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

[Figment]

Pro-low ttk people want thread to die:

They keep bumping it several times over to tell others and themselves to stop posting.



*facepalm*

Fail.


Since no summary was made by an objective person, only an agitated insult by one other person, I'll try to summise both sides in the argument.

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.







Think I've been fair, you can add some addendums/corections if you wish. Editing for better readability.

[Mietz]

Addendum:

"Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side also claims that current TTK limits the breadth and depth of interesting and creative weaponry due to low DPS granularity preventing a proper balancing of DOT and AOE effects, leading to weaponry that is generally the same in almost every respect (bullets and explosives) or imbalanced (Lasher, beta Flamethrower).

The "Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side argues that with slightly longer TTK, and hence higher DPS granularity, more interesting and specialized weaponry could be created increasing variety/choices for players.

[Rothnang]

Also a longer TTK that allows you to retreat into cover instead of having a high probability of dying every single time you peek your head out can reward flanking and positioning in a much more profound way than just being able to gank people a little easier, since it will be essential to negate peoples cover if they have more opportunity to use it to stay alive against a one sided assault.

[Sonny]

I agree with Figment's "Pro-bit-longer TTK" definition. The main reasons being that I find it the current TTK very frustrating is getting frequently insta-killed despite trying to be aware of my surroundings and also the lack of definition between any of the weapons in the game - carbine, shotgun, rifle or LMG - I can't tell the difference as I'm dead within 1.5 seconds anyway!

[exile]

I think now is a good time to re-ignite this thread.

[SoUnreal]

Originally Posted by Methonius

It's too late for them to change this now, even though I did like the TTK in the old planetside they would have to redo almost every aspect of the game to coincide with a higher TTK for infantry. So I see them never changing this plus all the COD kiddies would scream out with a million voices as if the universe was hit by a supernova.

CoD always gets a lot of flak, and deservedly so, but let's also consider that the TTK is even lower in games like CS. So it's not just a CoD mentality at play here, even competitive gamers have become accustomed to low TTK's, but I'm not a fan of it either.

With that said, PS2 isn't all that bad. If you have better aim and reactions than your opponent you should win 9/10 1v1 situations. It's not about who sees who first. The only time TTK becomes a problem is when you're outnumbered, and in that scenario we have to keep in mind that PS was never intended to be a skill based shooter nor a game where you can lonewolf and effectively take down 5 enemies at once.

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

[GTGD]

Originally Posted by SoUnreal

CoD always gets a lot of flak, and deservedly so, but let's also consider that the TTK is even lower in games like CS. So it's not just a CoD mentality at play here, even competitive gamers have become accustomed to low TTK's, but I'm not a fan of it either.

With that said, PS2 isn't all that bad. If you have better aim and reactions than your opponent you should win 9/10 1v1 situations. It's not about who sees who first. The only time TTK becomes a problem is when you're outnumbered, and in that scenario we have to keep in mind that PS was never intended to be a skill based shooter nor a game where you can lonewolf and effectively take down 5 enemies at once.

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

Except it is exactly who sees who first. Taking into consideration human reaction time and lag, many times you will be dead before you know you're taking damage (especially if you get headshot at all).

Now throw in the dumb flinch mechanic. It's a better strategy to sprint and hop around like a moron to distort your hitbox long enough for your enemy to waste his ammo and have to reload.

Notice how this is destroying weapon diversity? They're similar to begin with, but pretty much all players have abandoned slow firing weapons for the fastest firing carbines (unless they are one hit kills).

[SoUnreal]

Originally Posted by GTGD

Except it is exactly who sees who first. Taking into consideration human reaction time and lag, many times you will be dead before you know you're taking damage (especially if you get headshot at all).

Now throw in the dumb flinch mechanic. It's a better strategy to sprint and hop around like a moron to distort your hitbox long enough for your enemy to waste his ammo and have to reload.

Notice how this is destroying weapon diversity? They're similar to begin with, but pretty much all players have abandoned slow firing weapons for the fastest firing carbines (unless they are one hit kills).

All I can say is I haven't experienced this. I haven't seen any lag and unless I'm up against an infiltrator or other high damage weapon, there's definitely a small but good window to evade if the terrain allows for it.

Funny enough I was just defending an outpost in a 10v3 situation, 10v1 for a long while and we were able to hold them off for a good bit. Had one situation where I was able to out strafe someone to get the kill, despite him having the drop on me. Also got 2 kills in a 3v1 before dying. The TTK isn't ideal, but it's definitely lower in other games. As I mentioned in CS it's very common to die in one shot, but more often than not one burst is enough to get a kill. You don't see that on PS2 near as often especially at mid - long range.

The bigger issue is the complete lack of recoil and how easy the guns are to manage. If they took more skill you wouldn't see as many people getting kills as quickly as they are.

[Figment]

"Complete lack of recoil" isn't how I'd describe NC weapons.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by SoUnreal

Where they can make the game more challenging is simply by making the guns more challenging. Thus, increasing the TTK without adjusting any armor or health stats. As is, it's incredibly easy to get kills mainly because it's incredibly easy to aim and controlling recoil is extremely easy as well.

With that said, that's just not PS' MO. They'd turn away way too many players if they made the game more difficult to get kills. If you want a skill based game, there's better options to go to for that.

Not certain what can be done to make aiming more difficult. That's a pure hand to mouse coordination thing imo and nothing, other then screen shake from things going on around you, would make that harder. Recoil on starter weapons are a bit worse until you cert into some attachments or get a gun via certs that has less of it. Thus, recoil, is a mechanic is being handled via certs too. I suppose some small adjustments with these and the certs could be made but I'm not certain that is the real resolution.

Simply giving players more time to react to situations via health or armor amounts, to increase TTK, should do the trick imo.

[SoUnreal]

Originally Posted by Figment

"Complete lack of recoil" isn't how I'd describe NC weapons.

I play NC, you only notice the recoil at long range.

Originally Posted by Crator

Not certain what can be done to make aiming more difficult. That's a pure hand to mouse coordination thing imo and nothing, other then screen shake from things going on around you, would make that harder. Recoil on starter weapons are a bit worse until you cert into some attachments or get a gun via certs that has less of it. Thus, recoil, is a mechanic is being handled via certs too. I suppose some small adjustments with these and the certs could be made but I'm not certain that is the real resolution.

Simply giving players more time to react to situations via health or armor amounts, to increase TTK, should do the trick imo.

They can add more recoil and actually make it worth while to burst fire instead of spray. Second thing they can adjust is the damage output. Hits to the arm and leg should deal far less damage than shots to the upper torso area for example. Small tweaks like that could increase survivability without exactly tweaking health while also giving more importance to pinpoint accuracy.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by Figment

Since no summary was made by an objective person, only an agitated insult by one other person, I'll try to summise both sides in the argument.

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.

Think I've been fair, you can add some addendums/corections if you wish. Editing for better readability.

Good summation, Figment; deserves repeating.

Pity though, that you couldn't resist the snide comment at the top of your post (deleted in the quote above), even if it was deserved, as it calls into question the objectivity of your summary. Perhaps you should edit it out.