The game still takes skill, just a different kind of skill. You claim that not being able to jumpshot makes the game take less skill, when you are in fact wrong. They fall into the same tactical shooter genre as Red Orchestra 2 and other such games with "realistic" damage models. relying more on tactics and positioning than twitch shooting. They are meant to be played in a manner that is similar to actual warfare, i.e. You seem to, for a reason unknown to me, have the notion in your head that Tannenberg and Verdun are arcade shooters. I've explained pretty reasonably how the decreased combat mobility in Tannenberg has made it a worse game but I'm sure this'll just be met with more LOL U MAD rather than acknowledgement or rebuttal. In other words, the game has simply been made to cater towards worse players by reducing the level of skill required to do well. And you're left with an excess of time to aim and fire as well. In Tannenberg, you don't have to make a split-second shot as the enemy vaults into the trench before he can fire on you. This resulted in more challenging gameplay with a higher skill ceiling. You didn't get a second to line up your shot while the other guy stands still, you had to shoot right away. This resulted in an environment where, to get kills, you had to be able to aim well and fast.
#Verdun battlefield full
Now, jumpshots countered the ADS slowdown to an extent by allowing players to preserve their full momentum, or partial momentum, while being able to aim and shoot. This decreases the level of skill required to play the game, and it's why bad people with poor reflexes and hand-eye coordination flock to games like Call of Duty. When you require people to be stationary or near stationary in order to shoot (via ADS) you make it easier to shoot people. I'll explain to you why restricting simultaneous movement and shooting is a bad thing: a moving target is harder to hit. Alistair Horne said, “Verdun was the First World War in microcosm an intensification of all its horrors and glories, courage and futility.Originally posted by none pizza with left beef:Someone sounds a bit angry that his favorite exploit was removed. Many unexploded shells (maybe 12 million) still remain.
To this day, the battlefield is still cratered and pockmarks. Also the number killed per square mile was the greatest at Verdun. Although more men died at the Somme, the proportion of casualties suffered to the number of men who fought was much higher at Verdun than at any other battle in World War I. Half of Frenchmen between 20 and 30 years old were killed. About 10% of all French war dead were from Verdun. The French most likely lost slightly more than the Germans. Of these, 300,000 were killed, which is about 1 death for every minute of the battle. Alistair Horne said, “Verdun was the First World War in microcosm an intensification of all its horrors and glories, courage and futility.” The French were bled white, but so were the Germans.
Over a 299-day-period, there were 1 million total casualties. The Battle of Verdun-fought from February 21-Decemin the Western Front of France-was horrifying and hellish even by the standards of World War One.
0 kommentar(er)
