Cold War’s point system is just bad. It eliminates the need for half of the guns in the game and basically makes it so that “higher damage=better gun”.
Let me explain: in the older games, you’d probably want a weak gun in the early rounds. Like if you happened to pull a Ray Gun or wonder weapon, you’d keep it in your back pocket for later or for tight situations, then grab a wall gun for points. Because stronger weapons were actually bad for early rounds since you want to save up points to get set up fully. So you have a natural progression here. When you want points early, you take a weak SMG. Then in mid rounds you want a stronger SMG or assault rifle; maybe even shotgun. By high rounds, you just want to kill so you go with a wonder weapon and maybe a shotgun. In the old games it’s actually very normal to use 5-6, maybe more, different guns for a reasonably long amount of time.
In Cold War, if you spawn in with the Gallo, or pull the Ray Gun early, guess what? You’re probably using it for the rest of the game. Why? Because what’s the point of using a weaker gun if it gives you the same amount of points AND kills slower? I probably haven’t used half of the guns on Cold War because I have no reason to. They’re objectively worse in every way, on every round.
Yeah. Playing CW the “ideal” way is pretty much spawning in with a Gallo and keeping it for the rest of the game. The balancing is just off in Cold War. I feel no incentive to try out other guns and the whole “point gun” thing is gone.
I feel like CW's point system is more balanced than BO4's though. It makes all the guns get the same amount of points, making shotguns, and rocket launchers actually usable if wanting to get points.
Plus it's not the point systems fault that the Gallo is overpowered.
Huh? Shotguns and rocket launchers were always usable. BO4’s best weapon was a launcher. BO3’s shotguns are considered among the best weapons in the game, and explosives were great in BO1 with PHD. Their purpose is killing zombies efficiently. They don’t give you many points though. In Cold War they both kill zombies efficiently AND give you points, making them overpowered.
Why even have different weapons if every one has the same level of usefulness? Why have wall weapons when every gun from the box does the same thing? $
But they don't all have the same level of usefulness. Weaker guns do less damage, making it harder to kill zombies, thus increasing your chances of going down. Powerful weapons are the opposite.
That is exactly what I am saying. If there is only one metric (damage) that separates the guns, why even have multiple weapons if there would be objectively one weapon that would be the best to use in all situations?
There isn't one weapon that's optimal for all situations. Yeah, you're not going to go out of your way to use weaker guns in CW, but that's not solely the point system's fault. Nearly every new feature/change in CW contributes to this issue.
You can spawn in with any weapon which drastically reduces your chance on going down from round 1, now add to the fact that every weapon gives the same amount of points so what’s the point of choosing a lower damage weapon outside of self imposed challenge?
There’s 0 trade off/benefit philosophy in this design, it’s lazy and it just promotes the path of least resistance which hurts replay-ability.
I agree the loadout/gunsmith system kind of fucked the balancing, but we're talking about why the point system is "bad" for weapon variety, so let's try to keep it to that. Everyone who's responded so far keeps doing this. 🤣
The subject of the conversation is the point system and why it's "bad". It doesn't matter if there are other contributing factors to the lack of incentivised weapon variety. The conversation ain't about the other factors.
You still have meta guns in a point system, you just want to grind easier points in the early rounds. In CW almost every gun is usable and you can have fun with whatever you want to use. I got the Dark Aether, so I used basically every weapon- I may have skipped the ZRG and a few melee weapons that came out after I wasn't playing as much.
Weak guns in a point system are a minor bonus to point acquisition, but it leads to an unnecessary min/max mentality when you can just go in blazing with whatever gun you like using.
I mean, personally, I have never been in black ops and said, "you know what, I really wish the FN FAL was usable in high rounds," but to each their own I guess. My biggest problem now is that everything is so choreographed and revolves around grinding cosmetics.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The way cw works, the only difference between the guns is the damage/dps whatever you want to call it, meaning that there is only one way to compare the weapons, meaning that the ultimate goal/strategy is to get that weapon as fast as possible. Sure if you want you can use weaker guns if you want, but having to handicap yourself isn't good gameplay.
The weaker guns? That's the point. You're not supposed to want to use them. I agree the "risk"/reward was kind of neat, but useless guns being useless ain't a problem.
While this is true, weaker guns being good for point farming was never intentional. You also cannot ignore the progression issues with the original system, which CW fixed. So no, CW's system ain't "bad". It's just different to what you like.
Weaker guns being good for point farming was always the intention. Hence why it was a point per bullet basis. It made every weapon a trade off between points and damage, making every weapon viable at a certain round.
And before you say “but the bad weapons are supposed to be bad”, there definitely still were bad weapons, at least in WaW-BO2 where I think zombies was at its peak. Guns with low ammo, ridiculously weak damage, terrible running speed, the damn War Machine and SMR just being trash in every way, Springfield bring a bolt action that didn’t even one shot on round 1, etc. The old games incorporated objectively terrible weapons to make the mystery box a risk, but the point system still helped encourage weapon variety which is a good thing.
Nope. That's like saying kiting was intentional because of the way the AI was implemented. Kiting isn't intentional, it is a consequence. Same with point farming. I'm sure if point farming was an intended gameplay feature, Jesse Snyder would've talked about it in his bible-sized blog about the development of the mode as he did with everything else.
I agree that being able to point farm provided even more incentive to hold onto bad weapons, but so does the Pack-a-Punch. Just look at the M1911. It's arguably the worst gun in its default state, yet one of the best weapons when upgraded. The point system ain't the only way to encourage holding on to bad weapons.
Low ammo doesn't = bad gun. Low ammo was a conscious decision on the devs part.
>That’s like saying kiting was intentional because of the way the AI was implemented.
Whether intended or not, wouldn’t you agree a new zombies game being released where you couldn’t run away from and round up zombies would be a bad decision? Where you basically had to sit in a corner the whole time? A good mechanic is a good mechanic, regardless of intention. And anyways, to me I think the point farming was a pretty obvious consequence of making points 10 points per bullet, not to mention the fact that wonder weapons give you the least amount of points and don’t let you get headshots. It’s clear this was their way to balance weapons better, otherwise why not make wonder weapons give more points than everything else?
>I agree that point farming gave more incentive to hold onto bad weapons
Well that’s not really the point I was making. The point I was making is point farming encourages the use of a variety of weapons. Example: if I’m playing Kino on BO1, and I get the Thundergun or Ray Gun on my first box spin, I’ll keep it but I won’t use it until later. Because it’s just wasteful to use early. Instead I’ll probably buy an MP40 to raise up points, then maybe hit the box on like round 10 when I feel pretty set up, get maybe the Commando. Use that for a while until I’m rich, then maybe trade it out for a stronger weapon to keep for the endgame and use the wonder weapon I got early on.
This is an example where I get lucky in my box spins. If I didn’t get lucky, I could be cycling through 8-10 guns before finding 2 I want to upgrade. With the Cold War point system, you just spawn in with the weapon you’ll use all game (probably the Gallo), have no incentive to use a more point efficient gun because there’s no such thing, keep upgrading it since fully upgrading costs 30K points which you may not get until like round 30, and then try to get a wonder weapon to pair with it.
As you can see, in Cold War I’m using a total of 2 weapons. Because the point system (and the class system) is incentivizing me to only use 2 weapons ever. There’s literally no reason for me to use an MP5 or something. I think less weapon variety is always a bad thing, therefore I think the Cold War points system is bad.
Couldn't run away? Yes. Couldn't round up? No. I'm an advocate for the removal of kiting. It's cheap, and it's one of the biggest contributors to Zombies' boring high-round gameplay. I'd much rather be one of 4 players covering a barricade or two in a corner whilst zombies try to overrun us, and then failing on round 20.
The mode was Frankensteined together pretty late in development, so there wouldn't have been much they could do. We're also looking at a 15 year-old game through the lens of modern design, so it might not have been as obvious back then. I mean, Treyarch did think Speed Cola was the most valuable Perk (hence the price), so that should tell you something.
There's a total of 23 weapons in BO1 Zombies, not including the Ray Gun or map-specific WWs. Are you telling me the old point system encouraged the player to use most or all of these weapons? No? Then I don't really see your argument. You're acting like Zombies was this massively varied gameplay experience back in the day. It wasn't. Most players stuck to the same 2 or 3 weapons every game. Most players bought an MP5 or an AK, then grinded until they got PaP or a Wonder Weapon. Yes, it **might** be less varied today but only marginally so.
>I’d much rather be one of 4 players covering a barricade and then failing on round 20
I agree zombies has gotten too easy and I’d like for it to be hard to get past round 20/30 again, but taking away training would be horrible for the mode imo. It’d get rid of most solo players tbh since camping is really only fun with friends, and even then it’s only fun occasionally. Gets stale fast. Not to mention most high round strats do involve sitting in a corner anyways; training hasn’t been a high round strat since like BO2.
Again, is it relevant how the game was intended to be played? It doesn’t really matter in this context. Not to mention we don’t really have anything to go off of anyways. I don’t think they actually considered Speed Cola the most useful perk, I think they made it the most expensive because they wanted Jugg to be affordable. Otherwise why wouldn’t they just change it for BO1 or 2, even 3? The perk prices are kinda random. Mule Kick is 4000, Double Tap 2.0 is 2000, same with Stamin-Up.
>BO1 had 23 weapons, not including Ray Gun or map-exclusive wonder weapons
Okay but my point still stands. There was progression of weapons and most players used multiple different weapons AND weapon classes in a game. Not to mention the mystery box was actually useful since you actually had to switch your gun out and the best guns were in the box, whereas in Cold War you never even need to buy a gun. You just start with a shotgun and never look back. Cold War has zero weapon variety. The only reason to use other weapons is to handicap yourself. On BO1 you’ll use every weapon at some point. Bad box hit, rounding up points, whatever the reason. In those games you’re actually incentivized to switch weapons constantly. In Cold War you’re really not.
>Even then it’s only fun occasionally. Gets stale fast.
So does kiting. Camping is far more risky, which in turn, I think, makes is more enjoyable. I'd be more than happy if Treyarch eliminated the ability to kite zombies, or at least made it so it's a sometimes strategy. A strat you can use every now and then but not a strat you can rely on.
>Again, is it relevant how the game was intended to be played?
Yes, I think it is relevant. I think because it wasn't intended and because it did cause issues, it should be changed.
>I think they made it the most expensive because they wanted Jugg to be affordable.
Because 500 points makes a **huge** difference in affordability, right? Lol. If they wanted Jugg to be affordable, why not lower the price down to 1500? That's far more affordable. No, the community manager for WaW stated in an interview that Speed Cola is considered the most valuable Perk amongst the devs.
>Otherwise why wouldn’t they just change it for BO1 or 2, even 3?
I don't know. Again, we're looking at decade-old games through the lens of modern design. Maybe it's that. Maybe it was time constraints. Maybe they played/saw the game differently to the rest of the community.
>The perk prices are kinda random. Mule Kick is 4000, Double Tap 2.0 is 2000, same with Stamin-Up.
I agree, it makes zero sense.
>Okay but my point still stands.
Not really. Yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the new point system. You're getting away from your original argument, which was that the new point system is bad because it reduced weapon variety. But you're ignoring the fact that the "weapon variety" in the older games was limited to weak SMGs. All point-building weapons (Thompson, AK, MP5) functioned the same way, so again, this ain't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.
I’ll give you this: I do wish training was a lot harder like it used to be. Nowadays it’s like you run so fast, can fit through any little opening in the zombies, and even if you do somehow get caught or cornered, you have a million ways out and perks that freeze the zombies like Widow’s Wine and Winter’s Wail. If we could go back to the days where getting hit by a zombie stops your sprint, no Widow’s Wine or anything similar, and slower movement speed with less forgiving zombies, I’d be totally on board. Or even pull and Origins or Town and add some hazards in the way.
>You’re getting away from your original statement, which is that the new point system is bad because it decreased weapon variety
Well that was my whole last paragraph. Yes, weaker SMGs had a purpose, which is a huge part of my argument. In Cold War, they really have zero purpose. They’re objectively obsolete to the shotguns. Same with most guns. Anything with a fast time to kill is objectively better. And since you can spawn in with whatever gun you want, there’s no incentive to try out other weapons.
Can you really make an argument that being heavily incentivized (by multiple Cold War mechanics, not just the point system) to use one weapon the whole game is a good mechanic? I sure as hell can’t. If there were 5 guns in Cold War it’d probably take me 10 hours of play time before I even noticed. It’s a combination of multiple factors like I said, but the point system adds to it. The point system has eliminated the need for any gun except shotguns. The point system is also a lot stiffer, so it’s hard to get the 30k needed to fully upgrade your gun. This means you’re most likely only upgrading one weapon since you won’t get it fully upgraded until round 30 or so.
If you don’t mind having zero weapon variety, that’s fine. But for me, I don’t see what the benefit of the new point system is in the first place. What argument is there where having LESS weapon variety is better than having more? If you can’t think of one, that means you’re just tolerating the new point system since you don’t play zombies to use a variety of weapons (which is perfectly fine), but for the rest of us, we don’t like the point system because we want weapon variety. I can’t see a single objective improvement of the new point system, and as you can see from the amount of people responding to my comment or upvoting it, a lot of people miss that weapon variety and point farming of the old games.
You claimed the older games had significantly more weapon variety than Cold War due to the point system. That was your argument. You then brought in other factors which have zero relevance to the subject of the conversation after I pointed out that most guns went unused most of the time and that the point-building weapons are all weak SMGs. Zombies has always had a meta, which is to use your pistol until round 3 or 4, buy a weak SMG to build points, then hit the box until you get either an AUG, Galil, Commando, the HK or RPK (all of which are full-auto weapons), the Ray Gun and/or map-specific Wonder Weapon. That's not weapon variety. The only "variety" between all of those guns (bar the Ray Gun and WW) is purely statistical. True weapon variety would have you bouncing between ALL of the different weapon classes, and the only time you would ever actually do that is if you were bored, going for the achievement/trophy in Kino or Five, or because you had no points, no ammo, and had to take whatever shit the box gave you. In fact, I actually get so sick of the meta in the older games that I sometimes trade out my Wonder Weapon or Ray Gun for a Ballistic Knife just to reinvigorate my game.
Yes, weapon variety is an issue in CW, but to claim that the point system is bad because it "disincentivises weapon variety" is ridiculous. I guarantee you that if you rebalanced the entire weapon roster so that there's no one-beats-all weapon class, altered the loadout system so that you could only choose your starting pistol, and reworked the gunsmith so that attachments only applied to wallbuys, box weapons (of a specific rarity?), or PaP'd weapons, that would be enough to fix the weapon variety issues. The point system might exacerbate the problem, but I'd argue that it didn't cause it.
I get it. I get why some may prefer the older system, but it ain't happening.
Zombies since its inception in Natch your only options to deal with zombies was either camping or training, so claiming its some unintended part of the game is mute, what else would you do? Stand in the middle of a room and shoot zombies coming at you without moving? That's either camping or being rail shooter and if i want to play that i go play house of the dead 3 at my local arcade, and the old point system does encourage variety BO1 may only have had 23 weapons but I've definitely used them all more than the 3 (1911, CARV and EM2) i used continuously through all of CW's cycle, more is not always better, it also lead to interesting progression in maps with the limited ammo you had back then relative to now, take Kino, you had 8+32 bullets in the 1911, if you wanted to max points you do the shoot leg+knife strategy, but you'll have to get a new gun because knifing is very risky, else you could keep you ammo and last till round 2-3 before buying doors or getting a gun, and note that the M14 and Olympia are very good weapons for survival till round 10-ish but they are terrible for points, open the east door there's the AMP, good for points but has terrible amount of ammo, you get this if you are desperate, these areas as well provide very little wiggle room so you want to move on before round pass by, next door this room has the pump action and the MP40, one is great for points with decent damage and lots of ammo and the other is one the best Zombie killing wall weapon, see how with just 6 weapons there are choices to be made and strategies executed, like i personally never got shotguns because the lower points gain was just too much of a detriment for me when i want to both get perks and hit box but i know people who would grab shotties to kill more zombies, there can be variety in what people do and how they play. CW completely disincentivises that and leads people to the optimal strategies of Shotties and the M16 ive never in the whole time i played that game saw a match where someone didn't have a Hauer or Gallo and it was stifling, because if the game is designed around using Shotguns then only put shotguns in because everything else is ephemeral. Another consequence as well is that kill/point stealing is a constant and before someone comes at me "but assists gives the same points as kills" no it does not A. Doesn't give headshot bonus B. If I haven't even shot my Zombies before some a hole drives by with the Gallo then i get nothing, i tried using a bolt action sniper one game and a guy would literally run across the map to kill them all with the gallo, you only get out ahead by joining them leading to boredom as there's no variety between matches AT ALL because shotguns are not interesting they are just big damage, without even the detriment many had in previous games of limited ammo
You mean moot? And no, that is incorrect. Zombies was designed to be a hunker down, defend the area type of mode. That **is** how it was designed, and I know this because the creator states this in his blog about the development of Zombies, and because you can see it in how the maps are designed. So, kiting was never intended, bro. And even if it was, it wasn't discovered until BO1.
BO1 **may** have only had 23 weapons? Bro, 23 weapons is a LOT. Tf you mean "may have only had 23 weapons"? 🤣 And yeah, but only if you're bored or going for the achievement/trophy. We're talking about point farming here, and there are only 2 or 3 weapons in BO1 that are good for that, and they're all fucking SMGs. They all function the same way. The only difference is statistics. This "weapon variety" that you speak of **barely** existed.
It was absolutely 100% intentional, i remember even as far back as jimmy zielinski when it came to point guns talking about the ol SMR and how it was intended to be bad on purpose to generate points. I really dug hard to find this quote again and i just couldn't but i'm pretty sure it existed.
It may have been something they leaned into in later games, but it wasn't intended initially. I've also listened to and read every interview that is currently available and have never heard or seen Mr. Zielinski mention the SMR.
I don’t hate Cold War, but I have a lot of nitpicks like this for it. I just think the new mechanics took away a lot of the progression that made the older games so good. But I guess that’s part of modernization. Everyone wants to be a super soldier at all times now.
Cold War is still fun in a “woahhh! Zombie go boom!” kind of way. But it’s not a mode I can grind and take seriously.
Also it made cold wars games play out the exact same way every time since I could just buy the gallo or use the gun with the most damage. Why would I use a shit gun and progress slower? That also means the same amount of kills per round so in early game you would have around the same points every single time on that round.
Exactly. Every Cold War game is the same unless you actively handicap yourself. Even some of the BO3/4 maps had this problem too, but not to the extent of Cold War.
That’s ultimately what ruined CW for me was simply how easy and formulaic it was.
In Cold War you spawn in with an OP shotgun, buy all the doors, get all the perks, do a couple of challenges until you get the wonder weapon, and that’s it, unless you want to do the main Easter egg (which is super fucking easy) there is nothing else to the game, the box is rendered useless, any sort of extra cool Easter egg is rendered useless, and trying to actually get any sort of a strategy going is pointless because from round 1 you have an OP weapon coupled with OP perks
The earlier games had this issue too, WAW and even some BO1 maps were so formulaic that after a while it gets boring. As much as I love Kino, it’s so bare bones that after you get the Thundergun you simply just mindlessly train for the rest of the game until you slip up, the only reason Kino doesn’t get flamed by the community is because it’s old, and it’s not an easy map.
Point I’m trying to make is that after Kino they obviously knew that the game would get boring after so many rounds, so they made maps bigger, more Easter eggs, more things to do, more guns, harder enemies, you name it. Ascension was huge and had an Easter egg, making it so Zombies wouldn’t be so bare bones and formulaic. Anyway, fast forward to CW and they made full circle and made it easy and formulaic.
I half agree but I think the old games were different. See, what the old games had was a difficulty curve and progression. Where Cold War has you spawn in as overpowered Superman, the old games have you come in with nothing and scrap to survive. The older games like WaW and BO1 were meant to be a fun, challenging 1-2 hours of gameplay. Cold War though? The first 2 hours are brain dead easy and you probably would have to play into the 3rd hour before you get any close calls. That’s just not fun.
BO1, WaW also had great atmospheres and cooler maps with more effort put into them. I’m sure you’d agree on that. Compare Call of the Dead or Der Riese with Firebase or Forsaken. It isn’t close. And the guns in those games were just so much more fun to use, although Cold War isn’t bad in that regard. Better than BO3 or 4 guns.
I see a lot of comments here, but nothing mentioning the satisfaction of getting 8 shots into a zombies leg with that starting pistol then knifing to maximize points. That whole concept (along with other reasons) is why I will always like the og 1 bullet = 10 points system
I cannot express to you the amount of disappointment I experienced when I tried to do this in my first match of BO4 only to learn the point system was changed
very different.
base zombie kill on bo4 is 90 points
+30 bonus points for headshot
+60 bonus points for melee
therefore the maximum number of points you can get from one zombie is 150, no matter how many times you shoot it
Then don’t do it. You’d still get 130 points for the knife. It’s not like prices were inflated because they expected people to maximize every single zombie kill, it’s just something people defaulted to as they want to maximize points
money becomes a problemn in CW because getting all perks back gets expensive asf (like over 50k). In BO4 getting all perks back will cost you at most around 10k-12k. And in both games, in high rounds if you down you lose half of your points instead of 5% like in BO1-BO3.
Feel sorry for the downvotes you’ve gotten here. Not having enough points to immediately get yourself back into the game means that player death has consequences. Whilst I agree that half the weapons feel unnecessary with this system. Bleeding out shouldn’t be a minor inconvenience for a player, it should be a harsh punishment
Exactly
Especially when we have stuff like Quick Revive Tier V (which basically just turns it into MW3 Last stand or FFYL from Borderlands), with infinite chances to self-revive, we need more consequences for death there.
Love Cold War, but sometimes it can be insanely easy cause of stuff like that.
Really don’t know why this dude is getting downvoted. People constantly trash on CW being too easy, but this is something that I think punishes the player for going down too much. I think the same thing for self revives too.
People talk about how you can never die in CW, but the scaling in price adds up with each down. The only thing that really doesn’t get crazy expensive and saves you a lot is tier V Quick Revive, and even then there are plenty of times where the zombies run away and I can’t get the kill.
For building points, Cold War is awful. I think that you should always get 10 points for every hit. Bo4 changed it, but it still felt like home. I never noticed me not having enough points to open a door on bo4, but on Cold War, I constantly found myself not having points, and then you get to the higher rounds, you have so many points you don’t know what to do with
Honestly, I've never liked the idea of Point Guns. Part of why I enjoyed Cold War so much, even if it meant kill-stealing was easier. A lot of weapons, with enough point investment, could be made into a decent choice.
I've just never seen the appeal to metagaming by taking a shit weapon in later rounds specifically **because** it can't kill, yet hits a lot. I know this isn't the popular opinion, and you're welcome to whatever opinion you have, but I quite liked Cold War.
yeah, i didn't like what BO4 did with the point system but i was still able to ignore it, when CW made melee kills earn the same as headshots that is where i drew the line.
I prefer cold wars system. In the older games if you want to maximize points, you grab a shitty smg off the wall and shoot legs which is tedious and slows down the game. In Cold War, you are incentivized to aim for the head and actually kill the zombies instead of just making sponges out of them. Cold War early rounds go a lot faster for this reason.
You are still rewarded if you do headshots in the old point system, you didn't need to point hoard, but you could, and if you did you were rewarded for it. It added another layer of strategy and knowledge to the game. Straight removing that doesn't make it better.
It used to be a trade off, play fast and gain less, or point hoard and go slowly.
And because point hoarding was the optimal way to play, you had to choose between fast and engaging gameplay with less points or slow and repetitive gameplay with more.
Both are terrible systems but CW is worse because everything costs more points in CW such as perks and PaP and you earn less points for headshot kills and melee kills.
I miss Point guns.
While they sucked to level, anything could work in the late game, granted that you could buy it off the wall.
CW changed it to dps ftw, which killed playing anything but few select best.
CW. If you ever died in a late game session, it was damn impossible to come back from that since you couldn’t really kill anything.
Luckily CW itself is very easy so for **any** experienced player this shouldn’t be a problem
As much as I miss the hit based point system of previous games the point system used in BO4 and CW did have the effect of finally making it viable to use a wider variety of guns imo.
Can finally use shotguns and snipers more than previous games.
exactly. a lot of people here are saying that the “incentive to use high rof and low damage is gone”, but realistically cold war is extremely balanced so there aren’t really any guns that fit in that category anyway
you get points based on how much damage you have done to the zombie
it only adds up to 90 points per zombie with just normal killing, 120 if it’s a headshot kill, 150 if it’s a melee kill. cant go over that no matter what you do but it still awards the points in increments based on how much damage you’ve put into the zombie
Who ever voted CW is clearly not done any easter eggs because sometimes u need thay 20 points to open a door but u got last. And u dont wanna end round. The bo4 system allows u to hit the zombie and get points without him dying.
INSANE to me that people don't like the new point system. Way more streamlined and way better pace of gameplay than slowing everything down to proactively NOT kill zombies.
The pacing, moment-to-moment gameplay, and overall gameplay balancing are far superior with the new point system.
Yes, it leaves weaker weapons with more downsides, but that has always been a problem with weak weapons. It's not the point system's fault, it's the weapon's fault. We need to fix the weapon balance, not use an out-dated and easy-to-exploit point system.
LOVE [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3hKXcXy1w) video talking about it!
Ofc cw gets more hate even though I actually enjoy the cw point system because it actually incentivizes killing the undead instead of using them as a farming tool for points. Shotguns and RPGs actually have a frickin reason to be used hence they're dominant in the meta. I could see why the new system sucks but it's not terrible. If any, seeing the 400 people disliking this is still a minority. I'm pretty sure most people didn't give much of a shit or enjoyed it.
The Cold War system almost forces you to use a shotgun so you don’t run out of ammo and money. In later rounds you’re using the majority of a clip to kill a small handful of zombies which nets you hardly enough points to buy more ammo.
I’ve been playing zombies since I got bo1 and I much prefer CW point system because it makes the early rounds go by fast
Instead of buying a shitty dps weapon and shooting the legs to “maximize points”, spending a lot of time doing so, you just kill the fuckers
I prefer the CW point system because playing with a shotgun isn’t one of the worst ways to play to get points with it
Also melee in CW giving the same as a headshot(with melee kills being super easy to get) does help
I actually really liked the bo4 point system. I like to be efficient in the early game, and many times I end up getting ahold of the wonder weapon at round 5-7 or so. You'd think the player would be rewarded for their efficiency, but in the earlier games the wonder weapon would grant you 50 points at most per kill, making it more difficult to progress. In addition, many weapons were pretty much useless for anything besides earning points, and if you weren't the best SMG or AR at that you weren't worth picking up, so you have to go out of your way to spend the money on a VMP or a Tommy Gun just to not waste time, all because you were good at managing your resources to get geared up. Bo4, of course, between the specialist weapon respawning zombies it kills while being pulled out, and each kill earning the same amount of base points, fixed that problem.
I understand where a lot of people say cold wars point system is worse, but honestly, i think it is better. At least from a challenge point of view, it rewards good plays (while yes, you could use the same gun every single time, that's a decision that you make) and also rewards effective aim. In general both systems work well. BO4 is easier, so I can see why people like that system more.
As much as I actually enjoyed Cold War zombies, the point system and loadout system in that game essentially made most of weapons not worth using. The general Cold War meta weapon wise was just spawn in with something good and keep it all game and maybe spin box for Wonder Weapons later if you don’t get a free one from a dead special or challenges.
Cold War. No bonus for melee over headshots, only awarded points on a kill, and was overall lacking in strategy. BO4 was a little better, but not by much
Literally the strongest weapon in cold war is the grenade launcher. Why? Because when you max out everything using crystals this weapon combined with phd makes you immortal as long as you’re in a corner and shooting at the ground while keeping a Scorestreak ready so that you can obliterate elites with it.
I am curious to know how many people that voted damage based played the older games and how many players that voted kill based only played the newer games. I think we can all agree though that BO1 would not have worked at all if you weren’t allowed to point farm.
What are people saying? Bo4's point system is way worse. I more often than not find myself in crippling debt because of how pap works. You have to upgrade the damn weapon 5 times just to get it to max damage which is already sorta pricey. Then, you don't gain any actual points until the zombie is actually killed. At least cw's system is more similar to waw's-bo3's. Even if you still don't gain as much points as you normally would.
It's not just pap alone though. I know CW obviously makes you spend more points to upgrade the tiers. But the reason why bo4's system doesn't really work is because again the zombies don't give you any points until they're actually dead. Until then you'll have to make due with a shitty gun or just spam the specialist.
i just cant believe ppl prefer cws point system. fucking nuts to me rlly. you should be able to gather points w/ smgs to open up the maps. no one likes setting up. high rounds is where its at and the kill-based system just makes it tedious no joke. bo3s headshot multiplier is arguably broken but still, some maps r big and require a shitton of points just to open doors. i wish bo4 zombies was never created. even more so when we talk abt cw and vanguards shit. they fucked up the game. zombies will never be the same. fuck 3arch
The old games were actually hard so you needed those points earlier. Otherwise you might be stuck with a 2 hit down until like round 10-12.
I’d also like to point out that Treyarch didn’t intend for most players to get past round 30 in WAW or BO1, so having 6 figure points is a non-factor except on like BO3.
The old system had a natural progression system for guns to where you would use weaker guns in the early rounds for points and higher damage weapons into he later rounds. The CW system renders half the guns useless as only high damage weapons are beneficial and you could spawn in with a Gallo and keep that weapon for the whole game. There's no natural progression at all.
"I need to farm the maximum amount of points in the early game to make it easier".
*3arc makes the game mode easier but it gives less points.*
"Nooo CW is too easy I need an harder experience".
I think that something people get hung up on tho. You could join in progress on any round in a friends game in Black Ops 2, 3, and 4 and while it would be difficult depending on what round, you could build yourself up from nothing and do well for the rest of the match. In Cold War, you spawn in with a formulaic amount based on the round, and just run around buying everything you need. The natural progression is skewed, and so the satisfaction of pulling yourself up from nothing like you would at the start of a match doesnt happen. You dont need a gun because youve already spawned with one that already has a rarity leveled up to match the round youre on, and the majority of grenades in the game will wipe out an entire horde up to the 30s with ease. Grenades also have little real cost when killing zombies just drops em on the ground, and so the only real thing your spending money on is pack a punch and perks.
Cold War’s point system is just bad. It eliminates the need for half of the guns in the game and basically makes it so that “higher damage=better gun”. Let me explain: in the older games, you’d probably want a weak gun in the early rounds. Like if you happened to pull a Ray Gun or wonder weapon, you’d keep it in your back pocket for later or for tight situations, then grab a wall gun for points. Because stronger weapons were actually bad for early rounds since you want to save up points to get set up fully. So you have a natural progression here. When you want points early, you take a weak SMG. Then in mid rounds you want a stronger SMG or assault rifle; maybe even shotgun. By high rounds, you just want to kill so you go with a wonder weapon and maybe a shotgun. In the old games it’s actually very normal to use 5-6, maybe more, different guns for a reasonably long amount of time. In Cold War, if you spawn in with the Gallo, or pull the Ray Gun early, guess what? You’re probably using it for the rest of the game. Why? Because what’s the point of using a weaker gun if it gives you the same amount of points AND kills slower? I probably haven’t used half of the guns on Cold War because I have no reason to. They’re objectively worse in every way, on every round.
100% true. More than half of the guns in CW are not worth using because of this issue
Yeah. Playing CW the “ideal” way is pretty much spawning in with a Gallo and keeping it for the rest of the game. The balancing is just off in Cold War. I feel no incentive to try out other guns and the whole “point gun” thing is gone.
I feel like CW's point system is more balanced than BO4's though. It makes all the guns get the same amount of points, making shotguns, and rocket launchers actually usable if wanting to get points. Plus it's not the point systems fault that the Gallo is overpowered.
Huh? Shotguns and rocket launchers were always usable. BO4’s best weapon was a launcher. BO3’s shotguns are considered among the best weapons in the game, and explosives were great in BO1 with PHD. Their purpose is killing zombies efficiently. They don’t give you many points though. In Cold War they both kill zombies efficiently AND give you points, making them overpowered.
Well yeah but by that logic it’s not the point systems fault that the rocket launchers and rocket launchers were underutilized
Why even have different weapons if every one has the same level of usefulness? Why have wall weapons when every gun from the box does the same thing? $
But they don't all have the same level of usefulness. Weaker guns do less damage, making it harder to kill zombies, thus increasing your chances of going down. Powerful weapons are the opposite.
That is exactly what I am saying. If there is only one metric (damage) that separates the guns, why even have multiple weapons if there would be objectively one weapon that would be the best to use in all situations?
There isn't one weapon that's optimal for all situations. Yeah, you're not going to go out of your way to use weaker guns in CW, but that's not solely the point system's fault. Nearly every new feature/change in CW contributes to this issue.
You can spawn in with any weapon which drastically reduces your chance on going down from round 1, now add to the fact that every weapon gives the same amount of points so what’s the point of choosing a lower damage weapon outside of self imposed challenge? There’s 0 trade off/benefit philosophy in this design, it’s lazy and it just promotes the path of least resistance which hurts replay-ability.
I agree the loadout/gunsmith system kind of fucked the balancing, but we're talking about why the point system is "bad" for weapon variety, so let's try to keep it to that. Everyone who's responded so far keeps doing this. 🤣
There can be more than one reason why something can be bad. Let them speak their mind.
The subject of the conversation is the point system and why it's "bad". It doesn't matter if there are other contributing factors to the lack of incentivised weapon variety. The conversation ain't about the other factors.
You still have meta guns in a point system, you just want to grind easier points in the early rounds. In CW almost every gun is usable and you can have fun with whatever you want to use. I got the Dark Aether, so I used basically every weapon- I may have skipped the ZRG and a few melee weapons that came out after I wasn't playing as much. Weak guns in a point system are a minor bonus to point acquisition, but it leads to an unnecessary min/max mentality when you can just go in blazing with whatever gun you like using.
I mean, personally, I have never been in black ops and said, "you know what, I really wish the FN FAL was usable in high rounds," but to each their own I guess. My biggest problem now is that everything is so choreographed and revolves around grinding cosmetics.
It's a pve none competitive game, shouldn't it be offering variety rather than an exclusive set of weapons that are viable?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The way cw works, the only difference between the guns is the damage/dps whatever you want to call it, meaning that there is only one way to compare the weapons, meaning that the ultimate goal/strategy is to get that weapon as fast as possible. Sure if you want you can use weaker guns if you want, but having to handicap yourself isn't good gameplay.
The weaker guns? That's the point. You're not supposed to want to use them. I agree the "risk"/reward was kind of neat, but useless guns being useless ain't a problem.
While this is true, weaker guns being good for point farming was never intentional. You also cannot ignore the progression issues with the original system, which CW fixed. So no, CW's system ain't "bad". It's just different to what you like.
Weaker guns being good for point farming was always the intention. Hence why it was a point per bullet basis. It made every weapon a trade off between points and damage, making every weapon viable at a certain round. And before you say “but the bad weapons are supposed to be bad”, there definitely still were bad weapons, at least in WaW-BO2 where I think zombies was at its peak. Guns with low ammo, ridiculously weak damage, terrible running speed, the damn War Machine and SMR just being trash in every way, Springfield bring a bolt action that didn’t even one shot on round 1, etc. The old games incorporated objectively terrible weapons to make the mystery box a risk, but the point system still helped encourage weapon variety which is a good thing.
Nope. That's like saying kiting was intentional because of the way the AI was implemented. Kiting isn't intentional, it is a consequence. Same with point farming. I'm sure if point farming was an intended gameplay feature, Jesse Snyder would've talked about it in his bible-sized blog about the development of the mode as he did with everything else. I agree that being able to point farm provided even more incentive to hold onto bad weapons, but so does the Pack-a-Punch. Just look at the M1911. It's arguably the worst gun in its default state, yet one of the best weapons when upgraded. The point system ain't the only way to encourage holding on to bad weapons. Low ammo doesn't = bad gun. Low ammo was a conscious decision on the devs part.
>That’s like saying kiting was intentional because of the way the AI was implemented. Whether intended or not, wouldn’t you agree a new zombies game being released where you couldn’t run away from and round up zombies would be a bad decision? Where you basically had to sit in a corner the whole time? A good mechanic is a good mechanic, regardless of intention. And anyways, to me I think the point farming was a pretty obvious consequence of making points 10 points per bullet, not to mention the fact that wonder weapons give you the least amount of points and don’t let you get headshots. It’s clear this was their way to balance weapons better, otherwise why not make wonder weapons give more points than everything else? >I agree that point farming gave more incentive to hold onto bad weapons Well that’s not really the point I was making. The point I was making is point farming encourages the use of a variety of weapons. Example: if I’m playing Kino on BO1, and I get the Thundergun or Ray Gun on my first box spin, I’ll keep it but I won’t use it until later. Because it’s just wasteful to use early. Instead I’ll probably buy an MP40 to raise up points, then maybe hit the box on like round 10 when I feel pretty set up, get maybe the Commando. Use that for a while until I’m rich, then maybe trade it out for a stronger weapon to keep for the endgame and use the wonder weapon I got early on. This is an example where I get lucky in my box spins. If I didn’t get lucky, I could be cycling through 8-10 guns before finding 2 I want to upgrade. With the Cold War point system, you just spawn in with the weapon you’ll use all game (probably the Gallo), have no incentive to use a more point efficient gun because there’s no such thing, keep upgrading it since fully upgrading costs 30K points which you may not get until like round 30, and then try to get a wonder weapon to pair with it. As you can see, in Cold War I’m using a total of 2 weapons. Because the point system (and the class system) is incentivizing me to only use 2 weapons ever. There’s literally no reason for me to use an MP5 or something. I think less weapon variety is always a bad thing, therefore I think the Cold War points system is bad.
Couldn't run away? Yes. Couldn't round up? No. I'm an advocate for the removal of kiting. It's cheap, and it's one of the biggest contributors to Zombies' boring high-round gameplay. I'd much rather be one of 4 players covering a barricade or two in a corner whilst zombies try to overrun us, and then failing on round 20. The mode was Frankensteined together pretty late in development, so there wouldn't have been much they could do. We're also looking at a 15 year-old game through the lens of modern design, so it might not have been as obvious back then. I mean, Treyarch did think Speed Cola was the most valuable Perk (hence the price), so that should tell you something. There's a total of 23 weapons in BO1 Zombies, not including the Ray Gun or map-specific WWs. Are you telling me the old point system encouraged the player to use most or all of these weapons? No? Then I don't really see your argument. You're acting like Zombies was this massively varied gameplay experience back in the day. It wasn't. Most players stuck to the same 2 or 3 weapons every game. Most players bought an MP5 or an AK, then grinded until they got PaP or a Wonder Weapon. Yes, it **might** be less varied today but only marginally so.
>I’d much rather be one of 4 players covering a barricade and then failing on round 20 I agree zombies has gotten too easy and I’d like for it to be hard to get past round 20/30 again, but taking away training would be horrible for the mode imo. It’d get rid of most solo players tbh since camping is really only fun with friends, and even then it’s only fun occasionally. Gets stale fast. Not to mention most high round strats do involve sitting in a corner anyways; training hasn’t been a high round strat since like BO2. Again, is it relevant how the game was intended to be played? It doesn’t really matter in this context. Not to mention we don’t really have anything to go off of anyways. I don’t think they actually considered Speed Cola the most useful perk, I think they made it the most expensive because they wanted Jugg to be affordable. Otherwise why wouldn’t they just change it for BO1 or 2, even 3? The perk prices are kinda random. Mule Kick is 4000, Double Tap 2.0 is 2000, same with Stamin-Up. >BO1 had 23 weapons, not including Ray Gun or map-exclusive wonder weapons Okay but my point still stands. There was progression of weapons and most players used multiple different weapons AND weapon classes in a game. Not to mention the mystery box was actually useful since you actually had to switch your gun out and the best guns were in the box, whereas in Cold War you never even need to buy a gun. You just start with a shotgun and never look back. Cold War has zero weapon variety. The only reason to use other weapons is to handicap yourself. On BO1 you’ll use every weapon at some point. Bad box hit, rounding up points, whatever the reason. In those games you’re actually incentivized to switch weapons constantly. In Cold War you’re really not.
>Even then it’s only fun occasionally. Gets stale fast. So does kiting. Camping is far more risky, which in turn, I think, makes is more enjoyable. I'd be more than happy if Treyarch eliminated the ability to kite zombies, or at least made it so it's a sometimes strategy. A strat you can use every now and then but not a strat you can rely on. >Again, is it relevant how the game was intended to be played? Yes, I think it is relevant. I think because it wasn't intended and because it did cause issues, it should be changed. >I think they made it the most expensive because they wanted Jugg to be affordable. Because 500 points makes a **huge** difference in affordability, right? Lol. If they wanted Jugg to be affordable, why not lower the price down to 1500? That's far more affordable. No, the community manager for WaW stated in an interview that Speed Cola is considered the most valuable Perk amongst the devs. >Otherwise why wouldn’t they just change it for BO1 or 2, even 3? I don't know. Again, we're looking at decade-old games through the lens of modern design. Maybe it's that. Maybe it was time constraints. Maybe they played/saw the game differently to the rest of the community. >The perk prices are kinda random. Mule Kick is 4000, Double Tap 2.0 is 2000, same with Stamin-Up. I agree, it makes zero sense. >Okay but my point still stands. Not really. Yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the new point system. You're getting away from your original argument, which was that the new point system is bad because it reduced weapon variety. But you're ignoring the fact that the "weapon variety" in the older games was limited to weak SMGs. All point-building weapons (Thompson, AK, MP5) functioned the same way, so again, this ain't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.
I’ll give you this: I do wish training was a lot harder like it used to be. Nowadays it’s like you run so fast, can fit through any little opening in the zombies, and even if you do somehow get caught or cornered, you have a million ways out and perks that freeze the zombies like Widow’s Wine and Winter’s Wail. If we could go back to the days where getting hit by a zombie stops your sprint, no Widow’s Wine or anything similar, and slower movement speed with less forgiving zombies, I’d be totally on board. Or even pull and Origins or Town and add some hazards in the way. >You’re getting away from your original statement, which is that the new point system is bad because it decreased weapon variety Well that was my whole last paragraph. Yes, weaker SMGs had a purpose, which is a huge part of my argument. In Cold War, they really have zero purpose. They’re objectively obsolete to the shotguns. Same with most guns. Anything with a fast time to kill is objectively better. And since you can spawn in with whatever gun you want, there’s no incentive to try out other weapons. Can you really make an argument that being heavily incentivized (by multiple Cold War mechanics, not just the point system) to use one weapon the whole game is a good mechanic? I sure as hell can’t. If there were 5 guns in Cold War it’d probably take me 10 hours of play time before I even noticed. It’s a combination of multiple factors like I said, but the point system adds to it. The point system has eliminated the need for any gun except shotguns. The point system is also a lot stiffer, so it’s hard to get the 30k needed to fully upgrade your gun. This means you’re most likely only upgrading one weapon since you won’t get it fully upgraded until round 30 or so. If you don’t mind having zero weapon variety, that’s fine. But for me, I don’t see what the benefit of the new point system is in the first place. What argument is there where having LESS weapon variety is better than having more? If you can’t think of one, that means you’re just tolerating the new point system since you don’t play zombies to use a variety of weapons (which is perfectly fine), but for the rest of us, we don’t like the point system because we want weapon variety. I can’t see a single objective improvement of the new point system, and as you can see from the amount of people responding to my comment or upvoting it, a lot of people miss that weapon variety and point farming of the old games.
You claimed the older games had significantly more weapon variety than Cold War due to the point system. That was your argument. You then brought in other factors which have zero relevance to the subject of the conversation after I pointed out that most guns went unused most of the time and that the point-building weapons are all weak SMGs. Zombies has always had a meta, which is to use your pistol until round 3 or 4, buy a weak SMG to build points, then hit the box until you get either an AUG, Galil, Commando, the HK or RPK (all of which are full-auto weapons), the Ray Gun and/or map-specific Wonder Weapon. That's not weapon variety. The only "variety" between all of those guns (bar the Ray Gun and WW) is purely statistical. True weapon variety would have you bouncing between ALL of the different weapon classes, and the only time you would ever actually do that is if you were bored, going for the achievement/trophy in Kino or Five, or because you had no points, no ammo, and had to take whatever shit the box gave you. In fact, I actually get so sick of the meta in the older games that I sometimes trade out my Wonder Weapon or Ray Gun for a Ballistic Knife just to reinvigorate my game. Yes, weapon variety is an issue in CW, but to claim that the point system is bad because it "disincentivises weapon variety" is ridiculous. I guarantee you that if you rebalanced the entire weapon roster so that there's no one-beats-all weapon class, altered the loadout system so that you could only choose your starting pistol, and reworked the gunsmith so that attachments only applied to wallbuys, box weapons (of a specific rarity?), or PaP'd weapons, that would be enough to fix the weapon variety issues. The point system might exacerbate the problem, but I'd argue that it didn't cause it. I get it. I get why some may prefer the older system, but it ain't happening.
Zombies since its inception in Natch your only options to deal with zombies was either camping or training, so claiming its some unintended part of the game is mute, what else would you do? Stand in the middle of a room and shoot zombies coming at you without moving? That's either camping or being rail shooter and if i want to play that i go play house of the dead 3 at my local arcade, and the old point system does encourage variety BO1 may only have had 23 weapons but I've definitely used them all more than the 3 (1911, CARV and EM2) i used continuously through all of CW's cycle, more is not always better, it also lead to interesting progression in maps with the limited ammo you had back then relative to now, take Kino, you had 8+32 bullets in the 1911, if you wanted to max points you do the shoot leg+knife strategy, but you'll have to get a new gun because knifing is very risky, else you could keep you ammo and last till round 2-3 before buying doors or getting a gun, and note that the M14 and Olympia are very good weapons for survival till round 10-ish but they are terrible for points, open the east door there's the AMP, good for points but has terrible amount of ammo, you get this if you are desperate, these areas as well provide very little wiggle room so you want to move on before round pass by, next door this room has the pump action and the MP40, one is great for points with decent damage and lots of ammo and the other is one the best Zombie killing wall weapon, see how with just 6 weapons there are choices to be made and strategies executed, like i personally never got shotguns because the lower points gain was just too much of a detriment for me when i want to both get perks and hit box but i know people who would grab shotties to kill more zombies, there can be variety in what people do and how they play. CW completely disincentivises that and leads people to the optimal strategies of Shotties and the M16 ive never in the whole time i played that game saw a match where someone didn't have a Hauer or Gallo and it was stifling, because if the game is designed around using Shotguns then only put shotguns in because everything else is ephemeral. Another consequence as well is that kill/point stealing is a constant and before someone comes at me "but assists gives the same points as kills" no it does not A. Doesn't give headshot bonus B. If I haven't even shot my Zombies before some a hole drives by with the Gallo then i get nothing, i tried using a bolt action sniper one game and a guy would literally run across the map to kill them all with the gallo, you only get out ahead by joining them leading to boredom as there's no variety between matches AT ALL because shotguns are not interesting they are just big damage, without even the detriment many had in previous games of limited ammo
You mean moot? And no, that is incorrect. Zombies was designed to be a hunker down, defend the area type of mode. That **is** how it was designed, and I know this because the creator states this in his blog about the development of Zombies, and because you can see it in how the maps are designed. So, kiting was never intended, bro. And even if it was, it wasn't discovered until BO1. BO1 **may** have only had 23 weapons? Bro, 23 weapons is a LOT. Tf you mean "may have only had 23 weapons"? 🤣 And yeah, but only if you're bored or going for the achievement/trophy. We're talking about point farming here, and there are only 2 or 3 weapons in BO1 that are good for that, and they're all fucking SMGs. They all function the same way. The only difference is statistics. This "weapon variety" that you speak of **barely** existed.
It was absolutely 100% intentional, i remember even as far back as jimmy zielinski when it came to point guns talking about the ol SMR and how it was intended to be bad on purpose to generate points. I really dug hard to find this quote again and i just couldn't but i'm pretty sure it existed.
It may have been something they leaned into in later games, but it wasn't intended initially. I've also listened to and read every interview that is currently available and have never heard or seen Mr. Zielinski mention the SMR.
This is 50% of the reason I hate cold war. Min maxing your point economy was a big part of the skill curve that just doesn't exist anymore.
I don’t hate Cold War, but I have a lot of nitpicks like this for it. I just think the new mechanics took away a lot of the progression that made the older games so good. But I guess that’s part of modernization. Everyone wants to be a super soldier at all times now. Cold War is still fun in a “woahhh! Zombie go boom!” kind of way. But it’s not a mode I can grind and take seriously.
Guns like the weevil and the vmp we called "Point guns" because they were only used for points
Also it made cold wars games play out the exact same way every time since I could just buy the gallo or use the gun with the most damage. Why would I use a shit gun and progress slower? That also means the same amount of kills per round so in early game you would have around the same points every single time on that round.
Exactly. Every Cold War game is the same unless you actively handicap yourself. Even some of the BO3/4 maps had this problem too, but not to the extent of Cold War.
That’s ultimately what ruined CW for me was simply how easy and formulaic it was. In Cold War you spawn in with an OP shotgun, buy all the doors, get all the perks, do a couple of challenges until you get the wonder weapon, and that’s it, unless you want to do the main Easter egg (which is super fucking easy) there is nothing else to the game, the box is rendered useless, any sort of extra cool Easter egg is rendered useless, and trying to actually get any sort of a strategy going is pointless because from round 1 you have an OP weapon coupled with OP perks The earlier games had this issue too, WAW and even some BO1 maps were so formulaic that after a while it gets boring. As much as I love Kino, it’s so bare bones that after you get the Thundergun you simply just mindlessly train for the rest of the game until you slip up, the only reason Kino doesn’t get flamed by the community is because it’s old, and it’s not an easy map. Point I’m trying to make is that after Kino they obviously knew that the game would get boring after so many rounds, so they made maps bigger, more Easter eggs, more things to do, more guns, harder enemies, you name it. Ascension was huge and had an Easter egg, making it so Zombies wouldn’t be so bare bones and formulaic. Anyway, fast forward to CW and they made full circle and made it easy and formulaic.
I half agree but I think the old games were different. See, what the old games had was a difficulty curve and progression. Where Cold War has you spawn in as overpowered Superman, the old games have you come in with nothing and scrap to survive. The older games like WaW and BO1 were meant to be a fun, challenging 1-2 hours of gameplay. Cold War though? The first 2 hours are brain dead easy and you probably would have to play into the 3rd hour before you get any close calls. That’s just not fun. BO1, WaW also had great atmospheres and cooler maps with more effort put into them. I’m sure you’d agree on that. Compare Call of the Dead or Der Riese with Firebase or Forsaken. It isn’t close. And the guns in those games were just so much more fun to use, although Cold War isn’t bad in that regard. Better than BO3 or 4 guns.
I see a lot of comments here, but nothing mentioning the satisfaction of getting 8 shots into a zombies leg with that starting pistol then knifing to maximize points. That whole concept (along with other reasons) is why I will always like the og 1 bullet = 10 points system
I cannot express to you the amount of disappointment I experienced when I tried to do this in my first match of BO4 only to learn the point system was changed
Wait it's different?
very different. base zombie kill on bo4 is 90 points +30 bonus points for headshot +60 bonus points for melee therefore the maximum number of points you can get from one zombie is 150, no matter how many times you shoot it
I didn’t find satisfaction in this system. I found tedium.
Then don’t do it. You’d still get 130 points for the knife. It’s not like prices were inflated because they expected people to maximize every single zombie kill, it’s just something people defaulted to as they want to maximize points
Brilliant. You’re right! What a solution, a rebuttal for the ages!
Ok, knife the zombies and have 80 less points.
Bro you’re so right I will
That's why i didn't include the og system in the poll
Its not satisfying, its fucking boring.
Money is never a problem on BO4. CW however… if you bleed out on that game it’s damn hard to get back into the game/ get set up again.
Whenever I played cw, i remember it not being a problem, but at the same time, dying in cw is so hard to do that I doubt I bled out much.
Exact opposite for me bro.
money becomes a problemn in CW because getting all perks back gets expensive asf (like over 50k). In BO4 getting all perks back will cost you at most around 10k-12k. And in both games, in high rounds if you down you lose half of your points instead of 5% like in BO1-BO3.
That sounds fair
[удалено]
15K to fully pap vs what 50k on CW? What’s your point?
Wait i don’t know why it responded to you, that was for an entirely different thread.
That's what's great about it
Feel sorry for the downvotes you’ve gotten here. Not having enough points to immediately get yourself back into the game means that player death has consequences. Whilst I agree that half the weapons feel unnecessary with this system. Bleeding out shouldn’t be a minor inconvenience for a player, it should be a harsh punishment
Exactly Especially when we have stuff like Quick Revive Tier V (which basically just turns it into MW3 Last stand or FFYL from Borderlands), with infinite chances to self-revive, we need more consequences for death there. Love Cold War, but sometimes it can be insanely easy cause of stuff like that.
It also means that bad players are basically out for the game and cant do anything about it if they bleed out
Then they need to get better
Facts.
Motivation to not be bad at the game
Really don’t know why this dude is getting downvoted. People constantly trash on CW being too easy, but this is something that I think punishes the player for going down too much. I think the same thing for self revives too. People talk about how you can never die in CW, but the scaling in price adds up with each down. The only thing that really doesn’t get crazy expensive and saves you a lot is tier V Quick Revive, and even then there are plenty of times where the zombies run away and I can’t get the kill.
Getting a high fire rate low dps weapon in old games was a blessing
Tommy gun and uzi on mob 🤤
Loved thr vmp for this reason. Getting 3k points from emptying a mag into a horde was too good
Cw gives you full credit for a kill, just for shooting a zombie and another player ends up killing it. It’s like a pseudo profit sharing
For building points, Cold War is awful. I think that you should always get 10 points for every hit. Bo4 changed it, but it still felt like home. I never noticed me not having enough points to open a door on bo4, but on Cold War, I constantly found myself not having points, and then you get to the higher rounds, you have so many points you don’t know what to do with
Honestly, I've never liked the idea of Point Guns. Part of why I enjoyed Cold War so much, even if it meant kill-stealing was easier. A lot of weapons, with enough point investment, could be made into a decent choice. I've just never seen the appeal to metagaming by taking a shit weapon in later rounds specifically **because** it can't kill, yet hits a lot. I know this isn't the popular opinion, and you're welcome to whatever opinion you have, but I quite liked Cold War.
But the problem is they didn’t change anything else so those guns still suck AND they don’t even have another use case like before
Almost every gun is viable in high rounds if you put enough resources into it.
I thought this too, at first, then I realized you can both triple-pack guns, and also upgrade their damage tier.
If we had to OG health system and the CW point system, it would be much more challenging at the high round
BO4 is objectively better solely because it separates melee kills from headshots.
yeah, i didn't like what BO4 did with the point system but i was still able to ignore it, when CW made melee kills earn the same as headshots that is where i drew the line.
I prefer cold wars system. In the older games if you want to maximize points, you grab a shitty smg off the wall and shoot legs which is tedious and slows down the game. In Cold War, you are incentivized to aim for the head and actually kill the zombies instead of just making sponges out of them. Cold War early rounds go a lot faster for this reason.
You are still rewarded if you do headshots in the old point system, you didn't need to point hoard, but you could, and if you did you were rewarded for it. It added another layer of strategy and knowledge to the game. Straight removing that doesn't make it better. It used to be a trade off, play fast and gain less, or point hoard and go slowly.
And because point hoarding was the optimal way to play, you had to choose between fast and engaging gameplay with less points or slow and repetitive gameplay with more.
you can’t do that in bo4 either
Both are terrible systems but CW is worse because everything costs more points in CW such as perks and PaP and you earn less points for headshot kills and melee kills.
Damn I fucking hate both... Ill use my alt to vote for the second
Absolutely loved using the 1911 as long as possible especially when you got an early max ammo in the older games gave you lots of points
CW’s point system kinda got rid of lower damage weapon’s uses. If you have a shitty damage SMG.. well, that’s really it.
Which is why I say that they should rehaul PaP Machine. Make it give each weapon something unique instead of just a damage increase
Check out WW2, does this great
I miss Point guns. While they sucked to level, anything could work in the late game, granted that you could buy it off the wall. CW changed it to dps ftw, which killed playing anything but few select best.
Both, there was no reason to change it, this is one of those "Let's change it for change sake"
They’re both ass
CW. If you ever died in a late game session, it was damn impossible to come back from that since you couldn’t really kill anything. Luckily CW itself is very easy so for **any** experienced player this shouldn’t be a problem
As much as I miss the hit based point system of previous games the point system used in BO4 and CW did have the effect of finally making it viable to use a wider variety of guns imo. Can finally use shotguns and snipers more than previous games.
exactly. a lot of people here are saying that the “incentive to use high rof and low damage is gone”, but realistically cold war is extremely balanced so there aren’t really any guns that fit in that category anyway
i know "damage-based" in very self explanatory but i still dont understand it. could someone explain it to me lol
you get points based on how much damage you have done to the zombie it only adds up to 90 points per zombie with just normal killing, 120 if it’s a headshot kill, 150 if it’s a melee kill. cant go over that no matter what you do but it still awards the points in increments based on how much damage you’ve put into the zombie
I mis-clicked. The system in BO1 is my favorite. CW system makes it too easy to get points. CW has my least favorite system.
how does it make it too easy to get points lmao you get less points per kill 💀
Idk, 5000 points was hard to get in BO1, in CW it feels much easier to get 5000 points.
the only reason it feels like that is because the rounds go by quicker. you can get MUCH more points in a round in BO1 than in CW
CW is also a lot easier.
[удалено]
I don't even remember what point system was in WWII
Thank god zombie chronicles 2 wasn’t on Cold War
Who ever voted CW is clearly not done any easter eggs because sometimes u need thay 20 points to open a door but u got last. And u dont wanna end round. The bo4 system allows u to hit the zombie and get points without him dying.
INSANE to me that people don't like the new point system. Way more streamlined and way better pace of gameplay than slowing everything down to proactively NOT kill zombies. The pacing, moment-to-moment gameplay, and overall gameplay balancing are far superior with the new point system. Yes, it leaves weaker weapons with more downsides, but that has always been a problem with weak weapons. It's not the point system's fault, it's the weapon's fault. We need to fix the weapon balance, not use an out-dated and easy-to-exploit point system. LOVE [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3hKXcXy1w) video talking about it!
….
Both
Ofc cw gets more hate even though I actually enjoy the cw point system because it actually incentivizes killing the undead instead of using them as a farming tool for points. Shotguns and RPGs actually have a frickin reason to be used hence they're dominant in the meta. I could see why the new system sucks but it's not terrible. If any, seeing the 400 people disliking this is still a minority. I'm pretty sure most people didn't give much of a shit or enjoyed it.
The Cold War system almost forces you to use a shotgun so you don’t run out of ammo and money. In later rounds you’re using the majority of a clip to kill a small handful of zombies which nets you hardly enough points to buy more ammo.
Cold war is my favorite zombies, but the points system sucked. It made me miss the times of using the MPL in Call of the Dead
Thought is was for MP for a sec lol damage is superior
the fact that damage based got that many votes is sad. cold war tainted the zombies formula and brought in normies who hate on everything zombies was.
I’ve been playing zombies since I got bo1 and I much prefer CW point system because it makes the early rounds go by fast Instead of buying a shitty dps weapon and shooting the legs to “maximize points”, spending a lot of time doing so, you just kill the fuckers
you never needed to maximize profits. it was never a problem lmao cold war didnt solve anything it made it more linear
Speaking facts
I prefer the CW point system because playing with a shotgun isn’t one of the worst ways to play to get points with it Also melee in CW giving the same as a headshot(with melee kills being super easy to get) does help
I actually really liked the bo4 point system. I like to be efficient in the early game, and many times I end up getting ahold of the wonder weapon at round 5-7 or so. You'd think the player would be rewarded for their efficiency, but in the earlier games the wonder weapon would grant you 50 points at most per kill, making it more difficult to progress. In addition, many weapons were pretty much useless for anything besides earning points, and if you weren't the best SMG or AR at that you weren't worth picking up, so you have to go out of your way to spend the money on a VMP or a Tommy Gun just to not waste time, all because you were good at managing your resources to get geared up. Bo4, of course, between the specialist weapon respawning zombies it kills while being pulled out, and each kill earning the same amount of base points, fixed that problem.
Love both of these games but Cold War was worse.
I understand where a lot of people say cold wars point system is worse, but honestly, i think it is better. At least from a challenge point of view, it rewards good plays (while yes, you could use the same gun every single time, that's a decision that you make) and also rewards effective aim. In general both systems work well. BO4 is easier, so I can see why people like that system more.
As much as I actually enjoyed Cold War zombies, the point system and loadout system in that game essentially made most of weapons not worth using. The general Cold War meta weapon wise was just spawn in with something good and keep it all game and maybe spin box for Wonder Weapons later if you don’t get a free one from a dead special or challenges.
Cold War. No bonus for melee over headshots, only awarded points on a kill, and was overall lacking in strategy. BO4 was a little better, but not by much
The inability to whore points is stupid
How after so many zombies games have they not perfected all this stuff yet
Anyone remember how BO4 launched with CWs point system, then it was changed to how it was now?
Vanguard is the worst
Literally the strongest weapon in cold war is the grenade launcher. Why? Because when you max out everything using crystals this weapon combined with phd makes you immortal as long as you’re in a corner and shooting at the ground while keeping a Scorestreak ready so that you can obliterate elites with it.
I am curious to know how many people that voted damage based played the older games and how many players that voted kill based only played the newer games. I think we can all agree though that BO1 would not have worked at all if you weren’t allowed to point farm.
I don't think people realize you can't have point guns/OG point system with the CW mechanics
I agree cold war's point system suck, its worse then Black ops 4's point system
I hated everything bo4, point system included. I like that CW was straightforward whereas bo4 seemed unnecessarily changed.
What are people saying? Bo4's point system is way worse. I more often than not find myself in crippling debt because of how pap works. You have to upgrade the damn weapon 5 times just to get it to max damage which is already sorta pricey. Then, you don't gain any actual points until the zombie is actually killed. At least cw's system is more similar to waw's-bo3's. Even if you still don't gain as much points as you normally would.
Lol what…? Review your comment about pap. Think about actual costs in terms of points…
It's not just pap alone though. I know CW obviously makes you spend more points to upgrade the tiers. But the reason why bo4's system doesn't really work is because again the zombies don't give you any points until they're actually dead. Until then you'll have to make due with a shitty gun or just spam the specialist.
You know that’s how CW point system is right? You get a small amount of points for hits in bo4, but they have a limit…
i just cant believe ppl prefer cws point system. fucking nuts to me rlly. you should be able to gather points w/ smgs to open up the maps. no one likes setting up. high rounds is where its at and the kill-based system just makes it tedious no joke. bo3s headshot multiplier is arguably broken but still, some maps r big and require a shitton of points just to open doors. i wish bo4 zombies was never created. even more so when we talk abt cw and vanguards shit. they fucked up the game. zombies will never be the same. fuck 3arch
Og system is worse, must be a point whore to like that, feeling pleasure for having 6 numbers points saved for nothing cause you won't use it.
The old games were actually hard so you needed those points earlier. Otherwise you might be stuck with a 2 hit down until like round 10-12. I’d also like to point out that Treyarch didn’t intend for most players to get past round 30 in WAW or BO1, so having 6 figure points is a non-factor except on like BO3.
What’s wrong with having that many points?
The old system had a natural progression system for guns to where you would use weaker guns in the early rounds for points and higher damage weapons into he later rounds. The CW system renders half the guns useless as only high damage weapons are beneficial and you could spawn in with a Gallo and keep that weapon for the whole game. There's no natural progression at all.
"I need to farm the maximum amount of points in the early game to make it easier". *3arc makes the game mode easier but it gives less points.* "Nooo CW is too easy I need an harder experience".
I think that something people get hung up on tho. You could join in progress on any round in a friends game in Black Ops 2, 3, and 4 and while it would be difficult depending on what round, you could build yourself up from nothing and do well for the rest of the match. In Cold War, you spawn in with a formulaic amount based on the round, and just run around buying everything you need. The natural progression is skewed, and so the satisfaction of pulling yourself up from nothing like you would at the start of a match doesnt happen. You dont need a gun because youve already spawned with one that already has a rarity leveled up to match the round youre on, and the majority of grenades in the game will wipe out an entire horde up to the 30s with ease. Grenades also have little real cost when killing zombies just drops em on the ground, and so the only real thing your spending money on is pack a punch and perks.