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

[Kerrec]

Ugh Figment. At this point, I can't continue because we have DRASTIC difference in definition for what TTK means. The whole premise of this thread is how TTK affects gameplay.

What you call TTK, I call "average life expectancy". Some FPS games measure that as a stat, ie: how long you live, averaged out.

Also, you expect a decent infantry player to have 60-80% accuracy?!!! PS2 gunplay is very similar to BF3 gunplay. In BF3, a GOOD player would be pushing 25% average accuracy. I personally hovered around 18-20%, sometimes better depending on the gun. In BF3, a GOOD sniper would have 30-40% average accuracy.

I think your perception of how the game mechanics play out in reality is a bit skewed. Someone posted a TTK for his rifle at .554 (off the top of my head, I didn't go make sure). Considering an average player can expect around 25% accuracy, that means the average TTK is over 2 seconds. That's A LOT of time to react. Unless someone is breathing down your neck and can't possibly miss. But to me, that's OK. You died in 0.554 seconds because you failed in other aspects of the gameplay.

[Figment]

Looked back, said 24% before that (which I believe was the average rifle accuracy as stated by Higgles); in reference to the 60-80% was talking about the accuracy in an encounter though, my mistake for not being clear.

Though I've seen people get 80% accuracy on average in tank combat, that's a different ballgame though.

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

It is purely a way to evaluate weapons without having to account for player skill.

It is however necessary to make distinctions. A bolt action sniper rifle that can do a 1 headshot kill can't be compared to a carbine that fires 700 rounds a minute. Or a weapon that does very little damage, but does that damage to an area (hitting multiple targets) can't be compared to a pistol. (those are just examples).

TTK is useful, in the right context.

I believe that Figment is mixing up TTK with average life expectancy. They are not related. The latter has player skill and playstyle (risk taking) as a HUGE factor, the former doesn't.

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

Then we are in agreement. TTK has nothing to do with all the other issues that the OP and the people that agree with him claim.

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Then we are in agreement. TTK has nothing to do with all the other issues that the OP and the people that agree with him claim.

Someone finally agrees with me on the interwebs... I think I might die of shock!

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

I totally get that. TTK as a way to evaluate weapons, weapon balance and mechanics up to a point.

But I don't see the relevance to overall gameplay or depth unless we are talking extremes of TTK (always 0 or always very large). But at either rate, I don't see either extreme having a relevance to depth only overall gameplay/experience.

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time.

[exile]

It's a shame this thread has been completely submerged in useless noise, it had potential for some interesting discussion.

I don't suppose anybody wants to respond to my original post which, from a quick look through the thread, is the only one that actually directly addresses the OP (sorry if I missed someone else's that does this, I couldn't be bothered wading through all of the drivel in detail :\ ).

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time.

You quoted approx average 25% gun accuracy. So, with your suggested values above, they become:

0.5s -> 2 seconds
1.0s -> 4 seconds
1.5s -> 6 seconds
2.5s -> 10 seconds
7.0s -> 28 seconds
10s -> 40 seconds.

Keep in mind, a gun with a ROF of 600 (among the lowest) can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds.

If you make TTK 1.0s, then TR have a big advantage because their carbines (and rifles?) have 40 round magazines.

If you make TTK 2.0s, then HA become overpowered because they don't have to reload to kill.

If you make TTK really absurd, like 10 seconds, then it gets rediculous because everyone has to reload multiple times to get one kil.


As for crossing 25m open space (I'm assuming you mean, without cover) while 1 or more people are shooting at you, I would NOT expect to survive. That means I have to make better tactical choices than "screw it, I can cross this road without dying because they can't kill me fast enough".

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

You quoted approx average 25% gun accuracy. So, with your suggested values above, they become:

0.5s -> 2 seconds
1.0s -> 4 seconds
1.5s -> 6 seconds
2.5s -> 10 seconds
7.0s -> 28 seconds
10s -> 40 seconds.

Keep in mind, a gun with a ROF of 600 (among the lowest) can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds.

If you make TTK 1.0s, then TR have a big advantage because their carbines (and rifles?) have 40 round magazines.

If you make TTK 2.0s, then HA become overpowered because they don't have to reload to kill.

If you make TTK really absurd, like 10 seconds, then it gets rediculous because everyone has to reload multiple times to get one kil.


As for crossing 25m open space (I'm assuming you mean, without cover) while 1 or more people are shooting at you, I would NOT expect to survive. That means I have to make better tactical choices than "screw it, I can cross this road without dying because they can't kill me fast enough".

There you go again with your assumptions. :/ Especially about gun play and about the "tactical choices one wants to make".

I was making a point: TTK impacts everything gameplay wise.

Thanks for proving it.




Oh and uhm, no TR wouldn't be OP. See PS1 for evidence, you know, that game you didn't play where all empires had equalish TTKs, in many cases double that of PS2, but entirely - and I mean entirely, not just tweaks like in PS2 - different gun statistics between empires: different accuracies, different ammo switch times, different reload times, different damage per shot, different damage dropoff over distance.


Accuracy and burstfire determine a lot. But TTK determines what you can do during an engagement between two (or more) people. THAT INFLUENCES EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. It dominates the entire engagement and therefore if geometry is suited for any actions or not. That means that if you have a longer TTK, you might actually get more options. More options is NOT shallower gameplay, that ads depth. It may actually mean you can make a certain flanking or distraction maneuvre. It may mean you can charge down a corridor or stairs to get within shotgun rang and use a shotgun within YOUR perfect TTK range. It determines every single thing about encounters. It's entirely shallow to have everything be determined about who shot first and who flanked who first. That becomes WAY too dominant in a game where strategic objectives must be secured and taken and quite frankly, results in utter cowardice behaviour and apathy about holding positions.

How many people are holding positions right now? You think that has only to do with geometry? You think the viability of a hold is never down to how powerful the weapons your opposition has at their disposal? If AoE weapons are less strong, you see an immediate impact at choke points, room clearing ability and group behaviour and defensive viability. Geometry has NOTHING to do with those changes in gameplay, because the geometry would remain the same!


Emptying a gun doesn't mean anything if you don't hit anything with it.

And if we're never going to cross 25m in a game? Please, most buildings in PS2 are further apart from one another... But good of you to point out that it affects gameplay in that it determines whether you can even try for that next door, or get spawncamped. But as I said before, geometry and TTK are directly related regarding travelled distances.



So uhm, thanks for proving all my points in one post.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by VGCS

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

I personally find the game far too simple. I've written about depth and complexity a lot before, but PS2 has very little choices that one can make currently which actually makes the time that you're given in the game to make a choice fairly reasonable.

Each class has only a small finite number of choices in any situation that you can make. In PS1 you had an inventory meaning your choices required time if you were expected to switch out items and do anything meaningful. With the simplified interface in PS2 you are either shooting, throwing a grenade, or performing a support operation like laying ammo. None of this requires a long TTK. Neither do any teamwork operations among players since most classes are not designed to help a team except the medic and engineer, to an extent. Ranged healing and ammo drops though mean limited player interaction that does not overlap any other action generally speaking for most players when TTK matters (aka when getting shot at or shooting).

Before tech test I listed some complexity ideas I wanted in the game and in a way force a higher TTK to be necessary for the sake of making choices. However, I don't think PS2 is so simple that every situation uses First-Order-Optimal strategies. There are a few moments where a player gets hit once or twice and throws C4 of a proximity mine as they retreat and gets a kill or throws a grenade and lives after they've thrown it. These times the game suddenly shines as having depth, but these moments are interspersed between situations where there is only one logical choice. This one logical choice could be based solely on the TTK though. Running to another piece of cover and getting killed, as mentioned by Kerrec, is a gameplay decision. One might be expected to throw a smoke grenade down before running, but the current gameplay mechanics limit a player's loadouts and choices such that they must make a gameplay choice of whether they want a fragment or smoke grenade minutes before they are put into a situation where the decisions would be relevant.

Without more choices the TTK shouldn't be changed. A game this simple already gives the player enough time to decide between the 2 choices they have at any situation.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

Accuracy and burstfire determine a lot. But TTK determines what you can do during an engagement between two (or more) people. THAT INFLUENCES EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. It dominates the entire engagement and therefore if geometry is suited for any actions or not. That means that if you have a longer TTK, you might actually get more options. More options is NOT shallower gameplay, that ads depth. It may actually mean you can make a certain flanking or distraction maneuvre. It may mean you can charge down a corridor or stairs to get within shotgun rang and use a shotgun within YOUR perfect TTK range. It determines every single thing about encounters. It's entirely shallow to have everything be determined about who shot first and who flanked who first. That becomes WAY too dominant in a game where strategic objectives must be secured and taken and quite frankly, results in utter cowardice behaviour and apathy about holding positions.

How many people are holding positions right now? You think that has only to do with geometry? You think the viability of a hold is never down to how powerful the weapons your opposition has at their disposal? If AoE weapons are less strong, you see an immediate impact at choke points, room clearing ability and group behaviour and defensive viability. Geometry has NOTHING to do with those changes in gameplay, because the geometry would remain the same!

Well, we'll have some proof very soon. If geometry changes without TTK changes won't change anything, as you imply above, then the new spawnpoints coming won't change a thing. We'll have the exact same situation of spawn room camping, because as you claim, if you don't change TTK, nothing else can change. If spawn camping becomes more beneficial (in terms of cert farming) for the people being camped instead of the other way around, or is abandoned as a tactic, then your whole argument is invalid.

I am perfectly content to let time tell.

P.S. the apathy seen regarding holding bases is purely due to the defenders having to defend in all directions, while the attackers have to attack in one direction (from all directions). It is an undefendable situation that is caused by geometry. The Crown is a perfect example. People DO defend that (TTK be damned) because the attackers either come from the front (only way for vehicles) or from the back (on foot). Defendable position. Same TTK as always. No apathy.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Well, we'll have some proof very soon. If geometry changes without TTK changes won't change anything, as you imply above, then the new spawnpoints coming won't change a thing.

Ehr... I believe I linked them directly several times before. :x

[Sledgecrushr]

Really? Charge a guy who is dumping an entire clip into your face so you can get into shotgun range. All us old guys are just going to have to sharpen up our games and make quicker decisions, because in ps2 you only have a couple of seconds before your dead.

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by Figment

You don't see a difference between the impacts of gameplay 0.5s, 1.0s, 1.5s, 2.5s, 3.0s and 7-10s or more?

Huh.


Guess you can traverse a 25m distance in all those cases while being shot at by one, two, three or four people regardless of their TTKs?


Huh.


Teach me oh master of time.

Read my post again...if we aren't talking extremes which we are at this point there is no real relevance...but i did also concede impact of ttk on overall gameplay which is not what this thread was originally about. this thread was about complexity and depth relating to ttk and not how absurd the gameplay would feel with 10s ttk ....a game with a long ttk can be as or more tactical and deep and complex and varied as one with a short ttk because ttk is not the only factor..nor do i see it as a major one in this regard...

[Figment]

2s opposed to 1s is an extreme? Oh master of patience, where has the world gone to?

And sledge, you know damn well that I neve stated taking an entire clip. Don't make ridiculous strawman statements. What I said is that it determines whether a charge is viable. I did not state across what distance and how many shots you can take; all I said is those are directly linked.

That isn't too difficult to understand, right? Whether you have to wait till the enemy is two meters away or nine has everything to do with ttk vs ttk at range and how fast you can close any distance (so yes, travelspeed is important too).

Ttk alone is just a random number. But the shorter a ttk, the less viable shotguns are unless they get even shorter ttks. That means it determines what you can do when you have specific weapons equiped.

Do I really have to explain that just because every argument is taken by some of you to extreme MAX endurance levels just so you can hold on to ganking ttks even if I'm talking about 40-50% differences (and even for fastest killing weapons only) tops? How sad that you can't have a normal discussion without everything you say being strawmanned and taken out of context by people only interested in maintaining whatever status quo is present.