637 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 27 May 2011, 15:37, said:

Maybe they should do damage based on the caliber of the guns? So all those 5.56 will have near the same damage, and 7.62 will have a lot more but blabblah and .50BMG OHKOs everyone anywhere

What you describe is a factor of realism buggery and therefore useless. Realism should NEVER come at the cost of the balance and therefore fun of a game.

[Wanderer]

basically everybody would be running around with barrets quickscoping around? No thanks

[Destiny]

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 21:47, said:

Destiny, on 27 May 2011, 15:37, said:

Maybe they should do damage based on the caliber of the guns? So all those 5.56 will have near the same damage, and 7.62 will have a lot more but blabblah and .50BMG OHKOs everyone anywhere

What you describe is a factor of realism buggery and therefore useless. Realism should NEVER come at the cost of the balance and therefore fun of a game.

So, if realism doesn't work and ARs by the devs have stupidly high DPshot, what do you want? Fan-suggested damage?

Wanderer, on 27 May 2011, 21:47, said:

basically everybody would be running around with barrets quickscoping around? No thanks

Pretty sure quickscoping with a sniper scope isn't possible, at least my PSG1 in BO can't.

[Camille]

sniper rifles in BO have some kind of quickscope protection. all other COds before BO don't.

[Destiny]

Well that's one thing CoD did right, yeah? Shame it isn't in the previous CoDs.

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 27 May 2011, 15:49, said:

So, if realism doesn't work and ARs by the devs have stupidly high DPshot, what do you want? Fan-suggested damage?

No, damage that would make the weapon balanced . Is that a particularly strange solution?

Wanderer, on 27 May 2011, 21:47, said:

Quote

basically everybody would be running around with barrets quickscoping around? No thanks

Pretty sure quickscoping with a sniper scope isn't possible, at least my PSG1 in BO can't.

Well actually you still can if you use the variable zoom scope because they forgot to implement the anti-QS measures in it.

Destiny, on 27 May 2011, 16:23, said:

Well that's one thing CoD did right, yeah? Shame it isn't in the previous CoDs.

Well no actually. The things Treyarch did in BO to prevent quickscoping actually encourages quickscoping over hardscoping because it hampers hardscoping more than quickscoping. And it makes sniper rifles in general worthless. So actually it's GOOD that it wasn't in previous CoDs.

[Wanderer]

I don't have any experience about BO, I was comparing it to MW2 that I have alot of experience with and that is made by IW too. There's usually difference with how treyarch and IW do things, so I wouldn't be surprised if QS is back in MW3. I hope not

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 15:47, said:

Destiny, on 27 May 2011, 15:37, said:

Maybe they should do damage based on the caliber of the guns? So all those 5.56 will have near the same damage, and 7.62 will have a lot more but blabblah and .50BMG OHKOs everyone anywhere

What you describe is a factor of realism buggery and therefore useless. Realism should NEVER come at the cost of the balance and therefore fun of a game.

Err.. If you do damage by caliber, what would be different to the current system then.

5.56 --> 30-20 dmg
7.62 --> 40-30 dmg

Some weapon damages would switch around, but it would basically be the same.

Balance > Realism, but still, seeing a 7.62 weapon like the SCAR-H fired in full-auto with no noteable recoil is just stupid.

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns, and the other aren't that great either. (ACOG sucks though)
I'm looking forward to dual-optics. Finally scopes might be (just a bit) usable.

[Chyros]

Wanderer, on 27 May 2011, 17:12, said:

I don't have any experience about BO, I was comparing it to MW2 that I have alot of experience with and that is made by IW too. There's usually difference with how treyarch and IW do things, so I wouldn't be surprised if QS is back in MW3. I hope not

Meh, even in MW2 quickscoping is useless and people who do it get almost no kills generally speaking. Enemies are welcome to quickscope me, that way I know for sure that I will crush them easily.

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 17:52, said:

Err.. If you do damage by caliber, what would be different to the current system then.

5.56 --> 30-20 dmg
7.62 --> 40-30 dmg

Some weapon damages would switch around, but it would basically be the same.

Just because the M4 does 30-20 and the AK-47 does 40-30 doesn't mean the rest is anywhere near it . Besides, the calibres are also no indication for how long the weapon's range min/max range is in the game.

Quote

Balance > Realism, but still, seeing a 7.62 weapon like the SCAR-H fired in full-auto with no noteable recoil is just stupid.

I'd agrue that's not chiefly stupid because it's unrealistic, but because it's unbalanced.

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

[General]

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 11:03, said:

I mean seriously, who uses red dots and holos for anything but challenges anyway?

Holo(or Red Dot)+Aug Hbar: Win. But no to any kind of scopes, what is the logic of making scopes do more recoil anyway, scopes meant to be used for precision, I can understand the recoil on heavy machine guns but why the heck for small guns and snipers

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 27 May 2011 - 17:03.

[Stalker]

Quote

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

And you know every experienced player?

Well having a better view on the target (by whatever percentage) is a statistical benefit to me.

Quote

Just because the M4 does 30-20 and the AK-47 does 40-30 doesn't mean the rest is anywhere near it tounge.gif . Besides, the calibres are also no indication for how long the weapon's range min/max range is in the game.

What I meant was that the game already distinguishes between 2 'virtual calibers' (40-30, 30-20) so, having caliber based damage wouldn't significantly change anything.

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

Quote

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

And you know every experienced player?

No, but if you look at any pro game you'll notice they never use a red dot or holo that isn't glitched. Besides, it's easy to reason why; if you rely on a holo or red dot you can't really be experienced by definition, because if you did you wouldn't be above average would you?

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

What I meant was that the game already distinguishes between 2 'virtual calibers' (40-30, 30-20) so, having caliber based damage wouldn't significantly change anything.

What about 40-20, 40-40, 30-30, 50-40, 55-45, etc. etc. etc.

[Stalker]

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 21:00, said:

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

Quote

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

And you know every experienced player?

No, but if you look at any pro game you'll notice they never use a red dot or holo that isn't glitched. Besides, it's easy to reason why; if you rely on a holo or red dot you can't really be experienced by definition, because if you did you wouldn't be above average would you?

Since having a different opinion usually ends in chaos, I'll just stop here...

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 21:00, said:

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

What I meant was that the game already distinguishes between 2 'virtual calibers' (40-30, 30-20) so, having caliber based damage wouldn't significantly change anything.

What about 40-20, 40-40, 30-30, 50-40, 55-45, etc. etc. etc.

But those aren't assault rifles (the FAL doesn't count)

[Wanderer]

The FAL is considered a assault rifle in game. It shoots the 7.62, so why isn't it a AR?

[Chyros]

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 21:49, said:

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 21:00, said:

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

Quote

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

And you know every experienced player?

No, but if you look at any pro game you'll notice they never use a red dot or holo that isn't glitched. Besides, it's easy to reason why; if you rely on a holo or red dot you can't really be experienced by definition, because if you did you wouldn't be above average would you?

Since having a different opinion usually ends in chaos, I'll just stop here...

Well I'm not trying to be rude or anything but think of it like this. If you didn't need a holo or RDS to do well, you could stick on something like a suppressor, FMJ or extended mags or something. That would give you an edge over players who can't use the weapon without a holo or RDS, indicating you're above average.

[Destiny]

Chyros, on 28 May 2011, 4:23, said:

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 21:49, said:

Chyros, on 27 May 2011, 21:00, said:

Stalker, on 27 May 2011, 20:49, said:

Quote

Quote

Also whats wrong with optics? I'm doing noteably better when using red-dots or holosights with most guns

I didn't say they suck, I just said that they don't provide a real statistical benefit and as such experienced players never use them, hence why I don't think dual optics would cause any balance issues.

And you know every experienced player?

No, but if you look at any pro game you'll notice they never use a red dot or holo that isn't glitched. Besides, it's easy to reason why; if you rely on a holo or red dot you can't really be experienced by definition, because if you did you wouldn't be above average would you?

Since having a different opinion usually ends in chaos, I'll just stop here...

Well I'm not trying to be rude or anything but think of it like this. If you didn't need a holo or RDS to do well, you could stick on something like a suppressor, FMJ or extended mags or something. That would give you an edge over players who can't use the weapon without a holo or RDS, indicating you're above average.

I have suppressor and extended mags on my FAMAS FELIN, yet I'm a craptastic player. There

[Camille]

ex mags + famas = DOES NOT COMPUTE

[Chyros]

Camille, on 28 May 2011, 12:55, said:

ex mags + famas = DOES NOT COMPUTE

Indeed .

I'm quite interested to see what they'll come up with in terms of attachments in MW3, really. They've expanded the attachment system enormously the last installment, and it would actually be quite awesome if they could make even more out of it.

One particularly interesting thing would be if they made Bling a tier 1 OR a tier 2 perk. Or maybe even both for ultimate blinging . Having it in tier 1 makes Bling more attractive but having it in tier 2 makes it possible to have both scav and bling on on the same weapon - something I think you should have an option to do. It would be immensely cool if you could have three attachments if you chose both of them, too . Of course all this is assuming they don't throw the perk tiers around - something they tried in BO and failed, but that was Treyarch - I'm not sure if I would like that.

Any opinions on if Stopping Power should be in or not?

Edited by Chyros, 28 May 2011 - 11:32.

[deltaepsilon]

Probably a yes to that. Why break a winning formula

[Destiny]

If we go by your theory Chyros, that a player who is above average would not need assistance in killing people with his guns, i.e. no RDS/ACOG/blahblah, then that above average player certainly wouldn't need damage boost to assist in killing someone. Flak Jacket has to get in no matter what, because you know






What's wrong with my FAMAS FELIN with extended mags? I do need it when I fire from the hip or to suppress some dude since I have bad ping, aim, reflexes and twitching and should not be playing CoD at all.

[Wanderer]

If it's in, it's just gonna be a mandatory perk to use... If you don't you just gimp yourself -.- that's the bad thing about stopping power.

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 28 May 2011, 13:43, said:

If we go by your theory Chyros, that a player who is above average would not need assistance in killing people with his guns, i.e. no RDS/ACOG/blahblah, then that above average player certainly wouldn't need damage boost to assist in killing someone. Flak Jacket has to get in no matter what, because you know

You twisting my words of course . What I mean is that if you're skilled enough to not need a particular attachment that is only visual, then you have room for an attachment that DOES provide a tangible benefit. Overall, a guy who needs a RDS and uses a weapon X with RDS all the time will lose out to a guy who doesn't need an RDS to do just as well and who uses weapon X with suppressor/FMJ/xmags/grip etc.

Quote

What's wrong with my FAMAS FELIN with extended mags? I do need it when I fire from the hip or to suppress some dude since I have bad ping, aim, reflexes and twitching and should not be playing CoD at all.

You shouldn't be firing from the hip, it means you take a chance of hitting while you could've made sure you hit them if you went ADS .

Wanderer, on 28 May 2011, 13:43, said:

If it's in, it's just gonna be a mandatory perk to use... If you don't you just gimp yourself -.- that's the bad thing about stopping power.

Well it depends on how they make it of course. If they make it give you a 40% damage boost like now and throw in 40-30 classes, yeah you'd gimp yourself. If they made it 10% and made it so that it would only ever take one less shot EITHER up close or at range instead of both I think it would be much better balanced against the other perks.

[Destiny]

I don't ADS sometimes for god knows why, usually because it's chasing someone or when they pop up too suddenly, or I'm stoned or something.

Stopping power for high ROF rifles is kinda pointless, I believe. Because they'd be dead no matter what perk you have

[Stalker]

Destiny, on 28 May 2011, 14:08, said:

I don't ADS sometimes for god knows why, usually because it's chasing someone or when they pop up too suddenly, or I'm stoned or something.

Stopping power for high ROF rifles is kinda pointless, I believe. Because they'd be dead no matter what perk you have

nope..

It means one shot less to kill, it's good on any weapon (except the UMP).

IMHO I liked BO's perk setup. It was one of the few things that I thought was better than in MW2.
In BO my 5 classes used ~12 of 15 perks, in MW2 I used about 6.

The lack of stopping power ... meh. On one hand I liked having an additional perk slot, on the other hand I missed the extra damage.
I'd say get rid of stopping power but increase overall damage. Probably higher headshot multiplicators to enforce better aiming. (...and aimbots -.-)

[Camille]

oh yes, absolutely get rid of Stopping power. there's IMHO no better way to balance the game further.