Movement speeds are currently too fast!

World War II General Discussion


@DRJD1 wrote:

@MurkBeserk wrote:

@DRJD1 wrote:

This Call of Duty title is meant to go "back to it's roots" and reintroduce "boots on the ground" gameplay. But movement speeds are currently too fast; especially sprint. This encourages players to mindlessly run around, contributes to weapons not feeling heavy enough, etc. Devs: please reduce movement speeds for the beta.


Seriously!?! Advanced movements are gone, sliding is gone, I didnt' even seen any evidene of drop shotting in the game so who knows if that is an option. This game already completely caters to the corner camper, slowing it down will just make the game boring as hell. People don't want to play hide a seek, they want engagement. You already have your betty to slow them down and a kit that allows you to secure a LMG with zero recoil to prevent the headless chicken I am sure you are referring too, making people crawl in this game will make it really really bad.

But hey, I was a fan of advanced movement, I found that increased the skill ceilingin this game vs making it about hiding in corners and whoever can find the best head glitch. Maybe I am over simplyfing it but that is what many games, even in IW felt like. Also, keep in mind, the people playing at the event, that is not your typical lobby, the game will be much slower in most lobbies, it always is past the initial first couple sweaty weeks.


Well then obviously this Call of Duty is not meant for you. I personally feel recent titles only have worse gameplay and the jetpack (among other things) only introduced stupid, mindless, luck based, chaotic gameplay, and it sure didn't increase the skill gap in this franchise. But that is my opinion. And I personally never had any problems with campers before. So I don't know what to say about that.


Call of Duty isn't meant for me?!? But wait, I am not the one asking them to change it already without even playing it. LOL!

Yeah, luck based chaotic play. If it was luck based, that wouldn't yeild consistent results.

Your right, it is your opinion. It is wrong, but it is your opinion. Comparing this game vs IW for instance. IW you have to have good twitch aim and maintain the ability to track while aiming. It appears you will in WW2 as well but what you don't need to do in WW2 is do that while dealing with verticality, additional flanking capabilities and much much faster movement over larger areas. On the flip side, as a rusher, you have to be able to have exceptional aim while moving, boosting and sliding. Both games however will require absolute maps awarness so that won't change, WW2 will just have less to be aware of and a lesser skilled player could probably do well in it since there will be less to adapt to and deal with.

In WW2 less gun skilled is needed. Strategy options is reduced to camping, hiding and head glitching for most players. WW2 will be almost entirely based around knowing the map and minimal gun skill is needed in this game in comparison. The same people that wrecked in IW will wreck in WW2 as well, just maybe with a smaller margin. WW2 however might introduce more lethal and tactical equipment use to do how classes appear to be set up  so there might be some needed skill introduced in that respect.

Maybe, just maybe this game isn't for you. BF1 might be a more suitable for you. There a lot of modes in that game that allow you to crawl around the map. 






MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1673
Posts: 3893
Registered: ‎12-10-2016
I said this Call of Duty is not for you; not the entire franchise. It is marketed as going back to roots, and part of that, would be slower and more predictable gameplay; even if that is not what you personally enjoy as much. And I could say you are wrong and go more into detail to back my opinion, but that would probably lead to a more toxic discussion. But I do want to say that you can definitely play less chaotic and more tactical without resorting to camping and such.
DRJD1
Likes: 1
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎17-06-2017

@DRJD1 wrote:
I said this Call of Duty is not for you; not the entire franchise. It is marketed as going back to roots, and part of that, would be slower and more predictable gameplay; even if that is not what you personally enjoy as much. And I could say you are wrong and go more into detail to back my opinion, but that would probably lead to a more toxic discussion. But I do want to say that you can definitely play less chaotic and more tactical without resorting to camping and such.

And I will say it again, "You are the one asking for changes before you even played the game" so actually, that would mean your are saying that your not happy with it as it is. I have concerns even at that speed it is at it will be too slow and campy but until I play beta, I am not going to start asking them to change the speed of it.

Going back to it's roots, that is BOTG they are referring to and non futuristic themes. It has nothing to do with what you believe to be a reasonable speed of the movement. If you go back and look at the marketing, they often said "Fast paced or fast action", something like that, so in that sense they are sticking to what they said, hopefully.

What you deem to be chaotic I don't, maybe more intense but in order to handle that I guess some additional skill set is needed to be acquired. It doesn't really surprise me though, I was often accused of cheating and hacking, modding, using an aim-bot etc when playing IW. People need to justify why they get outplayed by making excuses.

I would love to hear any opinions you have on what you consider tactical, maybe there is something I didn't think about. 

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1673
Posts: 3893
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

@MurkBeserk wrote:

Call of Duty isn't meant for me?!? But wait, I am not the one asking them to change it already without even playing it. LOL!

Yeah, luck based chaotic play. If it was luck based, that wouldn't yeild consistent results.

Your right, it is your opinion. It is wrong, but it is your opinion. Comparing this game vs IW for instance. IW you have to have good twitch aim and maintain the ability to track while aiming. It appears you will in WW2 as well but what you don't need to do in WW2 is do that while dealing with verticality, additional flanking capabilities and much much faster movement over larger areas. On the flip side, as a rusher, you have to be able to have exceptional aim while moving, boosting and sliding. Both games however will require absolute maps awarness so that won't change, WW2 will just have less to be aware of and a lesser skilled player could probably do well in it since there will be less to adapt to and deal with.

In WW2 less gun skilled is needed. Strategy options is reduced to camping, hiding and head glitching for most players. WW2 will be almost entirely based around knowing the map and minimal gun skill is needed in this game in comparison. The same people that wrecked in IW will wreck in WW2 as well, just maybe with a smaller margin. WW2 however might introduce more lethal and tactical equipment use to do how classes appear to be set up  so there might be some needed skill introduced in that respect.

Maybe, just maybe this game isn't for you. BF1 might be a more suitable for you. There a lot of modes in that game that allow you to crawl around the map.


lol don't knock BF1 hehe. BF1 actually moves at a pretty good pace as well. It's not slow on any mode. Yeah, I wouldn't want this game to be slow moving if I was playing it. I just wanted bigger maps


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLv5rsgH8M6e1TwOry9sPEQ
PDE_PaulKersey
Likes: 116
Posts: 1491
Registered: ‎19-08-2011

@PDE_PaulKersey wrote:

@MurkBeserk wrote:

Call of Duty isn't meant for me?!? But wait, I am not the one asking them to change it already without even playing it. LOL!

Yeah, luck based chaotic play. If it was luck based, that wouldn't yeild consistent results.

Your right, it is your opinion. It is wrong, but it is your opinion. Comparing this game vs IW for instance. IW you have to have good twitch aim and maintain the ability to track while aiming. It appears you will in WW2 as well but what you don't need to do in WW2 is do that while dealing with verticality, additional flanking capabilities and much much faster movement over larger areas. On the flip side, as a rusher, you have to be able to have exceptional aim while moving, boosting and sliding. Both games however will require absolute maps awarness so that won't change, WW2 will just have less to be aware of and a lesser skilled player could probably do well in it since there will be less to adapt to and deal with.

In WW2 less gun skilled is needed. Strategy options is reduced to camping, hiding and head glitching for most players. WW2 will be almost entirely based around knowing the map and minimal gun skill is needed in this game in comparison. The same people that wrecked in IW will wreck in WW2 as well, just maybe with a smaller margin. WW2 however might introduce more lethal and tactical equipment use to do how classes appear to be set up  so there might be some needed skill introduced in that respect.

Maybe, just maybe this game isn't for you. BF1 might be a more suitable for you. There a lot of modes in that game that allow you to crawl around the map.


lol don't knock BF1 hehe. BF1 actually moves at a pretty good pace as well. It's not slow on any mode. Yeah, I wouldn't want this game to be slow moving if I was playing it. I just wanted bigger maps



Admittedly I only played a litle bit of BF1. Wasn't trying to knock it but on the larger maps modes, you can take things a lot slower where COD is suppose to be designed to get into the action almost immediately. BF1 is a fun game but in comparsion to COD, slower than what I like. The graphics and the whole feeling of BF1 was great though, that game really felt like war. I had to choose the games I was going to spend time on, BF1 just wasn't one of them but I would have still had fun playing it if I went that direction.

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1673
Posts: 3893
Registered: ‎12-10-2016
When I had more game time I played cod then played BF to slow things down after my hectic cod sesh. At least when you play BF you know your bullets are going to work. I always played tdm though for the faster pace.

Ww2 needs to have a fast pace, that is what it's about as you stated. I don't want to run around the map for half a day so I can find someone camping here or there. WAW had a good pace to it so hopefully it will be like that but atm apart from better graphics and different maps it seems like a bit of a remake. Just my thoughts so far.
Dante2k Level 75
Likes: 1310
Posts: 2969
Registered: ‎30-11-2016

You cant say his opinion is wrong. It's his opinion, it cant be wrong. Same as your opinion can't be wrong. 

Darthpaul
Likes: 0
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎26-11-2011

Multiplayer games feel way too fast to react. I suppose Treyarch's take on multiplayer is different than Sledgehammer's. Coming from what I felt was the best iteration of COD in WW2 to this High Speed Arcade Shooter is a bit of a disappointment. I hope Treyarch looks at this concern, as this doesnt feel tactical or realistic, but just who pre shoots around corners. Blackout doesent suffer the same dilema thankfully. I think the map design in multiplayer is too compact with the speed afforded to players. Looking forward to patches and improvements as this game matures.

Judas_V
Likes: 3
Posts: 7
Registered: ‎12-10-2018

It looked fine to me. At least no stupid wall running super jumps or jet packs.

Can tel how it feels when playing yourself because well I didn't play it.

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaS is OP. Green Stars are OP
SaND get's everywhere
dtuchpunk Level 75
Likes: 4357
Posts: 14664
Registered: ‎09-06-2011

@dtuchpunk wrote:

It looked fine to me. At least no stupid wall running super jumps or jet packs.

Can tel how it feels when playing yourself because well I didn't play it.


You can tell just by watching gameplay videos.

DRJD1
Likes: 1
Posts: 6
Registered: ‎17-06-2017

Studios