Current patch Time To Kill (TTK)

(HellToupee) #101

[QUOTE=Kendle;441588]tbh you can’t compare BF3 now anyway, since they ****ed it up with suppression, 1-v-1’s are meaningless now, but when it was released, when it was good, it was actually very good. I only played it because Stun plays it (and still does today), I hated BF2 and was very reluctant to try BF3, but it turned out to be quite a good game, 4-v-4 Rush was certainly a very enjoyable objective-esque clan game.

But if you look at the damage charts for BF3 most of the AR’s are mid 20’s at close range dropping off to mid teens, about where I suspect DB is, and TTK’s are about the 0.5 second mark, about the same as RTCW, so it’s rather disingenuous to write off anything that SD didn’t make as “first to shoot wins”.[/QUOTE]

RTCWs weapons did damage in the mid teens to, 14dmg for the mp40, an AR in bf3 does 25 damage close range and you think bf3 has low damage?

This my fav weapon in bf3 only a mere 20 dmg, this often is what happens in close quarters ill aim at one person and wind up killing a bunch of others i didn’t even see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dyyLi_dNWBE#t=95s

(Volcano) #102

//youtu.be/o2iROk0NLI0

bf3 is pretty hard yo, hold m1 profit, yes the cod4 music was added for a reason

(Kendle) #103

Coming from DOD (which I did) where the AR does 43 damage it’s low, and the 25 in BF3 is only up close, it drops off fairly sharply, although I’m not going to deny BF3 has terrible spread and the Metro meat-grinder experience is a world away from where any sane person would want to be.

Difficult to compare to DB of course because we don’t know the weapon damages and fall-off, most of us seem to be “guessing” what they are to fit our own agendas, which is a pity as I’m sure SD could knock that on the head by just telling us.

The point is there are not just the 2 opposing scenarios here, “ET style ultra-low damage, low RoF, tracking aim only” OR “every other game, who shoots first wins”. There’s plenty of middle ground between those 2 positions, yet we all seem to be arguing for the former by claiming DB will turn into the latter if SD don’t do what we want.

(INF3RN0) #104

[QUOTE=Kendle;441637]
The point is there are not just the 2 opposing scenarios here, “ET style ultra-low damage, low RoF, tracking aim only” OR “every other game, who shoots first wins”.[/QUOTE]

I think DB will be that middle ground and that’s fine by me. What I wonder is why you think ET is “tracking only” when the TTK with headshots only differs by milliseconds when compared to TTK in other games. The main difference is that if your not actually hitting the head every time, your just tracking for the most part. Because it’s still really quite fast to kill someone with headshots reflexes still play a huge role, but definitely more so at higher levels of play when the tracking portion is already perfected.

Fast RoF+low spread just doesn’t seem to compliment itself in my book. You can essentially spray and aim at 50% precision and still kill someone because there’s no punishment for poor aim. In CS you can at least benefit from reflexes with 1 headshot kills by more complex weapon control and you can’t always rely on spraying for every situation.

Maybe we will see some more reflex based weaponry in future patches?? I think it would be cool to mix up the two concepts.

(Kendle) #105

Suppose it depends what “other games” you’re comparing it to.

In CS, for example, a single head-shot kills you, as was the case in DOD, which I played for several years after I left ET. In both those games it’s considered the height of skill as you need lightning fast reflexes to be really good at the game. Certainly I think the CS community would have something to say if you told them 3 HS takes more skill than 1.

I’ve also played a lot of Urban Terror, which is a very fast, very competitive, idTech3 based game that majors on speed of movement and trick-jumping skills, and the standard AR used in that game is 100HP damage to the head. This is mitigated by the fact you can add armour to your load-out (at the cost of loss of speed) which reduces the HS damage to 51 HP, but it’s also 44 HP to the body without armour or 29 HP with. No-one in Urban Terror thinks this takes any skill out of the game, in fact they figure the quicker you die, the better your aim, reflexes and movement needs to be to win a firefight.

And these are all hugely competitive games with large clan communities, who also look down their noses at COD and BF like we do, but from the other side of the fence so to speak.

And that really is where I’m coming from with all this. As long time ET / ET:QW players we know and understand the low-damage long-TTK model. But coming into DB from outside the SD game bubble it becomes rather more difficult to justify. A shorter TTK would NOT reduce the skill necessary to play DB well, it would simply transfer emphasis from “tracking” to “twitch”, and as twitch is considered more of a skill by more people (outside our little bubble) I’d argue that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Personally I want somewhere in-between. I don’t think 1-shot-kill fits an objective game, because one side is entirely defence and the other entirely offence. However I also don’t think the guns should be so weak it’s like having to ask someone’s permission before you’re allowed to shoot them. :slight_smile:

(Anti) #106

[QUOTE=Kendle;441659]
In CS, for example, a single head-shot kills you, as was the case in DOD, which I played for several years after I left ET. In both those games it’s considered the height of skill as you need lightning fast reflexes to be really good at the game. Certainly I think the CS community would have something to say if you told them 3 HS takes more skill than 1[/QUOTE]

I do find this odd at times as well. In discussing other games with many of you folks, especially those who mostly played RTCW and ET, it does seem like tracking was the only thing considered a skill with regards to weapons. There tends to be a lot of dismissal of flick shots, pre-firing, spread and recoil control, reflexes, stance management etc. All things that I know have been highly valued in other equally successful competitive games.

This is one reason we’ve always been a bit reluctant to reduce spread, as there are a huge number of players out there (equally experienced to yourselves but in their respective games) that will be shocked at our weapon mechanics and the lack of depth. The extent of that will probably only become clear to us when we hit open beta though.

(Kendle) #107

Reducing spread is an easy sell.

Newbie: I shot you and you didn’t die.
You: yes, because you missed, the guns in this game hit what you point them at.

Low damage is a much harder sell.

Newbie: I shot you and you didn’t die.
You: yes, because I’m tough as old boots me!
Newbie: I shot you again, and you still didn’t die.
You: yes, that’s just in case the first shot was a fluke or I wasn’t ready (this is a game for Gentlemen, didn’t you know?).
Newbie: I shot you AGAIN, and you still didn’t die.
You: yes, that’s because even the 2nd shot might have been a fluke and we need to be really, really, really sure you can aim.

(acQu) #108

… blub … forget this post …

(HellToupee) #109

[QUOTE=Kendle;441637]Coming from DOD (which I did) where the AR does 43 damage it’s low, and the 25 in BF3 is only up close, it drops off fairly sharply, although I’m not going to deny BF3 has terrible spread and the Metro meat-grinder experience is a world away from where any sane person would want to be.

Difficult to compare to DB of course because we don’t know the weapon damages and fall-off, most of us seem to be “guessing” what they are to fit our own agendas, which is a pity as I’m sure SD could knock that on the head by just telling us.

The point is there are not just the 2 opposing scenarios here, “ET style ultra-low damage, low RoF, tracking aim only” OR “every other game, who shoots first wins”. There’s plenty of middle ground between those 2 positions, yet we all seem to be arguing for the former by claiming DB will turn into the latter if SD don’t do what we want.[/QUOTE]

Bf3 does not have terrible spread far from it, you can fire at extremely high rates of fire in very tight cone to ranges more than an entire DB map, before in BFBC2 people had to be much more control of their shooting, yet you could be perfectly accurate. Damage was also far lower and it was a much faster game because people could actually move.

Metro is a pretty close comparison to a DB map, all those narrow corridors and short ranges the lower the TTK harder it is for attack to break through the meat grinder especially for publics,

(BomBaKlaK) #110

Absolutely not ! it’s way easier to camp the obj for the defense, even for spawnkill with a low TTK.

(HellToupee) #111

Who spawn kill who? I basically said its harder for attackers aka easier defense.

(Kendle) #112

With ironsights yes, but hip-fire is nuts, which another reason why it’s hard to make a comparison.

The 64 slot Metro meat-grinder is not something I even want to remember let alone compare to DB, but we played a fair few 4-v-4 rush, and even some 6-v-6 conquest on Metro, and it was not a bad map. It’s not even that bad on 16 slot pubs tbh.

(INF3RN0) #113

[QUOTE=Anti;441668]
This is one reason we’ve always been a bit reluctant to reduce spread, as there are a huge number of players out there (equally experienced to yourselves but in their respective games) that will be shocked at our weapon mechanics and the lack of depth. The extent of that will probably only become clear to us when we hit open beta though.[/QUOTE]

I’ve known this the entire time, but the ideas being combined just weren’t working the way they were intended. I only saw the weapons making sense if it went one direction or the other, and of course most people here wanted it to go towards low spread tracking. Maybe it could have been made to work, but it would probably have required a lot more complicated weapon mechanics. I do see the original weapon mechanics working better in terms of weapon control if they had a much lower RoF, but overall those kinds of mechanics tend to fit much slower SnD type games and I could see people becoming very frustrated in a much faster paced game like this.

ET does have that lack of depth in terms of the weapons for sure, that’s where it’s really very simple. It is however one of those easy to learn hard to master things where a game like CS takes years of practice with each weapon to learn their spread patterns. Both are still very hard to perform though, but I’d consider the ET route to be more fitting to your design doc. Recoil, increased damage, slightly higher RoF, etc might be ways to make it different and less frustrating. I’ve known a lot of CS players who do consider ET style shooting to be very simple, yet they also acknowledge it’s an equally skillful mode of aiming and the fast pace is what really compliments the system.

(BomBaKlaK) #114

and I answer absolutely not cause it’s really easier with a low TTK to camp the obj ! so it’s defense biased with a low TTK
then after I said the spawnkill it’s also easier … (please learn to read before answer … )

(INF3RN0) #115

Low body shot TTK vs high headshot TTK has always been there to separate out players and add to the mastery curve. Mixed skill levels in pub is a big turn off to a lot of people (this alpha is a good example of the cons of the clan server system), which is why I really hope to see this game benefit from a match making option. Not everyone likes to be thrown into hot water right off the get go.

Again I’d much rather see the TTK times in both areas increased if the game feels too difficult just to get body shots at a lower level. That TTK difference needs to be maintained for those who don’t want to be spoon fed success without practice.

(spookify) #116

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;441729]Low body shot TTK vs high headshot TTK has always been there to separate out players and add to the mastery curve. Mixed skill levels in pub is a big turn off to a lot of people (this alpha is a good example of the cons of the clan server system), which is why I really hope to see this game benefit from a match making option. Not everyone likes to be thrown into hot water right off the get go.

Again I’d much rather see the TTK times in both areas increased if the game feels too difficult just to get body shots at a lower level. That TTK difference needs to be maintained for those who don’t want to be spoon fed success without practice.[/QUOTE]

The only way a match making system would work would be up to level 10 as even really good players are still learning. You can put level 100’s all together but the can all suck compared to a level 30. The match stuff is a bunch of non-scene. If the player doesnt want to go into the hot water right away dont go into the servers that say No-Noobs like ET-Box was. The “noobs” all went and played Shrub or Jay Mod and Left ET Pro servers empty and killed them game. Then competition dies because people leave because there are no pubs of ET Pro while there are 100’s of Shrub and Jay Mod crap servers…

(Mustang) #117

XP Level ≠ Skill level

(BomBaKlaK) #118

1 000 000 % agree ! XP whore are just boring as hell …

(spookify) #119

Thats my whole point

(Mustang) #120

So what makes you think that a match making system would match players of equal XP rather than skill?