10-15 SECONDS TTK

GreatPhilisopher wrote: »

PVP TTK should be 30-45/50 seconds cuz when you put into account higher gear , lvls difference ,ganks, zergs, sneak attacks ,players finding ways to break the game or find op funny combos or class builds and all sort of stuff they do that TTK will be cut by 15-20 secs at least.

PVE ttk for normal mobs should be 10 seconds or around it not too long not too short and let the mobs feel dangerous and threatening

If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.

If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.

Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...

I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..

Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.

Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.

I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.

I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.

It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.

The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.

Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.

___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"

There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.

There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.

Flip that on its head. If the person attacking you can't kill you there is no reward. If you can't be killed, then there is no risk. Now no one is having any fun.

SunScript

Diamaht wrote: »

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.

If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.

Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...

I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..

Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.

Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.

I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.

I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.

It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.

The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.

Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.

___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"

There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.

There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.

Flip that on its head. If the person attacking you can't kill you there is no reward. If you can't be killed, then there is no risk. Now no one is having any fun.

This is a strawman. I don't think you meant to do it, it's probably just a misunderstanding, but it represents a position convenient to argue against, rather than what my actual position is.

To put it very simply, where did I say anything about not being able to kill people?

SunScript wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.

If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.

Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...

I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..

Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.

Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.

I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.

I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.

It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.

The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.

Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.

___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"

There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.

There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.

Flip that on its head. If the person attacking you can't kill you there is no reward. If you can't be killed, then there is no risk. Now no one is having any fun.

This is a strawman. I don't think you meant to do it, it's probably just a misunderstanding, but it represents a position convenient to argue against, rather than what my actual position is.

To put it very simply, where did I say anything about not being able to kill people?

Then argue against it. Don't say "I could" and then change the topic

Mag7spy wrote: »

I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.

Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.

Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.

Diamaht wrote: »

So if healer and tank are breaching 25 to 30 seconds you are good to go.

The DPS need to avoid taking too much damage, the Tank needs to control the field, the Healer needs to keep up and watch for target switching.

Having DPS with that longevity is ridiculous. I've been in those games (plural) and it's boring and pointless button spam that people call "tactical"

As I've stated before, my issue here is that short ttk means easy assist-kills in group pvp. You seem to be fine with that judging by this

Diamaht wrote: »

If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.

So there's not much else I can say here.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.

Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.

Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.

Diamaht wrote: »

So if healer and tank are breaching 25 to 30 seconds you are good to go.

The DPS need to avoid taking too much damage, the Tank needs to control the field, the Healer needs to keep up and watch for target switching.

Having DPS with that longevity is ridiculous. I've been in those games (plural) and it's boring and pointless button spam that people call "tactical"

As I've stated before, my issue here is that short ttk means easy assist-kills in group pvp. You seem to be fine with that judging by this

Diamaht wrote: »

If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.

So there's not much else I can say here.

I think at the very least the testing will tell us a lot. I'm guessing some classes will have the tools to handle this and some won't. They'll have to do a lot of adjusting regardless.

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.

If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.

Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...

I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..

Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.

Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.

I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.

I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.

It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.

The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.

Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.

___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"

There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.

There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.

I have no clue what kind of surface observation you are trying to read into, it is as simple as this. Someone says people don't enjoy something, I say no I play this type of game and that is something I can enjoy.

There is no deeper meaning to understand or extra detail to dissect.

I'm not really here to have a detailed break down of a old clip. Also he isn't helpless he is an amazing player, you are pretty much insulting him. He took a few gambles and lost since i played different is all there was to it. And he Tried to big brain to jump over my skill, but I'm use to that kind of element of top players and play unpredictably in waves.

Anyway I can see the issue is we are both out of sync, it would have been much better rather than do that weird first approach, is just have a conversation and ask some questions and lead it into another direction. If you wanted to have a interaction with me and understand how i might think and feel on certain elements in that might come to light in AoC.

You don't need to respond to above.
~~~~

My stance on this is generally the same, people should be able to react to elements in a fight. If you die more quickly do to lower ttk on classes, defensive options need to be stronger. Of course I'm not really wanting BDO with its cat and mouse and first person to get a cc wins.

Again AoC is a team based games, to me plenty of you are looking at it in mainly a 1v1 situation and saying TTK is too short or going to the extreme that suddenly everyone id dps and all 8 can freely target someone easily.

1. Yes my first points are more about 1v1 situations because I'm trying to point out the skill ceiling available and defensive options + (new skill tree they will be showing) and trying to point out do to the skill ceiling that time can be made to be longer.
2. As AoC is a party game you are going to have a comp of other classes synergizing and working together. Clerics will heal you meaning all classes with lor or high TTK will have more buffer and increased survivability, tanks to peel off allies and most likely give them some protections, ccs from other classes to help peel and slow people down, etc.

As I've said before all this needs to be tested and balanced, if gameplay is people can not react to anything than ttk should be increased.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.

Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.

Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.

Diamaht wrote: »

So if healer and tank are breaching 25 to 30 seconds you are good to go.

The DPS need to avoid taking too much damage, the Tank needs to control the field, the Healer needs to keep up and watch for target switching.

Having DPS with that longevity is ridiculous. I've been in those games (plural) and it's boring and pointless button spam that people call "tactical"

As I've stated before, my issue here is that short ttk means easy assist-kills in group pvp. You seem to be fine with that judging by this

Diamaht wrote: »

If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.

So there's not much else I can say here.

There is no coping here, all I'm going to say is wait and sit back. And ill tag you again when we see more and more of the kit.

Having mobility and defensive options * a skilled player doesn't make balancing work like that. If we look at any game with a high skill ceiling you would see that. The tools of what a player does allows them to push the limits. The higher the skill ceiling you can get into the realm of a person can not lose a fight.

If i look at shooters for a moment like Titanfall 1. TTk is on COD level and very short you are dying in like 1-2 seconds. Though with mobility + stim (it gives you a speed boost and starts to auto regen your hp). I can stretch my hp between multiple fights while dodging most bullets mid fight. Allowing me to win pretty much almost every engagement if the person isn't beyond atleast an average level.

Remove the mobility and that skill ceiling and my potential of winning 100% pros down immensely, same for stim to the point one would have to play differently.

I'm really not coping I'm going based on what they have been showing and my view point has grown or changed as we all learn more. I remember talking about modern game design and you were saying AoC was going old school and was just going to be like linage. To me that is coping based on what he had been seeing and what they talk about.

When I'm looking at games yes we all have our assumptions but im basing mine with what is said and shown generally with a bit of my own bias. So when you hear the recently information about a defensive universal skill tree. Instantly I'm realizing that is another element that is going to add a higher skill ceiling to the game, mixed between the class abilities we have seen and that there is going to be heavy customization in the game.

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great

Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.

You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).

Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.

Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.

And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great

Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.

You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).

Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.

Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.

And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.

bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?

Depraved wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great

Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.

You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).

Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.

Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.

And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.

bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?

What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.

Depraved wrote: »

bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?

Which is precisely the average experience and will be the average gameplay with a low ttk. If you watched the L2 oly video I linked you can see that against some enemies it literally took 2-3 hits to kill them, which will be the experience in Ashes as well. Except in that video it was an OEd to all hell OP character vs weaker people, while Steven is talking about the same speed ON AVERAGE.

I know we're all super coolhakahz on this forum, but the average player is in fact an F1 spammer who'll complain and leave if the enemy can super easily out-F1 him. And I know that all yall uberpros will say "well fuck em" and I would definitely agree with that, except that the game needs those fuckers to give Intrepid money.

And all the uberpros need those F1ers, so that they can fed their egos and feel good about themselves. The main counterargument for longer ttk has been "it's boring", which to me sounds more like "I want to dominate weaker people faster, because that makes me feel better than them". Except, as Mag says, this would be the case even if the ttk is longer, simply because a good player will outplay a worse player and will decrease the ttk in a major way.

Diamaht wrote: »

What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.

That's L2 lingo for "people who only use one skill (or autoattack) and don't know anything else".

Diamaht wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great

Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.

You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).

Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.

Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.

And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.

bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?

What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.

someone who does this in PVP: f1f1f1f1f1f1 usually more common among ranged classes. they don't move, they don't kite, they don't take a step back, they don't heal, they just stay in place pressing f1f1f1f1 and if you take a step back they just chase you pressing f1f1f1f1

you also have the facerollers. same as the f1 spammer, the difference is the faceroller looks for a build online on some website and all they do is press f1f2f3f4f5f6. no moving, no kiting, no nothing else.

NiKr wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?

Which is precisely the average experience and will be the average gameplay with a low ttk. If you watched the L2 oly video I linked you can see that against some enemies it literally took 2-3 hits to kill them, which will be the experience in Ashes as well. Except in that video it was an OEd to all hell OP character vs weaker people, while Steven is talking about the same speed ON AVERAGE.

I know we're all super coolhakahz on this forum, but the average player is in fact an F1 spammer who'll complain and leave if the enemy can super easily out-F1 him. And I know that all yall uberpros will say "well fuck em" and I would definitely agree with that, except that the game needs those fuckers to give Intrepid money.

And all the uberpros need those F1ers, so that they can fed their egos and feel good about themselves. The main counterargument for longer ttk has been "it's boring", which to me sounds more like "I want to dominate weaker people faster, because that makes me feel better than them". Except, as Mag says, this would be the case even if the ttk is longer, simply because a good player will outplay a worse player and will decrease the ttk in a major way.

bruh 2-3 skills in l2 is like 2-3 seconds... and as you said, you have a guy oed as hell. if you mean the only video, it was more than 2-3 secs btw...it was only 2-3 secs when using damaging skills. ttk in ashes is 10-15 seconds when using damaging skills. I'm fairly certain that's without doing anything else. that's on an afk character.

as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?

you also have to set up your skills in ashes to a certain extent. remember you have to do normal attacks to proc something then make your skills more powerful. an example that steven gave a while back, a rogue might do extra damage with a backstab if the target is bleeding, so you have to use normal attacks until your bleed procs and lands or wait for another person to land a bleed on your enemy unless you wanna do less damage.

if we say 1 skill per second, 10-15 secs ttk is 10-15 buttons pressed, and that's if the enemy is afk and not getting any heals.

Depraved wrote: »

as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?

NiKr wrote: »

In that quote above Steven explains, dps kill each other faster, while others kill each other slower, but average is ~10 for "faster" and ~30 for "slower". To me that phrasing implies not a "the target doesn't do shit" test.

edit to add: I'm mainly taking that implication because otherwise healers and tanks dying THREE TIMES as slow would imply that their hp/def values are fucking three times higher than that of dps (if it was a "target doesn't do shit' test) and I sure as hell hope that is not the case, especially considering how both cleric and tank were considered kinda OP in A1 cause one could both heal and do dmg, while the other was a CC machine that still did ok dps.

So them just standing around and STILL dying in 30s instead of 10s would imply that if were they do use their skills - they'd be literally unbeatable.

NiKr wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?

NiKr wrote: »

In that quote above Steven explains, dps kill each other faster, while others kill each other slower, but average is ~10 for "faster" and ~30 for "slower". To me that phrasing implies not a "the target doesn't do shit" test.

edit to add: I'm mainly taking that implication because otherwise healers and tanks dying THREE TIMES as slow would imply that their hp/def values are fucking three times higher than that of dps (if it was a "target doesn't do shit' test) and I sure as hell hope that is not the case, especially considering how both cleric and tank were considered kinda OP in A1 cause one could both heal and do dmg, while the other was a CC machine that still did ok dps.

So them just standing around and STILL dying in 30s instead of 10s would imply that if were they do use their skills - they'd be literally unbeatable.

yeah exactly. id say afk tank dies in 25-30 seconds. afk healer (in heavy armor) dies in 20-25, probs a bit less in light armor.

but anyways, these chars have to be more durable (specially when using their skills) since they will take more fire than the dps.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.

Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great

Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.

You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).

Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.

Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.

And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.

Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE. Though not everyone is going to be up their as the best pvper the bigger the skill ceiling the more room there are for other types of players. There are going to be plenty of people not just above average but also good.

I don't agree with heir view point on zergs being fodder or unorganized, there are strong guilds or good people out there. IT will be a mix of both kinds. That being said they are correct with TTK, the more tanky people are the more difficult it will be to out play people. Its about making the right kind of balance with the ttk though.

Hard to say much about how zergs will go though and how effective you are against them, talking about it right now is head cannon. Pretty much it will be both of us half making up points to say we are right and not knowing how the game is going to really play.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE.

I have never been in that scene and have always said that I'm a shitty player who simply has enough time and dumb stubbornness to overcome challenges.

And this is exactly why I'm talking about average players who play at the same lvl as me or slightly above/below, and why I couldn't care less about good or great players, because they're the minority in all games.