10-15 SECONDS TTK

According to steven the TTK will be 10-15 seconds , are you guys ready to have fun getting 1 shot all the time , gonna be fun for a lot of the people who loved the game having a 30 sec-1m TTK

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.

Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.

Saabynator

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.

Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.

I feel this is kind of a falacy. How would they win against a elite player in a 20 or 30 sec fight? They would get equally creamed, as they would with 10 seconds. There is only onme way to get better, thats playing. If you got less time to play, you wont get as good as people who play alot. So, I dont see how the situation would be different. 10 - 15 seconds is not a small timeframe. In action, thats a long time. Using abilities like blink or something else that keeps you out of the fight, would last even longer.

If the TTK was like 60 seconds, everyone would get away, get help or whatever. People would feel useless, and feel PvP had no meaningful impact. Dmg classes would feel weak as hell, and healing classes would be unkillable.

Ludullu

Saabynator wrote: »

I feel this is kind of a falacy. How would they win against a elite player in a 20 or 30 sec fight? They would get equally creamed, as they would with 10 seconds. There is only onme way to get better, thats playing. If you got less time to play, you wont get as good as people who play alot. So, I dont see how the situation would be different. 10 - 15 seconds is not a small timeframe. In action, thats a long time. Using abilities like blink or something else that keeps you out of the fight, would last even longer.

10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.

I'd compare this to someone sniping you from somewhere you didn't even look at vs someone headshotting you after doing a quick zig-zag towards you to dodge your own shots. In the first situation - you've learned nothing, because there was no time/ability to even learn from the experience. In the second situation you see what the opponent did and could then try applying the same methods in your own gameplay.

This would of course be false if gear power scaling is off the damn charts and a person barely above you in gear progression can wipe the floor with you - but we both don't know if that is the case and it would also be a completely different kind of discussion if that were the case.

Saabynator wrote: »

If the TTK was like 60 seconds, everyone would get away, get help or whatever. People would feel useless, and feel PvP had no meaningful impact. Dmg classes would feel weak as hell, and healing classes would be unkillable.

If we're talking about pvp (as in, both players are flagged) - getting away shouldn't be easy, because CCs exist. Yes, everyone will have at least some form of CC break, but I'd hope that is not a 0CD spammable ability.

Dmg classes would only feel weak if you compare them to dmg classes from other games rather than to other classes in Ashes. That's like comparing a boxer to a dude with a gun and saying that the boxer is super weak, because he can't do dmg to another person as quickly.

If we instead compare a boxer to a kickboxer or to other martial artist (i.e. comparing something within the same type/class of said thing) - we'd have a variety of choices that are not too far away from each other, but which still differ in their speed/intensity of applying dmg.

As for healing classes being unkillable - mana. Mana gameplay should be deep and intricate. Every class will use mana, so every class should have some interaction with the enemy's mana. And healer's ttk should account for their mana pool's ability to restore their hp. The same could apply to tank's defensive ability costs, so that the tank doesn't remain impenetrable forever.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.

Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.

Hm yeah not sure it works this way. Longer TTK gives you more time to totally outskill someone. More opportunity to put knowledge etc to good use.

Eg ultra short TTKs (like in an FPS).. the pros can still get headshotted.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Hm yeah not sure it works this way. Longer TTK gives you more time to totally outskill someone. More opportunity to put knowledge etc to good use.

And seeing that knowledge being put to proper use could be a learning process in itself (for the weaker player that is)

blat wrote: »

Eg ultra short TTKs (like in an FPS).. the pros can still get headshotted.

Except that non-shooter games are way more complex in their gameplay mechanics. You can't quite "spray and pray" in a non-shooter game and think you'll beat a better player that way.

This kinda goes back to the fighting games context we've seen in this thread. Two bad players can each find their "cheese" and beat each other with it, because they don't really know how to deal with either. But a good player will simply use that cheese against them. In a shooter you can just point to a thing and hold lmb, and there'd already be a chance to win.

And so, unless we get super simplistic combat in Ashes (which already seems to not be the case) - we ain't getting a "spray and pray" chances to win here.

blat

Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.

As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.

Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card

Githal

blat wrote: »

Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.

As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.

Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card

Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights

If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)

Saabynator

NiKr wrote: »

10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.

Actually, it would resolve in a higher TTK. An high dps like a mage or rogue, trades big dmg for less survivability. A weak dps normally has other abilities, which gives them a higher survivability. So strong dps, vs strong dps will most likely yield the fastest TTK.

blat

Saabynator wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.

Actually, it would resolve in a higher TTK. An high dps like a mage or rogue, trades big dmg for less survivability. A weak dps normally has other abilities, which gives them a higher survivability. So strong dps, vs strong dps will most likely yield the fastest TTK.

Yeah I guess he means dps v dps but "weaker" in terms of gear & skill. So, still burstable. But I get your point too.

Ludullu

Ooh, I know what would quell most of my worries here. A tank defensive party buff (say, 5min duration) that scales off the amount of sources of dmg taken by an ally, within a period of time (say, 5s).

So if the attacking party is hitting your healer all together - the defensive buff gives its strongest protection, which directly decreases the ttk of the target. But this still leaves the possibility of rogue sneak attacks or ranger crits from afar.

If a plain buff is viewed as too op for this kind of effect - I'd be totally ok with a "formation"-type deal. So smth like "everyone who's behind the tank in a wide and long cone aoe has this effect on them". This would make tanks move in a certain way around their party, limit their movements in pvp (unless the party is secure in some other way) and would also add more pvp interaction for "forced movement" abilities like the tank's Grapple.

In other words, a different kind of Aegis effect.

Saabynator

NiKr wrote: »

I'd compare this to someone sniping you from somewhere you didn't even look at vs someone headshotting you after doing a quick zig-zag towards you to dodge your own shots. In the first situation - you've learned nothing, because there was no time/ability to even learn from the experience. In the second situation you see what the opponent did and could then try applying the same methods in your own gameplay.

Dmg classes would only feel weak if you compare them to dmg classes from other games rather than to other classes in Ashes. That's like comparing a boxer to a dude with a gun and saying that the boxer is super weak, because he can't do dmg to another person as quickly.

As for healing classes being unkillable - mana. Mana gameplay should be deep and intricate. Every class will use mana, so every class should have some interaction with the enemy's mana. And healer's ttk should account for their mana pool's ability to restore their hp. The same could apply to tank's defensive ability costs, so that the tank doesn't remain impenetrable forever.

Now you are comparing to shooter games, I think its a bad analogy. 10 secs as a minimum TTK, you will know where the dmg comes from.

If Iron Mike is considered big dmg, as I would consider him. (to use your boxing). He would feel weak, if he could keep left hooking someone, and they kept standing up and smiling at him. Thats how I tried to explain how dmg would feel like, if their abilities took ages to kill others.

Well. Both sides would have mana, CC and escapes, yea? Not just the defender. So the attacker would run out of mana too, so I dont think its a valid argument.

Saabynator

Githal wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.

As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.

Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card

Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights

If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)

I think there is a reason to focus down players, even with 10-15 sec TTK. In big team fights, healers will be able to react to 10-15 sec, and heal the player. If focused, and it takes 2-3 secs. Kansas is going bye bye.

Liniker

I consider myself a hardcore PvPer, I enjoy games like Mortal Online 2, and even I think people that are happy with a 10s TTK are completely out of touch with how hardcore this will be lol

current TTK literally = just a duo of two stealth Rangers ganking, will obliterate a player before he can even know where they are, making casuals drop hours worth of loot and not even having a chance of fighting back or running away lol thats on the top spectrum of hardcore, MMORPGs with death penalties and loot drop can Not have low TTK, players need a good and big chance of fighting back or running away,

and corruption does not prevent this, nor it shouldnt, because having a 100% guaranteed free kill on a piñata of loot over some corruption that you can run away and grind off... I'll take that all day long, it shouldnt be that easy to kill a player, but well...

I guess players will soon find out

Githal

Saabynator wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights

If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)

I think there is a reason to focus down players, even with 10-15 sec TTK. In big team fights, healers will be able to react to 10-15 sec, and heal the player. If focused, and it takes 2-3 secs. Kansas is going bye bye.

There will always be some kind of focus, Even in an unorganized group people will tend to attack the front most targets. which will result in always 3-4 players hitting same targets even if there is no shot caller. And with 4 man focusing 1 person i imagine the ttk will be around 2 sec (if average ttk for 1v1 is 10-15), And this is because in 1v1 you still can use some active block to negate some attack or other stuff like this, and if focused by 4 people you wont survive the 2 seconds. So healer will always be useless

Ludullu

Saabynator wrote: »

Well. Both sides would have mana, CC and escapes, yea? Not just the defender. So the attacker would run out of mana too, so I dont think its a valid argument.

Not running out of mana before your opponent does is a skill in resource management. Using your CCs in a better way and countering escape methods is also a skill.

One L2 class had 2 blinks, a front-facing one and a back-facing one. You could use both of them to move forward, but you had to spin your character and use the back-facing blink asap but also in the best way possible. Those players who could do this in a near-perfect way would not only always outpace other players of the same class, but would also fly around the battlefield way more efficiently, which let them do more dmg while escaping others' dmg.

And again, seeing better uses of the tools that the weaker players has would provide a direct example of what to do (or at least try). Having a small ttk usually just means "use your longest CC and then use your biggest dps ability/atk until the target dies". Not much strategy or variety of encounter approaches. A longer ttk, supported by a good variety of gameplay tools, would lead to a more involved and intricate gameplay.

Saabynator

NiKr wrote: »

Saabynator wrote: »

Well. Both sides would have mana, CC and escapes, yea? Not just the defender. So the attacker would run out of mana too, so I dont think its a valid argument.

Not running out of mana before your opponent does is a skill in resource management. Using your CCs in a better way and countering escape methods is also a skill.

One L2 class had 2 blinks, a front-facing one and a back-facing one. You could use both of them to move forward, but you had to spin your character and use the back-facing blink asap but also in the best way possible. Those players who could do this in a near-perfect way would not only always outpace other players of the same class, but would also fly around the battlefield way more efficiently, which let them do more dmg while escaping others' dmg.

And again, seeing better uses of the tools that the weaker players has would provide a direct example of what to do (or at least try). Having a small ttk usually just means "use your longest CC and then use your biggest dps ability/atk until the target dies". Not much strategy or variety of encounter approaches. A longer ttk, supported by a good variety of gameplay tools, would lead to a more involved and intricate gameplay.

But its good recource management on both sides, no? Everything is skill on both sides.

Saabynator

Liniker wrote: »

I consider myself a hardcore PvPer, I enjoy games like Mortal Online 2, and even I think people that are happy with a 10s TTK are completely out of touch with how hardcore this will be lol

current TTK literally = just a duo of two stealth Rangers ganking, will obliterate a player before he can even know where they are, making casuals drop hours worth of loot and not even having a chance of fighting back or running away lol thats on the top spectrum of hardcore, MMORPGs with death penalties and loot drop can Not have low TTK, players need a good and big chance of fighting back or running away,

and corruption does not prevent this, nor it shouldnt, because having a 100% guaranteed free kill on a piñata of loot over some corruption that you can run away and grind off... I'll take that all day long, it shouldnt be that easy to kill a player, but well...

I guess players will soon find out

You may be right. But I do think that the penalty for killing player will be quick severe. Outside wars and the like. You never know what loot you get when you attack people, you can only speculate.

Ludullu

Saabynator wrote: »

But its good recource management on both sides, no? Everything is skill on both sides.

It always comes down to either class balancing (which will RPS) or small differences in player skill. There's also always some form of rng somewhere, so there's that too.

My main point was that having good mana gameplay would be good for the game, because it would add depth to the combat.

SunScript

Diamaht wrote: »

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

Dude, for real, like what? I've reread this interaction multiple times, I also had friends look it over to make sense of it for me, to no avail.

You quoted me about flipping something on it's head (it's unclear what), then proceeded to misrepresent my stance, then told me to... argue against the opinion you think I'm holding or something? And somehow this was me changing the topic? What even?

You're either trolling me, or you're attempting to reply to someone else and quoting my posts by mistake, or this is a very unclear attempt to convey something to me. If it's the last one, I urge you to take a step back, think about what you wanted to say and how you might convey it, and then we'll go from there, alright?

Child Item