Does the shallow TTK shortchange the Depth this game could have?

[Rothnang]

The extremely short TTK in PS2 is IMO the biggest thing that dumbs down the game. It's why I hate playing with infantry, it's why I dislike the crazy fast aircraft kills... To me it's more interesting to have a game where you need to figure out how to kill an enemy before he gets away than a game where damn near all encounters end in death because hardly anyone ever has time to run.

[exile]

Complexity and depth for me is the amount of choices you can make that lead to different outcomes. For you, it is dropping people before they can respond and then claiming this is skill. Shooting people from behind. So hard a choice. So much depth. So much skill. So much impact of timing and way of moving with respect to geometry to get into your gun's optimal TTK zone w.r.t. your opponent and keeping your enemy there.

Not. There are no complex follow up decisions to be made or even that can be made in PS2 in the time you drop someone. That means it's utterly shallow game play to me. And yes, PS1 had more complexity, though at some points TTK was too long which reduced complexity again (PS1 AI MAX for instance is a simpleton weapon: point in the general direction and click while absorbing loads of shots).

All "planning of the fight" is the situation leading up to the ganking. There's no planning involved in how you will try to orchestrate the fight in your favour from there, because it's not needed. How is that making PS2 have more depth? Shorter engagement, less skills needed, less fair fight. Sorry, that's utterly shallow to me.

So I do respond to the OP, just not in the wya you expect me to. Suck on it Exile. People disagree about things at times including definitions. That doesn't make it "noise".
You're missing the point. As Sirisian said, with the current complexity of combat the TTK is appropriate. A longer TTK does not add depth, because there are only a small amount of decisions a player needs to make, in regards to being in a gunfight.

Sirisian actually agrees with you, that he would like to see more complexity in gunfights, and I do to. But the TTK is not the limiting factor, the lack of meaningful decisions is.

These design decisions seem to be intentional, keeping the combat implementation simple with a shallow learning curve and putting the depth and complexity into the macro scale gameplay. It might not be what you want out of the game but it's a perfectly legitimate (and sensible for their business model) design decision.

Not only do you completely fail to grasp the principles involved in the OP and waste everyone's time with your pages and pages (omg so much pointless text!) of rambling, you then resort to insulting other people who are trying to have a legitimate discussion, lashing out because you fail to grasp the subtleties of their discussion?! You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) effect.

[Crator]

Does it really add that much complexity if we increase the TTK slightly? I still hold that increasing the TTK a bit will make the different weapons a bit more unique. Does that really make it harder to use them? Perhaps a little but isn't that what is being proposed, more depth less shallow...

I didn't find anything Figment said a waste of time. It's his position on the subject and he did a pretty good job describing it I think. Yes sometimes he can be abrasive and say things that are insulting, but don't we all when we get backed into a corner?

[Rothnang]

The main thing having a higher TTK does is make positioning more important and thereby increase the tactical depth of the game.

Right now if I ADS, poke my head out of cover and take a few shots at an enemy there is a fairly good chance that I'll get hit, and die before I'm back in cover. Even if I do make it back into cover, I'll most likely have lost health and not just shields, so the likelyhood of me surviving sticking my head out a second time is even lower.

That dumbs down the game because it allows people to trade kills without actually maneuvering on the enemy. The only way I can turn the present situation into one where someone has to walk around my cover to kill me is if I have a medic sitting in said piece of cover who keeps reviving me over and over. No offense to medics, but it's an absolute bore that I need a medic before my enemy starts needing strategy. What's worse, most medics tend to agree, which is why they don't just sit in cover and revive people, but start poking their own heads out, and we're back to square one where you can win without positioning yourself in any smart way.

If I could get back in cover, recharge my shield and resume the fight for however long I wanted, and the only way an enemy could kill me is if he found a way to outflank me and take me down in between shield recharges the game would simply have more depth, because it would place bigger emphasis on positioning and teamwork, and less emphasis on just sitting somewhere trading kills.

[Ghoest9]

If I could get back in cover.....


If you had enough time to move around and get to cover then you would be better off spending that time strafing and killing the enemy.

Thats a good player would do. Bad players always think that by prolonging a bad situation they will somehow magically start to do better.
Good players take a bad situation and keep working it hoping for the other guy to screw up.

[Figment]

You're missing the point. As Sirisian said, with the current complexity of combat the TTK is appropriate. A longer TTK does not add depth, because there are only a small amount of decisions a player needs to make, in regards to being in a gunfight.

Can you imagine I simply completely disagree with that statement and actually think you completely miss the point? :/


Besides, the learning curve for gunplay is steeper with a short TTK than with a long TTK. And no, I'm not talking about point-click, I'm talking about positioning and where threats are coming from. There's currently nothing to learn on a macro-scale strategy since you can't do anything about it anyway due to having too many options and too little control over your sides movements, so really, what's your point? The macro scale of combat is incredibly simple. That includes selecting counters.


There are more decisions and actions a players needs to make and take than are currently possible. Please, make a list of all the things you think are needed and all the possible decisions one could make in a gunfight over all.



@Ghoest9: *facepalm moment right there* What a load of nonsense and horrible definition of good and bad, not to mention horrible suggested default moves without even having sufficient knowledge of the scenario or context to decide what would have been the right decision.

Sorry Ghoest9, but you can't be a good player if your default response to a bad situation is "LEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOY JENKINS!".

[VGCS]

Just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. It was an amazing read and I sincerely believe ALL of you deserve far better than the weak prospects and status quo planned ahead. I feel like I really learned a lot here and hope all of you eventually get some reasonable Facsimile of the potential you still see for this game.

[Rothnang]

If you had enough time to move around and get to cover then you would be better off spending that time strafing and killing the enemy.

Thats a good player would do. Bad players always think that by prolonging a bad situation they will somehow magically start to do better.
Good players take a bad situation and keep working it hoping for the other guy to screw up.

You aren't making any sense. The whole point of having a shield system where shields recharge is so that people get into cover and recharge them when they have taken some fire. Right now you just die so fast that you can't reliably do that.

[exile]

Besides, the learning curve for gunplay is steeper with a short TTK than with a long TTK. And no, I'm not talking about point-click, I'm talking about positioning and where threats are coming from.
I refer to "micro" as the aiming of the crosshair and specific player movement, anything that you are doing directly on the keyboard and mouse. This is currently about as simple a learning curve as is possible, it's the most basic operation of moving the crosshair to a slow moving target. Changing TTK doesn't change the learning curve, the concept remains the same and the person will always grasp what they need to do. Getting better then becomes a matter of refining physical control, not learning new concepts. Even with an incredibly low TTK a new player still understands how they were killed and what they need to do to do the same thing to someone else.

There's currently nothing to learn on a macro-scale strategy since you can't do anything about it anyway due to having too many options and too little control over your sides movements, so really, what's your point? The macro scale of combat is incredibly simple. That includes selecting counters.
The "macro" is everything from an individual's situational awareness right up to continent level coordinated strategy and tactics. You say the macro has "too many options" and then that it is "incredibly simple"?!? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Figment]

I refer to "micro" as the aiming of the crosshair and specific player movement, anything that you are doing directly on the keyboard and mouse. This is currently about as simple a learning curve as is possible, it's the most basic operation of moving the crosshair to a slow moving target.

So far, agree.

Changing TTK doesn't change the learning curve, the concept remains the same and the person will always grasp what they need to do.

Utterly wrong on all counts. When the (practical) TTK increases, new elements start mattering: cover, leading targets (consistently), timing reloads, (blocking) escape routes, your or their time to close or widen the distance from the moment of engagement initiation due to trying to get in or out of the optimal range of the other person's weapon and deliberately trying to alter their and your own practical TTK to your advantage.

Getting better then becomes a matter of refining physical control, not learning new concepts. Even with an incredibly low TTK a new player still understands how they were killed and what they need to do to do the same thing to someone else.

That's not true either. When the TTK is longer, they get more time to observe what the other player is doing and use this to their advantage the next time. If the TTK is very short, they only see the endresult of the player, not how that player moves in relation to them to maximise the effectiveness of their weapon for instance.

Often they don't know initially where the player started to fire from. If you can turn around and return fire - often first needing to determine where that player is - being at medium to long range - then this gives them new information to work with. If a sniper doesn't kill instantly for instance, the player may find out where the sniper is firing from by actively looking for them and learning to use the sniper's tracer fire to detect their position.

If the sniper or long range weapons don't kill very fast, a player with a shorter range rifle and some recuperation options may be able to close the distance by use of running from rock to rock and closing the distance enough and recuperating in between sprints enough to take on the sniper on their own terms, rather than the long range snipy terms. Learning what cover is viable is better to do if you get a second chance, than if you get only one chance.

If a proximity mine doesn't kill instantly, the player can check how that mine had been placed and if that's an interesting location for them too, rather than just look at the respawn screen and having to wait till next time coming down there. If a player is hit by a proxy mine or remote mine for all I care and survives to see where the placer of said remote mine is located and detonated it from (line of sight used), this might give the player information on good positions to use themselves some other time, or expect the player to be there the next time even if they die. If they die without that information, what did they learn? That a mine at a chokepoint killed them that a remote control thingy killed them?

If TTK takes a bit longer, a player may learn to find an erratic movement pattern (aside from the actual point and click, this could be one of the physical control bits you relate to I guess?). Zig-zag maneuvres become more viable if you don't die to a minute amount of splash damage for instance. Hence why full blast damage radius being reduced has some impact: it increases the TTK needed.

If TTK takes a bit longer, a player may start recognising names and movement and preference weapons patterns for specific, individual enemies. This is information that can be used next time they know they will encounter that player to determine the area they will give priority for covering as chances would be that player would use that (like knowing someone always taking a football penalty in the same manner is an advantage to a goalkeeper).

Speaking of HE AoE, if a player is hit by HE and isn't instantly killed, that player can note the angle at which he was fired at and what was used to splash him. If he dies instantly, it is unlikely the player can observe and differentiate between a near miss and a direct hit, let alone angle and angle at which he was fired upon or the splash point on the surrounding terrain. Simply because again, the player is watching the respawn screen and may still not know who hit him from where.

A player new to shotguns would sooner realise getting close is advantageous. So moving on the inner side of a stairwell is better for them. Someone with a rifle would sooner realise that in an engagement with someone with a shotgun, they might want to back off, rather than close in and take the outside corners of a stairwell (very noticable movement diffrence between users wielding Jackhammers and MCGs in PS1).




All in all, the shorter the TTK, the less time you have to make observations. The less time you have to make observations, the less you will learn from individual engagements, thus the learning curve will be longer.

The "macro" is everything from an individual's situational awareness right up to continent level coordinated strategy and tactics. You say the macro has "too many options" and then that it is "incredibly simple"?!?

Individual situational awareness is micro-level and related directly to micromanagement. Continental situational awareness (continental map reading ability) is macro level situational awareness. Minimap is more micro-level than macro because it's related to what you can detect.

The continental strategy is macro-level has so many options that whatever you do is meaningless. That means it's beyond the complexity level where decisions actually matter:

If I go to A, I'll lose B and C. If I go to B, I lose A and C. If I split up and hold A and B, I'll lose C and probably either A or B due to being outnumbered. So it doesn't really matter what you do, you lose anyway unless you have superior numbers.

And in many cases, I may not even actually fight anyone, but since you don't know in advance and can't communicate well with the rest of the empire (/sitrep, good active command chat with actual leaders instead of a small amount of people on /sl who barely use orders because when they send one order they are not allowed to send another for five minutes - ie you can't really lead well either by coordinating multiple areas at the same time and asking for information etc).

It's a game catering to random zerging, not for actual smart decision making or coordination beyond the outfit level.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That seems to happen a lot.

Strangely, I don't have that effect on people who played resecure teams day in day out in PS1.

[Sledgecrushr]

Figment I dont really think that with the pace of the game and the lethality of all the weapons that planetside 2 is the right fit for you. Maybe something along the lines of Hawken or Mechwarrior Online where the TTK is appreciably higher.

[Figment]

Figment I dont really think that with the pace of the game and the lethality of all the weapons that planetside 2 is the right fit for you. Maybe something along the lines of Hawken or Mechwarrior Online where the TTK is appreciably higher.

Sledge, if you want to troll, please do it somewhere else. Maybe you should play PacMan, I hear you can instantly kill ghosts and they can instantly kill you and you have to keep moving and the gameplay is very shallow, yet complex since you have to make hectic positioning and flanking decisions only. :rolleyes:

[Sledgecrushr]

Figment maybe Tiger Woods Golf might be up your alley. There is literally no ttk.

[exile]

Individual situational awareness is micro-level and related directly to micromanagement. Continental situational awareness (continental map reading ability) is macro level situational awareness. Minimap is more micro-level than macro because it's related to what you can detect.
I just stated my definitions of the terms "micro" and "macro", for use in my discussion. Why the hell are you having yet another semantics argument?!?! You have just destroyed our discourse by arguing about semantics rather than the meaning of my post. The same way you have been doing this entire thread! I should have known better than to even attempt to salvage this cluster**** of a thread.

[Figment]

I just stated my definitions of the terms "micro" and "macro", for use in my discussion. Why the hell are you having yet another semantics argument?!?! You have just destroyed our discourse by arguing about semantics rather than the meaning of my post. The same way you have been doing this entire thread! I should have known better than to even attempt to salvage this cluster**** of a thread.

Because if you disagree on definitions (and don't realise this), you're not argueing about the same thing, don't REALISE you're not argueing about the same thing and thus you'll never get anywhere? Did you not notice how we had been argueing from (rather than over) different definitions through many of the pages?

Did it come to mind that this thread is a clusterfuck because you didn't "argue semantics" (read: define things properly first)?

But it's nice of you to quote one alinea that nuanciates my pov with respect to that particular definition and ignore everything else that actually adresses what you ignored with respect to longer TTKs in relation to the learning curve... :rolleyes:

Oh and you also ignore that you actually asked me to explain my position because you didn't understand why I said something?

You say the macro has "too many options" and then that it is "incredibly simple"?!?

Remember that? YOU needed an explanation. I gave it. YOU turned it into a question of semantics. But hey, blame me for humoring you and answering your question. =|

[exile]

Because if you disagree on definitions (and don't realise this), you're not argueing about the same thing, don't REALISE you're not argueing about the same thing and thus you'll never get anywhere? Did you not notice how we had been argueing from (rather than over) different definitions through many of the pages?

Did it come to mind that this thread is a clusterfuck because you didn't "argue semantics" (read: define things properly first)?

I clearly stated my definitions, which you ignored and redefined:
I refer to "micro" as the aiming of the crosshair and specific player movement, anything that you are doing directly on the keyboard and mouse.
Individual situational awareness is micro-level and related directly to micromanagement.




But it's nice of you to quote one alinea that nuanciates my pov with respect to that particular definition and ignore everything else that actually adresses what you ignored with respect to longer TTKs in relation to the learning curve... :rolleyes:
Why the hell would I even attempt to address your arguments when fundamental communication of concepts is not working? Even after decades of exposure to the rampant stupidity available on the internet you have genuinely shocked me with the depths of your ignorance. Bravo sir.

[Figment]

I clearly stated my definitions, which you ignored and redefined:

If I ignored them, I wouldn't have nuanciated or redefined them, now would I? :rolleyes:

Or hey... WOULD I HAVE SAID: "SOFAR, I AGREE", IF I IGNORED IT? You can disagree all you want, but don't lie!

Why the hell would I even attempt to address your arguments when fundamental communication of concepts is not working? Even after decades of exposure to the rampant stupidity available on the internet you have genuinely shocked me with the depths of your ignorance. Bravo sir.

Hey, I understand your position, AND DISAGREE WITH IT, you're just not interested in neither understanding my position nor willing to accept THAT I CAN DISAGREE WITH YOURS.

That seems to be the major issue here, tbh. But hey, blame everything on me if it makes you feel better.

[Kerrec]

Someone who is impartial needs to sum up the discussions made in this thread to this point and lock it.

People can't even agree on what the definition of TTK is. So how are we supposed to discuss the effect of TTK on anything?

[Figment]

Locking it might be the best thing. We're going in circles and yes-no for a while now. Agitation/frustration is sooring beyond what's necessary on both camps and it's getting petty (won't shake my own responsibility there).

People can't even agree on what the definition of TTK is. So how are we supposed to discuss the effect of TTK on anything?

We should have done that at the start and made sure that when we'd talk about different definitions, we used the appropriate wording, so there was no misinterpretation possible (as happened constantly). :/

[Baneblade]

TTK in PS1 was fine, it only got out of hand when you added in personal shield, and med kit spam. Skill mattered far more than it does in PS2. And luck was not nearly as important.

I'm not saying bump up hp levels to be on par with PS1, I'm saying this argument does not belong on a PlanetSide forum. This isn't BF3Online despite the jokes and memes about just that. It doesn't matter what CoD has or BF3 doesn't have. PS2 should be more like PS1 because that is what proper successors are supposed to be: Improved versions of the predecessor.

PS2 doesn't improve on PS1 in many ways... well the ingame voice works at least and the overall feel of the combat mechanics is better. But the rest of the game isn't PlanetSide.

[VGCS]

Someone who is impartial needs to sum up the discussions made in this thread to this point and lock it.

People can't even agree on what the definition of TTK is. So how are we supposed to discuss the effect of TTK on anything?

I'll politely disagree that people being Passionate about it is grounds for locking. And if it looks like they're just going in circles, it's because that's the very nature of TTK itself. It's an arms race of "what If?s". ... I can't really summarize it much further than that without sounding Biased, so I won't even attempt it.

[Dreamcast]

The TTK should be a HA with Shield against convetional guns (Carbines,LMG,AR,).


When you are HA you usually have enough time to react against conventional weapons because of the shield(usually except SAW, the SAW is really powerful)....With other classes u die way too quick and cant even react sometimes.


The only weapons that kill way too quickly are Shotguns,SAW,and I believe i seen some VS carbine even if your HA shield.



So yeah, they should aim for HA shield as TTK time, maybe alittle bit higher to compensate for shotguns etc.


HA Shield TTK is enough time to react but enough time for people to die fast and enough time for twitch skill to matter.

[Palerion]

I believe by now we have beaten this horse to death with a wet, dripping, unsanitary and useless noodle.

The conflict is becoming quite back-and-forth and hostile.

I think it would be best to clarify two opposing viewpoints by now and make progress instead of trying to get the last word in a pissing contest.

[exile]

I believe by now we have beaten this horse to death with a wet, dripping, unsanitary and useless noodle.

The conflict is becoming quite back-and-forth and hostile.

I think it would be best to clarify two opposing viewpoints by now and make progress instead of trying to get the last word in a pissing contest.
Here is a simple clarification of the two opposing viewpoints:

1: Let's discuss the actual question the OP asked (Sirisian and I).
2: Let's ignore the actual question the OP asked (everyone else).

[Mietz]

Here is a simple clarification of the two opposing viewpoints:

1: Let's discuss the actual question the OP asked (Sirisian and I).
2: Let's ignore the actual question the OP asked (everyone else).

trololololo

/lock

[Sledgecrushr]

Could someone please put a bullet into this thread.

[Kerrec]

Let the thread die...

[exile]

Everyone please post their opinion on whether the thread should die.

[maradine]

I was thinking about where I had left my spiral ham slicer, but then a notion struck me - did I ever have one in the first place?

[OCNSethy]

/thread pls

[psijaka]

/thread pls

+1

High time this thread died

[Crator]

Everyone please post their opinion on whether the thread should die.

If people stop posting in it, it will....

[Hamma]

Ok seriously, if you guys want it to die stop posting in it because there's no reason to lock it.

[Eliphas]

I like the short time to kill it places more emphasis on tactics and less dancing tricks like circle straff and bunny hopping.

I think one of the silliest aspects of most shooters is that when someone shoots you in the back you have a fair chance of killing them by dancing around.

Its much better that game actually reward you for sneaking up behind someone.

^
Agree

[exile]

Hamma is right, we should stop posting.

[Figment]

Pro-low ttk people want thread to die:

They keep bumping it several times over to tell others and themselves to stop posting.



*facepalm*

Fail.


Since no summary was made by an objective person, only an agitated insult by one other person, I'll try to summise both sides in the argument.

Summary "Pro-low TTK" side:
Pro-low ttk tend to argue from a perfect ttk, where they like a low ttk because it rewards flanking positioned troops with an execution. They deem this rewarding smart positional play (rewarding primarily the player on the move, actively seeking to flank an enemy position).


It is argued current situational awareness and ttk length suffice for all decision making that happens during a fight as it is not considered there are many decisions to make in the first place.


They also consider defense play to benefit more from close to instakill ttk, assuming the defender gets the drop on the enemy at all times. They also claim it benefits small groups, without considering more volume of fire kills more rapidly at low ttks and the death of one on the smaller team more quickly increases the power distance.


They claim that a slightly longer ttk would not matter, yet a longer ttk would adversely affect chances of survival for a small group, argueing the leverage of more hitpoints would bolden larger groups (which the opposition agrees with when TTK gets significantly higher than the impact of focused fire on a chokepoint - the pro-short TTK assumes any increase does this).


It is also claimed adverse game effects of short ttk are down to bad map layout design only. Note that nobody disagrees that the layouts are bad.


Furthermore, it is claimed that if you don't get instakilled, you still can't actually return (much) more fire than if you are not instakilled, hence rendering a 20-30% ttk/health (depending on who you ask) increase moot. Given this notion, some claim the opposition must be longing for drastic increases of the perfect ttk in the order of several seconds to the perfect TTK.


It is suggested the player gets more satisfaction out of a short ttk by being rewarded for active movement and getting the drop on others. Longer ttks are seen as a cheap way of overcoming a situational awareness deficiency, where it is assumed this deficiency is at all times the fault of and therefore the responsibility of the player. Hence it is argued the person who got the drop outplayed the opponent.


Summary "Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side:
Pro-bit-longer-ttk want a slightly longer ttk, particularly, a longer practical ttk, since they expect to be allowed to respond when they are engaged, rewarding reflexes, allowing to learn, gain situational awareness during a fight and apply it, allowing to enter and exit rooms, stimulating fights, overall rewarding the consistent better player over the ganking of people who either intentionally or by luck flank another player. This should stimulate the feeling the player did "all they could" and was defeated by the enemy player, rather than the game. Currently, it is considered the other way around.


They expect flanking to be rewarded with a ttk advantage of starting the fight, but do not expect that to also end the fight as this would make random encounters have more random outcomes, not rewarding the actual "better players". Where better player is defined by better shot, decent reflexes and trying to play for reaching objectives and therefore having to move through potential crossfires.


It is argued focused fire is more effective and defenders can recuperate better when ttk is high enough for two players in a defensive position (ergo from cover) to effect a faster kill, rather than waste bullets on the same target and risk random and lucky (head)shots to drop defenders. TTK should still be low enough to control a chokepoint. It is argued that with too low a TTK, especially AoE, it is too easy to clean out a room from defenders and holding an area is impossible. It is argued that good positioning should benefit defenders and flanking shouldn't be extremely easy or too rewarding, since flanking should make the better player already win anyway as the player would have the drop advantage.

It is in fact argued that if a TTK becomes too long, then who initiated the fight and from where becomes too irrelevant, however, it is currently seen as too relevant.


They expect players to get a chance to move to or in between cover, creating more chance to impact the outcome of the fight with skills, timing, reflexes, steady aim and situational awareness generation during the engagement, starting at the first hit. It s claimed that a small increase of ttk helps small groups and defenders hold choke points, until the point where despite of the chokepoint, endurance allows a storming of a position where the position is overrun with ease.


They are also concerned with the over time negative impact of fast ttk area of effect weaponry, where they expect these to get consistently more used to the point of spam, requiring minimal skill, risk and exposure. Especially when used in numbers and considering the geometry and flanking options in game, where it is suggested the indefensible situation largely created by the geometry and layout is aggravated by a low ttk as this reduces the time you have to react to an incursion or threat coming from one of the directions you could not see coming, even if you actively look around. Particularly when tasked with holding a room that is setup for crossfires by the game.


The requested ttk increase is in the order of half a second to a second, depending on weapon: on average shorter than PS1, longer than PS2. Either way bringing it closer to the current HA ttks.


It is argued that a short ttk leads to less satisfying and competitive gameplay, as the player felt to have wasted time, is defeated by the game, not an opponent and/or not having had a chance to do anything about it since the first to hit wins. It is suggested this turns every engagement into an arbitrary dice roll, as it is considered impossible to have complete situational awareness at this time and therefore not the player's fault. The player, it is argued, should thus have a chance to rectify this deficiency.







Think I've been fair, you can add some addendums/corections if you wish. Editing for better readability.

[Mietz]

Addendum:

"Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side also claims that current TTK limits the breadth and depth of interesting and creative weaponry due to low DPS granularity preventing a proper balancing of DOT and AOE effects, leading to weaponry that is generally the same in almost every respect (bullets and explosives) or imbalanced (Lasher, beta Flamethrower).

The "Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side argues that with slightly longer TTK, and hence higher DPS granularity, more interesting and specialized weaponry could be created increasing variety/choices for players.

[Rothnang]

Also a longer TTK that allows you to retreat into cover instead of having a high probability of dying every single time you peek your head out can reward flanking and positioning in a much more profound way than just being able to gank people a little easier, since it will be essential to negate peoples cover if they have more opportunity to use it to stay alive against a one sided assault.

[Sonny]

I agree with Figment's "Pro-bit-longer TTK" definition. The main reasons being that I find it the current TTK very frustrating is getting frequently insta-killed despite trying to be aware of my surroundings and also the lack of definition between any of the weapons in the game - carbine, shotgun, rifle or LMG - I can't tell the difference as I'm dead within 1.5 seconds anyway!

[exile]

I think now is a good time to re-ignite this thread.

[SoUnreal]

It's too late for them to change this now, even though I did like the TTK in the old planetside they would have to redo almost every aspect of the game to coincide with a higher TTK for infantry. So I see them never changing this plus all the COD kiddies would scream out with a million voices as if the universe was hit by a supernova.

CoD always gets a lot of flak, and deservedly so, but let's also consider that the TTK is even lower in games like CS. So it's not just a CoD mentality at play here, even competitive gamers have become accustomed to low TTK's, but I'm not a fan of it either.

With that said, PS2 isn't all that bad. If you have better aim and reactions than your opponent you should win 9/10 1v1 situations. It's not about who sees who first. The only time TTK becomes a problem is when you're outnumbered, and in that scenario we have to keep in mind that PS was never intended to be a skill based shooter nor a game where you can lonewolf and effectively take down 5 enemies at once.

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

[GTGD]

CoD always gets a lot of flak, and deservedly so, but let's also consider that the TTK is even lower in games like CS. So it's not just a CoD mentality at play here, even competitive gamers have become accustomed to low TTK's, but I'm not a fan of it either.

With that said, PS2 isn't all that bad. If you have better aim and reactions than your opponent you should win 9/10 1v1 situations. It's not about who sees who first. The only time TTK becomes a problem is when you're outnumbered, and in that scenario we have to keep in mind that PS was never intended to be a skill based shooter nor a game where you can lonewolf and effectively take down 5 enemies at once.

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

Except it is exactly who sees who first. Taking into consideration human reaction time and lag, many times you will be dead before you know you're taking damage (especially if you get headshot at all).

Now throw in the dumb flinch mechanic. It's a better strategy to sprint and hop around like a moron to distort your hitbox long enough for your enemy to waste his ammo and have to reload.

Notice how this is destroying weapon diversity? They're similar to begin with, but pretty much all players have abandoned slow firing weapons for the fastest firing carbines (unless they are one hit kills).

[SoUnreal]

Except it is exactly who sees who first. Taking into consideration human reaction time and lag, many times you will be dead before you know you're taking damage (especially if you get headshot at all).

Now throw in the dumb flinch mechanic. It's a better strategy to sprint and hop around like a moron to distort your hitbox long enough for your enemy to waste his ammo and have to reload.

Notice how this is destroying weapon diversity? They're similar to begin with, but pretty much all players have abandoned slow firing weapons for the fastest firing carbines (unless they are one hit kills).

All I can say is I haven't experienced this. I haven't seen any lag and unless I'm up against an infiltrator or other high damage weapon, there's definitely a small but good window to evade if the terrain allows for it.

Funny enough I was just defending an outpost in a 10v3 situation, 10v1 for a long while and we were able to hold them off for a good bit. Had one situation where I was able to out strafe someone to get the kill, despite him having the drop on me. Also got 2 kills in a 3v1 before dying. The TTK isn't ideal, but it's definitely lower in other games. As I mentioned in CS it's very common to die in one shot, but more often than not one burst is enough to get a kill. You don't see that on PS2 near as often especially at mid - long range.

The bigger issue is the complete lack of recoil and how easy the guns are to manage. If they took more skill you wouldn't see as many people getting kills as quickly as they are.

[Figment]

"Complete lack of recoil" isn't how I'd describe NC weapons.

[Crator]

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

Not certain what can be done to make aiming more difficult. That's a pure hand to mouse coordination thing imo and nothing, other then screen shake from things going on around you, would make that harder. Recoil on starter weapons are a bit worse until you cert into some attachments or get a gun via certs that has less of it. Thus, recoil, is a mechanic is being handled via certs too. I suppose some small adjustments with these and the certs could be made but I'm not certain that is the real resolution.

Simply giving players more time to react to situations via health or armor amounts, to increase TTK, should do the trick imo.

[SoUnreal]

"Complete lack of recoil" isn't how I'd describe NC weapons.

I play NC, you only notice the recoil at long range.

Not certain what can be done to make aiming more difficult. That's a pure hand to mouse coordination thing imo and nothing, other then screen shake from things going on around you, would make that harder. Recoil on starter weapons are a bit worse until you cert into some attachments or get a gun via certs that has less of it. Thus, recoil, is a mechanic is being handled via certs too. I suppose some small adjustments with these and the certs could be made but I'm not certain that is the real resolution.

Simply giving players more time to react to situations via health or armor amounts, to increase TTK, should do the trick imo.

They can add more recoil and actually make it worth while to burst fire instead of spray. Second thing they can adjust is the damage output. Hits to the arm and leg should deal far less damage than shots to the upper torso area for example. Small tweaks like that could increase survivability without exactly tweaking health while also giving more importance to pinpoint accuracy.

[psijaka]

Since no summary was made by an objective person, only an agitated insult by one other person, I'll try to summise both sides in the argument.

Summary "Pro-low TTK" side:
Pro-low ttk tend to argue from a perfect ttk, where they like a low ttk because it rewards flanking positioned troops with an execution. They deem this rewarding smart positional play (rewarding primarily the player on the move, actively seeking to flank an enemy position).


It is argued current situational awareness and ttk length suffice for all decision making that happens during a fight as it is not considered there are many decisions to make in the first place.


They also consider defense play to benefit more from close to instakill ttk, assuming the defender gets the drop on the enemy at all times. They also claim it benefits small groups, without considering more volume of fire kills more rapidly at low ttks and the death of one on the smaller team more quickly increases the power distance.


They claim that a slightly longer ttk would not matter, yet a longer ttk would adversely affect chances of survival for a small group, argueing the leverage of more hitpoints would bolden larger groups (which the opposition agrees with when TTK gets significantly higher than the impact of focused fire on a chokepoint - the pro-short TTK assumes any increase does this).


It is also claimed adverse game effects of short ttk are down to bad map layout design only. Note that nobody disagrees that the layouts are bad.


Furthermore, it is claimed that if you don't get instakilled, you still can't actually return (much) more fire than if you are not instakilled, hence rendering a 20-30% ttk/health (depending on who you ask) increase moot. Given this notion, some claim the opposition must be longing for drastic increases of the perfect ttk in the order of several seconds to the perfect TTK.


It is suggested the player gets more satisfaction out of a short ttk by being rewarded for active movement and getting the drop on others. Longer ttks are seen as a cheap way of overcoming a situational awareness deficiency, where it is assumed this deficiency is at all times the fault of and therefore the responsibility of the player. Hence it is argued the person who got the drop outplayed the opponent.


Summary "Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side:
Pro-bit-longer-ttk want a slightly longer ttk, particularly, a longer practical ttk, since they expect to be allowed to respond when they are engaged, rewarding reflexes, allowing to learn, gain situational awareness during a fight and apply it, allowing to enter and exit rooms, stimulating fights, overall rewarding the consistent better player over the ganking of people who either intentionally or by luck flank another player. This should stimulate the feeling the player did "all they could" and was defeated by the enemy player, rather than the game. Currently, it is considered the other way around.


They expect flanking to be rewarded with a ttk advantage of starting the fight, but do not expect that to also end the fight as this would make random encounters have more random outcomes, not rewarding the actual "better players". Where better player is defined by better shot, decent reflexes and trying to play for reaching objectives and therefore having to move through potential crossfires.


It is argued focused fire is more effective and defenders can recuperate better when ttk is high enough for two players in a defensive position (ergo from cover) to effect a faster kill, rather than waste bullets on the same target and risk random and lucky (head)shots to drop defenders. TTK should still be low enough to control a chokepoint. It is argued that with too low a TTK, especially AoE, it is too easy to clean out a room from defenders and holding an area is impossible. It is argued that good positioning should benefit defenders and flanking shouldn't be extremely easy or too rewarding, since flanking should make the better player already win anyway as the player would have the drop advantage.

It is in fact argued that if a TTK becomes too long, then who initiated the fight and from where becomes too irrelevant, however, it is currently seen as too relevant.


They expect players to get a chance to move to or in between cover, creating more chance to impact the outcome of the fight with skills, timing, reflexes, steady aim and situational awareness generation during the engagement, starting at the first hit. It s claimed that a small increase of ttk helps small groups and defenders hold choke points, until the point where despite of the chokepoint, endurance allows a storming of a position where the position is overrun with ease.


They are also concerned with the over time negative impact of fast ttk area of effect weaponry, where they expect these to get consistently more used to the point of spam, requiring minimal skill, risk and exposure. Especially when used in numbers and considering the geometry and flanking options in game, where it is suggested the indefensible situation largely created by the geometry and layout is aggravated by a low ttk as this reduces the time you have to react to an incursion or threat coming from one of the directions you could not see coming, even if you actively look around. Particularly when tasked with holding a room that is setup for crossfires by the game.


The requested ttk increase is in the order of half a second to a second, depending on weapon: on average shorter than PS1, longer than PS2. Either way bringing it closer to the current HA ttks.


It is argued that a short ttk leads to less satisfying and competitive gameplay, as the player felt to have wasted time, is defeated by the game, not an opponent and/or not having had a chance to do anything about it since the first to hit wins. It is suggested this turns every engagement into an arbitrary dice roll, as it is considered impossible to have complete situational awareness at this time and therefore not the player's fault. The player, it is argued, should thus have a chance to rectify this deficiency.

Think I've been fair, you can add some addendums/corections if you wish. Editing for better readability.

Good summation, Figment; deserves repeating.

Pity though, that you couldn't resist the snide comment at the top of your post (deleted in the quote above), even if it was deserved, as it calls into question the objectivity of your summary. Perhaps you should edit it out.