Jump to content

Ttk Question


8 replies to this topic

#1 Shadowspawn42

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 46 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:26 PM

What is wrong with the current TTK? I guess I dont understand why PGI seems intent on increasing it.

To me I like the pace of MWO currently. Increasing TTK makes the matches longer...but not better. Actually it makes them worse. Waiting longer for weapons to refresh or your mech to cool just doesnt seem like MORE fun, it seems like less fun. So why change it?

#2 G4LV4TR0N

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 907 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:36 PM

Good question. Personally, I would prefer reduced TTK even at a cost of balance. Killing smaller mech with few shots is how it should be, at least in my opinion. But how many players would get upset...

#3 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:36 PM

Mechwarrior has never been exactly like other 1st/3rd person shooters in that you have armor and that prevents you from getting one-shotted like other games. But, with the alphas available now (especially lasers) you can get 3 shotted in MWO which is ridiculous...hence, longer TTK or TTS (time to survive).

I would totally be ok with shorter TTK as long as they introduce unlimited respawn. Then it doesn't matter cause you get another life.

Edited by Coolant, 26 April 2017 - 02:37 PM.


#4 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:42 PM

View PostG4LV4TR0N, on 26 April 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Good question. Personally, I would prefer reduced TTK even at a cost of balance. Killing smaller mech with few shots is how it should be, at least in my opinion. But how many players would get upset...


Lights already die in 1-2 shots

#5 Nik Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,273 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:45 PM

Yeah, pretty much this ^ , if you look at WoT and WoWS you can take a pounding due to positioning or balance and while this is a FPS it is an armored warfare game , and part of the point is that armor doesn't get oneshot-ed.

I also do not understand why a faster TTK is something anyone would want here, there are a number of games that cater to super fast reflex shooters , and there was Harken that was a mech themed arcade Fast shooter so why would you want it here?

There is something to be said about faster ways to kill a mech in MWO that would require higher skill and specific tools , like if mechs had extra hitboxes that when armor is removed you could do extra damage, kinda like auto crits and the like , but things so far are kinda ok and could stand to take even longer to down a mech with it being even more dysfunctional before falling down.

#6 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:48 PM

Quote

What is wrong with the current TTK? I guess I dont understand why PGI seems intent on increasing it.

To me I like the pace of MWO currently. Increasing TTK makes the matches longer...but not better. Actually it makes them worse. Waiting longer for weapons to refresh or your mech to cool just doesnt seem like MORE fun, it seems like less fun. So why change it?


Because the game is derived from battletech and mechs in battletech take a long time to kill. So people expect mechs in this to take a long time to kill too.


But.... the new skill tree screws things up pretty bad. Yes it increases TTK but look at how it does it.

First it kills dps weapons by removing virtually all cooldown quirks and reducing the cooldown bonus that you used to get from modules/skills from the 17% it used to be to like 3%-4% now (if youre lucky).

Secondly mechs are losing mobility across the board.

Lastly it increases armor and structure amounts.

So whats going to be the result of weaker dps weapons, lower mobility, and more armor/structure? Well PPFLD sniper builds are getting a massive relative buff. And the brawling DPS builds that used to counter them are getting bent over. Sandblasting builds especially are nerfed like anything that used LBX/machineguns/SRMs.

So yeah the higher TTK is going to come at the cost of people using Gauss/PPCs even more than they ever have before. All hail the new sniper meta that this skill tree cements into place for the foreseeable future.

Edited by Khobai, 26 April 2017 - 02:57 PM.


#7 Nik Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,273 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:39 PM

While dps weapons will need love , they might need to look at the native cooldowns of those rather than add a problem of balancing them mostly through "enhancements" + there is the upcoming new tech that might effect things in a large way so they might be preparing for that by starting low and going from there... or I'm just giving them too much credit on this one....

#8 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:28 AM

Most people complaining about TTK / discussing TTK has no clue what TTK actually is to begin with, so ...

#9 Xetelian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,391 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 03:10 AM

TTK should increase a bit, it shouldn't be the end of an AS7 immediately after a quick peek over a hill, especially since it has to reverse slowly or push and bring its weapons to bear only to die in a flash. Yes, a full firing line should eat a mech of any size alive in a short amount of time but it seems like a very unforgiving meta where 7 or 8 Gauss rifles and 5 - 9 PPCs all hit dead center at the same time.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users