Time for a new look at TTK?

13468921

Comments

  • SirBobdk
    4205 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    @DyD6Marina wrote
    If you really remember Battlefield 1942 and the other true Battlefield, you can understand Battlefield V are doing the right change for the series.
    Gunplay may be more like old BF games, but not vehicle play, map design and size of maps. In this sense, BFV does not feel like a BF game at all.
    Even a bad map(for Battlefield series) like Fjell, is alot better of metro, locker, senna, bazaar argonne and similar map.
    Agree, but maybe not the best maps to compare with. I would guess I could mention 20 maps which I consider much better than BFV maps.
  • ael1as
    16 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »


    Played the games yes, but not hardcore, hardcore isn't Battlefield.

    Low ttk is only a part of true Battlefield, and Battlefield V is the more near to them.

    let us focus on this

    "hardcore isn't Battlefield", I respect players who loved hardcore mode but I totally agree with you here

    BFV final in-game effect, considering also the present TTK setting, is really close to the old hardcore mode (close, I'm not saying it is identical)
    and that'is why part of DICE team wanted to reintroduce hardcore mode with the current TTK settings (badly aborted good idea)
    clearly DICE (maybe the experienced part of it) considered the current TTK a typical hardcore setting




  • sarris_bros-1978
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Dr_X2345 wrote: »
    A while back, in November/December I believe, DICE slowed down the Time To Kill in BFV, but it was soon reverted, apparently due to community feedback. However, I also see a lot of people complaining about how fast the TTK is in this game, to the extent that sometimes you just don't have any time to react to being shot before you're dead. So my question is - is it time for DICE to switch up the TTK a bit again? I personally would like them to add some servers with a slightly slower TTK - not anything really drastic, combat should still be fast-paced, but enough to make tactical movements actually useful and you don't get killed in a second when you get spotted.
    I think they would have to approach this carefully though - and get feedback from the community, which is why I think adding it in separate servers would be a good idea and then getting feedback from that. Last time there were significant balancing issues (yes, I know there still are, but last time it was in terms of max damage output for certain weapon types as opposed to class balance which caused the issues) - namely the SMGs were already much weaker than any weapon class, and because it was essentially a blanket change they suffered very badly. However, I think DICE could use this as an opportunity to look at the overall weapon balance, perhaps change it up a little, and individually balance the weapon types and different damage models, so that the balance is improved with a change to TTK.
    What are your thoughts? Do you think they should slow down the TTK a bit? Would it work?
    Your problem is Time To Death, not Time To Kill!!! Don't ask for the wrong subject!!
  • VOLBANKER
    1056 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I consider myself a casual, yet I absolutely love BF5: The superior spotting system, the way soldiers blend in with the background, the way most maps have multiple flanking routes instead of “BF1 Argonne Forest-bottlenecks”, the lack of grenade spam, the “authentic” feeling you get in vehicles, and of course: the ttk.

    For a long time I was against the current ttk, however it’s grown on me and now I quite like it. When I get killed it’s usually because I was either running/crouch running, or positioned poorly. Or both.

    There are many things that ought to be changed/improved IMO, but it doesn’t keep me from enjoying this game immensely.

  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ael1as wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »


    Played the games yes, but not hardcore, hardcore isn't Battlefield.

    Low ttk is only a part of true Battlefield, and Battlefield V is the more near to them.

    let us focus on this

    "hardcore isn't Battlefield", I respect players who loved hardcore mode but I totally agree with you here

    BFV final in-game effect, considering also the present TTK setting, is really close to the old hardcore mode (close, I'm not saying it is identical)
    and that'is why part of DICE team wanted to reintroduce hardcore mode with the current TTK settings (badly aborted good idea)
    clearly DICE (maybe the experienced part of it) considered the current TTK a typical hardcore setting




    The fact is the present TTK is more near to older Battlefield.

    The low ttk achieved in hardcore is different, because is achieved by lowering health and not raising damage.

    A Low TTK achieved by damage, is part of the Battlefield series from the start.

    Inserting hardcore was only a way to copy cod.
  • VOLBANKER
    1056 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    Btw. what is the definition of a casual, and what is the opposite of a casual?

    A casual for me is someone like me who plays for fun, but still wants to win the game and thus does his/her best with their squad. But if you do lose a game, it’s not the end of the world.

    A tryhard, for lack of a better word, is someone for whom winning is much more important than it is for a casual. Thus when a tryhard loses a game, he/she may get cranky and irritated, being a more competitively oriented person. This, however, is also a driving force for the person to constantly work on improving his/her game, much more so than a casual.
  • CPTN-Cr4ptastic
    1704 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VOLBANKER wrote: »
    I consider myself a casual, yet I absolutely love BF5: The superior spotting system, the way soldiers blend in with the background, the way most maps have multiple flanking routes instead of “BF1 Argonne Forest-bottlenecks”, the lack of grenade spam, the “authentic” feeling you get in vehicles, and of course: the ttk.

    For a long time I was against the current ttk, however it’s grown on me and now I quite like it. When I get killed it’s usually because I was either running/crouch running, or positioned poorly. Or both.

    There are many things that ought to be changed/improved IMO, but it doesn’t keep me from enjoying this game immensely.

    Ditto! :wink:
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    Double post.
  • von_Campenstein
    6571 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    It's sad people can't adapt to a gameplay need more reflex, awareness, map knowledge and skill
    It's sad people keep trotting out this 'argument' to supposedly support low TTK.

    ANY shooter needs reflex, awareness, map knowledge and skill.

    A low TTK shooter *relies* on reflex (twitch) and map knowledge (hiding and camping?). Skill? Depends if you consider muscle memorising recoil patterns 'skill'.

    Some would say a higher TTK requires more skill and allows for more tactics, because you don't just die to whoever sees you first, you have time to use cover or movement.

    Too subjective.

    I can adapt to lower TTK and all the other weird design choices in BF5. It's just not fun.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Bad game like bf1 really ruined players.
    Subjective. Low TTK turns players into twitch frenzy zergers and campers and 'ruined' them. Is that statement any more or less reasonable?
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Stop rushing like cod player and you will not get problem from a quicker TTK.
    Headless chicken play is bad with any TTK. Some would say that low TTK means it's more viable, since the final encounter is so quick it doesn't much matter how you get there as long as your trigger finger is faster.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    A funny thing is bf3-bf4 have a nearly identical ttk or even more quicker on some weapons of bf3, but suppression ruined all.

    There are many people, even in this thread, lying about ttk too quick, for some reason and this is even more sad.
    There are many aspects. BF3 may have had similar strict TTK, but a very different TTD due to things like attrition. In BF5 there are so many detrimental mechanics that the technical TTK of weapons is only the final part of the equation. Because accuracy is so good on some weapons the *possible* TTK and the *probably* TTK are very similar. What people perceive as 'low TTK' may not be strictly technically much different from previous games, but all things considered is much different.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    With good servers console players will see a "slower ttk".
    Possibly true. There are many contributing factors to people feeling that TTK is too low. PC players feel it too, though.


    Low TTK punish bad players , rushers and even campers, if you known the map, you can kill easily even a camper.

    There is no aspect of low ttk to be objectively wrong if not for people want easier game for a reason or another.

    Even the older Battlefield have low ttk, Battlefield 2 have even one shot headshot on some assault rifle and lmg

    Attrition, or better Partial Health Regen, is a good change for make the game more challenge, make people think before moving and make more important the medics.

    This is how older Battlefield worked, even more because of the no health regen, casual battlefield have full health regen.

    This the biggest problem, too many casuals come to the Battlefield series, after the series come to consoles and become more easy.

    People like this must be ignored to make the series regain is identity instead continue to appeal cod/casual players.


    Battlefield V is the first Battlefield from 2006 to be near to be a Battlefield, some people will not like, but for this people there are other types of fps.





    The best way to achieve have both high and low TTK together is to raise recoil/spread, only few people will achieve low TTK thanks to hard weapon to control and most of the players will experience an high TTK.

    But first casuals will not like weapons hard to control, and second i doubt gamepad can work with truly high recoil/spread weapons, considered how cs:go failed on consoles.

    Battlefield V actually is the best solution to make game have a Battlefield identity and not make a game totally for casuals.

    AH, Hating the casuals huh. Buddy go look at prior sales. Prior to the game coming to console it sold just a few million a little over 2 million. Today given development costs, Battlefield would never survive with just a couple of million in sales. IF you really want to kill the series, getting rid of the casuals is a good way to achieve that. EA would shelve this series in a heartbeat if they can’t even break 5 million in sales.

    The proper business thing to do is offer different gametypes to the different demographics. Halo 3 argubly one of the most popular and successful halo games had about 15 gametypes (I’m guessing because the game is not in front of me). It had several gametypes for the competitive players, not just a single one. But it also had just as many gametypes for casual players. This is what should have been done with the game from the beginning. But what we have gotten was the opposite, fewer gametypes. I have determined that given we are now into March and nothing like this has happened, Its not going to.

    Dice getting rid of many casual and make a good gunplay and gameplay alot less casual and get more of 7 million of sales even with all the marketing problem.

    From this result the gameplay is good even for financial results and we can keep pure casuals away.

    Pls halo, the basically worst game for aim assists, an casual fps multiplayer game for consoles nothing else.

    Yes because it was all them casuals the game shedded...
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    It's sad people can't adapt to a gameplay need more reflex, awareness, map knowledge and skill
    It's sad people keep trotting out this 'argument' to supposedly support low TTK.

    ANY shooter needs reflex, awareness, map knowledge and skill.

    A low TTK shooter *relies* on reflex (twitch) and map knowledge (hiding and camping?). Skill? Depends if you consider muscle memorising recoil patterns 'skill'.

    Some would say a higher TTK requires more skill and allows for more tactics, because you don't just die to whoever sees you first, you have time to use cover or movement.

    Too subjective.

    I can adapt to lower TTK and all the other weird design choices in BF5. It's just not fun.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Bad game like bf1 really ruined players.
    Subjective. Low TTK turns players into twitch frenzy zergers and campers and 'ruined' them. Is that statement any more or less reasonable?
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Stop rushing like cod player and you will not get problem from a quicker TTK.
    Headless chicken play is bad with any TTK. Some would say that low TTK means it's more viable, since the final encounter is so quick it doesn't much matter how you get there as long as your trigger finger is faster.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    A funny thing is bf3-bf4 have a nearly identical ttk or even more quicker on some weapons of bf3, but suppression ruined all.

    There are many people, even in this thread, lying about ttk too quick, for some reason and this is even more sad.
    There are many aspects. BF3 may have had similar strict TTK, but a very different TTD due to things like attrition. In BF5 there are so many detrimental mechanics that the technical TTK of weapons is only the final part of the equation. Because accuracy is so good on some weapons the *possible* TTK and the *probably* TTK are very similar. What people perceive as 'low TTK' may not be strictly technically much different from previous games, but all things considered is much different.
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    With good servers console players will see a "slower ttk".
    Possibly true. There are many contributing factors to people feeling that TTK is too low. PC players feel it too, though.


    Low TTK punish bad players , rushers and even campers, if you known the map, you can kill easily even a camper.

    There is no aspect of low ttk to be objectively wrong if not for people want easier game for a reason or another.

    Even the older Battlefield have low ttk, Battlefield 2 have even one shot headshot on some assault rifle and lmg

    Attrition, or better Partial Health Regen, is a good change for make the game more challenge, make people think before moving and make more important the medics.

    This is how older Battlefield worked, even more because of the no health regen, casual battlefield have full health regen.

    This the biggest problem, too many casuals come to the Battlefield series, after the series come to consoles and become more easy.

    People like this must be ignored to make the series regain is identity instead continue to appeal cod/casual players.


    Battlefield V is the first Battlefield from 2006 to be near to be a Battlefield, some people will not like, but for this people there are other types of fps.





    The best way to achieve have both high and low TTK together is to raise recoil/spread, only few people will achieve low TTK thanks to hard weapon to control and most of the players will experience an high TTK.

    But first casuals will not like weapons hard to control, and second i doubt gamepad can work with truly high recoil/spread weapons, considered how cs:go failed on consoles.

    Battlefield V actually is the best solution to make game have a Battlefield identity and not make a game totally for casuals.

    AH, Hating the casuals huh. Buddy go look at prior sales. Prior to the game coming to console it sold just a few million a little over 2 million. Today given development costs, Battlefield would never survive with just a couple of million in sales. IF you really want to kill the series, getting rid of the casuals is a good way to achieve that. EA would shelve this series in a heartbeat if they can’t even break 5 million in sales.

    The proper business thing to do is offer different gametypes to the different demographics. Halo 3 argubly one of the most popular and successful halo games had about 15 gametypes (I’m guessing because the game is not in front of me). It had several gametypes for the competitive players, not just a single one. But it also had just as many gametypes for casual players. This is what should have been done with the game from the beginning. But what we have gotten was the opposite, fewer gametypes. I have determined that given we are now into March and nothing like this has happened, Its not going to.

    Dice getting rid of many casual and make a good gunplay and gameplay alot less casual and get more of 7 million of sales even with all the marketing problem.

    From this result the gameplay is good even for financial results and we can keep pure casuals away.

    Pls halo, the basically worst game for aim assists, an casual fps multiplayer game for consoles nothing else.

    Yes because it was all them casuals the game shedded...

    With Battlefield V Dice removed most totally or partially most of the casual gameplay feature, make maps more adapt to a Battlefield in general and do changes to make the gameplay less casual, like low ttk, recoil pattern and removal of random deviation.

    This make many casuals run away and it's a good thing for the Battlefield series, after all the casuals gathered with bf1943-bf1.
  • NLBartmaN
    3606 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »

    With Battlefield V Dice removed most totally or partially most of the casual gameplay feature, make maps more adapt to a Battlefield in general and do changes to make the gameplay less casual, like low ttk, recoil pattern and removal of random deviation.

    This make many casuals run away and it's a good thing for the Battlefield series, after all the casuals gathered with bf1943-bf1.

    Yeah a very good idea to chase away half of your paying customers and release half a game ...

    Also a very good idea to empty your servers so you see the same few players every day on the few full servers that are still there ...

    A better idea was to add some hardcore servers for the few tryhard infantry only players that actually like the current gameplay ...
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »

    With Battlefield V Dice removed most totally or partially most of the casual gameplay feature, make maps more adapt to a Battlefield in general and do changes to make the gameplay less casual, like low ttk, recoil pattern and removal of random deviation.

    This make many casuals run away and it's a good thing for the Battlefield series, after all the casuals gathered with bf1943-bf1.

    Yeah a very good idea to chase away half of your paying customers and release half a game ...

    Also a very good idea to empty your servers so you see the same few players every day on the few full servers that are still there ...

    A better idea was to add some hardcore servers for the few tryhard infantry only players that actually like the current gameplay ...

    Lose casuals for a game is always a good thing.

    Servers aren't empty, always full, and Dice confirmed there are millions of players active and i trust more them than a player seems alot a troll.

    No at least a better idea is to do some casual mode servers, so cod players come to battlefield can stay there.

    And you are really confused on what is a Battlefield, because Battlefield V is more a Battlefield than cod battelfield game like bc or bf3/bf4 or bf1.

    People want a different gameplay than Battlefield V, are the only players want a cod infantry only game.
  • DigitalHype
    779 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ael1as wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    ...

    Dice don't need to take care of casuals if they want to make the game better.

    Specially because many lying about ttk too quick.

    A defensive gameplay is a good thing, more in line with the original gameplay of Battlefield, instead of the cod battlefield we have from bf1943.

    Campers are simple bad players, not known how moving around the map, they will not help even with a slow ttk.

    Youtubers want a easier and quicker gameplay, where you can rush without problem, a gameplay more "funny to see on video", their earn money on "spectacular" gameplay.


    Considered the situation ther opinion is really biased.

    Youtubers Westie and Jackfrags were one of the most fierce opponents to the TTK change, they created a mess and disturbed the test process rolled out by DICE, in my opinion

    something went really wrong in that moment and now I think it is the right time to reassess the issue

    One thing that went wrong is DICE creating two separate playlists, based on TTK. Fracturing an already dwindling active player count. That whole "experiment" was ill-conceived and reeked of lack of vision and leadership at DICE.
  • Zenga
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Lose casuals for a game is always a good thing.

    Servers aren't empty, always full, and Dice confirmed there are millions of players active and i trust more them than a player seems alot a troll.

    No at least a better idea is to do some casual mode servers, so cod players come to battlefield can stay there.

    And you are really confused on what is a Battlefield, because Battlefield V is more a Battlefield than cod battelfield game like bc or bf3/bf4 or bf1.

    People want a different gameplay than Battlefield V, are the only players want a cod infantry only game.

    Servers always full? This weekend about half the games I played weren't full. And I'm talking about a bloody weekend, when 2 months ago each and every match was packed full. Working days are even worse - after 11pm good luck finding these "full servers". I played Rush last night from 10 pm to 4am (because other game modes are literally abandoned) and there was a handful of matches where it was 16v16. Mostly it was between 12 and 14 players on each side with quite a few that were 10v10 and third of the teams were players from Asia who were abusing the ping advantage.
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    Zenga wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    Lose casuals for a game is always a good thing.

    Servers aren't empty, always full, and Dice confirmed there are millions of players active and i trust more them than a player seems alot a troll.

    No at least a better idea is to do some casual mode servers, so cod players come to battlefield can stay there.

    And you are really confused on what is a Battlefield, because Battlefield V is more a Battlefield than cod battelfield game like bc or bf3/bf4 or bf1.

    People want a different gameplay than Battlefield V, are the only players want a cod infantry only game.

    Servers always full? This weekend about half the games I played weren't full. And I'm talking about a bloody weekend, when 2 months ago each and every match was packed full. Working days are even worse - after 11pm good luck finding these "full servers". I played Rush last night from 10 pm to 4am (because other game modes are literally abandoned) and there was a handful of matches where it was 16v16. Mostly it was between 12 and 14 players on each side with quite a few that were 10v10 and third of the teams were players from Asia who were abusing the ping advantage.

    Not have this problem, even now, always full, and matchmaking really quick.

    Maybe the problem is your country, i'm EU.
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    ael1as wrote: »
    DyD6Marina wrote: »
    ...

    Dice don't need to take care of casuals if they want to make the game better.

    Specially because many lying about ttk too quick.

    A defensive gameplay is a good thing, more in line with the original gameplay of Battlefield, instead of the cod battlefield we have from bf1943.

    Campers are simple bad players, not known how moving around the map, they will not help even with a slow ttk.

    Youtubers want a easier and quicker gameplay, where you can rush without problem, a gameplay more "funny to see on video", their earn money on "spectacular" gameplay.


    Considered the situation ther opinion is really biased.

    Youtubers Westie and Jackfrags were one of the most fierce opponents to the TTK change, they created a mess and disturbed the test process rolled out by DICE, in my opinion

    something went really wrong in that moment and now I think it is the right time to reassess the issue

    One thing that went wrong is DICE creating two separate playlists, based on TTK. Fracturing an already dwindling active player count. That whole "experiment" was ill-conceived and reeked of lack of vision and leadership at DICE.

    They tried to quickly appeal casual players, giving them high ttk and is always a bad thing.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    It's time for longer ttk but do it right. I was always for ttk2 but do it right. Don't just change gun values and call it a day. Give it the proper CTE testing it deserves. Also get of health attrition. Thanks.
  • DyD6Marina
    548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    Pelliy wrote: »
    It's time for longer ttk but do it right. I was always for ttk2 but do it right. Don't just change gun values and call it a day. Give it the proper CTE testing it deserves. Also get of health attrition. Thanks.

    No thanks, Battlefield can't come back to be a totally casual game.

    Dice tried to appeal casual players with higher ttk, most players not liked it and ruined the balance of the game.

    Is time even for the fewer players want high ttk to go foward, like Dice did.
  • NLBartmaN
    3606 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DyD6Marina wrote: »

    Lose casuals for a game is always a good thing.


    Tell that to the investors, that saw all the money form the casuals disappear :D

    Half the money compared to BF1 (and then we are not even talking about all the 50% off after 2 weeks and NO premium money)

    Casuals pay the bills, tryhard infantry only hardcore players kill the money and empty the servers (there is a reason we can't see the current players online on battlefieldtracker.com).

    And the game is more casual than ever, with the idiot 3x scope laserguns and players having no time to react when they spawn or are suprised by an invisible camper.

    This game is easymode compared to BF1.
Sign In or Register to comment.