• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chippy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

34 profile views
  1. Everyone buys a deck of cards in the beginning, everyone runs to a table and starts flinging the cards at eachoter. The rarer the card the more damage it does! Last team standing wins and explodes the other teams remaining cards!
  2. Yup, pretty much!
  3. My point was: there are players who will always oppose themself to change no matter which game they come from. Whether it's COD, CS:GO, DOD, OW, BF, whatever. Those will always be the stubborn percentage whether they are from CoD or not. Anyway no point in derailing this thread anymore than that.
  4. Personally I think there should only be one kind. The reticle can differ depending on faction is played but if one scope is blacked out, the rest should be to.
  5. Uhm, say what? I simply changed the "ex CoD guys" to "stubborn percentage" since there will always be those who are opposed to change no matter which background and past experience they have. In no way was I trying to belittle anyone, calm down. And for the record, when did I actually start any shit? If I seriously offended you by that then I'm sorry. If you want to keep talking about this send me a private message, no point in derailing more threads. On topic: COD2 was way to accurate. COD4 wasn't too accurate but countered that with being extremely agile and/or having a ridiculous secondary and/or quick fire rate by cancelling out animations. DOD (pre steam days) was insanely accurate but to counter that it had an insane recoil so if you didn't land the shot you was at a huge disadvantage. If anyone can find some sort of middleground in those three example I'll be happy.
  6. Fixed that for ya'!
  7. I have not given this much thought so I'm just going to throw this out there. What if.. When zooming you start off seeing around the scope, blurred out like some people are suggesting. The longer you stay scoped in, i.e. when holding an angle or fixed cross position, the outside dims down until it's all black and you can't see around the scope. You need to move/unzoom and zoom again in order to reset that. While I personally vote for the should-always-be-black-around-the-scope option as well it could be interesting to try it out.
  8. It's actually prevalent on all the maps where both teams have a spawn point that's closer to the same point. Take inferno as an example. The classic peak down/up in mid by CT/T is often dictated by which person who got the best spawn point for it. And also you stated "A place where you must cross without other options is a flawed map design." I kind of understand what you mean however, but you have to keep in mind those "flawed" areas can appear anywhere. What if you have to backtrack for whatever reason? Switch of bombsite, a fake execute, dropped bomb (all legimate reasons). They have to cross that area, is that a flaw in the map design och a "flaw" in the gameplay? While it might not be the optimal mapdesign it still has it place since it's a hish risk/high reward kind of play. Cross it, use a smoke, shoulder peak, trick out your opponent in order to get the upperhand. This argument kinda falls on itself. Take Dust 2 again. CT's can be in their spawn, watching the cross over from the Long area towards the A site. Most teams smoke that area. Is that a flawed design? Crossing the yard on Nuke, most teams have to use smokes in order to do so. Is that flawed mapdesign? See where I'm going with this? While I agree with you to a certain extent, these "flaws" are often benefactory to the progression of gameplay and development of tactics. Obviously all maps needs to go through playtesting in order for get it properly designed and balanced but dealing in absolutes is just as flawed as a poor map design decision.
  9. Haven't noticed anything in particular.
  10. The sniper in COD4 was way over the top in my oppinion. I don't mind being able to move around freely but jumping around, quickscoping, and canceling out animations in order to up the fire rate was a tad too much. The only downside there "really" was, was when you missed a shot in close range and even then you almost always had a solid fall back, be it the AK47/AK74u or the ridicioulus Desert Eagle. Was, and is, amazing to see the top snipers going crazy but... Let's dial all that back just a bit. In that regard I honestly believe COD2 struck a really good balance. You could still get away with some crazy stuff but you couldn't jump around like a bunny on viagra.
  11. I think the "system", if you could call it that, would be that you can switch your primary/seocndary with weapons dropped by enemies that carries over to other rounds. I don't think I've read anything more particular than that so far. Could've missed something though.
  12. I think he refers to that the defenders can protect the bomb if they find it when dropped.
  13. I think you might be overthinking this ToonBe. The games I've played, both casually and competitively, have all had some sort of aimpunch. I can't remember that any of those games had gotten it wrong. Is it annoying? Yes. Could it be learned and adapted to? Yes. Was it ever a major issue or felt unfair? No.
  14. I don't have a real reason. I just find it annoying. If a game has this mechanic I will accept it and adapt to it, but overall I'd just simply prefer not to have it in.
  15. Big no for me. If you play a game alot you naturally have an advantage over newer players since you know the maps, the weapons, common attack/defense positions and all that. Overall you've developed gamesense. That is a big, big advantage and something everyone can learn, some more quickly than others. That means that a person who have clocked 100 hours in the game could have the closed the gap completely compared to somone who's got closer to 500 hours in the same game. Equal playing field with a slighly rough start as it is with any game. However, if you add in specific weapons and parts that can only be acuired through actual playtime a.k.a. grinding 100 hours versus 500 hours will always be unfair. At least to me.