I just finished the campaign...and all i can say is...WOW! I honestly enjoyed it more than all the MP i've played, it really is that awesome.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Up and down isn't an issue. The actual act of aiming happens fine... just WAY too slow. By the time I'm anywhere near what I want to shoot at, I'm dead.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
My brother-in-law just suggested that too. I didn't know that was possible. I'll give it a try, but I'll probably end up overshooting when I try to aim then. :biggrin:
Really? Honestly, I haven't finished it yet, but was really annoyed with certain parts so far... like the nva push up the bunkers. Endless waves of enemies, and partner ai that can't shoot a damn thing. Story and setting sand such is definitely cool. I'll try to finish it and give my honest opinion soon.
Well I was just 10 - 0 on Array when the CHUMP HOST dashboarded. To anyone who does that, GET FUCKED (sideways).
Oh well... k/d is up to 2.12
Yah, happened to me a few times to.
I run the same
m16+silence+red dot+ghost+warlord+ninja. Easily my most effective class.
My run n gun is mp5k or ak74u+silence+lightweight+soh+marathon. Gotta be able to reload fast if you run into a gang of enemies.
Hip fire....I tell people this all the time. Pull the trigger before the enemy does. Once you see the enemy, pull the trigger and start moving your target stick towards them. ADS only if needed. I've mowed down 3 people in a room by just spraying from the hip with an smg on them while they're all trying to ads to target me. I'm honestly not the greatest at aiming, so this game is mostly about twitch and reaction.
So last night when I was on the # of players was at 3.9 mil anyone know if it cracked 4 mil?
Greg
Greg
I would have to disagree. The primary reason is balance. People thought COD4 was unbalanced, WaW was unbalanced, and MW2 was unbalanced. Out of the gate, one of the most positive reactions to BO's weapons was how nothing was overpowered and nothing was really a "go-to"/"must-use" weapon.
Can it be balanced through more creative means? Sure, why not... but no one's succeeded at that yet (and previous CoD games haven't even come close), and at this singular point in time, I'm more interested in having fun than trying to innovate weapon balance at the cost of having yet another cache of weapons that only have a small handful of usable choices.
CoD 4: M16 / M4 / P90
MW2: ACR / M4 (two virtually identical AR's, mind you)
BO: Take your pick
Honestly, I feel mw2 had a ton of variety as well as balance. ACR gave you immense accuracy, but it was weak compared to many other guns. Scar was powerfull, but had low fire rate and held less ammo. Earning extended mags was critical for the Scar. Sure, there were some guns like the f2000 and Vector that to me were virtually pointless, but they're fun to try and use here and there.
DrunkenSano
Diamond Member
- Aug 8, 2008
- 3,892
- 490
- 126
Spy planes yes, I don't think it kills the SR71.
Kills spy planes, transport helis, attack helis, chopper gunner, and the gunship.
Advancement in the campaign in based on forward progress, not killing enemies. If you try to stay on the same spot, they will keep coming, but if you keep moving towards you objective, they will stop coming endlessly, but then you'll have to face more.
And I loved that the f2000s fire rate made it the deadliest AR up close, and the vectors accuracy allowed you to engage at a distance. And the acr was a damn good weapon due to it's accuracy, but it was also the slowest killing AR there was.
The difference between the Galil and enfield? One has 5 more bullets, the other reloads marginally quicker. There is also a near meaningless difference in damage that rarely comes into play. At least there's some tradeoff. There's literally none between the commando and ak47. It's better, period.
They really f'ed up here IMO.
Link to charts for gun damage, range, fall off, etc
http://www.joinaclan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/blackops-weapon-damage-chart.png
---whoops looks like it was posted already above, my bad
http://www.joinaclan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/blackops-weapon-damage-chart.png
---whoops looks like it was posted already above, my bad
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
I should mention, thanks to denkirson for that chart. That guy is a true bro to the Call of Duty community (at least the stat-oriented ones).
So a couple of my "gripes" with mp so far.
The maps feel the same. Lots of buildings with open areas. or you geta map like nuke town thats just small CQB. Theres nuketown and the gun range one i felt were close ot the same really. The other maps all feel the same ot me. Just lots of little buildings around roads/walkways. I dunno but MW2 seemed to have different feel to the maps. Rundown was open with buildings. Scrapyard was the CQB outdoors. Favala was CQB but primarily building to building. I just feel the maps all feel the same in Black Ops.
I dont know if its me but i like the sensitivity for normal play. but go into a mode like chopper gunner and it feels slow and unresponsive. like i need to up the sensitivity. Just feels odd since i like it when normal play but then using mounted guns i felt slow and lagged.
Thats really it so far. Other than still using a defualt class since im not sure what i want to buy lol. Wish the training ground you could just try all the different guns. Like single player i liked the FAL but im unsure if id like it in multiplayer Oo
The maps feel the same. Lots of buildings with open areas. or you geta map like nuke town thats just small CQB. Theres nuketown and the gun range one i felt were close ot the same really. The other maps all feel the same ot me. Just lots of little buildings around roads/walkways. I dunno but MW2 seemed to have different feel to the maps. Rundown was open with buildings. Scrapyard was the CQB outdoors. Favala was CQB but primarily building to building. I just feel the maps all feel the same in Black Ops.
I dont know if its me but i like the sensitivity for normal play. but go into a mode like chopper gunner and it feels slow and unresponsive. like i need to up the sensitivity. Just feels odd since i like it when normal play but then using mounted guns i felt slow and lagged.
Thats really it so far. Other than still using a defualt class since im not sure what i want to buy lol. Wish the training ground you could just try all the different guns. Like single player i liked the FAL but im unsure if id like it in multiplayer Oo
GrantMeThePower
Platinum Member
- Jun 10, 2005
- 2,923
- 2
- 0
It looks to me, from that chart, that the FAMAS is way better than the galil. Faster rate of fire, same recoil, faster to return to center, faster to bring up...it has less damager, but without stopping power for anything it doesnt matter because the number of bullets needed to hit are the same and the FAMAS shoots faster.
I agree that i wish the guns were more different... i dont see any that are better for this play style or that play style. its like if you use an AR, they are all pretty much the same.
I agree that i wish the guns were more different... i dont see any that are better for this play style or that play style. its like if you use an AR, they are all pretty much the same.
Karl Agathon
Golden Member
- Sep 30, 2010
- 1,081
- 0
- 0
I know you meant this tip for someone else but I thank you anyway. As I have been having similar issues. More times then not, by the time I aim, im dead. I think part of my problem is I tend to ADS by habbit, even at short to medium ranges. I have to learn to just start firing right away from the hip instead of taking the time to ADS.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
I don't have the game but there is an argument to be made in favor of that. That is, by making the guns really similar, you can basically pick whatever gun you like based on appearance, iron sights, or just because you like the gun, and you won't really be handicapped. Being good at the game becomes more about playing well and less about picking clever perk and weapon combinations (well, and having a really good connection).
GrantMeThePower
Platinum Member
- Jun 10, 2005
- 2,923
- 2
- 0
That is a good argument, and it makes a lot of sense. It becomes very balanced because everything in inherently equal.
The problem I have with that is that it also makes everyone have the same play style. The cool thing about different perks/weapons is that you can decide what way you want to play and that you think you'll do the best. As long as something isn't "unfair" (i.e. quickscoped 1 shot kills from 10 feet away with a gun that can also zoom across a map, meaning you have very strong short range AND long range abilities) i think that the diversity is one of the more appealing things about the ranking and character creation system.
There is an argument to be made, but the better argument is the one against it. Just because guns are different doesnt mean theyre not balanced. The only unbalanced weapon in MW2 was the UMP45, and by a very small margin IMO. The ACR was nasty, but so were all the ARs, and there was definitely a ton of reasons to use the other ones within the AR class.
It doesnt take away from the skill one iota as long as the weapons are balanced, and there's not clearly superior options. But this is the worst of both worlds. The guns are extremely similar, so the lack of variety is a bit boring. But there are clear winners and losers. Thats the very definition of unbalanced. If you have a commando, and they have an AK47, you have the advantage. Small, but it exists. This is basically unprecedented in CoD...there's always been a tradeoff, even the higher level weapons werent necessarily better. The g11 rapes the m16 on paper, and does it even worse in game. It's either laziness or a gross misunderstanding of how to balance the weapons, and I rarely presume to be able to do a better job than most game developers.
Within a class, the most similar guns to each other in MW2 had more difference between them than the least similar guns in BO. Its just sad.
Its like having a racing game where everyone is forced to drive the same car. I dont understand why theyd go through all the trouble in expanding the multiplayer in so many ways, and have more guns then ever, and then cop out and say eh, lets just make the guns all the same, no one will really notice or care. I dont get it at all.
Last edited:
Honestly, while the weapons are similar, there is a difference with them. I don't want to go into depth, i caught the cold, so no feely very good, just look at the stat bars. There is no way in hell i'll perform the same with an enfield than with a famas.
The in-game stat bars lie.
But anyway, the Famas is one of the better weapons, low recoil + high fire rate + bullets that damage as much as any AR = damn good weapon. But thats the problem aint it? Why even have the enfield at all if the Famas is better in nearly every aspect?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter