Bring back diversity

Call of Duty Ghosts General Discussion

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to Scotland-Rules

We can only wait at this point.

Level 8
Likes: 67
Posts: 334
Registered: ‎12-06-2013

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to Scotland-Rules

You are right, if the next call of duty multiplayer is the same exact thing as MW3 and BO2, I will be finished with Call of Duty for good.

MW3 and BO2 are what they are today because people have been abusing the system in previous games with camping, quickscoping, one man army, boosting, the list goes on forever. Because people ruin gameplay for others, they force Activision to create dull and flat multiplayer gameplay and maps that restrict any kind of creativity or tactics and the only way to play the game is through running and gunning.

In my opinion, in my perfect world, the best way to fix this is to go back to MW2 style maps and gameplay without all of the flaws that were in MW2 like one man army, grenade launcher spam, and so on.

To me, it needs to basically be COD4 with bigger and better maps (not saying that COD4 had bad maps).

I know it is impossible to fix every single problem in the game. You can't make everyone happy and people will always be cheating or abusing gameplay no matter what you do, but I think Activision is doing too much to counter these problems.

Level 4
Likes: 19
Posts: 98
Registered: ‎04-06-2013

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to Scotland-Rules

scotland-rules wrote:

Well in my eyes that's:

A, Denying the enemy an access route to the objective

B. Supporting my team

C. Pissing off the enemy (my added fun)

If you want to classify that as camping then be my guest...

All these are definitely a part of camping, but... What I feel would be the determining factor of whether it's camping or not, is the 10 second rule. In this back-and-forth we've had, I've thought about how long a tactical player should need for the Ghost perk to work in order for his playstyle to have a better experience, without considering him a camper; I feel 10 seconds is the cut-off point.

This thread is about the players between the campers and run-n-gunners being affected by the Ghost perk, the Tactical Players, right?

So I ask you...

How many seconds do you feel the cut-off should be?

Level 21
Likes: 244
Posts: 1606
Registered: ‎23-09-2011

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to r8edtripx

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

Well in my eyes that's:

A, Denying the enemy an access route to the objective

B. Supporting my team

C. Pissing off the enemy (my added fun)

If you want to classify that as camping then be my guest...

All these are definitely a part of camping, but... What I feel would be the determining factor of whether it's camping or not, is the 10 second rule. In this back-and-forth we've had, I've thought about how long a tactical player should need for the Ghost perk to work in order for his playstyle to have a better experience, without considering him a camper; I feel 10 seconds is the cut-off point.

This thread is about the players between the campers and run-n-gunners being affected by the Ghost perk, the Tactical Players, right?

So I ask you...

How many seconds do you feel the cut-off should be?

The section in bold is what I'm reply too because the rest of your post is only going to lead to a pointless debate. You're wrong all counts about what this thread is. This thread is about bringing back diversity and giving ALL players and equal opportunity to play how they want. Yes you're right to an extent, this thread is about that but it's about more than just that though. 

A ghost perk and what it does means little to me unless we have the following:

Bigger maps - Maps in Black Ops 2 are tiny

Better Spawns --> This one will be determined by how the map sizes are.

Better weapon Balance --> Between all teirs, black ops 2 ruled with SMGs mostly

Create a class/weapon building system.

A ghost perk means jack Sh*t in the long run if these aren't correct. Quite frankly if you ask me would I prefer Ghost to be like it was in other CoDs I'd answer yes and heres why:

I've had the best diverse experience within the previous CoDs where Ghost has been whole. Think about it all previous Games from Black Ops 1 down to CoD4 have had this perk and they've been diverse and interesting, sure campers are going to camp.

But I ask you, is one perk really going break a game, when its been successful in all previous games except this one? They changed it in Black Ops 2 and it ruined an entire playstyle and still kept the one in which they wanted to destroy which is camping.

Why take that risk in shifting the balance of power?

Run and Gunners don't need radar to be successful, Stealth Players need immunity, full immunity to be successful in their playstyle.

Activision Ambassador
Likes: 477
Posts: 1790
Registered: ‎25-09-2011

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to Scotland-Rules

scotland-rules wrote:

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

Well in my eyes that's:

A, Denying the enemy an access route to the objective

B. Supporting my team

C. Pissing off the enemy (my added fun)

If you want to classify that as camping then be my guest...

All these are definitely a part of camping, but... What I feel would be the determining factor of whether it's camping or not, is the 10 second rule. In this back-and-forth we've had, I've thought about how long a tactical player should need for the Ghost perk to work in order for his playstyle to have a better experience, without considering him a camper; I feel 10 seconds is the cut-off point.

This thread is about the players between the campers and run-n-gunners being affected by the Ghost perk, the Tactical Players, right?

So I ask you...

How many seconds do you feel the cut-off should be?

The section in bold is what I'm reply too because the rest of your post is only going to lead to a pointless debate. You're wrong all counts about what this thread is. This thread is about bringing back diversity and giving ALL players and equal opportunity to play how they want. Yes you're right to an extent, this thread is about that but it's about more than just that though. 

A ghost perk and what it does means little to me unless we have the following:

Bigger maps - Maps in Black Ops 2 are tiny

Better Spawns --> This one will be determined by how the map sizes are.

Better weapon Balance --> Between all teirs, black ops 2 ruled with SMGs mostly

Create a class/weapon building system.

A ghost perk means jack Sh*t in the long run if these aren't correct. Quite frankly if you ask me would I prefer Ghost to be like it was in other CoDs I'd answer yes and heres why:

I've had the best diverse experience within the previous CoDs where Ghost has been whole. Think about it all previous Games from Black Ops 1 down to CoD4 have had this perk and they've been diverse and interesting, sure campers are going to camp.

But I ask you, is one perk really going break a game, when its been successful in all previous games except this one? They changed it in Black Ops 2 and it ruined an entire playstyle and still kept the one in which they wanted to destroy which is camping.

Why take that risk in shifting the balance of power?

Run and Gunners don't need radar to be successful, Stealth Players need immunity, full immunity to be successful in their playstyle.

Answering what you feel would be a good cut-off for an "improved" Ghost perk would definitely get people talking and would be too telling of where you feel the tactical playstyle ends and camping begins. It could weaken many of your comments in this thread, so I guess I understand you side-stepping the question. (Please don't ask, "how could it weaken?" Answer the question and find out.)

Anyway, as this thread progressed there was talk about how in the quest to kill camping, the tactical playstyle took a hit.

Yes, we've all said, there will always be campers and this didn't make them go away. No, it didn't, but it did hurt them. It's now more like things should be as far as campers are concerned. Camp, hide and be scared to come out and take the risk of exposing yourself, at the price of giving up stealth. That is FAIR. Risk/Reward.

Giving campers their stealth back doesn't add diversity. Giving TRUE tactical players their stealth back, on the other hand, could very well add diversity.

So give STEALTH players full immunity, but not if you're using STEALTH and CAMPER interchangeably. (It seems like you are)

Level 21
Likes: 244
Posts: 1606
Registered: ‎23-09-2011

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to r8edtripx

r8edtripx wrote:

Anyway, as this thread progressed there was talk about how in the quest to kill camping, the tactical playstyle took a hit.

Yes, we've all said, there will always be campers and this didn't make them go away. No, it didn't, but it did hurt them. It's now more like things should be as far as campers are concerned. Camp, hide and be scared to come out and take the risk of exposing yourself, at the price of giving up stealth. That is FAIR. Risk/Reward.

Giving campers their stealth back doesn't add diversity. Giving TRUE tactical players their stealth back, on the other hand, could very well add diversity.

So give STEALTH players full immunity, but not if you're using STEALTH and CAMPER interchangeably. (It seems like you are)

Agreed.  Campers shouldn't get rewarded by hiding from UAVs and everything ingeneral.  If there was a risk for camping then everyone would keep on doing it.

Level 47
Likes: 1271
Posts: 6422
Registered: ‎23-09-2011
Highlighted

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to iivrruummii

There is a risk to camping... it's called...

... a grenade.

... a toob.

... bullets.

... and being entirely ignored.

I will never... ever... understand the need for everyone to be freakin' dot or somehow the game is broken perspective.

Best thing Ghosts could do is remove the mini-map entirely.

That's my opinion but it should be yours ;-),
RAN
Level 75
Likes: 4317
Posts: 15012
Registered: ‎23-05-2011

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to RAN Kismet

One of the best suggestions ive heard, then there'll be no need for a ghost perk at all

Level 8
Likes: 68
Posts: 314
Registered: ‎03-09-2012

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to r8edtripx

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

Well in my eyes that's:

A, Denying the enemy an access route to the objective

B. Supporting my team

C. Pissing off the enemy (my added fun)

If you want to classify that as camping then be my guest...

All these are definitely a part of camping, but... What I feel would be the determining factor of whether it's camping or not, is the 10 second rule. In this back-and-forth we've had, I've thought about how long a tactical player should need for the Ghost perk to work in order for his playstyle to have a better experience, without considering him a camper; I feel 10 seconds is the cut-off point.

This thread is about the players between the campers and run-n-gunners being affected by the Ghost perk, the Tactical Players, right?

So I ask you...

How many seconds do you feel the cut-off should be?

The section in bold is what I'm reply too because the rest of your post is only going to lead to a pointless debate. You're wrong all counts about what this thread is. This thread is about bringing back diversity and giving ALL players and equal opportunity to play how they want. Yes you're right to an extent, this thread is about that but it's about more than just that though. 

A ghost perk and what it does means little to me unless we have the following:

Bigger maps - Maps in Black Ops 2 are tiny

Better Spawns --> This one will be determined by how the map sizes are.

Better weapon Balance --> Between all teirs, black ops 2 ruled with SMGs mostly

Create a class/weapon building system.

A ghost perk means jack Sh*t in the long run if these aren't correct. Quite frankly if you ask me would I prefer Ghost to be like it was in other CoDs I'd answer yes and heres why:

I've had the best diverse experience within the previous CoDs where Ghost has been whole. Think about it all previous Games from Black Ops 1 down to CoD4 have had this perk and they've been diverse and interesting, sure campers are going to camp.

But I ask you, is one perk really going break a game, when its been successful in all previous games except this one? They changed it in Black Ops 2 and it ruined an entire playstyle and still kept the one in which they wanted to destroy which is camping.

Why take that risk in shifting the balance of power?

Run and Gunners don't need radar to be successful, Stealth Players need immunity, full immunity to be successful in their playstyle.

Answering what you feel would be a good cut-off for an "improved" Ghost perk would definitely get people talking and would be too telling of where you feel the tactical playstyle ends and camping begins. It could weaken many of your comments in this thread, so I guess I understand you side-stepping the question. (Please don't ask, "how could it weaken?" Answer the question and find out.)

Anyway, as this thread progressed there was talk about how in the quest to kill camping, the tactical playstyle took a hit.

Yes, we've all said, there will always be campers and this didn't make them go away. No, it didn't, but it did hurt them. It's now more like things should be as far as campers are concerned. Camp, hide and be scared to come out and take the risk of exposing yourself, at the price of giving up stealth. That is FAIR. Risk/Reward.

Giving campers their stealth back doesn't add diversity. Giving TRUE tactical players their stealth back, on the other hand, could very well add diversity.

So give STEALTH players full immunity, but not if you're using STEALTH and CAMPER interchangeably. (It seems like you are)

The reason I'm not answering your seconds question is because its stupid. We are turning a simple perk into something that we need to count down and for hardcore it would be impossible other than counting down to know if your ghost was active or not because we don't get the triangle notification or mini map (unless we ourselves have UAV up). Second of all counting down a perk is just too complicated. In my opinion what we need to do is something we haven't done since probably Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops 1

In Black Ops 1 you had very powerful perks in teir 1

You had: Scavanger, Hardline, Flak Jacket, Ghost

Lightweight, used in rushing a lot and was a very popular perk

Scavenger was near essential on many SMG loadouts and was a very powerful perk - It made people choose

Hardline was the under dog perk but on launch many people loved getting an RCXD in two kills - Hardline has never seen too much action.

Flak Jacket - The only explosive that would manage to kill you was the carpet bomb airstrike, you were near immune to explosives and fire. Even on Hardcore you could take two claymores and a Grande.

Ghost - Immune to UAV and Killstreaks except the BlackBird

Again MW2 Lightweight, Used often in rushing builds

Stopping Power - Extra Bullet Damage People on core loved this perk, in fact this was over used to a large extent.

Hardline - It was used because it was new but people quickly passed on it unless they wanted to take advantage of the stacking killstreaks.

Cold Blooded, same as ghost but without the 8 killstreak weakness .

Danger Close - Extra Damage with explosives and then airstrikes.

The point of this is, in those games we had powerful perks which made choosing one hard. In MW3 we didn't I'll admit that up front, however what we need to do is have a few counters to ghost and good competition.

Some of the counters could be, Heartbeat sensor, Thermal, Killstreaks - all types, so basically you're open to killstreaks including a blackbird type one.

Then offer serious competition so choosing ghost is hard option, do what we did in Black Ops 1 and MW2 give serious competition.

By the I agree with splitting ghost into two perks. I'm only suggesting we have immunity to radar with ghost and then the pro could be "No red letters whe targeted".

In my opinion some attachment counters, killstreak counters and serious competition in the perk category would change make the game balanced.

Activision Ambassador
Likes: 477
Posts: 1790
Registered: ‎25-09-2011

Re: Bring back diversity

in reply to Scotland-Rules

scotland-rules wrote:

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

r8edtripx wrote:

scotland-rules wrote:

Well in my eyes that's:

A, Denying the enemy an access route to the objective

B. Supporting my team

C. Pissing off the enemy (my added fun)

If you want to classify that as camping then be my guest...

All these are definitely a part of camping, but... What I feel would be the determining factor of whether it's camping or not, is the 10 second rule. In this back-and-forth we've had, I've thought about how long a tactical player should need for the Ghost perk to work in order for his playstyle to have a better experience, without considering him a camper; I feel 10 seconds is the cut-off point.

This thread is about the players between the campers and run-n-gunners being affected by the Ghost perk, the Tactical Players, right?

So I ask you...

How many seconds do you feel the cut-off should be?

The section in bold is what I'm reply too because the rest of your post is only going to lead to a pointless debate. You're wrong all counts about what this thread is. This thread is about bringing back diversity and giving ALL players and equal opportunity to play how they want. Yes you're right to an extent, this thread is about that but it's about more than just that though. 

A ghost perk and what it does means little to me unless we have the following:

Bigger maps - Maps in Black Ops 2 are tiny

Better Spawns --> This one will be determined by how the map sizes are.

Better weapon Balance --> Between all teirs, black ops 2 ruled with SMGs mostly

Create a class/weapon building system.

A ghost perk means jack Sh*t in the long run if these aren't correct. Quite frankly if you ask me would I prefer Ghost to be like it was in other CoDs I'd answer yes and heres why:

I've had the best diverse experience within the previous CoDs where Ghost has been whole. Think about it all previous Games from Black Ops 1 down to CoD4 have had this perk and they've been diverse and interesting, sure campers are going to camp.

But I ask you, is one perk really going break a game, when its been successful in all previous games except this one? They changed it in Black Ops 2 and it ruined an entire playstyle and still kept the one in which they wanted to destroy which is camping.

Why take that risk in shifting the balance of power?

Run and Gunners don't need radar to be successful, Stealth Players need immunity, full immunity to be successful in their playstyle.

Answering what you feel would be a good cut-off for an "improved" Ghost perk would definitely get people talking and would be too telling of where you feel the tactical playstyle ends and camping begins. It could weaken many of your comments in this thread, so I guess I understand you side-stepping the question. (Please don't ask, "how could it weaken?" Answer the question and find out.)

Anyway, as this thread progressed there was talk about how in the quest to kill camping, the tactical playstyle took a hit.

Yes, we've all said, there will always be campers and this didn't make them go away. No, it didn't, but it did hurt them. It's now more like things should be as far as campers are concerned. Camp, hide and be scared to come out and take the risk of exposing yourself, at the price of giving up stealth. That is FAIR. Risk/Reward.

Giving campers their stealth back doesn't add diversity. Giving TRUE tactical players their stealth back, on the other hand, could very well add diversity.

So give STEALTH players full immunity, but not if you're using STEALTH and CAMPER interchangeably. (It seems like you are)

The reason I'm not answering your seconds question is because its stupid. We are turning a simple perk into something that we need to count down and for hardcore it would be impossible other than counting down to know if your ghost was active or not because we don't get the triangle notification or mini map (unless we ourselves have UAV up). Second of all counting down a perk is just too complicated. In my opinion what we need to do is something we haven't done since probably Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops 1

Because it's stupid? That's a cop-out.

After all this back-and-forth I've come to the conclusion that you're a camper.

So, all I'm saying is that, if someone wants to camp, go for it. I just don't want campers to have stealth; they don't desrve it.

Again, I'm cool with the TRUE tactical players having complete stealth, and a system where one has 10 solid seconds to do their thing before moving again is one that would help those players that are stuck in that in-between ground where they aren't camping, but not running and gunning either.

Level 21
Likes: 244
Posts: 1606
Registered: ‎23-09-2011

Studios