Reply
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 09/18/2012
Offline
894 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

And also, I've gone 26-3 against good players without touchinng a power weapon, so don't tell me that's the only way to play the game. And I'm good at other games too. I can't believe you took my few sentences and started judging my entire playstyle in this game and all other games. If you're over 20, you're stupid for your age.

____________________________________________________________

"Dann singe ich ein lied fur dich"
Message 261 of 394 (406 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/28/2011
Online
3795 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

Harold-Da-Man wrote:

And also, I've gone 26-3 against good players without touchinng a power weapon, so don't tell me that's the only way to play the game. And I'm good at other games too. I can't believe you took my few sentences and started judging my entire playstyle in this game and all other games. If you're over 20, you're stupid for your age.


Power weapons have always been a part of Uncharted. Now you come here and want them removed because you don't like them.

Well guess what some people like power weapons.

I want to be the reason you're looking down at your phone laughing as you walk into a pole.
Message 262 of 394 (395 Views)
Survivor
Registered: 08/04/2011
Offline
2689 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013
crushing was great fun though, would have been better without kickbacks either
Message 263 of 394 (375 Views)
Highlighted
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 08/01/2010
Offline
69 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

[ Edited ]
Jan 31, 2013

 

Along with grenade throwback and "jamming" mechanics, the recoil system in UC3 is one of my biggest issues in UC3. Also, in UC2, bursting was effective because there was a hidden mechanic when you aim. Basically, when you start firing an automatic rifle. It goes into two phases. The first occurs when you shot the first 6 (7 for m4) bullets, and during this phase the bullet spread is considerably smaller and when you stop firing the rectile resets to its original position. The second phase occurs after that, in which the bullet spread will be increased and the rectile won't reset (if you don't believe or confused, test it), and again, this mechanic was removed from UC3. I will post several screen shots that shows the difference between bursting in UC2 and UC3 (I did this comparison with a 3-bullets burst standing near the villains house ladder).

 

 

 

1) UC2 AK w/DTI

UC2 AK w.DTI.JPG

 

 

2) UC2 AK

UC2 AK.JPG

 

 

3) UC3 AK w/ Acc. Mod

UC3 AK w.ACC.PNG

 

 

4) UC3 AK

UC3 AK.PNG

 

 

5) UC2 M4 w/ DTI

UC2 M4 w.DTI.JPG

 

 

6) UC2 M4

UC2 M4.JPG

 

 

7) UC3 M9

UC3 M9.PNG

 

 

 

As you can see, the difference is more than noticeable. The spread is huge considering the distance from where I shot from (especially for the AK). I can't take anyone seriously that says UC3 aiming is fine, I have played ARMA II, which is a military stimulator more than a game, and its AK recoil was a muzzle climb and a very slight horizontal deviation. A PC game with a simple recoil. IMO, A simple recoil with hitboxes is a much better alternative for both beginners and veterans than this recoil we have. I'll love to see how the F2P newbs will react to UC3 recoil.

 


Arne wrote:

 "Fact is, the AK in Uncharted 3 isn't great at long range intentionally. The GMAL or the M9 are much better choices for long range combat. Don't forget that the AK also works much better and with better accuracy if you burst fire it rather than just holding the trigger down."

  



If only that was true.. only in the campaign.

 


--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I replayed the campaign few days ago and I was pleasantly surprised. The burst mechanic that I mentioned exist to a certain extent in UC3 campaign (but the first phase lasts for 10 bullets for both the M9 and the AK). I guess there's hope. Smiley Happy

Also, the concerns about the fact that buffing the weapons' accuracy will indirectly lower the health can easily be addressed in two ways:

1) Re-implementing hitboxes


2) Implementing damage reduction over distance, similar to COD :

http://symthic.com/cod-bo2-weapon-charts#1111111110nccccn0    (The chart explains the damage)

 

although I think it's unnecessary as we already have high health.

 


Now, I'll share my opinion about the G-Mal accuracy nerf starting with this quote, and I know it'll be controversial.

 


Blennerville wrote:

sorry to say but the game is actually better now now than it was during the KAL, FAL, and Gmal, not to say it is any way good now - its just that you are only now realizing how bad the game is overall.

The Gmal days were so boring - you might as well not be playing uncharted at all - it was just a boring 3rd person shooter where everyone was just trading gmal bursts - I mean there was nothing uncharted about it - might as well be playing gears of war


 

The guns themselves are mostly balanced right now. The game mechanics are the things that need to be tweaked. The nerf is only showing how bad the UC3 recoil and accuracy right now. Pre-patch, the G-Mal was the only gun in UC3 that had UC2/UC3 campaign accuracy, just like when the pre-patch Fal-ss had the UC2 damage, while with the the other guns you have to deal with the recoil. I think people should realize that the recoil system need to be toned down at least for the rifles, not only the G-Mal. Instead of claiming that the M9 is a "long range" gun and requesting to nerf it. We need buffs TBH.

 

Edit: merged my two posts with a few changes to refer it in the next Q&A thread.

 

Message 264 of 394 (366 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 01/02/2012
Offline
608 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

Uncharted 2 is OVER. Get the hell over it.

Message 265 of 394 (349 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/28/2011
Online
3795 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2013

Harold-Da-Man wrote:

And also, I've gone 26-3 against good players without touchinng a power weapon, so don't tell me that's the only way to play the game. And I'm good at other games too. I can't believe you took my few sentences and started judging my entire playstyle in this game and all other games. If you're over 20, you're stupid for your age.


First off I'm 34 and the Degrees I have from Penn state may say otherwise about your assumptions of my intelligence.

 

That statement that you said about power weapons **** me off because that is one of the reasons we are in the current situation with this game. Nerf every thing into oblivion to the point that the game is based on high fives instead of kills.

 

I'm talking about balance.

The power weapons are balanced other than the placement distance upon teams first spawn.

In my opinion the power weapons should be more powerful.

The sawed off should not have taken the nerf it did. They should have kept it as it was and replaced the sawed off with the sas as a kickback. That would have stopped the spamming of it right in its tracks.

 

The hammer is too weak, rpg has unpredictable hit detection, and the pistole is junk compared to its former self, and the SAS is so unpredictable that its a joke.

 

I like power weapons, I like the dash towards them, I like having to watch the clock to keep an eye on their spawn times and

I like the fact that they keep teams moving. With out them its a team vs team camp match.

 

Battle field doesn't have power weapons I'm sure some one will say, but guess what------ they have no clock.

You cant kill one person then camp and wait for time to run out.--------- Thats balance.

 

 

I have been playing games since Colleco vision. I have seen many games come and go but the path that U3 took is

bothersome to me. Look at how ND views you,  they give you a welfare system of power plays, nerf anything that seems to bother anyone, originally let you quit if things didn't go your way unpunished, are letting you buy your way to unlocks, create a tournament system that makes them money instead of fixing a leader board that's suppose to show true ranking.

Avoids technical fixes only to give us **** no one asked for and now I'm sorry some of you aren't going to like this, but

now giving us untextured maps for the lab? I use to play games that let you make your own maps, and they were textured.

 

The aiming and recoil of this game makes me think its a kids game.

10 year old kids don't care about aim, they don't care about balance, they love any new gimmick that they are fed, and will worship the ground of this forum any time a dev posts some thing just to make face.

They are video game programmers, its their job. It seems more to me that they forgot that.

 

I'm a customer I haven't forgot that!

I have paid for this game I want to be equally your way and my way and everything in between.

 

 

 

I want to be the reason you're looking down at your phone laughing as you walk into a pole.
Message 266 of 394 (345 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/10/2011
Offline
7009 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

tapantaola wrote:

xSKIN_N_BONESx wrote:

Jumping back in a bit late here, but as to what Tap said:

 

Nerfing blindfire will reduce the player pool so buff aiming instead?

 

For one thing if you buff aiming so that blindfire is just as weak in comparison to if blindfire were strongly nerfed, then the people who would be **bleep** about blindfire being nerfed will still leave because for them it's the same result.

 

The other big issue I see with this is that the accuracy on the guns combined with their base times to kill are what make up what we are used to as the time it takes for us to die under normal circumstances. Lowering accuracy and "buffing" aiming will shorten this time and also lessen the gap between the people who have good aim and people who can't control their aim as well leading to more simultaneous deaths and also harder evasion when people get the drop on you.

 

Nerfing blindfire on the other hand just makes it harder to kill with blindfire and not make you die any faster for other circumstances. This is why I'm not a fan of indirect nerfs. Don't try to nerf blindfire by buffing aiming because then you get your desired result but other unintended consequences as well.


No, it's not the same thing.

I bet if you were in charge of UC3 MP development, you would remove blindfire completely... that means that blindfirers would not be able to get a single kill. Right?

Revamping aiming/SP would mean that blindfirers would still have a chance to kill you, as long as they adopted a sneaky playstyle (as it should be). Sneaky playstyle = someone who doesn't run like a headless chicken in the open, but instead uses cover to his advantage and will try to kill you from behind*.

 

I want to be killed by aimers and sneaky blindfirers. Currently, I rarely get killed by aimers (because aiming is punished) and I'm getting killed all the time by headless chickens running around with their KALs... not cool.


What I don't like about blindfiring is when an opponent is in front of me, I aim my freaking weapon and SP doesn't stop him right in his tracks. We usually die simultaneously, which shouldn't happen. Do you disagree with that?

If someone kills me in a sneaky way, I will congratulate him, because at least he used his brain, therefore he deserved the kill IMHO. On the other hand, you consider all blindfire kills "undeserved", whether they are from the front or from behind. It's a matter of perspective. I'm willing to compromise and accomodate other playstyles. I don't want it "my way or the highway"; that would be selfish and too egocentric.


Understand the difference?

What I want is a balanced and diverse ecosystem. People who want to eliminate blindfire, SA variants etc. don't want diversity; they want their playstyle to be the only playstyle. Gameplay balance in my eyes is associated with countermeasures (i.e. Cloaked, SP etc). As long as I can counter something with something else, then I don't mind. I hope I'm clear enough.

 

* An example of a skilled KAL7 player:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5lJ9-dsBE


Assuming other players are biased doesn't make you more correct. Just because I hate blindfire in it's current form doesn't mean I'm against blindfire in the game at all.

 

You misunderstand what my intentions are, and also still fail to acknowledge the side effects of what you want.

 

I don't want to eliminate blindfire, I just want to prevent it from being cheap. You mention how I don't care if they kill me from the front or back, where as you congradulate them for being sneaky. That's not my issue. The problem I have is that the game is literally aiming for them to great accuracy and effectiveness, within a range that exceeds what it should be. I'd be fine with someone zigzag rushing at me and then killing me, if they had actually aimed their reticle at me the the majority of the time and earned what they got. You can technically still aim your blindfire, and if people did then they would be acceptable, but the game does not require them to aim blindfire and instead does the aiming for them. It just isn't balanced when they have higher mobility than someone aiming, yet don't have to sacrifice accuracy because of strong blindfire lock on.

 

Forget Fleet Foot, with blindfire you can move even faster and also have the game aim for you.

 


If blindfire had much weaker or no lock on, I'd be much happier with it. I don't blindfire not because I hate the idea of not aiming, but because I refuse to abuse something so clearly broken. That's the same reason I'm not going around abusing M9 w/ RoF.

 

As for the other thing I was saying, you still fail to realize the consequences of making aiming even more effective. In addition to that meaning that you won't touch blindfire and will still let it lock on from it's current range and let people jump around blindfiring you while you try to aim, aiming shootouts will end much quicker. If guns have higher accuracy and stronger stopping power (what you want correct?) then aimed gunfights would heavily be effected. You have to acknowledge that because it's a plain fact.

 


I'd love for blindfire to be that last resort, sneaking up on someone, firing as you round a corner before aiming kind of thing, but with the lock on being so strong and having such good range it will always be much more and inescapable. The strong lock on, stopping for blindfire, and lock on range and all are the problems. I love the idea of blindfire, I hate it's current execution.

Message 267 of 394 (333 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 09/02/2009
Offline
1100 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2013

@tap

Wow, you take this conversation way to seriously.

I said most americans, I suggested that its not always the bad foreign gamer.

 

Im telling you things that I can back up, is that your problem.

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/UNCHARTED-3-Drake-s-Deception/LAG-We-need-your-help/td-p/3886...

 

@lenown said

But one problem I've noticed is alot of DSL connections. And wireless.

 

@scorpion said

I had my best friend over who is a dev for Epic (Gears/Unreal) & he was laughing & exclaiming how terrible it was as well. I had my 50MB connection & a totally seperate 8MB connection same ISP, same room, with 2 PS3s & TVs. We played some 1v1 custom & he noticed right away how long it took to hear his own gun on my screen. Holding the controller in the air he demonstrated pressing the trigger & it takes almost 3/4 of a second to register that a shot was fired. & we're talking best conditions possible on UC3 - a 2 player game with the host & the peer in the same room, on the same ISP's network with totally sufficient connections, low pings, DMZ, etc etc etc.

 

I hope for a couple things out of our UC3 experience. I hope that Naughty Dog has learned to RUN DEDICATED SERVERS IN THE FUTURE. They are still necessary right now, developers..... People's internet is NOT all on level ground across the world & P2P connections simply DO NOT WORK PROPERLY YET.

 

 

Again, ping-based is not a solution in a such low player base game as Uncharted. Smiley Tongue

 

@bsmiley

Your pictures give me the pure horror.

The AK with Accuracy...just, äähh what!!!

 

 

EDIT

@ID

Ups! Passt schon.

A multiplayer is supposed to feel the same as the game before it. You made that mistake with Uc3 but it was manageable. Now with Uc4 this is just ridiculous.

DeFy Sushi
Message 268 of 394 (326 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Last Guardian
Registered: 02/17/2010
Online
9459 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

@Flawless83 don't worry it was meant for me. Smiley Happy Dankeschön. 

id 69 signature


  "How do you prove that you exist...? Maybe we don't exist..."

Message 269 of 394 (319 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/28/2011
Online
3795 posts
 

Re: Okay so don't know how to put this.

Jan 16, 2013

xSKIN_N_BONESx wrote:

tapantaola wrote:

xSKIN_N_BONESx wrote:

Jumping back in a bit late here, but as to what Tap said:

 

Nerfing blindfire will reduce the player pool so buff aiming instead?

 

For one thing if you buff aiming so that blindfire is just as weak in comparison to if blindfire were strongly nerfed, then the people who would be **bleep** about blindfire being nerfed will still leave because for them it's the same result.

 

The other big issue I see with this is that the accuracy on the guns combined with their base times to kill are what make up what we are used to as the time it takes for us to die under normal circumstances. Lowering accuracy and "buffing" aiming will shorten this time and also lessen the gap between the people who have good aim and people who can't control their aim as well leading to more simultaneous deaths and also harder evasion when people get the drop on you.

 

Nerfing blindfire on the other hand just makes it harder to kill with blindfire and not make you die any faster for other circumstances. This is why I'm not a fan of indirect nerfs. Don't try to nerf blindfire by buffing aiming because then you get your desired result but other unintended consequences as well.


No, it's not the same thing.

I bet if you were in charge of UC3 MP development, you would remove blindfire completely... that means that blindfirers would not be able to get a single kill. Right?

Revamping aiming/SP would mean that blindfirers would still have a chance to kill you, as long as they adopted a sneaky playstyle (as it should be). Sneaky playstyle = someone who doesn't run like a headless chicken in the open, but instead uses cover to his advantage and will try to kill you from behind*.

 

I want to be killed by aimers and sneaky blindfirers. Currently, I rarely get killed by aimers (because aiming is punished) and I'm getting killed all the time by headless chickens running around with their KALs... not cool.


What I don't like about blindfiring is when an opponent is in front of me, I aim my freaking weapon and SP doesn't stop him right in his tracks. We usually die simultaneously, which shouldn't happen. Do you disagree with that?

If someone kills me in a sneaky way, I will congratulate him, because at least he used his brain, therefore he deserved the kill IMHO. On the other hand, you consider all blindfire kills "undeserved", whether they are from the front or from behind. It's a matter of perspective. I'm willing to compromise and accomodate other playstyles. I don't want it "my way or the highway"; that would be selfish and too egocentric.


Understand the difference?

What I want is a balanced and diverse ecosystem. People who want to eliminate blindfire, SA variants etc. don't want diversity; they want their playstyle to be the only playstyle. Gameplay balance in my eyes is associated with countermeasures (i.e. Cloaked, SP etc). As long as I can counter something with something else, then I don't mind. I hope I'm clear enough.

 

* An example of a skilled KAL7 player:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5lJ9-dsBE


Assuming other players are biased doesn't make you more correct. Just because I hate blindfire in it's current form doesn't mean I'm against blindfire in the game at all.

 

You misunderstand what my intentions are, and also still fail to acknowledge the side effects of what you want.

 

I don't want to eliminate blindfire, I just want to prevent it from being cheap. You mention how I don't care if they kill me from the front or back, where as you congradulate them for being sneaky. That's not my issue. The problem I have is that the game is literally aiming for them to great accuracy and effectiveness, within a range that exceeds what it should be. I'd be fine with someone zigzag rushing at me and then killing me, if they had actually aimed their reticle at me the the majority of the time and earned what they got. You can technically still aim your blindfire, and if people did then they would be acceptable, but the game does not require them to aim blindfire and instead does the aiming for them. It just isn't balanced when they have higher mobility than someone aiming, yet don't have to sacrifice accuracy because of strong blindfire lock on.

 

Forget Fleet Foot, with blindfire you can move even faster and also have the game aim for you.

 


If blindfire had much weaker or no lock on, I'd be much happier with it. I don't blindfire not because I hate the idea of not aiming, but because I refuse to abuse something so clearly broken. That's the same reason I'm not going around abusing M9 w/ RoF.

 

As for the other thing I was saying, you still fail to realize the consequences of making aiming even more effective. In addition to that meaning that you won't touch blindfire and will still let it lock on from it's current range and let people jump around blindfiring you while you try to aim, aiming shootouts will end much quicker. If guns have higher accuracy and stronger stopping power (what you want correct?) then aimed gunfights would heavily be effected. You have to acknowledge that because it's a plain fact.

 


I'd love for blindfire to be that last resort, sneaking up on someone, firing as you round a corner before aiming kind of thing, but with the lock on being so strong and having such good range it will always be much more and inescapable. The strong lock on, stopping for blindfire, and lock on range and all are the problems. I love the idea of blindfire, I hate it's current execution.


 

Key word here being GUN FIGHTS.

We arent having them. You wanna see a gun fight, play a dragon or t-bolt custom.

You want to see players using cover more, play a dragon, t-bolt, gmal custom match.

You are force to aim then.

 

Some say well if aiming is buffed or easier then cover will be less affective.

No, it wil be essential.

The general consensus was everyone wanted higher health over U2, what we didn't asked for was ND to 

revamp the whole aiming mechanic. We didn't ask can you make blind fire more of a main mechanic in the game.

We wanted health. Well they gave us that. Then the obliterated the aiming mechanics, gave you kickbacks to kill easier, and if your winning take half your health away for a period of time.

 

What happened to balancing that out.

Look I agreed that the gmal had a bit to much as a load out weapon, but I still believe all it needed was a slight aim assist reduction. You could see this easily in a custom turning friendly fire on and having a battle.

 

The reason the gmal was such a hit was it was the easiest gun in the game to aim with, now the M9 is a hit because it's easiest not to.

I want to be the reason you're looking down at your phone laughing as you walk into a pole.
Message 270 of 394 (309 Views)