25 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

ZOMG a topic outside of LPTPW

Following Stinger's pointing to the reveal shot and General's link to the teaser trailer which you can find here:

http://uk.ign.com/ar...cially-revealed

The important bit to take home is of course this:

Quote

“Everyone was expecting us to make Modern Warfare 4, which would have been the safe thing to do," said Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin, "but we're not resting on our laurels. We saw the console transition as the perfect opportunity to start a new chapter for Call of Duty. So we're building a new sub-brand, a new engine, and a lot of new ideas and experiences for our players. We can't wait to share them with our community."

So no more Modern Warfare. Of course, the series has been dead for a few games, but still, it's a big leap. Judging from the last bit, I wouldn't be surprised if it is about Ghost from MW2, which at least hints at a modern setting.

Furthermore; made for next-gen consoles, so finally they can squeeze more potential out of the game rather than trying to keep optimising the game for the ancient 360.

Finally, I have to admit that was a pretty awesome reveal trailer, even though it of course doesn't actually show anything about the game. Activision haven't unlearned that at least .

[General]

Well I have my hands crossed on this one. I have no high hopes since I think they are rushing the game again, I am pretty sure everything will be same as the old ones but updated graphics and a single or two at best new thing to show up...
I just hope I am wrong

[Soul]

That was just a teaser, it's not suppose to really tell you anything. They are using a new engine finally .

[Stalker]

If further improve what Black Ops 2 started (in MP) this could be good. Let's hope they'll keep the bullshit in MP to a minimum this year.

And Hooray for new engine!

[General]

Stalker, on 03 May 2013 - 15:04, said:

If further improve what Black Ops 2 started (in MP) this could be good. Let's hope they'll keep the bullshit in MP to a minimum this year.

And Hooray for new engine!

Wo wo wo, slow down there, it may turn out to be a complete shit Let us just hope it is not

[Raven]

Since Ghost is practically dead, its interesting to see the connection if they ever make one. On the other hand the weapons in the trailer looks all modern and might mean no futuristic stuff. Which might now be the norm for Treyarch. I am interested to see the new engine though and looks like they are going to reveal gameplay on the next XBOX launch meaning the tradition of timed exclusives is going to continue with next-gen also :(.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 03 May 2013 - 15:04, said:

If further improve what Black Ops 2 started (in MP) this could be good.

Let's hope they stay as far away from it as possible you mean Oo .

[Stalker]

Did you even play BO2? It is the best MP CoD since CoD4 by far. Weapon balance is perfect, Killstreaks aren't totally retarded like in MW2&3, maps are better than MW3, etc.

And no stupid host migration, and way better ping than that IWNet crap.

And a new engine would hopefully solve that retarded Lag-Compensation and framerate problems.

Edit: I guess reload animations are fine in BO2 too

Edited by Stalker, 03 May 2013 - 17:18.

[Chyros]

Yes, because legal wallhack sights, perks that make no sense, weapons that are in no way appealing (and no, the animations, including the reloads, are not good at all) and retarded and overpowered hardpoints are obviously a good thing. Even the whole create-a-class sytem makes no sense. Let me elaborate.

Unlike the older, better CoDs, the perks don't actually allow you to create classes that are focused on something. The classes are just a random collection of bonuses that kick in at random times. Whereas in for example MW2 or CoD 4, you could build a poised, focused class like a stealth class using a suppressor, Cold-Blooded and Ninja, or a front-line class with Sleight of Hand, Stopping Power and Steady Aim, Black Ops 2 has perks like "reset the timer on grenades you throw back" or "reduce flash from flashbangs" or "less flinch when shot" none of which can really be tactically placed in a class intended to do something. I mean, you're not going to design a class around throwing back grenades obviously. They might as well have put in a perk that read "less vertical recoil in half-loaded pistols on all second Tuesdays of the month" and it would make more sense than the BO2 create-a-class.

Furthermore, the hardpoints are much more dominant than in other CoDs, and built around being uncounterable and not being able to anticipate them, partially because you can't make a normal loadout that protects you fully from them (again with the retarded perk system that doesn't allow for perks that actually DO something). Whereas in MW2 (I will admit the system was still flawed in CoD 4) you could very effectively hard-counter them, BO2 (and no Treyarch CoD as a matter of fact) does not actually hand you the tools to do so. Hardpoints were designed to be dominant, foolproof, acquirable by any idiot, and uncounterable; free kills basically. The MW3 system was nearly flawless in this regard; probably the only thing that game did really well. In BO2, if you're not using a hardpoint, you're losing the game. And let's be honest the hardpoints themselves are just really fucking lame. Treyarch will NEVER learn on this subject, I'm convinced of that - they've had since WaW to polish them and they are STILL using fucking attack dogs.

Then there's the weapons, and as usual Treyarch went for the insane, practically nonexistent weapons that look like crap, are total unknowns and which no-one can identify with. The gunplay is supposed to be the single thing that makes a CoD game come alive, but BO2 doesn't do this, it just forces you to play with ugly tinker toys.

Then the attachments, and surely even you can't defend these. Some of the attachments should obviously have been perks (fast mags/quickdraw handle anyone?), while the difference in usefulness between different attachments is staggering. Furthermore, half of them are focused purely on noobs. Sure, a sight that allows you to wallhack legally. Interesting in single player games, sure; but why for fuck's sake have it in multiplayer? Wasn't the game easy enough?!

[General]

Chyros, on 04 May 2013 - 03:50, said:

*wall of text*
They might as well have put in a perk that read "less vertical recoil in half-loaded pistols on all second Tuesdays of the month" and it would make more sense than the BO2 create-a-class.
*wall of text*

But yes, I just hope they atleast put on a proper perk system in Ghosts if they're even gonna implement one...

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 04 May 2013 - 03:50, said:

...

Perks in BO2 aren't balanced properly, that's right. But most of what you have said is personal preference and are things I really like about this game. And some things are just wrong. Let me explain that.

1. Perks: No there is no perk that only allows you to throw back grenades. That perk does - Switch Weapons faster, throw grenades faster, reset timer on grenades. So it does more than a lot of perks in other CoDs.
I partly agree on the part that you don't select perks depending on your playstyle. That is mainly because some perks are (for me) mandatory. I can't play without Explosion/Flashbang/DVK resistance. But other than that you still select wheter you want mobility, durability, or stealth. That is better than stopping power>all for me. And BO1 Perks didn't make much sense either. (Less kick is Pro variant of shooting through walls). Perks are one of those things that need improvement in BO2.
And I'm also happy there is no 1-Perk=Full Stealth any more.

2. Why should hardpoints not be counterable? Yes, the airstrike and the missile strike are uncounterable, the same as in every other CoD. All the other streaks are easy too shoot down with an LMG, and all non-flying hardpoints are easily countered with an EMP-grenade, and if that is not enough, there is a Perk to not get detected. And MW3 system was just stupid. (Is a chopper up? Yes, then I'll run around with Blind-Eye and ignore it). And yeah, Attack Dogs could get a break, but It seems Treyarch likes dogs. But that definetly makes more sense than a Osprey-Gunship dropping Crates, or a Juggernaught with a shield.

3. The weapons. Yeah, I know you need your overused guns. But other people don't. And actually 90% of BO2 Guns are real-guns, I guess you just don't know them. And I see no reason to have the same fucking guns in every game, especially when its set in the future. (I agree that it sucked in BO1) Other than that (almost all of) the weapons are properly balanced, something every other CoD has failed to achieve.
<Edit>: Take assault rifles for example: There is the fictional SMR (which looks badass as fuck) and the partly-fictional Type25 (basically an advanced QBZ95). All other guns are real and pretty well known.</Edit>

4. Attachments: Basically what they did was splitting Perk(and Pro Perk) effects into Perks and Attachments. That is imo not a bad idea. I prefer having an actual gun-modification than some magical abilities. This is balanced with the point system, and you can have 3 attachments this time. I agree, Target Finder and MMS(Wallhack) optics shouldn't be in this game. While the MMS isn't really an issue (after all you give up one attachment for a unreliable short-range wallhack), but the Target-Finder is riddicolous for LMG-Campers. Other than that, Grenade Launchers aren't can be annoying sometimes, (if you don't run Flak-Jacket) and the Grip is pretty useless (it has ~ 1-2% recoil decrease). Almost all of the other attachments make sense and are usable, So I don't see your problem with them. I really prefer it this way over the retarded Pro-Perk system where a Perk would have 2 effects that can't be selected individually and mostly don't belong together.

TL;DR
Good in BO2: Weapon balance, Scorestreaks, overall Pick-10 System
Needs Work: Maps, Perks
Bad: Bullet Penetration (through walls and various objects) is fucked up, and Footsteps aren't hearable at all.


I really don't know why you are so upset with this game. I have also no idea how long you played it. I agree that the game has flaws, but the points you listed make no sense for me.

Edited by Stalker, 04 May 2013 - 07:01.

[Chyros]

You definitely have some good points. The ones which I particularly agree with are the ones where you compare BO2 directly with previous games. I'll highlight them:

Quote

And BO1 Perks didn't make much sense either.

Quote

And MW3 system was just stupid. (Is a chopper up? Yes, then I'll run around with Blind-Eye and ignore it).

Quote

But that definetly makes more sense than a Osprey-Gunship dropping Crates, or a Juggernaught with a shield.

All of these point are completely true. Yet, what I'd like to point out is that the games you're comparing it to are crap themselves. MW3 was horrible, a sham of a game, and BO1 was almost surely the worst CoD game ever made. BO2 is almost certainly a much better game than either, but it was (IMO) not at all what should be in a good CoD game. IMO, the only CoD games that were ever worth playing (in multiplayer) were MW2 and CoD 4.

Quote

No there is no perk that only allows you to throw back grenades. That perk does - Switch Weapons faster, throw grenades faster, reset timer on grenades. So it does more than a lot of perks in other CoDs.

Yes, it's not the only effect. But again, it's just a random collection of random effects, none of which you can plan to use. They just happen to you sometimes, or they don't. I will agree Stopping Power was flawed in its execution in previous CoD games, but I maintain you could make it work if the weapons were designed more around it. And why is it an advantage to have stealth to hardpoints spread across two perks (especially two perks in the same tier)? IMO having one perk that does all that is much more interesting, especially if it's up against Stopping Power or Double Tap (which IMO would be an excellent replacement for Stopping Power in a new CoD game). That's give some pretty damn interesting class loadout choices...

Quote

2. Why should hardpoints not be counterable? Yes, the airstrike and the missile strike are uncounterable, the same as in every other CoD. All the other streaks are easy too shoot down with an LMG, and all non-flying hardpoints are easily countered with an EMP-grenade, and if that is not enough, there is a Perk to not get detected. And MW3 system was just stupid. (Is a chopper up? Yes, then I'll run around with Blind-Eye and ignore it). And yeah, Attack Dogs could get a break, but It seems Treyarch likes dogs. But that definetly makes more sense than a Osprey-Gunship dropping Crates, or a Juggernaught with a shield.

Yes, it IS possible to counter them, but they are really really powerful, and you just can't win if you're not constantly piloting them. MW2 hardpoints had the decency to be hard-countered by one perk and one missile, and were both prettyhard to obtain as well as short-lived. Sure, ones like the Chopper Gunner were powerful, but it took 11 kills, not 11 buttscratches to get them, and it'd go down really quickly if even one person tried to take it on.

Quote

I prefer having an actual gun-modification than some magical abilities.

But that's half of my point, the attachments are just as magical. "Fast Mag"? BO1 had the taped-together magazine which sped up HALF of the reload which doesn't really work in terms of gameplay, but how does the other half get sped up if not magical? How does a "ballistics CPU" make you hold your weapon more steady? How does an "adjustable stock" (as if most weapons in the world don't already come with one btw) make you move faster when you're aiming? How does a long barrel increase a bullet's damage potential at range? How does the wallhack sight even work? What the hell is a "dual band" even supposed to be?

My point is that if you look at the names of the attachments, you have no idea what it is they're supposed to do. Whereas older attachments like a red dot sight, grip or suppressor are intuitively understood, the BO2 ones simply don't make much sense.

Quote

Almost all of the other attachments make sense and are usable, So I don't see your problem with them.

By converting all the powerful perks into attachments, they also kind of took away some of the interesting things about creating classes, where attachments, perks and weapon choices were all equally important, they kind of placed all eggs in the attachment basket here. They basically converted Sleight of Hand, Deep Impact, Double Tap, Quickdraw (part of SoH), Steady Aim and Stalker into attachments, most of which were top-tier perks in their respective games. The other top-tier perks got scrapped. So what is left to us to use?

Quote

I really don't know why you are so upset with this game.

My gripe with the game is mostly that it goes against everything what I perceive to be integral to a good CoD game. Interesting choices to make, flawless gunplay that I can identify with, and at least some modicum of skill involved. Basically what MW2 and especially CoD 4 stood for. The later CoD games tried to overcomplicate things by fitting in useless crap and dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. So my ideal wish for Ghosts is that they make it a hardcore CoD game again. One not designed for the masses, but for the fans. One that understands that sometimes less is more. And preferably one that uses stuff that exists. So I'll be watching this game like an eagle again to see where they take it.

[Stalker]

I see your point. Indeed I liked MW1&MW2 for the fact that guns hat power, and you could kill someone almost instantly. While Stopping Power was OP, at least it meant you can't go stealth at the same time. But then again, there are guns (UMP45) that allow you to go stealth AND have high damage. The problem with MW1&2 is that there are tons of weapons/perks/equipments that you have to ban, to actually enjoy the game. I played MW2 this week (Private game, official servers don't work anyway) and playing against Akimbo-Glock/M93, Grenade Launchers and Knife Runners is just no fun at all.
That's what I like with BO2: It keeps the bullshit moments to a minimum, although ofc the game makes me rage sometimes. And yes I compared it to the previous games, because I have given up all hopes that they will ever go back to Stopping-Power damage values. The reason is simple though: Gun balance is easier this way. It's pretty simple why: Guns do either ~40 or ~30 damage in close range. So without stopping power you have 3 or 4 hits to kill, which is a lot smaller difference than 2 or 3 hits with Stopping power. The only issue is that one-shot weapons seem to be more powerful in BO2. On the other hand Semi-Auto 2hit-kill weapons are actually usable, unlike in MW1&2.
And if there is no Stopping power, I don't want one perk that grants full stealth. In BO2 everyone ran around with Ghost. I just hate that. If a streak is hardcounterable why add it anyway. In BO2 that is currently an issue with Flashbang. They are OP as fuck, but 90% of all players use the hard-counter perk.

And the magical attachments.. Fast Mag and stock don't make sense, but the other ones seem fine. Long Barrel does make sense imho. Personally, I would like to see the BF3 system for attachments. 3 different categories, no extra costs for optics, etc.

As for the Killstreaks, I disagree. It is a lot easier to shoot down a VTOL-Gunship/Helicopter/Lodestar in BO2, than a AC130/PaveLow/Chopper Gunner in MW2. For one, LMGs with FMJ do huge damage against them. And secondly you have a delay before a spawned player is highlighted by a player-controled streak.

So yeah, a new classic Modern Warfare game would be nice, but If you really think back what issues MW2 had or what mistakes it made, I'm not sure if it would work.

Edit:

Quote

skill involved

Skill? In CoD? Never!

Edited by Stalker, 04 May 2013 - 14:46.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 04 May 2013 - 14:45, said:

I see your point. Indeed I liked MW1&MW2 for the fact that guns hat power, and you could kill someone almost instantly. While Stopping Power was OP, at least it meant you can't go stealth at the same time. But then again, there are guns (UMP45) that allow you to go stealth AND have high damage. The problem with MW1&2 is that there are tons of weapons/perks/equipments that you have to ban, to actually enjoy the game. I played MW2 this week (Private game, official servers don't work anyway) and playing against Akimbo-Glock/M93, Grenade Launchers and Knife Runners is just no fun at all.

Yes, CoD 4 and especially MW2 had their issues - I'm by no means saying they were perfect because there was still tons wrong with them. But they held true to the core gameplay values, and that, despite all the wrong things, still made them fantastic IMO. The UMP really wasn't OP though - while the stats looked appealing, it was only superficially powerful. The main thing that imbalanced the weapons was - there we go again - damageviewkick, which heavily biased weapons with minimal or no recoil such as the ACR. It was like giving enemies your recoil - there was no way to fight back against weapons such as those. A really good player or team was able to beat all the bullshit though - me and the others I played with were able to defeat tubers and kniferunners and all the other nonsense time and time again simply by using good strategy and classes designed specifically to overpower them. In the end, they never stood a chance.

Quote

And if there is no Stopping power, I don't want one perk that grants full stealth.

Yes, I agree. Perks should at least be fairly balanced against each other so that they are all fair choices. I just think that this is fairly easy to accomplish with traditional, powerful, focused perks. During my spare hours in lectures I even drew up whole systems of this.

Quote

So yeah, a new classic Modern Warfare game would be nice, but If you really think back what issues MW2 had or what mistakes it made, I'm not sure if it would work.

Like I said in the paragraph above, with some thinking it only really takes some shifting around a optimisation to make a true new MW game, using the lessons learned from CoD4, MW2 and MW3. They only reason they'll never do it is because it would superficially look like a step back, and would alienate the majority of the buyers, who wouldn't be able to identify with a game that takes more skill and thought to play.

Edited by Chyros, 04 May 2013 - 15:33.

[Stalker]

Of course most of that stuff is counterable at some point, but it is annoying as fuck. And it is also only counterable because good players mostly don't use stuff like Tubes or Akimbo Glocks. Those things are really hard to counter if both player's skills are equal. The UMP45 was just an example (it's one of the few weapons with recoil). There will always be a gun that works without stopping power (like M60 in MW1) and that will then be overused.
What I don't like in MW2 was that everything was so random. With decent hard counter perks in BO2 (less Explosive damage, no DVK, immune to flashbang) you could enjoy the gunplay without being fucked up by some total bullshit. If they would ask me, I would reduce Killstreaks and Explosives to a minimum.

They can also learn a lot of treyarch's CoDs (just not Map design )
Treyarch supported their games alot more with patches than IW ever did.
Also I really liked how they made every attachment visible on the actual gun in BO1.
And I also don't think the Pick 10 system is that bad. It's certainly better than MW3s totally feature-overloaded class editor.
Or most importantly .. Dedicated Servers, either via a browser, or how BO2 did it.
That means please no IWNet.. It is the worst thing that ever happened to CoD. If they really use it again, I need a really good reason to buy this game.

[Wizard]

*wipes a nostalgic tear from his eye*

God, I've missed these "debates".

[Chyros]

Yeah, it's a pity we have them only once a year .

[Alias]

*obligatory "couldn't give a shit" comment*

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 05 May 2013 - 11:12, said:

Yeah, it's a pity we have them only once a year .

We skipped it last year for some reason

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 05 May 2013 - 12:24, said:

Chyros, on 05 May 2013 - 11:12, said:

Yeah, it's a pity we have them only once a year .

We skipped it last year for some reason

Everyone was too disappointed by BO and MW3 to give a fuck .

[Wanderer]

Btw Chyros: A longer barrel does actually increase the speed of the bullet, there for it has more energy= a longer range to do dmg in. The longer barrel makes the hot gases from the propellant spend more energy to speeding up the bullet as there is no other way out

Edited by Wanderer, 05 May 2013 - 15:10.

[Chyros]

What I took home from that is that the visuals will obviously improve, but that there will be no more "BEAUTIFUW." Everything else is just noise.

Edited by Chyros, 22 May 2013 - 11:53.

[General]

Look at all the new sliding, seriously what is new except that sliding over objects which ME3 did before and sliding on the ground which FC did aswell... oh and a dog, wonderful... cat would've been more fun, just sayin...

[Chyros]

Yeah but you can't really have a companion that's supposed to meow opponents to death, can you?

[Raven]

The dog will have a bark that'll stun the opponent, just like the RA3 bear