News: Jimmy Whisenhunt AMA

[GameCobra]

Originally Posted by whisenhunt

2. There's lots to cover here, all I can say is that there will be changes, and that's what makes this hard to cover in depth.

One thing I love about the potential of this game is to make it like a heavily involved version of a FPS Risk ~ except the possibility of wiping one army off the map will take years since all three sides will always be fighting.

But what I think the dev team should do is think of that goal more and hopefully give us people that extra inch of that goal and think "Hey, what if someone actually won and beat the other two armies someday?"

Answer: Fireworks. And a statue of their honor of winning on that server, like a Stanley Cup version for PS2 =)

...Then we reset the game and start the whole bloody thing over again, with the other two armies wanting revenge.

[Rikirambo]

do you think that planetside 2 will promote teamplay or lonewolf play?

[Tactical Pony]

Originally Posted by TAA

I would just love to hear your comment on my views regarding TTK in FPS games.

My views are these:

• I believe that games with longer TTK favor different sets of skills to games with shorter TTK.
  
• Games with longer TTK are more rewarding to the individual skill of players.* It rewards players who are able to make headshots quickly and accurately. It makes it safer for players to cross open ground that is being covered by snipers, and safer for players to charge around a corner that is being guarded by the enemy. It is safer to do these things because less players are able to make the accurate headshots required to quickly put another player down. This promotes more aggressive play, where aggressiveness is defined as players being more willing to cross open ground or charge into guarded areas.
  
• Games with shorter TTK are more rewarding to teamwork.* If an entire squad can be gunned down by one person with a single assault rifle clip, then it is imperative that players move together in a more coordinated fashion. Infantry formations that minimize friendly fire and maximize arcs of fire on the enemy become more important. Crossing open ground that is covered by snipers requires assistance of cover (eg. smoke or friendly armor), or flanking maneuvers to take out entrenched enemy. Entering a room that is guarded by enemy requires techniques such as coordinated entry by a squad via multiple access points, or the use of grenades prior to entry.
  
• Games that have a TTK that is too low or too high are both frustrating to beginning players. If the TTK is too low the beginning player will get more kills, but they will be too hesitant to move into more dangerous areas lest they immediately die. If the TTK is too high then the beginning player will hardly ever win any close encounters, and will get frustrated when they empty half a clip or more into an enemy only to have them turn around and kill them.

* Note that high TTK also rewards smart play and team work, and low TTK also rewards individual skill - its just that in my view the sets of skills that are favored the most are different in both types of games.



From your experience, is this an accurate view of TTK in games? If not then why not?

I personally find it is the opposite for me, in games with long TTKs I find teamwork to be more important because having 2 guys shooting at 1 makes a bigger difference. in games with a short TTK, I can support the team by killing everyone by being entirely self sufficient and/or carrying them, instead of moving with my team I break off and just run around out-twitching everyone.

in terms of movement I agree though, in long TTK games I feel a little safer wherever I go, where in short TTK games the element of surprise becomes absolutely everything so I am always very thoughtful of my movements, very situationally aware, and always making sure it was me getting the jump on them, because the couple milliseconds of ping before a person even sees they are getting shot at, and the milliseconds after that to react, can literally be the entire battle.

[whisenhunt]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Name one multiplayer FPS where someone holding W + M1 would reliably do better than an intelligently played vet utilizing the same equipment.

The problem with calling types of play 'intelligent' is that what is a sound tactic and what is not differs greatly from game to game. Smart tactics in ArmaII would be completely worthless tactics in Tribes 2, and vice versa.

Bursting and recoil control, as such, are intelligent moves only if the game penalizes them. Not all games do so, including games that are considered highly skill based.

Oh, and regarding your remark on 'Watered down' fps mechanics of modern shooters.. Have you considered the idea that they're not, in fact, watered down, and instead just not what you prefer? Have you considered as well the idea that some may consider mechanics you prefer 'needlessly obtuse'?

I'm going to get back to this question a bit later. The answer requires a lot of explanations.

Originally Posted by FlaxxBread

can you share your feelings on the Infantry Movement speed in PS2?

I feel that in addition to spread and recoil increase, increased movement speed can significantly increase an FPS games skill cap by giving stronger players a greater ability to seek cover when under fire from a player with poor aim.
(and consequently a higher time to kill. where as a skilled player will be able to kill fast enough that this is not an issue.)

and will there be a difference in movment speed between classes (eg. light & heavy assult)



Tribes penalises automatic weapons with high TTK and very high movement speed, for a modern military shooter style of FPS he is ABSOLUTELY correct.

(PS1 also had relitivly high TTK compared to this game)

This is a point I agree with him on, there were plenty of games similar, including Quake UT and Tribes... However we aren't these games, I consider those games 'Arena Shooters', we are dealing with a completely different monster.

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

What is your opinion of PS1 as a tactical shooter? Sure the netcode is bad, but how do you think the gameplay was?

The game play worked out just due to the sheer size of the battles and was unbelievably fun, however I feel (as do most PS1 players I've spoken with) that the gun play was no where near what it could be.

[Grimshad]

Originally Posted by Kujo

What do you think of the lack of animations for getting in or out of vehicles/aircraft. Also, can people switch positions in their vehicles without getting out at all? If so, how do you feel about that?

I didn't see this answered so I second this!