Call of Duty Black Ops 4 General Discussion Forum

Have they said anything about which rifles we will see in the game? 

grizzgolf
Likes: 21
Posts: 195
Registered: ‎15-03-2016
15 REPLIES 15
in reply to grizzgolf

No.

Just the once from reveal.

Some you can see on what weapon it's based on.

But we know we will have assault rifles. (Probably the full and burst)

And dmrs the single shots

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaS is OP. Green Stars are OP
SaND get's everywhere
dtuchpunk Level 75
Likes: 4337
Posts: 14884
Registered: ‎09-06-2011
in reply to grizzgolf

@grizzgolf wrote:

Have they said anything about which rifles we will see in the game? 


Can't confirm the source right now but apparently Vondy said there were not going to be a ton of weapons in this game. Not sure what that is in comparison too but it seems to be pretty much on par with their whole lack of content approach they are taking. 

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016
in reply to MurkBeserk

That seems like a silly decision as well. They said they added health for more weapon tuning ability. So, wouldn't they want to take advantage of that by adding a large variety of Weapons? Seems backwards to add health then limit the weapons. 

gotsomestars Level 75
Likes: 11278
Posts: 15377
Registered: ‎21-03-2013
in reply to gotsomestars

Seems anything is without any logic what happens or happened in the past for us customers what they are doing. The only thing which is for sure, they do all about to make money, and even more money. They remove things like maps, rename things like season pass into whatever they call it now, removing campaign(s), but adding all kind of cosmetics etc. and stuff like this.

CoD became all about quick money. Any studio is putting less effort into making or creating their games. WW2 was the downfall from the start of CoD´s long and painfull death...

Horrorman Level 75
Likes: 3355
Posts: 7742
Registered: ‎14-03-2017
in reply to gotsomestars

@gotsomestars wrote:

That seems like a silly decision as well. They said they added health for more weapon tuning ability. So, wouldn't they want to take advantage of that by adding a large variety of Weapons? Seems backwards to add health then limit the weapons. 


I think that is just part of their hype trying to sell the idea that the additional health was an improvement so they said, hey, it's so we can have more control over the weapons. What I hear is, "We are lazy so we increased the health so weapon tuning will be easier and since we aren't going have as many weapons to tune, well, its even easier for us!".... "Oh, and we are also limiting which weapons can get specific attachements so now, it will be even easier to tune the weapons". I love how they are hyping the idea that "each weapon has its own personality"... reality is, lazy ass devs don't want to balance all attachments for all the weapons so it is even less for them to do while offering far less customization options and again, less content for the player.

I haven't see anything that has been disclosed at this point that makes me believe they have put in effort in to additional content. If they are going to make a copy and paste game, I would have expected more content than previous COD's, not less.

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016
in reply to MurkBeserk

@MurkBeserk wrote:

@gotsomestars wrote:

That seems like a silly decision as well. They said they added health for more weapon tuning ability. So, wouldn't they want to take advantage of that by adding a large variety of Weapons? Seems backwards to add health then limit the weapons. 


I think that is just part of their hype trying to sell the idea that the additional health was an improvement so they said, hey, it's so we can have more control over the weapons. What I hear is, "We are lazy so we increased the health so weapon tuning will be easier and since we aren't going have as many weapons to tune, well, its even easier for us!".... "Oh, and we are also limiting which weapons can get specific attachements so now, it will be even easier to tune the weapons". I love how they are hyping the idea that "each weapon has its own personality"... reality is, lazy ass devs don't want to balance all attachments for all the weapons so it is even less for them to do while offering far less customization options and again, less content for the player.

I haven't see anything that has been disclosed at this point that makes me believe they have put in effort in to additional content. If they are going to make a copy and paste game, I would have expected more content than previous COD's, not less.


You really hate Treyarch don't ya? 🤣🤣

 

Funny each year I hear, die too slow, die too quick. But if everyone is dying at the same pace, how can that argument stand? It's because COD can't ever please everyone. 

 

Too many guns, nerf this one, buff that one. Most of the time the community can't even agree on those. 

 

Too much health, not enough. Balance this, this is out of balance. Same stuff different game(s). 

 

Look, if the connection is good, the maps flow, if it has me eager to play when I get home from work, it's ACTUALLY close to the Black Ops brand that we have all enjoyed......I'm there!! 

 

But for now I think it's impossible for any of us to know how the game is going to play. The micro stuff will mean little both ways, good game or bad. I think the SD guns are only in people's minds, because they think it has ALL to do why they got killed or lost. 99% of the time you got owned because the other player was just better.  

 

 

Goingdeep747
Likes: 788
Posts: 1377
Registered: ‎06-11-2015
in reply to Goingdeep747

@Goingdeep747 wrote:

@MurkBeserk wrote:

@gotsomestars wrote:

That seems like a silly decision as well. They said they added health for more weapon tuning ability. So, wouldn't they want to take advantage of that by adding a large variety of Weapons? Seems backwards to add health then limit the weapons. 


I think that is just part of their hype trying to sell the idea that the additional health was an improvement so they said, hey, it's so we can have more control over the weapons. What I hear is, "We are lazy so we increased the health so weapon tuning will be easier and since we aren't going have as many weapons to tune, well, its even easier for us!".... "Oh, and we are also limiting which weapons can get specific attachements so now, it will be even easier to tune the weapons". I love how they are hyping the idea that "each weapon has its own personality"... reality is, lazy ass devs don't want to balance all attachments for all the weapons so it is even less for them to do while offering far less customization options and again, less content for the player.

I haven't see anything that has been disclosed at this point that makes me believe they have put in effort in to additional content. If they are going to make a copy and paste game, I would have expected more content than previous COD's, not less.


You really hate Treyarch don't ya? 🤣🤣

 

Funny each year I hear, die too slow, die too quick. But if everyone is dying at the same pace, how can that argument stand? It's because COD can't ever please everyone. 

 

Too many guns, nerf this one, buff that one. Most of the time the community can't even agree on those. 

 

Too much health, not enough. Balance this, this is out of balance. Same stuff different game(s). 

 

Look, if the connection is good, the maps flow, if it has me eager to play when I get home from work, it's ACTUALLY close to the Black Ops brand that we have all enjoyed......I'm there!! 

 

But for now I think it's impossible for any of us to know how the game is going to play. The micro stuff will mean little both ways, good game or bad. I think the SD guns are only in people's minds, because they think it has ALL to do why they got killed or lost. 99% of the time you got owned because the other player was just better.  

 

 


The issue here is because something is a certain way for You, it should be that way for everyone. I would guess most people are somewhere in the middle. They're not total fanboys who can see no wrong. And they're not mad about everything. But from the various media outlets, most are pretty skeptical of what they've heard.

gotsomestars Level 75
Likes: 11278
Posts: 15377
Registered: ‎21-03-2013
in reply to gotsomestars

On a side note, after playing a lot of bo3 lately. I really hope the shotguns are balanced. Every game of bo3 has at least 4 shotgunners. Even on the big maps. All you hear all game long is morons spamming the brecci.  And obviously that means the spawns are crap.

gotsomestars Level 75
Likes: 11278
Posts: 15377
Registered: ‎21-03-2013
in reply to Goingdeep747

@Goingdeep747 wrote:



You really hate Treyarch don't ya? 🤣🤣


No, not really. I actually like treyarch games at the core, it's the BS they throw into the game after you buy that pisses me off and 3arch was the worst in that regard of the last three devs. The game itself was good but stopped playing when the new COD came out and because of the supply drop bs never went back even after I stopped playing both IW and WW2.


If I was to judge a DEV by the game alone, SHG would definitely be the worst of the three based on both of the recent games by them I felt were the least overall fun and shortest played by me. Plus, there is just something so effing creepy about Condre that doesn't help. Dude should not be allowed within a few miles of any grade school, something is wrong with him. 


@Goingdeep747 wrote: 

Too many guns, nerf this one, buff that one. Most of the time the community can't even agree on those. 


Your making my argument more valid in regards to your defense of the supply drop weapons with this comment. It's why there should be no game changing / stat changing items locked behind any type of pay wall or lottery system. This is probably my biggest complaint of Treyarch and since they are still doing it with BO3, not to mention testing new ways to make it about COD POINTS vs in game earned currency from progression, I have no reason to think they will not take the same pathetic, cheap and greedy path they did with BO3, and of course, there is the fact they have not disclosed a single thing about this.... why?!? Cause they know it is going to royally piss off their fan base and they just hyped the very little they could to try and get pre-orders.


@Goingdeep747 wrote: 

 

Too much health, not enough. Balance this, this is out of balance. Same stuff different game(s). 


To be honest, the health change is really of no big deal to me, it's all the other crap their throwing in the the game to noobanize it such as... no KDR traded for participation points, health boosts beyond normal health either by perks or specialists, specialists with barriers to slow the flow and pace, mechanics to heal to slow the pace, specialist that can farm points vs gettign kills for SS, 5 vs 6 specialist to slow the pace.... and probably another half dozen annoying and irritating changes that will make this the most noob friendly COD that existed to date. At least in BO3 some of the specialist were fun and had a skill gap to it even if the others were a bit nooby, Bo4 just made half, if not more, just boring and designed to make the game slower.


@Goingdeep747 wrote:

The micro stuff will mean little both ways, good game or bad. I think the SD guns are only in people's minds, because they think it has ALL to do why they got killed or lost. 99% of the time you got owned because the other player was just better.  


This is completely and totally false. If there is a weapon where the flinch, the centering, recoil, rate of fire etc changes even slightly and it is not offered to all players, the game play is completely off balanced, options to fairly counter is removed from the game play. I have changed weapons midgame where my team wasn't doing as well and completely turned the game around and shat on the team starting midgame, if that can happen by simply switching a weapon as counter to another player style, weapons in supply drops could potentially do the same thing, that should not ever exist and if a dev implements it now, they should be completely crucified for being the greedy little b*tches they are for putting profit before fair play and user experience ESPECIALLY if not disclosed before offering the game for purchase and that includes pre-orders.


@Goingdeep747 wrote:

But for now I think it's impossible for any of us to know how the game is going to play.  

The game can play great but if they hide weapons behind a paywall or lottery system, it is a complete non starter for me. If they choose to continue to hide what they plan on doing with this, I am just going go by recent history and assume they are going to continue the same greedy and shady marketing hype they have done in the past. If they sack up and disclose this info early, by all means, I will say I was wrong but willing to put money on the fact the cowards that are treyarch will not do this cause it might lose them some pre-orders.

After a lengthy response, it's not Treyarch I hate, its the franchise of COD in general and the direction they are taking. I do believe Treyarch is probably one of the greediest of the three though based on what they have done with BO3 and what they released so far with BO4 and the lack of disclosure so far and i beleive it is becasue there is just too big of a 3ach fanboy club that allows them to get away with it. 

Treyarch was my favorite dev until I saw the release of BO4 where they completely dissappointed in just about every possible category. 



MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

Studios