Does the shallow TTK shortchange the Depth this game could have? - Page 15

exile · 2013-01-24, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

If you're going to make use of a retarded non-argument, expect to get it launched right back in your face.

Figment, you've basically single-handedly destroyed this thread by filling it with incoherent noise. You have no right to get aggressive with other posters.

Palerion · 2013-01-24, 10:28 PM

Yeah, seriously, we've gone through a few pages of whining and name calling here.

I think it's time to give it a rest with the arguing.

Now, in response to the main point of this thread:

I think TTK is fine as is.

Raising it would likely cause more frustration for the shooter than it would noticeably increased survivability for the target.

I think the reason death occurs so quickly to some people is simply lag.

With 2000 players on one seamless continent, I would imagine interactions between players are not perfect.

I think improvements to this would be a more effective solution than adjusting TTK.

Furthermore I would like to point out that I appreciate the ability to kill with one controlled burst to my enemy.

This does allow for a rightfully earned kill when a player spots an unaware enemy, and makes kills more possible in large fights.

Of course, it is simply my opinion; I enjoy the current TTK.

Sunrock · 2013-01-24, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

OHKs AoE effects (shortest and most efficient TTKs) are so NOT dumbing down the game, at all.

Let's up the skill level of everyone and make everything OHK everything, cause shorter TTK is less dumbing down!

[/sarcasm]

If you're going to make use of a retarded non-argument, expect to get it launched right back in your face.

First of all F U. If you ever talked to me like that IRL you would not live to see an other day.

I can express my opinions as I like and you just have to take it.

Skill is not all about how hard it is to kill some one else. Skill is also about avoiding getting into situations where you get killed your self. With too high TTK all strategy just get dumbed down as you don't have to think about how to approach your target as you have more then enough time to escape with your life intact no matter what strategy you use.

Mietz · 2013-01-24, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

First of all F U. If you ever talked to me like that IRL you would not live to see an other day.

I can express my opinions as I like and you just have to take it.

i.e. It's ok if I do it, but not ok if others do it.

Crator · 2013-01-24, 11:26 PM

Yeah guys, settle down. We can't be taking all our time to debate logical arguments here now... Jeez.... /sarcasm

Sunrock · 2013-01-25, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

i.e. It's ok if I do it, but not ok if others do it.

I would say it's more the case of it's not ok to start a fight but it's ok to finish it.

psijaka · 2013-01-25, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by exile

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

Stellarthief · 2013-01-25, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by psijaka

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

I started to agree, and then agree with you. Now I'm not so sure.

I think actually it's more of a case in 1 target focusing in battles, not 1v1. When you ADS and focus on one person the longer you have to fire on that target the more strained your awareness will be and the more enemies around that 1 person the more likely you are to die.

But then I started to think, if you have to stand there and fire longer you lose your awareness the longer you focus but if you start taking fire you have more time to recover with a longer TTK. As it is now, if you lose that awareness (if for example ADS on a few targets) you in general, I would say, don't have the time to recover once under fire. 2-3 bursts and you are done. 2nd and 3rd bursts come by the time you really notice the first...

But too long a TTK and you can just run away without worry... A fine balancing act and I would think game, weapon balance and personal preference to say which is better / gives more depth. Also gotta define what that depth is..

Figment · 2013-01-25, 05:37 AM

Basically been saying what Stellarthief just seemed to have considered, if I understood this point right. (and expanded it by linking it to terrain and other things). Recovery and response.

And yes, let's define depth and shallow gameplay.

To me shallow is when there's less actual fight and more execution type gameplay and it's not balanced with the flanking and ambushing (whether that's not possible (0 options) or when that's too easy (5+ options)). When holding a position becomes meaningless because you can just flank from any direction, THAT is dumbing down the game. Especially if the TTK then makes it an execution without opposition.

I've said it before and will say it again: flanking to me is perfect when it provides a decent to good advantage, but isn't an I-win situation by default. I-win situations are extremely shallow forms of gameplay and can even occur with longer TTKs.

In PS1 for instance, the Personal Shield implant provided +100 health and as an instant life extender four times more powerful than a medkit, in fact on top of medkits, was such an I-win button. (Basically +33%-50% TTK depending on suit, for infils even +100% but few used that since you'd become visible and an easier target while still having to overcome the same TTK difference) Most players hated it because it instantly completely undid the gained advantage of their positional advantage and element of surprise and replaced it with a more than equal winning chance for the opponent. Pshield as such created significantly more shallow gameplay.

However, had everyone had the same TTK as on someone with pshield, the element of surprise would simply have been less effective and impacting on the outcome of the fight.

So while I agree there IS a point where long TTKs start to create shallow gameplay, but that point is not reached till for instance the flanking advantage become a really minor fraction of the total engagement time and the TTK off-set so small it's not relevant to overcome (a fraction of less than a third IMO). That point to me is somewhere half way between TTKs on rexos and TTKs on MAX units since a MAX can turn around and return fire with maybe 15-25% damage depending on weapon used and then have a far shorter practical TTK than you.

What I disagree with, is that ANY increase in TTK causes this above situation to occur. That's just incomplete and shortsighted argumentation. And closer to "incoherent noise" than anything I've stated. (

)

To me, the effects of short vs long TTK in terms of depth vs shallow gameplay looks like the normal distribution in the diagram below (short TTK on the left, long TTK on the right):

The problem I have with you lot is that you don't accept that my perceived curve is wider and slightly to the right from yours, where some of you pretend (even for the sake of argument, their argument) my curve lies waaaay to the right hand side. Where you peak somewhere between 0.8 and 1.8 with extremes around 0.5 and lower vs 2.4 and higher, my peak lies between 0.9 and 2.2, with extremes at 0.7 and lower vs 2.7 and higher. It's a subtle difference which is too often represented as a mountain slide.

THAT is the greyscale I was refering to with regards to Kerrec, where many of you are speaking in black and white "long is bad", "short is good". That just makes you sound like Americans.

The shorter the TTK and the narrower the curve lies to zero, the bigger the advantage for the ambusher and the less chance someone has to recover from being caught situationally unaware. Which happens all the time in a 3D FPS. Penalizing it with guaranteed death is just over the top and doesn't stimulate fights and just feels like the game punishing a situation it created, rather than the game rewarding good play. Also, the bigger the impact of MAX units, because they're in the extreme range (note PS1 MAX isn't the same as PS2 MAX in its extremities, PS1 MAX TTK on other units was on par with other units, in PS2 it's a bit faster, while TTK on MAX was higher in PS1 and is lower in PS2). I have and continue to submit that there should be a degree of recovery chance of being caught unaware, rather than a death penalty, so I refuse to make this a 80-100% advantage. Why? Because in a game like PS2, with the amount of threats there are, it simply becomes a fragfest and objective gameplay suffers greatly.

In a deathmatch arena game like CoD where you only care for frags and have to watch for three targets and don't need to think about taking and holding key areas for longer than a few seconds (camping a spot gets you more likely caught off-guard), that's fine. Maybe there's 7 opponents if you play online and know that half spawns on the other side of the map so aren't direct problems and since everyone randomly spawns and has to keep moving through rather linear terrain with frequently just two routes to your position, it's pretty easy to deal with, fair and even if you lose by getting caught off guard, it's just a +1 and a -1 on the score chart, not a lost match. The short TTK helps to take care of players in advantageous high ground positions by ensuring they can't camp and farm from there too long without risking death when actually in an engagement.

This isn't a deathmatch arena game though. It currently plays like one though due to the short TTKs: K/D is king in decision making in PS2, because getting killed DOES often mean a lost match in PS2 as people move through lines of defense before people can get back in position.

In a conquest game, strategic decisions and defending objectives are more important than twitch killing. Depth to gameplay is added by being able to do these things. The less time you get to make a decision and react, the shallower conquest gameplay becomes. The same is true if you make it far too long.

Again, in PS2, from my perspective the pendulum swung too far in the other direction: seeing someone is typically killing that someone, unless they saw you first. Nothing you can do about it. In PS1 it was fine, but slightly shorter wouldn't have hurt and would have made interlinks in particular a bit harder to defend as you'd breach positions a little bit faster. But to severely reduce TTK accross the board and then also opening up everything doubles the effect of killing of defenders and holders (not the same thing as campers in CoD).

In a game like PlanetSide 2, which is intended to be about conquest first and foremost, the practical TTK IMO either lies too close to the perfect TTK or the perfect TTK is too short. Again, it depends entirely on the guns we're talking about, since a lot of PS2 guns do fall in my prefered TTK range (some are too accurate opposed to others, but that's a practical TTK approaching perfect TTK balance issue).

If this is "incoherent noise", Exile, then I feel sorry for mankind to have stuped to the level they call any argumented disagreement noise. It's a very simple and consistent line of argumentation.

@Sunrock, put your aggression under a rock, you don't debate, you just throw random opinion statements in a discussion thread. What's the matter? Can't take some sarcasm that uses the same tone and counters your argument? And you'd start getting physical in real life over a sarcastic comment? Seriously?

Wow. Talk about short fuse. No wonder you like short TTKs.

Originally Posted by exile

Figment, you've basically single-handedly destroyed this thread by filling it with incoherent noise. You have no right to get aggressive with other posters.

Yeah right.

Since when is "dumbing down" an argument? THAT is incoherent noise. Please, don't defend him because he agrees with you. If someone made that point while agreeing with me, I'd want him to explain why rather than make a random nonsense statement too.

ANY increase in TTK is dumbing down per definition? Really? 0.05 increase is dumbing down? 0.2, 0.5, 1.4 increase is dumbing down? Where does the dumbing down start? 1.7s? 2.4s? 2.5s? 2.7s? Really? So half the weapons in PS2 are "dumbed down" because they take longer than sniper rifles perfect TTKs? REALLY? Are you really going to defend (or perhaps even agree with) such an incredible dumb and non-sensical statement?

That's a load of bullcrap and you know it. Sunrock often makes that sort of nonsense statements though since he's from BF3 and incredibly biased to that sort of gameplay. To the point of being extremely disrespectful to other variaties of gameplay.

ringring · 2013-01-25, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by exile

As I said before (which nobody seems to have any comment about?) I would argue that a longer TTK actually decreases the available depth for an individual, because the longer a gunfight lasts the less ability the player has to maintain their situational awareness.

Originally Posted by psijaka

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

It's not my experience comparing ps1 vs ps2.

Although, chaotic base designs may influence that. Ps2 seems to be all move move move.

I no longer do those things when I know there's an enemy 'just along there' and I lay a trap and wait for the situation to develop. Now I know if I don't move, I'll become someone else's victim shortly.

And a by product is that there's very little variation in weapons. The only real variation are in the OSK weapons, ie sniper rifles and grenades.

Stellarthief · 2013-01-25, 05:58 AM

Your post was so large that i can't respond to it all now while at work and lunch break coming soon.

Only point I can disagree with quickly or maybe even overall is that Deathmatch should have short/fast TTK and objective based gameplay longer TTK. I find the opposite:

Deathmatch imo, should have longer TTK as to have decent matches that don't last a fraction of a sec because on your way out from the base you get gibbed by a stray bullet. I prefer death match in normal Halo 3 mode with shields and heals and abilities and multiple guns and a rather long TTK or in gears of war 1 TTK average was VERY long (even with OHK in the game). Can be noted I am not a fan of those ultra mega twitch FPS games (quake, UT, where TTK can next to non existant).

Objective gameplay imo should have short TTK. I agree with you that getting flanked shouldn't be a death sentence but in reality it more or less is. You flank em in force, catch em unaware and they are done for. Shouldn't mean you don't lose any of your team, which is true in PS2 as all it takes is a few bullets to die. The fault here is that everyone is watching the front, zerging and trying to get xp and none the 6 to keep people off (more or less the game pushes you to this by design).
But mostly, I dislike a longer TTK because it will allow def/assault situations to go on for much longer than it needs to. You add a longer TTK into an already defensive position and the matches simply go on too long for really No Point. I'm quite sorry, but I don't see a point to these 4 hour biolab fights as they are.. The bonuses from taking objectives in this game, currently, are not good enough to warranty spending so much time taking or defending 1 base. Only reason people do it right now I think is an xp farm fest.

That's why, I am still on the side, that overall TTK isn't what the problem is, in this game. It's the design. But raising or lowering TTK isn't going to change anything to the point where it's better or worse imo as long as design stays the same.

Figment · 2013-01-25, 06:22 AM

There are many types of deathmatch arena games. GoldenEye64 being one of the first still IMO is one of the most fun ones, but that doesn't mean I'd transplant its TTKs into PS2. Attrition mattered. Sadly, explosive weapons were often rather OP. Perfect Dark was exceptionally great fun, unless you played it on super-hard mode where enemies would continuously headshot you while strafing at ultra-fast speeds through the map. The N64 controller just wasn't made for that kind of play *cough*damn N64 joystick*cough*... >.>

But the "perfect" TTK range is in the eyes of the beholder. Also depends on how fast you spawn, how big the map is, how long travel distance is, how complex the map and time in between encounters. I'm sure the smaller maps are more popular for casual players playing with friends at home on a console.

Bio Labs are currently an exception in the game, but that has to do more with interrupted flow that creates high pop density and farming in the dome with so little direction of the fight that it's just chaos. :/

So much chaos and options that neither defense nor attack can form coherent lines around their objectives. That keeps resetting fights.

Most of the other fights are over before they actually started. :/ Fights for a small outpost should last longer than half a minute, while fights for towers are about right in length, though not in flow, since most of that time is spent camping by the attackers. Fights for bases can take too long or too short, depends on the design really.

In that respect I very much agree with you that design is the main culprit. However, short TTK does enhance the design's negative effects (IMO anyway).

Compare to PS1, where a fight would last long, but once a line was breached it would be over soon and resetting such a fight would require a really strong push (or skilled infil).

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-25, 06:47 AM

Every time people talk negatively about low TTK, they always make it sound like it requires no thinking at all, just point and click. If you think that, it's possible that you just aren't suited to this kind of game.

I find low TTK actually requires a lot of thought, just that you're required to do it very quickly. Mostly because you have limited time to do so, and one mistake in the judgement of a situation can be deadly.

But in the end, quick decision making and careful planning can co-exist, they aren't mutually exclusive. Perhaps once they've worked on the bases to make them more defensible, most of the issues people are having will be solved and it will turn out not to be TTK issues at all.

(By the way, this whole "dumbing down" meme is something that needs to die. If you're going to call someone stupid for liking something "less complex" than something you like, call them stupid straight up so they can ignore you).

Sunrock · 2013-01-25, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Basically been saying what Stellarthief just seemed to have considered, if I understood this point right. (and expanded it by linking it to terrain and other things). Recovery and response.

And yes, let's define depth and shallow gameplay.

To me shallow is when there's less actual fight and more execution type gameplay and it's not balanced with the flanking and ambushing (whether that's not possible (0 options) or when that's too easy (5+ options)). When holding a position becomes meaningless because you can just flank from any direction, THAT is dumbing down the game. Especially if the TTK then makes it an execution without opposition.

I've said it before and will say it again: flanking to me is perfect when it provides a decent to good advantage, but isn't an I-win situation by default. I-win situations are extremely shallow forms of gameplay and can even occur with longer TTKs.

I could not be bothered to read any longer then that because it's just so.... I can't find words for how wrong you are.

If a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" situation as you say it because the enemy is disorganized and let you do a maneuver like that. Don't blame the game for the players lack of skill.

If a position can be flanked from any position it's because the defenders suck at defending not because of any game design.

You do not use game mechanics to try to remove bad playing decisions that just totally ruins any game.

Originally Posted by Figment

@Sunrock, put your aggression under a rock, you don't debate, you just throw random opinion statements in a discussion thread. What's the matter? Can't take some sarcasm that uses the same tone and counters your argument? And you'd start getting physical in real life over a sarcastic comment? Seriously?

Wow. Talk about short fuse. No wonder you like short TTKs.

My aggression? What the about yours? I just agreed with a post and you come out and attacks my intelligent for it just because you don't like what he sad. Yea try to talk your way out of it but I do not fall for that and no one else will nether.

Stellarthief · 2013-01-25, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

If a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" situation as you say it because the enemy is disorganized and let you do a maneuver like that. Don't blame the game for the players lack of skill.

If a position can be flanked from any position it's because the defenders suck at defending not because of any game design.

You do not use game mechanics to try to remove bad playing decisions that just totally ruins any game.

Without regarding TTK, I don't actually agree with this statement. The game as it is, doesn't reward you much for carefully covering your flank and keeping people from rushing in. You currently (will change) get no XP for just doing damage with no deathwhere as you get xp for taking damage (repairing, healing).

So don't go saying it's because people suck when that's usually not the case. Most people probably play to get rewarded, and watching the flanks for 30 minutes that nets you lets say, 1k xp for taking or successfully defending is disproportional to the thousands of xp you get for just a handfull of kills (100 for kill itself, + bonus group kill, + streak, + headshot, + assists for just damaging someone that dies, + critical assists).

People fail to see that the problem isn't always player side, but often how the game is designed. Currently its so pointless to not be killing people. Going around ninjaing bases, watching your flank, being tactical all gets you crap and is boring as hell for no rewards and a boost to a pointless war.

It's also the same crap as when you have a hundred or more people all at a tiny little tower or something waiting for it to tick down so they can get xp and move on to the next facility that is already in need of support. You aren't "forced" to wait (no ones holding a gun to your head) but you sit and wait for the reward instead of reinforcing the forward position or starting your flanking or whatever. It's unnecessary mechanics that deter from play. Then no one sits there to defend it from being taken back (which often happens right away).

There is very little incentive in the game to play like that. And the RPG elements of the game force the mentality of play vs. reward. In other games where I didn't get anything besides rank and my stats (Kills, deaths, ratio, average survival time, etc.) instead of xp, there was no pressure to not sit and defend a position because you weren't missing anything! Often it could be a boon because you could get easy kills defending a defensive position, so it boosted your ratios!

That's my opinion on what I have observed and experienced in PS2 so far.