8 Replies Latest reply on Nov 22, 2013 3:31 PM by WKMMS RSS

    Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

      The latest installment in our beloved franchise has brought with it the inevitable outpouring of both praise and derision.  Some label the game as the greatest thing since CoD 4 and others that it's the worst in the series. 


      Usually when I read through the numerous complaint threads I notice a common recurring divide between those expecting that certain aspects of the game be altered or "fixed", and those with an expectation that we should all just adapt and accept the status quo. 


      My opinion is that there is most likely a line somewhere in the middle, but in order to see that line we have to look at the game objectively rather than subjectively, which is often much easier said than done and no doubt why we often see such hardline views at either end of the spectrum.


      Some adaptation has to be expected with any new game; just because the same tactics don't work this time around does not necessitate fixes being applied, but equally, just because some people are able to adapt and overcome certain issues or aspects of the game that does not mean that they do not require any adjustment or fixing.



      Latest reply: on Nov 22, 2013 3:31 PM by Replies: 8 in GHOSTS SUPPORT
        • Test #1
          Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

          Adaption - I grew up playing a lot of sport. The one thing I learnt most from sport is that the challenge is more important than the win. What I mean is competing against a stronger opponent, or team that is highly regarded - is much more satisfying than taking a win you should have always won. The losses I had made me appreciate the wins. So - if a new rule book is placed in front of you - the challenge is to work out how best to succeed.

          Example - we now have ground based radar instead of UAVs. Hhhhm  I use to love taking out those pesky UAVs and CUAVs with my trusty launcher. But, let's think - ground based means that you don't need to carry around a launcher, and anyone can take out ground based radar regardless of load out. Putting down a SatCom can give your position away if you don't move fsat enough. Also, those who earn airborne kill streaks are more likely to get value for their money because chances are there are less launches on the field. Point is : the game changes, positive and negatives, swings and roundabouts, you need to adapt; that is the challenge.


          Fixing - So what have I read on the forums.

          Lag - latency is impossible to "fix" because we are relying on an imperfect internet. So we need to be realistic. Game developers can change their matchmaking parameters. Tighter lobbies, ping wise, results in less latency. The dedies which should drop soon can help out in getting rid of bad hosts.  Every single cod has had latency issues, in each instalment the situation improves over time. We need to be patient.

          Spawns - Personally I think that "revenge spawning" has gone too far.  Revenge spawning was introduced to give gamers what they craved - a fast paced game. However, I think it has overshot it's mark. Good news is that IW has stated that the spawn system will be tweaked over the following few patches.  Also - we need to see how the spawning system works with larger lobbies of the next gen consoles.

          Hacked/modded lobbies - From what I have seen there has been a real increase in infection type lobbies. I haven't seen this much shenanigans since MW2. My feeling is that hackers have decided that they are not worried about console bans as they have shiny new next gens coming their way.  In my book infection lobbies are the worst kind because innocents bet hurt. I'm certain that all the relevant security teams are working double time on this issue. Regardless of what some sceptics may think, IW ACti MS Sony understand that their bottom line will take a hit if they don't get on top on the modded lobbies - especially with Next Gen game sales on the line.


          Overall - Games are to be enjoyed. Some set their expectations too high, some get dismayed because the game is no longer playing in their wheelhouse. Enjoy the kills you make, enjoy the challenge of learning a new way of playing. We would all be complaining if COD never change. Roll with the punches gang .

          Last Edited: Nov 20, 2013 5:32 AM
            • Test #1
              Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

              I agree, I think there needs to be some sort of challenge involved to achieve a feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment from doing well, but that's a personal feeling and a lot of people seem to just want things handed to them on a plate.


              The thing about competition though is that it works best when you are most closely matched with people of similar skill levels.  That's something I've noticed is a bit lacking with Ghosts compared to BO2.  In BO2 I generally found the range between the top and bottom players KD/SPM wise was pretty tight.  As I got better I progressed to being matched with better people to play against, and for the most part it felt like I had to work for the win rather than it just being a foregone conclusion.  I don't find the lobbies to be very balanced in Ghosts too often and I think that's a bit of a mis-step in the matchmaking department I think.  I do decent enough for the most part, but I see a lot of guys with really low KD who shouldn't be matched against me, never mind the MLG pros with the 3+ KDs at the top of the lobby leaderboard.

              Last Edited: Nov 22, 2013 8:49 AM
                • Test #1
                  Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

                  I have just got my X1. So I'm now starting my Ghosts journey. Playing campaign at the moment, which I always try to complete before diving into multiplayer. 

                  I Agree - noobs should not be put in with vets. Yet, the challenge is to beat what is put in front of you. My stats have never been great - partly because I have Zelda born reflexes, and also because I play as a lone wolf (my real life mates are not gamers).

                  I'll be able to give better judgement in a couple of weeks  

                  Last Edited: Nov 22, 2013 9:45 AM
                • Test #1
                  Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

                  If I were to use your analogy of sports with the problems I think most are having with Ghosts, is say that you loved playing football. You practiced and worked really hard at it. But now they changed the game to more reflect golf.  So what you knew and loved is still called "football" or Call of Duty, but it plays more like a different sport. So most go back to seek out that game they remember and love.


                  On this game's merits alone, yeah, there's a lot to fix with spawns, lag, and all that other crap.  But when it comes to what I think most players want "fixed", is more a question of they're not happy with the game design.  The choices made when deciding to how the game will be played.

                  Last Edited: Nov 22, 2013 11:01 AM
                • Test #1
                  Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

                  I agree with most of the OP. I think it's fairly easy to define the problems that come under each category, too, simply by asking "is it POSSIBLE to adapt to this?". The spawning cannot be adapted to for example. You can't control where you spawn, so you absolutely will experience unfair deaths. So the spawning is under the "Fix" category.


                  On the other hand, let's take large maps. I very much dislike the large maps, but can I adapt? Yes. It's possible at least. I'm playing slower and slower on those maps, and it's working. As I gradually learn where people camp, snipe, rush, I know where to take my rushing, and where to simply NEVER go.


                  I also think there's a third category. "Insurmountable". These are basically deal-breakers. The shitty textures that make people nearly invisible, would be an example. It's not going to be fixed, and you can't really adapt to it, unless you use a ridiculous scope, which isn't an option for everybody. I absolutely will not use a thermal scope. Anything in this category is basically like, you have to just deal with it. Not adapt to it, just accept it, and not let it get to you. If something in this category is a game-breaker for you, there's nothing left to do but stop playing the game. Wait for the next one, see if it's any better. For me, everything in this category is ALMOST a game-breaker, but not quite, so I'm still playing. It's close, though.


                  EDIT: I know the thermal scope thing means it's POSSIBLE to adapt, which means it could go in the "adapt" category, but for a lot of people the game just isn't fun with that scope, myself included.

                  Last Edited: Nov 22, 2013 11:10 AM
                  • Test #1
                    Re: Adaptation vs Fixes and Finding the Middle Ground

                    Beautifully put. Objectively, i think it is the best COD since COD 4. Having enjoyed all the COD games since.

                    Last Edited: Nov 22, 2013 3:28 PM