Originally posted by glitchplz
The weird thing is, that at the highest levels of play it is actually the opposite of what you describe. At the most competitive levels teams have a designated slayer who's goal is to obtain kills in order to gain score streaks because at the highest level of game play a kill streak is often required to grab a flag in game modes such as CTF.
I guess we probably have skewed beliefs on what defines skill in Call of Duty lo''
I feel skill is shown by constantly winning, winning gunfights, awareness and your reaction time, while you aren't playing like a bitch hiding in a corner holding L1. I feel like it requires slightly less skill now that the ability to use sound to your advantage has been dramatically nerfed. Counter to popular belief, listening for footsteps does not require a fancy headset, you could listen for footsteps coming from your tv speakers. It required another bodily sense to be alert and attentive. Now in BO2 listening for footsteps is way harder than it has been in previous CODs, and people will sound silent at times even if they don't have dead silence.
Another thing that makes me feel like it takes less skill is the decrease in the gap between players. Comparing BO2 to MW3, on a personal account I must say I have seen a significant change between the stats my friends had on the previous games compared to what they have now. I feel like this shows that there has indeed been a reduction in the skill gap on the game.
Between MW3 and BO2, the latter takes more skill. I define skill by wins and/or kdr and spm. Obviously those numbers are influenced by your awareness, gun skill and common sense. I don't judge skill on if someone rushes or not rather by effectiveness. I think most skill players are rushers however rushing by itself doesn't mean much. A 0.75 kd rusher isn't a good player just because he rushes. You can argue bravery but a 10-20 rusher isn't better than a 20-10 camper. Rushing is generally most effective strategy but just because someone moves doesn't mean they're good.
That being said BO2 takes more skill. MW3 had Support which could make it so a bad player has huge impact. If a guy gets a late game AC130 then a guy could EMP it or Stealth Bomb an objective just with 11-18 POINTS. Even Hardline with Assault I once got a Reaper with 2 actual gun kills, Recon Pro, 6 assists and like 2 flag caps
On Black Ops 2 if a person is allowed to get a VSAT or Lodestar, Swarms etc you're pretty much screwed. In MW3 you could at least get Stealth Bombers and grt 4+ extra kills no matter how bad you did or what tactics. On BO2 you have to be an objective, aggressive rusher or an exceptional camper because the amount of flanks and Ghost nerfs makes it harder to camp and earn a high streak.
I enjoy BO2 because bad players aren't rewarded and you have plenty of tools to counter camping.
Also we're assuming you know what camping is and isn't.