Like I said before, why not raise the other abilities of the suit to balance out the stealth?
It's simpler and seems less deteriorating to the fun you get from being in a supersuit.
Because it makes the suit more overpowered than it already is, and brings the series even further from the basic FPS skills which were a staple of the original.

Then again, that might be what Crytek want. It's no secret that games which anyone can be good at straight away are more popular, considering the average player in FPSs probably has a 1/<1 K/D. Adding more crutches to the game through increased suit abilities seems like a simple way to get more sales; meanwhile good players will become frustrated and move on.

What exactly is so skillful about point and shoot? There's something called "strategy" that is supposed to be implemented here, not just running and gunning like COD.


EDIT: I don't care how "powerful" the suit is, if you can't hit him with at least half your clip, then you svck. The suit being stronger does not change anything about a person's ability to point and shoot. If you mean that they'll be too tricky to hit, that's something completely different altogether.

What exactly is so skillful about point and shoot? There's something called "strategy" that is supposed to be implemented here, not just running and gunning like COD.


EDIT: I don't care how "powerful" the suit is, if you can't hit him with at least half your clip, then you svck. The suit being stronger does not change anything about a person's ability to point and shoot. If you mean that they'll be too tricky to hit, that's something completely different altogether.

Lol, the assumption is strong with this one.

I mean that the suit abilities in C2 are crutches for bad players. It's as simple as that.

If you were good in Crysis wars, it's largely because you were skilful at using the radial menu, and you were good at shooting accurately and quickly. Typically strategy came into it, in the same way it does in all FPSs.

Being 'good' in Crysis 2 doesn't rely on being good at shooting, you can spec builds which allow you to spend most of the game cloaked, and run up to enemies with a shotgun or melee (which now kills too fast without giving any disadvantage.. another down-grade from Crysis 1). You can also spec builds that highlight everyone through a scope, with a semi automatic sniper rifle which kills in a few hits.

And kudos for yet more CoD hate.. you must be really cool.

Then they would need a completely new suit, and a new protagonist. I swallowed it up because it's a new Nanosuit and a much better one.
Not at all, it would be a simple matter of 'evolution', especially considering that Crytek are pushing the evolving nanosuit angle now.

Relevant is the new ignorant.You can say that, but you haven't actually provided any logic behind anything you've said so far. Noticing that something is irrelevant =/= ignorant.

Latency does play a big part, at least they can reduce it, it's the only game where lag is easily visible.

Armour as in the suit not the mode, what's the difference between less damage taken cause of armor and more Health gameplay wise? I only mentioned Armour Mode in Crysis, not the current game... no need for comparison to ARMA otherwise I woulda said a lot more, ~BF3 level of realism.

Why window so small >:(
If you're saying 'suit armour' and referring to a permanent non-activated increase to durability in the face of damage, then why be such a pedant? You're referring to health; which funnily enough was my original suggestion.

So far only the 2.0 adapts, and they will probably continue using a lesser suit in MP.

It's hard to notice when you ignore.

There is a difference between damage reduction and health, take away the armor such as in Classic mode and you die quicker, in the suit modes you survive longer with the suit, not the same thing as health, is that too hard to understand?

There is a difference between damage reduction and health, take away the armor such as in Classic mode and you die quicker, in the suit modes you survive longer with the suit, not the same thing as health, is that too hard to understand?

Your logic is incomprehensible.

The effect of taking away health/armour for classic mode is indistinguishable. The fact is, you will have a lower threshold for damage than before; attempting to create a false distinction here for the purpose of saving face is futile. What you are suggesting, in a poorly structured and illogical way, is synonymous in effect to what I already suggested. It is that simple. IIRC, damage to the target is worked out by way of dmg multipliers anyway (in Crysis 2); so a base armour stat is simply irrelevant, when a nanosuit-wearing target can simply have lower multipliers than one without and vice versa.

You are yet to suggest a viable alternative solution to the problems I have outlined so far; which, to recap, are latency having too great an influence because people die easily, and a 'see-first = win' playstyle in multiplayer.

There is a difference between damage reduction and health, take away the armor such as in Classic mode and you die quicker, in the suit modes you survive longer with the suit, not the same thing as health, is that too hard to understand?


Who cares what it works like IN THE CODE if the visible effect is 100% THE SAME as higher health?

Damage reduction is only different in effect to higher health when it is neither passive nor permanent. Suit Modes. Power-ups.

There is a difference between damage reduction and health, take away the armor such as in Classic mode and you die quicker, in the suit modes you survive longer with the suit, not the same thing as health, is that too hard to understand?

Your logic is incomprehensible.

The effect of taking away health/armour for classic mode is indistinguishable. The fact is, you will have a lower threshold for damage than before; attempting to create a false distinction here for the purpose of saving face is futile. What you are suggesting, in a poorly structured and illogical way, is synonymous in effect to what I already suggested. It is that simple. IIRC, damage to the target is worked out by way of dmg multipliers anyway (in Crysis 2); so a base armour stat is simply irrelevant, when a nanosuit-wearing target can simply have lower multipliers than one without and vice versa.

You are yet to suggest a viable alternative solution to the problems I have outlined so far; which, to recap, are latency having too great an influence because people die easily, and a 'see-first = win' playstyle in multiplayer.

Yeah what you are saying is gameplay wise, you don't seem to be able to grasp that my so called 'suggestion' makes sense in real life, even a normal person could see the difference.
I already said that armour/health increase would have the same affect gameplay.
So it doesn't make logical sense that when you take away the armoured N1.5 you take more damage from a bullet?

I never said I was going to offer a suggestion, If I did please show me. I just said that an decrease to damage taken by projectiles etc. would be more realistic than a health increase, a health increase that you suggested would affect everything such as fall damage. The two points you mentioned are both connection related, if the connection is good then it isn't that hard to retaliate.

Yeah what you are saying is gameplay wise, you don't seem to be able to grasp that my so called 'suggestion' makes sense in real life, even a normal person could see the difference.
I already said that armour/health increase would have the same affect gameplay.
So it doesn't make logical sense that when you take away the armoured N1.5 you take more damage from a bullet?

I never said I was going to offer a suggestion, If I did please show me. I just said that an decrease to damage taken by projectiles etc. would be more realistic than a health increase, a health increase that you suggested would affect everything such as fall damage. The two points you mentioned are both connection related, if the connection is good then it isn't that hard to retaliate.
You didn't say you were going to offer a suggestion, you offered one:
they should improve Armour mode so it's actually worthwhile and improve the suit's normal armour. That is a suggestion.

As for the rest of your post, falling back on what could be considered more realistic is a path to fail, as I have already stated; especially considering that, not only would that take more work than simply upping the health or tweaking damage modifiers, but it would also be entirely indistinguishable from the effects of the simpler option. The result is that the devs have done more work, and people won't even know it, or be any better off for it. Sound reasoning would suggest that, if there are no benefits from taking the more arduous path, don't take it.

Yeah what you are saying is gameplay wise, you don't seem to be able to grasp that my so called 'suggestion' makes sense in real life, even a normal person could see the difference.
I already said that armour/health increase would have the same affect gameplay.
So it doesn't make logical sense that when you take away the armoured N1.5 you take more damage from a bullet?

I never said I was going to offer a suggestion, If I did please show me. I just said that an decrease to damage taken by projectiles etc. would be more realistic than a health increase, a health increase that you suggested would affect everything such as fall damage. The two points you mentioned are both connection related, if the connection is good then it isn't that hard to retaliate.
You didn't say you were going to offer a suggestion, you offered one:
they should improve Armour mode so it's actually worthwhile and improve the suit's normal armour. That is a suggestion.

As for the rest of your post, falling back on what could be considered more realistic is a path to fail, as I have already stated; especially considering that, not only would that take more work than simply upping the health or tweaking damage modifiers, but it would also be entirely indistinguishable from the effects of the simpler option. The result is that the devs have done more work, and people won't even know it, or be any better off for it. Sound reasoning would suggest that, if there are no benefits from taking the more arduous path, don't take it.

Suggested that you change you suggestion, yup.

Why is it a path to fail? Since you keep mentioning damage modifiers wouldn't the armor improvement count as one? That's it keep telling Crytek to take the easy path, make another Crysis 2.

Suggested that you change you suggestion, yup.

Why is it a path to fail? Since you keep mentioning damage modifiers wouldn't the armor improvement count as one? That's it keep telling Crytek to take the easy path, make another Crysis 2.

That's it, keep reaching for arguments as you retreat.

Go back and re-read my post, and you'll see that I didn't just say to take the easy path, there was a qualification.

Suggested that you change you suggestion, yup.

Why is it a path to fail? Since you keep mentioning damage modifiers wouldn't the armor improvement count as one? That's it keep telling Crytek to take the easy path, make another Crysis 2.

That's it, keep reaching for arguments as you retreat.

Go back and re-read my post, and you'll see that I didn't just say to take the easy path, there was a qualification.

Am I meant to be retreating?

Usually when you say 'the easy path' you mean the easy path.

Am I meant to be retreating?

Usually when you say 'the easy path' you mean the easy path.

Sound reasoning would suggest that, if there are no benefits from taking the more arduous path, don't take it.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Am I meant to be retreating?

Usually when you say 'the easy path' you mean the easy path.

Sound reasoning would suggest that, if there are no benefits from taking the more arduous path, don't take it.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Not when it's not the best way.

What I would do:

MULTIPLAYER

-Higher base health

-Armor works as in C2 campaign/C1 (suit energy absorbs 100% of the damage until depletion)

-Getting shot doesn't grind your sprint to a halt

-Ability to sprint sideways (bullet dodging, moar mobility)

-Modules level up faster (level ground for newer players)

-Ability to sprint (at normal, human speeds: Think walking in Speed Mode in C1) when Suit Energy is depleted.

-Slightly increase base movement speed (and as a consequence, power sprint speed)


SINGLE PLAYER

-Higher bullet damage against humans (seriously, it takes forever to kill a FLESH AND BONE dude)

-Higher capacity to carry ammo (approx. double, which would be simmilar to how it was in C1)

-Dropping a weapon only makes you lose the ammo in its clip: The rest stays with you (stocking bullets in case you decide to pick up weapon X or Y later on)

-Sideways sprint too

-Aim-down-sights during a PowerJump (like in Multiplayer)

-Being able to sprint and slide while reloading (like in Multiplayer)

-Fix the weapon cycling bug (sometimes cycling weapons ignores an input or two: It has some sort of weird lag)

-Also allow sprinting at human speeds when energy is depleted.

-Also increase base speed slightly (seriously, 9 m/s sprint? That's super-human for you? For real? Usain Bolt did that easy. That's right: A puny human being.)

Not when it's not the best way.
If it's not the best way, then there would be a benefit to taking the more arduous path. Therefore, you take it.

The logic here is watertight. You can keep playing the last word game, but it'll be the only thing you win in this debate.

@Rukumouru
Good list.
Speed mode and ability to sprint sideways like in Crysis Wars and this game will by much more playable.

@Rukumouru
Good list.
Speed mode and ability to sprint sideways like in Crysis Wars and this game will by much more playable.


I forgot to include:

-More accurate hip-firing

-Less "weapon-readying delay" (seriously, taking out and/or reloading the JAW or the L-TAG feels CLUNKY!!!)

Not when it's not the best way.
If it's not the best way, then there would be a benefit to taking the more arduous path. Therefore, you take it.

The logic here is watertight. You can keep playing the last word game, but it'll be the only thing you win in this debate.

Really, so you're saying your way is much easier?

Increase health
.Have to rebalance some of the modules.
.Rebalance the melee.
.Change damage values for a number of things such as fall damage and explosions etc.

Increase armor(essentially reduce damage from projectiles)
.decrease weapon damage modifier.

I don't see why my suggestion is more 'arduous' than yours, word games as in when you try to get personal like you did?

Not when it's not the best way.
If it's not the best way, then there would be a benefit to taking the more arduous path. Therefore, you take it.

The logic here is watertight. You can keep playing the last word game, but it'll be the only thing you win in this debate.

Really, so you're saying your way is much easier?

Increase health
.Have to rebalance some of the modules.
.Rebalance the melee.
.Change damage values for a number of things such as fall damage and explosions etc.

Increase armor(essentially reduce damage from projectiles)
.decrease weapon damage modifier.

I don't see why my suggestion is more 'arduous' than yours, word games as in when you try to get personal like you did?
Yet another fallacy.

Reducing incoming damage also requires identical rebalancing. Think about it logically; how can something which has the same in-game effect require less rebalancing of surrounding game mechanics?

Yet another fallacy.

Reducing incoming damage also requires identical rebalancing. Think about it logically; how can something which has the same in-game effect require less rebalancing of surrounding game mechanics?

Yes, just like your suggestion.

Because an 'increase' to armour would only affect the projectiles and no need to modify any modules etc unlike your suggestion, don't get logic involved if you don't plan on using it.

Yet another fallacy.

Reducing incoming damage also requires identical rebalancing. Think about it logically; how can something which has the same in-game effect require less rebalancing of surrounding game mechanics?

Yes, just like your suggestion.

Because an 'increase' to armour would only affect the projectiles and no need to modify any modules etc unlike your suggestion, don't get logic involved if you don't plan on using it.

Which would in turn make melee more powerful, as well as explosions and falling damage in relation to projectile damage.

As I said, it would require the same re-balancing; upping health lowers projectile damage relative to the player's durability - it's the same effect, therefore it needs the same rebalancing.

But by all means, keep answering with poorly conceived replies.

Yet another fallacy.

Reducing incoming damage also requires identical rebalancing. Think about it logically; how can something which has the same in-game effect require less rebalancing of surrounding game mechanics?

Yes, just like your suggestion.

Because an 'increase' to armour would only affect the projectiles and no need to modify any modules etc unlike your suggestion, don't get logic involved if you don't plan on using it.

Which would in turn make melee more powerful, as well as explosions and falling damage in relation to projectile damage.

As I said, it would require the same re-balancing; upping health lowers projectile damage relative to the player's durability - it's the same effect, therefore it needs the same rebalancing.

But by all means, keep answering with poorly conceived replies.

Melee, explosions and fall damage =/= to projectile/weapons damage, this isn't the first time you ignored this fact.

Why would a decrease of damage taken require you to change modules? They don't have to change the rates of the one that increases the rate of healing.

But by all means, keep ignoring important points made by other people and try to mock people with your own faults.

Even in Call of Duty: MW3 health bar is longer than in Crysis 2 with (sic!) N2.0

Melee, explosions and fall damage =/= to projectile/weapons damage, this isn't the first time you ignored this fact.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that changing something which only affects projectiles (ie the damage modifiers) serves to disrupt the game balance, making melee and explosions proportionately more potent, and more reliable killing methods. This isn't the first time you've ignored that.

Why would a decrease of damage taken require you to change modules? They don't have to change the rates of the one that increases the rate of healing.

But by all means, keep ignoring important points made by other people and try to mock people with your own faults.
Of course they would. The effect would have to be toned down to match the decreased damage being taken from projectiles, otherwise it really would make melee and explosives the only reliable ways of killing people.

You can keep saying that I'm ignoring you, but I'm not. You just have no argument. Every single time you focus on one small part of my post where you think you can squeeze out another reply to save face, and never alter anything which actually changes the status of your argument.. apart from the part where you discretely moved goalposts; changing your idea of an armour stat to a more simple change in damage modifiers, which was actually first brought up by me as a more viable alternative to your suggestion.


IIRC, damage to the target is worked out by way of dmg multipliers anyway (in Crysis 2); so a base armour stat is simply irrelevant, when a nanosuit-wearing target can simply have lower multipliers than one without and vice versa.

Anyway, this is going in what I suspect will be never-ending circles of you doing what I have already described.. so I suggest you PM me your replies in an attempt to avoid further cluttering of the thread.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that changing something which only affects projectiles (ie the damage modifiers) serves to disrupt the game balance, making melee and explosions proportionately more potent, and more reliable killing methods. This isn't the first time you've ignored that.

Why would a decrease of damage taken require you to change modules? They don't have to change the rates of the one that increases the rate of healing.

But by all means, keep ignoring important points made by other people and try to mock people with your own faults.
Of course they would. The effect would have to be toned down to match the decreased damage being taken from projectiles, otherwise it really would make melee and explosives the only reliable ways of killing people.

You can keep saying that I'm ignoring you, but I'm not. You just have no argument. Every single time you focus on one small part of my post where you think you can squeeze out another reply to save face, and never alter anything which actually changes the status of your argument.. apart from the part where you discretely moved goalposts; changing your idea of an armour stat to a more simple change in damage modifiers, which was actually first brought up by me as a more viable alternative to your suggestion.


IIRC, damage to the target is worked out by way of dmg multipliers anyway (in Crysis 2); so a base armour stat is simply irrelevant, when a nanosuit-wearing target can simply have lower multipliers than one without and vice versa.

Anyway, this is going in what I suspect will be never-ending circles of you doing what I have already described.. so I suggest you PM me your replies in an attempt to avoid further cluttering of the thread.

You're ignoring the other games mentioned regarding slower and how it affects them. Are you blind or just ignorant, bullet damage modifiers don't affect melee or explosions or fall damage.

And what would be the difference between a bullet damage reduction and a health
increase, they both make weapons less desirable, apart from mine not requiring as many modifications as yours.

Your right about that, you can't show a blind man anything because they will always be blind. Keep standing by you lesser idea.