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

[VGCS]

This topic was a bit too highbrow for the official forums so I figured it belonged here instead....

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/depth-vs.-complexity

Pay particular attention to the point about "Modern Shooters" while considering PS2's ingredients: Situational Awareness, tactical decision making, reaction time, Map & Terrain awareness, your opponent's class, your opponents weapon, where the nearest corners/cover is in multiple directions, ally locations, objective & spawn flow, recoil control, compensating aim for the impacts of flinching, ...and everything else I'm missing here that comes from hybridizing an FPS together with the macro-elements of RTS size armies & strategies .... and then compress it all into 0.80 seconds which is effectively your entire lifespan when being shot at.


Is it "Depth", or "Complexity" that best describes 90% of the ways you find yourself dying in this game? And do First-Order-Optimal strategies tend to work just as well if not better/faster when facing these deep and highly time compressed situations? Is this also part of the reason we have no Tutorial yet, or worse still, mean the game is also guilty of "Irreducible" Complexity for the average player?

[Zulthus]

I personally hate the TTK in the game, it's nothing more than who sees who first. Of course, SOE didn't really have a choice. If what you're shooting doesn't die in 1 second, the ADHD crowd quits the game and whines about kills taking FOREVER.

I liked longer TTKs and the armor bar; it made fights interesting and required skill. Maybe I'm the only one, but strafe fights were fun.

So, yes; I believe the game could have a lot more depth when it comes to TTK.

[Figment]

Long answer: oh yes.

Short answer: yes.

[Methonius]

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.

[Ghoest9]

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.

[Rbstr]

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.

I agree. It rewards pre-conflict thought and planning more. You have to pick battles more carefully. It means you need to think quickly and pay much more attention to getting blindsided.

[Palerion]

The time to kill is actually a bit longer than most modern FPS games I believe, and if they bumped it up, they would probably have to make weapons easier to use, also.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

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.

I agree completely. If I outflank, outwit and outmanoeuvre the enemy, I deserve teabagging rights. Edit: I've had a think about it over the last 15 minutes and I think that I might actually prefer a 75% chance of winning instead of an "execution" like my post originally reads. A higher TTK would be good but it's a fine balance to maintain between rewarding those who are tactically better and the twitchers who can 360 no-scope me.

If they get to turn and headshot me with their [insert faction specific OP weapon] after I've spent 5 minutes getting into position, I feel that it's unfair.

If the enemy is going to blindly walk forward and take no precautions, I deserve to farm them from my entrenched position.

(This is not the same as spawn camping though. I hate spawncamping from both sides of the equation.)


Back to OP, I think PS2 is unique in that the potential depth *is* there, but it's not utilised because low TTK and zerg tactics (low complexity) are more effective. Low complexity => lowER depth. But if you hunt for it, you can have it.

[Sturmhardt]

I more feel like the game rewards the guy who sees the other first... I can only kill noobs who see me first, if I'm against an experienced player the advantage of the first sight is too big. So yes, higher ttk plz. Would also give the weapons a chance to be different in damage.

.sent via phone.

[maradine]

I felt PS1's TTK was atrocious. That said, I think they could globally add another 50% health to what we have now. The pendulum has swung a hair too far.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I felt PS1's TTK was atrocious. That said, I think they could globally add another 50% health to what we have now. The pendulum has swung a hair too far.

I should copy this post and paste-edit it into mine so it looks like I had the idea first.

[JesNC]

PS1's TTK was indeed atrocious, to the point where some guns were mainly cosmetical in use.


PS2 rewards thinking before you engage. Complexity during a firefight is actually minimal if you considered positioning, angle of attack and equipment before engaging your target. All the complexity in firefights is hitting the other guy while not being hit yourself.

The 'depth' comes from figuring out how to approach that firefight, and while there are numerous ways to do so, the thought process isn't overly complex either.


That said, the ability to make tactical/strategical decisions naturally decreases while being in a firefight.

[psijaka]

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.

Totally agree with this.

I've played a fair bit of Firefall PvP, where the TTK is pretty high, and it generally boils down to a jet pack twitch spamfest, not my cup of tea at all.

I prefer a game like Planetside 2 where you have to think about cover, flanking, risking a run across open ground, where your enemy might be - situational awareness, in other words. These things matter a lot less with a high TTK when you can just twitch react your way out of trouble. High TTK takes a lot of the thinking out of a game.

[psijaka]

In answer to the OP - No. Quite the opposite, in fact; short TTK adds to the depth of the game as players must be more situationally aware to survive.

[Mietz]

Answer: Yes. Been saying that since beta.

If you pay attention in the game, PS2 isn't -actually- designed for tactics and positioning play, just like COD doesn't induce that.

Why? Because death is meaningless, respawn timers too short and gameplay too fast.
If you want a tactically deep game with this whole positioning and "hurhur outplayed you by shotgun in the back" you need to be closer to a sim than you are to an action game.

PS2 took the sim-y elements of recoil and extremely short TTK (~600ms on most guns) and paired them with the COD run-and-gun element.
Its a hodgepodge of mechanics that doesn't really make the game fun on any level:

RPG Elements:
Certs
Bullet DMG
COF (random)
Bloom

Sim Elements:
Recoil
Flinch
Projectile Drop
Damage Falloff

Action Elements:
Regenerating Health (shields)
Short respawn
Infinite Sprint
Viable Hip-Fire

By the developer words themselves, they wanted to make "BF3 on crack", and they succeeded, except that this playstyle "on crack" isn't really conductive of tactical and positioning play.

Rather, it translates into lucking out to find enemies not looking in your direction.

There is no element of picking the right tool for the job for example, infantry guns are mostly same-y, even with the varied "stats" they have.

If PS2 wants to be tactical, you would need to go the route of Arma or BF2 Reality Mod.
Otherwise tactics can not be executed, because "outplaying" an enemy or a group of enemies means dropping C4 with an LA jet-hopping on houses.

[Mietz]

Answer: Yes. Been saying that since beta.

If you pay attention in the game, PS2 isn't -actually- designed for tactics and positioning play, just like COD doesn't induce that.

Why? Because death is meaningless, respawn timers too short and gameplay too fast.
If you want a tactically deep game with this whole positioning and "hurhur outplayed you by shotgun in the back" you need to be closer to a sim than you are to an action game.

PS2 took the sim-y elements of recoil and extremely short TTK (~600ms on most guns) and paired them with the COD run-and-gun element.
Its a hodgepodge of mechanics that doesn't really make the game fun on any level:

RPG Elements:
Certs
Bullet DMG
COF (random)
Bloom

Sim Elements:
Recoil
Flinch
Projectile Drop
Damage Falloff

Action Elements:
Regenerating Health (shields)
Short respawn
Infinite Sprint
Viable Hip-Fire

By the developer words themselves, they wanted to make "BF3 on crack", and they succeeded, except that this playstyle "on crack" isn't really conductive of tactical and positioning play.

Rather, it translates into lucking out to find enemies not looking in your direction.

There is no element of picking the right tool for the job for example, infantry guns are mostly same-y, even with the varied "stats" they have.

If PS2 wants to be tactical, you would need to go the route of Arma or BF2 Reality Mod.
Otherwise tactics can not be executed, because "outplaying" an enemy or a group of enemies means dropping C4 with an LA jet-hopping on houses.

[PredatorFour]

I prefer a game like Planetside 2 where you have to think about cover, flanking, risking a run across open ground, where your enemy might be - situational awareness, in other words.

You mean like in ANY FPS game, regardless of high/low TTK.

Low TTK is a restriction in gameplay. Gunplay skill loses with low TTK.

Think of the one shot instances already in game, with infantry running to there deaths like rabbits looking at head lights at night. Alot of people have raged about these one shot situations putting people off the game.

[ShadetheDruid]

The whole high/low-TTK-tactical-or-no subject is a huge fail. It's all personal preference. Some people find high TTK more tactical, some people find low TTK more tactical.

Good thing is there's loads of games out there, something for everyone.

[Sledgecrushr]

The one element of ps2 that the devs got spot on imo is the ttk. I certainly dont feel buthurt when someone outflanks me and mows me down. That just means that I didnt approach that particular fight correctly. Just think about the current system as quick feedback on making mistakes.

[Seafort]

The low TTK doesn't add anything to the depth of the game. It promotes the zerg tactics which is in the game currently. If outfits could actually survive long enough to move tactically rather than the 0.5-1.0 secs TTK we have now it might change the way people play the game.

Personal shields in PS2 are a joke and should actually protect you longer than they do. You might as well not have a shield for all the protection it gives you.

The TTK is made even worse currently with the vehicle spam we have. A single tank or ESF can take out an entire squad because of how low it is.

I think all this comes down to the amount of worthless cover we have in game. I can't hide behind anything without the HE shells hitting me with their splash damage. Even in the middle of towers which should be safe from vehicles I get hit by the splash damage.

And please SOE put some bloody doors and windows in the openings of buildings and let them be hackable. It's the 25th century and buildings don't have doors and windows, seriously? :P

[Kerrec]

At the risk of being flamed for coming to PS2 from another game (/gasp!), I'm going to bring up BF3. BF3 has "normal" and "hardcore" modes. The MAIN difference being hardcore has a much lower TTK (as in it takes less time to kill).

Go into any BF3 forum and do a search for keyword "hardcore" and you'll find hundreds of threads about how "hardcore" is the more tactical version of BF3 because TTK is low, forcing you to play smarter and work better with your team.

From my experience, the whole BF3 "hardcore" vs. "normal" extra tactical argument was a big pile of poo. It's just people wanting to put their prefered game mode on a pedestal above the other modes. I played both, interchangably to come to one big realization:

1) My K/D, SPM & W/L ratios did not change one iota when switching from one mode to the other, regardless of the fact that I never changed my playstyle.
2) Hardcore had the same objective merry-go-round as normal mode. There was not more defense on a point to avoid moving across open spaces to get to the next objective. The way people played was exactly the same. They took the same risks crossing open terrain, the same risks charging into enemy with a vehicle to rack up as many kills as possible before having the vehicle destroyed, etc...

What difference DID it make?

1) Well, from my experience, there were alot more 1 shot kill snipers littering the landscape doing nothing but farming kills. Instead of playing ojbectives to win the match for the team, these people just farmed kills for whatever gratification they received from it.
2) It didn't matter what weapon you chose to use, they were all lethal.


Having read what I've just written, it sounds like I'm for increasing TTK. The lower the TTK, the more generic the weapons become and the more cheesy people become with respect to their playstyle.

However, high TTK does do one bad thing. It becomes a force multiplier for superior numbers. I had one memorable fight in PS2 where my faction was trying to take a tech plant in a 3 way battle. The NC had one of the tower walls fully manned and were farming all the idiots walking into their meatgrinder. As an LA, I would jetpack up to the first level of the tower, mow someone down and jump back down before anyone realized what happened. I'd reload, move a bit and do it again. I did this until I ran out of ammo. Then I used my grenade and after that my C4. I thinned out the blob of NC that was on that first floor of the tower and helped the stupid lemmings on team by lessening the meatgrinding they were facing. I was able to do that, because TTK is low. I eventually switched to my pistol and kept trying to take out individuals, but killing with the pistol took too long, and I got killed before I could finish off my target. I got greedy, stayed exposed too long, and died for that mistake.

Now, assume TTK was increased. In that situation, I would probably not have been able to contribute the little bit that I did. I would have jump packed up to the first floor, dumped alot of bullets into one target but stayed exposed too long and get shot by 10 guys all at once. Long TTK makes zergs even MORE powerful!

Not to mention that things like AI mines, C4 and grenades either get balanced along with the increase in TTK, making them moderately useless, or they become way overpowered. Might as well throw the Infiltrator class in that mix. If they can't one headshot kill with their strongest rifles, the class becomes mostly obsolete.

One of the big problems I'm having as an LA these days, is running out of ammo when I find a nice defensible spot. Higher TTK would aggravate that alot, forcing me to stay close to an ammo pack. That would make the LA class much less attractive, unless you doubled the quantity of ammo infantry can carry.

So what's the point of this thread? To wax nostalgic on what the devs *should* have done in your opinion? Or to try to drive a drastic (restart from scratch, IMO) change in the game?

[Sledgecrushr]

^This, shortening the ttk makes thinning the zerg even easier for uber skilled players. I am certainly not anywhere close to the uber category so I am very happy that the ttk is as long as it is.

[psijaka]

You mean like in ANY FPS game, regardless of high/low TTK.

Low TTK is a restriction in gameplay. Gunplay skill loses with low TTK.

Think of the one shot instances already in game, with infantry running to there deaths like rabbits looking at head lights at night. Alot of people have raged about these one shot situations putting people off the game.

Low TTK is a restriction in gameplay only in so far as it forces people to be a bit more aware of the possibility that they might die if they do something stupid.

High TTK is a restriction in gameplay as it devalues the usefulness of situational awareness if players can get away with mistakes before they can be punished for them.

I actually don't think that PS2 TTK is particularly low. Kerrec has made reference above in his excellent post to hardcore mode in BF, and the same exists in COD - pretty extreme when one bullet from pretty much any gun can take you out. Hardcore is the correct name for it! Normal mode COD normally takes 3-5 bullets to kill.

The other extreme is Firefall, where it takes something like 20 - 40 bullets from a full auto weapon to drop someone.

Planetside 2 is a happy medium; generally takes 6 - 9 bullets to drop someone at close range; more at long range.

[Rbstr]

Some people find high TTK more tactical, some people find low TTK more tactical.

The word tactical doesn't mean anything any more except "The way I like it"

Lower TTK devalues the initiative and the the value of each individual shot. One on one fights become about accuracy management over time: Keeping weapon scatter on target. Whereas lower TTK one on ones are more about initial precision: Hitting the right places first.

[RSphil]

i like shorter TTK as it makes for less side strafing and other crap people do. i like a little realism in my fps games. and yes i know this is in the future but that wont make people bullet resistant.
dieing quick makes people think about how to approach bases, buildings, people ect. makes it more tactical imo.

i have always played other fps games on hardcore mode and so far i am liking ps2 in every way.
yes there are some problems but it is a new game and we should be use dot this by now. keep it how it is. with hp increase via certs it the TTk changes a little but still feels good.

[ringring]

PS2 isn't particularly deep. You aim you shoot that's it.


A different perspective that doesn't involve ttk.

Q. What about capturing bases and outposts, are the connections governing which you capture?
A. It's complex. Imagine a map whereby the links between the facilties are lines and it would look like a spider's web with many connections.

Q. Given the above, does it matter which facility you capture next.
A. No not really. Deciding which facility to capture is shallow.

Q. Can the connections between facilties be made less complex but at the same time make the capture decisions deeper?
A. Yes. Reduce the links influencing capture between the facilties forcing an attacking force to have to navigate and plan ahead and enabling defenders to anticipate attack routes which would provide oppotunities to counter an attacking strategy.

Q. Yea, that's deeper, but most people would call that a lattice wouldn't they?
A. Yes they would.

[Dougnifico]

People always talk about how a higher TTK adds tactics. I don't see how a bunny hopping strafe fight adds more tactics. Halo didn't have a lot more tactics than COD. I agree the game is shallow, but only for a lack of meta-game and proper utilization of area outside the Crown. TTK has nothing to do with it. I'm in agreement that low TTK makes pre-engagement choices have more weight.

To be honest, if they had one hardcore server, I would be one of the first to check it out. It just adds to the fact that I should be a little more careful about my actions.

[Figment]

What's these silly mentionings of bunny hopping?


This isn't Counterstrike.


If you really want to remove bunnyhopping, do what PS1 did: ADD STAMINA / UTTERLY RUIN AIM WHILE JUMPING.

[Ghoest9]

You mean like in ANY FPS game, regardless of high/low TTK.

Low TTK is a restriction in gameplay. DANCING skill loses with low TTK.

Think of the one shot instances already in game, with infantry running to there deaths like rabbits looking at head lights at night. Alot of people have raged about these one shot situations putting people off the game.


Fixed that for you. Jumping around, and straffing is not gun play. Its jumping around and running in circles.
In a real gun fight the other guy would kill you then laugh at you if you tried that shit.

[RodenyC]

Who ever jumped in PS1? Nobody.Know why? You had to worry about stamina.
I would like the TTK bumped up just a little more and it would be perfect.

[typhaon]

I think Heavy Assault (if you use your shield) feels durable... and could maybe be used as a baseline for TTK for other classes... with HA getting even more of a durability buff.

As an FPS... there is nothing unusual about the TTK... it feels perfectly normal. As a new experience for MMO-only players or people that just haven't played competitive FPS (I have a friend in this situation) - it's a TOUGH learning curve.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think the ttk is great out of the box, and it only gets lower with certification points. I dont see a problem with the current system.

[Forsaken One]

The main reason I hate PS2s TTK is not that its short or long its that it can't decide what to be.

body shots to inf take 6-10 bullets to kill, but only 2-3 bullets to the head or something.


do you know how annoying that is? You know your enemys empire, you even learn what gun he has. but you can't put in before you engage him how many shots you can maybe take. you can die in less then a second or it can take 4 seconds of being shot to die.



Its reaaaaaallly freaking annoying. Ether make it realistic and take 1 to the head and 2-3 to the body or arcadey and take 5 to the head and 7 to the body or something.

Edit: Also it would be nice if the end of the splash from grenades and vehicle explosions did some kind of shell shock effect but you could live through it if you were at full health instead of insta gibbing people. Who again, take 10 bullets to the body to kill.

[Sledgecrushr]

Between personal shields and sci fi helmets, you probably need to keep pumping rounds into their head until they go prone. I know shooting the legs of a guy is less efficient than bodyshots and thats even less than head shots. All I know is I like it.

[Tatwi]

I personally hate the TTK in the game, it's nothing more than who sees who first. Of course, SOE didn't really have a choice. If what you're shooting doesn't die in 1 second, the ADHD crowd quits the game and whines about kills taking FOREVER.

I liked longer TTKs and the armor bar; it made fights interesting and required skill. Maybe I'm the only one, but strafe fights were fun.

So, yes; I believe the game could have a lot more depth when it comes to TTK.

I agree. When I am shooting at someone the *only* thing I actively think about is repeating the words, "aim for the head, aim for the head, aim for the..." over and over, because my instinct is to aim for the body. Who cares what class they are or what weapon they might have? It completely does not matter at all.

Now if you stretch out the distance to 300m and add in the fact that I am hidden somewhere watching the enemy and they don't know I am there, then yes indeed I have/can take the time to shoot the Medic first, where possible.

When it comes to fighting vehicles as infantry, it's totally different though. I will find the time to determine which target is the right combination of "most threatening" and "easiest to eliminate", provided there is cover to assess the situation from. Generally speaking, this sort "tactical thinking" isn't required or even possible against infantry, because by the time you've come up with a plan someone else has already killed them. :lol:

Infantry on infantry, where both sides have spawns nearby and neither are being camped, I don't really have an issue with the TTK. But when it 10 seconds to clear a location and the fight is over, that kind of makes for a boring time.

As an aside, it would be *neat* if there wasn't any healing/regeneration at all, respawns were at the warpgate only, and TTK was a minute of sustained fire or 10 head shots. Then a fight would be all about positions, flanking, covering, scouting, suppressing, and general situational awareness, because death would be a real pain in the ass and your life would have a large margin for error. It would make for long, tactical fights, but I am sure people would hate the shit out this concept for PS2. Still, it was fun to think about for a moment...

[maradine]

I think what you're describing is what Hawken/MWO/SB:HA all should have been. :)

[Strategy]

I personally hate the TTK in the game, it's nothing more than who sees who first. Of course, SOE didn't really have a choice. If what you're shooting doesn't die in 1 second, the ADHD crowd quits the game and whines about kills taking FOREVER.

I liked longer TTKs and the armor bar; it made fights interesting and required skill. Maybe I'm the only one, but strafe fights were fun.

So, yes; I believe the game could have a lot more depth when it comes to TTK.
Strafe fights could be fun, but this game just wasn't created with that kind of gunplay in mind. Maybe if shooting wasn't built around ADS and the movement was faster there would be exciting gun fights. Honestly, I think this game would be 10x better if infantry movement and gunplay were a slowed version of quake's--but that's just a pipe dream and obviously never going to happen.

Increasing TTK in PS2 would just make infantry fighting terribly poor and even more boring.

[Rbstr]

As an aside, it would be *neat* if there wasn't any healing/regeneration at all, respawns were at the warpgate only, and TTK was a minute of sustained fire or 10 head shots. Then a fight would be all about positions, flanking, covering, scouting, suppressing, and general situational awareness, because death would be a real pain in the ass and your life would have a large margin for error. It would make for long, tactical fights, but I am sure people would hate the shit out this concept for PS2. Still, it was fun to think about for a moment...

What you've described is exactly EVE:Online. Except it doesn't become "tactical" (that word again, just stop).

And what it amounts to in action, when assaulting anything of importance, is huge groups of people that one person directs to shoot at a single enemy so it blows up instantly. That maximizes the reduction in enemy threat.
Any and all tactics essentially disappear to "next target" "try to warp before you explode" and "everyone run away" and it becomes a case of min/maxing your group's ability to instantly pop things that come within range. And also maximizing the size of your group...perhaps if the group is large enough you can insta-kill multiple things at once!

It's great for a game with economics where each thing you blow up is a representation of time invested. Not when you just pop up again all nice and no worse for wear.

[Bags]

Ps2 has uberskilled played sledge crusher ? Lol !

[Sledgecrushr]

Ps2 has uberskilled played sledge crusher ? Lol !

Lol sarcasm doesnt become you. But yeah dude I regualrly watch sujieun on twitch tv and he is a relentless beast. His skill level is way beyond where I could ever hope to get. And he does it all almost entirely with a medic. So you can laugh like a schoolgirl or recognise that this is a skill based shooter.

[sneeek]

I think the TTKs are generally perfect as-is, except for the shotguns, which seem a little over-the-top even given their short effective range.

However, if the TTKs were lengthened, it would have to be done by making infantry guns fire more slowly, rather than making bullets individually weaker. The carbines and assault rifles that have only 30 rounds in a clip, which I assume is intentional for balance purposes, already need a certain amount of trigger discipline to avoid needing a reload before you're done killing a dude.

One of the things that I disliked the most about the original PlanetSide was having to dump most of a clip into a Rexoshield in order to kill him.

[Baneblade]

I think the TTK would be fine without headshots.

[Rockit]

The problem with low TTK is the impact to the cash shop. Why buy anything if I can kill you in 0.5 seconds? Shave it to 0.25? It just isn't enough difference to matter.

[BlaxicanX]

I've never really understood the comparisons to CoD.

I've raged so many times in this game because I get the drop on someone, empty 1/4th of my damn clip into them and they don't die. In fact, they turn around and casually murder me to death, and then I get the post-death snapshot of their health bar and they have like half their green bar left.

I don't know if it's because I play TR and their guns basically shoot silly-string, or because this is my first time playing a shooter on PC and I'm just bad at the game, or a combination of both, but the TTK in this game sure as hell isn't comparable to Call of Duty's, and yes it is frustrating, not because "I have ADHD", but because if I manage to outmaneuver you, I deserve a kill, and you deserve to die.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

[Strategy]

... but because if I manage to outmaneuver you, I deserve a kill, and you deserve to die.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

If your aiming was sufficient, and you outmaneuvered the other person, you'd win. Just out maneuvering another shouldn't get you anything but good position.

[ShadetheDruid]

Why buy anything if I can kill you in 0.5 seconds? Shave it to 0.25?

Because there's a lot more to weapons than how fast they kill.

[VGCS]

In answer to the OP - No. Quite the opposite, in fact; short TTK adds to the depth of the game as players must be more situationally aware to survive.

Hmm, I keep seeing this turn of phrase injected but nothing alongside it to differentiate how that "situation" came to be. Nothing to rule out dumb luck. In which case my original questions remain: HOW are you supposed to TEACH this??? If it's easy to teach then where's the Tutorials? That's a key point in the Video, if it's too difficult to make a Tutorial around it, then Developers will typically not even try, citing "time constraints". Could YOU GUYS who are proponents of the current TTK make one you think? That's pretty much the entire point of this Thread afterall. Separating teachable Depth from the much less teachable Complexity...

Case in point, it's really quite easy to design missions that train people to be more proficient at trading shots with eachother in less complicated TTK timeframes. Yet compressing that huge list of things I had in the original post, into the time it takes to go from your spawn to being dead? --- with the almost useless minimap this game provides as your only assistant? Where do the consistent results come in? Or do you prefer it BECAUSE of the gambling nature behind it? We need to get to the root of this argument better and not just settle for subjective placeholders that could also apply to situations where you run full speed around a random corner and catch someone with their back turned.... "on a hunch".


Lol sarcasm doesnt become you. But yeah dude I regualrly watch sujieun on twitch tv and he is a relentless beast. His skill level is way beyond where I could ever hope to get. And he does it all almost entirely with a medic. So you can laugh like a schoolgirl or recognise that this is a skill based shooter.

Yeah... I used to play APB with him. I've also seen you play b/c we're both on Connery as it's kind of hard to go anywhere without working alongside the 666th. ...but I still find your definitions of skill to be too subjective or at least; not very constructive

[Dougnifico]

Ok. So stamina prevents jumping. I still don't think that I should come up behind someone or on their flank and now I have to engage in a circle running competition. I'll be one of the few Planetside 1 vets to admit it, but PS1 sucked purely as an FPS. What made it great was meta-game but the gunplay was just atrocious. Too many times I had the jump on someone and lost because they could press their A and D buttons more erratically. Lower TTK breeds higher skill on a tactical level rather than a "I can point my mouse while strafing better" level.

That and the satisfaction of dropping a guy with a good burst is just so much better.

Plus gun variance can be achieved regardless. BF and COD (oh god!) had great weapons that felt different even on hardcore modes. You just need good designers.

[Palerion]

Reiterating what I have said previously, this game is combining battlefield-like recoil with anywhere from eight (point blank) to something like fifteen bullets to kill. I honestly find the system unfriendly enough in terms of the ease at which kills can be made.

[Rbstr]

Just out maneuvering another shouldn't get you anything but good position.

A good position from which to kill you with quickly because you're not paying attention and facing the wrong way...

[Archonzero]

PS1's TTKS was atrocious. Yes it made for some fun, good show johnny ole boy dancing firefights between two players, but it was simply too much.

PS2's TTK isn't bad, it promotes having higher wits an being more tactically aware/faster the the other guy (no need to do SWAT formations, but having others cover blind spots is paramount). I do feel the TTK is a bit too fast though imo, an I would agree with a 30-50% health buff for all infantry to allow a bit more processing time to the average player.

[BlaxicanX]

Some of the posts in this thread, man... these posts..

[Figment]

A good position from which to kill you with quickly because you're not paying attention and facing the wrong way...

"Not paying attention", "facing the wrong way".



Anyone else have issues with this wording? Considering you can only face one direction and if you round a corner or pass through a door, you have no options to look at all angles first. Particularly up and behind you. Getting into ganking positions is not skill, not in PS2 anyway where you have so much freedom of movement you do this by accident, since the opposition (particularly defense) has no idea what direction you're coming from. Attackers tend to know where the defender is coming from and therefore what crossfires to set up. But again, that's not a very big skill because it's simply too easy: pretty much anywhere with a perpendicular angle to the defender's path will do.


See, PlanetSide 1, I could get behind those statements, because you had third person view to actually be careful and check for threats. In PS1, if you approached or rounded a corner and didn't check first, or even if you didn't just throw EMP grenades, then yeah, it's indeed your fault.

In PS2, you don't. The only way to "pay attention" is by rounding the corner yourself to see - at which point you expose yourself to High Explosives, headshots and generally low TTKs, especially if there's more than one person there. Getting the drop on people who are "situational unaware" is extremely easy and basically it means whoever sees the other first.

Basically what I'm saying is, PS2 forces you to be situationally unaware, especially since at any second there's 8 or more directions you have to stay alert to, each with instant death. People are so unaware, that you can often just strawl up to enemy Sunderers from any near-rear vector, slap two C4 on the back or drop two mines and ??? profit.

There are MORE enemies in PS2 and each enemy is MORE dangerous when they get the drop. Saying this adds depth is like saying playing Minesweeper blindfolded adds more depth. It just adds more random deaths and creates more situations where a player has no control over the situation at all. Skill has nothing to do with it aside from being able to land more headshots, which almost means you have to play VS or TR anyway due to NC recoil.


Another thing to take into account in the context of the current TTKs, is that there's no TTK extension aside from certs. In PS1 we had medkits, where proper use could just be enough to make the other require an extra shot. We also had PShield, which was frustrating because it recharged too quick and gave too much absorbtion (only true for PS2 HA's to some degree beyond the recharge of all players where the shield is lesss noticable than PS1 armour). In PS2, I'm not even bothering with certing into medkits or regeneration kits, you won't get a chance to use them anyway until after an engagement, at which point you're normally either full health or dead and when shields have recharged, there's a barely noticable difference in TTK - a most you might stop being able to take fall damage. Medics otoh, get free health recharge and the most accurate basic gun - and one wonders why these are used so often by the killstreak users?

[ShadetheDruid]

It's really not that hard to be situationally aware in PS2, it's really not. People often just don't bother.

I've lost count of the number of times i've seen people get killed because they don't watch/check the high spots (in a game with drop pods and jetpacks, come on people :doh: ). But at the same time, those people making use of that lack of awareness don't have any of their own - i've also lost count of how many times i've been able to keep roofs clear because people who jetpack or pod up there don't pay attention either. You have people not being aware, and people relying on people not being aware to not be aware themselves.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, and you don't need a cheaty third person view to do it. If you need a third person view to see things you shouldn't logically be able to see in order to be situationally aware, then FPSs might not be for you. I also don't see why people's tactical positioning should be negated by your ability to go into third person just because you don't want to be ambushed.

I don't often (well, "don't often" in such a large game is relative, but you get what I mean) get snuck up on or ambushed because I actually pay attention to what i'm doing. Mostly because I use those tactics myself so I know I need to be aware to (and how to) counter them.

I really don't see how "PS2 forces you to be situationally unaware" because there's so many more points of attack, that doesn't make any sense. That's actually the opposite of making sense. If there's more threats, that forces you to be more situationally aware, not less.

The problem isn't the game, the problem is people. Very few people even pay attention to most things in every day life, let alone in games. Multiply that by the size of the game and you have people not paying attention on a grand scale. That's just how a lot of people are. But just because things are hard for some people (or even you), doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not that great a player, and even I can manage it.

Edit: As for the medikit thing, that hasn't been my experience at all. I have restoration kits for when i'm playing HA and I get a lot of use out of them (when there's no medics around). I definitely don't find that the only options are "full health" or "dead" after a fight.

[Sunrock]

Is it "Depth", or "Complexity" that best describes 90% of the ways you find yourself dying in this game? And do First-Order-Optimal strategies tend to work just as well if not better/faster when facing these deep and highly time compressed situations? Is this also part of the reason we have no Tutorial yet, or worse still, mean the game is also guilty of "Irreducible" Complexity for the average player?

90% of the time I die I would say it's because I "dropped the ball", IE lost concentration, underestimated the opponent or where just plain stupid.

But no this game is not too complex for the average player. PS2 is easy to learn hard to master.

[Baneblade]

Most of my deaths are due to my mistakes, but all too many of them seem to be luck on the side of who killed me... such as headshot OSOKs from Liberators.

[Mietz]

I really don't see how "PS2 forces you to be situationally unaware" because there's so many more points of attack, that doesn't make any sense. That's actually the opposite of making sense. If there's more threats, that forces you to be more situationally aware, not less.

Because there is a threshold in human capability, map design and TTK.

Giving a player the tools to reliably control his surroundings is key. Once you give the attacker too many avenues of attack and the player no reasonable and consistent way to actually counteract that, the threshold is crossed and you move from skill to luck.

PS2 swung the pendulum way past that threshold.

In a game that has 8 directional attack avenues and mobility with jetpacks, terrain, cloaks, aircraft, vehicles, etc. the tools for the player to consistently perform are not there.
Especially since you are so reliant on the performance of others in this game (you will not win the war by yourself), the ability to compensate is just not available, at all.

Situational awareness is good, I welcome it, but it needs to be controlled, like any other game design element.

Its not a panacea to everything.

[Sledgecrushr]

Ps2 has a tremendous skill component. But I dont think you can put it in with the spray-n-pray games lile cod, it takes too many bullets landed to get a kill for that. The kd in this game is long enough that being able to use your pistol and knife effectively are a big part of the game. How many people here have run out of rifle bullets and had to switch to the pistol to finish off an opponent. And shit Ive been in half a dozen good knife fights, not just sneaking up on someone but where both of us combatants were out of rifle and pistol ammo and had moved to the dirty work of the knife. Yeah this game from my perspective is hard. Yeah it would be easier for me to run away or get a heal mid combat heal if the ttk was was higher. To me this game is exciting with its imminent danger. When I can finally get a kill streak together I feel that it was completely deserved, not just luck. I hear Hawken has a very long ttk. Anyone try that game out?

[Mietz]

I hear Hawken has a very long ttk. Anyone try that game out?

I play the beta, what do you want to know?

[Dkamanus]

The thing of lower TTK is that you KNOW you'll die quickly, so to avoid that, you need to try to think in order to stay long enough to kill people. An example are Amp Stations. There are very much infantry oriented, but have their vehicle places inside the station. Since TTK is low, you can't run across the yard from where vehicles come out without any cover and expect to survive, even more if infantry and/or vehicle are shooting.

So you make a decision, even if unconsciously. You either move through the clutter of buildings in order to protect yourself against damage, or jump from tower to tower, OR go through the yard and see what happens. Unconsciously you go through the building, mitigating damage, being able to reach a generator and kill an engineer repairing it, mostly because you though it would be best to flank him.

Even though we don't make those decision actively, the lower TTK does try to bring the player more and more towards protecting himself and helping other so he won't die so often. There is nothing more frustrating then dieing over and over again, due to a lack of common sense. I think the low TTK incentivizes players to look for alternatives to staying alive.

[ShadetheDruid]

Because there is a threshold in human capability, map design and TTK.

Giving a player the tools to reliably control his surroundings is key. Once you give the attacker too many avenues of attack and the player no reasonable and consistent way to actually counteract that, the threshold is crossed and you move from skill to luck.

PS2 swung the pendulum way past that threshold.

In a game that has 8 directional attack avenues and mobility with jetpacks, terrain, cloaks, aircraft, vehicles, etc. the tools for the player to consistently perform are not there.
Especially since you are so reliant on the performance of others in this game (you will not win the war by yourself), the ability to compensate is just not available, at all.

Situational awareness is good, I welcome it, but it needs to be controlled, like any other game design element.

Its not a panacea to everything.

I agree that there's issues with things like base design, but overall base design issues are base design issues. TTK is a completely separate issue (and something that I don't even see as an issue).

It is something that's tied both into TTK and base design, but since this topic was only about TTK (and, hell knows, base design is something that's important, but that's been done to death about fifty times over with the same consensus), I mostly focused on that.

[Mietz]

I agree that there's issues with things like base design, but overall base design issues are base design issues. TTK is a completely separate issue (and something that I don't even see as an issue).

Absolutely not.

TTK is not the theoretical time to deliver lethal damage (which is ~600ms for carabines in PS2)

TTK is the average time to kill an opponent, its influenced by:

- movement model (stamina, sprint, freedom of movement, reaction of movement)
- Perspective and perception (minimap, radar, detection, spotting)
- Map design (cover, avenues of attack, freedom of movement, vertical traversal)
- Player Health
- Player damage output over time

Take note that all games with long TTK feature (almost) instagib weaponry (Q3 Railgun, etc.), the damage-output of the weapons and health of the player are but one part of the equation.

If you analyze games with longer TTK, you will notice a few things:

-If the game features many avenues to maneuver in all directions, you see increased HP (shields) on players to compensate for these advantages (Section 8 Prejudice, Hawken; just about any game with jetpacks really)
-If the game features less cover and perception, you see faster movement to compensate with evasion (Q3A, UT, map-based "twitch" shooters)
etc.

When people talk about TTK, they aren't necessarily talking about weapon stats or HP, they are talking about the whole package.
The PS2 combat is "off" because its a hodgepodge of design philosophies that dont mesh (low HP/high DPS -and- Q3A jump-pads/elevators, jetpacks, no cover, no perception tools?)
The developers took the short TTK MMS philosophy and then slapped long TTK design elements on it that just don't work in this combination.

Its about balance of these elements and giving control to the player where he needs it.

[ShadetheDruid]

It's not exactly easy to have a conversation about something when everyone's using different definitions of things. :rolleyes:

[Mietz]

It's not exactly easy to have a conversation about something when everyone's using different definitions of things. :rolleyes:

Thats something you have to deal with in the gaming industry.
The language isn't mature enough to have precision in its terms.

Ask 10 people what they consider to be an FPS and you will get 10 different answers with 10 different examples that are nothing alike (CoD, STALKER, DEUS EX, Q3A, etc)

[Figment]

It's really not that hard to be situationally aware in PS2, it's really not. People often just don't bother.

Sorry, but I can't see through walls, seem to have left my x-ray vision at home. With the short TTK, popping out of cover to have a peek can already mean you're dead. When I go and check if there's someone there, I'm dead. If I don't check, there's no point in me being there, because I might as well just stay put the entire time the moment I consider someone might be somewhere and as you say with the ease of getting around, they are literally everywhere.

It's not a matter of not wanting to check, not even of not trying to check, it's a matter of not being able to check. In most cases this is down to base design as well as the TTK and grenades.

Base design, because it continuously forces defenders to run into deathtraps. Not just because they have to pass the crossfire to the CC. Because of course, as defender, you're on a very tight deadline to get to another position (CC) through a crossfire and you won't have time to check every corner (something you can do as attacker with no deadline, mind you). If positioning is everything, then you don't even need to bother to respawn as defender, because they will have camping positions that lign up perfect shots for them along your entire route and they're in 360 deg positions.

Situational awareness here is just knowing you're screwed but trying anyway.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, and you don't need a cheaty third person view to do it. If you need a third person view to see things you shouldn't logically be able to see in order to be situationally aware, then FPSs might not be for you. I also don't see why people's tactical positioning should be negated by your ability to go into third person just because you don't want to be ambushed.

Shade, I'm comparing contexts. It's not about "need", it's about the impact differences between the two games and the interaction between different mechanics. People here keep comparing two completely different situations on detail level, without the broader context of other mechanics surrounding it.

First person and third person have a big impact on timing and movements made or not made (especially for corner camping) and therefore has a large impact on survivability and which weapon's TTK will win. The amount of situational awareness prior to an engagement you create in the case of third person is simply much greater and your decisions are therefore not pure reflex and instinct, but informed.

Whether that's a negative thing (wallhumping jackhammers) or a positive thing (stealthiness and increased chances of a succesful infiltrator run, being able to fight vehicles better), is very subjective.

I don't often (well, "don't often" in such a large game is relative, but you get what I mean) get snuck up on or ambushed because I actually pay attention to what i'm doing. Mostly because I use those tactics myself so I know I need to be aware to (and how to) counter them.

You can't counter it. You can try to minimise the angles of attack and you can look around you now and then, in some cases you can even place proximity mines, but you can't actually turn around and fire back (countering) most of the time.

I really don't see how "PS2 forces you to be situationally unaware" because there's so many more points of attack, that doesn't make any sense. That's actually the opposite of making sense. If there's more threats, that forces you to be more situationally aware, not less.

The problem isn't the game, the problem is people. Very few people even pay attention to most things in every day life, let alone in games. Multiply that by the size of the game and you have people not paying attention on a grand scale. That's just how a lot of people are. But just because things are hard for some people (or even you), doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not that great a player, and even I can manage it.

You're misinterpreting that completely, perhaps my fault for phrasing that poorly, but the game limits your situational awareness significantly by forced frontal view (no third person, again - I'm not saying it should be there for grunts, I'm just saying it is relatively limited) and poor mini-map design (no zoom function, no good map description of where you are and the local layout), while the amount of possible attack vectors have been increased by a factor 8 at times. Now, you can't keep 360 degrees under constant observation and the attacker, seeing you cover one side, is very likely to change attack vector to one of its many other alternatives. You don't have that luxury, as you have a chance of 1/8 to pick the right area to defend to get the drop on the attacker - if he's alone.

Compare to PS1, where you had 2-3, maybe four, directions to pay attention to and wouldn't have to consider your side constantly. Even in first person only, PS1 would be a lot easier. The game forces your situational awareness to be far more limited yet - as you put it - requires much more from it.

That's simply not possible for a casual gamer and it's not possible for a small team to ward off a bigger group of enemies because they just have too much terrain to cover at the same time. Every position you try to hold is in fact a deadly crossfire.

Edit: As for the medikit thing, that hasn't been my experience at all. I have restoration kits for when i'm playing HA and I get a lot of use out of them (when there's no medics around). I definitely don't find that the only options are "full health" or "dead" after a fight.

Amount of health is irrelevant - of course there's times you have 10-90% health. But there's no actual noticable TTK difference at that point (you can be one shot anyway at any time in this game, so whether you lose 200% health or 10% health at once is almost completely irrelevant), hence I'm exagerating, but to me it comes down to either having full health or being dead.

[Rbstr]

It's like none of you ever use your radar when you're playing infantry.
Not only can you see if someone is behind you, but you can see through walls as well!

[TheRageTrain]

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.

This. I usually die because I over extend myself from a door frame or a from corner to get a bit closer to enemy then another one shows up.. if I would have stayed at the door frame I would have gotten my killer aswell.

You choose yourself whatkind of risks you take, I\m a rusher HA and I still get 6 to 12 kd per hour, with 100 to 130 kills as infantry because I keep optimising my positioning, wish my aim would get bit better too but I try to compensate it by positioning and tactical withdraws to kill 1 by 1 my 5 chasers in buildings 1 to 2 per corner etc.. All good and fun, low TTK is good, means I die too if someone gets a real jump on me when I\m not moving.

The movie what makes me love low TKK, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

[sneeek]

Regarding avenues of attack and TTK, if you're playing the game "correctly" in a squad / platoon that is working as a team, then presumably most avenues of attack are covered by teammates. At worst, you only need to listen out for gunfire / death screams coming from directions you don't expect. So you shouldn't actually be taken by surprise very often.

On the other hand, if you're attempting to flank enemies, you risk being flanked yourself in return. You get to take advantage of low TTK on unsuspecting enemies in return for risking somebody else doing the same to you. Seems OK to me.

Consequently I don't see any problem caused by the TTKs being lower than in original Planetside.

[Figment]

It's like none of you ever use your radar when you're playing infantry.
Not only can you see if someone is behind you, but you can see through walls as well!

Only when spotted by others.

[psijaka]

Hmm, I keep seeing this turn of phrase injected but nothing alongside it to differentiate how that "situation" came to be. Nothing to rule out dumb luck. In which case my original questions remain: HOW are you supposed to TEACH this??? If it's easy to teach then where's the Tutorials? That's a key point in the Video, if it's too difficult to make a Tutorial around it, then Developers will typically not even try, citing "time constraints". Could YOU GUYS who are proponents of the current TTK make one you think? That's pretty much the entire point of this Thread afterall. Separating teachable Depth from the much less teachable Complexity...

Case in point, it's really quite easy to design missions that train people to be more proficient at trading shots with eachother in less complicated TTK timeframes. Yet compressing that huge list of things I had in the original post, into the time it takes to go from your spawn to being dead? --- with the almost useless minimap this game provides as your only assistant? Where do the consistent results come in? Or do you prefer it BECAUSE of the gambling nature behind it? We need to get to the root of this argument better and not just settle for subjective placeholders that could also apply to situations where you run full speed around a random corner and catch someone with their back turned.... "on a hunch".

You can't simply "teach" situational awareness in a tutorial; it gradually develops from a mixture of map knowledge, battle experience and good old common sense.

I've no intention of making a video but I'll outline a scenario.

For example, if you see dead allies around, and some enemy "cloakers" have been spotted on a nearby hill, is it really safe to cross that bit of open ground? With the present (average, not low) TTK, no, it might not be, so you have to make your mind up; take your chances and go for it, zig zag running, or find another route and flank them. Or call in an airstrike on their hilltop if you are in a well organised squad.

With a High TTK, there would be less chance of being killed, so you would probably just go for it without giving it much thought.

And taking your example of running around the corner - if you are situationally aware and know or suspect that enemies are about - don't run! Walk around instead, gun drawn ready to fire. And if you are a HA, activate your shield; or if infil, your cloak. If you are really sure that someone is there, then prefire as you are turning the corner! Or chuck a grenade.

On the subject of luck - I don't know why people are so frightened of the concept of a bit of luck in a game; it's a MMO FPS and it's war out there; shit happens. The skilled players will rise to the top anyway.

In fact, I do welcome a bit of luck, even bad luck. Gives some great WTF moments and stops the game becoming stale; makes it more alive. One of my most memorable escapades in Firefall was one time when I was surprised by a Whiptail Thresher in the Open World; first thing I knew - "WHACK" and I was flying through the air. Completely unexpected; gave me such a shock that I swore and then literally laughed out loud.

If I wanted to play a game where no luck was involved, I would be playing chess, not an FPS.

[Kerrec]

... Now, you can't keep 360 degrees under constant observation and the attacker, seeing you cover one side, is very likely to change attack vector to one of its many other alternatives. You don't have that luxury, as you have a chance of 1/8 to pick the right area to defend to get the drop on the attacker - if he's alone.

You appear to be making TTK relevancy arguments based on solo play, in a game that is supposed to be team oriented. How is that OK?

[Rockit]

Been kinda watching this develope....http://lodmmo.com.

[Ruffdog]

Late to this thread but heres what I think:

The TTK is *slightly* too low. Every squishy class should have a 15% health buff across the board. Keep headshots on a 2x multiplier

This brings me to Max units.
Maxes dont feel like they're in a good place at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they seem like they have no different category of armor to squishy units. They just have more health and thats it. (And no regen shield)
PS1 had gold (AP) and white (AI) ammo to take down your foes and white ammo did FA to a Max if I remember - so Decis or gold ammo was essential. Now fast forward to PS2 and focus fire from standard squishy guns will drop a Max in no time. Which I'm not a fan of. The NC AI weapons versus enemy Max units are disgusting.
I like the tactics needed to take out Maxs - you have to change guns to do the job required. But thats me.

TLDR; buff health on all infantry 15% and Max units by 20%

[Figment]

You appear to be making TTK relevancy arguments based on solo play, in a game that is supposed to be team oriented. How is that OK?

Are you just being incredibly dense on purpose by not comprehending that, or what?


Why are you assuming there's enough people to cover every door? THAT is dumb. Yes it's a team game, no, they're not always going to be in the same room or have the appropriate angle.


And yes, I do look at it from both small, big team and solo perspective. If you only look at this from a big team perspective, you ensure the game will have a horrible retention rate. Players come in as solo players, if you discourage them from staying after their "trial" period, they're never going to get in that small or bigger team situation.

If you only design for one situation or scenario, you're just a bad designer.

We're talking a bit more linearity and a slight bit more longer ttk here. Nothing ridiculously undoable for balancing.

[Mietz]

Late to this thread but heres what I think:

The TTK is *slightly* too low. Every squishy class should have a 15% health buff across the board. Keep headshots on a 2x multiplier

This brings me to Max units.
Maxes dont feel like they're in a good place at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they seem like they have no different category of armor to squishy units. They just have more health and thats it. (And no regen shield)
PS1 had gold (AP) and white (AI) ammo to take down your foes and white ammo did FA to a Max if I remember - so Decis or gold ammo was essential. Now fast forward to PS2 and focus fire from standard squishy guns will drop a Max in no time. Which I'm not a fan of. The NC AI weapons versus enemy Max units are disgusting.
I like the tactics needed to take out Maxs - you have to change guns to do the job required. But thats me.

TLDR; buff health on all infantry 15% and Max units by 20%

15%-20% HP buff will give you resistance to 1 bullet more to kill for body shots 0 for headshots.

AP/AI ammo was in beta but was removed for SP and HVA ammo, which both do exactly nothing.

[sneeek]

Are you just being incredibly dense on purpose by not comprehending that, or what?


Why are you assuming there's enough people to cover every door? THAT is dumb. Yes it's a team game, no, they're not always going to be in the same room or have the appropriate angle.


And yes, I do look at it from both small, big team and solo perspective. If you only look at this from a big team perspective, you ensure the game will have a horrible retention rate. Players come in as solo players, if you discourage them from staying after their "trial" period, they're never going to get in that small or bigger team situation.

If you only design for one situation or scenario, you're just a bad designer.

We're talking a bit more linearity and a slight bit more longer ttk here. Nothing ridiculously undoable for balancing.

First of all, starting a thread about "Ethics and Netiquette" and then implying that somebody is a dumbo hardly seems consistent, particularly when said person makes a valid point.

If you don't have enough people to cover all doors, that's tough, really - find a more defensible position. If there isn't one, that's also tough, and maybe you're going to die shortly. Or maybe not. As another guy said, a bit of unpredictability is not a bad thing. Please justify why people shouldn't have to continually evaluate the defensibility of their position.

There's almost never such a thing as "solo" in PS2. You nearly always have other teammates around, even if they're strangers. It doesn't take a great deal of common sense even for a bunch of randoms to realise that covering different approaches and each other is a smart idea. I'm not in an outfit right now, and I'm never in a squad or a platoon, but I have enough sense to realise when I'm not in a good position and there aren't enough friendlies around to adequately cover all approaches.

The fact is that this whole TTK argument hinges on a bunch of subjective preferences about what constitutes good gameplay. The low TTK camp values one set of things, and the high TTK camp values a different set of things. Without actually polling the entire playerbase we'll never have a consensus.

[Ruffdog]

15%-20% HP buff will give you resistance to 1 bullet more to kill for body shots 0 for headshots.

My bad. Not accounting for personal shields.
What I want is it for it to take 15-20% longer to kill someone. Make of that what you will with pure HP points.

[Kerrec]

Only when spotted by others.

Are you just being incredibly dense on purpose by not comprehending that, or what?


Why are you assuming there's enough people to cover every door? THAT is dumb. Yes it's a team game, no, they're not always going to be in the same room or have the appropriate angle.


And yes, I do look at it from both small, big team and solo perspective. If you only look at this from a big team perspective, you ensure the game will have a horrible retention rate. Players come in as solo players, if you discourage them from staying after their "trial" period, they're never going to get in that small or bigger team situation.

If you only design for one situation or scenario, you're just a bad designer.

We're talking a bit more linearity and a slight bit more longer ttk here. Nothing ridiculously undoable for balancing.

Wow, anger management, dude...

I haven't seen a room in this game that can't be visually covered by 2 people. If you're out in the open... well crap, I don't know what to tell you other than changing TTK won't make a difference.

Speaking of which, you use an example where you get killed by being shot in the back. You say it's impossible to see everywhere, so being shot in the back will happen. Therefore TTK should be made longer. (so you have a chance to do something?). Well guess what? Lets say TTK gets doubled and TWO guys shoot you in the back. You'll still die in the same amount of time and you'll be right back here on the forums saying, TTK needs to increase more because I didn't have time to react! You are mixing up two different factors. TTK has NOTHING to do with getting flanked. If you were advocating getting more and better tools for battlefield awareness, so you're less likely to get flanked, then I wouldn't be poking my nose in your discussions because your solution would actually solve your problem. But you're mixing up two things that aren't related to each other.

And as for being the spokesman for solo players, you better think things trough a bit. With low TTK, a solo player has a chance to take out a priority target, like a medic, an engineer or something tactically significant when facing larger groups, before being overwhelmed by said large group. By increasing TTK, the solo player that tries to do such a thing will fail BECAUSE of higher TTK and the large group having the TIME to react and focus their fire. TTK benefits overwhelming numbers (zergs) more than the solo player. That gives them even less of a role on the battlefield. So I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't compute.

[sneeek]

My bad. Not accounting for personal shields.
What I want is it for it to take 15-20% longer to kill someone. Make of that what you will with pure HP points.

It's not actually correct to say that +15% health will always require 0 more headshots, or 1 more non-headshot. It depends on how much damage has already been taken (which can be "a fraction of a bullet"), distance to target due to damage dropoff etc.) and no doubt other factors. Therefore 15-20% more health would probably require, on average, somewhere between 0 and 1 extra bullet, and in most cases, leaning towards 1 more bullet.

The point is that small tweaks can be worthwhile in achieving a reasonable balance that is acceptable to as many people as possible.

In any case, I took your original post to mean 15-20% to overall health (shields + health).

[Figment]

Wow, anger management, dude...

I haven't seen a room in this game that can't be visually covered by 2 people.

Have you pressed that big green PLAY-button yet?



The rest of your post is utter bullshit. Really havn't seen such low quality scenario building in a good amount of time.

"TTK doubles, but now we somehow magically change the scenario to make it not matter anymore".

So you really are dense.

A solo player facing a large group with 10 LOW TTK players means the TTK on him is even lower and one of those 10 WILL kill him instantly, guaranteed. And that's what is happening here. With a higher TTK, that player if he's a good shot may be able to find cover, recuperate and take on the next one between engagements.

PS1 actually showed that, but then, you didn't play PS1, so as usual, you're full of pretentious theoretical bullcrap since you haven't actually tested your hypothesis, while we have.


And that whole one extra bullet is a random assumption based on taking equal amounts of damage over time. You can simply slow rate of fire marginally and reach the same effect with the same amount of bullets, in which case alpha damage becomes more important. Meaning it would probably benefit NC slightly.

[Kerrec]

Have you pressed that big green PLAY-button yet?



The rest of your post is utter bullshit. Really havn't seen such low quality scenario building in a good amount of time.

"TTK doubles, but now we somehow magically change the scenario to make it not matter anymore".

So you really are dense.

A solo player facing a large group with 10 LOW TTK players means the TTK on him is even lower and one of those 10 WILL kill him instantly, guaranteed. And that's what is happening here. With a higher TTK, that player if he's a good shot may be able to find cover, recuperate and take on the next one between engagements.

PS1 actually showed that, but then, you didn't play PS1, so as usual, you're full of pretentious theoretical bullcrap since you haven't actually tested your hypothesis, while we have.


And that whole one extra bullet is a random assumption based on taking equal amounts of damage over time. You can simply slow rate of fire marginally and reach the same effect with the same amount of bullets, in which case alpha damage becomes more important. Meaning it would probably benefit NC slightly.

I have over 3 days of played time. My stats are linked in my profile, go look yourself. Your comebacks are entertaining, in that they're clever. But they don't contribute one iota to your arguments. I restate: 2 guys can visually cover entrances/exits in the large majority of the rooms in PS2.

A large group that gets the jump on 10 guys with low TTK, has a chance to drop a guy before those 10 guys can react. In that way, the solo guy can have an impact, especially if he chooses priority targets. With high TTK, that solo guy that gets the drop will no longer have an advantage because TTK is longer, giving those 10 guys time to react.

My example of getting ganked by 2 guys instead of one was to point out that getting flanked and TTK are 2 separate issues. A perfectly valid point to argue, which you chose to ignore.

Your prior experience as a PS1 player does not make false arguments true. Battlefield awareness, flanking, gunplay mechanics, teamwork are not "owned" by PS1. Many people can accrue alot of experience in any or all of those facets without ever having played PS1.

You seem to have the attitude that anyone without a PS1 background should not be participating in these forums. If that is really the case, then get a forum admin to ban me with the message "You do not have prior Planetside experience and are not welcome here." and I'll respect the wishes of the people that run these forums. I'll just spend all my forum time on the SOE forums instead.

[Figment]

I have over 3 days of played time. My stats are linked in my profile, go look yourself. Your comebacks are entertaining, in that they're clever. But they don't contribute one iota to your arguments. I restate: 2 guys can visually cover entrances/exits in the large majority of the rooms in PS2.

2 guys can't cover them all and often sight is obscured by random placement of objects. Even if they would see them, they can't actually cover them because THEY will have to turn and respond, rather than be the first to fire. The enemy will always have the drop on them (unless they walk into the sights immediately) since they will always have to compensate for the enemy, sit in a predictable, confined space with a likely sight aimed at the most likely (multi-unit type) entry points, while the enemy can systematically go over the corners of the room they enter from arbitrary directions. Especially true for Light Assaults.

Plus, if you cover a room with two and face two enemies coming from the same side, then you will lose at least one before the second player can react. If you compare with a CC hold of say an Interlink in PS1, all attacks would come from a mutual front, even if the exact direction could vary (three options). This would make it a lot more likely for the two players to cover and assist each other fast.

Perhaps more importantly though, it's very easy to simply throw a grenade in and get one-three kills when people cover a room with more due to the instant kill thing. So much for covering all exits. And mind, that will get worse with the underslung grenade launcher spreading among the populace because more people can afford them over time.


The less openings, the more likely it is to be able to hold. There simply are too many entries to cover.

A large group that gets the jump on 10 guys with low TTK, has a chance to drop a guy before those 10 guys can react. In that way, the solo guy can have an impact, especially if he chooses priority targets. With high TTK, that solo guy that gets the drop will no longer have an advantage because TTK is longer, giving those 10 guys time to react.

You assume too much.

My example of getting ganked by 2 guys instead of one was to point out that getting flanked and TTK are 2 separate issues. A perfectly valid point to argue, which you chose to ignore.

They're directly linked, since if you get flanked and wish to react in a competitive manner, the TTK has to allow for you to turn and face your attacker. If it's more than one attacker that flanks you (or three, depending on how many are needed to floor you instantly), the point is moot. At that point it doesn't matter if it's three, four or five attacking from that direction. That doesn't mean you "might as well" suffice with one. As you said, it's a team game. Why shouldn't you be required to bring someone else to instantly drop someone else?

And no, unlike you falsely presumed, I'd not complain about that, at all. I'll complain when ONE guy can do the same thing.

One primarily balances on a one vs one situation, then moves to equal groups of small, but slightly larger size, before one goes to large vs small groups.

In the last case, the most important thing for a small group is to mitigate numbers by being able to concentrate fire. That requires fewer options for enemies than the amount of players available already having trained their weapon on the likely route. The more you concentrate firepower on a single point, the easier it is for a small group to hold. For a bigger group, if you can hold with two people, having three is redundant and doesn't increase the effectiveness, it just makes the effect last longer.

In which case you as a small group train multiple weapons on the same entry point, thereby making it possible to quickly take out enemies approaching through a narrow passage one by one, quickly thinning their numbers.

Short TTKs ensure that fluke shots from the bigger team - especially with regards to AoE - are more likely to get random kills and therefore increase their leverage. ie. Volume of fire is a natural benefit of the bigger team, if you make it qualitative at the same time it just becomes OP spam. Hence why AoE should be a group weakening tool, not an instant kill tool. Even though it was in PS1, it had to be reduced further (to 1/6th damage per player) because it was still too good at crowd control.

Quantitative and qualitative fire benefits both to a certain degree, but smaller teams can be more efficient with a lower TTK as they don't obstruct one another's view or path in tight spaces in particular (CQC is beneficial to smaller groups) and can consistently deliver their focused fire and soak a bit of damage: their opposition's fire would be more dispersed even if they'd have some soaking power and the smaller team would win on that lack of focus and therefore the bigger group's lack of instant dropping power. If each individual in the bigger group could instantly drop an enemy, then focused fire has less impact.

Your prior experience as a PS1 player does not make false arguments true. Battlefield awareness, flanking, gunplay mechanics, teamwork are not "owned" by PS1. Many people can accrue alot of experience in any or all of those facets without ever having played PS1.

You miss the point utterly. I'm not suggesting those are "owned" by PS1, I'm suggesting you utterly lack experience with the effects of longer TTKs which is exactly the experience one could get from PS1. That's all I'm saying. Again, you assume too much. Just like you utterly lack the experience to judge and then compare any sort of lattice (including the hex system).

You seem to have the attitude that anyone without a PS1 background should not be participating in these forums. If that is really the case, then get a forum admin to ban me with the message "You do not have prior Planetside experience and are not welcome here." and I'll respect the wishes of the people that run these forums. I'll just spend all my forum time on the SOE forums instead.

Not at all, what I expect you to do is appreciate that others can have more experience than you when participating in a discussion. You are simply uninformed and pretend to be informed. THAT's the problem. You don't have that position of authority because you have a giant gap in your experience: exactly the bit you're trying to argue about.





Please, remember that groups in PS1 were capable of holding 5 times their numbers at times, despite a double TTK length. Your whole argument is based around proving that longer TTKs would ultimately benefit the larger groups more than small groups. That's simply not true up to the point where you can provide sufficient firepower to take down the influx of hitpoints coming through a chokepoint from cover and by timing your engagements.



Why do you think MAX crashes existed in PS1? To over-saturate the mitigation power of hold groups and swamp them with a sudden burst in overdose of hitpoints hitting at the same time in a single effort. However, since there were only few directions to pass through, small skilled groups stood a much bigger chance against bigger groups when holding. In fact, the bigger groups were at a disadvantage in the smaller areas of PS1 and would often be obstructed by themselves, or dispersed over the larger base area of PS1, making it easier for a good, small team to make a concerted, concentrated effort. High pressure on small points of the defense - leaving most of the defense in tact but carving a path to the objective to resecure: CC, gen or spawnroom. For that, they must be able to pass through open spaces without dieing instantly to single randoms and a longer TTK allows them to catch their breath and try something else if there was more opposition than expected - without having died yet.

Note also that in PS1, you didn't have endless medic power: you'd run out of med juice. You'd run out of medkits. You'd run out of repairs. You don't in PS2. Completely different context and one I don't understand from a design decision making point of view, because it's utterly horrendous for balance and game play to provide unlimited ammo for anything (that includes ammo packs, btw).

[Sledgecrushr]

Have you pressed that big green PLAY-button yet?



The rest of your post is utter bullshit. Really havn't seen such low quality scenario building in a good amount of time.

"TTK doubles, but now we somehow magically change the scenario to make it not matter anymore".

So you really are dense.

A solo player facing a large group with 10 LOW TTK players means the TTK on him is even lower and one of those 10 WILL kill him instantly, guaranteed. And that's what is happening here. With a higher TTK, that player if he's a good shot may be able to find cover, recuperate and take on the next one between engagements.

PS1 actually showed that, but then, you didn't play PS1, so as usual, you're full of pretentious theoretical bullcrap since you haven't actually tested your hypothesis, while we have.


And that whole one extra bullet is a random assumption based on taking equal amounts of damage over time. You can simply slow rate of fire marginally and reach the same effect with the same amount of bullets, in which case alpha damage becomes more important. Meaning it would probably benefit NC slightly.

Ive seen one guy move through a group of enemies just murdering people because you are missing a critical element here. You have to figure enemy reaction time. With a low ttk it makes soloing easy because you dont have to stay on one target 15-20% longer. Lower ttk is a solo players friend.

[Figment]

Had to rephrase a few things.

[Figment]

Ive seen one guy move through a group of enemies just murdering people because you are missing a critical element here. You have to figure enemy reaction time. With a low ttk it makes soloing easy because you dont have to stay on one target 15-20% longer. Lower ttk is a solo players friend.

In an isolated run-and-gun situation, yes.


I'm talking about holds.

[Baneblade]

I have noticed that my HA has no more chance of surviving any given scenario than any of the other classes.

So far, my experience is that LA is the best of them for getting out of a shitstorm.

[Figment]

First of all, starting a thread about "Ethics and Netiquette" and then implying that somebody is a dumbo hardly seems consistent, particularly when said person makes a valid point.

You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Kerrec, my apologies.

However, the point that "there's no room you cannot cover with two people" is absolutely invalid, then going on that you might as well have one person insta-kill because two person would otherwise instakill is completely irrelevant to the discussion of competition between two players. That isn't a valid point either.

If you don't have enough people to cover all doors, that's tough, really - find a more defensible position.

"Hold the CC somewhere else"/block incoming HE spam from the outside. Good suggestion. I'll just walk outside then and surrender to the HE spam there? The base design is far too attacker oriented by being as poreus as swiss cheese. That's true for one, six, even 20 people. There's just too many doors to cover and too little room to create suppression fire as wherever you sit, you're always in a crossfire and can always be flanked from multiple directions.

Many options are fine in a deathmatch run-and-gun game, it's retarded in a conquest game where you have to hold a position and are basically a sitting duck (the six-guys on point thing makes that even worse as it removes players from contributing elsewhere, which again, hit smaller teams much harder as say 4/6 or 6/6 is much more impacting than 6 out of 24 - in that case the small team would want their 6 in as good positions as possible and not in an utter crossfire - and why shouldn't the team of 24 with manpower benefit have to work for it?).

You have to understand the perspective here. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that simply having more numbers means you're a better team and deserve to win. That's retarded.

Why should numbers give you bragging rights? We might as well just decide which faction wins then by lining up everyone for a group shot, take a picture and base the outcome of all competitive fighting on that.

If there isn't one, that's also tough, and maybe you're going to die shortly. Or maybe not. As another guy said, a bit of unpredictability is not a bad thing. Please justify why people shouldn't have to continually evaluate the defensibility of their position.

There's no re-evaluation needed as long as your information doesn't change. Your information comes from your situational awareness, so once in position, you should be good till something changes, otherwise you never were in the appropriate position. The point is not that you shouldn't acquire as much information as possible, the point is that the game is designed for zerg size groups, while the groups playing the game are not zerg size.

This is an error on behalf of the design team, as you should design the game for all potential groups, not just for a small portion of your players (that comes in a big package). The problem here is that they don't understand the expectations and likely group formation in the game.


I mean you can point at the 666th and Enclave and say "see, that's how you should do it". Great, then me and pretty much everyone else who's not that type of player is out of the game immediately.

Most outfits like the comfort, flexibility and social aspects of smaller groups and the direct control that provides, rather than individuals in a herd. The game should be designed for them too. If not, it's the game's fault.


This is human-product interaction design. I don't expect every designer to have had this in their study, because for most engineers, particular those in exact or academic sciences, it is not commonly part of the curriculum.

There's almost never such a thing as "solo" in PS2. You nearly always have other teammates around, even if they're strangers. It doesn't take a great deal of common sense even for a bunch of randoms to realise that covering different approaches and each other is a smart idea. I'm not in an outfit right now, and I'm never in a squad or a platoon, but I have enough sense to realise when I'm not in a good position and there aren't enough friendlies around to adequately cover all approaches.

The matter is "when is enough enough", should the game dictate that, or naturalgroup size and formation?

Considering new players are solo players (even when forced into a squad by the game upon game entry), yes, solo design is important. More so for infantry than for vehicles.

The fact is that this whole TTK argument hinges on a bunch of subjective preferences about what constitutes good gameplay. The low TTK camp values one set of things, and the high TTK camp values a different set of things. Without actually polling the entire playerbase we'll never have a consensus.

It's not subjective preference, it's design vision differences based on argumentation.

Low TTK people constantly speak of run and gun gameplay.

This is a conquest game, not a deathmatch. Run and gun doesn't work in this game and you see it, because nobody puts up a defense as nobody is capable of it. You see the only places where a defense is put up is the situation with very very few chokepoints.

And despite of the LESS CHOKE POINTS THAN IN PS1 SITUATION and higher number of defenders than PS1, they still fall much sooner than any PS1 fight.

That has everything to do with the run and gun and defenders being easily cleared out of a room situation. And that's down to base design, capture mechanics forcing defenders out in the crossfire, low TTK and too great demands on player situational awareness.

[VGCS]

Because there is a threshold in human capability, map design and TTK.

Giving a player the tools to reliably control his surroundings is key. Once you give the attacker too many avenues of attack and the player no reasonable and consistent way to actually counteract that, the threshold is crossed and you move from skill to luck.

PS2 swung the pendulum way past that threshold.
This absolutely nails it. Thank you.

It also reminds us of the larger effort that's consumed this Forum (for good reason) the past month: the MetaGame or lack there of. Which right now we're only getting band-aids for. But once we start getting real Map changes, we'll still have this issue where 3 spray & pray bullets around the head area of your target who's only about a half a second late on turning and firing at you ... results in that "Execution Style" TTK.

What I see people keep skating around in this thread, is that point about situational awareness --> Talking in absolutes as if their target is never in the process of turning and firing back at them. WRONG, please stop citing those examples as "situational awareness"... that scenario already has a term, it's called being "Blindsided". Granted, that one guy in this thread did say he had trouble executing people when he blindsided them, but I think most of us can agree we rarely fail that task ourselves b/c most of us here have been playing shooters on the PC (which have no aim assistance or larger "collision hulls" like Consoles have) for quite a bit longer. It doesn't matter how long the TTK is in most games when you completely blindside someone because most people who can shoot straight will always win that scenario. I win 90% of those fights already just using the Infiltrator pistol (against Shielded HA's running high rank Nano).

At Ranges over 35ft in purely infantry VS infantry, this matter of the "execution style" against targets who ARE looking around and only spot their attackers half a second late....definitely does not seem to be as much of a problem or something that requires a Tutorial to make it less frustrating to newer players. So chalk it up to bad base design or bad modifiers in CQC I guess? ....and that's a good thing by the way because it means it's a LOT easier to fix (after they're done tweaking vehicle AOE's) than trying to scale the TTK at EVERY range in EVERY environment. :thumbsup:

[Kerrec]

I'm glad you're bothering to actually argue your point of view. I have to break up my response, because you touch some subjects I never tried to involve myself in.

2 guys can't cover them all and often sight is obscured by random placement of objects. Even if they would see them, they can't actually cover them because THEY will have to turn and respond, rather than be the first to fire. The enemy will always have the drop on them (unless they walk into the sights immediately) since they will always have to compensate for the enemy, sit in a predictable, confined space with a likely sight aimed at the most likely (multi-unit type) entry points, while the enemy can systematically go over the corners of the room they enter from arbitrary directions. Especially true for Light Assaults.

Plus, if you cover a room with two and face two enemies coming from the same side, then you will lose at least one before the second player can react. If you compare with a CC hold of say an Interlink in PS1, all attacks would come from a mutual front, even if the exact direction could vary (three options). This would make it a lot more likely for the two players to cover and assist each other fast.

Perhaps more importantly though, it's very easy to simply throw a grenade in and get one-three kills when people cover a room with more due to the instant kill thing. So much for covering all exits. And mind, that will get worse with the underslung grenade launcher spreading among the populace because more people can afford them over time.


The less openings, the more likely it is to be able to hold. There simply are too many entries to cover.

Go back and read my replies. I explicitly stated that two guys can VISUALLY cover just about most rooms in PS2. I never ever stated that those two guys could HOLD that room. You ASSUME that when I say 2 guys can cover each other's flanks, I am talking about being able to HOLD an objective. Not so.

I entered this discussion with you because you link TTK with Flanking, which I still find wrong. Never did I say 2 guys should hold a room that has several entry points versus larger numbers. I just pointed out, that if you play with ONE more person instead of solo in a game that is defined as teamwork centric, you can cover the large majority of your mutual flanks, to avoid being UNKNOWINGLY flanked. In that respect, I will continue to hold to the belief that if you get flanked and ganked, your teammates failed you, you placed yourself in a bad situation, or your opponent truly outplayed you.

You seem to have an issue with the defensibility in PS2. That is again an entirely different issue than TTK. And to set the record straight, I do not think that the defensibility of structures/bases in PS2 is OK. The way I see it, the majority of the facilities in PS2 are designed to NOT be defensible.



You assume too much.

What are you talking about? That is so completely general that it looks more like an attempt at an insult than an argument. You ASSUME a lot too, although I define where it is I think you're making assumptions.



They're directly linked, since if you get flanked and wish to react in a competitive manner, the TTK has to allow for you to turn and face your attacker. If it's more than one attacker that flanks you (or three, depending on how many are needed to floor you instantly), the point is moot. At that point it doesn't matter if it's three, four or five attacking from that direction. That doesn't mean you "might as well" suffice with one. As you said, it's a team game. Why shouldn't you be required to bring someone else to instantly drop someone else?

And no, unlike you falsely presumed, I'd not complain about that, at all. I'll complain when ONE guy can do the same thing.

Keep saying it, I still don't believe it. So we're back to the one on one situation, because you keep insisting THIS is the metric to define what is "OK". Fine... say you get flanked by a HA and since he knows his gun takes too long to kill, he uses his rocket instead. Boom, insta-gibbed. You STILL don't have enough time to react. Or any class usess a grenade. Or drops a AI mine. Or drops C4, Or a sniper gets right behind you and shoots you in the head with a bolt action. Or whatever... you STILL didn't have a chance to react, because you got FLANKED. Do you propose that a bolt action sniper that is right behind you and shoots you in the head, then has to go thru a gun battle in close quarters because YOU want a "fair" chance to react? And what's "fair"? Some people have way better reaction times, way better hearing, way better situation awareness. How much do you have to increase TTK, so everyone gets their "fair" chance to react? The link you make between getting flanked and TTK is preposterous.

One primarily balances on a one vs one situation, then moves to equal groups of small, but slightly larger size, before one goes to large vs small groups.

I'm sorry, but in this case I'm the one that has to pull the "gaming experience" trump card. In a multi-class multiplayer game, you CANNOT achieve game balance by starting with one on one scenarios. There's a staggering amount of combinations because of the different classes, and the distances that each class can choose to engage at.

In the last case, the most important thing for a small group is to mitigate numbers by being able to concentrate fire. That requires fewer options for enemies than the amount of players available already having trained their weapon on the likely route. The more you concentrate firepower on a single point, the easier it is for a small group to hold. For a bigger group, if you can hold with two people, having three is redundant and doesn't increase the effectiveness, it just makes the effect last longer.

In which case you as a small group train multiple weapons on the same entry point, thereby making it possible to quickly take out enemies approaching through a narrow passage one by one, quickly thinning their numbers.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. At some points, it sounds like you're making my argument for me. Low TTK gives smaller numbers a chance, since they can use the advantage of surprise vs. reaction time to make an impact. I've already brought this point up, and others have also tried to point this out to you.

But the above seems like you're confusing defensibility of a choke point with TTK. A choke point allows you to funnel enemy forces in such a way that they can't bring their full force against you because either,

a) the choke point simply won't allow superior numbers (space restriction, think of a tank column km's long winding down a narrow ravine), or
b) by focusing your firepower, you can decimate the enemy forces faster than they can spread out to bear against you (think of a long rank of tanks that have to pivot around a corner to be able to fire on you without hitting their own tanks).

Either way, TTK has nothing to do with defensible positions. Keep in mind that whatever a small unit can do, a big unit can do too. If it takes the small group 1 second of focused fire to kill one unit, then it will take a group twice the size half a second to kill one unit. AND they have half as many units to kill. So I'm sorry, but TTK has nothing to do with defensible positions, or HOLDING anything.

Short TTKs ensure that fluke shots from the bigger team - especially with regards to AoE - are more likely to get random kills and therefore increase their leverage. ie. Volume of fire is a natural benefit of the bigger team, if you make it qualitative at the same time it just becomes OP spam. Hence why AoE should be a group weakening tool, not an instant kill tool. Even though it was in PS1, it had to be reduced further (to 1/6th damage per player) because it was still too good at crowd control.

So far, I agree with you. But that's the inherent advantage of having superior numbers. This is not a game breaking mechanic that needs to be fixed, it's just plain how it is. Defensible positions and chokepoints, will limit this by reducing how many of the bigger team can fire at the smaller team. The bit below is a bit confusing though.

Quantitative and qualitative fire benefits both to a certain degree, but smaller teams can be more efficient with a lower TTK as they don't obstruct one another's view or path in tight spaces in particular (CQC is beneficial to smaller groups) and can consistently deliver their focused fire and soak a bit of damage: their opposition's fire would be more dispersed even if they'd have some soaking power and the smaller team would win on that lack of focus and therefore the bigger group's lack of instant dropping power. If each individual in the bigger group could instantly drop an enemy, then focused fire has less impact.

Sorry, I don't follow with regards to that last sentence. If individuals in the bigger group could instantly drop an enemy due to TTK, then the smaller group could instantly drop individuals in the larger group too. In that respect, all is equal. It becomes a contest of skill. That's perfectly OK. If the skill is equal and the smaller team gets 1 kill for 1 death, then they lose, because the other group has superior numbers. That's just life! That's not a game mechanic that is broken and needs fixing.

You miss the point utterly. I'm not suggesting those are "owned" by PS1, I'm suggesting you utterly lack experience with the effects of longer TTKs which is exactly the experience one could get from PS1. That's all I'm saying. Again, you assume too much. Just like you utterly lack the experience to judge and then compare any sort of lattice (including the hex system).

I think YOU missed the point utterly. I'm near 40 years old. I've been playing video games since my parents bought a Commodore 64 in the 80's. I have played A LOT OF GAMES. Just not PS1. Are you REALLY going to say that I have NEVER played a game that has high TTK? Implying that PS1 "owns" high TTK? And anyone that has never played PS1 can't possibly know anything about high TTK? Are you really going to ASSUME that?

Not at all, what I expect you to do is appreciate that others can have more experience than you when participating in a discussion. You are simply uninformed and pretend to be informed. THAT's the problem. You don't have that position of authority because you have a giant gap in your experience: exactly the bit you're trying to argue about.

In my field of work, it is easy to get bogged down in tons of minor details that makes things look like there are no options left. In my line of work, a critical "fresh" view at the situation often reveals new options, or produces new workable ideas. So I value the "outsider" opinion, because they can often see flaws, opportunites or whatnot. So I am not closed to outsiders as a career choice. If I design something and someone finds a way to improve it, that makes me look good too. I don't have this high horse view that you have, sorry.

Please, remember that groups in PS1 were capable of holding 5 times their numbers at times, despite a double TTK length. Your whole argument is based around proving that longer TTKs would ultimately benefit the larger groups more than small groups. That's simply not true up to the point where you can provide sufficient firepower to take down the influx of hitpoints coming through a chokepoint from cover and by timing your engagements.

To make this comparison, you have to be sure that the ONLY variable left in the equation is TTK. So are you saying that PS2 defenses are exactly the same as PS2 defenses? I already know the answer to that, and it is the ENTIRE POINT I wish to make. TTK is equal for both sides. It takes them the same amount of time to kill you, as you take to kill them. It is inherently balanced that way. Being flanked is another issue entirely. The defensibility of a facility is an entire issue entirely.


Why do you think MAX crashes existed in PS1? To over-saturate the mitigation power of hold groups and swamp them with a sudden burst in overdose of hitpoints hitting at the same time in a single effort. However, since there were only few directions to pass through, small skilled groups stood a much bigger chance against bigger groups when holding. In fact, the bigger groups were at a disadvantage in the smaller areas of PS1 and would often be obstructed by themselves, or dispersed over the larger base area of PS1, making it easier for a good, small team to make a concerted, concentrated effort. High pressure on small points of the defense - leaving most of the defense in tact but carving a path to the objective to resecure: CC, gen or spawnroom. For that, they must be able to pass through open spaces without dieing instantly to single randoms and a longer TTK allows them to catch their breath and try something else if there was more opposition than expected - without having died yet.

TTK: Medics, Engineers, Light Assault are equal and for the sake of argument, I choose them as a baseline. Infiltrators have less TTK, HA have more (relative to the baseline). MAX's have alot more than the baseline and more than the HA's.

So a MAX crash is a tactic to pit a high TTK unit like the MAX against a varied bunch of lower TTK units that probably either won't have time to adjust (swap their own forces to MAX's), or simply won't be able to adjust at all. So the tactic is to thow UNEQUAL forces against each other, betting on the fact that the force with the higher TTK (and probably the more deadly weaponry too) will prevail.

Assuming you could find a good defensible place in PS2 (again, a completely different issue than TTK), you could use the exact same strategy, because PS2 MAX's have superior TTK and superiour firepower.

The relative balance of TTK between a MAX and other classes would probably not change even if TTK was increased as you wished. So the whole scenario you paint is pointless with respect to your arguments regarding TTK. The tactic would work NOW with the current TTK, or later with your proposed increased TTK.

You wrote that TTK needs to increase so defenders can cross courtyards and not get insta-gibbed. IE: Give them a chance to retreat and reassess when caught off guard by superior numbers. I am sorry, but I do not buy that. You seem to be touching on the issue of undefendable bases, HE spam, Lib spam, etc... but again, what does that have to do with TTK. It takes ten or so hits to kill. At long range, this is very hard to accomplish without you having a chance to retaliate or take cover. At short range, you should have been aware enough to know there was an enemy there. If you got killed by a sniper, then gratz on him for headshotting you as you were running. If you died to a AI mine, again, gratz on your enemy for planning well. If you died to a grenade, gratz on your enemy for a well placed, well led lob against a moving target. If you got insta-gibbed by HE from tanks or air, then you were flatly out gunned. What does this have to do with TTK.

Note also that in PS1, you didn't have endless medic power: you'd run out of med juice. You'd run out of medkits. You'd run out of repairs. You don't in PS2. Completely different context and one I don't understand from a design decision making point of view, because it's utterly horrendous for balance and game play to provide unlimited ammo for anything (that includes ammo packs, btw).

That is not an issue that I have an opinion about either way. I did not bring it up, you did.

[Kerrec]

However, the point that "there's no room you cannot cover with two people" is absolutely invalid, then going on that you might as well have one person insta-kill because two person would otherwise instakill is completely irrelevant to the discussion of competition between two players. That isn't a valid point either.

If you are going to quote me, then quote me properly. I wrote:

-2 guys can visually cover entrances/exits in the large majority of the rooms in PS2.

and,

- I haven't seen a room in this game that can't be visually covered by 2 people.

In both, I said VISUALLY COVER, and in the second I relented and stated that the MAJORITY of the rooms can be visually covered.

NEVER have I made the claim that 2 guys can HOLD a room. YOU made that ASSUMPTION.

[Figment]

We were talking about situational awareness and utilising it. Merely pointing out that visualy covering isn't sufficient if even possible (I think I actually stated that as a conclusion in a sentence). At least we can agree on that then.


If you want to know why instantly dropping the other guy is in favour of larger groups, play World of Tanks for a week. Hell, a day should suffice.

The team with 1 guy more who can quickly kill will win 9 out of 10 matches even if the fight itself is evenly matched and often even when you can one shot each on the other team because they're highly damage. Why? Because their damage output is greater and their numbers ensure they can outflank you if they're smart and dare to sacrifice one of them. You can't dodge them all if they all engage shortly after one another. You need to be able to take one out, absorb damage and find cover to reload or heal. That requires exposure time. That requires survival chance. You don't get that with a low TTK.


At low TTKs, skill becomes completely and utterly irrelevant, because everyone is capable of landing 1 to 4 shots from an outflanked position and in a situation where you're outnumbered, the outnumbering players will all get some shots on target, even if they don't come one at a time. Skill in an engagement that you already lost is not relevant any longer.

Skill becomes more important when you have to be consistent over time. Fluke chance shots become less dominant in engagements and are mitigated through consistently good aiming skill. On top of that, dodging and maneuvring skill becomes important when an engagement takes longer: the impact increases. If any fluke shot can end the engagement, you do not have to consistently engage a moving or target in cover for a very long period of time, so it's less hard to win. In terms of reaction time, situational awareness (which also includes knowing where the nearest cover is), can provide more impact if an engagement lasts longer

I'm not entirely sure what "skill" you're refering to, but it's not consistent aiming and it's not movement. So I presume it's twitch reflex skill you're talking about. That's nice, but that too is more dominant in a longer engagement outside of the ability to instantly do headshots. But even that requires some reaction time and if you can only react after the first shot has been fired (which often is the case) then I pose you that a Bolt Driver in PS1 (two shot sniper kill) takes more skill than a bolt-action instakill weapon in PS2, because in PS1, your second shot was at a warned opponent actively seeking cover or even retaliation.

Skill is more dominant in the latter case and as the OP suggested, you get far more chance to practice, learn and get better with a longer TTK because your window of opportunity to discover, react and analyse grows larger - something a skilled player who makes those decisions faster can do more with. But at least both can do something within that period.

[Sturmhardt]

What do the 2 guys who can VISUALLY cover a room get out of it if they die instantly when 6 people enter from 4 different directions? I never got the point of that...

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Regarding avenues of attack and TTK, if you're playing the game "correctly" in a squad / platoon that is working as a team, then presumably most avenues of attack are covered by teammates. At worst, you only need to listen out for gunfire / death screams coming from directions you don't expect. So you shouldn't actually be taken by surprise very often.

On the other hand, if you're attempting to flank enemies, you risk being flanked yourself in return. You get to take advantage of low TTK on unsuspecting enemies in return for risking somebody else doing the same to you. Seems OK to me.

Consequently I don't see any problem caused by the TTKs being lower than in original Planetside.

And this touches on the issue.

Complexity and depth and single player tactical awareness vs TTK while keeping "the fun factor" available and blah-de-blah are all blown out of the water by zerging.

This game has complexity and depth and wonderfulness for the individual player, but it's just easier and more effective to roll with a platoon and not have to worry about it. You get more certs/hour doing that than caring about TTK and tactics.

[Hamma]

Great thread! I have nothing to contribute, but I love seeing great threads :)

[Figment]

I entered this discussion with you because you link TTK with Flanking, which I still find wrong. Never did I say 2 guys should hold a room that has several entry points versus larger numbers. I just pointed out, that if you play with ONE more person instead of solo in a game that is defined as teamwork centric, you can cover the large majority of your mutual flanks, to avoid being UNKNOWINGLY flanked. In that respect, I will continue to hold to the belief that if you get flanked and ganked, your teammates failed you, you placed yourself in a bad situation, or your opponent truly outplayed you.

You assume the player actively created that situation and should be rewarded. I submit this is a competitive game and that the player ONLY created an advantageous starting position for starting an engagement. Your point of view is that the engagement involves positioning.

Considering the random run-and-gun routes in PS2 that leads to very random encounters en route to other positions, I find this a questionable claim. Do people actively seek out cross-fire setups? Of course. But at the same time, people are forced into them. Punishing people that are forced into a crossfire further by reducing their chances of making it through open terrain (while not being able to fire from cover) is simply not fair or fun.

TTK determines the effectiveness of techniques, the chances of finding cover when confronted with a threat and the competitiveness of a player who was dropped on.

If you think players who get dropped on should just die, why not make every weapon a one shot tool? That wouldn't be fun and you know it. The fun of a shooter is not in ganking a string of people, it's in beating people competitively and knowing you could have lost, but rigged the chances in your favour and therefore came out on top. But you actually fought for it. THAT gets the adrenaline pumping and makes your opponent feel you beat him fair and square. Getting ganked is not considered a fun experience, especially when there's little you could do about it (it not being entirely your fault, as you seem to suggest).

You seem to have an issue with the defensibility in PS2. That is again an entirely different issue than TTK. And to set the record straight, I do not think that the defensibility of structures/bases in PS2 is OK. The way I see it, the majority of the facilities in PS2 are designed to NOT be defensible.

It's a direct tangent issue. I agree they're not defensible, but TTK has a lot to do with how effective defenses are.

Defensibility is directly linked to TTK and weapon qualities like accuracy, blast radius and lethality. It determines how much terrain can be covered by an advancing enemy or if a sprint between your current, a retreat or relocation like heading for a better piece of cover is possible because that determines the exposure time. Exposure time and TTK are obviously directly linked: if TTK is longer than exposure time, the opponent needs more exposure time to get a kill. The defensibility of the Engineer Turret for instance (to name a very simple defense structure) is laughable, cause you can just one shot him through the head with ease or one shot with splash damage, where the exposure time is continuous.

Keep saying it, I still don't believe it. So we're back to the one on one situation, because you keep insisting THIS is the metric to define what is "OK". Fine... say you get flanked by a HA and since he knows his gun takes too long to kill, he uses his rocket instead. Boom, insta-gibbed. You STILL don't have enough time to react.

Depends on the weapon qualities and suit. Of course players will use the most effective means of killing available. Hence why explosive handheld AV weaponry in PS1 required triple TTKs if not longer with respect to using rifles and shotguns.

Logical wrt real life? No. But this isn't a sim, it's a game. AV is not an AI weapon normally.

More fun, fairer, higher skill requiring and less frustrating? Definitely.

Or any class usess a grenade.

One required four grenades to kill a PS1 rexo (PS2 HA). TTK matters.

Or drops a AI mine.

Two needed to kill a PS1 infantry unit (only cloakers who stepped right on top of them would die instantly), 4 to 12 to kill a vehicle. Couldn't be thrown, had interference radius with other mines. Couldn't be placed indoors.

So again, TTK matters.

Or drops C4

Called Boomer, it made a loud warning sound in PS1, green smoke animation, holstering took a bit longer than in PS2 (especially if you wanted to use more as you'd have to open your inventory for it), you triggered one at a time, had to place it in the exact position you wanted it yourself (no throwing sticky bombs or mines from a distance). Could be seen because it had high contrast with the surrounding textures in most situations, could be countered with an EMP grenade (would often kill the placer before he could run off). Needed several to kill a MAX, up to five to kill an AMS. Big toll on ammo count and medkits carried due to inventory system.

And... third person allowed you to check for traps before turning a corner. There was a higher degree of situational awareness regarding high power explosives which you don't have in PS2.

Or a sniper gets right behind you and shoots you in the head with a bolt action.

Two shots required in PS1 with long reload time, takes one in PS2 or a series of high rate of fire hits. Sniper rifles were never used up close in PS1 and are used as shotguns in PS2. The Heavy Scout Rifle in PS1 (rapid rate of fire, but more like bolt action with a clip) took 4-6 shots to kill infantry in PS1. Much harder to kill with even from behind.

TTK matters.

Or whatever... you STILL didn't have a chance to react, because you got FLANKED.

No, because you got flanked by someone wielding short TTK weaponry. Flanking alone isn't enough.

Do you propose that a bolt action sniper that is right behind you and shoots you in the head, then has to go thru a gun battle in close quarters because YOU want a "fair" chance to react?

Yes. But it's not just about me, don't make this out as a selfish story argument, it fits in the competitive fight and conquest vision.

And what's "fair"? Some people have way better reaction times, way better hearing, way better situation awareness. How much do you have to increase TTK, so everyone gets their "fair" chance to react? The link you make between getting flanked and TTK is preposterous.

A fair chance is enough time to turn around or retreat a number of steps into cover, start dodging and return fire. That doesn't require a whole lot more time, but more than you have now in most cases. One shotting is IMO a no-no and too cheap.

Rate of fire of a lot of the higher rate of fire sniper rifles should be toned down to what, 0.5 seconds between each shot? They should be long range weapons, not spammed up close. There's a big rof difference between the Bolt Action one shot and the high speed rifles, that doesn't have to be such a big rof distance.

I'm sorry, but in this case I'm the one that has to pull the "gaming experience" trump card. In a multi-class multiplayer game, you CANNOT achieve game balance by starting with one on one scenarios. There's a staggering amount of combinations because of the different classes, and the distances that each class can choose to engage at.

Because there are so many combinations possible, how in the world would you want to balance based on the infinite combinations possible? No. You balance around one on one. Classes are like Roman Gladiators. Balance trade-offs between one another. If they're fair one on one, they're more likely to be fair in groups, exceptional abilities like medic revives aside (those are unbalanced in big groups as a class, since small groups can field less numerically and in variety).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. At some points, it sounds like you're making my argument for me. Low TTK gives smaller numbers a chance, since they can use the advantage of surprise vs. reaction time to make an impact. I've already brought this point up, and others have also tried to point this out to you.

Yet you either completely forget or ignore that if the enemy knows in which room you are held up, you DO NOT have the element of surprise: the one entering the room knows when and where he is entering from. THEY have the element of surprise.

But the above seems like you're confusing defensibility of a choke point with TTK. [...]
Either way, TTK has nothing to do with defensible positions.

You don't understand how TTK determines how large an influx you can hold off and how many of the defenders the influx can shoot? (Influx is the amount of players over time entering through a chokepoint).

Seriously, you don't see any relation here? Especially not in relation to having more options to enter through so more people can get in at the same time? You've not once in PS2 agreed on Teamspeak to enter the same room holding three enemies from 4 or more directions at once? Seriously? You have any idea how we can use our numerical advantage in combination with chokepoints and short TTK to create utter chaos and kill them all before they can process what's going on and prioritise a target? These room clearings are over in half a second... :/ The whole fight is over in that time, because by the time they come back due to travel time, the point is captured (outposts in particular are easy to cap that way). It's utterly boring.

Keep in mind that whatever a small unit can do, a big unit can do too. If it takes the small group 1 second of focused fire to kill one unit, then it will take a group twice the size half a second to kill one unit. AND they have half as many units to kill. So I'm sorry, but TTK has nothing to do with defensible positions, or HOLDING anything.

Of course I keep that in mind, but a small area to hold hampers a big group. Small groups can be fastly more effective with AoE weapons even if they don't instakill. I often softened up a group of enemies with a weak AoE damage over time Flamethrower, after which my shotgun wielding buddy would mow through them. Since it took them some time to kill me, and not instant headshot, I would get a chance to hurt a lot of them and lower the TTK on them, after which my also not headshottable buddy would come in with an already low TTK shotgun at close range and utterly rape them because of the TTK difference. This gun was called the Jackhammer btw. Completely incomparable to the one in PS2 too.

Sorry, I don't follow with regards to that last sentence. If individuals in the bigger group could instantly drop an enemy due to TTK, then the smaller group could instantly drop individuals in the larger group too. In that respect, all is equal. It becomes a contest of skill. That's perfectly OK. If the skill is equal and the smaller team gets 1 kill for 1 death, then they lose, because the other group has superior numbers. That's just life! That's not a game mechanic that is broken and needs fixing.

Yes it does, because if the bigger group automatically wins, there's no game. This isn't life, this is a game. There needs to be a game.

I think YOU missed the point utterly. I'm near 40 years old. I've been playing video games since my parents bought a Commodore 64 in the 80's. I have played A LOT OF GAMES. Just not PS1. Are you REALLY going to say that I have NEVER played a game that has high TTK? Implying that PS1 "owns" high TTK? And anyone that has never played PS1 can't possibly know anything about high TTK? Are you really going to ASSUME that?

I'm saying you never once before in your life played a MMOFPS conquest game with a higher TTK and good defensibility.

Or would you say otherwise?

You clearly can't use PS2 as a reference. BF games don't qualify. WWII Online doesn't either. What else? PacMan? :/ I played Pong and Prince of Persia when they came out too...

To make this comparison, you have to be sure that the ONLY variable left in the equation is TTK. So are you saying that PS2 defenses are exactly the same as PS2 defenses? I already know the answer to that, and it is the ENTIRE POINT I wish to make. TTK is equal for both sides. It takes them the same amount of time to kill you, as you take to kill them. It is inherently balanced that way. Being flanked is another issue entirely. The defensibility of a facility is an entire issue entirely.

Everything is related to everything. TTKs even have impact on the viability of metagame tactics like behind the lines PS1 genholds as they in part determine their duration, which in turn has impact on the fights elsewhere due to benefit denial.

The links are there, you just have to see them.

So a MAX crash is a tactic to pit a high TTK unit like the MAX against a varied bunch of lower TTK units that probably either won't have time to adjust (swap their own forces to MAX's), or simply won't be able to adjust at all. So the tactic is to thow UNEQUAL forces against each other, betting on the fact that the force with the higher TTK (and probably the more deadly weaponry too) will prevail.

Almost, it entirely depends on momentum. It creates a moment of imbalance by having a high endurance group speed/wade through a heavily defended area. Often ignoring the initial line of defenders to force them to turn around and then either keep pressing while the support troops kills the first line of defense, or turn around and kill them (note, more units had inherent, even though weaker, AV power in PS1) to create a lot of pressure on a single point and break through to an objective after which it is the dependence on fleshies that determines the outcome: someone able to hack open doors. Kill the fleshies, you win. It also meant that if it failed, for the next 5 minutes or so, your side would not have access to MAX units of any kind and if the MAX crash en route encountered a bunch of tanks or a prepared defense or an orbital strike, they'd be dead meat.

Assuming you could find a good defensible place in PS2 (again, a completely different issue than TTK), you could use the exact same strategy, because PS2 MAX's have superior TTK and superiour firepower.

And there are more of them due to not being cert limited and because there's no doors, yes, pretty much. They're just much easier to kill in PS2 actually. An infil in PS1 could not kill a MAX unless under very specific conditions and at incredible risk.

The relative balance of TTK between a MAX and other classes would probably not change even if TTK was increased as you wished. So the whole scenario you paint is pointless with respect to your arguments regarding TTK. The tactic would work NOW with the current TTK, or later with your proposed increased TTK.

Don't see your point, since I'm not talking about MAX TTKs at all. I'm talking about grunt TTKs. But yes, if you increase the TTK of an AI MAX on a grunt, he'll have more time to react. Hence why the Scat MAX in PS1 was hated, because at close range it could instagib while the other MAXes could not.

Indeed. They could not, they had high rate of fire weapons and were extremely lethal, but didn't have superior TTKs, just more endurance.

You wrote that TTK needs to increase so defenders can cross courtyards and not get insta-gibbed. IE: Give them a chance to retreat and reassess when caught off guard by superior numbers. I am sorry, but I do not buy that. You seem to be touching on the issue of undefendable bases, HE spam, Lib spam, etc... but again, what does that have to do with TTK. It takes ten or so hits to kill.

Again, exposure time vs exposure time needed to kill (TTK).

At long range, this is very hard to accomplish without you having a chance to retaliate or take cover. At short range, you should have been aware enough to know there was an enemy there. If you got killed by a sniper, then gratz on him for headshotting you as you were running. If you died to a AI mine, again, gratz on your enemy for planning well. If you died to a grenade, gratz on your enemy for a well placed, well led lob against a moving target. If you got insta-gibbed by HE from tanks or air, then you were flatly out gunned. What does this have to do with TTK.

It has to do with you handing wins out far too easily and making the game uncompetitive, frustrating and boring.

All of those relate to what I stated above. Advantages are one thing, default wins another.

[Kirotan]

Yeah, this thread is all over the place, so I'll just throw in my .02. Possibly a grenade too.

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

I don't believe so, no. You say shallow TTK, but isn't it really fast TTK?

Pay particular attention to the point about "Modern Shooters" while considering PS2's ingredients: Situational Awareness, tactical decision making, reaction time, Map & Terrain awareness, your opponent's class, your opponents weapon, where the nearest corners/cover is in multiple directions, ally locations, objective & spawn flow, recoil control, compensating aim for the impacts of flinching, ...and everything else I'm missing here that comes from hybridizing an FPS together with the macro-elements of RTS size armies & strategies .... and then compress it all into 0.80 seconds which is effectively your entire lifespan when being shot at.

Before I comment on this part, I want to ask you directly: What is the point of this exercise? You're trying to make a point but I'm not going to take a guess at what it is and end up arguing over a misunderstanding.

Is it "Depth", or "Complexity" that best describes 90% of the ways you find yourself dying in this game?

It's complexity. I feel the game doesn't really have much depth yet until more metagame type stuff is put in.

And do First-Order-Optimal strategies tend to work just as well if not better/faster when facing these deep and highly time compressed situations?

This is probably going over my head, but here goes:

Yes, a FOO strategy will work in this situation because my idea of a FOOS while getting shot at is: Shoot back or run for cover.

Half those things you mentioned that need to be compressed into the .8 seconds you're getting shot at don't belong there, IMO. I can't imagine anyone thinking, even on an habitual level from repetition, about things like, "spawn control and flow" and "all the RTS macro level elements" while being actively shot at.

Is this also part of the reason we have no Tutorial yet

Yeah. If the game was simple and deep, making a tutorial would be easy. There's a lot to cover though, so making a proper tutorial that covered just the basics would take some time.

or worse still, mean the game is also guilty of "Irreducible" Complexity for the average player?

Yes. You can only control so much, and the amount of complexity means that each choice you make is a roll of the dice. So luck is involved. Good players make their own luck by making a consistent series of choices that have a higher chance of survival.

Since you're the OP of this thread, let me ask you: Do you feel that the fast TTK shortchanges the depth this game could have?

I don't think TTK is a serious problem, and I'm fine with the way it is. Sure it's not perfect, but there are bigger problems that hurt game depth, IMO.

[Mietz]

It's not actually correct to say that +15% health will always require 0 more headshots, or 1 more non-headshot. It depends on how much damage has already been taken (which can be "a fraction of a bullet"), distance to target due to damage dropoff etc.) and no doubt other factors. Therefore 15-20% more health would probably require, on average, somewhere between 0 and 1 extra bullet, and in most cases, leaning towards 1 more bullet.

The point is that small tweaks can be worthwhile in achieving a reasonable balance that is acceptable to as many people as possible.

In any case, I took your original post to mean 15-20% to overall health (shields + health).

If you read what I wrote a page back, you will see that I'm perfectly aware of this, I was probing the poster if he just wanted HP or if he wants longer TTK.

As he explained, he wanted longer TTK (15-20% longer to kill) not HP.

HP is HP, if I said HP, I meant the 500HP everyone has.
Having 15% HP more isn't going to save you from anything since damage comes roughly in 140-200 intervals.

[sneeek]

If you read what I wrote a page back, you will see that I'm perfectly aware of this, I was probing the poster if he just wanted HP or if he wants longer TTK.

As he explained, he wanted longer TTK (15-20% longer to kill) not HP.

HP is HP, if I said HP, I meant the 500HP everyone has.
Having 15% HP more isn't going to save you from anything since damage comes roughly in 140-200 intervals.

If you mean it will never save you from anything, that's incorrect.

It's more accurate to say that it will save you from an extra bullet sometimes, depending on a bunch of other variables (target distance, explosions, falls, sniper bullets, vehicle bullets, bio lab health regen when at partial health, nanoweave armor certs, type of gun used). A small increase in either health or shields raises the probability that you can take an extra bullet in an actual battle, not a laboratory test.

I don't want an increase in TTK at all, but it did happen, I maintain that it would be best done by slowing down the rate of fire of all infantry guns, because this raises TTKs without much impact on anything else.

[Crator]

Yes, I do believe it does. The infantry weapons in particular suffer from the low TTK issue in that there isn't enough variance for variety.

I also like the points Mietz, VGCS, and Figment have made...

[Mietz]

If you mean it will never save you from anything, that's incorrect.

It's more accurate to say that it will save you from an extra bullet sometimes, depending on a bunch of other variables (target distance, explosions, falls, sniper bullets, vehicle bullets, bio lab health regen when at partial health, nanoweave armor certs, type of gun used). A small increase in either health or shields raises the probability that you can take an extra bullet in an actual battle, not a laboratory test.

I don't want an increase in TTK at all, but it did happen, I maintain that it would be best done by slowing down the rate of fire of all infantry guns, because this raises TTKs without much impact on anything else.

Let me phrase it as accurate as I can since we are dancing semantically and its getting tiring:

15-20% more Health on a player will save him under certain specific circumstances which may, or may not, happen and are not part of large scale balancing, as well as mechanics design, and can not be controlled for by neither designers, players or theorycrafting.
These circumstances may or may not happen just as a player might, or might not, miss at any given time with one of his bullets, ergo, these changes do nothing.
Introducing 15-20% more health, the increase in TTK would be so insignificant as to be not measurable and random statistical noise.

A similar valid way to increase TTK would be to say a prayer to your favorite god or pet your cat.

[Forsaken One]

Honestly I have to ask if I'm the only one who finds infantry fights, even 1v1 kind of boring atm. It just feels empty.

There is no feeling of "getting the drop" on the enemy, out thinking them, or outplaying them really.

Its just group spray at range should it be a group fight and "hurr durr aim for head" close fighting wise.

Sure there are tactics like flanking but when you do it doesn't give that badass feeling if you're the one doing it nor the "OMG we got flanked/outplayed" when its done.


It just feels too catered to twitch and stupid people.

[Figment]

@Forsaken One: The other thing about one vs one (but also the low amount of personal engagements before a fight is over due to the frequent distance to the CC and players dieing so soon after you opened fire - or you dieing so soon after they opened fire), is that I don't get the personal struggle that let's me get to know them.

I literally learned no new names aside from new outfit members and a few people active on command. On PS1, I learned new names daily, both allies and enemies, because you had time to get to know each other. Plus since you were forced into one another by the lattice and possibly because there were a few less people per continent, you'd encounter each other over and over.

It makes it less personal. That makes it less... interesting. Enemies currently feel like scripted AI mobs to me and the game treats them as such.

[sneeek]

Let me phrase it as accurate as I can since we are dancing semantically and its getting tiring:

15-20% more Health on a player will save him under certain specific circumstances which may, or may not, happen and are not part of large scale balancing, as well as mechanics design, and can not be controlled for by neither designers, players or theorycrafting.
These circumstances may or may not happen just as a player might, or might not, miss at any given time with one of his bullets, ergo, these changes do nothing.
Introducing 15-20% more health, the increase in TTK would be so insignificant as to be not measurable and random statistical noise.

A similar valid way to increase TTK would be to say a prayer to your favorite god or pet your cat.

I think your mathematical understanding is incorrect. 15-20% more health is about 1/2 to 2/3 of a bullet of most infantry guns. It may be less or more, but it's not important.

In general, an amount of health corresponding to a certain fraction of a bullet (2/3) will, on average, result in being able to survive about the same fraction of a bullet (2/3), assuming that over a number of encounters, you are attacked with a variety of guns and take a variety of types of damage. Of course, you can have runs where you are consistently attacked in the same way, so you consistently survive an extra bullet or not, but you can't escape averages. Therefore, you will take an extra bullet about 2/3 of the time, on average.

If this were not true, there would be no point in certing (for example) the first rank of nanoweave armour, since it represents a fraction of a bullet. But actually, given how cheap it is, it's pretty much a no-brainer if you just want an increase in general survivability.

[EVILoHOMER]

I want it to be like Quake 3 where you can die really fast to good players but you can solo like 20 bad players. Right now in PS2 it doesn't take any skill to kill someone, really just who sees whom first.

[Mietz]

I think your mathematical understanding is incorrect. 15-20% more health is about 1/2 to 2/3 of a bullet of most infantry guns. It may be less or more, but it's not important.

Of course it is important.


In general, an amount of health corresponding to a certain fraction of a bullet (2/3) will, on average, result in being able to survive about the same fraction of a bullet (2/3), assuming that over a number of encounters, you are attacked with a variety of guns and take a variety of types of damage.
Of course, you can have runs where you are consistently attacked in the same way, so you consistently survive an extra bullet or not, but you can't escape averages. Therefore, you will take an extra bullet about 2/3 of the time, on average.

Absolutely not.
You will not take an extra bullet 2/3rds of the time on average because the granularity of damage is not there.
The damage is delivered in whole bullets not fractions of them.

500hp
20% = 100

There are exactly 7 sources of damage producing 100 or below damage per tick.

All Pistols @65m+
VS6-7 @65m+
Solstice @65m+
Serpent @65+
Lasher AOE

Only if attacked with these weapons, at that specific range, in these specific circumstances, will you see an improvement in survivability.

This does not equal "taking an extra bullet about 2/3 of the time, on average."

You can't mathematically average numbers over time that come in quanta.
This isn't a smooth curve we are talking about, ergo you can not make that statement.
Your math is analog, while the game math is digital.


If this were not true, there would be no point in certing (for example) the first rank of nanoweave armour, since it represents a fraction of a bullet. But actually, given how cheap it is, it's pretty much a no-brainer if you just want an increase in general survivability.

Absolutely correct, Nanoweave below lvl5 does nothing on average.

[sneeek]

Of course it is important.



Absolutely not.
You will not take an extra bullet 2/3rds of the time on average because the granularity of damage is not there.
The damage is delivered in whole bullets not fractions of them.

500hp
20% = 100

There are exactly 7 sources of damage producing 100 or below damage per tick.

All Pistols @65m+
VS6-7 @65m+
Solstice @65m+
Serpent @65+
Lasher AOE

Only if attacked with these weapons, at that specific range, in these specific circumstances, will you see an improvement in survivability.

This does not equal "taking an extra bullet about 2/3 of the time, on average."

You can't mathematically average numbers over time that come in quanta.
This isn't a smooth curve we are talking about, ergo you can not make that statement.
Your math is analog, while the game math is digital.



Absolutely correct, Nanoweave below lvl5 does nothing on average.

Your assumptions are simply flawed, and it's trivial to come up with examples that invalidate your reasoning.

There are many ways to end up with "random" levels of health or shields in a real battle, due to many ways to be damaged by a "random" amount.

- Explosions - grenades, tank shells, zephyr, rockets, vehicles exploding nearby
- Biolab benefit healing you slowly when at partial health.
- Fall damage.
- Sniper bullets, MAX bullets.
- Pain field.
- and others that don't happen very often, like coming under fire whilst being healed.
- Simply activating HA overshield in anticipation of a fight causes it to drain, and it basically acts as additional temporary health.

It's irrelevant that there aren't many infantry guns that do damage in ticks of less than 100.

An example:

Assume for the sake of argument that health+shield = 1000 and you're at full health. A guy attacks you with a gun that deals damage in ticks damage in ticks of 160 at a given range. You need 7 bullets to die. 15% extra health gives you 1075 total, so you don't survive an extra bullet. Now suppose a guy attacks that you with a gun that deals damage in ticks of 200 at a given range. 15% extra health means an extra bullet is required.

That is hardly equal to "never". Combine that with the tendency that you don't run around on full health or shields all the time in a real battle, and you see average survivability increase as a fractional number of bullets.

Note that the above example can be modified by HA overshield. Your overshield, which can have a variable amount of charge at a given moment, may or may not have enough charge to push you over the threshold of requiring an extra bullet. Medic healing in the middle of a fight (which a lot of people do) has a similar effect.

Nanoweave armour then modifies the above example even more, which also may be enough to push you over the threshold of requiring an extra bullet, regardless of how many ranks you have in it. In fact, the number of ranks you have increases the likelihood of needing an extra bullet.

[psijaka]

Late to this thread but heres what I think:

The TTK is *slightly* too low. Every squishy class should have a 15% health buff across the board. Keep headshots on a 2x multiplier

This brings me to Max units.
Maxes dont feel like they're in a good place at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they seem like they have no different category of armor to squishy units. They just have more health and thats it. (And no regen shield)
PS1 had gold (AP) and white (AI) ammo to take down your foes and white ammo did FA to a Max if I remember - so Decis or gold ammo was essential. Now fast forward to PS2 and focus fire from standard squishy guns will drop a Max in no time. Which I'm not a fan of. The NC AI weapons versus enemy Max units are disgusting.
I like the tactics needed to take out Maxs - you have to change guns to do the job required. But thats me.

TLDR; buff health on all infantry 15% and Max units by 20%

I play MAX + Dual Falcons a lot (favourite loadout at the moment, in fact)and TTK feels pretty long to me; I can take a lot of punishment. In fact, I often deliberately expose myself to fire for a second or 2 to tease the enemy into giving away their position, so that my team mates can deal with them.

And you can cert regenerative armour on a MAX; it's a bit slow, but still well worth having for those times when you don't have a friendly engi around. I've certed this twice and I regen at 0.5%/sec, not a lot but it does make a difference.

Edit - In fact, I spent an hour on Ceres this afternoon in a failed attempt to capture the Crown up the southern road, running as a MAX. Claimed around 30 scalps and only died twice, despite this being an absolute meatgrinder. MAX is plenty tough enough already.

[psijaka]

It's a direct tangent issue. I agree they're not defensible, but TTK has a lot to do with how effective defenses are.

Defensibility is directly linked to TTK and weapon qualities like accuracy, blast radius and lethality. It determines how much terrain can be covered by an advancing enemy or if a sprint between your current, a retreat or relocation like heading for a better piece of cover is possible because that determines the exposure time. Exposure time and TTK are obviously directly linked: if TTK is longer than exposure time, the opponent needs more exposure time to get a kill. The defensibility of the Engineer Turret for instance (to name a very simple defense structure) is laughable, cause you can just one shot him through the head with ease or one shot with splash damage, where the exposure time is continuous.

This argument can be turned on it's head. I agree that Engi turrets are a death trap (a special case, and a separate issue), but on the whole, a higher TTK would favour the attackers; means they can rush the defenders across open ground with less chance of being taken out. Such rashness deserves to be punished.

Bases are difficult enough to defend as it is.

[PredatorFour]

I play MAX + Dual Falcons a lot (favourite loadout at the moment, in fact)and TTK feels pretty long to me; I can take a lot of punishment. In fact, I often deliberately expose myself to fire for a second or 2 to tease the enemy into giving away their position, so that my team mates can deal with them.




That's really the whole playstyle/role of the Max you just described there. Maxes shouldn't be easy to roll over.

[Kerrec]

Not going to cut and paste what is turning out to be huge walls of texts. This reply is in response to some points Figment made. Go read them if you want to know what I'm talking about below.

Point of views:

1) If you're in a position and an enemy shows up behind you and kills you before you can react and "have a chance" to win the encounter, that sucks and you' don't find it fun.

2) If you see an enemy giving your team a hassle, you spend 30 seconds to a minute taking a long route around buildings and terrain, all the while potentially exposing yourself to attacks from other directions, yet you manage to flank that enemy you originally saw and kill him before he has a chance to fight back, that's hella rewarding.

If you find yourself in situation 1 more than situation 2, then maybe you play conservatively, take few risks or prefer simple face to face engagments, and that affects how you play. The other guy took risks, time and very basic strategy to gain a superior position, and used it effectively.

So in my eyes, being flanked is rewarding (fun) for the person that does the flanking, because they took the risk, the time and made a tactical decsion that worked out. To me, that's OK. Nothing wrong.

If you want to raise TTK on the basis that this is NOT OK, then you're effectively telling people that their effort, time and tactics have no place in PS2 and should be punished.

If you allow me to exagerate, as an extreme of what you're asking, I picture a system where someone has to offer a challenge. The challenged has to be accepted. Then both combatants get a countdown timer in which time they can choose where and how to fight. THEN they are allowed to be able to do damage to themselves. At no point can there be outside "fluke" influence, lucky shots or anything.

Sounds alot to me like what you want is an organized ladder championship type of game. Not a chaotic battlefield with thousands of soldiers with vehicles mixed in.

[psijaka]

Sounds alot to me like what you want is an organized ladder championship type of game. Not a chaotic battlefield with thousands of soldiers with vehicles mixed in.

I'll take the chaotic battlefield with thousands of soldiers with vehicles mixed in any day; gives the feeling that I'm part of something much bigger than myself. This is what makes PS2 so attractive to me.

If anyone would like to experience PvP with a seriously long TTK, then I have 5 Firefall beta keys up for grabs. This is a genuine offer - just pm me and I'll get back to you.

I love Firefall PvE, but their PvP, with it's long TTK, is far too "arcade" for my liking.

[Mietz]

Your assumptions are simply flawed, and it's trivial to come up with examples that invalidate your reasoning.

I had some really long post typed up responding to you with all sorts of statistics and numbers, and how your specific scenarios don't matter in a general sense and how medical applicators heal in increments and that splash from explosives -still- comes in increments and has set max and min numbers.

But we/ for now answer me this.

Before I waste my time any further, what would you need as data (which I have access to) to falsify your claim.
i.e. What kind of evidence would I need to present to you to convince you?

[Baneblade]

The game seems to reward luck more than skill as it is now.

[Saraya]

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.

The run and gun, hip shooting with no iron sighting infantry style is all there with it's usual bunny hopping, crouch jumping, mouse jerking, quick sighting unrealistic nonsense.

Between the advantage of battle rank, perks from certifications(most often bought with real money or farmed certifications), lag and Call of Duty game play, you can absolutely have someone dead to rights in the back, head shot them, knife them, put some more bullets in them as they dance around and try to jump over the ridiculous world geometry (which you just get stuck on), and still not die - only to then 360 you and BAM dead.

TTK is only a problem when dealing with laggers, hackers, newbies or the status quo extremely average player - which is a.k.a. the COD crowd.


Planetside 2 = Tribes 2 meets Battlefield 3 with a Call of Duty style at it's core. It's such a blatant ripoff I'm surprised Activation, Infinity Ward, Treyarch and EA haven't sued them.

Now, that issue transcends everything else - the rest of it falls under that umbrella and is largely irrelevant.
Until developers learn to model their games more like the ARMA series, where the casual average person WILL not be interested, then they aren't really impressing anyone.

Thank goodness it's free.

[Sledgecrushr]

The run and gun, hip shooting with no iron sighting infantry style is all there with it's usual bunny hopping, crouch jumping, mouse jerking, quick sighting unrealistic nonsense.

Between the advantage of battle rank, perks from certifications(most often bought with real money or farmed certifications), lag and Call of Duty game play, you can absolutely have someone dead to rights in the back, head shot them, knife them, put some more bullets in them as they dance around and try to jump over the ridiculous world geometry (which you just get stuck on), and still not die - only to then 360 you and BAM dead.

TTK is only a problem when dealing with laggers, hackers, newbies or the status quo extremely average player - which is a.k.a. the COD crowd.


Planetside 2 = Tribes 2 meets Battlefield 3 with a Call of Duty style at it's core. It's such a blatant ripoff I'm surprised Activation, Infinity Ward, Treyarch and EA haven't sued them.

Now, that issue transcends everything else - the rest of it falls under that umbrella and is largely irrelevant.
Until developers learn to model their games more like the ARMA series, where the casual average person WILL not be interested, then they aren't really impressing anyone.

Thank goodness it's free.

I think what youre trying to say is that with the fast kills in this game is that its pretty hard. I agree this is a hard game to play. Im absolutely loving every minute of it.

[Black Creeper]

Point of views:

1) If you're in a position and an enemy shows up behind you and kills you before you can react and "have a chance" to win the encounter, that sucks and you' don't find it fun.

2) If you see an enemy giving your team a hassle, you spend 30 seconds to a minute taking a long route around buildings and terrain, all the while potentially exposing yourself to attacks from other directions, yet you manage to flank that enemy you originally saw and kill him before he has a chance to fight back, that's hella rewarding.


Best kills of the weekend:
1. Playing Engineer fixing a turret at the Stronghold. I throw an Anti Personel mine down behind me before I start fixing. As I'm fixing there is a huge explosion and I get an infiltrator kill on a guy sneaking up behind me during the firefight.
2. Pushing the VS with my Heavy Assault, I keep getting sniped from a canyon wall but I can't find the sniper. I spawn Light Assault and cruise up the walls. Near the top, I land almost on top of 2 VS snipers who grab for their pistols while I notch 2 kills with my Mauler shot gun.

Love this game

[Kerrec]

I think I'm starting to understand where some of the complaints are coming from.

Last weekend, I was helping to take a tech plant. I was LA, up on the outer wall trying to cover a generator room. Next to the generator room was a 2 storey building with roof access. One HA and myself kept exchanging kills. I'd get him, he'd come back and get me. Over and over.

I had just dumped my mag at defenders trying to get to the generator room when the HA guy ran up on the roof of the 2 storey building again. I saw him (expecting him) and started to move behind cover since I was mid reload.

Now I swear to you I was fully behind cover before I started getting hit and killed. Having some BF3 experience, I just cursed the guy for his high/low ping and cursed client side hit detection, then respawned and kept at it. But I had an "AH HA!" moment.

I could see how client side hit detection would make what I consider "fair" TTK feel like insta-gib. It happens to me regularly, but not frequently. I get 100% killed by some weapon that takes 8-10 bullets to kill, but it feels like it hits me all at once, and there's nothing I can do.

In a game that promotes thousands of players, you're bound to get someone with an absurd ping causing stuff like that. What can you do about it? Not much. Bump up TTK? IMO, that would hurt the majority of the game play to fix isolated situations.

[Figment]

High ping is a different issue. Incredibly annoying certainly (and can feel like gibbing, typically when over 300ms ping), but is a distinctively different issue from the degrees of situational awareness you either can and must have, and the ability to focus fire at choke points and survive rushes. It can affect efficiency, but isn't the key issue at all.

To understand it, I'd suggest looking up a number of PS1 hold videos. You can see how aiming skill (cof control and target leading mostly in PS1), defensive positioning and dodging skills create the opportunity to hold something with few against many. You see people ensure their arse is covered by walls so they can limit the amount of situational awareness they need and focus on the chokepoints ahead of them.

These chokepoints can be quite wide and even opposite of one another, like a 12m wide hallway or can be a very limited number of small doors (1-3 doors). It ensures that fights of 3 defenders facing 9 attackers, become a number of 1 vs 2, 1 vs 1, 3 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 engagements. Since there are only three defenders, if a defender dies there quickly through fluke shots (where the defender has the advantage of predicting enemy paths and trained shots), the attacker would gain a numerical ratio advantage more quickly.

If you have 8 directions to attack from, you can easily have a 3 vs 6 to 3 vs 9 situation. With 9 people engaging you at once, fluke shots add up faster, reducing your TTK. So if TTK is very short, say it takes one fluke shot, then 3 vs 9 becomes 1 vs 9 in an an instant. 1 vs 6 if you are lucky.

If TTK takes longer and you have good positions that can't always be flanked, you might survive through skill, where the 3 vs 9 becomes 3x 3 vs 3. :/



You may think this sounds weird, but if you ever had to control just two doors with two people, you'd realise you could take on 6-8 enemies if there's some time in between each entering the room and you getting the drop on them because they still have to orientate on where you are.

And yeah, third person helps a lot with this, as it strengthens ambushes over approaches. First person ensures line of sight from both sides, making an ambush less effective.

You can see the combination of those elements (longer ttk vs shotgun ttk, ambush third person, reaction time and dodging (ofc. adad-warp inducing was part of PS1 unfortunately) in vids like this: 302 Found

[Kerrec]

I think I've written enough at this point. I don't agree with many of the things you wrote, and writing more isn't going to change your mind. You seem to equate TTK with Defensible positions all the time and I've said my peace on that issue.

You now also appear to make 6-9 one vs. one encounters as a 6-9 vs. 1. I really don't agree with that. There's no way 1 person can kill 6-9 guys in a row. Those 6 or 9 guys are going to land SOME hits, wittling you away. You will also have to reload at some point. So a "TRUE" 6 vs. 1, even if bottlenecked in favor of the defender, will not work the way you describe. What you seem to describe is a series of 1 vs. 1 encounters, with breaks in between. I have had PLENTY of those in my playtime in PS2. I've gone on 6-10 kill streaks defending rooms with up to 4 entrances! A fast TTK in PS2 didn't prevent exactly what you described from happening.

3rd person view. I detest it. IMO, it should even be removed from vehicles. Being able to see around a corner without exposing your character PROTECTS you from falling into an ambush. So I fail to see how you equate 3rd person view with more successful ambushes...

[psijaka]

These chokepoints can be quite wide and even opposite of one another, like a 12m wide hallway or can be a very limited number of small doors (1-3 doors). It ensures that fights of 3 defenders facing 9 attackers, become a number of 1 vs 2, 1 vs 1, 3 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 engagements. Since there are only three defenders, if a defender dies there quickly through fluke shots (where the defender has the advantage of predicting enemy paths and trained shots), the attacker would gain a numerical ratio advantage more quickly.

If you have 8 directions to attack from, you can easily have a 3 vs 6 to 3 vs 9 situation. With 9 people engaging you at once, fluke shots add up faster, reducing your TTK. So if TTK is very short, say it takes one fluke shot, then 3 vs 9 becomes 1 vs 9 in an an instant. 1 vs 6 if you are lucky.

If TTK takes longer and you have good positions that can't always be flanked, you might survive through skill, where the 3 vs 9 becomes 3x 3 vs 3. :/



You may think this sounds weird, but if you ever had to control just two doors with two people, you'd realise you could take on 6-8 enemies if there's some time in between each entering the room and you getting the drop on them because they still have to orientate on where you are.

And yeah, third person helps a lot with this, as it strengthens ambushes over approaches. First person ensures line of sight from both sides, making an ambush less effective.


Sorry, but what you are saying just doesn't seem logical. Shorter TTK usually favours the ambusher/defender/flanker, not the frontal attacker. Means that if the defender get the drop on the enemy attackers then they'll down them quickly before they have a chance to retailiate. The exception is when the attacker knows where the defender is hiding, and can aim and prefire as they are turning the corner.

All this talk of you being damaged by "fluke" shots just doesn't ring true either, makes it sound as if your opponents posess zero skill whatsoever. What if they can shoot straight and are landing their shots on target - in a 3v9 you'll probably die anyway, whatever the TTK. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you would stand a better chance with a shorter TTK; a longer TTK would lead to a war of attrition, where sheer firepower becomes more important than quick skilful aiming.

[Figment]

Psijaka, don't just add up the numbers for the attackers, you don't include choke point mitigation in relation to TTKs at all, which is the entire point of this discussion between me and Kerrec.

Flankers ALWAYS have the advantage. Long TTK or short TTK. Completely irrelevant to consider who has the advantage there if that's all you do.

Please do realise that with 9 attackers flanking 3 in PS2 at the same time from all kinds of directions (which is VERY possible), a short TTK as you put it greatly benefits the attackers further. Any one of them can instantly drop the enemy that has their backs turned to them, meaning they are unlikely to deal any damage at all if they almost instantly die. If they survive a little bit longer, the chances of them dealing damage increase.

So when we have a completely open defensive position, like in PS2, the attackers, all being flankers save MAYBE 3/9 (depending on what's covered) have a supreme advantage. Especially since they can throw 9 grenades that instantly kill too. AoE spam with short TTK is just really, REALLY OP in a game with this many players (doesn't matter how many face one another either), but that's a bit of another story, since they can hit multiple enemies at once, especially very powerful against denser concentrations of enemies.



But if you change the context, to a situation where you cover an entry point, focused fire does not help at all for short TTKs. Why not? Because each individual can pretty much do the same damage in pretty much the same time. If you have a slightly longer TTK, the effect of focus fire becomes greater: you can concentrate your fire and the fire of your enemies coming in is somewhat dispersed in contrast. Since they can't instantly drop any of you, and since they have to come through predicted choke points, they'll be at a greater disadvantage than if they could each be dropped fast individually, but could drop you equally fast individually.

Since you are with three, they'll focus fire on the first that comes into sight. So you can actually rotate who is first in sight, while the other recuperates or waits out of sight. IF that person had been dropped instantly, he'd not been able to rotate or retreat to a safer position and let someone else draw attention.

Someone who is near dead still deals full damage. Someone who is dead deals no damage.

So it is much better to have some highly damaged but alive units who can concentrate fire, than to have people fall over at random on both sides, because the amount of concentrated fire will decrease for the defenders more rapidly, while it will increase more rapidly for the attackers.


In the meantime, quick aiming skill is just one subset of the total skillpackage of players. To make the entire game revolve around that is just dumbing down the entire thing.


Tactical shooters have longer TTKs because they revolve around holding positions. Twitch shooters have short TTKs because they revolve around run and gun.

This is a tactical shooter with almost pure twitch TTKs. This wouldn't be as bad if the building layouts would at least be conquest type instead of run and gun deathmatch type.

[psijaka]

Sorry if I have perhaps taken some of your comments out of context, Figment, but I am vehemently opposed to any significant increase in TTK. Short TTK favours the defenders, as I have explained, unless the attackers know exactly where the defenders are.

I've played FPS's with very short TTK (COD - typically 3-4 bullet kills for normal mode, 1-2 for hardcore - ugh), through to FPS's with a very long TTK (Firefall PvP - can take 30+ bullets from a full auto weapon), as well as several in between. In my experience, there are more decent gunfights in COD than in Firefall; the excessively long TTK just results in people not making much use of cover in a rush to get into the action, and it turns into an ugly spammy melee, very fast moving and heavily reliant on twitch skills. Despite this, there are still people on the forums claiming that TTK is too short!

PS2 fits somewhere nicely in the middle, with approx 6-9 full auto bullets required to get the kill, short enough so that you can be pretty sure of killing someone if you flank them, but long enough for you to react if you take a stray or fluke shot or two. Pretty much spot on, in other words. In my opinion, of course.

Edit - I'm not suggesting for a moment the game is all about quick aiming skills; I regard myself as pretty average when it comes down to fast paced action; shorter TTK allows me to compensate for this by being cunning and choosing a good defensive spot, or by flanking. By playing tactically, in other words.

[Kerrec]

Please do realise that with 9 attackers flanking 3 in PS2 at the same time from all kinds of directions (which is VERY possible), a short TTK as you put it greatly benefits the attackers further. Any one of them can instantly drop the enemy that has their backs turned to them, meaning they are unlikely to deal any damage at all if they almost instantly die. If they survive a little bit longer, the chances of them dealing damage increase.

In my eyes, you continue to mix up several issues.

9 attackers flanking 3 defenders from several directions DOES greatly benefit the attackers. But TTK has nothing to do with it. The only issue here is the defenders couldn't defend their objective because the location of the ojbective is NOT defensible. That is a design issue with the SHAPE and LOCATION of the structures. TTK has nothing to do with this.

9 grenades to kill 3 people...really? Grenades cost infantry resources. They are limited in quantity and can only be resuplied at terminals. Those are their drawbacks. If attackers are regularly using 9 grenades to kill 3 defenders, then there's a problem with the resource cost and possibly with the quantity of grenades that can be carried. Again, that is not an issue with TTK.

Grenades insta-killing is a matter of opinion. Some people will demand that grenades insta-kill, others will not. Broken? Matter of opinion.

[Figment]

Let's measure TTK in shots (easier to work with than seconds, effect is the same really). Say it takes 9 shots to kill someone:

3 firing at one choke points can kill in three shots if they hit - with a stable aim this is quite possible. In the same time, that person under attack fires three shots, most of which would not be on target, say one hits: some damage might be dealt but it'd be irrelevant, since it'd be 1/9 shots. Of the 27 health of the defenders, you'd get very little damage per person entering.

Say it takes 3 shots to kill someone, but the rof remains the same. Given reaction time, In the same time that other person fires one-three shots. If one hits, despite of being taking out, this would be 1/3 of the health of one of the defenders, but could be more. That's a much larger percentage of health.

Now, the speed at which you fire is the TTK. If the TTK is so short that its effect is pretty much equal to focused fire, random fire by the attacker spraying into a room where he needs few hits to kill, will have much more weight than an attacker spraying for the same time into a room where he needs to land a lot of shots to actually kill even one.

Damage from random spraying at short TTKs is much more lethal.






Now, add grenades or "noobtubes" (underslung grenade launchers) that have instant kill or a lot of alpha damage at least (first hit), then someone popping in and out of cover with high alpha damage fighting someone with rifles, will have a severe advantage: this person popping out and launching a nade doesn't need to be accurate, just have knowledge of the general area and distance a person is in to clear that part of the room.

If you compare to Thumper spam in PS1, at 1/6th health damage per shot from its PS2 equivalent - though at a higher rof, it has a much longer TTK *much lower alpha damage*. If a person would fire once every time they show themselves, then in the PS1 long TTK thumper case the opposition would get 6 chances to fire at someone who'd pop in and out of view with an AoE weapon, vs ONE if that person is wielding an instakill AoE weapon, two if that person missed the first time but got a good bearing on how to compensate for the next AoE shot. With the same amount of grenades, we're talking a huge difference in potential kills.

302 Found

Look at SkyExile racking up a lot of kills since he knows where the players approximately are (relatively confined space). This is a similar situation to knowing where your enemy is in a confined space like a building. The attacking party gets the drop on the defender, who cannot react in time to return fire. This creates a sitting duck situation (quite like a tiny CC room, where you have to be in the CC and wait for someone to enter - there's only a few places where you could potentially sit).

If SkyExile did not have instant TTK, he'd not be able to kill you before you could respond, his reload time would become an issue, creating a window of opportunity for you to relocate/run, or return fire. If you were just dead, well then, you'd just be dead.


Now imagine if it'd be two people coming from two sides of a CC simultaneously. Now imagine if it's 4 people from four sides simultaneously. Or 8 from 8 sides. Which in a lot of CC rooms in PS2, is actually possible.



Now you can say, but wait! You could do that alone then too from the CC? Well no, because you are confined to a specific space by the game, the other party is not, plus you have no idea what direction they'll come from. Whatever happens, the defender/holder would be doomed. If not the first time, then the second.

The only option is to keep moving and to keep trying to be unpredictable in your positioning and location, which is why this is a run and gun type of gameplay and not a conquest type of gameplay, since conquest gameplay requires you to be in the position you try to consolidate.

[Figment]

Sorry if I have perhaps taken some of your comments out of context, Figment, but I am vehemently opposed to any significant increase in TTK. Short TTK favours the defenders, as I have explained, unless the attackers know exactly where the defenders are.

The "significance" we're talking about here is fractions of seconds. It's not like it's suddenly taking an eon. No need to be melo-dramatic about it and say "ABSOLUTELY NEVER!", is there? :/ Some of the PS2 weapons are already in the appropriate TTK domain. Some just come down to instant kill and are thus not encouraging competition, but ganking.

Even with the increases I'd propose, they'd still be shorter than PS1!

Come on. PS1 TTKs were relatively long, but they didn't actually take that long.

I've played FPS's with very short TTK (COD - typically 3-4 bullet kills for normal mode, 1-2 for hardcore - ugh), through to FPS's with a very long TTK (Firefall PvP - can take 30+ bullets from a full auto weapon), as well as several in between. In my experience, there are more decent gunfights in COD than in Firefall; the excessively long TTK just results in people not making much use of cover in a rush to get into the action, and it turns into an ugly spammy melee, very fast moving and heavily reliant on twitch skills. Despite this, there are still people on the forums claiming that TTK is too short!

CoD TTK just wastes people's time in a game like this. CoD TTK is based on having an incredibly small map. As in, really tiny. I mean, you know the Rust map right? Time between engagements is a few seconds, you're not spending a lot of time to get anywhere. In some matches, the engagements however short they are would be 5-10% of your travel time. In PS1 and PS2, travel time is much longer, up to minutes. So we're talking about tiny percentages of playtime.

If you want a short TTK, you need the appropriate game context. CoD provides that. PS1 nor PS2 do that.

PS2 fits somewhere nicely in the middle, with approx 6-9 full auto bullets required to get the kill, short enough so that you can be pretty sure of killing someone if you flank them, but long enough for you to react if you take a stray or fluke shot or two. Pretty much spot on, in other words. In my opinion, of course.

The amount of shots is fair enough yes (for the most part, not for all weapons), but IMO the rate of fire is too high. There are a lot of weapons that kill MUCH faster than in 9 shots and one shotting is very common. So if you think 9 is fine, then you can't claim PS2 - overall - is fine.

Consider that the least bullets you needed with a PS1 weapon is two: bolt driver sniper rifle. TTK however, was reliant on reload time, thus the rof was low, thus the TTK long. Snipers were therefore not used at short range. In PS2, sniper rifles are used for no scoping shotgun range in a taptaptapkill! style.

Edit - I'm not suggesting for a moment the game is all about quick aiming skills; I regard myself as pretty average when it comes down to fast paced action; shorter TTK allows me to compensate for this by being cunning and choosing a good defensive spot, or by flanking. By playing tactically, in other words.

It actually is though. Couple headshots (easier to get with TR/VS weapons) claim you a victory, since they'll hardly need those 9 bullets.

In my eyes, you continue to mix up several issues.

9 attackers flanking 3 defenders from several directions DOES greatly benefit the attackers. But TTK has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does, it enhances the effect: less attackers will take damage.

The only issue here is the defenders couldn't defend their objective because the location of the ojbective is NOT defensible. That is a design issue with the SHAPE and LOCATION of the structures.

That's an incredible large part of it and the biggest contributor, but design elements interact.

9 grenades to kill 3 people...really? Grenades cost infantry resources. They are limited in quantity and can only be resuplied at terminals. Those are their drawbacks.

You ever run out of resources then? And uhm, you may not have noticed since many don't have them, but underslung grenade launchers don't use resources and resupply like AV. :/

If attackers are regularly using 9 grenades to kill 3 defenders, then there's a problem with the resource cost and possibly with the quantity of grenades that can be carried. Again, that is not an issue with TTK.

You missed out on the PS1 thumper spam era, so you may not know this. HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE impact from nerfing the AoE damage of grenades on playstyle, survivability, ability to get in and out of buildings.

Damage was reduced incredibly harshly to reach that effect.

Grenades insta-killing is a matter of opinion. Some people will demand that grenades insta-kill, others will not. Broken? Matter of opinion.

Not opinion. Matter of exploiters and general stupidity vs people interested in varied gaming options being viable and game balance.

[psijaka]

9 attackers flanking 3 defenders from several directions DOES greatly benefit the attackers. But TTK has nothing to do with it. The only issue here is the defenders couldn't defend their objective because the location of the ojbective is NOT defensible. That is a design issue with the SHAPE and LOCATION of the structures. TTK has nothing to do with this.

Agree with this; if 9 people are attacking 3 people from several directions, then the defenders are in an untenable position, irrespective of TTK. They have been outmanoeuvred by the enemy, and it is time for them to fall back and regroup.

[Figment]

Agree with this; if 9 people are attacking 3 people from several directions, then the defenders are in an untenable position, irrespective of TTK. They have been outmanoeuvred by the enemy, and it is time for them to fall back and regroup.

Really depends on recuperation time and cover and if the directions can be controlled. PS2 is horrible at letting players control enemy directions, it's a huge issue but it IS worsened by TTK speed since you can't react at all.


Even if you get engaged from behind by a single player while watching one other in front of you, instant kill weapons prevent you to participate in that engagement when you realise there's someone there. You can't get to new cover that better suits the attack vector, you can't return fire, the attacker takes a lot less damage if any and will therefore face his next opponent completely unscathed from the engagement with you.



Again, that illustrates the holder will be outflanked and killed fast making the next person outflanked and killed fast, all due to TTK in combination with base layout.


What's so hard about combining different facts? :/ You two keep looking at things as if one thing can never impact another. That's ridiculous, tbh.


In fact, you said it yourself Psijaka when you refered to those other games: reaching new cover is a lot easier if it takes longer to kill if the geometry remains the same.

[Kerrec]

Figment, regarding SkyExile's video that you posted above:

What you see there is a farmer. He was on the wall with 3 other squad mates, shooting a squad spawning out of an AMS. That portion of the video lasted around 2.5 minutes. During that time, that guy and his squad accomplished NOTHING. They got a bunch of kills but got pushed off the wall and failed to take out the AMS. In my eyes, the guys spawning from the AMS won that battle. The only way SkyExile could claim any kind of victory, is if he only cares about Kill/Death ratio.

The whole understlung grenade launcher being resupplied by an engineer ammo pack IS a broken balancing issue. What is the point of spending infantry resources on grenades when you can get an infinite supply of grenades for your launcher? THAT is a broken game mechanic. And want to know how to FIX it? Has nothing to do with TTK. You make it so underslung grenades are resupplied at the same places as all other grenades, at the same cost.

There's a whole bunch of issues that need balancing. TTK isn't one of them.

[Kerrec]

Really depends on recuperation time and cover and if the directions can be controlled. PS2 is horrible at letting players control enemy directions, it's a huge issue but it IS worsened by TTK speed since you can't react at all.


Even if you get engaged from behind by a single player while watching one other in front of you, instant kill weapons prevent you to participate in that engagement when you realise there's someone there. You can't get to new cover that better suits the attack vector, you can't return fire, the attacker takes a lot less damage if any and will therefore face his next opponent completely unscathed from the engagement with you.



Again, that illustrates the holder will be outflanked and killed fast making the next person outflanked and killed fast, all due to TTK in combination with base layout.


What's so hard about combining different facts? :/ You two keep looking at things as if one thing can never impact another. That's ridiculous, tbh.


In fact, you said it yourself Psijaka when you refered to those other games: reaching new cover is a lot easier if it takes longer to kill if the geometry remains the same.

I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like you want to be able to solo everything. Right back to my first post in this thread, "why do you want to balance encouters on a 1 vs 1 basis in a massively multiplayer team oriented game?"

This is a team oriented game, where a squad has up to 12 people. If you are in a squad covering one entry point, and you get ganked, your teammates are the ones that get the time to react. They take out the attacker, revive you, and continue on. The next time, your teammate gets ganked, and you get to react. So on and so forth.

If you absolutely need to take an objective, then weigh the risk vs. reward of trying to take that objective with small numbers. Why do you think it's wrong that you decide to take an objective with 3 people (one that is hard to defends with so few!) yet expect to be able to contest a counter attack that outnumbers you by a factor of 3 or more?

Going with small numbers, to take and hold an objective that is KNOWN to have several vectors of approach, is a RISK. You choose to take that risk, then you have chosen to take the potential failure related to that risk.

TTK and the defensibility of an area are not related. It's not like defenders get a bump in TTK, but attackers do not. TTK benefits whoever can sustain fire down range the longest, wether they are attackers or defenders. Increasing TTK does not benefit ONLY defense. It benefits superior numbers, and that's it.

A low TTK allows inferior numbers to use hit and run tactics. Hit hard and fast, get a kill or two and leave before the enemy can react. Increasing TTK would take this away. The inferior numbers would hit soft and fast, NOT get a kill or two, and run away having accomplished nothing.

[Figment]

Figment, regarding SkyExile's video that you posted above:

What you see there is a farmer. He was on the wall with 3 other squad mates, shooting a squad spawning out of an AMS. That portion of the video lasted around 2.5 minutes. During that time, that guy and his squad accomplished NOTHING. They got a bunch of kills but got pushed off the wall and failed to take out the AMS. In my eyes, the guys spawning from the AMS won that battle. The only way SkyExile could claim any kind of victory, is if he only cares about Kill/Death ratio.

You seem to forget that a control console does not have a spawnroom inside. :)

He and his killed way more than would normally be in a small room and would be necessary. That's the point: the room would have been cleared. I don't care how long he was there or what he accomplished in that particular situation. He and his wern't at all interested in killing the Sunderer or going for objectives, just in getting certpoints. If he wanted to he'd have been able to with ease.

The whole understlung grenade launcher being resupplied by an engineer ammo pack IS a broken balancing issue. What is the point of spending infantry resources on grenades when you can get an infinite supply of grenades for your launcher? THAT is a broken game mechanic. And want to know how to FIX it? Has nothing to do with TTK. You make it so underslung grenades are resupplied at the same places as all other grenades, at the same cost.

There's a whole bunch of issues that need balancing.

That much I agree wholeheartedly with, but the TTK (depending on weapons) do need balancing. Grenades are far too powerful, I often get 3-7 kills (and some assists) with a single grenade I didn't even aim beyond their general direction. Low TTK AoE is unskilled spam, nothing more. :/

The shortest ones need to be elongated a little (1.0-2.5 seconds is IMO the correct TTK, below 1.0 is too short, shotguns especially should require at least three shots too, one headshot or two shots - you can't miss with shotguns at close range after all and even three shots would give you a clear advantage at its optimum range).

[Deadeye]

The ttk in this game is entirely too low. No ifs, ands, or buts. When you start measuring it in milliseconds then it needs to be raised. Planetside 1 took way too long but this virtual instagib fest needs to stop. And yes, the game does need to be balanced 1 v 1 and already is and the decision was to make that 1v1 encounter end in less than 1 second judging from the various TTKs of the guns here.

The big problem I have is the getting shot in the back and in the time it takes you to respond, you're dead. I use the GD-7F. It has a .55 second ttk according to the data miners. That means you have .55 seconds to either get out of the way or hope someone kills me. You can't, in .55 seconds, hope to turn around, see me and shoot me. Hell, it takes me .5 seconds just see I'm being shot, let alone getting into cover.

I want infantry gun battles to be battles where guys can use cover and if they stick their head out it's not instantly blown off. Ya know what? I'd like team fortress 2 style ttk. The heavy weapons guy there will kill you in a second but only at very close range. Everyone else needed several seconds to kill someone. Get in a bad situation? You could actually run away, heal and come back or come up with a new strategy. Did you usually end up dying anyway? yeah but you always had a chance to react and that's all I think most of us want, is a damn second or two to react (so that we can choose to fight or flight).

[Kerrec]

He and his killed way more than would normally be in a small room and would be necessary. That's the point: the room would have been cleared. I don't care how long he was there or what he accomplished in that particular situation. He and his wern't at all interested in killing the Sunderer or going for objectives, just in getting certpoints. If he wanted to he'd have been able to with ease.

There must be some serious difference in playstyle between us. I can easily think of many instances where I survived grenade spam thrown into room I was defending. They GLOW.

As for the grenade launcher, it needs to be balanced, as you have agreed.

Personally, where I am at cert-wise, the bandolier is not a viable path to choose. So I have ONE grenade at a given time. I also have mines unlocked on my engineer, and C4 on my LA. So I don't want to be spending infantry resources on grenades, UNLESS that grenade is SKILLFULLY used. If I see a clump of enemies together, for SURE I'm going to try and hit them all with a grenade. That being said, I rarely ever kill more than one person with a grenade. Maybe I'm so skill-less that I can't even get skill-less kills...

In practice though landing a grenade at exactly the right spot is hard to do. Stupid things bounce like super balls and seem to gain more momentum when they hit the ground. I just can't see "skill-less" grenade spam being a constant issue.

[psijaka]

In fact, you said it yourself Psijaka when you refered to those other games: reaching new cover is a lot easier if it takes longer to kill if the geometry remains the same.

Occasionally I get my head perforated by a sniper or blown off by a Magrider, but generally I manage to achieve this with a fair degree in PS2 with the current moderate TTK. Harder in COD. A lot harder, in fact.

[Figment]

Quite so, a bit harder in CoD, but I'd say a minor increase in TTK time wouldn't hurt at all.

After all, we face quite a few more threats at once than in your general CoD game...

[psijaka]

The ttk in this game is entirely too low. No ifs, ands, or buts. When you start measuring it in milliseconds then it needs to be raised. Planetside 1 took way too long but this virtual instagib fest needs to stop. And yes, the game does need to be balanced 1 v 1 and already is and the decision was to make that 1v1 encounter end in less than 1 second judging from the various TTKs of the guns here.

The big problem I have is the getting shot in the back and in the time it takes you to respond, you're dead. I use the GD-7F. It has a .55 second ttk according to the data miners. That means you have .55 seconds to either get out of the way or hope someone kills me. You can't, in .55 seconds, hope to turn around, see me and shoot me. Hell, it takes me .5 seconds just see I'm being shot, let alone getting into cover.

I want infantry gun battles to be battles where guys can use cover and if they stick their head out it's not instantly blown off. Ya know what? I'd like team fortress 2 style ttk. The heavy weapons guy there will kill you in a second but only at very close range. Everyone else needed several seconds to kill someone. Get in a bad situation? You could actually run away, heal and come back or come up with a new strategy. Did you usually end up dying anyway? yeah but you always had a chance to react and that's all I think most of us want, is a damn second or two to react (so that we can choose to fight or flight).

TTK of several seconds? Ugh, remind me not to play TF2.

[psijaka]

Quite so, a bit harder in CoD, but I'd say a minor increase in TTK time wouldn't hurt at all.

After all, we face quite a few more threats at once than in your general CoD game...

True, and that is one of the reasons that I love PS2; the feeling of being part of somethign so much bigger than myself.

To be honest, I wouldn't object to a minor increase in TTK, but only because I don't think a minor increase would make much difference.

Lots of ways to die in COD though, ridiculously OP killstreak rewards abound. Exploding toy cars and one bite kill attack dogs in Black Ops 1, for instance.

[Sturmhardt]

Yup... since people got better at this game and everyone picked their favorite weapon I die instantly very often. Not fun.

[exile]

Pay particular attention to the point about "Modern Shooters" while considering PS2's ingredients: Situational Awareness, tactical decision making, reaction time, Map & Terrain awareness, your opponent's class, your opponents weapon, where the nearest corners/cover is in multiple directions, ally locations, objective & spawn flow, recoil control, compensating aim for the impacts of flinching, ...and everything else I'm missing here that comes from hybridizing an FPS together with the macro-elements of RTS size armies & strategies .... and then compress it all into 0.80 seconds which is effectively your entire lifespan when being shot at.

I would argue that a low TTK is actually necessary to keep complexity manageable. As you describe there is a lot of inherent complexity in just the scale of the game; maintaining good "situational awareness", even when you're not in combat, already places a high mental burden on a player. Once you engage an opponent the burden of maintaining that situational awareness on top of the complexity of individual combat becomes impossible to sustain.

The longer a fight lasts the less information the players have about what is going on around them (because they can't look around and move freely while engaged) and the more "randomness" is introduced from the player's perspective; e.g. the more likely it is someone will arrive and get the drop on them from an unseen position. You need fights to end quickly so the complexity drops back down to manageable level, even if it's just for a second or two so that the player can update their situational awareness before engaging again.

I haven't thought this all the way through for how the complexity scales for multi-combatant engagements but my feeling is that it's the same, although highly sophisticated squad tactics may change that.

[Deadeye]

TTK of several seconds? Ugh, remind me not to play TF2.

It's considered one of the greatest FPSs of all time and is incredibly fun to play. You don't use machine guns in TF2, you use special weapons for each class from rocket launchers to flamethrowers to the Heavy's Gatling gun. It's an amazing game and requires, I think, a hell of a lot more skill than this run and gun fragfest we have going on in this game. And is a hell of a lot more fun (I love playing scout and Pyro in particular).

Oh and, by-the-way, it's free to play now. And not Freemium like this game, the regular weapons are just as good as anything you can buy (and it's not hard to get the extra guns through normal play and using the in game crafting system to make any guns you see others using.)

[psijaka]

Yeah, heard a lot about TF2; generally very regarded, but I don't think that it's my cup of tea. Life too busy to devote myself to more than one or two games at any one time.

Anyone interested in trying out a fast paced third person shooter (with a seriously long TTK) should give Firefall a try; they are hosting an open beta weekend starting Jan 25th (see www.firefallthegame.com (http://www.firefallthegame.com)), and if anyone is really keen, I've got 5 full beta invites available which I would like to give away; just message me.

Not that keen on the PvP aspect of it, but the PvE in the Open World is pretty unique, and has a real "feel good" factor.

Which pretty much sums up my feelings on TTK -

Short TTK - serious FPS
Long TTK - fun RPG

[Ghoest9]

Short TTK - fun and tactical

Long TTK - lets tactically bad but good at twitch players always win

[Deadeye]

Short TTK - fun and tactical

Long TTK - lets tactically bad but good at twitch players always win

I think you have those backwards.

[Figment]

PS2 needs medium fps due to travel time vs rewarded with fun fight, amount of players and ability to hold for long periods of time. Die fast + long travel time = lose constantly before reinforcements arrive.

[exile]

Figment, can you summarise your position on this? I tried piecing it together from the lengthy and muddled conversations but can't really get a succinct grasp of it.

[Ghoest9]

I think you have those backwards.

No I dont.

Simpletons who are get shot because they arent aware convince themselves that if it some how took longer to die they would be winning more.

Players with brains understand that longer TTK just means tactics stops mattering and circle strafing ability decides all fights.


The people who want longer TTK are either good twitch players who know longer TTK lets them win even when people sneak up behind them, or just dumb players desperately hoping that longer fights give them an opportunity to magically win.

[psijaka]

No I dont.

Simpletons who are get shot because they arent aware convince themselves that if it some how took longer to die they would be winning more.

Players with brains understand that longer TTK just means tactics stops mattering and circle strafing ability decides all fights.


The people who want longer TTK are either good twitch players who know longer TTK lets them win even when people sneak up behind them, or just dumb players desperately hoping that longer fights give them an opportunity to magically win.

^ this.

In particular, the highlighted paragraph perfectly describes the dominant gameplay in a Firefall TDM. Firefall Open Beta next weekend if anyone doesn't believe me!

[ringring]

I have to admit I've quite enjoyed reading the posts in this thread.

[Figment]

Figment, can you summarise your position on this? I tried piecing it together from the lengthy and muddled conversations but can't really get a succinct grasp of it.

CoD TTK ---- PS2 TTK ----- Figgy's prefered TTK --- PS1 TTK-------------------extremely long TTK

Constant movement like headless chicken: sitting still is death by random shot (includes both CoD and PS2) -------------- Figgy's prefered TTK: Dig in to hold, twitch skill some impact to stand a chance, but caught of guard provides advantage ------ PS1: turn around freely ------------------- Big groups have too much endurance for focused fire to work (think MAX crash)


I feel it helps good players be and feel competitive and allows worse players to at least feel they did something and learn from the experience before they died a bloody death.

That suffice?




PS: Tactics always matter. Even the longer PS1 TTKs let me plug three shots in someone's bumm with a Mag Scat pistol before they reacted and let's you control the fight.

People who want this exact TTK and not a single change anywhere may as well have selected an arbitrary status quo as the optimum ever opposed to indeed having a justified preference: you can't know, it's subjective! Making crude statements like Ghoest does is simply arbitrary insulting and justification of a standpoint through personal attacks.

[psijaka]

Short TTK - serious FPS
Long TTK - fun RPG

Short TTK - fun and tactical
Long TTK - lets tactically bad but good at twitch players always win

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Short TTK - serious FPS
Long TTK - casual RPG

Both can be fun!

[Deadeye]

No I dont.

Simpletons who are get shot because they arent aware convince themselves that if it some how took longer to die they would be winning more.

Players with brains understand that longer TTK just means tactics stops mattering and circle strafing ability decides all fights.


The people who want longer TTK are either good twitch players who know longer TTK lets them win even when people sneak up behind them, or just dumb players desperately hoping that longer fights give them an opportunity to magically win.

^ this.

In particular, the highlighted paragraph perfectly describes the dominant gameplay in a Firefall TDM. Firefall Open Beta next weekend if anyone doesn't believe me!

Get off your high horses, guys. We're talking about 1-1.5 second ttk vs the .5-.8 we have now. A game with this much stuff going on in it needs a slightly longer ttk than COD or battlefield because there's a ton more stuff shooting you at any given time and you need time to react.

And btw, it's far more twitch to have a lower ttk. Twitch means reaction time and when you turn a corner and come face to face with an enemy, the one with the faster reaction time is going to win in this game. And win in half a second.

Also, this game is a strategic game, not a tactical one and longer ttk promotes more strategy than a twitch arena shooter like COD.

[psijaka]

CoD TTK ---- PS2 TTK ----- Figgy's prefered TTK --- PS1 TTK-------------------extremely long TTK

Constant movement like headless chicken: sitting still is death by random shot (includes both CoD and PS2) -------------- Figgy's prefered TTK: Dig in to hold, twitch skill some impact to stand a chance, but caught of guard provides advantage ------ PS1: turn around freely ------------------- Big groups have too much endurance for focused fire to work (think MAX crash)


I feel it helps good players be and feel competitive and allows worse players to at least feel they did something and learn from the experience before they died a bloody death.

That suffice?

Good summary. And I wouldn't be opposed to trying out a small tweak in TTK; nothing too fundamental mind you.

Question though - are you opposed to bolt action one shot headshot kills, as this is one of the biggest causes of sudden death, especially if someone is "sitting still"?

[Figment]

Good summary. And I wouldn't be opposed to trying out a small tweak in TTK; nothing too fundamental mind you.

Question though - are you opposed to bolt action one shot headshot kills, as this is one of the biggest causes of sudden death, especially if someone is "sitting still"?

Depends on rate of fire and accuracy (I'm opposed to twitchy no-scoping sniper rifles hipfiring accurately - that includes fast rof low damage sniper rifles being used for hipfire).

[psijaka]

Get off your high horses, guys. We're talking about 1-1.5 second ttk vs the .5-.8 we have now. A game with this much stuff going on in it needs a slightly longer ttk than COD or battlefield because there's a ton more stuff shooting you at any given time and you need time to react.

And btw, it's far more twitch to have a lower ttk. Twitch means reaction time and when you turn a corner and come face to face with an enemy, the one with the faster reaction time is going to win in this game. And win in half a second.

Also, this game is a strategic game, not a tactical one and longer ttk promotes more strategy than a twitch arena shooter like COD.

TTK is already significantly longer in PS2 than in COD, where you can typically die in 160 - 192ms from a full auto weapon at close range (Black Ops 1 figures for time between first and killing bullet).

Perhaps this is the root of the argument; people from a COD, BF background (I include myself) are used to a brutally short TTK and think that the PS2 TTK is already quite leniently long, whereas those from a PS1 background are not used to being killed quite so quickly, and think that it is too short.

You have a point about the "rounding the corner and coming face to face with the enemy" scenario, but in those circumstances the person with the fastest twitch skills will usually win even if the TTK is longer; they will be quicker to dodge as well as fire.

Regarding strategy - I don't see that TTK makes much of an issue at all whan we are talking about the strategic aspect of the game (such as it is); it is more of a small scale tactics issue.

I do recommend that you dip in to the Firefall Open Beta next weekend; you will find a lot of twitch despite or perhaps because of the immense TTK.

[psijaka]

Depends on rate of fire and accuracy (I'm opposed to twitchy no-scoping sniper rifles hipfiring accurately - that includes fast rof low damage sniper rifles being used for hipfire).

So am I - hated the cult of No Scope and Quick Scope 'leet sniprz in COD. If I hipfire a Bolt Action, it is out of desperation when "caught short" and I usually die!

[Figment]

Btw, the main reason I'm weary of headshot hitboxes in general (especially one shot headshots) is the aimbot potential. :/

But yeah, also the lack of predictable/controllable TTK (less ordered planning). I suppose that's more subjective. In that sense, I'd rather have the "shoot the foot, do equal damage" silliness, because then you are more predictable, much like unit vs unit damage in a RTS. Also one reason why I'm not entirely happy with random directional armour vectors (ground vehicles) in PS2.

Especially not if they make it even less random and controllable by altering what counts as front, top and side for the turret based on a hit direction vector with respect to the hull. That makes no sense at all. :/


When we're looking at vehicle TTK (sofar we're mostly looking at infantry), I'm not happy with the ease with which you can kill tanks. I'm not happy with the quantity of tanks either, but to then ruin both infantry experience with having so many and tanking experience by being so vulnerable is not inducing good game play in either case. :/

[Stellarthief]

Granted, I haven't played a PC FPS in a good decade so cant comment on average TTK there but I was an active Halo 3/Reach player.

I find the TTK in PS2 to be spot on. I can only reference halo where eventually I became a fan of team swat mode (no shields, no radar, no heals, no splash weapons. Only your battle rifle and you (mostly the mode I played).

After playing Team Swat for awhile I got used to the faster TTK and eventually normal mode started to bore me, mostly because I found my skill evolved very rapidly. With the lower TTK in SWAT I became much more situationally aware from sound, slight movements or just anticipating where people would be based on where I would like to be. Mistakes were not forgiven and when I was in the zone I was a demon (I think this goes for most people that played it a lot). Basically it's either you learn, adept and evolve or you get too frustrated from being owned too fast and leave.

I feel that PS2 is basically halo team swat on a grand scale. Mistakes are not forgiven both in twitch and in awareness. You can sneak up on someone but make a small mistake and you are the one who dies. Start firing too early and without preparing yourself and you are likely to die. Sneak up but dont check your 6, you are likely to get gibbed by someone in passing. Be in the wrong place and get hit by a grenade or 10. Run in the front door and die to suppressing fire..

But for all that I feel that PS2 fosters some sort of zerg mentality. There are not enough alternative ways into bases (like PS1 backdoors that you could hack open). I don't think the issue is with the TTK. I think as some other people have stated lies elsewhere.

I should also mention I have been playing FPS in general since the original Rainbow Six on MSN gaming zone - at a then competitive level. And in the end there, you had TTK in minutes not seconds. Could literally circle strafe each other for minutes, run out of ammo on all guns, no grenades and wonder...what the hell now? I think that extreme is in the past..

[Ghoest9]

And btw, it's far more twitch to have a lower ttk. Twitch means reaction time and when you turn a corner and come face to face with an enemy, the one with the faster reaction time is going to win in this game. And win in half a second.
.


No.
Im not the greatest twitch player - I get most of my kills by sneaking up on people, ambushing people and other means of just generally catching people looking where Im not.

A longer TTK would just mean they start dancing around like clowns followed by often killing me in a twitch fight.

[Mietz]

No.
Im not the greatest twitch player - I get most of my kills by sneaking up on people, ambushing people and other means of just generally catching people looking where Im not.

A longer TTK would just mean they start dancing around like clowns followed by often killing me in a twitch fight.

From your statement, did you -ever- play a long TTK game?

Because it seems like you are regurgitating arguments about a subject you have no idea off. I mean, you are implying that long TTK games do not have ambushes or sneaky kills.

In fact, in long TTK games OHK weapons exist and are used quite frequently. I mean it doesn't matter how good of a twitch player you are if you catch someone from behind in Quake and he eats a Rail he will die 90% of the time (unless completely buffed out on armor and HP, but thats true for PS2 as well).

What twitch has, is a more consistent reward of the actual shooting instead of positioning. This is not to say that positioning isn't important, its super important, and map-control is an absolute must if you are playing competitively.
Its not like long TTK will rob you from ambushing or positioning. In fact I can't actually come up with a game where that would be true.

As an extreme example stands Shootmania Storm (in development), the gameplay is twitch, you only have OHK weaponry, yet TTK can be up to a minute because of the movement and positioning play.
If you watch some commentated streams (TotalBiscuit) you can see the strategy, tactics and control involved.

[Kerrec]

As an extreme example stands Shootmania Storm (in development), the gameplay is twitch, you only have OHK weaponry, yet TTK can be up to a minute because of the movement and positioning play.
If you watch some commentated streams (TotalBiscuit) you can see the strategy, tactics and control involved.

OHK (One Hit Kill) = ZERO TTK (instantaneous). That's smaller than the low TTK you don't like in PS2.

Yet the life expectancy (NOT TTK) in Shootmania Storm is in the minutes, because people use movement and positioning (I call that situational awareness).

Now, please explain to me, how PS2 doesn't have the same capability for "movement and positioning"?

I can vouch that I "CAN" and have survived for several minutes at a time, in thick combat while playing PS2.

What you've said completely contradicts your entire stance about PS2 needing higher TTK.

[Stellarthief]

OHK (One Hit Kill) = ZERO TTK (instantaneous). That's smaller than the low TTK you don't like in PS2.

Yet the life expectancy (NOT TTK) in Shootmania Storm is in the minutes, because people use movement and positioning (I call that situational awareness).

Now, please explain to me, how PS2 doesn't have the same capability for "movement and positioning"?

I can vouch that I "CAN" and have survived for several minutes at a time, in thick combat while playing PS2.

What you've said completely contradicts your entire stance about PS2 needing higher TTK.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't ^ more or elss correct? Doesn't TTK only start ticking while in a fire fight?

I could run around the outskirts of a battle in PS2 and live for 30 minutes and see a couple enemies if I wanted... but doesn't mean anything to my TTK. Once I get into a firefight, its usually over either way in a very short time..

Also correct me if I am wrong but isn't RoF and damage per hit (OHK example) not the only factors in TTK? Even with OHK if you miss 200 shots because of inaccuracy that still makes a long TTK. Or am I missing something?

[Kerrec]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't ^ more or elss correct? Doesn't TTK only start ticking while in a fire fight?

I could run around the outskirts of a battle in PS2 and live for 30 minutes and see a couple enemies if I wanted... but doesn't mean anything to my TTK. Once I get into a firefight, its usually over either way in a very short time..

Also correct me if I am wrong but isn't RoF and damage per hit (OHK example) not the only factors in TTK? Even with OHK if you miss 200 shots because of inaccuracy that still makes a long TTK. Or am I missing something?

I come from a BF3 background. I was never really involved in forums prior to that, so even though I've played FPS's since the days of Wolvenstein, I only started seeing TTK since BF3.

In BF3, TTK is a THEORETICAL calculation (function) with Player Health, Bullet Damage (at max damage, so ignore range as a factor), and Rate of Fire as variables. It also assumes EVERY bullet hits, which neglects player skill, cone of fire effectiveness at ranges, recoil control and trigger control (several short bursts vs. long sustained burst, ie: controlling cone of fire).

TTK = Player Health DIVIDED by (damage per bullet TIMES bullet per second)

[Mietz]

But isn't ^ more or elss correct? Doesn't TTK only start ticking while in a fire fight?

I could run around the outskirts of a battle in PS2 and live for 30 minutes and see a couple enemies if I wanted... but doesn't mean anything to my TTK. Once I get into a firefight, its usually over either way in a very short time..

Also correct me if I am wrong but isn't RoF and damage per hit (OHK example) not the only factors in TTK? Even with OHK if you miss 200 shots because of inaccuracy that still makes a long TTK. Or am I missing something?

Well, using your logic, then there is no short/long TTK as all of these scenarios are valid for any game in existence ever.

I can die in Q3A as fast as I die in PS2, or CoD, or Halo, or Arma, etc. pp.

Point made moot? Yes.

[psijaka]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't ^ more or elss correct? Doesn't TTK only start ticking while in a fire fight?

I could run around the outskirts of a battle in PS2 and live for 30 minutes and see a couple enemies if I wanted... but doesn't mean anything to my TTK. Once I get into a firefight, its usually over either way in a very short time..

Also correct me if I am wrong but isn't RoF and damage per hit (OHK example) not the only factors in TTK? Even with OHK if you miss 200 shots because of inaccuracy that still makes a long TTK. Or am I missing something?

No need to correct you, and you are not missing anything.

I suppose from the attacker's point of view, TTK starts from the moment they pull the trigger, but in the context of the defender reacting to damage they receive, TTK starts ticking once they receive the hit -This is the way it is normally measured, in my experience.

People normally assume that all shots land on target when calculating TTK. Of course, this rarely happens unless you are up close, due to recoil, cone of fire, enemy movement etc. Very hard to quantify (although I did manage to factor in recoil for COD Black Ops guns - http://denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2699 )

[psijaka]

TTK = Player Health DIVIDED by (damage per bullet TIMES bullet per second)

Not quite. The damage from the first bullet is received instantaneously.

TTK = time between shots x (bullets to kill -1)

[ShadetheDruid]

All this topic has succeeded in doing is convincing me that the concept of "TTK" is a meaningless construct (especially considering it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean). :rolleyes:

[Figment]

OHK (One Hit Kill) = ZERO TTK (instantaneous). That's smaller than the low TTK you don't like in PS2.

Are we talking theoretical TTK (minimal amount of shots needed in theory) or practical TTK (average amount of shots required in practice)?

Even then we're talking about the time between firing and reception, hence why distance matters to TTK: accuracy, strength and projectile velocity impacts the time the opposition has to return fire. >.>

Yet the life expectancy (NOT TTK) in Shootmania Storm is in the minutes, because people use movement and positioning (I call that situational awareness).

I call that taking cover, ambushing, dodging and evasion. Situational Awareness is the extend of knowing the layout of your environment where and what who is and what is going on around you and what that implies for you.

Now, please explain to me, how PS2 doesn't have the same capability for "movement and positioning"?

I'm not familiar with Shootmania Storm, but it sounds like it forces you to be frantically running about in an arena. Rather than hold or assail a pre-determined position for or within a certain period of time?

I can vouch that I "CAN" and have survived for several minutes at a time, in thick combat while playing PS2.

I can sit afk inside a spawnroom too, and in PS1 I could survive for half an hour or more on my own inside an enemy base and courtyard (with far less cover than in PS2) and if needed ninja some people (or more likely, ignore them and report their activity for sabotage conquest purposes while arranging reinforcements to drop in the enemies weakest position that in some cases I'd be about to create).

Don't quite see the relevance though. >.> Situational awareness comes down to looking around, evaluating your options, observation and your enemy's likely moves. Moving around constantly can get you spotted. Not moving around constantly can get you trapped. Saying you can move around constantly in the vicinity of a CC you're trying to capture is silly, since you have to stay within the vicinity of that CC and that severely restricts your movements depending on local geometry.

If that geometry is fairly open - which in PS2 it is, then yes the attacker can move about freely in search of a proper angle and approach that results in a flanking move, but the defender cannot.


The amount of CCs that are ducks in a barrel geometry situations with an open approach and next to no dig in cover (especially when outdoors) are substantial in PS2. So when then facing one hit kill or other low TTKs (so an unforgiving TTK in an unforgiving scenario), that doesn't contribute to the surviving capacity of the defender. Worse if that defender has to come from a predictable place to cross multiple crossfires to even get to the situation where they may contribute to the security of the outpost.

If there's for instance a LA on the rooftop of the spawns and you have to get away from that building, which you must, then you can't just get to know he's there upon a spawn. Knowing or suspecting it's there doesn't get you anything. You have to check yourself with another LA. Which puts you in the open and is likely not helping much with all the other high explosive short TTKs around.

Within the current context of the game, low TTKs only make farming spawncamps easier. New geometry and base layout will help a lot, but the short TTKs - which are often one directional due to having the worse angle or position - doesn't provide you with any means to at least cause some attrition or compete. :/ When outnumbered 2:1, you will have two times the firepower thrown against you. I submit this is worse than having twice the endurance against you, because endurance comes down to being a better shot. Which is most noticable over time.


So a short increase in TTK wouldn't hurt at all. In fact, half the TTKs are in the appropriate range already.

[Kerrec]

Not quite. The damage from the first bullet is received instantaneously.

TTK = time between shots x (bullets to kill -1)

If you make that distinction, then you are factoring in range (and bullet speed). You have to add another variable, since bullet damage will drop off at a linear rate between two fixed distances.

[Stellarthief]

Well, using your logic, then there is no short/long TTK as all of these scenarios are valid for any game in existence ever.

I can die in Q3A as fast as I die in PS2, or CoD, or Halo, or Arma, etc. pp.

Point made moot? Yes.

I am not sure what you are arguing there? My point/question was that TTK starts only when you get fired on... That running around using movement doesnt affect your TTK. But you claim it does?

Other say that TTK is mathematical (was not aware of this exactly). But then TTK seems pretty meaningless doesn't it? If you can live forever or a few secs in a firefight based on x variables why do people discuss TTK? It seems pretty pointless and a silly way to justify if a game is strategic or not.

As I said, I played Rainbow Six, extensively. And that game was more or less OHK or at least very few hits kills, weapon dependent. Yet a firefight could still go on for minutes (at point blank range) at a time and even have no victor when playing at the meta game level. should also mention this made people play to their strengths and be more tactical. either try to force a circle strafe fight or manipulate the battle to avoid it (camping. breaching charge. developing better twitch reflex to win head on battles.)

[Kerrec]

Are we talking theoretical TTK (minimal amount of shots needed in theory) or practical TTK (average amount of shots required in practice)?

Theoretical TTK, is a best scenario calculation that takes away all unmeasurable factors, like player skill. It is the only metric you can use when discussing the TTK of a particular weapon, because it is impossible to measure all the small variables that makes up how well a player can land shots. Theoretical TTK is the only measuring stick that this whole thread can be based from.

Even then we're talking about the time between firing and reception, hence why distance matters to TTK: accuracy, strength and projectile velocity impacts the time the opposition has to return fire. >.>

Theoretical variables for TTK:

- Total Player life (health + shields). Use certain classes as baselines. Infiltrators have less, HA's can have more and MAX's can have A LOT more. Therefore they are not factored as part of the equation. Same with certs that grant extra health, or increased damage mitigation.

- Damage per bullet. Use maximum values, ignore damage drop off from range.

- Rate of fire of specific weapon.

Practical variables for TTK:

- Total player life (health + shields) including certs that affect the calculation. Have to provide a TTK for each class, as classes don't necessarily have the same quantity of life. For each class, also have to have TTK for every combination of cert expenditure

- Damage per bullet, with range factored in.

- Bullet speed. Target running away increases TTK. Target running at you decreases TTK.

- Rate of Fire of specific weapon.

- How many bullets miss in a burst due to cone of fire, lack of player skill.

- etc...


The point is, Practical TTK will never be smaller than Theoretical TTK and the majority of the time will be magnitudes larger than theoretical.


I call that taking cover, ambushing, dodging and evasion. Situational Awareness is the extend of knowing the layout of your environment where and what who is and what is going on around you and what that implies for you.

I call all that, situational awareness. I think you're over complicating the discussion for nothing.

I can sit afk inside a spawnroom too, and in PS1 I could survive for half an hour or more on my own inside an enemy base and courtyard (with far less cover than in PS2) and if needed ninja some people (or more likely, ignore them and report their activity for sabotage conquest purposes while arranging reinforcements to drop in the enemies weakest position that in some cases I'd be about to create).

Don't quite see the relevance though. >.> Situational awareness comes down to looking around, evaluating your options, observation and your enemy's likely moves. Moving around constantly can get you spotted. Not moving around constantly can get you trapped. Saying you can move around constantly in the vicinity of a CC you're trying to capture is silly, since you have to stay within the vicinity of that CC and that severely restricts your movements depending on local geometry.

If that geometry is fairly open - which in PS2 it is, then yes the attacker can move about freely in search of a proper angle and approach that results in a flanking move, but the defender cannot.

I made the clear distinction that I can and have survived in pitched battles for minutes or longer. I was not being devious and thinking of sitting in a spawn room but implying otherwise.

The time it takes to flip a point is related to the influence your faction has on the area. Best case scenario, you can flip a point (ie: change to your color) in less than 10 seconds, which is plenty of time to get it done before someone comes to retaliate. Once you've flipped enough points, you start converting the base. You do NOT need to remain in the influence of the point/objective to continue the burn on the base. That means you are free to move around, use situation awareness and be the one to choose your attack vector, instead of holing up and trying to hold out.

I am not advocating being able to take a base without manning points, I am just pointing out, that as of right now, you do NOT need to sit in a room and be reactive, instead of proactive. That is how YOU choose to play, probably based on PS1 habits and nostalgia. Time to adapt.

Within the current context of the game, low TTKs only make farming spawncamps easier. New geometry and base layout will help a lot, but the short TTKs - which are often one directional due to having the worse angle or position - doesn't provide you with any means to at least cause some attrition or compete. :/ When outnumbered 2:1, you will have two times the firepower thrown against you. I submit this is worse than having twice the endurance against you, because endurance comes down to being a better shot. Which is most noticable over time.

That ^ doesn't make sense. If someone isn't a good shot, he isn't a good shot. You'll survive, or have a chance to retaliate regardless of short or long TTK. You seem to think that only defenders would get increased TTK. But if you increase TTK, the attackers gain the same benefit. It would still be 2 to 1. It would take them longer to kill you, but it would take you longer to kill them. So you only get the ILLUSION that you had a chance.


So a short increase in TTK wouldn't hurt at all. In fact, half the TTKs are in the appropriate range already.

I think messing with TTK now would screw up something somewhere else. You'd have to increase everything along with TTK. Increase ammo carried, increase reload times by the same proportion, and who knows what other variable that would end up nerfing something or someone.

[psijaka]

All this topic has succeeded in doing is convincing me that the concept of "TTK" is a meaningless construct (especially considering it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean). :rolleyes:

It especially is when people start comparing similar guns, where the differences in theoretical TTK can be measured in a few tens of milliseconds!

[psijaka]

If you make that distinction, then you are factoring in range (and bullet speed). You have to add another variable, since bullet damage will drop off at a linear rate between two fixed distances.

Whether you include travel time or not, you still have to subtract one time period between rounds. And, from the perspective of the person being killed, travel time is irrelevant (as it also is at close range). At longer ranges, TTK becomes much harder to quantify in any case, mainly due to the detrimental effects on accuracy caused by recoil, cone of fire, weapon sway.

It would be possible to factor in damage drop off, recoil and cone of fire; but you would have to have a very good understanding of the recoil mechanics; which I don't have - yet.

[TheRageTrain]

The game seems to reward luck more than skill as it is now.

No.

Let\s just say I started at bad KD.. now i\m doing 7 to 12. Pure skill and experience in the game aka learning from my own mistakes and improving that way my gaming as a HA.

As a tank driver.. or pilot, I barely got maybe 4 or 5k kills with them in total. Rest infantry mode.. thou have to admit I do have to use a lot of time to find those infantry fights and I can\t be in a squad when I\m trying to find them as I\m redploying so much all over the map just to get inf fights.

[Kerrec]

Whether you include travel time or not, you still have to subtract one time period between rounds. And, from the perspective of the person being killed, travel time is irrelevant (as it also is at close range). At longer ranges, TTK becomes much harder to quantify in any case, mainly due to the detrimental effects on accuracy caused by recoil, cone of fire, weapon sway.

It would be possible to factor in damage drop off, recoil and cone of fire; but you would have to have a very good understanding of the recoil mechanics; which I don't have - yet.

Ok, I think I'm getting where you're coming from. You seem to measure TTK at the receiving end. So it starts when the target receives the first hit. I don't think of it that way.

To me, TTK starts when you press the button (pull the trigger) and stops when your target is dead. Although, my way makes a yet another assumption that bullet travel time is insignificant. But there are already so many assumptions...

[Figment]

Theoretical TTK, is a best scenario calculation that takes away all unmeasurable factors, like player skill. It is the only metric you can use when discussing the TTK of a particular weapon, because it is impossible to measure all the small variables that makes up how well a player can land shots. Theoretical TTK is the only measuring stick that this whole thread can be based from.

Ehr... serves as a basis, but is not the only one as some of us have been discussing this thing called starting to dodge upon being hit upon getting flanked. >_>

Practical TTK can be significantly longer if you get a chance to dodge and get to cover (especially because forcing reloads starts counting), so saying ONLY theoretical is interesting is a bit underestimating the influence of geometry and reaction. :/

But from that perspective of theoretical ttk only, it makes sense you don't really understand why it benefits a defender more, since the attacker should be more exposed, should be moving more and thus have worse cone of fire and over all take more hits, especially when entering through a focused fire choke point.


So no, I don't forget that the increase in TTK goes for the attacker, the difference is I presume a practical defensive situations, where one has a defensible position (and likely gets the drop on the attacker with focused fire) and the attackers make moves that reduces the damage taken, whereas your scenario entails a more 50-50 chance and a near 100% chance upon first sight flankmove, whereas I see the flank move more as a 66% chance of getting a kill due to TTK and consequential response time available.

[Kerrec]

Ehr... serves as a basis, but is not the only one as some of us have been discussing this thing called starting to dodge upon being hit upon getting flanked. >_>

Practical TTK can be significantly longer if you get a chance to dodge and get to cover (especially because forcing reloads starts counting), so saying ONLY theoretical is interesting is a bit underestimating the influence of geometry and reaction. :/

But from that perspective of theoretical ttk only, it makes sense you don't really understand why it benefits a defender more, since the attacker should be more exposed, should be moving more and thus have worse cone of fire and over all take more hits, especially when entering through a focused fire choke point.


So no, I don't forget that the increase in TTK goes for the attacker, the difference is I presume a practical defensive situations, where one has a defensible position (and likely gets the drop on the attacker with focused fire) and the attackers make moves that reduces the damage taken, whereas your scenario entails a more 50-50 chance and a near 100% chance upon first sight flankmove, whereas I see the flank move more as a 66% chance of getting a kill due to TTK and consequential response time available.

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

[Stellarthief]

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

Can you maybe explain what "your ttk" is useful for? In terms of the original discussion?

no sarcasm intended.

[psijaka]

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

Agreed. Best case TTK is the only thing that we can work with in this discussion, as it is the only thing that can be quantified.

EDIT2 - not sure that I do entierly agree actually, but best case TTK has to be the starting point.

It -is- theoretically possible to quantify the effects of certain other variables such as damage drop off, recoil, cone of fire, but this would take a full understanding of the mechanics used in the game.

If we start to add dodge and other variables controlled by the player, then it becomes -entirely- subjective.

Edit - I'm really enjoying this discussion!

[Kerrec]

Can you maybe explain what "your ttk" is useful for? In terms of the original discussion?

no sarcasm intended.

It is purely a way to evaluate weapons without having to account for player skill.

It is however necessary to make distinctions. A bolt action sniper rifle that can do a 1 headshot kill can't be compared to a carbine that fires 700 rounds a minute. Or a weapon that does very little damage, but does that damage to an area (hitting multiple targets) can't be compared to a pistol. (those are just examples).

TTK is useful, in the right context.

I believe that Figment is mixing up TTK with average life expectancy. They are not related. The latter has player skill and playstyle (risk taking) as a HUGE factor, the former doesn't.

[Kerrec]

Agreed. Best case TTK is the only thing that we can work with in this discussion, as it is the only thing that can be quantified.

EDIT2 - not sure that I do entierly agree actually, but best case TTK has to be the starting point.

It -is- theoretically possible to quantify the effects of certain other variables such as damage drop off, recoil, cone of fire, but this would take a full understanding of the mechanics used in the game.

If we start to add dodge and other variables controlled by the player, then it becomes -entirely- subjective.

Edit - I'm really enjoying this discussion!

You can factor in range as part of your TTK. However, you have to make the distinction. For example:

TTK at 10m versus TTK at 100m.

All of the rest: Cone of fire, recoil, player movement, is affected by the player and his skill (or lack of) impacts their effects. Therefore, they cannot be included because it's impossible to balance a game that way.

Think trying to balance 2 faction's weapons. One faction is being played by a teenager. The other is being played by a half blind elderly woman with shaky hands that has never played a FPS in her life. How do you eliminate the "skill" part when said skill affects cone of fire (how much bloom you allow), recoil (compensation) or where you decide to fight from?

[Figment]

I'm not mixing it up (as in getting it wrong), I purposely encompass both as I'm considering practical TTK as that is what you actually encounter in the field most of the time (which is something that's largely based in experience, some players have slightly faster reaction times and thus can do more in a shorter TTK, I'm more interested in the average actual outcomes of battles than the perfect outcome, which happens but under what conditions?).

But it's exactly why it's important that we define ourselves well though, because we're basically discussing from an entirely different p.o.v. due to definition differences.


For instance, I know full well that a shotgun's pellet spread is far more important than actual TTK because of the larger degree in angle change at close range when someone makes a step to the side. A longer TTK of a shotgun in theory (say four shots with intermittent fire of 0.2-0.4s leading up to 1.2s) can be a faster TTK than an assault rifle or sniper at shotgun range as one simply misses too much at CQC range with certain other weapons.

So to me, theoretical TTK are fine as a basis, but they're not really worth discussion beyond their own range and without considering their accuracy.

An accuracy of 24% and a perfect TTK of four shots are two very different things.



Discussion on the pure basis of perfect TTK is only viable when we're talking objects you won't miss a lot of shots. For instance tank combat. Making others miss is what drives tank combat in PS1, because forcing a single miss is the difference between life and death.

In rifle combat, we could be talking 80% misses at times depending on hip or ADS fire, etc. Especially with recoil (though an accuracy of 60-70% should definitely be doable for the average player).



If we're looking at a flanking close range player on a stationary object, we can presume the initial shot or burst is one or more headshots. If rate of fire is slow enough and power low enough to start dodging by the second to third bullet, anything could happen. Chances are the flanker wins. But the moment the target starts moving, chance and skill become an issue.

The longer that TTK is, the bigger that chance, since less relative damage would have been dealt. Say 3 shots out of 9 have been dealt and for some reason they're not headshots, the hit player responds and dodges the next few shots, he now has a full clip facing a full health opponent, the other doesn't but faces a 2/3s health opponent.

One has 9/9 shots left to place, the other 6/9 (assuming same weapons for a sec). That difference can be overcome. Chances are the hurt player loses, but if a reload is forced for instance by throwing off the other's aim, that might just give a huge window of opportunity to retaliate. Compare it to 3/3 vs 0/3 and 24/27 and 27/27. The longer the TTK, the more balanced the encounter becomes. At extreme balances on either side, the attackers gain the advantage numerically: in the low end they are likely to hit enough before dodging commences, in the longest TTK they win by sheer endurance. Somewhere in between is the appropriate balance.


Now, the element of surprise counts really heavily in Kerrec's argumentation, but from what I understand, he does not value gaining cover or dodging (expecting the person to be dead anyway) and thus increasing ones life expectancy. The thing is, I expect a player's aiming skill AND positioning skill AND reaction time to determine how close to the perfect theoretical TTK one comes.


Again, in that sense, the defender should have the advantage in terms of being dug in and having an advantage over the attacker, thus elongated health would mean more to the defender.

If like Kerrec, you expect the attacker, the flanker, to have the advantage, then yes, the increased health will help them more. However, I'm expecting the attacker to be funneled, in which case a slightly longer TTK (not a huge increase, then Kerrec would be right) favours the defender over standing a chance of anything that comes closer to a OHK.

It's a bit like a Gaussian curve of survival chance in that scenario really.

[Kerrec]

Ugh Figment. At this point, I can't continue because we have DRASTIC difference in definition for what TTK means. The whole premise of this thread is how TTK affects gameplay.

What you call TTK, I call "average life expectancy". Some FPS games measure that as a stat, ie: how long you live, averaged out.

Also, you expect a decent infantry player to have 60-80% accuracy?!!! PS2 gunplay is very similar to BF3 gunplay. In BF3, a GOOD player would be pushing 25% average accuracy. I personally hovered around 18-20%, sometimes better depending on the gun. In BF3, a GOOD sniper would have 30-40% average accuracy.

I think your perception of how the game mechanics play out in reality is a bit skewed. Someone posted a TTK for his rifle at .554 (off the top of my head, I didn't go make sure). Considering an average player can expect around 25% accuracy, that means the average TTK is over 2 seconds. That's A LOT of time to react. Unless someone is breathing down your neck and can't possibly miss. But to me, that's OK. You died in 0.554 seconds because you failed in other aspects of the gameplay.

[Figment]

Looked back, said 24% before that (which I believe was the average rifle accuracy as stated by Higgles); in reference to the 60-80% was talking about the accuracy in an encounter though, my mistake for not being clear.

Though I've seen people get 80% accuracy on average in tank combat, that's a different ballgame though.

[Stellarthief]

It is purely a way to evaluate weapons without having to account for player skill.

It is however necessary to make distinctions. A bolt action sniper rifle that can do a 1 headshot kill can't be compared to a carbine that fires 700 rounds a minute. Or a weapon that does very little damage, but does that damage to an area (hitting multiple targets) can't be compared to a pistol. (those are just examples).

TTK is useful, in the right context.

I believe that Figment is mixing up TTK with average life expectancy. They are not related. The latter has player skill and playstyle (risk taking) as a HUGE factor, the former doesn't.

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

[Kerrec]

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

Then we are in agreement. TTK has nothing to do with all the other issues that the OP and the people that agree with him claim.

[Stellarthief]

Then we are in agreement. TTK has nothing to do with all the other issues that the OP and the people that agree with him claim.

Someone finally agrees with me on the interwebs... I think I might die of shock! :)

[Figment]

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time. ;)

[exile]

It's a shame this thread has been completely submerged in useless noise, it had potential for some interesting discussion.

I don't suppose anybody wants to respond to my original post which, from a quick look through the thread, is the only one that actually directly addresses the OP (sorry if I missed someone else's that does this, I couldn't be bothered wading through all of the drivel in detail :\ ).

[Kerrec]

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time. ;)

You quoted approx average 25% gun accuracy. So, with your suggested values above, they become:

0.5s -> 2 seconds
1.0s -> 4 seconds
1.5s -> 6 seconds
2.5s -> 10 seconds
7.0s -> 28 seconds
10s -> 40 seconds.

Keep in mind, a gun with a ROF of 600 (among the lowest) can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds.

If you make TTK 1.0s, then TR have a big advantage because their carbines (and rifles?) have 40 round magazines.

If you make TTK 2.0s, then HA become overpowered because they don't have to reload to kill.

If you make TTK really absurd, like 10 seconds, then it gets rediculous because everyone has to reload multiple times to get one kil.


As for crossing 25m open space (I'm assuming you mean, without cover) while 1 or more people are shooting at you, I would NOT expect to survive. That means I have to make better tactical choices than "screw it, I can cross this road without dying because they can't kill me fast enough".

[Figment]

You quoted approx average 25% gun accuracy. So, with your suggested values above, they become:

0.5s -> 2 seconds
1.0s -> 4 seconds
1.5s -> 6 seconds
2.5s -> 10 seconds
7.0s -> 28 seconds
10s -> 40 seconds.

Keep in mind, a gun with a ROF of 600 (among the lowest) can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds.

If you make TTK 1.0s, then TR have a big advantage because their carbines (and rifles?) have 40 round magazines.

If you make TTK 2.0s, then HA become overpowered because they don't have to reload to kill.

If you make TTK really absurd, like 10 seconds, then it gets rediculous because everyone has to reload multiple times to get one kil.


As for crossing 25m open space (I'm assuming you mean, without cover) while 1 or more people are shooting at you, I would NOT expect to survive. That means I have to make better tactical choices than "screw it, I can cross this road without dying because they can't kill me fast enough".

There you go again with your assumptions. :/ Especially about gun play and about the "tactical choices one wants to make".

I was making a point: TTK impacts everything gameplay wise.

Thanks for proving it.




Oh and uhm, no TR wouldn't be OP. See PS1 for evidence, you know, that game you didn't play where all empires had equalish TTKs, in many cases double that of PS2, but entirely - and I mean entirely, not just tweaks like in PS2 - different gun statistics between empires: different accuracies, different ammo switch times, different reload times, different damage per shot, different damage dropoff over distance.


Accuracy and burstfire determine a lot. But TTK determines what you can do during an engagement between two (or more) people. THAT INFLUENCES EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. It dominates the entire engagement and therefore if geometry is suited for any actions or not. That means that if you have a longer TTK, you might actually get more options. More options is NOT shallower gameplay, that ads depth. It may actually mean you can make a certain flanking or distraction maneuvre. It may mean you can charge down a corridor or stairs to get within shotgun rang and use a shotgun within YOUR perfect TTK range. It determines every single thing about encounters. It's entirely shallow to have everything be determined about who shot first and who flanked who first. That becomes WAY too dominant in a game where strategic objectives must be secured and taken and quite frankly, results in utter cowardice behaviour and apathy about holding positions.

How many people are holding positions right now? You think that has only to do with geometry? You think the viability of a hold is never down to how powerful the weapons your opposition has at their disposal? If AoE weapons are less strong, you see an immediate impact at choke points, room clearing ability and group behaviour and defensive viability. Geometry has NOTHING to do with those changes in gameplay, because the geometry would remain the same!


Emptying a gun doesn't mean anything if you don't hit anything with it.

And if we're never going to cross 25m in a game? Please, most buildings in PS2 are further apart from one another... But good of you to point out that it affects gameplay in that it determines whether you can even try for that next door, or get spawncamped. But as I said before, geometry and TTK are directly related regarding travelled distances.



So uhm, thanks for proving all my points in one post. ;)

[Sirisian]

Is it "Depth", or "Complexity" that best describes 90% of the ways you find yourself dying in this game? And do First-Order-Optimal strategies tend to work just as well if not better/faster when facing these deep and highly time compressed situations? Is this also part of the reason we have no Tutorial yet, or worse still, mean the game is also guilty of "Irreducible" Complexity for the average player?
I personally find the game far too simple. I've written about depth and complexity a lot before, but PS2 has very little choices that one can make currently which actually makes the time that you're given in the game to make a choice fairly reasonable.

Each class has only a small finite number of choices in any situation that you can make. In PS1 you had an inventory meaning your choices required time if you were expected to switch out items and do anything meaningful. With the simplified interface in PS2 you are either shooting, throwing a grenade, or performing a support operation like laying ammo. None of this requires a long TTK. Neither do any teamwork operations among players since most classes are not designed to help a team except the medic and engineer, to an extent. Ranged healing and ammo drops though mean limited player interaction that does not overlap any other action generally speaking for most players when TTK matters (aka when getting shot at or shooting).

Before tech test I listed some complexity ideas (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Complexity) I wanted in the game and in a way force a higher TTK to be necessary for the sake of making choices. However, I don't think PS2 is so simple that every situation uses First-Order-Optimal strategies. There are a few moments where a player gets hit once or twice and throws C4 of a proximity mine as they retreat and gets a kill or throws a grenade and lives after they've thrown it. These times the game suddenly shines as having depth, but these moments are interspersed between situations where there is only one logical choice. This one logical choice could be based solely on the TTK though. Running to another piece of cover and getting killed, as mentioned by Kerrec, is a gameplay decision. One might be expected to throw a smoke grenade down before running, but the current gameplay mechanics limit a player's loadouts and choices such that they must make a gameplay choice of whether they want a fragment or smoke grenade minutes before they are put into a situation where the decisions would be relevant.

Without more choices the TTK shouldn't be changed. A game this simple already gives the player enough time to decide between the 2 choices they have at any situation.

[Kerrec]

Accuracy and burstfire determine a lot. But TTK determines what you can do during an engagement between two (or more) people. THAT INFLUENCES EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. It dominates the entire engagement and therefore if geometry is suited for any actions or not. That means that if you have a longer TTK, you might actually get more options. More options is NOT shallower gameplay, that ads depth. It may actually mean you can make a certain flanking or distraction maneuvre. It may mean you can charge down a corridor or stairs to get within shotgun rang and use a shotgun within YOUR perfect TTK range. It determines every single thing about encounters. It's entirely shallow to have everything be determined about who shot first and who flanked who first. That becomes WAY too dominant in a game where strategic objectives must be secured and taken and quite frankly, results in utter cowardice behaviour and apathy about holding positions.

How many people are holding positions right now? You think that has only to do with geometry? You think the viability of a hold is never down to how powerful the weapons your opposition has at their disposal? If AoE weapons are less strong, you see an immediate impact at choke points, room clearing ability and group behaviour and defensive viability. Geometry has NOTHING to do with those changes in gameplay, because the geometry would remain the same!

Well, we'll have some proof very soon. If geometry changes without TTK changes won't change anything, as you imply above, then the new spawnpoints coming won't change a thing. We'll have the exact same situation of spawn room camping, because as you claim, if you don't change TTK, nothing else can change. If spawn camping becomes more beneficial (in terms of cert farming) for the people being camped instead of the other way around, or is abandoned as a tactic, then your whole argument is invalid.

I am perfectly content to let time tell.

P.S. the apathy seen regarding holding bases is purely due to the defenders having to defend in all directions, while the attackers have to attack in one direction (from all directions). It is an undefendable situation that is caused by geometry. The Crown is a perfect example. People DO defend that (TTK be damned) because the attackers either come from the front (only way for vehicles) or from the back (on foot). Defendable position. Same TTK as always. No apathy.

[Figment]

Well, we'll have some proof very soon. If geometry changes without TTK changes won't change anything, as you imply above, then the new spawnpoints coming won't change a thing.

Ehr... I believe I linked them directly several times before. :x

[Sledgecrushr]

Really? Charge a guy who is dumping an entire clip into your face so you can get into shotgun range. All us old guys are just going to have to sharpen up our games and make quicker decisions, because in ps2 you only have a couple of seconds before your dead.

[Stellarthief]

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time. ;)


Read my post again...if we aren't talking extremes which we are at this point there is no real relevance...but i did also concede impact of ttk on overall gameplay which is not what this thread was originally about. this thread was about complexity and depth relating to ttk and not how absurd the gameplay would feel with 10s ttk ....a game with a long ttk can be as or more tactical and deep and complex and varied as one with a short ttk because ttk is not the only factor..nor do i see it as a major one in this regard...

[Figment]

2s opposed to 1s is an extreme? Oh master of patience, where has the world gone to?

And sledge, you know damn well that I neve stated taking an entire clip. Don't make ridiculous strawman statements. What I said is that it determines whether a charge is viable. I did not state across what distance and how many shots you can take; all I said is those are directly linked.

That isn't too difficult to understand, right? Whether you have to wait till the enemy is two meters away or nine has everything to do with ttk vs ttk at range and how fast you can close any distance (so yes, travelspeed is important too).

Ttk alone is just a random number. But the shorter a ttk, the less viable shotguns are unless they get even shorter ttks. That means it determines what you can do when you have specific weapons equiped.

Do I really have to explain that just because every argument is taken by some of you to extreme MAX endurance levels just so you can hold on to ganking ttks even if I'm talking about 40-50% differences (and even for fastest killing weapons only) tops? How sad that you can't have a normal discussion without everything you say being strawmanned and taken out of context by people only interested in maintaining whatever status quo is present.

[Figment]

Stellar. The only person who keeps yammering about extremes is Kerrec because he does not accept a grayscale can change gameplay just enough to be better than the status quo.


I'm not at all interested in really long ttks, but my argument keeps being presented by the opposition as such. All arguments fall in the under three second practical ttk range with perfect ttk being over 0.8s for shotguns.

[Stellarthief]

I can only assume this entire discussion is about infantry weapon TTK and not tank/air because with most of the weapons out there you have basically 0 TTK and I don't see that getting tweaked by so much as to you having a chance head on against a tank/air/etc. if you get hit... I could deal with a reduction in splash damage, and correcting that you can get hit while in bunkers/walls by certain guns... But that's not a TTK issue.

But realistically a jump from 0.5 to 3 or 3 to 5.5 is not going to suddenly make your game any more or less tactical, deep, etc.

2.5 seconds extra is not enough to suddenly have a massive amount of time to make decisions when being fired upon or to adjust your reactions by so much that it has on the whole a big impact on the game-play itself. We aren't all Formula 1 car drivers....

Additionally this is only the theoretical TTK, not functional TTK that can consider CoF, bullet travel, bullet drop, damage dissipation, etc. into account. Also doesn't take into account the difference in class health/shield pools, special abilities, etc. Also these theoretical TTK, I don't see anyone mentioning that different parts of the player body lead to different damage scores. Bullet to the head area counts for more than to the foot area.

This has all been mentioned before... Adjusting TTK alone, the basic relativistic damage the guns do, is not going to impact the game in any way that will change the way the game is played unless we go to extremes.

Even if you put the average TTK up by 2.5 secs, you STILL will not survive the 50 people camping the spawn + tanks + air hovering there. And if you do, you are outnumbered massively and will still get hunted down in short order. If you do kill them they will re-spawn at any number of sundies or outposts very near and be back in the fight before you can turn the tide. Still a numbers game.

I'm sorry, but regardless of what kind of TTK we are talking about, practical or theoretical or just talking how much damage you take per bullet per sec per bla bla, I don't see any of this actually changing the way the game is played unless massive tweaks are made. 7 bullets instead of 6, 8 instead of 7, 10 instead of 6. It's all a matter of a couple seconds or fractions of a second. 1m closer to the grenade, or 20cm or direct exposure... In my mind these won't change the fundamental of how PS2 plays out.

I should mention last night I was in several pitched battles. And most of the time I only died after I ran out of ammo on main weapon, sidearm, grenades and there were no engineers or no one left on my team and I got swarmed under before I could bail. I managed to raise my KD/R by quite a significant figure because I played smart and finally got a handle on my weapon/class. Other deaths were caused by my own team running me the hell over (as usual) or by me thinking bases were clear and running through like a family of ducks without a care in the world.

I think PS2 is spot on as it is with TTK and situational awareness.

[Kerrec]

Stellar. The only person who keeps yammering about extremes is Kerrec because he does not accept a grayscale can change gameplay just enough to be better than the status quo.


I'm not at all interested in really long ttks, but my argument keeps being presented by the opposition as such. All arguments fall in the under three second practical ttk range with perfect ttk being over 0.8s for shotguns.

Good morning Figment. New day, new batch of yammering's incomming.

A (grayscale?) can change gameplay just enough to be better than the status quo.

Well, a (grayscale?) can change gameplay just enough to be WORSE than the status quo.

I would rather reach for the low hanging fruit.

-Fix bases so the overall tactic isn't to push defenders to their spawn building and keep them pinned there. Instead, make the fight AT the objective. In other words, a HOLD for either the attackers or the defenders. Just like you want!

-Fix the whole metagame/resources aspect (lack of). It is stupid that I can pull an ESF to take out an annoying Liberator in a blazing glorious suicide run and then see the same duo manning another Liberator 10 seconds later in opposite roles.

-Or pull a Burster MAX to "deter" those Liberators, gaining NO experience for it, while the damage I do nets the other team experience for repairing.

-Or do damage to any vehicle, watch them drive away with the speed advantage their vehicle gives them, then gain experience while repairing. Meanwhile, I have to run on foot and find an ammo box or a terminal to reload.

-Or equip something like Armor Piercing rounds on a MBT and discover that all I accomplished was limiting myself to anti-vehicle combat, without gaining any significant advantage against those vehicles, that can also take out infantry with their HEAT/HE.

-Or log into my server to see a 30% distribution of population across the board, but when I look at the continents, each faction is zerging their own separate continent with 80% of the continental population. My choices come down to join my faction zerg, cap base after base fighting with my faction to find and get kills OR I could pit myself against another faction zerg and be the guy that everyone rushes to kill.

There are so many things that can be tweaked and changed that will not risk breaking the very fundamental balance of faction vs. faction vs. faction, and class vs. class. Make all the other changes so their implementation makes sense. If all that doesn't work, THEN you can fool around with things like TTK.

[psijaka]

I too think PS2 is spot on as it is with TTK and situational awareness.

However, I am not fundamentally opposed to a small increase in TTK for full auto weapons, mainly because I don't think that it will make much difference in practice (and it could easily be reversed), but there's a potential problem here.

If the game is to retain 1 shot kills for bolt action headshots, tank shells, launchers, nades etc, then these weapons would become relatively more powerful than they are now when compared to the full autos with their new longer TTKs. This could have an adverse impact on gameplay balance and their frequency of use.

There are ways to offset this, such as reducing the rounds per minute/reload time, but care would be needed as this would have further implications for gameplay balance.

[psijaka]

-snip-

-Or pull a Burster MAX to "deter" those Liberators, gaining NO experience for it, while the damage I do nets the other team experience for repairing.

-Or do damage to any vehicle, watch them drive away with the speed advantage their vehicle gives them, then gain experience while repairing. Meanwhile, I have to run on foot and find an ammo box or a terminal to reload.

I thought that I read somewhere that XP was going to be awarded for damage to vehicles in a forthcoming patch. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[ShadetheDruid]

I thought that I read somewhere that XP was going to be awarded for damage to vehicles in a forthcoming patch. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Nope, you're right, XP for damaging is coming in the patch.

[Stellarthief]

I too think PS2 is spot on as it is with TTK and situational awareness.

However, I am not fundamentally opposed to a small increase in TTK for full auto weapons, mainly because I don't think that it will make much difference in practice (and it could easily be reversed), but there's a potential problem here.

If the game is to retain 1 shot kills for bolt action headshots, tank shells, launchers, nades etc, then these weapons would become relatively more powerful than they are now when compared to the full autos with their new longer TTKs. This could have an adverse impact on gameplay balance and their frequency of use.

There are ways to offset this, such as reducing the rounds per minute/reload time, but care would be needed as this would have further implications for gameplay balance.

My experience is that with full auto weapons, or burst weapons that the first few secs are what determine the kill. It's that initial on target burst that usually takes down the shields and a bit of health. I personally wouldn't probably notice a difference if they decreased full auto weapon damage.

But the thing you have to remember about the 0HK weapons is that they are situational... You aren't going to be using your sniper with 12x scope in CQC or indoor medium range, tank shells need to be adjusted to work with the environment properly and not gimp you through walls and bunkers, same with mines/grenades/c4 and force barriers. Your shotgun with buckshot isnt going to be used to sniper or in any situation besides CQC combat (you can 1 shot with buckshot). Also everything is on a limited supply which you can only resupply at cost from a sundy or equipment station and not an engineer (except launchers/HA tools, but tools have an extreme reload time). I wouldnt mind increasing reload time of grenade launcher.

So I don't think it would change the relativistic power of the items because they are limited in use where as an automatic rifle has CQC, medium and long range use. What it would mean is that players would need to manage their ammo more carefully and might steer more away from carbines as the RoF on some of those without proper aim would lead you to being out of ammo, super fast...

[Mietz]

You aren't going to be using your sniper with 12x scope in CQC or indoor medium range,

Unfortunately thats what people do, at least with semi-auto sniper rifles.

Hipfire, refire-reate and COF make it possible to use the sniper rifles as shotguns up close. Its just not many people realized that yet and hence the prevalence isn't as high.

Obviously this doesn't work with the bolt actions because the refire rate is too low.

[Stellarthief]

Unfortunately thats what people do, at least with semi-auto sniper rifles.

Hipfire, refire-reate and COF make it possible to use the sniper rifles as shotguns up close. Its just not many people realized that yet and hence the prevalence isn't as high.

Obviously this doesn't work with the bolt actions because the refire rate is too low.

Nothing wrong with using it as a shotgun up-close if you can make it work. But using the scope is not viable for your average player.

Did that in previous games too. High risk though

[Mietz]

I am not sure what you are arguing there? My point/question was that TTK starts only when you get fired on... That running around using movement doesnt affect your TTK. But you claim it does?

TTK is the average time of survival in an engagement.
In particular, in the scenarios discussed here, its about infantry vs infantry, just to be clear on this.

Survival in an engagement pertains to the time to actively try and kill your opponent. The average time to do that in a game is decided by weapon DPS(stats), health, movement, cover (map design) and skill of the player.

This isn't about running around at the warp gate or hiding in a spawn-room.

Its about an engagement of the enemy, directly and actively, where one side tries to kill you.

As mentioned by Figment, the "theoretical TTK" (weapon DPS vs player HP) isn't worth of discussion by itself since the "practical TTK" depends on various factors, for example weapon COF and accuracy at a certain range, movement, etc.

A shotguns theoretical TTK is ~100ms. It can kill instantly (given the ping in this game can be longer) with full shields and HP. But that can not be the point of discussion as this TTK is only reached at a very close range where all pellets hit perfectly.

Talking only about theoretical TTK is completely pointless because its not what is gameplay inducing (unless you are talking extremes, with theoretical TTKs of several tens of seconds, aka Borderlands 1/2 bullet sponges).

Currently the game does not allow for actual infantry "combat" or a "fight". You don't see people "fighting" as there isn't enough time to fight in the first place. You have people shooting other people and winning by virtue of shooting.

I miss engagements where I can have an actual battle against someone, where I can overcome the other person by my skill.
This doesn't necessarily mean I want to chase the target around for 3 minutes, that would be an extreme. I just want to have a fight with the other person that isn't over faster than I can react.

Yes some engagements in PS2 are not conductive of that, but there exist some that are (Biolab).

[Stellarthief]

I think most disagreement on this whole issue by now is that you keep calling it TTK but I/some don't really define it as that. I don't disagree with you principally. Death is a bit too quick usually in PS2, but I don't think it has much to do with TTK or weapons/player health.

Also as an aside: Even by your definition you define it as something else. You just called TTK "average time of survival in an engagement". Keep calling it that, don't attach another name / short form to it. It's not necessary.

But to the REAL point (this arguing about what TTK is is kinda useless).

I think the real reason average life span is pretty short in battles is design decision around facilities, amount of ground, air availability, range on 12x bolt action snipers, no windows, no doors, blast shields being a joke as they don't stop all blasts, the ability to sit and farm spawn rooms by various vantage points or the simple massive amount of people that can be at a battle, yet due to culling you can't render unless you actually ADS them or look in their direction, etc. I could mention everything I find inadaquate in the game, but I don't think that's necessary. There are enough threads about that ;)

On the other hand if you look at the leader boards, the leaders KD ratios are anywhere from below 1 (yes, some of the top 20 have below) or all the way up to even above 40 yet no where is average life span listed. This doesn't REALLY show much because you can get 20 kills with 1 grenade... But still shows that it's very likely that some people simply live longer than others. And it must be in battles or else it wouldn't be tracked in the KDR. So I don't think its so bad. It all depends on how you play and your choices as well as design choices.

I think that principally, the game is fine as is with regards to weapon/damage balance. I don't think there is anything wrong with dying quickly if you walk into suppressing fire or getting gimped by people you don't see very quickly. I see this as fine and I dish it out as much as I get it but I have also slowly learned to adept to it. I don't try and get into the zerg or sit at the cap point when I am surrounded by 40 people. I would rather bail and come back when the main zerg leaves. But that's my play style choice. To reiterate that: I think that actual damage you take and can mitigate overall is fine but that the game forces your average player into a situation that will more or less just get him gimped quick.

I just think other design decisions are not up to par and that average life span, even in pitched battles, would be increased if some tweaks were made to things that I would call, not as intended or not fully fleshed out.

[exile]

"Time To Kill" has a widely accepted technical definition, which is the amount of time a "perfect" (every bullet hits the target) kill with a weapon takes. If you mean something different (e.g. factoring accuracy, player skill, time to travel from spawn (!?!?), etc) you need to use a different term.

The OP's question is talking about Time To Kill as a broad, generalised concept for the game. Talking about specific timings for specific weapons and scenarios completely misses the point. Think of it as the averaged TTK of all possible weapon/situation combinations.

Sirisian has the right of it. With the current complexity of gunfights a longer TTK is not necessary to increase the available depth as a player doesn't have a lot of decisions to make and can handle the mental burden of decision making within that timeframe.

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.

[Figment]

@Exile: Why are you exagerating the suggested increase in average TTK so much? You don't lose an incredible severe amount of situational awareness if any if an engagement lasts 0.5 seconds longer. Plus you seem to forget that under the same line of argument you may well get a better chance to dodge, play peakaboo and take cover which you didn't have before and during an engagement make a proper analysis of your direct opponent and his moves which you couldn't before - even a minor increase would be an increase in situational awareness. So perhaps a different kind of information process would get you more situational awareness in certain aspects? So saying you won't get an increase in complexity and options is simply weird.



And how can you talk about an average if the average for a game with extremes at 1 and 5 is the same as one for 0 and 6? Specific differences in TTK (and their prevalence, viability and usefulness) that lead to an average are more important than THE average.

How can you discuss TTK and not look at and compare a variety of scenarios and objectives within the context of the game if you want to discuss the meaning and impact of changing TTK length to the game? That's completely irrational: if you're not looking at the effects at all within the context of the game, then you can't make any arguments in favour or against.

Scenario building is an absolute must. Those who don't don't know what context they're talking about are just randomly discussing numbers without those numbers meaning anything.

[Sunrock]

"Time To Kill" has a widely accepted technical definition, which is the amount of time a "perfect" (every bullet hits the target) kill with a weapon takes. If you mean something different (e.g. factoring accuracy, player skill, time to travel from spawn (!?!?), etc) you need to use a different term.

The OP's question is talking about Time To Kill as a broad, generalised concept for the game. Talking about specific timings for specific weapons and scenarios completely misses the point. Think of it as the averaged TTK of all possible weapon/situation combinations.

Sirisian has the right of it. With the current complexity of gunfights a longer TTK is not necessary to increase the available depth as a player doesn't have a lot of decisions to make and can handle the mental burden of decision making within that timeframe.

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.

I agree and the TTK is good as it is right now. Increasing the TTK would just dumb down the game.

[Figment]

I agree and the TTK is good as it is right now. Increasing the TTK would just dumb down the game.

OHKs AoE effects (shortest and most efficient TTKs) are so NOT dumbing down the game, at all. :rolleyes:

Let's up the skill level of everyone and make everything OHK everything, cause shorter TTK is less dumbing down!

[/sarcasm]

If you're going to make use of a retarded non-argument, expect to get it launched right back in your face.

[exile]

If you're going to make use of a retarded non-argument, expect to get it launched right back in your face.
Figment, you've basically single-handedly destroyed this thread by filling it with incoherent noise. You have no right to get aggressive with other posters.

[Palerion]

Yeah, seriously, we've gone through a few pages of whining and name calling here.

I think it's time to give it a rest with the arguing.

Now, in response to the main point of this thread:

I think TTK is fine as is.

Raising it would likely cause more frustration for the shooter than it would noticeably increased survivability for the target.

I think the reason death occurs so quickly to some people is simply lag.

With 2000 players on one seamless continent, I would imagine interactions between players are not perfect.

I think improvements to this would be a more effective solution than adjusting TTK.

Furthermore I would like to point out that I appreciate the ability to kill with one controlled burst to my enemy.

This does allow for a rightfully earned kill when a player spots an unaware enemy, and makes kills more possible in large fights.

Of course, it is simply my opinion; I enjoy the current TTK.

[Sunrock]

OHKs AoE effects (shortest and most efficient TTKs) are so NOT dumbing down the game, at all. :rolleyes:

Let's up the skill level of everyone and make everything OHK everything, cause shorter TTK is less dumbing down!

[/sarcasm]

If you're going to make use of a retarded non-argument, expect to get it launched right back in your face.

First of all F U. If you ever talked to me like that IRL you would not live to see an other day. :mad: I can express my opinions as I like and you just have to take it.

Skill is not all about how hard it is to kill some one else. Skill is also about avoiding getting into situations where you get killed your self. With too high TTK all strategy just get dumbed down as you don't have to think about how to approach your target as you have more then enough time to escape with your life intact no matter what strategy you use.

[Mietz]

First of all F U. If you ever talked to me like that IRL you would not live to see an other day. :mad: I can express my opinions as I like and you just have to take it.

i.e. It's ok if I do it, but not ok if others do it. :rolleyes:

[Crator]

Yeah guys, settle down. We can't be taking all our time to debate logical arguments here now... Jeez.... /sarcasm

[Sunrock]

i.e. It's ok if I do it, but not ok if others do it. :rolleyes:

I would say it's more the case of it's not ok to start a fight but it's ok to finish it.

[psijaka]

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

[Stellarthief]

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

I started to agree, and then agree with you. Now I'm not so sure.

I think actually it's more of a case in 1 target focusing in battles, not 1v1. When you ADS and focus on one person the longer you have to fire on that target the more strained your awareness will be and the more enemies around that 1 person the more likely you are to die.

But then I started to think, if you have to stand there and fire longer you lose your awareness the longer you focus but if you start taking fire you have more time to recover with a longer TTK. As it is now, if you lose that awareness (if for example ADS on a few targets) you in general, I would say, don't have the time to recover once under fire. 2-3 bursts and you are done. 2nd and 3rd bursts come by the time you really notice the first...

But too long a TTK and you can just run away without worry... A fine balancing act and I would think game, weapon balance and personal preference to say which is better / gives more depth. Also gotta define what that depth is..

[Figment]

Basically been saying what Stellarthief just seemed to have considered, if I understood this point right. (and expanded it by linking it to terrain and other things). Recovery and response.

And yes, let's define depth and shallow gameplay.

To me shallow is when there's less actual fight and more execution type gameplay and it's not balanced with the flanking and ambushing (whether that's not possible (0 options) or when that's too easy (5+ options)). When holding a position becomes meaningless because you can just flank from any direction, THAT is dumbing down the game. Especially if the TTK then makes it an execution without opposition.

I've said it before and will say it again: flanking to me is perfect when it provides a decent to good advantage, but isn't an I-win situation by default. I-win situations are extremely shallow forms of gameplay and can even occur with longer TTKs.

In PS1 for instance, the Personal Shield implant provided +100 health and as an instant life extender four times more powerful than a medkit, in fact on top of medkits, was such an I-win button. (Basically +33%-50% TTK depending on suit, for infils even +100% but few used that since you'd become visible and an easier target while still having to overcome the same TTK difference) Most players hated it because it instantly completely undid the gained advantage of their positional advantage and element of surprise and replaced it with a more than equal winning chance for the opponent. Pshield as such created significantly more shallow gameplay.

However, had everyone had the same TTK as on someone with pshield, the element of surprise would simply have been less effective and impacting on the outcome of the fight.

So while I agree there IS a point where long TTKs start to create shallow gameplay, but that point is not reached till for instance the flanking advantage become a really minor fraction of the total engagement time and the TTK off-set so small it's not relevant to overcome (a fraction of less than a third IMO). That point to me is somewhere half way between TTKs on rexos and TTKs on MAX units since a MAX can turn around and return fire with maybe 15-25% damage depending on weapon used and then have a far shorter practical TTK than you.

What I disagree with, is that ANY increase in TTK causes this above situation to occur. That's just incomplete and shortsighted argumentation. And closer to "incoherent noise" than anything I've stated. (:rolleyes:)

To me, the effects of short vs long TTK in terms of depth vs shallow gameplay looks like the normal distribution in the diagram below (short TTK on the left, long TTK on the right):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg/360px-Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg.png

The problem I have with you lot is that you don't accept that my perceived curve is wider and slightly to the right from yours, where some of you pretend (even for the sake of argument, their argument) my curve lies waaaay to the right hand side. Where you peak somewhere between 0.8 and 1.8 with extremes around 0.5 and lower vs 2.4 and higher, my peak lies between 0.9 and 2.2, with extremes at 0.7 and lower vs 2.7 and higher. It's a subtle difference which is too often represented as a mountain slide.

THAT is the greyscale I was refering to with regards to Kerrec, where many of you are speaking in black and white "long is bad", "short is good". That just makes you sound like Americans. :p



The shorter the TTK and the narrower the curve lies to zero, the bigger the advantage for the ambusher and the less chance someone has to recover from being caught situationally unaware. Which happens all the time in a 3D FPS. Penalizing it with guaranteed death is just over the top and doesn't stimulate fights and just feels like the game punishing a situation it created, rather than the game rewarding good play. Also, the bigger the impact of MAX units, because they're in the extreme range (note PS1 MAX isn't the same as PS2 MAX in its extremities, PS1 MAX TTK on other units was on par with other units, in PS2 it's a bit faster, while TTK on MAX was higher in PS1 and is lower in PS2). I have and continue to submit that there should be a degree of recovery chance of being caught unaware, rather than a death penalty, so I refuse to make this a 80-100% advantage. Why? Because in a game like PS2, with the amount of threats there are, it simply becomes a fragfest and objective gameplay suffers greatly.

In a deathmatch arena game like CoD where you only care for frags and have to watch for three targets and don't need to think about taking and holding key areas for longer than a few seconds (camping a spot gets you more likely caught off-guard), that's fine. Maybe there's 7 opponents if you play online and know that half spawns on the other side of the map so aren't direct problems and since everyone randomly spawns and has to keep moving through rather linear terrain with frequently just two routes to your position, it's pretty easy to deal with, fair and even if you lose by getting caught off guard, it's just a +1 and a -1 on the score chart, not a lost match. The short TTK helps to take care of players in advantageous high ground positions by ensuring they can't camp and farm from there too long without risking death when actually in an engagement.

This isn't a deathmatch arena game though. It currently plays like one though due to the short TTKs: K/D is king in decision making in PS2, because getting killed DOES often mean a lost match in PS2 as people move through lines of defense before people can get back in position.

In a conquest game, strategic decisions and defending objectives are more important than twitch killing. Depth to gameplay is added by being able to do these things. The less time you get to make a decision and react, the shallower conquest gameplay becomes. The same is true if you make it far too long.

Again, in PS2, from my perspective the pendulum swung too far in the other direction: seeing someone is typically killing that someone, unless they saw you first. Nothing you can do about it. In PS1 it was fine, but slightly shorter wouldn't have hurt and would have made interlinks in particular a bit harder to defend as you'd breach positions a little bit faster. But to severely reduce TTK accross the board and then also opening up everything doubles the effect of killing of defenders and holders (not the same thing as campers in CoD).


In a game like PlanetSide 2, which is intended to be about conquest first and foremost, the practical TTK IMO either lies too close to the perfect TTK or the perfect TTK is too short. Again, it depends entirely on the guns we're talking about, since a lot of PS2 guns do fall in my prefered TTK range (some are too accurate opposed to others, but that's a practical TTK approaching perfect TTK balance issue).


If this is "incoherent noise", Exile, then I feel sorry for mankind to have stuped to the level they call any argumented disagreement noise. It's a very simple and consistent line of argumentation.




@Sunrock, put your aggression under a rock, you don't debate, you just throw random opinion statements in a discussion thread. What's the matter? Can't take some sarcasm that uses the same tone and counters your argument? And you'd start getting physical in real life over a sarcastic comment? Seriously?

Wow. Talk about short fuse. No wonder you like short TTKs. :rolleyes:

Figment, you've basically single-handedly destroyed this thread by filling it with incoherent noise. You have no right to get aggressive with other posters.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Since when is "dumbing down" an argument? THAT is incoherent noise. Please, don't defend him because he agrees with you. If someone made that point while agreeing with me, I'd want him to explain why rather than make a random nonsense statement too.


ANY increase in TTK is dumbing down per definition? Really? 0.05 increase is dumbing down? 0.2, 0.5, 1.4 increase is dumbing down? Where does the dumbing down start? 1.7s? 2.4s? 2.5s? 2.7s? Really? So half the weapons in PS2 are "dumbed down" because they take longer than sniper rifles perfect TTKs? REALLY? Are you really going to defend (or perhaps even agree with) such an incredible dumb and non-sensical statement?

That's a load of bullcrap and you know it. Sunrock often makes that sort of nonsense statements though since he's from BF3 and incredibly biased to that sort of gameplay. To the point of being extremely disrespectful to other variaties of gameplay.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by exile

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.
Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

It's not my experience comparing ps1 vs ps2.

Although, chaotic base designs may influence that. Ps2 seems to be all move move move.

I no longer do those things when I know there's an enemy 'just along there' and I lay a trap and wait for the situation to develop. Now I know if I don't move, I'll become someone else's victim shortly.

And a by product is that there's very little variation in weapons. The only real variation are in the OSK weapons, ie sniper rifles and grenades.

[Stellarthief]

Your post was so large that i can't respond to it all now while at work and lunch break coming soon.

Only point I can disagree with quickly or maybe even overall is that Deathmatch should have short/fast TTK and objective based gameplay longer TTK. I find the opposite:

Deathmatch imo, should have longer TTK as to have decent matches that don't last a fraction of a sec because on your way out from the base you get gibbed by a stray bullet. I prefer death match in normal Halo 3 mode with shields and heals and abilities and multiple guns and a rather long TTK or in gears of war 1 TTK average was VERY long (even with OHK in the game). Can be noted I am not a fan of those ultra mega twitch FPS games (quake, UT, where TTK can next to non existant).

Objective gameplay imo should have short TTK. I agree with you that getting flanked shouldn't be a death sentence but in reality it more or less is. You flank em in force, catch em unaware and they are done for. Shouldn't mean you don't lose any of your team, which is true in PS2 as all it takes is a few bullets to die. The fault here is that everyone is watching the front, zerging and trying to get xp and none the 6 to keep people off (more or less the game pushes you to this by design).
But mostly, I dislike a longer TTK because it will allow def/assault situations to go on for much longer than it needs to. You add a longer TTK into an already defensive position and the matches simply go on too long for really No Point. I'm quite sorry, but I don't see a point to these 4 hour biolab fights as they are.. The bonuses from taking objectives in this game, currently, are not good enough to warranty spending so much time taking or defending 1 base. Only reason people do it right now I think is an xp farm fest.

That's why, I am still on the side, that overall TTK isn't what the problem is, in this game. It's the design. But raising or lowering TTK isn't going to change anything to the point where it's better or worse imo as long as design stays the same.

[Figment]

There are many types of deathmatch arena games. GoldenEye64 being one of the first still IMO is one of the most fun ones, but that doesn't mean I'd transplant its TTKs into PS2. Attrition mattered. Sadly, explosive weapons were often rather OP. Perfect Dark was exceptionally great fun, unless you played it on super-hard mode where enemies would continuously headshot you while strafing at ultra-fast speeds through the map. The N64 controller just wasn't made for that kind of play *cough*damn N64 joystick*cough*... >.>

But the "perfect" TTK range is in the eyes of the beholder. Also depends on how fast you spawn, how big the map is, how long travel distance is, how complex the map and time in between encounters. I'm sure the smaller maps are more popular for casual players playing with friends at home on a console.


Bio Labs are currently an exception in the game, but that has to do more with interrupted flow that creates high pop density and farming in the dome with so little direction of the fight that it's just chaos. :/

So much chaos and options that neither defense nor attack can form coherent lines around their objectives. That keeps resetting fights.

Most of the other fights are over before they actually started. :/ Fights for a small outpost should last longer than half a minute, while fights for towers are about right in length, though not in flow, since most of that time is spent camping by the attackers. Fights for bases can take too long or too short, depends on the design really.

In that respect I very much agree with you that design is the main culprit. However, short TTK does enhance the design's negative effects (IMO anyway).


Compare to PS1, where a fight would last long, but once a line was breached it would be over soon and resetting such a fight would require a really strong push (or skilled infil).

[ShadetheDruid]

Every time people talk negatively about low TTK, they always make it sound like it requires no thinking at all, just point and click. If you think that, it's possible that you just aren't suited to this kind of game.

I find low TTK actually requires a lot of thought, just that you're required to do it very quickly. Mostly because you have limited time to do so, and one mistake in the judgement of a situation can be deadly.

But in the end, quick decision making and careful planning can co-exist, they aren't mutually exclusive. Perhaps once they've worked on the bases to make them more defensible, most of the issues people are having will be solved and it will turn out not to be TTK issues at all.

(By the way, this whole "dumbing down" meme is something that needs to die. If you're going to call someone stupid for liking something "less complex" than something you like, call them stupid straight up so they can ignore you).

[Sunrock]

Basically been saying what Stellarthief just seemed to have considered, if I understood this point right. (and expanded it by linking it to terrain and other things). Recovery and response.

And yes, let's define depth and shallow gameplay.

To me shallow is when there's less actual fight and more execution type gameplay and it's not balanced with the flanking and ambushing (whether that's not possible (0 options) or when that's too easy (5+ options)). When holding a position becomes meaningless because you can just flank from any direction, THAT is dumbing down the game. Especially if the TTK then makes it an execution without opposition.

I've said it before and will say it again: flanking to me is perfect when it provides a decent to good advantage, but isn't an I-win situation by default. I-win situations are extremely shallow forms of gameplay and can even occur with longer TTKs.



I could not be bothered to read any longer then that because it's just so.... I can't find words for how wrong you are.

If a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" situation as you say it because the enemy is disorganized and let you do a maneuver like that. Don't blame the game for the players lack of skill.

If a position can be flanked from any position it's because the defenders suck at defending not because of any game design.

You do not use game mechanics to try to remove bad playing decisions that just totally ruins any game.





@Sunrock, put your aggression under a rock, you don't debate, you just throw random opinion statements in a discussion thread. What's the matter? Can't take some sarcasm that uses the same tone and counters your argument? And you'd start getting physical in real life over a sarcastic comment? Seriously?

Wow. Talk about short fuse. No wonder you like short TTKs. :rolleyes:



My aggression? What the about yours? I just agreed with a post and you come out and attacks my intelligent for it just because you don't like what he sad. Yea try to talk your way out of it but I do not fall for that and no one else will nether.

[Stellarthief]

If a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" situation as you say it because the enemy is disorganized and let you do a maneuver like that. Don't blame the game for the players lack of skill.

If a position can be flanked from any position it's because the defenders suck at defending not because of any game design.

You do not use game mechanics to try to remove bad playing decisions that just totally ruins any game.

Without regarding TTK, I don't actually agree with this statement. The game as it is, doesn't reward you much for carefully covering your flank and keeping people from rushing in. You currently (will change) get no XP for just doing damage with no deathwhere as you get xp for taking damage (repairing, healing).

So don't go saying it's because people suck when that's usually not the case. Most people probably play to get rewarded, and watching the flanks for 30 minutes that nets you lets say, 1k xp for taking or successfully defending is disproportional to the thousands of xp you get for just a handfull of kills (100 for kill itself, + bonus group kill, + streak, + headshot, + assists for just damaging someone that dies, + critical assists).

People fail to see that the problem isn't always player side, but often how the game is designed. Currently its so pointless to not be killing people. Going around ninjaing bases, watching your flank, being tactical all gets you crap and is boring as hell for no rewards and a boost to a pointless war.

It's also the same crap as when you have a hundred or more people all at a tiny little tower or something waiting for it to tick down so they can get xp and move on to the next facility that is already in need of support. You aren't "forced" to wait (no ones holding a gun to your head) but you sit and wait for the reward instead of reinforcing the forward position or starting your flanking or whatever. It's unnecessary mechanics that deter from play. Then no one sits there to defend it from being taken back (which often happens right away).

There is very little incentive in the game to play like that. And the RPG elements of the game force the mentality of play vs. reward. In other games where I didn't get anything besides rank and my stats (Kills, deaths, ratio, average survival time, etc.) instead of xp, there was no pressure to not sit and defend a position because you weren't missing anything! Often it could be a boon because you could get easy kills defending a defensive position, so it boosted your ratios!

That's my opinion on what I have observed and experienced in PS2 so far.

[Sunrock]

Without regarding TTK, I don't actually agree with this statement. The game as it is, doesn't reward you much for carefully covering your flank and keeping people from rushing in. You currently (will change) get no XP for just doing damage with no deathwhere as you get xp for taking damage (repairing, healing).

So don't go saying it's because people suck when that's usually not the case. Most people probably play to get rewarded, and watching the flanks for 30 minutes that nets you lets say, 1k xp for taking or successfully defending is disproportional to the thousands of xp you get for just a handfull of kills (100 for kill itself, + bonus group kill, + streak, + headshot, + assists for just damaging someone that dies, + critical assists).

People fail to see that the problem isn't always player side, but often how the game is designed. Currently its so pointless to not be killing people. Going around ninjaing bases, watching your flank, being tactical all gets you crap and is boring as hell for no rewards and a boost to a pointless war.

It's also the same crap as when you have a hundred or more people all at a tiny little tower or something waiting for it to tick down so they can get xp and move on to the next facility that is already in need of support. You aren't "forced" to wait (no ones holding a gun to your head) but you sit and wait for the reward instead of reinforcing the forward position or starting your flanking or whatever. It's unnecessary mechanics that deter from play. Then no one sits there to defend it from being taken back (which often happens right away).

There is very little incentive in the game to play like that. And the RPG elements of the game force the mentality of play vs. reward. In other games where I didn't get anything besides rank and my stats (Kills, deaths, ratio, average survival time, etc.) instead of xp, there was no pressure to not sit and defend a position because you weren't missing anything! Often it could be a boon because you could get easy kills defending a defensive position, so it boosted your ratios!

That's my opinion on what I have observed and experienced in PS2 so far.

If you can flank from any position people suck because that means they are unable to kill anyone that attacks them. Note that I sad any position, not from a good position. So if a group of players are attacking from the south and just moves 10 meters to the east before attacking and the enemies fails to counter that they do fucking suck as they just have to aim a bit more left to kill them. That is what I was replying to. Not flanking in general but that flanking from the most stupid position would still just "WTF P0wn" any opposition only works if the defenders suck.

But I agree that the game focus too mush on hording exp then actually conquering land. This do encourage some bad behaviors but making the TTK longer will not fix this at all. That is way I sad that if a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" move it's because players let you do that.

[Mietz]

There are many types of deathmatch arena games. GoldenEye64 being one of the first still IMO is one of the most fun ones, but that doesn't mean I'd transplant its TTKs into PS2. Attrition mattered. Sadly, explosive weapons were often rather OP. Perfect Dark was exceptionally great fun, unless you played it on super-hard mode where enemies would continuously headshot you while strafing at ultra-fast speeds through the map. The N64 controller just wasn't made for that kind of play *cough*damn N64 joystick*cough*... >.>

But the "perfect" TTK range is in the eyes of the beholder. Also depends on how fast you spawn, how big the map is, how long travel distance is, how complex the map and time in between encounters. I'm sure the smaller maps are more popular for casual players playing with friends at home on a console.


Bio Labs are currently an exception in the game, but that has to do more with interrupted flow that creates high pop density and farming in the dome with so little direction of the fight that it's just chaos. :/

So much chaos and options that neither defense nor attack can form coherent lines around their objectives. That keeps resetting fights.

Most of the other fights are over before they actually started. :/ Fights for a small outpost should last longer than half a minute, while fights for towers are about right in length, though not in flow, since most of that time is spent camping by the attackers. Fights for bases can take too long or too short, depends on the design really.

In that respect I very much agree with you that design is the main culprit. However, short TTK does enhance the design's negative effects (IMO anyway).


Compare to PS1, where a fight would last long, but once a line was breached it would be over soon and resetting such a fight would require a really strong push (or skilled infil).

What are your thoughts on weapon variety concerning theoretical TTK.

I still hold that the current extreme TTK curve leaves no place for DOT weapons and area denial because the granularity of damage received is so low (bullets).

[exile]

[massive text wall snipped]
If this is "incoherent noise", Exile, then I feel sorry for mankind to have stuped to the level they call any argumented disagreement noise. It's a very simple and consistent line of argumentation.
Figment, this is a perfect example of "incoherent noise". You ramble all over the place, give extremely narrow, specific examples and claim they somehow back up figures you have seemingly plucked out of thin air, and worst of all you don't even attempt to address the OP's question! If it's a "very simple" argument it shouldn't take you a whole screen of text to explain it. When I previously asked you to summarise your position... I don't even know what to make of the post you made in response. Maybe you have some coherent points in amongst all the noise, but nobody is willing to sift through the irrelevant rambling to find out.

[exile]

But the "perfect" TTK range is in the eyes of the beholder. Also depends on how fast you spawn, how big the map is, how long travel distance is, how complex the map and time in between encounters.
Ok, this is exactly where you are misguided. This whole discussion is supposed to be about complexity and depth, and how TTK impacts these factors. Did you even watch the original video? You don't refer to these topics AT ALL.

As Sirisian discussed (and I re-iterated, but you still ignored it) TTK should ideally provide enough time for a player to manage the "mental burden" (as discussed in the video) of the decisions that they need to make in combat. Because the mechanics of combat are relatively simple in PS2, a short TTK is appropriate and manageable.

Does this clarify the kind of conversation that the OP is trying to foster here? Can't you see how distracting and off topic all of the stuff you've been flooding the thread with is?

[Stellarthief]

If you can flank from any position people suck because that means they are unable to kill anyone that attacks them. Note that I sad any position, not from a good position. So if a group of players are attacking from the south and just moves 10 meters to the east before attacking and the enemies fails to counter that they do fucking suck as they just have to aim a bit more left to kill them. That is what I was replying to. Not flanking in general but that flanking from the most stupid position would still just "WTF P0wn" any opposition only works if the defenders suck.

But I agree that the game focus too mush on hording exp then actually conquering land. This do encourage some bad behaviors but making the TTK longer will not fix this at all. That is way I sad that if a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" move it's because players let you do that.

I agree. Even said so. In general a well executed flank will win it for you, even against experienced players. The force at the front doesn't simply disappear because a flanking force shows up. It's a classic move that works well in games and translates really well when you have classes like LA infantry.

I think we can probably agree though that there is no incentive though for people to get better at defending against flanking or to get better at flanking or much of any other tactic that doesn't involve getting massive kills / zerging.

TTK won't change anything, as we agree.

And to posts directly above mine. This is an FPS. Not even a very advanced one. Mechanics are usually very simple in an FPS. Point, click, boom - try not to get pointed and clicked. Some differences here and there, classes added for flavour and balance of weapons, illusion of RPG progress, etc. Bullet drop, blood, CoF, recoil, etc. These are all things your mental and physical dexterity can compensate for with some practice. It's nothing so complex as needing to do complex calculations to make sure your tank shell hits the target or you bank at a correct angle or that the rocket has just the right amount of fuel...

Also coming from a heavy RPG MMO background, and from some games with really complex mechanics, mechanics do not equal depth. Complexity and depth are 2 different things, is my point.

Bear with me here on this bad example. Drawing a freehand perfect circle is complex yet mechanically simple. You need a piece of a paper, a hand, foot or mouth and a writing tool. The end. Yet the results are very hard to achieve. Now, yeah, this doesn't have much to do with depth unless you want to call drawing a circle a deep activity, but I am making a broader point.

Some of the simplest things are the most complex, even the deepest (philosophy for example. A simple question can be super deep). But there are also examples where something massively complex is not deep at all because of ease of operation and intuitive understanding. I guess the human body could be an example of this. A very complex machine, yet it's not very hard or deep to raise your arm is it (assuming you are physically and mentally sound)? Nothing deep about raising your arm despite the mechanics of it..

The same is with TTK. Just because you die fast and the point and click mechanics are easy doesn't make the game shallow nor does it make it particularly deep. Same if you point and click and take awhile to die.
It's a contributing factor, but hardly the most important one or one that will drastically change the depth of the game.

If that makes any sense.

[psijaka]

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

I started to agree, and then agree with you. Now I'm not so sure.

I think actually it's more of a case in 1 target focusing in battles, not 1v1. When you ADS and focus on one person the longer you have to fire on that target the more strained your awareness will be and the more enemies around that 1 person the more likely you are to die.

But then I started to think, if you have to stand there and fire longer you lose your awareness the longer you focus but if you start taking fire you have more time to recover with a longer TTK. As it is now, if you lose that awareness (if for example ADS on a few targets) you in general, I would say, don't have the time to recover once under fire. 2-3 bursts and you are done. 2nd and 3rd bursts come by the time you really notice the first...

But too long a TTK and you can just run away without worry... A fine balancing act and I would think game, weapon balance and personal preference to say which is better / gives more depth. Also gotta define what that depth is..

Yeah, got to admit it's not quite so clear cut as I first thought.

With a very long TTK (Firefall) I find that it takes so long to take someone down that I do lose situational awareness. But I don't think anyone contributing to this thread is advocating say a doubling of the current TTK, to something approaching Firefall levels.

Your point about being able to react when taking fire is interesting, but I don't think that this counts of being situationally aware; it is the same as slapping at a fly that is biting you on the arm; the ultimate twitch skill, and is pretty shallow gameplay.

I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive, by trying to use situational awareness to avoid taking damage in the first place, as the penalty for not doing so is a high risk of death (the current TTK encourages me to do this).

[Stellarthief]

Yeah, got to admit it's not quite so clear cut as I first thought.

With a very long TTK (Firefall) I find that it takes so long to take someone down that I do lose situational awareness. But I don't think anyone contributing to this thread is advocating say a doubling of the current TTK, to something approaching Firefall levels.

Your point about being able to react when taking fire is interesting, but I don't think that this counts of being situationally aware; it is the same as slapping at a fly that is biting you on the arm; the ultimate twitch skill, and is pretty shallow gameplay.

I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive, by trying to use situational awareness to avoid taking damage in the first place, as the penalty for not doing so is a high risk of death (the current TTK encourages me to do this).

Well, I agree. Being proactive is better than reactive. No argument there. But with the current game design you get a red line on your hud to tell you where you are getting fired upon. This is great and is there to give you some direction to react. It doesn't work always 100% because down and up kinda confuse it sometimes but regardless - that is there to give you a chance to react. The TTK doesn't play nice with this mechanic. It's great to have that line show up and then be dead before you can start to turn your character. I personally have no problem with this! Other people seem to ;)

But we also have to consider the fact, you can't always be situationally aware. This game has culling. It's an unfortunate fact of the current situation of servers (though it doesn't have to be! - GW2 should be eliminating the culling there this year they claim). This means that not only are we limited by FoV(why we have the radar these days) we are limited to things we can't immediately see. I can easily run by a group of enemies then when they are no longer in my field of view they render and I die...

You see what I'm getting at? The TTK in of itself is not a problem. it's also fine. But other game design decisions (even if based on technical limitations) penalize you for basically no reason - Culling is why I put GW2 on ice for now. But I guess you can also see what I am getting at, that the TTK would have to be increased SO much to make it even matter that it's not worth doing. It would be better to change the design decisions to make it worth while.

Even if TTK was changed, me getting myself flanked due to culling won't allow me to turn around on 5 enemy players and have any chance anyway. PS2 is a numbers game.. If it was a small scale combat game, TTK has a HUGE impact.. But simply put, when 30 guys are firing at you, what does TTK matter? You might escape (somehow) the 30 guys aiming at you, but the tank, the turrets, the air, the grenades, the mines, your own team running you over, shooting you, blowing you up? C'mon lets be realistic ;)

[psijaka]

^ Agree - small changes in TTK are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't resist replying to what must be one of the longest and most complex posts that I have seen on this forum! Don't have time for all your points, Figment, but here goes:

And yes, let's define depth and shallow gameplay.

To me shallow is when there's less actual fight and more execution type gameplay and it's not balanced with the flanking and ambushing (whether that's not possible (0 options) or when that's too easy (5+ options)). When holding a position becomes meaningless because you can just flank from any direction, THAT is dumbing down the game. Especially if the TTK then makes it an execution without opposition.

Not sure that I agree with this at all. Surely being able to assess the defencability of a position to determine whether you have a chance of holding it with the forces you have at your disposal adds a lot of depth to the game. Conversely, if all positions only had 2-3 approaches, then this would remove depth from the game as making that decision becomes almost "cut and paste".

I've said it before and will say it again: flanking to me is perfect when it provides a decent to good advantage, but isn't an I-win situation by default. I-win situations are extremely shallow forms of gameplay and can even occur with longer TTKs.

Not shallow at all if you have assessed and taken risks to get into that position where you are pretty much guaranteed the kill.

-snip- What I disagree with, is that ANY increase in TTK causes this above situation to occur. That's just incomplete and shortsighted argumentation. And closer to "incoherent noise" than anything I've stated. (:rolleyes:)

Agreed. But you yourself are only advocating a modest increase in TTK, and this will not make much difference in practice.

To me, the effects of short vs long TTK in terms of depth vs shallow gameplay looks like the normal distribution in the diagram below (short TTK on the left, long TTK on the right):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg/360px-Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg.png

The problem I have with you lot is that you don't accept that my perceived curve is wider and slightly to the right from yours, where some of you pretend (even for the sake of argument, their argument) my curve lies waaaay to the right hand side. Where you peak somewhere between 0.8 and 1.8 with extremes around 0.5 and lower vs 2.4 and higher, my peak lies between 0.9 and 2.2, with extremes at 0.7 and lower vs 2.7 and higher. It's a subtle difference which is too often represented as a mountain slide.

THAT is the greyscale I was refering to with regards to Kerrec, where many of you are speaking in black and white "long is bad", "short is good". That just makes you sound like Americans. :p



The shorter the TTK and the narrower the curve lies to zero, the bigger the advantage for the ambusher and the less chance someone has to recover from being caught situationally unaware. Which happens all the time in a 3D FPS. Penalizing it with guaranteed death is just over the top and doesn't stimulate fights and just feels like the game punishing a situation it created, rather than the game rewarding good play. Also, the bigger the impact of MAX units, because they're in the extreme range (note PS1 MAX isn't the same as PS2 MAX in its extremities, PS1 MAX TTK on other units was on par with other units, in PS2 it's a bit faster, while TTK on MAX was higher in PS1 and is lower in PS2). I have and continue to submit that there should be a degree of recovery chance of being caught unaware, rather than a death penalty, so I refuse to make this a 80-100% advantage. Why? Because in a game like PS2, with the amount of threats there are, it simply becomes a fragfest and objective gameplay suffers greatly.

Now you've really lost me here! Which colour curves are you referring to and what are the units on the Y axis?

In a deathmatch arena game like CoD where you only care for frags and have to watch for three targets and don't need to think about taking and holding key areas for longer than a few seconds (camping a spot gets you more likely caught off-guard), that's fine. Maybe there's 7 opponents if you play online and know that half spawns on the other side of the map so aren't direct problems and since everyone randomly spawns and has to keep moving through rather linear terrain with frequently just two routes to your position, it's pretty easy to deal with, fair and even if you lose by getting caught off guard, it's just a +1 and a -1 on the score chart, not a lost match. The short TTK helps to take care of players in advantageous high ground positions by ensuring they can't camp and farm from there too long without risking death when actually in an engagement.

This isn't a deathmatch arena game though. It currently plays like one though due to the short TTKs: K/D is king in decision making in PS2, because getting killed DOES often mean a lost match in PS2 as people move through lines of defense before people can get back in position.

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

In a conquest game, strategic decisions and defending objectives are more important than twitch killing. Depth to gameplay is added by being able to do these things. The less time you get to make a decision and react, the shallower conquest gameplay becomes. The same is true if you make it far too long.

I could turn this on it's head by saying that having a short TTK forces you to think more in advance before getting into a situation, rather than just relying on having time to react to damage taken. This adds depth to the game.

That's all I've got time for; work beckons!

[Kerrec]

THAT is the greyscale I was refering to with regards to Kerrec, where many of you are speaking in black and white "long is bad", "short is good". That just makes you sound like Americans. :p

Wow Figment. Do you really think people will not see the veiled insults? Not only that, but you make some grossly narrow minded assumptions. Did it never cross your mind that the INTERNET is accessed world wide? Did it never cross your mind that I may not be an American? In fact, I am not. I am Canadian. Also, you insinuate that being an American is an insult. Way to go Buddy! That is one heck of a stereotype. You can add bigotry to your resume.

You linked a graph showing different kinds of normal distribution curves, defined in purely mathematical terms. IE: the two axes are not functions relating to ANYTHING in the game. Then you use this as some kind of proof backing your hypothesis? And you expect people to believe you?

I've grown up speaking English my entire life. I hope that my written communication skills reflect that I am at the very least competent with English. I am also an avid reader. I don't think I've ever heard or seen the term "Grayscale" used in anything other than photography or art. So yeah, when you say "grayscale", I'm confused. I reply to your posts, assuming you mean to say "gray area", but I risk being wrong in my assumption.

Now you're talking about making very small changes to TTK. You post so many numbers, I still don't know by how much you propose. Keep in mind, some people can play with pings to the server in the 50ms while others can be playing with pings in the 300ms (or more). With client side hit detection, that means you still die even if you react quickly on your end. So by HOW MUCH do you propose to increase TTK, so that it makes a consistent difference and won't simply be made insignificant by other factors? Another point is individual skill makes a difference. An increase of half a second (500ms) would be a huge boon to many players while at the same time go unnoticed by the rest.

A good player will still be good and a bad player will still be bad. TTK won't even the playing field, regardless of how you change it.

[Stellarthief]

That's all I've got time for; work beckons!

I've just lost all respect for you...












:D

[Chaff]

As much as it can suck & annoy us, dying quickly is pretty much realistic - especially if "the other guy" got the jump on you.

Methinks too many of the ones who CRY for longer TTK are likely very skilled .... but the underlying issue/motivation is EGO. IF the TTK is made to be very long, then the better player can get caught napping by a newb or inferior opponent ..... but still bunny hop away from the initial element of surprise ..... and then use their superior hand-eye to save their precious K/D ..... a LOT of players play as if their entire existence is based on having a higher K/D than the rest of us.
* * * NEWS BULLETIN * * *
IT'S A GAME. No one has all the answers. It's an endless drivel fest about personal preferences & opinions. Get a LIFE .... away from the game .... and maybe when you play and/or discuss it you'll have a better mental "balance". There is a percentage of PSU posters that come across as being in need of mental/psychological help.
Their arguments quicky become seen by the community as a "sign"

"Headcase"

[Mietz]

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

Between 200ms and 600ms we are talking about a non-issue.
The average reaction time of a human being is 150-300ms, thats the time of your senses registering input and sending a response. Depending on the complexity of the response, that time might be longer, but 150-300ms is the absolute minimum to do a simple response like pressing a button.

PS2s technical (perfect) TTK is between ~200ms (shotguns) and ~600ms (rifles) with the exception of the Lasher and Bolt-Action Rifles (1300ms and ~900ms).

If we are talking about 200ms vs 600ms this is a non-argument, as both times are not enough for a human to react (in the complex way the game requires) anyways, so even if CODs TTK was exactly like PS2s, the difference would be negligible in experience for the player.


And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

Isn't that exactly what Figment is talking about?

Respawns are quick and deaths even quicker, thats typical Deathmatch behavior for a game. The distance traveled from respawn to the action is largely irrelevant.

Whens the last time you had an infantry "fight" and by that I mean a struggle against another person (or multiple persons)?
I've only experienced a few consistent scenarios in PS2:

1. Door/Spawn/position camping. Both teams have found a place where they pew pew at each other from cover and spam grenades, with medics constantly reviving.

2. Lemming runs. You throw yourself at a defended position over and over again until the other team leaves.

3. Skirmish. You arrive at a base with few enemy players and mop them up according to who noticed who first.

This in short describes more than 2/3rds of engagements in PS2 for infantry combat. It's always entirely lopsided and, more importantly, uninteresting.

Thats why when I play infantry, I play a suicide explosives loadout. I don't fire guns most of the time, its boring and uninteresting. I'd rather spam nades and suicide with AI/AV Mines/LA C4 runs.

[Palerion]

Perhaps once they've worked on the bases to make them more defensible, most of the issues people are having will be solved and it will turn out not to be TTK issues at all.

See, I think Shade is spot on here.

I feel like I die insanely fast too sometimes, but I think once issues start ironing out, everything will shape up well.

As a matter of fact the current screen flinch and shake from explosions and bullets comes into play hear.

As of right now it is so intense that it is making it hard to recover from taking fire.

When this is fixed, you may be able to put that last shot into the guy you're shooting at, get the kill, and pop behind cover.

Beyond that one issue, we still have zerg problems and meta-game problems that will be fixed.

Eventually the battles will be more streamlined, more balanced, and more exciting.

I think time will tell whether TTK is really causing the problems, and as the devs keep working, the game will progressively become more fun and less frustrating.

Just give it time.

[Figment]

Exile - Don't know what to say to that because you're just saying it's incoherent without making any determinable points to why. Shall we just agree to disagree?

^ Agree - small changes in TTK are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things!

Can't agree, there's a gradual change or at least tipping points as TTK increases. Otherwise no increase in TTK would ever be relevant. There's a difference in impact between say OHK, ultra-short, short, below average, above average, long and ultralong TTKs. De- or Increases may put something on the edge of those or push it just into the next batch of TTKs.

Not sure that I agree with this at all. Surely being able to assess the defencability of a position to determine whether you have a chance of holding it with the forces you have at your disposal adds a lot of depth to the game. Conversely, if all positions only had 2-3 approaches, then this would remove depth from the game as making that decision becomes almost "cut and paste".

If the conclusion tends to be "better keep moving, cause I'll get flanked everywhere and ganked on twitch skill if I don't" keep moving, then no, it doesn't add depth, it removes it. :/

Not shallow at all if you have assessed and taken risks to get into that position where you are pretty much guaranteed the kill.

That's shallow by my definition. :/ Depth would be if it creates new options and choices in the fight ahead and isn't the end of the road. Flanking is a natural thing to do, flanking itself adds depth, but since you can always flank under any TTK, short TTKs do nothing but make things easy once you get where you want to be.

Easy and lack of needing to make choices is shallow IMO.

Agreed. But you yourself are only advocating a modest increase in TTK, and this will not make much difference in practice.

See first response - I think it'd tip the balance just enough to be able to respond and recover sufficiently.

Now you've really lost me here! Which colour curves are you referring to and what are the units on the Y axis?

They're just a bunch of random gaussian curve plots. :) If I'd actually make one, one of these would show the TTK distributions in a game between weapons and in what range the majority of prefered TTKs would fall.

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

Clearing campers is easy in CoD. >.> My brother tries it all the time, but he doesn't handle shotguns and stabs as well as I do. :p He's better at long range rifling though, hence I use terrain to get behind him and instakill him or use grenades to flush him out: gone camp position and typically dead.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Meh, agree to disagree. It plays like CoD with predictable spawnpoints to me.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

Little bases where spawncamping hasn't commenced play like CoD matches with jetpacks to me. :/

I could turn this on it's head by saying that having a short TTK forces you to think more in advance before getting into a situation, rather than just relying on having time to react to damage taken. This adds depth to the game.

If one doesn't think before going into battle, that person has already lost. Moot point. One should always do something on the basis of a rational idea. Whether or not it's a long TTK doesn't matter for planning, TTK only has impact on the actual fight and the consequences of the fight (and whether it's worth to come back due to spawncamping).

[Eduard Khil]

That was one thing I hated from PS1, the TTK, I actually like this one, it is a bit more UT/CS.

If I were playing a sim or half a sim like BF2 mods or Arma, sure why not, but this game is nowhere near that.

[Figment]

Wow Figment. Do you really think people will not see the veiled insults? Not only that, but you make some grossly narrow minded assumptions. Did it never cross your mind that the INTERNET is accessed world wide? Did it never cross your mind that I may not be an American? In fact, I am not. I am Canadian. Also, you insinuate that being an American is an insult. Way to go Buddy! That is one heck of a stereotype. You can add bigotry to your resume.

So, you're saying you're NOT from the Americas? :p Didn't know Canada could detach itself at will. ;)

Lighten up. See the smiley, it's a joke, you're looking for insults to get upset about now. =/ (And yes, being American is silly. ;)).

You linked a graph showing different kinds of normal distribution curves, defined in purely mathematical terms. IE: the two axes are not functions relating to ANYTHING in the game. Then you use this as some kind of proof backing your hypothesis? And you expect people to believe you?

.................................................. ................


Did I relate to the graphs as actual FACTS AND NUMBERS, or merely AS AN ILLUSTRATION of what I meant with a gaussian curve? Sheesh. I said why I posted it, just to explain my mental image of what we're talking about.

Seriously. Reading comprehension, use it.

I've grown up speaking English my entire life. I hope that my written communication skills reflect that I am at the very least competent with English. I am also an avid reader. I don't think I've ever heard or seen the term "Grayscale" used in anything other than photography or art. So yeah, when you say "grayscale", I'm confused. I reply to your posts, assuming you mean to say "gray area", but I risk being wrong in my assumption.

http://www.oceanlight.com/lr/legacy_image/grayscale_chart.gif

Grey scale.

vs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Delft_flag_outline.png

Black and white.


The reasoning behind a grey area type of thinking is that there's a grayscale involved with intermediate points. Black and white thinking only looks at the extremes. YOU only look at the extremes, see your last quote here. You are thinking in black and white, not in greyscale.

Now you're talking about making very small changes to TTK. You post so many numbers, I still don't know by how much you propose.

Then you haven't read any of the posts very well. Because I clearly defined when I'm simply argueing about the impact of numbers, opposed to what I want. In fact, I'VE VERY CLEARLY STATED THE RANGE OF TTKS I'D PREFER IN THAT POST YOU ARE REFERING TO.

Seriously not that difficult to read where it says the range I describe as being your preference and the range I describe as being my preference, is it?

Keep in mind, some people can play with pings to the server in the 50ms while others can be playing with pings in the 300ms (or more). With client side hit detection, that means you still die even if you react quickly on your end. So by HOW MUCH do you propose to increase TTK, so that it makes a consistent difference and won't simply be made insignificant by other factors? Another point is individual skill makes a difference. An increase of half a second (500ms) would be a huge boon to many players while at the same time go unnoticed by the rest.

Ping of up to 210ms isn't that big a deal. We've had to live with it for years: it gives you advantages and disadvantages all the time.

A good player will still be good and a bad player will still be bad. TTK won't even the playing field, regardless of how you change it.

Bullshit.

[Figment]

Btw, question, if minor TTK increases don't matter one bit...



Then explain why these have different amounts of hitpoints:

Engineer
Heavy Assault
Infil
Light Assault
MAX
Medic



No impact on gameplay due to minor TTK differences, huh?

[Dreamcast]

It depends.

First of all the TTK is all right in 1 vs 1 situations if you're HA.......Even if somebody gets the drop on me, I have enough time to fight back....So the TTK isn't any where near BF3/COD level.


Having said that, this game isn't 1 vs 1......So when you have multiple people shooting at you, the ttk could be way too low...Not to mention the Instant kill Explosives in the game.


I say the TTK is allright....and could be slightly higher to resemble a HA with their shield on...But is way better than Planetside 1 TTK.



If the TTK is too high then skill isn't going to matter...The number of troops are....No longer can't a most skillful player take on 3 different guys on himself.

[Kerrec]

So, you're saying you're NOT from the Americas? :p Didn't know Canada could detach itself at will. ;)

Lighten up. See the smiley, it's a joke, you're looking for insults to get upset about now. =/ (And yes, being American is silly. ;)).

There was no point to the paragraph you wrote, other than to belittle people. I am not looking to be insulted, I am just pointing out how what you choose to include to your walls of texts is unecessary. IE: White noise.

Did I relate to the graphs as actual FACTS AND NUMBERS, or merely AS AN ILLUSTRATION of what I meant with a gaussian curve? Sheesh. I said why I posted it, just to explain my mental image of what we're talking about.

Seriously. Reading comprehension, use it.

I seriously doubt anyone understands why you posted those graphs. They don't mean anything. Just more white noise. BTW, reading comprehension can only be as good as what is written.



Grey scale.

vs

Black and white.

I know what a grey scale is. I said I've only seen it used in the context of photography or art. In discussions where you are discussing an area between two extremes, the proper terminology is "grey area".

Then you haven't read any of the posts very well. Because I clearly defined when I'm simply argueing about the impact of numbers, opposed to what I want. In fact, I'VE VERY CLEARLY STATED THE RANGE OF TTKS I'D PREFER IN THAT POST YOU ARE REFERING TO.

Seriously not that difficult to read where it says the range I describe as being your preference and the range I describe as being my preference, is it?

If a paragraph is too garbled, I skip it. If you did clearly state what range of TTK change you propose, then it wouldn't have killed you to just clearly reply, instead of writing that junk up there. It probably would have taken less time. I still don't know how much change you are even proposing.

BTW, you throw around so many numbers that appear to be plucked out of thin air (add pointless graphs to that now), that I don't give any credence to numbers when you do post them. For example where you said that if you can't cross a 25m space without being killed, then TTK is too short. Where in the heck did you establish that 25m is THE line where TTK is either too short or too long? From my point of view, you just pulled that out of thin air. To me, that kind of number flinging has no value. So yeah, I don't memorize or pay attention to things I find irrelevant.

Ping of up to 210ms isn't that big a deal. We've had to live with it for years: it gives you advantages and disadvantages all the time.

Client side hit detection is a fairly new thing. Before it was the person with the lowest ping that had the advantage. My friends and I used to call them LPB's (Low Ping B*tches). With Client side hit detection, the advantage is all over the place depending on the situation. Not the same beast at all.

Bullshit.

Really? So you're saying, if you were in charge, you could design a game that would make bad players just as good as good players? Assuming that was possible (Yeah, I'm going to extremes to make a point), why in the heck would good players play it?

[psijaka]

Between 200ms and 600ms we are talking about a non-issue.
The average reaction time of a human being is 150-300ms, thats the time of your senses registering input and sending a response. Depending on the complexity of the response, that time might be longer, but 150-300ms is the absolute minimum to do a simple response like pressing a button.

PS2s technical (perfect) TTK is between ~200ms (shotguns) and ~600ms (rifles) with the exception of the Lasher and Bolt-Action Rifles (1300ms and ~900ms).

If we are talking about 200ms vs 600ms this is a non-argument, as both times are not enough for a human to react (in the complex way the game requires) anyways, so even if CODs TTK was exactly like PS2s, the difference would be negligible in experience for the player.



Isn't that exactly what Figment is talking about?

Respawns are quick and deaths even quicker, thats typical Deathmatch behavior for a game. The distance traveled from respawn to the action is largely irrelevant.

Whens the last time you had an infantry "fight" and by that I mean a struggle against another person (or multiple persons)?
.

Now hold on a minute. On the one hand you are saying that the avg human reaction time is 150-300ms, and then you say that there isn't any difference between a TTK of 200 and 600ms!

Remember that these are perfect TTK's which assume that every bullet hits the mark. Recoil, COF, player movement etc means that this is rarely the case in reality (exceptions being when you get the drop on someone up close). So if we say assume that only 50% of bullets hit the mark, we have a difference between 400ms (not enough time to react) and 1.2s (enough time to react). Hugely significant.

Regarding significance of a death - I posted my scenario to show that the significance of a death in PS2 is very variable.

The difference between the spawn and the action is HUGELY significant; I'm staggered that you would think otherwise. If the Sunderer is nearby, you are back in the action with full ammo and full health in 20 seconds or so. If you are attacking a base and your team's Sunderer gets spotted and blown up, then getting killed means that you are out of the attack altogether.

[psijaka]

Can't agree, there's a gradual change or at least tipping points as TTK increases. Otherwise no increase in TTK would ever be relevant. There's a difference in impact between say OHK, ultra-short, short, below average, above average, long and ultralong TTKs. De- or Increases may put something on the edge of those or push it just into the next batch of TTKs.



If the conclusion tends to be "better keep moving, cause I'll get flanked everywhere and ganked on twitch skill if I don't" keep moving, then no, it doesn't add depth, it removes it. :/



That's shallow by my definition. :/ Depth would be if it creates new options and choices in the fight ahead and isn't the end of the road. Flanking is a natural thing to do, flanking itself adds depth, but since you can always flank under any TTK, short TTKs do nothing but make things easy once you get where you want to be.

Easy and lack of needing to make choices is shallow IMO.



See first response - I think it'd tip the balance just enough to be able to respond and recover sufficiently.



They're just a bunch of random gaussian curve plots. :) If I'd actually make one, one of these would show the TTK distributions in a game between weapons and in what range the majority of prefered TTKs would fall.



Clearing campers is easy in CoD. >.> My brother tries it all the time, but he doesn't handle shotguns and stabs as well as I do. :p He's better at long range rifling though, hence I use terrain to get behind him and instakill him or use grenades to flush him out: gone camp position and typically dead. is rife.



Meh, agree to disagree. It plays like CoD with predictable spawnpoints to me.



Little bases where spawncamping hasn't commenced play like CoD matches with jetpacks to me. :/



If one doesn't think before going into battle, that person has already lost. Moot point. One should always do something on the basis of a rational idea. Whether or not it's a long TTK doesn't matter for planning, TTK only has impact on the actual fight and the consequences of the fight (and whether it's worth to come back due to spawncamping).

Oh dear; another wall of text to wade through; serves me right for responding.

I'm not going to respond to your comments as we just seem to be going around in circles; neither of us is going to change our minds, and I suspect that you have got more time on your hands than I have.

In fact, I'm going to log off right now and play some PS2.

Edit - back from some excellent action at Tawrich and Broken Arch.

I'm still not going to try and go through your post answering every point, it seems that I counter every argument that you make, and then you counter every argument that I make, and we end up going around in circles.

I think that I'm going to bow out of this particular thread now as it is turning into a sterile argument rather than a constructive debate.

[psijaka]

deleted - "high traffic" caused double post

[psijaka]

I've just lost all respect for you...

:D

Damn; serious loss of kudos admitting to having a job....better not mention the wife and 3 kids.....oops too late ;)

[exile]

Exile - Don't know what to say to that because you're just saying it's incoherent without making any determinable points to why. Shall we just agree to disagree?
These are very clear points:
If it's a "very simple" argument it shouldn't take you a whole screen of text to explain it.
...you don't even attempt to address the OP's question

And did you miss this post of mine (the same way you have conveniently avoided every single post that actually addresses the question at hand?):

Ok, this is exactly where you are misguided. This whole discussion is supposed to be about complexity and depth, and how TTK impacts these factors. Did you even watch the original video? You don't refer to these topics AT ALL.

As Sirisian discussed (and I re-iterated, but you still ignored it) TTK should ideally provide enough time for a player to manage the "mental burden" (as discussed in the video) of the decisions that they need to make in combat. Because the mechanics of combat are relatively simple in PS2, a short TTK is appropriate and manageable.

Does this clarify the kind of conversation that the OP is trying to foster here? Can't you see how distracting and off topic all of the stuff you've been flooding the thread with is?

[Figment]

Exile, you don't understand my position and I doubt you ever will because you don't seem to understand we have different ideas about what complexity and depth are.

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".


If that was all you ever needed to do to win, there is no depth. That is shallow. Shallow is having to be less able in all kinds of aspects of a fight to me and having less control over the outcome when being engaged.

You don't seem to understand those definitions yourself. Since you don't actually make any points in half the posts, nor try to explain your position, I really think the one making the most noise is you. Walls of text? I can read through them fine, maybe cert some attentionspan.


And Kerrec, just because you fail to understand something or the reason of posting a reference or example that gives an idea anout something, doesn't mean it is noise. And ffs, lighten up. You have no sense of humour. That graph is really easy to interpret, if you would just read the accompanying text and figure out from that what the graph would look like and what the axes would be. If you had statistical maths in school you should understand a gaussian curve when you see one. But you aren't even trying.

Look it up on wiki, you'll find the source of the example image too.

As for replying to the OP:

Pay particular attention to the point about "Modern Shooters" while considering PS2's ingredients: Situational Awareness, tactical decision making, reaction time, Map & Terrain awareness, your opponent's class, your opponents weapon, where the nearest corners/cover is in multiple directions, ally locations, objective & spawn flow, recoil control, compensating aim for the impacts of flinching, ...and everything else I'm missing here that comes from hybridizing an FPS together with the macro-elements of RTS size armies & strategies .... and then compress it all into 0.80 seconds which is effectively your entire lifespan when being shot at.

To me it seems I'm the only one that actually does consider all these elements, because you remove 90% of the decision making related to the above from the fight and then call it depth.