1 button nade tossing has to stop in online multiplayer

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

MGO =/= Uncharted. What works in one game doesn't work in another. Also, I played the Uncharted 2 beta quite a while recently, and what you described happened once. I rolled away and killed him. I probably didn't even need to roll, because grenades in that game are incredibly weak.

Also, the entire point of Uncharted is fluid control. You make the point of Uncharted 3 being less fluid than UC2, well than making you switch to grenades would make that even worse, wouldn't it?

You picked two games that didn't have health regeneration, and said that because it wouldn't work in those games it doesn't work in any games. So two games that were designed from day one to not have to health regeneration, would not be improved by health regeneration. Hmm. On top of that, Warhawk is based around spawning with nothing and running out to go grab some good weapons and equipment. Within that framework, health packs make sense and fit well. Mag is a class based shooter with an emphasis on team work, where people who can heal you are nearby and encouraged to do so.

Let's look at CoD. Removing regenerating health from CoD removes a central component of the series, and there's no easy way for them to work in any other kind of healing system without even more dramatically changing the game. Therefore, non-regenerating health ruins any game ever no exceptions. See what I mean? That doesn't make any sense. Different systems work for different games, and one button grenades and regenerating health work for Uncharted.

Making a slight control change (concerning grenades) doesn't make one game into another. Adding in weapon cycling to Uncharted wouldn't make it into MGO, the core gameplay will remain the same. Also, I find it quite awkward and not nearly as smooth as it should be to switch from your primary to secondary in Uncharted because I have to take my thumb off the left stick to press left on the d-pad to switch to my secondary (or aim and press triangle). With a weapon cycle control scheme, you tap R2 to switch to your pistol, and that is much more fluid and easier. I've gotten pretty good at the Uncharted 3 beta (Smoke Bomb is awesome sauce) and most of my grenade kills just feel cheap as you can drop them at a moments notice. Making me switch to them doesn't change a lot it just means if I get into a unexpected situation in which I would want to throw a nade, I wouldn't be able to.

Uncharted 3 is a quite a bit slower than Uncharted 2. Movement speed is slower, guns have more recoil, climbing is slower, maps are bigger, and the game is a bit more tactical. I do like pretty much all of the changes, but the gameplay has definitely changed and become slower paced. I do hate that headshots don't kill in co-op, Naughty Dog really needs to fix that. And, the whole headshots doing nothing better not find it's way into single player.

Now, getting to health regeneration. Having a health bar instead of regeneration doesn't greatly change the game either. You don't need the game to have health pickups if you have health bars. MAG could play very much the same with regenerating health, there would just be no need for medics. Warhawk would also pretty much play the same with health regen, there just wouldn't be health pickups. In fact, Warhawk would be better without many of the weapon pickups. I played Warhawk for quite some time, and all the weapon pickups did was cause you to go around the spawn area picking up weapons, it would be far better to spawn with most of the weapons since the pickups were in the spawn area. It would be kinda similar to how Uncharted 3 allows for loadouts now because in Uncharted 2, the FAL was all over the map, the game should've just let you spawn with it if that was your gun of choice.

I don't believe any online competitive multiplayer shooter should have full regenerating health, I could understand regenerating to half of full health, but you should never go back to full health. My reason is because if you hit somebody and they get away, they should be at a disadvantage so you or your teammate have an easier time taking them out in the next encounter. There should be a penalty for getting shot, plain and simple.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

MGO =/= Uncharted. What works in one game doesn't work in another. Also, I played the Uncharted 2 beta quite a while recently, and what you described happened once. I rolled away and killed him. I probably didn't even need to roll, because grenades in that game are incredibly weak.

Also, the entire point of Uncharted is fluid control. You make the point of Uncharted 3 being less fluid than UC2, well than making you switch to grenades would make that even worse, wouldn't it?

You picked two games that didn't have health regeneration, and said that because it wouldn't work in those games it doesn't work in any games. So two games that were designed from day one to not have to health regeneration, would not be improved by health regeneration. Hmm. On top of that, Warhawk is based around spawning with nothing and running out to go grab some good weapons and equipment. Within that framework, health packs make sense and fit well. Mag is a class based shooter with an emphasis on team work, where people who can heal you are nearby and encouraged to do so.

Let's look at CoD. Removing regenerating health from CoD removes a central component of the series, and there's no easy way for them to work in any other kind of healing system without even more dramatically changing the game. Therefore, non-regenerating health ruins any game ever no exceptions. See what I mean? That doesn't make any sense. Different systems work for different games, and one button grenades and regenerating health work for Uncharted.

Making a slight control change (concerning grenades) doesn't make one game into another. Adding in weapon cycling to Uncharted wouldn't make it into MGO, the core gameplay will remain the same. Also, I find it quite awkward and not nearly as smooth as it should be to switch from your primary to secondary in Uncharted because I have to take my thumb off the left stick to press left on the d-pad to switch to my secondary (or aim and press triangle). With a weapon cycle control scheme, you tap R2 to switch to your pistol, and that is much more fluid and easier. I've gotten pretty good at the Uncharted 3 beta (Smoke Bomb is awesome sauce) and most of my grenade kills just feel cheap as you can drop them at a moments notice. Making me switch to them doesn't change a lot it just means if I get into a unexpected situation in which I would want to throw a nade, I wouldn't be able to.

Uncharted 3 is a quite a bit slower than Uncharted 2. Movement speed is slower, guns have more recoil, climbing is slower, maps are bigger, and the game is a bit more tactical. I do like pretty much all of the changes, but the gameplay has definitely changed and become slower paced. I do hate that headshots don't kill in co-op, Naughty Dog really needs to fix that. And, the whole headshots doing nothing better not find it's way into single player.

Now, getting to health regeneration. Having a health bar instead of regeneration doesn't greatly change the game either. You don't need the game to have health pickups if you have health bars. MAG could play very much the same with regenerating health, there would just be no need for medics. Warhawk would also pretty much play the same with health regen, there just wouldn't be health pickups. In fact, Warhawk would be better without many of the weapon pickups. I played Warhawk for quite some time, and all the weapon pickups did was cause you to go around the spawn area picking up weapons, it would be far better to spawn with most of the weapons since the pickups were in the spawn area. It would be kinda similar to how Uncharted 3 allows for loadouts now because in Uncharted 2, the FAL was all over the map, the game should've just let you spawn with it if that was your gun of choice.

I don't believe any online competitive multiplayer shooter should have full regenerating health, I could understand regenerating to half of full health, but you should never go back to full health. My reason is because if you hit somebody and they get away, they should be at a disadvantage so you or your teammate have an easier time taking them out in the next encounter. There should be a penalty for getting shot, plain and simple.

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting to use a wheel. You tap R2 to switch from primary to secondary, tap R2 to switch from secondary to grenades, tap R2 to go from grenades to primary, it's not a wheel. How is that clunky? The current setup is more like a weapon wheel (d-pad left and right for secondary and primary) than what I'm suggesting. Switching to your secondary would be a lot more fluid under my proposed system, and I'm constantly switching from my primary to secondary in Uncharted 3, which is currently clunky as I have to stop moving to do that, that is the opposite of fluid. Throwing grenades would be slightly less fluid but switching to your secondary would be more fluid (secondary is more important and useful than nades). You can run around with your nades in your hand (you could still throw them very quickly) and tap R2 to switch to primary when you want to shoot.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

I think my system would work just fine in single player. I do admit, I would prefer having the grenade button in single player. I don't think removing it for multiplayer would be that big of a deal. The multiplayer does play quite a bit different than single player anyways. Changing one minor thing wouldn't nearly be that major.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

I feel all multiplayer games shouldn't have health regen (at most regen half of your health). Going from health regen to normal health wouldn't change any game drastically. Now, going from normal health to health regen has bigger impacts (which I'll never propose) as you cited in your Bad Company example as it can eliminate certain playstyles. However, if a game like COD (and the first COD didn't have health regen) went from health regen to normal health, it wouldn't be that major if everything else stayed the same as you don't have to add in a medic type playstyle to the game or health pickups or any way to regain health.

MGO doesn't have any way in which you can gain health back (no medics, no health packs), and it's quite commonplace to have matches where players have many more kills than deaths. In a recent Rescue match (2 teams, 6 vs 6, no respawns, 2 rounds), I went 10-0 against a high level team. The game does not nearly play like you say where after one gunfight where you get a kill, you are then killed easily in your next enemy encounter because you are wounded.

I think Uncharted would be much better without heath regen; however, I would definitely say you should regen to half health though just due to the way the game plays, maybe have health pickups or health related boosters (get health for killing) or kickbacks (get full health after so many medals), some manner to get back full health.

In Uncharted 3, once you get a feel for everything (maps, guns, boosters, kickbacks, etc.) and get used to the game's flow, it is far too easy to become basically an unstoppable killing machine, I'm getting at least a 2:1 KDR every game; the G-Mal and Uzi combo is lethal, plus the smoke bomb kickback makes you really hard to kill. I went 22-5 one match and now when I go like 15-8, I feel like I had a bad match. Most of my deaths now happen because my character sticks himself to a wall when I want him to roll, I get killed by a third party as I'm killing an enemy because I stay to get the kill instead of running (or smoke bombing), I get unlucky and run into a guy with a power weapon, and other stuff like that.

 

[feather240]

I dislike one button knife kills.
I hate one button frags.
I loath head bobbing.

 

[Baneat]

In CoD it takes long enough to throw a grenade that your point is moot.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting to use a wheel. You tap R2 to switch from primary to secondary, tap R2 to switch from secondary to grenades, tap R2 to go from grenades to primary, it's not a wheel. How is that clunky? The current setup is more like a weapon wheel (d-pad left and right for secondary and primary) than what I'm suggesting. Switching to your secondary would be a lot more fluid under my proposed system, and I'm constantly switching from my primary to secondary in Uncharted 3, which is currently clunky as I have to stop moving to do that, that is the opposite of fluid. Throwing grenades would be slightly less fluid but switching to your secondary would be more fluid (secondary is more important and useful than nades). You can run around with your nades in your hand (you could still throw them very quickly) and tap R2 to switch to primary when you want to shoot.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

I think my system would work just fine in single player. I do admit, I would prefer having the grenade button in single player. I don't think removing it for multiplayer would be that big of a deal. The multiplayer does play quite a bit different than single player anyways. Changing one minor thing wouldn't nearly be that major.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

I feel all multiplayer games shouldn't have health regen (at most regen half of your health). Going from health regen to normal health wouldn't change any game drastically. Now, going from normal health to health regen has bigger impacts (which I'll never propose) as you cited in your Bad Company example as it can eliminate certain playstyles. However, if a game like COD (and the first COD didn't have health regen) went from health regen to normal health, it wouldn't be that major if everything else stayed the same as you don't have to add in a medic type playstyle to the game or health pickups or any way to regain health.

MGO doesn't have any way in which you can gain health back (no medics, no health packs), and it's quite commonplace to have matches where players have many more kills than deaths. In a recent Rescue match (2 teams, 6 vs 6, no respawns, 2 rounds), I went 10-0 against a high level team. The game does not nearly play like you say where after one gunfight where you get a kill, you are then killed easily in your next enemy encounter because you are wounded.

I think Uncharted would be much better without heath regen; however, I would definitely say you should regen to half health though just due to the way the game plays, maybe have health pickups or health related boosters (get health for killing) or kickbacks (get full health after so many medals), some manner to get back full health.

In Uncharted 3, once you get a feel for everything (maps, guns, boosters, kickbacks, etc.) and get used to the game's flow, it is far too easy to become basically an unstoppable killing machine, I'm getting at least a 2:1 KDR every game; the G-Mal and Uzi combo is lethal, plus the smoke bomb kickback makes you really hard to kill. I went 22-5 one match and now when I go like 15-8, I feel like I had a bad match. Most of my deaths now happen because my character sticks himself to a wall when I want him to roll, I get killed by a third party as I'm killing an enemy because I stay to get the kill instead of running (or smoke bombing), I get unlucky and run into a guy with a power weapon, and other stuff like that.

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Laser Priest]

Not really. 1BNT, as you call it, was implemented because, honestly, without it grenades are underpowered. It takes too long to switch to them, pull the pin and cook them, then throw them. Its this way in just about every shooter I've played, mostly because things like suppression, where real life grenades are at their most effective, simply don't exist in shooters. There is often no penalty for dying, so people are unafraid to jump and flank out of cover, rendering the primary purpose of the grenade (flushing enemies out of cover) pointless, making them more useful for indirect damage. If you are getting hit by grenades during firefights, learn to anticipate them. Run forward when you see one get thrown, or better yet, engage at long distance. Or just have better aim and kill them before the grenade is thrown. If you die to a grenade, you were outplayed, as you did not move to dodge it.

Unless I am mistaken, throwing a grenade makes you vulnerable in nearly every game their in, as you can't shoot your gun and throw at the same time. Also, to have any kind of pinpoint accuracy with grenades in a firefight, you have to have line of sight, meaning you are likely out of cover and thus vulnerable anyway. Combine that with the time it takes for them to detonate. Grenades are always unsafe unless you have the drop on your opponent or are moving with a group.

That would be true if people used grenades they were supposed to. People just kind of toss them (usually without cooking) as first instinct.

 

[NickCooley]

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

 

[Favre4ever]

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

 

[OldGus]

honestly, without it grenades are underpowered.

I think grenades are underpowered in games because they don't do enough damage. You could just go for realism by having a switch time and greater damage, which would be an alternate way to balance it. It's all about the system that involves less random grenade deaths while keeping grenades actually useful, IMO.

This... A hundred times this. Keep in mind, in real life, your average (read: old model that's been in a box for 30 years or so and is rather out of date) grenade in this time period still has a kill radius of 2-3 meters, discounting good cover. As in any normal human being, even with body armor (which is normally designed with things like bullets, rather than shrapnel or even knives, in mind), and also some of the larger canines. Even crappy ones cause serious, life-threatening injuries at 6-7 meters. The ones used by the US military now, which are hardly top of the line (that title would have to go to things like RDX grenades, which were designed with a longer fuse so the people throwing could have time to run away) have a kill radius of 5 and a cripple radius of 15.
Although, I would say C4 fits this great damage, difficult to use role quite nicely in most games. Most. In Black Ops, I think the only real difference between it and grenades in explosive power is it being slightly better against the non-existent tanks.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

I'll quit with the health regen argument, agree to disagree. But how is a weapon switching system FUBAR? I'd like you explain logically why it would be horrible, I just think it's because you've never played a game with said system so it seems foreign. How is a weapon wheel better? I only think weapon wheels work in single player where the game pauses when you bring up the wheel like in Bioshock because in real-time, a wheel is just too slow. I think it's a rather big flaw in the Uncharted control scheme that you have to stop moving to switch to your secondary.

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

It's because a weapon switching system is a superior control scheme. It allows for more fluidity along with freeing up more buttons on the controller.

SOCOM 4 was so disappointing (even though I never played the earlier games because I didn't have broadband during the PS2 era) because I was hoping for a great old-school online 3rd person shooter, and it was just COD in 3rd-person.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

I'll quit with the health regen argument, agree to disagree. But how is a weapon switching system FUBAR? I'd like you explain logically why it would be horrible, I just think it's because you've never played a game with said system so it seems foreign. How is a weapon wheel better? I only think weapon wheels work in single player where the game pauses when you bring up the wheel like in Bioshock because in real-time, a wheel is just too slow. I think it's a rather big flaw in the Uncharted control scheme that you have to stop moving to switch to your secondary.

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

It's because a weapon switching system is a superior control scheme. It allows for more fluidity along with freeing up more buttons on the controller.

SOCOM 4 was so disappointing (even though I never played the earlier games because I didn't have broadband during the PS2 era) because I was hoping for a great old-school online 3rd person shooter, and it was just COD in 3rd-person.

I've played games where there was only one button to cycle between more than two options and it's horrible every time. Let's say I see a group of enemies huddled together, and want to throw a grenade. I hit the button to switch from my assault rifle to grenades, throw it, and then they all roll away because the grenades in Uncharted have terrible blast radius. Now, I want to pull out my assault rifle to shoot them. I press the button, only to have my pistol come up. Well that isn't helpful, I think to myself while getting shot multiple times. I'll press the button yet again, to pull out the weapon I want. Only to find out I've been dead for a few seconds due to a horrifically clunky control scheme.


Watch this video. It's a fake news video from the Onion about a laptop with no keyboard, only one button. One button for all the functions of a keyboard. On an admittedly smaller scale, that's what you are proposing. Rather than have every possible option no more than a button press away, you're making necessary weapons several presses away, and after all that there's still an unused button. What could that be used for, I wonder? Maybe, throwing grenades?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I've played games where there was only one button to cycle between more than two options and it's horrible every time. Let's say I see a group of enemies huddled together, and want to throw a grenade. I hit the button to switch from my assault rifle to grenades, throw it, and then they all roll away because the grenades in Uncharted have terrible blast radius. Now, I want to pull out my assault rifle to shoot them. I press the button, only to have my pistol come up. Well that isn't helpful, I think to myself while getting shot multiple times. I'll press the button yet again, to pull out the weapon I want. Only to find out I've been dead for a few seconds due to a horrifically clunky control scheme.

That scenario wouldn't happen if it's implemented properly. In MGO, you are allowed to customize your slots (you have 3 weapon slots for quick select); Slot 1 for me is my primary, Slot 2 is my secondary, and Slot 3 is my support item (you only get one support item when you spawn consisting of grenades (normal, smoke, stun, enemy locators, etc.) and traps (claymores, C4, sleeping gas mines, magazines, etc.)). Having your slot setup with primary, then grenades, and then secondary is flawed as you have just noted in your example. In MGO, I run around with grenades (Slot 3) in my hand because you run faster and I can quickly throw a nade when I need to. Then, if I want to switch to my primary, it is a quick button press away (Slot 3 to Slot 1). Running around with grenades out does make sense as you are normally trying to take an objective point or certain spot on the map so you throw nades to keep your enemy from trying to get to said spot before you. If I'm using my primary, run out of bullets, and don't have time to reload, I tap R2 to switch to my secondary to try to get the kill and stay alive. Rarely do you need to go from secondary to primary because you went to your secondary because you ran out of bullets with your primary. Going from primary to grenades is more commonplace, but it is also pretty damn quick as well as you just have to double click R2 (which is like a millisecond slower than tapping it once) and you do get used to you slot setup as you play and switching 2 slots at a time becomes second nature.

Watch this video. It's a fake news video from the Onion about a laptop with no keyboard, only one button. One button for all the functions of a keyboard. On an admittedly smaller scale, that's what you are proposing. Rather than have every possible option no more than a button press away, you're making necessary weapons several presses away, and after all that there's still an unused button. What could that be used for, I wonder? Maybe, throwing grenades?

I do agree that once you go past 3 slots to 4 or more slots in my weapon cycle control scheme, it becomes clunky similar to how typing with no keyboard sucks. With my Slot setup in MGO, I do lose the ability to knife (as I choose putting my secondary in Slot 2 instead of the knife). However, the only way to really knife in a normal game mode is grab an enemy, throw them down, and then knife them. And, I can do that with a pistol anyways; slam down plus pistol is effectively the same thing and it gives me the same close-quarters combat option as the knife does. The knife has the added bonus of being able to stun (put the enemy to sleep) that I miss with the pistol though.

Most shooters nowadays allow for primary, secondary, and grenades so the 3 slot weapon cycle system fits perfectly with most modern shooters.

 

[Mr. 47]

Welcome to Uncharted, the Mecca of cheap kills.
Hell. In Uncharted 2, there was a perk the DROPED A GRENADE FOR YOU WHEN YOU DIED. :|

Does have to stop, that's my favorite part of TF2, no grenades.

 

[SMR]

Dodge the grenade, its that simple.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

I agree with you, games with powerful grenades shouldn't have 1bnt. I honestly don't know what everyone else is going on about, it's a good game mechanic. Not only does it help stop people from pulling miracles out of there asses, but grenades as well.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Dodge the grenade, its that simple.

I can dodge them, it looks stupid when 2 people upon seeing each both throw nades instead of shoot each other in a game that's a SHOOTER. I've gotten really good at the beta, and when I get certain kinds of grenade kills it just feels cheap. Also, sometimes a nade explodes way too soon and it's impossible to dodge, and you can't cook nades in the game.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I've played games where there was only one button to cycle between more than two options and it's horrible every time. Let's say I see a group of enemies huddled together, and want to throw a grenade. I hit the button to switch from my assault rifle to grenades, throw it, and then they all roll away because the grenades in Uncharted have terrible blast radius. Now, I want to pull out my assault rifle to shoot them. I press the button, only to have my pistol come up. Well that isn't helpful, I think to myself while getting shot multiple times. I'll press the button yet again, to pull out the weapon I want. Only to find out I've been dead for a few seconds due to a horrifically clunky control scheme.

That scenario wouldn't happen if it's implemented properly. In MGO, you are allowed to customize your slots (you have 3 weapon slots for quick select); Slot 1 for me is my primary, Slot 2 is my secondary, and Slot 3 is my support item (you only get one support item when you spawn consisting of grenades (normal, smoke, stun, enemy locators, etc.) and traps (claymores, C4, sleeping gas mines, magazines, etc.)). Having your slot setup with primary, then grenades, and then secondary is flawed as you have just noted in your example. In MGO, I run around with grenades (Slot 3) in my hand because you run faster and I can quickly throw a nade when I need to. Then, if I want to switch to my primary, it is a quick button press away (Slot 3 to Slot 1). Running around with grenades out does make sense as you are normally trying to take an objective point or certain spot on the map so you throw nades to keep your enemy from trying to get to said spot before you. If I'm using my primary, run out of bullets, and don't have time to reload, I tap R2 to switch to my secondary to try to get the kill and stay alive. Rarely do you need to go from secondary to primary because you went to your secondary because you ran out of bullets with your primary. Going from primary to grenades is more commonplace, but it is also pretty damn quick as well as you just have to double click R2 (which is like a millisecond slower than tapping it once) and you do get used to you slot setup as you play and switching 2 slots at a time becomes second nature.

Watch this video. It's a fake news video from the Onion about a laptop with no keyboard, only one button. One button for all the functions of a keyboard. On an admittedly smaller scale, that's what you are proposing. Rather than have every possible option no more than a button press away, you're making necessary weapons several presses away, and after all that there's still an unused button. What could that be used for, I wonder? Maybe, throwing grenades?

I do agree that once you go past 3 slots to 4 or more slots in my weapon cycle control scheme, it becomes clunky similar to how typing with no keyboard sucks. With my Slot setup in MGO, I do lose the ability to knife (as I choose putting my secondary in Slot 2 instead of the knife). However, the only way to really knife in a normal game mode is grab an enemy, throw them down, and then knife them. And, I can do that with a pistol anyways; slam down plus pistol is effectively the same thing and it gives me the same close-quarters combat option as the knife does. The knife has the added bonus of being able to stun (put the enemy to sleep) that I miss with the pistol though.

Most shooters nowadays allow for primary, secondary, and grenades so the 3 slot weapon cycle system fits perfectly with most modern shooters.

MGO =/= Uncharted. If you like MGO so much, then play MGO. Uncharted controls are fine, there's no need to do any of this.

 

[Gabriel Dragulia]

I think the problem here is console vs pc-gaming.
If you're on pc (one game I take in mind now is Return to castle wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, just online play, really simple, and fun.) you have the option of using the number keys above the letters to switch weapons. no scrolling through your weapons, you know where the grenade is, you only have to click the correct number, shoot once, and click back for the normal weapon. this can happen at really fast speeds if you play regularly.

Now, console gaming... you don't have those buttons, the numbers to quickly switch to grenades and back to your normal weapon. so having to scroll through all the weapons to get to your grenades, takes quite a bit of time (and then there's the chance that you press the scroll button once too make, having to scroll back again, taking up a lot of time)... in a fast paced shooter, where's the logic in that? running around an open area, trying to scroll through your weapons to find the one you want to use? it doesn't work properly.

using a keyboard to switch weapons with the number keys is basically as fast, as on a console pulling the left trigger or right bumper or whatever to throw your grenade. it takes just as much time to throw the grenade and switch back to your normal weapon, as you would throw a grenade, press '1' on your keyboard (while throwing, so after the throw you would automatically switch back to your main weapon) and then run around with your gun again.

I think 1BNT isn't a problem, it's a perfectly reasonable compromise to work with the limits that pc-gamers don't have that much.

 

[Saltyk]

To be perfectly honest... I just don't like grenades. Most multiplayer shooters would be improved simply by removing them. Except maybe flash grenades, because those do have tactical uses, but for the most part, grenades simply act to make a game messier. Ideally, they'd be used in special circumstances strategically, but we all know that's not the case in reality.

I know what you're talking about. In a game of MAG, I took an objective single handed. I the held the position from the inevitable, and small, counter attack killing about 3 people due to the element of surprise and superior skill. Next thing I knew they threw some 4 grenades in to kill me. What makes it worse was that even if there were others with me, we would have all likely been wiped out. This annoyed me because they didn't out fight me or flank me or anything. They just spammed so many grenades that I couldn't avoid them all.