Does the shallow TTK shortchange the Depth this game could have? - Page 17

Figment · 2013-01-25, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.

So, you're saying you're NOT from the Americas?

Didn't know Canada could detach itself at will.

Lighten up. See the smiley, it's a joke, you're looking for insults to get upset about now. =/ (And yes, being American is silly.

).

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?

.................................................. ................

Did I relate to the graphs as actual FACTS AND NUMBERS, or merely AS AN ILLUSTRATION of what I meant with a gaussian curve? Sheesh. I said why I posted it, just to explain my mental image of what we're talking about.

Seriously. Reading comprehension, use it.

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.

Grey scale.

vs

Black and white.

The reasoning behind a grey area type of thinking is that there's a grayscale involved with intermediate points. Black and white thinking only looks at the extremes. YOU only look at the extremes, see your last quote here. You are thinking in black and white, not in greyscale.

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.

Then you haven't read any of the posts very well. Because I clearly defined when I'm simply argueing about the impact of numbers, opposed to what I want. In fact, I'VE VERY CLEARLY STATED THE RANGE OF TTKS I'D PREFER IN THAT POST YOU ARE REFERING TO.

Seriously not that difficult to read where it says the range I describe as being your preference and the range I describe as being my preference, is it?

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.

Ping of up to 210ms isn't that big a deal. We've had to live with it for years: it gives you advantages and disadvantages all the time.

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.

Bullshit.

Figment · 2013-01-25, 01:03 PM

Btw, question, if minor TTK increases don't matter one bit...

Then explain why these have different amounts of hitpoints:

Engineer
Heavy Assault
Infil
Light Assault
MAX
Medic

No impact on gameplay due to minor TTK differences, huh?

Dreamcast · 2013-01-25, 01:18 PM

It depends.

First of all the TTK is all right in 1 vs 1 situations if you're HA.......Even if somebody gets the drop on me, I have enough time to fight back....So the TTK isn't any where near BF3/COD level.

Having said that, this game isn't 1 vs 1......So when you have multiple people shooting at you, the ttk could be way too low...Not to mention the Instant kill Explosives in the game.

I say the TTK is allright....and could be slightly higher to resemble a HA with their shield on...But is way better than Planetside 1 TTK.

If the TTK is too high then skill isn't going to matter...The number of troops are....No longer can't a most skillful player take on 3 different guys on himself.

Kerrec · 2013-01-25, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

So, you're saying you're NOT from the Americas?

Didn't know Canada could detach itself at will.

Lighten up. See the smiley, it's a joke, you're looking for insults to get upset about now. =/ (And yes, being American is silly.

).

There was no point to the paragraph you wrote, other than to belittle people. I am not looking to be insulted, I am just pointing out how what you choose to include to your walls of texts is unecessary. IE: White noise.

Originally Posted by Figment

Did I relate to the graphs as actual FACTS AND NUMBERS, or merely AS AN ILLUSTRATION of what I meant with a gaussian curve? Sheesh. I said why I posted it, just to explain my mental image of what we're talking about.

Seriously. Reading comprehension, use it.

I seriously doubt anyone understands why you posted those graphs. They don't mean anything. Just more white noise. BTW, reading comprehension can only be as good as what is written.

Originally Posted by Figment

Grey scale.

vs

Black and white.

I know what a grey scale is. I said I've only seen it used in the context of photography or art. In discussions where you are discussing an area between two extremes, the proper terminology is "grey area".

Originally Posted by Figment

Then you haven't read any of the posts very well. Because I clearly defined when I'm simply argueing about the impact of numbers, opposed to what I want. In fact, I'VE VERY CLEARLY STATED THE RANGE OF TTKS I'D PREFER IN THAT POST YOU ARE REFERING TO.

Seriously not that difficult to read where it says the range I describe as being your preference and the range I describe as being my preference, is it?

If a paragraph is too garbled, I skip it. If you did clearly state what range of TTK change you propose, then it wouldn't have killed you to just clearly reply, instead of writing that junk up there. It probably would have taken less time. I still don't know how much change you are even proposing.

BTW, you throw around so many numbers that appear to be plucked out of thin air (add pointless graphs to that now), that I don't give any credence to numbers when you do post them. For example where you said that if you can't cross a 25m space without being killed, then TTK is too short. Where in the heck did you establish that 25m is THE line where TTK is either too short or too long? From my point of view, you just pulled that out of thin air. To me, that kind of number flinging has no value. So yeah, I don't memorize or pay attention to things I find irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Figment

Ping of up to 210ms isn't that big a deal. We've had to live with it for years: it gives you advantages and disadvantages all the time.

Client side hit detection is a fairly new thing. Before it was the person with the lowest ping that had the advantage. My friends and I used to call them LPB's (Low Ping B*tches). With Client side hit detection, the advantage is all over the place depending on the situation. Not the same beast at all.

Originally Posted by Figment

Bullshit.

Really? So you're saying, if you were in charge, you could design a game that would make bad players just as good as good players? Assuming that was possible (Yeah, I'm going to extremes to make a point), why in the heck would good players play it?

psijaka · 2013-01-25, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

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.

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)?
.

Now hold on a minute. On the one hand you are saying that the avg human reaction time is 150-300ms, and then you say that there isn't any difference between a TTK of 200 and 600ms!

Remember that these are perfect TTK's which assume that every bullet hits the mark. Recoil, COF, player movement etc means that this is rarely the case in reality (exceptions being when you get the drop on someone up close). So if we say assume that only 50% of bullets hit the mark, we have a difference between 400ms (not enough time to react) and 1.2s (enough time to react). Hugely significant.

Regarding significance of a death - I posted my scenario to show that the significance of a death in PS2 is very variable.

The difference between the spawn and the action is HUGELY significant; I'm staggered that you would think otherwise. If the Sunderer is nearby, you are back in the action with full ammo and full health in 20 seconds or so. If you are attacking a base and your team's Sunderer gets spotted and blown up, then getting killed means that you are out of the attack altogether.

psijaka · 2013-01-25, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

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. :/

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.

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

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.

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. is rife.

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

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

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).

Oh dear; another wall of text to wade through; serves me right for responding.

I'm not going to respond to your comments as we just seem to be going around in circles; neither of us is going to change our minds, and I suspect that you have got more time on your hands than I have.

In fact, I'm going to log off right now and play some PS2.

Edit - back from some excellent action at Tawrich and Broken Arch.

I'm still not going to try and go through your post answering every point, it seems that I counter every argument that you make, and then you counter every argument that I make, and we end up going around in circles.

I think that I'm going to bow out of this particular thread now as it is turning into a sterile argument rather than a constructive debate.

psijaka · 2013-01-25, 04:23 PM

deleted - "high traffic" caused double post

psijaka · 2013-01-25, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

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

Damn; serious loss of kudos admitting to having a job....better not mention the wife and 3 kids.....oops too late

exile · 2013-01-25, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

These are very clear points:

Originally Posted by Exile

If it's a "very simple" argument it shouldn't take you a whole screen of text to explain it.

Originally Posted by Exile

...you don't even attempt to address the OP's question

And did you miss this post of mine (the same way you have conveniently avoided every single post that actually addresses the question at hand?):

Originally Posted by Exile

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?

Figment · 2013-01-26, 07:32 AM

Exile, you don't understand my position and I doubt you ever will because you don't seem to understand we have different ideas about what complexity and depth are.

Complexity and depth for me is the amount of choices you can make that lead to different outcomes. For you, it is dropping people before they can respond and then claiming this is skill. Shooting people from behind. So hard a choice. So much depth. So much skill. So much impact of timing and way of moving with respect to geometry to get into your gun's optimal TTK zone w.r.t. your opponent and keeping your enemy there.

Not. There are no complex follow up decisions to be made or even that can be made in PS2 in the time you drop someone. That means it's utterly shallow game play to me. And yes, PS1 had more complexity, though at some points TTK was too long which reduced complexity again (PS1 AI MAX for instance is a simpleton weapon: point in the general direction and click while absorbing loads of shots).

All "planning of the fight" is the situation leading up to the ganking. There's no planning involved in how you will try to orchestrate the fight in your favour from there, because it's not needed. How is that making PS2 have more depth? Shorter engagement, less skills needed, less fair fight. Sorry, that's utterly shallow to me.

So I do respond to the OP, just not in the wya you expect me to. Suck on it Exile. People disagree about things at times including definitions. That doesn't make it "noise".

If that was all you ever needed to do to win, there is no depth. That is shallow. Shallow is having to be less able in all kinds of aspects of a fight to me and having less control over the outcome when being engaged.

You don't seem to understand those definitions yourself. Since you don't actually make any points in half the posts, nor try to explain your position, I really think the one making the most noise is you. Walls of text? I can read through them fine, maybe cert some attentionspan.

And Kerrec, just because you fail to understand something or the reason of posting a reference or example that gives an idea anout something, doesn't mean it is noise. And ffs, lighten up. You have no sense of humour. That graph is really easy to interpret, if you would just read the accompanying text and figure out from that what the graph would look like and what the axes would be. If you had statistical maths in school you should understand a gaussian curve when you see one. But you aren't even trying.

Look it up on wiki, you'll find the source of the example image too.

As for replying to the OP:

Originally Posted by VGCS

Pay particular attention to the point about "Modern Shooters" while considering PS2's ingredients: Situational Awareness, tactical decision making, reaction time, Map & Terrain awareness, your opponent's class, your opponents weapon, where the nearest corners/cover is in multiple directions, ally locations, objective & spawn flow, recoil control, compensating aim for the impacts of flinching, ...and everything else I'm missing here that comes from hybridizing an FPS together with the macro-elements of RTS size armies & strategies .... and then compress it all into 0.80 seconds which is effectively your entire lifespan when being shot at.

To me it seems I'm the only one that actually does consider all these elements, because you remove 90% of the decision making related to the above from the fight and then call it depth.

Rothnang · 2013-01-26, 07:47 AM

The extremely short TTK in PS2 is IMO the biggest thing that dumbs down the game. It's why I hate playing with infantry, it's why I dislike the crazy fast aircraft kills... To me it's more interesting to have a game where you need to figure out how to kill an enemy before he gets away than a game where damn near all encounters end in death because hardly anyone ever has time to run.

exile · 2013-01-26, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Complexity and depth for me is the amount of choices you can make that lead to different outcomes. For you, it is dropping people before they can respond and then claiming this is skill. Shooting people from behind. So hard a choice. So much depth. So much skill. So much impact of timing and way of moving with respect to geometry to get into your gun's optimal TTK zone w.r.t. your opponent and keeping your enemy there.

Not. There are no complex follow up decisions to be made or even that can be made in PS2 in the time you drop someone. That means it's utterly shallow game play to me. And yes, PS1 had more complexity, though at some points TTK was too long which reduced complexity again (PS1 AI MAX for instance is a simpleton weapon: point in the general direction and click while absorbing loads of shots).

All "planning of the fight" is the situation leading up to the ganking. There's no planning involved in how you will try to orchestrate the fight in your favour from there, because it's not needed. How is that making PS2 have more depth? Shorter engagement, less skills needed, less fair fight. Sorry, that's utterly shallow to me.

So I do respond to the OP, just not in the wya you expect me to. Suck on it Exile. People disagree about things at times including definitions. That doesn't make it "noise".

You're missing the point. As Sirisian said, with the current complexity of combat the TTK is appropriate. A longer TTK does not add depth, because there are only a small amount of decisions a player needs to make, in regards to being in a gunfight.

Sirisian actually agrees with you, that he would like to see more complexity in gunfights, and I do to. But the TTK is not the limiting factor, the lack of meaningful decisions is.

These design decisions seem to be intentional, keeping the combat implementation simple with a shallow learning curve and putting the depth and complexity into the macro scale gameplay. It might not be what you want out of the game but it's a perfectly legitimate (and sensible for their business model) design decision.

Not only do you completely fail to grasp the principles involved in the OP and waste everyone's time with your pages and pages (omg so much pointless text!) of rambling, you then resort to insulting other people who are trying to have a legitimate discussion, lashing out because you fail to grasp the subtleties of their discussion?! You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Crator · 2013-01-26, 08:47 AM

Does it really add that much complexity if we increase the TTK slightly? I still hold that increasing the TTK a bit will make the different weapons a bit more unique. Does that really make it harder to use them? Perhaps a little but isn't that what is being proposed, more depth less shallow...

I didn't find anything Figment said a waste of time. It's his position on the subject and he did a pretty good job describing it I think. Yes sometimes he can be abrasive and say things that are insulting, but don't we all when we get backed into a corner?

Rothnang · 2013-01-26, 10:49 AM

The main thing having a higher TTK does is make positioning more important and thereby increase the tactical depth of the game.

Right now if I ADS, poke my head out of cover and take a few shots at an enemy there is a fairly good chance that I'll get hit, and die before I'm back in cover. Even if I do make it back into cover, I'll most likely have lost health and not just shields, so the likelyhood of me surviving sticking my head out a second time is even lower.

That dumbs down the game because it allows people to trade kills without actually maneuvering on the enemy. The only way I can turn the present situation into one where someone has to walk around my cover to kill me is if I have a medic sitting in said piece of cover who keeps reviving me over and over. No offense to medics, but it's an absolute bore that I need a medic before my enemy starts needing strategy. What's worse, most medics tend to agree, which is why they don't just sit in cover and revive people, but start poking their own heads out, and we're back to square one where you can win without positioning yourself in any smart way.

If I could get back in cover, recharge my shield and resume the fight for however long I wanted, and the only way an enemy could kill me is if he found a way to outflank me and take me down in between shield recharges the game would simply have more depth, because it would place bigger emphasis on positioning and teamwork, and less emphasis on just sitting somewhere trading kills.

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-26, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

If I could get back in cover.....

If you had enough time to move around and get to cover then you would be better off spending that time strafing and killing the enemy.

Thats a good player would do. Bad players always think that by prolonging a bad situation they will somehow magically start to do better.
Good players take a bad situation and keep working it hoping for the other guy to screw up.