Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "Iplaysgames96" started this thread

Posts: 210

Date of registration
: Dec 21st 2016

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Spokane, WA, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 7:03am

Is TTK the one and only gold standard that matters?

I remember when BF1 was in its youth on these forums, there was a sentiment (or at least what I interpreted the sentiment to be) That guns like the model 8 .35 and weapons that were very good at taking out one or two enemies at a time were the best ones. It also seemed like the mentality is the best players never got into situations where they would encounter no more than one or two enemies at a time.

This may seem like dumb or redundant questions but from a practical standpoint, I have two questions, is a high TTK the only thing that really matters even in the face of other statistic advantages a low TTK weapon may possess I.E. high mag count or low recoil?

Also it it really possible to keep out of intense situations where you will encounter more than a couple enemies at a time? (this one may be the stupid question but for me, as someone who seems to end up coming up against many players within a short amount of time, it is a serieous question)

To put it into context, is the higher TTK of the BAR m1918 telescopic out shadow the benefits of the accuracy of the benet mercie or the mag capacity mg15NA suppressive in a practical sense? Is the 25 round mag of the mauser 1916 not worth sacrificing for the TTK of the Model 8 .35?

Again this may seem like a stupid or elementary question from a questionably inept FPS player but it is nonetheless a serious question.
Official heretic of the Symthic forums. Avid M1907 factory user and complete casual pleb.
Iplaysgames96 - Profile Overview - Battlefield 1 Tracker

Posts: 327

Date of registration
: Jun 6th 2014

Platform: PS4

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 7

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 7:37am

Eh, actual gameplay is real messy and shit happens all the time. TTK can be a good value to use as a benchmark but it's hardly the end all, be all.

Just use whatever your feel most comfortable using. Unless you're trying to use a weapon way out of it's intended purpose you'll do well enough.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,272)

Posts: 2,670

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 8:50am

I would say it is the most important figure in this game, that is rather focused around how weapons fare in different circumstances, i.e weapon class, variant, stance, movement, engagement range, optic, burst lengths, weapon and body multipliers and whether it is full moon. In this overly complicated world a chart with a number that is not changing is very valuable.

Before you would have a solid common foundation for stats based on weapon class and calibre and most weapons would work in the same predictable way. TTK in BF3-4 was something you did not need to look at, since lied less in all the numbers, but the experience and the TTK chart was just the bonus for comparing weapons in detail.

I mean just look at how popular TTK charts and threads are on this third party site, compared to previous game's forum sections, when there were also many more people around. You need to somewhat know the TTK in order to not be overwhelmed by the huge performance differences weapons have.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 4:18pm

Even if you have a weapon with the theoretical capacity to down 3-4-5 enemies, that capability doesn't actually matter much/at all because the probability that you will be able to mow down that many people without them shooting back is slim to nil. If you come across 2-3 guys even vaguely head on it is very unlikely you're going to get all 3 unless they are terrible, but even the average player against the best player isn't THAT bad.

Sure, sometimes it happens that you manage to pull an awesome flank on a large number of guys and can shoot a bunch of them, but that sort of kill streak is so statistically unlikely that it isn't worth selecting a weapon around.

The overall game statistics show this: your typical player gets about one kill before they die, and anyone with a KDR above 2 isn't doing it by winning 1 vs many fights routinely, they are doing it by winning many 1v1s.

Now, TTK as a raw number is meaningless if you can't get bullets on torsos, but that's why people are calculating them with hitraters (generally with some sort of recoil and pacing assumptions), so that you get an effective speed of downing someone.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "tankmayvin" (Mar 7th 2018, 12:20am)


Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

5

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 4:22pm

I would say it is the most important figure in this game, that is rather focused around how weapons fare in different circumstances, i.e weapon class, variant, stance, movement, engagement range, optic, burst lengths, weapon and body multipliers and whether it is full moon. In this overly complicated world a chart with a number that is not changing is very valuable.

Before you would have a solid common foundation for stats based on weapon class and calibre and most weapons would work in the same predictable way. TTK in BF3-4 was something you did not need to look at, since lied less in all the numbers, but the experience and the TTK chart was just the bonus for comparing weapons in detail.

I mean just look at how popular TTK charts and threads are on this third party site, compared to previous game's forum sections, when there were also many more people around. You need to somewhat know the TTK in order to not be overwhelmed by the huge performance differences weapons have.


That's rubbish.

You didn't need a TTK chart in BF3 because there were only 3 guns really worth using as "bestguns", and a couple of runners up for the non-medic classes. The differences between the bestguns were obvious.

In BF4 you didn't need a TTK chart for most comparisons of the guns were statistically irrelevant, or subtly but not meaningfully different than each other. You just needed to figure out a couple of cases that were weird, and everything else was basically lumped together.

With the TTK patch, I think they've finally figured out a balance where all of the weapon classes are relevant, and most of the weapons are relevant within class. There are still some duds, but I think that is practically impossible to avoid in a game where people demand so many options.

Posts: 311

Date of registration
: Jun 21st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Moscow, Russia

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

6

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 4:39pm

I would say that it's a big heavy multiplier to other weapon stats, so if a weapon has good stats and good TTK = it's an awesome weapon, if it has good or even great stats but bad TTK = it's a poor weapon (Maxim SMG pre-APOC). Same with great TTK but bad stats (Steyr M1912 Machinepistole). A few examples of good weapons which has not the best TTK but still good weapons overall:
Browning M1917 - TTK is kinda slow but laser accuracy and insane mag capacity makes it one of the best "second line" guns
Maxim LMG 08/18 - Parabellum MG14 has faster TTK but is a very innacurate weapon, so with Maxim LMG 08/18 you kill slightly slower but can do it off-bipod on most ranges and not only CQB-only
Fyodorov's Avtomat - TTK is not slow or not fast but because this weapon has good Hrec, good mag capacity and other good stats - it's a very good weapon overall, only long ranges are not really for this weapon.
Sorry for my bad english - it's not my native language and I have difficulties with acquiring speaking/writing practice in my country. If I accidently insult you or say something wrong - I'm sorry, you can feel free to correct me.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

7

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 5:16pm

I would say that it's a big heavy multiplier to other weapon stats, so if a weapon has good stats and good TTK = it's an awesome weapon, if it has good or even great stats but bad TTK = it's a poor weapon (Maxim SMG pre-APOC). Same with great TTK but bad stats (Steyr M1912 Machinepistole). A few examples of good weapons which has not the best TTK but still good weapons overall:
Browning M1917 - TTK is kinda slow but laser accuracy and insane mag capacity makes it one of the best "second line" guns
Maxim LMG 08/18 - Parabellum MG14 has faster TTK but is a very innacurate weapon, so with Maxim LMG 08/18 you kill slightly slower but can do it off-bipod on most ranges and not only CQB-only
Fyodorov's Avtomat - TTK is not slow or not fast but because this weapon has good Hrec, good mag capacity and other good stats - it's a very good weapon overall, only long ranges are not really for this weapon.


But the M1912 is really strong at facemelting, it doesn't have bad stats, its just unambiguously designed to do one thing very well.

Avtomat has a good effective TTK, either because of hipfire up close, or optical at midrange.

Effective, not theoretical TTK is what matters.

Posts: 180

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 4

  • Send private message

8

Tuesday, March 6th 2018, 8:08pm

Even if you have a weapon with the theoretical capacity to down 3-4-5 enemies, that capability doesn't actually much/at all because the probability that you will be able to mow down that many people without them shooting back is slim to nil. If you come across 2-3 guys even vaguely head on it is very unlikely you're going to get all 3 unless they are terrible, but even the average player against the best player isn't THAT bad.

Sure, sometimes it happens that you manage to pull an awesome flank on a large number of guys and can shoot a bunch of them, but that sort of kill streak is so statistically unlikely that it isn't worth selecting a weapon around.

The overall game statistics show this: your typical player gets about one kill before they die, and anyone with a KDR above 2 isn't doing it by winning 1 vs many fights routinely, they are doing it by winning many 1v1s.


Why do you assume that the only way to utilise big mags is by taking on multiple opponents simultaneously?

They're useful for swiftly going from engagement to engagement without having to surrender the control of the map you just earnt by making yourself vulnerable for a few, vital seconds.

Posts: 2,014

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, March 7th 2018, 12:27am

I would say that it's a big heavy multiplier to other weapon stats, so if a weapon has good stats and good TTK = it's an awesome weapon, if it has good or even great stats but bad TTK = it's a poor weapon (Maxim SMG pre-APOC). Same with great TTK but bad stats (Steyr M1912 Machinepistole). A few examples of good weapons which has not the best TTK but still good weapons overall:
Browning M1917 - TTK is kinda slow but laser accuracy and insane mag capacity makes it one of the best "second line" guns
Maxim LMG 08/18 - Parabellum MG14 has faster TTK but is a very innacurate weapon, so with Maxim LMG 08/18 you kill slightly slower but can do it off-bipod on most ranges and not only CQB-only
Fyodorov's Avtomat - TTK is not slow or not fast but because this weapon has good Hrec, good mag capacity and other good stats - it's a very good weapon overall, only long ranges are not really for this weapon.

Even if you have a weapon with the theoretical capacity to down 3-4-5 enemies, that capability doesn't actually much/at all because the probability that you will be able to mow down that many people without them shooting back is slim to nil. If you come across 2-3 guys even vaguely head on it is very unlikely you're going to get all 3 unless they are terrible, but even the average player against the best player isn't THAT bad.

Sure, sometimes it happens that you manage to pull an awesome flank on a large number of guys and can shoot a bunch of them, but that sort of kill streak is so statistically unlikely that it isn't worth selecting a weapon around.

The overall game statistics show this: your typical player gets about one kill before they die, and anyone with a KDR above 2 isn't doing it by winning 1 vs many fights routinely, they are doing it by winning many 1v1s.


Why do you assume that the only way to utilise big mags is by taking on multiple opponents simultaneously?

They're useful for swiftly going from engagement to engagement without having to surrender the control of the map you just earnt by making yourself vulnerable for a few, vital seconds.


There is a lot more to following up an engagement than just starting to fire on the next guy.

You have to heal yourself first and foremost or your ttk doesn't matter much when the next guy coming along can take twice as long to take you from from 50 to 0 hp. You have to heal teammates, you have to revive teammates, you have to deploy gadgets, you have to move to a better position.

You spend a fraction of your time in BF actually firing at enemies, and there is a lot more to chaining engagements than having bullets ready in the gun.

Almost 100% of the time, the limiting factor in chaining together 1v1s is not the bullets in the gun, but health and positioning.

Posts: 311

Date of registration
: Jun 21st 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Moscow, Russia

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, March 7th 2018, 12:34am

ut the M1912 is really strong at facemelting, it doesn't have bad stats, its just unambiguously designed to do one thing very well.
Same problem like with 8 .35 and RSC SMG - you can't stably kill 2 opponents per 1 magazine and also have troubled reloading (srsly, 8+1 bulets for 3.7s/3.9s reload times, what DICE was thinking?). So basically if 2 enemies come at you - only if they fail epically you could win.
Too much situational weapons can't be considered as good weapons overall. Pre-nerf M1912 was a different story due to 1 FSSM and 1 FSRM, but that made this weapon overpowered (melting ppl from 40-50m with tapfiring was OP).
Sorry for my bad english - it's not my native language and I have difficulties with acquiring speaking/writing practice in my country. If I accidently insult you or say something wrong - I'm sorry, you can feel free to correct me.