963 replies to this topic

[Destiny]

I do factor out explosions (only got noobtubed once in my entire gametime) and headshots (sniper pointed at my head from a few meters away and kaboom), but the killcams I see are all full-autoing me with no headshots (there was even one with back/arm shots) but...heh, I don't think it matters much since no one's opinion is wrong

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 4 Dec 2010, 13:48, said:

I do factor out explosions (only got noobtubed once in my entire gametime) and headshots (sniper pointed at my head from a few meters away and kaboom), but the killcams I see are all full-autoing me with no headshots (there was even one with back/arm shots) but...heh, I don't think it matters much since no one's opinion is wrong

Well, like I said, the animations you see on killcam are misleading, because they aren't very representative of the timing of events. When you were shown as falling, you were already dead for a while, for example. In fact, when you died, you were probably already dead for a while as well due to lag. This conbination of factors can give a very skewed view of things from the killcam (which, by the way, is NOT a recording, as many people believe it is, but is a recreation of the battle using ghosts that happens right in the middle of the actual gameplay).

[Destiny]

Hmm I see...very enlightening !

[deltaepsilon]

TheDR, on 4 Dec 2010, 22:26, said:

Alias, on 4 Dec 2010, 11:22, said:

As far as I remember in COD4 you could be killed during Last Stand.

There was a period of "God Mode" (was it about a second long?) just after you get knocked down where nothing could kill you.

It was great pulling out a Desert Eagle and blowing away your enemy.

[Chyros]

deltaepsilon, on 4 Dec 2010, 14:20, said:

TheDR, on 4 Dec 2010, 22:26, said:

Alias, on 4 Dec 2010, 11:22, said:

As far as I remember in COD4 you could be killed during Last Stand.

There was a period of "God Mode" (was it about a second long?) just after you get knocked down where nothing could kill you.

It was great pulling out a Desert Eagle and blowing away your enemy.

Yes, when they didn't have the possibility of killing you. It was practically a cheat.

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 4 Dec 2010, 12:42, said:

Destiny, on 4 Dec 2010, 13:38, said:

Well in BO they do, so I don't see why people complain about it.

Well, no, you're still invulnerable.

But it's still way better than in the past games.

I don't know how long he is invulnerable, but you can definetly shoot someone while he is still falling.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 4 Dec 2010, 15:04, said:

Chyros, on 4 Dec 2010, 12:42, said:

Destiny, on 4 Dec 2010, 13:38, said:

Well in BO they do, so I don't see why people complain about it.

Well, no, you're still invulnerable.

But it's still way better than in the past games.

I don't know how long he is invulnerable, but you can definetly shoot someone while he is still falling.

Yeh right.



The timer is long enough to pull out your pistol and fire two to four bullets before you can receive damage again.

[Stinger]

When I was playing Black Ops, I encountered more Second Chance users than Last Stand users in MW2, and I have 75 hours on BO's MP and 818 hours on MW2.

The reason it's used is because there are no really good third tier perks. Ninja gives you silent footsteps? Why use it when no one can hear you moving anyway (PC) until they are within knife lunging distance?

Edited by Stinger, 04 December 2010 - 13:51.

[Pav:3d]

Just drop this in here...

[Destiny]

... No really...WAT? That was random.

[Chyros]

I modded CoD 4 for a bit to simulate what the MAC-11 parameters would do to its recoil, btw:



Note that the gun model also recoils a lot more from the hip, to reflect how uncontrollable the weapon really is.

[AllStarZ]

1) Is multiplayer better balanced than MW2?

2) Is the game less glitchy and better optimized for PS3?

[Wizard]

No point for a separate topic.

1) No, no where close

2) There are fewer exploits in general, but spawning is useless. As for PS3, sorry, I can't answer that.

[Stalker]

Imho Black Ops' Multiplayer balance is way better than MW2's

Sure, the FAMAS is OP (but not really that far) but you can't compare that to OMA-Tubing, MLC-Runners and Akimbo Glocks/M93.

Also having no stopping power gives other perks a chance.

[Pav:3d]

Stalker, on 6 Dec 2010, 13:49, said:

Imho Black Ops' Multiplayer balance is way better than MW2's

Sure, the FAMAS is OP (but not really that far) but you can't compare that to OMA-Tubing, MLC-Runners and Akimbo Glocks/M93.

Also having no stopping power gives other perks a chance.

FAMAS is OP to the point where its fruitless to use another weapon, at least in MW2 you had a wide selection of OP weapons.

Point about stopping power is true, but the third teir perks are utter crap in black ops.

[Stalker]

Well, the balance is far from perfect, especially the weapons.

But better balanced perks, launchers, killstreaks, secondary weapons, and Grenades are definetly a step upwards.

Imho MW2 is the better game, but dying from a FAMAS that is at least counterable with skill, is not as bad as tubes and commando

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 6 Dec 2010, 16:21, said:

But better balanced perks, launchers, killstreaks, secondary weapons, and Grenades are definetly a step upwards.

Partly true, I'd say. MW2 had more balanced weapons, perks and killstreaks, while BO has better-balanced grenades, launchers and secondary weapons.

I'd also like to make a point about Stopping Power: sure, it's easier to balance the game without it, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE to balance a game with it.

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 6 Dec 2010, 17:25, said:

I'd also like to make a point about Stopping Power: sure, it's easier to balance the game without it, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE to balance a game with it.

True. I preferred playing with SP because it enforced good aiming and reactions, rather than spraying (Mostly one-burst-kill). My problem with SP is that a perk just shouldn't make such a big difference.

A 10-20% dps increase would be more than enough. The problem is that a damage increase only makes sense when it decreases the number of shots to kill. So its hard to make a balanced +DMG perk.

Also with weapons like the FAMAS, no SP is not such a big deal, but a BO M16 is nothing compared to the MW2 one (with SP) even if it has the same stats.

[SquigPie]

Chyros, on 6 Dec 2010, 17:25, said:

Stalker, on 6 Dec 2010, 16:21, said:

But better balanced perks, launchers, killstreaks, secondary weapons, and Grenades are definetly a step upwards.

Partly true, I'd say. MW2 had more balanced weapons, perks and killstreaks, while BO has better-balanced grenades, launchers and secondary weapons.

I'd also like to make a point about Stopping Power: sure, it's easier to balance the game without it, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE to balance a game with it.

Chyros found something he liked about BO?!

Edited by SquigPie, 06 December 2010 - 17:15.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 6 Dec 2010, 19:05, said:

True. I preferred playing with SP because it enforced good aiming and reactions, rather than spraying (Mostly one-burst-kill). My problem with SP is that a perk just shouldn't make such a big difference.

A 10-20% dps increase would be more than enough. The problem is that a damage increase only makes sense when it decreases the number of shots to kill. So its hard to make a balanced +DMG perk.

Now this is very true. But I'll tell you how I'd take care of it: I'd try to:

1) avoid SP lowering the amount of hits-to-kill only at short or only at long range (i.e. the MW2 UMP45 does 40-35 damage; it only profits from SP at short range, at long range it's a 3HK regardless of SP)
2) avoid SP having an impact at ranges that weapon shouldn't be good at. For example, assault rifles preferably shouldn't do over 35 damage, to avoid them becoming 2HKs up close. The 40-30 damage class on assault rifles were what ruined balance in CoD 4, for example.

SquigPie, on 6 Dec 2010, 19:13, said:

Chyros, on 6 Dec 2010, 17:25, said:

Stalker, on 6 Dec 2010, 16:21, said:

But better balanced perks, launchers, killstreaks, secondary weapons, and Grenades are definetly a step upwards.

Partly true, I'd say. MW2 had more balanced weapons, perks and killstreaks, while BO has better-balanced grenades, launchers and secondary weapons.

I'd also like to make a point about Stopping Power: sure, it's easier to balance the game without it, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE to balance a game with it.

Chyros found something he liked about BO?!

TRY to make a constructive point once in your life . Not that I am offended, but you have over half a dozen of posts in this topic alone which do not contribute a single thing in the topic. and it's not at all this topic alone either. After a while the lack of constructivism gets really annoying tbh .

[SquigPie]

Somehow, I found you saying that humorous.

I was just surprised (and happy) to see you actually having something positive to say, that's all.

Could we also please stop this, I remember what happened last time.

Edited by SquigPie, 06 December 2010 - 19:08.

[Stinger]

At least Chyros cites evidence to back up his points rather than making uninformed opinions.

[Chyros]

SquigPie, on 6 Dec 2010, 21:07, said:

Somehow, I found you saying that humorous.

I was just surprised (and happy) to see you actually having something positive to say, that's all.

Could we also please stop this, I remember what happened last time.

You'd be giving me little credit if you said I didn't see good and bad sides about games at least a bit objectively. Treyarch made grenades a lot more balanced, with an elegant balance between fast and easy but conspicuous semtex grenades and slightly more powerful and less easy to avoid frag grenades but which can't be cancelled and which take many times longer to use, the launchers deal CoD 4 damage values and there is no explosive damage modifier which is perfect, and secondaries are limited to pistols and launchers basically which is a lot better than in MW2 where shotguns and especially machine pistols made everything else redundant, and I'd be the last person to deny any improvement on CoD in my book. Just because I take a strong stance on something doesn't mean I can't see the good stuff among the bad especially in CoD.

As for you, I really don't take offence at all and people who know me will affirm that I wouldn't deny being rather vocal with CoD games. I gladly join into any stereotype people have of me here in voice convos. But your posts are so useless and unconstructive and so irrelevant that I can't but be annoyed at them anyway, if only for a completely different reason.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

All right guys, lets get drop this petty squabble and get back on topic.

[SquigPie]

Bob, on 6 Dec 2010, 20:43, said:

All right guys, lets get drop this petty squabble and get back on topic.

You ninja'd me

As Bob said, let's drop this, I've just come back here, don't want to start another flamewar on my first day back.