Don't you guys think the wildcard idea is kinda dumb?

#11Aether_LyricPosted 12/8/2012 6:33:53 AM
Wildcards make it easier to understand for people unfamiliar with the pick 10 system. Otherwise there's no explanation as to why that 2nd perk you chose costed 2 points instead of 1, etc.
#12Zero IXPosted 12/8/2012 6:40:03 AM
jesterj7 posted...
TwistedCoCo posted...

Same deal with the suppressor attachment, for example. You stay off the map when shooting in sacraficing a bit of range


so now that attachments are like the old perks, what is the downfall to having a laser sight? the suppressor gives up range. what are the downfalls of the other attachments?

makes no sense for it to have less range now


It doesn't have to have an advantage or a disadvantage to be balanced. Suppressor is an extremely effective attachment, and the benefit of not appearing on the radar when attacking is leaps and bounds more influential than tighter hip-fire crosshairs. It's totally fair for Suppressor to reduce range. I mean, what's the advantage vs. the disadvantage of Quickdraw vs. Stock? There is none. You just pick what you want and it's (mostly) balanced because you can't have everything.

On-topic, Wildcards are a great idea. You can't just load up on the perks you want and be done with it; you actually have to give up a little to get more. Otherwise, why not just tack perks like Toughness, Scav, FJ, etc. on every single class? Why not just add a third attachment to every primary? The classes in BO2 have overall less going for them than the classes in past CoDs, and wildcards ensure that remains constant; naturally YMMV as to what you prefer, but the upside is that classes in BO2 can be more focused and specialized than before.
---
"An Incandescent Revelation in a World of Darkened Forms"
The bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame
#13Wookie_Is_BackPosted 12/8/2012 6:49:32 AM
trakrunr4evr posted...
Because then everyone would be running around with 6 perks, a gun, and 3 attachments.


....and???
#14Dark_Link72Posted 12/8/2012 6:55:08 AM
BrownPack posted...
I mean, why not just have 6 choosable perks, 3 selectable attachments, but they still take away from your 10 points? I don't see why you have to spend a point on a wildcard, and then spend another point to choose what will be available after using the wildcard. Someone help me understand this. I think it's just really stupid.

I think Overkill should be the only thing using a wildcard.

Yeah, I agree, because if it costed one point to pick a sidearm, OR a primary, no one would pick a pistol.

As for everything else, I agree. Why not let people have more things? Treyarch wanted to encourage diversity, limiting points by adding extra costs restricts flexibility within classes.


trakrunr4evr posted...
Because then everyone would be running around with 6 perks, a gun, and 3 attachments.

So, what? Perks have much less use in BO2, compared to perks in previous CoD's.
Six perks in CoD4, for example, would be insane. Imagine Stopping Power, Juggernaut, UAV Jammer, Martyrdom, Sonic Boom, Sleight of Hand. That player would be crazy powerful.

In BO2, perks are all broken up and toned down. A stealth class, which used to only require Cold-Blooded (MW2), now needs Blind-Eye, Cold-Blooded, Assassin, and Ghost. That's four of the six available perks we have, and having 6 perks costs 9 points.

If Cold-Blooded from MW2 was the same as in BO2, I could agree with the point cost in regard to balance, but spending extra points on perks as it is now is pretty much a waste when points could be better spent towards attachments/lethal/tacticals, which is sad.

Even if everyone DID run 6 perks, a gun, and 3 attachments, that person would still have no lethal, tactical, or side-arm. That is still a hefty cost, in my opinion


jamejame posted...
I think certain aspects of it are dumb. Why are there perk tiers with the wildcard system? I can't think of any overpowered combos were the tiers to be removed, especially when the already existing wildcard system allows for a combination of the ones people would already consider optimal. Just remove tiers and allow us to use wildcards for an extra perk, not an extra perk within a tier. I'd much rather have Flak Jacket, Lightweight and Ghost than an obligatory perk 2.

I agree with this, too. I doubt perk wild cards would ever be removed, but if they were to ever be tweaked, I would at least want the tier restriction to be removed.
---
I'm loving the shenanigans.
#15Jeh64Posted 12/8/2012 7:09:27 AM
I like it.
#16hat_redPosted 12/8/2012 7:12:09 AM
wildcards idea isn't dumb.
#17NarutoTaioPosted 12/8/2012 8:23:18 AM
Your idea is dumb

Wildcards are genius
#18supercoolisaacPosted 12/8/2012 8:28:49 AM
Dark_Link72 posted...
BrownPack posted...
I mean, why not just have 6 choosable perks, 3 selectable attachments, but they still take away from your 10 points? I don't see why you have to spend a point on a wildcard, and then spend another point to choose what will be available after using the wildcard. Someone help me understand this. I think it's just really stupid.

I think Overkill should be the only thing using a wildcard.

Yeah, I agree, because if it costed one point to pick a sidearm, OR a primary, no one would pick a pistol.

As for everything else, I agree. Why not let people have more things? Treyarch wanted to encourage diversity, limiting points by adding extra costs restricts flexibility within classes.


trakrunr4evr posted...
Because then everyone would be running around with 6 perks, a gun, and 3 attachments.

So, what? Perks have much less use in BO2, compared to perks in previous CoD's.
Six perks in CoD4, for example, would be insane. Imagine Stopping Power, Juggernaut, UAV Jammer, Martyrdom, Sonic Boom, Sleight of Hand. That player would be crazy powerful.

In BO2, perks are all broken up and toned down. A stealth class, which used to only require Cold-Blooded (MW2), now needs Blind-Eye, Cold-Blooded, Assassin, and Ghost. That's four of the six available perks we have, and having 6 perks costs 9 points.

If Cold-Blooded from MW2 was the same as in BO2, I could agree with the point cost in regard to balance, but spending extra points on perks as it is now is pretty much a waste when points could be better spent towards attachments/lethal/tacticals, which is sad.

Even if everyone DID run 6 perks, a gun, and 3 attachments, that person would still have no lethal, tactical, or side-arm. That is still a hefty cost, in my opinion


jamejame posted...
I think certain aspects of it are dumb. Why are there perk tiers with the wildcard system? I can't think of any overpowered combos were the tiers to be removed, especially when the already existing wildcard system allows for a combination of the ones people would already consider optimal. Just remove tiers and allow us to use wildcards for an extra perk, not an extra perk within a tier. I'd much rather have Flak Jacket, Lightweight and Ghost than an obligatory perk 2.

I agree with this, too. I doubt perk wild cards would ever be removed, but if they were to ever be tweaked, I would at least want the tier restriction to be removed.


Wut
---
"Persistence until excellence."
http://www.youtube.com/user/supercoolisaac
#19DerwoodPosted 12/8/2012 8:35:55 AM
I want to run around with 10 bouncing bettys
---
PSN: ZipCity
Gamertag: LightSetDesign
#20hularooPosted 12/8/2012 8:40:38 AM
I really like the wild card system. I believe this is the most balanced cod yet and would be amazing if it wasn't for the crappy netcode/lag comp. Some games I have a blast and nothing is wrong with the connection, some games I can't even steady aim a guy before he has time to switch weapons ADS and kill me in half a bullet. The wild card system really makes you think about what is important to you and give up something that may only be beneficial in certain situations.
---
GT: Hula Roo