"Speeding it up"

[Kurtz]

Xyn, you are right we can always go do something else in between hectic battles, unless the hectic battles never end But I get your point.

AttackMac is getting what I'm saying. Its not that the speed you need to play at to get kills and avoid dying is a problem. Its the time it takes you to die that is the problem. This compounded with the fact that you are always right there near the action. If you die quick, then you better be right back in the fight.

Higs said he wanted to speed up the time it takes to get into battle and they did. I am assuming with the quick TTK will come a quck way to get right back into battle.

So to Macs point, the enemy can never really be pushed away. never being pushed away means no journey to the fight, which was often a challenge in itself (ambushes)

This will reduce the quite before the storm as there will be no journey to the fight. That was the coolest thing about PS1. Sitting in a Gal waiting to hot drop into a clusterfuck. If you got beat, you had to rally and start again. This was epic. Or sitting in Deliverer with a small hurt squad ready to hop out at the back door.

Spawning vehicles near the bases (not sure if that is possible) would remove the need for most of the map. In the early PS1 days there would be ambushes on major intersections otw to key bases out in the middle of nowhere. All of these things lead to a need for an open world.

The solutions to get to the fight quickly work well in a server based shooter with a tiny map. They don't necessarily translate well into an open world that is huge with 24/7 fights.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Kurtz

So to Macs point, the enemy can never really be pushed away. never being pushed away means no journey to the fight, which was often a challenge in itself (ambushes)

This will reduce the quite before the storm as there will be no journey to the fight. That was the coolest thing about PS1. Sitting in a Gal waiting to hot drop into a clusterfuck. If you got beat, you had to rally and start again. This was epic. Or sitting in Deliverer with a small hurt squad ready to hop out at the back door.

I would argue the opposite. With fast TTK it will be less likely to have a stalemate meaning the fight will move more.

In PS1 you could run out, take some damage, run back behind a tree or wall, repair your armor and health to full, then run back out and do it again and again. With the long TTK it gives people a lot of time to return to hard cover and repair. For example a 1v1 sniper battle (assuming no one else interferes) with both players using bolt drivers. LITERALLY could never end unless one player was a complete idiot. You take one hit, you go behind cover and repair. There was no way to kill someone with a bolt driver if they were next to cover and had repair tools. you could starve them out i guess but it would take probably over 5 minutes for them to run out of ammo for the repair guns.

My point with the bolt driver example. The fight cant move forward easily when players can so easily run behind cover and negate the effects of the damage they just recieved. cautious play was hard to combat in PS1 because it was so easy to fall back into cover and repair.

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

I would argue the opposite. With fast TTK it will be less likely to have a stalemate meaning the fight will move more.

In PS1 you could run out, take some damage, run back behind a tree or wall, repair your armor and health to full, then run back out and do it again and again. With the long TTK it gives people a lot of time to return to hard cover and repair. For example a 1v1 sniper battle (assuming no one else interferes) with both players using bolt drivers. LITERALLY could never end unless one player was a complete idiot. You take one hit, you go behind cover and repair. There was no way to kill someone with a bolt driver if they were next to cover and had repair tools. you could starve them out i guess but it would take probably over 5 minutes for them to run out of ammo for the repair guns.

My point with the bolt driver example. The fight cant move forward easily when players can so easily run behind cover and negate the effects of the damage they just recieved. cautious play was hard to combat in PS1 because it was so easy to fall back into cover and repair.

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

And now not everyone can repair/heal themselves, only medics. So that plan almost flies out the window unless you have a medic hiding behind the tree with you.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Toppopia

And now not everyone can repair/heal themselves, only medics. So that plan almost flies out the window unless you have a medic hiding behind the tree with you.

Are you agreeing with me? cause that's pretty much my point exactly. With the new system and faster TTK you can actually dispatch players instead of dealing with people that are endlessly "dug in" behind cover. At range sometimes shooting people in PS1 could feel almost pointless because you could never kill them in time before they hid and repaired. At least now people have more immediate consequences for their actions.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

Now, I agree with staying in cover, but you know, you can't win. If you stay in cover because of the punishingly low TTK, you will be branded a camper and then some people will cry for things like killcam. Yes, I know killcam is confirmed gone, it's merely an example of what people will cry for.

Of course, the real sentiment people are expressing here is, "how dare you avoid my bullets".

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Now, I agree with staying in cover, but you know, you can't win. If you stay in cover because of the punishingly low TTK, you will be branded a camper and then some people will cry for things like killcam. Yes, I know killcam is confirmed gone, it's merely an example of what people will cry for.

Of course, the real sentiment people are expressing here is, "how dare you avoid my bullets".

Don't you hate it when people brand you a camper even though you are doing the smartest thing possible? Putting a waist high wall between you and the enemy so you can pop up and shoot and he can only hit small part of you and you can hit all of him? I tell ya, people these days are idiots, using cover is part of shooting, if you join the army lets see how long those guys last not using cover being Rambo and charging enemy lines with duel wield pistols.

But then someone will say that its a video game so they can do that stuff because you can't do it in real life, but you still have to be smart in games.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Toppopia

Don't you hate it when people brand you a camper even though you are doing the smartest thing possible?

Not really. In my experience it's a good thing to get this kind of attention. You can often use it to get certain players to go out of their way to try to kill you and end up getting themselves killed in the process. It's one of the funnest things to see in online games.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Not really. In my experience it's a good thing to get this kind of attention. You can often use it to get certain players to go out of their way to try to kill you and end up getting themselves killed in the process. It's one of the funnest things to see in online games.

Well, THAT is fine. The problem is when these people stop pursuing you with weapons in the game, and instead go to the devs to ask for the game to be changed to punish camping. All you have to do is go to the killcam thread to see that thought process in action.

I mean, sometimes it's just a simple matter of our squad is pinned down by enemy suppressive fire or because we don't have any anti tank weapons and there's a tank, but nevertheless, being behind cover makes you a camper

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I mean, sometimes it's just a simple matter of our squad is pinned down by enemy suppressive fire or because we don't have any anti tank weapons and there's a tank, but nevertheless, being behind cover makes you a camper

1)I believe camping is hiding round a corner with a shotgun (or any weapon) and shooting someone that runs round. That is camping.

2)Using cover and popping up and shooting people. That is not camping that is using cover effectively, see the major difference?

3) Lying on a hill using a sniper rifle. Not camping, that is sniping. Unless he isn't using a sniper rifle, then its being an idiot lying on a hill for no good reason.

Option 1 is camping, option 2 is not. Option 3, not camping.

See the differences?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Toppopia

1)I believe camping is hiding round a corner with a shotgun (or any weapon) and shooting someone that runs round. That is camping.

2)Using cover and popping up and shooting people. That is not camping that is using cover effectively, see the major difference?

3) Lying on a hill using a sniper rifle. Not camping, that is sniping. Unless he isn't using a sniper rifle, then its being an idiot lying on a hill for no good reason.

Option 1 is camping, option 2 is not. Option 3, not camping.

See the differences?

I see the difference although I am bound to point out that the difference between 1 and 3 is that a sniper is using range/cover for his advantage, and a shotgun camper is using surprise/a better short range weapon for his.

Most people probably do consider snipers to be campers, however, most games like CoD are deathmatch focused(and they may have objective modes, but people play those like deathmatches anyway). Planetside is not a deathmatch and therefore, in Planetside, the sniper may not be a camper, but the sniper in other games is a camper.

Or at least that's how most people think. Personally I think camping is a valid tactic either way and should not be artificially prevented by killcams or other mechanics.

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I see the difference although I am bound to point out that the difference between 1 and 3 is that a sniper is using range/cover for his advantage, and a shotgun camper is using surprise/a better short range weapon for his.

Most people probably do consider snipers to be campers, however, most games like CoD are deathmatch focused(and they may have objective modes, but people play those like deathmatches anyway). Planetside is not a deathmatch and therefore, in Planetside, the sniper may not be a camper, but the sniper in other games is a camper.

Or at least that's how most people think. Personally I think camping is a valid tactic either way and should not be artificially prevented by killcams or other mechanics.

I only don't like people camping or 'hiding' is them being in some stupid corner and waiting for you to run round, that is annoying but base assaults will be like that, enemies at every corner. Hmm, will we beable to get a cert to deploy cover as any class? Or can engineers deploy cover, don't remember reading it anywhere.

[Gonefshn]

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

Exactly. I think I said this in another thread last week, but instead of camping, snipers and people who intentionally stay behind cover, they are not campers, they are support fire. See, camping is mostly an accusation you hurl at enemies. In Planetside, the problem is not one that you need to worry about your enemy, but instead, the problem is if your own team has too many people providing support fire and not enough throwing their bodies onto the capture points. But that is something you will bitch at your own team about, the enemy shouldn't really be complaining about it.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

the problem is if your own team has too many people providing support fire and not enough throwing their bodies onto the capture points.

BINGO! Cue the arguement about lifetime K/D ratio....

Oh god no I'm just kidding please don't lollol

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

So... this means that noobs won't swear at me and call me a camper even though i did nothing wrong??.... Yipee a game that is finally great *Hellejuh music plays*