|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 12, 2014 9:23:41 GMT -5
Holy shit does it kill people to not sit back and camp the entire game? I just played my first game on Ghosts in months and the entire match was hiding around corners. What a joke this game has become. You want the core problem with at least Ghosts? tactical loitering is all anyone can do. At least in other shooters people move around the map instead of finding multiple corners to hide around with their slienced weapons.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jul 12, 2014 9:32:40 GMT -5
Holy shit does it kill people to not sit back and camp the entire game? I just played my first game on Ghosts in months and the entire match was hiding around corners. What a joke this game has become. You want the core problem with at least Ghosts? tactical loitering is all anyone can do. At least in other shooters people move around the map instead of finding multiple corners to hide around with their slienced weapons. I hear the same complaint about every CoD game. We all do. And you played one match.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 12, 2014 9:50:46 GMT -5
Don't play dumb, you knew exactly what was included, and what wouldn't be, when you bought the game. You knew there would be microtransactions for customization packs not included in your $60 purchase. You knew that there were 15 maps included, and 16 maps not included. You weren't tricked, you got exactly what you were expecting. By the way, another way to think about it is that the DLC is just a form of price discrimination, which likely benefits both Activision and consumers. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the full game costs 120 dollars because the season pass isn't optional unless you want only half the game. That's not even including the microdlc being shoved in the face of players at every chance now. I got the whole game for $60 do you live in Australia or something? Or are you referring to the 100% optional 100% additional map packs that aren't required in order to play the game?
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 12, 2014 9:59:42 GMT -5
So long as there are corners, buildings, chokepoints, predictable spawns, pre match loadouts and regenerating health etc...tactical loitering isn't going to go away. It's been around forever, and it's going to always be around. Just be glad they nerfed stealth so much you don't need just one or two perks to be all but invisible. Ah the good old days, when it was possible to hide in a bush, go heat something up in the microwave, get something to drink, maybe piss and you'll still be alive when you get back
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 12, 2014 17:14:48 GMT -5
Holy shit does it kill people to not sit back and camp the entire game? I just played my first game on Ghosts in months and the entire match was hiding around corners. What a joke this game has become. You want the core problem with at least Ghosts? tactical loitering is all anyone can do. At least in other shooters people move around the map instead of finding multiple corners to hide around with their slienced weapons. You're complaining about people using suppressors? Red dot hunter are we?
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 12, 2014 18:22:04 GMT -5
Oh also. It's ridiculous to think that if they werent charging for the extra maps, that they would even exist. Ghosts has the same number of maps in the base game as cod4 did (only one less if you dont count preorder bonus). The only cod with more than 16 base maps is Cod2 at 18 maps. Unless literally every cod has been an unfinished game (including the ones that didnt even have dlc at all) than map packs existing can hardly be considered anything but "extra;" and if it does mean a game is unfinished to you, then dont buy the da mn thing. The only installment I consider the DLC mandatory extra bullshit is world at war because it kicks you from lobbies whenever a DLC map gets picked instead of splitting the search up. That was terrible. That's my biggest gripe with W@W. Even the MP40 Jugs aren't as annoying as being kicked from a lobby just before the match starts. Who the hell thought that was a good idea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 18:54:22 GMT -5
That's my biggest gripe with W@W. Even the MP40 Jugs aren't as annoying as being kicked from a lobby just before the match starts. Who the hell thought that was a good idea? The same guy who thought it was a good idea to bundle zombie/extinction maps with multiplayer maps and stamp $15 on the whole darn thing, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 13, 2014 0:24:58 GMT -5
Holy shit does it kill people to not sit back and camp the entire game? I just played my first game on Ghosts in months and the entire match was hiding around corners. What a joke this game has become. You want the core problem with at least Ghosts? tactical loitering is all anyone can do. At least in other shooters people move around the map instead of finding multiple corners to hide around with their slienced weapons. You're complaining about people using suppressors? Red dot hunter are we? Just because they are using suppressed weapons doesn't mean I'm complaining about the existence of them specifically. The problem with Ghosts is the maps are oversided with too many hiding holes. That added with the fact that the graphics are trash makes the game cater to campers. You can't even see them half the time because they look like the background. The only ways to play the game are to camp or check every single corner because the one you don't check has someone tactical loitering in it.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Jul 13, 2014 1:22:10 GMT -5
I got in a game where the only time I killed this guy or he killed me was when he was in a corner. Not even fucking shitting you. Match after match, that's all he did. I would be playing Black Ops 2 to try and complete my 'Every Gun Diamond' challenge if it weren't for the fact that my PS3 couldn't update the game.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 13, 2014 2:22:52 GMT -5
You're complaining about people using suppressors? Red dot hunter are we? Just because they are using suppressed weapons doesn't mean I'm complaining about the existence of them specifically. The problem with Ghosts is the maps are oversided with too many hiding holes. That added with the fact that the graphics are trash makes the game cater to campers. You can't even see them half the time because they look like the background. The only ways to play the game are to camp or check every single corner because the one you don't check has someone tactical loitering in it. The graphics have always been trash though. MW3 was overly grey and Black Ops 1 wasn't that much better. Black Ops 2, from what I remember, had some added orange presumably to stop people tactical loitering. You are always going to get people being lazy and camp. I've been killed by corner campers with shotguns in BO2 and corner campers using ARs in BO1. I have even seen people try to camp whilst being near invisible in Crysis 3 too. I usually check common areas where people camp or avoid them if need be.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 13, 2014 13:21:13 GMT -5
I see TotalBiscuit's point, regarding DLC. I tend to agree with him. That was a good video and I didn't realize Forza did that. But Forza's DLC/Microtransaction problems are not comparable to what is going on with CoD. As far as I know (as I don't play the campaigns), there's no overall lengthening of the campaign mode to ridiculous lengths (making it impossible), so people get frustrated and buy the finish they want. That doesn't happen in CoD, does it? Nope. COD micro DLCs have nearly always been cosmetic. I can't speak for Forza 5 but Horizon made it so you can achievements for earning medals with each different car by a specific category, for example: 8 different Lamborghinis (20G) 7 different Nissans (20G) 10 different BMWs (20G) 13 different Fords (20G) 3 different Shelbys (20G) Basically you could realistically get all the cars in a specific group, minus one. To get that particular car you had to play the game for a shed ton of unreasonable hours (say 1,000 playing hours per car - and I'm not joking on this because you have to constantly buy and sell cars, selling cars go for peanuts of course) to earn the in-game credits to buy it or you could easily buy that specific car for about £1.70. Because it has always been that one car for several manufacturers it is obvious it was planned. I managed to get all the cars for the Ferraris using in-game credit but, after that I saw that I couldn't complete the others, I packed it in. I bought the game cheap at a sale on XBL but, considering it doesn't have split screen, along with their laced DLC 'incentives', there wasn't much left going for it. It's a shame because many of the staff at Turn 10 used to work for Bizarre Creations, the creators of Project Gotham Racing. I have played Blur and Split/Second and there is absolutely none of this BS in their games. **** it, gives us another Burnout. It know doesn't happen in the multiplayer. There's no gaming advantage to getting micro stuff. Even the DLC guns weren't that good. As said before, just camos that made you stand out more. "Buy a bright florescent red gun camo, get shot easier"...cosmetic stuff. That doesn't help anyone play the game better. So there's no issue here with this. As long as the DLC guns are balanced with the rest of the vanilla guns it is a non-issue. I know of a few Battlefield players who don't like DLC guns but then if this a problem then so should be the level unlock system, since there's a chance that better gear is unlocked at the higher levels. Even then one of the Battlefields had three guns to unlock for multiplayer that was exclusive via full campaign completion. That's why I liked Ghosts for more or less abolishing the unlock system and Infinity Ward may have had to make more cosmetic stuff to keep the player base since there isn't the unlock system as we previously knew it to keep players grinding. In fact, COD has eased over the 'hardness' of grinding over instalments from my experience. I can only think of SitRep and Recon being the last unlocks that took a fair while, while Black Ops required you to play different game modes requiring specific actions that you may not guarantee in a match (plant and defusing bombs, for example). There's some hate towards diamond camo from what I remember during Black Ops 2 but most of these players didn't say a word planning to unlock gold camo on COD4. And doing the no perks and no attachments challenges at once for some guns (LMGs and sniper rifles in my experience) was pretty much a chore so it doesn't bother me if people show off diamond camo. At least the players might be having fun by altering their setups (even if they are regretting it whilst doing the challenges) or using weapons they are not comfortable with. It makes it interesting for me because I scavenge because I tried this in MW3 and it usually meant an ACR or an MP7. But then the series has catered for demonstrating various achievements anyway. Give it five years and people will moan about the player avatars we get for winning a game of Blitz 16-0 (I have this) or whatever.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 13, 2014 14:20:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 9:46:57 GMT -5
Good info Witty. I played a little on Saturday am, and some last night. Player counts were down around 35,000 and 60,000. That's on the XBox360. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Sales numbers aren't the only thing down (32m to 26m to 20m), but player count is down too. Down more than the 1/3 drop in sales should indicate. Based on 1/3 (from MW3), there should be around 100k to 130k people playing this on busy nights. There isn't. The numbers are routinely half of that. So at least on that anecdotal evidence, not only have less people bought the game, but people who did buy it, .....are not playing it as much (or outright quitting it) That should worry Activision (& IW/Treyarch/Sledgehammer). You lose a customer, they might not come back. Which is probably why you see the above panic move by CoD. I don't believe I have ever seen that done yet. Circling this thread back. Activision NEEDS to do something drastic with this series. The issue I listed might not be the no #1 core issue that needs to be dealt with (debatable), but imho, it's time for CoD to do something. IMHO, players have grown tired of the just atrocious garbage gameplay going on with this game. Skirt wearing &^%&-play, where losers go into lobbies just fouling out games with KD, Nuke-hunting and gillie suit garbage. It makes the solo experience just downright awful as well as quitting atrocious, as well as leading to a snail's pace, tactical loitering infested, IED/lean-kill sit-in-corner with tracker sight bvullshit. I do believe the above has reached a tipping point, making people tired of this game. I don't think it's up for debate anymore. People have left this game and are quitting it sooner. What's left is trying to understand why.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Jul 14, 2014 10:03:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not coming back until Treyarch puts out their product. For the record, that is the first time I've said I'm skipping a CoD on here.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Jul 14, 2014 10:15:15 GMT -5
So long as there are corners, buildings, chokepoints, predictable spawns, pre match loadouts and regenerating health etc...tactical loitering isn't going to go away. It's been around forever, and it's going to always be around. Just be glad they nerfed stealth so much you don't need just one or two perks to be all but invisible. Ah the good old days, when it was possible to hide in a bush, go heat something up in the microwave, get something to drink, maybe piss and you'll still be alive when you get back Tactical loitering is less effective though when there are at least 3/4 different routes to get to the loitering spot. Most of the Black Ops 2 maps had almost every tactical loitering spot setup so that it was difficult to stay alive long because inevitably you would predict the wrong spot they would come at you from or you would get wallbanged. It's part of the reason the game is so much more fast paced than ghosts with its numerous one-route-camper's-delights. It's also part of reason nuketown sucks so much. It rewards tactical loitering by forcing offensive players to run right into defensive player's sights. I'm definitely skipping AW if it turns out to be as slow paced as ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 14, 2014 10:51:57 GMT -5
So long as there are corners, buildings, chokepoints, predictable spawns, pre match loadouts and regenerating health etc...tactical loitering isn't going to go away. It's been around forever, and it's going to always be around. Just be glad they nerfed stealth so much you don't need just one or two perks to be all but invisible. Ah the good old days, when it was possible to hide in a bush, go heat something up in the microwave, get something to drink, maybe piss and you'll still be alive when you get back Tactical loitering is less effective though when there are at least 3/4 different routes to get to the loitering spot. Most of the Black Ops 2 maps had almost every tactical loitering spot setup so that it was difficult to stay alive long because inevitably you would predict the wrong spot they would come at you from or you would get wallbanged. It's part of the reason the game is so much more fast paced than ghosts with its numerous one-route-camper's-delights. It's also part of reason nuketown sucks so much. It rewards tactical loitering by forcing offensive players to run right into defensive player's sights. I'm definitely skipping AW if it turns out to be as slow paced as ghosts. And that just makes gameplay more chaotic. It hurts defensive play in objective game modes and benefits offense too much. There's a difference between fast paced gameplay and ADHD riddl-Squirrel!
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jul 14, 2014 10:56:58 GMT -5
In other words, you guys don't want big maps.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 11:05:30 GMT -5
In other words, you guys don't want big maps. It's not necessarily a big map problem. It's a dumb developer problem in some instances. Take this example. Take Ghosts. The developers deliberately blocked/removed GW from the 360/PS3 versions of the game, which also happened to be where (at least initially) 95% of the player base was playing. This effectively made four to five maps just play like sh1t. Some maps like Seige and StoneHaven are cool maps, beautiful and open but were made to be played with 18 people, not 12. Some of these maps, like with TDM, will routinely go the distance without reaching 75 kills. Bad design, when games break down into a game of chicken, where he who moves first, loses. * * (I say the above, as I have played Ghosts on both the 360 and X1. Night and day difference in how GW plays on those maps) When you immediately make 1/4 of your maps suck azz, how can that help the fun factor in this game? It doesn't. There was no reason to not include GW in the 360/PS3 versions. That was a business/marketing decision that backfired. To the guy who earlier said these Activision/IW people are experts, ...how is that an great decision? It was dumb on every level. It just added to the existing problems that surfaced in this game.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Jul 14, 2014 11:15:30 GMT -5
In other words, you guys don't want big maps. Just more routes. What makes warhawk a bad map isn't the size of it, but the fact that the tactical loitering spots all have only 1 or 2 routes of entry.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jul 14, 2014 11:25:36 GMT -5
In other words, you guys don't want big maps. Just more routes. What makes warhawk a bad map isn't the size of it, but the fact that the tactical loitering spots all have only 1 or 2 routes of entry. More routes doesn't "fix" tactical loitering. The only fix for tactical loitering is closed arenas with no obstacles. Ghosts had tons of routes, in part due to the multi-level nature of many of the maps. More routes means more getting shot from locations that no amount of smart play can predict or counter. It also means more places for people to camp.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 14, 2014 11:31:08 GMT -5
In other words, you guys don't want big maps. On the contrary. I love Big Maps, I much rather play a big map then a small one. I just hate maps that have no ebb and flow. I've spent more time playing BO1 then anything else so I'll compare those maps. Array, Cracked, Jungle, WMD and Hazard are all considered large by the game at least...I loved every one of those maps. The maps I disliked had crap flow to them,Crisis, Grid, Nuketown, Berlin Wall, Discovery, Kowloon, Stockpile, and Silo.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 11:32:53 GMT -5
Just more routes. What makes warhawk a bad map isn't the size of it, but the fact that the tactical loitering spots all have only 1 or 2 routes of entry. More routes doesn't "fix" tactical loitering. The only fix for tactical loitering is closed arenas with no obstacles. Ghosts had tons of routes, in part due to the multi-level nature of many of the maps. More routes means more getting shot from locations that no amount of smart play can predict or counter. It also means more places for people to camp. More routes help. Take Warhawk. It is terrible. You have not one, two but THREE 2nd story buildings with only one entry point in each. This is just garbage, especially with people who run two IED's. This basically creates a map with three retard-flypaper traps. Three spots that almost always attract idiots who want to do nothing but race up in there (regardless of objectives), sit facing the door (or typically prone), with IED's and such, and just wait...and wait...and wait...bogging down the game into a slow mess.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jul 14, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -5
I really liked that map. I think my team did, too. But everyone has their own preferences. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 12:00:04 GMT -5
I really liked that map. I think my team did, too. But everyone has their own preferences. *shrug* The map is Ok. I don't necessarily hate it. Especially the wide openness of the B flag area, how everyone just revolves around it. But the three buildings, ....just to much. To many games just bog down into a "Root out the Idiot" type of game, where you are stuck in a boring game, usually a blowout, and just going from building to building to building, trying to extract some idiot lying prone on the 2nd floor. It just gets tiresome. A little less fun.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 14, 2014 12:08:26 GMT -5
Not to beat the dead house (actually maybe I am ): Titanfall has fairly big maps for 6v6 action, but it does not feel campy, it is not slow paced, and for the majority of the times when you lose a gunfight, you know you got out played. The point here is not to say Titanfall is the way to go, but to point out there are ways to make CoD more fun. With Destiny coming out as the biggest ATVI game this year, CoD:AW has significantly less pressure to deliver financially. Hopefully Sledgehammers can make some bold innovative moves. As the new kid on the CoD block, it is OK for them to fail (in terms of sales), but it is unacceptable if they are just doing a copycat. They need to have their own mark on the franchise or die trying. I am still hopeful that CoD:AW can be at least a decent game. However, most likely I may not buy it at launch. My plan is to play Destiny (and maybe Sunset Overdrive, not likely) until Halo MC comes out, switch back and forth between the two until Halo 5 beta (3 weeks during Christmas) is over, and then get into CoD:AW if it has good reception from player community.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 12:27:40 GMT -5
Not to beat the dead house (actually maybe I am ): Titanfall has fairly big maps for 6v6 action, but it does not feel campy, it is not slow paced, and for the majority of the times when you lose a gunfight, you know you got out played. Agree. Classic example of how big maps aren't necessarily slow pace. Mostly because TitanFall ... 1. Has minions which constantly motivates/pushes players to congregate in certain areas, creating action 2. Allows a higher freedom of movement. Literally the entire map is your playground, every rooftop. 3. Has a reward system that is volume/activity based, not 'stay alive at all costs' based. 4. Hides the KD ratio. 5. Allows multiple paths to doing well that more importantly, all contribute to the objective. Titan Kills, Pilot Kills, Minion kills. CoD doesn't do this. CoD's biggest measurement of doing well is the KD ratio, and to do well with this, one must actually play against the objective most of the time (and that doesn't even take into consideration all the quitting/cheating/boosting that goes on to maintain it) This is the path CoD needs to take. Get out of it's fake/boosted KD crap-gameplay mode it's in. But will it? Early peaks don't seem to indicate this. So far, it seems Sledgehammer mostly seems to be about more gadgets and pretty graphics. Better X-Ray vision guns. Smart Grenades. More 'stuff'....with nothing so far even acknowledging issues like the above.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 14, 2014 12:30:03 GMT -5
All it takes to counter players sitting upstairs on Warhawk is a single player on your team using explosives. If there's also someone on your team using SitRep, they can call them out and have them taken out before they fire a shot. That's all it takes. Am I the only one here with a tube class?
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 12:36:11 GMT -5
All it takes to counter players sitting upstairs on Warhawk is a single player on your team using explosives. If there's also someone on your team using SitRep, they can call them out and have them taken out before they fire a shot. That's all it takes. Am I the only one here with a tube class? Good points, but I think we all get that and I think anyone on this board, who is this far into this thread, knows how to handle the above. The bigger question is this. Is the above what CoD is supposed to be about? Run around for ten minutes in a Domination game playing "Extract the douchebag" from the 2nd floor room? Clean one room out...they respawn on the other side and set up shop there. Go clean that room out, they go to the next room. After the fourth time, they just quit, then you run around chasing one person for the next three minutes. Is that really what CoD is about? That's not good gameplay. And that's one (of many reasons) players are leaving this game. Enough is enough. Players are tired of this douchebaggery, which has been openly (and indirectly) encouraged by game designers in the CoD companies, who kept on using the excuse that "sales are increasing" for justification in turning a blind eye in just how bad most all gameplay is. They can't use that excuse anymore. That is probably the core issue, if you think about it. Gameplay. 12 people go into a lobby for a particular game mode, what happens next should a fun and competitive game where all sides go at creating a exciting ten minutes of gaming. Unfortunately, this rarely happens in CoD anymore.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 14, 2014 12:58:16 GMT -5
I was playing COD4 this weekend, and prior to Ghosts most of the complaining on this forum regarding maps was complaints that they are too small and should be more like COD4 maps. But if you go back and play COD4 TDM what stands out is the spawns. Even in TDM, the COD4 spawns are extremely predictable. The two teams advance towards one another. If one team pushes forward, their spawn may move forward closer to the front lines. As they continue to push forward, the other team is pushed back, and finally back into their last "safe" spawn area, which is generally inside of or behind a building. They continue to spawn there so long as their opponents do not push too far into the spawn, in which case the spawns flip and they begin to spawn on the other side of the map. You generally don't have players spawn directly behind you, and in instances where a player spawns near another it is predictable for both of them. The entire feel of the flow of the game is completely different compared to more recent titles.
Or, maybe they should just make more maps in desert towns. That seemed to work for COD4 (Ambush, Backlot, Crash, Crossfire, District, Strike).
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 14, 2014 13:04:59 GMT -5
Someone mentioned they should maybe just go to game mode specific maps. Six Dom maps. Six TDM maps. Etc...Maybe that would help spawns. From my end, I wouldn't put the spawn situation up near the top when talking about core issues.
|
|