|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 22, 2014 19:40:30 GMT -5
In Pick 10/13, secondaries should be worse than primaries because they are cheaper than primaries. As a second weapon, a secondary costs one point whereas a second primary costs two points.
Now, should they be as incredibly weak as they are in AW? Of course not, but they definitely should be worse.
(In CoDs without Overkill, secondaries shouldn't have necessarily been worse than primaries because the above distinction does not exist.)
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Nov 22, 2014 20:33:55 GMT -5
In Pick 10/13, secondaries should be worse than primaries because they are cheaper than primaries. As a second weapon, a secondary costs one point whereas a second primary costs two points. Now, should they be as incredibly weak as they are in AW? Of course not, but they definitely should be worse. (In CoDs without Overkill, secondaries shouldn't have necessarily been worse than primaries because the above distinction does not exist.) Pistols are already pretty much worse. There's nothing wrong with these weapons in terms of magazine or recoil, not at all. That's fair enough. But damage and range are shit. The least they could do is give them some decent amount of range. Atlas 45 needs, at the very least, a decent three hit kill range. Not anything crazy, but shotgun range isn't too much to ask for in this game (it shouldn't have to take 4 shots to kill across a small room). RW1 needs a bit less sway to make it somewhat useful (I'll always prefer a secondary that I can spam at someone, rather than just taking the chance of missing and end up dying because I needed to reload). Grach could do with a higher rate of fire and slightly longer four hit kill range. PDW...I want to say this gun is fine as is. Realistically, it's the only usable secondary because of spray and pray. But even then, it's still not all that great. If I knew the stats to this weapon, I would recommend something. And your point of "secondaries should be worse than primaries because they cost less than primaries do when using overkill" is irrelevant because Primaries are already more powerful than secondaries in the first place. You're paying for extra power, that's the point. Even in BO2 where the pistols could hold their own, the primaries were still much better. There's no reason to use the Five Seven over any of the full-auto Assault Rifles or even the SMGs. The same goes for all pistols really in BO2 really. They could dominate in close quarters, sure. But with the exception of the Five Seven, outside of close quarters and going into mid-range they're shit (an argument can be made for the Five Seven still, just due to the lack of full-auto fire). I should of made my last point on my OP clearer, as I meant that pistols should be able to outperform primary weapons when they're supposed to. Sorry if my Five Seven outguns your AN-94 at close range, but that's what the result should be anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Nov 22, 2014 20:36:54 GMT -5
B-B-But "Swapping to a pistol is faster than reloading"
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Nov 22, 2014 20:46:37 GMT -5
B-B-But "Swapping to a pistol is faster than reloading" "Your fruit killing skills are remarkable"
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Nov 22, 2014 21:04:30 GMT -5
Pistols should have range and damage equivalent to SMG's, but small mag sizes and such. They should be able to get kills, but only a couple before you go dry. I don't see how you can't balance pistols based on the things we already expect to be weaknesses without making them completely useless. In fact I think a silenced pistol should also still be about as deadly as a silenced SMG (in terms of range and accuracy). That would give you some reason to carry a silenced pistol when running an unsilenced primary since you could swap to it for easy stealthy kills. As is there's just no friggin' point. I don't see any good reason to switch to a pistol unless you're primary's out of ammo, because if you engage a full health opponent with a pistol, (even if you got the drop on them) you're taking a big risk.
Really I'd prefer we just dropped the whole primary secondary weapon thing all together. It doesn't actually limit any combinations it merely makes some a bit more expensive, but considering if you bring grenades you're just tossing points away when you use them anyway it's terribly hard to balance point for point. If you just balance all the weapons for usage in a two weapon scheme and let people mix and match as they will then it doesn't matter. But meh. CoD is how it is and changes to systems long entrenched happen glacially.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Nov 22, 2014 22:03:10 GMT -5
What the heck is the point of attachments on secondaries anyways?
secondary + attachment = 2 points OR overkill + SMG = 2 points
I thought the pick 10 system was dumb. I also think the pick 13 system is dumb. COD needs to go back to the MW1/MW2 style of create-a-class. And enough with the damned "everything needs a counter" mentality - that makes this just a complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. The counter to a powerful perk should be equally powerful perks in the same slot - so you have to make a choice of which power you want. Not another perk cancelling it out - that is silly.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Nov 22, 2014 23:18:56 GMT -5
Pistols should have range and damage equivalent to SMG's, but small mag sizes and such. They should be able to get kills, but only a couple before you go dry. I don't see how you can't balance pistols based on the things we already expect to be weaknesses without making them completely useless. In fact I think a silenced pistol should also still be about as deadly as a silenced SMG (in terms of range and accuracy). That would give you some reason to carry a silenced pistol when running an unsilenced primary since you could swap to it for easy stealthy kills. As is there's just no friggin' point. I don't see any good reason to switch to a pistol unless you're primary's out of ammo, because if you engage a full health opponent with a pistol, (even if you got the drop on them) you're taking a big risk. Really I'd prefer we just dropped the whole primary secondary weapon thing all together. It doesn't actually limit any combinations it merely makes some a bit more expensive, but considering if you bring grenades you're just tossing points away when you use them anyway it's terribly hard to balance point for point. If you just balance all the weapons for usage in a two weapon scheme and let people mix and match as they will then it doesn't matter. But meh. CoD is how it is and changes to systems long entrenched happen glacially. This. So far the best pistol is either the PDW or Silenced Atlas 45 (just due to the fact it's pretty much always a four hit kill, so the range loss is negligible).
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 23, 2014 2:06:06 GMT -5
If secondaries are cheaper, then they must be worse statistically.
I agree that Pick 10 is dumb and has major faults, with secondaries versus primaries being one of them. A secondary with two attachments is the same cost as a second primary with one attachment, but the latter is obviously more efficacious.
I agree that the cost of a decision in Create-a-Class should be opportunity cost, that is, the cost of the alternative forgone.
Why not just give everyone two primaries? Then you don't have to balance secondaries.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Nov 23, 2014 2:08:48 GMT -5
I wouldn't say we need to toss the pick 10/13 system and go back to the MW2 loadout system. Personally I rather like pick 10/13. I think the main issue is that it's a bit of a hybrid between the old system and what pick 10/13 could be if it were actually designed around the pick system it-self instead of falling back on bits and pieces of the old system. I think if you go for keeping the pick system then the whole thing needs some rethinking.
How about you redo most of it so that you just have weapons, support items, and perks and you can have up to three of each. Support items of course are grenades or other equipment. To equip 1 of each costs 1 point each, but a second costs 2 points and a third costs 3. You don't need wildcards. In this system "secondary" weapons cost the same as "primaries" as they aren't intended to simply be cheap weapons, but to fill niche roles such as being fast backup weapons, or to support other niches, ect. You also have mods for all three which fulfill the roles of attachments and pro perks, but again these cost 1 point for 1, 2 for a second, and 3 points for a third. I don't know how many total points you should have, that should be worked out. It would take 72 points to fully kit out a class, but that would be ridiculous. On the other hand two weapons one with 2 and another with 1 attachment, 1 support item with no mod, and two perks each with one mod comes out to 13 points. So pick 13 could still equal a pretty standard CoD class. Having a few more points to work with could offer us a lot more loadout options though. For that matter maybe you could earn the right to deploy classes that cost more points somehow. I'd also not tie KS to class. I think they should have their own kit sort of how you pick a pilot and a titan loadout in TF. You have your class loadout and your KS kits. Maybe you include an option in the class to always select a given KS loadout for those who like it tied together. Personally I'm not a big fan because I don't really see there being a huge amount of synergy between class items and KS items so it just buries my killstreaks down a level and when I want to change them I gotta change all my classes...
Huge caveat here.... MUCH testing and experimentation would need to go into this. Also for perks to balance out I think you'd have to build a system around that not just try to make them all as good as each other, but actually have some perks mutually exclusive or something. Then again you could probably manage to reduce the total number of perks and move many of the effects to perk mods. So, for example, you have one all encompassing stealth perk. It has only one effect naked and a number of unlock-able additional affects, of which you could use up to three. I would suggest that there actually be 4 or more so that you could never actually equip all the mods. But even so a fully kitted out stealth perk would cost you 7 friggin' points assuming you only took one perk. As long as you carefully manage which effects are naked perks and which are mods it is sort of self balancing. Anyway I'm literally just brainstorming here, but I think it sounds neat. Should probably revisit how exactly grenades work with the system as well, but enough's enough for me for tonight. Not like anybody's going to actually make a game based on my ideas anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 23, 2014 3:02:13 GMT -5
Rather than having secondaries, just have a primary weapon class of fast swapping weapons.
A fast swap sniper, a fast swap shotgun, etc.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Nov 23, 2014 8:39:40 GMT -5
Why not just give everyone two primaries? Then you don't have to balance secondaries. because they can be interesting if there was some actual effort put into it Rather than having secondaries, just have a primary weapon class of fast swapping weapons. A fast swap sniper, a fast swap shotgun, etc. only if theyre all of adorably smaller sizes RW1 = sniper Executioner = shotgun both adorable.
|
|
|
Post by mrbone2u on Nov 23, 2014 10:20:49 GMT -5
it pretty much all stems from the idea that a secondary should be worse just because it is a secondary. Personally I think its completely arbitrary and didn't hesistate to drop them once given the option to in bo2. i'll never forget the mw2 raffica. Best secondary ever.
|
|
|
Post by mrbone2u on Nov 23, 2014 10:23:57 GMT -5
What the heck is the point of attachments on secondaries anyways? secondary + attachment = 2 points OR overkill + SMG = 2 points I thought the pick 10 system was dumb. I also think the pick 13 system is dumb. COD needs to go back to the MW1/MW2 style of create-a-class. And enough with the gosh darn golly gee whized "everything needs a counter" mentality - that makes this just a complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. The counter to a powerful perk should be equally powerful perks in the same slot - so you have to make a choice of which power you want. Not another perk cancelling it out - that is silly. stopping power is what needs to come back. It's what made secondaries in mw2 viable.
|
|
|
Post by cashmoves on Nov 24, 2014 14:44:19 GMT -5
COD has taken the "if it ain't broke, fix it til it is" approach with the past few games...
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Nov 24, 2014 15:45:23 GMT -5
NO NO NO. NO BUFFS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. Gawssshhhh Every gun sucks, why would you want to make the Bal suck too? Some SMGs desperately need buffs, the hell use is the AMR9 or whatever? 5 round burst SMG with 5-7 bullets to kill? The Thompson (whatever its real name is) is glitched at least on PS3, the 3HK range is small and the 4HK is literally less than 10 units. I'd rather all guns be good then all guns suck, if the TTK were even longer than it'd be like Halo, if I wanted to play Halo I would have bought an Xbox. EDIT just make the BAL a 5-6 hit kill and give the HBR some recoil. AK is 4-5 with low RoF so i think low recoil is justifiable HBRa3 has recoil, it's just foregrip is just that good. Weaker, "shit", guns increase skill gap. This is why stopping power sucks. Also halos is not fun imo. Weaker weapons in cod is not equal to halo
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 24, 2014 17:01:52 GMT -5
Longer TTK increases skill gap by increasing the magnitude of difference between perfect and flawed gun play.
For example, if a gun has a TTK of 100 ms, a perfect player can kill in 100 ms and, say, a player with 50% accuracy could kill in 200 ms, which is a 100 ms difference.
Now, if the same gun had a TTK of 500 ms, the difference between the players is 500 ms versus 1000 ms. The delta is now substantially longer and a skilled player could exploit the gap between these numbers.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Nov 24, 2014 17:37:30 GMT -5
I disagree to some extent. Longer TTK increases the skill gap related to gun skill alone. But gun skill is hardly the only skill in the game and it actually reduces the skill gap for ambushing as it reduces the advantage gained by ambushing and flanking other players. It creates trade offs between skills, but not necessarily a net gain or loss of over all skill gap between players without a much more thorough analysis, especially if comparing two completely different games rather than merely the same game with an extended TTK.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Nov 24, 2014 19:15:16 GMT -5
I fully agree with both of you, but I'm just explaining what asasa's point was.
In CoD, map control is king and is singularly the most important skill. Good players do well with bad guns or even no gun at all solely due to map control.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Nov 24, 2014 19:32:09 GMT -5
Longer TTK increases skill gap by increasing the magnitude of difference between perfect and flawed gun play. For example, if a gun has a TTK of 100 ms, a perfect player can kill in 100 ms and, say, a player with 50% accuracy could kill in 200 ms, which is a 100 ms difference. Now, if the same gun had a TTK of 500 ms, the difference between the players is 500 ms versus 1000 ms. The delta is now substantially longer and a skilled player could exploit the gap between these numbers. Kinda. It also effects the needs for recoil compensation, increases room for evasive action, and reduces the effect of sheer luck. Using your numbers, where the skilled player has 50% accuracy and the unskilled player has 20% accuracy, this is what you get: The probability of hitting 2 in a row at 50% is 1:4. The probability of hitting 2 in a row at 20% is 1:25 --The skilled player is 6x more likely to win The probability of hitting 3 in a row at 50% is 1:8. The probability of hitting 3 in a row at 20% is 1:125 --The skilled player is 16x more likely to win So, in this ridiculously oversimplified example, its easy to see why more bullets increases the gap. And, a slower firerate does as well. There is no easy example for it, but its simple to imagine: 1RPM @ 2hk = lots of time to move around, and you must maintain your aim. A worse player will have more difficulty tracking, and be easier to track against. I disagree to some extent. Longer TTK increases the skill gap related to gun skill alone. But gun skill is hardly the only skill in the game and it actually reduces the skill gap for ambushing as it reduces the advantage gained by ambushing and flanking other players. It creates trade offs between skills, but not necessarily a net gain or loss of over all skill gap between players without a much more thorough analysis, especially if comparing two completely different games rather than merely the same game with an extended TTK. You're completely right about that. There is a point where increasing the TTK will no longer increase the skill gap, and actually reverse. However, that is quite a bit of distance from where we are now. For example, if BTK is the method of increasing TTK... imagine it takes 10 shots to kill someone @ 600RPM - chances are they're getting away. This reduces the impact of a single player on the outcome. And, of course, ammo would be scarce, and a whole bunch of other issues. By the way, that bolded part - seem familiar? Yeah.. its why I think SnD is the best game mode since a single player has the largest impact on the game. [Obviously excluding free for all modes] Longer TTK increases skill gap by increasing the magnitude of difference between perfect and flawed gun play. It increases it when it comes to one's tracking ability only, which I personally think is piss easy in CoD to begin with due to players being slow, weapons firing very quickly, and everything being hitscan (doubly so on console since cod has the strongest aim assist on the planet). At the same time, emphasizing a player's tracking ability lessens the impact of their flick aiming and reaction time (which are both important but less measurable aspects of someone's aiming ability). Personally I think quake cpma mod is more or less the pinnacle for gunskill and ttks in that make cod look like gears of war: The lightning gun vs the railgun are good examples of weapons that heavily emphasize different aspects of gunskill. Though now that I mention that, I suppose with CoD's trend of making shotguns/snipers/explosives virtually unable to compete with ARs/SMGs, that tracking would be the most important thing to emphasize. Im not sure I understand you fully (im just really tired, im not saying you're stupid in disguise) but thats the whole reason I want TTK to be increased. Snipers, and even moreso shotguns have to suck because the weapons are in general so strong. In order for a shotgun to actually be competitive, it would be overpowered in current games. But wait, that makes no sense? Well, no, not entirely. That would be because overpowered is sort of thrown around to define a whole bunch of things on top of "this gun performs too well". For example, a gun with 1 bullet that has 1 meter splash and kills in one shot? Well, its not OP. But it does overperform for noobs. A good player would not find utility in it because it limits you to 1 kill 99% of the time. Extend that to shotguns and the same situation occurs. For a truly competitive shotgun at upper skill levels, it would have to overperform for noobs. CoD devs realize this and instead of fixing the underlying issue (Full autos being too strong) instead just make the shotguns junky. Noobs can still use them effectively, average players can with some disadvantage, and good players will be severely gimped by them.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Nov 24, 2014 19:59:53 GMT -5
if the shotguns in black ops 2 were in AW with its exo movements and fast mantling but kept the smg handling from black ops 2, would that be powerful enough?
Honest question, because I personally think that would equal viable shotguns, especially the 870, but I would like to hear if you don't think fast movement and dodging helps shotguns.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Nov 24, 2014 20:09:50 GMT -5
Black Ops 1 shotguns would be better than what we have in AW right now. With the exception of the Tac-19, the shotguns are poo.
|
|