Re: A Rant About AW (Not Saying AW Is Not A Good Game)
↧
↧
Re: Comedor is at it again
I think we are not these ppl to judge waht was designed and what not.
one of the basic rules is not to mis ground and air attacks, and there is only one AIR troop except RD1.
As for DFs attacks - i tested all troops attck once i was able to cook them - but i dont call myself inventor.
Till November 2014 there was no PvP cus there was no players, there was no loot bases because coolectors has no time to gain gold yet, bases were weak and no need of any troops except juggs and snipers + 4 df for mortars and lasers.bases were as small as 1 heal pack covered it all. althoug you was attacked just immediatelly you left the game - so it was useless to cok long cues of troops and 7 min cook time troop combination was the best option. so every strategy has its time and environment to appear and spread.
a lot of stuff was possible in game according to it developbemt in number of players and their base, huge game changer is BOOST option.
we still on early stage of gampley in COD Herores and not all the potential of ASAMS and CLAWS discowered.
For sure it also comes with too strong offence in heroes skills and other troops as DFs.
↧
Re: Alliance Wars Leaderboard
If you choose the opponent I again ask do tyhy get to accept? If not, then many people will pick the weaker opponent (reguardless oweather or not you are choosingfroma short list) so they have a better chance winning and the weaker opponent will not have a choice. If you can choose, then you will find alliances declining wars until they get the matchup they want. Its to easy to cheat the system.
If you wNt to make a separate feature that will allow you to challenge your rival alliance, great. That should not be the typical system for choosing opponents for AW. Its jus not a good way to do it.
↧
Re: Comedor is at it again
it always up to you to convert your time to money and to celerium or spend your time for celerium.
↧
Personal Review of Every Console Call of Duty (from 2007-2014)
Call of Duty 4:
- Campaign - One of the best campaigns I've ever played. From those intense sneaking missions in "All Ghillied Up", the awesome AC-130 mission, to the epic finale, this game had it all.
- Multiplayer - For its time, it was revolutionary. A perk system, custom classes, streaks, attachments--it put COD on the multiplayer map. However, in today's world, I feel the game to be severely outdated in multiplayer design.
World at War:
- Campaign - While not as groundbreaking as COD4, this game had a very dark and gritty tone that kept me interested, especially during the Russian campaign (which was much better than the American campaign).
- Multiplayer - It was essentially a WWII version of COD4 with little changes. Most of the perks were copied from COD4, the tanks were uncesseary, bouncing betties were annoying, and the game just didn't feel that smooth overall compared to COD4.
Modern Warfare 2
- Campaign - The most epic campaign in Call of Duty history. MW2 was the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Modern Warfare trilogy and I loved every minute of it. When a game pulls a plot twist that makes everyone so emotional, you know the developers did good.
- Multiplayer - Quite the opposite of the campaign. OK sure, they introduced more streaks, more perks and pro variations, and improved the graphics. However, this game was the worst due to the extremely unbalanced MP structure, the amount of hacking/infection lobbies that occurred during the life cycle (when half of IW left to join Titanfall), and more. The majority considered it fun, but for those who refused to use anything overpowered, it was a death sentence to play this game.
Black Ops
- Campaign - The mission were neat, the story was interesting, and the plot twist was nice. However, the ground breaking moments were not as epic. Some cool moments existed, but much of the campaign was not as memorble.
- Multiplayer - After the crapfest that was MW2, this game was the breath of fresh air that I needed. No more stopping power, no more deathstreaks, no more tactical nukes, etc. This game was quite honestly very fun to play and it won me over during my time playing it, especially the wager matches that prompted many Youtubers to become famous for using the knife in Gun Game lolz.
Modern Warfare 3
- Campaign - I personally liked the campaign. To me, it seems the Modern Warfare trilogy was overall the best campaign trilogy in Call of Duty. Admittedly, while MW3 was the least favorite of the campaigns, it was good enough to provide some awesome memorable moments. One thing about the ending---I felt it was done to provide fan service to be honest. I felt the ending could have been a lot better, but regardless, I still enjoyed it.
- Multiplayer - Well...it was better than MW2, but not by a whole lot. Just when I thought Black Ops balanced Call of Duty for the most part, MW3 came bursting through and messed it up like a drunk dad attending your birthday party. The deathstreaks were worse, the stealth bomber spam was outrageous, the streaks were still overpowered, and the community was divided by those who got the maps first via Elite instead of everyone getting the DLC at the same time (on a single platform). Granted, I did like the perks and Specialist was an awesome idea, but the majority of multiplayer wasn't good.
Black Ops 2
- Campaign - The campaign was--meh, worse than Black Ops 1. While still playable because of the villain himself, I felt as thought the game spent too much time backtracking in the past while spending little time in the future. Even with the future missions being played, it felt underwhelming. I did like the alternate endings and paths you can take to completing the game, but I felt Black Ops 2's campaign needed some more work.
- Multiplayer - I liked BO2's multiplayer quite a bit. It looked great, it sounded great, and the thought put into the everything else was fantastic. However, nothing is perfect because of how the higher streaks were overpowered, C4/Shock Charges/Proximity Explosives killed the fun, and how ridiclous certain weapons were (pistols in general and the full auto-FAL/SMR). Regardless, I still loved the multiplayer quite a bit.
Ghosts
- Campaign - I liked it. We had an interesting storyline, a new villain, and an interesting cast of characters. It's nothing compared to the MW series, but I still liked it. Also, the ending itself was quite a surprise and it's nice to know that the company was willing to make a dramatic change.
- Multiplayer - I personally liked the multplayer quite a bit, despite how everyone else will disagree. My theory regarding the hate against multiplayer was because it was a trend. If you hated Ghosts, you were respected. Despite those feelings, I felt the multiplayer to be quite good. Yes, the IEDs and C4 charges were annoying, footsteps needed to be toned down significantly, the framerate wasn't solid, and some streaks were worthless. Regardless of the bad features, I felt the game to be a lot more balanced compared to previous entries and I liked the gun-on-gun element the developers had in mind for this game.
Advanced Warfare
- Campaign - It was an OK experience. A little plot twist here and there, a few firefights there, the usual stuff. Despite how good the visuals were, it was just another "OK" campaign. The biggest thing that AW's campaign did was allow me to feel pity for Irons. He was a tragic figure who lost his own son and was doing what was necessary to make the world a better place to prevent future tragedies (even when it involved a crime). What's tragic about Irons was that his dream became an obsession and his acts near the end of the game were unnecessary. In other words, power corrupted him.
- Multiplayer - Unless Black Ops III overlaps it, I found Advanced Warfare to be the best multiplayer ever made so far. It's extremely fast paced, mostly balanced due to the lack of C4 and IEDs, had an awesome Pick-13 system, scorestreak modules were brilliant, and more. What I also find surprising is how the most hated features of AW's multiplayer were in not in the game at all. Rather, it was the community that upset me the most due to the anti-SBMM rants and the reverse boosting that followed. AW's multiplayer had brought out the community's true colors and it was a nasty experience to behold. Even so, I still love the multiplayer structure and I continue playing it to this day (with a few breaks).
So overall, let's recap the top 3 best campaigns and multiplayer games:
Campaign:
- Modern Warfare 2
- Call of Duty 4
- Modern Warfare 3
Multiplayer:
- Advanced Warfare
- Black Ops 2
- Ghosts
What are your favorite games and why?
~RUGGED SAVIOR
↧
↧
Re: Easy to implement, All perks in a score-streak idea 'Bionics'
Those were the daya - was it 7 kills or 9 kills? can't remember exactly
and if you earned it enough times you got the 'One Man Army' award
↧
Re: FIX THE DAMN ISSUE ALREADY
Standard bs answers buy a ps4. No ppl have ps3s I along with everyone else bought a game that should of been tested before releasing it..black ops 2 runs perfect no difference in this type of game..it's a bug infested half finished game..by a incompetent development company.
↧
Re: Ps4 looking for a fun clan to join
Regiment Ex [REGT] is recruiting for the PS4! We have 60+ people spread out all over the globe. We were a Red Clan Tag clan in Ghosts, and won 7 Diamond Division Clan Wars, so we know about success. We are currently level 25 in AW, have the Red Tags, and we have won multiple Diamond Division wars. We also have two groups playing in two separate time zones, one in the EU timezone and one in NA timezone. Both won last war too!
Apply on the site:
↧
Re: Whenever I shoot I lag
Yeah I meant as there was less packet loss with the adapters than straight into the router it seemed better according to the results.
Yep internet in this part of Wales is terrible yet I've only experienced "lag" a few times as far as I know
↧
↧
Re: Advanced Warfare Structured For Bad Players?
reftel wrote:
For me AW seems to force all players to continuously move. It is too hard to hold down areas and play strategically, especially if you are a solo player or in a small party. There are little or no hotspots on maps or power positions that you have to fight to get in order to gain the upper hand (I am a TDM guy). These types of changes have removed the what I would call the metagame from matches.
Well, for the record, I have camped more on AW than I have ever camped any other COD game. But - the camping is much more strategic than the one way in room on Warhawk. You have to be much smarter about it, and you have to move once in a while as your post point gets burned. Instinct, Sideshow, and Defender are prime examples. Each has several areas that can be held down, but you are also open to attack from several directions.
You can camp, but you can't be a jerk about it.
↧
Re: Comedor is at it again
No problems here.....I can still get all celerium packs. Archer you know your email address shows up in this video??
↧
Re: Why is the 1911 so weak?
EEver try shooting it into a large horde of zs? bullets travel thru multiple, scorning multiple. Gets you enough points to make moves. And throw in a 2x...... Shiit, 1911 is beast.
↧
Re: For Players Since COD 4
TRue1119 wrote:
making the GREAT weapons in MW3 that shot as straight as a line to the garbage that's in advanced warfare where EVERY gun even has the dang iron sight and red dot bounce everywhere when firing.
so you prefer the laser like weapons in MW3 as opposed to the Actual Laser weapons in AW which shoot straight?
Curious
TRue1119 wrote:
The maps are a JOKE, you took away the ability for teams to lock a spot down with this crap of having four, five or even more ways to get to one location like a bomb, flag etc. T
The ability to camp a spot is removed and this is a joke now?
Boy how have times changed.
TRue1119 wrote:
You changed the hit detection from a box to actually out lined around the player so we can watch bullets miss by less an inch instead of hitting them, you took out auto assist and put in auto rotation, auto slow down which both do nothing but make it harder to shoot a moving target.
so hit detection (which hardly anyone mentions as a problem in AW) which requires you to aim better is another problem?
this is becoming fascinating
TRue1119 wrote:
You ignored id say about 75-80% of the community who wanted skill based matchmaking out of public lobbies and decided to listen to the 25-20% who wanted it or didn't care, people can learn to get good by getting stomped on at first just like me and a lot of others did when we first started playing, and on top of all of that you release some statement saying its what " WE " believe etc, well you guys don't pay for the game and play it year round so it doesn't matter what YOU believe is better,
Aside from the made up stats, you understand they create the game and can saw "WE" believe right?
TRue1119 wrote:
Sledgehammer games if you're going to stay in this games cycle you need to take a page out of treyarch's book and learn how to make multiplayer and listen to the community, call of duty is an ARCADE shooter, making all these little changes to make it more " realistic " is making it WORSE.
Right, "page out of Treyarch" until you are Treyarch and make a slight modification to a sniper rifle and receive death threats good, your on the map.
AW is an arcade, probably the most arcade one with slight changes to how well people aim and how well you move.
Your rant is one huge contradiction, if you didnt realize it. Everything you said you wanted you actually have in AW yet you dont like it!
Thats the community for you.
They want, then they hate what they wanted.
Go figure that.
↧
↧
Re: For Players Since COD 4
damn it!
↧
Re: face off from MW3?
I sincerely hope they never do that
↧
Re: Anarchy for Life Max Clan Looking for Active Players! PS3 and PS4
Bump
↧
Skill points
Skill points need to change. The 2 Pts per structure is ridiculous given how this game has changed and defense overpowers offense now without the use of skill points. It's ridiculous that skills such as gunship level 8 can cost 180 skill points when no map can give you 180. You have added basically half of our offensive troops to the defensive side (hangars, bunkers, conmunication ctr) and we still have to worry about guns, walls, mines. Without the use of skills points over what the map reimburses back, it is very rare to take down a base without going backwards in skill points.
Come on activision, you are taking the fun out of this game. Not everyone is going to buy a pack of skill points daily from you just to play. And even those that do, are getting tired of the constant push from you to spend even more. Before it was a choice by those players, now you are forcing it.
Please don't suggest I farm skill points from lower bases. I have done this before but in order to increase and level up my hero skills. Now they have changed it to where it must be done just to be able to play. I am an experienced player with over 45k rep, 97% win ratio, and been playing since October. I never use a skill more than once and very rarely use more than one skill per map. The way the game has changed defensively, it is ridiculous to think 2 pts per structure is enough now.
Change skill points to 4-6 points per structure to reflect your defensive changes and offensive nerf. Thanks.
↧
↧
Re: Skill points
Or perhaps have it scale so that it increases as say your CC level increases
↧
Re: Beta FAQ
i assure you i checked into it . you logged into cod on pc under your cod account enter the code. around august we will either get a email with a redeem code for the download or the download will auto start. relax we are all gonna say good bye to the 2 years of torture we've endured
↧
Re: Why is the 1911 so weak?
No I hadn't noticed that. Thanks
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
