hope they don't make shotguns One Shot like they do in Halo.

If the pacing is similar to Halo, there wont be a huge discrepancy between the TTKs in PS1 and PS2.

[I SandRock]

Haha Hamma :P

Yeah this sounds like a welcomed change, though I guess Beta Testing will have to point out how this affects tower and base fights. I do enjoy somewhat prolonged fights, though PS1 fights could be extremely boring stalemates, especially in towers. Everyone doing a few pot shots and then running back to heal back up, rinse and repeat. Hopefully this will help pushing forward a bit more.
While not making it whoever gets the drop wins by default. Or too rock-paper-scissory where the weapon alone determines who wins the fight.

SoE is actually making a lot of sense so far, too much sense, I am becoming scared. When things sound too good to be true they are generally too good to be true, especially in gaming. Start making less sense, SoE :p

[Bags]

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

[Xyntech]

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

I don't think TTK will really affect stalemates one way or the other, except for maybe helping infantry kill vehicles a little better.

I think lower spawn times is what would significantly change how willing people were to charge into a dangerous situation.

Maybe an entire squad is willing to equip AV weapons and surprise that tank camping outside, because they know that even if they all die in the process, they won't be leaving a 15 or 30 second window in which the enemy can push into the base knowing that a large portion of it's defenders are dead.

Of course faster spawn times would have some negative gameplay aspects as well. The old "we'll see how it works in beta" rears it's head again.

[NapalmEnima]

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

Both of those games also have a prone stance, making camping that much more likely.

I don't recall CoD having a sprint, and it's been a Long Time since I played a BF game.

[I SandRock]

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

Because you can't get away and heal back to full health again? Right now, people pop out of a door, shoot a bit, then run back behind a wall and heal up. Same for MAX, the moment your armor is too low you walk back up and you get healed to full. Both sides keep doing this.

With a lower TTK you stick your head out and you die. Thinning the numbers faster. Basically you are left less time for reacting to a situation to safe your ass.

Take for example a base fight and suddenly a MAX comes around the corner. In PS1, the MAX comes around the corner, starts firing into people, people are surprised, those without AV run around a corner and heal up. Those with AV have time to switch to AV and attack the MAX.

With a lower TTK. The element of surprise and being caught off-guard will be greater. Giving you less time to run for cover. Leaving more infantry casualities. Making the battle progress faster.

Even more so now that you need to roll medic class to heal. Which means not every grunt can heal himself back up to full health, yet people will take more damage faster. While being healed slower. Leaving more room for the enemy to 'push'.


You are right that a slower TTK will mean people dare to stick their head out more often, but that is only because they know they can take that risk without dying. I predict players will still try, nobody wants to just sit behind a wall and wait, so they'll die quicker.

Just my theoretical view on it. Perhaps in actual gameplay it turns out completely different.

[SKYeXile]

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...(maybe we will get stun or flash grenaides) meanwhile the defenders already have their sights aimed for a headshot assoon as somebody comes in the door. those split seconds matter when you only have a split second to live.

I can setup an LMG in BF3 corridoors and hold out against wave after wave of eneimes, sometimes 3-5 at once by being prone and in a good position, i would hate to see this type of gameplay in PS2.

[NapalmEnima]

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...

Good.

You can:

1) "pie slice" your way around a corner. When you line up on them, they also line up on you. One of you is gonna die, but it's not nearly so one-sided as you make it out to be.
2) lead with a grenade or three. While they're trying to find their retinas (flash-bang) or spleen (frag), you and yours run into the room and clean up.
3) lead with a MAX. Someone that can hold up to a second or two of concentrated fire while more bodies pile into the room behind them. Bring a medic, they'll need it.

You just might be able to take a sprinting leap into the room and live, then again, you may not. While doing so you certainly aren't going to hit much of anything.

Hell, combine 'em. Lead with some grenades, then have an AI MAX pie around the corner.

I seem to recall Higby mentioning camera grenades as a possible replacement for third person. I'm just fine with that.

And that they had lots of ideas for different kinds of grenades on the drawing board. I guess we'll see.


And for every strategy, there's a counter. If someone with a thumper is aware that you're slowly coming around that corner, they can lob some pain your way.


One of the things I distinctly remember from the lunch interview is that the bases will be much more open. No more room-corridor-room-corridor-etc-etc-etc. Instead it'll be more like N "lanes" that are "porous", you can move from one to the next at various places, and can probably fire at folks in different lanes.

That means the whole issue is less likely to come up at all. With multiple avenues of attack, it'll be harder to set up in a spot where you Know they have to pass through to get to Objective X. And they might have great cover from one angle, but their parts are hanging out in the breeze from another.

[Xyntech]

I think that the base and tower layouts are really going to be the deciding factor for a lot of the infantry gameplay balance. There is a reason that a good multiplayer map take a lot of time and revision to get perfect.

From what we've heard so far, I'm thinking that instead of continents just being giant pieces of open, mostly boring landscape, that a continent in Planetside 2 will feel more like a bunch of non MMO multiplayer maps that have been stitched together. The only difference will be the cohesive environmental theme for the continent as well as the fact that one area will just seamlessly bleed into the next to create a massive battlefield. Each capturable section should feel like the carefully tailored and balanced environment that you would expect to find in any quality multiplayer FPS.

If that's the case, the bases would be more along the lines of what you would expect in an indoor map of any other decent multiplayer FPS, which would be a lot better than what we had for base layouts in PS1.

A base should have plenty of features that maximize every indoor fighting technique, such as having out of the way paths for infiltrators to sneak in, places for jump jet soldiers to gain entry or to gain a better offensive or defense vantage, areas that are advantageous for engineers to set up machine guns both for attackers and for defenders, etc.

The tower we have already seen looks to me like it will be pretty hard to camp with just tanks and ground troops. A tank could shoot into every door in the PS1 towers, but I think an aircraft is the only thing that's gonna be camping a lot of the PS2 roof exits. Hopefully that means that a few AA MAXes and a handful of supporting troops will be able to control a lot of tower roofs and we'll be able to avoid most unmoving stalemate entirely.

The real problem with towers in PS1 was that the people on the outside had minimal options for getting inside the tower and, in many cases, the people on the inside couldn't do anything at all to fight their way out. It looks like there may be options for those trapped in a PS2 tower to push back against an attack, even when surrounded by vehicles. As for the attacking force, they already said that bases will be designed to be taken, I assume this will apply to towers as well.

Stalemates come when you have viable options to defend, but no viable options to attack. As long as there is an option to strike back at your enemy, there is room for a real power struggle to occur and for there to be a decisive victor.

It really rests heavily on the layouts.

[I SandRock]

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...(maybe we will get stun or flash grenaides) meanwhile the defenders already have their sights aimed for a headshot assoon as somebody comes in the door. those split seconds matter when you only have a split second to live.

I can setup an LMG in BF3 corridoors and hold out against wave after wave of eneimes, sometimes 3-5 at once by being prone and in a good position, i would hate to see this type of gameplay in PS2.

People are definitely going to think twice before sticking their head out. But I see that as positive too. I found it rather annoying to see people stick their head out of a door just to walk off and heal up again. But when they DO stick their head out of the door they're much more likely to get it blown off in PS2. Which means once a push happens, it will likely break a stalemate one way or another.... Hopefully ;)

[Captain B]

The faster TTK will encourage pushing more than deter it, I think. Currently, you poke your head around a corner, trade shots, and then both duck back around the corner. You could argue that's a stalemate. Faster TKK means, sure, I could poke my head around the door and get killed quickly enough, OR it could mean I jump out, three-round burst into some guy's face, and then back behind the corner before the retaliatory shots make their mark.

Now there's one less defender instead of one less attacker. Grenades will surely have more impact this time around, as well. Just because there will be faster TTK doesn't mean that it will only affect the attackers; it'll mean faster kills on both sides of the line.

[Sirisian]

People are definitely going to think twice before sticking their head out. But I see that as positive too.
Kind of sucks for AV users and SA users trying to use their specializations. Sticking your head out to kill a max with even a single infantry would become a very risky option. In PS1 it wasn't really a risk. Some max camping at the end of a hallway just meant an easy kill. Forces MAX units to push and charge AV users.

Which means once a push happens, it will likely break a stalemate one way or another.... Hopefully ;)
TTK doesn't change that. Scaling health doesn't usually effect the outcome of a battle. (You can try this on paper).

The faster TTK will encourage pushing more than deter it, I think. Currently, you poke your head around a corner, trade shots, and then both duck back around the corner. You could argue that's a stalemate.
A good stalemate. It tells both players "do something tactical". If the bases are more open and such it could mean moving around and flanking or finding another way or simply running forward to get a better position closer. If two people are defending and lock onto one player the player is probably going to die. I don't think it should be the focus of an MMOFPS to balance everything for 1v1 combat in regards to a fast TTK.

Faster TKK means, sure, I could poke my head around the door and get killed quickly enough, OR it could mean I jump out, three-round burst into some guy's face, and then back behind the corner before the retaliatory shots make their mark.
This point of promoting solo players getting kills easily has been brought up before. It depends. Some people like that. I feel it doesn't give players a choice. Obviously if you're trading shots you're at a stalemate. Someone needs to rush in at that point or use SA or grenades. The scenario you describe is really just enforcing a system that weights twitch over tactics like using a grenade or pushing forward with a shotgun. This was also brought up in the discussion involving if weapon choice should effect the outcome of a battle.

[Raymac]

I think the base layout will have a much much larger factor on stalemates than the TTK. Interfarm anyone?

[SKYeXile]

I think the base layout will have a much much larger factor on stalemates than the TTK. Interfarm anyone?

Yea if bases are setup so they're not very easy to defend i think we will see less stalemates, but when there is large rooms with easy to defend choke points, its not going to be good for attackers.

or we will just see alot of maxes running around if bases are easily defendable through coke points.

[I SandRock]

TTK doesn't change that. Scaling health doesn't usually effect the outcome of a battle. (You can try this on paper).


Faster kills doesn't just change the killing. If you JUST look at damage vs health, nothing changes. But there is a whole lot more to consider, as I went in too. Reaction time, for instance. One of the main things in PS was running back and around a corner to heal. That has nothing to do with health but with how fast you can react to an enemy showing himself, starting to shoot, you deciding you have to run, actually running, actually making it around the corner. Having the time to be healed before the enemy gets to you.

With a slower TTK players had time to fall back and heal back up without dying much easier. Now if you get caught by surprise by a couple of MAX units or AOE attacks you have a lot less time to react and recover. Making a push more likely to happen and succeed. These aren't pure mathematical factors.

Faster TTK means it's much more fight or die, kill or be killed. Rather than, jump out and do some pot shots, jump back into cover to heal back up. Rinse and repeat. Now you either go out and kill, or be killed. Well, more likely. Theoretically. From my perspective. :p

[2coolforu]

Faster TTK does encourage camping, if TTK is small then the half a second or so advantage gained by surprising an enemy by camping a vantage point is a higher proportion of the TTK meaning a higher chance of a successful kill.

Planetside plays very differently though, hopefully people will be really working together and camping is easily negated by having 1000 people backing you up in an assault. Call of duty is the campfest it is because most guns kill in 1-2 shots meaning camping is effectively an autowin barring luck or lag. In Planetside we know TTK is going to be a lot slower than this and we have far more people to pressure campers and weapons like the Thumper (possibly) that are put into the game to negate camping.

We are also unique in the fact that we have such a wide and diverse vehicle combat, even more central than the vehicle combat in BF2/BF3. This means that camping snipers and other camping can be countered by vehicle combat.

[Kalbuth]

Faster pace also means faster movements, no?
And faster movements, if they can avoid being hit at distance, is going to help people move out and reduce camping.
In W:ET, ET:QW, Brink (the whole Ennemy Territory serie), you have rather fast TTK on weapons, fast movement, headshot, and you don't see camping. When, not only cover, but movement too becomes a usefull evading tactic, then you rule camping out of the equation

the only question then : can the engine cope with fast movement on MMO scale? PS1 experience tends to tell us otherwise, unfortunately :(

[Bags]

Sprinting doesn't make you a hard target in games with decent netcode.

[Kalbuth]

With non-hitscan weapons, at range, and decent netcode, you learn to not sprint in straight line

[raw]

Too short a TTK means popamole (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=popamole). PS1 perfect, CoD/BF shit. People who disagree have no clue.

[dm Akolyte]

Well I'm sure your opinion is indisputable truth, raw. Also I'm sure you know much much more about game design than legions of professional game designers.

[Draep]

Why are any of you still posting in this pathetic thread.

[Sirisian]

Why are any of you still posting in this pathetic thread.
I imagine it's because of comments like this:
Well I'm sure your opinion is indisputable truth, raw. Also I'm sure you know much much more about game design than legions of professional game designers.
That is to say comments which don't really argue any real points. What Raw said is extremely true. If you walk through a door it's like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole if the TTK is too low. It is kind of flawed to look at the extremes of TTK though.

I'd say why people are posting is because they feel very strongly one way or the other and want the game to play like they prefer. So in that sense you're going to see a lot of posts either way.

[Draep]

All I'm gonna say is that one time I saw three different devs post on these forums, maybe threads like these discouraged them from coming back.

[Hamma]

Untrue, they browse almost daily they cannot comment on every thread.

[Kalbuth]

Too short a TTK means popamole (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=popamole). PS1 perfect, CoD/BF shit. People who disagree have no clue.

PS1 is far from perfect, the gunfight is slow as hell in movement, and at range, damage degradation is too heavy (or base damage is too low) making evasion a simple "I'll try to reach the nearest tree in straight line, let's hope my turtle speed can make it" while the opponent unloads 3 clips on you.

One of the worst gunfight I know of, perhaps CoD is the other example I have of boring fights. Though I prefer PS1 CQB.

Nobody is advocating CoD gunfight, as far as I've seen. But having movement something else than crawl-for-cover, and aim being more than just point-over-ennemy-avatar and rewarding headshots (without being OSOK) is only going to make the gunplay better, imho.
As long as SOE is not overdoing the changes, it's fine.


That said, in PS1 history, SOE have always overdone any change....

[Bags]

With non-hitscan weapons, at range, and decent netcode, you learn to not sprint in straight line

What distances we talking? At assault rifle ranges sprinting is pointless to dodge fire in BF3.

[Bags]

Hitting someone at a distance with an assault rifle should be as it is in real life. REAL LIFE.. i said it.. real life....



It's a video game.

[CutterJohn]

It's a video game.

Sweet. That means we can have mechs!





Sorry... Couldn't resist. :)

[Sirisian]

What distances we talking? At assault rifle ranges sprinting is pointless to dodge fire in BF3.
For that reason I'm hoping we have slower rounds. I like firing rounds and watching them fly through the air and hit their targets or miss. I also like the alternative of getting shot at and seeing the bullets wiz by.

I think we already saw slower moving rounds though in the trailer so that's good. Forces people to lead targets and such which is cool.


You figure 17 rounds at a fucker moving in the open, 5 of them hit him. the last 5 you shot for fucks sake were for good measure. period.
You're basically spamming rounds then. When you have 10 other people doing that at people you want some level of survivability or the risk is too much to step out from behind a tree. With the scale and the possible longer projectile ranges I imagine we're going to see a lot of ammo being thrown around. Balancing for a 1v1 fight as mentioned numerous times is not a good way to deal with damage in an MMOFPS.

[Graywolves]

Real life combat isn't fun. It's just lots of suppressive fire and a meneuver element then one side is completley dead. Or everyone dies. Depends if the Opfor are assholes....one of them is probably hiding in the bushes outside of the AO and then runs in going "BANGBANG YOU'RE DEAD AND YOU'RE DEAD!"


It's just not fun.

[Bags]

Leading targets is not cool. You had to lead targets in gunz the duel due to terrible whateverthefuckhitregistration they used. Say no to massive leading.

[SKYeXile]

its gotta be more like real life guys!..need my video games realistic...look at how fun this is:

A-10 strafing run on a Taliban postion also starring Tom Hanks - YouTube

clearly me in the A10.

[Sirisian]

Leading targets is not cool. You had to lead targets in gunz the duel due to terrible whateverthefuckhitregistration they used. Say no to massive leading.
Why would you bring up a game like Gunz. That doesn't even convey what I said.

A good explanation would be like playing airsoft. You fire the round and watch it travel to the target. There's an unrealistic travel time so as you fire you see the pellets fly through the air and strike their location. When a person is running you have to aim a little in front as you fire and you can watch the pellets fly through the air and meet up with the target.

Pretty much all weapons should have that effect. Makes it look like each round is important and you visually see them travel and hit something. Especially for pistols and the MCG. Seeing each round fly through the air and drop would be sweet.

Oddly enough this unrealistic travel time allows you to move around between locations easier. Even if the enemy sees you the distance you run might be too short for them to lead and place their shots. Say it takes 500 ms to go 50m so you see someone run out from a tree then you fire at them your rounds will land behind them. You have to have the skill to aim in front and fire your rounds so they intercept the target.

Getting the impression you prefer raycasted bullets?

[SKYeXile]

err planetside already has somewhat realistic bullet travel time. making all guns lashers with bullet drop... terribly lame.

[Traak]

That A10 video is awesome. I have to go and reinvent the concept of close air support now and put it on my blog.

[Kalbuth]

Leading targets is not cool. You had to lead targets in gunz the duel due to terrible whateverthefuckhitregistration they used. Say no to massive leading.
1) a slight lead is not that bad. Lasher, ofc, should not be taken as base example, a weapon technically designed to miss being the stupidest design ever ;)
2) on a strafing target, you don't hit everything. On usual twitchy games, where movement is really a key part, hit percentage is usually 30%, 40% is indicative of a good player. headshots account for 5 to 10% of shots.
This is in games with engine and netcode making movement important and effective.

When I read "faster pace", I hope it's not only talking about TTK, but also character speed, up to a point where movement is going to be influencing hit percentage significantly, at least at range with a slight lead.

[SKYeXile]

That A10 video is awesome. I have to go and reinvent the concept of close air support now and put it on my blog.

you're doing aircraft infantry support without the A10 for reference? *slap*
watch some youtube videos of A10's they're a wicked aircraft.

[Traak]

you're doing aircraft infantry support without the A10 for reference? *slap*
watch some youtube videos of A10's they're a wicked aircraft.

Actually, new uses for the A10 and other existing and future systems is more what I had in mind.

[Hamma]

Totally off topic on the A-10 thing.. but what a badass aircraft. :lol:

[Graywolves]

Hearing the A10 with your own ears is over half the awesomeness of it.

Vrroooom


That baby just unloaded all of its ammunition.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

If you want realism ARMA3 won't disappoint.

[Kalbuth]

Well, to continue on OT, if you want A10 : DCS-A10 is the way to go, this way : http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/series/warthog/
Excellent simulation, which any simulation freak should already know of

[Traak]

Twelve 7.62mm miniguns slung under the wings with a minute's worth of ammunition each. Now that would be awesome to behold (72,000 rounds total)

Probably weigh less than the combined mass of the GAU-8 and available bomb payload, too. Perhaps two minutes of ammunition would be better, 144,000 rounds.

Talk about area denial. It would be a flying claymore mine.

If each of the six weapon barrels were aimed so that they diverged from center to cover exactly one sixth of the distance between each gun's centerline to the next gun at the desired range, then the following would be the case:

57ft. 6in. wingspan: miniguns placed along 48 feet of said width, yielding 48/11 (have to take one off for the 11 spaces between the 12 weapons) yields roughly 52 inches between each weapon.

If the weapon barrels are aimed so that the 72 barrels will aim, at the desired range, at a swath 100 feet wide, evenly spaced, that will yield, conveniently, 72 separate lines of impact points, that are about 20 and a quarter inches between each impact point, laterally.

Further, given a rate of fire per weapon of 6,000 rpm, or 100rps, which, due to the barrel divergence, is 100/6 rounds per aim point per second.

So, given about 16 rounds per second per impact aim point, what kind of swath would this weapon system cut through an area?

Well, we know it is 100 feet wide, at, say, 1000 feet of altitude as an example. What would be the pattern of bullets on the ground?

Well, let's give it an airspeed of 150mph, a few miles per hour above its stall speed of 138mph.

150mph X 1.466666 equals its feet per second. This is 220 feet per second.

220 feet per second/ 16 rounds per second equals 13.75 feet between each round, where it impacts the ground.

If you include enough ammunition for one minute of fire, that will yield a pattern 100 feet wide with bullets striking in a grid of 20.25 by 13 feet eight inches along the ground.

This may not sound like great coverage. However, keep in mind, that if the weapons are aimed to yield a net 20 degree angle of impact (relative to horizontal) then the number of bullets hitting a standing man who is 6 feet tall and 20.25 inches wide will be one bullet near his center of mass, or two, one near his ankles, one near his head.

If the altitude is cut to 500 feet, since the guns are spaced at 48 feet, then that is 52 feet of divergence (from 48 feet between weapons to 100 feet between impact points) in 1000 feet, which is 26 feet of divergence at 500 feet, or a 48+26=70 foot-wide swath, with about 14 inches between each projectile aim point, on the ground. It would be very difficult to avoid this kind of fire density.

With the aircraft flying for one minute flat and level, with 72000 rounds of ammunition (one minute of fire at 6000rpm per weapon) used, it would cut a swath 100 feet wide from 1000 feet of altitude, or a swath 70 feet wide at 500 feet of altitude, at 150 mph, 2.5 miles long.

Imagine a 2.5 mile long kill zone accomplished in one minute with one aircraft, with strips of bullets 14 inches apart from 500 feet, or 20 inches apart at 1000 feet.

With 20 miniguns instead of 12, the 100-foot-wide kill zone would be 12 inches between bullets.

Not many could survive that kind of attack.

About 4000 lbs in ammunition for one minute of firing for all weapons for one minute.
50 pounds per weapon, with ammo management and all added in, for 600 lbs weight there.

The whole system, with 72,000 rounds, 12 weapons, would be only 4600 lbs. That's kind of light, considering the GAU-8 with its ammo weighs about 4000 lbs, and the A-10 has 16,000 lbs of external payload capacity, that means you can add 24 Miniguns, each with one minute and fifty seconds of ammunition for a total of 264,000 rounds, and still only have less than 15,750 lbs of under-wing payload.

This would allow it to retain the GAU-8 with a full can off ammo, and be able to stitch a swath 5 miles long and 100 feet wide with a matrix of bullets 1 foot by 13 feet eight inches.

Or a swath about five miles long with a matrix of bullets every twenty inches between bullet aimpoints, one in every 6 feet nine inches, along the ground.

The miniguns can be positioned to center the recoil in an axis intersecting the center of mass of the aircraft. The aggregate recoil force of the guns would be 3600 lbs for 24 of them.

If the weapons were pointed down and backwards, at about 85 degrees from vertical, then it would add 3600 lbs of forward and (mostly) upward thrust to the aircraft. Lead afterburner?

Plus the GAU-8 for any particularly determined or tough targets.

The A-10 gunship. For those times when missing is just not an option.