Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

Actually, the IG regiments tend not to vary that much within an individual army. That is, of course, unless you look at combined 'leftover' regiments such as the mixed catachan and elysian regiments that created a regiment of airborne jungle specialists.

Like I said, the basic troops lacked the ability to get grenades in the game. There were absolutely no vox's available for upgrade as well. I also had a hard time understanding the trench part of the buildings, I could get them dropping in prefabricated buildings but not an underground trench system.


The presence of camping isn't necessarily the developer's fault though. Same thing with people spawn camping, its a dick move overall, but its not like, nevermind its a dick move.

In other words, you won't be satisfied untill they make every army in the game with exactly the same upgrades as in the codex?

Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

Funny, I think campers are just as capable of playing the game as blind rushers, their counterpart.

Slarg232 wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

If you mean like sniping, I'd agree and disagree. A proper sniper would take a shot/few shots, then move on so he doesn't get killed, and people can't pinpoint his location.
Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

I usually end up spending most of my time in CoD, hunting down campers. Some of them just camp in... Really slowed positions.

I remember one time, on the level with the beach on MW2, one guy kept crouching with an MP5/submachine gun in front of a door. Every time.
So, I just went around the back of the building and killed him. I ended up winning that game because I killed him 20 times. He never moved. =|

Wolfun wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

If you mean like sniping, I'd agree and disagree. A proper sniper would take a shot/few shots, then move on so he doesn't get killed, and people can't pinpoint his location.
Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

I usually end up spending most of my time in CoD, hunting down campers. Some of them just camp in... Really slowed positions.

I remember one time, on the level with the beach on MW2, one guy kept crouching with an MP5/submachine gun in front of a door. Every time.
So, I just went around the back of the building and killed him. I ended up winning that game because I killed him 20 times. He never moved. =|

What I meant was stuff like having four guys in a building, two watching the doors and two shooting out windows (or, for you technical people, setting up "lanes"), while the enemy team tries to crack open their defensive position. That's legitimate.

Putting Claymores/grenades/whatever into the spawn so that players die as soon as they can play again, thats just terrible.

Wolfun wrote:Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

No, you also have to aim, and not fire when there's noone there so you conserve ammo.

Melissia wrote:

Wolfun wrote:Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

No, you also have to aim, and not fire when there's noone there so you conserve ammo.

Who the hell has any sort of aiming ability in CoD?

I jest, I jest...

mostly.

Camping is legitimate in any objective game, although a defensive rush in a game of Search and Destroy can really mess up what the other team is expecting.

If you have a sniper rifle and sit in a position that's okay.

If you go to where the enemy spawns and just sit there, you're kind of a dick.

The developer makes spawn points, the dick takes advantage of them.

And the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should make better spawn points.

Melissia wrote:And the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should make better spawn points.

Maybe that's why the spawn is so random in Black Ops...

But saying that is like saying the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should kick people who team kill so many times in a game of hardcore.

Look how that turned out in Black Ops, get a chopper gunner in hardcore and you'll most likely end up getting kicked. Especially if the opposing team has Ghost equipped.

That's because CoD's hardcore mode is a stupidly designed game mode.

Hardcore is a great game mode, reminds me of Rainbow Six on the PC where one shot meant a kill or incapacitation in most cases.

I just don't like the fact that your teammates have nothing to distinguish them from an enemy with ghost pro.

A green diamond around your own guys would've been fantastic.

But that's not hardcore enough.

Melissia wrote:But that's not hardcore enough.

I know right?

I want a suit that emits a painful electrical shock whenever you get hit as well, but no the developers are too lazy to make one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

Actually, the IG regiments tend not to vary that much within an individual army. That is, of course, unless you look at combined 'leftover' regiments such as the mixed catachan and elysian regiments that created a regiment of airborne jungle specialists.

Like I said, the basic troops lacked the ability to get grenades in the game. There were absolutely no vox's available for upgrade as well. I also had a hard time understanding the trench part of the buildings, I could get them dropping in prefabricated buildings but not an underground trench system.


The presence of camping isn't necessarily the developer's fault though. Same thing with people spawn camping, its a dick move overall, but its not like, nevermind its a dick move.

In other words, you won't be satisfied untill they make every army in the game with exactly the same upgrades as in the codex?

Im quite surprised how neck on neck this is

ChronoCupcake wrote:Im quite surprised how neck on neck this is

That's because I'm stuffing the ballots.

Voted for both, but honestly after competitive gaming with halo for 4 years and cod for 3 now, and CS 1.6 for 4 prior to halo, I'm just sick of competitive shooters. Still love RTS and great RPG games though. Games stop being "fun" when you're playing for money, much like anything else I suppose. Having a full time job and part time job feels no different than the last 8 or so odd years did. As far as which is better neither of them live up to previous games in the series they just seem like dumbed down versions. Halo and mw1 being the kings of each respectively with halo 2 competitive scene slightly better due to XBL but not a better game. This is the first 6 months I've sat out of competitive gaming in the last 8 years and I'm thoroughly enjoying the break. Only attending MLG's for party filled payed weekends to ref Starcraft 2 as it's a pretty fun game to watch.

Go try Homefront then. It's a new IP to be released on March 8th, so it won't have a competitive scene for a while. You'll be part of a group of people experiencing a new IP and exploring the possibilities therein, which should be refreshing compared to just purchasing the next CoD or Halo.

LegendJRG wrote:Voted for both, but honestly after competitive gaming with halo for 4 years and cod for 3 now, and CS 1.6 for 4 prior to halo, I'm just sick of competitive shooters. Still love RTS and great RPG games though. Games stop being "fun" when you're playing for money, much like anything else I suppose. Having a full time job and part time job feels no different than the last 8 or so odd years did. As far as which is better neither of them live up to previous games in the series they just seem like dumbed down versions. Halo and mw1 being the kings of each respectively with halo 2 competitive scene slightly better due to XBL but not a better game. This is the first 6 months I've sat out of competitive gaming in the last 8 years and I'm thoroughly enjoying the break. Only attending MLG's for party filled payed weekends to ref Starcraft 2 as it's a pretty fun game to watch.

Ya, I agree. But I still say that Halo is better. I LOVE RPGs so much,but ya gotta go and shoot some aliens mindlessly now and then .

Personally, i much prefer Halo. I like them both story wise, but when it comes to playing with friends, I have to go with Halo. I always found that when I played MW2 online all I did was die and I never got better, where in Halo I did pretty good, so maybe that has to do with it, its less infuriating for me.

Ya, same with me lol

I prefer Halo in terms of gameplay mechanics, and multiplayer mechanics, because I like being able to take a few hits before dying. Historically, I've always preferred stuff like Quake and Unreal Tournament as well.

In hardcore "realistic" shooters, it seems you die far too quickly, which there is nothing wrong with, but generally confrontations boil down to who got the drop on who, not necessarily who has better aim. Not to say having the situational awareness to get the drop on someone isn't skill, but it isn't always skill, sometimes its just who came around a corner first. It isn't fun getting one-shotted from across the map, and I'm sure people hate me when I play BFBC2 and do just that on hardcore servers.

In terms of setting/story, I definitely prefer the Halo series, but that probably has a lot to do with me being a sci-fi nerd. And... I actually dozed off while playing through the MW2 campaign.

So yea, Halo by far for me... but maybe more like "I prefer non-realistic shooters"

Choice between Giantdouche or Turdsandwich?

I choose Bad Company 2

illuknisaa wrote:Choice between Giantdouche or Turdsandwich?

I choose Bad Company 2

More like Bad Game 2 amiright?
Enjoy having every level higher than you having better gear and owning you easy.
And medic lmg spam
And 2-3 hit snipers
And vehicles
And worse-than-CoD knife mechanics
And the fething UAV of doom
And the spawn delay
And spawn camping being so easy to do

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Then you should practice and get better

Soladrin wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Then you should practice and get better

I would like too, but I don't have enough time to play the game to get better. I might have an hour every other day or so to play games. That is sort of while I like RPGs because I can take my time on them. MMOGs take a lot of time as well, which is why I don't play them. Halo is different for me. I played the first three when I had more time. So Reach single player was easy enough for me and so was an occasional multiplayer game.