From a tactical gamer, jaded by 'trendy' modern shooters - Page 4

Comet · 2012-07-23, 01:20 PM

Brighthand, I believe the developers are trying to design a game that you're going to like. Until you actually play it though, all this forum-talk is just theoretical.

By the way, nice chopper flying in your video

Ratstomper · 2012-07-23, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

If that was true, I would have a lot more kills and a lot fewer deaths whenever I play Modern Warfare 3. I average about 3/15 during a normal round. Meh, that game is too fast for me.

It really comes down to a different...I hate to use the word "skillset". With low TTKs, it's more about moving and training yourself to react quickly. If you can move your cursor over that guy before he gets his cursor over you, you win. Anyone with a more deliberate, tactical playstyle will probably not be impressed with the CoD franchise (except the first one, which was pretty awesome).

Which is a shame, considering it's supposed to be a military themed shooter. As someone else on these forums so aptly put, modern shooters are a "pastiche of military combat".

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-23, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

It really comes down to a different...I hate to use the word "skillset". With low TTKs, it's more about moving and training yourself to react quickly. If you can move your cursor over that guy before he gets his cursor over you, you win. Anyone with a more deliberate, tactical playstyle will probably not be impressed with the CoD franchise (except the first one, which was pretty awesome).

Which is a shame, considering it's supposed to be a military themed shooter. As someone else on these forums so aptly put, modern shooters are a "pastiche of military combat".

Yeah, thats my experience too. I do much better in slower paced shooters with higher TTK. I really enjoyed and excelled in Section 8: Prejudice, for example, which had a relatively high TTK and a much slower pace (though you were exeptionally mobile in that game).

Rat · 2012-07-23, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Kush

I agree I want a tactical difficult game that rewards skill and teamwork. Not a game where everyone is running around crazy and a noob can kill you because you have dumbed down the game so much

Oh, a noob will kill you...but the diff is that the rest of your squad will make him pay, and you will be revived by your medic.

brighthand · 2012-07-23, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Comet

Brighthand, I believe the developers are trying to design a game that you're going to like. Until you actually play it though, all this forum-talk is just theoretical.

By the way, nice chopper flying in your video

thanks. Exclusive chopper-flying destroys one's stats and doesn't offer alot of points, but those hot extractions, tacitcal drops, and gunner cover are all worth it. I am looking forward to flying Galaxies (and possibly liberators) in Planetside 2, where my piloting will be more meaningful

FuzzyandBlue · 2012-07-23, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

This is not directly related to TTK (shorter TTKs are actually more realistic). It's a complicated topic. Perhaps I've explained it in a easy to read/understand manner?

Yes I understood you perfectly. But I almost feel like that was a jab at my IQ. Probably not though. I have never read you post and thought "this guy is a total troll"

As far as you're examples, I would have to lump Counterstike in with twich shooters. However I will say that because of how precise everything is in Counterstrike it does emphasize a high skill ceiling.

As far as Arma goes, I would have to agree that Arma Has a huge emphasis on smart movement, due to the fact that you can die from one bullet. Communication is important due to the fact that you have to find the enemy with you're own eyes. Which can be nearly impossible if they are not moving. But even Arma make many concessions in order to be more accessible.

PlanetSide 2 is going to be a modern shooter with huge scale and a gameplay based around the capturing of resources. How the meta game shapes out will be totally dependent on how we play the game. More specifically Organized outfits and the unorganized players working towards common goals.

@ Brighthand
Stats never are a good reflection of skill. From what I saw you were an extremely good pilot. You were using the transport chopper for its intended purpose, transporting.

Skill is a matter of practice. Being a good player on the other hand depends on what the objective of the game is. In Conquest if you are not helping your team cap and hold flags, then you are not a good player. In Rush if you are sitting back in the spawn sniping and not spotting, you're not a good player. I could care less about someones K\D. They may be bad at getting kills but if they contribute in some other meaningful way then they can still be a good player.

As far as meta game goes, the meta game is not entirely defined by the game mechanics. It is a combination of the mechanics and how the players use those mechanics. Naturally that means bad mechanics and or stupid players lead to a bad meta game.

FatherJack · 2012-07-23, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

No, that injury rate is mostly thanks to modern medicine and the speed we can get casualties treated. Modern body armour still isn't going to stop a direct AK round (unless you have armour plates to back it up) and you will still lose your leg when an IED goes off. Even when you get a glancing shot it can still take you out of the action.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-23, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

How is low ttk unrealistic?

America has been at war with a Couple of third world countries for almost a decade so Perhaps the thinking is that everyone we face will be killed with a couple of shots. And this is a correct assumption when you are fighting guys in a t shirt and sandals. Right now our troops wear jackets that stop high powered ak47 rounds. It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle. So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.

Littleman · 2012-07-23, 01:35 PM

I don't think it's the gunplay of the game that "dumbs down" games like CoD and BF so much as the lack of anything else to think about. Killing is king in CoD/BF. In the latter, capture points are often the objective, but the maps are static, temporary, and the number of players and vehicles available is actually very low still.

If DICE had made Battlefield 3 on the same scale with the same player numbers and vehicle acquisition and persistant territorial dominion as Planetside 2 is touting, it would genuinely be a good game because at that point, it would introduce a strategic and meaningful meta game. No matter what, you can't help but look at even the largest BF3 maps as "just another match."

You don't feel the urgency to win in Battlefield or Cod, and THAT is what I think is Planetside's crowning achievement over other FPS titles. Winning has a cause and an effect and it matters. Players can see the results of their labor as their team colors spill across the map.

Mind you, a quite literal $#!%-ton of people in a single instance is pretty awesome too.

Planetside 2 will have TTK's akin to BFIII, possibly slightly higher. Videos show fairly short, but that's going full auto with all shots connecting which is done primarily at shorter ranges for obvious reasons.

Thing is, Planetside 2 WILL be easy for newbs to get into, but it will be the strategists and meta game players that win the fight, not the "zerglings" as we call them; dying, respawning, rushing in, clogging up a barrel, respawning, rinse and repeat. Getting back into the fight will be quicker as well. This game is about fighting, and making people wait 30 seconds to respawn just to hoof it 300m (a punishment in itself) to get back into the fight is asking a bit much when the game lives and dies on its player counts.

Unfortunately for many people in here, this game will need to cater to the... "simpler" crowd for it to survive a decade in better shape than PS1 did. Being F2P helps.

Reizod · 2012-07-23, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by brighthand

thanks. Exclusive chopper-flying destroys one's stats and doesn't offer alot of points, but those hot extractions, tacitcal drops, and gunner cover are all worth it. I am looking forward to flying Galaxies (and possibly liberators) in Planetside 2, where my piloting will be more meaningful

I'm also a decent pilot and put a lot of time and effort into being very good at it. I can assure you that your efforts/pilot skills will not be in vain when playing PS2. Unless, they nerf, change or gimp the flying mechanics more than what they are now.

Looking at your vid, I can say with confidence you will be a-okay.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-23, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

America has been at war with a Couple of third world countries for almost a decade so Perhaps the thinking is that everyone we face will be killed with a couple of shots. And this is a correct assumption when you are fighting guys in a t shirt and sandals. Right now our troops wear jackets that stop high powered ak47 rounds. It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle. So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.

This is blatantly untrue. Modern combat armor in use by current militaries is capable of stopping high-velocity shrapnel and small arms fire, like a 9mm round. It will not, however, stop high powered rifle rounds, like the rounds of an AK-47 or a sniper rifle.

EDIT: A littrle research later, and I've found that most modern combat armor have special armor inserts that, when used, allow the armor to absorb high caliber rounds, like the NATO 5.56, at reasonable ranges (200 metres for example). Point blank, however, is another matter entirely.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-23, 01:37 PM

dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

Total Overkill · 2012-07-23, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

Go find me a US soldier that wears dragonskin that didnt purchase it himself

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-23, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Mail Call - Dragon Skin® Body Armor - YouTube dragonskin body armor versus ak47 this was in the show mailcall a couple years back.

While impressive, the Dragon Skin is not in widespread use by any military agency.

Kezz · 2012-07-23, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

...high powered ak47 rounds...

AK47 rounds are not high powered. They're a short round, low-medium powered to permit some degree of control over autofire. They're more powerful than a pistol round, but not even "full powered" like NATO 7.62.

It is very difficult to kill american troops while using a rifle.

While using an AK, sure. Most "proper" (.30 cal or better, full power) rifle rounds have rather better penetration performance against all but the chest and back plates of current body armour, AIUI

So the three body shot kills in generic modern shooters is unrealistic.

That may be so, but it's largely irrelevant to PS2, since it's "Science Fiction" (more Science Fantasy, really) and any terminal ballistics performance can be handwaved. Your C21st Barrett .50cal might well bounce off whatever they make HA's exosuit out of, and there aren't many gaps. But personal weapon technology can be handwaved too, so whatever "TTK" makes the most fun game can be set in the game. Not that TTK means a fat lot when there are so many different weapon systems out there to compare. TTK of a LA targeted an MCG at 20m is going to be a lot shorter than TTK of a HA targeted by a Pulsar at 180m.