45 Replies Latest reply: May 9, 2014 6:17 PM by _Guest_ RSS

    Less, the same, or more perks?

    ghamorra

      Each year it seems that we get more and more options for perks. Some are pretty useless and are only useful every no and then for situations that aren't really that big of a deal. Some perks are always useful and tend to have huge impacts on how a player plays the game. Other perks are solely used to counter annoyances like Incog, Cold-Blooded, or Ghost.

       

      Having less perks means each perk is more useful. You can pack enough of the meaningless perks together into one fairly valuable perk. Or you can balance all the perks out to same level of convenience. In the end, perks aren't going anywhere but how they're implemented will always change.

       

      I particularly like the middle ground that allows a play to pick a playstyle that suits them. They're just useful enough to have value and make sacrifices but not so useful that you start to wonder if the game was decided solely based on perks.

        • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?

          That's mainly because they took old perks and strips each into a shell of its former self such as scavenger and fully loaded that used to be scavenger pro.

           

          I honestly think they should just go back to the 3 perk system. It seem to be the most balanced system overall, and not as easily abused like what we have now.

          • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
            phxs72

            I like the simpler system better where the perks weren't so stripped down but I do like that Ghosts gave us a little more points to work with since they didn't charge for attachments.  So either beef up the perk abilities with less of them or keep them split out and add a few more points to the loadouts.  Also, we really should go back to the 10 class system.  Having a bazzillon perks and only six classes really doesn't allow you to fully explore what's out there unless you are willing to give up some known useful classes and take it on the chin if your experimental setup just doesn't work.

              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                ghamorra

                For me the 3 tier system was great because all the perks I wanted were powerful and available. Black Ops II took a lot away from me when they put all the stealth perks in the same category. Ghosts did something interesting and made all the perks available and allowed me to full embrace how I wanted each class to be. One class for running around, another for stealth, a third for sniping, and a fourth for when I want to take things seriously. I liked having full access to tap into each style of play.

                 

                However, as others have said, you're stripping away the power from some perks. Stealth now requires 3 different perks to choose from which really puts a strain on your point budget. It has it's good and bad.

              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                AlteredVista

                I am good with the traditional three tier system or the Ghosts system. I don't want to see another system like Black Ops 2, because it ended up being very unbalanced.

                 

                If I had to choose I'd keep it how it is with Ghosts because I find it opens the door for much more depth and play styles. I prefer the freedom.

                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                  andrebarreto

                  Really liked your post.... sometimes less means more... What they did with Ghosts (for me) was like a slap on the face. They just take the previous perk and splited'em and added a very few new perks... So I really prefer the 3 Perks System.

                  • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?

                    I'd like to see more than what we have in Ghosts. Keep all the one's we have now and add 5-10 new one's. Pea brains complaining' about perks being split up, but I don't see the problem. You can still run the same setups in old cods, but you aren't forced into a pro version. It's also much more balanced because pro versions just gave people who didn't prestige the advantage. I would like an increase in total points we have to use so we have more options per character. Also, bring back One Man Army, but just remove its ability to resupply explosives.

                      • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?

                        Actually in Ghosts you get less than you did in the past CoDs. For example, in MW3 i liked to run Scavenger Pro,Assassin Pro, and Stalker Pro. On top of that i got to have a primary weapon,secondary weapon,lethal, and tactical. I dare you to attempt a recreation of that in Ghosts. Oh.. thats right, YOU CAN'T! In the past CoD's you traded speed for stealth and vise versa, or you could do a mix and match and get a mixed result.

                         

                        We don't actually have more in Ghosts since about half of the perks are from past CoD's and were stripped down bare. Adding 5-10 new ones would end up just causing imbalance. Though considering you just mentioned One Man Army, i can tell you love imbalance, so the concept of a balanced game is lost on you i think.

                         

                        Just think about this. Less perks=more balance, and more perks=less balance. This is where the saying "less is more" comes into play.

                         

                        Answer me this. Do you want imbalance or balance? Choose.

                      • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                        ion5150

                        I'd like to see things go back to something more simple.

                         

                        Too much "garbage" in the game now.

                         

                        Fix the net code and let's get back to gun on gun, that's what determines the out come of the match.

                         

                        Please note that when I state "gun on gun", I'm not referring to "running and gunning" or "camping", any play style is fine by me, just get the net code corrected and let players go gun on gun.

                         

                        I know, wishful thinking for some, but ya asked!

                        • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                          Izjar11

                          I personally like the variety option, the old ways (one perk many things) was over used and players cried OP. Now we each are given combinations to choose from giving, us all more balance and less reasons to cry OP. Ghost has improved that, I hope AW does so as well.

                            • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                              ghamorra

                              Izjar11 wrote:

                               

                              I personally like the variety option, the old ways (one perk many things) was over used and players cried OP. Now we each are given combinations to choose from giving, us all more balance and less reasons to cry OP. Ghost has improved that, I hope AW does so as well.

                              My only complaint about the current system is how some perks are useless. Strong Arm, Incog, Resiliance, Recon, Tac Resist, held little value or are too situational to be useful. I have yet to, say "Wow, I really wish I had Strong Arm" and I can probably count on one finger how many times I've been hit with a stun or flash. Incog can Recon can be fairly useless or completely worth it.

                               

                              I'd like to see some more attention given to these perks and balance them out. Some perks need combined, others need point adjustments to make them worth spending points on. Others need completely re-thought.

                                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                  Izjar11

                                  ghamorra wrote:

                                   

                                  Izjar11 wrote:

                                   

                                  I personally like the variety option, the old ways (one perk many things) was over used and players cried OP. Now we each are given combinations to choose from giving, us all more balance and less reasons to cry OP. Ghost has improved that, I hope AW does so as well.

                                  My only complaint about the current system is how some perks are useless. Strong Arm, Incog, Resiliance, Recon, Tac Resist, held little value or are too situational to be useful. I have yet to, say "Wow, I really wish I had Strong Arm" and I can probably count on one finger how many times I've been hit with a stun or flash. Incog can Recon can be fairly useless or completely worth it.

                                   

                                  I'd like to see some more attention given to these perks and balance them out. Some perks need combined, others need point adjustments to make them worth spending points on. Others need completely re-thought.

                                  Your right, some perks are totally useless, to me they are different than the ones you mention above. I use strong arm allot to throw flash, nades, C4 at my enemy and that extra reach helps. So its subjective.

                                   

                                  I guess its the learning curve that COD goes through, I do like the option to choose and force players to pick what works based on their preferred method of playing.

                                    • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                      nicedrewishfela

                                      Too many perks = Limited baseline for Player Skills.

                                       

                                      For example... They put in the Strong Arm Perk... so as a result everyone got a weak throwing arm to "justify" having the Strong Arm perk.

                                       

                                      I hate to see Perks added that weaken the players.

                                        • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                          Izjar11

                                          nicedrewishfela wrote:

                                           

                                          Too many perks = Limited baseline for Player Skills.

                                           

                                          For example... They put in the Strong Arm Perk... so as a result everyone got a weak throwing arm to "justify" having the Strong Arm perk.

                                           

                                          I hate to see Perks added that weaken the players.

                                          I see it opposite, strong arm is given to enhance the normal ability not the weaker one.

                                           

                                          For example: I find "on the go" totally useless, looks interesting but it serves me no purpose and it probably helps the never ending rusher far more than we realize.

                                           

                                          Another: Overkill though I use it on occasion just for fun, its really not necessary (for me)

                                            • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                              nicedrewishfela

                                              If that were the case I'd agree with you. But try throwing a grenade in COD4 as opposed to without Strong Arm on Ghosts.

                                               

                                              It just seems to me that as the Perks have grown, the base character has gotten weaker. Shorter sprint time, weaker throwing arm, more fall damage....

                                                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                  AntiGov

                                                  I agree 100%, base player traits shouldn't be lowered to accommodate a perk being added to the system. Perks should only add to the base player traits while sacrificing something from another trait. Initially perks where added to offset balance, gradually they have been trying to balance them via perks countering perks. In my opinion the current perk system is actually counter intuitive, as it doesn't allow the player to play how they want to play. It forces people to use certain perks because if they don't they're at a huge disadvantage. Dead Silence is a good example, granted it's a controversial one.

                                                   

                                                  As much as I dislike Sage Merrill I do agree with him about one thing,"A balanced game isn’t one where everything is just equal, where everything is perfectly the same. A balanced game is one where not everyone is doing exactly the same thing".


                                                  The current perk system doesn't allow for balance as Sage suggests because the perks come at no cost to the player, that's my opinion anyways. The paper, rock, scissors method that they have been expanding on since CoD 4 needs a serious overhaul. I outlined what I think would be a way to balance the perk system in my perk thread.

                                                    • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                      nicedrewishfela

                                                      Rough thought just popped in my head, see what reaction I get and I might flesh it out in a Thread...

                                                       

                                                      What if everyone's character started at a base level, everyone equal in all attributes.

                                                       

                                                      You could improve your character through actions in game, and not just through perks, though perks would enhance your abilities.

                                                       

                                                      Say you start out with base levels in Arm Strength, Speed, Agility, and Endurance for example.

                                                       

                                                      In order to improve your Arm Strength, you'd have to get kills with thrown equipment (Lethal Grenades). To Improve Agility, you'd have to mantle or climb a certain number of Obstacles. For Endurance you'd have to sprint certain distances. Still pondering what one could do to earn speed levels. This could extend to other areas such as strength, jumping ability, etc.

                                                       

                                                      Each quality would have say.. 5-10 levels (more or less), each level increasing in difficulty. So for the first level, you'd have to get say.. 50 kills with thrown equipment, Run 50 miles, mantle 50 objects. Next time around 100, 150, 200.. can even increase it at higher levels.

                                                       

                                                      What you think?

                                                    • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                      AlteredVista

                                                      Pretty sure that grenade throwing was lowered in BO2 not Ghosts. So Strong Arm does increase the distance. I could be wrong though. I agree with your point, but my solution would be to buff Strong Arm and the default throw distance

                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                greyfryer67

                                                The beauty , for me, of all the small more obscure perks is when I equip gambler and they drift in and out of my game so I quite like all the variety it's good fun and full of surprises.

                                                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                  AlteredVista

                                                  Incog is far from useless. I agree with your other examples though. Good points. I like Ghosts system, but I don't feel too strongly to where I'd get upset with something more simple.

                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                OUHATEME

                                                I Like the ghost system of perks the more of a pick your poison style instead of an all encompassing perk ,, could get very specific with game modes and roles in that game mode on how I set up my perks . If someone handed it to me you could see what perks they were using as well and might give that combination of perks a try . The random perk could be humorous with its sick sense of humor at times like giving me danger close when I don't have any explosives.

                                                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                  nicedrewishfela

                                                  I personally want to see less perks and a return to the 3 Tier system.

                                                  • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                    ghamorra

                                                    This thread proves just how hard it is to please everyone. I think the preferences for perks are evenly diverse. So think about this thread next time you feel like ranting about how something was done.

                                                      • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                        nicedrewishfela

                                                        That is why I always shake my head when people write posts telling the Devs to "listen to the community".

                                                         

                                                        Who do they listen to? The community never agrees on anything.

                                                         

                                                        Personally, I just want them to do what they feel is best for the balance of the game. To Innovate and come up with something we haven't seen yet.

                                                         

                                                        They'll never make everyone happy, so the best they can do is do what they feel is the best direction for the game.

                                                        • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                          Izjar11

                                                          ghamorra wrote:

                                                           

                                                          This thread proves just how hard it is to please everyone. I think the preferences for perks are evenly diverse. So think about this thread next time you feel like ranting about how something was done.

                                                          Yup, how hard must it be for the developers to entice us and keep us happy must be a pain in the a-rse

                                                          • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                            AlteredVista

                                                            Actually, I like Ghosts system and prefer it, but I would still be pleased with a proper three tier perk system.

                                                          • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                            ChestSplittah

                                                            I'd like to see it go back to 3 tier system. Just make the variety of perks more diverse.

                                                            • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                              biron_w

                                                              I definitely think there are too many perks in Ghosts. But I also like there system of doing things with perks too. So maybe a system with less perks where you can choose what you want but you have a limited amount of points like in Ghosts BUT it's a fixed amount of points.

                                                              Actually just bring back the Pick 10 System. That was awesome.

                                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                thebiindsniper

                                                                I liked having the stripped down perks.  That way, there's more choice, more variety, and more freedom to use what we want.  However, please no amplify, danger close, or dead eye perks.

                                                                 

                                                                Also, perhaps Ready Up, Quickdraw, and Stalker could be automatically given to all players aka bestowed naturally without having to equip a perk/attachment.  That way, the game becomes more fast paced and equal at the same time.

                                                                 

                                                                ~RUGGED SAVIOR

                                                                  • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                    ghamorra

                                                                    I disagree with your stance on making the game inherently fast. Call of Duty already gives favoritism to fast play and that's enough. Not everyone wants the game to be blazing quick fast reflexes. Believe it or not, there's an older population and it's size would blow the minds of the younger population. Many regulars on this forum are pushing 30+ and I know several that are well on their way to their 40's. Also, not everyone likes the fast pace. As time passes more and more players are realizing that slower paced games can be more advantageous.

                                                                     

                                                                    That said, I agree that the diversity of perks is nice. If we can figure out how to balance some of the less useful perks and maybe add some new, innovative passive perks I think this game can finally settle on a nice system.

                                                                      • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                        thebiindsniper

                                                                        I'm nearly 29 and still want something more blazingly fast lol.  If not incredibly fast, then at least equal to the point where everyone has the same reaction time (but the movement speed while ADS should still be quick IMO).

                                                                         

                                                                        Call of Duty 4, World at War, Titanfall, and (I believe) Battlefield are the only games that understand the concept of gun on gun equality in terms of reaction time due to the lack of ADS enhancing features.

                                                                         

                                                                        ~RUGGED SAVIOR

                                                                          • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                            nicedrewishfela

                                                                            I think there needs to be a happy medium. Fast games can be fun at times, slower paced games fun at others. I think if you go too much in either direction you get a mess of a game.

                                                                             

                                                                            The game isn't simply about gun on gun equality, but about tactical and strategic play as well.

                                                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                Gerbera

                                                                                And, overall, I think Ghosts is the best example of that happy medium than we've had for a few years now. Primarily in terms of map variety that, depending on the map, can allow for different speeds and styles of gameplay without letting one completely dominate all the others

                                                                                 

                                                                                Ones like BO2 though forced the blazing fast, rusher style of gameplay down everyone's throats to the point where, for me anyway, it quickly became mindless, repetitive and yes, even boring. I could wake up first thing in the morning, be groggy as hell, and still do well in online matches with BO2. It was just THAT easy. Unfortunately, a chunk of the community also got drunk on having that chaos and adrenaline all the time so now they think BO2 is what ALL CoD games should aspire to be like and why they hate Ghosts so much.

                                                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                ghamorra

                                                                                Then you should have perks to take you to that level. Leave it optional like it is now.

                                                                                  • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                    thebiindsniper

                                                                                    Granted, I can equip those perks.  However, I feel that enhancing something so common as the ability to win a gunfight (via fast ADS and ADS recovery) gives a great advantage to the user, yet a great disadvantage to the rest who don't have those abilities equipped.  That's the reason why stopping power and juggernaut were removed.  I figure if steps were made to have player health at equal levels, why not go a step further by allowing ADS times to be the same for everybody, thus establishing even more equality in something so common.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Other perks like lightweight, ghost, flak jacket, etc. give advantages as well, but their field of enhancement are revolved around occurrences that are less common.  As a result, not having set perks listed above doesn't result in a major consequence.  Yes, some perks will offer more benefit, which is why they cost more points.


                                                                                    That's my suggestion, though I cannot invoke or force a change from the devs. IF it happens, it'll be nice.  If not, then it won't be of a great consequence and I'll learn to accept that.  I just figured it was a good idea.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    ~RUGGED SAVIOR

                                                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                biron_w

                                                                                Or rather than giving them to the player just remove those perks altogether and then everybody is moving at the same speed without it feeling like you're moving too fast.

                                                                              • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                Shadowelite555

                                                                                I hope this is a more traditional COD to where there is stricter limit of how many perks you can have. Ghost, you can tons of perks. I think that BO2 had the perk system down pretty good.

                                                                                • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?

                                                                                  I'd like about 100 perks with them balanced so that there isn't any perk that out preforms all the others or a series of combinations that becomes the standard for survival. Perks should be about a process of continual experimentation while trying different things for enjoyment. On the other hand I find it can be fun right after a recent prestige to try and make do with the default loadouts and I kind of think the character creation system shouldn't be so open but have a more railed and themed series of unlocks, maybe more like classes instead of Ghillie snipers running around with riot shields and shotguns.

                                                                                  • Re: Less, the same, or more perks?
                                                                                    _Guest_

                                                                                    ghamorra wrote:

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Having less perks means each perk is more useful. You can pack enough of the meaningless perks together into one fairly valuable perk. Or you can balance all the perks out to same level of convenience. In the end, perks aren't going anywhere but how they're implemented will always change.

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                    This. Less perks work better i think