darkwitness wrote:
Right from the games launch the dev's were talking about how they want it to become something big as an E-sport...
that will never happen if we all just accept the crap and just not take the game seriously.
if you can just laugh at all the crap going on, not caring if it's fixable or not, then fair play to you.
After playing all the past cods is it wrong for some of us to simply want a game that plays better then it's predecessors (which this game does not at the moment) ?
We don't want evey cod to be like the last one, we want it to be better. If they can't achieve that then at least it should be on par, it does not make sense to pay money for the game when it plays worse then the last. I may as well go back to playing the old one (which I have by the way).
Completely agree.
I know that professional tourneys are usually played on a LAN, but are they actually having BO2 competitions at the moment?
The whole thing seems far too flakey to warrant the professional e-sports community using it.
fletch360 wrote:
...
Completely agree.
I know that professional tourneys are usually played on a LAN, but are they actually having BO2 competitions at the moment?
The whole thing seems far too flakey to warrant the professional e-sports community using it.
The pro's are in it for the money. I'm sure some/most of them understand the game is seriously flawed. But hell, I'd play runescape for 30minutes if it meant a 50% chance for $10k.
You're right they'd live with it for the money, but I'd guess that they'd want to understand the mechanics, i.e. moving from cover or moving from a head glitch spot, as they could gain a competitive advantage?
Michael2223 wrote:
[video]
That's sad. There's no reason to implement lagcomp for splitscreen. Terrible news for the tournament scene. Good news for coL, who recently lost and now have an excuse.
I would agree it's a camera issue if the damage delay wasn't exactly the same as the sight "advantage". Remember of course there are (at least) two player models in play, one is for your client and one is what everyone else sees. Your camera is attached to your player model just fine, but your player model isn't synchronized.
A trivial matter of terminology, perhaps, but very important. If it was only the camera out of sync, there would be no delay for your shots, and double the advantage currently seen.
Did not even think the stances would be that far out. Good info. Almost no one makes stance animations properly, but that's beyond acceptable limits.
Yes, headglitching is a problem. It can be fixed by repositioning the camera. As it has existed for 5+ games, I must assume it's too much of a problem to fix due to their code structure. In this case I will sympathize with them; if you don't know what you're doing / aren't thinking, it's very easy to create a mess, and nearly impossible to fix it. There is one extremely simple alternative, however - Map design. Lower the height of the boxes/etc, everything's fixed. You may have noticed they did the exact opposite in BO2; nearly every box / ledge / window is the perfect height to headglitch. I assume they want this to be a part of the gameplay.
I would actually like to play a Call of Duty clone. We haven't played one without massive bugs since COD4, 5 years ago.
SeraphOne wrote:
You're right they'd live with it for the money, but I'd guess that they'd want to understand the mechanics, i.e. moving from cover or moving from a head glitch spot, as they could gain a competitive advantage?
To some extent. But they must already know they've been playing a luck-based game for the past 3 iterations. The only problem I can see is the issue of reputation. But then, with the playstyles of some of the "pro's" causing that 7-minutes-0-kills campfest last year, they obviously don't care too much about that.
One players dream followed by a little domino effect could lead to one developers nightmare.
Now the dashboarding and constant revoloving of players can start earlier in the match. Great!
Why can't they just fix matchmaking, geeez....
I'd seen an other video talking about the same thing in the video proof thread but that guy at least provided a better video example.