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

[VGCS]

Originally Posted by psijaka

In answer to the OP - No. Quite the opposite, in fact; short TTK adds to the depth of the game as players must be more situationally aware to survive.

Hmm, I keep seeing this turn of phrase injected but nothing alongside it to differentiate how that "situation" came to be. Nothing to rule out dumb luck. In which case my original questions remain: HOW are you supposed to TEACH this??? If it's easy to teach then where's the Tutorials? That's a key point in the Video, if it's too difficult to make a Tutorial around it, then Developers will typically not even try, citing "time constraints". Could YOU GUYS who are proponents of the current TTK make one you think? That's pretty much the entire point of this Thread afterall. Separating teachable Depth from the much less teachable Complexity...

Case in point, it's really quite easy to design missions that train people to be more proficient at trading shots with eachother in less complicated TTK timeframes. Yet compressing that huge list of things I had in the original post, into the time it takes to go from your spawn to being dead? --- with the almost useless minimap this game provides as your only assistant? Where do the consistent results come in? Or do you prefer it BECAUSE of the gambling nature behind it? We need to get to the root of this argument better and not just settle for subjective placeholders that could also apply to situations where you run full speed around a random corner and catch someone with their back turned.... "on a hunch".

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Lol sarcasm doesnt become you. But yeah dude I regualrly watch sujieun on twitch tv and he is a relentless beast. His skill level is way beyond where I could ever hope to get. And he does it all almost entirely with a medic. So you can laugh like a schoolgirl or recognise that this is a skill based shooter.

Yeah... I used to play APB with him. I've also seen you play b/c we're both on Connery as it's kind of hard to go anywhere without working alongside the 666th. ...but I still find your definitions of skill to be too subjective or at least; not very constructive

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by VGCS

Hmm, I keep seeing this turn of phrase injected but nothing alongside it to differentiate how that "situation" came to be. Nothing to rule out dumb luck. In which case my original questions remain: HOW are you supposed to TEACH this??? If it's easy to teach then where's the Tutorials? That's a key point in the Video, if it's too difficult to make a Tutorial around it, then Developers will typically not even try, citing "time constraints". Could YOU GUYS who are proponents of the current TTK make one you think? That's pretty much the entire point of this Thread afterall. Separating teachable Depth from the much less teachable Complexity...

Case in point, it's really quite easy to design missions that train people to be more proficient at trading shots with eachother in less complicated TTK timeframes. Yet compressing that huge list of things I had in the original post, into the time it takes to go from your spawn to being dead? --- with the almost useless minimap this game provides as your only assistant? Where do the consistent results come in? Or do you prefer it BECAUSE of the gambling nature behind it? We need to get to the root of this argument better and not just settle for subjective placeholders that could also apply to situations where you run full speed around a random corner and catch someone with their back turned.... "on a hunch".

You can't simply "teach" situational awareness in a tutorial; it gradually develops from a mixture of map knowledge, battle experience and good old common sense.

I've no intention of making a video but I'll outline a scenario.

For example, if you see dead allies around, and some enemy "cloakers" have been spotted on a nearby hill, is it really safe to cross that bit of open ground? With the present (average, not low) TTK, no, it might not be, so you have to make your mind up; take your chances and go for it, zig zag running, or find another route and flank them. Or call in an airstrike on their hilltop if you are in a well organised squad.

With a High TTK, there would be less chance of being killed, so you would probably just go for it without giving it much thought.

And taking your example of running around the corner - if you are situationally aware and know or suspect that enemies are about - don't run! Walk around instead, gun drawn ready to fire. And if you are a HA, activate your shield; or if infil, your cloak. If you are really sure that someone is there, then prefire as you are turning the corner! Or chuck a grenade.

On the subject of luck - I don't know why people are so frightened of the concept of a bit of luck in a game; it's a MMO FPS and it's war out there; shit happens. The skilled players will rise to the top anyway.

In fact, I do welcome a bit of luck, even bad luck. Gives some great WTF moments and stops the game becoming stale; makes it more alive. One of my most memorable escapades in Firefall was one time when I was surprised by a Whiptail Thresher in the Open World; first thing I knew - "WHACK" and I was flying through the air. Completely unexpected; gave me such a shock that I swore and then literally laughed out loud.

If I wanted to play a game where no luck was involved, I would be playing chess, not an FPS.

[Mietz]

Answer: Yes. Been saying that since beta.

If you pay attention in the game, PS2 isn't -actually- designed for tactics and positioning play, just like COD doesn't induce that.

Why? Because death is meaningless, respawn timers too short and gameplay too fast.
If you want a tactically deep game with this whole positioning and "hurhur outplayed you by shotgun in the back" you need to be closer to a sim than you are to an action game.

PS2 took the sim-y elements of recoil and extremely short TTK (~600ms on most guns) and paired them with the COD run-and-gun element.
Its a hodgepodge of mechanics that doesn't really make the game fun on any level:

RPG Elements:
Certs
Bullet DMG
COF (random)
Bloom

Sim Elements:
Recoil
Flinch
Projectile Drop
Damage Falloff

Action Elements:
Regenerating Health (shields)
Short respawn
Infinite Sprint
Viable Hip-Fire

By the developer words themselves, they wanted to make "BF3 on crack", and they succeeded, except that this playstyle "on crack" isn't really conductive of tactical and positioning play.

Rather, it translates into lucking out to find enemies not looking in your direction.

There is no element of picking the right tool for the job for example, infantry guns are mostly same-y, even with the varied "stats" they have.

If PS2 wants to be tactical, you would need to go the route of Arma or BF2 Reality Mod.
Otherwise tactics can not be executed, because "outplaying" an enemy or a group of enemies means dropping C4 with an LA jet-hopping on houses.

[Mietz]

Answer: Yes. Been saying that since beta.

If you pay attention in the game, PS2 isn't -actually- designed for tactics and positioning play, just like COD doesn't induce that.

Why? Because death is meaningless, respawn timers too short and gameplay too fast.
If you want a tactically deep game with this whole positioning and "hurhur outplayed you by shotgun in the back" you need to be closer to a sim than you are to an action game.

PS2 took the sim-y elements of recoil and extremely short TTK (~600ms on most guns) and paired them with the COD run-and-gun element.
Its a hodgepodge of mechanics that doesn't really make the game fun on any level:

RPG Elements:
Certs
Bullet DMG
COF (random)
Bloom

Sim Elements:
Recoil
Flinch
Projectile Drop
Damage Falloff

Action Elements:
Regenerating Health (shields)
Short respawn
Infinite Sprint
Viable Hip-Fire

By the developer words themselves, they wanted to make "BF3 on crack", and they succeeded, except that this playstyle "on crack" isn't really conductive of tactical and positioning play.

Rather, it translates into lucking out to find enemies not looking in your direction.

There is no element of picking the right tool for the job for example, infantry guns are mostly same-y, even with the varied "stats" they have.

If PS2 wants to be tactical, you would need to go the route of Arma or BF2 Reality Mod.
Otherwise tactics can not be executed, because "outplaying" an enemy or a group of enemies means dropping C4 with an LA jet-hopping on houses.

[Sledgecrushr]

The one element of ps2 that the devs got spot on imo is the ttk. I certainly dont feel buthurt when someone outflanks me and mows me down. That just means that I didnt approach that particular fight correctly. Just think about the current system as quick feedback on making mistakes.

[Seafort]

The low TTK doesn't add anything to the depth of the game. It promotes the zerg tactics which is in the game currently. If outfits could actually survive long enough to move tactically rather than the 0.5-1.0 secs TTK we have now it might change the way people play the game.

Personal shields in PS2 are a joke and should actually protect you longer than they do. You might as well not have a shield for all the protection it gives you.

The TTK is made even worse currently with the vehicle spam we have. A single tank or ESF can take out an entire squad because of how low it is.

I think all this comes down to the amount of worthless cover we have in game. I can't hide behind anything without the HE shells hitting me with their splash damage. Even in the middle of towers which should be safe from vehicles I get hit by the splash damage.

And please SOE put some bloody doors and windows in the openings of buildings and let them be hackable. It's the 25th century and buildings don't have doors and windows, seriously? :P

[Kerrec]

At the risk of being flamed for coming to PS2 from another game (/gasp!), I'm going to bring up BF3. BF3 has "normal" and "hardcore" modes. The MAIN difference being hardcore has a much lower TTK (as in it takes less time to kill).

Go into any BF3 forum and do a search for keyword "hardcore" and you'll find hundreds of threads about how "hardcore" is the more tactical version of BF3 because TTK is low, forcing you to play smarter and work better with your team.

From my experience, the whole BF3 "hardcore" vs. "normal" extra tactical argument was a big pile of poo. It's just people wanting to put their prefered game mode on a pedestal above the other modes. I played both, interchangably to come to one big realization:

1) My K/D, SPM & W/L ratios did not change one iota when switching from one mode to the other, regardless of the fact that I never changed my playstyle.
2) Hardcore had the same objective merry-go-round as normal mode. There was not more defense on a point to avoid moving across open spaces to get to the next objective. The way people played was exactly the same. They took the same risks crossing open terrain, the same risks charging into enemy with a vehicle to rack up as many kills as possible before having the vehicle destroyed, etc...

What difference DID it make?

1) Well, from my experience, there were alot more 1 shot kill snipers littering the landscape doing nothing but farming kills. Instead of playing ojbectives to win the match for the team, these people just farmed kills for whatever gratification they received from it.
2) It didn't matter what weapon you chose to use, they were all lethal.


Having read what I've just written, it sounds like I'm for increasing TTK. The lower the TTK, the more generic the weapons become and the more cheesy people become with respect to their playstyle.

However, high TTK does do one bad thing. It becomes a force multiplier for superior numbers. I had one memorable fight in PS2 where my faction was trying to take a tech plant in a 3 way battle. The NC had one of the tower walls fully manned and were farming all the idiots walking into their meatgrinder. As an LA, I would jetpack up to the first level of the tower, mow someone down and jump back down before anyone realized what happened. I'd reload, move a bit and do it again. I did this until I ran out of ammo. Then I used my grenade and after that my C4. I thinned out the blob of NC that was on that first floor of the tower and helped the stupid lemmings on team by lessening the meatgrinding they were facing. I was able to do that, because TTK is low. I eventually switched to my pistol and kept trying to take out individuals, but killing with the pistol took too long, and I got killed before I could finish off my target. I got greedy, stayed exposed too long, and died for that mistake.

Now, assume TTK was increased. In that situation, I would probably not have been able to contribute the little bit that I did. I would have jump packed up to the first floor, dumped alot of bullets into one target but stayed exposed too long and get shot by 10 guys all at once. Long TTK makes zergs even MORE powerful!

Not to mention that things like AI mines, C4 and grenades either get balanced along with the increase in TTK, making them moderately useless, or they become way overpowered. Might as well throw the Infiltrator class in that mix. If they can't one headshot kill with their strongest rifles, the class becomes mostly obsolete.

One of the big problems I'm having as an LA these days, is running out of ammo when I find a nice defensible spot. Higher TTK would aggravate that alot, forcing me to stay close to an ammo pack. That would make the LA class much less attractive, unless you doubled the quantity of ammo infantry can carry.

So what's the point of this thread? To wax nostalgic on what the devs *should* have done in your opinion? Or to try to drive a drastic (restart from scratch, IMO) change in the game?

[Sledgecrushr]

^This, shortening the ttk makes thinning the zerg even easier for uber skilled players. I am certainly not anywhere close to the uber category so I am very happy that the ttk is as long as it is.

[RSphil]

i like shorter TTK as it makes for less side strafing and other crap people do. i like a little realism in my fps games. and yes i know this is in the future but that wont make people bullet resistant.
dieing quick makes people think about how to approach bases, buildings, people ect. makes it more tactical imo.

i have always played other fps games on hardcore mode and so far i am liking ps2 in every way.
yes there are some problems but it is a new game and we should be use dot this by now. keep it how it is. with hp increase via certs it the TTk changes a little but still feels good.

[ringring]

PS2 isn't particularly deep. You aim you shoot that's it.


A different perspective that doesn't involve ttk.

Q. What about capturing bases and outposts, are the connections governing which you capture?
A. It's complex. Imagine a map whereby the links between the facilties are lines and it would look like a spider's web with many connections.

Q. Given the above, does it matter which facility you capture next.
A. No not really. Deciding which facility to capture is shallow.

Q. Can the connections between facilties be made less complex but at the same time make the capture decisions deeper?
A. Yes. Reduce the links influencing capture between the facilties forcing an attacking force to have to navigate and plan ahead and enabling defenders to anticipate attack routes which would provide oppotunities to counter an attacking strategy.

Q. Yea, that's deeper, but most people would call that a lattice wouldn't they?
A. Yes they would.

[Dougnifico]

People always talk about how a higher TTK adds tactics. I don't see how a bunny hopping strafe fight adds more tactics. Halo didn't have a lot more tactics than COD. I agree the game is shallow, but only for a lack of meta-game and proper utilization of area outside the Crown. TTK has nothing to do with it. I'm in agreement that low TTK makes pre-engagement choices have more weight.

To be honest, if they had one hardcore server, I would be one of the first to check it out. It just adds to the fact that I should be a little more careful about my actions.

[Figment]

What's these silly mentionings of bunny hopping?


This isn't Counterstrike.


If you really want to remove bunnyhopping, do what PS1 did: ADD STAMINA / UTTERLY RUIN AIM WHILE JUMPING.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think the ttk is great out of the box, and it only gets lower with certification points. I dont see a problem with the current system.

[Forsaken One]

The main reason I hate PS2s TTK is not that its short or long its that it can't decide what to be.

body shots to inf take 6-10 bullets to kill, but only 2-3 bullets to the head or something.


do you know how annoying that is? You know your enemys empire, you even learn what gun he has. but you can't put in before you engage him how many shots you can maybe take. you can die in less then a second or it can take 4 seconds of being shot to die.



Its reaaaaaallly freaking annoying. Ether make it realistic and take 1 to the head and 2-3 to the body or arcadey and take 5 to the head and 7 to the body or something.

Edit: Also it would be nice if the end of the splash from grenades and vehicle explosions did some kind of shell shock effect but you could live through it if you were at full health instead of insta gibbing people. Who again, take 10 bullets to the body to kill.

[Sledgecrushr]

Between personal shields and sci fi helmets, you probably need to keep pumping rounds into their head until they go prone. I know shooting the legs of a guy is less efficient than bodyshots and thats even less than head shots. All I know is I like it.