Win by a lot, lose by a lot

Call of Duty Ghosts General Discussion

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to rainmaker6

I think you miss understood what I said. There are games coming out that offer more than what CoD offers. Destiny, for instance, is a completely new take on the FPS as an MMORPG. Because it's new and completely massive as well as it's ability to make a solid functioning FPS it will certainly be a game that strongly challenges Call of Duty.

Unless CoD can find a way to step it up and give the community a whole new CoD they will lose footing in the FPS genre.

Level 75
Likes: 5321
Posts: 13666
Registered: ‎17-09-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to Ghamorra

They have already lost their footing so MMORPG games to come like Destiny have nothing to do with it. BF4 is a failure so it has nothing to do with it either. The low player counts were there before Titanfall so it has nothing to do with it either. And I am on record as saying Titanfall won't have legs because of the everyone is a winner game design. I already have seen calls for Pilot only game modes and complaints about the limited Titan "rewards streaks" (for lack of a better term) that everybody gets regardless of how poorly they play.

Of course as other games enter the playing field it will chip away at the COD population but that was always been the case and it was still king by far. You still have not addressed my original question which was what do you expect them to do if gun on gun was what everyone wanted.

Level 12
Likes: 168
Posts: 446
Registered: ‎28-12-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to rainmaker6

Destiny by itself, no. But that's just one game. ESO is another MMORPG that's set to release on consoles in June and there's half a dozen heavily hyped titles that will follow it's release in July and some huge titles coming in the late Fall. As you said, CoD has already lost it's footing and I agree with you that players have been looking to jump ship at the first title that shows itself to be as replayable and instantly gratifying. Well guess what, next generation of gaming is here and soon the game will be released and players will have their chance to play something else new and exciting.

Level 75
Likes: 5321
Posts: 13666
Registered: ‎17-09-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to Ghamorra

Your right about PS4 Ghosts.

Seeing as Ghosts, BF4 and Killzone were the only FPS shooters on PS4 on launch there was no real option to buy anything else.

That's why I stopped playing Ghosts on PS4 for a while after launch, there was hardly anyone on and all the ones on did was try to boost their KD.

Unlike PS3 which you can play any and all COD's, PS4 only has the choice of Ghosts.

Level 38
Likes: 1741
Posts: 2743
Registered: ‎19-01-2014

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to Ghamorra

I stepped into multiplayer for a match and a half today. I would have gone longer, but my wife started streaming video again and that ended my gaming for the day.

In any case, the lop-sided match results, IMO, are indicative of this belief that you can quantitatively measure skill. Worse still, is a flawed "lobby balancing" mechanism. Back when we had Elite, yes, you could actually look at a lot of different stats for each player and quickly see that the game was, indeed, "balancing" players based upon statistics. However, when you have three super-good players and nine so-so players, you're automatically not going to have "balanced" teams. As long as you have a system that pits parties versus randoms, you're not going to have balance.

And even if those two major issues were not actual factors? You would still have to contend with what I call the Roger Clemens effect. You can take a winning pitcher from the NY Yankees and throw him on the Houston Astros all you want, it doesn't mean the Astros are going to win the World Series. Same concept in COD. You can take and put a super-star on a team of idiots all you want, doesn't mean the team has an equal chance against an average team.

The bottom line is that, it still boils down to a 50-50 chance as to which team is going to win. And when you add the "balancing" efforts to it, 50% of the time you're going to be blown out and 50% of the time you're going cremate the other team.

"At the end of the match, there remains only ... nuttin 2 say."
Level 62
Likes: 3467
Posts: 6218
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to nuttin2say

I've experienced alot of lob-sided games where i believe the kills are an indication of someting not right. Let me explain.

I've been fortunate enough to be placed in a lobby where we keep the same players on the same sides back to back for perhaps ten games. Now they had one high kd player and the rest were sub 1, pretty much the same as our team.

On the first game i absolutely wrecked them. Got a wild kd of 38 or something, had no problems shooting anybody. The scoreboards at the end displayed high kills and kd on our side and really poor and some negative kds on their side. We won the game easily.

Next match, was similar and then on the third match there was a complete turn-around. When i say i struggled to kill the very same players i had just destroyed, it is no exageration. Suddenly i felt like i was playing against amazing shooters. Needless to say, we lost and the final kds were completely flipped. They won the next 2 games and then almost like somebody flipped a switch, we were back being able to kill them with ease.

So yea, lag ftw !

Level 11
Likes: 188
Posts: 354
Registered: ‎31-01-2014
Highlighted

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to Warlord-Chojin1

Yeah. That's it. They program the game to behave like modern day kindergarten - everyone gets a purple star. Yaaayy!!!

Please.

I have "something's not right" matches, too. Check out the forums. It is well-documented that everyone has such experiences. That still does not account for the wildly different performance of some players over the majority of players. Unless you're trying to claim that the devs have selected specific players and, without those players knowing it, are given a behind-the-scenes unfair advantage. Yeah. The Illuminati picks and chooses winners. As a member of the Illuminati, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I will sell you at a really low price in order to help you become and established illuminati member.

What you're not taking into account is the sad fact that we are not as good as we think we are. I've seen tons of guys that suck. Bad suck. I'm talking 0.30 kdr ... that have that one map where they always do very well. At any given time, you've got as many as six opponents just like that. And, at the same time, just because "always" do super-good on one map does not mean I will always perform well on that map.

I mean, "something is not right" can be that lag that is so slight you don't really notice it. I get that. I've had a lot of games like that myself. I'll give it a go a couple more matches, usually, before moving on to another lobby. While I am in such a situation, however, I have to change my approach to the enemy. I don't always have the patience to do that, I admit it. When I don't, however, there's only one person to blame for a lousy performance and that's myself. Personally, I think it is hilarious when I can tell something has changed so I change my approach and, the other team, supposing they now have that invisible purple star effect working in their favor, assume an overwhelming victory ... only to be handed a miserable defeat. Hell, even funnier than that is when they DO score that incredible victory ... but I've still outperformed most if not all of their team. That's when the accusations begin flying. And that's when I just hit mute.

There's no sense in talking to folks that genuinely believe mankind will never improve his condition. In other words, we go back to what I've been saying for a couple of weeks now. The premise of Call of Duty is an elite soldier who, despite all the odds against him, is able to pull a victory out of his rear. Those odds that are against him are not some magical number. The odds against him are weak weapons, underpowered perks, etc with all the opposites of those in favor of the opponent. And one of the odds against that elite soldier is the fact he has to work through lag ... or at least  be able to pick and choose his battles wisely. You think I pass on engagements in-game only? No, I also pass on engagements before there ever is an engagement. In other words, I play five matches in a single lobby without any issues with lag. The next two matches, lag is an issue. There is no eighth match. I leave.

On a final note, you can't blame ATVI nor your console's network for all those lag situations. My game plays great ... until my wife starts streaming video. Then I literally have to set the game aside. That's not IW or TA's fault. Sometimes while I'm playing and my wife is not streaming video, I have lag issues, too. While that's rare, I can unequivocally tell you that those issues are mostly related to my ISP. I know because I can pull my laptop over and see that the connection is fluctuating. How is that the developers' fault? There's nothing you can do about that. Well, maybe you could get on a rant about Walmart connections. I don't have a Walmart connection, though. And your ISP does not provide static service, either. None do. People that claim they do are just exaggerating their positions. That way they can feel good about themselves in believing that, were all things equal, they would still outperform the other guy. That mentality is a social construction, though. No one is the best at everything. No one. And life is not ever going to be "equal" no matter how many purple stars you earned in kindergarten.

"At the end of the match, there remains only ... nuttin 2 say."
Level 62
Likes: 3467
Posts: 6218
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to nuttin2say

Yep.. when my wife starts streaming *cough* porn *cough* videos, I know my gaming time is coming to a close as well.

*snicker*

All joking aside, I agree we are not as good as we think. I remember listening to someone who was complaining about lag (MW3) say: "When the game works, it plays great.. but when it lags it is terrible".

The 1st thing I thought to myself was: and when it is playing great and you are getting a good KD and destroying the enemy, why is it they never say "When the enemy was lagging I had a good game"?  I have always found it funny that people complain when they are getting killed by what looks like one bullet, but it never occurs to them that when they kill someone it may appear to them like they got killed by one bullet.  When I am not having a "Something's not right game", I appreciate the enemy who cannot kill me, probably is.

It is the "it's never a problem until it happens to me" attitude.

That may not have been the spirit of your response; but it reminds me of what I talked about above.

Activision Ambassador
Likes: 2663
Posts: 8427
Registered: ‎08-09-2011

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

You have a great point there.

I have numerous matches like people describe above and alot of the time I find myself saying to our party "IDK how the fuck I am alive after that, those poor bastards"

It is always the case in these games where if something works fine for you in one instance then it is fine but if the reverse occurs THEN it is a problem.

I just want an even playing field for all so we can really test ourselves and not have game win/losses based solely on fluctuating pings and dicey matchmaking.

I can definitely tell when I am host, my bullets seem to kill them the millisecond I depress the trigger.

Seems instantaneous.

Level 38
Likes: 1741
Posts: 2743
Registered: ‎19-01-2014

Re: Win by a lot, lose by a lot

in reply to Rexens_View

Something that I've tended to notice over the year, Rexens, is that hot migrations tend to take place when the lag itself fluctuates a lot. If the lag is "consistent," the migration may not even show up. Those are things I try to look for when the match becomes a "something doesn't feel right" situation.

The "something doesn't feel right" match is the easiest to deal with. If it feels like I'm pumping out enough rounds to score a kill only to be killed instead, my next effort is to see if I'm imagining things or if I really am running behind by a little. I know what what Warlord is talking about because I experience it exactly the way he describes. It's as if everything looks synchronized, but it seems like it is not actually synchronized. I don't game capture and I don't bother trying to count how many rounds it takes to kill. I get a feel for it. Back when we had Last Stand, I got into the habit of pumping out a few extra rounds "just in case." In "something doesn't feel right" situations, it is almost reflexive that I do that to this day. Where that becomes important is when I managed to flank a guy and shoot him when he doesn't even see me.

Pay close attention to the sounds of your shots. If you hit an opponent, the sound is just slightly different than hitting some other object. So if I'm shooting a guy and I am square on center of mass target and I'm not hearing that different sound until what should be about the 5th or 6th round, then I know lag is affecting the game. Not only that, but I've got a pretty good idea as to how much the game is lagging. The thing I have to do next is find out if it is consistent. So you find a second target and do the same thing, see how many rounds your gun fires as opposed to how many rounds are on target before the game starts scoring you with a hit.

Here's where I think people make a mistake. They take what I've just described 100% literal. It may be another two minutes before I can find that second target. Now, I may have engaged five other targets between my first "test" target and my second "test" target. Simply having a second target is not how I deal with the situation. I want to have a target I can give undivided attention. That's important. If I can see a three targets in front of me and none of them know I'm behind them, my "test" target does not have my undivided attention. I have to be ready, in a millisecond, to take on one or both of those other two targets. Any movement they make while I'm taking on the first target will make whatever results I get from the "test" useless because I won't have a good, solid measure of how many shots it took to score the kill.

I know that all sounds like I'm overcomplicating the game. That's the point many of us have been making for years. The game is supposed to be complicated. It is supposed to force you to make do or die decisions with very little time to think out the consequences for those decisions.

Once I realize this is a "something doesn't feel right" match, I know I've got to change strategy on the fly. That may mean taking a different CAC upon next respawn. It may mean moving from a camping strategy to a hard, run & gun flank-cenctric strategy. It may mean switching from a hard run & gun match to a camp-kill-move-camp-kill-move match.

And that's what pissess people off. They want a predictable opponent. The "lag is in my favor" so I should therefore be winning big time ... but I'm getting slaughtered by this guy!

The reason you're getting slaughtered is because you are up against a player that's not going to take disadvantages as a foregone conclusion to a loss.

THAT, in my opinion, is what Call of Duty is about. Disadvantaged or not, I'm going to do my darnedest to find a weakness in my opponents' game. And once I find that weakness? I'm going to exploit it to my fullest ability.

"At the end of the match, there remains only ... nuttin 2 say."
Level 62
Likes: 3467
Posts: 6218
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

Studios