Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased. - Page 3 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: OMG, they got skeeters up the yin yang!
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2013-02-22, 07:18 AM   [Ignore Me] #31
psijaka
Contributor
Major
 
psijaka's Avatar
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by typhaon View Post
I don't know. It might be related to the bug I sometimes experience with the NC MAX, while fighting infantry. Mysteriously every scat/hack blast will just miss for some period of time... even though based on what you're seeing on the screen, there is no way they could miss.

ex. earlier I podded onto a pad of an air tower... I turn around and see a TR heavy about 2 MAX lengths away staring at me... he starts shooting me and backing up... I start walking toward him with both Hacksaws blazing..... 24 shots at a perfect killing range... not a single one hit... he kept shooting me and I died before reload finished.

I don't care what shield he has going... nothing would survive that assault.

I sometimes have a version of this where 10 or 12 blasts will miss... then they will start hitting, but I'd never seen all 24!

I've got to believe he must've seen something else happening on his screen, but I didn't think to ask him until about 15 minutes later when he'd already logged off. I wonder if he was 'actually' in another location other than what I was seeing on my screen... or something like that.

You might try just asking your target the next time something funky happens. Won't fix the situation, but it might give you a clue what is going wrong.
I experienced this yesterday; fired at a guy point blank with dual Falcons; didn't get a hitmarker. Surprised that it is happening with the Hacksaws because of the spread, but this is what I think is going on:



Edit - off topic I know, but I don't care; the TTK discussion has been flogged to death many times over.

Last edited by psijaka; 2013-02-22 at 07:23 AM.
psijaka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 07:20 AM   [Ignore Me] #32
ringring
Contributor
General
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


I giggle when I read those threads about which SMG is the best. IT's the difference between virtually insta-gib and virtually-virtually insta-gib.

Low ttk is boring, or at least it is tending to be in this game.
__________________
ringring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 07:41 AM   [Ignore Me] #33
ShadetheDruid
First Lieutenant
 
ShadetheDruid's Avatar
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by ringring View Post
I giggle when I read those threads about which SMG is the best. IT's the difference between virtually insta-gib and virtually-virtually insta-gib.
You do realise there's more to weapons than just their TTK, right?
ShadetheDruid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 07:59 AM   [Ignore Me] #34
Sturmhardt
Contributor
Major
 
Sturmhardt's Avatar
 


Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid View Post
You do realise there's more to weapons than just their TTK, right?
I don't think he is referring to the theoretical point blank ttk from 0m distance.

.sent via phone.
__________________
Sturmhardt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 08:26 AM   [Ignore Me] #35
JesNC
Master Sergeant
 
JesNC's Avatar
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by psijaka View Post
Oh no not another one of these threads. Can't we just refer to Figment's summary from the last one and save ourselves the bother.

Edit - here it is.

Summary "Pro-low TTK" side:
Pro-low ttk tend to argue from a perfect ttk, where they like a low ttk because it rewards flanking positioned troops with an execution. They deem this rewarding smart positional play (rewarding primarily the player on the move, actively seeking to flank an enemy position).


It is argued current situational awareness and ttk length suffice for all decision making that happens during a fight as it is not considered there are many decisions to make in the first place.


They also consider defense play to benefit more from close to instakill ttk, assuming the defender gets the drop on the enemy at all times. They also claim it benefits small groups, without considering more volume of fire kills more rapidly at low ttks and the death of one on the smaller team more quickly increases the power distance.


They claim that a slightly longer ttk would not matter, yet a longer ttk would adversely affect chances of survival for a small group, argueing the leverage of more hitpoints would bolden larger groups (which the opposition agrees with when TTK gets significantly higher than the impact of focused fire on a chokepoint - the pro-short TTK assumes any increase does this).


It is also claimed adverse game effects of short ttk are down to bad map layout design only. Note that nobody disagrees that the layouts are bad.


Furthermore, it is claimed that if you don't get instakilled, you still can't actually return (much) more fire than if you are not instakilled, hence rendering a 20-30% ttk/health (depending on who you ask) increase moot. Given this notion, some claim the opposition must be longing for drastic increases of the perfect ttk in the order of several seconds to the perfect TTK.


It is suggested the player gets more satisfaction out of a short ttk by being rewarded for active movement and getting the drop on others. Longer ttks are seen as a cheap way of overcoming a situational awareness deficiency, where it is assumed this deficiency is at all times the fault of and therefore the responsibility of the player. Hence it is argued the person who got the drop outplayed the opponent.


Summary "Pro-bit-longer-TTK" side:
Pro-bit-longer-ttk want a slightly longer ttk, particularly, a longer practical ttk, since they expect to be allowed to respond when they are engaged, rewarding reflexes, allowing to learn, gain situational awareness during a fight and apply it, allowing to enter and exit rooms, stimulating fights, overall rewarding the consistent better player over the ganking of people who either intentionally or by luck flank another player. This should stimulate the feeling the player did "all they could" and was defeated by the enemy player, rather than the game. Currently, it is considered the other way around.


They expect flanking to be rewarded with a ttk advantage of starting the fight, but do not expect that to also end the fight as this would make random encounters have more random outcomes, not rewarding the actual "better players". Where better player is defined by better shot, decent reflexes and trying to play for reaching objectives and therefore having to move through potential crossfires.


It is argued focused fire is more effective and defenders can recuperate better when ttk is high enough for two players in a defensive position (ergo from cover) to effect a faster kill, rather than waste bullets on the same target and risk random and lucky (head)shots to drop defenders. TTK should still be low enough to control a chokepoint. It is argued that with too low a TTK, especially AoE, it is too easy to clean out a room from defenders and holding an area is impossible. It is argued that good positioning should benefit defenders and flanking shouldn't be extremely easy or too rewarding, since flanking should make the better player already win anyway as the player would have the drop advantage.

It is in fact argued that if a TTK becomes too long, then who initiated the fight and from where becomes too irrelevant, however, it is currently seen as too relevant.


They expect players to get a chance to move to or in between cover, creating more chance to impact the outcome of the fight with skills, timing, reflexes, steady aim and situational awareness generation during the engagement, starting at the first hit. It s claimed that a small increase of ttk helps small groups and defenders hold choke points, until the point where despite of the chokepoint, endurance allows a storming of a position where the position is overrun with ease.


They are also concerned with the over time negative impact of fast ttk area of effect weaponry, where they expect these to get consistently more used to the point of spam, requiring minimal skill, risk and exposure. Especially when used in numbers and considering the geometry and flanking options in game, where it is suggested the indefensible situation largely created by the geometry and layout is aggravated by a low ttk as this reduces the time you have to react to an incursion or threat coming from one of the directions you could not see coming, even if you actively look around. Particularly when tasked with holding a room that is setup for crossfires by the game.


The requested ttk increase is in the order of half a second to a second, depending on weapon: on average shorter than PS1, longer than PS2. Either way bringing it closer to the current HA ttks.


It is argued that a short ttk leads to less satisfying and competitive gameplay, as the player felt to have wasted time, is defeated by the game, not an opponent and/or not having had a chance to do anything about it since the first to hit wins. It is suggested this turns every engagement into an arbitrary dice roll, as it is considered impossible to have complete situational awareness at this time and therefore not the player's fault. The player, it is argued, should thus have a chance to rectify this deficiency.


/thread
/wishful thinking
That pretty much sums it up, with a small addendum:

It's up to personal preference which amount of TTK an individual player is comfortable with.
JesNC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 08:38 AM   [Ignore Me] #36
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by Dougnifico View Post
There is a reason why low TTK games like COD and BF3 dominate,
Aggressive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns that shove the games in your face every time you enter a store?
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 08:40 AM   [Ignore Me] #37
Assist
Contributor
Major
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by Rothnang View Post
I think slightly longer TTK would promote using cover rather than making it less desirable. Right now you can kill people so quickly that you can comfortably maintain a K/D of 1 just by charging in and blasting the first guy you see in the face.
This is how I feel about it as well. The random guy charging suicidal into the massive army in front of him didn't outplay or out skill me. He just went leeroy on me and 10 seconds later we both respawned and he did it again.
__________________
Assist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 08:57 AM   [Ignore Me] #38
Ertwin
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Adding a poll might make it easier to see where people stand.
Ertwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:01 AM   [Ignore Me] #39
Twido
Private
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


I put myself firmly in the camp of short TTK. With a longer TTK people end up rushing around all over the place with firefights comming down to erratic strafing and jumping. Just my opinion.
Twido is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:02 AM   [Ignore Me] #40
Assist
Contributor
Major
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by Stardouser View Post
Part of the problem is that TTK used to be good, but it creeps faster and faster. At least in my opinion, every time they balance a faction, they do it by making the other two faction's weapons deadlier, and over time that makes the TTK lower and lower.
Partially true. I think a good example for higher TTK would be the change they made to HE weapons. Making the reload longer increased the time to kill for HE tanks by quite a bit, which only made the game better. You see some ally next to you go flying through the air from an HE shell you now have time to react and find some cover before the next blast comes your way.

Originally Posted by Ertwin View Post
Adding a poll might make it easier to see where people stand.
I have no idea how to add one It's probably easy to do, and I just don't see the right button. You know those phones for old people with the giant number pads? Yeah, I need one of those buttons
__________________

Last edited by Assist; 2013-02-22 at 09:06 AM.
Assist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:05 AM   [Ignore Me] #41
psijaka
Contributor
Major
 
psijaka's Avatar
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by JesNC View Post
That pretty much sums it up, with a small addendum:

It's up to personal preference which amount of TTK an individual player is comfortable with.
Agreed; I'm happy with the current "medium" TTK that we have now (it's not nearly as low as in COD) but wouldn't object to trying a small increase of up to 1/2 a second.

But things start to get silly if TTK goes too high; Firefall PvP a good example of this - jetpacking AoE spamfest that it is.
psijaka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:25 AM   [Ignore Me] #42
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by Assist View Post
I have no idea how to add one It's probably easy to do, and I just don't see the right button. You know those phones for old people with the giant number pads? Yeah, I need one of those buttons
Hamma disallowed polls when they grew too numerous.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:42 AM   [Ignore Me] #43
Emperor Newt
Second Lieutenant
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by psijaka View Post
But things start to get silly if TTK goes too high; Firefall PvP a good example of this - jetpacking AoE spamfest that it is.
You have about 1000-1200 health and a direct hit with a plasma gun does about 520 damage. I would not call "dying in two hits" a high ttk.
That's like saying Tribes games have a high TTK. Which they don't. It's just damn hard to hit someone going 120kph with a projectile weapon.
Same applies to Firefall (to some extent)

Apples and oranges
Emperor Newt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 09:56 AM   [Ignore Me] #44
Sturmhardt
Contributor
Major
 
Sturmhardt's Avatar
 


Originally Posted by Emperor Newt View Post
You have about 1000-1200 health and a direct hit with a plasma gun does about 520 damage. I would not call "dying in two hits" a high ttk.
That's like saying Tribes games have a high TTK. Which they don't. It's just damn hard to hit someone going 120kph with a projectile weapon.
Same applies to Firefall (to some extent)

Apples and oranges
But they have a high ttk in the game when you play. What you are referring to are theoretical ttks that only apply to extreme conditions and are not what a player experiences usually. I think we can without doubt say that tribes or firefall have a very high ttk in general when playing the game.

.sent via phone.
__________________

Last edited by Sturmhardt; 2013-02-22 at 10:03 AM.
Sturmhardt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-22, 11:43 AM   [Ignore Me] #45
Kerrec
Master Sergeant
 
Re: Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased.


Originally Posted by Sturmhardt View Post
But they have a high ttk in the game when you play. What you are referring to are theoretical ttks that only apply to extreme conditions and are not what a player experiences usually. I think we can without doubt say that tribes or firefall have a very high ttk in general when playing the game.

.sent via phone.
This is the problem with these TTK discussions. What does "TTK" mean?

When people calculate TTK using weapons data, they have to assume "the best possible scenario". That means maximum damage, 100% accuracy. That rarely happens in game, unless you are firing point blank in someones back.

For example, I believe a developer stated somewhere that the average accuracy for infantry in PS2 is around 26%. I'm about in that range myself. Take a weapon that has a "theoretical" TTK of 0.5 seconds, factor in that the average player has 25% accuracy, and the average TTK becomes 2 seconds. However, even this is not quite right. In scenarios where I miss that much, I also experience damage drop-off. So that "average situation TTK" is probably 3 seconds, or more. Feels right for ranged fights, feels wrong for point blank encounters.

People don't complain that long range firefights are too short. People complain that getting surprised point blank is the problem.

A broad increase of TTK across the board will "fix" point blank encounters and make long range encounters pointless. People will just hold their fire, close the gap, THEN fire when TTK is "reasonable". That makes one whole class of weapons obsolete: Mid to long range, slow RoF, low CoF. They become pointless. Everyone would be better equipping a SMG.


Originally Posted by Assist View Post
... I think a good example for higher TTK would be the change they made to HE weapons. Making the reload longer increased the time to kill for HE tanks by quite a bit, which only made the game better. You see some ally next to you go flying through the air from an HE shell you now have time to react and find some cover before the next blast comes your way.
This is not TTK. The guy that got insta-killed beside you experienced a TTK of 0 seconds. The time it takes for the HE weapon to reload before the next shot is something else entirely... something like DPS (damage per second).

Last edited by Kerrec; 2013-02-22 at 11:45 AM.
Kerrec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.