|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2012 15:46:18 GMT -5
One of the fundamental problems with the perk system that Call of Duty has is the fact that there are hard counters. Hard counters are simply something that directly counters another thing. Hard counters are things like the UAV Jammer hiding a player from enemy UAVs, Juggernaut canceling Stopping Power, Flak Jacket making explosives completely ineffective, etc. The problem with hard counters is the lack of counter play. Either you take this to counter that, or you simply have to put up with it. Having a hard counter simply removes the skill in knowing how to deal with something.
The question that then rises is how to make a system that allows for counter play without needing a hard counter to prevent something from being overpowered. Is it possible to craft the perk system in a way that nothing is a hard counter? Look at footsteps. Currently, you make a lot of noise while walking, and there is Dead Silence to completely remove the noise. In addition to this, there is Sit Rep that makes the already loud footsteps louder, and it counters the effects of Dead Silence completely. This problem has not one, but two hard counters in it.
Now look at the mechanic of footsteps a bit differently. Assume an arbitrary number, say 25 meters, is the maximum distance one can clearly hear an enemy walking. Dead Silence can instead of removing the ability to be heard completely, reduce the distance at which you can be clearly heard. 17 meters is now the distance you can be clearly heard walking by an enemy if you equip Dead Silence. What about Sit Rep? We can actually keep it as a modifier to how loud the footsteps are. You would not gain any extra range, but you still hear the footsteps twice as loud to make it easier to hear them in combat. They both give advantages, but neither is able to cancel each other, and thus neither feels mandatory for a player to take.
I would love to hear opinions on this. I really feel that if Call of Duty wants to be a real competitive game, these issues need to be eliminated first. Do not focus only on my example, but on the idea in general that hard counters should not be a part of the game. Also, I will point out that this is not only a problem within the perk system.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 20, 2012 16:08:51 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept in general, but sound is kind of different. Its not the game thats giving the advantage. Its the headset. Which is why that is the one thing I will say needs a hard counter. If you are really opposed to this I like your idea to have DS change distance heard instead of volume heard. It would give more consistent results. Bad headsets might not hear DS, but good ones might. That would give it consistency across the different qualities of sound.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2012 16:16:06 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept in general, but sound is kind of different. Its not the game thats giving the advantage. Its the headset. Which is why that is the one thing I will say needs a hard counter. If you are really opposed to this I like your idea to have DS change distance heard instead of volume heard. It would give more consistent results. Bad headsets might not hear DS, but good ones might. That would give it consistency across the different qualities of sound. I do understand that not everyone is inherently on the same playing field with equipment, but for the purpose of a game balance discussion we are to view everyone as having the same setup. All higher skill players do play with headsets. In the end it is like saying that people without HDTVs cannot see enemies at a distance as well as those with HDTVs. It is true on a casual level, but we are trying to balance things on a competitive level.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 20, 2012 16:57:31 GMT -5
Balance on a casual level first. Lesser skilled players need the help against higher skill opponents anyway. Its not like the higher skill player needs the balance in his favor only. This is from a pub perspective only. If you want high skill balance it should be customizable in private match. The default is to not have a headset and it needs to be balanced with those players in mind first considering the headset users are already at an unfair advantage.
HDTVs are nice, but you can't beat a good surge protector. Mine crapped out on me during a storm while in a surge protector. I was so pissed. Non HD is worse, but its not game breaking. TV sound vs. headsets on the other hand are night and day.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2012 17:19:37 GMT -5
Balance on a casual level first. Lesser skilled players need the help against higher skill opponents anyway. Its not like the higher skill player needs the balance in his favor only. This is from a pub perspective only. If you want high skill balance it should be customizable in private match. The default is to not have a headset and it needs to be balanced with those players in mind first considering the headset users are already at an unfair advantage. HDTVs are nice, but you can't beat a good surge protector. Mine crapped out on me during a storm while in a surge protector. I was so pissed. Non HD is worse, but its not game breaking. TV sound vs. headsets on the other hand are night and day. This is getting off topic. If players are naturally at a disadvantage because of their setup, the game does not need to be catering to them by removing a level of depth for players who do not have the same disadvantage. The HDTV thing was just a comparison. It does make a large difference in terms of how easily it is to spot targets, especially while they are prone. I would argue that players with SDTVs are as disadvantaged visually as players with TV speaker sound. Does this mean that 480i video with stereo audio should be the assumed baseline for competitive play? In the end, things balance out for casual players as well regardless, as to them audio doesn't matter anyways. If you are arguing that it makes it easier to pub stomp, that is actually a problem with matchmaking not matching by skill. And I was worried people would focus too much on the one example instead of the overall idea. Imagine a scenario with Juggernaut and Stopping Power and how they could be balanced.
|
|
|
Post by blues27xx on May 20, 2012 17:23:39 GMT -5
Hard counters are good, but only to a point.
For example flak jacket in blops. You where much harder to kill with explosives, but could still be killed if you where damaged or if they had more than one explosive to hit you with. It made capping point in dom and planting bombs in demo much safer, in other words it actually somewhat encouraged playing the objective. Some guy half way across the map couldn't just lob a frag and get a lucky kill on you.
SP versus jugg is an example of a bad hard counter. Yes they where balanced against each other, but what if a jugg user runs into a uav jammer user? It's a totally unfair gunfight, especially if using a low damage weapon. It also made it much harder for snipers and shotgunners to get one shot kills, which is the entire point of those weapons.
Some things do need counters, but having too many counters usually leads to one counter being "too good." I.e assassin countering everything.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 20, 2012 18:01:39 GMT -5
"If players are naturally at a disadvantage because of their setup, the game does not need to be catering to them by removing a level of depth for players who do not have the same disadvantage." Level the playing field or exasperate the issue. Removing an outside advantage puts them on equal ground again. Skill will show itself then. Buffing players who use sound by leaving it no real counter at all can push the odds of two players with equal skill in the favor of one or the other.
On your views of causals not caring about sound they don't use it as a tool, but might still need a defense that works from it. Its not like the counter is free of charge unlike the headsets. Buy and profit with no in game penalty. Competitive play is different. Are you saying that a public match is a competitive environment or are you saying private match should be able to change it? I think private match should have every right to a fair game, but pub matches are not always MLG game battles with almost everyone using the best equipment available.
I should probably get on topic now. I don't want to totally derail your thread. Stopping power and juggs were bad. If I tried to think of a way to keep them both in, but make them not directly counter each other I'd go with making juggs have a limb multiplier reduction to something incredibly small. It would be a defense against people with bad aim and still follows the lines of increased health. Stopping power would be the same I think. I can't think of any way to change it without it becoming a multiplier increase. With juggs vs. stopping power the multiplier reduction would make the damage increase of stopping power insignificant if it hit the limbs, but body shots would still have the desired effect on them. Snipers wouldn't be affected by juggs. Shotguns normally aim for center of mass so it should be all right. Juggs protects against bad aim on the enemies part and stopping power lowers the ttk. Is this what you mean by a soft counter? And is this idea any good?
The stealth perks are the other hard counters I can think of, but I think they should stay that way. I'd split the counters so you can't be immune to everything at once though. Do you have any ideas on how to make the stealth perks not be hard counters, but still be useful. I can't think of a way to retain their usefulness.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on May 20, 2012 18:43:12 GMT -5
I can get behind that.
Modifying power in two different directions to just have them cancel one another out causes pretty much everything else to lose all connection with those things. Stopping Power and Juggernaut are insular. Nothing else plays a part in their balancing act when the two go up against one another.
Min/maxing numbers is not the way to have variety. Variety is real balance, and variety creates a balance of "purpose". A different purpose that generates a completely different style of play.
Stopping Power has the purpose of the user requiring fewer rounds to kill. Less ammo spent means more ammo to use elsewhere. Faster killing speed makes the user the victor in head-on fights against those who do not have Stopping Power/Juggernaut.
Juggernaut was the mathematical opposite. Other users requiring more rounds to kill. More ammo spent means less ammo to use elsewhere. Slower killing speed makes the foe the loser in head-on fights against those who do not have Juggernaut/Stopping Power.
The two have the same purpose - altering killing potential in a fight through nothing but mathematical means. But if both were in play, it would be as though neither were in play.
Stopping Power is still the most powerful Perk in all the series to the point that, with no embellishment, it was used 99% of the time in COD4 and WaW above all other Slot 2 perks because of its mathematical simplicity creating discrepancies between weapons. Killing speed advantage differs depending on the shift in number of shots, going from 3 to 2 literally makes the weapon twice as powerful. This raw power is unrivaled. It was so powerful and common that playing with Stopping Power was the norm - everyone had a feel for the game as though that was the baseline damage.
When someone took Juggernaut, the Power users "understandably" complained but were inarticulate in how it actually affected them. I'm sure you've heard more than once some kid say almost exactly "it takes like twice as many bullets to kill." They have the right idea, but the wrong measurement. We all know it doesn't take twice as many shots, but it DOES take twice as long. The difference of 3 to 2 shots is inversely proportional to going from 2 to 3. The entire playerbase so used to using Stopping Power has to muster twice their attention to a single enemy when Stopping Power's effect is absent.
Juggernaut was not overpowered. Even moreso, it was further weakened when World at War separated its combined Bullet and Explosive defense. Stopping Power was placed in the COD4 arsenal in such a way that it became the standard rather than a "Perk".
-
The only time Power had a true, equal rival was in MW2. Cold-Blooded at full strength was Stopping Power's equal. The two created completely different styles of play. A Cold-Blooded user could not take on a Stopping Power user head-on. He had to make use of the strengths of Cold-Blooded which meant an opposite in play style.
Rather than "more" "less" and other simple number changes, the two had strategic differences.
A Stopping Power user was a superior head-on fighter. He had greater staying power and could survive through outshooting his foes. His strength lay all in anti-infantry; even though Pro had anti-killstreak power, it was minimal in benefit. For all intents and Purposes, the Stopping Power user was at the mercy of Killstreaks.
A Cold Blooded user paled in comparison in direct killing potential to a Power user. He had to change up his tactics. His stealth benefits greatly gave him the advantage in mobility - roundabout paths and remaining undetected allowed him to attack the enemy flank and perform regardless of enemy killstreak presence. He had powerful anti-air defense. However, a misstep or merely an attentive Stopping Power user would take him down with little issue.
Stopping Power, Cold Blooded and Killstreaks in MW2 were not unlike a Rock Paper Scissors loop, however, their advantages over the other were not of mere power, but of purpose. This is further accentuated by specializing or diversifying in different styles using other weapons and Perks. Stealth, Power, Mobility, Anti-Infantry or Anti-Air. MW2 had balance in variety, you could not do everything at once like you could with the Stopping Power dominant, simple COD4. And that's why MW2 was the best COD. It was balanced through actual diversity in playstyle. In comparison, the fighting game genre. I'm not well versed in the high levels of fighting games, so this is mostly anecdotal, second hand.
Most differences between in the Street Fighter characters are generally broken down to frames and mathematical differences in power and defense. Despite this, most agreed upon tier lists and competitive scenes have only two or three characters frequently used (ie Ken, Chun-Li and Yun in Third Strike being markedly above the others, there were few rare exceptions like Kuroda who uses Q like a boss). Balancing acts with these characters generally see only tweaking of values of damage and priority. I hear Street Fighter 4 is very guilty of this.
Meanwhile in Arc System fighters like Guilty Gear and BlazBlue have characters that are dramatically different, each of them usually having their own unique mechanics. Even with such radical differences, their tier lists are far more level and lots of characters are played at a competitive level because of their diversity and potential to get around existing strategies. When a character wasn't performing or had a fundamental disadvantage, Arcsys didn't just tweak numbers, they would add completely new moves, alter the way something worked, tweaked them at a fundamental level that made them better (not nerfing others).
They had superior balance because each character had something unique to offer. It couldn't be quantified. Each had to be channeled in different ways. They did not simply hard counter one another. You didn't pick X character because he had superior anti-air against Y who had poor defense but lots of speed. You picked him because everything he offered suited your style.
Like Johnny. He's been considered bottom tier with nearly all bad match ups in all versions of XX. But for the time I played GG, he was my best.
So anyway, hard counters through direct rivalry is bad and stuff. Indirect counters through alternative techniques that offer another way to approach something is the way to go. Choice between things has to go further than how hard something hits, but how it hits in the first place.
Something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2012 19:37:06 GMT -5
Hard counters are good, but only to a point. I have to disagree. Regardless of how you play the game, every single play style should have a way to handle something without a need for one way to flat out turn off the effects of what is being countered. If you try to capture a point in domination, why should the enemy be able to make themselves immune to a well placed grenade? The Trophy System is an example of a way to give players an ability to let them capture points more safely without making it a binary counter like Flak Jacket is. Do UAVs need a hard counter? There are many ways to approach them to give players a way to counter them without given them a simple check that says they cannot be seen at all. One obvious way is the fact that you can shoot down them. Another, Counter UAVs and EMPS. Or perhaps make a perk that lowers the effectiveness of UAVs. Perhaps make the players motion's delayed a sweep, or have their movements update every 2 or 3 sweeps. Maybe none of these ideas. Maybe the entire UAV mechanic should be remade into something that would allow for it to be less binary. There are so many ways to remove the hard countering components in the game. Are you saying that a public match is a competitive environment? Stopping power and juggs were bad. If I tried to think of a way to keep them both in, but make them not directly counter each other I'd go with making juggs have a limb multiplier reduction to something incredibly small. It would be a defense against people with bad aim and still follows the lines of increased health. Stopping power would be the same I think. I can't think of any way to change it without it becoming a multiplier increase. With juggs vs. stopping power the multiplier reduction would make the damage increase of stopping power insignificant if it hit the limbs, but body shots would still have the desired effect on them. Snipers wouldn't be affected by juggs. Shotguns normally aim for center of mass so it should be all right. Juggs protects against bad aim on the enemies part and stopping power lowers the ttk. Is this what you mean by a soft counter? And is this idea any good? I certainly believe it should be. What harm would it do to add a few ranked playlists complete with a competitive ladder? They can even take that same system, apply it to the unranked games, and hide the ladder to allow for a skill based matchmaking setup. Would that hurt the game? As far as Stopping Power and Juggernaut goes, Den just explained why they did not work together. As for your idea to let Juggernaut make damage to limbs and such less effective could work. Den used to suggest a range increase for Stopping Power which may work better than keeping it unchanged. Den is right on the fact that games need to be balanced on variety. The more options players have to handle situations in game makes the game more competitive, more balanced, and arguably more fun. And again, my examples may not be the best solutions as they are just example ideas of ways I could think to show that balance should not be binary.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 20, 2012 20:17:47 GMT -5
All the options for stealth seem bad or unreliable. I never think about how the uav can be changed, but I think if you want more of a soft counter the uav needs to be tweaked first to allow it. As it stands I can't think of any way to make stealth options useful without total immunity. I played around with just adding it to the jammer, but it would be tailor made for only tactical loitering and rushing will be left out in the cold. Hard counters aren't ideal, but they are pretty gosh darn golly gee whiz simple to come up with.
I don't think the player base would appreciate being paired up by their skill level. The great players would never find a match or at least not with good connection, the good players wouldn't get to pub stomp anymore, the average get to be free of people that are better than them, and the noobs would never learn anything from someone better than them. It sounds like an easy way to loss cod vets. Oh, and what would the measure of skill be? I don't think kd will work. SPM is flawed as well in terms of parties. And what level of skill will parties be judged at? Best player, party leader, worst player, average skill? Sounds incredibly complex and liable to be ineffective.
While I'm on the subject of competitive play is it possible for an indicator to be placed in the killcam along with the perks to identify headset users. At least so others can tell they are getting soundwhored even if DS can't totally negate it. Why do I have to be in the dark about that?
|
|
|
Post by angrybeast96 on May 20, 2012 21:27:30 GMT -5
While I'm on the subject of competitive play is it possible for an indicator to be placed in the killcam along with the perks to identify headset users. At least so others can tell they are getting soundwhored even if DS can't totally negate it. Why do I have to be in the dark about that? Nope. The Console has no control over what happens to the signal after it has left the box, e.g. Mine passes thru a HDPVR first, then to my headset.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on May 20, 2012 21:28:20 GMT -5
While I'm on the subject of competitive play is it possible for an indicator to be placed in the killcam along with the perks to identify headset users. At least so others can tell they are getting soundwhored even if DS can't totally negate it. Why do I have to be in the dark about that? Why ever assume that they aren't? Keep your guard up and move cautiously; don't underestimate your enemy. Play like everyone can hear you at all times, then you could even use the fact that they can hear you to your advantage.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 20, 2012 21:41:18 GMT -5
I'm trying to, but I don't know the natural limitations on sound. I don't know how far or how well I can be heard or how much crouching really helps. I have no idea if it was instinct or sound that made someone turn on me. Its inexperience that is the greatest problem. If I knew what people can do I would be able to take more precise care. And I would have to change my way of playing to account for it. I'm not fond of breaking my rusher habits. I'm still not sure which I hate more; giving up my tier 3 to DS or changing the way I rush.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2012 22:15:48 GMT -5
I don't think the player base would appreciate being paired up by their skill level. The great players would never find a match or at least not with good connection, the good players wouldn't get to pub stomp anymore, the average get to be free of people that are better than them, and the noobs would never learn anything from someone better than them. It sounds like an easy way to loss cod vets. Oh, and what would the measure of skill be? I don't think kd will work. SPM is flawed as well in terms of parties. And what level of skill will parties be judged at? Best player, party leader, worst player, average skill? Sounds incredibly complex and liable to be ineffective. Great players would find matches with other great players (games far less popular still work with skill matchmaking). Removing pub stomping is a good thing. It makes higher level players have to try to win, and lower level players get to play with other lower level players (and to people who enjoy pub stomping, they can sit in a corner and cry because they are effectively ruining the game for lower level players by doing so). It would be really easy to make as well. Integrating with Elite, clans would be ranked as a clan. Individuals could play ranked on their own in a separate mercenary ranked playlist, perhaps allowing for parties of 2 or 3 so you can play with a good friend or two in ranked without needing a full team. Give them all different ratings where clans would have a group rating. Ratings could be based off of many things. I could give my opinion but it would obviously be something decided by a team of people (or they could just use Halo Reach's true skill or whatever its called formula if they are lazy). It really isn't that difficult to add, and it would make the game more competitive instantly without really affecting anyone negatively except people who think pub stomping is how the game is supposed to be played (it's not).
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on May 20, 2012 22:30:59 GMT -5
I agree. But really, I think the solution is simple... weakening the perks.
All of them. Aside from dropping SP and Jugg, the rest just need to be less significant. EX: SoH: -25% reload time, instead of 50%. BTW, its not SRP that counters DS, its the other way around. DS is a broken perk. Should be no less than 2/3 footstep noise.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on May 21, 2012 0:02:16 GMT -5
The way I view the Stopping Power, Juggs, UAV Jammer Trifecta in CoD4 was:
Stopping Power: 1 bullet less to kill.
Juggs: Survive 1 more bullet.
UAV Jammer: 1st bullet (Through stealth/surprise however not as consistent as SP/Juggs, you can't have surprise all the time)
SoH: lolollolololololollolololololololol
|
|
|
Post by MastaQ on May 21, 2012 0:15:08 GMT -5
SoH: lolollolololololollolololololololol Especially since CoD4 was by far the easiest CoD to reload cancel in. You could easily reload cancel anything besides the Mini-Uzi and the Skorpion. Oh do I miss that game...
|
|
|
Post by ElysMustache on May 21, 2012 2:35:59 GMT -5
Removing pub stomping is a good thing. Nope. I don't want to try hard every single freaking time I play. One thing I love about this game is that it mixes the strong and weak players together. So some games are challenging and others are easy. Last time I played Halo, the only matches I could ever get were against very difficult opponents (there were not exceptions to this), and it sucked.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on May 21, 2012 3:29:34 GMT -5
It's fun when you come up against a team of poor players that you can dominate, but it's equally as frustrating when you've been stuck on the same damn side as them...
I like a lobby to have mixed skill levels, but I'd like the teams to be better balanced in the way these are distributed and the overall balance needs to be right.
So in a 6v6, Ideally I'd like 2 good to great players, 2 average players and 2 'noobs' on one team, and the same blend on the other side. This means the top players get a challenge from their good players, the guys in the middle can have a decent chance against everyone, and the 'noobs' have a couple of similar players on the opposition to face off against.
What often happens however is that you get about 2-3 good players along with 2-3 average players on one side, and 1 good player and 5 'noobs' on the other...
I'd like some sort of system like the XBOX trueskill (I think it's called that), that sorts the lobbies by this and connection to give the most balanced options, whereas at the minute I get frequent shit connections with a bunch of foreign players and often stuck on the side full of retards who hold the gun by the barrel...
|
|
|
Post by crocs on May 21, 2012 6:34:43 GMT -5
I'm trying to, but I don't know the natural limitations on sound. I don't know how far or how well I can be heard or how much crouching really helps. I have no idea if it was instinct or sound that made someone turn on me. Its inexperience that is the greatest problem. If I knew what people can do I would be able to take more precise care. And I would have to change my way of playing to account for it. I'm not fond of breaking my rusher habits. I'm still not sure which I hate more; giving up my tier 3 to DS or changing the way I rush. I can understand not wanting to invest in a shiny new XBOX headset, but most any headphones will give you a pretty accurate idea of what soundwhores are capable of. I have a hard time understanding why more players don't just plug any old headphones directly into their TV to play, excepting those with really nice home theater setups.
|
|
acidsnow
True Bro
Guardian Angel
Posts: 726
|
Post by acidsnow on May 21, 2012 9:36:00 GMT -5
If you guys want variety, then DotA is the game for you. ...CoD still has a long way to go, but if you're finally starting to feel "CoD Perk fatigue" - after all these years - then you'll be in for a surprise with BOps 2.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel4 on May 21, 2012 9:52:46 GMT -5
I'm trying to, but I don't know the natural limitations on sound. I don't know how far or how well I can be heard or how much crouching really helps. Crouching makes you completely silent. They will never hear you, except if you jump or reload etc... You should really start playing with a headset. Even a piece of shit headset will help a lot.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 21, 2012 10:20:45 GMT -5
I've got a giant list of 'I wants'. Headsets are kind of farther down the list. New computer, more books, new tv, an extra ps3 so me and my bro don't have to share, other real life crap, headsets. Most likely I will keep going with a computer that tints everything blue, a non hd tv, no headsets, and only get a ps3 when I'm ready to move out. So I think I'll go with getting new stuff instead of upgrading the working stuff.
|
|
j1000
True Bro
Posts: 268
|
Post by j1000 on May 21, 2012 11:37:35 GMT -5
They had superior balance because each character had something unique to offer. It couldn't be quantified. This pretty much sums it up, and also points to how weapons should be balanced. When weapon balance is off, it's usually because it *can* be quantified. The MW3 M16 vs T95 is the perfect example. I was really glad to see Black Ops remove SP and Jugger for the very reasons you mentioned. More damage? Why would you NOT pick that? I don't think hard counters are inherently terrible. Punch/block, and UAV/Counter UAV are successful examples. But hard counters are the laziest way to design perks, and sometimes you end up with stuff like Stopping Power and Juggernaut. You could probably argue that there are always "soft" ways of implementing perks that are better than the hard version, like OP was originally saying. Edit: Looking at my own examples, UAV/Counter UAV is actually soft, because they both must be activated and both are temporary. Same with punch/block. "Hard" is better illustrated with ever-present boosts like perks. Simply having perk A should never make perk B disappear. Maybe that's a good rule.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on May 21, 2012 12:45:57 GMT -5
My favorite hard counter is how one of Assassin's 10 pro benefits completely counters out the primary effect of Marksman. Thanks IW.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 21, 2012 14:33:48 GMT -5
^ I know. That counter is the one that pisses me off the most. There isn't any way to rationalize it.
|
|
|
Post by illram on May 21, 2012 15:26:08 GMT -5
I thought MW2's Cold Blooded/SP Pro was the closest they got to "balancing" perks for the reasons Den stated. In MW3, Assassin is just too dominant to warrant using anything else. I don't remember BO being particularly good in that regard either, I used Ghost for pretty much every tier 1 perk, other than niche classes like Blast Shield for flag capping or something.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on May 21, 2012 17:10:34 GMT -5
I tended to run Flakjacket for more general useage than ghost. Flakjacket freed up my tier 3 for something other than hacker.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Jigglypuff on May 21, 2012 23:10:52 GMT -5
I thought MW2's Cold Blooded/SP Pro was the closest they got to "balancing" perks for the reasons Den stated. In MW3, Assassin is just too dominant to warrant using anything else. I don't remember BO being particularly good in that regard either, I used Ghost for pretty much every tier 1 perk, other than niche classes like Blast Shield for flag capping or something. The only thing that justifies Assassin's capabilities is the Support Package. Just consider how this game would play without Assassin.
|
|
|
Post by blues27xx on May 22, 2012 0:52:26 GMT -5
Support was a bad idea in the first place.
|
|