What HVS NEEDS to do to keep a lasting appeal...

#21Brownprouder23Posted 8/28/2010 7:53:00 AM
How does the discussion always change to MW2? This is Conduit 2 people. Go talk about MW2 on their board.
#22SupahShnipaPosted 8/28/2010 12:26:21 PM
No every gun should handle like the guns in old cod games, where you actually had to fight recoil or burst fire since the recoil was so bad. It took way more skill that way.
^This

I still play COD:UO all the time. You can't Spray and Pray and get 2-1 KDR's like in today's Casual-Gamer based Call of Duty games.
---
Greg Hastings Paintball 2 for the Wii!
#23Sudsy86_Posted 8/28/2010 7:59:57 PM

MC_Brian1 posted...


I think this is completely wrong. There is no excuse for the Hive Cannon to be as bad as it is if they had the ability to patch the game.


With lock-on, no. without lock-on, its attributes would have made it usable in any short-mid range situation. Now that lock-on has been very reduced and removed, it doesn't need to be buffered. But, yeah. It was bad. They must have not tested the weapons much hands-on. It was obvious from day one no one would ever use it.

MC_Brian1 posted...
BFBC2 players don't feel babied by DICE. The M60 was completely overpowered before, and many Assault Rifles were underpowered. They got changed, and now everyone's happy. The only thing related to weapon balance that DICE screwed up was making all bolt action snipers just about identical, so most of them lost their strengths.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. The m60 was the best gun on the game--and easily. It was a lot easier to hit people. so? It doesn't beat any automatic that shoots it first. It's just easy to kill people when other guns require a higher skill level.

Also, assault rifles were slightly better at long range. The XM8, M14, M16, Aug were all competitive guns, I thought. And, again, it's not like if you had position on someone they would end up killing you if you were efficient with a good gun.

MC_Brian1 posted...
If HVS makes an unbalanced game, you can't say "lolgotaktix" if they have the ability to fix it. I agree with TC.


Sure. But if you get shot first and die quickly, you can't blame DICE for your death. If a particular game is about out-positioning players--which BFBC2 was--whether or not you die faster when you're vulnerable is irrelevent.

If Tcon has general weapon balance--which the first did--the game will be legit, even if one gun in a lot better.

But Dice seemed to change every weapon and altered their effectiveness and ease of use in situations--which was totally unnecessary. You cannot give someone that kind of trust. The forbidden fruit is too tempting.

#24MC_Brian1Posted 8/28/2010 8:26:52 PM
I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. The m60 was the best gun on the game--and easily. It was a lot easier to hit people. so? It doesn't beat any automatic that shoots it first. It's just easy to kill people when other guns require a higher skill level.

Also, assault rifles were slightly better at long range. The XM8, M14, M16, Aug were all competitive guns, I thought. And, again, it's not like if you had position on someone they would end up killing you if you were efficient with a good gun.


The M60 was overpowered and now it's fixed and people are happy. This is good, not bad. There is no downside to having weapon balance fixed.
---
no wonder fox's father died... dumbass was wearing shades in space - gameheadache