46 Replies Latest reply: Mar 30, 2013 8:36 AM by mdub RSS

Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?

CR4IG

In MW3 all playlists outside of the standard Core one is completely different from what it was on release day and everything that has been added is all because of input from the community, these added playlists include money in the denk (after a week of complaints about this they changed the game rules), infection (they also changed settings in this to satisfy the community), 3v3 and HC 3v3 face-off (if I remember rightly it was only 1v1 and 2v2 to start with), MW3SOME, HCDOM, all or nothing plus Richochet got added because of complaints from certain parts of the community as well.

 

With Treyarch though, the only things I can remember being changed from the WAW days were Flags and Bombs being added to the HC playlist (and while a lot of people would love to see the WAR mode come back that is also ignored) in place of HCHQ/HCCTF and last stand giving the kill to the guy who put him down in the first place, any suggestions to Treyarch are always shot down with BS excuses like we cant add to playlists/change game rules etc. If IW can change settings and are more than willing to do so then why cant Treyarch, its as if there saying you either lump it or like it and to me, that is the worst possible attitude, anyone have any idea why they have this sort of attitude because as of now it really is wearing thin and most noticeably in the HC community?

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    devidog_kyle

    You know, I have the same feeling day after day. when you hear people day to day suffer from honest issues in the game, or make suggestions that would truely benifit the game go unheard, yet I get an update for dlc camos. That was when my mind was truely made up that they just aren't interested in us just the fat cash.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    NoLifeKing29

    Maybe because the community has terrible ideas? Infected was stupid, MITB was stupid, Drop Zone was stupid, Face-off was stupid, Ricochet (not a community idea) is the worst thing to ever happen to HC. With stupid ideas like that, I'm glad they don't take heed to most of the community. HCDOM was a launch list with MW3 btw. All Treyarch needs to do is add a few more HC modes, and the playlists will be fine. We don't need boosting modes to return. 

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      CR4IG

      What you say there applies to you, those game-modes were added because a big percentage of the paying customers wanted them and whether they are dumb or not it shows they care, as of this minute the message of the day on MW3 is "what gamemode would you like added to the faceoff playlist, post your request on twitter @infinityward", but with Treyarch when the new game comes out its almost like they drop support instantly.

       

      The only community move by Treyarch since this games release that I can think of is Vahn asking us what HC mode we should drop to add a new one.

       

      As for HCDOM being there from the beginning well that may be true but a lot of other things in the advanced playlist are different from release day based on input from the community.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      r33k

      Money

      In

      The

      Denk

      !

       

      was genius. GENIUS! probably one of the funnest games that has been created.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    OrbitaIVSAT

    We want War!!

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    xdemonthekiller

    I agree but they did add the Bonus -> Chaos mosh pit  because of they were so idiotic they tricked us in thinking it was permanent but as they said "Only ment for special events" As treyarch put it which is the most retarded sentance any game company could possible say since they didn't say anything about Nuketown 2025 only being for special events.

     

    Black ops  was great

    Black ops 2 Thumps down :/ They decided to take out HARDCORE free for all because they are peny pencers, Since i read "hardly anyone plays HCFF" but that is wrong, I played it in previous game and i did wish to play it in black op 2.

     

    But after it was removed people got angry and returned their games, Why would treyarch do this? Because they just want to sasitfy their fat pockets besides the needs of the gamers who play there games such as IW did in sasifying  the gamers as he stated above.

     

    The new DLC of camos and features is a load of bull crap but only the set up is the only one i can agree with. They made that DLC why you may ask? Not for the gamers but for them.

     

    I reccond treyarch should release something which takes time and effort to make for the gamers, I got the season pass and i honestly don't care about that dlc but seriously? they have benefited this game since its release? they have only made minor changes and patched glitches which make the game fun as hell. People agree and disagree with glitches but honestly, If you can't use them in public then why not allow them in private? Treyarch has messed this game up good but we try to the make the best out of this rubble.

     

    That is all but i could of said more.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      NoLifeKing29

      The decision to remove HCFFA and replace it with HCKC was a brilliant one. The decision to include FFA at all in the launch list was poor. The playlist population differential attests to this.

      • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
        CR4IG

        MW3 has 6 HC gamemodes with both FFA and KC included so there is absolutely no reason why it had to be removed, just because YOU don't like it does not mean others didn't.

        • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
          NoLifeKing29

          We were all looking at the numbers when Vahn said they were going to remove FFA, it never broke the 3k players mark. It was the lowest played by alot. HCKC has seen over 30k on double xp weekends. Should they add HCDOM it would also see those kinds of numbers, HCHQ less so but still at least 8-10k, more than FFA ever did.  There has never been an explanation given as to why there are only 4 modes, but FFA didn't earn its own slot, thats for sure.

          • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
            CR4IG

            The numbers should not have been an issue and that's what I'm getting at here, they are either being stubborn or they have some other agenda, example, I have been a fan of the mercenary mode, been playing it since the original Blops and in 3 years have never seen more 2,000 (usually less than 1,000) in the playlists but have always been able to find games on par latency wise as a gamemode with say 20,000+ players, I just don't understand why they are being like this.

          • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
            mdub

            NoLifeKing29 wrote:

             

            We were all looking at the numbers when Vahn said they were going to remove FFA, it never broke the 3k players mark. It was the lowest played by alot. HCKC has seen over 30k on double xp weekends. Should they add HCDOM it would also see those kinds of numbers, HCHQ less so but still at least 8-10k, more than FFA ever did.  There has never been an explanation given as to why there are only 4 modes, but FFA didn't earn its own slot, thats for sure.

            Your arguement is invalid, based on BO2's league play numbers. That playlist is a ghost town. Vahn has a hard on for competive play.......... clearly the player base does not.

             

            The only way Vahn would put more hardcore modes in...... Optic would have to give the OK.

            • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
              trialstardragon

              League is a core part of THIS edition of the game. It would not be removed even if it only had 500 players playing it. League is main driving force behind codcasting and live broadcasting. FFA was none of those things. So it could be removed where as Leauge will not be for any reason any amount of players here ever try to put forth in THIS game.

               

              Plus they are not really game modes, they are playlists. for hardcore is not really a game mode, it is a variant of teh core game rules.

              • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
                mdub

                trialstardragon wrote:

                 

                League is a core part of THIS edition of the game. It would not be removed even if it only had 500 players playing it. League is main driving force behind codcasting and live broadcasting. FFA was none of those things. So it could be removed where as Leauge will not be for any reason any amount of players here ever try to put forth in THIS game.

                 

                Plus they are not really game modes, they are playlists. for hardcore is not really a game mode, it is a variant of teh core game rules.

                Obviously LEAGUE PLAY wont be AXED. Treyarch would never ADMIT that league play is a DUD, nor should they have to.

                 

                Now that I proved I could capitalize points of emphasis as well......

                 

                I didnt ask for your personal opinion on whether or not league play should/would be removed. You dont work for Treyarch and have zero knowledge of which playlists will come or go. Who said the league playlist would get dropped anyways????

                 

                I simply pointed out that league play is a minimally populated playlist and that going off of player counts.... doesnt mean sweet FA!

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    trialstardragon

    3arc does not do ricochet for hc they never have and never will they use 3 tk kick and always have and always will. So that one is a moot point. Just because IW uses ricochet does not mean that 3arc has to because some get but hurt about being kicked after killing teammates too many times. Ricochet ruins HC, it does not improve it. For with it you can just tk all you want and never worry about it.

     

    3arc does not have to add things just becuase the community wants them to, it is there game, they decide what is right for the game not the players. Players are too fickle and always want things changed all the time and this forum and its community is the worst of them all when doing that. When the rest of the players may not want the changes at all.

     

    WAR is not compatabile with this game and the size of tthe maps and it had its own problems and was a fluke that it worked so well in WaW. The only reason it did was the map design on some of the maps worked with it. The majority if not all of the maps in this game would not work well with WAR and how it was played because of the size of them. WAR required long maps, and the only map in this game taht really fits that is Turbine  Most of the rest are too short for it.

     

    The kill should go to the one that makes the kill not the one that puts them down. Finish the kill or only get assist points.. for a kill is not a kill until they are dead. Just because you did 100 damage does not make it a kill...because they had last stand.. so the kill was not earned even if 100 damage was done.. how it is now is how it should be and how it always should have been. When they changed it in BO people would just put someone down and then walk away becasue they knew they would get the kill for it. So there was no reason to risk finsihing them off and maybe getting killed. Used to see it happen all the time.

     

    HC is a smaller community than core. So HC will always come second to core in what they get in the game. Until HC is as big as core in numbers alone it will always be the bastard child of core and always take second place when it comes to playlists.

     

    Plus the general player aka causal player plays core not hc and this game was marketed for general causal players and not just hc die hards that feel that hc is better when really it is not.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      CR4IG

      I did not say Treyarch should do ricochet, was just pointing out the fact that MW3 started without and it was changed because the community asked for it, everything else I have said are just examples that IW have done so much more for the community than Treyarch have, not my opinion's on what should or should not have be done.

       

      As for WAR if you read down the thread you will see I say the exact same as you.

      • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
        trialstardragon

        Roght but that is what IW does when people complain they toss on Ricochet as a blanket band-aid fix for the problem. Which in turn makes the game worse not better at that point. 3arc's 3tk kick is better for it gets rid of the problem player unless they are host.

         

        Did not read all the replies until after I posted where you did mention the same reasons.

         

        I do agree that there are issues with the game, but really there is nothing we can do about it. Either play or not and that is it, for complaing here does not mean they really have to do anything about it. For we are sheep and they know this. It is there game and as long as the majority of players are willing to play even with the problems there is no reason for them to fix them just becuase a few do not like them.

        • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
          CR4IG

          I absolutely hate ricochet and love the 3tk rule, it is proper HC, I also loved the change to second chance and this is not a complaint thread, just me asking the question as to why Treyarch are so stubborn compared to IW, the examples I have given make it absolutely clear that they do have some issues with taking input from the community, IW act almost instantly whereas Treyarch, well that 2nd chance thing didn't come into to effect till what, 4 months before the end of the games cycle and me missing out on at least 1000 kills, it was more like a sweetener to act like they were listening and make sure we bought the next game instead of a change because we asked for it.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    iivrruummii

    COD2013 needs to have big freaking maps(MW2 sized).  I don't mind some small ones like "Dome," but every map cannot be the same size as dome and have limited path ways and no flanking routes.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    Foxhound-Pro

    Here's my take.

     

    Treyarch wants a product that is solid and will deliver the expected experiences. I think this is why they're a bit more rigid when it comes to making changes. That's not nescesarily a bad thing, but it does give off an appearance that can be perceived as negative like here.

     

    All of the additional game modes that MW3 offered, including community generated ones and the immature MW3SOME title, aren't enough for me to justify that they "care" or are more "connected" than Treyarch. It simply shows that they are different.

     

    There's more that I would like to expand on, but I can't at the moment. I'd also like to say that for the record they are not ignoring WAR. They know people want it, but they've stated that it does not fit and have actively tried to bring it back.

     

    I also think that it is perfectly fine for a game to be "either you like it or you do not." This is their game. It's their park.

     


    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      CR4IG

      To be completely honest I have never played that MW3SOME mode as it does seem very childish and only played that infection thing a couple of times as well.

       

      And just for the record, I am without a doubt a Treyarch fanboy and seeing the stuff IW do for there fans makes me wish we had the same love from our devs but... very good to hear that WAR has been considered even if it could never work in this game, if they could make it for the original Blops I would be the happiest guy in the world because as we all know WAW is a no go zone with all the hackers, I'm smart enough to know that it will never happen though.

      • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
        vims1990

        I'm a huge supporter of the game mode "War" but since maps seem to get smaller with each COD iteration, I doubt it'll ever return. Vahn even mentioned a while back that War wouldn't have worked in BO1 as well:

         

        I know a lot of folks are unhappy about this. I knew you would be. What can I tell you. Sometimes I wish the fans would trust us a little bit. We didn't take War out to annoy you. War is a notoriously difficult game mode to make fun. In all honestly, it's a ball ache to set-up. Especially the spawning. It's the most complex game mode we've ever had (design, script, map requirements, and more).

         

        It works so much better on larger maps. I know not everyone agrees with this point of view and that's ok. War is the kind of game mode where you wish you were the kind of game that only ever had to worry about one or three game modes, instead of 12+. We didn't bring it back because it wasn't playing as well as needed to in this game. It's not like we don't like War. We like it so much that we aren't going to do it if it's not amazing.

         

        End of story.

         

        David 'Vahn' Vonderhaar

         

         

        If the community weren't so much about wanting more small maps (i.e. Nuketown, most of BO2 maps) and allow devs to design larger maps for game modes like "War" and possibly provide Ground War players with more maps in their playlist, it'll be so much better.

         

        Instead, most of these maps seem to be catered towards those players who probably want to play Nuketown all day.

         

        I'm hoping COD devs will one day balance out the maps. Stop designing so many small maps, provide some larger maps to support game modes like War.

        • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
          ab36

          I agree. The small maps are fun sometimes but there's basically little to no room to actually need to plan anything or play tactically. I think it's best one there are maybe 2 or even 3 maps that are small like Nuketown or Hijacked, but the rest should to be medium to large sized maps, so there's more space, and SMGs/shotguns won't be basically at an automatic advantage just because the maps are so small.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      ab36

      Maybe they could bring it back in a DLC pack with maps built to better suit the mode... I think War would play well on Array from Black Ops 1, and obviously the WaW maps. I think they should bring back some Black Ops 1 and WaW maps, even if it's separate from the Season Pass. I'd pay for it. It'd be a fun way to end this generation of Call of Duties.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      SitRepPro

      I guess 3arc are against having maps specific for game modes?  You need not one game mode apply for one map as there are usually overlaps in the dynamics of different game modes but, with so many game modes IW and 3arc have done, it's hard to make a map that plays well in all of them.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    MrCoates28210

    Because we keep talking **** about them, hahaha

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      zombyeslayer87

      so?? lol they deserve everything they get! they dont fix the faults and in game bugs and everything naturally there gona get hate and people talking $hit on them. if they wasnt incompetent and did there job right people would be more friendly to them rather than them turning there backs on us. cods a dying franchise and just a cash cow no longer enjoyable like it was back in the days of mw2 ie bigger sized maps. treyarch have began to make a joke of this game black ops was a darn sight better than this

      • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
        trialstardragon

        They do know how to do their job right, just people here are too fickle and want everything the way they think it should be and that is never how it will be ever in this game. The smaller maps is becuase of listening to people here too much who complained about large maps and campers. So if you want to complain about map size, than point the finger at the community and those that cried about all the bigger maps.

         

        Plus why should they listen much or do everything that the community wants? There is no reason, this community does not really know what it wants nor can it ever really come to a consensus on what is good or bad about the game.

         

        Ruhsers want small fast paced maps, tactical players want larger maps, Snipers want even larger maps. People want easy game modes to boost for exp to gain levels quickly like infected... They cannot within the limitation of the current gen console make everyone happy and give eveyrone what they want all the time.

         

        Some people are just going to have to be disapointed becasue they cannot ever make even 95% of the players happy, let alone ever try to make 100% happy and give everyone what they want. But the players and forum goers here never understand that because they do not want to. They are to damn entitled and think the game has to be tailored to their ever changeing whims about what game modes should or should not be in, and how each and every little thing should work against each other. Which means if they did those things the game would never be stable or balanced, for every player has a different view of balance and stable or fun game play.

         

        But those people who then get upset that they were not treated like kings and queens then come here and make an arse of themself, which gives 3arc plenty of reasons to not want to change much or add things. Plus in the end it is their house, their game, their rules, they decide how the game is and not the players ever. Dont like that? Go find another game, or learn to make one of your own and then see just how hard it is to make all the customers happy about every little thing that is complained about. It cannot be done ever.

         

        It is people like you and your manner of reply that make them be how they are in some respect. I know for sure if you were in my house complaining about something I made and allowed you to use about how it was not exactly waht you want. I would just either ignore you or say gtfo, go cry somewhere else.

         

        No one here is entitled to have the game be exactly how they want 100% of the time ever and they never will be.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    maccabi

    when you're quick to add things (gamemodes) like IW did , you are more prone to missing potential problems (even ones that the community pointed out beforehand). This isn't always a bad thing as it's nice to see things implemented quickly from our point of view. A good example of this is infected which we all said would turn into a boosters paradise and the ignored suggestions that leveling was turned off in the community modes playlists. Wierdly this is something i've recently just discussed elsewhere but anyways, I think Iw got a good balance when it came to community involvement in changes made to the game, this time round Treyarch are really dragging thier heels (the ongoing more hard core modes being the prime example )

     

    As for War there are a ton of gamemodes that got made for bo2 that never made it into the game , theres a variation of war called world domination that (and i'll try to find the tweet) Vahn when questioned about did say it was unlikely would make it into the game for a few reasons. I like many am a little surprised about the lack of a war tye mode as it was always a fan favourite and something we have all asked for to return often. It's a shame the map sizes we have now dont really work for it, who knows maybe we might see a few large maps in a future dlc that could caterto a war like mode i hope so.

     

    Also i just want to mention richochet in mw3, what alot ofpeople dont know is when it was added as a knee jerk reaction there was alot of behind the scenes discussion about removing it both from us to iw and inside iw itself. While i dont agree with richochet at all i do understand why it remained and respect iw's honesty and reasoning for keeping it. It's just a shame they didnt fix the issues adding richochet caused though.

     

    While i do agree there is a rather large disparity between how the two dev studios do things and this time round community interaction is woefully lacking and the emphasis seems to be more on competitive /leagueplay than anything.. you have to remember Vahn has come onto the forums once since the game has come out and that was to discuss hardcore, something he has already said he will be getting back too soon. I'd rather something is done right and doesnt piss off people than its done hurriedly and causes more issues.

    • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
      snorubit

      maccabi wrote: I'd rather something is done right and doesnt piss off people than its done hurriedly and causes more issues.

      I do tend to agree with your perspective and also recollect you too live within the technology world if I am not mistaken.

       

      Having said that and not being too specific, I am in senior leadership with a major HW manufacturer and my personal mantra is "progress vs. perfection" in creating direction and maintaining reasonable timelines to please our partner base.

       

      I do feel that Treyarch is lacking in community engagement in general and although we would all like 100% perfection on any title adjustments, they could strike a better balance on the progress side of the equation while also creating a bit more transparency with the community.

       

      Just my .02.

      • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
        maccabi

        snorubit wrote:

         

        maccabi wrote: I'd rather something is done right and doesnt piss off people than its done hurriedly and causes more issues.

        I do tend to agree with your perspective and also recollect you too live within the technology world if I am not mistaken.

         

         

        dude you make it sound like i live in the matrix, wait a minute that sounds cool.. yes , yes i do

         

         

        snorubit wrote:

         

        Having said that and not being too specific, I am in senior leadership with a major HW manufacturer and my personal mantra is "progress vs. perfection" in creating direction and maintaining reasonable timelines to please our partner base.

         

        I do feel that Treyarch is lacking in community engagement in general and although we would all like 100% perfection on any title adjustments, they could strike a better balance on the progress side of the equation while also creating a bit more transparency with the community.

         

        Just my .02.

        No fully agree there is a serious lack on interaction and dragging of heels atm.

         

        as for your progress vs perfection comment, .. ive lost count the number of times ive had to say to clients to you want it now or in a few days when we have fully tested it works as you want?

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    Sora_v21

    oh please wait till MW4 then everyone will be saying how IW is "stubborn" and how 3arch makes a better game and listens more to the community.....this happens every year move on.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    UncleFizer

    The simple solution here seems to be for you to stop playing BOPS 2 and go back to MW3. 

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    Pinja

    Ever seen the start to Duck tales where Scrooge dives into the pile of money...I thinks that's why this happens.

  • Re: Why are Treyarch so stubborn compared to IW?
    Joco3000

    I view IW as the stubborn ones.

    Look at all the (Possibly minor) things in Black Ops 1. In game scoreboards showing things that actually mattered, in game player cards that allowed you reasonably accurately gauge how good a player is, no Tac Inserts in FFA.

     

    MW3 looked at those improvements and decided to Copy and Paste MW2, remove all the fun and sold us a shiny turd for £45.