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

[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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.


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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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]

Originally Posted by psijaka

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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