|
Post by lackingdamage on Jul 3, 2014 13:38:16 GMT -5
Recently decided to play Call of duty ghosts and my frustration with the game is alive. My issue with call of duty at it core can be summed up in the following points.
Map design Gamemodes Metagame Counterplay and Killstreaks Art style and design
Map design my main issue is how the devs went with a one size fit all for all gamemodes and spawn points. Does not work, you need to build your maps for your gamemodes. I would love to see FFA is having its own versions for every map over one size fit all. My reason FFA is all about the luck of the draw on spawns you need to control the spawns or it becomes a random mess.
Right now map design on many gamemodes lack any sort of real flow and appear to be well random as to what direction people are coming from. Feel this why most tDm games last 10mins or more. The real funny thing about this is the game still uses 3 lanes of traffic so only 3 ways but feels like 50 ways. Are the lanes longer on this game? Not sure if they are longer compared to past games. Not sure if this due to the lack of forced power points or the fact the game has so many locations to die from.
Gamemode This feeds from the map design, many gamemodes are quite simply unplayable due to how the maps are designed. Gamemodes quite simply don’t flow right or the spawns are terrible. Not a massive fan of removing gamemodes but if makes the overall game better so be it. I would love to see the game updated with new gamemodes per week and having 4 or so core gamemodes.
Metagame for Call of duty is quite simply one size fits all and not much creative classes as a result. Part of me wants to blame this on the class system which forces you to pick a certain number of classes and part of me wants to blame on the design.
Counter play and killstreaks “KILLSTREAKS SHOULD BE STRONGER” “NO WEAKER” For me it obvious that the devs need to look down the line of counter play to fix this point over hard counters fixed in the perk system. Guy is using the AC130 sure easy counter don’t move you don’t show up with a red box no need for a perk. AC130 can be made to go higher or lower depends on if somebody is at risk of killing you with some AA or not. Point is killstreaks could be made more fun if the game had an active counter play system forcing people to over reach with their killstreaks.
Art style and design I don’t have much to say here apart from make it obvious who is a rock and a somebody with a gun. Don’t forget the real world has color apart from grey. Some sacred cows need to be looked at for the series to move forward. Ghosts and Call of duty can still be fun but frustration follows first with death. Curious what you think the core problem is with the series, one thing is for sure we still love it.
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Jul 3, 2014 14:50:30 GMT -5
I prefer weaker killstreaks. Anything that rewards campy/gimmicky/spawn-trappy tactics is a no-go from me.
Treyarch does color scheme well. IW has to make sure everything is war-torn and muddy.
I'm all for changing maps depending on gamemode, like how BO1 handled wager matches. CTF can have certain areas blocked and spawns that are pushed back a bit so it's harder for enemies to spawntrap and so it's less square. Dom/GW can have the whole map opened up a bit. S&D can have weird winding maps with random areas (like typical camp spots) blocked off.
FFA can have certain areas that cannot be accessed that can be used as spawning points. They can have headglitch barriers in case someone tries to spawn trap them, but they'll be too far from the normal map that they won't serve as a good camp spot (think of the jungle spawn in BO2's Drone)
Of course they won't implement any of these, but yeah. That'd be nice.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 3, 2014 15:11:43 GMT -5
Regarding map design, there are some problems with what you're suggesting. First, it means that players switching game-modes have to learn new maps, which deters them from doing so, and makes the game more difficult for anyone to pick up. Second, it requires a lot more work, and it's not exactly easy to put out the ~15 core maps and 16 DLC maps. Have you ever played TDM on BF3? All they talk about in their marketing is the engine and how great and realistic the graphics are, and yet if you play TDM, the maps are complete ass. The most popular maps are Canals, which is just a bunch of shipping containers on asphalt, and Operation Metro, which is just a bunch of empty, duplicated apartments whose architecture doesn't even make sense. The other maps are no better, and completely lack detail.
Regarding counter play, they use hard counters, and there are more things to counter than you can possibly counter with any given class. Randomness is a critical component to the gameplay. Being able to play a number of different ways is another critical component of the gameplay. Some of those being super annoying is a given, and so hard counters allow you to put a stop to anyone in the lobby you want.
Art style - don't forget the real world has soldiers who would make it not obvious whether they are a rock or a gun. We've discussed this in other threads, the art style is a component of the realistic feel of COD.
|
|
|
Post by thegentleman on Jul 5, 2014 16:47:41 GMT -5
The core issue for me remains the killstreaks. Specifically the "streak" aspect of the game. I was going to type out some bullshit theorycrafting explaining how this could work, but I suppose ideas like this are like assholes, as the saying goes.
For me, the killstreak system amplifies the reality that everyone is going to be on unequal footing, connection wise. It rewards players disproportionately who are already doing spectacularly well, and punishes players who are already getting shit on. It gives players on the losing end no incentive to tough out a battle in which they're already disadvantaged. It heavily encourages players to "lobby shop."
I'm convinced that the streak system encourages players to camp in shadowy corners, because this is the easiest way to ensure that you'll win a gunfight. The ghille suit guy with an M27 sitting in the back of Prison Break with incog on is only resorting to that playstyle because he wants "goodies." As such, the playstyles that people hate have emerged because they are rewarded by the developers.
From the standpoint of good players, the really, really good "goodies" are carrots on a stick. Theoretically, you can say that getting an AC130 is a risk/reward proposition, and players shouldn't expect to get it every game. At least for me, that's something I understand but something I don't feel in the game itself. What I know is that when I'm one or two away from something really good and I die, especially when I see a killcam that has ZERO correlation to what I experienced in my game state, or by some random exploding barrel, it feels like I was robbed of something I should have earned. I feel frustration.
I like killstreaks, for the record. This is why when people say, "Go play battlefield or something, if you take issue with the killstreaks" this is an argument that's a non-starter. Killstreaks provide depth and variety to a competitive environment that's normally static. Black Ops II is a great example of how the combination of killstreaks like the Guardian and useful sentry guns provided clear tactical advantages but could also be taken out by anyone with half a brain. It provided a new element to deal with that wasn't something you encountered all the time. Streaks like the dragonfly and AGR broke up the monotony of shooting people all the time with a kind of mini-game, as did the recon drone from MW3.
I like these experiences. I just object to the way that they're allocated, especially given what the connective environment is. The core issue with the gameplay to me is that when you die even once, your sole reason for playing the game (i.e., getting a Juggernaut) might be taken away from you. Make me work for the Juggernaut, fine, but I'll get mad if I feel like it's snatched away JUST when it seems like it's within grasp, and especially so if the reason for my death feels arbitrary. I don't mind dying, but I want to play with the goddamn toys that the game tells me are part of the experience.
Others have disagreed, but I'll be surprised if Advanced Warfare continues its current system, especially given Black Ops II's trend of making killstreaks more democratic, objective / score-based, and in light of how Ghosts was (fairly) criticized for the community for taking a step backward.
|
|
fpsdredd
True Bro
Always working on the FPS metagame
Posts: 495
|
Post by fpsdredd on Jul 6, 2014 7:54:20 GMT -5
With ghosts we saw bigger maps with fewer definable "routes" to take - feels more like battlefield to me where you can't predict (as easily) where people will be. This change necessitated increased recoil weapons and weapons being viable mainly in their niche range (MW3 had guns such as the L86 LSW that were usable at more ranges because they suffered less statistical penalties when operating outside their niche). Ghosts to me was the 3rd flavor of CoD that they are introducing and while not my favorite, it does its overall job well. It’ll take some time but I think there will be a big enough user base that enjoys it.
My biggest gripe with the series overall is that based on the last 2 CoDs (blops2 and ghosts), it looks like there is a trend towards eliminating the overall agility of the characters. By agility I mean how fluid the characters can be during combat and their ability to be effective while being highly mobile.
In Blops2 there was a major movement penalty while dropshotting (your look speed is greatly decreased if it breaches the narrow cone where you were looking prior to going prone; cone size was decreased substantially as well), no killstreak setup that rewards players who sacrifice K/D for higher SPM and huge penalties for the sniper who chooses to be mobile.
In ghosts I saw a noticeably larger time to go to prone from standing. It’s even slower when you compare how long it takes on your screen and how long the character actually does it! The specialist streak now favors a slower, less aggressive playstyle. Its requirements increased overall by adding a variable required amount of kills. Instead of a static 2 K/D requirement with a strong 1 perk benefit, we now have a variable 2 – 6 K/D requirement where we now have to pay extra to get those same benefits! Short sighted and heavy handed I think (that opinion is taking into account the higher cost of support / assault in ghosts. I don’t think specialist is balanced with those two).
And for both games it feels like the characters are getting fatter and fatter and can’t move around as quickly. My best analogy is comparing how a fit young adult gets up off the ground compared with how an older, overweight person does. The young adult stands effortlessly and quickly while the older, overweight person will clumsily use both arms bracing their weight on their knee to help push themselves up. That’s what Call of Duty feels like to me nowadays. Call of duty is getting fat.
|
|
|
Post by xFEARtheSHIELDx on Jul 7, 2014 0:59:53 GMT -5
What if a "streak" was redefined?
Assault is hated because it creates tactical loitering, support is hated because it's "free shit" (mw3), but it was cool because it provided a way to still "get stuff" while maybe making people a bit less afraid to jump on a flag.
BO2 took this a step further and gave even more value to playing objectives, but also took a step back by still making you "streak" (stay alive).
Maybe the answer is to make rewards based on scoring a number of points within a certain time period, irregardless of death. A kill, flag cap or even an equip destruction starts a timer... you have a certain amount of time to score more points, however possible. The more points you score for a given action, the more time you have to score again. This would leave players trying to help the team in any way possible.
It seems to me that such an approach would make for an infinitely more enjoyable metagame, one where tactical loitering is discouraged and beasting is rewarded, as well as risky objective play. This combined with taking a player's KDR stat ONLY from TDM, FFA, and SnD, would be a huge leap forward for the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 7, 2014 1:21:04 GMT -5
The only way to get rid of camping is to not make it a viable strategy. Which cannot happen for the simple fact it is always a viable strategy. Barebones in BO1 was a great example. No perks, No killstreaks, only guns. People still do it because it is a viable strategy. Whether you have a MW2 style killstreaks, BO1 style killstreaks, MW3 style killstreaks or BO2 style killstreaks people will always camp.
|
|
|
Post by xFEARtheSHIELDx on Jul 7, 2014 3:12:13 GMT -5
I didn't imply it'd be the end of tactical loitering... but it'd sure be nice if it wasn't promoted/rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 7, 2014 8:47:25 GMT -5
Then it's an issue of cost to obtain versus lethality of killstreaks. I mean the only reason a killstreak would promote camping is by being worth it. MW2 and BO1&2 are perfect examples of high end killstreaks being worth camping for. You had Class of Duke Nuke'em High which would end the game and other high powered killstreaks that could be obtained through weaker killstreaks. And then BO had The Hellion/Electric Eye which was practically a wall hack and other powerful killstreaks.
That's why personally I loved W@W killstreaks. 3/5/7 like CoD4 but without a really hard to kill, MVP targeting helicopter.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 7, 2014 9:57:25 GMT -5
tactical loitering for killstreaks is not a viable strategy against anyone determined not to let you do so. I get killed by someone obviously tactical loitering, I switch to that class, I drop up to 4 extraordinarily professional pipes in their general direction. At the end of the game I listen to them complain about how I'm garbage before they back out.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 13:51:09 GMT -5
Here's my take.
The core problem imho, is the game & community has gotten so big that the game developers have lost their sights on the roots of this game. WHY we have fun with this. From the standpoint that any prior 'feel-good game play feelings of CoD, has been long buried under ten tons of accumulated sequel upon sequel garbage gameplay additions trying to appease the above large/casual player base. Garbage gameplay being how every game mode now just being a "Work the KD ratio" game mode. With each game just breaking down into most everyone playing that way, and then quitting/trash talking into "I did better, more Kills" over the next guy.
Before someone disagrees with me, ask yourself this. When the last time you played a solo CoD objective game (KC, Dom, etc..) where just twelve people joined a lobby and had a fun time playing that game mode. Where the game then ended, all twelve people finished the game, you didn't care what your 'stats' where, didn't even look at them, and then the whole lobby went off into a chorus of laughs and 'good games' repeated over and over? Can anyone remember that? I don't. It's been years. When people look back fondly at their love of past CoD games, what is it that brings about that feel good nostalgia, typically it's the above feeling you long for, and most people don't even realize it.
Play and have fun in a game. And not worry if one's KD ratio dropped from 2.012 to 2.011. Not obsess if one's weekly SpM score dropped below the 500 spm barrier. Play the gosh darn golly gee whiz game for the fun gaming elements, and not be raging mad because lag caused me to lose my potential 'nuke' emblem. Or bragging rights for my 20th or whatever number of nukes I felt I deserved.
When 'thegentleman' raised some points before in his post, he touched upon the killstreak issue. I think his points are very good with a lot of interesting takes on the game as a whole. But I think his points fall under the wider problem that I describe above. All the things I mention above, all the things thegentlemen brings up with killstreaks, are items that are very prone to happening in any twitch based, fast TTK game like CoD. But over the years, CoD hasn't done enough to release the pressure, but instead has (as a solution), just piled more and more crap-azz fixes that don't address the core root problem. You play this game long enough, the core base, you can't help but get sucked into this never ending dog-chasing-tail root canal process of fussing over more and more trivial dumb things (KD, WL, SpM, #Nukes, etc..)
Maybe the above trivial stats helped build CoD's popularity? Perhaps. It certainly helped fuel YouTube CoD growth. Maybe the above did help or work for a number of years. But you can't say that anymore. The game peaked in popularity with MW3. BO2 lost some fans. And in case some people wanted to call that a fluke, CoD Ghosts most definitely put the nail in the coffin. The game is dying. Not dying in a sense that it will disappear. But dying from the perspective that more people are leaving the game than coming in. And yes, we all know that even if CoD loses half of it's player base next week, it will still be the most played game. We get that. But that's not a testament to the strength of the game, but only to the massive amount of a lead it had over ALL over games.
But let's take CoD Ghosts as an example. It tried to address specific problems with BO2 that people complained about. These being OP killstreaks, 3-lane tight maps, and to fast/hectic gameplay. The developers said this. They were quite open about it. They said they wanted to go back to the roots of MW1. That's on the record. But did they do that? No. Not really. They just repeated the same mistakes Treyarch did, but did them on the flip side. They made a game that has relatively weak killstreaks, has now to much hiding, to big of maps, to slow'ish game play at times, and tons of incentives to not move (lean kills, IED's, weaker radar). Again, in a fast TTK game, this sucks. You are punished if you try to force/speed up the action, by lean-killing, corning hiding idiots. Boom. Dead. CoD Ghosts did nothing to address any of the core issues I mentioned.
Next up?
Sadly, I don't think the developers of CoD-AW understand the above issue I raise. I think they are going to fall victim to the same idiocy prior developers have made. That all that is needed is some new perk, gimmick (pick10) or new movement mechanism (slide/lean kill) and all will be fine with the series again. This is what I am guessing is going to happen. CoD-AW is already tweeting and bragging about revolutionary changes, like the exo-skeleton suit, but it's mostly just 2015's version of 2014's lean/slide kill addition. New cooler graphics (wow!!!!) and new movement mechanisms (OMG!!!!). This may baffle old timers or appease young dumb people, but if you have spent even ten minutes playing TitanFall, you are going to yawn and go 'so what'. Btw, how about new/better graphics? How is that going to help in a game where the trend is fast TTK's and people hiding? Better graphics just means easier time hiding.
So think about all of that. Have any of you heard ANY mention from the new developers about rethinking WHY we play CoD? Big ticket items on getting the game to play like a game again? No. November 2014 is going to be coming up soon and it will be right back to the same old, same old "CHECK OUT MY KD, I AM A BEAST" garabage gameplay, where an entire player base just fakes/boosts/sandbags game modes into faking how skilled they are, in case any friends (or opponents) possibly 'check out' their stats. Be that, just with a shiny new coat (an exoskeleton coat at that). That's depressing.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 14:38:26 GMT -5
I'll add this, as I think I have a good touch on things from my perspective. The perspective of running a clan that has had probably 300 people come in through it's doors this year as it has tried to compete in ClanWars, as well as talking/emailing on a regular basis with a number of other top clans in the CoD universe, who are doing the same thing. Toss in a bunch of conversations with the people at Beachhead, who I have also gotten to know on a very casual basis. I've talked to A LOT of people. Heard a lot of griping.
My thoughts?
The game is broken now. It really is. Clan Wars has really exposed a lot of this. And before someone says "Clan Wars" is just a tiny part of the game, I would reply back that I disagree. ClanWars is pretty much the ONLY thing keeping CoD from being irrelevant right now. I'm seeing nightly numbers on the Xbox 360 (during non-clanwar periods) that are as low as 20,000. That is unthinkable. A few years ago, it was common place to see 175,000 to 200,000 even during the summer doldrums. And yes, some of the above is partly due to the split console thing, but I have CoD Ghosts on the XB1. Total up both numbers, they are still waaaaaaaaaaaay below what used to be. People have left this game. The people at BeachHead know this too. I have had two decently long conversations with FelixGallo, read his stuff. They are trying to fix what can't be fixed with ClanWars.
ClanWars has been a mixed blessing. On one hand, it has honestly been the best thing that I have ever seen added to the CoD game. It truly is one of the most revolutionary changes ever added to CoD. Some of us have really enjoyed it. Taking a group of people and getting to the point of being ranked in the top 50, out of like 120,000 clans in the entire world has been a really cool experience, as well as getting to know a lot of the other people in the top clans. It's been a blast. But there is also this other HUGE issue. The problem? The player base can't handle it. The player base isn't ready for it, because Clan Wars requires you to be flexible in playing (game modes, who you play with) and care about winning. People are getting exposed left and right. And this ties into my earlier post. I've seen it rip our clan up to some degree. We had a dozen or so people leave earlier this year (and countless others who faded off), leaving due to the root problem being playing under Clan War conditions. People can't handle that. It exposes to some degree this false/fake skill image people have of themselves, and it hurts. It's not fun. An image that was puffed up from years of grouped up six party playing, beating on random schmoes, as well as what I refer to before as accumulated garbage gameplay. And put people in a competitive setting where you have six people, playing six OTHER people who are trying to win too (which is very common during Clan Wars,getting this all night long)....people crack. (*edit - I would like to put out a shout out/thanks to many people in our clan, who have NOT cracked, who have hung in there and loyally kept at it and keeping up. Not everyone has been like this!)
"what's going on, I am a great player, my KD ratio is 2.35!!! Something isn't right!!! Fvck this shit, I am done!!!" (insert a soon to follow fight about something)....
....this is what I and MANY other clans are seeing in great abundance. And we are seeing this because CoD has been allowed to create this illusionary fake skill level on huge swaths of the player base. They lose a few games, have a few bad KD games, they are raging mad. And it's silly. They aren't playing any worse. They are just not playing six other random schmoes. And solo players, ...you have no say so in this. You have been routinely dashing/quitting/lobby shopping out of games for years. Your skill is just as faked.
Clan Wars has exposed this all. I've even seen a few long time friends just go off the radar, quit the clan, basically because they couldn't deal with the above. And their gameplay? It was sucking azz loooonng before they left. Just play with a protected party, only play schmoes, and just sit back sandbagging. Let the 'other guys' get the flags/tags, and work that mother-fuvcking KD ratio. Yeah, real good playing there.
So yeah, this stuff all got exposed during clan wars. All the above 'not doing well' is all basically code for "MY KD RATIO IS GOING TO TAKE A HIT". That is essentially the core problem of my prior post. In a stat based game like CoD that has done NOTHING to ease up on stat pressures, nearly all (decent) players can't come to grips with stat drop. Take myself. I've seen it myself. My KD dropped from around 2.15 all the down to it's current 1.75. At first it wasn't fun. I briefly hated it. But I ended up saying 'fvck it' and just moved on. You can't worry about it when playing with different people, different game modes, playing to win fast. And the obsession over KD is the root of the problem I explained in my above post. How the developers keep adding more and more fluff onto the game, without really addressing some lingering issues that are boiling right under the surface.
At the end of the day, what good is a game where almost everyone is faking how well they do?
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 7, 2014 15:11:55 GMT -5
Here's my take. The core problem imho, is the game & community has gotten so big that the game developers have lost their sights on the roots of this game. WHY we have fun with this. From the standpoint that any prior 'feel-good game play feelings of CoD, has been long buried under ten tons of accumulated sequel upon sequel garbage gameplay additions trying to appease the above large/casual player base. Garbage gameplay being how every game mode now just being a "Work the KD ratio" game mode. With each game just breaking down into most everyone playing that way, and then quitting/trash talking into "I did better, more Kills" over the next guy. Before someone disagrees with me, ask yourself this. When the last time you played a solo CoD objective game (KC, Dom, etc..) where just twelve people joined a lobby and had a fun time playing that game mode. Where the game then ended, all twelve people finished the game, you didn't care what your 'stats' where, didn't even look at them, and then the whole lobby went off into a chorus of laughs and 'good games' repeated over and over? Can anyone remember that? I don't. It's been years. When people look back fondly at their love of past CoD games, what is it that brings about that feel good nostalgia, typically it's the above feeling you long for, and most people don't even realize it. Play and have fun in a game. And not worry if one's KD ratio dropped from 2.012 to 2.011. Not obsess if one's weekly SpM score dropped below the 500 spm barrier. Play the gosh darn golly gee whiz game for the fun gaming elements, and not be raging mad because lag caused me to lose my potential 'nuke' emblem. Or bragging rights for my 20th or whatever number of nukes I felt I deserved. When 'thegentleman' raised some points before in his post, he touched upon the killstreak issue. I think his points are very good with a lot of interesting takes on the game as a whole. But I think his points fall under the wider problem that I describe above. All the things I mention above, all the things thegentlemen brings up with killstreaks, are items that are very prone to happening in any twitch based, fast TTK game like CoD. But over the years, CoD hasn't done enough to release the pressure, but instead has (as a solution), just piled more and more crap-azz fixes that don't address the core root problem. You play this game long enough, the core base, you can't help but get sucked into this never ending dog-chasing-tail root canal process of fussing over more and more trivial dumb things (KD, WL, SpM, #Nukes, etc..) Maybe the above trivial stats helped build CoD's popularity? Perhaps. It certainly helped fuel YouTube CoD growth. Maybe the above did help or work for a number of years. But you can't say that anymore. The game peaked in popularity with MW3. BO2 lost some fans. And in case some people wanted to call that a fluke, CoD Ghosts most definitely put the nail in the coffin. The game is dying. Not dying in a sense that it will disappear. But dying from the perspective that more people are leaving the game than coming in. And yes, we all know that even if CoD loses half of it's player base next week, it will still be the most played game. We get that. But that's not a testament to the strength of the game, but only to the massive amount of a lead it had over ALL over games. But let's take CoD Ghosts as an example. It tried to address specific problems with BO2 that people complained about. These being OP killstreaks, 3-lane tight maps, and to fast/hectic gameplay. The developers said this. They were quite open about it. They said they wanted to go back to the roots of MW1. That's on the record. But did they do that? No. Not really. They just repeated the same mistakes Treyarch did, but did them on the flip side. They made a game that has relatively weak killstreaks, has now to much hiding, to big of maps, to slow'ish game play at times, and tons of incentives to not move (lean kills, IED's, weaker radar). Again, in a fast TTK game, this sucks. You are punished if you try to force/speed up the action, by lean-killing, corning hiding idiots. Boom. Dead. CoD Ghosts did nothing to address any of the core issues I mentioned. Next up? Sadly, I don't think the developers of CoD-AW understand the above issue I raise. I think they are going to fall victim to the same idiocy prior developers have made. That all that is needed is some new perk, gimmick (pick10) or new movement mechanism (slide/lean kill) and all will be fine with the series again. This is what I am guessing is going to happen. CoD-AW is already tweeting and bragging about revolutionary changes, like the exo-skeleton suit, but it's mostly just 2015's version of 2014's lean/slide kill addition. New cooler graphics (wow!!!!) and new movement mechanisms (OMG!!!!). This may baffle old timers or appease young dumb people, but if you have spent even ten minutes playing TitanFall, you are going to yawn and go 'so what'. Btw, how about new/better graphics? How is that going to help in a game where the trend is fast TTK's and people hiding? Better graphics just means easier time hiding. So think about all of that. Have any of you heard ANY mention from the new developers about rethinking WHY we play CoD? Big ticket items on getting the game to play like a game again? No. November 2014 is going to be coming up soon and it will be right back to the same old, same old "CHECK OUT MY KD, I AM A BEAST" garabage gameplay, where an entire player base just fakes/boosts/sandbags game modes into faking how skilled they are, in case any friends (or opponents) possibly 'check out' their stats. Be that, just with a shiny new coat (an exoskeleton coat at that). That's depressing. I'm not quite sure what you're saying has changed, aside from more robust tracking of statistics. Other games have robust tracking of statistics as well, are those games plagued by issues caused by robust tracking of stats? How have the developers lost sight of the roots of the game? As for what actually differentiates CoD multiplayer and makes people play, I see three primary factors: - Randomness - Small numbers of players, random matchmaking, killstreaks, quick deaths, short games, and (in the past) an absence of dedicated servers leads to a much larger variance in the outcome of matches. I can hop on a 500 ticket Battlefield TDM server and have a pretty good estimation of what my score is going to be, because there is much more consistency because there is much less randomness. My score in a game of CoD is much less predictable, and has a much larger standard deviation in score.
- Individuality - You customize your character and loadout how you want, you play how you want. The most popular gamemodes do not rely heavily on coordination and cooperation. If you want to run around knifing, or snipe, or tube, or whatever, you can do so.
- Scalable Challenges - There are challenges of varying duration and difficulty. In addition to just winning the game, a player can be trying to complete a field order, obtain a killstreak, unlock a reticle, camo, patch, or other unlockable customization for their character. There are people trying to increase their K/D, there are also people trying to increase their W/L, there are people that only care about how many KEM Strikes they can get, and I know a bunch of people that only care about their ranking on the leaderboards. But the challenges scale, so as you improve you can go from trying to get 3-5-7 streaks to 10-12-15, or as you spend more time go from getting your favorite gun gold to getting all of the guns gold.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 7, 2014 15:24:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 15:29:47 GMT -5
What has changed? Why have the numbers dropped some dramatically since MW3?
The point I am trying to make is that nothing necessarily has to change. It's what hasn't changed. The developers have failed to realize what is going on right under their nose in the past few years. They have failed to see the forest, because the trees are blocking their view. One of those type of situations. They keep adding more and more 'stuff' onto the game, building upon the same foundation, adding layers and layers to make it jazzier, prettier, slower (or faster) and/or anything in between, without really understanding what was originally on the bottom. And while doing so, they are missing just how sick their player base is. That base is dying. And the developers are like a doctor thinking that feeding more cigarettes to a lung cancer patient is going to make things better.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 7, 2014 15:39:50 GMT -5
What if a "streak" was redefined? Assault is hated because it creates tactical loitering, support is hated because it's "free shit" (mw3), but it was cool because it provided a way to still "get stuff" while maybe making people a bit less afraid to jump on a flag. BO2 took this a step further and gave even more value to playing objectives, but also took a step back by still making you "streak" (stay alive). Maybe the answer is to make rewards based on scoring a number of points within a certain time period, irregardless of death. A kill, flag cap or even an equip destruction starts a timer... you have a certain amount of time to score more points, however possible. The more points you score for a given action, the more time you have to score again. This would leave players trying to help the team in any way possible. It seems to me that such an approach would make for an infinitely more enjoyable metagame, one where tactical loitering is discouraged and beasting is rewarded, as well as risky objective play. This combined with taking a player's KDR stat ONLY from TDM, FFA, and SnD, would be a huge leap forward for the franchise. BO2 also made streaks stack and cycle. Good way for players who can regularly get mid to high end streaks just spam the crap out of UAVs and everyone moans about UAV spam so the score for it is increased. I don't mind tactical loitering so much if it was done by heavy gunners and marksmen (including snipers) but I used to get games in MW3 where some bright spark with an AR hiding in a bush or some guy using the Remington R870 in BO2 corner tactical loitering. I mean if it means shotguns getting an improvement over SMGs (mobility boosts, better OHK range etc) then do it. That would be better than catering for scrubs who think everyone should run and gun so I end up being forced to move around the map sniping with a nerfed pistol as a secondary, slow swap times between rifle and pistol, and no launcher.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 7, 2014 15:42:05 GMT -5
Don’t forget the real world has color apart from grey. In the real world you don't control AC-130s and VTOL Warships with an iPad either.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 15:45:14 GMT -5
Don’t forget the real world has color apart from grey. In the real world you don't control AC-130s and VTOL Warships with an iPad either. You don't?
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 7, 2014 16:28:23 GMT -5
What has changed? Why have the numbers dropped some dramatically since MW3? The point I am trying to make is that nothing necessarily has to change. It's what hasn't changed. The developers have failed to realize what is going on right under their nose in the past few years. They have failed to see the forest, because the trees are blocking their view. One of those type of situations. They keep adding more and more 'stuff' onto the game, building upon the same foundation, adding layers and layers to make it jazzier, prettier, slower (or faster) and/or anything in between, without really understanding what was originally on the bottom. And while doing so, they are missing just how sick their player base is. That base is dying. And the developers are like a doctor thinking that feeding more cigarettes to a lung cancer patient is going to make things better. What's changed since MW3? Three new next generation consoles have been released since then. In addition, over that period, the majority of consumers have purchased a new mobile device, which is important because the mobile gaming market has increased significantly. The biggest gain in that market has been in the free to play space, which in many ways is similar to COD in terms of target demographics - skewing towards younger and lower-income. In short, the space has become not only more fractured, but also more competitive. That said, it's also quite likely that the numbers for the game are in decline naturally as it is an annual franchise with very few changes year to year, and regardless of what the developers do they are unable to add new users at a greater rate than users get tired of playing what is essentially the same game for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th time. You say the "developers have failed to realize what is going on right under their nose in the past few years." This is a game that is worked on by hundreds of people between the developer and Activision corporate. It has well over a billion dollars in annual revenue. These are smart people, trained in their craft, experienced at what they do, armed with plenty of data to inform their decisions. Rather than assuming that you have a better understanding of their product than they do, I recommend you start with the assumption that you don't and make a more concerted effort to understand why they make the decisions they do.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 21:19:27 GMT -5
I think you need to calm down.
This is a thread that is discussing the 'core issues', on a message board that is looking for people to share their thoughts and opinions. There's no need for you to come stomping onto my thoughts with what you replied with. It's my opinion that the developers don't see what's going on right under their noses. It's also my opinion that the people who make this game are not playing it a few times a week, every week all year after it comes out. They put in ridiculous hours for what is a year getting the game ready for the market. They aren't going to be playing it once it's out. They have moved on. What i have read, indicates that.
I also think you are stating the obvious that the game is in it's 4th, 5th, 7th plus generation. We all know that. It goes without saying that any franchise suffers from fatigue. But that's not a 'core problem' plaguing the game. As I already said above, the game has far, FAR less people playing on a weekly basis than what MW3 did two summers ago. Far more than what should be, if one was just going by sales. MW3 sold around 30 million units, this game around 20 million so far. Even taking into consideration 1/3 less buyers, a fractured console market, that still doesn't justify numbers that have dipped down to around 20k to 30k. Looking tonight, it's up a bit around 50k, but that's still low. Something is up there.
As i already said, even if 2/3rds of the people left this game tomorrow, CoD is still going to be the best selling franchise. But that's just a testament to what the game DID, how far in front of other competitors it was.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 7, 2014 21:27:55 GMT -5
This is a game that is worked on by hundreds of people between the developer and Activision corporate. It has well over a billion dollars in annual revenue. These are smart people, trained in their craft, experienced at what they do, armed with plenty of data to inform their decisions. Rather than assuming that you have a better understanding of their product than they do, I recommend you start with the assumption that you don't and make a more concerted effort to understand why they make the decisions they do. People are not infallible. Especially game designers or heads of studios. The gaming industry is filled with examples of many (what you call) experts who spent a ton of money, took games to the market, and flopped. And i am not sure what corporate world you live in, but just because a company made a 'billion dollars' before, doesn't guarantee that it will always make perfect decisions on everything in the future. Take THQ for example. A good studio, that made a number of well selling video games. Five or six years ago it was well over a billion dollar company that could be described as a serious player in the industry. A few years later, a few bad decisions later, they filed for bankruptcy and pretty much no longer exist. These were smart people 'trained in their craft', a lot of good it did them. Also ask yourself, what good did their "Billion" dollars do them in light of bad decisions? Well? I would recommend right back at you, that you don't assume past history always creates perfect decisions in the future.
|
|
|
Post by atheistadam on Jul 8, 2014 4:43:37 GMT -5
If the core issue is addressing why the player account has plummeted then it's simple to me; people have just gotten bored, their target audience is the casual gamer type and either they've gotten bored of it or have gotten bored of vidya. We still play CoD because despite it perhaps not being quite tailored to our "more refined tastes" we play for fun, and not just because "oh wow this is new and fun and everyone is doing it, but now the initial wowzers has worn off and I've realised that I actually don't like this or perhaps video games in general it's just for a while it was a new experience"
They need to change their target audience, make it a bit more arena shooter; make it less rock paper scissors, give the weapon and perks variety and not assured advantage in given scenarios, make the TTK a bit longer, reward accuracy, make players more mobile. basically tactical loitering must be made less successful, because it's that boring gameplay that has become more popular, the very gameplay that dilutes what otherwise could be a more varied and depth filled game.
Attract the players that play for the right reasons, fun.
Create the right environment and the population will grow exponentially.
But the main problem is still the people who play games and ruin it for everyone else, just look at Halo; not much has changed gameplay wise over the series, but yet player count and the general experience when playing online has, because the player demographic has changed.
Remember how fun Halo 3/2 was online? Well it's a different experience now.
Playing video games has become a serious and more cool thing now, the people who played for the right reasons made up the majority of the player demographic in the past.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 8, 2014 10:19:23 GMT -5
You haven't made clear a cohesive thought, iw5000. From what I can gather from your posts, you're saying that there is a problem in the game that the playerbase cares too much about their respective K/D ratios and not enough about winning/just having fun. You imply that the issues are due to the implementation of more detailed tracking of statistics, but did not answer when I asked why other titles with similarly robust tracking of statistics do not appear to have the same issues. I suppose that when you say that the developers have failed to notice what is going on, you mean that they do not notice the issue of players caring too much about their respective K/D ratios (a problem for which you have not suggested any solution). But you also say that "nothing necessarily has to change." So it's really not clear what you're trying to say the developers don't understand that you do, and what they should do that they haven't.
As for your THQ comparison, it's a bit silly. I looked at the list of THQ releases, and realized I've never played a THQ game. They went under because they had no large established revenue streams, and during a recession bet big on an accessory for the Wii and Homefront, which was a new IP with no differentiating features in an extremely saturated category. Activision's business model is fairly obvious - develop low risk, low development cost licensed titles (ex. Transformers, Spiderman, Cabela's) for constant revenue streams. Try to get talented teams to develop breakthrough new IP, then annualize it to generate as much revenue as possible before the franchise gets burned out. Sometimes they'll fail, like with Blur and Singularity, but sometimes they'll succeed, as with COD, Guitar Hero, or Skylanders. Once they have the successful IP, they're going to maximize the revenue by not making any significant changes that will mess up the title. They're not looking to take risks with their established IP. The acquisition of Blizzard provides them with more quality developers with established IP that generate consistent annual revenue, which mitigates some of the risk and allows them to continue to invest in developing new IP.
Activision's strategy for COD is pretty obvious. When they had reached the point of saturation in the FPS market, they looked to expand the potential market for the game with ad campaigns like "We're All Soldiers." They have now reached the point where they have once again reached the point of saturation and are looking to expand the market by focusing on China. COD is in its natural phase of decline, so they hope to continue to make money from it, while converting players who are tired of playing COD over to Destiny to have that be their next blockbuster IP. Their worst case scenario is that Destiny is a catastrophic failure, COD has a catastrophic decline, and another FPS unexpectedly grabs an enormous market share; if this were to happen, they could then consider transitioning COD to F2P based upon the results of what happens in China. Or they could even look to transition it to the mobile market, given the rate of advancement of mobile hardware the ability to run the game's engine off the phone hardware can't be too far off.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 8, 2014 10:26:58 GMT -5
If my thought doesn't sound cohesive, it could be because you didn't understand it? I never said that the issues are due to the implementation of detailed tracking of stats. Where did you get that? That seems to be your interpretation of what I said.
I thought one of my points was pretty simple. The developers are completely unaware of just how obsessed it's player base and consumed by one silly statistic showcased in their game. The developers have unknowingly let this KD (mainly this stat) pretty much run the entire game. A tail wagging the dog sort of thing. To the point that even if they add six new great game modes, all of them will just become glorified new versions of "KD BOOST GAME MODE". Even if they add five new features like slide/lean kill, the player base will just abuse them to obsess over the KD ratio. This is the part that I feel the developers are missing. So the problem here is the use of or abundance of stats, but HOW the player base uses these stats. Stats in and by themselves are just numbers. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. In most cases, they can add a ton of value to the game. My followup point to this, is that the player base's obsession with this one particular stat ultimately leads to the ongoing frustration and anger at the game, in wanting to leave it.
And 'why' THQ went under is a bit irrelevant. Every company that goes belly up ultimately has a reason why it happened, if you search around and look. The point here is that a company can go from being a seemingly safe billion dollar revenue giant to bankrupt just in a few short years. And it matters not what money or popular titles they did before. Consumer tastes can shift quick.
Last point. I am fairly sure that back in 2008/2009, THQ's long term strategy looked pretty sound too. Everything looks obvious in the rear view mirror.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 8, 2014 11:27:01 GMT -5
I inferred it from when you said "You play this game long enough, the core base, you can't help but get sucked into this never ending dog-chasing-tail root canal process of fussing over more and more trivial dumb things (KD, WL, SpM, #Nukes, etc..)". That's the only place in any of your posts in this thread that I could find an explanation for why, you believe, the community is so obsessed with K/D ratio. There's also no explanation for what makes you believe the developers do not realize this issue exists. There's no explanation of any potential solutions to the issue. So what's the cohesive thought? All I see is "people care too much about K/D", which is a point it seems like you spent an awful lot of words to make, particularly given the number of times you've made the point before. Tell me:
What do you think is the solution to the issue of players caring too much about K/D? What makes you believe that the developers are in complete ignorance of what you perceive to be an extremely obvious issue?
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 8, 2014 12:00:55 GMT -5
I inferred it from when you said "You play this game long enough, the core base, you can't help but get sucked into this never ending dog-chasing-tail root canal process of fussing over more and more trivial dumb things (KD, WL, SpM, #Nukes, etc..)". That's the only place in any of your posts in this thread that I could find an explanation for why, you believe, the community is so obsessed with K/D ratio. There's also no explanation for what makes you believe the developers do not realize this issue exists. There's no explanation of any potential solutions to the issue. So what's the cohesive thought? All I see is "people care too much about K/D", which is a point it seems like you spent an awful lot of words to make, particularly given the number of times you've made the point before. Tell me: What do you think is the solution to the issue of players caring too much about K/D? What makes you believe that the developers are in complete ignorance of what you perceive to be an extremely obvious issue? I have been playing Titanfall extensively for the last 4 months, and through doing that I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the current state of CoD. This thread laid out several obvious issues of the CoD formula: 1) K/D whoring 2) camp ing 3) Kill streaks encourage "intermediate" players to do 2; There are many ways to address these issues. However, each of these solutions risk of alienating a significant portion of current fan base. As a result, these "smart" developers at the 3 studios and the decision makers at ActiVision are not really focusing on dealing with these issues.
It's not because they are ignorant, it's because making a significant change could risk losing some serious money.
Let me explain the above statement in a little bit detail (each cons is a reason why the game does not attract certain segments of CoD fan base). 1) Address K/D whoring Titanfall does this through the following solution: a) No publicly visible player stats. Cons: K/D whores feel that they have nothing to play for, brag about, Twitch/YouTubing to profit from, so they stop "investing" in this game; b) Introduce 2 layers of flighting: pilot (P) and Titan (T), which have very different characteristics. As a result, a player's skill is much more complex, consisted of his ability to do P v P, T v T, T v P and P v T. There is no longer a single measure that the player feels compelled to "play for". Cons: many CoD fans don't like Titan fight (which does not have a twitchy nature), so they stop playing; 2) Address camp ing a) To be effective in the game the player needs to have high mobility. tactical loitering in a corner may give a player good pilot vs. pilot KD, but he is not going to have much fun. Cons: parkour based high mobility has a fairly steep learning curve, many CoD fans cant get used to it before they become good at it, so they give up (too early before the real fun starts). b) Populate the map with dumb "NPC"s to kill, which encourages noobs to move around instead of camp ing in the shadows Cons: some players feel that this reduces the encounter rate of PvP and dislike it; c) No killstreaks to camp for (more details in the next section) 3) Address killstreaks encouraging camp ing There are two types of game enhancing elements in Titanfall: a) Titan, which is a time based rewared. In other words, everybody is going to get one sooner or later, no matter how bad he/she performs in the game. Better players however, can get Titans faster (the time to earn Titans is reduced every time the player does something that contributes to winning the game, hits, kills, completing objectives, etc) b) Introduce one-time use "Burn Cards". These burn cards give player certain kind of boosts (e.g.: stronger version of weapons that takes 1 less bullet to kill) to have an advantage over other players, but it only lasts for one life. Cons of both a) and b): the "streak lovers" don't get the thrill of earning something that dominates the entire battlefield, so they feel that there are not enough incentives to play the game As a result: Titanfall is a great game that addressed many of the issues of CoD, but it did not have the same level of success as CoD. It is more like a "cult favorite" (meaning people who like it love the game more the more they play, while others quit before they in the early stage of learning curve before they can really get to the fun part) than blockbuster hits.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 8, 2014 12:31:13 GMT -5
To follow up with the post above, let's also examine closely why CoD is so popular and such a money making machine:
1) It is a noob magnet
a) the basic combat sandbox is very simple, so it has a very low learning curve
Due to the twitchy nature of the game, anybody who is capable of pointing and shooting can do damage to even the most advanced players, that's why it is such a noob magnet;
b) Killstreaks to camp for
A noob who camps can further his "camp fun" by going for killstreaks. Just earning and using them alone can be a quite fun experience.
2) The noob friendly nature ensures a healthy pyramid structure of player base.
The majority of CoD players (me included) get their fun by "stomping' on lower level players. In order for this to work though, there need to be enough lower players for the higher ones to stomp at. Since CoD is noob friendly, this is pretty natural.
An opposite example is Halo. Halo is not a noob friendly game. As a result, the stable player base is consisted of mainly advanced players. Such games can't have massive profits like what CoD can get.
Sadly, since this is a money driven business, the game developers are much more interested in maintaining the massive player base, than seriously considering making the game more fun for CoD veterans like us.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 8, 2014 14:37:42 GMT -5
I inferred it from when you said "You play this game long enough, the core base, you can't help but get sucked into this never ending dog-chasing-tail root canal process of fussing over more and more trivial dumb things (KD, WL, SpM, #Nukes, etc..)". That's the only place in any of your posts in this thread that I could find an explanation for why, you believe, the community is so obsessed with K/D ratio. There's also no explanation for what makes you believe the developers do not realize this issue exists. There's no explanation of any potential solutions to the issue. So what's the cohesive thought? All I see is "people care too much about K/D", which is a point it seems like you spent an awful lot of words to make, particularly given the number of times you've made the point before. Tell me: What do you think is the solution to the issue of players caring too much about K/D? What makes you believe that the developers are in complete ignorance of what you perceive to be an extremely obvious issue? Hawk. You aren't getting my points. The thread was asking people what they felt the core issues were. I gave an answer. The thread was NOT asking for people to explain how to fix that issue. So I felt no need to go there. That wasn't the point of this thread. That's why I am a bit baffled by the anal retentive hassling you are doing. Saying my thoughts aren't "cohesive", because I didn't offer up solutions. Who cares? That's not the point of this thread. It wasn't asked. I also don't see the need to make people's eyes bleed any further rehashing solutions to the above 'issue', solutions I have listed on this board many many many times. This topic has been beaten to death. So all that said, does it really matter WHY people in CoD obsess over the KD ratio so hard? For this thread, no. It doesn't matter. My point is just that the developers have lost sight of this. They continue to add layer upon layers of bells & whistles onto the each new game, piling on new things to make the game more supposedly more fun, WHILE ignoring the fifty ton elephant in the room that all this new junk put into the game becomes mostly meaningless once the community gets it, as the game just quickly breaks down into a "WORK THE KD RATIO" game, regardless of what game mode you play. I don't think IW 'got it' this past time. If they were all knowing like you claim, they wouldn't have been so dumb to add in ridiculously stupid 'lean-kill' goals for the ghillie suit, which caused lobby upon lobby to be filled with idiots trying to snipe, making game play crawl to halt. Where's the developer brilliance there? Well? Even IW admitted they misread this, and Foxtroted it up. They retreated on it and drastically lowered the lean-kill requirements later on, after realizing their mistake. Companies make mistakes. Developers can be out of touch with the player base. I personally think (just my opinion here), is the above KD obsession has put ADDITIONAL stress and fatigue upon the player base, and has hastened the decline in this game. Player's skill level can top out in this game, and when you assign all your gaming self worth in this game to some silly stat, players get sucked into trying to maintain it. They don't maintain it (which is harder to do in this game, with weaker killstreaks), they get mad. They quit sooner. As I said before, it goes without saying that CoD is a mature game in it's life cycle, but even mature games shouldn't necessarily see a 35% drop in it's player base, with even a bigger drop (approaching 50%) in it's active nightly/weekly player count. The drop is real this go around. I've seen it happen. 2.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 8, 2014 14:43:24 GMT -5
Sadly, since this is a money driven business, the game developers are much more interested in maintaining the massive player base, than seriously considering making the game more fun for CoD veterans like us. Here's the thing Witty. On that count, IW failed tremendously this year. Despite having all the expertise of Activision's marketing people, prior history and other inside marketing information, IW completely misread the market and has to accept some of the blame for what happened. Again, if you just go by the assumption (or fact) that it is a money driven business (which it is), then IW failed royally. They are going to be five to six million units short of what BO2 was. And around 10 million units short of what MW3 got. Run the math. IW's decisions/directions with this game, made Activision $360 million less dollars. That's not small change. And their decline this year has Activision around $660 million off the 2012 high water mark. So they failed on both fronts. I think a case could be made that the developers in the past could ignore the underlying themes (3 items Witty mentioned), ignoring them year after year. No reason to address them, as the sales were still increasing each year. But as stated right above, that is no longer the case anymore. The developers can't fall back on that excuse, that "people are buying it, why change it". Not true now. The drop is real. And to get back to my point, I see NOTHING being released in regards to new ideas or concepts that will address any of the three items you mentioned Witty...which I would say are the core issues plaguing this game.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 8, 2014 15:16:00 GMT -5
Let me explain what I think causes player's frustrations. The player life cycle, which in some ways describes the 'core issue' plaguing this game.
Stage 1 - A person gets a CoD game. They have fun. They get their ass kicked. They don't care. It's just a carefree environment where the game is new, refreshing and loads of fun. They play games, take their beating, and say 'good game' and try again. Unfortunately, a player doesn't stay here long. Very quickly, sooner than later, a player starts to learn via the net, youtube, internet and the dozens of in-game references to the KD ratio, that all their self worth in this game is measured by that one stat. "Oh!" they say, and suddenly their perspective on how they see the game starts to change. It's like a kid learning Santa isn't real. This doesn't hit everyone equally, but it will hit everyone at some point. Without fail. Anyone saying differently is a liar.
Stage 2 - Most players will see some level of progress after leaving the above stage one. They improve during their first CoD game, seeing this KD ratio go up. They start to feel even more enjoyment in this game, as they see progress and they are becoming better. Perhaps even putting a beatdown on opponents here and there. The game gets REAL FUN now. They feel they are becoming a better player and they probably are as they keep playing. Their learning curve quickly progresses here, showing real measured skill advances as they learn the game. This is CoD at it's finest, what hooks people so well. Whatever time period or game the person hits at this point....this is the game they usually remember as the 'best' CoD game. Nostalgia. It's like a kid knowing Santa isn't real, but looks fondly on those days of getting tons of gifts!
Stage 3 - What's next? The learning/skill improvement curve slows down at some point. A person starts to hit some ceilings, where he/she needs tons of play time to even see even tiny improvements. This is during their 2nd/3rd CoD game? It varies. It varies per person, but at some point, their KD ratio stops improving week to week, month to month, game to game. People start to get a bit frustrated. You start to see things like raging and quitting. They also quickly learn that their 'self worth' as a CoD player (KD ratio)...it can be made better by doing some feel good measures. Lobby shopping. Quitting games to avoid a worse beatdown. Most of all, dashboarding. This is like the teenager becoming an adult, and know the free Xmas gift ride is over. He must start buying gifts for others.
Stage 4 - What happens next for some players (not all) is this. The better players from stage three, they learn how to sandbag objective games. The reality here though is this. Their actual real skill isn't improving much at all(at least measurable), it's just artificial/fake skill increases via KD stat manipulation. You play [insert objective game] mode game and just let your friends/randoms die doing objectives, while you sandbag, working your stats. This is essentially what CoD is all about now. 11 of 12 people go into a lobby and all do this to varying degrees. If you aren't working your KD, you are obsessing and working something related (# of swarms, # of nukes, etc...). This is inevitably where 80 to 90% of the player base stalls out at and finds a home at for some time. You hear it with code words like..."I DON'T CARE ABOUT WINNING, I'M A SLAYER"...or ..."JUST CARE ABOUT MY KD, MINE IS HIGHER, I WON"...bs like that. Now the player is teetering on borderline douchebaggish play. Scrubbing up lobbies. This also puts all these players on edge, ready to rage at a moments notice. This ties into 'thegentlemans' points about killstreaks. One laggy death, one kill away from a nuke, and the player is screaming in rage throwing the controller, vowing to never play CoD again.
The Xmas analogy here is this. You become an adult with five kids. Xmas now means $2,000 in bills. You feel pain.
Stage 5 - The KD has flatlined and the above stage 4 players have no where to go. Another group skips Stage 4, going right to this stage too. Regardless, they all end up here. Sooner rather than later, they will notice that "I am not getting better at this game anymore" and every little thing in the game will annoy them. They'll rage quit sooner. They'll play less. They quit the game by May, rather than September. It's human nature. When you don't see yourself getting any better, and see how much others 'fake' their skill, all the other bs, you just say 'fvck it' and stop playing. What's the point? It's a realization. The 'love' is gone. You become a husband who has grown tired of his ugly/nagging wife and your eyes wander. You start to try other games, amongst other things.
All the above happens because CoD has allowed this sub-game within the game (KD manipulation) to become the tail wagging the dog, defining almost all player's self worth in CoD. It was never supposed to be this.
|
|