Big ol' Bombshell for PC MW2

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » October 20th, 2009, 17:24

Well, it's crept over 100,000 now.

That's quite a sizable number.

Post by **HereComesPete** » October 20th, 2009, 19:11

Assuming that 50% are legit and that those same 50% are actually not buying, as opposed to screaming about it but still buying it's a lot of money. But I think that the vast majority of signatures represent someone who'll still buy it, because they're an IW/Activision bitch.

Post by **Dog Pants** » October 20th, 2009, 19:18

Thing is, lost sales or not, why would they create something that's so deeply unpopular? Surely there was some decision process involved in getting rid of all this, presumably to make things better for the player, but that it's quite clearly had the opposite effect. On the other hand, I'd ignore an internet petition too.

Post by **FatherJack** » October 20th, 2009, 19:37

amblin wrote:And it represents that there's a large number of people who like to be able to choose who the hell it is they play games against.

Apparently you can still choose who you play against, and have private games with just your chums, just not on your own server.

It's not clear whether the server it selects for you is one from a bank of servers they are providing or a listen server on one of the participating hosts. The guy didn't know what a listen server was, or much about how the new IWNet matchmaking service would function - whether it would offer some continuity if people got disconnected, or if it would just be a glorified master browser.

I suspect the latter on both counts, but await confirmation - there may end up being nothing stopping us playing a game with who we want, on the maps we want, with the offical game mode we want. It's the potentially compulsory DLC that's a bigger worry.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » October 20th, 2009, 21:16

FatherJack wrote:there may end up being nothing stopping us playing a game with who we want, on the maps we want, with the offical game mode we want. It's the potentially compulsory DLC that's a bigger worry.

The DLC is the main concern, but I highly doubt we'd get the level of control over who, how, where, what, etc we play either. Look at console cod4, the player limits were much much lower, the combination of settings (friendly fire, hardcore, etc) were very limited and unchangeable, etc. I pretty much know for a fact IWnet won't have 32 player hardcore shipment only servers running, for example - which I admit I liked for a cheap five minute spam fest every now and then. We'll be stuck with what they deem appropriate, so 24 player (if we're lucky, 18 or 12 if we're not) servers with things like hardcore/FF and permanently set a certain way. It stinks.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » October 20th, 2009, 22:28

<a href="http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/ ... aspx">IW's response</a>

I call bullshit on a lot of that. 60% of COD4 population being pirates? No. Also this isn't about making a better experience for players - a hundred thousand players have just said they think it is a worse experience. Maybe if you show me a hundred thousand and one emails saying "please please I can't figure out how a server browser works, make it magic and do everything for me" I'll believe this "for the good of the player" crap.

Also, with regards to the matchmaking to avoid the "skill disparity"... I just hate that. It's been around for a long while on consoles, but this push to bring it to the PC is just stupid. It's just another part of the "Don't ever let anyone's feelings get hurt or let them feel different or not perfect/special" coddling trend. Why is being put into a server where one or two people are considerably better than you a bad thing? What's that quote, something like "You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent"?

Edit: And what if I don't *want* to play with people at my skill level? What if I want to play with random people who are better than I am, or what if I want to play with some specific people (eg a bunch of 5punkers or other community) who are all at different levels?

*end mini-rant*

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » October 20th, 2009, 22:51

http://www.fourzerotwo.com/

FourZeroTwo wrote:When you want to player a multiplayer game on PC, in the past. You’d have to scroll through a Server Browser which listed every available server which was hosted by individual server admins. Each had their own private rules, mods, or ways of playing the game.

Yeah, funny that.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » October 20th, 2009, 22:57

Yep, and in that we take into account imbalances in the game's design, which saves the devs time and money rectifying their own fuckups. providing people servers to play on with people of similar skill (do you stay on a server if it's too easy or too hard?) and mindset (if a server is run by pricks, I leave, willingly, when I'm ready, not getting kicked by the host hating me)

Frankly, the servers that are run well get played on, those that aren't, don't.

Server full of cheats? admin kicks them, or you leave, big deal.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » October 20th, 2009, 23:07

FourZeroTwo wrote:When you want to player a multiplayer game on PC, in the past. You’d have to scroll through a Server Browser which listed every available server which was hosted by individual server admins. Each had their own private rules, mods, or ways of playing the game.

Hey, sounds perfect to me. I don't want a bunch of identical shitty servers with the exact same rules, map rotations, mods [none] and no variation in the attitude or environment as far as "ways of playing" go.

I've played enough console games online to know that that results in unplayable shit.

Post by **FatherJack** » October 20th, 2009, 23:18

Hmm.

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.

I thought this was their main focus, but I doubt their magic auto-detecting magic will be able to detect whether or not a server is full of insufferable elistist pricks.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » October 20th, 2009, 23:27

There's a point, IW.net should have nothing to do with cheatystuff, at all.

That should all be in VAC's hands (which doesn't generally ban immediately, weeks later mostly) so there's every likelyhood of cheaters still existing.

Seems to me like they're spreading a lot of FUD about PC gaming in an effort to forward their platform. Cunts.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » October 21st, 2009, 0:14

Well, I definitely won't be buying it then unless dedicated servers magically reappear.

IW have some silly silly staff employed.

Post by **FatherJack** » October 21st, 2009, 0:40

I'm still awaiting clarification as to whether it will practically matter to us. Some of those articles hint at a dedicated server farm, rather than the awful scenario of semi-random listen servers. That would be a positive.

What's pissing me off most is the retarded spin - trying to turn this into a benefit for mankind. Gaping holes can be shot through that without thought, I want proper facts, not more bullshit.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » October 21st, 2009, 0:48

FatherJack wrote:I'm still awaiting clarification as to whether it will practically matter to us. Some of those articles hint at a dedicated server farm, rather than the awful scenario of semi-random listen servers. That would be a positive.

What's pissing me off most is the retarded spin - trying to turn this into a benefit for mankind. Gaping holes can be shot through that without thought, I want proper facts, not more bullshit.

mostly.

I have no issues if we can do a few things, basically simulate having our own server - That is, have a mapcycle, and settings we can apply to games we start, on a non-listen server.

Also, from 1:40 onwards in this video, appears to be what we have to look forwards to.

Post by **FatherJack** » October 21st, 2009, 0:59

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Also, from 1:40 onwards in this video, appears to be what we have to look forwards to.

Ah, the host migration thing, forgotten that. That'll be listen servers, then. Cack.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » October 21st, 2009, 1:04

FatherJack wrote: Ah, the host migration thing, forgotten that. That'll be listen servers, then. Cack.

it's quite possibly an xbox video there, but I can see that in the pc version.

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » October 21st, 2009, 2:02

Wouldn't a server farm be worse in the long run? That might as well have the words "Reserved for MW3" painted on its side.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » October 21st, 2009, 6:14

Stoat wrote:Wouldn't a server farm be worse in the long run? That might as well have the words "Reserved for MW3" painted on its side.

Or you end up with the shit halo 3 has, where you can't join half of the servers because those servers have dlc and in the eyes of IW you're a filthy cheap jew and as you didn't hand over ten quid for the four maps (3 of which are shitty) the amount of potential servers you can play on is halved every time they bring out new DLC

Post by **TezzRexx** » October 21st, 2009, 10:29

Gunslinger42 wrote:
Or you end up with the shit halo 3 has, where you can't join half of the servers because those servers have dlc and in the eyes of IW you're a filthy cheap jew and as you didn't hand over ten quid for the four maps (3 of which are shitty) the amount of potential servers you can play on is halved every time they bring out new DLC

A great way of trying to convince to you to purchase the DLC. It all goes hand in hand really. I know I won't be buying this, sweeping at best.

Piss and balls, that's all I've got to say!