Time to kill is still far too short


#1

It’s as bad as it was before, which means that you haven’t done anything to address TTK in the past month.


#2

Thank you for the feedback! Everything in the game is still being tweaked.


#3

I understand that, but you have literally been getting this same statement all over the place, including the many threads here on the subject.

It’s frustrating that it hasn’t been addressed due to the fact that as it stands now, engagements last a fraction of a second and you either win or lose based upon a split second twitch shot.

That isn’t fun.


#4

We get statements from both sides. Finding a balance can be difficult especially when weapon damage etc. may still be tweaked.

We do appreciate feedback though as it lets us know that things need to be looked at a little closer.


#5

I may be in the minority here but just wanted to comment that I personally like the time to kill the way it is


#6

Yeah same here, I think its great as it is.


#7

Perfect time to kill


#8

To me it feels like armor does little to nothing to protect. But the personal shield is an absolute necessity to survive any kind of damage.

If I saw some numbers that might help. Like what % of damage does armor actually mitigate. After playing a good bit, feels like maybe 10% if that. We should be able to “feel” the difference. Maybe others sense it, or maybe death is so quick we don’t get a chance to really gauge it.


#9

Armor is more or less useless in the game. If someone gets the jump on you, you will lose most of the time unless you have god like reflexes. The guns are far too accurate to be able to kill this quickly.


#10

@UltimateAce Have you even played a game without armor?


#11

It really has no discernable difference because damage comes so hard and fast. Even with a personal shield sometimes, that’s the big difference maker.

But I’ve noticed now the personal shield doesn’t seem to covers ones head anymore. It used to be, or at least felt like, a personal shield can take the full brunt of a single sniper shot, even a headshot.

I would never see bodies laying around that still had active shields in place. Now they’re everywhere. I really think the shield should absorb ALL damage until drained, no effect on health or armor.

Armor should increase the TTK 2x over what it would be without. A personal shield should absorb the equivalent of 100 points of unmitigated damage before effecting health or armor.


#12

My 2 Cents - TTK still feels way too quick. It gives you no time to react or take cover if available. If you are playing against people with decent aim it feels like a battle of who spots who first. I agree with UltimateAce too, ‘the guns are far too accurate to be able to kill this quickly’. I’ve had a few encounters where my aim did not feel on point and I was able to melt people. I do prefer longer battles though so I’m biased, I would rather have fights balanced out by the circle and/or your position being given away by the sound.


#13

I don’t think TTK is too bad, although I will say, I agree with the idea that it feels like a “who spots who first” game. I think the “who spots who first” could be changed by providing BETTER COVER OPTIONS throughout the map, giving players more likelihood of being able to hide behind something if you were caught off guard.


#14

I think that’s part of the game though, catching people without cover. If everyone had cover all the time, then the excitement and intensity wouldn’t be there.

Decision making is a huge part of this game, and deciding to either stay in cover or not is an inherent risk.

Sometimes you catch people without cover, and sometimes you get caught. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#15

Sin I have to disagree. Sometimes you don’t get to make the decision to leave cover. Sometimes you just get an unlucky circle, and have to cross one of the many large fields. Adding more cover throughout the map can mitigate some of the RNG factor involved here. It gives you a much better change at fighting someone who got lucky and didn’t have to move into the circle.


#16

Speaking personally & completely unofficially:

I have always liked games with higher TTK. It’s why I loved Division, for example (before gear sets). Having to maintain your aim on your target in order to down them undeniably requires more skill than just hitting a few shots (luckily or through skill) to remove your opponent. This also relates much more to CQC than it does to ranged targets, and imo CQC fights are exponentially more fun than just picking someone off at range.

The problem with IoN, however, is in the overall design aspect. We want a game that is fast paced down to its core. Whereas slightly raising TTK won’t greatly affect the speed of the game for most players, it certainly will for high-skill competitors. Someone who is both skillful and knowledgeable about the game mechanics can utilize even a slightly higher TTK to extend the length of an engagement considerably. And that’s where things get tricky for the developers.

Consider our safe zone circle speeds. Extending an engagement means that players have less chance to make it to the next safe zone without taking damage from the plasma. Is that something that should also be addressed? Should we then slow the circle speed, slowing the match progression and lengthening the time of each match? Wouldn’t that start to be a problem when trying to keep the game fast-paced?

You’ll see where this starts to become an issue.

So yeah, I guess all I’m trying to say is that there is far more to consider than just TTK. Quite possibly, the plausibility of maintaining the biggest difference between our game and other BRs becomes a problem here. Whereas I wouldn’t be opposed to trying it, I’m not entirely sure it will work for us.


#17

Good counter-points. Perhaps we could consider the average time to kill, rather than minimum. I think the current weapon mechanics, having very low recoil, and a recoil-pattern at that, make it very easy for anyone willing to learn the first few bullets of the pattern to shoot with an incredibly small spread. I’d love to try this game with higher recoil on ARs, and without a set pattern.


#18

And I’ll have to disagree with everything you said. You have to understand you’re playing a battle royale game; sometimes luck is on your side, sometimes it isn’t. It’s up to you to mitigate the “unfair” aspect of it all. Just remember, you have the same opportunity as everyone else in the game to manage time, resources, and the zone. Sometimes you’re in a better posistion and die. Sometimes you have no boosts and still kill the guy with full armor and shields. Adding a higher TTK only makes fighting boring and drag on. And having no recoil pattern and completely random bullets is not ideal for its competitiveness.


#19

Sure sometimes luck is on your side, but in a competitive aspect, shouldn’t the game minimize the luck factor as much as possible? You can’t see where the game is circle to end, so it’s not “up to you” to mitigate it, it’s up to RNGeezus. The only thing I brought up in regards to that is that I think there should be more cover on the map. Are you saying there shouldn’t be? As the map currently stands, the terrain is flat and cover minimal.

In regarding TTK as it stands, this game is going to be very uninviting to casuals. Look at H1. The game went free to play, and only boosted its numbers minimally. That game is great in a competitive aspect, but because of the HUGE skill gap, the majority of the new F2P players weren’t ever getting shots off before they were 2 tapped and sent back to the lobby. I think this game is currently unwelcoming to casuals, whom make of the majority of any popular game’s player base.


#20

Getting zone screwed is a very real threat. But everyone is at the mercy of RNGeezus, and at its very core, the nature of the battle royale games. I think I know which areas you might be talking about (the area around mansion in the farms especially), but why not avoid those areas altogether? No one is forcing you to run across those fields. Yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable, because sometimes you need ammo or a shield or something else you see. But again, that’s part of the decision making. And unless the zone ends up being there at the end, everyone is forced to fight there anyways.

You can see where the zone ends up, and you have a minute to figure out your next move. I don’t understand your point.

I’m interested to see what your thoughts are about FFA, DUOS, and SQUADS. In squads, you’re more likely to get team shotted and will die much more faster than you would if you were in an FFA match. Would you keep health, armor, and/or shield the same throughout all game modes?

I think you have your logic backwards; competitive players keep the competitive games alive, not the casuals. I don’t think H1Z1 was unwelcoming to players, I think it suffered from other, much bigger problems.