14 Replies Latest reply: Jan 24, 2012 6:36 AM by DerekFrost RSS

Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.

trialstardragon

A lot of people see the word primary in the game and think, "ok these should be better then any other gun", yet when a secondary beats them they go, "wtf! no way a secondary should beat my primary! Fix the game! Balance the weapons properly!".

 

The thing is the terms primary and secondary only refer to the slot the weapon is being equiped in not if it should be weaker or stronger then the other. In the right hands many of the secondarys and not even the akimboed ones can easily out class the primaries. I know some of you will say, "That is BS, prirmaries should always be better! because its a primary!" And that is where the minsomer is, it does not mean better it just means first weapon of choice.

 

So the secondary weapons in the game can be and are often just as good as any primary can be. Take the RPG it will net you kill very easily if you can fire it correctly. Take the SMAW, it can do the same. Lets not forget about the Javelin, which under the right situation can net you many kills at once very easily. And in the right hands the pistols can be devasting at times. So I guess all weapons that beat a any of the primaries are OP eh?

 

So when you make a argument about a weapon being so called OP, stop and think before you use the rationalization that its a secondary and thus should not be better then a primary. When those terms just mean what weapon slot it is in the load out not really how well they should or should not work against each other.

 

Primary aka first weapon selected.

Secondary aka second weapon selected.

 

That is all it really means, it does not mean the P's are better and always should and will be than the S's That is just a bit foolish and completely idiotic to always assume that.

  • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
    thebiindsniper

    Since the dawn of Call of Duty, secondary weapons were always handguns, and nothing more.  So we initially believed that they were the backup "just in case" weapons, if our primary fails to finish the job.  This was balanced.

     

    But then MW2 strolled along, and completely discombobulated that idea to hell, by adding machine pistols, shotguns, and launchers to the secondary slot--thus making your theory acknowledgeable, but the game became more unbalanced.

     

    But in order to make the series balanced, Secondary weapons must be Handguns again.  Also, I wish launchers would return as a "third weapon", like in COD4 (pressing left to use your launcher).  Only making the idea better, and something that works at the same time.

     


    ~RUGGED SAVIOR

     

    http://www.youtube.com/ruggedsavior

    • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
      trialstardragon

      I do understand that Rugged. I know that is how it used to be and I stress the words USED to be. But as times change so did many of the players and what they wanted so the devs changed up the game play too. I doubt it will ever go back to the old way though. For there is enough that do like having the second weapons as they are now, just as equal as the first weapon in many cases.

       

      It causes players to have to change their game style and the way they play and to stop thinking the same set of skills will change over from each game to game equally all the time. Each game should require learning a few new skills and adapting and evolving and not just be a copy paste of the previous game. Which is why I do not play most of the sports tittles for in most regards they are just copy paste games each year. Where fps games are not all the time.

       

      There is still room in these games for even further changes to be made that would completely make players stop and re-think all their past game play tactics and that is a good thing in my view of it.

  • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.

    I do not even know what to say. WOW. REALLY.  Sir you do not understand the meaning of primary/secondaries. Primary means yes primary weapon. Your first used weapon. All cod games have followed this set up. So therefor this is something expected of cod. Because it ment you choose a gaming style and use it to your advantage.

     

    Why else do you think shotguns where moved to primaries from MW2 because they disrupted this balance of gameplay that the CoD franchize had set up. Currently Akimbo MPs as you are talking about saverly upset this balance. In no way does a RPG or  SMAW compete with primaries. And Javlen is just has hard to get kill with.

     

    Now to end this just a quiz Does 1 come before 2 Does the team that takes second win the football game or baseball game. NO Does your Secondary quarter back play better then your Primary? Does your Secondary line in hockey have all your Primary players?

     

    ALso here is a military explanation of primary and secondary weapons. Look at third paragraph.

     

    http://manual.americasarmy.com/index.php/U.S._Army_Weapons

     

    Because I feel my quiz might be little over your head.

     

    Sorry if this comes across mean but, I am getting sick of sorry excuses for protecting the Akimbo MPs

  • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
    vileself

    I somewhat agree with the OP when he says that secondaries shouldnt be worse than primaries by default. Secondary weapons should still be able to contend with primaries but at a severe disadvantage in one area or another.

     

    For an example, machine pistols should **** ARs at close range and be viable contenders to SMGs at close range. Akimbo machine pistols should have a slight advantage at close range over SMGs when it comes to sheer firepower. There are other variables that give SMGs an advantage like accuracy, clip size and damage.

     

    Pistols should be able to outclass SMGs at long range but clearly they should be outmatched by ARs at long range. At short range a pistol should be an inferior weapon unless the user is extremely good with it.

     

    In other words I shouldnt lose a battle just because Im using a secondary against a primary. If Im good enough then I should prevail. I seriously think shotguns should have remained secondaries merely because they are too far outclassed as primaries.

     

    As for the game being unbalanced thats a load of bull. Having options as secondaries just gives people more customization when they play and it allows people to create a variety of playstyles. It makes the game more dynamic for everyone.

     

    Also concider another thing. Use a pistol in core and you will get slaughtered. Use a pistol in hardcore and you will be a god. 1-2 hit kill at any range with the most precise weapons in the game, fastest ads, raise/drop, maneuverability etc. A varient in gamemodes alone can make a difference in the performance of a weapon.

    • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.

      I can own someone with a pistol. Alone on black ops I have 2k on my python. Those are from Hardcore search and destroy. And regular search and destroy. It took a little skill There is a difference between contending with primaries and simply overpowering them. Any akimbo MP simply overpowers most guns up to mid range. Plus also render all shotguns useless in a battle against them.  That is a full set of primaries that are weaker then secondaries. Sorry but just not right.

       

      Not to be a a$$ but you do have overkill for that costumization you want. You should have to use that perk if you want to have a secondary to equal primaries. Alot of people fail to notice there is a perk set there to have a Second Primary.

      • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
        trialstardragon

        No you should not have to use the perk just to have a second weapon that can compare against a primary. the perk furhter allows even more versatility in how a player chooses to set up his or her class. It should not be used to limit it instead. I think it has been long enough and time for fps games to evolve beyond the current limiations of how they let players customize the weapons and classes. I actually think you should be able to hold 3 weapons and not just two. And the underbarrels do not count. I think they should let a player have three attachments and not just two. I think the guns should have variable fire rates that can be selected for different uses. I think the game should have different kinds of ammo to use that work differently.

         

        Imagine a game where you could have an AR and a Sniper and a MP/pistol or any other combination like that. It would be interesting to say the least.  Or you could give up the pistol for a knife. No knife, no knifing, just pistol whipping.

         

        Imagine in that sniper you had a higher caliber round that did more damage against body armor but fired slower and had more recoil, or you had the normal ammo the fired at normal rof fort he sniper. And in the AR you had a lower calliber ammo that fired faster had lower recoil but did less damage, or could be a heaver ammo that fired slower and did more damage but more recoil.

         

        It is not unreasonable to see that happening, For a person could cary more then two weapons easily and switch out between them very quickly.

        • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.

          I like everyone's logic here.

           

          If the point of secondaries was to be a viable options like primaries, why don't they just allow us to use other primaries in combination with the original primary????

           

          MAYBE BECAUSE SECONDARIES ARE MEANT TO BE BACK-UPS BRO.

          • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
            trialstardragon

            The reason they do not is because most players have not moved beyond the need to think that a primary should always be best. The hate towards the akimbo MP's shows this plain adn simple. the players of this game still have a very narrow mind when it comes to how the game could be played. They want tried and true, and do not want radical change. Because radical change would require radical learning; something that most fps gamers do not ever like to consider having to do.

             

            It was the same with some of the feature that were added in to Halo: Reach and how everyone complained about them all the time. And the simple reason was because theyd id not want to have to learn a new way to play the game. they wanted it to remain the same with only new weapons and maps which gets boring.

        • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.

          I know that sounds like a great idea, but that would take up heaps of disk space. Also, imagine the nightmare the devs would have keeping everything balanced. They already have trouble with it now, imagine what it would be like if there were thousands of combinations.

           

          Also there is a limited amount of gun *types*. If you had an assault rifle that could be good up close and bad long range or you change it to be good long range bad range there would be little point in making lots of guns. For example, what you described there with the sniper already here. The higher caliber round is the Barrett and the one with less recoil is the RSASS. See my point?

          • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
            trialstardragon

            my point is there would not need to be lots of guns. You would only need a few in the game and people could customize them to work as they wanted them too by attachments and ammo's. Havint more guns is not always better in a game. Not when many of the guns are nearly the same as each other with minor differences.

             

            But the average CoD player would not be able to understand this aspect and probably would not like it. Because you would have to learn more about what combinations of attachments and ammo worked best for your playstyle. Do you make a heavy sniper that will kill in One shot even when suppresed. Or a fast sniper that can be spammed like a semi AR. Or would you make a AR that acts like a SMG, or an AR that acts like a LMG. A lmg that acts like an AR or a LMG that performs like a sniper. A SMG that works like a MP, or a SMG that works like an AR.

             

            The possible customization limits would only be limited to by an individuals imagination.

  • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
    technical

    I always try to replace my secondary with another primary from the ground as soon as possible. Secondaries should also be viable as much as primary.

  • Re: Primaries and Secondaries the misnomer of what that really means.
    DerekFrost

    I love how you guys complain that MW3 is too much like MW2 and yet you want it to go back to the old days?  Contradict much?  The game is awesome and I never hear anyone complaining that the secondaries were better than primaries nor have a heard someone rage over dying from a regular handgun or even akimbo handguns.  Primary means it's your first line of defense, secondary means just that, back-up.  That has nothing to do with "weapon slot" primary is the weapon you chose to get the job done. period.  I understand what you're saying but it just sounds like you need to rant, trying to change everyone's opinion about something that you fabricated or an issue that doesn't even exist isn't really the right way to go about this.  Rant somewhere else.