Spur4 wrote:
I don't understand why its such a bad thing to ask for more balance in a game. Gun's don't have to be the same to have balance either, so the lack of gun variety argument is null. -- The only way to bring more variety is to a) have more guns AND b) have EVERY gun perform significantly different, or c) reduce the number of guns in the game. Because there are people like you that have been demanding "balance" for so long, the Devs chose the easiest route by choosing to reduce the number of guns. That's the only way to ensure balance in a way you can understand: make sure every player is using the same gun. You're arguing that the guns do not have balance, meaning you feel they do not perform equally - because they have no variance in how they perform. That's an ILLOGICAL statement. It is not possible for there to be a lack of variety because there is too much variety. I.M.O, the more balance a game has, the more likely that gun variety will be high. -- You need to take some college courses dealing with mathematics. As soon as you throw "human" into the equation, you actually remove a variable. Statistically, there are colors that when surveying a population, are more popular than others. There are shapes, literally, that populations prefer over others. The end result is that if every gun performed exactly the same, meaning the only difference is the shape you see on the screen and the sound they make, there will still be certain guns used more than other guns. I'm not a bad player at this game either, I do quite well using a wide variety of playstyles, guns, perks, etc. Its just that when I'm playing with, say, a PM63 I'll do good. But in the back of my mind, I know that I would have done even better with a Famas/Aug. -- That's the whole point of having an inferior weapon: so that better players still feel challenged after 6 months of playing the game.
Basically, what we have in this game is this;
---The best guns---
+The best choice for playing good, can do everything that other guns can do, but better(Compare: Famas)
The Devs do this so that people that have never played the game are attracted to the game and want to become a fan that buys the next release of the game. Remember, this is also a business venture. Thus, if my wife wants to play the game, she can actually make selections that give her a half-azzed chance of winning at the game at least some of the time. If the game was equal in every respect, "balanced" in the manner you're advocating, then far fewer people would play the game. This game requires CRITICAL THINKING ability. You might be Hulk Hogan as far as your physical abilities, but your reaction times alone, your endurance ability alone, does not promise you a victory. A kid in a wheel chair is just as likely to win against you as an NFL player. THAT is a balanced game.
---The middle class---
+Has some similar traits with the best guns, but lacks in areas that the best guns still excel in(Compare Famas vs. PM63, PM63 has firerate but lacks damage, aim assist, attachments, mag size etc.)
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. "The middle class has some similar traits with the best guns but lacks in areas that the best guns still excel in ..." WTF? You're advocating that the guns in the game have greater variation. That's what variety means: greater differences between the individual parts/members. You cannot make a logical argument, you cannot make a valid argument when you advocate "There should be greater variety by making everything perform more alike." I cannot stress to you enough how utterly insane such an argument is.
---The worst of the worst---
+These guns are unintended for regular gameplay, and perform poorly on almost every level.(Compare Famas vs. Uzi, Uzi has more recoil, less damage, less aim assist, attachments, etc.) - Really, guy? This is THE problem with the case your side of the argument makes. The Uzi is meant to perform significantly different than the Famas. The only way to adjust the game to the logic of the case you make here is to adjust the Famas so that Sniper rifles do not have an advantage over the Famas. Then you have to adjust the Uzi so that the Famas does not have an advantage over it. The end result is that Sniper rifles and Uzis are equally effective in every situation.
I would really love to know the demographics of both sides of this argument as far as education and age go.
I'm pretty sure I could make a very accurate guess: under 25 years of age and high school or less.
I'm not knocking you if that's the case. I'm just trying to explain to you that there is far more thought placed into the things you people are complaining about than you think. Tired or Trial, one of the two, already explained that.
Look, whether or not your argument is valid does not matter. The audience listening to the argument has to be convinced. The audience you're argument is aimed at?
Those guys have some of the best college education in the US and beyond. You'll NEVER convince them that "more variety = less differences = balance." Okay?
Finally, Activision is trying to bring "balance" to the COD games as you guys are definining it. This is evidenced in the increasingly dumbed down characteristics of the game. MW2 attempted to do this by bringing in the Nuke. You say that was OP, but the problem was that a lot of good players were complaining that it was not fair that they get stuck on a team of randoms that were poor players. The result was a weapon/kill streak that would allow a really good player to win the match ... even if his teammates were a bunch of idiots. WaW demonstrated that the community often doesn't know anything at all about creating a good, fun, exciting game. The community was raging for vehicles. Think you'll ever see another permanent, in-game vehicle that does not require a kill streak in a COD title again? Not likely. And with BO the game's balance was shifted to poorer players by removing the ability to kill streak chain (kills by kill streaks count toward higher kill streaks - that was removed from the game) because people felt it was OP. However, there are still people crying about kill streaks being OP. The end result is that in MW3 we have 3 strike packages that are, frankly heavily weighted in favor of poorer players. The Specialist Package, they even said so, is aimed at players that can run up high kill counts without the aid of kill streaks. However, it only enhances the players skill - it does nothing to make a direct impact on kill count. The Support Package does nothing but give players that get killed 50 times in a match a glorified Juggernaut. The Assault Package, if you really want to go out on a limb, enables players that rely on kill streak kills to rack up kills. I don't and most good players don't rely on those and never have.
In any case, this game is being dumbed down because of arguments like you guys are making.
