1 button nade tossing has to stop in online multiplayer

[Woodsey]

One button, one hit kill melee has to stop more.

And one button, one letter is the greatest fiend of all.

Ttoonniigghhtt wwee ttyyppee iinn ddoouubblleess!

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Throwing a grenade i've found doesn't work unless you "cook" it, so either the winner needs to learn to move out the way or shoot faster. I think it works fine as it is.

this, or shoot "smarter"

don't run around like a dumbass with your head chopped off, it's third person and semi tactical for a reason, running around lobbing cooked grenades? fine, its an anti rusher strategy, i can live with that.


I haven't played the beta much but if it's at all like uncharted 2 mutli, then it is perfectly fine and you just need to learn how to dodge and shoot right, plain and simple.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

1 button grenade throwing is sort of annoying and is one reason for grenade spam. My proposal is limiting the number of grenades and availability players have to them, also make them more powerful and having a larger AoE, but forcing the player to either switch to them or hold down the one button grenade throw. Holding down the button for at least 1 second will cause the player to take out the grenade and pop the pin. Holding on to it longer will allow the player to "cook" it. This will prevent accidental grenade deaths and decrease spamming. It will also force players to be more careful when picking their targets.

Seconded...


My largest gripe with grenades is that they are underpowered. Take a look at the lethal damage range of a standard frag grenade and compare that to the grenade radius in game. Keep in mind this is not the explosive radius of the grenade, this is the 'everything in this radius is guaranteed mush' range of the grenade. Frag grenades have been known to kill people up to 100 meters away from the point of detonation and often have a casualty radius larger then the throwing distance of the grenade!

That casualty radius represents an area where you can not guarantee a kill but where the target is likely to be put out of commission through life-threatening injury if not instant death. It is the reason why you are taught to thrown grenades from cover and to get your arse back behind it as soon as you do. In game, the most you get these days is a red hud from a near point blank explosion....

Making the grenade take longer to retrieve, arm and then throw is only reasonable if they made grenades the deadly threat they are in real life.


Added: Frags in game act more like HE grenades then anything else, which where very poor styled grenades. Aside from just increasing the AOE of the grenade, they should implement proper fragment effects by having the grenade 'shoot' out projectiles in random directions at the moment of detonation. This would make frag grenades behave more like the real world counter parts and create the several different radii you would find in a grenade. A instant kill radius that will guarantee death, A casualty radius in which you will still likely end up dead but not guaranteed and the 'safe' radius that can still sometimes have a piece of frag lodge into your head if you are really unlucky.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Ttoonniigghhtt wwee ttyyppee iinn ddoouubblleess!

Ddaammnn ppaanniicc kknniiffeerrss!

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

One button, one hit kill melee has to stop more.

Agreed....

People don't have a massive 'off' switch that the butt of a rifle can magically press. You have to really pound them hard, again and again, to find that switch.

 

[valleyshrew]

Yeah grenades are sorely underpowered. I really think games should be realistic and go for the 50 meter fatal radius that grenades in real life have. That would make games more fun and less of that pesky skill or balance that gaming snobs gripe about.

 

[Poisoni]

The first FPS I ever played was Halo 2 - a game that revolved around tossing as many grenades as you could find (I assume multiplayer was more skilled online) and I still play Halo 3 today. One button grenade throwing has always seemed like a good idea to me because in (Halo/CoD/Battlefield/most FPSs) an uncooked grenade is easily dodged with a jump/sprint to a slightly different place and on CoD it actually takes quite a while to throw a Semtex or cook a Frag, so the "chuck grenade at floor when losing" school take a massive beating. I don't know about Uncharted but I assume that even if you can throw grenades instantly and make it a draw this is a flaw with Uncharted not with all FPSs.
I don't think cycling to grenades as a weapon would work in Halo AT ALL because anyone with a vehicle would splatter anyone unprepared and anyone prepared for vehicles would be shot/beat down. Also, I'd like to know how I would deflect a rocket with a plasma grenade if I had to get it out of my pocket first.

I agree with the point on one-hit-melees though. The only game I've played that I like the melee system in is Halo 3 because you have to weaken them before it kills or use it to weaken them before killing; also there is barely any lunge so no commando-style epic fist-propelled flights.

 

[Kopikatsu]

The first FPS I ever played was Halo 2 - a game that revolved around tossing as many grenades as you could find (I assume multiplayer was more skilled online) and I still play Halo 3 today. One button grenade throwing has always seemed like a good idea to me because in (Halo/CoD/Battlefield/most FPSs) an uncooked grenade is easily dodged with a jump/sprint to a slightly different place and on CoD it actually takes quite a while to throw a Semtex or cook a Frag, so the "chuck grenade at floor when losing" school take a massive beating. I don't know about Uncharted but I assume that even if you can throw grenades instantly and make it a draw this is a flaw with Uncharted not with all FPSs.
I don't think cycling to grenades as a weapon would work in Halo AT ALL because anyone with a vehicle would splatter anyone unprepared and anyone prepared for vehicles would be shot/beat down. Also, I'd like to know how I would deflect a rocket with a plasma grenade if I had to get it out of my pocket first.

I agree with the point on one-hit-melees though. The only game I've played that I like the melee system in is Halo 3 because you have to weaken them before it kills or use it to weaken them before killing; also there is barely any lunge so no commando-style epic fist-propelled flights.

Uncharted has melee like that, where you have to put 2-3 bullets into them before the melee would kill.

It's hit detection is kind of wonky, though. I've both been killed by and have killed with melee AFTER dying. MELEE FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

MGO =/= Uncharted. What works in one game doesn't work in another. Also, I played the Uncharted 2 beta quite a while recently, and what you described happened once. I rolled away and killed him. I probably didn't even need to roll, because grenades in that game are incredibly weak.

Also, the entire point of Uncharted is fluid control. You make the point of Uncharted 3 being less fluid than UC2, well than making you switch to grenades would make that even worse, wouldn't it?

You picked two games that didn't have health regeneration, and said that because it wouldn't work in those games it doesn't work in any games. So two games that were designed from day one to not have to health regeneration, would not be improved by health regeneration. Hmm. On top of that, Warhawk is based around spawning with nothing and running out to go grab some good weapons and equipment. Within that framework, health packs make sense and fit well. Mag is a class based shooter with an emphasis on team work, where people who can heal you are nearby and encouraged to do so.

Let's look at CoD. Removing regenerating health from CoD removes a central component of the series, and there's no easy way for them to work in any other kind of healing system without even more dramatically changing the game. Therefore, non-regenerating health ruins any game ever no exceptions. See what I mean? That doesn't make any sense. Different systems work for different games, and one button grenades and regenerating health work for Uncharted.

Making a slight control change (concerning grenades) doesn't make one game into another. Adding in weapon cycling to Uncharted wouldn't make it into MGO, the core gameplay will remain the same. Also, I find it quite awkward and not nearly as smooth as it should be to switch from your primary to secondary in Uncharted because I have to take my thumb off the left stick to press left on the d-pad to switch to my secondary (or aim and press triangle). With a weapon cycle control scheme, you tap R2 to switch to your pistol, and that is much more fluid and easier. I've gotten pretty good at the Uncharted 3 beta (Smoke Bomb is awesome sauce) and most of my grenade kills just feel cheap as you can drop them at a moments notice. Making me switch to them doesn't change a lot it just means if I get into a unexpected situation in which I would want to throw a nade, I wouldn't be able to.

Uncharted 3 is a quite a bit slower than Uncharted 2. Movement speed is slower, guns have more recoil, climbing is slower, maps are bigger, and the game is a bit more tactical. I do like pretty much all of the changes, but the gameplay has definitely changed and become slower paced. I do hate that headshots don't kill in co-op, Naughty Dog really needs to fix that. And, the whole headshots doing nothing better not find it's way into single player.

Now, getting to health regeneration. Having a health bar instead of regeneration doesn't greatly change the game either. You don't need the game to have health pickups if you have health bars. MAG could play very much the same with regenerating health, there would just be no need for medics. Warhawk would also pretty much play the same with health regen, there just wouldn't be health pickups. In fact, Warhawk would be better without many of the weapon pickups. I played Warhawk for quite some time, and all the weapon pickups did was cause you to go around the spawn area picking up weapons, it would be far better to spawn with most of the weapons since the pickups were in the spawn area. It would be kinda similar to how Uncharted 3 allows for loadouts now because in Uncharted 2, the FAL was all over the map, the game should've just let you spawn with it if that was your gun of choice.

I don't believe any online competitive multiplayer shooter should have full regenerating health, I could understand regenerating to half of full health, but you should never go back to full health. My reason is because if you hit somebody and they get away, they should be at a disadvantage so you or your teammate have an easier time taking them out in the next encounter. There should be a penalty for getting shot, plain and simple.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

MGO =/= Uncharted. What works in one game doesn't work in another. Also, I played the Uncharted 2 beta quite a while recently, and what you described happened once. I rolled away and killed him. I probably didn't even need to roll, because grenades in that game are incredibly weak.

Also, the entire point of Uncharted is fluid control. You make the point of Uncharted 3 being less fluid than UC2, well than making you switch to grenades would make that even worse, wouldn't it?

You picked two games that didn't have health regeneration, and said that because it wouldn't work in those games it doesn't work in any games. So two games that were designed from day one to not have to health regeneration, would not be improved by health regeneration. Hmm. On top of that, Warhawk is based around spawning with nothing and running out to go grab some good weapons and equipment. Within that framework, health packs make sense and fit well. Mag is a class based shooter with an emphasis on team work, where people who can heal you are nearby and encouraged to do so.

Let's look at CoD. Removing regenerating health from CoD removes a central component of the series, and there's no easy way for them to work in any other kind of healing system without even more dramatically changing the game. Therefore, non-regenerating health ruins any game ever no exceptions. See what I mean? That doesn't make any sense. Different systems work for different games, and one button grenades and regenerating health work for Uncharted.

Making a slight control change (concerning grenades) doesn't make one game into another. Adding in weapon cycling to Uncharted wouldn't make it into MGO, the core gameplay will remain the same. Also, I find it quite awkward and not nearly as smooth as it should be to switch from your primary to secondary in Uncharted because I have to take my thumb off the left stick to press left on the d-pad to switch to my secondary (or aim and press triangle). With a weapon cycle control scheme, you tap R2 to switch to your pistol, and that is much more fluid and easier. I've gotten pretty good at the Uncharted 3 beta (Smoke Bomb is awesome sauce) and most of my grenade kills just feel cheap as you can drop them at a moments notice. Making me switch to them doesn't change a lot it just means if I get into a unexpected situation in which I would want to throw a nade, I wouldn't be able to.

Uncharted 3 is a quite a bit slower than Uncharted 2. Movement speed is slower, guns have more recoil, climbing is slower, maps are bigger, and the game is a bit more tactical. I do like pretty much all of the changes, but the gameplay has definitely changed and become slower paced. I do hate that headshots don't kill in co-op, Naughty Dog really needs to fix that. And, the whole headshots doing nothing better not find it's way into single player.

Now, getting to health regeneration. Having a health bar instead of regeneration doesn't greatly change the game either. You don't need the game to have health pickups if you have health bars. MAG could play very much the same with regenerating health, there would just be no need for medics. Warhawk would also pretty much play the same with health regen, there just wouldn't be health pickups. In fact, Warhawk would be better without many of the weapon pickups. I played Warhawk for quite some time, and all the weapon pickups did was cause you to go around the spawn area picking up weapons, it would be far better to spawn with most of the weapons since the pickups were in the spawn area. It would be kinda similar to how Uncharted 3 allows for loadouts now because in Uncharted 2, the FAL was all over the map, the game should've just let you spawn with it if that was your gun of choice.

I don't believe any online competitive multiplayer shooter should have full regenerating health, I could understand regenerating to half of full health, but you should never go back to full health. My reason is because if you hit somebody and they get away, they should be at a disadvantage so you or your teammate have an easier time taking them out in the next encounter. There should be a penalty for getting shot, plain and simple.

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting to use a wheel. You tap R2 to switch from primary to secondary, tap R2 to switch from secondary to grenades, tap R2 to go from grenades to primary, it's not a wheel. How is that clunky? The current setup is more like a weapon wheel (d-pad left and right for secondary and primary) than what I'm suggesting. Switching to your secondary would be a lot more fluid under my proposed system, and I'm constantly switching from my primary to secondary in Uncharted 3, which is currently clunky as I have to stop moving to do that, that is the opposite of fluid. Throwing grenades would be slightly less fluid but switching to your secondary would be more fluid (secondary is more important and useful than nades). You can run around with your nades in your hand (you could still throw them very quickly) and tap R2 to switch to primary when you want to shoot.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

I think my system would work just fine in single player. I do admit, I would prefer having the grenade button in single player. I don't think removing it for multiplayer would be that big of a deal. The multiplayer does play quite a bit different than single player anyways. Changing one minor thing wouldn't nearly be that major.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

I feel all multiplayer games shouldn't have health regen (at most regen half of your health). Going from health regen to normal health wouldn't change any game drastically. Now, going from normal health to health regen has bigger impacts (which I'll never propose) as you cited in your Bad Company example as it can eliminate certain playstyles. However, if a game like COD (and the first COD didn't have health regen) went from health regen to normal health, it wouldn't be that major if everything else stayed the same as you don't have to add in a medic type playstyle to the game or health pickups or any way to regain health.

MGO doesn't have any way in which you can gain health back (no medics, no health packs), and it's quite commonplace to have matches where players have many more kills than deaths. In a recent Rescue match (2 teams, 6 vs 6, no respawns, 2 rounds), I went 10-0 against a high level team. The game does not nearly play like you say where after one gunfight where you get a kill, you are then killed easily in your next enemy encounter because you are wounded.

I think Uncharted would be much better without heath regen; however, I would definitely say you should regen to half health though just due to the way the game plays, maybe have health pickups or health related boosters (get health for killing) or kickbacks (get full health after so many medals), some manner to get back full health.

In Uncharted 3, once you get a feel for everything (maps, guns, boosters, kickbacks, etc.) and get used to the game's flow, it is far too easy to become basically an unstoppable killing machine, I'm getting at least a 2:1 KDR every game; the G-Mal and Uzi combo is lethal, plus the smoke bomb kickback makes you really hard to kill. I went 22-5 one match and now when I go like 15-8, I feel like I had a bad match. Most of my deaths now happen because my character sticks himself to a wall when I want him to roll, I get killed by a third party as I'm killing an enemy because I stay to get the kill instead of running (or smoke bombing), I get unlucky and run into a guy with a power weapon, and other stuff like that.

 

[feather240]

I dislike one button knife kills.
I hate one button frags.
I loath head bobbing.

 

[Baneat]

In CoD it takes long enough to throw a grenade that your point is moot.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Yes, Uncharted 3 is slower than Uncharted 2. However, this isn't an excuse to ruin the control scheme because you don't like grenades. Reducing ease of use and not adding functionality is a horrible, horrible move. Let's imagine a game that has 8 functions, and uses a controller with 8 buttons. However, some people think one of the functions is overpowered, so the nice, fluid controls are replaced by a horridly clunky weapon wheel, and the game that was previously based on rapid movement, verticality, and efficient controls, becomes a clunky awful mess that everyone hates. This is what you are proposing, at least in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting to use a wheel. You tap R2 to switch from primary to secondary, tap R2 to switch from secondary to grenades, tap R2 to go from grenades to primary, it's not a wheel. How is that clunky? The current setup is more like a weapon wheel (d-pad left and right for secondary and primary) than what I'm suggesting. Switching to your secondary would be a lot more fluid under my proposed system, and I'm constantly switching from my primary to secondary in Uncharted 3, which is currently clunky as I have to stop moving to do that, that is the opposite of fluid. Throwing grenades would be slightly less fluid but switching to your secondary would be more fluid (secondary is more important and useful than nades). You can run around with your nades in your hand (you could still throw them very quickly) and tap R2 to switch to primary when you want to shoot.

Also, under that system the single player and multiplayer controls would be different while still offering the exact same functions, a massive no-no. Unless you plan on destroying the single player control system for an incredibly minor multiplayer issue, which many fans might not appreciate.

I think my system would work just fine in single player. I do admit, I would prefer having the grenade button in single player. I don't think removing it for multiplayer would be that big of a deal. The multiplayer does play quite a bit different than single player anyways. Changing one minor thing wouldn't nearly be that major.

Yes, removing health regen and replacing it with non-replenishable health drastically changes the game. One of the major differences between Bad Companies 1 and 2 was that everyone could regenerate health now. The whole dynamic of engineers killing medics and looting their health supplies was gone, snipers were more efficient, and assault became a lot less useful, especially since the other classes can get an assault rifle now.

However, this isn't a bad thing. Getting shot should be punished, yes, but so should surviving a gun fight or escaping a powerful enemy. Health regeneration should be slower than say, CoD, but I think it should still be in any game that isn't ultra-realistic, class based, or power up based (unreal tournament, etc). If I see an enemy, and I kill him but suffer damage, and there aren't any medics or health power ups, then I should regenerate health. Otherwise it becomes boring "player A kills player B. Player A is wounded, and is killed by player C. Player C is wounded, and is killed by player B. Player B is wounded..." and so on.

Different things work for different games, because they're designed with a certain health system in mind. Saying something like "no games should have health regen" or "all games should have health regen" will COMPLETELY RUIN those games not designed for one system or another. Uncharted would be fucking awful without health regen, same with CoD.

I feel all multiplayer games shouldn't have health regen (at most regen half of your health). Going from health regen to normal health wouldn't change any game drastically. Now, going from normal health to health regen has bigger impacts (which I'll never propose) as you cited in your Bad Company example as it can eliminate certain playstyles. However, if a game like COD (and the first COD didn't have health regen) went from health regen to normal health, it wouldn't be that major if everything else stayed the same as you don't have to add in a medic type playstyle to the game or health pickups or any way to regain health.

MGO doesn't have any way in which you can gain health back (no medics, no health packs), and it's quite commonplace to have matches where players have many more kills than deaths. In a recent Rescue match (2 teams, 6 vs 6, no respawns, 2 rounds), I went 10-0 against a high level team. The game does not nearly play like you say where after one gunfight where you get a kill, you are then killed easily in your next enemy encounter because you are wounded.

I think Uncharted would be much better without heath regen; however, I would definitely say you should regen to half health though just due to the way the game plays, maybe have health pickups or health related boosters (get health for killing) or kickbacks (get full health after so many medals), some manner to get back full health.

In Uncharted 3, once you get a feel for everything (maps, guns, boosters, kickbacks, etc.) and get used to the game's flow, it is far too easy to become basically an unstoppable killing machine, I'm getting at least a 2:1 KDR every game; the G-Mal and Uzi combo is lethal, plus the smoke bomb kickback makes you really hard to kill. I went 22-5 one match and now when I go like 15-8, I feel like I had a bad match. Most of my deaths now happen because my character sticks himself to a wall when I want him to roll, I get killed by a third party as I'm killing an enemy because I stay to get the kill instead of running (or smoke bombing), I get unlucky and run into a guy with a power weapon, and other stuff like that.

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Laser Priest]

Not really. 1BNT, as you call it, was implemented because, honestly, without it grenades are underpowered. It takes too long to switch to them, pull the pin and cook them, then throw them. Its this way in just about every shooter I've played, mostly because things like suppression, where real life grenades are at their most effective, simply don't exist in shooters. There is often no penalty for dying, so people are unafraid to jump and flank out of cover, rendering the primary purpose of the grenade (flushing enemies out of cover) pointless, making them more useful for indirect damage. If you are getting hit by grenades during firefights, learn to anticipate them. Run forward when you see one get thrown, or better yet, engage at long distance. Or just have better aim and kill them before the grenade is thrown. If you die to a grenade, you were outplayed, as you did not move to dodge it.

Unless I am mistaken, throwing a grenade makes you vulnerable in nearly every game their in, as you can't shoot your gun and throw at the same time. Also, to have any kind of pinpoint accuracy with grenades in a firefight, you have to have line of sight, meaning you are likely out of cover and thus vulnerable anyway. Combine that with the time it takes for them to detonate. Grenades are always unsafe unless you have the drop on your opponent or are moving with a group.

That would be true if people used grenades they were supposed to. People just kind of toss them (usually without cooking) as first instinct.

 

[NickCooley]

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

 

[Favre4ever]

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

 

[OldGus]

honestly, without it grenades are underpowered.

I think grenades are underpowered in games because they don't do enough damage. You could just go for realism by having a switch time and greater damage, which would be an alternate way to balance it. It's all about the system that involves less random grenade deaths while keeping grenades actually useful, IMO.

This... A hundred times this. Keep in mind, in real life, your average (read: old model that's been in a box for 30 years or so and is rather out of date) grenade in this time period still has a kill radius of 2-3 meters, discounting good cover. As in any normal human being, even with body armor (which is normally designed with things like bullets, rather than shrapnel or even knives, in mind), and also some of the larger canines. Even crappy ones cause serious, life-threatening injuries at 6-7 meters. The ones used by the US military now, which are hardly top of the line (that title would have to go to things like RDX grenades, which were designed with a longer fuse so the people throwing could have time to run away) have a kill radius of 5 and a cripple radius of 15.
Although, I would say C4 fits this great damage, difficult to use role quite nicely in most games. Most. In Black Ops, I think the only real difference between it and grenades in explosive power is it being slightly better against the non-existent tanks.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

I'll quit with the health regen argument, agree to disagree. But how is a weapon switching system FUBAR? I'd like you explain logically why it would be horrible, I just think it's because you've never played a game with said system so it seems foreign. How is a weapon wheel better? I only think weapon wheels work in single player where the game pauses when you bring up the wheel like in Bioshock because in real-time, a wheel is just too slow. I think it's a rather big flaw in the Uncharted control scheme that you have to stop moving to switch to your secondary.

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

It's because a weapon switching system is a superior control scheme. It allows for more fluidity along with freeing up more buttons on the controller.

SOCOM 4 was so disappointing (even though I never played the earlier games because I didn't have broadband during the PS2 era) because I was hoping for a great old-school online 3rd person shooter, and it was just COD in 3rd-person.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Oh god, that system is far worse than a wheel. One button switching through three different things? That's horrifically unnecessary. If they implemented that, I would stop playing the game, because the controls would be totally FUBAR.

I think we just have different views, and at this point continuing to endlessly debate is pointless. I feel that different games play differently and need different health systems, whereas you seem to think that every game should have exactly the same one regardless of whether it would work or not. So let's just agree to disagree.

I'll quit with the health regen argument, agree to disagree. But how is a weapon switching system FUBAR? I'd like you explain logically why it would be horrible, I just think it's because you've never played a game with said system so it seems foreign. How is a weapon wheel better? I only think weapon wheels work in single player where the game pauses when you bring up the wheel like in Bioshock because in real-time, a wheel is just too slow. I think it's a rather big flaw in the Uncharted control scheme that you have to stop moving to switch to your secondary.

So because you find a common occurrence in one game annoying you want every single online multiplayer game to have one button grenade throwing removed? No, just no.

Make it so you have to hold the button to throw it farther. Using a grenade arch, if you simply tap the button, you throw it at your feet. You have to hold the button down for a second or two to get full range. This was in Socom 1-3 and worked great.

It's because a weapon switching system is a superior control scheme. It allows for more fluidity along with freeing up more buttons on the controller.

SOCOM 4 was so disappointing (even though I never played the earlier games because I didn't have broadband during the PS2 era) because I was hoping for a great old-school online 3rd person shooter, and it was just COD in 3rd-person.

I've played games where there was only one button to cycle between more than two options and it's horrible every time. Let's say I see a group of enemies huddled together, and want to throw a grenade. I hit the button to switch from my assault rifle to grenades, throw it, and then they all roll away because the grenades in Uncharted have terrible blast radius. Now, I want to pull out my assault rifle to shoot them. I press the button, only to have my pistol come up. Well that isn't helpful, I think to myself while getting shot multiple times. I'll press the button yet again, to pull out the weapon I want. Only to find out I've been dead for a few seconds due to a horrifically clunky control scheme.


Watch this video. It's a fake news video from the Onion about a laptop with no keyboard, only one button. One button for all the functions of a keyboard. On an admittedly smaller scale, that's what you are proposing. Rather than have every possible option no more than a button press away, you're making necessary weapons several presses away, and after all that there's still an unused button. What could that be used for, I wonder? Maybe, throwing grenades?