Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 discussion thread

[douglatins]

in 9v9 one kickass player, like yours truly could pretty much screw with the game balance.

[hv43082]

Well this saves me $60.

[EastCoasthandle]

What a turn of events for MW2. Many online retailers that normally allow you to download games will not be selling the PC version of MW2 because of steamworks. Many are of the opinion that they do not wish to endorse their competitors feature(s) in order to install the game. The retailers not selling the game are but not limited to:
-Direct2Drive
-Impulse
-Gamersgate
Source
Source

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

What a turn of events for MW2. Many online retailers that normally allow you to download games will not be selling the PC version of MW2 because of steamworks. Many are of the opinion that they do not wish to endorse their competitors feature(s) in order to install the game. The retailers not selling the game are but not limited to:
-Direct2Drive
-Impulse
-Gamersgate
Source
Source

Well thats just commonsense.

[newconroer]

Just more reason to play ;coughARMAcough;



Come on you scrubs, put those ghetto ass perks away and come see how far your bunny hop knifing works against some real snipers.


=)

Though 9 vs 9 isn't bad. On small boards it's not over-bearing, and on large boards, it creates a sense of space, which is nice sometimes. It's really awful when you're on a massive map and there's so many people around, you never have a chance to hide...anywhere..

[3870x2]

could someone please tell me what exactly "no dedicated servers" means? maybe that means that people cant make their own servers, instead they will be hosted by an internal server. This is much better, and is done by blizzard with all of their games. I hate having to wade through lists of servers, I would instead rather have a lobby and GOOD ranking matches like warcraft 3.

then again i could be wrong, could someone enlighten me?

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

could someone please tell me what exactly "no dedicated servers" means? maybe that means that people cant make their own servers, instead they will be hosted by an internal server. This is much better, and is done by blizzard with all of their games. I hate having to wade through lists of servers, I would instead rather have a lobby and GOOD ranking matches like warcraft 3.

then again i could be wrong, could someone enlighten me?

A dedicated server is run on a 'host machine,' and all the players connect to that machine. This prevents lag, and often 'dedicated' server have more options and tune-ability over the program itself.

A comparison is old IPX vs TCP/IP. Remember programs like Kali, Kahn and Heat? You could play games such as Rainbow Six by joining those services, and launching the game through them. The service would then act as a conduit between you and the other players. The game(s) technically had a host, but he had limited control.

Alternatively, if you ran a network at home, with a main 'outbound' machine, and two internal machines(or however many..not relevant), then the outbound could act as your gateway to the internet, and you'd host the game from there. Then people would connect directly to that machine's IP, and you'd connect to it in the same way but internally. I.e. 'direct connecting'

Maybe that's getting a bit off-topic; but essentially this means people can't put servers onto a 'server' machine and let them run 24/7; nor can they manipulate or modify them to the same extent.

Having said that, I am led to believe that the system by which COD will use, is not as bad as people are thinking when they consider peer to peer connections.

[EastCoasthandle]

This is not my drawing but pretty funny none the less.
pic

Here's a recap of MW and MW2
diagram

[3870x2]

Originally Posted by newconroer

A dedicated server is run on a 'host machine,' and all the players connect to that machine. This prevents lag, and often 'dedicated' server have more options and tune-ability over the program itself.

A comparison is old IPX vs TCP/IP. Remember programs like Kali, Kahn and Heat? You could play games such as Rainbow Six by joining those services, and launching the game through them. The service would then act as a conduit between you and the other players. The game(s) technically had a host, but he had limited control.

Altenratively, if you ran a network at home, with a main 'outbound' machine, and two internal machines(or however many..not relevant), then the outbound could act as your gateway to the internet, and you'd host the game from there. Then people would connect directly to that machine's IP, and you'd connect to it in the same way but internally. I.e. 'direct connecting'

Maybe that's getting a bit off-topic; but essentially this means people can't put servers onto a 'server' machine and let them run 24/7; nor can they manipulate or modify them to the same extent.

Having said that, I am led to believe that the system by which COD will use, is not as bad as people are thinking when they consider peer to peer connections.

Thank you.

Can anyone verify this information is correct?
Blizzard does not use 3rd party dedicated servers, instead they use their own servers to connect to, and it has absolutely no lag at all whatsoever. When i go to play anything, wether it be:
CSS
COD4
UT3
TF2, ETC. . .
about 90% of these servers on these games double, triple, or quadruple my original ping, no matter where in the US they are, and are generally crappy in performance, while warcraft 3 or games that use a system like it are absolutely amazing, and I always have a constant ping of 47.

Just to clarify, I knew what a dedicated server IS, i am a+, n+, s+, mcse, and am currently a computer tech/network tech who plays lots of games lol, I just wanted to know what they were going to do without dedicated servers.

This might be a better idea overall, actually. Instead of shunning IW, wait, play it, and see. I would rather have the blizzard system of multiplayer than the usual FPS crapshoot of servers that look like the entire ASCII alphabet threw up on my monitor.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by KieranD

Modern Warfare 2 limited to 9 vs. 9 on PC


SOURCE - http://www.joystiq.com/2009/11/05/mo...-9-vs-9-on-pc/

Terrible, what makes us pc gamers not be able to have more than 9v9 when consoles can?
BTW im only spreading the news not creating conflict. Everyone knows my stance on the situation.

So glad you started yet another thread on this subject. Merged.

Serious question:

Do we really need multiple threads for this game that we all hate? Are we that upset that we need to start a new thread for every snippet of information we get in this game? Do we need to add a banner to the top of the forum page proclaiming this game sucks? Does anyone really care about this game anymore other than a select few fanatics?

[newconroer]

You're right 3870, it could turn out to be better. Putting some things aside like lack of console commands or player limit, the quality of the servers might be really good. But it would depend a lot on how much bandwidth or data centre power they allocate for it.

Consider that one hundred independant 'hosts,' with eighteen players connected, is probably more suitable than a single host with five hundred players connected - and that's even if they use a hierarchy sub-system setup for the master server(s).

But assuming that it works out well in terms of performance, those other miscellaneous issues that people are upset about, ARE something that will turn them away.


I suppose in the end, this might turn out to be good only for the single player, and for me that might actually be fine, as I have no interest in playing another 'perk' combat game online.

I totally destroyed people in COD4, and it was boring. When you have to actually try to lose, something's wrong and that's not my kind of gaming.

[Easy Rhino]

im curious to see PC sales for this game after say 6 months. obviously this company does not believe that PC game sales will boost their bottom line. pathetic.

[mastrdrver]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

Can anyone verify this information is correct?
Blizzard does not use 3rd party dedicated servers, instead they use their own servers to connect to, and it has absolutely no lag at all whatsoever

In that case, Blizzard is acting as the dedicated server with business class up and down bandwidth.

The big difference between dedicated and what MW2 is offering in internet bandwidth. Where companies that run these dedicated servers have business class up and down stream bandwidth which pales in comparison to the upstream everyone has at their home.

Also, it won't matter how good of an internet connection you have either. Unless you are the host, which is impossible to know or choose, you are limited by the host's upstream. In my case that is about 250 mega bits/s! If I'm the host, this will give everyone I'm playing a new definition of lag. Problem is, for the "casual gamer" that IW is always talking about, this is normal upstream bandwidth. Not very many people have fiber or such.

I'm not really a fan of Wikipedia, especially when no source is cited. Though, here is what kind of bandwidth you get with dedicated compared to the upstream most have at their home. Also note that they are talking about bytes where as my example is in bits. My example is 50Kb/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedicat...d_connectivity

Prominent players in the dedicated server market offer large amounts of bandwidth ranging from 500 gigabytes to 3000 gigabytes using the “overselling” model. It is not uncommon for major players to provide dedicated servers with 1Terabyte (TB) of bandwidth or higher. Usage models based on the byte level measurement usually include a given amount of bandwidth with each server and a price per gigabyte after a certain threshold has been reached. Expect to pay additional fees for bandwidth overage usage. For example, if a dedicated server has been given 3000 gigabytes of bandwidth per month and the customer uses 5000 gigabytes of bandwidth within the billing period, the additional 2000 gigabytes of bandwidth will be invoiced as bandwidth overage. Each provider has a different model for billing. As of yet, no industry standards have been set.

[3870x2]

dont forget that I said a PING of 47, not band width of 47 (in which case could be 47 bytes or 47 petabytes!!)

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

dont forget that I said a PING of 47, not band width of 47 (in which case could be 47 bytes or 47 petabytes!!)

A petabyte touched me once.

[EchoMan]

It's all funny and sad at the same time.

Originally Posted by Muhad

Has anyone read this article about MW2 and the new IWNet system with VAC?

http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=745

I basically like what they are doing, BUT I would still like see the ability for the community to run dedicated servers. I don't think the best idea is to be thrown into a server where everyone is supposedly on the same skill level. I like playing against players better than I am.

It's still very vague and basic, taken from the article.

"Cheat / Hack Free Games: The biggest benefit of using IWnet by far is the fact that you don’t have to worry about joining a server full of aim-bots, wallhacks, or cheaters. Or relying on the server admin of the server to constantly be monitoring, banning, and policing it. Modern Warfare 2 on PC allows us to control the quality of the game much more than ever before as well as utilizing the VAC (Valve-Anti-Cheat) system to keep games clean of hackers and cheaters."

Supposedly removing more parties from overseeing makes this version of the game better...
We all know how hack free Counter-strike source has been with VAC and it's still the most played game online.
Consistency checks between host/server and client are needed on key files to even begin to claim "clean of hackers"


http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...ou-thought.ars

"DudezTY: Since we cannot kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?

Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game."

That's great, a goal. Don't we all have those? How do we get to that goal is what matters no some blank statement.


"Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings."

Too bad it was such a direct question and was answered pretty well. Except as far as PC gaming goes as a whole, mouse control, text chat and graphics settings have been a standard.

[rpsgc]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

A petabyte touched me once.

We feel your pain.

[3870x2]

I am actually very excited about the new multiplayer system. It is about time.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

I am actually very excited about the new multiplayer system. It is about time.

what are you excited about?

[rpsgc]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

what are you excited about?

Lag? Cheaters? Annoying assholes/racists? Seeing "host migration" at every ragequit? Seriously, what?

[RevengE]

The new Multiplayer system= FAIL. I can't believe they are going to allow some of that to happen in the servers. I had no idea about that until I read this thread, you can count me out on this game. I'll Stick to COD4

[dir_d]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

I am actually very excited about the new multiplayer system. It is about time.

Can you explain this to me because i would really like to know how you came up with this because in my eyes i see this as the complete opposite of you. I have been picking dedicated servers since before Quake 3 and i love having my own rules in my own (rented) Server. I also love modding the game to make it more even to play competitively like CEVO and the other leagues out there.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by rpsgc

Lag? Cheaters? Annoying assholes/racists? Seeing "host migration" at every ragequit? Seriously, what?

Lol, is random racial commentary any different than random ???? commentary by said "assholes?"

:O

[3870x2]

many of you are clueless. They are creating a system much like warcraft 3. Maybe you are too young to remember, but they did the same thing, and it is the best multiplayer system ive ever seen. Im sick of seeing a big pandora's list of servers, you never know if it is any good, they are laggy, crappy, all of them are different, allowing all sorts of things and setting their own rules. I dont much like the current system that games use. Give this system a try, there is a reason why blizzard is one of the most successful companies.

[ShadowFold]

Warcraft 3 only had 4v4 matches... P2P with that small amount of people is easy. But when you have 18 people doing that.. I actually like the steam integration. I like everything about what they're doing that I've seen, I just want dedicated servers and 64 players.