Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?

[Bags]

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Bags

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

I don't think TTK will really affect stalemates one way or the other, except for maybe helping infantry kill vehicles a little better.

I think lower spawn times is what would significantly change how willing people were to charge into a dangerous situation.

Maybe an entire squad is willing to equip AV weapons and surprise that tank camping outside, because they know that even if they all die in the process, they won't be leaving a 15 or 30 second window in which the enemy can push into the base knowing that a large portion of it's defenders are dead.

Of course faster spawn times would have some negative gameplay aspects as well. The old "we'll see how it works in beta" rears it's head again.

[NapalmEnima]

Originally Posted by Bags

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

Both of those games also have a prone stance, making camping that much more likely.

I don't recall CoD having a sprint, and it's been a Long Time since I played a BF game.

[I SandRock]

Originally Posted by Bags

How does dying faster encourage people to rush a chokepoint? People are more likely to camp when you die fast, see BF and COD. Lowering TTK will increase stalemates.

Because you can't get away and heal back to full health again? Right now, people pop out of a door, shoot a bit, then run back behind a wall and heal up. Same for MAX, the moment your armor is too low you walk back up and you get healed to full. Both sides keep doing this.

With a lower TTK you stick your head out and you die. Thinning the numbers faster. Basically you are left less time for reacting to a situation to safe your ass.

Take for example a base fight and suddenly a MAX comes around the corner. In PS1, the MAX comes around the corner, starts firing into people, people are surprised, those without AV run around a corner and heal up. Those with AV have time to switch to AV and attack the MAX.

With a lower TTK. The element of surprise and being caught off-guard will be greater. Giving you less time to run for cover. Leaving more infantry casualities. Making the battle progress faster.

Even more so now that you need to roll medic class to heal. Which means not every grunt can heal himself back up to full health, yet people will take more damage faster. While being healed slower. Leaving more room for the enemy to 'push'.


You are right that a slower TTK will mean people dare to stick their head out more often, but that is only because they know they can take that risk without dying. I predict players will still try, nobody wants to just sit behind a wall and wait, so they'll die quicker.

Just my theoretical view on it. Perhaps in actual gameplay it turns out completely different.

[SKYeXile]

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...(maybe we will get stun or flash grenaides) meanwhile the defenders already have their sights aimed for a headshot assoon as somebody comes in the door. those split seconds matter when you only have a split second to live.

I can setup an LMG in BF3 corridoors and hold out against wave after wave of eneimes, sometimes 3-5 at once by being prone and in a good position, i would hate to see this type of gameplay in PS2.

[NapalmEnima]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...

Good.

You can:

1) "pie slice" your way around a corner. When you line up on them, they also line up on you. One of you is gonna die, but it's not nearly so one-sided as you make it out to be.
2) lead with a grenade or three. While they're trying to find their retinas (flash-bang) or spleen (frag), you and yours run into the room and clean up.
3) lead with a MAX. Someone that can hold up to a second or two of concentrated fire while more bodies pile into the room behind them. Bring a medic, they'll need it.

You just might be able to take a sprinting leap into the room and live, then again, you may not. While doing so you certainly aren't going to hit much of anything.

Hell, combine 'em. Lead with some grenades, then have an AI MAX pie around the corner.

I seem to recall Higby mentioning camera grenades as a possible replacement for third person. I'm just fine with that.

And that they had lots of ideas for different kinds of grenades on the drawing board. I guess we'll see.


And for every strategy, there's a counter. If someone with a thumper is aware that you're slowly coming around that corner, they can lob some pain your way.


One of the things I distinctly remember from the lunch interview is that the bases will be much more open. No more room-corridor-room-corridor-etc-etc-etc. Instead it'll be more like N "lanes" that are "porous", you can move from one to the next at various places, and can probably fire at folks in different lanes.

That means the whole issue is less likely to come up at all. With multiple avenues of attack, it'll be harder to set up in a spot where you Know they have to pass through to get to Objective X. And they might have great cover from one angle, but their parts are hanging out in the breeze from another.

[Xyntech]

I think that the base and tower layouts are really going to be the deciding factor for a lot of the infantry gameplay balance. There is a reason that a good multiplayer map take a lot of time and revision to get perfect.

From what we've heard so far, I'm thinking that instead of continents just being giant pieces of open, mostly boring landscape, that a continent in Planetside 2 will feel more like a bunch of non MMO multiplayer maps that have been stitched together. The only difference will be the cohesive environmental theme for the continent as well as the fact that one area will just seamlessly bleed into the next to create a massive battlefield. Each capturable section should feel like the carefully tailored and balanced environment that you would expect to find in any quality multiplayer FPS.

If that's the case, the bases would be more along the lines of what you would expect in an indoor map of any other decent multiplayer FPS, which would be a lot better than what we had for base layouts in PS1.

A base should have plenty of features that maximize every indoor fighting technique, such as having out of the way paths for infiltrators to sneak in, places for jump jet soldiers to gain entry or to gain a better offensive or defense vantage, areas that are advantageous for engineers to set up machine guns both for attackers and for defenders, etc.

The tower we have already seen looks to me like it will be pretty hard to camp with just tanks and ground troops. A tank could shoot into every door in the PS1 towers, but I think an aircraft is the only thing that's gonna be camping a lot of the PS2 roof exits. Hopefully that means that a few AA MAXes and a handful of supporting troops will be able to control a lot of tower roofs and we'll be able to avoid most unmoving stalemate entirely.

The real problem with towers in PS1 was that the people on the outside had minimal options for getting inside the tower and, in many cases, the people on the inside couldn't do anything at all to fight their way out. It looks like there may be options for those trapped in a PS2 tower to push back against an attack, even when surrounded by vehicles. As for the attacking force, they already said that bases will be designed to be taken, I assume this will apply to towers as well.

Stalemates come when you have viable options to defend, but no viable options to attack. As long as there is an option to strike back at your enemy, there is room for a real power struggle to occur and for there to be a decisive victor.

It really rests heavily on the layouts.

[I SandRock]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i would have to say faster TTK is going to be more of a camp fest, people are lesslikly to hero through a doorway guns blazining if they know they have to find a target, aim and then hit and kill a target when rushing a door...(maybe we will get stun or flash grenaides) meanwhile the defenders already have their sights aimed for a headshot assoon as somebody comes in the door. those split seconds matter when you only have a split second to live.

I can setup an LMG in BF3 corridoors and hold out against wave after wave of eneimes, sometimes 3-5 at once by being prone and in a good position, i would hate to see this type of gameplay in PS2.

People are definitely going to think twice before sticking their head out. But I see that as positive too. I found it rather annoying to see people stick their head out of a door just to walk off and heal up again. But when they DO stick their head out of the door they're much more likely to get it blown off in PS2. Which means once a push happens, it will likely break a stalemate one way or another.... Hopefully

[Captain B]

The faster TTK will encourage pushing more than deter it, I think. Currently, you poke your head around a corner, trade shots, and then both duck back around the corner. You could argue that's a stalemate. Faster TKK means, sure, I could poke my head around the door and get killed quickly enough, OR it could mean I jump out, three-round burst into some guy's face, and then back behind the corner before the retaliatory shots make their mark.

Now there's one less defender instead of one less attacker. Grenades will surely have more impact this time around, as well. Just because there will be faster TTK doesn't mean that it will only affect the attackers; it'll mean faster kills on both sides of the line.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by I SandRock

People are definitely going to think twice before sticking their head out. But I see that as positive too.

Kind of sucks for AV users and SA users trying to use their specializations. Sticking your head out to kill a max with even a single infantry would become a very risky option. In PS1 it wasn't really a risk. Some max camping at the end of a hallway just meant an easy kill. Forces MAX units to push and charge AV users.

Originally Posted by I SandRock

Which means once a push happens, it will likely break a stalemate one way or another.... Hopefully

TTK doesn't change that. Scaling health doesn't usually effect the outcome of a battle. (You can try this on paper).

Originally Posted by Captain B

The faster TTK will encourage pushing more than deter it, I think. Currently, you poke your head around a corner, trade shots, and then both duck back around the corner. You could argue that's a stalemate.

A good stalemate. It tells both players "do something tactical". If the bases are more open and such it could mean moving around and flanking or finding another way or simply running forward to get a better position closer. If two people are defending and lock onto one player the player is probably going to die. I don't think it should be the focus of an MMOFPS to balance everything for 1v1 combat in regards to a fast TTK.

Originally Posted by Captain B

Faster TKK means, sure, I could poke my head around the door and get killed quickly enough, OR it could mean I jump out, three-round burst into some guy's face, and then back behind the corner before the retaliatory shots make their mark.

This point of promoting solo players getting kills easily has been brought up before. It depends. Some people like that. I feel it doesn't give players a choice. Obviously if you're trading shots you're at a stalemate. Someone needs to rush in at that point or use SA or grenades. The scenario you describe is really just enforcing a system that weights twitch over tactics like using a grenade or pushing forward with a shotgun. This was also brought up in the discussion involving if weapon choice should effect the outcome of a battle.

[Raymac]

I think the base layout will have a much much larger factor on stalemates than the TTK. Interfarm anyone?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I think the base layout will have a much much larger factor on stalemates than the TTK. Interfarm anyone?

Yea if bases are setup so they're not very easy to defend i think we will see less stalemates, but when there is large rooms with easy to defend choke points, its not going to be good for attackers.

or we will just see alot of maxes running around if bases are easily defendable through coke points.

[I SandRock]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

TTK doesn't change that. Scaling health doesn't usually effect the outcome of a battle. (You can try this on paper).

Faster kills doesn't just change the killing. If you JUST look at damage vs health, nothing changes. But there is a whole lot more to consider, as I went in too. Reaction time, for instance. One of the main things in PS was running back and around a corner to heal. That has nothing to do with health but with how fast you can react to an enemy showing himself, starting to shoot, you deciding you have to run, actually running, actually making it around the corner. Having the time to be healed before the enemy gets to you.

With a slower TTK players had time to fall back and heal back up without dying much easier. Now if you get caught by surprise by a couple of MAX units or AOE attacks you have a lot less time to react and recover. Making a push more likely to happen and succeed. These aren't pure mathematical factors.

Faster TTK means it's much more fight or die, kill or be killed. Rather than, jump out and do some pot shots, jump back into cover to heal back up. Rinse and repeat. Now you either go out and kill, or be killed. Well, more likely. Theoretically. From my perspective.

[2coolforu]

Faster TTK does encourage camping, if TTK is small then the half a second or so advantage gained by surprising an enemy by camping a vantage point is a higher proportion of the TTK meaning a higher chance of a successful kill.

Planetside plays very differently though, hopefully people will be really working together and camping is easily negated by having 1000 people backing you up in an assault. Call of duty is the campfest it is because most guns kill in 1-2 shots meaning camping is effectively an autowin barring luck or lag. In Planetside we know TTK is going to be a lot slower than this and we have far more people to pressure campers and weapons like the Thumper (possibly) that are put into the game to negate camping.

We are also unique in the fact that we have such a wide and diverse vehicle combat, even more central than the vehicle combat in BF2/BF3. This means that camping snipers and other camping can be countered by vehicle combat.

[Kalbuth]

Faster pace also means faster movements, no?
And faster movements, if they can avoid being hit at distance, is going to help people move out and reduce camping.
In W:ET, ET:QW, Brink (the whole Ennemy Territory serie), you have rather fast TTK on weapons, fast movement, headshot, and you don't see camping. When, not only cover, but movement too becomes a usefull evading tactic, then you rule camping out of the equation

the only question then : can the engine cope with fast movement on MMO scale? PS1 experience tends to tell us otherwise, unfortunately