No Dedicated Servers for MW2 PC?

[LegionThree]

Well its been fun thinking about what could have been but this is my fairwell to MW2.
1. Complete disregard for community shown by removing and not addressing dedicated servers.
2. No lean on the PC.... It would unbalance it?
3. 5 second delay when host migration occurrs.
4. No ability to kick/ban players that are TKing and being stupid unless your in HC SD.
5.9v9!!!

So no thanks IW im out!

[HYDRACORE]

It's about time I ask this, then:

where the f--- are the mod servers? The populated ones, to be exact.

I'd like to see this for myself.

AKA Bandit proves a point I believe I made earlier: If CoD4 + mods does what MW2vanilla does, then why bother complaining? I doubt you would get the game anyway, because you could pretty much get the exact same game experience in CoD4.

Are we complaining about no DS, and using mod-ripoff as a tangent excuse? or are we complaining equally that MW2 stole mod ideas AND has no DS?

I'd really like to see X+ in action, just so I know what the whole fuss is. Unfortunately, there seems to be only 2 modded servers with players, neither of which appear to be running it.

(smacks self for getting baited back into this thread)

I'm really enjoying the intolerance and inability to just try it out before jumping to hasty "it sucks" conclusions. Isn't there anyone else out there who isn't going to immediately lynch the game?

I guess IW's a victim of "fandumb" and "It's been done" (Protip: TVtropes will ruin your life). That, and "Everyone related to Activison HAS TO BE A BILLY KOTICK"...

We could argue about this until a smart admin locks this down, but we won't get anywhere. You guys have a valid point in that dedicated servers are a standard for FPS games, while I'm pointing out the fact that dedicated servers really affect only a small percentage of gamers, namely those who are part of an active clan. it's a clash between "don't fix what isn't broken" and "don't hate it until you try it", imo...

But disregard all of that; I really fear that I'm going to attract the hatred of the PC community by pointing out that some of IW's choices make sense in context. It's not about trying to milk the most money out of gamers (except for when Kotick's involved, afaik), nor is it about stealing ideas...

In the end, it's really about connecting to a game that has players and a reasonable latency. I'm the sort of person who, after launching CoD4 MP, immediately hits the player tab to sort servers based on player-count. I'm more interested in playing the game than playing it with my bros with clearly established house rules. But hey, that's me. Hardcore-casual (or is is casual-hardcore) mentality at it's finest; care not how it's done, but that it is done (aka the ends justify the means).

And if you guys tempt me with another debatable point, I'm going to have to unleash EXTREME SARCASM!!! (maybe...)

TL/DR: ITT debatable claims. Requesting more proof that CoD4 mods do the things they do. Where the hell is that AC130 I was promised!!!

[IWSTUTNISB]

Originally Posted by HYDRACORE

I'm really enjoying the intolerance and inability to just try it out before jumping to hasty "it sucks" conclusions. Isn't there anyone else out there who isn't going to immediately lynch the game?

Why on Earth would we want to try a game that we know will suck? This has all been done before, albeit to less popular games and on a less severe level. It sucked then, so why wont this double serving of fail suck now? I, for one, know theres many other quality titles out now and coming soon that I can blow my budget on. Why would I want to spend all of $60 on this when I can buy a quality game like Crack in Time or Assassins Creed 2?
Too many games, not enough time or money. MW2 went from number one on my list to not even being on my list.

Originally Posted by HYDRACORE

You guys have a valid point in that dedicated servers are a standard for FPS games, while I'm pointing out the fact that dedicated servers really affect only a small percentage of gamers, namely those who are part of an active clan

Tell that to the to the over 300 unique steam ids that have clocked over 24 hours on my TF2 server... I only have 35ish clanmates btw


As for the 9v9 thing. I never really liked clusterfack games, but I do play on a 32 man server (modded and with a rule set to prevent modern grenadage). It just seems to me that its another way that IW has gone out of their way to limit what players can do.

[AKA_BANDIT]

Originally Posted by IWSTUTNISB

Tell that to the to the over 300 unique steam ids that have clocked over 24 hours on my TF2 server...

Speaking of TF2, like my new spray?

[LegionThree]

Lol any chance you can put that file up somewhere so we can all share in the MW2 hate fest?

[HYDRACORE]

Originally Posted by IWSTUTNISB

Why on Earth would we want to try a game that we know will suck? This has all been done before, albeit to less popular games and on a less severe level. It sucked then, so why wont this double serving of fail suck now? I, for one, know theres many other quality titles out now and coming soon that I can blow my budget on. Why would I want to spend all of $60 on this when I can buy a quality game like Crack in Time or Assassins Creed 2?
Too many games, not enough time or money. MW2 went from number one on my list to not even being on my list.

Going from #1 game, which implies that you thought it wouldn't suck, to not on your list because you "know [it] will suck." I still think that's a hasty jump.

At what point were you convinced that it sucked? Was it when the game came out, or when IW jumped the shark?

Ironically, I'm not really planning on purchasing the game ASAP, since the price tag kinda exceeds what I would be willing to pay. I'll probably be a late adopter, whenever it hits the $39.99 point (I'd give it 2 years, unless it pulls a Gears-priceTagFreeze)

Originally Posted by IWSTUTNISB

Tell that to the to the over 300 unique steam ids that have clocked over 24 hours on my TF2 server... I only have 35ish clanmates btw

If I set up a dedicated server with settings that most players would prefer, and had it run for as long as yours did, I'd probably get a bunch of unique players too. Fact is that you can't play online unless someone's running a server of some sort. Anyone who runs a server, dedicated or actively hosted, will eventually have players playing on it. People will still be able to play even with the P2P setup; it's just that it won't be the way you want it to be.

To clarify that, the prescence of servers is what players are concerned with. the clan-scene is concerned with the presence of consistent, dedicated servers. Playing games vs playing games in a consistent and familiar environment. so yeah...

But I kinda get how you feel. I can't even think of how private matches could serve as an analog to DS games... you'd have to be part of the playing group, which would mean party-invites and stuff; you wouldn't be able to barge in on someone's hosted game. Yeah, that wouldn't work... but if you're more interested in xp grinding and general game playing, you might not have that much concern over who you're playing with (until they pull some dick move)

Originally Posted by IWSTUTNISB

As for the 9v9 thing. I never really liked clusterfack games, but I do play on a 32 man server (modded and with a rule set to prevent modern grenadage). It just seems to me that its another way that IW has gone out of their way to limit what players can do.

Well, the grenade issue was covered in that psa...
Modern grenades indeed. The efficient weapon is the one that kills the most enemies per use. Players who find frags effective will probably continue to use them. But why is it that 3xfrag is never banned? Serious question right there, because banning 3xfrag could help to curb the grenade spam.

[sarcasm]But hey, it's practically part of the experience, kinda like teabagging in Halo; it's gonna happen, and you might as well get in on the fun.[/sarcasm]

[disjointed and unrelated]I, for one, am currently pissed off at the fact that no one plays Deathmatch Classic anymore. Dedicated servers my rear; there are only bots playing on them.[/disjointed and unrelated]


EDIT: in hindsight, I'm hating myself for replying. I guess I can't look away from a tempting debate/argument/whatever you want to call it.

[AKA_BANDIT]

Originally Posted by LegionThree

Lol any chance you can put that file up somewhere so we can all share in the MW2 hate fest?

http://www.mediafire.com/?mjtrnnuiml5

There you go. Image was made by {D}G^ch3m!c@L and originally posted on the PBBans forum. Let me know if it doesn't work for some reason. Spread it around as much as you can. I'd love to see this plastered all over STEAM land.

[AKA_BANDIT]

Here's a transcript from a developers chat on Tuesday November 3.

http://forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Gaming/...ipt/td-p/67692

Read some of these highlights. My suspicions about the PC version being a half assed console port continue to be confirmed. There's also a precident with Activision with this kind of thing. Activision did the same thing to the Soldier of Fortune series last year. SOF and SOF2 pioneered the realistic damage/gore models (exploding heads, limbs blown off) and were classics. In my opinion, SOF2 is one of the best multi-player shooters ever made. It's eight years old and still has a lot of players. But last year Activsion released Soldier of Fortune Payback which was nothing more that a straight up console port with no connection what made the previous games great or connection to PC games in general. It's doesn't surprise me they are doing it again.

Josh111: PC Question... What will the max amount of players per map be for PC multiplayer on IW.net

GeneralClean: With the new IW.net, how many players can it support at one time with each server set-up, 8 vs 8, 12 vs 12, 16 vs 16, and how much bandwidth are we talking about per player basis, Upload and Download?

Vince-IW: 9v9

9v9? WTF?

Mackey-IW: IWNet matches players together based on several factors including ping and skill. After players are matched, the most suitable host is determined. That player hosts until they quit, at which time hosting responsibilities will normally migrate to another player without interrupting the match.

Josh111: For the PC.. You guys have said people will be matched by skill.. How is this skill determined? Is it by kill to death ratio or something else?

Mackey-IW: Well none of the programmers are in the chat today.. so let's just say it's crazy programmer magic. It's a lot more than just K/D though. The important thing is not that all players in a game are the exact same skill, but that the teams are balanced.

Wouldn't you rather pick who you play with?

Saucy: Will the DLC for PC version cost anything?

Vince-IW: No idea yet.

Do you believe that?

maniac1969: How are PC gaming clans going to uphold their clan rules in the IW-net system? Are you going to give admin rights to gaming rooms so that admins can Kick or Ban players who refuse to follow clan rules? For example, {MRoA} servers prohibit racial comments from guest and/or clan members...

Mackey-IW: In response to the PC clan question: Private matches are a way for players to easily play with their friends and apply whatever House Rules they want. You can not kick players from Ranked matches. If language is a problem you can easily mute players.

DudezTY: Since we can not 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.

No admin ability, you're stuck with the idiots. Unless you believe that since they intend to "ban hackers from the game" it will make them magically and instantly disappear.

kaRMa: Regarding the PC version, will all games be hosted by players or just private matches? And will the host have a zero ping advantage?


Mackey-IW: We put a lot of work into making the game tolerant of latency. In my personal experience it is not obvious which player is host. The game plays well on broadband.

Stormbringer: If a game on IW.net is hosted by a player would that player not then have an unfair advantage in terms of network latency?

Mackey-IW: We put a lot of work into making the game tolerant of latency. In my personal experience is not obvious which player is host. The game plays well on broadband.

Seem like a question dodge to you?

TheNinthAxis: Is there lean in PC multiplayer.

Vince-IW: No.

zach426: What was your guy's logic behind removing the lean feature for PC, a feature that was a mainstay from all of your previous call of duty titles?

Mackey-IW: The game is not balanced for lean.

Screams "Console Port!"

Trac_Vantro: Is Iw.net going to help keep clans together the way we are use to playing together as clans now.

Mackey-IW: You can use friendslists in steam to play together.

TRU-Jennifer: Are you considering dedicated servers for the PC gamer in the near future?

Mackey-IW: Our main focus right now is on making sure the game will work well when it is released (on all platforms).

Ryan-IW: With balancing weapons, we strive to make sure each weapon recoils close to how it would in the real world. A good amount of us here at IW go shoot regularly and have hours of range time. The recoil we have in game is reflective to that of real steel firearms.

Porschy: Will you guys ever rethink about making a possible dedicated server patch after the initial launch? BTW I LOVE U GUYS <3

Vince-IW: We feel the PC game is great in it's current form. We put a lot of work into IWnet in an effort to make the PC experience better for our users. If there is a need for somthing more in the future we will address as needed

Translation = "We made it just like the console versions!" and "You can contact your all friends just not play with all of them if your clan has more than 18 people."

Vince-IW: IWnet was designed to make the MP experience on PC easier and more balanced.

Nobody was asking for a "more balanced" PC multi-player and it seemed pretty easy to play multi-player in COD4.

Freeman06: Hello, are you considering ever patching in mod tools for the pc to make custom maps and such?

Mackey-IW: Right now we're focused on launching our game.

Translation = "No we just made a port of the console version for the PC of course there's no mod tools."

h4msandwich: Has IWnet been tested in European settings? My clan plays european leagues and we got ppl from Eastern europe, UK and Sweden meeting in the same match. How is this going to play out considering siginificant differences in Bandwith and connection qualities between players. Will host player always have the ping advantage. Can a match be hosted by 'third' person, not taking part in the match?

Mackey-IW: Players do not control who hosts.

So if you have players from distant locations trying to play together you're screwed. A player hosted game cannot possibly have the bandwidth and low latency a dedicated server can.

[HYDRACORE]

[joking sarcasm]Hey, you can't line-by-line analyze that! I already did it here: http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=138352.[/joking sarcasm] (LOOK FOR THE 4th POST!)

seriously, I actually got the impression that IW was more concerned with BALANCE.

Also, SOFPayback was crap. Everyone who has ever heard of the first two agreed it was crap. but the reason it was crap was because the dev's took a steaming dump on the core gameplay experience, dumbing it down into "here's a gun. go gib some people; that's what SOF is about, amirite?"

the utter fail that was SoFP failed because the dev's thought that people loved the franchise for the gore, not for the gameplay. MW2 is essentially "more of what you like", with a slight change in server operations for MP. It's more like "Hey, you're a soldier in a war set 20 minutes into the future. Here's a gun, go fight for freedom. And grind for xp and unlocks, because you know you're a sucker for unlocks; that's why you play multi, amirite?"

I'm starting to think you guys would get along real well with the people who hated what Sakurai did to balance SSBBrawl... mutual hatred over the dev-team's attempts to balance a game you believe is fine on it's own (or in your case, changing something in the name of BALANCE that shouldn't have been changed).

though I did get a feeling that IW felt the console versions to be a bit more balanced (consistent hardware performance and the theoretical "perfect-matchups" made using matchmaking)

VAC has been pretty good so far; I haven't seen a hacker in CS in my entire time playing.


what shames me is that we have all degenerated to the point where we multiquote several lines to attack one point, in the form of "asking rhetorical question!?!?!". Seriously, that's a low point that even I hate going to.

9v9 is actually pretty well balanced. It's small enough to limit the grenade spam, while big enough for ACTION.

but who am I kidding. It's not like I've convinced anyone to go from "ranting about how it sucks" to "shut up and hold it until the game's out", have I?

[milenkosoe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMfTR8PBrsE

How have things have changed in less then two years....


My beef:
No leaning
Max Multiplayer is 9 vs 9
Acceptable ping is now at 100ms
You are unable to kick/ban players from your hosted P2P server (if it is ranked)
No record function for league play (I play Cevo and TWL COD4 and COD5)
No dedicated Servers
No console to adjust settings (to play better on your machine)
No Punkbuster, using VAC Valve Anti Cheat... ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...oq=&aqi=g1g-m9 )
You will never be able to play with your friends because they made a Match Making to make it easier for new users to find players, no more server lists. This means you play with people that are at the same skill level, same ping range, same area as you are.
GONE - Cage Match was not found.
GONE - Mercenary Team Deathmatch was not found.
GONE - Old School was not found.
GONE - Team Tactical was not found.


Basically the PC users want what every good FPS has...