TTK is too damn short for an MMO game

No it is not. The CE Magnum fires slowly and has abominable bullet spread. It's theoretical TTK is over a half-second and it's practical TTK is usually more than that. It stands out because it exists in a game filled with far slower options, but it's still on the long side for any FPS.

You said double the TTK and balance from there, something that would be tantamount to completely rebuilding the core gameplay from scratch. It wouldn't solve any issues and would functionally destroy the game as we know it.

I'm arguing semantics because you're using them to support your position. Planetside is a shooter. Just because it's a little bigger than others doesn't mean that staple mechanics from other shooters can't or shouldn't carry over into this one. The 'MMO' moniker is irrelevant.

As a matter of fact there are things you can do to minimize this happening, which is why your scenario is an issue for some and not others: Be Prepared to Fight if You Are At a Contested Base.

Yes, it is the nature of online games, the TTK is not to blame. This scenario happens in every FPS game not played on a LAN connection. Planetside is not special. It's not even as bad as it could be.

the EM 1, the rhino and the polaris are spray and pray guns, there should be NO reason to have to go for headshots with these weapons and a high HS multiplyer on these simply doesn´t make sense with their inaccuracy and cone of fire ..

I understand the desire to compare PS2 to other games(and their TTK rates), but, I don't think that any other games are even on the same spectrum and it muddies your argument for longer TTK comparing apples to oranges. There's only 1 other game that should be used to judge this one's mechanics in my opinion, and that is the first PlanetSide, i.e., PS1.

There wasn't HS multipliers in that game, and there were 0 1HK weapons outside of vehicles (and there were very few, I believe only a couple, for vehicles). Even sniper rifles took 2 shots. Without going too far into the weeds about specific finite balance differences between the 2 games and going back to the original point the OP was trying to get at; I believe that Rooster is correct, this game and it's players would actually benefit and enjoy longer TTK more than what is currently implemented.

You could double the TTK in this game and I'm pretty sure it would still only be about half of what PS1 TTK was. I'm not advocating any specific TTK, this game is different than the original and should be tuned differently. What I do vividly remember is that infantry fights were more tactical and were much more of a skilled dance and not just about who was able to get the drop first. Most situations, as long as you were using cover properly, you were able to fall back from if over-run, creating battle lines and a much better 'feeling' type of gameplay when compared to what we have in PS2. When you killed 2 or 3 people in a row (or at the same time) it was rewarding in a way that PS2 has never been able to achieve.

In short, in my opinion, longer TTK in a game where there can be so much concentrated fire actually makes the game have more depth, coordinated groups that can focus fire (see team play) become force multipliers, and overall I believe this was a big reason why I had so many memorable and enjoyable infantry fights in that game compared to this one.

I wish there was a way they could put a version of the game out with longer TTK just for a month for everyone to try and then put a voting system on the launcher to get everyone's opinion about it after. I feel like more people would like it if they had time to try it for a bit.

Actually there's several other Shooter MMO's that have existed. And there's also Larger Battlefield sized "SPACE" games too where up to 64 people could play at once in very open terrain. In no particular order:

• StarSeige (arguably the first heavily Factional sci fi that led to the whole Jetpacking Tryhard scene)
• Quake3 Arena
• Mechwarrior 2, 3, & 4 multiplayer modded series
• Tribes2
• Starwars Battlefield
• Darkfall online
• Neocron
• APB /(& Reloaded)
• Global Agenda
• FireFall
• Defiance
• Eve's unsuccessful "Dust" attempt.
• Rust
• Arma
• Hawken
• Archeage
• Tera
• Elite Dangerous

The only one I don't want on this list, is Mechawarrior Online because Piranha screwed the entire pooch so hard it should be disqualified to begin with, but also because it was so imbalanced that you could have "instant kill" scenarios also happen due simply to some of the Pay to Win loadouts in certain matchup that were allowed to happen... Like even worse ACTUAL Pay to Win than World of Tanks has ever been.
.
There's a LOT of inconsistency in TTK going on in this list but the thing consistent in all of the GOOD ones, is that when TKK is shorter than usual, it's only because the "setup time" to create that scenario could have taken more than 20 seconds all the way up to several minutes. This is NOT the case with Planetside 2 but it was always the case with Planetside 1. In PS2 we literally have this Call of Duty die_instantly - respawn - die_instantly_again cycle due to the impulsiveness of its gameplay and the complete lack of design factors that will be very prominant in the upcoming Outfit-Wars Meta. ...but speaking of O.W. ... the extremely exploitable netcode and instant death from fully automatic weapons from Head Crits will still drag down all of the potential Epic scenarios that could be created in Desolation as well. And I'm saying this as someone who was in one of the best top matches in the last Desolation

But that makes no sense. Those are all the worst guns in their categories. Spray and pray or not, which they really aren't, their damage model makes them bad already, and you want to make them significantly worse? lol

weither or not you consider them bad or worse doesn´t matter, these are automatic high capacity LMGs, they are meant to pepper an area with bullets, in that case the HS multiplayer doesn´t make sense for a player to hope a stray bullet hits its enemy on the head to do the needed damage .. i´m not saying they couldn´t get an adjustment on their effectiveness in another way but as how they are meant to be used having to hit the head is BS, again these are high capacity AND high RPM weapons .., just fire in a general direction for supression or have fools entering said supressed area die to the bulletrain

PS1 was in terminal decline just a couple years after release while its sequel has endured for almost a decade. True there are some ideas from the first game worth retaining, but let's not make any more of that sacred cow than it deserves. Planetside 2 has less in common with it's predecessor than it does with other titles that have already been mentioned and has been significantly better off for it.

Planetside 1's gameplay is a relic from the infancy of online multiplayer shooters. There is a reason almost all modern shooters more closely resemble the gameplay in PS2 while you really have to search hard to find an example of one that resembles its older sibling.

Under these circumstances zergs get a massive power boost while the role of a solo player dwindles to almost nothing. You substitute the problem you perceive for a far worse one of your own construction.

Honestly, just replace the test server with an alt. with your changes, advertise the crap out of it and let people vote with their playtime. A lot of people's expectations might change.

So does any LMG with 75+ rounds. And it absolutely matters how bad they are. If you want a Chaingun clone, then ask for a Chaingun clone.

What, like a stray dalton shot? You don't hope for stray headshots, you aim for headshots.

They have negatives to go with their high RPM and Ammo. Again, no one hopes for stray headshots, and no, suppression doesn't do anything in this game. And if it did, the Engineer fills that role.

Those 3 guns need a balance pass regardless.

[quote="Somentine, post: 3564443, member: 125823"

What, like a stray dalton shot? You don't hope for stray headshots, you aim for headshots.
[/quote]


with guns with that role there should be no need to, and exactly YES they should be like the chaingun (x1,5 HSM) except being an lmg

it doesn´t matter if one class fills a role already, that doens´t exclude other classes like HA or max in this case to be capable to do it too withs same or similar effectiveness, while having otherwise different options compared to the engineer

also each faction has a line of weapons that are already suited if not required (like NSO automatic weapons) for H****s to be effective .. doesn´t mean players can´t have a variety of roles suited to them using the same class having different options to them available ..
also speaking of the engineer and i asume you are talking about the manaturret ... that thing makes you stationary and vulnable to a number of things in its own way ..

Honestly, just done with this.

You:
1. All this stems from you thinking HS damage needs to be changed.
2. That HS damage should be based on RPM.

Me:
1. No.
2. Even if it did, RPM is not how you balance it.

i never said it´s the end all be all stat to base ballance on, I even mentioned how i don´t diasgree to some form of ballancing while retaining the role, it doesn´t change the fact that these are suprressionweapons thus the HSmultiplyer shouldn´t give a player the
the feeling that these weapons are ONLY good hitting the head or requiring hitting the head ..

?

yes, does that mean by changing said HSM then that said weapon can not be further adjusted through other stats?


like who says after lowering the HS multiplyer you can´t slightly increase min dmg for example or adjust the falloff of between maximum - and minimumdmg?


i also said "ADJUSTED" i didn´t say straight "LOWER"

i even gave you already examples between the EM 1 and the gausssaw were the latter is the low RPM, highvelocity hard hitting LMG were it may make more sense for it to have the higher HSM over the EM1 .. but should the gauss saw realy have the same
HSM as a boltactionsniperifle when the latter IS TOTALY about headshots when the former isn´t realy?

just think again about the people that play the game on avarage, very few are people with good aim, fewer are veterans with very good aim and all of them are thrown together in the same pool

wouldn´t it make sense to propper adjust the weapons so they can propper fit the type of player weither he is a beginner with lower than avarage aim (also gausssaw despite being a MONSTERweapon is by many agreed on to be a illsuited default starterweapon for its required aim and triggerdiscipline unlike the GD-22s ) or veteran with higher than avarage aim ...

so a natural progression of giving the player weapons to be relatively effective with just bodyshots > be effective with bodyshots but you can also go for headshots with little problem and do good damage > kinda have to include HS to get the best out of the weapon > do hs or get fked ..
the HSM should be factored in into that and not just be flat the same over all primary weapons ..

To sum it all up very easily:

The HS % and weapon damage was balanced with these factors already in mind.

Snipers have 2.1x HS % solely to keep the 1 shot HS.

The high RPM are balanced by having other negatives. Some are garbage, like the EM1, other's are really good like the Tar.

HS aren't everything.
Higher Acc with mediocre HS % > Low Acc with high HS % already exists.

you are not getting the point, adjusting the HSM should be made so people who aren´t high aim players should not have to constantly think about somehow going for the head when the weapon they are using isn´t about that .. .. if HS isn´t everything why then have such high multiplyer on such weapons in the first place than straight out design/balance/stat out the weapon torwards its intended role ..

screw the percentage, percantage means chance - chance means randomness, players should not have to rely/hope on randomness to finish off their target (how few are running shotguns for that reason) ... it´s realy that simple .. if the weapon is focused for use on bodyshots then it should not have a high HSM ... if it is a automatic weapon that is meant to make use of HSs like some NSO weapons then in that case a high or high-ish HSM should be chosen same with mid to longrange automatic weapons like the gausssaw or ursa and their TR equivalent .. the avarage weapon meant to make use of HSs are rather weapons with lower RPM and high bulletvelocity

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I think it's a pretty bad idea.

Three reasons off the top of my head:
1. The game is currently balanced around the current HS %
- 2x damage isn't high, it's basically the norm
2. Not only are you calling for a rework of basically every weapon (because, again, the weapons are currently balanced with HS % in mind), but you also have to separate the weapon roles even further.
3. The game needs less easy mechanics, not more. Introducing a weapon that is 'meant to bodyshot' means it either has to basically suck or it would be too good.

HS % is tracked by each weapon. Overall HS % is your combined. It is not chance, or more to say that it isn't chance anymore than your Accuracy is chance. Not really a hard concept.

The only weapons 'meant' to HS are the 2? NSO weps. Maybe you could consider Snipers, but they have high body shot dmg anyway. Every other weapon is meant to hit either the body or head except for shotguns and Minigun.

simply irrelevant

and yet there are a few number of weapons that have their HSM cut in half, so it doesn´t mean you couldn´t add more
and it´s not exactly a rework but a adjustment on stats while keeping the intended role of the weapons

a rework would be (something that i would wish for) for maxes to be rather squadsupporting platforms than the DPS ai platforms they currently are with little survivability outside of bases against vehicles ..

ah yes, the black and white approach were it is not possible to have such a weapon be decent when there are already a couple few examples (even if you yourself consider them bad) ..

here is the thing:

i would agree with this reason if this was your average closed off small scale shooter with matchmaking were players get to fight other players of equal or similar level .. but this isn´t your average shooter .. it´s a game were EVERYONE, no matter how good he is, how skilled he is or how true his aim is gets thrown into the same pool ...
basically the player with bad aim will always lose to the player with good aim assuming both are using the same automatic weapon and equal in skill (properly advancing through a base using cover and awareness etc.) .. in this case there instead should be a pool of weapons that cover every level (and playstyle) of player possible with the aim to build up natural progression on using higher risk/higher reward weapons based on good aim

automatic weapons that have a left and right shake have a literal stat of chance where no matter how much you try to keep the weapon on target you may miss a shot, and especially in midrange scenarios on a burst were you try to get one or 2 shots to kick up into the head through the weapons recoil you may miss crucial hits

No, it is not even remotely irrelevant because you are talking about re-working headshot damage % and re-balancing basically every weapon. Don't be stupid.

Literally only shotguns and the chaingun.
The 'intended' role of weapons already exists in the form of weapon types and intended ranges.

Show me a mechanic that is intended to be for lesser skilled players to compete with higher that isn't either broken or garbage.

Wow, the better player will win in a 1v1. Let's make it so that it is even harder for a better player to win in a 1v1 by introducing weapons that lower the skill floor.

The problem is that you assume two things, 1. That there isn't lower skill weapons and that 2. There is a way to actually balance them without making them too good in what they do or just garbage and not really worth using.

What's your point? This isn't about a single instance, this is the average of everything. There are only a few weapons that have almost no horizontal recoil. Your headshot accuracy is no more 'chance' than your overall accuracy is 'chance'. You don't have 40-50% headshot ratio by being lucky.

and lowering the skillfloor for new players is bad exactly why? (cause ain´t like veterans couldn´t use the same weapons, right?, ANNND i only put aim to this discussion cause it´s not like i mentioned players could be otherwise good in anything else but only aim)

having players have some chance against elites in a game were everyone is thrown thogether against each other is bad why? having basecaptures being carried by few in a game that is meant to be about teamplay more than about being a loner is good why?

see you are already using the wrong word this is not about skilled players (because players can be skilled in various ways)
we are discussing players with good and bad aim

take the average automatic weapon a average player uses .. how much should headshots matter in this game on average ?
my point is that at least i feel that HSs matter a bit too much in this game for automatic weapons (and you yourself say how much the headshotmultiplyer factors into that)..

i mean the concept i´m asking for ain´t hard to understand:
the more accurate a weapon is the more should a headshot matter over the weapons bodyshotdamage/DPS:
the more inaccurate it is there should be more a focus on its bodyshotdps ..

however the majority of weapons are designed (whether you pick a CQC or mid to longrange automatic) so they are aimed at the chest so to then for the followupshots to go for the head afterall ... it´s a no brainer for mid to longrange automatics, it however becomes a necessity to cqc weapons not finding yourself in your optimal range .. so most of the time imo you have to hit the head in some way ... whether that involves 40% of your shots of a burst or just 15%

never said there aren´t easy to use weapons,
i just said said easy weapons should´t matter so much having to use HSs

but holy scrap realy that last sentence
"oh you assume there is a way"

oh but you assume there is absolutely no way whatsoever cause the devs can´t work with the weapons general accuracy, its max and min damageoutput, the RPM or bulletvelocity, firstshot kickup multiplyer etc. etc...
yea realy were are just speaking in cycles here ...

yea i think i just leave it here then ..

No, I really don't think there is a way to balance them. You're basically asking for a razor thin middle ground of a weapon being both easy to use and not easy enough that even better players prefer it.

If it was really possible to do this, you'd be able to point out some examples from this game, as there are plenty of weapons (and i'll even extend it to mechanics) that are meant to be less reliant on aim or even skill in general. What they always end up being is either incredibly niche/bad, or way too easy/powerful/cheesy.

And no, the mechanics in place already allow significantly worse players to compete with way better players, the game absolutely does not need more.