Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Killstreaks, Perks Leaked! - Polidicks

The juggernaut suit better not be as strong as the NPC ones in MW2

eh, the NPC ones seemed strong because there were 1-2 people firing on it, max if it's the same strength, sure he'll win 1v1s, but with multiple people (think 3-4) spamming nades and shit at it, it'll go down pretty fast

I'm betting the Jugg suit will have a high amount of non-regenerating health.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;31885489]I'm betting the Jugg suit will have a high amount of non-regenerating health.[/QUOTE] that would also work

[QUOTE=Marden;31885044]Isn't Overkill a typo and it means 2 attachments on primary weapon + 2 on secondary?[/QUOTE] No, you're confusing it with Bling. The same perk was in Call of Duty 4.

Oh yeah, Jugg is obviously not going to have regen health. He's taking hits to his armor, not his body. There's no way that he can repair it the way players "biologically" heal.

[QUOTE=Reimu;31885886]Oh yeah, Jugg is obviously not going to have regen health. He's taking hits to his armor, not his body. There's no way that he can repair it the way players "biologically" heal.[/QUOTE] nanobots obviously damn well possible considering how fast the people heal in cod damn nanobots

[QUOTE=Reimu;31877274]Every game Infinity Ward and Treyarch like to take some of the old things that worked, inject new stuff, and throw away other things. Are all new killstreaks though, which is HUGE for a Call of Duty game. We haven't seen this many new Killstreaks in awhile; even in Black Ops, which introduced a lot.[/QUOTE] I would like to reply to this, even If I am 9 hours late. Just because COD is, well, COD, should we hold it to a different standard? Just because a few new killstreaks have been added should we laud it and call it an 'improvement' over previous installments? While COD's multiplayer gameplay has relied on kill streaks as a defining element since MW1 just because more variety has been added it shouldn't be called a new sequel, but a patch or update, at most even an expansion pack. If we start holding COD to the same standard that we expect from other game sequels we would see that it quickly falls apart, yet it is gobbled up by many people. The newer CODs support the new 'era' (I use that term disgustingly) of addictive, smaller games that use short term user gratification and that can be recycled easily while still maintaining profits and userbase. There is no lasting feeling in COD, it's a hollow diversion at best, the anathema to what higher priced games should be, deep, engrossing experiences that provide lasting entertainment and give players a definite and tangible feeling of accomplishment. Now all of that text may be shooed away by a poster saying "You guys don't like what I like, boohoo" or "It's my opinion deal with it" but if you really start thinking about it, how does COD really shape up when placed next to, or held up to the same standard of other games?

Looks interesting, but I hope they don't fuck up.

I'm just happy there's no nuke. Jugg suit sounds pretty cool, too.

Dead Silence Pro, Extreme Conditioning Pro, and Assassin Pro with Little Bird Flock, AC-130, and UAV using tactical knife will be fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;31886267]I would like to reply to this, even If I am 9 hours late. Just because COD is, well, COD, should we hold it to a different standard? Just because a few new killstreaks have been added should we laud it and call it an 'improvement' over previous installments? While COD's multiplayer gameplay has relied on kill streaks as a defining element since MW1 just because more variety has been added it shouldn't be called a new sequel, but a patch or update, at most even an expansion pack. If we start holding COD to the same standard that we expect from other game sequels we would see that it quickly falls apart, yet it is gobbled up by many people. The newer CODs support the new 'era' (I use that term disgustingly) of addictive, smaller games that use short term user gratification and that can be recycled easily while still maintaining profits and userbase. There is no lasting feeling in COD, it's a hollow diversion at best, the anathema to what higher priced games should be, deep, engrossing experiences that provide lasting entertainment and give players a definite and tangible feeling of accomplishment. Now all of that text may be shooed away by a poster saying "You guys don't like what I like, boohoo" or "It's my opinion deal with it" but if you really start thinking about it, how does COD really shape up when placed next to, or held up to the same standard of other games?[/QUOTE] The reason why people buy CoD is different from the reason why people buy other games. Although you might think they're slight, the changes that are added to the CoD games are HUGE when you look at the actual system. Call of Duty is all about the core gameplay of fast-paced, instant gratification-based combat. When you add new things such as killstreaks into the fray, it takes a lot of work to balance this out so that core gameplay exists every time. If you think CoD is the "same game every time," then that's good. The devs are doing their job of giving the same core gameplay experience every game, while still adding new things to the game - such as perks, killstreaks, or weapons.

[QUOTE=Reimu;31886745]The reason why people buy CoD is different from the reason why people buy other games. Although you might think they're slight, the changes that are added to the CoD games are HUGE when you look at the actual system. Call of Duty is all about the core gameplay of fast-paced, instant gratification-based combat. When you add new things such as killstreaks into the fray, it takes a lot of work to balance this out so that core gameplay exists every time. If you think CoD is the "same game every time," then that's good. The devs are doing their job of giving the same core gameplay experience every game, while still adding new things to the game - such as perks, killstreaks, or weapons.[/QUOTE] The biggest peeve I have with COD is it's high price and the expensive map packs. It ends up being 90$~120$, and that's a lot to be paying for instant gratification gameplay ([sp]I'd rather spend it on some good drugs, That's instant gratification for you[/sp]) that keeps being recycled between installments yet still no one bats an eyelid, if any other dev used Activision's formula of intensive refurbishing players would seethe with rage at being conned into buying the same game full price with a balance patch. It's that "same game every time" feel that is everything wrong with COD. Every sequel should feel fresh and instead of delivering the same core gameplay would refine it into better things, smooth out the wrinkles, add newer, riskier but more rewarding tactics etc. You know, the whole nine yards.

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;31886906]The biggest peeve I have with COD is it's high price and the expensive map packs. It ends up being 90$~120$, and that's a lot to be paying for instant gratification gameplay ([sp]I'd rather spend it on some good drugs, That's instant gratification for you[/sp]) that keeps being recycled between installments yet still no one bats an eyelid, if any other dev used Activision's formula of intensive refurbishing players would seethe with rage at being conned into buying the same game full price with a balance patch. It's that "same game every time" feel that is everything wrong with COD. Every sequel should feel fresh and instead of delivering the same core gameplay would refine it into better things, smooth out the wrinkles, add newer, riskier but more rewarding tactics etc. You know, the whole nine yards.[/QUOTE] There's no doubt about it that the high price and expensive map packs are not worth the money. I've never bought a map pack in my life, and I've never really seen one worth the money. At the same time though, each game does have a different feel. At the moment, Modern Warfare 3 is a bit of an exception - it does seem a lot like mw2 - but there's a huge difference between MW2 and Black Ops. There was also a huge difference between Call of Duty 4 and World at War. It really does depend on how much content one feels is needed to make the game worth a purchase, but for most CoD fans, all they want is a new take on the same gameplay idea every year. I don't think you can blame them for that: that's a similar concept to what Valve did with Counter-Strike 1.6 and Condition Zero/Source as well as L4D1 and 2; Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3; Serious Sam 1 HD and Serious Sam 2 HD; Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War; STALKER: SoC and Pripyrat; Unreal 2003 and Unreal 2004; the list goes on. Not every sequel does it, but sometimes what people want most is the same game with just a few tweaks here and there for the same price. And, as we can see by the fact that CoD makes more and more sales every year, that seems to be what people want. A game doesn't need to radically change things up to be a good sequel. It just needs to bring something new to the table, even if it's just a new setting, new maps, new rewards, and some new weapons (like CoD 4 vs WaW).

[QUOTE=Reimu;31887015]There's no doubt about it that the high price and expensive map packs are not worth the money. I've never bought a map pack in my life, and I've never really seen one worth the money. At the same time though, each game does have a different feel. At the moment, Modern Warfare 3 is a bit of an exception - it does seem a lot like mw2 - but there's a huge difference between MW2 and Black Ops. There was also a huge difference between Call of Duty 4 and World at War. It really does depend on how much content one feels is needed to make the game worth a purchase, but for most CoD fans, all they want is a new take on the same gameplay idea every year. I don't think you can blame them for that: that's a similar concept to what Valve did with Counter-Strike 1.6 and Condition Zero/Source as well as L4D1 and 2; Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3; Serious Sam 1 HD and Serious Sam 2 HD; Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War; STALKER: SoC and Pripyrat; Unreal 2003 and Unreal 2004; the list goes on. Not every sequel does it, but sometimes what people want most is the same game with just a few tweaks here and there for the same price. And, as we can see by the fact that CoD makes more and more sales every year, that seems to be what people want. A game doesn't need to radically change things up to be a good sequel. It just needs to bring something new to the table, even if it's just a new setting, new maps, new rewards, and some new weapons (like CoD 4 vs WaW).[/QUOTE] But for the other games the prospect of just slightly revising the game for the new sequel rarely lasts for more than one installment (Not counting sports games) since that will [I]just not sell[/I], For COD this series of revisions has been going on for 4 sequels. It's kind of the same thing that Apple does, every year they would come out with a new version of their previous product boasting that it's few new features are revolutionary, then people will buy it. I would think it would be just a matter of time until COD starts to become stale, leading to a light crash in the console FPS industry, just as guitar hero led to the staleness of the plastic instrument rhythm games. But this is just the optimist in me. Side note: I would start to burn from the inside if MW3 gains unanimous GOTY awards instead of the other gems coming out this year.

I miss the old Call of Duty. After playing CoD 2 and World at War the new junk just feels subpar.

[QUOTE=SnowCanary;31887316]I miss the old Call of Duty. After playing CoD 2 and World at War the new junk just feels subpar.[/QUOTE] do you only play WWII CoDs

Has this been confirmed by a more legitimate source? Because Robert Bowling stated that Juggernaut (the perk) would not be making a return, and yet there's a killstreak that gives it to the whole team. [editline]22nd August 2011[/editline] Also some of these killstreaks are insanely overpowered.

[quote]10 Kills = Talcon (Mini Robot Tank)[/quote] James Bond did it. [editline]22nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Reimu;31887015] At the same time though, each game does have a different feel. At the moment, Modern Warfare 3 is a bit of an exception - it does seem a lot like mw2 - but there's a huge difference between MW2 and Black Ops. There was also a huge difference between Call of Duty 4 and World at War. It really does depend on how much content one feels is needed to make the game worth a purchase, but for most CoD fans, all they want is a new take on the same gameplay idea every year. I don't think you can blame them for that: that's a similar concept to what Valve did with Counter-Strike 1.6 and Condition Zero/Source as well as L4D1 and 2; Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3; Serious Sam 1 HD and Serious Sam 2 HD; Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War; STALKER: SoC and Pripyrat; Unreal 2003 and Unreal 2004; the list goes on. Not every sequel does it, but sometimes what people want most is the same game with just a few tweaks here and there for the same price. And, as we can see by the fact that CoD makes more and more sales every year, that seems to be what people want. A game doesn't need to radically change things up to be a good sequel. It just needs to bring something new to the table, even if it's just a new setting, new maps, new rewards, and some new weapons (like CoD 4 vs WaW).[/QUOTE] Actually the biggest complaint I have about the CoD franchise is that each game doesn't feel like it brings anything worthwhile to the table, all these extras, perks, and killstreaks don't add anything significant to the gameplay. Really most of them just end up unbalancing gameplay, and more and more it feels like nothing but an egoshooter. The biggest problem is that there haven't been any significant changes or improvements to how combat works, which is the heart of the series. You can go from playing Call of Duty 2 to playing Black Ops without any difficulty, if fact if you're good at 2 you'll probably dominate the game. And Source remakes are just that, remakes, they're meant to revitalize favorites so that they still look and play great when their quality and capabilities are ending up quite dated, when Valve puts out a true sequel you get something like Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2 etc. Plus Source games are near infinitely customizable, something which recent gaming titles have lost lately. Also the general displeasure with the release of Left 4 Dead 2 is proof that people want more than just a slightly updated environment with a couple extra guns thrown in, they want something which is a significant improvement over the last installment. What Activision is doing with Call of Duty would be exactly like Valve releasing a sequel like Left 4 Dead 2 year after year. Even Bioshock fell prey to this, it was a great game but its biggest criticism came from the fact that it felt and played too much like the original.

Wow you guys are fucking idiots. If you're gonna bitch about something at least think up good arguments. Honestly you've gotten to the point where you nitpick at EVERYTHING related to call of duty. Hell, I'm a Battlefield fanboy, I love it to death and have participated in a handful of BF vs COD arguments, but at least I know when to stop. Have you seen the kind of arguments that are being brought up in this thread!? [B]"THEY BROUGHT BACK THE PAVELOW, WOW WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT IN MW2, WHY DON'T YOU THINK OF SOMETHING NEW ACTIVISION" [/B] Well I'm fucking SORRY that they brought back something that people liked, I didn't know that they had to have 100% brand new killstreaks with every game. Honestly at this point you guys are even worse than the console Call of Duty fans. [editline]22nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Cutts;31877139]Pretty much every new killstreak that they've put in looks to unbalance the entire game. And have they always had assault and support killstreaks seperated? Only game I know of that has that is Medal of Honor. Would be awkward if they just so happened to have maybe... copied that?[/QUOTE] Oh wow! They split their killstreaks into 2 columns so they would be more organized. I GUESS THEY [B]STOLE[/B] that from Medal of Honor. What a bunch of assholes huh? You're worse than people that say OMG BATTLEFIELD COPIED CALL OF DUTY WITH VIETNAM EXPANSION

[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;31887310]But for the other games the prospect of just slightly revising the game for the new sequel rarely lasts for more than one installment (Not counting sports games) since that will [I]just not sell[/I], For COD this series of revisions has been going on for 4 sequels. It's kind of the same thing that Apple does, every year they would come out with a new version of their previous product boasting that it's few new features are revolutionary, then people will buy it. I would think it would be just a matter of time until COD starts to become stale, leading to a light crash in the console FPS industry, just as guitar hero led to the staleness of the plastic instrument rhythm games. But this is just the optimist in me. Side note: I would start to burn from the inside if MW3 gains unanimous GOTY awards instead of the other gems coming out this year.[/QUOTE] You have to create a product the consumer wants. The CoD consumer knows what he wants, but you have to create a different model for another game based on the demographic and who is interested in the first place. That doesn't necessarily mean it's smart, but what the customer wants is what the customer gets. It's like that saying, "The customer is always right." Also, I highly doubt CoD dulling will mean the console industry dulls as well. CoD is a staple of owning a 360, but so are other games like Madden, Battlefield, Need for Speed, Left 4 Dead, GTA, and that's not including hits on the XBLA. I'm curious for what some examples of games that "just not sell" are, though. I can think of a lot of other games which take a very similar approach to CoD and sell very well: you could argue Fallout 3 and New Vegas, or GTA III and GTA:VC, BioShock 1 and BioShock 2, Worms HD and Worms 2: Armageddon. [quote]Actually the biggest complaint I have about the CoD franchise is that each game doesn't feel like it brings anything worthwhile to the table, all these extras, perks, and killstreaks don't add anything significant to the gameplay. Really most of them just end up unbalancing gameplay, and more and more it feels like nothing but an egoshooter. The biggest problem is that there haven't been any significant changes or improvements to how combat works, which is the heart of the series. You can go from playing Call of Duty 2 to playing Black Ops without any difficulty, if fact if you're good at 2 you'll probably dominate the game. And Source remakes are just that, remakes, they're meant to revitalize favorites so that they still look and play great when their quality and capabilities are ending up quite dated, when Valve puts out a true sequel you get something like Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2 etc. Plus Source games are near infinitely customizable, something which recent gaming titles have lost lately. Also the general displeasure with the release of Left 4 Dead 2 is proof that people want more than just a slightly updated environment with a couple extra guns thrown in, they want something which is a significant improvement over the last installment. What Activision is doing with Call of Duty would be exactly like Valve releasing a sequel like Left 4 Dead 2 year after year. Even Bioshock fell prey to this, it was a great game but its biggest criticism came from the fact that it felt and played too much like the original. [/quote] I never really felt that any of the Call of Duty games were especially lopsided or unbalanced. The only time that ever felt truly unbalanced was when there were too many killstreaks in the sky, or the enemy team stockpiled killstreaks. And that was usually solved by limiting airspace. It is a bit of an egoshooter though, and it's not really meant to be extremely well-balanced. I personally felt like the difference playstyle between mw2 and Black Ops were significant, though. Black Ops was a lot more conservative and weighty in battle. Everything from Wager Match, to RC-XD, to Flak Jacket gave that perception to me. There was also more of a focus to make a move to real gunplay instead of killstreak-mania, which was why quickscope was patched out, killstreaks were changed so you can't gain kills for them through other killstreaks, among other things. It's changes like that that are really what makes CoD different these days, because IW and Treyarch are taking the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," approach. That said, there is a huge gameplay edit coming which is that hot spots are being shaved in numbers and the devs themselves said MW3 has more of a focus on gunplay than the other games. Although Source isn't necessarily a sequel in and of itself, Condition Zero was intended to be one. For something that wasn't suppose to mess with the mechanics too much, it was highly sought after. And even though it was somewhat lukewarmly received, it's still one of the top played games on the whole entire Steam service. People want to buy games that are similar to the core gameplay. Left 4 Dead 2 proved the exact opposite of what you're suggesting, actually: remember how many people were upset that L4D2 seemed to radically change the gameplay, setting, and style? Remember how many people outright cried that L4D2 was a cartoony sequel of L4D1? Or that the game was ruined by switching from tactical play to "run 'n' gun" rushing? The whole entire displeasure with L4D2 being an "expansion pack" literally faded within a few months from release when everyone got to try it: remember those screenshots of the boycotters playing the game :v:?

I'm only going to get this game if they fix the damn connection issues.

What the hell is a Juggernaut suit?

[QUOTE=zzaacckk;31889399]What the hell is a Juggernaut suit?[/QUOTE] The big, bulking, massive tank-of-a-suit enemies that were occasionally found in MW2's Spec Ops. They're basically further-reinforced versions of military bomb defusal suits. They grant the wearer a shitload of armor, and can only realistically be taken down through a well-placed headshot or two. Not including multiple fire from several enemies.

INB4 BF3

[QUOTE=Reimu;31889853]The big, bulking, massive tank-of-a-suit enemies that were occasionally found in MW2's Spec Ops. They're basically further-reinforced versions of military bomb defusal suits. They grant the wearer a shitload of armor, and can only realistically be taken down through a well-placed headshot or two. Not including multiple fire from several enemies.[/QUOTE] errrr it took 2 headshots from a sniper rifle to take one down LMGs/ARs required more headshots and you can't 1-hit melee them for obvious reasons

Here is my problem with this game. It isn't that I hate the series or I'm on the bandwagon, I have reasons. I'm just tired of the same shit, over and over again. Every new game in the series is nothing new, and they are falling behind compared to other games today, in-terms of gameplay, graphics and design. I'm tired of the perks, kill streaks, and all the unbalanced shit in these games.

[QUOTE=The Pretender;31892477]Here is my problem with this game. It isn't that I hate the series or I'm on the bandwagon, I have reasons. I'm just tired of the same shit, over and over again. Every new game in the series is nothing new, and they are falling behind compared to other games today, in-terms of gameplay, graphics and design. I'm tired of the perks, kill streaks, and all the unbalanced shit in these games.[/QUOTE] Graphically it's definitely aging, but how is it falling behind gameplay wise? I don't really know of any other really popular shooters that are so much more innovative than it.

Are these even confirmed? I'll probably get BF3 and rent MW3 or something. It does sound interesting.

[QUOTE=Reimu;31877190]I think the Little Bird Flock is probably a lot less overbearing than it seems. This is probably a dinky helicopter that doesn't do a lot of damage :v:.[/QUOTE]They were also extremely easy to shoot down with small arms fire in The Enemy of My Enemy. If they're balanced like that, should be fine.