Gun Combat= No movement, very stationary when shooting

[Dreamcast]

So I been comparing this game for killzone 2 for a while...One thing they have in common is the fact how stationary targets are when they shoot.



All the planetside 2 footage shows people standing shooting at eachother or just moving forward shooting.


I don't see people moving side to side at all which is something the original planetside had and a couple of other games futuristic games have....

I guess it can be attributed to lower TTK but other games like COD(inb4 the elitist) that have way lower ttk, actually have alot of side movement and overall movement when shooting.


So do you guys like this minimal movement when shooting?....I guess it means accuracy is very important so is not good to move and shoot....It could also mean that the A and D movement keys move slow to either right or left direction.


I like killzone 2 so is not a big problem for me but knowing how Planetside 1 was, with people moving side to side when they shot....it kind of makes me think if it will be best if their was more movement.




Cliff notes

A and D key movements seem non existant in planetside 2
W and S key movements seem to be very minimal

[The noob]

Until I get my hands on it, it's difficult to judge whether it's something you have to do, or something that Totalbiscuit and a few of the other testers did out of habit. Also, isn't this topic exactly like your Killzone topic? You probably could have kept it there.

[Dreamcast]

Until I get my hands on it, it's difficult to judge whether it's something you have to do, or something that Totalbiscuit and a few of the other testers did out of habit. Also, isn't this topic exactly like your Killzone topic? You probably could have kept it there.

No Im talking about the movement...I personally think is like killzone 2.


I made a new thread because I havn't seen many people talking about this, and I think this is one of the biggest changes to the game.

[MacXXcaM]

No, I don't like it. It takes a whole amount of skill and funny firefights out and makes it somewhat bf3/cod-boring.
We surely need a longer ttk.

[The noob]

No Im talking about the movement...I personally think is like killzone 2.


I made a new thread because I havn't seen many people talking about this, and I think this is one of the biggest changes to the game.

While it's been a while since I've played Killzone 2, I don't really remember staying stationary all that often. Even when I was in my iron sights I'd often move around to try to throw people's aims off, even if it meant losing some accuracy.

[Dreamcast]

While it's been a while since I've played Killzone 2, I don't really remember staying stationary all that often. Even when I was in my iron sights I'd often move around to try to throw people's aims off, even if it meant losing some accuracy.
Some people I saw in killzone 2 didn't move side to side but I think your right...I just remember the game being slow, the side to side..I could be wrong.

No, I don't like it. It takes a whole amount of skill and funny firefights out and makes it somewhat bf3/cod-boring.
We surely need a longer ttk.

Well to be fair COD Gun combat movement is very fast...People are always moving when shooting....Also COD has way lower TTK than Planetside so is not entirely the TTK fault.


I think the reason is that the developers think Accuracy>Movement....Seems like accuracy is gonna be vary important so less movement will be better....if you move to much the accuracy will probably be horrible...


Also Im betting the A and D keyboard keys move slow

[MacXXcaM]

Well to be fair COD Gun combat movement is very fast...People are always moving when shooting....Also COD has way lower TTK than Planetside so is not entirely the TTK fault.

No, but it's boring because it prevents firefights from happening. You see someone, shoot at him, either of you is dead.

[Dreamcast]

No, but it's boring because it prevents firefights from happening. You see someone, shoot at him, either of you is dead.

I guess but if Planetside 2 had longer TTK and the accuracy of your gun sucks if you move...and A+D key movement keys are slow...Then it will still be the game style of gun play we have seen so far in the video's.

So TTK could be somewhat at fault but is more the style of gameplay the developers are doing.

[MacXXcaM]

I don't know what to vote on. Planetside's movement is not too slow, it's about fine. It's the TTK that messes it up basically.

[Toppopia]

I want to beable to get an implant or some ability like in MW3 that lets me move a bit faster while ADS, because thats how i play FPS, i always try to aim down the sight as much as possible because i will have a higher chance of killing the enemy before he kills me, and because i normally have 200ms ping so i need any advantage i can get. Because hip firing never seems to work out well so i always avoid it as much as possible.

[Elude]

Many of the players in the alpha footage are AI driven specifically for testing reasons.

[Mechzz]

Many of the players in the alpha footage are AI driven specifically for testing reasons.

Yeah, especially "aclegg"

[Dreamcast]

Many of the players in the alpha footage are AI driven specifically for testing reasons.

Makes sense...I was gonna say in the OP "or maybe the testers just suck and don't A/D keyboard move" :D

[Graywolves]

I'm hoping for something that feels unique.

[The noob]

Frankly, I believe that SOE should attempt to find a balance between firing while moving, and firing while stationary and/or in ADS. Firing while moving should offer its own upsides and downsides compared to firing while stationary or in ADS, such as decrease in accuracy, while of course increase in survivabilty due to moving alot more, while stationary and ADS should offer the same as well, such as increased accuracy, possibly a minor zoom while in ADS, but of course at the cost of survivalbility (since stationary targets are easier to hit). One should not dominate over the other.

Firing while moving should not be so powerful that you have people running around gunning people down like as if it's a shooter in the vein of arena shooters, but not so weak that you must go into ADS to even have a chance of hitting someone, stationary and ADS should not be so weak that going into either is a useless, deadly endeavor, but using them should not be so needed that the only way of hitting someone in a firefight is going stationary and/or going into ADS. I honestly don't know how such balance could be achieved however. Basically, they have their own areas they are strong and weak in, one or the other shouldn't be strong at everything.

[mynameismud]

people who dont move when getting shot at usually end up getting shot.

[Karrade]

Perhaps it is down to light infantry, heavy, or maxi dictating how much you can move?

As an avid infantry player of PS1 for years, in times gone by, I can tell you in a big fight 60-100+ if you stand in one place you last about 5 seconds.

The best runs you'll have is fire one way, move the other. Throw a grenade one way, fire the opposite so he runs into the grenade. This works wonders in woodland. Fire three times over a ridge wildly, and then move so he expects you to be there still, and take him out from the side. I've gone through squad after squad of players like this before running out of ammo.

You get the idea. Move always, even if its at them but preferred to the side or double back around them. Light infantry looks stylish I will be having fun! Flanking is the way to go always, unless you can get behind them, and just take your pick till someone is smart enough to wonder what is going on.

[Stardouser]

Looks like aim down sight shooting is going to win by a mile over hipfire lasers. And make no mistake, that's what this poll boils down to.

[Magnifly]

I think they mentioned somewhere that different weapons encourages different playstyles, so i guess some weapons are meant to be fired while stationary while others are more efficient while moving, presumably rifles and smg's respectively.

[goneglockin]

Looks like aim down sight shooting is going to win by a mile over hipfire lasers. And make no mistake, that's what this poll boils down to.

Because the poll is worded so majestically.

[Aaron]

Well, you can choose to move, stand, or crouch; but for the most DPS, you need to hit your shots. Being stationary helps you hit those shots. In real life, you'd probably lose a lot of accuracy if you shot while moving. Of course, I think you could move around a lot more in close combat. For close encounters, I'd say move left and right while you burst shots at the head. For long range, you'll definitely have to stabilize your fire.

[Hypevosa]

See, I'm all for slowed movement when ADS, but I still want there to be no twitching by having rotational speed be highly limited when ADS.

[EVILPIG]

ADADAD was effective in Planetside because the Prediction Code caused warping. Also, you were firing from the hip anyways. Having the most accuracy while sighted and still is as how it should be. There will be weapons that are made to be used while more mobile, such as SMGs.

[Rbstr]

Firing from the hip shouldn't be stupid and fire in a 180* cone or something. But it also shouldn't ever be used at some semblance of range or when you have the time to aim properly.

Hip firing should be moderately effective way close up in those frantic "oh shit a dude was right around the corner" situations, especially with shotguns, SMGs, pistols and the hip-held HA (which are surely designed for this kind of thing). It should be pretty shit with most of the variations of rifles, LMG and other long weapons.

[wasdie]

Personally, I would rather it be more like the pace of Battlefield 3 than Unreal Tournament.

The large, open environments and lack of bunny hopping and verticallity of the levels puts more emphasis on teamwork and tactics and less on twitch based skill.

I want there to be distinct differences in the weapons. SMGs would be good for moving quick and firing from the hip while assault rifles and heavier weapons are naturally slower. I want there to be fields of fire and the ability to win firefights by simply putting more lead down range than your enemy. This promotes people working together and not lonewolfing trying to get a high K/D.

If the engineers are able to build cover and turrets to set up FoBs and defensive positions, full twitch based gameplay would completely negate these positions and thus make them useless. Why would you want to take cover behind something if you have to be running around in circles constantly?

[Rumblepit]

Makes sense...I was gonna say in the OP "or maybe the testers just suck and don't A/D keyboard move" :D


a/d combat wont be very viable in ps2 , the strafe has been slowed down alot.
ttk is fine the way it is, i come from modern shooters and i know this wont a issue if they add features that allow the player to shoot from cover without exposing himself to much, or get to cover really fast when being shot at.

from what i saw in all the gameplay footage the combat is very1 dimensional ,players have limited options when fired upon, also that the transition from cover to fire is way to slow and exposes the player to much.

lets say your pinned down by more then one person, happens all the time, and will happen in ps2.your behind a box/ creat/rock/whatever guys are moving toward you, what options do you have?... well i can inch over to the left or i can inch over to the right exposing myself before i can shoot, then end up dead 9 time out of 10 because your limited to what you can do from cover.

k lets say your at the same rock/tree/box and a few guys are moving in on your location, if we had a feature like lean then you can fire from the left or right side very fast and snap back in for cover when you need it. but with lean you have added more dimension to the combat. you can move out shoot from the left and right, you can crouch down and lean from the left and right, you can stand and lean to the left and to the right. 1 feature,same scenario would give the player 4x as many options. this feature tends togo hand in hand with most games that have hit boxes/headshots. also allows players to use cover and fire from cover in a effective manner. but the down side is if you stick your head out while leaning and leave it out there just long enough somebody gonna shoot it off. look at some of the gamplay footage and see how long it takes them to move from cover to fire ,and fire back to cover.
this will be a issue............


being shot at in the open ????? well your dead, thats all there is to it. there are no features in game that allow infantry to evade fire/damage. a/d is not viable you will get your head shot off. this is is a must!!!!!!!! when the ttk is this fast players need to have a way to evade. im open to anything that allows players to react fast and give them a chance when caught off guard or out in the open. a feature that ive seen and used was a roll. let say your in a base and a enmy jump jets behind you. your dead thats it , time to repsawn. if there is a feature to avoid/evade this would be different ,and give the person who just got jumped a chance.... first shot fired would cause you to roll for cover or roll to evade the shots inc. then you have a chance. and this is big, players have to be given a chance, if jumped .... but when ive seen and used this feature and in all the games it was in, while in the roll animation you have a 75% chance to get headshotted.

ps2 looks like a work of art, and it should not have basic 1 dimensional combat like these old fps games.

[lawnmower]

Personally, I would rather it be more like the pace of Battlefield 3 than Unreal Tournament.

The large, open environments and lack of bunny hopping and verticallity of the levels puts more emphasis on teamwork and tactics and less on twitch based skill.

I want there to be distinct differences in the weapons. SMGs would be good for moving quick and firing from the hip while assault rifles and heavier weapons are naturally slower. I want there to be fields of fire and the ability to win firefights by simply putting more lead down range than your enemy. This promotes people working together and not lonewolfing trying to get a high K/D.

If the engineers are able to build cover and turrets to set up FoBs and defensive positions, full twitch based gameplay would completely negate these positions and thus make them useless. Why would you want to take cover behind something if you have to be running around in circles constantly?

games like quake are aimbased not twitch. it often takes a long time to kill someone (depending on many factors, the game ACTUALLY has depth).
counterstrike would probably be the most twitchbased aiming game there is, at least among the wellknown ones.

[The Kush]

I would prefer the shooting style to be more like halo/ps1 not bf3/cod like it is now. Quit dumbing down the game it takes more skill to hit moving target and that makes the game more fun

[ArmedZealot]

Worst poll ever.

[Rbstr]

So, requiring people to think about the trade off of aiming vs running and gunning is "dumbed down" compared to Halo-style run around and shoot?

Different skills sets are not the same thing as dumbed own.
It's like calling chess dumbed down checkers because the Queen can move anywhere.

[ringring]

The thing I am wondering about is:

will faster ttk ironically slow down the pace of the game?

I mean, in ps now if you go around that corner over there there might be an enemy there, but if there is you have a fairly good chance of winning out and while first shot is important (after triple shot was removed) you can still win ....

Now, with shorter ttk, first shot will be more important added to this, no 3rd person so you can't peek first.

I suppose the alternative (bad outcome) is that it encourages "rush, charge, die, spawn" rinse+repeat

[captainkapautz]

I suppose the alternative (bad outcome) is that it encourages "rush, charge, die, spawn" rinse+repeat

Not anymore than PS1 did.

[ringring]

Not anymore than PS1 did.

It's funny but it's often the opposite that people complained about in PS1, ie people wouldn't push the stairways for fear of being killed.

And that is the nub of my question.

Speaking for myself .... if ttk's are quicker and I suspect an enemy is around the corner I'd wait for him to expose himself first (or her). The shorter the ttk the more likely I think I'd wait. ... ... The person with patience wins, kind of thing.

[Talek Krell]

The extent to which it is not appropriate to draw these conclusions from the very short, very pre-alpha footage we have been given boggles the mind almost as much as the wording of this poll.

[The noob]

The extent to which it is not appropriate to draw these conclusions from the very short, very pre-alpha footage we have been given boggles the mind almost as much as the wording of this poll.

Agreed, it's very difficult to really judge the gunplay and gameplay and how playstyles will revolve around it from just watching it, especially when you only have people running around aimlessly shooting each other. The only sure-fire way of knowing, is to play it ourselves, and see how the mechanics feel.

[Stew]

So I been comparing this game for killzone 2 for a while...One thing they have in common is the fact how stationary targets are when they shoot.



All the planetside 2 footage shows people standing shooting at eachother or just moving forward shooting.


I don't see people moving side to side at all which is something the original planetside had and a couple of other games futuristic games have....

I guess it can be attributed to lower TTK but other games like COD(inb4 the elitist) that have way lower ttk, actually have alot of side movement and overall movement when shooting.


So do you guys like this minimal movement when shooting?....I guess it means accuracy is very important so is not good to move and shoot....It could also mean that the A and D movement keys move slow to either right or left direction.


I like killzone 2 so is not a big problem for me but knowing how Planetside 1 was, with people moving side to side when they shot....it kind of makes me think if it will be best if their was more movement.




Cliff notes

A and D key movements seem non existant in planetside 2
W and S key movements seem to be very minimal

The thing u must understand is that people who act like (( stationary )) target are some QA or Dev who are NOOBS at FPS games !

Lets take a player like higby or some few onthers in the team and they will not be free kill stationary target The Noobs not mooving target are people who play like thats its not a limitation of the game mechanics its a player limitation ;) And BTW killzone 2 and 3 was a very fast pace game for those who was good at it !
[3D] Killzone 3 Multiplayer Gameplay HD - YouTube

Skills limitation Not game mechanics ones ;)

[captainkapautz]

Speaking for myself .... if ttk's are quicker and I suspect an enemy is around the corner I'd wait for him to expose himself first (or her). The shorter the ttk the more likely I think I'd wait. ... ... The person with patience wins, kind of thing.

As long as we're granted enough tactical tools, like flashbang, smokegrenades, maybe deployable shields, etc. it should be fine.

[Toppopia]

As long as we're granted enough tactical tools, like flashbang, smokegrenades, maybe deployable shields, etc. it should be fine.

Hmm, we havn't heard anything about that kind of stuff... I hope we can use flash bangs, allows an awesome squad style breaching and entering a base with flash bangs in every room. I can imagine it now. But then everyone will complain about it in some way or another.

[captainkapautz]

We have actually, IIRC Higby mentioned different grenades, namedropped atleast emp (jammer), also said about maybe making some of 'em classspecific, like emp being engineer and infiltrator only.

[mynameismud]

its topics like these that make me glad we wont be making these decisions. seriously...this topic makes me sad.

[Rumblepit]

2 other things to take into consideration,

weapon mods being the first. players will be able to increase a weapons rof if the choose to sacrifice accuracy. this being the case you will probably see many light assaults with smgs hip shooting while on the move.this will be a very effective tactic because,,, here the second, when games have cof and recoil based combat the guns cof is effected very little while moving. the skill in shooting while on the move with these features comes from controlling your recoil ,leading your target and compensating for his movements,yours, and bullet drop. once mastered people can rush ftw. but thats if you favor this style of combat. im no point man, and i dont like cqc fights so this wont be for me. but im guessing alot of the ps1 vets will pick up this tactic because it will be the closes thing to ps1 combat.

[goneglockin]

So, requiring people to think about the trade off of aiming vs running and gunning is "dumbed down" compared to Halo-style run around and shoot?

Different skills sets are not the same thing as dumbed own.
It's like calling chess dumbed down checkers because the Queen can move anywhere.

Right on. Old skool shooters required you be able to walk and chew gum, to move and shoot as one.

Consolization of shooters decided walking and chewing gum was too much for your average xbawks gamer. And so here we are today, with people actually discussing the modern shooter like it's anything but a complete joke and using phrases for game mechanics that should be banned from video game forums such as "in real life."

Honestly makes my blood boil. People have no frame of reference any more/don't remember what made shooting games fun in the first place. I find them pretty boring now on average. Not competitive at all.

[Checowsky]

I'm no fan of this no movement shooting business, I prefer lots of movement in combat to keep a nice flow going rather than 'stop to shoot one guy, get shot while doing it' which I imagine will happen a lot in an MMO....

Either way I don't think this will stop that gameplay style at all. PS1 awarded people who crouched and didn't move all the time, your CoF would go huge if you moved with certain guns but that stopped no-one from doing it. I don't think changing the system will stop it happening at all, but I think a system built around it would be much more fun.

[AlienTwentyFour]

I think it should be a lil faster. You should definately get penalized for moving while shooting. I say a slight accuracy deduction is in order.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the videos when the devs and TotalHalibut were sprinting, I didn't see them shooting while sprinting. So I think the this means you can't run fast and shoot at the same time.

[Bromaxulon]

Right on. Old skool shooters required you be able to walk and chew gum, to move and shoot as one.

Consolization of shooters decided walking and chewing gum was too much for your average xbawks gamer. And so here we are today, with people actually discussing the modern shooter like it's anything but a complete joke and using phrases for game mechanics that should be banned from video game forums such as "in real life."

Honestly makes my blood boil. People have no frame of reference any more/don't remember what made shooting games fun in the first place. I find them pretty boring now on average. Not competitive at all.

The whole realism thing stems from suspension of disbelief, if objects in your game act like they do in RL then it is easier to maintain the immersion factor.

Secondly, the games that you used to run and gun in( ie unreal tourney.. One of my favorites.. I have many though ) had weapons that lacked recoil. So with more modern shooters the shooting skill set moves from tracking a target with a lot of z axis movement to controlling you weapon. Both are challenging in their own right, but I personally prefer the newer version, weapons are more visceral an provide better player feedback when fired making them more immersive. It feels more like your firing a weapon rather then having God beams blast out of your forehead.

Long story short/comment on thread theme... The changes from lower ttk to what have you don't dumb down games, they simply require different twitch styles and tactical considerations.

No recoil jumpy madness vs I wanna be an armc chair soldier.... Both fun / need different approaches.

[Blackwolf]

I don't think it's that big a change, or even one that exists.

HA weapons weren't in the game yet, it was all AR stuff. Once you start seeing the low accuracy weapons get into it more, you'll see more twitchy run and gun tactics at close quarters.

How often did anyone run and gun with MA weapons in PS1? Not very, and they typically ended up dead. Meanwhile standing still for HA combat isn't advisable and likely isn't possible in PS1, unless your target hasn't seen you yet, or your at longer range. It was usually done at such close quarters that your best defense was rapid movement, and accuracy wasn't as big an issue at that range.

So I wouldn't call this a change of pace just yet.

[Dreamcast]

When people fought with Medium range weapons in Planetside....They did move to the sides at least, especially if it was one vs one....Nobody stood still like in Planetside 2.


Also for people thinking this is hipfire vs Aimfire....Not at all, Their is games where you can use iron sights and still move fast side to side...so is not that.


It could be that accuracy is severly effected...moving side to side is slow as hell...or the devs arn't that great FPS as somebody already mentioned.

[Rbstr]

Right on. Old skool shooters required you be able to walk and chew gum, to move and shoot as one.

Consolization of shooters decided walking and chewing gum was too much for your average xbawks gamer. And so here we are today, with people actually discussing the modern shooter like it's anything but a complete joke and using phrases for game mechanics that should be banned from video game forums such as "in real life."

Honestly makes my blood boil. People have no frame of reference any more/don't remember what made shooting games fun in the first place. I find them pretty boring now on average. Not competitive at all.

What the fuck ever. Halo is run and gun and that's nearly the definitive "xbawx" game. BF2, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat Source all have sight mechanics and no console port at all. ADS is not a console vs. pc mechanic.

The only thing "wrong" with it is that you don't like it. And you use the same old tired argument that every codger resistant to change: It's not the way it used to be.
Go play TF2 or something if you want to bounce around.

[ArmedZealot]

What the fuck ever. Halo is run and gun and that's nearly the definitive "xbawx" game. BF2, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat Source all have sight mechanics and no console port at all. ADS is not a console vs. pc mechanic.

I've got to agree here on this one. If your going to justify mechanics, do it without degrading a large potential audience. Don't forget that PS2 will be the only one of it's kind to compete against not just other FPS's but console FPS's as well.

Halo also had a solid combat experience. Everything about the animations and gunplay in that game can be called solid. I'd be excited to see PS2 match up to that.

But when it comes down to it, for PS2 to succeed it's going to have to have an intense and deep combat experience with infantry. If we are going to compare PS2 to BF3/COD, we have to be able to say that it is BF3/COD+++. The best way would be to say "It's everything that BF3/COD is in the gunplay but on a whole other level, and with that you have the scale and vehicle options of actual war."'

If this can be accomplished with a high TTK or a low TTK I don't really care, but it is going to have to be done to allow players to grow to fit a large skill envelope. Not only this but it also has to allow for players of lower skill to at least be useful on the field.

Do we do this by making players fast and giving guns a large COF to make dodging and ducking important? Do we slow things down and lower players health to make positioning more important? How many tactical tools can we give the player to make use of during the actual fight? I don't really care. I play tribes: a which I love to death, so I'd vote to make players fast, with a ton of health, and have plenty of things for the player to juggle while still keeping his sights on the enemy. Don't just have rock/paper/sissors between classes, give each class rock/paper/sissors/boxknife/shovel against the same class. If SOE decides to take another route I'd support them as long as they make it deep and fun.

I'm not even going to bother answering this poll. The answers are loaded as shit.

[Dreamcast]

I dont see the whole console vs PC moving competition u guys are talking about.


I know games where moving is very fast, halo,COD,etc on console and games on PC where moving is very fast quake,unreal tournament,etc


Also games where moving is quite slow on both pc and console....so this has nothing to do with that.

What this has to with it, is the developers aim of the game.

[SKYeXile]

If movement speed is low, then yes they do dumb down games. If you die in 1 or 2 shots, you won't have time to fight back or turn the tables. If movement speed is low, then even people with slow brains will be able to keep up. It becomes a game of whoever sees the other guy first wins. The best way to make sure that you see the other guy first is to walk fixed routes, or camp. Trying to escape becomes harder and harder, fights last shorter and shorter, leaving less and less room for playing strategically.

Glockin is right, this became the dominant type of shooter when consoles became huge, because it accommodates joysticks much better.

yea, fast TTK in an MMO...its going to run into problems.

IMO while movement should be fast and fluid, TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

[The noob]

While slightly unrelated (to the topic at hand), in regards to the TTK, higby already replied to someone else that they are still tuning the damage, and that had TB come another day, he may have played with the exact opposite, with the TTK being too high.

[MacXXcaM]

TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

This pretty much sums up what I think about it.

[Toppopia]

yea, fast TTK in an MMO...its going to run into problems.

IMO while movement should be fast and fluid, TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

Ah less, the times i would yell when you see someone round a corner, pump 10 bullets into their face, then die, and see they lost no health... Annoying times indead... Because i live in New Zealand, i have high pings and enemies kill me almost before i have rounded the corner.. Then i yell HACKS!!! at my poor TV.

[Marinealver]

Then light assault would be useless lol.

Okay for ground combat.

Light assault will need SMG, short range high rate of fire average to mediocure accuracy. Basicly spray and prey. Their mobility will make up for any lack of weapon range.

The Heavy Assault will be having Squad Automatic Weapons, Sniper Rifles or Anti Vehicle Weapons, they are the more static fighters.

Infiltraitors only need a pistol and a knife :). Hey the REAL recon guys do pack light. Moves faster and mobility and timing over firepower.

Everyone else should get a decient Rifle good at medium to long range. Okay at close quaters though a shotgun should also be an option if some close range punch is needed.

MAXs Well they are you mobile Machine Guns, Anti Vehicle and Man Portible Air Defence. Though I wouldn't mind if they had say a bash or some type of meele attack for those lone gunners who would want to circle jerk a MAX and shoot it in the back.

[wasdie]

I would prefer the shooting style to be more like halo/ps1 not bf3/cod like it is now. Quit dumbing down the game it takes more skill to hit moving target and that makes the game more fun

"dumbing down the game"

Ignorant, that's all that thought is. You sound stupidly ignorant and closed minded. That's the problem with gamer's today, and a lot of them on this board. It was always better when we were younger, when games were simpler, when they were more "difficult" in their eyes. Completely ignoring the fact that you've gotten better at games and games now require different skillsets, not just the same crap as they did 10 years ago.

Yet no, you can't think like that, to damn logical. No, it's dumbed down and it's all everybody elses fault.

Everybody else "dumbed down" without thinking of the larger picture. A person who applies the same skills they employ while playing CS to a game like BF3 is utterly destroyed.

[Stardouser]

It was always better when we were younger, when games were simpler, when they were more "difficult" in their eyes.

Some people, and devs, think that just because something is new, that it's an evolution. This is not true, especially when we're talking about 4th wall breaking aid from the game such as killcam, 3D spotting, etc.

As for ADS vs hipfire lasers, neither of them is, objectively, the wrong decision. ADS isn't better or worse just because it's new and because way back in the day, the first shooters like Doom used pure twitch gameplay; it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

[ArmedZealot]

it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

While BF3 and COD have sold more copies than any other game I doubt games like Tribes: A, and Counter Strike could be considered financial flops.

But this is all besides the point, the devs have already implemented ADS, not only this but they are basing their side grade and customization shop around it. The only thing we should be arguing is how often it is used and where it should be used.

[wasdie]

Some people, and devs, think that just because something is new, that it's an evolution. This is not true, especially when we're talking about 4th wall breaking aid from the game such as killcam, 3D spotting, etc.

As for ADS vs hipfire lasers, neither of them is, objectively, the wrong decision. ADS isn't better or worse just because it's new and because way back in the day, the first shooters like Doom used pure twitch gameplay; it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

ADS is more than just popular, it changes the pace and perspective of the entire game. It's a solid gameplay choice for a team based shooter.

[Stardouser]

More specifically on-topic, I don't like being slowed down and I don't like sight aiming. It's not like I can't get used to it or won't enjoy the game at all because of it, but I think there are superior options. An extra weapon slot for each class with a short-range weapon that doesn't require you to slow down or aim down sights would be one of them.

Shotguns! Though with everyone wearing armor, it would have to be some kind of futuristic and more powerful equivalent.

PS1 has shotguns doesn't it? But it's a short step from shotguns to shotguns with 1 hit kill slugs and slug sniping...

[Dreamcast]

Some people, and devs, think that just because something is new, that it's an evolution. This is not true, especially when we're talking about 4th wall breaking aid from the game such as killcam, 3D spotting, etc.

As for ADS vs hipfire lasers, neither of them is, objectively, the wrong decision. ADS isn't better or worse just because it's new and because way back in the day, the first shooters like Doom used pure twitch gameplay; it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

I think a bunch of you are missing the point....We are talking about movement in game!


First of all it isn't ADS vs hipfire....That isn't the subject.

Why?...Because COD is ADS and you have fast movement..If ttk for COD wasn't low it will be like quake with iron sites (im exaggerating but it will be non stop moving action)...Unlike planetside 2 where you stand and shoot.


Planetside 2 could still have Iron Sights and have more movement.


As for hip fires being financial suicide LMFAO....no dude just no.....tell that to halo and many other games that do that.

[Stardouser]

It is an issue of ADS vs hipfire. Or, let's say this : If CoD allows you to strafe quickly while ADS, then we have to look at that specifically, and I at least don't want that, either, any more than I want hipfire to be fully accurate. When ADS you should be reduced to a slow step in any direction. And if you do want fast movement, it should come with a heavily penalized cone of fire while doing it. Game mechanics should be about more about firing from cover than from a fast strafe - again, in my opinion.

I don't play CoD but if it allows fast movement while ADS then that's an example of how we shouldn't try to mix Quake into this kind of game.

[Toppopia]

It is an issue of ADS vs hipfire. Or, let's say this : If CoD allows you to strafe quickly while ADS, then we have to look at that specifically, and I at least don't want that, either, any more than I want hipfire to be fully accurate. When ADS you should be reduced to a slow step in any direction. And if you do want fast movement, it should come with a heavily penalized cone of fire while doing it. Game mechanics should be about more about firing from cover than from a fast strafe - again, in my opinion.

I don't play CoD but if it allows fast movement while ADS then that's an example of how we shouldn't try to mix Quake into this kind of game.

In Modern Warfare 3, you could get a perk that let you move faster while in ADS which i always used, best perk ever, at least allowed me to stop losing to hip firing noobs from the time it takes to pull the gun to my face, where as now i can keep the gun to face at all times. Made that game much more fun for me. If this game had a cover/lean system, then that would promote using cover, but since using cover is really hard without, you are better strafing the enemy because it lowers their chance of hitting you while you keep your sights on the enemy because he isn't moving. But if there is lots of awesome cover filled areas, like waist high walls where i can crouch and be safe, then stand and still be mostly protected. Then cover will be good.

[Dreamcast]

It is an issue of ADS vs hipfire. Or, let's say this : If CoD allows you to strafe quickly while ADS, then we have to look at that specifically, and I at least don't want that, either, any more than I want hipfire to be fully accurate. When ADS you should be reduced to a slow step in any direction. And if you do want fast movement, it should come with a heavily penalized cone of fire while doing it. Game mechanics should be about more about firing from cover than from a fast strafe - again, in my opinion.

I don't play CoD but if it allows fast movement while ADS then that's an example of how we shouldn't try to mix Quake into this kind of game.

Im not that sure about COD...i think iron sights might slow a person down but is still like 5x faster than Planetside 2...in planetside 2 they stand shooting at eachother.

I don't see whats the probelm with moving fast with iron sights...and I don't see why u compare it to quake...Obviously if SOE where to put more movement it wouldn't be that fast.


The way I see it faster movement with iron sights wouldn't break the game....and hip fire will still be very usefull in close combats since using iron sights when somebody is 4 feet away sucks since the person can just run around you.

[Stardouser]

But if there is lots of awesome cover filled areas, like waist high walls where i can crouch and be safe, then stand and still be mostly protected. Then cover will be good.

There better be, due to the decision to not have prone!

Im not that sure about COD...i think iron sights might slow a person down but is still like 5x faster than Planetside 2...in planetside 2 they stand shooting at eachother.

I don't see whats the probelm with moving fast with iron sights...and I don't see why u compare it to quake...Obviously if SOE where to put more movement it wouldn't be that fast.


The way I see it faster movement with iron sights wouldn't break the game....and hip fire will still be very usefull in close combats since using iron sights when somebody is 4 feet away sucks since the person can just run around you.

Thus far in PS2 it's been alpha testers, too small to bother playing tactically. I think the idea in all out combat will be : Squad moves and takes cover on the way to the target, 5 move while 5 suppress fire, then they move up, rinse and repeat.

Hipfire or fast moving ADS would result in no need for that and all 10 would just run at the base strafing on the way lol...

[DayOne]

You should have to aim down sight to properly kill someone from a distance. Running and either hip firing or ADS'ing and firing should be used only to suppress the enemy while you move to cover. This is assuming there is some sort of suppression system (not BF3). Something that makes you think "oh s**t, i should hide, there's bullets flying at my face".

Re-birthing is great but I bet bullets still hurt!

Just my two cents.

Quick edit: ADS should still put the bullets where the sight is pointing at ALL times. But when moving the gun itself should bounce about making accurate fire difficult.

[Toppopia]

You should have to aim down sight to properly kill someone from a distance. Running and either hip firing or ADS'ing and firing should be used only to suppress the enemy while you move to cover. This is assuming there is some sort of suppression system (not BF3). Something that makes you think "oh s**t, i should hide, there's bullets flying at my face".

Re-birthing is great but I bet bullets still hurt!

Just my two cents.

I do hope there is a suppressing system, like really inaccurate fire when suppressed, then i will finally have another reason to use a LMG type weapon.

[Stardouser]

Quick edit: ADS should still put the bullets where the sight is pointing at ALL times. But when moving the gun itself should bounce about making accurate fire difficult.

Honestly, perfect cone of fire aka random deviation is when if moving/not ADS, but cut to zero when stopped and ADS. But honestly? The only reason it's random is because the animation of the gun swaying from your movement doesn't match the bullet pattern. If the animation matched so that you could see, due to your movement, that the gun is swaying, people wouldn't complain about it being random even though it's the same result!

[Xyntech]

Making a game of pS2's style without including the option of ADS would probably be bad. Maybe not suicide, but why leave out a popular feature that a lot of your fan base will expect?

There is a big difference between ADS being mandatory for reliably hitting someone at 30m and ADS being mandatory for reliably hitting someone at 100m+. They can strike a nice middle ground, where PS1 players who want to hip fire can do so most of the time, and players who obsessively ADS can do so at 20m if they for some reason want to.

Both can be well accommodated without disenfranchising anyone in the process.

[DayOne]

Honestly, perfect cone of fire aka random deviation is when if moving/not ADS, but cut to zero when stopped and ADS. But honestly? The only reason it's random is because the animation of the gun swaying from your movement doesn't match the bullet pattern. If the animation matched so that you could see, due to your movement, that the gun is swaying, people wouldn't complain about it being random even though it's the same result!

Yes. It's the fact you have a rough idea of where the bullet will actually end up that would be good!

I do hope there is a suppressing system, like really inaccurate fire when suppressed, then i will finally have another reason to use a LMG type weapon.

I said NOT like BF3. Just a visual (blur) and sound (loud) that makes you, as a player, panic rather than pretending that you are by making you inaccurate.

Even a hip fire CoF increase and a lot more sway on you gun as you ADS would be okay. It causes inaccuracy but not in a BS way.

Also cool down on suppression effects should be very short so you would need sustained fire to keep someone under suppression.

[Stardouser]

Yes. It's the fact you have a rough idea of where the bullet will actually end up that would be good!



I said NOT like BF3. Just a visual (blur) and sound (loud) that makes you, as a player, panic rather than pretending that you are by making you inaccurate.

Even a hip fire CoF increase and a lot more sway on you gun as you ADS would be okay. It causes inaccuracy but not in a BS way.

Also cool down on suppression effects should be very short so you would need sustained fire to keep someone under suppression.

This. NO BF3 suppression, that would be apocalyptic. If we MUST have a suppression mechanic, the blur should be extremely light, and the workhorse portion of the blur mechanic should be enhanced sound of bullets whizzing by, letting you know just how close they are.

Note that one of the reason(in my opinion) that BF3 uses the suppression that it does instead of sound is because the ambient sound the game uses for immersion purposes drowns out everything else. I also believe that to be the reason for the hated audio spotting, in BF2 you can judge shot direction by sound but ambient so-called "immersive" sound in BF3 drowns it out to where you can't.

[Rbstr]

If it's just sound it's not going to suppress anyone. It's just good sound effects.
And that's fine by me.

If you want people to care about the sound of bullets coming close gunfire has to be deadly enough that you're actually worried about a bullet hitting your exposed dome.

I don't know how you've broken directional sound in BF3, but I can hear where suppressed shooters are shooting from, regular guns are no issue.
And that's the point of the "sound spot" - to give silencers a more powerful ability.

As far as cone of fire...I've always found it to suck. I'd prefer a deviation that stays constant and quasi-random bumping. DoD:S did with some COF expansion. Whatever they do, it looks stupid when bullets come out of a barrel at odd angles.

[Stardouser]

I disagree, sound is suppressive, especially if they are more intense the closer they are to you.

With that said, if that IS why they have audio spotting it's bad; audio spotting is an extreme casualization. People don't even have to spot enemies in that case. Creating that casualization just to give value to suppressors is wrong. Audio spotting should have not been created and suppressors would be just to cut the sound.

And, I'm actually talking about snipers. BF2 it was quite easy to tell sniper shot direction. It's not so in BF3.

[DayOne]

I personally really like the system from MAG. You get a white bar up on your reticule like direction of damage but it's for when an enemy is firing.

Also it comes up yellow if those bullets are coming towards you.

[Toppopia]

Yes. It's the fact you have a rough idea of where the bullet will actually end up that would be good!



I said NOT like BF3. Just a visual (blur) and sound (loud) that makes you, as a player, panic rather than pretending that you are by making you inaccurate.

Even a hip fire CoF increase and a lot more sway on you gun as you ADS would be okay. It causes inaccuracy but not in a BS way.

Also cool down on suppression effects should be very short so you would need sustained fire to keep someone under suppression.

I would like that, but... some people don't understand the concept of "Oh god, i am being shot, must hide and stay there till they stop shooting."

I have shot continuously at people before, but they still come out of cover while i am shooting and kill me, because they moved 1 metre away from my bullets and had no negative effect from me firing at him. I want a system that makes suppressing possible, i would like your way if it worked, but from what i have experienced, even in BF3, i am suppressing a target and he can still shoot me or doesn't react like he should. So if people reacted properly to the situation then i wouldn't want to add weird effects, but since they don't, we have to force them to react by giving them bad effects.

[ArmedZealot]

I would like that, but... some people don't understand the concept of "Oh god, i am being shot, must hide and stay there till they stop shooting."

I have shot continuously at people before, but they still come out of cover while i am shooting and kill me, because they moved 1 metre away from my bullets and had no negative effect from me firing at him. I want a system that makes suppressing possible, i would like your way if it worked, but from what i have experienced, even in BF3, i am suppressing a target and he can still shoot me or doesn't react like he should. So if people reacted properly to the situation then i wouldn't want to add weird effects, but since they don't, we have to force them to react by giving them bad effects.

All of this sounds like a bad idea. The only thing that should keep me in cover when I am being shot at is the fear of death. In PS2 there is no reason for soldiers to be afraid of death.

[Toppopia]

All of this sounds like a bad idea. The only thing that should keep me in cover when I am being shot at is the fear of death. In PS2 there is no reason for soldiers to be afraid of death.

But then whats the point of LMG's?? :confused:

[ArmedZealot]

But then whats the point of LMG's?? :confused:

To put a lot of large rounds down range?

[Toppopia]

To put a lot of large rounds down range?

Are there actually going to be LMG's? Or are they just assault rifles with drum magazines?

[SKYeXile]

Are there actually going to be LMG's? Or are they just assault rifles with drum magazines?

nah they'e firing bigger rounds with a worse COF.

[ArmedZealot]

Are there actually going to be LMG's? Or are they just assault rifles with drum magazines?

Well there are going to be MCG empire equivalents. Those for all intents and purposes are LMG's. Their point is to kill many people quickly.

[Toppopia]

Well there are going to be MCG empire equivalents. Those for all intents and purposes are LMG's. Their point is to kill many people quickly.

Sorry to be naive, but what is a MCG?

[ArmedZealot]

Sorry to be naive, but what is a MCG?

Mini chain gun. The TR HA from PS1.

[Toppopia]

Mini chain gun. The TR HA from PS1.

Oh.. that will be fun to use :evil:

[Graywolves]

Fear of death is replaced by fear of poor K/D

[ArmedZealot]

Fear of death is replaced by fear of poor K/D

Pretty much. This is why I want K/D ratios to remain visible in the game.

Only players that care will stay in cover and cower.

[SKYeXile]

Well there are going to be MCG empire equivalents. Those for all intents and purposes are LMG's. Their point is to kill many people quickly.

umm, may have misread this.

to clarify
but LMG=/= HA (AKA: MCG, jackerhammer and Lasher???)

as we know the Heavy assault class can use alot of weapons, what we know is that.

they can use an LMG: these are close to midrage, sustained fire weapons
then can then use AV weapons.
they also then have the option to use heavy AI hip slung weapons, the MCG and predictably the lasher and JH, when these weapons are used, you cannot use AV in your second holster.

I believe they also mentioned SA for for the heavy assault class.

Also, K/D is meaningless, too many factors to determine it as an accurite measure of skill, eg: class, playstyle, who you group with etc. its meaningless. I say this as a complete and utter stat whore.

[ArmedZealot]

umm, may have misread this.

to clarify
but LMG=/= HA (AKA: MCG, jackerhammer and Lasher???)

as we know the Heavy assault class can use alot of weapons, what we know is that.

they can use an LMG: these are close to midrage, sustained fire weapons
then can then use AV weapons.
they also then have the option to use heavy AI hip slung weapons, the MCG and predictably the lasher and JH, when these weapons are used, you cannot use AV in your second holster.

I believe they also mentioned SA for for the heavy assault class.

Also, K/D is meaningless, too many factors to determine it as an accurite measure of skill, eg: class, playstyle, who you group with etc. its meaningless. I say this as a complete and utter stat whore.

Sweeeeetttt. More variety!

They still haven't put up news releases on these weapons have they?

[DayOne]

How about a flinching mechanic if you get shot? Like CoD i guess but a bit more severe, so you feel the effects of it a few seconds after. This would prevent you from running straight at an enemy while shooting and if you did it's unlikely you will kill them.

This does kind of prevent you from being able to turn on an enemy but it makes you either:
A) run to cover and return fire effectively
B) not run around blind corners like a moron

[ArmedZealot]

How about a flinching mechanic if you get shot? Like CoD i guess but a bit more severe, so you feel the effects of it a few seconds after. This would prevent you from running straight at an enemy while shooting and if you did it's unlikely you will kill them.

This does kind of prevent you from being able to turn on an enemy but it makes you either:
A) run to cover and return fire effectively
B) not run around blind corners like a moron

I shouldn't run around blind corners like a moron because I might die and cease to be useful. Not because of some BS mechanic to reward who shoots first.

[DayOne]

I shouldn't run around blind corners like a moron because I might die and cease to be useful. Not because of some BS mechanic to reward who shoots first.

Yeah. That's the issue. Is there any mechanic that both encourages not being shot AND not being BS? (beside ArmA style super high TTK)

[ArmedZealot]

Yeah. That's the issue. Is there any mechanic that both encourages not being shot AND not being BS? (beside ArmA style super high TTK)

Yes. Being shot.

[SKYeXile]

Sweeeeetttt. More variety!

They still haven't put up news releases on these weapons have they?

i dont think we have seen a confirmed picture of the JH or Lasher.

we have seen the MCG. but i dont think inaction.

this is the only info on the mcg, plus what i said earlier.

The Mini Chaingun's high rate of fire and belt-fed ammunition system makes it the strongest close range weapon in the Terran Republic's arsenal. This extreme effectiveness comes at high weight cost though, making reinforced power armor a must for wielding it efficiently.

that does say effectively, so it maybe usable with other classes(we have seen it equipped on a light assault) butpresumably it would make its COF extremely large or have a smaller clip...i could continue speculation...but i wont.

[SixShooter]

In regards to the OP - In the TB vid @ around 16:23 he takes down a jump jetter using ADS. While he is in ADS he is also sidestepping and back stepping while he takes him down. I really don't think that the movement is as slow as everyone thinks it is. He's certainly not standing in one spot since he seems to cover a fair distance in the 2 or 3 seconds that he's shooting.

Ok actually he starts without ADS and then goes in to it to finish him but he is moving the whole time.

[CutterJohn]

Considering there are different weapons and mods, they can frankly just tweak this already on a class/weapon basis. Certain weapons can and should be more twitch, run n gun oriented. The MCG types, which obviously have no sights to aim down, or SMGs with laser sights, etc.

The classes too. Light assault should be more about run n gun, while heavy is more about being slower and aiming.

Really I don't see why both styles can't coexist.

that does say effectively, so it maybe usable with other classes(we have seen it equipped on a light assault) butpresumably it would make its COF extremely large or have a smaller clip...i could continue speculation...but i wont.

Limitations like that would definitely be preferable to blanket prohibitions. I'd love it if they eventually transition back to allowing any class to use any weapon/tool, just with specific drawbacks to balance out OP combos. Like the sniper + Jump troop getting into weird positions thing.. Well, you just can't jump as high, and have less ammo, since its heavy.

[SKYeXile]

Considering there are different weapons and mods, they can frankly just tweak this already on a class/weapon basis. Certain weapons can and should be more twitch, run n gun oriented. The MCG types, which obviously have no sights to aim down, or SMGs with laser sights, etc.

The classes too. Light assault should be more about run n gun, while heavy is more about being slower and aiming.

Really I don't see why both styles can't coexist.



Limitations like that would definitely be preferable to blanket prohibitions. I'd love it if they eventually transition back to allowing any class to use any weapon/tool, just with specific drawbacks to balance out OP combos. Like the sniper + Jump troop getting into weird positions thing.. Well, you just can't jump as high, and have less ammo, since its heavy.

yea would be nice....except infils with rifles...no, just no.

[lawnmower]

ADS is more than just popular, it changes the pace and perspective of the entire game. It's a solid gameplay choice for a team based shooter.
its popular allright, decreases the skill gap between two players, perfect for the swarm of casual that has sweeped the fps genre


Ignorant, that's all that thought is. You sound stupidly ignorant and closed minded. That's the problem with gamer's today, and a lot of them on this board. It was always better when we were younger, when games were simpler, when they were more "difficult" in their eyes. Completely ignoring the fact that you've gotten better at games and games now require different skillsets, not just the same crap as they did 10 years ago.

obviously games werent simpler.
and you seem to think its impossible to play the old games today and nobody arguing has done it and accusing them of having a false memory of them.
do you want me to link you to a competetive quake match or do you want to keep claiming the games werent more difficult?
they dont require different skillsets, modern shooters still require strategic thinking and aiming (I suppose no matter how much they want and keep trying, its pretty hard eliminating those things from an fps), just at some sort of retardlevel


> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.

obviously?
and increasing ttk will increase the skill gap

While BF3 and COD have sold more copies than any other game I doubt games like Tribes: A, and Counter Strike could be considered financial flops.
CS is like the opposit of quake

[SKYeXile]

obviously?
and increasing ttk will increase the skill gap




it may between players who cant aim vs those who can(im refering to spray and prey), but with those who can react fast and those who cant it lessens it. Once you have a targets its more about predicting their movements rather than reacting to it.

[Dreamcast]

There better be, due to the decision to not have prone!



Thus far in PS2 it's been alpha testers, too small to bother playing tactically. I think the idea in all out combat will be : Squad moves and takes cover on the way to the target, 5 move while 5 suppress fire, then they move up, rinse and repeat.

Hipfire or fast moving ADS would result in no need for that and all 10 would just run at the base strafing on the way lol...


Not really....If TTK is the same....People could still take cover and kill people who strafe right or left...I mean is not like cover isn't going to work no longer just because people can move a little bit faster while shooting....Accuracy will still be best if standing still so I don't see your point of cover being useless.

Only way will be useless if is TTK is higher and your accuracy doesnt get effected while moving like in halo.....Which is not what Im saying at all.


As for your concept of hiding when firing....So far in the alpha I rarely see people taking cover...I see them standing still shooting.....so yeah, i don't see the whole supressing fire behind cover while some moves up.

[goneglockin]

What the fuck ever. Halo is run and gun and that's nearly the definitive "xbawx" game.

Wouldn't know. I never owned an xbawks.

Anyhow, there's a site out there that breaks down how many games included ADS as a feature pre-xbawks, and you can pretty much count the games on your fingers... and most of those are obscure and unpopular.

Nope, xbawks ushered in ADS as a "industry standard."

PS:

Whoever told me to give Tribes: Ascend a try, thank you. There are many things about that I find annoying, the pay to win model in particular, but all in all I am having fun. Nothing more satisfying than one shotting a flag carrier moving at 200kph with a perfectly timed bolt driver shot.

[Stardouser]

ADS doesn't decrease the skill gap, it changes the skills required. Quake style means you need the skills that relate to strafing all the time and ADS means you need situational awareness so that you don't stop and fire at a time that it will get you killed. Different skills, not a contracted skill gap.

However, there are two other issues. One, some people will fight for one style or the other because their personal skills are suited to one or the other. Two, and this is where I come in, some people just don't like one or the other. I like Quake style just fine when playing Quake, or Serious Sam, but for fighting against other players I simply prefer it when the mechanics are somewhat authentic.

[Stardouser]

Isn't ADS pretty much the same thing PS1 had called "zoom"? It just looks different but provides the same function of being able to zoom in on your target. I was just referring to the gap in TTK causing increased skill gap and that is spot on. Low TTK is just about who get's the first shot off. The higher the TTK allows maneuvering after the shot and thus prolonged aim skill comes into play.

TTK is more about bullet damage, recoil, deviation, rate of fire, hit detection, uh, and other things I can't remember. But you're right, low TTK supports who gets the first shot off, and campers(since they have both cover[usually] and are likely to see you first), whereas higher ttk emphasizes prolonged aim skill. Moderate TTK, which is what we need, allows getting the first shot to provide an advantage, but still gives people a chance to immediately dive for cover.

ADS vs quake style is about your movement. Now...if PS1's zoom caused you to slow down and walk as you were doing it, then it would be the same thing as ADS, except your soldier is not executing the animation of looking through the scope. But I don't think zooming slows your step at all, does it?

[Stardouser]

I don't agree that non-low TTK favors the hardcore gamer. First you have to define hardcore but I don't think any definition of hardcore will actually support one TTK style or another. I mean, most people would say that ArmA players are hardcore but ArmA has a low TTK. Anyway, to me hardcore primarily means how much time you put into a game, and I don't see the connection between time spent playing and TTK preference.

[MrBloodworth]

You can't compare ArmA to BF, Plantside or COD shooting models. They are like arcade toys in comparison. There are way more considerations before you even shoot. Let alone the TTK.

[Stardouser]

Ah yes, I get what you mean. Yes, low TTK decreases the skill gap, it supports spray and pray, because that way everyone can get a lucky streak here and there.

[ArmedZealot]

Ah yes, I get what you mean. Yes, low TTK decreases the skill gap, it supports spray and pray, because that way everyone can get a lucky streak here and there.

While a higher TTK also widens the skill gap I think it is important to not pull the rug out from lower skill players. There should be mechanics in the game that prevent these people from having a bad time when they are consistently outmatched in combat from higher skill players, or else they just quit and you lose a customer.

[Stardouser]

While a higher TTK also widens the skill gap I think it is important to not pull the rug out from lower skill players. There should be mechanics in the game that prevent these people from having a bad time when they are consistently outmatched in combat from higher skill players.

Personally I think there are other ways to do it than that, and not only that, some people may have lesser twitch skill but better situational awareness skills. There's also vehicles and support roles too.

But back on the topic, I personally am not looking for a high ttk, just a moderate one. Just high enough that if I am standing 2 feet away from cover, and someone 25 meters away starts spraying, that I can make it to cover alive. And to be honest, that might not be a whole lot higher than what we have now. Noticeably higher, but still not a "lot" higher.

[Pozidriv]

Personally I think there are other ways to do it than that, and not only that, some people may have lesser twitch skill but better situational awareness skills. There's also vehicles and support roles too.

But back on the topic, I personally am not looking for a high ttk, just a moderate one. Just high enough that if I am standing 2 feet away from cover, and someone 25 meters away starts spraying, that I can make it to cover alive. And to be honest, that might not be a whole lot higher than what we have now. Noticeably higher, but still not a "lot" higher.

Been lurking this thread for some time now and it got me thinking. I haven't played many "conventional" FPS games that have high TTK's, but i do remember BF:BC quite well. For a modern war FPS it had quite a high TTK, the most damaging assault rifle did a whopping 10 damage.

You could say this made ROF more powerful, since many of the guns didn't do much damage getting more shots out in a shorter time period proved to be valuable.

This also promoted firing accuracy, you could outshoot a person even when they saw you first if you were more deadly with your fire.

[ArmedZealot]

The thing is, over time as people put in more and more hours, even the guys now in favor of low TTK will probably change their tune. Then it will be too late. Like you say give enough time to evade somewhat. It may seem foreign to many who have never played higher TTK games but when you get that kill after a longer exchange, it is much more satisfying and you will have actually learned some tactical gunplay rather than spray and pray.

I can agree with this.

From the time I have spent in Tribes: A I have a ball because of the high TTK and fast pace. But T:A has a lot more to it than PS2 will be able to because of skiing.

However, in PS1 ADADADAD wasn't enough to have a good time with the high TTK. It just resulted in two players doing a *** while spamming each other. How do you change this in PS2? How do you make combat deeper?

[wasdie]

its popular allright, decreases the skill gap between two players, perfect for the swarm of casual that has sweeped the fps genre


obviously games werent simpler.
and you seem to think its impossible to play the old games today and nobody arguing has done it and accusing them of having a false memory of them.
do you want me to link you to a competetive quake match or do you want to keep claiming the games werent more difficult?
they dont require different skillsets, modern shooters still require strategic thinking and aiming (I suppose no matter how much they want and keep trying, its pretty hard eliminating those things from an fps), just at some sort of retardlevel


I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Comparing the skills required in a very simple game like Quake (yes simple, deal with it, that's where the competition comes from, simple mechanics lead to complex tactics using very basic weaponry) to something like Battlefield is silly.

Those games are outdated. Their gameplay mechanics were very straight forward and simple. They had a focus on aiming, predicting enemy movements, map control, and AoE damage. That kind of gameplay is build for 1 v 1 or 5 v 5. Watching competitive quake is almost always 1 v 1.

The skillsets required by modern shooters like Battlefield are a larger emphasis on coordinating attacks/defenses with other players, balancing your team with the proper classes, utilizing vehicles simultaneously with infantry, and adapting to the changing situation by changing your loadout and weaponry on the fly. The map control isn't done by AoE denial with rockets/grenades, but it's done by fortifications and teamwork. This kind of gameplay is great for 32+ players.

Planetside 2 is about vehicles and numbers, not individual skill and 1 v 1 encounters.

You say that modern shooters bridge the gap between players, and on a 1 v 1 basis that is true. But you take a 16 v 16 with extremely skilled solo players on one, and decently skilled players who are extremely coordinated on the other, and the coordinated players will win every time in a modern shooter.They may not get more kills, they may have lower K/D ratios, but they'll win. The differences in skills are measured completely different in these larger games. The goals of the games are completely different. You're ignoring everything that makes modern shooters different than classic arena shooters (which aren't dead btw) and comparing all of them on a 1 v 1 basis.

If 1 v 1 encounters and individual player skill matter so much to you, why the hell are you playing Planetside?

[Rbstr]

I completely disagree that higher TTK increases skill gap.
It makes the DPS vs HP equation far more pronounced while devaluing any individual shot because each landed shot means less in aggregate and lowering the effects of front-loaded damage. It makes the element of surprise less important in order to facilitate reprisal action.

It's simply shifts to different skills. With low TTK you don't need "prolonged aiming" - you need to aim at the beginning and hit sooner. You don't need to dive for cover when someone hits you, you need to not get hit in the first place. You don't need to run around to dodge bullets, you need to run around in order to surprise and confuse.

It is only a personal preference thing. Stop pretending otherwise.

[ArmedZealot]

If 1 v 1 encounters and individual player skill matter so much to you, why the hell are you playing Planetside?

Because individual player skill also matters as much in Planetside? If it didn't then why was zerging so popular?

[roguy]

So counter-strike takes no skill then?

[Rbstr]

Nope, it's not skill unless it's the way they want to play.

[Pozidriv]

Exactly. Higher TTK gives the cash shop sidegrades more validity. If the TTK is too low then not much in the way of sidegrades is going to make a difference.

I can / will / must agree with this, sort of. If the TTK is CoD hardcore mode (more or less every gun kills in at least 3 shots on any range) it won't really matter what gun you are using and the "best" overall weapon will be the go to hardware most of the time.

Somewhat of a good example would be BF3 and it's assault class. The "best" weapon would be the US starting weapon, it has good accuracy, stopping power, low recoil, moderate ROF and a short reload time. You will see people with 100 service stars with that weapon (1 Service star is 100 kills) and their next weapon might have "only" 2-10.

[captainkapautz]

It's just about flexibility. Like I said above. If such low TTK then what the heck do sidegrades matter so much?

They don't.

That's why they're called sidegrades and not upgrades.

It's all about personal preference.

[captainkapautz]

I can / will / must agree with this, sort of. If the TTK is CoD hardcore mode (more or less every gun kills in at least 3 shots on any range) it won't really matter what gun you are using

Jesus, what the fuck have you people been smoking to come the conclusion that a TTK like in CoD hardcore would ever be used?

[roguy]

Somewhat of a good example would be BF3 and it's assault class. The "best" weapon would be the US starting weapon, it has good accuracy, stopping power, low recoil, moderate ROF and a short reload time. You will see people with 100 service stars with that weapon (1 Service star is 100 kills) and their next weapon might have "only" 2-10.

Ok so let's see if that statement holds up to falsification. If BF3 had PS1-like TTK's would the "US starting weapon" suddenly not be the go-to rifle anymore?

Where the hell do you people even get these crazy ideas that make no sense? How the heck does low TKK give sidegrades LESS validity? Guns RL are OHK and discounting variations in quality, theres room for accurate assault rifles and faster firing assault rifles aswell as lighter assault rifles, gun grips, laser sights etc.

COD and BF3 examples are all attributed to bad balancing, this is no different than the BFG in Quake being hands down better than all the other weapons, but you don't see anyone blame it on the TTK....

[MrBloodworth]

The skillsets required by modern shooters like Battlefield are a larger emphasis on coordinating attacks/defenses with other players, balancing your team with the proper classes, utilizing vehicles simultaneously with infantry, and adapting to the changing situation by changing your loadout and weaponry on the fly. The map control isn't done by AoE denial with rockets/grenades, but it's done by fortifications and teamwork.

Negative.

[MrBloodworth]

So counter-strike takes no skill then?

Dude.

http://youtu.be/9curJ-0DQ8w

[roguy]

/facepalm.

[wasdie]

Negative.

What a convincing argument. Continue living in the past then. You're being left behind. Bitching on these forums that old school FPS style is better isn't going to change the team's mind and make the game more quake like.

[MrBloodworth]

Never asked for it to be Quake like. You are just wrong in your assessment of that title.

[Toppopia]

I can / will / must agree with this, sort of. If the TTK is CoD hardcore mode (more or less every gun kills in at least 3 shots on any range) it won't really matter what gun you are using and the "best" overall weapon will be the go to hardware most of the time.

Somewhat of a good example would be BF3 and it's assault class. The "best" weapon would be the US starting weapon, it has good accuracy, stopping power, low recoil, moderate ROF and a short reload time. You will see people with 100 service stars with that weapon (1 Service star is 100 kills) and their next weapon might have "only" 2-10.

Nah that starting US weapon sucked, the first russian weapon was way better, and the AN-94 or the AEK-971 were pretty good guns, especially when you gave them the kobra sight, which was the best scope for having no added recoil, but i guess thats my personal preference because i couldn't use the M16 long enough to upgrade it, it seemed so horrible to use, mostly the iron sight and other reason i can't explain.

[Dreamcast]

I can agree with this.

From the time I have spent in Tribes: A I have a ball because of the high TTK and fast pace. But T:A has a lot more to it than PS2 will be able to because of skiing.

However, in PS1 ADADADAD wasn't enough to have a good time with the high TTK. It just resulted in two players doing a *** while spamming each other. How do you change this in PS2? How do you make combat deeper?

I agree with PS1 ADADAD not being that great.

Having higher movement speed than what the current Planetside 2 has with the same TTK or slightly higher could work IMO.

[captainkapautz]

Having higher movement speed than what the current Planetside 2 has with the same TTK or slightly higher could work IMO.

You whole arguement is flawed.

We have seen how many different people play PS2?
Two?
Higby during the GDC footage and now TB, unless I missed someone else.

That's not a whole lot to go on at all.
So, unless we see more gameplay from different people or get beta we just simply do not know how fast you can actually play PS2.

So stop wasting your breaths before that point.

[ArmedZealot]

You whole arguement is flawed.

We have seen how many different people play PS2?
Two?
Higby during the GDC footage and now TB, unless I missed someone else.

That's not a whole lot to go on at all.
So, unless we see more gameplay from different people or get beta we just simply do not know how fast you can actually play PS2.

So stop wasting your breaths before that point.

While I agree that we need for beta to get here already before we have any serious balance discussions there is no point in shutting down honest speculation.

Many of us, for some god forsaken reason, are heavily invested in Planetsides success and we all have different opinions on how that can be accomplished in terms of gunplay.

So while we wait for beta let's shoot the breeze and talk alright?

[captainkapautz]

So while we wait for beta let's shoot the breeze and talk alright?

You're tempting fate!

You know it won't stop at words, someone will go to far and negotiations will break down, shots'll be fired, innocents struck down just for speaking up and in the end noone will even remember who said TTK was fine!

I've seen it happen in other threads, man!

[ArmedZealot]

You're tempting fate!

You know it won't stop at words, someone will go to far and negotiations will break down, shots'll be fired, innocents struck down just for speaking up and in the end noone will even remember who said TTK was fine!

I've seen it happen in other threads, man!

I'm guilty of that lol and it seems I've got my own personal hate club for it, but that doesn't mean some other discussion wont pop up about the same thing when a thread shuts down. And so what if no one remembers who said what, it's probably a good idea that that is the case for me lol.

We shouldn't fear talking about something because it might get shut down.

Maybe we should try making another thread that requires users to list what they think of both a high TTK and a low TTK and the details that comprise them without trashing either side. Rather than having people that feel like talking post on page 10+ at the back of this half assed poll.

[captainkapautz]

Maybe we should try making another thread that requires users to list what they think of both a high TTK and a low TTK and the details that comprise them without trashing either side.

Nah, I think the next thread on this topic should be opened after we have access to beta, so we can actually shot each others face off.

Kinda keep the theory-only and actual gameplay-supported discussion seperated and in one place, so we can look back later and be like "Man, that was some dumb bullshit of an opinion I had back then.".

[The noob]

Nah, I think the next thread on this topic should be opened after we have access to beta, so we can actually shot each others face off.

Kinda keep the theory-only and actual gameplay-supported discussion seperated and in one place, so we can look back later and be like "Man, that was some dumb bullshit of an opinion I had back then.".

Yeah, frankly I'd want to wait for beta before I comment on the TTK. Even Higby himself tweeted that they were still playing with the values, and that had TB come on a different day, the complaints might have been the opposite, with the TTK being too long.

And for those curious, here's the link. https://twitter.com/#!/mhigby/status/204723457953501184

[ArmedZealot]

"Man, that was some dumb bullshit of an opinion I had back then.".

Speaking of which.

http://i.imgur.com/p3Xrx.png

Here is a good comparison to how opinions have changed over the past few months.

If we take faster movement to be Higher TTK (this is a pretty faulty assumption, but from the posts here people in general equate moving faster to increasing TTK) and slower movement to be lower TTK.

With these assumptions we can also lump some categories together.

NP (New Poll, top in that image) = this thread
OP (Bottom) = old thread

NP1 = new poll option 1

So for those favoring Higher TTK in NP = NP2+NP3+NP4 = 40.59% in favor of a higher TTK

Lower TTK in NP = NP1 = 59.41%

Higher TTK in OP = OP3 = 44.00%

Lower TTK in OP = OP1+OP2 = 56%
(I lump OP2 in with lower TTK because the current GDC footage i think we could all agree showed a low ttk).

So we have had a 3% shift in favor of low TTK over the past few months. I don't really think that is too significant, but interesting to see.

(I like numbers and bad assumptions).

Old poll link here http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39434

[Stardouser]

Speaking of which.

http://i.imgur.com/KuXLV.png

Here is a good comparison to how opinions have changed over the past few months.

If we take faster movement to be Higher TTK (this is a pretty faulty assumption, but from the posts here people in general equate moving faster to increasing TTK) and slower movement to be lower TTK.

With these assumptions we can also lump some categories together.

NP (New Poll, top in that image) = this thread
OP (Bottom) = old thread

NP1 = new poll option 1

So for those favoring Higher TTK in NP = NP2+NP3+NP4 = 40.59% in favor of a higher TTK

Lower TTK in NP = NP1 = 59.41%

Higher TTK in OP = OP3 = 44.00%

Lower TTK in OP = OP1+OP2 = 56%
(I lump OP2 in with lower TTK because the current GDC footage i think we could all agree showed a low ttk).

So we have had a 3% shift in favor of low TTK over the past few months.

(I like numbers and bad assumptions).

Old poll link here http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39434

No, that does not work. That poll that has the "perfect..."option is about movement. Movement and TTK are not the same thing. TTK is the time it takes to kill a target after you've started shooting at it, and even if you could run a 3 second 40 yard dash, movement still isn't the same thing as TTK. It wouldn't matter if you could run and strafe at the speed of light, TTK is still the amount of time it takes your weapon to kill, not for you to move.

So that poll cannot be used at support for low TTK.

What we need is a properly worded TTK poll but it will probably get locked.

[ArmedZealot]

No, that does not work. That poll that has the "perfect..."option is about movement. Movement and TTK are not the same thing. TTK is the time it takes to kill a target after you've started shooting at it, and even if you could run a 3 second 40 yard dash, movement still isn't the same thing as TTK. It wouldn't matter if you could run and strafe at the speed of light, TTK is still the amount of time it takes your weapon to kill, not for you to move.

So that poll cannot be used at support for low TTK.

What we need is a properly worded TTK poll but it will probably get locked.

I lumped the "just right option in" with lower TTK because the GDC footage showed what would be considered a lower TTK then what people were expecting to see. So "Just right" would be players thinking lower TTK was perfect.

I didn't use that data to support either side. I said it was insignificant a change which was interesting to note that people haven't changed their opinions much.

I don't think it is too far an assumption to state that the faster players are the harder they are too hit. If they are harder to hit then effectively they take longer to kill. Hence faster movement = higher ttk.

[Stardouser]

I don't think it is too far an assumption to state that the faster players are the harder they are too hit. If they are harder to hit then effectively they take longer to kill. Hence faster movement = higher ttk.

That is a good point, actually, but I think we should try to keep "ttk" purely to factors related to the attacker's weapon and the target's health/armor. Basically, damage potential vs target health and mitigation; trying to factor in avoidance via movement clouds it up to where we don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Mostly so we can focus TTK on bullet damage, recoil, etc. If we factored trying to shoot targets that are sprinting perpendicular to you into TTK it would mess it up.

Or maybe we could break it out into "moving target TTK" and "non moving target TTK". Note when I say moving I am not implying strafing Quake gameplay at all, simply, moving.

On that point - I once suggested to the BF3 forums that, instead of lowering bullet damage and increasing random deviation, one way to raise survivability(I will say survivability instead of TTK) would be to increase the sprint speed, since I think BF3's sprint is a moderate jog at best. No one supported me on that...note, by the way, I was literally only talking about increasing the sprint speed, and when you're sprinting you can't fire, I was not in any way suggesting you be able to shoot while sprinting or strafing or anything of that nature.

[ArmedZealot]

That is a good point, actually, but I think we should try to keep "ttk" purely to factors related to the attacker's weapon and the target's health/armor. Basically, damage potential vs target health and mitigation; trying to factor in avoidance via movement clouds it up to where we don't even know what we're talking about anymore. Mostly so we can focus TTK on bullet damage, recoil, etc. If we factored trying to shoot targets that are sprinting perpendicular to you into TTK it would mess it up.

Or maybe we could break it out into "moving target TTK" and "non moving target TTK". Note when I say moving I am not implying strafing Quake gameplay at all, simply, moving.

On that point - I once suggested to the BF3 forums that, instead of lowering bullet damage and increasing random deviation, one way to raise survivability(I will say survivability instead of TTK) would be to increase the sprint speed, since I think BF3's sprint is a moderate jog at best. No one supported me on that...note, by the way, I was literally only talking about increasing the sprint speed, and when you're sprinting you can't fire, I was not in any way suggesting you be able to shoot while sprinting or strafing or anything of that nature.

While it would be significantly easier to talk about by removing player velocity we have to keep it in the subject of the thread, which was all about player movement.

I don't have any clue as to why BF3 players would be opposed to such a thing. The last BF game I played was BF2142.

As I have stated before, as a personal opinion I think faster movement speeds are funner in games. But this is coming from Tribes:Ascend where players can move in 3 dimensions and most weapons aren't hitscan. Although someone before said that weapons aren't hitscan as well in PS2, I don't think that is the case.

In Planetside I didn't enjoy ADADAD so whatever system we can come up with that gets rid of that and still keeps combat fun I am game for.

[Stardouser]

The TTK in 2142 was pretty good, so for that game there would be no need to change anything.

But for BF3 this is not so, it's pretty low even when movement is factored in. I think the reason a lot of people resist the suggestion of changes such as that one is that they either have blind faith that the devs made the right decision, or they assume that any requests for changes are just veiled attempts to get the game made easier for them personally, or both. What a lot of people don't realize is that a player may very well have plenty of skill to deal with a low TTK but simply do not enjoy a low TTK. So basically, the same thing is going to happen in PS2, once release hits, a lot of people, when you suggest changes, they're just going to say "adapt". But it's not always a question of adapting, we can adapt, we just don't enjoy the higher TTK. Anyway though, the point is, once something makes it into the game, the people who either blindly support dev decisions or consider all requests for changes to be crying over dying, they will make it very hard to rally enough support to change anything.

[ArmedZealot]

The TTK in 2142 was pretty good, so for that game there would be no need to change anything.

But for BF3 this is not so, it's pretty low even when movement is factored in. I think the reason a lot of people resist the suggestion of changes such as that one is that they either have blind faith that the devs made the right decision, or they assume that any requests for changes are just veiled attempts to get the game made easier for them personally, or both. What a lot of people don't realize is that a player may very well have plenty of skill to deal with a low TTK but simply do not enjoy a low TTK.

It's kind of hard after the fact to change TTK in any significant way after a game has launched I would think. It might just be a value change in a spreadsheat or a variable but players have already settled in and gotten familiar with weapon balance at that point. Thankfully PS2 is still in alpha and when beta rolls around we should hit the ground running.

Why do people enjoy a lower TTK in BF3 and other games? Why have the devs favored a lower TTK compared to PS1 in PS2? Why should they change the TTK? These are the questions we should be answering.

[Stardouser]

It's kind of hard after the fact to change TTK in any significant way after a game has launched I would think. It might just be a value change in a spreadsheat or a variable but players have already settled in and gotten familiar with weapon balance at that point. Thankfully PS2 is still in alpha and when beta rolls around we should hit the ground running.

Why do people enjoy a lower TTK in BF3 and other games? Why have the devs favored a lower TTK compared to PS1 in PS2? Why should they change the TTK? These are the questions we should be answering.

BF3 is copying CoD. And so PS2, by copying BF3, is copying CoD indirectly in some ways.

As to whether or not people are enjoying it in BF3, they may be, but that doesn't mean they prefer it. Too many people are assuming that BF3's sales figures are votes of confidence for BF3's design decisions but it doesn't work that way. I myself bought BF3 expecting to receive a game paced like a Battlefield game but that didn't happen, I expect it's the same for many BF2/2142 vets.

There is a lot of resistance to BF3 on forums and the best defense people can come up with is to claim that the voiceless masses don't agree with what's said on the forums.

[ArmedZealot]

BF3 is copying CoD. And so PS2, by copying BF3, is copying CoD indirectly in some ways.

As to whether or not people are enjoying it in BF3, they may be, but that doesn't mean they prefer it. Too many people are assuming that BF3's sales figures are votes of confidence for BF3's design decisions but it doesn't work that way. I myself bought BF3 expecting to receive a game paced like a Battlefield game but that didn't happen, I expect it's the same for many BF2/2142 vets.

There is a lot of resistance to BF3 on forums and the best defense people can come up with to claim that the voiceless masses don't agree with what's said on the forums.

I don't think saying "BF3 is copying COD" is an appropriate answer, no offense, but it seems a wee bit biased. There has to be someone that honestly enjoys the lower TTK skillset for reasons other than "thats what COD has", even from other games like CS even. Why do they enjoy that?

And I don't think PS2 is intentionally copying BF3 in this respect, there is simply too many differences in weapons and vehicles between the games to make that statement. They might be blatantly taking somethings but not this.

[captainkapautz]

But this is coming from Tribes:Ascend where players can move in 3 dimensions and most weapons aren't hitscan. Although someone before said that weapons aren't hitscan as well in PS2, I don't think that is the case.

Mate, most non-splash weapons in tribes are hitscan, definitly the bullet shooting ones like the assault rifle.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same hitscan, right?
I.e. bullets don't travel, but instantly hit what's under the crosshair.

Edit: CS is kinda the first game timewise that comes to mind with low TTK

[SKYeXile]

I don't think saying "BF3 is copying COD" is an appropriate answer, no offense, but it seems a wee bit biased. There has to be someone that honestly enjoys the lower TTK skillset for reasons other than "thats what COD has", even from other games like CS even. Why do they enjoy that?

And I don't think PS2 is intentionally copying BF3 in this respect, there is simply too many differences in weapons and vehicles between the games to make that statement. They might be blatantly taking somethings but not this.

weapons in PS2 arnt hitscan. :/

[ArmedZealot]

Mate, most non-splash weapons in tribes are hitscan, definitly the bullet shooting ones like the assault rifle.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same hitscan, right?
I.e. bullets don't travel, but instantly hit what's under the crosshair.

That may have been true in the earlier beta but that has been changed. The eagle pistol + few others are hitscan now. The assault rifle has been changed to not be hitscan as well as a few others. They are no where near as prevalent as they were from that stage of the game.

[Stardouser]

I don't think saying "BF3 is copying COD" is an appropriate answer, no offense, but it seems a wee bit biased. There has to be someone that honestly enjoys the lower TTK skillset for reasons other than "thats what COD has", even from other games like CS even. Why do they enjoy that?

And I don't think PS2 is intentionally copying BF3 in this respect. They might be blatantly taking somethings but not this.

BF3 is copying CoD's pace and TTK, even if they aren't copying individual mechanics.

As for whether PS2 is copying BF3's TTK...well...they're taking squad spawning(not a bad thing, simply evidence of the extent of inspiration), vehicle customizations, the UI(kill messages, etc), at some point after realizing the extent of the similarities, you just have to do the math. The question is will they be able to separate what should and should not be taken from BF3?

[ArmedZealot]

weapons in PS2 arnt hitscan. :/

? Videos from GDC seemed to indicate that they were. But there may not have been a long enough travel time to tell.

Can you source where the devs have said they weren't? I know weapons like the launchers and rifles are likely not to be, but for your cycler,pulsar, and gauss rifle?

[ArmedZealot]

As for whether PS2 is copying BF3's TTK...well...they're taking squad spawning(not a bad thing, simply evidence of the extent of inspiration), vehicle customizations, the UI(kill messages, etc), at some point after realizing the extent of the similarities, you just have to do the math. The question is will they be able to separate what should and should not be taken from BF3?

Like I said, they are blatantly stealing somethings (the UI is a big one for me). But it is false to say that since they are stealing some things that they are stealing the shorter TTK as well.

The TTK may be shorter compared to PS1 but we know all the factors that are involved in TTK. Everything from player speed to weapon DPS to shields and armor factor in here. They can't be copying those values from BF3 and putting them in Planetside.

[SKYeXile]

? Videos from the GDC seemed to indicate that they were. But there may not have been a long enough travel time to tell.

Can you source where the devs have said they weren't?

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/599/feature/6145/The-Hardcore-Interview.html/page/1

MATT HIGBY: I contacted our Technical Director, Ryan Elam:

PlanetSide 1 was groundbreaking and really ahead of its time when it originally came out in 2003. Being able to track potentially thousands of projectiles per second and evaluate that many players’ movements and aiming was unprecedented. We learned a lot of lessons from the original game. That experience, along with the experience garnered from other MMOs that we have developed over the years has given us some pretty compelling solutions to those original issues. We have a modern physics engine which helps us with thousands of times more collision checks per frame, a fully-realized ballistics system, multiple validation systems, and several “secret sauce” solutions I’m sure we’ll be hinting at in the near future. I’m by no means trivializing the problem, it IS a very tough problem that keeps us on our toes; I’m just saying we got this.

physics = not hitscan.

[SKYeXile]

? Videos from GDC seemed to indicate that they were. But there may not have been a long enough travel time to tell.

Can you source where the devs have said they weren't? I know weapons like the launchers and rifles are likely not to be, but for your cycler,pulsar, and gauss rifle?

The videos at GDC were all close range, you cant tell if bullets are curving and have a speed at that range. also animations in hitscan games dont mean anything.

Also, hitscan is typically used in serverside games, so calculating is easier, less strain on the server, where planetsides 2 physics and hit detection is done on the client and confirmed on server like BF3's.

[ArmedZealot]

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/599/feature/6145/The-Hardcore-Interview.html/page/1


physics = not hitscan.

physics and fully realized ballistics != not hitscan. Just means instead of calculating the intersection of a straight line between the shooter and target they calculate the intersection of a parabola.

[captainkapautz]

? Videos from the GDC seemed to indicate that they were. But there may not have been a long enough travel time to tell.

Can you source where the devs have said they weren't?

Devs said all conventional weapons (bullets) are with bullet drop, only VS will get hitscan(?).

And yeah, under normal closerange to mediumrange you really cant tell hitscan from bulletdrop unless its rediculous bulletdrop.

[SKYeXile]

physics and fully realized ballistics != not hitscan. Just means instead of calculating the intersection of a straight line between the shooter and target they calculate the intersection of a parabola.

it would still mean they're calculating off infinite speed though, they're not in PS2.

[The noob]

Devs said all conventional weapons (bullets) are with bullet drop, only VS will get hitscan(?).

And yeah, under normal closerange to mediumrange you really cant tell hitscan from bulletdrop unless its rediculous bulletdrop.

Vanu weapons are not hitscan either, they just suffer from damage drop off more then the other factions.
And it's very difficult to judge whether the TTK and other factors we've seen in the video is what we'll get. As it's alpha, there's a good chance that they may be playing around with the values and see what happens to the gameplay, since they already said that they're still tuning the damage.

[Stardouser]

Like I said, they are blatantly stealing somethings (the UI is a big one for me). But it is false to say that since they are stealing some things that they are stealing the shorter TTK as well.

The TTK may be shorter compared to PS1 but we know all the factors that are involved in TTK. Everything from player speed to weapon DPS to shields and armor factor in here. They can't be copying those values from BF3 and putting them in Planetside.

You may be right....BF3 wants the threshold lowered, so they want people to be able to hit others easily even at longer ranges, without the need for such silly things as getting closer to your enemy. So if PS2 is copying the lack of meaningful recoil and deviation and other factors for that purpose, the side effect of course is a low TTK.

My question is, if infantry have shields, how in the world can the TTK be this low? Are the shields more useful against explosion splash than bullets?

[ArmedZealot]

it would still mean they're calculating off infinite speed though, they're not in PS2.

I don't see how that is the case unless they have said explicitly that they aren't using hitscan. It sounds like salesman speak to me.

But I'll go with it for now for the purpose of the discussion.

So we have non hitscan weapons and a low TTK compared to PS1. Why have the devs decided to go with this approach when considering PS1's approach?

[ArmedZealot]

My question is, if infantry have shields, how in the world can the TTK be this low? Are the shields more useful against explosion splash than bullets?

Because they don't have that much of shields I guess. But they have stated that players are resistant to different types of damage depending on class so that might be the case. Grenades were never very effective in PS and they have never really given a mechanically sound reason for it.

In retrospect it does make sense to lower TTK a bit in PS2 with the shield switch from PS1's armor mechanic. If armor is non regenerating it would make sense to give players much more of it.

[SKYeXile]

I don't see how that is the case unless they have said explicitly that they aren't using hitscan. It sounds like salesman speak to me.

But I'll go with it for now for the purpose of the discussion.

So we have non hitscan weapons and a low TTK compared to PS1. Why have the devs decided to go with this approach when considering PS1's approach?

their reasoning is a faster paced game and making it more modern. I however dont agree with this.

Unreals weapon TTK is generally higher that what is planned for PS2 by the looks of it, its certainly a faster paced game than PS2 will ever be. but thats because players move very fast in comparison and the weapons have special attacks.

[xSlideShow]

I think it should matter on the class or at least the weaponwhether you try to move around a lot or turret more. They should allow for both play styles imo.

[Dreamcast]

You whole arguement is flawed.

We have seen how many different people play PS2?
Two?
Higby during the GDC footage and now TB, unless I missed someone else.

That's not a whole lot to go on at all.
So, unless we see more gameplay from different people or get beta we just simply do not know how fast you can actually play PS2.

So stop wasting your breaths before that point.

Huh?

Dude the combat I have seen always shows people standing shooting...

They literally stand out in the open and shoot....and is not just highby and the other guy...obviously theirs other people playing.


Now maybe some of them could be bots but I doubt it.....higby was telling them to go back so Im sure they won't bots.


The point of this thread is to point out that the combat movement is super slow.....


Apperantly people like standing in the open and shooting which Im fine with actually.

[lawnmower]

it may between players who cant aim vs those who can(im refering to spray and prey), but with those who can react fast and those who cant it lessens it. Once you have a targets its more about predicting their movements rather than reacting to it.
its only on a very low point where shortening it makes it favourable to a person of quick reflexes vs a person of actual shooting skill. and probably not even that sometimes depending on how the game is made, for example if theres a big percentage of times when they dont both spot eachother simultaneously. reflexes arent much of a skill anyway

ADS doesn't decrease the skill gap, it changes the skills required. Quake style means you need the skills that relate to strafing all the time and ADS means you need situational awareness so that you don't stop and fire at a time that it will get you killed. Different skills, not a contracted skill gap.

yes it changes things. and whats your argument for that changing a thing would make it take the same amount of skill?
the skill ceiling is rediculous amounts lower in this type than the other. it seems quite natural to me, as it makes the screen zoom in when doing it and makes you move slower- easier to aim and easier to get aimed at

Moderate TTK, which is what we need, allows getting the first shot to provide an advantage, but still gives people a chance to immediately dive for cover.
why do you seem so sure thats what we need?

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Comparing the skills required in a very simple game like Quake (yes simple, deal with it, that's where the competition comes from, simple mechanics lead to complex tactics using very basic weaponry) to something like Battlefield is silly.

Those games are outdated. Their gameplay mechanics were very straight forward and simple. They had a focus on aiming, predicting enemy movements, map control, and AoE damage. That kind of gameplay is build for 1 v 1 or 5 v 5. Watching competitive quake is almost always 1 v 1.

The skillsets required by modern shooters like Battlefield are a larger emphasis on coordinating attacks/defenses with other players, balancing your team with the proper classes, utilizing vehicles simultaneously with infantry, and adapting to the changing situation by changing your loadout and weaponry on the fly. The map control isn't done by AoE denial with rockets/grenades, but it's done by fortifications and teamwork. This kind of gameplay is great for 32+ players.

Planetside 2 is about vehicles and numbers, not individual skill and 1 v 1 encounters.

You say that modern shooters bridge the gap between players, and on a 1 v 1 basis that is true. But you take a 16 v 16 with extremely skilled solo players on one, and decently skilled players who are extremely coordinated on the other, and the coordinated players will win every time in a modern shooter.They may not get more kills, they may have lower K/D ratios, but they'll win. The differences in skills are measured completely different in these larger games. The goals of the games are completely different. You're ignoring everything that makes modern shooters different than classic arena shooters (which aren't dead btw) and comparing all of them on a 1 v 1 basis.

If 1 v 1 encounters and individual player skill matter so much to you, why the hell are you playing Planetside?
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.
yes comparing the skills required is silly. why do you think no proffesional player has come over to a modern fps? why do they all find them so trash? they claim they are always on the lookout for the next competetive fps but they laugh at the mention of what fps games has become, how basic and shallow they are.
a game made 16 years ago is less simple and somehow less outdated than your games (deal with it). battlefield 3 got a 7.3, its just not a very good game (and I assume these are mainly votes from the low expectation casual players), and lets not get started with http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3
meanwhile look at gems like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/return-to-castle-wolfenstein-enemy-territory, and quake live got an 8.6 and was released TEN years after q3. try doing that with your modern fps.
I still dont understand if you want to keep claiming todays games are more difficult like you did in your first post?
and having more guns to learn the exact stats of doesent equal depth. just slapping in more guns that are just about identical where the only difficulty is slapping on some random stats and waiting till the players complain about balance and switching them around a bit.
of course 32v32 plays differently than 1v1, whats this argument about?
is this an attempt at saying its superior because it was built for a larger amount of players?
BF3 doesent even have a competetive scene and from almost all opinions ive read, doesent deserve one.
you have more depth and interresting gameplay in quake ctf or quake teamfortress either way
and all this despite the modern fps games having 13 years of extra progress of all sorts on quake3

and im not playing ps1, hoping the netcode and such will be better this time because im longing for a good game

I completely disagree that higher TTK increases skill gap.
It makes the DPS vs HP equation far more pronounced while devaluing any individual shot because each landed shot means less in aggregate and lowering the effects of front-loaded damage. It makes the element of surprise less important in order to facilitate reprisal action.

It's simply shifts to different skills. With low TTK you don't need "prolonged aiming" - you need to aim at the beginning and hit sooner. You don't need to dive for cover when someone hits you, you need to not get hit in the first place. You don't need to run around to dodge bullets, you need to run around in order to surprise and confuse.

It is only a personal preference thing. Stop pretending otherwise.
it takes less skill because of devaluing individual shots?
if it takes a thousand shots to kill someone, how often do you think a guy that hits 28% of his shots will win over a guy who hits 30% of his shots?
and if it takes one shot to kill someone?
yes the first shot will matter more, and whats the point of that?
suprise is a matter of silly camping. and surprising will just gain you a smaller edge, will have no real effect on lessening skill gap

its not a preference thing, obviously it has effects of different quantities depending on how you change them around and how the game plays overall.