Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat? - Page 2

Xyntech · 2011-09-30, 11:22 PM

I'm hoping that a slight increase in TTK will make rifles more meaningful.

Ideally, I think Heavy Assault should lay down the cover fire and mow down large clusters of infantry, but it shouldn't take someone 50m away very long to drop that same HA before he can do much damage.

I don't think getting the drop on someone should be everything, but it should count for a lot and the current mechanics don't allow for that. Surprise is an important element of tactics and it is severely lacking in Planetside. The closes we really get to effective ambushing is using third person to guard corners, which is an idiotic exploit of game mechanics that I will be glad to see gone.

Captain B · 2011-09-30, 11:31 PM

I hope we can shoot dudes in buggies and kill them, or anyone else exposed for that matter. That'd be sweet.

Sirisian · 2011-10-01, 12:13 AM

We had a thread like this already.

Let me begin that I agree 100% with the OP. Just got done playing a few matches of BF3 with my friend and I'm done. I don't want to keep playing today. The spawn and death cycle is very quick so in a 10 minute game you will have people with 15 kills and 10 deaths. I've said this a lot, but I prefer to take a few bullets then move back behind cover. You can somewhat do that in BF3, but most of the time it's too late and is 50% luck.

In PS1 you had focused fire to kill other players. In BF3 you don't really need that. Lot of "wtf" moments where you'd be walking then die instantly with no time to react. Never been a big fan of that. (Lot of spawn death also. Where you spawn and take two steps and die).

It's kind of obvious why the developers want the TTK to be longer than BF. I'm just not sold on why it needs to be less than PS1.

One thing relating to BF3 though is the amount of ammo players have. Perfect. After like 4 kills you often find yourself running low on ammo (I spray a lot) and you have to switch to a pistol. I have a thread on such a thing for PS2, and I think it's such a nice system for promoting teamwork and artificially limited kill streaks.

Though if you've read my posts before I've explained why I prefer a long TTK so that you can't just run into a room and kill 3 people. Very possible in BF3 to just spray off a magazine into a group. (Did it. Got 2 kills and the 3rd guy killed me. They were moving all tactically around a corner and I just busted in). When it takes 15 of a 25 round magazine in a rifle to kill someone suddenly it becomes a lot more difficult and you really need to work with a team. Especially when 3 people using focused fire is going to down you much faster than you can fire.

So yeah a longer TTK than BF is definitely the way to go. I agree partially with the people that say we can solve this in beta.

cellinaire · 2011-10-01, 12:38 AM

No. Not worried at all. At least try to understand the dev's position/market research on this one.

Talek Krell · 2011-10-01, 01:19 AM

If SOE would like to share it's marketing calculations with the fanbase then we can discuss them too.

DviddLeff · 2011-10-01, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by raykor

I love the pace of combat in PS1. It is one of the key features the original devs got right.

Original devs yes, but after the Rexo buff and the 10% air cav armour increase it got messed up; MA weapons were no longer effective against HA users close up and air cav dominated outdoors.

During my 7 years of on-and-off play, I often logged 4+ hour sessions. I’ll even admit to quite a few 10+ hour marathon sessions. The short breaks in action are what made long play sessions enjoyable. I would NEVER play for that long in a constant action, fast-paced shooter. They literally nauseate me after a while.

Agreed that the down time in PS1 was good, but in some ways rather than others. A half hour drive in a Sunderer across the length of Esamir a few weeks after release with my outfit sticks in my mind; it was great to just kick back and chat, getting to know each other. But for your solo player or one with limited time, that kind of downtime is a killer.

The devs have stated that they feel PS1’s 2-3 sec. TTK is simply too long. I think it is perfect. It allowed for meaningful one-on-one encounters where strafing (ADDAAADDDDAAAADDDAADDD) and aim mattered. A shorter TTK will result in the first person to shoot getting the kill nearly every time and thus a whole lot of camping and tactical play. It will also result in many nearly instant deaths from enemies you rarely even see. If you don't see your enemy, you are playing the game wrong, or are surrounded in which case you are in trouble either way.

PS1’s reasonable 2-3 sec TTK allowed you to stay alive just barely long enough to encourage pushing down a heavily defended stairwell. In PS2 you will die the instant you turn a corner before the enemy characters are even drawn on your screen.
What it also allowed was the injured to fall back and heal/repair, creating a blockage in the stairwell which slowed down stairwell fights to stalemates that could last far too long.

What the devs don’t seem to realize is that PS1’s TTK was in practice often much shorter as you were usually being shot by multiple players.

Yes, but if you put yourself in a position where multiple enemies are shooting at you individually you deserve to die.

P.S. The insta-gibbing headshot sniper kills (after 1.7 years of training the appropriate skills) are also going to be a disaster.
Why? With proper trajectories and even wind affecting bullets, this is not going to be a major problem, especially with all the cover we have seen in the screen shots so far. And if you are having a problem with a sniper, just send in a Reaver/Mossie/Hoover to sort them out. And if you are worried about players using sniper rifles as shotguns, many games have already worked that out.

I am really, really pleased that they are reducing the TTK; it will make game play much less zerg like and encourage tactics and teamwork.

Bags · 2011-10-01, 02:01 AM

Waaaa, my 4-cert cheaper MA doesn't counter HA where HA is supposed to shine, what bad balance!

Just sayin'. Agree with most of your yellow other than that though.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-01, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Bags

Waaaa, my 4-cert cheaper MA doesn't counter HA where HA is supposed to shine, what bad balance!

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.

cellinaire · 2011-10-01, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

If SOE would like to share it's marketing calculations with the fanbase then we can discuss them too.

Not likely to happen hehe. And while I also don't have research graphs and numbers, I think it's a common sense. A bit faster paced? I can live with that. Take less time to die? Don't like. The term 'fast-paced' doesn't necessarily need to mean 'you're going to die faster and a lot more' IMO. And it seems majority of gamers nowadays wanna get to the fun part with less delay.

Sirisian · 2011-10-01, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

I am really, really pleased that they are reducing the TTK; it will make game play much less zerg like and encourage tactics and teamwork.

You're using sarcasm? (If you are then ignore the next few sentences, they aren't directed at you).

I mean you've played COD, BF, CS:S probably. The fast TTK generates a spawn/death zerg rush that's massive. It's caused by nothing else really other than the fast movement (unlimited sprint) and the TTK.

When you increase the TTK you force teamwork since two players are suddenly more of a challenge. Sure you might get the jump on one of them, but you don't usually kill them both unless you use tactics. (As explained in previous threads, grenades, boomers, etc). When you take a group of 5 people down a stairway you also have less of a change of losing 2 people to spray and pray. (One of the things I hate in MP FPS games since it's so effective).

Also, and this should be obvious, the bases are larger now. It's been hinted, but not confirmed that we might not have bottlenecks anymore so the flood of people retreating after being damaged shouldn't be that big of a deal. Honestly I liked seeing that. It showed teamwork in that medics and engineers were helping damaged soldiers. (BF3 the only time you see a medic it's to revive you). Then again with the new shield over health system we only have medics which I believe is because they found armor would only stop 1 or 2 bullets so repairing it has little incentive for the reward. That sadden me a little.

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Yes, but if you put yourself in a position where multiple enemies are shooting at you individually you deserve to die.

Indeed. A longer TTK allows that and that's what he's basically saying. With a faster TTK the person doesn't always die. They might kill a person before that point. Happens a lot in the more twitch based FPS games.

Also stop doing that color quote stuff. If you don't want people to reply to you then don't post.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.

Then you suck. If they have a shotgun and you go point blank up to them with an MA you are asking to die. They came better equipped to that fight.

DviddLeff · 2011-10-01, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Its more the completely ambushing someone and yet they can still have time to spin around and their ttk is fast enough to let them come out on top issue that annoys me.

That is what I was getting at Bags

The Rexo buff just tipped it over a point where that was possible and happened a lot of the time, whereas before it wasn't unless your aim was really shitty.

Captain B · 2011-10-01, 05:16 AM

Quick reminder:

Faster is not "fast". It's faster. I run faster than a penguin waddles, but I wouldn't say I run "fast", not where marathon runners are concerned.

I agree about the HA issue. I jump down off a wall, start going at a guy with my Gauss, they turn around, minigun revs up, and then I'm dead. Like, what? I think the iron sights and hit locations will help with this naturally, though.

Someone mentioned in one of the threads (maybe this one) how HA should be for suppressing fire and mowing down clumps of troops. I agree with this. With the faster pace, hit locations, and so on, getting sprayed at with those weapons will be scary, and force people to duck for cover. In PS1, someone starts spraying at me, sure, I'll duck behind some cover, but I'm not shaken (or worse, dead) if I take a few rounds (or 5) beforehand. I'm just clipped, no biggie. Stimpak and back in the game.

Redshift · 2011-10-01, 06:25 AM

I think it will all depend on map design tbh, a low TTK in current bases would have been an annoyance, where you can open a door and be massacred in less than your ping.
If the bases are built in such a way that there are not 20 guns pointed at one door it should be fine.

Mirror · 2011-10-01, 06:29 AM

I'm sure that after a few hours of playing you will get used to the TTK.

CutterJohn · 2011-10-01, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Then you suck. If they have a shotgun and you go point blank up to them with an MA you are asking to die. They came better equipped to that fight.

No, MA sucks. If we see each other at the same time, and we're within 20m, he should win most times. If its outside of 20m, I should win most times. If either of us gets the drop on the other it should mean you win unless you royally screw up. I don't care if its a cloaker with a pistol. Unless I'm phenomenally lucky, some who catches me completely off guard should win the fight. Why? Because its my job not to be caught completely off guard.

The weapons should be better at certain roles. Not useless outside of them. That becomes fitting screen combat.