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

[ShadetheDruid]

Originally Posted by Mietz

Because there is a threshold in human capability, map design and TTK.

Giving a player the tools to reliably control his surroundings is key. Once you give the attacker too many avenues of attack and the player no reasonable and consistent way to actually counteract that, the threshold is crossed and you move from skill to luck.

PS2 swung the pendulum way past that threshold.

In a game that has 8 directional attack avenues and mobility with jetpacks, terrain, cloaks, aircraft, vehicles, etc. the tools for the player to consistently perform are not there.
Especially since you are so reliant on the performance of others in this game (you will not win the war by yourself), the ability to compensate is just not available, at all.

Situational awareness is good, I welcome it, but it needs to be controlled, like any other game design element.

Its not a panacea to everything.

I agree that there's issues with things like base design, but overall base design issues are base design issues. TTK is a completely separate issue (and something that I don't even see as an issue).

It is something that's tied both into TTK and base design, but since this topic was only about TTK (and, hell knows, base design is something that's important, but that's been done to death about fifty times over with the same consensus), I mostly focused on that.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

I agree that there's issues with things like base design, but overall base design issues are base design issues. TTK is a completely separate issue (and something that I don't even see as an issue).

Absolutely not.

TTK is not the theoretical time to deliver lethal damage (which is ~600ms for carabines in PS2)

TTK is the average time to kill an opponent, its influenced by:

- movement model (stamina, sprint, freedom of movement, reaction of movement)
- Perspective and perception (minimap, radar, detection, spotting)
- Map design (cover, avenues of attack, freedom of movement, vertical traversal)
- Player Health
- Player damage output over time

Take note that all games with long TTK feature (almost) instagib weaponry (Q3 Railgun, etc.), the damage-output of the weapons and health of the player are but one part of the equation.

If you analyze games with longer TTK, you will notice a few things:

-If the game features many avenues to maneuver in all directions, you see increased HP (shields) on players to compensate for these advantages (Section 8 Prejudice, Hawken; just about any game with jetpacks really)
-If the game features less cover and perception, you see faster movement to compensate with evasion (Q3A, UT, map-based "twitch" shooters)
etc.

When people talk about TTK, they aren't necessarily talking about weapon stats or HP, they are talking about the whole package.
The PS2 combat is "off" because its a hodgepodge of design philosophies that dont mesh (low HP/high DPS -and- Q3A jump-pads/elevators, jetpacks, no cover, no perception tools?)
The developers took the short TTK MMS philosophy and then slapped long TTK design elements on it that just don't work in this combination.

Its about balance of these elements and giving control to the player where he needs it.

[ShadetheDruid]

It's not exactly easy to have a conversation about something when everyone's using different definitions of things.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

It's not exactly easy to have a conversation about something when everyone's using different definitions of things.

Thats something you have to deal with in the gaming industry.
The language isn't mature enough to have precision in its terms.

Ask 10 people what they consider to be an FPS and you will get 10 different answers with 10 different examples that are nothing alike (CoD, STALKER, DEUS EX, Q3A, etc)

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

It's really not that hard to be situationally aware in PS2, it's really not. People often just don't bother.

Sorry, but I can't see through walls, seem to have left my x-ray vision at home. With the short TTK, popping out of cover to have a peek can already mean you're dead. When I go and check if there's someone there, I'm dead. If I don't check, there's no point in me being there, because I might as well just stay put the entire time the moment I consider someone might be somewhere and as you say with the ease of getting around, they are literally everywhere.

It's not a matter of not wanting to check, not even of not trying to check, it's a matter of not being able to check. In most cases this is down to base design as well as the TTK and grenades.

Base design, because it continuously forces defenders to run into deathtraps. Not just because they have to pass the crossfire to the CC. Because of course, as defender, you're on a very tight deadline to get to another position (CC) through a crossfire and you won't have time to check every corner (something you can do as attacker with no deadline, mind you). If positioning is everything, then you don't even need to bother to respawn as defender, because they will have camping positions that lign up perfect shots for them along your entire route and they're in 360 deg positions.

Situational awareness here is just knowing you're screwed but trying anyway.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, and you don't need a cheaty third person view to do it. If you need a third person view to see things you shouldn't logically be able to see in order to be situationally aware, then FPSs might not be for you. I also don't see why people's tactical positioning should be negated by your ability to go into third person just because you don't want to be ambushed.

Shade, I'm comparing contexts. It's not about "need", it's about the impact differences between the two games and the interaction between different mechanics. People here keep comparing two completely different situations on detail level, without the broader context of other mechanics surrounding it.

First person and third person have a big impact on timing and movements made or not made (especially for corner camping) and therefore has a large impact on survivability and which weapon's TTK will win. The amount of situational awareness prior to an engagement you create in the case of third person is simply much greater and your decisions are therefore not pure reflex and instinct, but informed.

Whether that's a negative thing (wallhumping jackhammers) or a positive thing (stealthiness and increased chances of a succesful infiltrator run, being able to fight vehicles better), is very subjective.

I don't often (well, "don't often" in such a large game is relative, but you get what I mean) get snuck up on or ambushed because I actually pay attention to what i'm doing. Mostly because I use those tactics myself so I know I need to be aware to (and how to) counter them.

You can't counter it. You can try to minimise the angles of attack and you can look around you now and then, in some cases you can even place proximity mines, but you can't actually turn around and fire back (countering) most of the time.

I really don't see how "PS2 forces you to be situationally unaware" because there's so many more points of attack, that doesn't make any sense. That's actually the opposite of making sense. If there's more threats, that forces you to be more situationally aware, not less.

The problem isn't the game, the problem is people. Very few people even pay attention to most things in every day life, let alone in games. Multiply that by the size of the game and you have people not paying attention on a grand scale. That's just how a lot of people are. But just because things are hard for some people (or even you), doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not that great a player, and even I can manage it.

You're misinterpreting that completely, perhaps my fault for phrasing that poorly, but the game limits your situational awareness significantly by forced frontal view (no third person, again - I'm not saying it should be there for grunts, I'm just saying it is relatively limited) and poor mini-map design (no zoom function, no good map description of where you are and the local layout), while the amount of possible attack vectors have been increased by a factor 8 at times. Now, you can't keep 360 degrees under constant observation and the attacker, seeing you cover one side, is very likely to change attack vector to one of its many other alternatives. You don't have that luxury, as you have a chance of 1/8 to pick the right area to defend to get the drop on the attacker - if he's alone.

Compare to PS1, where you had 2-3, maybe four, directions to pay attention to and wouldn't have to consider your side constantly. Even in first person only, PS1 would be a lot easier. The game forces your situational awareness to be far more limited yet - as you put it - requires much more from it.

That's simply not possible for a casual gamer and it's not possible for a small team to ward off a bigger group of enemies because they just have too much terrain to cover at the same time. Every position you try to hold is in fact a deadly crossfire.

Edit: As for the medikit thing, that hasn't been my experience at all. I have restoration kits for when i'm playing HA and I get a lot of use out of them (when there's no medics around). I definitely don't find that the only options are "full health" or "dead" after a fight.

Amount of health is irrelevant - of course there's times you have 10-90% health. But there's no actual noticable TTK difference at that point (you can be one shot anyway at any time in this game, so whether you lose 200% health or 10% health at once is almost completely irrelevant), hence I'm exagerating, but to me it comes down to either having full health or being dead.

[Rbstr]

It's like none of you ever use your radar when you're playing infantry.
Not only can you see if someone is behind you, but you can see through walls as well!

[TheRageTrain]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

I like the short time to kill it places more emphasis on tactics and less dancing tricks like circle straff and bunny hopping.

I think one of the silliest aspects of most shooters is that when someone shoots you in the back you have a fair chance of killing them by dancing around.

Its much better that game actually reward you for sneaking up behind someone.

This. I usually die because I over extend myself from a door frame or a from corner to get a bit closer to enemy then another one shows up.. if I would have stayed at the door frame I would have gotten my killer aswell.

You choose yourself whatkind of risks you take, I\m a rusher HA and I still get 6 to 12 kd per hour, with 100 to 130 kills as infantry because I keep optimising my positioning, wish my aim would get bit better too but I try to compensate it by positioning and tactical withdraws to kill 1 by 1 my 5 chasers in buildings 1 to 2 per corner etc.. All good and fun, low TTK is good, means I die too if someone gets a real jump on me when I\m not moving.

The movie what makes me love low TKK, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

[sneeek]

Regarding avenues of attack and TTK, if you're playing the game "correctly" in a squad / platoon that is working as a team, then presumably most avenues of attack are covered by teammates. At worst, you only need to listen out for gunfire / death screams coming from directions you don't expect. So you shouldn't actually be taken by surprise very often.

On the other hand, if you're attempting to flank enemies, you risk being flanked yourself in return. You get to take advantage of low TTK on unsuspecting enemies in return for risking somebody else doing the same to you. Seems OK to me.

Consequently I don't see any problem caused by the TTKs being lower than in original Planetside.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

It's like none of you ever use your radar when you're playing infantry.
Not only can you see if someone is behind you, but you can see through walls as well!

Only when spotted by others.

[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.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

... Now, you can't keep 360 degrees under constant observation and the attacker, seeing you cover one side, is very likely to change attack vector to one of its many other alternatives. You don't have that luxury, as you have a chance of 1/8 to pick the right area to defend to get the drop on the attacker - if he's alone.

You appear to be making TTK relevancy arguments based on solo play, in a game that is supposed to be team oriented. How is that OK?

[Rockit]

Been kinda watching this develope....http://lodmmo.com.

[Ruffdog]

Late to this thread but heres what I think:

The TTK is *slightly* too low. Every squishy class should have a 15% health buff across the board. Keep headshots on a 2x multiplier

This brings me to Max units.
Maxes dont feel like they're in a good place at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they seem like they have no different category of armor to squishy units. They just have more health and thats it. (And no regen shield)
PS1 had gold (AP) and white (AI) ammo to take down your foes and white ammo did FA to a Max if I remember - so Decis or gold ammo was essential. Now fast forward to PS2 and focus fire from standard squishy guns will drop a Max in no time. Which I'm not a fan of. The NC AI weapons versus enemy Max units are disgusting.
I like the tactics needed to take out Maxs - you have to change guns to do the job required. But thats me.

TLDR; buff health on all infantry 15% and Max units by 20%

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

You appear to be making TTK relevancy arguments based on solo play, in a game that is supposed to be team oriented. How is that OK?

Are you just being incredibly dense on purpose by not comprehending that, or what?


Why are you assuming there's enough people to cover every door? THAT is dumb. Yes it's a team game, no, they're not always going to be in the same room or have the appropriate angle.


And yes, I do look at it from both small, big team and solo perspective. If you only look at this from a big team perspective, you ensure the game will have a horrible retention rate. Players come in as solo players, if you discourage them from staying after their "trial" period, they're never going to get in that small or bigger team situation.

If you only design for one situation or scenario, you're just a bad designer.

We're talking a bit more linearity and a slight bit more longer ttk here. Nothing ridiculously undoable for balancing.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Ruffdog

Late to this thread but heres what I think:

The TTK is *slightly* too low. Every squishy class should have a 15% health buff across the board. Keep headshots on a 2x multiplier

This brings me to Max units.
Maxes dont feel like they're in a good place at the moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they seem like they have no different category of armor to squishy units. They just have more health and thats it. (And no regen shield)
PS1 had gold (AP) and white (AI) ammo to take down your foes and white ammo did FA to a Max if I remember - so Decis or gold ammo was essential. Now fast forward to PS2 and focus fire from standard squishy guns will drop a Max in no time. Which I'm not a fan of. The NC AI weapons versus enemy Max units are disgusting.
I like the tactics needed to take out Maxs - you have to change guns to do the job required. But thats me.

TLDR; buff health on all infantry 15% and Max units by 20%

15%-20% HP buff will give you resistance to 1 bullet more to kill for body shots 0 for headshots.

AP/AI ammo was in beta but was removed for SP and HVA ammo, which both do exactly nothing.