Originally Posted by Klockan
Then you have mmorpg battles which are ridiculously boring.
|
That's not really due to the ttk, but rather to the lack of variables in an RPG battle. From the two parties fighting you can pretty much calculate mathematically who the battle will go. In an FPS that is not the case, as there is terrain, cover, player skill, and spacing to take into account. The final two of those are subjective and thus impossible to mathematically compute.
Originally Posted by Klockan
There are two things that makes squads more effective than single guys if we don't count the ability to cover eachother etc. Firstly they take longer to kill and secondly they deal more damage. The lower the TTK the less important it is to have more than one guy shooting at a target and the lower the TTK the less important the added hitpoints are since it becomes more important to not get hit at all than actually tanking damage.
|
The would seem to support my argument. If added hitpoints and focus fire aren't important than what, really, is the squad doing that's teamwork related? If you have one person handling all the combat while the other does the objective, then not only do you run the strong chance of having a non-entertaining game for 50% of your players, but you also aren't really doing the same thing together, you're two players off on your own doing separate things. Honestly I think we just disagree with what teamwork really is. I think of it as fighting together and bolstering each other in combat.
Originally Posted by Klockan
Why would anyone spam out bullets in a low TTK game? If you can't see someone you can't kill them, and if you can see them you just shoot accurate bullets against them and they die. Shooting bullets randomly reveals your position which makes you vulnerable, only idiots shoots without an intended target. In real life it is different, there shots also scares people but people in games aren't scared of death.
|
Players would spam bullets at a distance they can't really clearly see enemies at because they may get a lucky hit while betting on not being hit through luck themselves. This is especially the case if it's extremely difficult to cross no-mans-land and functions like lean & and blindfire (both of which were in RO2) exist. One strength of high ttk imo is that it severely weakens or outright eliminates the concept of no-mans-land, helping aggressive charging play so long as a group isn't focus-fired.
Originally Posted by Klockan
Also the gameplay of low TTK games isn't slow in general, it is just different. Most of the time you aren't taking hits and you aren't shooting at people but that doesn't mean that it is slow, people don't move around less in low TTK games etc. Having bigger maps per player makes a game slower though, as do having long respawn times, ample of strong defensive positions, accurate long range fire etc. If people could reliably hit each other at 200m range in PS1 with standard weapons it would become a lot slower without any other changes.
|
I think most people, when talking about overall game pace in the FPS genre, are talking about how quickly one gets into combat and how abundant that combat is. So by that definition what you described is undeniably a slow game. FPS is an action genre and I would argue that most people who play it like to see a lot of combat in a game, more so than silent maneuvering. This is evidenced by the fact that high ttk tend to have larger playerbases. TF2 and Battlefield have a lot more fans than ARMA and Red Orchestra. That's not to say that combat should be the only thing an FPS is about, but successful games usually make it a vast majority as it is much better for entertaining & holding
most players attention than strongly position-based games. Luckily PS2 seems to have a ttk on the middling side, perhaps a tad high, along with (of course) quite abundant combat.
Also, as a random aside, I don't think I've ever seen a very low ttk with a quick respawn time. In fact, many don't let you respawn at all.
2012-08-03, 04:13 PM
Linear Mode
