Thoughts on United Offensive -1 reply

Please wait...

Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

There are a few things about CoD that really bug me, but I must say that I think United Offense is the best expansion pack I have ever seen for a game. The maps are good and have variety, the new modes of play ad variety, and the new weapons are cool.

There is one drawback to the additional weapons - it has resulted in somewhat of a reduction in the amount of teamwork in the game. People are running off on their private little wars more and sticking together less. This is not good, but on the other hand, UO seems not to suffer too much from it.

United Offense is a magnificent acheivement. Since installing it, I've been having so much fun playing it that I have not played regular CoD.

Everything about this expansion pack is superb. At least, that is my immediate impression.




jrpells

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

24th December 2003

0 Uploads

124 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

I enjoy the SP in UO, but the original COD MP is much better. The maps are a lot bigger and enemy snipers can sit a mile away and pick you off like a fly. And you'll never see them. I played a multiplayer game that had a thirty minute time limit and during the entire battle I saw two enemy infantry, and it seemed like a hundred tanks and jeeps and there were 16 players on each side. The new weapons are cool as is the addition of smoke nades and satchel charges but the MP didn't cut it for me. Give it a few days and you may feel the same.




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

SgtSaundersThe maps are a lot bigger and enemy snipers can sit a mile away and pick you off like a fly.[/QUOTE]

Bigger in CoD than in United Offensive? Um, hardly. Most of the maps in UO are bigger, and a couple are way bigger than the regular UO maps. How can you even say such if you have played it?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SgtSaunders]I played a multiplayer game that had a thirty minute time limit and during the entire battle I saw two enemy infantry, and it seemed like a hundred tanks and jeeps and there were 16 players on each side.

Naturally there are fewer guys running around and more are in vehicles. Ofcourse. But I have little trouble spotting the enemy. It varies from one map to another as to how many men on foot there will be. However, it is definately a game for larger numbers on teams. I see your point about the fewer men on foot though. It would be best with 64 players. *GULP*




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I have a few thoughts for the makers of Call of Duty that i hope they will take into account when developing thier next game.

The difference in height between standing and crouched is not great enough in CoD UO. Sometimes it's almost difficult to tell if you are standing or crouched. Even though you most likely know whether you have crouched or not, the difference seems like only 3 or 4 inches, when it should seem like 2-3 feet.

The speed at which a player moves is a little slow. I'm not suggesting that it should be like Quake II, but it is just a bit unrealistically slow. It seems like a brisk walking speed. Even carrying a weapon, any man could jog faster than you can in the game by a considerable margin.

There are areas of the maps that you cannot travel into that are obviously places that a real person could go. If you don't want someone to be able to climb a hill, for example, make it obviously so steep that a man could not go up it while still on his feet. A barbed wire fence or other obstacle would work too. Those un-goable-but-look-goable cyber spaces in games are annoying.

The damage caused by tank rounds is severely off. For example, you can shoot the ground with a tank 4 feet from a man on foot, and he is unscathed. Trust me. If an 80+mm cannon round went off even 15 feet from a man, it would kill him from the shock wave alone unless he was uncannily lucky. At 10 feet, the shock wave would tear the body apart. At 15 or 20 ft., at the very least, he would not be able to stand up for a while, and might be deaf or almost deaf for life in one or both ears. A medium tank round is equal to quite a few hand grenades in explosive power. Surely you have to limit realism, but the unrealism of the tank rounds in the game is far beyond weak. Furthermore, when a round goes off in a room in a building, it seems even weaker. In reality, the shockwave would be magnified slightly by the enclosure, and the damage should be even greater than it would be on open ground.

The same goes for the bazookas and panzershrecks.

Hand grenades are quite unrealistically weak. A grenade going off in a medium sized room would almost assuredly kill everyone in the room. Not anywhere near so in the game.

The Browning automatic rifle has both front and rear sights. There are no rear sights in the game on the BAR. Why? Furthermore, the BAR did not have a semi-auto firing mode, yet in the game it is only semi-auto. It had 2 fully-auto modes - 300 rpm (buffer spring suppressed the speed) and 600 rpm, but no semi-auto. Why is it only semi-auto in the game? I understand that wepon balance is a concern for game makers, but implementing a wepon in ways it was not capable of firing for the purpose of balance is bizarre at the least.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm

The top speed of the jeeps is fine for a game, but at the speed they are moving in the game, they would be in 3rd gear, not 2nd. Those jeeps had a top speed of about 50-55 mph, and that's with the little engine rapped up very high. WWII Jeeps had very small engines and very high ratio gears, especially 1st gear, which was extremely low ("granny gear"). This was so a Jeep could pull a 155mm howitzer up a medium grade hill, and so it could go almost anywhere. 2nd gear in a jeep is like 1st in a passenger vehicle, if not still lower. Another gear shift would have been much more realistic. You might throw a piston rod in a jeep at the speed they move in the game if you were in 2nd gear!

There are many vehicles in the game which are un-drivable. I suppose this could be because they were broken down, but that's unlikely. It would be cool if the trucks in the game could be driven, and 5 guys could jump in and go together. Awesome! Not only would more guys be able to go somewhere together faster, but they would also be at risk of all dying together if hit by a tank or zooka. Perhaps to help bakance the fact that so many guys could get somewhere together would be a slightly slower speed for the trucks than a jeep, and if one is hit by a heavy weapon, all men in the truck would die. If such were not implimented, it would be better that no trucks or unusable vehicles were in the game, unless they were obviously destroyed, as a few jeeps are in the game.

I'm sure there are other things I'd like to suggest, but can't think of them at the moment. Perhaps I'll post on them at a later time.




Chiefy

     

50 XP

3rd October 2004

0 Uploads

1,725 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
'[WOW}IRONMAN'Furthermore, the BAR did not have a semi-auto firing mode, yet in the game it is only semi-auto. It had 2 fully-auto modes - 300 rpm (buffer spring suppressed the speed) and 600 rpm, but no semi-auto. Why is it only semi-auto in the game?

I am 99% certain that it is like that in the game, with the two fully auto modes (the game calls them slow auto and fast auto).




J-Dub'

What are these damn animals?

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,013 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

The only problem with the BAR is the ROF. they have it way way too fast. It is a very slow firing gun, unlike the game makes it out to be.




Hellknight1993

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

11th May 2009

0 Uploads

4,137 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

Yep Ironman, * ur first post * well said. I think this expansion rocks big time, I love it. The thing on peeps running off on their own little war is true, but hey that happened in real life ah! and they the ones that die the fastest have you noticed. I visited a clan server running UO and I noticed that all the players there where using the team way of winning! Very nice change to be in that server. Guess ya gonna get that thgh, clan players will stick together, public servers youll have less of that, but not all the time, some clanless guys will win it together. :assimilate:




Pictureman

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

14th June 2003

0 Uploads

224 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
Cr@zyhorseThe thing on peeps running off on their own little war is true, but hey that happened in real life ah! and they the ones that die the fastest have you noticed.

For me that doesn't seem to be true. I seem to die far more than the average. In fact, my deaths are usually among the highest in a game. At the same time however, 90% when I play I am # 1, 2, or 3 on my team. The reason my deaths are high at the same time as my kills is because I play very aggressively. It's almost impossible to rank near or at the top unless you play very aggressively. I play with far more concern over whether or not I can kill someone that thinking about how dangerous what I am about to do is. Even if you are dying more often than most on your team, you can still kill more guys that most of your team if you play very aggressively but smart.

Some maps have lines of attack that present themselves, and after dying 5 times attempting to whittle down the enemy that is spawning and returning to that spot, you can make a whole and get in behind the enemy. Once behind them, 3 or more guys are destined to die if you are slick, more if you are fortunate. I got behind the enemy in CoD the other night, and casually wasted 4 snipers as they crouched, and 2 more guys in gunfights. :naughty:

I can be such a sneaky bast***.




Hellknight1993

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

11th May 2009

0 Uploads

4,137 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

You sneaky bastard! LOL




Chiefy

     

50 XP

3rd October 2004

0 Uploads

1,725 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

The best players are the ones who would have a high score if your score was calculated by subtracting your deaths from your kills. This shows who has really contributed most to the team, if you die a lot all you're doing is boosting the other team's score.