Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
cuevas said:
Do dual mags somehow keep half the Enfield's bullets from just evaporating in mid-air? Even from point blank range you can put a full clip into someone and get like 4 hit markers out of it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CoD Black Ops |OT| Always Bet On Black
- Thread starter divisionbyzorro
- Start date
Do dual mags somehow keep half the Enfield's bullets from just evaporating in mid-air? Even from point blank range you can put a full clip into someone and get like 4 hit markers out of it.
divisionbyzorro
Member
cameltoe said:
Awesome.
KoreanBarbecue
Member
Brian Fellows said:
Yeah, that's my biggest complaint about the Enfield, too. I always use the FAMAS or the Aug, and really love that firing those guns from the hip are usually pretty deadly. The spray on the Enfield, though, leaves a lot to be desired.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
They do, but there is no such thing as a host advantage on dedicated servers. No one is playing on the host computer.cuevas said:
XeroSauce said:
I think it makes snipers more viable mainly because the sniper is presumably hiding further behind teammates while said teammates are keeping the opposing team's SMG/AR preoccupied. There's also the greater likelihood of not getting flanked as a sniper since the frontline so-to-speak is more spread out. I haven't played in a 9v9 server for a while now though mainly because if you have nothing but awful players on your team then they're just fueling whomever on the opposing is going for a chopper gunner/dogs.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Stallion Free said:
I am shocked that you guys don't get that people can still have different latencies to dedicated servers. Antilag isn't just put on the host...
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Well that's how it was worded in the description. I play on servers that guarantee me a 50ms ping or lower and I rarely see other people with a ping much higher than that. If there is anti-lag, it's incredibly subtle on PC.cuevas said:
divisionbyzorro
Member
Stallion Free said:
And in the end, that's the only difference that dedicated servers give you over console matchmaking: control. If Gears 3 implements dedicated servers, but I don't get a server browser, what's the point?
buy teh haloz
Banned
Less disconnects, too.divisionbyzorro said:
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Stallion Free said:
It wasn't, that's why everyone turned it off.
Buckethead
Banned
Thanks to some fine UK people I now have 1000 in Black Ops.
All 60 of my games are now 1000'd.
All 60 of my games are now 1000'd.
I need help
MarkMclovin
Member
snap0212 said:
Because its that type of shit that Treyarch said they would nerf and it's that type of shit that puts a lot of people off from playing.
We've gone through this over and over again.MarkMclovin said:
Quick scoping is and has always been part of online shooters. There was never a need to nerf it in any other shooter until Modern Warfare 2. The reasons why it quick scoping is considered cheap in Modern Warfare 2 is the interplay between the auto-aim and sleight of hand. People have and always will be using sniper rifles as their main weapon in online games and even though you think it's cheap, unfair, has to be nerfed, people will find ways to play (good) with sniper rifles.
Treyarch themselves did nothing to nerf quick-scoping, they completely broke sniper rifles alltogether in the worst way possible. They did not put any thought into getting rid of loads of quickscopers, they just decided to make the bullet not go straight. This is nothing that only affects the evil quickscopers you don't like, it's something that completely breaks the sniping in this game alltogether. Why even put a sniper class in the game if you want to break it anyways?
If quickscoping were as cheap as some people say it is, you could just use that class as well and get hundreds of kills in every round. I mean; if it's just an easy way to get kills, you should definitely do it, no? What I'm saying is that even though the aim-assist and the perks in Modern Warfare 2 allowed you to quickscope really, really fast (too fast, imo) there's still skill involved. If you're trying to say there isn't, you should just try it for yourself. If you're one of the guys who say quickscopers only spin around all the time to then die you're completely ignoring the fact that being useless for your team has nothing to do with the weapon they're using but the way the play the game. People can be useless using an AK74-U as well. The fact that you go into a game seeing how snipers run around on a small maps drags your attention on them. You basically want to see them to stupid stuff so when it happens you just say I knew it, these bastards.
Treyarch could have done something to make quickscoping harder, they could have disabled the aim assist completely when using a sniper rifle and could have disabled the cross-hairs, for example. Treyarch, instead, just did something for the sake of nerfing quickscoping. They've never taken a look at what quickscoping is about, have not reached out to the sniping community to talk to them about it. No matter what they were trying to do, they completely failed. The randomness is bullshit and even if you don't like quickscopers you should get why it's bad to tackle the problem this way - why randomness in an online game is bad.
divisionbyzorro said:
The difference with Gears is that the series has the worst netcode in the history of videogames. The host advantage in the Gears games is unbelievable. Nine times out of ten the host will be the guy on the top of the scoreboard with 10+ kills and 1 death. The dedicated servers will alleviate this problem and theoretically match you with the servers closest to you so you don't need to worry about which one has <50ms ping.
divisionbyzorro
Member
Detox said:
Gears is what - 4v4? And they can't handle a game nearly as well as CoD's 9v9? The odds of dedicated servers fixing the problem is minimal. The only way that it will make any difference is if the problem lies with CPU cycles on the host (too much time spent pushing graphics/effects/physics, leaving not enough cycles to peroperly host the game). If that's the case, then sure: you'll see a huge difference. But what do I care if one guy has an advantage out of 12-18 unless I can control which server I connect to to ensure that I have a good ping? There's no host advantage - awesome. But without a server browser, I'm at the mercy of the matchmaking system yet again.
Nope they can't handle 4v4 (Gears 1) or 5v5 (Gears 2) as well as COD although I do have lag issues on Ground War occasionally nowhere near as bad as Gears on a bad day. On Gears I'm not sure what hit detection the COD and Halo games use but Gears uses the opposite. I think it had something to do with the engine being designed for UT3 and servers and basically favoured the host or something. Imagine a shotgun that can shoot 5 feet ahead but the host's can shoot 10 feet and the shots all actually register that is Gears netcode in a nutshell. The servers will stop this as no one is the host and the server will run on a bigger pipe. That's why EPIC finally convinced MS to allow dedis and probably because the population dipped hard on Gears 2 and they sold less DLC.
This is huge for Gears fans as when you come up against host in 1&2 you pray you get lucky, the host is shit or you have someone to back you up. A 1on1 vs host means his shot gets you to about 1/10 health and you're damage on him leaves him with a scratch.
This is huge for Gears fans as when you come up against host in 1&2 you pray you get lucky, the host is shit or you have someone to back you up. A 1on1 vs host means his shot gets you to about 1/10 health and you're damage on him leaves him with a scratch.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
snap0212 said:
You still sound incredibly bitter. Still playing?
Personally, I think what they did was absolutely spot on.
Brian Fellows
Pete Carroll Owns Me
3ur4zn said:
Me too.
Mr. Enigma
Member
snap0212 said:
That statement proves right there you're full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about. During the development of Black Ops, they brought many of the quickscoper experts to the studio so they could properly investigate it and understand it.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
quickscope experts? Come on man, it wasn't very hard.
Brian Fellows said:
Agreed. There are way less snipers around, and I can finally be one and enjoy it because the autoaim and sleight of hand stuff is gone. All you have to do is make sure you scope in for about one second then the aim is dead-on. Which kinda makes sense really.
I can play a slow pace with the PSG-1, use hacker and ghost and make my way around the map like a sniper should. Long range pot shots on unassuming victims instead of constant in your face perfect shooting snipers. Scout Pro makes swapping weapons and dropping equipment a breeze.
In Modern Warfare 2 you had to combat these jerks with tubes or a MLN class and although it could be fun, it definitely got ugly.
With tubes weaker and not restockable, and sniper rifles down to sane levels it's kinda fun.
TacticalFox88
Banned
These Pro Perks are such a pain in the ass. And Treyarch couldn't copy IW's Pro methods....whY?
I don't even know what you mean by quickscope experts. What's that supposed to mean? You should also include some proof for what you're saying. Just saying YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT, DUUUUUDE doesn't really do anything for any conversation. I may be wrong about something, sure, can happen. However, I'm wrong as soon as you can prove me wrong and not as soon as you post you're full of shit.AnEternalEnigma said:
Nope, I don't play it anymore. That's not because of the sniping, though. I'm not bitter at all, but I know it may sound like I am.3ur4zn said:
There are hundreds of games I can play and countless games I can quickscope in. I'm perfecly with them wanting to kill quickscoping I have a problem with the way they're trying to do it, though. They could have just killed sniping alltogether and I'd have been fine with that, to be honest.Mr. Enigma
Member
They grabbed a bunch of the Youtube people who started the quickscoper thing in MW2 and invited them to their studio. And no, I'm not going to go dig through the Internet to just to prove you wrong. It was discussed plenty on Gaf back during development.
You said quickscope experts, not some guy from YouTube. Quickscoping also didn't even start with MW2 ...AnEternalEnigma said:
They also did not go to the most famous/best ones at all. zzirGrizz and OpTic Gaming are the best examples for people who "abuse" the sniping in Call of Duty games. You cannot talk about quickscoping in Call of Duty games without throwing their names around. Neither was invited.
Is this the only official Black Ops thread on GAF? I don't touch multiplayer (except for the 5 or so wager matches I played for the achievements), so I don't know if I should post here or hunt for the regular gaming OT.
Anyway, I recently completed the campaign on veteran. It was such a bitch. Way harder than Modern Warfare 2, and probably on par with Modern Warfare 1 (I'd say overall the game was more unforgiving than MW1, but Black Ops does not have an epic challenge like Mile High Club).
I just have the zombie mode achievements left. Zombie mode just looks so unappealing though. I started the five map and the zombie textures just look so butt ugly (it's crazy how bad it looks compared to the undead in Red Dead Redemptoin), and the game mode seems so weird (such a huge, massive departure from the single player of MW1, MW2, and Black Ops itself). I don't see myself putting much effort at all into this mode. Yawn, Treyarch. It's honestly a little humorous seeing the difference in gaming philosophy between Treyarch and Infinity Ward. IW supplements the campaign with spec ops, a series of challenging and fun and neat co-op side missions. Treyarch supplements the campaign with an annoying zombie mode. Yuck. I loved getting through the single player though. It was a big challenge for me.
Anyway, I recently completed the campaign on veteran. It was such a bitch. Way harder than Modern Warfare 2, and probably on par with Modern Warfare 1 (I'd say overall the game was more unforgiving than MW1, but Black Ops does not have an epic challenge like Mile High Club).
I just have the zombie mode achievements left. Zombie mode just looks so unappealing though. I started the five map and the zombie textures just look so butt ugly (it's crazy how bad it looks compared to the undead in Red Dead Redemptoin), and the game mode seems so weird (such a huge, massive departure from the single player of MW1, MW2, and Black Ops itself). I don't see myself putting much effort at all into this mode. Yawn, Treyarch. It's honestly a little humorous seeing the difference in gaming philosophy between Treyarch and Infinity Ward. IW supplements the campaign with spec ops, a series of challenging and fun and neat co-op side missions. Treyarch supplements the campaign with an annoying zombie mode. Yuck. I loved getting through the single player though. It was a big challenge for me.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Yeah zombies has never been my thing, pretty boring and with spec ops looming it the game mode seems pretty lame.
cuevas said:
Also, is there any way to buy the Ascension map without having to buy the multiplayer maps? I do not plan on playing the XBL multiplayer in this much at all but if I ever get into zombie mode I might want that Ascension map. The problem is it only comes in that one pack that includes 4 other multiplayer maps (useless to me) and costs 1200 microsoft points.
I'll probably have to wait for a deal of the week. =/
backflip10019
Member
God dammit, I'm so sick of games being ruined by randoms. Just played a game of HQ and I had two people on my team who were going 2-12. If you're that terrible, just don't play the fucking game. You're ruining it for people like me.
Oh, forgot to add that all the Enfield needed, for me, was a red dot and Steady Aim, which both feel like they really improve its deadliness. I quite like it now.
What they did to snipers in this game doesn't make any sense from a game design perspective - people tend to focus too much on what makes real-world sense for real-world weapons when talking about this, and forget that we're basically talking about advanced chess pieces here. And the guy who likes sniping should get just as many pieces as everybody else playing.
And, for some reason, I have to be on the team full of guests going 0-45 and giving the other team infinite gunships. Almost every single match. Sometimes I'll luck out and end up on the team full of beasts and do well, but most of the time the scoreboard reads me going 50-37 or something OK but disappointing, and my team collectively going 50-250. WTF is going on with that?
Edit add: the positive part of that always happening is that it's really fun to join a match late, and start fucking up the beasts' shit and bring them down from 30-4 to 40-15.
Why does it either have to be "snipers get ALL their kills long range" or "montage tards get ALL their kills close range"? A sniper needs to be as versatile as any other class - assault rifle users can still hipfire close range and an SMG can, though it's hard in this game, get longshots. Why should the sniper be the only class that stands no chance up close (Scout Pro won't save you if someone surprises you)? Especially in a game with mostly tiny maps with very few lines of sight designed for snipers?junkster said:
What they did to snipers in this game doesn't make any sense from a game design perspective - people tend to focus too much on what makes real-world sense for real-world weapons when talking about this, and forget that we're basically talking about advanced chess pieces here. And the guy who likes sniping should get just as many pieces as everybody else playing.
Has anyone else started feeling like this has gotten worse lately? It's like people just gave up (on 360 Demolition anyway) in the past week or two - the matches are fucking horrible now. Every single match is this lopsided mess where one team destroys the other team (talking like 80-10 destruction for the top 3 players) and then the game doesn't rebalance for the next so if people don't leave the exact same thing happens again.backflip10019 said:
And, for some reason, I have to be on the team full of guests going 0-45 and giving the other team infinite gunships. Almost every single match. Sometimes I'll luck out and end up on the team full of beasts and do well, but most of the time the scoreboard reads me going 50-37 or something OK but disappointing, and my team collectively going 50-250. WTF is going on with that?
Edit add: the positive part of that always happening is that it's really fun to join a match late, and start fucking up the beasts' shit and bring them down from 30-4 to 40-15.
OH GOD SO SATISFYING
I just joined an ongoing match with a clan doing organized, relentless spawn camping in Demo. The most horrible kind with tac insertions right by the spawn entrance, motion sensors, the works. Decided to stick around to see if I could help the randoms being beaten on out, and it turns out I could! Plot twist was that the clan was horrible and could only beat on the most nooby of beginners - put any thought or skill into your play and their whole team fell like dominoes. It was glorious punishment for two matches and I felt like Robin Hood, haha.
That's like the first time in 10 years I send a gloat message afterwards. Had to point out that their whole crew just had their shit wrecked by one dude. Twice!
I just joined an ongoing match with a clan doing organized, relentless spawn camping in Demo. The most horrible kind with tac insertions right by the spawn entrance, motion sensors, the works. Decided to stick around to see if I could help the randoms being beaten on out, and it turns out I could! Plot twist was that the clan was horrible and could only beat on the most nooby of beginners - put any thought or skill into your play and their whole team fell like dominoes. It was glorious punishment for two matches and I felt like Robin Hood, haha.
That's like the first time in 10 years I send a gloat message afterwards. Had to point out that their whole crew just had their shit wrecked by one dude. Twice!
Mr. Enigma
Member
Anger.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
What the fuck were you doing to not die in nuke town?
Mr. Enigma
Member
cuevas said:
I stayed upstairs in the window on the side of the map left side of the map (based on that picture) just shooting people through the big window. I guess my team was dying so fast, they didn't have time to cross the map and flip the spawns.
Kermit The Dog
Banned
That JoJoe cunt deserves an epic hate message. I almost feel like doing it myself.
MarkMclovin
Member
snap0212 said:
The sniper isn't in any way, shape or form, an attacking class (but ofc you can use it for attacking). You shouldn't be able to go out all Rambo getting no scopes, quick scopes or what ever you want to call them, and treat the rifle as a 1 hit 1 kill tool. That's what the shotgun is for, but there's a reason why the shotgun has a limited range.
Why do you think Treyarch made the changes they did to this rifle only, in possibly one of the biggest games in history? To piss people off? Because they didn't like it? No, it's because it's fucking ridiculous.
I'm not saying that you don't need a great amount of skill to pull off your 360 spinning no scope killz, and yeah they look quite cool too, but why should a guy just wade in with these quick scopes, but someone on the end of that kill who has a weapon that should technically be better in the position that he's in, gets taken out far easier?
In my opinion, the sniper is just a waste of a class in most games anyway. I prefer to play a sniper when I'm defending a flag or area, and it works a treat (plus you get more points). It's a shame other people don't use it that way. Bad Company 2 has it's issues with it as well, where people seem to think they can win a round by having most of the team as snipers. They are not helping at all.
I see where you're coming from, but this logic just doesn't apply to Call of Duty games. Especially not when you take a look at the other weapons that are in the game. The shotgun is supposed to be a 1 hit 1 kill weapon (close range), but it sometimes isn't. There's no reason why common sense should be applied when working out the stats of one weapon when it isn't applied when deciding the stats of another. I've said it earlier and I'll say it again: I have no problem with them trying to get rid of quickscoping. What I have a problem with is that they made changes to the weapon that introduced randomness. Something I really don't want to see in any online game. Get rid of the sniper class completely if you really don't want anyone to abuse it.MarkMclovin said:
Again; we're talking about a video game. Real life scenarios are not really comparable to in-game stuff. Attack Dogs are not ridiculous?MarkMclovin said:
Skill and luck. The sniper rifle is not a guarantee for doing good in the game. You have one chance and if the enemy is not incredibly slow or completely new to the game, it's more likely that you'll be killed instead of you killing him. Especially at close range, snipers were always at a disadvantage. It's part of the reason why I like it so much. You have one chance and if you miss, you're dead.MarkMclovin said:
Well, now you're talking about sniping in video games. Not quickscoping in Call of Duty. I agree, though. I get pissed as well when I'm playing with a bunch of snipers who do nothing but stay back to get a few kills. However, team mates not being helpful is not really limited to the sniper class. When I play BC2, I usually don't use the sniper rifle. Quickscoping works and it's fine, but (as a sniper in BC) you're not really in a position where you can help your team. It's different in MW, for example. You can help your team out, even with a sniper rifle.MarkMclovin said:
But the most important part of this post: Congrats to getting your Avatar back!
-----
I think we might just have to agree that we disagree. I was long done with all of this, but I just don't think it's okay to insult someone (or calls it bullshit) just because he likes to play with the sniper rifle. There can be a discussion about such things, but that wasn't the intention when they called him out after he posted his video.
Do you realize, and no offense intended, how extremely clueless you come off about sniping?MarkMclovin said:
I mean, are you at all aware that IW's games have randomized noscopes meaning you can miss even from point blank, while Treyarch's games have 100% noscope accuracy? Treyarch are nowhere near as on top of this sniping thing as you think, and it's very obvious to anyone that you've basically never sniped in a CoD.
The problem with quickscoping in CoD4 and MW2 was ACOG in CoD4 (had too much aim assist, they don't in MW2 and BO though) and Sleight of Hand Pro in MW2. Both of those meant you could instacope and get the kill before the other guy can even get one shot off, which is what annoys the shit out of people, of course. They already fixed that problem by making scoping slower! They didn't need to add the uncontrollable and random sway and the sometimes odd accuracy - that's just overkill and, yes, it's pretty indicative that Treyarch simply don't like sniping and wanted to childishly nerf it. It's either that, or they're absolutely horrible at game design.
You really should play a few matches going mid/semilong-range with a sniper. See how bullshit it is when some Galil-using random picks you off with ease as you're still struggling with the dumbass sway.
PalaceBrother
Member
3ur4zn said:
Because he went 13 & 25 in the Black Ops video game? You should totally send some hate his way. He deserves it.
backflip10019
Member
Wow, see that's the shit I'm talking about. Every damn game that I play by myself, I get teammates like that. Or teammates that only go for kills in objective games. Ugh.AnEternalEnigma said:
Kermit The Dog
Banned
PalaceBrother said:
It is practically inconceivable to die 25 times on Nuketown, considering most TDM's last about 4 minutes on that tiny map. So yes, he deserves a hate message for challenging the fundamental theory of causality.
Do you realise how immeasurably ignorant you appear in regards to this entire issue? McLovin's post was spot-on. The one-hit-kill, mid to long-range nature of a sniper rifle logically dictates the balancing factor should be a disadvantage at close range.
Absolute bullshit.
This generalisation nearly made me fall over. I propose you go into Combat Simulator and no-scope a meatsack from behind. Often, it misses completely from point-blank range.
Your astonishing ability to redefine the concept of generalisation is without peer. Clearly, Treyarch wanted to eliminate the over-powered nature of close-combat sniping. They achieved this, in the fairest way possible, and relegated the to a deadly, long-range, skill-based weapon, THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
You can argue for days on the insuperable nature of Assault Rifles, and I'd hear you out and nod in agreement, but I can assure both you and Snappy are conceptually incorrect on this sniping issue.
PalaceBrother
Member
3ur4zn said:
It's attitudes like yours that make it difficult to enjoy multi player games.
Stop taking video games so seriously.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
He broke a controller over a Black Ops match and then rage sold the game. It's best to ignore him at this point.PalaceBrother said:
MarkMclovin
Member
aku:jiki said:
I'm not sure what you are saying, but the above paragraph says to me that 2 players, 1 with a sniper rifle and another with the Galil, both should have the exact same chance when going head to head at mid to semilong range? Why?
I would expect to get picked off by the Galil because I was in the completely wrong place in the first place? Like I said before, the sniper class is not an attacking class. It's a defending/scouting one. So why would I put myself in a position where I would lose against someone with an automatic rifle? Doesn't make sense. And that's the problem. People have managed to turn that class into a 1 hit killing machine and Treyarch have at least acknowledged this and tried something(s) to prevent it. What's your problem?
Kermit The Dog
Banned
PalaceBrother said:
And it's passive, half-arsed, talentless bellend's like yourself that hamper my enjoyment of multiplayer games. See! I can do it too.
Someone who's a bigger Black Ops fan than me (probably most of you guys) can make a thread for this: new Black Ops Map Pack just announced on Major Nelson's blog called Escalation.
4 brand new maps, plus one new Zombies map with new characters, on May 3rd, time-exclusive to 360, no price announced, but you all know what to expect.
http://majornelson.com/2011/04/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-escalation-game-add-on/
4 brand new maps, plus one new Zombies map with new characters, on May 3rd, time-exclusive to 360, no price announced, but you all know what to expect.
http://majornelson.com/2011/04/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-escalation-game-add-on/