Time to Kill(TTK) needs to be increased. - Page 4

psijaka · 2013-02-22, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

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

Depends upon the time between the 2 hits, doesn't it.

I've had plenty of experience with the Firefall plasma cannon and landing those mid air shots is tricky to say the least.

Edit - this is probably why I like MAX + dual Falcons so much; reminds me of the Firefall Assault's Plasma Cannon. And I get 2 of them!

Edit 2 - when I last played, the only class that could be "2 shot killed" with the plasma cannon was the low health Recon, and even then, not always. Things may have changed of course; it's been a few months since I've delved into Firefall. I'll check.

Mox · 2013-02-22, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Low TTK

Pros:

Infantry weapon balance is achieved more easily, since any OP weapon stands out instantly.
Gunplay becomes more intuitive, rather than concious.
Tactics are promoted for non-twitch players, due to first-sight kill advantage.
Highly aim-skilled players getting a handicap, allowing balancing between the casuals and the competitives.
Aimbot and other weapon-enhancing cheaters getting a handicap.
Attracts modern PC gamers.

Cons:

Weapon functional variety suffers.
A gap between players that use cover and those who do not significantly increases.
Vehicle vs Infantry weapon balance is harder to achieve.
Combat is more chaotic.
Removes the middle class effectiveness. Big groups or proficient solo players dominate. In other words it promotes zerging, due to the nature of it being "just getting one bullet on him each, he doesn't need much".
Makes thinking during combat harder. While it handicaps aim twitch, it promotes quick thinking. Some players are incapable of it ( reasons can be age, lack of experience, lack of the proper type of thinking, etc)

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...vs-cons.96584/

Where do you get this from? I see no proof for your claims. If you ask me almost everything bullshit.

Assist · 2013-02-22, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.

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).

You can define TTK however you want, I wasn't trying to argue the given data. If you want to say I'm arguing DPS that's fine, though that's not what I'm wanting changed. They felt that HE weapons were downing too many players too efficiently, so they fixed it by lowering the amount of players that can be killed in that same time frame. To me that's changing the time to kill, as it now takes them longer to kill those same amount of players. I don't enjoy arguing theory in games because that's not how the game usually plays out, which is what I'm looking to have changed.

I also don't agree that increasing the TTK makes mid-long range weapons useless. LMG's have more rounds, which makes them even better in a high TTK scenario. They have the luxury to use their ammo, whereas the mid-short range players have to close the distance as to not waste ammo.
However, included with increasing the TTK would be that the weapons should be tweaked to make each classes weapons different. The whole idea behind changing the TTK, for me at least, is to make each class more important individually. Right now the TTK between weapons is so minimal that there's no room for weapons to be unique. If TTK is increased then you can start creating/changing weapons that have their own unique feel.

Sifer2 · 2013-02-22, 03:54 PM

Personally i'm in favor of the TTK being raised at least a little beyond what it is now. Too often I can't even shoot, then take cover without dying after I have rounded the corner due to lag, and how few bullets the game has to think hit me to actually consider me dead. That right there alone completely disproves the whole "Low TTK promotes tactics an taking cover" argument.

Higher TTK naturally makes lag less of a crippling issue. Which is a major part of the reason the original Planetside went with high TTK. That said the Internet has come a long way. So a PS1 style of really high TTK is no longer needed but I think they reduced it too much in PS2. Just an increase of say 50% more health on Infantry might even be enough. That's like 4 bullets. Not huge but I think it would be a big improvement to gameplay.

And yes with more health allows more variation of weapon design. AOE weapons are less overpowered so those can be implemented just as an example.

NewSith · 2013-02-22, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Mox

Where do you get this from? I see no proof for your claims. If you ask me almost everything bullshit.

You are free to bring your arguments against my claims...

I take these from my visibly limited experience with all FPSes there on the market. I obviously only played Halo, CoD and BF3 and never played PS1.

-----------------------------------------
EDIT: Hmmmm, this kind of response actually made me think a bit about the FPSes (and TPSes) I played in MP. So let's go:

Medium-High TTK:
Aliens vs. Predator (Though, arguable, since 3 sides all play differently)
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2142
Brink
Call of Duty
Call of Duty 2
Counter-Strike 1.6
Counter-Strike Source
Command and Conquer: Renegade
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Hellgate: London (PvP)
Monday Night Combat
Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
Serious Sam 2
Snowblind
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Star Wars Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast
Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Star Wars Battlefront
Star Wars Battlefront 2
Team Fortress 2
Tribes Ascend
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2003
Unreal Tournament 2004
Warhammer 40000: Space Marine

Low TTK:
Battlefield 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Crysis 2
Far Cry 3
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R. 3
Frontlines: Fuel of War
PlanetSide 2
Sniper: Ghost Warrior
SWAT 4
Quake 3

Games without hitbox differentiation, thus TTK having less value:
APB Reloaded
Global Agenda
PlanetSide

I bet I forgot a few...

ringring · 2013-02-22, 04:25 PM

I wonder when the next new weapon is introduced if the ttk will take another downward lurch.

Badjuju · 2013-02-22, 06:02 PM

While I liked combat in PS1 better, this game is built around low ttk. Maybe a slight increase would be nice but I'd rather just see a reduction in explosive damage to infantry.

Twido · 2013-02-23, 05:43 AM

I would have thought that the use of cover is much more important in a low TTK game. If caught out of cover in a long TTK game then I have a better chance of sprinting and using erratic movement to get back into cover. When the TTK is short then you can't do that.

In a lot of older games the player sprint speed was very fast this, in my opinion, was more responsible for reducing the effect of cover and dumming down tactical play.

Figment · 2013-02-23, 05:49 AM

Tbh, if you have headshots and have any decent aim, cover means next to nothing with low TTK since you can't duck out of sight to recuperate.

Look at engineers parked behind Mana Turrets. Best obscured characters behind cover, easiest kills since they're virtually stationary and you only need one shot (or grenade). Cover is less effective with really low TTK because you don't really get the time to use it.

Dougnifico · 2013-02-23, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Aggressive multi-million dollar marketing campaigns that shove the games in your face every time you enter a store?

Well yes, something I wish PS2 could have afforded. But even with a massive marketing push, it the game sucked then they wouldn't have sold. They marketed what people want and they're willing to put money behind it because they know that's what people want. For better or worse the free market has spoken pretty loudly. Halo is an example the other way, but it gets beat regularly and PS2 isn't smooth enough to support Halo style gameplay.

Mietz · 2013-02-23, 09:08 AM

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.

Please, accuracy stats are fake statistics the way they are calculated and the way its phrased (and used by you).
It's bullets fired vs bullets hit target.

This doesn't take into consideration:

a. suppressive fire (not actually aiming for anything)
b. vehicle impacts (ps2 does not register hits against ESFs towards your accuracy)
c. general idiocy of firing your gun into the air out of total boredom while capping a point and giving your engi some XPs.
etc. pp

Claiming that thats a statistic for "player accuracy" is completely misguided.
Player accuracy (where people are actually aiming for enemies) is actually very good in all MP games and the claim that on average 2/3rd of bullets fired miss the target is complete bullshit.

No, its not 100%, but the impact of accuracy is actually very low.
If you look at accuracy stats for guns that are less likely to be abused for suppressive fire or random shooting out of boredom (bolt action rifles, semi-auto, burst), you can see that most people can pull off near 70% accuracy no problem.

Most people can aim very good when it comes to actually trying to hit a specific target.

Mox · 2013-02-23, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

You are free to bring your arguments against my claims...

Sorry, i have to apologize i just read this:

Originally Posted by NewSith

Low TTK

Pros:.....

Now your claims starting to make a lot more sense. I thought you are talking about the pros and cons of increasing TTK....

My fault.

Figment · 2013-02-23, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

Well yes, something I wish PS2 could have afforded. But even with a massive marketing push, it the game sucked then they wouldn't have sold. They marketed what people want and they're willing to put money behind it because they know that's what people want. For better or worse the free market has spoken pretty loudly. Halo is an example the other way, but it gets beat regularly and PS2 isn't smooth enough to support Halo style gameplay.

PS1 couldn't afford it either.

Thing is, the masses don't buy a game for their TTK or any specific in-game systems. You can't argue that. If I were to make a guess what they buy these games on, it's they buy it on tradition, appearance and recommendations from reviews and because they're aware of the name and it's expensive in-shop promoted: "only good games can afford that, not?". Do you buy BF3 with the big promotion sign or the somewhat nameless, non-promoted also generic looking shooter that's next to it?

Why do I play CoD? NOT for their TTK, but for being one of the only reasonably well developed small-scale (four player, couldn't care less about the online version) multiplayers and the campaign and coop missions. But there are next to no good multiplayers like that anymore. I mean, even the Bond games suck lately and those used to have fun multiplayers.

Speaking of Bond, Nightfire had this one shot camera guided missile (AT-420 Sentinal). It was completely and utterly OP in that game (wouldn't be as bad if used in PvE only because hey, you're fightin AI). That thing was pretty much like the NC Phoenix AV missile launcher in PS1. However, the Phoenix in PS1 (maximum of 150 players per map) dealt next to no damage to infantry while the AT-420 Sentinal (maximum of four players per map) could one shot groups of people with splash damage.

Why?

Because to have that weapon for one empire in game with a one shot kill TTK would be utterly insane. You can't compare the two weapons even if they work the same and balance them on the same premises. The TTK in the MMO HAS to be far longer to not make everyone use just that. It was hard enough to keep people from using the Sentinal in James Bond Nightfire, not to mention to keep hundreds upon hundreds from using it.

Phoenix:

Sentinal:

Both are FPS games. But the context is what requires changes to the TTK. Even if James Bond Nightfire was the most awesome thing since sliced cheese and set the standard for "modern FPS gaming" as some suggest some other games do currently, you can't translate the TTKs of each weapon 1:1 to another game.

The results would be epic shitstorms on the forums.

Kerrec · 2013-02-23, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Please, accuracy stats are fake statistics the way they are calculated and the way its phrased (and used by you).
It's bullets fired vs bullets hit target.

This doesn't take into consideration:

a. suppressive fire (not actually aiming for anything)
b. vehicle impacts (ps2 does not register hits against ESFs towards your accuracy)
c. general idiocy of firing your gun into the air out of total boredom while capping a point and giving your engi some XPs.
etc. pp

Claiming that thats a statistic for "player accuracy" is completely misguided.
Player accuracy (where people are actually aiming for enemies) is actually very good in all MP games and the claim that on average 2/3rd of bullets fired miss the target is complete bullshit.

No, its not 100%, but the impact of accuracy is actually very low.
If you look at accuracy stats for guns that are less likely to be abused for suppressive fire or random shooting out of boredom (bolt action rifles, semi-auto, burst), you can see that most people can pull off near 70% accuracy no problem.

Most people can aim very good when it comes to actually trying to hit a specific target.

Wow.... just, wow. 70% easy? Wow.

I don't do the shoot at the ceiling crap. I use sound to help me stay situationally aware and shooting for nothing drowns that out. I actually leave places where morons are shooting at nothing. I shoot at things that can take damage. The large majority of it is other infantry. Occasionally (but rarely) I'll shoot at an ESF. My accuracy is 26%. I DO engage at ALL ranges. I suppose I could improve my accuracy by not shooting at long ranges but that's just not my playstyle. Even then, if I did do this, there's no way I'd get my accuracy up to 70%. I'd have to single shot to avoid the bloom altogether, and I'd die more due to low rate of fire.

Case in point: Sniper rifles: Go look at my kill feed on Players. The large majority of my sniper kills are headshots, yet my overall accuracy is mid 40's. I don't know where I stand accuracy wise among other people that play snipers, but I'm usually right in the average across all games that track that kind of statistic.

Personally, I think you're delusional if you expect the large majority (the average) of players to have accuracies in the 70%.

Edit: There is no suppressive effect in PS2. Shooting at a wall, window, corner or whatnot will only leave you mid-reload when you need your bullets most. In over 6 days played, I have yet to see that kind of play, from pubs or organized squads. Suppressive fire is one thing that DID NOT carry over from BF3.

Mietz · 2013-02-23, 01:30 PM

Wow.... just, wow. 70% easy? Wow.

I don't do the shoot at the ceiling crap. I use sound to help me stay situationally aware and shooting for nothing drowns that out. I actually leave places where morons are shooting at nothing. I shoot at things that can take damage. The large majority of it is other infantry. Occasionally (but rarely) I'll shoot at an ESF. My accuracy is 26%. I DO engage at ALL ranges. I suppose I could improve my accuracy by not shooting at long ranges but that's just not my playstyle. Even then, if I did do this, there's no way I'd get my accuracy up to 70%. I'd have to single shot to avoid the bloom altogether, and I'd die more due to low rate of fire.

Case in point: Sniper rifles: Go look at my kill feed on Players. The large majority of my sniper kills are headshots, yet my overall accuracy is mid 40's. I don't know where I stand accuracy wise among other people that play snipers, but I'm usually right in the average across all games that track that kind of statistic.

Personally, I think you're delusional if you expect the large majority (the average) of players to have accuracies in the 70%.

Edit: There is no suppressive effect in PS2. Shooting at a wall, window, corner or whatnot will only leave you mid-reload when you need your bullets most. In over 6 days played, I have yet to see that kind of play, from pubs or organized squads. Suppressive fire is one thing that DID NOT carry over from BF3.

So what you are saying is, you have higher accuracy with sniper rifles, by ~15%.
Is that because you become a different player with a sniper rifle? Does your skill increase with a sniper rifle?

You failed to address my argument: The accuracy statistic is worthless because it tracks bullet fired vs bullet impact and not actually engagements.

My point still stands, the accuracy statistic is worthless in judging how much a player -actually- misses. Your fee fees about how much you miss aren't really that important here.

PS: Suppressive fire as in actually suppressive fire, not the stupid BF3 mechanic you munchkin.
You never saw a spawn-room being camped with dudes constantly unloading their guns/turrets/tanks at the shielded exits? Go on youtube/twitch and pick any video, there you go. If in doubt, go to a Biolab and experience it first hand.