War! Huh! Good God yall...what is it good for? CoD Thursday!

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:27 pm

RobVarak wrote: Mac was lvl 35 versus my lvl 1...

I hate even *reading* this line about an online FPS. I know I'm just grumpy and old, but since I have relatively little playtime nowadays it's bad enough that I know I'll be behind the 8-ball with regards to experience and map knowledge, but I'll also be handicapped in tangible game capabilities. This trend is not going away anytime soon, either. Borderlands has been a huge hit, and the idea that the future of FPS is in their blending with RPGs has caught fire, with folks like Gears's Cliffy B. preaching it as well.

A couple of months ago in the thread about what people want from the game industry in upcoming years, Don Chaps mentioned 'simplicity,' especially in regards to him knowing that he is competing against his online opponents on a level playing field. I sympathized with his viewpoint then, and even more now that I've seen what shooters like Borderlands and MW2 are doing, not to mention crazy-boosted NHL online Club skaters, etc, etc.

Mini-rant off. I realize this is my issue, stemming from how much of both time and money I'm now willing to invest in games. (And the fact that I am grumpy and old.

)

btmmayor · Post by **btmmayor** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:30 pm

10spro wrote:It was nice to see a room of DSP'ers playing this game. Mac, 'Search and Destroy' was interesting, it's intense, no spawning until the next mission, but watching it too often as a spectator it's no fun. But it sure goe fast.

Search and Destroy was awesome!! Last night was the first time I've played that mode and I loved it. My favorite part was sneaking nice and slow through that Airport terminal with Teal, picking a few dudes off, boarding the plane and then flanking both sides of the package after arming the bomb. Great stuff. I really enjoy the no respawn modes as it adds a lot of tension to the game. With one team trying to plant the bomb, Search and Destroy fixes the problem where both teams just camp in no respawn games.

I have never been a fan of the Call Of Duty multiplayer, but for some reason MW2 has me hooked. I don't know why either because, as others have said, its very similar to previous games. No matter the reason, I'm enjoying it a ton.

TCrouch · Post by **TCrouch** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:35 pm

webdanzer wrote:A couple of months ago in the thread about what people want from the game industry in upcoming years, Don Chaps mentioned 'simplicity,' especially in regards to him knowing that he is competing against his online opponents on a level playing field.

That's exactly my point. Nail on the head.

I love when I'm shot from across the map by somebody who popped off a good round, or found a good spot and waxed me (Fshguy comes to mind last night from some window locations).

I DON'T like squaring up against a guy, unloading 2 or 3 bullets into him and then getting 1 that killed me. Then in the replay it shows "Stopping Power" and whatever the other one is that made them harder to kill. That means that it's no longer a level playing field, but almost like an MMO where you have to invest a lot of time with complete asshats just to play with some buddies unless you want to always be the weak link on the team.

At least if everything was unlocked in private rooms, everybody would be on a level playing field again--pick and choose your loadouts, and if it didn't work, then that's your fault. Not a forced restriction.

As for my experience, I lasted all of 3 minutes in a random match because I literally heard:

Your momma jokes
Chuck Norris Jokes
Black Jokes
Gay Jokes

And every F-bomb imaginable. In THREE MINUTES. That was all she wrote for me. Then when I realized I'd have to play that extensively just to get some stuff to tinker with the DSP gang, it made me realize why I never played the first one much, either.

TheTruth · Post by **TheTruth** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:38 pm

Couldn't we on some nights split the group up maybe into two individual parties to play as teams against the randoms? That way everyone still earns xp.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:42 pm

webdanzer wrote:
RobVarak wrote: Mac was lvl 35 versus my lvl 1...
I hate even *reading* this line about an online FPS. I know I'm just grumpy and old, but since I have relatively little playtime nowadays it's bad enough that I know I'll be behind the 8-ball with regards to experience and map knowledge, but I'll also be handicapped in tangible game capabilities. This trend is not going away anytime soon, either. Borderlands has been a huge hit, and the idea that the future of FPS is in their blending with RPGs has caught fire, with folks like Gears's Cliffy B. preaching it as well.

A couple of months ago in the thread about what people want from the game industry in upcoming years, Don Chaps mentioned 'simplicity,' especially in regards to him knowing that he is competing against his online opponents on a level playing field. I sympathized with his viewpoint then, and even more now that I've seen what shooters like Borderlands and MW2 are doing, not to mention crazy-boosted NHL online Club skaters, etc, etc.

Mini-rant off. I realize this is my issue, stemming from how much of both time and money I'm now willing to invest in games. (And the fact that I am grumpy and old. )

But really, web, level 35 in this game doesn't mean a whole lot. They don't have extra armor or more hit points or anything-it's just a level. Trust me, I'm a 10 and I've killed my share of level 25ers and up in public matches-takes just as many bullets to kill them as it does me. Now, yeah, there are some perks, like the heartbeat sensor, but I've picked those guns up from dead 'colonels' as well, and have had them picked up off my dead carcass after I got one. They aren't *that* much of an advantage.

I should see Borderlands in my mailbox this afternoon. I have a feeling it's leveling system is NOTHING like MW2's. All the leveling talk is quite a bit of much ado about nothing in MW2, outside of getting a laser sight or whatever. Laser sights DO help with aiming, no doubt, but I get killed by guys with iron sights all the time, and the 'deathstreak' alternative to killstreaks is a stroke of genius, leveling the playing field if you happen to be sucking hind teat in a round.

This is the most balanced online shooter I've ever played, that has any kind of reward system.

btmmayor · Post by **btmmayor** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:57 pm

webdanzer wrote:
RobVarak wrote: Mac was lvl 35 versus my lvl 1...
I hate even *reading* this line about an online FPS. I know I'm just grumpy and old, but since I have relatively little playtime nowadays it's bad enough that I know I'll be behind the 8-ball with regards to experience and map knowledge, but I'll also be handicapped in tangible game capabilities. This trend is not going away anytime soon, either. Borderlands has been a huge hit, and the idea that the future of FPS is in their blending with RPGs has caught fire, with folks like Gears's Cliffy B. preaching it as well.

A couple of months ago in the thread about what people want from the game industry in upcoming years, Don Chaps mentioned 'simplicity,' especially in regards to him knowing that he is competing against his online opponents on a level playing field. I sympathized with his viewpoint then, and even more now that I've seen what shooters like Borderlands and MW2 are doing, not to mention crazy-boosted NHL online Club skaters, etc, etc.

Mini-rant off. I realize this is my issue, stemming from how much of both time and money I'm now willing to invest in games. (And the fact that I am grumpy and old. )

I used to feel the same way but I've come around on the issue.

Speaking just about online shooters (not sports games like Tiger or NHL in which I think RPG elements in online play is absolute stupidity), I think that leveling up is a great way to keep the game interesting, fresh and fun for those that enjoy the game. In a game like CoD, I don't feel like not having the equipment my higher level opponents have is that much of a disadvantage. Items are handed out slowly enough and are not that powerful that they have a massive effect. If I were given the exact same equipment as someone 20 levels higher than me, I would still not be on an even playfield as their experience and map knowledge is far greater than mine. I don't feel that the upgraded equipment is the difference between their skill and mine.

If you fire up a game once a month, get annihilated and then complain its because guys are 30 levels higher than you, I think you are off base. Those guys would annihilate you anyway, regardless of upgraded tech or levels. I LOVE Warhawk on the PS3, but unfortunately, like most DSP'ers who are actual adult, productive members of society, I don't have the time to dedicate myself to becoming a pro. You do not level up in Warhawk, but I routinely get smeared when I do decide to play it. Its just a part of playing competitive online games. Leveling up, if done properly where skills or items are handed out slowly enough not to create a huge balance issue, is in my opinion a great way to extend the life of an online game if you really enjoy it. A reason to keep coming back if you will.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:02 pm

Hey if some guy has played this game 18 hours already, they are going to kill me with a knife it doesn't matter the weapon.

Like I said this is a better version of Halo, it's a twitch shooter with a leveling system. I prefer tactical shooters but I still had fun last night. I don't mind dying to friends.

I just don't have the time to play random games so I am not going to get a whole lot of leveling done anytime soon. I'm needed in Fereldin after all.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:04 pm

Exactly, btm. How long did 'Battlefield 1943' last? Not very long. Why? Nothing new, for one thing, and those who pour, pour, pour themselves way too much into a game are beating the living hell out of people who occasionally wander back in. I enjoyed it, but there's no leveling up, no perks, no 'advantages', and still I wander in and get waxed easily. So it ain't the 'perks'.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:08 pm

Danimal wrote:Hey if some guy has played this game 18 hours already, they are going to kill me with a knife it doesn't matter the weapon.

Like I said this is a better version of Halo, it's a twitch shooter with a leveling system. I prefer tactical shooters but I still had fun last night. I don't mind dying to friends.

I just don't have the time to play random games so I am not going to get a whole lot of leveling done anytime soon. I'm needed in Fereldin after all.

I don't consider this a 'twitch' shooter, Dan...at all. I love realistic shooters, too (we need to play some more Op Flashpoint soon), but this one is tactical if you approach it that way. Deathmatches are NEVER going to be all that tactical, no matter the game, but Search and Destroy IS quite tactical. Is it Flashpoint tactical? No. Does that make it just a 'better Halo'? Not by a long shot.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:15 pm

Teal wrote:Exactly, btm. How long did 'Battlefield 1943' last? Not very long. Why? Nothing new, for one thing, and those who pour, pour, pour themselves way too much into a game are beating the living hell out of people who occasionally wander back in. I enjoyed it, but there's no leveling up, no perks, no 'advantages', and still I wander in and get waxed easily. So it ain't the 'perks'.

That hasn't been my experience with 1943, actually. In fact, that *is* a game I only fire up once in a while and still can do well at, finishing at the top of my team most of the time.

As far as MW2 goes, since I've only read about it I can't argue your and BTM's points by experience. I do find it hard to believe though, that someone that can detect me by UAV, radar, and/or heartbeat kind of while he is invisible to all of them himself doesn't have a fairly significant advantage above and beyond what he'd have just from his playing time and map knowledge.

I'll probably rent or gamefly this, though, and since that will probably take a while, I can see for myself how bad it is when I fire it up and join folks who have been playing for weeks already.

btmmayor · Post by **btmmayor** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:18 pm

Teal wrote:Exactly, btm. How long did 'Battlefield 1943' last?

I'm the wrong person to ask that question to.

Only three maps, no leveling, and about 5 or 6 weapons.............and yeah, at last check on Battlefield1943.com I've sunk about 34 hours into the game.

There have only been 4 online multiplayer shooters that I've sunk any significant time into and 1943 is on that list (PDZ, Gears and Warhawk fill out the list). I'm so mad they did not support that game with any additional dlc even after selling a million plus, but I guess it did its job on me as I can't wait for Bad Company 2 to hit.

Anyway, back on topic, MW2 is fixing to hit number 5 on my online multiplayer shooter list.

btmmayor · Post by **btmmayor** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:33 pm

webdanzer wrote:I do find it hard to believe though, that someone that can detect me by UAV, radar, and/or heartbeat kind of while he is invisible to all of them himself doesn't have a fairly significant advantage above and beyond what he'd have just from his playing time and map knowledge.

Who knows, maybe when I unlock some of the upgraded tech I'll think "holy @#$%, how did I survive without this stuff". The radar stuff would be a HUGE advantage/disadvantage, but as far as I can see right now from my limited playtime, the UAV/radar stuff is available to everyone on your team when its activated through a kill streak. Silencers and the heartbeat detector looks like the only level upgrades that would affect radar detection and that seems to be a rock/paper/scissors looking trade off as you sacrifice other attachments to use it. Again, I'm a "noob" if you will at the CoD games so I could be off base.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:35 pm

Teal wrote: I don't consider this a 'twitch' shooter, Dan...at all. I love realistic shooters, too (we need to play some more Op Flashpoint soon), but this one is tactical if you approach it that way. Deathmatches are NEVER going to be all that tactical, no matter the game, but Search and Destroy IS quite tactical. Is it Flashpoint tactical? No. Does that make it just a 'better Halo'? Not by a long shot.

I guess that depends on your definition of twitch shooter. Here are some things I look for.

- Is memorizing the Map easy to do and an advantage
- Is there no penalty to dying
- Is there a realistic injury system, body parts being hurt, needing to be healed.
- Are melee kills over powered
- Can you take cover and shoot from it
- Can you camp spawn points
- Is there any kind of tactical awareness indicator

I still think it is fun. Can certain modes and options make the game more tactical, sure they can. But in my opinion this game is your standard FPS which by definition always sway more towards the arcade / twitch crowd.

Like you said different strokes.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:36 pm

As I mentioned in the other thread, I spent a lot of time in COD4. I think I stopped at level 4 prestige class.

While I occasionally goofed around with the toys I unlocked, I spent the vast majority of my play time using equipment that was available extremely early in rankings;

-Mp5 smg (unlocked at start) or M4 assault rifle (lvl 10)
-stopping power and steady aim perks (unlocked at start)
-red dot sight (unlocked with 25 kills per weapon)

I can't speak to MW2 yet, but I would be very surprised if IW simply blew it after they spend so much time preaching balance. The way the whole perks/unlocks system works is that to use a new toy you have to sacrifice one of the toys that got you there in the first place.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Naples39 wrote:As I mentioned in the other thread, I spent a lot of time in COD4. I think I stopped at level 4 prestige class.

While I occasionally goofed around with the toys I unlocked, I spent the vast majority of my play time using equipment that was available extremely early in rankings;

-Mp5 smg (unlocked at start) or M4 assault rifle (lvl 10)
-stopping power and steady aim perks (unlocked at start)
-red dot sight (unlocked with 25 kills per weapon)

I can't speak to MW2 yet, but I would be very surprised if IW simply blew it after they spend so much time preaching balance. The way the whole perks/unlocks system works is that to use a new toy you have to sacrifice one of the toys that got you there in the first place.

Unless you get the 'bling' perk, that is...

I'm with naples. In CoD4, I wound up using the laser sight that I got at level whatever, even after getting acog scopes and all those pretty little additions. I'm more effective with the simple stuff early on.

Listen, I know different people see things different ways, and that's fine. But the actual experience of the perks and equipment and all that isn't nearly as crucial a 'perk' as some would lead us to believe. I mean, yeah, I know...seeing a heartbeat sensor and an ACOG scope on the gun that killed you could give you that impression...until you see other deaths coming from a guy with a pistol and no perks, a dude with a knife, or someone eyeing you from an iron sight. The perks help me because, frankly, I'm not very good! I don't get 24+ kills a round; sometimes I do well to manage 1 or 2. And I'm going to level up whether I do well or I suck-you get points for all sorts of things, not just kills. So the leveling is just a little bonus, as far as I can see it.

TCrouch · Post by **TCrouch** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:11 pm

I fully expect to get killed by guys who are a higher level for just that reason--they're better and played more.

But as much as you guys are saying that we're missing the point for not seeing that, I also feel that you guys are missing that point that we're still forced to play with a bunch of no-names just to have any hope of grabbing the stuff to give us the slightest chance.

The OTHER guys are obviously good enough to kill us with a potato gun. WE'RE not, so the fact that we can't get a red dot sight for the private matches (which are probably the only ones I'll ever play) make it unnecessarily restrictive.

And while some players may be able to take me out from 100 feet with iron sights (saw that a few times last night), I need the red dot to have any clue where I'm aiming on most guns. Combine that with the "die, wait for respawn" mode that we played later and it got extremely dull for me.

I didn't even understand the point of that one--"defend or attack", but it still boiled down to "kill everybody, because then you win anyway". So it was basically still team deathmatch with no respawns, except you knew where to kill each other at.

In any case, I don't think anybody's saying that the perks are overpowered and completely turn the tide...but it's crazy to say that they do NOTHING. Otherwise what's the point in having them if they do nothing? I know that when I had stopping power and some other crap in the last Modern Warfare, I could take a few bullets before dying. Last night I'd draw a bead on somebody and "thwap"...dead.

Leadfoot5 · Post by **Leadfoot5** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:35 pm

Guys -

Playing this game with DSP'ers vs. randoms is a night and day difference for me. (Thanks for the invite Rob!) I can only get in a couple of hours of gameplay a week, so my ranking will be in the single digits for quite some time. But it's ok, because I can still get in a few kills and have a few laughs.

Mac was bugging the crap out of me with his heartbeat gun in the later rounds last night, but it made it SO much sweeter to take him down. Like Terry, getting killed in random rooms with folks with a 30+ ranking is annoying but unless I'm playing with you guys, I don't wear a headset, so it's all good.[/b]

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:35 pm

TCrouch wrote:... I also feel that you guys are missing that point that we're still forced to play with a bunch of no-names just to have any hope of grabbing the stuff to give us the slightest chance.

Yeah, as I said above, I agree with you there. No reason not to let the host unlock all the weapons in a private match, though it would be a bit of a pain for everyone to re-make all their classes.

Also, not putting in the bare minimum time to unlock create-a-class and a red-dot scope or two is a significant disadvantage. I guess I just find it's not that big of a deal to play with randoms to reach those modest milestones.

TCrouch · Post by **TCrouch** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:39 pm

Yeah, because in the Team DM session early on, it was a blast. I'd miss a shot, get killed, kill somebody who was engaged with a teammate, etc. It was a lot of fun, even if I was spraying bullets randomly all over hell and back.

I was having a grand ol' time with that, but still wished I had the option of choosing a different gun or loadout or just about anything other than the 3 default configurations.

I think I'll go home at lunch and leave the mic off and sign in to play the assrabbits and see how that goes.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:48 pm

TCrouch wrote:Yeah, because in the Team DM session early on, it was a blast. I'd miss a shot, get killed, kill somebody who was engaged with a teammate, etc. It was a lot of fun, even if I was spraying bullets randomly all over hell and back.

I was having a grand ol' time with that, but still wished I had the option of choosing a different gun or loadout or just about anything other than the 3 default configurations.

I think I'll go home at lunch and leave the mic off and sign in to play the assrabbits and see how that goes.

You know what? You can enter a match, put the controller down, and STILL level up eventually.

Of course, you won't get laser sights and what not doing that...

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:51 pm

FYI - how to unlock weapon attachments per gun. This is the most important of CoD upgrades IMO.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:31 pm

Naples39 wrote:FYI - how to unlock weapon attachments per gun. This is the most important of CoD upgrades IMO.

In the last game, I earned alot of junk after the red dot sight...and went back to the red dot sight. Don't see a need for a 'silencer' when replays will show you right where I am with my silenced weapon...

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:32 pm

I never minded playing randoms on CoD4, because it was therapeutic to gun down many of them. As Samuel Jackson once said, "YES THEY DESERVED TO DIE, AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!"

Also, the red dot, shotgun, and holographic perks would be able to be won pretty quickly. Even the silencer and heartbeat sensor wouldn't take that long to get.

They definitely should allow private matches to set parameters for unlockables, whether you want to allow everything, only allow some things, etc.

TCrouch · Post by **TCrouch** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:33 pm

So the silencer doesn't hide your red dot on the map? I thought that was the whole point?

Evidently the whole point is just to get to the heartbeat sensor, then

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:38 pm

TCrouch wrote:...it's no longer a level playing field, but almost like an MMO...

'Activision Blizzard Thomas Tippl was asked if the successful World of Warcraft online business model will ever translate into the publisher's other major franchises, such as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. While Tippl said WoW's model is difficult to replicate, players should expect new montization models for its other titles soon enough.

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys."'

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1044965p1.html

This is definitely where the industry wants to go. Seems like a good idea for them too...get folks to invest in a game and they'll be less likely to give it up. Couple that with giving 'perks' to players who pay or play more...