Modern Warfare 3 Ditches Commando Perk

[The Heik]

Get rid of any permutations of quick scoping and I'm a relatively happy man.

Figure I'm all for that one.

Also noob-tubing.

This I would not agree with, because tubes serve a tactical purpose of clearing out enemies in cover. If someone can hit you with a tube grenade in the open, chances are good they could just have hit you with regular bullets anyway - you weren't quick enough on the draw.

That's the thing though. People who use noobtoob don't use it tactically, and usually aren't able to hit you with bullets. That's why they use a weapon that arcs over cover, has an AOE and insta-kills anyone in the zip code, so they don't have to aim. Moreso it normally doesn't matter who is faster on the draw as the GL has a viewable velocity, so as long as the noobtoober pulled the trigger during that ordeal he can kill his opponent, even if his opponent has already killed him (which rewards the toober with "afterlife" kill points to boot). So I'd agree with Spider on this one, or at the very least make the GL unwieldy to use (slow aim tracking) and your suggestion of 1-2 shots per life no matter what (no "One Man Army" restock shenanigans)

Also I agree on the quickscoping. I hate that auto-aiming 1-hit ko move. Sniper rifles are supposed to be long range weapons dammit!

 

[spartan231490]

Now just need to make sure juggernaught, ghost pro and second chance dont make a reappearance.

There's nothing wrong with ghost or commando. Second chance and Juggernaut though, really should never have been even tried. Really, what about that even resembles balance. But second chance probably will make the cut, just like commando doesn't and for the same reason, a design team that caves to whining fans just because the fans who like the perk aren't as vocal.

If theres so much of an outcry from the fans that they want it removed, that means the devs fucked up, not the players.

sure it does. and if everybody thinks slavery is ok, they're right too. Really, that's the worst argument I've ever heard. The old adage: "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it?" is pretty accurate in this case. The developers have been educated and experienced in the field, and spent months developing the game. Just because the fans don't like it, doesn't mean that they are right about it being OP, or unbalanced, it just means that they don't like it. and just because they don't like it, doesn't mean that they disliked the effect it had on the game. People may dislike being tac-knifed in MW2, but I'm pretty sure that no one wants MW3 to be a game where every single person uses the same weapons, the same perks, and the same playstyle. It would get pretty fucking boring really quick.

Now, I'm not saying that devs never make a mistake, I'm just saying that level of outcry has nothing to do with the accuracy of the statement. At one point, every person on earth thought it was flat, that didn't make any of them right. If the devs made a mistake, it rarely has anything to do with the number of players complaining about it. In MW2, there was a rock glitch on Afghan that was fixed literally the day after me and most of my friends found out about it. and we played that game every single day, for hours. If the devs are wrong, they usually notice it very soon after it's pointed out. If they look at it, and decide that it's balanced, than no matter how many gamers complain, it's a pretty good chance that it's not OP.

However, if they cave just to make those gamers happy anyway, even though they are wrong, they diminish the experience, because the original state(in this case the presence of a perk) was put in the game for a reason. If they take it out just because gamers are whining and for no other reason, than that need remains unfulfilled, diminishing the experience.

First off, did you actually just fucking compare slavery to removing an overpowered ability in a video game? Wow. Seriously.

And two, if the devs are so sure that the perk was a good idea, why aren't they sticking to their guns and keeping commando in the game? It was there throughout all of MW2. Why not keep it now, as it 'enriches' (LOL) the experience?

Besides, didn't one of the lead devs just say he welcomes negative feedback? Well he got it, and reacted to it.

And people are already using the same weapons, the same perks, all that shit. Have you even played CoD?

first off: no. I just pointed out a big example of why everyone thinking it is ok doesn't make it so. But you knew that, you were just being inflammatory.

two: they aren't sticking to their guns because they're afraid that they won't get the sales they need. CoD is a major title with a huge budget, they need massive sales just to break even. this is bad design, as they are compromising the game as a whole.

third: people aren't already using the same perks and "all that shit" I played MW2 quite a bit, as I said, and BO quite a large amount too. In MW2 there are run-n-gunners with ARs, there are the heavy machine gun runners who throw lead all day, their are snipers and quickscopers, there are nubetubers and RPGers, there are tac knifers. and then there are the people who don't really fit into any of those categories.

BO is worse, exactly for the reason that the devs caved to whiny fans who don't know anything, and you still see all kinds of ARs and SMGs, as well as a smattering of shotguners, or LMGs, or lightweight/marathoners, or snipers.

 

[SamStar42]

Yay.

Honestly believe that MW3 will be MW2 without the problems, will surprise a lot of people. Could be superb again

 

[TITAN59650]

Or they could use the Call of Duty 4 approach and make it a death streak, where you have to die multiple times before last stand enables.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Thank God!
No more of this then, I guess:

 

[Therumancer]

So let me get this straight. People found something that worked for them and then whingers got it removed. It killed me so nerf it. I have nothing but utter disdain.


Captcha would agree that this view is also "Hobson's choice"

Well, the issue is that first person melee games and first person shooters are kind of seperate generes. People logging in to play a shooter get annoyed when they are dealing with a ton of melee. The problem is also that those knives are pretty much one hit kills, so that guy running around at super speed (hard to get a bead on) and jumping over walls and stuff is playing a fundementally differant game from you, especially seeing as your gun is unlikely to score a one hit kill. For him, if your trying to play a FPS your like an AI bot in some kind of first person melee game.

I understand the issue, I don't play these games so I don't have any strong "on the ground" opinion about it. The basic arguement seems fairly reasonable to me however. I'd think the solution would have been to make knives a bit less lethal damage-wise in close combat.

To be honest with "Black Ops." just having come out, I'm somewhat apalled that they are already releasing a "Modern Warfare 3". It could just be me, but it seems like too many games of the same type, too fast.

 

[otakon17]

So wait, now bringing a knife to a gunfight will get you killed instead of you slashing your way through guys like Jason on holiday? MADNESS!

 

[Ashsaver]

Why not just change the insta-kill-aka-win-button to shove-you-away-from-me-button ?