Call of Duty: WWII
Discussion
Having had my first proper session last night with the servers playing ball, i think it's a great game. I've enjoyed the maps and the guns. The divisions system is something different and, as it stands, i prefer it to perks. Most importantly there doesn't seem to be anything deal-breakingly wrong with the game. Modern Warfare was ruined by the attack helicopters, MW2 had the tactical insertion that was primarily used for boosting etc etc. It's a shame they haven't nerfed drop-shotting, but camping slightly less of an issue. People still do it of course.
Supply drops come along quickly. Sure, they're mostly full of junk that you'll never use. With BO3 you had the variant attachments as filler that no one cared about. With this it would seem to be pistol grips. But i view them more like lottery tickets. I don't expect to get anything of value but they're fun nonetheless.
The broad array of challenges keeps things a bit more interesting and makes you mix things up a bit. The only one i've found a bit of a problem so far is the one where you have to kill 10 people with incendiary shells. I thought it would be very easy, but the trouble is you have to kill them with the 'inferno' effect i.e. they have to burn to death. So if they're too close, you just kill them with the shot as usual. Too far away and they'll catch fire but not die. Getting it so that they specifically burn to death seems to be pretty much pot luck. I've probably killed 30 people with incendiary rounds and only got 3 inferno deaths, so 1 in 10. I don't know if there's some trick i'm missing, because as it stands i'd have to kill ~300 people to get the necessary 10 inferno kills. Whereas the equivalent challenge for sniper files I only had to snipe 12 people to complete the challenge.
I've only played one War map, which was the one where you storm a beach. It was good fun and obviously having it not effect your K/D is a good idea. In the one i played, people were playing the objective. One or two people sat back and sniped but that's a part of the objective. If no one sniped, the enemy could just sit in the windows and rain down bullets on those playing the objective from the safety of a head glitch.
What i don't get is some of the criticisms, in as much as i just don't know what people expect a new CoD to be like. For example, to complain about the campaign being on rails. I fully understand that people might not like that, but between Modern Warfare and WWII there have been 10 other CoDs, every one of which has an on-rails campaign. It's pretty naive coming to the new CoD and expecting anything else. Similarly the multiplayer; it will be fast paced, small map, spawn/kill//die action. I get people don't like that, but why are people angry that WWII is like that when the previous 11 CoDs have been like that. It's just how they play. I can tell you now, Black Ops 4 in 2018 will be the same again.
I've also never understood people's obsession with over/under-powered weapons across all FPS games. Firstly, a quick Google of 'WWII OP guns' will find plenty of people talking about it. The funny thing is, they're usually talking about different guns. I've seen talk of LMGs being OP, incendiary shells being OP, the Lee Enfield being OP, the BAR being OP etc etc. Normally proceeded by 'everybody is using the XXX'. Could it be, just perhaps, that there's an element of selection bias going on? Anyway, what's wrong with having an over powered gun? To use MWR as an example of both points, the M16 was typically considered to be the OP gun in that game. Sure enough, every time i was shot by someone using one i actively noticed it and thought bad things about the person using it, which can make you think more people are using it than actually are. But if it weren't for the M16 i'd have given up on the game before i did, because I used it myself when i was taking a hammering as a result of either lag or my own ineptitude. Even if you were lagging, the TTK was so quick that you could pick up some kills if your shots were on point. Without it as a fall back, i'd have rage quit a lot more than i did.
I think WWII will just get better as the year goes by and i'm looking forward to it
Supply drops come along quickly. Sure, they're mostly full of junk that you'll never use. With BO3 you had the variant attachments as filler that no one cared about. With this it would seem to be pistol grips. But i view them more like lottery tickets. I don't expect to get anything of value but they're fun nonetheless.
The broad array of challenges keeps things a bit more interesting and makes you mix things up a bit. The only one i've found a bit of a problem so far is the one where you have to kill 10 people with incendiary shells. I thought it would be very easy, but the trouble is you have to kill them with the 'inferno' effect i.e. they have to burn to death. So if they're too close, you just kill them with the shot as usual. Too far away and they'll catch fire but not die. Getting it so that they specifically burn to death seems to be pretty much pot luck. I've probably killed 30 people with incendiary rounds and only got 3 inferno deaths, so 1 in 10. I don't know if there's some trick i'm missing, because as it stands i'd have to kill ~300 people to get the necessary 10 inferno kills. Whereas the equivalent challenge for sniper files I only had to snipe 12 people to complete the challenge.
I've only played one War map, which was the one where you storm a beach. It was good fun and obviously having it not effect your K/D is a good idea. In the one i played, people were playing the objective. One or two people sat back and sniped but that's a part of the objective. If no one sniped, the enemy could just sit in the windows and rain down bullets on those playing the objective from the safety of a head glitch.
What i don't get is some of the criticisms, in as much as i just don't know what people expect a new CoD to be like. For example, to complain about the campaign being on rails. I fully understand that people might not like that, but between Modern Warfare and WWII there have been 10 other CoDs, every one of which has an on-rails campaign. It's pretty naive coming to the new CoD and expecting anything else. Similarly the multiplayer; it will be fast paced, small map, spawn/kill//die action. I get people don't like that, but why are people angry that WWII is like that when the previous 11 CoDs have been like that. It's just how they play. I can tell you now, Black Ops 4 in 2018 will be the same again.
I've also never understood people's obsession with over/under-powered weapons across all FPS games. Firstly, a quick Google of 'WWII OP guns' will find plenty of people talking about it. The funny thing is, they're usually talking about different guns. I've seen talk of LMGs being OP, incendiary shells being OP, the Lee Enfield being OP, the BAR being OP etc etc. Normally proceeded by 'everybody is using the XXX'. Could it be, just perhaps, that there's an element of selection bias going on? Anyway, what's wrong with having an over powered gun? To use MWR as an example of both points, the M16 was typically considered to be the OP gun in that game. Sure enough, every time i was shot by someone using one i actively noticed it and thought bad things about the person using it, which can make you think more people are using it than actually are. But if it weren't for the M16 i'd have given up on the game before i did, because I used it myself when i was taking a hammering as a result of either lag or my own ineptitude. Even if you were lagging, the TTK was so quick that you could pick up some kills if your shots were on point. Without it as a fall back, i'd have rage quit a lot more than i did.
I think WWII will just get better as the year goes by and i'm looking forward to it
Current thoughts...
- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of you
s. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage.
- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of you
s. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage. Ruskie said:
Current thoughts...
- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of yous. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage.
Played Kill Confirmed the other day and have to admit to going into '12 y/o Yank screaming at TV' mode when in a couple of games people went 20+ kills less than 5 confirmed. Think my stats were equal +/- 1- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of you
s. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage. sidaorb said:
Ruskie said:
Current thoughts...
- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of yous. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage.
Played Kill Confirmed the other day and have to admit to going into '12 y/o Yank screaming at TV' mode when in a couple of games people went 20+ kills less than 5 confirmed. Think my stats were equal +/- 1- Every other game ‘disconnected from server’.
- My thumb hurts from sprinting!
-Also any of those players here who play objective based games but don’t go for the objectives? I’m sick of losing cos of you
s. Running over bases in domination and never collecting them chasing some kill whoring or camouflage. I will play any game type and I’m a team player. I don’t have a mic though!
The servers did get a bit patchy last night. I spent the evening completing the 'get a win in every standard game mode' special challenge. There are 9 modes and I figured it would be easy, with the exception of Free for All. For the first seven modes it was, being in on winning team in either the first or second game. That just left Capture the Flag and Free for All. The real frustration came with CTF. I must have been on the losing team at least 10 games in a row. But, relating to the comments above about people not playing the objective, I saw scoreboards like this in at least 3 games:
I joined that game in the second half and all my teammates were there when i joined. What bothers me is how much i out-deathed them, because i actually tried to capture the flag. The only way to have posted the numbers they did was to have spent the entire game camping at the back of the map getting picked off by the two top players on the other team (one of whom was already Prestige 2). In CTF. WT actual F?
Getting an outright win in free for all was always going to be tricky. Placing in the top three was relatively easy, but a lot of lobbies have someone with God-like skills. Managed to win a free for all in my first full game using the Type 100 SMG, which does seem to be very good. The rare supply drop i got for completing the special challenge had an epic variant of the bazooka in it. I don't know if the special challenge guarantees an epic weapon, but if it does then it's worth trying for. Talking of epic variants, evidently some them them can only be be used in Zombies, which means that you can't clear the green star telling you that you have something new unless you go into the zombies menu, which is daft. You should be able to see it and clear the green star with just a note on screen saying 'zombies only'.
I joined that game in the second half and all my teammates were there when i joined. What bothers me is how much i out-deathed them, because i actually tried to capture the flag. The only way to have posted the numbers they did was to have spent the entire game camping at the back of the map getting picked off by the two top players on the other team (one of whom was already Prestige 2). In CTF. WT actual F?
Getting an outright win in free for all was always going to be tricky. Placing in the top three was relatively easy, but a lot of lobbies have someone with God-like skills. Managed to win a free for all in my first full game using the Type 100 SMG, which does seem to be very good. The rare supply drop i got for completing the special challenge had an epic variant of the bazooka in it. I don't know if the special challenge guarantees an epic weapon, but if it does then it's worth trying for. Talking of epic variants, evidently some them them can only be be used in Zombies, which means that you can't clear the green star telling you that you have something new unless you go into the zombies menu, which is daft. You should be able to see it and clear the green star with just a note on screen saying 'zombies only'.
I was looking forward to this, and as I'm off work with an ankle injury at the moment I thought that the new COD would get me through the boredom.
Nope, can't get on with it at all. Uninspiring campaign, multiplayer is full of issues and very unbalanced weaponry. Zombies was fun, but playing with people who didn't want to lay as a team was off-putting.
Sent it back. Waiting for Battlefront 2 now.
Nope, can't get on with it at all. Uninspiring campaign, multiplayer is full of issues and very unbalanced weaponry. Zombies was fun, but playing with people who didn't want to lay as a team was off-putting.
Sent it back. Waiting for Battlefront 2 now.
TVR_Steve said:
I was looking forward to this, and as I'm off work with an ankle injury at the moment I thought that the new COD would get me through the boredom.
Nope, can't get on with it at all. Uninspiring campaign, multiplayer is full of issues and very unbalanced weaponry. Zombies was fun, but playing with people who didn't want to lay as a team was off-putting.
Sent it back. Waiting for Battlefront 2 now.
Try Fortnite if want to just jump in and out of games - found even playing with strangers is good fun and most people share weapons and items. Had to practice my french after squadding up with randoms on EU servers. Nope, can't get on with it at all. Uninspiring campaign, multiplayer is full of issues and very unbalanced weaponry. Zombies was fun, but playing with people who didn't want to lay as a team was off-putting.
Sent it back. Waiting for Battlefront 2 now.
Or stick to Battlefield 1/4, or you could even try PUBG, Arma3 and Squad if you are on PC and want to work together as a team.
This indy game looks good, so hopefully not a massive wait til its release - Hell Let loose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXfTbfL-Fw
Edited by effkay on Friday 10th November 13:22
I've had a quick play on this tonight and haven't been impressed so far. Yes, it looks great in 4K, but the lag compensation is as bad as ever. Everyone showing on green bars, no apparent ping issues, only to find that I get killed by a mantling enemy coming through a window before his feet touch the floor, then the kill cam shows him come through the window, sprint to wards me, ready his gun and kill me while I don't appear to fire a shot back. It's still COD and being on the wrong end of the host advantage still sucks. It's terrible that a game this size still doesn't have dedicated servers.
I see they have a MLG and tournament function in the game, I can't see how that works when the lag compensation is so bad.
The lack of recoil on the guns is comical. At least Battlefield 1, for it's issues, tried to make the guns feel a bit "of the period". I suppose it was wishful thinking on my part to wonder if the return to WWII might have added some precision back into the gunplay but alas it was not to bed. I remember COD2, the emphasis on accurate, measured shooting with the slow bolt action guns, you could dominate on any map if you used them right. I suppose the only kind of gameplay that the COD fanbase want is twitch spaz shooting.
I played Zombies, we got to the lightning gun thing but feel soon afterwards, on wave 21 I think. Somehow the game ended up running for 65 minutes and it was truly dull by the end. The mode was fun at first when you could shred zombies and carry out objectives, but by the end the zombies just had way too much and it wasn't much fun unloading multiple magazines into a single zombie just to drop them.
I hope the campaign is decent, I'll do the usual play through, grab the collectibles and achievements then do a veteran run, but if that doesn't turn out to be much fun then this has been another damp squib. I promised a few games back that I'd never buy another COD game, I'm starting to think I should have stuck to that.
I see they have a MLG and tournament function in the game, I can't see how that works when the lag compensation is so bad.
The lack of recoil on the guns is comical. At least Battlefield 1, for it's issues, tried to make the guns feel a bit "of the period". I suppose it was wishful thinking on my part to wonder if the return to WWII might have added some precision back into the gunplay but alas it was not to bed. I remember COD2, the emphasis on accurate, measured shooting with the slow bolt action guns, you could dominate on any map if you used them right. I suppose the only kind of gameplay that the COD fanbase want is twitch spaz shooting.
I played Zombies, we got to the lightning gun thing but feel soon afterwards, on wave 21 I think. Somehow the game ended up running for 65 minutes and it was truly dull by the end. The mode was fun at first when you could shred zombies and carry out objectives, but by the end the zombies just had way too much and it wasn't much fun unloading multiple magazines into a single zombie just to drop them.
I hope the campaign is decent, I'll do the usual play through, grab the collectibles and achievements then do a veteran run, but if that doesn't turn out to be much fun then this has been another damp squib. I promised a few games back that I'd never buy another COD game, I'm starting to think I should have stuck to that.
effkay said:
Try Fortnite if want to just jump in and out of games - found even playing with strangers is good fun and most people share weapons and items. Had to practice my french after squadding up with randoms on EU servers.
Or stick to Battlefield 1/4, or you could even try PUBG, Arma3 and Squad if you are on PC and want to work together as a team.
This indy game looks good, so hopefully not a massive wait til its release - Hell Let loose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXfTbfL-Fw
Thank you, I've played most of those. Hell let Loose does look good!Or stick to Battlefield 1/4, or you could even try PUBG, Arma3 and Squad if you are on PC and want to work together as a team.
This indy game looks good, so hopefully not a massive wait til its release - Hell Let loose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXfTbfL-Fw
Edited by effkay on Friday 10th November 13:22
I played a bit of the multiplayer last night, it's a bit of a mixed bag and the overall quality isn't great.
The main issue is still lag compensation and it seems potluck as to whether or not you'll be cheated by it. I have always theorised that the theater mode never made a return to COD after it was uses to produce embarrassing YouTube videos showing the awful discrepency between what you see and what actually happened at the server. Killcams still exist though, if you can be arsed to watch them and the story they tell is often nothing like what happened on your screen. Irritatingly, the experience doesn't matter if you have a great internet connection, as some games play well and others play like st. It's the difference in some games where you feel ahead of the curve and come out on top in every shootout, then in the next you feel hopelessly behind getting stomped all the time. This lag compensation has always been part of the game but the detriment it has had on the player experience has been worse with every iteration.
The gun selection is good but the handling of some of them is dire. The Garand feels absolutely useless, just hopelessly inaccurate for a long rifle. I guess part of the balancing in making it a two shot kill was seeing that it couldn't reliably group at over 20ft. It feels absolutely wk. The mix is badly skewed towards small, automatic guns. WaW got this completely right, as semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles handled brilliantly and were a reliable alternative to the automatics.
The maps don't seem that great this time. They look great, for the most part but the USS Texas comes up with depressing regularity and the Gustav Cannon map is hopelessly st.
I will grind a prestige out and get the achievements and then this will be slung in for trade. For all it's faults, Battlefield 1 delievered a much better multiplayer experience, especially in like for like situations of small maps and man to man fighting.
The main issue is still lag compensation and it seems potluck as to whether or not you'll be cheated by it. I have always theorised that the theater mode never made a return to COD after it was uses to produce embarrassing YouTube videos showing the awful discrepency between what you see and what actually happened at the server. Killcams still exist though, if you can be arsed to watch them and the story they tell is often nothing like what happened on your screen. Irritatingly, the experience doesn't matter if you have a great internet connection, as some games play well and others play like s
t. It's the difference in some games where you feel ahead of the curve and come out on top in every shootout, then in the next you feel hopelessly behind getting stomped all the time. This lag compensation has always been part of the game but the detriment it has had on the player experience has been worse with every iteration. The gun selection is good but the handling of some of them is dire. The Garand feels absolutely useless, just hopelessly inaccurate for a long rifle. I guess part of the balancing in making it a two shot kill was seeing that it couldn't reliably group at over 20ft. It feels absolutely w
k. The mix is badly skewed towards small, automatic guns. WaW got this completely right, as semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles handled brilliantly and were a reliable alternative to the automatics. The maps don't seem that great this time. They look great, for the most part but the USS Texas comes up with depressing regularity and the Gustav Cannon map is hopelessly s
t. I will grind a prestige out and get the achievements and then this will be slung in for trade. For all it's faults, Battlefield 1 delievered a much better multiplayer experience, especially in like for like situations of small maps and man to man fighting.
Loyly said:
I played a bit of the multiplayer last night, it's a bit of a mixed bag and the overall quality isn't great.
The main issue is still lag compensation and it seems potluck as to whether or not you'll be cheated by it. I have always theorised that the theater mode never made a return to COD after it was uses to produce embarrassing YouTube videos showing the awful discrepency between what you see and what actually happened at the server. Killcams still exist though, if you can be arsed to watch them and the story they tell is often nothing like what happened on your screen. Irritatingly, the experience doesn't matter if you have a great internet connection, as some games play well and others play like st. It's the difference in some games where you feel ahead of the curve and come out on top in every shootout, then in the next you feel hopelessly behind getting stomped all the time. This lag compensation has always been part of the game but the detriment it has had on the player experience has been worse with every iteration.
The gun selection is good but the handling of some of them is dire. The Garand feels absolutely useless, just hopelessly inaccurate for a long rifle. I guess part of the balancing in making it a two shot kill was seeing that it couldn't reliably group at over 20ft. It feels absolutely wk. The mix is badly skewed towards small, automatic guns. WaW got this completely right, as semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles handled brilliantly and were a reliable alternative to the automatics.
The maps don't seem that great this time. They look great, for the most part but the USS Texas comes up with depressing regularity and the Gustav Cannon map is hopelessly st.
I will grind a prestige out and get the achievements and then this will be slung in for trade. For all it's faults, Battlefield 1 delievered a much better multiplayer experience, especially in like for like situations of small maps and man to man fighting.
Summed up perfectly. My first choice gun would be the Garand or Kar but it’s unplayable with them unless you want massive amounts of deaths. Because the maps are so small you can even creep around and be subtle with it. Now people are used to the spawn points then spawn traps are a real issue.The main issue is still lag compensation and it seems potluck as to whether or not you'll be cheated by it. I have always theorised that the theater mode never made a return to COD after it was uses to produce embarrassing YouTube videos showing the awful discrepency between what you see and what actually happened at the server. Killcams still exist though, if you can be arsed to watch them and the story they tell is often nothing like what happened on your screen. Irritatingly, the experience doesn't matter if you have a great internet connection, as some games play well and others play like s
t. It's the difference in some games where you feel ahead of the curve and come out on top in every shootout, then in the next you feel hopelessly behind getting stomped all the time. This lag compensation has always been part of the game but the detriment it has had on the player experience has been worse with every iteration. The gun selection is good but the handling of some of them is dire. The Garand feels absolutely useless, just hopelessly inaccurate for a long rifle. I guess part of the balancing in making it a two shot kill was seeing that it couldn't reliably group at over 20ft. It feels absolutely w
k. The mix is badly skewed towards small, automatic guns. WaW got this completely right, as semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles handled brilliantly and were a reliable alternative to the automatics. The maps don't seem that great this time. They look great, for the most part but the USS Texas comes up with depressing regularity and the Gustav Cannon map is hopelessly s
t. I will grind a prestige out and get the achievements and then this will be slung in for trade. For all it's faults, Battlefield 1 delievered a much better multiplayer experience, especially in like for like situations of small maps and man to man fighting.
Maybe you should watch this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myRBR-TJRtc&fe...
They have or are testing dedicated servers in the US and UK. Hopefully that should resolve some of the lag and poor hit detection. I swear I put a full mag into some guy and still got melted by them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myRBR-TJRtc&fe...
They have or are testing dedicated servers in the US and UK. Hopefully that should resolve some of the lag and poor hit detection. I swear I put a full mag into some guy and still got melted by them.
Edited by Never you mind on Wednesday 15th November 13:22
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff