The levels will decide how effective c4's will be in a gun fight. Regardless of how good or bad c4's will be, with or without danger close, shouldn't be the deciding factor on scavenger getting a buff. And, no, scavenger is still worthless because it literally adds nothing to what you can't already do if you run over your own gun from a death (thus doubling or maxing out your ammo) so making it 3 points is an extremely bad suggestion. The perk should be worth a S**T if it's 3 points
There are so many pointless perks not just scavenger with how the game has been shown so far. I'm not even sure how they managed again to do such a bad job balancing perks even though they have had the ability to value perks so differently as quite a few perks need to be made 3 points as they outclass many 2 point perks such as scavenger completely, but they can't change 5 or so perks to 3 points because with only 8 points you wouldn't be able to make a proficient class for anything. 10 Points would be the magic number in my eyes that way they can rebalance perks values and leaving scavenger how it is then at 2 points would be fine but as it is now nobody can say scavenger is worth choosing over wiretap/off the grid/lightweight or flak jacket. I don't know what they smoke in the IW offices but what ever it is it certainly impairs them at making a balanced game, they haven't come remotely close yet.
I still stand by the scavenger 402 mentioned before MW3 which is you will replenish equipment if the person who dropped the satchel was using the same equipment as you and hadn't used it before they died - this way it makes the perk slightly more powerful without it being annoying or OP.
If there was to be a compromise then the MW3 version of scavenger which you described would definitely be the way to go,
However I do feel that the way it is now is best for the overall balance of the game.
Remember Bandoiler doesn't give you the ability to restock ammo from fallen enemies, so once your out of ammo that it whereas scavenger lets you restock after killing an enemy, so really its not all that underpowered or overshadowed.
If there was to be a compromise then the MW3 version of scavenger which you described would definitely be the way to go
Its a shame that for some reason it was changed to only restock ammo at some point late in development of MW3. I don't even think that you would replenish equipment that often the way I would like it because of the wide variety on offer and the fact that most people spam there equipment straight off spawn.
I also feel its better to not replace equipment every time as well, but its just doesn't compete with the other same value perks that's where I have a problem both bandolier and scavenger plus quite a few more just don't compete and no one in their right mind would pick either perk something needs to be done:
Either make scavenger like I mentioned above and reduce bandolier to a 1 point perk
reduce both scavenger and bandolier to 1 point each but they might outclass the 1 point perks
increase the powerful 2 Point perks to 3 Points and give you 10 Points to spend
Couple Bandolier and Scavenger together and leave it at 2 Points
Screw it man, too much opposition on these boards and in this thread. The amount of anti-campers black ops 2 produced seems to have increased in numbers and they just want to push the agenda of making snipers having even less options to defend themselves or hold down a position.
Replenishable equipment just forces enemies to use their brains, but heavens forbid we force little kids and bad players to change up their approaches and tactics.
So as it appears to be in this thread, scavenger is dead and everyone wants to keep it that way. R.I.P. scavenger. Here's to hoping you make a comeback in the next horrible treyarch title
I agree with you. If people are too dumb to not notice that I keep putting down claymores in the same building while sniping and can't find a way to defeat that, they deserve to die endlessly.
Equipment replenishment (outside of tubes) slows the game down and forces people to actually make tactical decisions rather than just rush around.
It also allows people to actually defend positions and set up a hide site for sniping.
So running around tossing C4 and tac nades in buildings/ common camper spots slows the game down and forces tactical deicsions? No I don't think so. The abuse by rushers is much more game breaking than campers. I agree that if someone is too stupid to toss in a tac nade/lethal nade or run flak jacket/engineer to bypass a campers claymores/betties than that player deserves to die because their idiots. Black Ops 2 was by far the most anti strategy COD game to date, cluttered maps, easy hipfire kills, unlimited tac nades/lethals, extreme lack of long sight lines, etc. All of these things cater to a fast paced chaos game devoid of strategy.
I still stand by my statement that a persons playstyle should not rely on equipment, killstreaks or perks. If they do than there is one of two things wrong: poor game design or poor play. All 3 of these things should compliment your playstyle, not define it. There is a reason COD4 is still revered as the best COD game ever made by most, the game was balanced extremely well. Killstreaks, equipment and perks all complimented players, they did not make or break a player's ability to succeed.
Some will try to make the argument the reason behind this is the nostalgia factor and COD4 doesn't stand the test of time. Well I'm here to tell say that's completely incorrect. I sadly couldn't play COD4 on console anymore due to the issues with hackers and modded lobbies. Now that I'm a PC gamer I don't have to deal with these issues nearly as much thanks to player run servers and let me tell you it's still the most enjoyable COD game I have played. But that's a different discussion altogether.
I never had a problem with people tossing C4 and grenades. If a pattern of someone doing something to me develops, I adapt my playstyle and put an end to it. Besides, BLOPS II's horrible, cramped map design is what allows grenade/C4 spam.
I agree about BLOPS II. That game is an abortion of the Call of Duty series in every way possible. Terrible map design.
I never said my equipment defines what I do. In my case, the claymores serve to watch my back while sniping. If one blows and kills someone, I go down, replace it, and get back to what I was doing. If it blows and doesn't kill someone, it's a warning system, and I go down and deal with the person.
Either way, my focus is on sniping and watching whatever objective I'm overwatching.
I do agree with that point, C4 was more powerful in BO2 partly due to the terribly cramped and crowded maps. Also you could toss it much too far. If they lower the range you can toss C4 and reduce it's blast radius the problem may go away entirely. In this context strong arm paired with danger close scares me as a pretty effective means to clear entire buildings, especially if combined with the original state of scavenger and a theoretically endless supply of C4. Now I've said before we don't know exactly how danger close is going to function. Hopefully it does not increase the blast radius but simply adds a damage modifier to the existing radius of the equipment, that would be ideal all around. It makes grenade launchers useable again but doesn't make them overpowering like the last time danger close made an appearance in a COD game.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, however I think something along the lines of a shock charge would accomplish some of the job of a claymore without getting kills that require almost no player intervention aside from proper placement. I'm a huge advocate of gun on gun gameplay, which is why COD4 and BO1 are my favorite COD games. I personally respect all playstyles because as I said I don't have one defining playstyle so I understand pretty much everyone's point of view on a subject like this.
What it comes down to is do I trust IW to balance the lethal equipment around the fact that it would be possible to have a limitless supply of them? I do not. If I did we wouldn't be having this conversation. If we were talking about the original IW team then this would be a completely different conversation, alas we aren't and the last two COD releases have been progressively worse.
Personally if Ghosts does not turn that around then it will likely be the last COD game I buy. With Titanfall on the horizon it looks like there will finally be a viable alternative to COD for me. It doesn't hurt that it's developed by a large part of the original IW team.
You raise some valid points.
I don't know how they'll balance Danger Close, and like you, hope that the radius is the same, but just the damage goes up.
I really do think Ghosts is going to be a great game though.