1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next 49 Replies Latest reply: Feb 6, 2012 3:30 PM by r8edtripx Go to original post RSS
  • 10. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that
    rankismet

    neoreaper wrote:

     

    No perks in BO's 2 is a possability. I for 1 would love this. Whats your opinions?

     

    That's not what he said...

    ... you need to read behind what was said to get to what he meant.

     

    People are always complaining about "balance"...

    ... perks at their very nature tilt the game into a state of imbalance.

     

    Making the game balanced when you have perks is not an easy thing to accomplish and are the main reason imbalance exists.

  • 11. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    rankismet wrote:

     

    neoreaper wrote:

     

    No perks in BO's 2 is a possability. I for 1 would love this. Whats your opinions?

     

    That's not what he said...

    ... you need to read behind what was said to get to what he meant.

     

    People are always complaining about "balance"...

    ... perks at their very nature tilt the game into a state of imbalance.

     

    Making the game balanced when you have perks is not an easy thing to accomplish and are the main reason imbalance exists.

    And there was me thinking the imbalance was down to the LAG...?

     

    I once heard, "the battle is won in the loadout menus."

  • 12. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    I don't really see that one happening.  If they do that I would think they would have to do away with killstreaks as well.  Without things like blind eye, or assassin to counter them this would basically become a kill streak game and everybody would camp to get them.

     

    Sure some of them get abused and misused and can be annoying at times but do away with them?  If so that might actually be the nail in the old COD coffin.  I mean  look at barebones and all, not many people play it.  That ought to tell you something.

  • 13. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that
    Bleak5170

    It's an excellent idea but it will never happen. Perks are kind of redundant if you think about it as most of them are just counters to each other. Get rid of all of them and you level the playing field. No more "overpowered" this and "underpowered" that.

     

       But it's all moot anyway as well all know there will never be a COD game without perks.

  • 14. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that
    xSt4yr3ady

    CoD needs to have perks, otherwise, it'd get boring fast as others have said. What this game needs is a "You want this, you have to give this up" kind of system. Splitting up the stealth perks and putting them in the SAME tier would bring this system back. CoD4, apart from the M16, had good weapon balance. The SMG's couldn't kill at long distances and had recoil (O.O). MW3 did a real crappy job at bringing the CoD4 feel back, hopefully Blops 2 or whatever brings the old style back

  • 15. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    People cried about kill streaks and perks so they made a Barebones Mode - annnnnnnd NO ONE played it.  lol

  • 16. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    I stopped reading after this bit.......was laughing too much

     

    "However, if there is one group that many think could use some more attention, it is the hardcore group. These are competition-level players who are extremely skilled at their FPS of choice."

  • 17. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    There are still perks in barebones at least in MW3. Although if I remember correctly BO had a barebones option that did not include perk. With that said I think Op is misled by the article's title. What we'll likely see is the inclusion of a perk-free playlist perhaps with an incentive to play it.

  • 18. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that

    It doesn't sound like they're going to remove perks completely, but it does sound like the perk system may end up getting an overhaul of some sort.

  • 19. Re: David Vonderhaar has said that
    Thesandman

    Well it would mean no cheap (sorry quick) scoping with no quickdraw, sleight of hand  etc etc.