Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.

[Assist]

I'd assume this is a rather hotly debated topic, but I think with the new SMG's the difference between classes is really being lost. With TTK being as low as it is I feel like I can kill just as efficiently with any class and because of that there's no real specialization in weapons. Maybe that's the intended effect of having all these high fire rate weapons, but I always thought the idea of classes was to differentiate in as many ways as possible.

My basic argument boils down to the game needs to have larger advantages and disadvantages between weapons. For starters it will increase the skill ceiling, because head-shots become more important. It will also lower the pray and spray attitude that it seems a lot of PS2 players have. Players will have to manage their ammo more and in doing so infantry fights will become more strategic. If you know your spray won't down the guy running across the hill 100m away you may instead re-position, it brings more strategy to the game. Giving players time to react to a situation is never a bad thing, as it only makes each side play more responsibly. Personally I feel that the only weapons that have the correct TTK are the shotguns and rocket launchers. The problem I have is how close to that TTK the other automatic weapons are how useless the semi-auto weapons are because of it.

Don't get me wrong here, the classes still have their defined roles because of the other tools they have. But the weapons are really blurring the line between being a support style weapon and a full on assault style weapon. I really love the new SMG's and I don't see them as a bad thing for the game, the problem is I use them on my Light Assault, Infiltrator, and Engineer. The reason is personal preference more than anything, with the TTK difference as small as it is between the SMG's and the Carbines, why shouldn't I use the same gun with all three and therefore be more familiar with my weapon?

[NewSith]

Low TTK

Pros:


Infantry weapon balance is achieved more easily, since any OP weapon stands out instantly.
Gunplay becomes more intuitive, rather than concious.
Tactics are promoted for non-twitch players, due to first-sight kill advantage.
Highly aim-skilled players getting a handicap, allowing balancing between the casuals and the competitives.
Aimbot and other weapon-enhancing cheaters getting a handicap.
Attracts modern PC gamers.

Cons:


Weapon functional variety suffers.
A gap between players that use cover and those who do not significantly increases.
Vehicle vs Infantry weapon balance is harder to achieve.
Combat is more chaotic.
Removes the middle class effectiveness. Big groups or proficient solo players dominate. In other words it promotes zerging, due to the nature of it being "just getting one bullet on him each, he doesn't need much".
Makes thinking during combat harder. While it handicaps aim twitch, it promotes quick thinking. Some players are incapable of it ( reasons can be age, lack of experience, lack of the proper type of thinking, etc)


http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/low-short-time-to-kill-pros-vs-cons.96584/

[Tatwi]

Would be alright if they fix hit registration as well. I stood 5 feet behind a guy today and got the X for hitting him (with the TMG-50) at least 10 times, but when he turned around and killed me he was at half health. Other times people will drop dead in an instant, without being headshot. It don't make sense! :)

Heads hit boxes should much be smaller and, for the sake of balance, some weapons (like SMGs and other high rate of fire weapons) should not get a damage bonus for hitting the head. Flack/explosion damage radii should also be decreased a bit, simply because it's far too easy effect people who aren't even being aimed at by the shooter.

Spray and pray will not stop unless ammo starts costing money, because sources of ammo are almost always just a few seconds away.

I agree entirely that the weapons feel the same. I have both TR SMGs and I can't tell them apart, beyond that I wasted 700SC on one that has half the ammo capacity (though I did spend the 100 certs to kick it up to 40 before I bought the new one). The difference in their rate of fire is not noticeable.

[Neurotoxin]

I agree with you 100%. I feel TTK should be far slower than it is right now. I feel the game should be about tactically overwhelming the enemy, not rapidly slaying one target and moving to the next one. I agree that the ability for a close range only SMG to outclass other weapons definitely could be an issue, but keep in mind that it is a close range weapon, and catching that player even at medium range (flushing them out with a grenade can facilitate this) puts them at a disadvantage. It feels about the same as when shotguns were introduced, powerful close-range weapons that folks still aren't used to fighting yet.

In terms of rebalancing the game as a whole, I'd double vehicle armor and cut vehicle damage output it in half. For infantry, I'd add a higher degree of customization, letting the player select a shield AND armor AND utility, so they have better survival and get to rely more on gear that accommodates their play style. Infantry weapon damage vs infantry could also be reduced to 75% of what it is now. Additional limits could be put on snipers to preserve their 1HK properties without making them so powerful that the game will just become a sniping headshotfest.

[Ghoest9]

NO

Increasing TTK rewards people who jump around and rely on twitch and punishes people who use tactics and craftiness.



If you dont like infiltrators with stealth - then complain about the cloak. Low TTK helps players of all classes who use their brain before the shooting starts.

[Tatwi]

NO

Increasing TTK rewards people who jump around and rely on twitch and punishes people who use tactics and stealth.

Personally, I think your monitor should explode in your face if you jump around like a tool when people are shooting at you, in any game.

[ShadetheDruid]

Do we really need yet another TTK discussion? These always go exactly the same way every time. This needs to be killed before it turns into another shit throwing contest like the last 5 topics.

[Mietz]

You might want to don your flame retardant suit for this one.

OT- Yes, a slight TTK increase would not hurt this game at all.

PS: @Ghoest9, bunnyhopping and "twitch" has zero to do with TTK (theoretical weapon TTK). Your opinion is based on ignorance and repeating annoying memes.

[Ghoest9]

You might want to don your flame retardant suit for this one.

OT- Yes, a slight TTK increase would not hurt this game at all.

PS: @Ghoest9, bunnyhopping and "twitch" has zero to do with TTK (theoretical weapon TTK). Your opinion is based on ignorance and repeating annoying memes.


Wrong.

1 Long time to kill gives people a chances to turn around and start circle strafing after you start shooting them in the back.

This is true. We all know its true.

2 I never said "bunny hopping". I can tell you for a fact that using my jump jets often saves my life when people are shooting at me. Because it causes many people to miss. And further I can say that i often miss people who are using jump jets.
A longer TTK is just another oppertunity to use JJs.



Try harder lil guy.

[MaxDamage]

No it doesn't.
/endthread

[EVILPIG]

No. Low TTK is far better. Also, it's good that all classes can be effevtive in combat, yet fullfill their niche. I would like weapons assigned to class. Smgs should be LA only.

[Zulthus]

Yeah, low TTK is really boring. It doesn't even matter what weapon you use, there's no noticeable difference in TTK throughout the entire arsenal.

But you might as well stop making threads on it. The game was designed around a low TTK and it won't be changed. Just wait for PS1 F2P like I and many others are.

[Assist]

NO

Increasing TTK rewards people who jump around and rely on twitch and punishes people who use tactics and craftiness.


I think the opposite tbh, while you're right about giving players a chance to react by jumping I think you're wrong that twitch players would prefer it more. Twitch skills are more rewarded by low TTK scenarios, which shows in players that are extremely good at twitch combat tend to headshot more often. I also don't see why players jumping is bad in PS2, as bunny-hopping is not possible.

I'm also not calling for a dramatic increase, just enough to make the weapons have more pros/cons.

Also I'm sorry if this has been posted a bunch lately, I haven't seen any lately specifically about TTK. If you guys don't want to debate about it you don't need too. I'm not even talking about nerfing anyone's specific play style, since I'd like to see it across the board.

Yeah, low TTK is really boring. It doesn't even matter what weapon you use, there's no noticeable difference in TTK throughout the entire arsenal.

But you might as well stop making threads on it. The game was designed around a low TTK and it won't be changed. Just wait for PS1 F2P like I and many others are.

Yeah I know it was designed that way, but I also don't see why it couldn't be changed. The game is not designed around the TTK, more that it's just part of it IMO. I agree that low TTK makes the game boring as well, to me it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game.

[Crator]

Every time this subject comes up everyone is like "No, the game's TTK is fine"... So I'll just do as Zulthus said, wait for PS1 to become F2P.

EDIT: Crossing fingers they don't try and put the TTK to PS2 standards in PS1 when they start goofing around with things....

[Graywolves]

I'd be happy if there was less instant killing.

[Mietz]

Try harder lil guy.

Say hi to my ignore list.

[Assist]

Do we really need yet another TTK discussion? These always go exactly the same way every time. This needs to be killed before it turns into another shit throwing contest like the last 5 topics.

I don't see why someone would turn this into personal attacks. It's about a general game mechanic, not about a certain weapon/situation being overpowered.
I don't see the argument FOR a low TTK, if someone could lay that out for me.

[bpostal]

Personally, I think your monitor should explode in your face if you jump around like a tool when people are shooting at you, in any game.

First it should fall into your lap. THEN explode. To ensure that the bunny hopping isn't spread to another generation of tools.

As to the topic of TTK, I think it could stand to be increased slightly but I doubt we'll ever see it happen.

[Ghoest9]

Say hi to my ignore list.

This really hurts - coming from the first guy in the thread to resort to personal attacks.

/em rolls eyes

[AThreatToYou]

Would be alright if they fix hit registration as well. I stood 5 feet behind a guy today and got the X for hitting him (with the TMG-50) at least 10 times, but when he turned around and killed me he was at half health. Other times people will drop dead in an instant, without being headshot. It don't make sense!

I believe this is an instance of the HA shield sometimes not displaying, but still being there.

[Rothnang]

I think slightly longer TTK would promote using cover rather than making it less desirable. Right now you can kill people so quickly that you can comfortably maintain a K/D of 1 just by charging in and blasting the first guy you see in the face. It takes so little to kill people that 2, 3, 4 people shooting back at you doesn't make it impossible for you to score a kill before you die as long as you have the initiative in the fight.

[Stardouser]

Part of the problem is that TTK used to be good, but it creeps faster and faster. At least in my opinion, every time they balance a faction, they do it by making the other two faction's weapons deadlier, and over time that makes the TTK lower and lower.

[Tatwi]

I believe this is an instance of the HA shield sometimes not displaying, but still being there.

In this instance, he should have been dead before he turned around, I got that many "hits" on him on my client (he was standing still and did not know that I had crept up right behind him).

[Babyfark McGeez]

The display of the health/shield on the "guy who killed you" screen is bugged.

I had that happen countless times, died to a guy who i pumped full of (space) lead, the death-screen showing him with full health/shield, yet my comrades telling me he was actually only having a sliver of health left.
Also getting "Critical Assistance" XP a second later gave it away.

EDIT: Oh, and yeah, i'm also in favor of rising the TTK (all across the board actually, including maxes, vehicles and aircraft), because i think it would result in a more "strategic" approach to a fight, just charging forward guns blazing would become less effective as it is now (i don't want to know how many kills i got by just suicide bombing rooms full of enemies).

[psijaka]

Oh no not another one of these threads. Can't we just refer to Figment's summary from the last one and save ourselves the bother.

Edit - here it is.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


/thread
/wishful thinking

[Sturmhardt]

I agree, TTK became too low. It was fun in the beginning when everyone was a noob, but on Miller you die pretty fast since everyone had some months training and uses the right weapon attachments. You hear a weapon and you are dead and that's not fun because there is no time to react. I say increase the ttk and the magazine sizes (you have to increase them too if you lower the damage) by at least 20%, it would make ps2 a better game.

.sent via phone.

[Sledgecrushr]

I totally agree that the ttk needs a bit more time.

[typhaon]

I believe this is an instance of the HA shield sometimes not displaying, but still being there.

I don't know. It might be related to the bug I sometimes experience with the NC MAX, while fighting infantry. Mysteriously every scat/hack blast will just miss for some period of time... even though based on what you're seeing on the screen, there is no way they could miss.

ex. earlier I podded onto a pad of an air tower... I turn around and see a TR heavy about 2 MAX lengths away staring at me... he starts shooting me and backing up... I start walking toward him with both Hacksaws blazing..... 24 shots at a perfect killing range... not a single one hit... he kept shooting me and I died before reload finished.

I don't care what shield he has going... nothing would survive that assault.

I sometimes have a version of this where 10 or 12 blasts will miss... then they will start hitting, but I'd never seen all 24!

I've got to believe he must've seen something else happening on his screen, but I didn't think to ask him until about 15 minutes later when he'd already logged off. I wonder if he was 'actually' in another location other than what I was seeing on my screen... or something like that.

You might try just asking your target the next time something funky happens. Won't fix the situation, but it might give you a clue what is going wrong.

[Dougnifico]

Nope. TTK is perfectly fine where it is. No jumping a circle strafing crap. Also remember that high TTK only appeals to niche market and the majority of the overall gaming community wants low TTK. Look at MW4 vs. Halo 3. There is a reason why low TTK games like COD and BF3 dominate, people overall prefer low TTK. Also, for a shitty player, low TTK allows them to be effective more easily.

Also the devs have stated that higher TTK isn't going to happen. Can we just put the final nail in this coffin already?

[Gatekeeper]

I'd agree with those saying that the TTK was fine (actually, a little fast for my taste, but ok) but that it's creeping lower and lower all the time.

Players increasing in skill, unlocking deadlier weapons and more attachments and particularly the introduction of new, even lower TTK weapons like shotguns and SMGs all bring the average TTK lower.

I wouldn't argue for a huge change to TTK, but increasing overall TTK a little so that you have some chance to react to shotguns and SMGs would improve the game IMO.

Also: fixing the death screen so it reliably shows your enemy's actual health and shields would be nice. I'm sure this is winding up a lot of people.

[psijaka]

I don't know. It might be related to the bug I sometimes experience with the NC MAX, while fighting infantry. Mysteriously every scat/hack blast will just miss for some period of time... even though based on what you're seeing on the screen, there is no way they could miss.

ex. earlier I podded onto a pad of an air tower... I turn around and see a TR heavy about 2 MAX lengths away staring at me... he starts shooting me and backing up... I start walking toward him with both Hacksaws blazing..... 24 shots at a perfect killing range... not a single one hit... he kept shooting me and I died before reload finished.

I don't care what shield he has going... nothing would survive that assault.

I sometimes have a version of this where 10 or 12 blasts will miss... then they will start hitting, but I'd never seen all 24!

I've got to believe he must've seen something else happening on his screen, but I didn't think to ask him until about 15 minutes later when he'd already logged off. I wonder if he was 'actually' in another location other than what I was seeing on my screen... or something like that.

You might try just asking your target the next time something funky happens. Won't fix the situation, but it might give you a clue what is going wrong.

I experienced this yesterday; fired at a guy point blank with dual Falcons; didn't get a hitmarker. Surprised that it is happening with the Hacksaws because of the spread, but this is what I think is going on:

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/psijaka/MAXaim_zpsc48a68b5.png

Edit - off topic I know, but I don't care; the TTK discussion has been flogged to death many times over.

[ringring]

I giggle when I read those threads about which SMG is the best. IT's the difference between virtually insta-gib and virtually-virtually insta-gib.

Low ttk is boring, or at least it is tending to be in this game.

[ShadetheDruid]

I giggle when I read those threads about which SMG is the best. IT's the difference between virtually insta-gib and virtually-virtually insta-gib.

You do realise there's more to weapons than just their TTK, right?

[Sturmhardt]

You do realise there's more to weapons than just their TTK, right?

I don't think he is referring to the theoretical point blank ttk from 0m distance.

.sent via phone.

[JesNC]

Oh no not another one of these threads. Can't we just refer to Figment's summary from the last one and save ourselves the bother.

Edit - here it is.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


/thread
/wishful thinking

That pretty much sums it up, with a small addendum:

It's up to personal preference which amount of TTK an individual player is comfortable with.

[Figment]

There is a reason why low TTK games like COD and BF3 dominate,

Aggressive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns that shove the games in your face every time you enter a store?

[Assist]

I think slightly longer TTK would promote using cover rather than making it less desirable. Right now you can kill people so quickly that you can comfortably maintain a K/D of 1 just by charging in and blasting the first guy you see in the face.

This is how I feel about it as well. The random guy charging suicidal into the massive army in front of him didn't outplay or out skill me. He just went leeroy on me and 10 seconds later we both respawned and he did it again.

[Ertwin]

Adding a poll might make it easier to see where people stand.

[Twido]

I put myself firmly in the camp of short TTK. With a longer TTK people end up rushing around all over the place with firefights comming down to erratic strafing and jumping. Just my opinion.

[Assist]

Part of the problem is that TTK used to be good, but it creeps faster and faster. At least in my opinion, every time they balance a faction, they do it by making the other two faction's weapons deadlier, and over time that makes the TTK lower and lower.

Partially true. I think a good example for higher TTK would be the change they made to HE weapons. Making the reload longer increased the time to kill for HE tanks by quite a bit, which only made the game better. You see some ally next to you go flying through the air from an HE shell you now have time to react and find some cover before the next blast comes your way.

Adding a poll might make it easier to see where people stand.

I have no idea how to add one :( It's probably easy to do, and I just don't see the right button. You know those phones for old people with the giant number pads? Yeah, I need one of those buttons

[psijaka]

That pretty much sums it up, with a small addendum:

It's up to personal preference which amount of TTK an individual player is comfortable with.

Agreed; I'm happy with the current "medium" TTK that we have now (it's not nearly as low as in COD) but wouldn't object to trying a small increase of up to 1/2 a second.

But things start to get silly if TTK goes too high; Firefall PvP a good example of this - jetpacking AoE spamfest that it is.

[Figment]

I have no idea how to add one :( It's probably easy to do, and I just don't see the right button. You know those phones for old people with the giant number pads? Yeah, I need one of those buttons

Hamma disallowed polls when they grew too numerous.

[Emperor Newt]

But things start to get silly if TTK goes too high; Firefall PvP a good example of this - jetpacking AoE spamfest that it is.
You have about 1000-1200 health and a direct hit with a plasma gun does about 520 damage. I would not call "dying in two hits" a high ttk.
That's like saying Tribes games have a high TTK. Which they don't. It's just damn hard to hit someone going 120kph with a projectile weapon.
Same applies to Firefall (to some extent)

Apples and oranges

[Sturmhardt]

You have about 1000-1200 health and a direct hit with a plasma gun does about 520 damage. I would not call "dying in two hits" a high ttk.
That's like saying Tribes games have a high TTK. Which they don't. It's just damn hard to hit someone going 120kph with a projectile weapon.
Same applies to Firefall (to some extent)

Apples and oranges

But they have a high ttk in the game when you play. What you are referring to are theoretical ttks that only apply to extreme conditions and are not what a player experiences usually. I think we can without doubt say that tribes or firefall have a very high ttk in general when playing the game.

.sent via phone.

[Kerrec]

But they have a high ttk in the game when you play. What you are referring to are theoretical ttks that only apply to extreme conditions and are not what a player experiences usually. I think we can without doubt say that tribes or firefall have a very high ttk in general when playing the game.

.sent via phone.

This is the problem with these TTK discussions. What does "TTK" mean?

When people calculate TTK using weapons data, they have to assume "the best possible scenario". That means maximum damage, 100% accuracy. That rarely happens in game, unless you are firing point blank in someones back.

For example, I believe a developer stated somewhere that the average accuracy for infantry in PS2 is around 26%. I'm about in that range myself. Take a weapon that has a "theoretical" TTK of 0.5 seconds, factor in that the average player has 25% accuracy, and the average TTK becomes 2 seconds. However, even this is not quite right. In scenarios where I miss that much, I also experience damage drop-off. So that "average situation TTK" is probably 3 seconds, or more. Feels right for ranged fights, feels wrong for point blank encounters.

People don't complain that long range firefights are too short. People complain that getting surprised point blank is the problem.

A broad increase of TTK across the board will "fix" point blank encounters and make long range encounters pointless. People will just hold their fire, close the gap, THEN fire when TTK is "reasonable". That makes one whole class of weapons obsolete: Mid to long range, slow RoF, low CoF. They become pointless. Everyone would be better equipping a SMG.


... I think a good example for higher TTK would be the change they made to HE weapons. Making the reload longer increased the time to kill for HE tanks by quite a bit, which only made the game better. You see some ally next to you go flying through the air from an HE shell you now have time to react and find some cover before the next blast comes your way.

This is not TTK. The guy that got insta-killed beside you experienced a TTK of 0 seconds. The time it takes for the HE weapon to reload before the next shot is something else entirely... something like DPS (damage per second).

[psijaka]

You have about 1000-1200 health and a direct hit with a plasma gun does about 520 damage. I would not call "dying in two hits" a high ttk.
That's like saying Tribes games have a high TTK. Which they don't. It's just damn hard to hit someone going 120kph with a projectile weapon.
Same applies to Firefall (to some extent)

Apples and oranges

Depends upon the time between the 2 hits, doesn't it.

I've had plenty of experience with the Firefall plasma cannon and landing those mid air shots is tricky to say the least.

Edit - this is probably why I like MAX + dual Falcons so much; reminds me of the Firefall Assault's Plasma Cannon. And I get 2 of them!

Edit 2 - when I last played, the only class that could be "2 shot killed" with the plasma cannon was the low health Recon, and even then, not always. Things may have changed of course; it's been a few months since I've delved into Firefall. I'll check.

[Mox]

Low TTK

Pros:


Infantry weapon balance is achieved more easily, since any OP weapon stands out instantly.
Gunplay becomes more intuitive, rather than concious.
Tactics are promoted for non-twitch players, due to first-sight kill advantage.
Highly aim-skilled players getting a handicap, allowing balancing between the casuals and the competitives.
Aimbot and other weapon-enhancing cheaters getting a handicap.
Attracts modern PC gamers.

Cons:


Weapon functional variety suffers.
A gap between players that use cover and those who do not significantly increases.
Vehicle vs Infantry weapon balance is harder to achieve.
Combat is more chaotic.
Removes the middle class effectiveness. Big groups or proficient solo players dominate. In other words it promotes zerging, due to the nature of it being "just getting one bullet on him each, he doesn't need much".
Makes thinking during combat harder. While it handicaps aim twitch, it promotes quick thinking. Some players are incapable of it ( reasons can be age, lack of experience, lack of the proper type of thinking, etc)


http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/low-short-time-to-kill-pros-vs-cons.96584/

Where do you get this from? I see no proof for your claims. If you ask me almost everything bullshit.

[Assist]

This is the problem with these TTK discussions. What does "TTK" mean?

When people calculate TTK using weapons data, they have to assume "the best possible scenario". That means maximum damage, 100% accuracy. That rarely happens in game, unless you are firing point blank in someones back.

For example, I believe a developer stated somewhere that the average accuracy for infantry in PS2 is around 26%. I'm about in that range myself. Take a weapon that has a "theoretical" TTK of 0.5 seconds, factor in that the average player has 25% accuracy, and the average TTK becomes 2 seconds. However, even this is not quite right. In scenarios where I miss that much, I also experience damage drop-off. So that "average situation TTK" is probably 3 seconds, or more. Feels right for ranged fights, feels wrong for point blank encounters.

People don't complain that long range firefights are too short. People complain that getting surprised point blank is the problem.

A broad increase of TTK across the board will "fix" point blank encounters and make long range encounters pointless. People will just hold their fire, close the gap, THEN fire when TTK is "reasonable". That makes one whole class of weapons obsolete: Mid to long range, slow RoF, low CoF. They become pointless. Everyone would be better equipping a SMG.

This is not TTK. The guy that got insta-killed beside you experienced a TTK of 0 seconds. The time it takes for the HE weapon to reload before the next shot is something else entirely... something like DPS (damage per second).
You can define TTK however you want, I wasn't trying to argue the given data. If you want to say I'm arguing DPS that's fine, though that's not what I'm wanting changed. They felt that HE weapons were downing too many players too efficiently, so they fixed it by lowering the amount of players that can be killed in that same time frame. To me that's changing the time to kill, as it now takes them longer to kill those same amount of players. I don't enjoy arguing theory in games because that's not how the game usually plays out, which is what I'm looking to have changed.

I also don't agree that increasing the TTK makes mid-long range weapons useless. LMG's have more rounds, which makes them even better in a high TTK scenario. They have the luxury to use their ammo, whereas the mid-short range players have to close the distance as to not waste ammo.
However, included with increasing the TTK would be that the weapons should be tweaked to make each classes weapons different. The whole idea behind changing the TTK, for me at least, is to make each class more important individually. Right now the TTK between weapons is so minimal that there's no room for weapons to be unique. If TTK is increased then you can start creating/changing weapons that have their own unique feel.

[Sifer2]

Personally i'm in favor of the TTK being raised at least a little beyond what it is now. Too often I can't even shoot, then take cover without dying after I have rounded the corner due to lag, and how few bullets the game has to think hit me to actually consider me dead. That right there alone completely disproves the whole "Low TTK promotes tactics an taking cover" argument.

Higher TTK naturally makes lag less of a crippling issue. Which is a major part of the reason the original Planetside went with high TTK. That said the Internet has come a long way. So a PS1 style of really high TTK is no longer needed but I think they reduced it too much in PS2. Just an increase of say 50% more health on Infantry might even be enough. That's like 4 bullets. Not huge but I think it would be a big improvement to gameplay.

And yes with more health allows more variation of weapon design. AOE weapons are less overpowered so those can be implemented just as an example.

[NewSith]

Where do you get this from? I see no proof for your claims. If you ask me almost everything bullshit.

You are free to bring your arguments against my claims...




I take these from my visibly limited experience with all FPSes there on the market. I obviously only played Halo, CoD and BF3 and never played PS1.



-----------------------------------------
EDIT: Hmmmm, this kind of response actually made me think a bit about the FPSes (and TPSes) I played in MP. So let's go:

Medium-High TTK:
Aliens vs. Predator (Though, arguable, since 3 sides all play differently)
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Brink
Call of Duty
Call of Duty 2
Counter-Strike 1.6
Counter-Strike Source
Command and Conquer: Renegade
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Hellgate: London (PvP)
Monday Night Combat
Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
Serious Sam 2
Snowblind
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Star Wars Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast
Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Star Wars Battlefront
Star Wars Battlefront 2
Team Fortress 2
Tribes Ascend
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2003
Unreal Tournament 2004
Warhammer 40000: Space Marine

Low TTK:
Battlefield 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Crysis 2
Far Cry 3
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R. 3
Frontlines: Fuel of War
PlanetSide 2
Sniper: Ghost Warrior
SWAT 4
Quake 3

Games without hitbox differentiation, thus TTK having less value:
APB Reloaded
Global Agenda
PlanetSide


I bet I forgot a few...

[ringring]

I wonder when the next new weapon is introduced if the ttk will take another downward lurch.

[Badjuju]

While I liked combat in PS1 better, this game is built around low ttk. Maybe a slight increase would be nice but I'd rather just see a reduction in explosive damage to infantry.

[Twido]

I would have thought that the use of cover is much more important in a low TTK game. If caught out of cover in a long TTK game then I have a better chance of sprinting and using erratic movement to get back into cover. When the TTK is short then you can't do that.

In a lot of older games the player sprint speed was very fast this, in my opinion, was more responsible for reducing the effect of cover and dumming down tactical play.

[Figment]

Tbh, if you have headshots and have any decent aim, cover means next to nothing with low TTK since you can't duck out of sight to recuperate.

Look at engineers parked behind Mana Turrets. Best obscured characters behind cover, easiest kills since they're virtually stationary and you only need one shot (or grenade). Cover is less effective with really low TTK because you don't really get the time to use it.

[Dougnifico]

Aggressive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns that shove the games in your face every time you enter a store?

Well yes, something I wish PS2 could have afforded. But even with a massive marketing push, it the game sucked then they wouldn't have sold. They marketed what people want and they're willing to put money behind it because they know that's what people want. For better or worse the free market has spoken pretty loudly. Halo is an example the other way, but it gets beat regularly and PS2 isn't smooth enough to support Halo style gameplay.

[Mietz]

For example, I believe a developer stated somewhere that the average accuracy for infantry in PS2 is around 26%. I'm about in that range myself. Take a weapon that has a "theoretical" TTK of 0.5 seconds, factor in that the average player has 25% accuracy, and the average TTK becomes 2 seconds. However, even this is not quite right. In scenarios where I miss that much, I also experience damage drop-off. So that "average situation TTK" is probably 3 seconds, or more. Feels right for ranged fights, feels wrong for point blank encounters.

Please, accuracy stats are fake statistics the way they are calculated and the way its phrased (and used by you).
It's bullets fired vs bullets hit target.

This doesn't take into consideration:

a. suppressive fire (not actually aiming for anything)
b. vehicle impacts (ps2 does not register hits against ESFs towards your accuracy)
c. general idiocy of firing your gun into the air out of total boredom while capping a point and giving your engi some XPs.
etc. pp

Claiming that thats a statistic for "player accuracy" is completely misguided.
Player accuracy (where people are actually aiming for enemies) is actually very good in all MP games and the claim that on average 2/3rd of bullets fired miss the target is complete bullshit.

No, its not 100%, but the impact of accuracy is actually very low.
If you look at accuracy stats for guns that are less likely to be abused for suppressive fire or random shooting out of boredom (bolt action rifles, semi-auto, burst), you can see that most people can pull off near 70% accuracy no problem.

Most people can aim very good when it comes to actually trying to hit a specific target.

[Mox]

You are free to bring your arguments against my claims...

Sorry, i have to apologize i just read this:

Low TTK

Pros:.....

Now your claims starting to make a lot more sense. I thought you are talking about the pros and cons of increasing TTK....

My fault. :D

[Figment]

Well yes, something I wish PS2 could have afforded. But even with a massive marketing push, it the game sucked then they wouldn't have sold. They marketed what people want and they're willing to put money behind it because they know that's what people want. For better or worse the free market has spoken pretty loudly. Halo is an example the other way, but it gets beat regularly and PS2 isn't smooth enough to support Halo style gameplay.

PS1 couldn't afford it either.

Thing is, the masses don't buy a game for their TTK or any specific in-game systems. You can't argue that. If I were to make a guess what they buy these games on, it's they buy it on tradition, appearance and recommendations from reviews and because they're aware of the name and it's expensive in-shop promoted: "only good games can afford that, not?". Do you buy BF3 with the big promotion sign or the somewhat nameless, non-promoted also generic looking shooter that's next to it?

Why do I play CoD? NOT for their TTK, but for being one of the only reasonably well developed small-scale (four player, couldn't care less about the online version) multiplayers and the campaign and coop missions. But there are next to no good multiplayers like that anymore. I mean, even the Bond games suck lately and those used to have fun multiplayers.


Speaking of Bond, Nightfire had this one shot camera guided missile (AT-420 Sentinal). It was completely and utterly OP in that game (wouldn't be as bad if used in PvE only because hey, you're fightin AI). That thing was pretty much like the NC Phoenix AV missile launcher in PS1. However, the Phoenix in PS1 (maximum of 150 players per map) dealt next to no damage to infantry while the AT-420 Sentinal (maximum of four players per map) could one shot groups of people with splash damage.

Why?

Because to have that weapon for one empire in game with a one shot kill TTK would be utterly insane. You can't compare the two weapons even if they work the same and balance them on the same premises. The TTK in the MMO HAS to be far longer to not make everyone use just that. It was hard enough to keep people from using the Sentinal in James Bond Nightfire, not to mention to keep hundreds upon hundreds from using it.

Phoenix:
302 Found

Sentinal:
302 Found

Both are FPS games. But the context is what requires changes to the TTK. Even if James Bond Nightfire was the most awesome thing since sliced cheese and set the standard for "modern FPS gaming" as some suggest some other games do currently, you can't translate the TTKs of each weapon 1:1 to another game.

The results would be epic shitstorms on the forums.

[Kerrec]

Please, accuracy stats are fake statistics the way they are calculated and the way its phrased (and used by you).
It's bullets fired vs bullets hit target.

This doesn't take into consideration:

a. suppressive fire (not actually aiming for anything)
b. vehicle impacts (ps2 does not register hits against ESFs towards your accuracy)
c. general idiocy of firing your gun into the air out of total boredom while capping a point and giving your engi some XPs.
etc. pp

Claiming that thats a statistic for "player accuracy" is completely misguided.
Player accuracy (where people are actually aiming for enemies) is actually very good in all MP games and the claim that on average 2/3rd of bullets fired miss the target is complete bullshit.

No, its not 100%, but the impact of accuracy is actually very low.
If you look at accuracy stats for guns that are less likely to be abused for suppressive fire or random shooting out of boredom (bolt action rifles, semi-auto, burst), you can see that most people can pull off near 70% accuracy no problem.

Most people can aim very good when it comes to actually trying to hit a specific target.

Wow.... just, wow. 70% easy? Wow.

I don't do the shoot at the ceiling crap. I use sound to help me stay situationally aware and shooting for nothing drowns that out. I actually leave places where morons are shooting at nothing. I shoot at things that can take damage. The large majority of it is other infantry. Occasionally (but rarely) I'll shoot at an ESF. My accuracy is 26%. I DO engage at ALL ranges. I suppose I could improve my accuracy by not shooting at long ranges but that's just not my playstyle. Even then, if I did do this, there's no way I'd get my accuracy up to 70%. I'd have to single shot to avoid the bloom altogether, and I'd die more due to low rate of fire.

Case in point: Sniper rifles: Go look at my kill feed on Players. The large majority of my sniper kills are headshots, yet my overall accuracy is mid 40's. I don't know where I stand accuracy wise among other people that play snipers, but I'm usually right in the average across all games that track that kind of statistic.

Personally, I think you're delusional if you expect the large majority (the average) of players to have accuracies in the 70%.

Edit: There is no suppressive effect in PS2. Shooting at a wall, window, corner or whatnot will only leave you mid-reload when you need your bullets most. In over 6 days played, I have yet to see that kind of play, from pubs or organized squads. Suppressive fire is one thing that DID NOT carry over from BF3.

[Mietz]

Wow.... just, wow. 70% easy? Wow.

I don't do the shoot at the ceiling crap. I use sound to help me stay situationally aware and shooting for nothing drowns that out. I actually leave places where morons are shooting at nothing. I shoot at things that can take damage. The large majority of it is other infantry. Occasionally (but rarely) I'll shoot at an ESF. My accuracy is 26%. I DO engage at ALL ranges. I suppose I could improve my accuracy by not shooting at long ranges but that's just not my playstyle. Even then, if I did do this, there's no way I'd get my accuracy up to 70%. I'd have to single shot to avoid the bloom altogether, and I'd die more due to low rate of fire.

Case in point: Sniper rifles: Go look at my kill feed on Players. The large majority of my sniper kills are headshots, yet my overall accuracy is mid 40's. I don't know where I stand accuracy wise among other people that play snipers, but I'm usually right in the average across all games that track that kind of statistic.

Personally, I think you're delusional if you expect the large majority (the average) of players to have accuracies in the 70%.

Edit: There is no suppressive effect in PS2. Shooting at a wall, window, corner or whatnot will only leave you mid-reload when you need your bullets most. In over 6 days played, I have yet to see that kind of play, from pubs or organized squads. Suppressive fire is one thing that DID NOT carry over from BF3.

So what you are saying is, you have higher accuracy with sniper rifles, by ~15%.
Is that because you become a different player with a sniper rifle? Does your skill increase with a sniper rifle?

You failed to address my argument: The accuracy statistic is worthless because it tracks bullet fired vs bullet impact and not actually engagements.

My point still stands, the accuracy statistic is worthless in judging how much a player -actually- misses. Your fee fees about how much you miss aren't really that important here.

PS: Suppressive fire as in actually suppressive fire, not the stupid BF3 mechanic you munchkin.
You never saw a spawn-room being camped with dudes constantly unloading their guns/turrets/tanks at the shielded exits? Go on youtube/twitch and pick any video, there you go. If in doubt, go to a Biolab and experience it first hand.

[Kerrec]

So what you are saying is, you have higher accuracy with sniper rifles, by ~15%.
Is that because you become a different player with a sniper rifle? Does your skill increase with a sniper rifle?

You failed to address my argument: The accuracy statistic is worthless because it tracks bullet fired vs bullet impact and not actually engagements.

My point still stands, the accuracy statistic is worthless in judging how much a player -actually- misses. Your fee fees about how much you miss aren't really that important here.

PS: Suppressive fire as in actually suppressive fire, not the stupid BF3 mechanic you munchkin.
You never saw a spawn-room being camped with dudes constantly unloading their guns/turrets/tanks at the shielded exits? Go on youtube/twitch and pick any video, there you go. If in doubt, go to a Biolab and experience it first hand.

The accuracy statistic is not entirely worthless. If someone spends more time shooting at ceilings than shooting at enemies, I'd be shocked. Your argument may account for another 10%, but not 50%. 70% accuracy is absurd.

My sniper rifle argument shows that my accuracy DOUBLES. I go from 26% with something like a Jaguar, to 47% with the RAMS .50. And the majority of my sniper rifle kills are headshots, so I don't have an issue with "aiming".

The reason my sniper rifle accuracy is double my carbine accuracy is I don't have to deal with Cone of Fire, Bloom or Recoil. All those affect accuracy, which lead to 3 in 4 shots missing, averaged out, considering all the different range engagements I undertake.

An average accounts for EVERYTHING. Long range, Mid range, Short Range, shooting at ceilings, shooting at ESF's, etc...

As for your spawnroom camping argument, I see HE or other explosive spam "suppressing" doorways, not bullets. Even if you have some people that empty entire clips at spawn room shields regularly, those people will still spent MORE time shooting at actual targets they can hit. If you are so deadset against a global accuracy statistic, then go and look at individual weapon statistics. Look at carbine only accuracy. Look at AR only accuracy. Look at LMG only accuracy. Whatever you choose, it will NOT be near 50%, let alone 70%. The PS2 Players website is a gold mine for this kind of information. Go look at my statistics, or go look at people you think are actually good at the game. Whatever.

People shooting at ceilings may impact overall accuracy. Same with shooting at a spawnroom doorway (although from my experience, people don't shoot unless someone is about to cross the shield). Or shooting at an ESF (really! how much do you shoot at an ESF with your weapon? 1% of the time, maybe, if I'm being generous). The "weight" of these random occurances will be insignificant in the overall statistic.

[Stardouser]

Agreed; I'm happy with the current "medium" TTK that we have now (it's not nearly as low as in COD) but wouldn't object to trying a small increase of up to 1/2 a second.

But things start to get silly if TTK goes too high; Firefall PvP a good example of this - jetpacking AoE spamfest that it is.

I don't agree that this is medium TTK. It may be higher enough than CoD to notice that it's higher but it's still low.

And as I said before it creeps lower every time they balance.

Now, one thing that I feel is important is that we not focus on pure bullet damage numbers. Maybe we step outside the term "TTK" when I say this but part of it is that weapons are too accurate in many situations, so much so that it remains possible to full auto someone sprinting 50+ meters away.

[Tatwi]

Honestly, I think we should stop discussing this topic until SOE removes the ability to cheat by using no-recoil macros an aimbots, as they totally skew the debate.

There is simply no way one person with a Gaus SAW can kill me in 1 second from 300m away, while another person has to fire several times just to hit me, even though I am standing still...

Cheating is ruining this game. It also makes this debate entirely pointless.

[Rothnang]

There is simply no way one person with a Gaus SAW can kill me in 1 second from 300m away, while another person has to fire several times just to hit me, even though I am standing still...

Yea, there do seem to be people who can hit you at range quite easily. Especially noticeable when you're packing a battle rifle.

[Artimus]

I did not take the time to read all the post's but if it has not been mentioned, the people who want a higher TTK why don't your cert into nanoweave armor or something along those lines.

P.s.
Alot of being able to shoot farther has alot to do with how you cert your weapon.

[Sturmhardt]

I did not take the time to read all the post's but if it has not been mentioned, the people who want a higher TTK why don't your cert into nanoweave armor or something along those lines.

P.s.
Alot of being able to shoot farther has alot to do with how you cert your weapon.

That's a useless comment since everybody is already using nanoweave or flak armor already. Obviously people STILL feel that they die too fast.

.sent via phone.

[Sledgecrushr]

I was watching a twitch streamer play ps2 for the first time last night. The guy isnt bad at fps games but you could see the mounting frustration as he insta-died from every conceivable angle. Planetside 2 is a very unforgiving game to newbs. I think ttk can be increased slightly.

This streamer only played ps2 for about thirty minutes before going back to the slower game style of arma 2.

[Stormhall]

Why not just change the game to be like ArmA. Guns that have realistic ballistics and a crap ton of teamwork as well as super fast TTK.

[Kerrec]

I was watching a twitch streamer play ps2 for the first time last night. The guy isnt bad at fps games but you could see the mounting frustration as he insta-died from every conceivable angle. Planetside 2 is a very unforgiving game to newbs. I think ttk can be increased slightly.

This streamer only played ps2 for about thirty minutes before going back to the slower game style of arma 2.

I've played ARMA. It has "real" TTK. If that player put himself in a situation where he can be hit from "every conceivable angle", he be just as dead.

[Figment]

I did not take the time to read all the post's but if it has not been mentioned, the people who want a higher TTK why don't your cert into nanoweave armor or something along those lines.

P.s.
Alot of being able to shoot farther has alot to do with how you cert your weapon.

Yes let us assume a group of people is too dumb to understand and know the game's ingame available options and that nanoweave fixes everything even if it doesn't help in general but only in specific long term situations. :huh:

Maybe you should first understand the issue before pretending there might be a solution in game? If it was a solution, don't you think we would use it an not complain?