|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jathniel
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
1498
   |
Posted - 2015.03.18 17:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
If this happens, you have any idea how much more stupid this game would look?
Strafing would turn into "two-clip tangos" maybe more.
No. Longer TTK does NOT = more skill required.
If it did, then running Scout would not be considered 'hard mode' by so many people.
True skill is surviving and thriving in a low-TTK environment (or any environment where you can get dropped easily). One would only fuss about that, when one can't do it.
Don't call anyone a scrub, just because you happen to hate dying quickly (in CoD, of otherwise).
@OP:
No.
No.
Yes.
Retired
|
Jathniel
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
1505
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 20:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aero Yassavi wrote:Jathniel wrote:
No. Longer TTK does NOT = more skill required.
If it did, then running Scout would not be considered 'hard mode' by so many people.
You realize your argument makes no sense to the proposition? The high TTK equating to higher skill refers to engaging enemies when you both have proportionately higher TTKs, not using a relatively higher TTK suit than your opponent.
Doesn't matter.
The point still stands even if it's Scout vs. Scout.
Weapons chew up scout suits the fastest, and that's why most people don't play them anymore, now that cloaking has been nerfed. Because it's too hard and takes skill.
If a scout is beating someone with a higher ttk suit in a direct shoot-out, that is an even higher testament to that scout's skill.
No matter how you want to look at it. Scout vs. Assault, Scout vs. Sentinel, Scout vs. Scout.
Skill doesn't just require good aim (as supporters of higher TTK want to argue). Skill requires good AND fast aim.
It doesn't matter how good one thinks he can aim, if he can't do it fast enough, he's going to get rekt.. Higher TTK or not.
That said, lower TTK gameplay requires more skill.
People asking for higher TTK, are going to get tore up, just as badly as they are now, for the fundamental reason that the people killing them, can and will acquire lethal firing solutions first.
Why fool yourself into thinking otherwise?
Retired
|
Jathniel
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 04:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Wow.... so many people here think that RNG bullet distribution ending a battle early = skill.
Short battles are mostly RNG from your gun. The shorter the conflict the more that RNG means.
Therefore Skill = RNG?
You people lobbying for short kill times amuse me... really.
No one is lobbying for short kill times, we're lobbying against unreasonably long ones.
When a gun does X amount of damage, and the target has X amount of eHP. Those are direct stats. Which is the complete opposite of RNG.
When someone kills another person in this game. It's because, in some way or another, that target was within their field of effect.
RNG would be your bullet doing a random amount of damage, hitting a random target around the field, who has a random amount of HP.
gustavo acosta wrote:Jathniel wrote:
That said, lower TTK gameplay requires more skill.
People asking for higher TTK, are going to get tore up, just as badly as they are now, for the fundamental reason that the people killing them, can and will acquire lethal firing solutions first.
Why fool yourself into thinking otherwise?
Lower TTK=COD COD=No skill pretty simple equation. No, HP will actually mean something, people who don't stack hp will have a better chance of survival. Low TTK makes the game's fitting meta completely pointless. "What's the point of running an armor stacked x when it dies as fast as a scout" Beyond that you're a scrub, and I can kick your teeth in with basic gear bruuh.
*Argues against low TTK.*
*Says people with lower HP will have a better chance of survival.*
Retired
|
Jathniel
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 05:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Jathniel wrote:
No one is lobbying for short kill times, we're lobbying against unreasonably long ones.
When a gun does X amount of damage, and the target has X amount of eHP. Those are direct stats. Which is the complete opposite of RNG.
When someone kills another person in this game. It's because, in some way or another, that target was within their field of effect.
RNG would be your bullet doing a random amount of damage, hitting a random target around the field, who has a random amount of HP.
Bullet spread is RNG. Heck.. hit detection is also RNG for this game... Also, the combat times from the closed beta were brilliant for fights. You actually felt like you were in a fight, not just slapping someone with a stick of ham and saying, "Tag!". After a 1v1, you felt kind of jittery about the conflict then.... Now.. Blap. Over. Done. Gun has fired. Who did I kill? I don't know. Wasn't important enough to remember. If you want fast kills you need to use short range weapons (such as knives). If you want slower kills, then it should be for ranged weapons. The difference between weapon performance and armor types would be clarified for many people with longer combat bouts. Right now, I can talk to half of the people I play with and they have no idea that guns have damage profiles. Targets drop so fast it's not worth knowing unless it's vs a Tank. Why even have damage profiles for weapons, if the game makes it so that you can't spot the difference between an armor or shield oriented weapon without reading the specialization tips or visiting the forums.
I take your point.
But remember, in closed beta. Everyone hated Sentinels when they were actually capable of 1v1 against a tank. It took 3 or 4 people to take a Sentinel down. (Sentinels were also extremely hard to skill into.)
The way to balance TTK, so that the damage profiles matter, would be to reduce the severity of the PROFILES (and global weapon damages by a slightly less percentage); NOT double base eHP as mentioned in the OP. (This has been suggested NUMEROUS times.)
Retired
|
Jathniel
Ahrendee Inc.
Negative-Feedback
1508
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 08:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Shutter Fly wrote:Jathniel wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Jathniel wrote:
No one is lobbying for short kill times, we're lobbying against unreasonably long ones.
When a gun does X amount of damage, and the target has X amount of eHP. Those are direct stats. Which is the complete opposite of RNG.
When someone kills another person in this game. It's because, in some way or another, that target was within their field of effect.
RNG would be your bullet doing a random amount of damage, hitting a random target around the field, who has a random amount of HP.
Bullet spread is RNG. Heck.. hit detection is also RNG for this game... Also, the combat times from the closed beta were brilliant for fights. You actually felt like you were in a fight, not just slapping someone with a stick of ham and saying, "Tag!". After a 1v1, you felt kind of jittery about the conflict then.... Now.. Blap. Over. Done. Gun has fired. Who did I kill? I don't know. Wasn't important enough to remember. If you want fast kills you need to use short range weapons (such as knives). If you want slower kills, then it should be for ranged weapons. The difference between weapon performance and armor types would be clarified for many people with longer combat bouts. Right now, I can talk to half of the people I play with and they have no idea that guns have damage profiles. Targets drop so fast it's not worth knowing unless it's vs a Tank. Why even have damage profiles for weapons, if the game makes it so that you can't spot the difference between an armor or shield oriented weapon without reading the specialization tips or visiting the forums. I take your point. But remember, in closed beta. Everyone hated Sentinels when they were actually capable of 1v1 against a tank. It took 3 or 4 people to take a Sentinel down. (Sentinels were also extremely hard to skill into.) The way to balance TTK, so that the damage profiles matter, would be to reduce the severity of the PROFILES (and global weapon damages by a slightly less percentage); NOT double base eHP as mentioned in the OP. (This has been suggested NUMEROUS times.) I think its already been well established that doubling HP isn't the best direction to take, and I don't think anyone is arguing that as it is. In closed beta, heavies were much more difficult to take down quickly. What you aren't taking into account is that heavies also did much less damage, and had a fairly different role. The HMG didn't have insane DPS, short range, and fast overheat like it does now; in beta it was a weapon that did decent damage, had moderate range, and did sustained damage over an extended period. Heavies were meant to be able to eat damage and dish it out consistently against multiple opponents in a sustained engagement. The heavy in beta isn't really comparable to today's insta-kill HMG wielders that barely live longer than a medium frame. I would stay away from modifying damage profiles, mostly because it is a defining factor in Dust and gives different weapon types unique benefits and detriments to fitting them in particular situations. Increasing TTK by 15-25% would make each engagement much more meaningful, which makes sense in a game where each death is a potential financial loss. It would also open each class up to a much more open range of possible balancing factors, a lower TTK is a restriction to the range of viable HP/ewar/rep/speed combinations. EDIT: Lowering/Increasing
I remember the closed beta Sentinel VERY differently.
The HMG shredded everything... Even vehicles didn't escape it's wrath. It would tear down dropships that got too close, and kill HAVs that were unlucky enough to get stuck on terrain. In a matter of seconds. And if they had on damage mods? They would tear down the gates of Heaven itself.
No sir, Sentinels were far more deadly in the past.
Either way, TTK has been increased with direct eHP buffs, with the latest being assaults. And I am opposed to increases, using eHP buffs because it won't fix other problems.
TTK is also very much in the favor of armor players, for a number of different reasons. Damage profiles are problematic mostly on the anti-shield end.
I would personally favor a removal of Aim Assist, but AA is one of the strongest factors helping newer players compete (which was one of the reasons for its implementation).
I'm going to be honest and say, I don't want to see a TTK increase. Doing that would simply eliminate imbalances we have now, to go right back to the ones we had 3+ years ago.
I have great memories of closed beta, but please understand, it was nowhere near as "polished" as the Dust that Rattati and his team have made today.
Retired
|
|
|
| |
|