Yet you took the time to read my post and type that reply. People get pissed off by what I say because they KNOW I'm right and can't handle it.
Like you in this thread, you KNOW I'm on the money. All stats should've gone down with the much weaker assist, ESPECIALLY accuracy since the gunfights in Ghosts are at longer ranges. But they didn't. Pretty much proves BO2's AA had no effect on skill or performance. Sure, it might very rarely help a bad player win a gunfight or two, but overall it was irrelevant at higher levels of skill. Wiimoters stats barely changed between both games too (like yours), despite claims of how the stronger AA was putting Wiimoters at a disadvantage.
You can't even say "you can't compare two different CODs" because all we're talking about are aiming mechanics which are virtually unchanged on DA between both except for nerfed assist in Ghosts.
And after reading this I'll tell you why I can't even have a debate right now about the aim assist in Ghosts. I haven't tested it enough. Not even close. Player stats are just part of the equation. You can't just compare the two games though. You HAVE to do some testing. Ghosts has completely different recoil mechanics with recoil multipliers along with faster times to kill. Like the Fad has 10% less recoil on the first 10 shots. Black Ops 2 has longer times to kill and therefore the potential for more missed shots. You gotta factor that in too. It would take a lot of testing to determine how all that effects a player's accuracy between the two games. I don't even know if they should be compared. One has less aim assist, different recoil, and faster times to kill while the other has more aim assist and slower time to kill. I don't know which game has less recoil yet either. Gotta test that. People play different in Ghosts too. People that used to run and gun in Black Ops 2 have to be more careful. Less running and gunning could mean that they are more accurate cause they have more time to line up their shots. It's not as simple as "my stats are similar" in both games You gotta look at why they are similar or why they are different. The wii remote is better in Ghosts too. I don't know how much of a factor that is.
I have the highest accuracy of anyone on my friends list in Ghosts right now. I did not in Black Ops 2. I don't know what that means yet.
See why I don't have time for a debate? It took a while just to explain why I feel like I need to do more testing. Then I have to do the testing, and then explain the results. My OCD would make that a long process. I don't have that kind of time right now.
I suppose I could just say this: "DA playerz akuracie is lower n mine is hire! Dis provez DA wuz OP!"
I could do that and not do any kind of testing. Seems to fit your logic.
But that is literally your whole argument about DA being "OP" lol. Got shread to pieces by Ghosts.
How is that? Accuracy stats alone prove it was far easier to aim. Then you can aim through walls. Testing it myself showed it was much easier to stay on target. Hip firing or at a distance. There was not a single situation where the wii remote had an advantage. (unless you had a KSG. That was also just wrong) ADS would allow you find people hiding. If you had FMJ you could usually shoot them without even seeing them. I don't see how it's debatable.
I also don't see how stats in Ghosts prove anything. Most of the DA users on my friends list have 3-4% lower accuracy overall. When you take into consideration the number of shots fired, that's a lot more misses. I can't get a bigger picture though. I don't know how to look at the stats of random people. It doesn't show their accuracy like BLOPS 2 did. If I were to base it on the stats that I do see, then there is a noticeable difference. Their accuracy was higher than mine in BLOPS 2. Now they are, on average, 2% lower than me. That would backup my argument if that was all I were to go by. Which right now that's all I've got. Like I said, I haven't tested anything. I haven't felt the need to. It doesn't feel like everyone has crazy good aim in this game and the stats I see back that up. You also mention that guns have no recoil. Well try the wii remote. You'll notice the recoil.
In summary, Ghosts doesn't even come close to proving DA wasn't OP. I don't know why you think it does. Especially without testing anything.
You're being a huge hypocrite, in one context you say kdr and stats mean nothing in this game, yet you use stats to compare controllers? How does that work?
I think its ironic that on the old wii, where the wiimote is the primary controller, they managed to make the DA's work just fine, but couldn't do it the other way round on the WiiU, that proves the dev team don't have a decent wiimoter to test it.
The other main factor with the WiiU is they got the connections on a global scale all wrong. You have no experience of what a bad connection feels like, and you can enjoy the games as they're meant to be, lucky you. But you enjoy blaming the player rather than the game. You're like that fat privileged kid that enjoys the best of everything and looks down on everyone else. Jeeeez its like reading a post by Castiel, and we all know he's full of it when he claims to be the best and we all blame our bad play on connection. Listen, do us a favour, if you're so good, then pick up a wiimote and complete some challenges, it won't be half as bad because you won't have to put up with lag too, but see how it is with a wiimote. That's what you tell us to do when we complain about QS's, pick up a DA and try yourself is what you say. Btw, would love to have a match in Ghosts with you while you're using the wiimote
Overall I enjoyed it a lot more than I am currently enjoying Ghosts. Scorestreaks are a lot better in my opinion than pointstreaks and I really enjoyed the pretty maps compared to the uglier maps in Ghosts. I personally do not care for DLC considering that the money to buy the maps equaled the money to buy Ghosts since I really don't have much money.
I did something today I said I would never do again, yep, I played a few games of BO2 I actually went on to play ghosts, but before mid day there was a total of 3 players in hardcore, two of them were in a clan calmly waiting for people to turn up, but 3 people??? I couldn't even get a game of FFA in core either. I think that says a lot about ghosts Any way, even with my upgraded internet it was the same experience as ghosts, but it did seem that instead of dying from invisible players I actually did see them, just had no time to react. But I actually enjoyed the change. So, did I think BO2 had anything better than ghosts? Actually yes, the graphics are way better, I mean like 100% better and the sound effects of the guns and explosions are way superior too. But better graphics and better maps meant I could see enemy players, they didn't just blend into the shadows. And despite a few times where someone was standing right in front of me and I'm emptying an extended vector clip into him without one single hitmarker and he turns and kills me in a second, I didn't get a single disconnection, that surprised me. I lost connection to a host once, but was able to return to the game, but I didn't get kicked from the servers and come back on a strict nat like I do in ghosts. My conclusion? They're both still crap games, but BO2 has the edge, I think..
After playing BO2 again at the weekend, I'm going to take a wild guess as to why more people play this game over BO2.
You're either rubbish and like the OP AA and quick scope,
You're either rubbish and boost,
You're either completely rubbish and troll in HCTDM..
That sums up what's left of this game. Well done Treyarch for making all this possible, what's the betting you won't learn and repeat it..
But it's easier to snipe in Ghosts. BO2 snipers are terrible (as in junk, not OP).
At last you agree with something, because no one snipes in BO2, QS'ing isn't sniping.