Perks are worss than Killstreaks. Because perks helps you achieve those killstreaks... Freaken cammondo and lightweight are annoying
Killstreaks! Is It Just Me Or Does Anyone Else Feel Like They Are Out Of Place?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Which is why no one even glances at theirK/D ratios in CoD games.
Perks are worss than Killstreaks. Because perks helps you achieve those killstreaks... Freaken cammondo and lightweight are annoying
Aboogie5
Depending on how the perks are designed they can be balancing or unbalancing. I am a fan of the perks concept because it can encourage your method of playing a first person shooter regardless of the game. However I do feel a lot of MW2 perks are ill-designed for this and are more intended to create more chaos and satisfy ADD like a Michael Bay film.
(S t y l e was censored?)
There was nothing wrong with them In COD4 and W@W, but in MW2 they are annoying. MW2 was made for camping, and thats one of the reasons I think the game is not balanced online.
yep, its ridiculous how you can camp, get a few kills and then let your air support finish the game for you. & yes Ive done and yes I realised how cheap it was straight away.the killstreaks in COD4 imo were the best because they stopped before really encouraging camping. MW2 killstreaks on the other hand promote camping
Ragashahs
[QUOTE="Aboogie5"]
Perks are worss than Killstreaks. Because perks helps you achieve those killstreaks... Freaken cammondo and lightweight are annoying
MajorGamer531
Depending on how the perks are designed they can be balancing or unbalancing. I am a fan of the perks concept because it can encourage your method of playing a first person shooter regardless of the game. However I do feel a lot of MW2 perks are ill-designed for this and are more intended to create more chaos and satisfy ADD like a Michael Bay film.
(S t y l e was censored?)
Honestly, I think they should take all killstreaks above 7 in Modern warfare 2. They encourage camping and just ruin the game.
its way overdone/powered in mw2, feels copied and out of place in MOH and was simple and easy in cod4.
[QUOTE="MajorGamer531"]
[QUOTE="Aboogie5"]
Perks are worss than Killstreaks. Because perks helps you achieve those killstreaks... Freaken cammondo and lightweight are annoying
jg4xchamp
Depending on how the perks are designed they can be balancing or unbalancing. I am a fan of the perks concept because it can encourage your method of playing a first person shooter regardless of the game. However I do feel a lot of MW2 perks are ill-designed for this and are more intended to create more chaos and satisfy ADD like a Michael Bay film.
(S t y l e was censored?)
Thanks!
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
The only thing that really is annoying is the OMA tuber or the Fuel rock glitchers. Both need to be fixed.
I think Killstreaks are great. If you can get rewarded for not dieing when you are getting multiple kills that is a great feature. They can get a annoying, know doubt, but if a lot more people used cold blooded this wouldn't be such a hated feature for people who get killed a lot by them.
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
The only thing that really is annoying is the OMA tuber or the Fuel rock glitchers. Both need to be fixed.
Couldn't agree more.People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
The only thing that really is annoying is the OMA tuber or the Fuel rock glitchers. Both need to be fixed.
tbolt76
Precisely why I think the streak rewards need to be re-worked around team progress.It rewards team play over selfish play and immediately halts the problem of campers and boosters (except in deathmatch scenarios, but the complaint is centered around MW2 being nothing but deathmatch). The problem it could present if not properly implemented is a rushing strategy, but if both teams attempt it, it cancels out so I don't forsee that as a huge problem.
Killstreaks are the worst idea ever. Look at me, I'm owning these nubz so the game gives me more overpowered stuff to further own them! :roll:93soccerI understand that they can be cheezy at times, but you have access to noob tubes as well so it balances out. This is what a lot of people don't understand for some reason, everything that a noob has access too you have access to as well. So it may be cheezy but its all even.
no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered.People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
tbolt76
I have no issue with the killstreak. You should be rewarded for multiple kills w/o dying, but the reward should be minimal, temporary or restricted in someform and not overpowering or chaotic. Take the uav and the turretfor example, one is temperory and doesn't not kill for you while the other does but is restricted in the sense that it's immoble and grounded, more rewards should tailor around these rules. MW2 over done it with the air support; the abundant of air supports at any givien time makes the game extremely choatic. Luckly, I mainly play Search and Destroy so it isn't too big of a deal to me, but there is stilll the matter of the heartbeat sensors and the noobtubes that arejust as annoying. style
no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered. Your counter revolves around a single player versus another single player. That is not supposed to be the case. S&D, Demolition, Sabotage and even TDM are team games. In any team competition, there are specialists and that concept actually works extremely well in MW2. In a team of 6, 2 people with stingers doesn't ruin the game and makes for balanced matches. In free for all, your point is absolutely valid, in a team setting, it is not. Regarding the community. My comment does not apply only to COD, it applies to every online game with a competitive multiplayer component. In general, the players put their personal goals ahead of the team. There are exceptions, but generally, you join a match with random players and it's every man for themselves (count how many times in MW2 you hear "shoot down that harrier, I almost got my chopper?"). Regarding the "player made rules" comment you made, my point at the very end of my post is backed by the fact that on Live, you can file a complaint against someone using an exploit in the game. That would indicate OMA tubers or people using various glitches in game are operating on contrary to the EULA, which is tantamount to breaking the rules.The fact the people have been suspended for using such unintended features also furthers my point.[QUOTE="tbolt76"]
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
porkysownu
[QUOTE="porkysownu"]no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered. Your counter revolves around a single player versus another single player. That is not supposed to be the case. S&D, Demolition, Sabotage and even TDM are team games. In any team competition, there are specialists and that concept actually works extremely well in MW2. In a team of 6, 2 people with stingers doesn't ruin the game and makes for balanced matches. In free for all, your point is absolutely valid, in a team setting, it is not. Regarding the community. My comment does not apply only to COD, it applies to every online game with a competitive multiplayer component. In general, the players put their personal goals ahead of the team. There are exceptions, but generally, you join a match with random players and it's every man for themselves (count how many times in MW2 you hear "shoot down that harrier, I almost got my chopper?"). Regarding the "player made rules" comment you made, my point at the very end of my post is backed by the fact that on Live, you can file a complaint against someone using an exploit in the game. That would indicate OMA tubers or people using various glitches in game are operating on contrary to the EULA, which is tantamount to breaking the rules.The fact the people have been suspended for using such unintended features also furthers my point.[QUOTE="tbolt76"]
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
tbolt76
see you make good points, such as "specializations" for certain players, and i agree, rolling in a party with 6, and having one dsginated stinger player, should work, but I think it's up to the developer to account for the "free for all mentality". Working as a team is important, but I believe as a developer or player it is foolish to think that FPS players will care about randoms on their team, and that instead of trying to get kills and good scores they would rather shoot down planes. The chopper itself may not be OP, but the way the class system is set up, 95% of people will never use a stinger, 95% of people dont care their team mate is owned by a chopper, when they have a 10 killstreak, and 95% of players dont care about winning and, only about their K/D. If the developer made it so that at least one person has to have a stinger, or that their team mates doing bad affects their score, or osmething of that nature it would be different. But when someone can camp in a building with scavenger ACR, and be completely content with getting a nice 30-10 game, while their team mates suffer, its the developers fault.
Your counter revolves around a single player versus another single player. That is not supposed to be the case. S&D, Demolition, Sabotage and even TDM are team games. In any team competition, there are specialists and that concept actually works extremely well in MW2. In a team of 6, 2 people with stingers doesn't ruin the game and makes for balanced matches. In free for all, your point is absolutely valid, in a team setting, it is not. Regarding the community. My comment does not apply only to COD, it applies to every online game with a competitive multiplayer component. In general, the players put their personal goals ahead of the team. There are exceptions, but generally, you join a match with random players and it's every man for themselves (count how many times in MW2 you hear "shoot down that harrier, I almost got my chopper?"). Regarding the "player made rules" comment you made, my point at the very end of my post is backed by the fact that on Live, you can file a complaint against someone using an exploit in the game. That would indicate OMA tubers or people using various glitches in game are operating on contrary to the EULA, which is tantamount to breaking the rules.The fact the people have been suspended for using such unintended features also furthers my point.[QUOTE="tbolt76"][QUOTE="porkysownu"] no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered.
porkysownu
see you make good points, such as "specializations" for certain players, and i agree, rolling in a party with 6, and having one dsginated stinger player, should work, but I think it's up to the developer to account for the "free for all mentality". Working as a team is important, but I believe as a developer or player it is foolish to think that FPS players will care about randoms on their team, and that instead of trying to get kills and good scores they would rather shoot down planes. The chopper itself may not be OP, but the way the class system is set up, 95% of people will never use a stinger, 95% of people dont care their team mate is owned by a chopper, when they have a 10 killstreak, and 95% of players dont care about winning and, only about their K/D. If the developer made it so that at least one person has to have a stinger, or that their team mates doing bad affects their score, or osmething of that nature it would be different. But when someone can camp in a building with scavenger ACR, and be completely content with getting a nice 30-10 game, while their team mates suffer, its the developers fault.
Well said good sir
[QUOTE="fastr"]killstreaks make a game like MW2 very hard to adapt to for noobs. I remember when I first played MW online, I got destroyed by people using killstreaks, I had no idea what was going on even. Now that I'm pretty damn good at MW2, I don't worry about them at all.. you bring in a helicopter? Ok.. you'll be lucky if it last 20 seconds before it's blown up.locopathoSome air support sends out chaff that blocks my missiles tho... I like Killstreaks I find them great fun but some are too overpowered.
I think they are flares; chaff is just strips of metal if I remember right.
Some air support sends out chaff that blocks my missiles tho... I like Killstreaks I find them great fun but some are too overpowered.[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="fastr"]killstreaks make a game like MW2 very hard to adapt to for noobs. I remember when I first played MW online, I got destroyed by people using killstreaks, I had no idea what was going on even. Now that I'm pretty damn good at MW2, I don't worry about them at all.. you bring in a helicopter? Ok.. you'll be lucky if it last 20 seconds before it's blown up.Leejjohno
I think they are flares; chaff is just strips of metal if I remember right.
Possibly both, I think they send out those clouds of metal strips as well as flares, could be wrong though. On topic: A lot of people saying air support is what's broken, but how come everyone ignoring that every single map has plenty of indoor places?This is one of the main reasons why I cant play COD it lacks skill. CS:S was the last great MPFPS.
right, battlefield 2, halo 2, and call of duty 4 are all trash right?This is one of the main reasons why I cant play COD it lacks skill. CS:S was the last great MPFPS.
Rza_rectah
What did you expect from such a casual friendly game? I dislike streaks too but I prefer more team based combat (or team based anything which is ironic considering what a sociapath I am :?).
[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"]right, battlefield 2, halo 2, and call of duty 4 are all trash right? I never said that they certainly arent great games though. Thats for sure I can speak on the others cuz I havent play battlefield 2 i only played the beta.This is one of the main reasons why I cant play COD it lacks skill. CS:S was the last great MPFPS.
porkysownu
IW just released a new playlist, Barebones objective it removes all killstreaks from the table.
no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered.[QUOTE="tbolt76"]
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
porkysownu
Correct.
The problem with the MS2 Kill Streak system, noob tube, and even perks was that it created an environment where high level play is not possible. Take World at War, there were multiple guns in the game to choose from, but if you chose anything other than the MP40 you were wrong. The problem became *worse* in MW2 because if you choose anything other than Cold Blooded and the noob tube, you are wrong. There's no debate here, you simply MUST use that combination of weapon and perk or you are less competitive than people who are using them.
The idea that it can be "answered" is irrelevant. The reason games like Starcraft are balanced isn't just because there's an "answer" to every strategy, they're balanced because strategies can be answered in multiple ways without having to sacrifice your own development to do so. In MW2, your whole team needs to get together and take out aircraft. Anyone on your team not using cold blooded is a liability.
Killstreaks added variety, and more fun to the mix. I see no problem or issue with them -- I've yet to face a nuke in MW2.Stevo_the_gamer
I played the game for about 2 months when it came out and while having to deal with Finals I put in enough play time to get at least a 5:1 KDR every game and drop 11 or 12 nukes. Could have dropped more but I stopped going for them, because let's face it, it's lame.
But if they re-designed killstreaks to work around team-based accomplishments, the whole concept would be better off, support team play, and with a few other gameplay tweaks it could be made into a competitive ****game.
no, this is wrong. There are two problems with this theory of "if it can be destroyed it's balanced". The first is something known as over centralization. This is a term that describes something that is so powerful everyone needs to carry a counter for it. Sure it can be stopped but if you dont have a counter, it will kill you. This ruins the game, as you should be able to use any second perk, or any secondary weapon and not get destroyed by a chopper/harrier. When it becomes necessary to use cold-blooded to survive, it ruins the game. When it comes to a player in a game who doesnt have control of his fate due to a chopper the game just isnt fun anymore. If the chopper gunner was so pwoerful that it shot nukes and killed eveyrone no problem 10000 times over, but there was a perk, that took up all 3 perk slots that gave you immunity to this, you wouldnt say its overpwoered? The second problem with your theory is the "abuse complex" of every FPS player EVER. It's within the games rules to use any, and I mean anything in the game. To say that "its the communities fault that there are so many noob-tubes" is just wrong. Should someone use a worse gun, to be fair? HELL NO. If there was a gun that did infinite damage, had no recoil, shot super fast, and had a 1000 round clip would you use it? no? to be fair? You would be forced to use it, because if you didnt you would be automatically dead every time you spawn. A community shouldnt have to imply player made rules to make a game fair. THAT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER. The abuse complex happens in any competitive game ever. Fighter games have cheap moves everyone uses, FPS, RTS, MMORPG, every PVP game there is abuse of anything overpowered.[QUOTE="porkysownu"]
[QUOTE="tbolt76"]
People always complain about campers.They should not be a huge problem.There are two options, kill him or avoid him. Killstreaks are not overpowered either, as they all can be shot down. Some take a little more effort than others. The problem in MW2 is everyone is in it for themselves. All they care about is getting challenges and their KDR. Constantly, when I play with friends, there is always two people with stingers, which will make quick work of any air support, yet, if I am just in a random loby on my own, nearly everyone uses either a shotgun, akimbo somthing or the RPG as their secondary. In short, it is not the game, but the players that cause this perceived imbalance.
subrosian
Correct.
The problem with the MS2 Kill Streak system, noob tube, and even perks was that it created an environment where high level play is not possible. Take World at War, there were multiple guns in the game to choose from, but if you chose anything other than the MP40 you were wrong. The problem became *worse* in MW2 because if you choose anything other than Cold Blooded and the noob tube, you are wrong. There's no debate here, you simply MUST use that combination of weapon and perk or you are less competitive than people who are using them.
The idea that it can be "answered" is irrelevant. The reason games like Starcraft are balanced isn't just because there's an "answer" to every strategy, they're balanced because strategies can be answered in multiple ways without having to sacrifice your own development to do so. In MW2, your whole team needs to get together and take out aircraft. Anyone on your team not using cold blooded is a liability.
That is way off. In a team setting, with fairly decent coordination, airsupport doesnt last at all (my friends and I routinely shoot pavelows and chopper gunners down before they get on the map, harriers before they settle and get off a shot). If you are playing in a coordinated team and have a strategy, it works well. The problem and I will continue to say it, is that these games (not just MW2) do not reward teamwork and breeds an "everyman for himself" culture. I would agree this is a developement issue, but the game played correctly is balanced and there are stategies and counters to those strategies. the problem, and I emphasize, is more on the side of the community and less a problem with the game.Regarding perks and weapons selection, you are way off there as well. The airsupport has blindspots. You can get toa spot to shoot it down before it sees you. There are weapons that you see more often than others, but there is nothing anywhere near the MP40 from WAW.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment