@Benz , @cyoce
Both parties in this conversation (Cyoze & Benz) have several valid points. And I am not writing this to criticize any of you, just thought it could be interesting to make a list with some statements mixed by both your ideas and my own, and hear your thoughts if you feel like it. None of the statements are meant as counterarguments to what you have previously said, they are just views that I believe are valid, some banal and some maybe don't.
I. Skill ceiling/floor: The more complex behavior the player needs to manage/master, the higher the skill ceiling. The skill floor will be how fast you can master one or several of these behaviors dependent of how complex the game is, and therefore having any relevance on your team.
II. With a lower Time To Kill, there will be less need for repeated hits on your opponent, thereby lowering the timeframe it takes to kill any given opponent, this will lower the skill floor in a 1v1 situation regarding aim, as the less skilled player can have worse aim but get a lucky spray.
III. The more skilled player will not need to follow up his shot(s) with several more successful shots, so the skill ceiling will be lower in the skill to control recoil and aim in the 1v1 situation with lower TTK.
IV. The ability to learn from a moment of bad situational awareness will exist with both a low TTK and a high TTK, but with a low TTK you learn by keeping a higher situational awareness after respawning again, as it is less forgiving. That does not mean it removes the players room to improve, but it delays the room to improve until after respawning. It removes the room to improve at that exact moment, thus making the game less forgiving, changing customer segmentation.
V. With a low TTK the skill ceiling will be higher regarding the need to maintain situational awareness, as the punishment for not doing so is more severe. Therefore the emphasis is moved further in the direction of situational awareness, and away from repeated hits in any encounter. It just means that the focus of this trait is more vital in a game with low TTK without comparing to any games in particular. If you compare it to a game, the point is more pronounced the higher the TTK is in the comparison.
VI. If opposing players of equal skill meets in an engagement 1v1 with low TTK, the timeframe it happens within is reduced and the emphasis is moved away from repeated hits at one opponent and towards faster gameplay as the winning player can change their focus to the next task in a shorter time frame. Players with the same skills in aiming will have the same opportunity to kill each other regardless of the TTK in a 1v1.
VII. With a higher TTK the time you fire your gun on each opponent will be within a longer timeframe, therefore is is harder to remain undetected or attract unwanted attention due to sound or muzzle flash from third-parties, being very obvious on night maps.
VIII. Teamplay plays a greater role with a higher TTK because the possibility to both change the odds and having successful solo attacks decrease when outnumbered with a higher TTK. Teamplay is still vital with a low TTK in equally skilled teams above a certain skill level, but more free roaming appears in casual pugs.
IX. Facing multiple enemies solo (the Rambo style) I believe we all can agree has a lower success-rate with higher TTK when skill level is equal, and higher in the opposite case. Still there is moments when even the most skillful players don't always pay enough attention and can be taken by surprise. An example could be in Insurgency district map 5v5. There is simply not enough players on each team to have full control/lockdown at all times. A low TTK will increase the chance of a successful lurker getting more kills, without it ending up as a trade. Lower timeframe to kill = more time to move away from the scene, getting a better position.
X. Regarding the example provided by Cyoce and commented by Benz, I will provide an example from my own experience from Insurgency 2014 that mostly applies to example two and thereafter speak loosely about some other stuff like skill ceiling I felt like addressing.
5v5 firefight. Ministry, last man standing defending Charlie (garage), situated by the van on insurgent side on point a few years ago. Why I remember this so much later was because it was against and with one of the earlier competing teams in Insurgency, and I had no business playing against them, but was a bit exited having watched all the pro matches. I have no video proof this happened, and you really don't need to believe it anyway for the example to work, as the essential point is that I felt like an underdog in the situation having trained mostly in random pugs.
Enemies had just capped A by killing my last two teammates, and our plan (in a casual pug, not matchmaking as it was not a thing yet if I remember correct) of me capping C alone while my last two teammates stalled or killed enemies on A, went down the drain.
I managed to kill all 5 who rushed my position from different angles, and yes the enemy team was more skilled than me, as it was their team and friends playing on both teams, and way above me in skill as well, but they felt confident, while I had a heart rate with the rpm like a techno nightclub and was ultra focused due to the pressure.
Now in this scenario you could argue that they were unfocused or did not approach the situation in an optimal manner, as a 5v1 situation normally have only one outcome - And you would be correct.
Still I would argue that I could not have won this situation with a high TTK as it all happened in a very short time frame with highly aggressive attackers. Would the skill ceiling be lower because I managed to hold the ground or would it be more accurate to say that the skill floor was lower? The second option is what i believe is the case, as they had the same opportunity to outplay me as with any TTK, but with the focus of the skill revolving less on aim skills and more on situational awareness at all times - Even if I did not face players of considerably lower skill, but the opposite.
Still it was impossible to win if not close to all shots fired were landing home, but with their shared health pool the odds would have been much higher that I had lost due to being fixated with the aim on one opponent while being killed from another one or caught off guard changing guns or reloading, or attracting unwanted attention by sound/muzzle flash.
You could off course also argue that it only takes 5 headshots, and that would be correct, it would just require a higher aiming skill level on my part - but the skill ceiling is not the top of your individual skill - It is the maximum skill you can have across all abilities as a player combined in general, which is rare even amongst the best players in the world. They often have different roles based upon which gameplay they individually exceed in, and train within the certain role for so many hours that they often suit that role the most - Off course there is probably many exceptions, but hitting the skill-ceiling and having nothing to improve was not an issue in Insurgency 2014 even with a lower skill-ceiling than for example CS:GO, because you can always improve team tactics if you are in the position of mastering the other aspects of the game.
I know CSGO and it's predecessors have had more skilled players through the years of existing and have more complexity both because of the recoil patterns, the higher TTK and the amount of players who have played it for a long time all exceeds Insurgency, but having the highest possible skill ceiling should maybe not be the goal in itself, as the complexity of a first person shooter is not exactly rocket science, nor does it need to reach for always higher complexity, as the time invested to master such a game also raises. In CSGO you will need to practice in the timeframe of about 10 hours a day to maintain a pro level according to a video from Shroud (I am not gonna try to find the correct video as proof, as that would take forever, but there is plenty of statements by other pro players that mirror similar training needed).
Being accessible for the most amount of players by being entertaining, without being to generic and loose relevance, is what matters from both an economic viewpoint and popularity. If the niche hits home with exactly you is a matter of taste, but conflicting views are not invalid if it don't.
As an end note said in a previous post: I am satisfied with the TTK as it is even if that is irrelevant for this post in my opinion.
It's interesting to share thoughts about a game in development that many of us share a lot of excitement about. If you could refrain from answering in a rude manner, it would be much appreciated. Dealing with toxic behavior is both tedious and does not promote our shared goal of discussing the aspects of this game.
I am not trying to prove anything here, just sharing my ten cents on the subject.