Hopeful additions that I want to see.

Call of Duty Ghosts XBOX 360

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to TigerGenetics1

I agree with this too. No real reason to play the same again right after just playing it.

Level 70
Likes: 1950
Posts: 12882
Registered: ‎26-05-2011

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RuggedSavior

Agree.

Iin groundwar also two different game types

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaSS is OP. SaND get's everywhere
Level 59
Likes: 1365
Posts: 7275
Registered: ‎09-06-2011

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RuggedSavior

Agree with pretty much all your points except 5.)

I Think the SATCOMs should stay until destroyed.

for a couple of reasons, Advanced UAVs will be near non existent, as soon as a team has an AUAV up, the first SATCOM will run out of time.

Not so much of a problem for teams of 4 plus who communicate, but if a team full of randoms are playing without mics for example then theres no one to say "save your SATCOMs ive nearly got my one, we can go for an advanced one" for example.

Secondly, It would give more reasoning to destroy them, knowing they'll only last for max 30 seconds, well whats the point it will be gone shortly.

Also on a side note, please add "Mute all except party" button to your list , its one of 2 things i liked about black ops 2, the other being the replacers trailers

Level 5
Likes: 42
Posts: 144
Registered: ‎10-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RuggedSavior

1. I don't think we should assume this will be a problem. We don't know how strong they will be, how fast they are thrown, or how far they can be thrown. I'll tel you if it works like modern warfare 2, then no, there is no reason to nerf C4. Most players couldn't use them as a quick explosive and had to rely on a simple grenade instead. It required the ability to adjust, but was not op. The throw range was not OP, but not straight up less useful than a grenade at close range, like it was in cod4. Hence, it was in the perfect area of balance and was usefull for taking out close range campers, and defending objectives in the traditional way of cod4 C4.

2. No. Stalker should not even be in the game in the first place, honestly. I'm fine with it only because it costs 3. However, there should not even be an advantage AT ALL for people who just stay aimed down sights. That is clearly conducive of camping and slow gameplay.

3. Of course I want all the weapons balanced. No machine pistols or akimbo spray n pray hand cannons, plz

4. Completely agree

5. I trust they will handle satcoms well. I don't see a need to worry about it. There is already off the grid AND wiretap to let you use them for your own benefit.

6. You can't be serious. Using a bolt action sniper at medium to close range will always be inferior to someone using a full auto SMG or rifle, shotgun, marksman rifle, and pretty much everything else in the game. It takes so much more skill to get a close range kill with a bolt action sniper than a shotgun or SMG, even in MW2, the pinnacle of quickscoping. You're obviously just annoyed that you get killed by it anyway, because you're not fast enough even with a much easier weapon. Not only is this ridiculous off the bat, but IW has already said they have hampered QSing, just as they have with every game after MW2.

7. Agree

As you can see, I agree with half of what you said, and am vehemently against the other. To be clear, even the things we agree on, are not nearly as important as gameplay issues that will affect the pace of the multiplayer. Mainly, amplify.

Level 1
Likes: 2
Posts: 14
Registered: ‎25-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RandyIcon


2.) Stalker lets you move faster while aiming down sights, it doesnt increase aim sensitivity speed. It benefits a rusher not a camper.

6.) sarcasm\ Yes because Black Ops 2 is a perfect example of this. /sarcasm

Level 5
Likes: 42
Posts: 144
Registered: ‎10-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to Project-VAG-DAN

NO ONE said it increase sensitivity. These "rebuttals" debunk themselves.

Level 1
Likes: 2
Posts: 14
Registered: ‎25-10-2013
Highlighted

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RandyIcon

So if a camper is staring at a door how does it help them? because all it does is increase movement speed when ADS.

If the camper isnt moving, there speed cant be increased can it?

Level 5
Likes: 42
Posts: 144
Registered: ‎10-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to Project-VAG-DAN

IF they are not moving at all, sure. But if they are just strafing within the same 3 foot line? Oh, there's the difference.

Level 1
Likes: 2
Posts: 14
Registered: ‎25-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RandyIcon


And your really getting way too hung up on amplify, it really isnt a big deal.

Also in my opinion the MP pace needs to be slowed down a touch, MW3/BO2 were just mindless clusterfks of running and spraying and quickscoping, the whole MP needs to reward being more tactful and clever rather than fast loud and dumb.

Level 5
Likes: 42
Posts: 144
Registered: ‎10-10-2013

Re: Hopeful additions that I want to see.

in reply to RandyIcon

1) does need to be done for the C4 in bo2 is ridiculously easy to use and outperforms grenades way to easily. You probably use it in this way and is why you dont want it changed.

2) It dos not help campers any more than it helps rushers. Plus camping is just a legitimate a playstyle as rushing is.

3) Machine pistols are fine. it is the players that were terrible when going against them and cried they were OP when they were not.

6) Completely serious, QS in any form is not needed in the game at all to make snipers balanced or fair or viable to use.

Level 70
Likes: 1950
Posts: 12882
Registered: ‎26-05-2011

Studios