Originally Posted by psijaka
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
|