Does the shallow TTK shortchange the Depth this game could have? - Page 12

Figment · 2013-01-23, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

OHK (One Hit Kill) = ZERO TTK (instantaneous). That's smaller than the low TTK you don't like in PS2.

Are we talking theoretical TTK (minimal amount of shots needed in theory) or practical TTK (average amount of shots required in practice)?

Even then we're talking about the time between firing and reception, hence why distance matters to TTK: accuracy, strength and projectile velocity impacts the time the opposition has to return fire. >.>

Yet the life expectancy (NOT TTK) in Shootmania Storm is in the minutes, because people use movement and positioning (I call that situational awareness).

I call that taking cover, ambushing, dodging and evasion. Situational Awareness is the extend of knowing the layout of your environment where and what who is and what is going on around you and what that implies for you.

Now, please explain to me, how PS2 doesn't have the same capability for "movement and positioning"?

I'm not familiar with Shootmania Storm, but it sounds like it forces you to be frantically running about in an arena. Rather than hold or assail a pre-determined position for or within a certain period of time?

I can vouch that I "CAN" and have survived for several minutes at a time, in thick combat while playing PS2.

I can sit afk inside a spawnroom too, and in PS1 I could survive for half an hour or more on my own inside an enemy base and courtyard (with far less cover than in PS2) and if needed ninja some people (or more likely, ignore them and report their activity for sabotage conquest purposes while arranging reinforcements to drop in the enemies weakest position that in some cases I'd be about to create).

Don't quite see the relevance though. >.> Situational awareness comes down to looking around, evaluating your options, observation and your enemy's likely moves. Moving around constantly can get you spotted. Not moving around constantly can get you trapped. Saying you can move around constantly in the vicinity of a CC you're trying to capture is silly, since you have to stay within the vicinity of that CC and that severely restricts your movements depending on local geometry.

If that geometry is fairly open - which in PS2 it is, then yes the attacker can move about freely in search of a proper angle and approach that results in a flanking move, but the defender cannot.

The amount of CCs that are ducks in a barrel geometry situations with an open approach and next to no dig in cover (especially when outdoors) are substantial in PS2. So when then facing one hit kill or other low TTKs (so an unforgiving TTK in an unforgiving scenario), that doesn't contribute to the surviving capacity of the defender. Worse if that defender has to come from a predictable place to cross multiple crossfires to even get to the situation where they may contribute to the security of the outpost.

If there's for instance a LA on the rooftop of the spawns and you have to get away from that building, which you must, then you can't just get to know he's there upon a spawn. Knowing or suspecting it's there doesn't get you anything. You have to check yourself with another LA. Which puts you in the open and is likely not helping much with all the other high explosive short TTKs around.

Within the current context of the game, low TTKs only make farming spawncamps easier. New geometry and base layout will help a lot, but the short TTKs - which are often one directional due to having the worse angle or position - doesn't provide you with any means to at least cause some attrition or compete. :/ When outnumbered 2:1, you will have two times the firepower thrown against you. I submit this is worse than having twice the endurance against you, because endurance comes down to being a better shot. Which is most noticable over time.

So a short increase in TTK wouldn't hurt at all. In fact, half the TTKs are in the appropriate range already.

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by psijaka

Not quite. The damage from the first bullet is received instantaneously.

TTK = time between shots x (bullets to kill -1)

If you make that distinction, then you are factoring in range (and bullet speed). You have to add another variable, since bullet damage will drop off at a linear rate between two fixed distances.

Stellarthief · 2013-01-23, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Well, using your logic, then there is no short/long TTK as all of these scenarios are valid for any game in existence ever.

I can die in Q3A as fast as I die in PS2, or CoD, or Halo, or Arma, etc. pp.

Point made moot? Yes.

I am not sure what you are arguing there? My point/question was that TTK starts only when you get fired on... That running around using movement doesnt affect your TTK. But you claim it does?

Other say that TTK is mathematical (was not aware of this exactly). But then TTK seems pretty meaningless doesn't it? If you can live forever or a few secs in a firefight based on x variables why do people discuss TTK? It seems pretty pointless and a silly way to justify if a game is strategic or not.

As I said, I played Rainbow Six, extensively. And that game was more or less OHK or at least very few hits kills, weapon dependent. Yet a firefight could still go on for minutes (at point blank range) at a time and even have no victor when playing at the meta game level. should also mention this made people play to their strengths and be more tactical. either try to force a circle strafe fight or manipulate the battle to avoid it (camping. breaching charge. developing better twitch reflex to win head on battles.)

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Are we talking theoretical TTK (minimal amount of shots needed in theory) or practical TTK (average amount of shots required in practice)?

Theoretical TTK, is a best scenario calculation that takes away all unmeasurable factors, like player skill. It is the only metric you can use when discussing the TTK of a particular weapon, because it is impossible to measure all the small variables that makes up how well a player can land shots. Theoretical TTK is the only measuring stick that this whole thread can be based from.

Originally Posted by Figment

Even then we're talking about the time between firing and reception, hence why distance matters to TTK: accuracy, strength and projectile velocity impacts the time the opposition has to return fire. >.>

Theoretical variables for TTK:

- Total Player life (health + shields). Use certain classes as baselines. Infiltrators have less, HA's can have more and MAX's can have A LOT more. Therefore they are not factored as part of the equation. Same with certs that grant extra health, or increased damage mitigation.

- Damage per bullet. Use maximum values, ignore damage drop off from range.

- Rate of fire of specific weapon.

Practical variables for TTK:

- Total player life (health + shields) including certs that affect the calculation. Have to provide a TTK for each class, as classes don't necessarily have the same quantity of life. For each class, also have to have TTK for every combination of cert expenditure

- Damage per bullet, with range factored in.

- Bullet speed. Target running away increases TTK. Target running at you decreases TTK.

- Rate of Fire of specific weapon.

- How many bullets miss in a burst due to cone of fire, lack of player skill.

- etc...

The point is, Practical TTK will never be smaller than Theoretical TTK and the majority of the time will be magnitudes larger than theoretical.

Originally Posted by Figment

I call that taking cover, ambushing, dodging and evasion. Situational Awareness is the extend of knowing the layout of your environment where and what who is and what is going on around you and what that implies for you.

I call all that, situational awareness. I think you're over complicating the discussion for nothing.

Originally Posted by Figment

I can sit afk inside a spawnroom too, and in PS1 I could survive for half an hour or more on my own inside an enemy base and courtyard (with far less cover than in PS2) and if needed ninja some people (or more likely, ignore them and report their activity for sabotage conquest purposes while arranging reinforcements to drop in the enemies weakest position that in some cases I'd be about to create).

Don't quite see the relevance though. >.> Situational awareness comes down to looking around, evaluating your options, observation and your enemy's likely moves. Moving around constantly can get you spotted. Not moving around constantly can get you trapped. Saying you can move around constantly in the vicinity of a CC you're trying to capture is silly, since you have to stay within the vicinity of that CC and that severely restricts your movements depending on local geometry.

If that geometry is fairly open - which in PS2 it is, then yes the attacker can move about freely in search of a proper angle and approach that results in a flanking move, but the defender cannot.

I made the clear distinction that I can and have survived in pitched battles for minutes or longer. I was not being devious and thinking of sitting in a spawn room but implying otherwise.

The time it takes to flip a point is related to the influence your faction has on the area. Best case scenario, you can flip a point (ie: change to your color) in less than 10 seconds, which is plenty of time to get it done before someone comes to retaliate. Once you've flipped enough points, you start converting the base. You do NOT need to remain in the influence of the point/objective to continue the burn on the base. That means you are free to move around, use situation awareness and be the one to choose your attack vector, instead of holing up and trying to hold out.

I am not advocating being able to take a base without manning points, I am just pointing out, that as of right now, you do NOT need to sit in a room and be reactive, instead of proactive. That is how YOU choose to play, probably based on PS1 habits and nostalgia. Time to adapt.

Originally Posted by Figment

Within the current context of the game, low TTKs only make farming spawncamps easier. New geometry and base layout will help a lot, but the short TTKs - which are often one directional due to having the worse angle or position - doesn't provide you with any means to at least cause some attrition or compete. :/ When outnumbered 2:1, you will have two times the firepower thrown against you. I submit this is worse than having twice the endurance against you, because endurance comes down to being a better shot. Which is most noticable over time.

That ^ doesn't make sense. If someone isn't a good shot, he isn't a good shot. You'll survive, or have a chance to retaliate regardless of short or long TTK. You seem to think that only defenders would get increased TTK. But if you increase TTK, the attackers gain the same benefit. It would still be 2 to 1. It would take them longer to kill you, but it would take you longer to kill them. So you only get the ILLUSION that you had a chance.

Originally Posted by Figment

So a short increase in TTK wouldn't hurt at all. In fact, half the TTKs are in the appropriate range already.

I think messing with TTK now would screw up something somewhere else. You'd have to increase everything along with TTK. Increase ammo carried, increase reload times by the same proportion, and who knows what other variable that would end up nerfing something or someone.

psijaka · 2013-01-23, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

All this topic has succeeded in doing is convincing me that the concept of "TTK" is a meaningless construct (especially considering it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean).

It especially is when people start comparing similar guns, where the differences in theoretical TTK can be measured in a few tens of milliseconds!

psijaka · 2013-01-23, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

If you make that distinction, then you are factoring in range (and bullet speed). You have to add another variable, since bullet damage will drop off at a linear rate between two fixed distances.

Whether you include travel time or not, you still have to subtract one time period between rounds. And, from the perspective of the person being killed, travel time is irrelevant (as it also is at close range). At longer ranges, TTK becomes much harder to quantify in any case, mainly due to the detrimental effects on accuracy caused by recoil, cone of fire, weapon sway.

It would be possible to factor in damage drop off, recoil and cone of fire; but you would have to have a very good understanding of the recoil mechanics; which I don't have - yet.

TheRageTrain · 2013-01-23, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

The game seems to reward luck more than skill as it is now.

No.

Let\s just say I started at bad KD.. now i\m doing 7 to 12. Pure skill and experience in the game aka learning from my own mistakes and improving that way my gaming as a HA.

As a tank driver.. or pilot, I barely got maybe 4 or 5k kills with them in total. Rest infantry mode.. thou have to admit I do have to use a lot of time to find those infantry fights and I can\t be in a squad when I\m trying to find them as I\m redploying so much all over the map just to get inf fights.

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

Whether you include travel time or not, you still have to subtract one time period between rounds. And, from the perspective of the person being killed, travel time is irrelevant (as it also is at close range). At longer ranges, TTK becomes much harder to quantify in any case, mainly due to the detrimental effects on accuracy caused by recoil, cone of fire, weapon sway.

It would be possible to factor in damage drop off, recoil and cone of fire; but you would have to have a very good understanding of the recoil mechanics; which I don't have - yet.

Ok, I think I'm getting where you're coming from. You seem to measure TTK at the receiving end. So it starts when the target receives the first hit. I don't think of it that way.

To me, TTK starts when you press the button (pull the trigger) and stops when your target is dead. Although, my way makes a yet another assumption that bullet travel time is insignificant. But there are already so many assumptions...

Figment · 2013-01-23, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Theoretical TTK, is a best scenario calculation that takes away all unmeasurable factors, like player skill. It is the only metric you can use when discussing the TTK of a particular weapon, because it is impossible to measure all the small variables that makes up how well a player can land shots. Theoretical TTK is the only measuring stick that this whole thread can be based from.

Ehr... serves as a basis, but is not the only one as some of us have been discussing this thing called starting to dodge upon being hit upon getting flanked. >_>

Practical TTK can be significantly longer if you get a chance to dodge and get to cover (especially because forcing reloads starts counting), so saying ONLY theoretical is interesting is a bit underestimating the influence of geometry and reaction. :/

But from that perspective of theoretical ttk only, it makes sense you don't really understand why it benefits a defender more, since the attacker should be more exposed, should be moving more and thus have worse cone of fire and over all take more hits, especially when entering through a focused fire choke point.

So no, I don't forget that the increase in TTK goes for the attacker, the difference is I presume a practical defensive situations, where one has a defensible position (and likely gets the drop on the attacker with focused fire) and the attackers make moves that reduces the damage taken, whereas your scenario entails a more 50-50 chance and a near 100% chance upon first sight flankmove, whereas I see the flank move more as a 66% chance of getting a kill due to TTK and consequential response time available.

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Ehr... serves as a basis, but is not the only one as some of us have been discussing this thing called starting to dodge upon being hit upon getting flanked. >_>

Practical TTK can be significantly longer if you get a chance to dodge and get to cover (especially because forcing reloads starts counting), so saying ONLY theoretical is interesting is a bit underestimating the influence of geometry and reaction. :/

But from that perspective of theoretical ttk only, it makes sense you don't really understand why it benefits a defender more, since the attacker should be more exposed, should be moving more and thus have worse cone of fire and over all take more hits, especially when entering through a focused fire choke point.

So no, I don't forget that the increase in TTK goes for the attacker, the difference is I presume a practical defensive situations, where one has a defensible position (and likely gets the drop on the attacker with focused fire) and the attackers make moves that reduces the damage taken, whereas your scenario entails a more 50-50 chance and a near 100% chance upon first sight flankmove, whereas I see the flank move more as a 66% chance of getting a kill due to TTK and consequential response time available.

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

Stellarthief · 2013-01-23, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

Can you maybe explain what "your ttk" is useful for? In terms of the original discussion?

no sarcasm intended.

psijaka · 2013-01-23, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

You and I have completely different views on what TTK means.

To me, it is a best case mathematical equation, that's IT. Adding anything else implies random unmeasurable variables that render the meaning of TTK useless.

Agreed. Best case TTK is the only thing that we can work with in this discussion, as it is the only thing that can be quantified.

EDIT2 - not sure that I do entierly agree actually, but best case TTK has to be the starting point.

It -is- theoretically possible to quantify the effects of certain other variables such as damage drop off, recoil, cone of fire, but this would take a full understanding of the mechanics used in the game.

If we start to add dodge and other variables controlled by the player, then it becomes -entirely- subjective.

Edit - I'm really enjoying this discussion!

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

Can you maybe explain what "your ttk" is useful for? In terms of the original discussion?

no sarcasm intended.

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.

Kerrec · 2013-01-23, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

Agreed. Best case TTK is the only thing that we can work with in this discussion, as it is the only thing that can be quantified.

EDIT2 - not sure that I do entierly agree actually, but best case TTK has to be the starting point.

It -is- theoretically possible to quantify the effects of certain other variables such as damage drop off, recoil, cone of fire, but this would take a full understanding of the mechanics used in the game.

If we start to add dodge and other variables controlled by the player, then it becomes -entirely- subjective.

Edit - I'm really enjoying this discussion!

You can factor in range as part of your TTK. However, you have to make the distinction. For example:

TTK at 10m versus TTK at 100m.

All of the rest: Cone of fire, recoil, player movement, is affected by the player and his skill (or lack of) impacts their effects. Therefore, they cannot be included because it's impossible to balance a game that way.

Think trying to balance 2 faction's weapons. One faction is being played by a teenager. The other is being played by a half blind elderly woman with shaky hands that has never played a FPS in her life. How do you eliminate the "skill" part when said skill affects cone of fire (how much bloom you allow), recoil (compensation) or where you decide to fight from?

Figment · 2013-01-23, 01:28 PM

I'm not mixing it up (as in getting it wrong), I purposely encompass both as I'm considering practical TTK as that is what you actually encounter in the field most of the time (which is something that's largely based in experience, some players have slightly faster reaction times and thus can do more in a shorter TTK, I'm more interested in the average actual outcomes of battles than the perfect outcome, which happens but under what conditions?).

But it's exactly why it's important that we define ourselves well though, because we're basically discussing from an entirely different p.o.v. due to definition differences.

For instance, I know full well that a shotgun's pellet spread is far more important than actual TTK because of the larger degree in angle change at close range when someone makes a step to the side. A longer TTK of a shotgun in theory (say four shots with intermittent fire of 0.2-0.4s leading up to 1.2s) can be a faster TTK than an assault rifle or sniper at shotgun range as one simply misses too much at CQC range with certain other weapons.

So to me, theoretical TTK are fine as a basis, but they're not really worth discussion beyond their own range and without considering their accuracy.

An accuracy of 24% and a perfect TTK of four shots are two very different things.

Discussion on the pure basis of perfect TTK is only viable when we're talking objects you won't miss a lot of shots. For instance tank combat. Making others miss is what drives tank combat in PS1, because forcing a single miss is the difference between life and death.

In rifle combat, we could be talking 80% misses at times depending on hip or ADS fire, etc. Especially with recoil (though an accuracy of 60-70% should definitely be doable for the average player).

If we're looking at a flanking close range player on a stationary object, we can presume the initial shot or burst is one or more headshots. If rate of fire is slow enough and power low enough to start dodging by the second to third bullet, anything could happen. Chances are the flanker wins. But the moment the target starts moving, chance and skill become an issue.

The longer that TTK is, the bigger that chance, since less relative damage would have been dealt. Say 3 shots out of 9 have been dealt and for some reason they're not headshots, the hit player responds and dodges the next few shots, he now has a full clip facing a full health opponent, the other doesn't but faces a 2/3s health opponent.

One has 9/9 shots left to place, the other 6/9 (assuming same weapons for a sec). That difference can be overcome. Chances are the hurt player loses, but if a reload is forced for instance by throwing off the other's aim, that might just give a huge window of opportunity to retaliate. Compare it to 3/3 vs 0/3 and 24/27 and 27/27. The longer the TTK, the more balanced the encounter becomes. At extreme balances on either side, the attackers gain the advantage numerically: in the low end they are likely to hit enough before dodging commences, in the longest TTK they win by sheer endurance. Somewhere in between is the appropriate balance.

Now, the element of surprise counts really heavily in Kerrec's argumentation, but from what I understand, he does not value gaining cover or dodging (expecting the person to be dead anyway) and thus increasing ones life expectancy. The thing is, I expect a player's aiming skill AND positioning skill AND reaction time to determine how close to the perfect theoretical TTK one comes.

Again, in that sense, the defender should have the advantage in terms of being dug in and having an advantage over the attacker, thus elongated health would mean more to the defender.

If like Kerrec, you expect the attacker, the flanker, to have the advantage, then yes, the increased health will help them more. However, I'm expecting the attacker to be funneled, in which case a slightly longer TTK (not a huge increase, then Kerrec would be right) favours the defender over standing a chance of anything that comes closer to a OHK.

It's a bit like a Gaussian curve of survival chance in that scenario really.