[Suggestion] Add a killcam

Hello, I'm not new to the game, but some people are. What noobs need to get better is a tool showing them what they did wrong, which is not always soooo easy to see. Having a lot of hours behind me, I know that I can wreck any people in any situation, provided:
-They don't know the map.
-They don't know where I am.

That's what helps people like me to get a ton of cheap kills against new players, because even a CS vet will have a hard time figuring where the threat comes from.

The solution, a killcam. Everytime you die, you get to see how you were killed, and so, what was your mistake.

There are honestly no drawbacks to that, even with snipers. I know a lot of them complain everytime this subject is brought back, but honestly?
A killcam would not change much.
As a veteran, everytime I get sniped I'm like okay, judging from where I was the shot came from here. I either beware or countersnipe then. But for a noob, he'll just see that he got wrecked, and won't be able to retaliate. So, from my pov, snipers who get angry at killcam just want to be sure they can easily farm noobs.

And a killcam would make an extremely good tool to spot hackers too, as you would litterally see the world through the eyes of your killer, and such excuses as lag or ping would not matter.

And even as a veteran player, sometimes, I would like to see how someone was able to headshot me 4 times in a row in less than half a second, while hipfiring.

Why would you be against a killcam?
Why would you like to see one added to the game?

How about no, this isn't an arena shooter and shouldn't be treated like one.

It's not just against snipers. There's LA perches, stalkers, etc.

There's already a ton of things that give away positions. I get what you're saying from a new player perspective, but overall, this would probably hurt the game more than help it in the long run. People aren't new for that long.

This game is not supposed to have a kill cam why would you be able to see somebody's hiding place?especially if it took him a good time to get there

As an experienced sniper once i see somebody he is as good as dead i always take the time to see who is firing on my teams medics or my team in general so i can take them down and more than often all i need is to see them once.

With a kill cam somebody like me would just tear these guys apart because simply it would be really easy for me to kill them since i would know their position

And no it would not affect me since i don't really care to hide i like to be in the open because people get the bait and fire at me so i can easily see their position.

If you truly want a kill cam you have no idea what you get your self into.

And this is not just about the snipers its also about pretty much any other class light assaults as well these guys are the kings of flanking how can you just give away their position?

No. if you want to see the game from an experienced players perspective there are numerous youtube channels and Twitch streamers you can watch.

Killcams are stupid.

Would be bad for long range tanks, snipers. Some people would use it with comms or dual accounts for spying. Nope.
The game was way harder than it is now. No extra certs during leveling, no online tutorials, no Koltyr, a crazy balance.

From a gamepoint standpoint. I don't see the point. The only benefit it would have would be to show the victim where his killer is if its a sniper, or other class capable of getting into a hiding spot. Sort of negates the point of those elements. If that's the intent, then say that's the intent and we can debate whether or not that is right.

From a lore point of view, how does it work? Nanites only go so far, and right now they are telling us the point of impact direction at the cause of death (the red cone thing on the death screen). If we can see out of the eyes of our enemies, why can't we do this all the time? Why can't we bypass shields? This isn't Ghost in the Shell.

And from a technical standpoint, how would it work? Is it recording what I'm doing and then sending it to the server to be sent to the victim? I'm on standard internet. I can't upload video everytime I get a kill. I'm already taxing my upload as it is. So am I just going to lag everytime I get a kill. How about no.

But if its not recorded, then it has to be simulated. I -think- this is what most shooters do. So who's going to simulate? The server or the victim's client? If its the victim's client, which would be best, it would see need the formula and recording of what happened from the server.

How does it do that? More specifically, how does it take what an attacker just did to a victim, and emulate what they did and then send it to the victim's client? That's a bit extra processing on the server... everytime someone gets a kill. Other shooters get away with it due to only a dozen kills at a time.

Yeah! Just keep track of all players position all the time for X seconds, and during a kill you instantly replay that part from an angle that players know how and where they were killed! Easy and totally not impossible to code in a game with massive world and the possibility of 300+ players being around you at a time!

When you die it tells you a general direction of where you were killed from, if you want revenge that badly go searching that way.

Naah that's not about revenge, honestly I would not watch a killcam myself, it's for newer players. The one that are often lost in the open!

Yeah thats the thing I'm afraid of, the possibilities of the server. I don't think it's balance breaking or anything, but can the game handle it? Another question.

Yeah honestly, the only argument standing is the technical one. About hiding places or anything, well, as a LA or sniper, if you need to stand in the same spot for more than, let's say, 30 seconds, I don't think you can call yourself a really good player. The aim of the killcam would be to say to people: "You got killed there, by someone who was there, doing this." It won't give them a godly aim, but it can prevent them from being farmed. Are people trying to protect farming here?

And the game started losing players at that time. Now it is in a not so bad state, but it could achieve more, and honestly, it would not change much.

I don't understood all of your post, I think.
But judging by what you said, you would get easy kills on campers and would not be really affected because you move a lot. Good for you, and you're good too maybe, but I'm thinking of noobs here. Of course a BR100 will know the sniper's spot 99% of the time after the first shot, whatever clever hiding place he is. As a BR100 myself, I can say that regular snipers can't kill me, good snipers will HS me once, and very good snipers will HS me and claymore me when I'm getting to their position. Very good snipers know that people can find them without a kill cam, so they set up traps. Giving a killcam to people won't prevent them from being killed, it will prevent farming. You always get killed once at least. If, as a sniper, you stay in the same spot for the next 2 minuts, you know you suck, you have to move. A killcam won't change your playstyle, or only making it better, but it can make a big difference for new players.

'Kill Cams' are in arena shooters because it discourages 'camping'. As game companies started to cater to the masses of the 'everyone gets a medal' generation, they needed to add more crutches to even the playing field between good players and poor players.
Kill cams promote constant movement and discourage sniping tactics. In Planetside 2, where you are awarded for thinking outside the 'box' of the front lines, a kill cam would not fit in. There was a huge backlash against the crutch we have currently, showing the 'general direction' the kill shot came from, which I feel is still not needed.

If veteran players never use a kill cam or even pay attention to the 'pie slice' map (I don't), why would a new player use it? The argument that they need to 'see' who killed them doesn't make any sense in the bigger picture of a battle. A veteran player knows it's pointless, that it's not the focus of the game. A new player needs to learn it's pointless and needs to learn it's not the focus of the game.

The game had a crazy balance at the release. But it was fun and totally playable. The game was at first dominated by TRs and their large pop. The game only started to loose players when Devs nerfed MBTs splash damages and other Tr weaponery. The game stopped to be as chezzy as it was. Then a lot of TR leaders and outfits suddenly realized that they had a lot of other important stuff to do than playing at a game. Then the pop kept on decreasing because of different Roadmaps. Those Roadmaps had clear and attractive goals to reach. But those goals have been constantly delayed because of the Playstation project. Then came an increasing lack of patience from the player base about bugs, lack of new content, lack of meta. Then came DBG. Here we are now .(to make it short)

About the killcam, i think it may be a problem especially during low pop times, for the reasons which have been previously explained.
I would prefer Demigan's idea. But i guess it would too stressful for the servers and possibly for players' bandwith.

Not understanding what killed you, or what you could've done different to avoid death is one of the biggest causes of frustration in this game (or any multiplayer FPS, while we're at it). A killcam could push back some of that frustration, but with a game as large scale as this, it would cause more harm than good.

My two cents? We could do without both the killcam and the "General Direction Of Killer" bit on the minimap, simply by giving infantry more resistance to other infantry gunfire.

Now, I'm not saying "give players more health." The dynamic present in infantry vs. vehicle combat is pretty decent as it goes right now.

IMHO players die far too quickly in this game to just about every single weapon, all the way down to pistols. There's no time to assess the situation, or make a run for cover, and you just barely have enough time to turn around and face your attacker. There's that old saying started on this forum along the lines of "whoever shoots first wins," regardless of skill, and it's a result of the incredibly low time to kill when it comes to infantry vs. infantry combat.

An extra two seconds of combat time could work wonders. Whoever got the drop on someone would still likely come out the victor, and the one who died will come out with a better understanding of everything that was going on around them at the time. Hell, they might even nick the attacker's HP a bit. That would certainly make a spent respawn feel less like a waste of time.

I'm taking this change from other games I enjoy where more health works wonders. Team Fortress 2, for example, lets you take more than a few shots, and you can retreat or try to fight your way out of a situation. Whether it's win or lose, TF2 and similar games never cause as much confusion and frustration as a game like PS2 can, simply because you're given time to understand the situation and react appropriately.

The biggest argument against this always seems to be "realism." Realism doesn't balance games, guys.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. But what if they are defending farming. Is it not a valid playstyle?

I don't agree that it is. But the majority of people do it. There's still a "don't blow their sundy and ruin the farm" mentality floating around.

The great thing about other games is that you can play them. Don't take this the wrong way but if I wanted to play a game where it was about person to person firefights. Then I'd play Team Fortress 2 or many other games like it.

But the thing is, I don't. The gunplay in PS2 is where I like it to be. It emphasized coordination, maneuvers, and situational awareness. TF2 is great for the casual blitzed out (on illegal or legal) substances type of player who just wants to kick back and play a few games. I'm not that sort of player.

I want a game where I can get a squad or platoon sized group. Wreck a continent sized element in a few hours of high paced play. Where else can I find that sort of game? I can't find it in high TTK style games like TF2.

The great think about low TTK is it gives players like you, who aren't as 'hardcore'* as players like me a chance to get a kill or two. Think about it, if it took 2.75s average TTK (you said add 2 seconds) to get a kill, if you took my group by surprise, you'd get NO kills.

Think I'm wrong? Do the math. Look at the Carv, currently has a TTK of .48s right? 7 bullets to kill. Without changing its stats, just the TTK, it would take 35 rounds to kill someone. If I've got 4 people with me when you round the corner, here's what would happen (lets assume you're VS and using the Orion):

You die in .56s like you would now in a 1v1 confrontation. But what did you do in that amount of time? You got 7 rounds off on someone. Normally that would have killed something. Heck lets give you the advantage and let you get the drop and get an extra 5 rounds (a whole .4s of firing before they react).

Congratulations. You took 2/3's of someone's shields down. Shields that will have recharged before you are done respawning.

What does .4s give you now against 5 in the same situation? Take them by surprise and you drop two before you take damage. With only 3 left, you could theoretically get one more damaged past shields before going down.

You want to make the game more group oriented, and screw the solo guy, raise the TTK. I don't agree with the solo playstyle, but they do deserve some kills when they get the drop. Some of them do play in concert with teams. In many cases doing exactly what situation I described above.

*Funny thing about hardcore players. They play less than casuals do on a week to week basis. I play PS2 for example, once or twice a week. But when I do its playing hard with a group of friends or an outfit.

Not sure If I'm for the idea of a video showing me how ******* stupid I was after every death.

Like really?!? I did that!?! WTF was I thinking

I'm not saying this game should become the new TF2. It's its own thing and I can respect that. I'm offering a common solution to the game design issue the OP gave regarding player feedback, this case being the feedback of a new player & "Learning what could I have done differently." It's certainly a better answer than a killcam for a large-scale game like this.

An extra two seconds might sound like a lot, but it's almost negligible in squad/platoon play, provided you're sticking with your team. You get to keep your platoon playstyle, and new players can quickly learn what does and doesn't work against a foe.

--

I'm a bit confused at that whole *Hardcore* bit though. First off, you start that part out by saying it gives low-skill players like me a fighting chance. Have we actually ever fought each other in game or something? Not sure why you compare my skill to yours as if you know me personally.

And yeah, people tend to die if they run solo into a group of 5 or so enemies. That's more than enough people to cover any blind spots the group has, unless they're running through bases holding hands. I can't screw the solo guy if they're the type of player who honestly thinks they'll come out OK in a skirmish like that, let alone actually kill someone. Whether or not I've got one guy's back turned to me, there's 4 other people who might be looking in my direction, along with anyone else who could be at this base (either friends or enemies).

Lastly, I seriously cannot stand when people pull weapon stats from this game and then write an entire paragraph of hypotheticals as if it's the end all be all of discussion. You've literally made up a scenario that seriously would not work out like you say it would, nor can you mathematically prove my suggestion an awful idea, since it literally does not exist in the game.

Because Planetside 2 showboats itself as the biggest FPS in existence, there's no possible way you can give a scenario and have it executed flawlessly, due to the massive amount of variables and playstyles that go on at any given base, at any given time. This game isn't something you can just "in a perfect world..." so please stop using math and numbers to try and come off as The Clearly Correct Person when all the calculations are done with a scenario you pulled out of thin air.

If they join a platoon. If not, they die like they do now. What changed? Now they're required to join a platoon or squad whereas now, they don't have to do 'something'. Your suggestion would require them to join a group to do anything.

--

Hardcore doesn't mean one has more skill than a casual. Just because I know how to take a continent with a group, doesn't mean I can beat you in a 1 on 1. I mean unless you equate skill to being able to find a group like that. I don't. I equate skill to being something that runs in tandem with that.

I don't make up scenarios. I pull personal experiences and then explain them with the math. I've personally killed 5-6 people at a control point solo. In fact I've gone in there knowing how many there were, where they were, and what they had. I told my squad that I'd take care of them. It involved using a SMG, infiltrator, and smart positioning.

No way in hell would I have been able to take out that group if my Cyclone with a .46s TTK was 2.46s TTK. Even with the element of surprise, cloak, and knowledge of the building. In this case I was with a squad, they were doing something else, and I was working autonomously to take a control point back so they could take the next base and allow me to redeploy to meet up with them. The enemy dropped some peeps in from the air. I expected to get 2-3 of them, respawn and get the rest. I was lucky enough to get them all.

But like I said, increasing the TTK by 5x the amount wouldn't have allowed me to do that. I'd scratch one (maybe, if I get past the shields) and get killed by the others.