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

[Sunrock]

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

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.

If you can flank from any position people suck because that means they are unable to kill anyone that attacks them. Note that I sad any position, not from a good position. So if a group of players are attacking from the south and just moves 10 meters to the east before attacking and the enemies fails to counter that they do fucking suck as they just have to aim a bit more left to kill them. That is what I was replying to. Not flanking in general but that flanking from the most stupid position would still just "WTF P0wn" any opposition only works if the defenders suck.

But I agree that the game focus too mush on hording exp then actually conquering land. This do encourage some bad behaviors but making the TTK longer will not fix this at all. That is way I sad that if a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" move it's because players let you do that.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Figment

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).

What are your thoughts on weapon variety concerning theoretical TTK.

I still hold that the current extreme TTK curve leaves no place for DOT weapons and area denial because the granularity of damage received is so low (bullets).

[exile]

Originally Posted by Figment

[massive text wall snipped]
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.

Figment, this is a perfect example of "incoherent noise". You ramble all over the place, give extremely narrow, specific examples and claim they somehow back up figures you have seemingly plucked out of thin air, and worst of all you don't even attempt to address the OP's question! If it's a "very simple" argument it shouldn't take you a whole screen of text to explain it. When I previously asked you to summarise your position... I don't even know what to make of the post you made in response. Maybe you have some coherent points in amongst all the noise, but nobody is willing to sift through the irrelevant rambling to find out.

[exile]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

Ok, this is exactly where you are misguided. This whole discussion is supposed to be about complexity and depth, and how TTK impacts these factors. Did you even watch the original video? You don't refer to these topics AT ALL.

As Sirisian discussed (and I re-iterated, but you still ignored it) TTK should ideally provide enough time for a player to manage the "mental burden" (as discussed in the video) of the decisions that they need to make in combat. Because the mechanics of combat are relatively simple in PS2, a short TTK is appropriate and manageable.

Does this clarify the kind of conversation that the OP is trying to foster here? Can't you see how distracting and off topic all of the stuff you've been flooding the thread with is?

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by Sunrock

If you can flank from any position people suck because that means they are unable to kill anyone that attacks them. Note that I sad any position, not from a good position. So if a group of players are attacking from the south and just moves 10 meters to the east before attacking and the enemies fails to counter that they do fucking suck as they just have to aim a bit more left to kill them. That is what I was replying to. Not flanking in general but that flanking from the most stupid position would still just "WTF P0wn" any opposition only works if the defenders suck.

But I agree that the game focus too mush on hording exp then actually conquering land. This do encourage some bad behaviors but making the TTK longer will not fix this at all. That is way I sad that if a flanking maneuver becomes a "I win" move it's because players let you do that.

I agree. Even said so. In general a well executed flank will win it for you, even against experienced players. The force at the front doesn't simply disappear because a flanking force shows up. It's a classic move that works well in games and translates really well when you have classes like LA infantry.

I think we can probably agree though that there is no incentive though for people to get better at defending against flanking or to get better at flanking or much of any other tactic that doesn't involve getting massive kills / zerging.

TTK won't change anything, as we agree.

And to posts directly above mine. This is an FPS. Not even a very advanced one. Mechanics are usually very simple in an FPS. Point, click, boom - try not to get pointed and clicked. Some differences here and there, classes added for flavour and balance of weapons, illusion of RPG progress, etc. Bullet drop, blood, CoF, recoil, etc. These are all things your mental and physical dexterity can compensate for with some practice. It's nothing so complex as needing to do complex calculations to make sure your tank shell hits the target or you bank at a correct angle or that the rocket has just the right amount of fuel...

Also coming from a heavy RPG MMO background, and from some games with really complex mechanics, mechanics do not equal depth. Complexity and depth are 2 different things, is my point.

Bear with me here on this bad example. Drawing a freehand perfect circle is complex yet mechanically simple. You need a piece of a paper, a hand, foot or mouth and a writing tool. The end. Yet the results are very hard to achieve. Now, yeah, this doesn't have much to do with depth unless you want to call drawing a circle a deep activity, but I am making a broader point.

Some of the simplest things are the most complex, even the deepest (philosophy for example. A simple question can be super deep). But there are also examples where something massively complex is not deep at all because of ease of operation and intuitive understanding. I guess the human body could be an example of this. A very complex machine, yet it's not very hard or deep to raise your arm is it (assuming you are physically and mentally sound)? Nothing deep about raising your arm despite the mechanics of it..

The same is with TTK. Just because you die fast and the point and click mechanics are easy doesn't make the game shallow nor does it make it particularly deep. Same if you point and click and take awhile to die.
It's a contributing factor, but hardly the most important one or one that will drastically change the depth of the game.

If that makes any sense.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Interesting point, and I agree.

Edit - especially in the case of 1v1 scenarios.

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

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..

Yeah, got to admit it's not quite so clear cut as I first thought.

With a very long TTK (Firefall) I find that it takes so long to take someone down that I do lose situational awareness. But I don't think anyone contributing to this thread is advocating say a doubling of the current TTK, to something approaching Firefall levels.

Your point about being able to react when taking fire is interesting, but I don't think that this counts of being situationally aware; it is the same as slapping at a fly that is biting you on the arm; the ultimate twitch skill, and is pretty shallow gameplay.

I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive, by trying to use situational awareness to avoid taking damage in the first place, as the penalty for not doing so is a high risk of death (the current TTK encourages me to do this).

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Yeah, got to admit it's not quite so clear cut as I first thought.

With a very long TTK (Firefall) I find that it takes so long to take someone down that I do lose situational awareness. But I don't think anyone contributing to this thread is advocating say a doubling of the current TTK, to something approaching Firefall levels.

Your point about being able to react when taking fire is interesting, but I don't think that this counts of being situationally aware; it is the same as slapping at a fly that is biting you on the arm; the ultimate twitch skill, and is pretty shallow gameplay.

I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive, by trying to use situational awareness to avoid taking damage in the first place, as the penalty for not doing so is a high risk of death (the current TTK encourages me to do this).

Well, I agree. Being proactive is better than reactive. No argument there. But with the current game design you get a red line on your hud to tell you where you are getting fired upon. This is great and is there to give you some direction to react. It doesn't work always 100% because down and up kinda confuse it sometimes but regardless - that is there to give you a chance to react. The TTK doesn't play nice with this mechanic. It's great to have that line show up and then be dead before you can start to turn your character. I personally have no problem with this! Other people seem to

But we also have to consider the fact, you can't always be situationally aware. This game has culling. It's an unfortunate fact of the current situation of servers (though it doesn't have to be! - GW2 should be eliminating the culling there this year they claim). This means that not only are we limited by FoV(why we have the radar these days) we are limited to things we can't immediately see. I can easily run by a group of enemies then when they are no longer in my field of view they render and I die...

You see what I'm getting at? The TTK in of itself is not a problem. it's also fine. But other game design decisions (even if based on technical limitations) penalize you for basically no reason - Culling is why I put GW2 on ice for now. But I guess you can also see what I am getting at, that the TTK would have to be increased SO much to make it even matter that it's not worth doing. It would be better to change the design decisions to make it worth while.

Even if TTK was changed, me getting myself flanked due to culling won't allow me to turn around on 5 enemy players and have any chance anyway. PS2 is a numbers game.. If it was a small scale combat game, TTK has a HUGE impact.. But simply put, when 30 guys are firing at you, what does TTK matter? You might escape (somehow) the 30 guys aiming at you, but the tank, the turrets, the air, the grenades, the mines, your own team running you over, shooting you, blowing you up? C'mon lets be realistic

[psijaka]

^ Agree - small changes in TTK are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't resist replying to what must be one of the longest and most complex posts that I have seen on this forum! Don't have time for all your points, Figment, but here goes:

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

Not sure that I agree with this at all. Surely being able to assess the defencability of a position to determine whether you have a chance of holding it with the forces you have at your disposal adds a lot of depth to the game. Conversely, if all positions only had 2-3 approaches, then this would remove depth from the game as making that decision becomes almost "cut and paste".

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.

Not shallow at all if you have assessed and taken risks to get into that position where you are pretty much guaranteed the kill.

-snip- 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. ()

Agreed. But you yourself are only advocating a modest increase in TTK, and this will not make much difference in practice.

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.

Now you've really lost me here! Which colour curves are you referring to and what are the units on the Y axis?

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.

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

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.

I could turn this on it's head by saying that having a short TTK forces you to think more in advance before getting into a situation, rather than just relying on having time to react to damage taken. This adds depth to the game.

That's all I've got time for; work beckons!

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

Wow Figment. Do you really think people will not see the veiled insults? Not only that, but you make some grossly narrow minded assumptions. Did it never cross your mind that the INTERNET is accessed world wide? Did it never cross your mind that I may not be an American? In fact, I am not. I am Canadian. Also, you insinuate that being an American is an insult. Way to go Buddy! That is one heck of a stereotype. You can add bigotry to your resume.

You linked a graph showing different kinds of normal distribution curves, defined in purely mathematical terms. IE: the two axes are not functions relating to ANYTHING in the game. Then you use this as some kind of proof backing your hypothesis? And you expect people to believe you?

I've grown up speaking English my entire life. I hope that my written communication skills reflect that I am at the very least competent with English. I am also an avid reader. I don't think I've ever heard or seen the term "Grayscale" used in anything other than photography or art. So yeah, when you say "grayscale", I'm confused. I reply to your posts, assuming you mean to say "gray area", but I risk being wrong in my assumption.

Now you're talking about making very small changes to TTK. You post so many numbers, I still don't know by how much you propose. Keep in mind, some people can play with pings to the server in the 50ms while others can be playing with pings in the 300ms (or more). With client side hit detection, that means you still die even if you react quickly on your end. So by HOW MUCH do you propose to increase TTK, so that it makes a consistent difference and won't simply be made insignificant by other factors? Another point is individual skill makes a difference. An increase of half a second (500ms) would be a huge boon to many players while at the same time go unnoticed by the rest.

A good player will still be good and a bad player will still be bad. TTK won't even the playing field, regardless of how you change it.

[Stellarthief]

Originally Posted by psijaka

That's all I've got time for; work beckons!

I've just lost all respect for you...

[Chaff]

As much as it can suck & annoy us, dying quickly is pretty much realistic - especially if "the other guy" got the jump on you.

Methinks too many of the ones who CRY for longer TTK are likely very skilled .... but the underlying issue/motivation is EGO. IF the TTK is made to be very long, then the better player can get caught napping by a newb or inferior opponent ..... but still bunny hop away from the initial element of surprise ..... and then use their superior hand-eye to save their precious K/D ..... a LOT of players play as if their entire existence is based on having a higher K/D than the rest of us.
* * * NEWS BULLETIN * * *
IT'S A GAME. No one has all the answers. It's an endless drivel fest about personal preferences & opinions. Get a LIFE .... away from the game .... and maybe when you play and/or discuss it you'll have a better mental "balance". There is a percentage of PSU posters that come across as being in need of mental/psychological help.
Their arguments quicky become seen by the community as a "sign"

"Headcase"

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by psijaka

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

Between 200ms and 600ms we are talking about a non-issue.
The average reaction time of a human being is 150-300ms, thats the time of your senses registering input and sending a response. Depending on the complexity of the response, that time might be longer, but 150-300ms is the absolute minimum to do a simple response like pressing a button.

PS2s technical (perfect) TTK is between ~200ms (shotguns) and ~600ms (rifles) with the exception of the Lasher and Bolt-Action Rifles (1300ms and ~900ms).

If we are talking about 200ms vs 600ms this is a non-argument, as both times are not enough for a human to react (in the complex way the game requires) anyways, so even if CODs TTK was exactly like PS2s, the difference would be negligible in experience for the player.

Originally Posted by psijaka

And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

Isn't that exactly what Figment is talking about?

Respawns are quick and deaths even quicker, thats typical Deathmatch behavior for a game. The distance traveled from respawn to the action is largely irrelevant.

Whens the last time you had an infantry "fight" and by that I mean a struggle against another person (or multiple persons)?
I've only experienced a few consistent scenarios in PS2:

1. Door/Spawn/position camping. Both teams have found a place where they pew pew at each other from cover and spam grenades, with medics constantly reviving.

2. Lemming runs. You throw yourself at a defended position over and over again until the other team leaves.

3. Skirmish. You arrive at a base with few enemy players and mop them up according to who noticed who first.

This in short describes more than 2/3rds of engagements in PS2 for infantry combat. It's always entirely lopsided and, more importantly, uninteresting.

Thats why when I play infantry, I play a suicide explosives loadout. I don't fire guns most of the time, its boring and uninteresting. I'd rather spam nades and suicide with AI/AV Mines/LA C4 runs.

[Palerion]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

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.

See, I think Shade is spot on here.

I feel like I die insanely fast too sometimes, but I think once issues start ironing out, everything will shape up well.

As a matter of fact the current screen flinch and shake from explosions and bullets comes into play hear.

As of right now it is so intense that it is making it hard to recover from taking fire.

When this is fixed, you may be able to put that last shot into the guy you're shooting at, get the kill, and pop behind cover.

Beyond that one issue, we still have zerg problems and meta-game problems that will be fixed.

Eventually the battles will be more streamlined, more balanced, and more exciting.

I think time will tell whether TTK is really causing the problems, and as the devs keep working, the game will progressively become more fun and less frustrating.

Just give it time.

[Figment]

Exile - Don't know what to say to that because you're just saying it's incoherent without making any determinable points to why. Shall we just agree to disagree?

Originally Posted by psijaka

^ Agree - small changes in TTK are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things!

Can't agree, there's a gradual change or at least tipping points as TTK increases. Otherwise no increase in TTK would ever be relevant. There's a difference in impact between say OHK, ultra-short, short, below average, above average, long and ultralong TTKs. De- or Increases may put something on the edge of those or push it just into the next batch of TTKs.

Not sure that I agree with this at all. Surely being able to assess the defencability of a position to determine whether you have a chance of holding it with the forces you have at your disposal adds a lot of depth to the game. Conversely, if all positions only had 2-3 approaches, then this would remove depth from the game as making that decision becomes almost "cut and paste".

If the conclusion tends to be "better keep moving, cause I'll get flanked everywhere and ganked on twitch skill if I don't" keep moving, then no, it doesn't add depth, it removes it. :/

Not shallow at all if you have assessed and taken risks to get into that position where you are pretty much guaranteed the kill.

That's shallow by my definition. :/ Depth would be if it creates new options and choices in the fight ahead and isn't the end of the road. Flanking is a natural thing to do, flanking itself adds depth, but since you can always flank under any TTK, short TTKs do nothing but make things easy once you get where you want to be.

Easy and lack of needing to make choices is shallow IMO.

Agreed. But you yourself are only advocating a modest increase in TTK, and this will not make much difference in practice.

See first response - I think it'd tip the balance just enough to be able to respond and recover sufficiently.

Now you've really lost me here! Which colour curves are you referring to and what are the units on the Y axis?

They're just a bunch of random gaussian curve plots. If I'd actually make one, one of these would show the TTK distributions in a game between weapons and in what range the majority of prefered TTKs would fall.

Full Auto TTK in COD is less than half that of PS2. And camping is rife in COD, because of the short TTK; the ambusher can take down their prey in less than 200ms.

Clearing campers is easy in CoD. >.> My brother tries it all the time, but he doesn't handle shotguns and stabs as well as I do. He's better at long range rifling though, hence I use terrain to get behind him and instakill him or use grenades to flush him out: gone camp position and typically dead.

And I strongly disagree with your statement that PS2 plays like a deathmatch game. The consequences of a death are very variable, depending largely upon the proximity of the nearest respawn point.

Meh, agree to disagree. It plays like CoD with predictable spawnpoints to me.

Example-I was defending at the Crown last night, up on the flight decks and doing really well. An enemy deployed onto the roof above me, dropped down to the pad and killed me. I respawned at the Sunderer in the basement and teleported back to the flight deck and was back in action in about 20 seconds, so my death meant nothing in the scheme of things (other than a little lost pride on my part).

Little bases where spawncamping hasn't commenced play like CoD matches with jetpacks to me. :/

I could turn this on it's head by saying that having a short TTK forces you to think more in advance before getting into a situation, rather than just relying on having time to react to damage taken. This adds depth to the game.

If one doesn't think before going into battle, that person has already lost. Moot point. One should always do something on the basis of a rational idea. Whether or not it's a long TTK doesn't matter for planning, TTK only has impact on the actual fight and the consequences of the fight (and whether it's worth to come back due to spawncamping).

[Eduard Khil]

That was one thing I hated from PS1, the TTK, I actually like this one, it is a bit more UT/CS.

If I were playing a sim or half a sim like BF2 mods or Arma, sure why not, but this game is nowhere near that.