COD MW2 - No PB support and Dedicated Servers

[Coldon]

yeh well what they didn't bother thinking about is people in the rest of the world, p2p gaming on the infrastructure in SA is practically impossible, dedicated servers on solid lines in a central location are needed here. All the local ISP/game hosts have sent emails to IW complaining about this.

Never mind that IWnet will kill competitive COD gaming, the whole ping disadvantage will be disastrous. I for one hope the petition manages to force them to bring back dedicated servers. Never mind the potential for interruptions in gameplay, picture you're playing a game hosted by some guy somewhere, and now that dudes roommate starts browsing / youtubeing / downloading, now everyone connected to that guy suffers. THIS IS NOT SPARTA, THIS IS BULL!

[WeaponX]

I bet some coders are already pondering up ways to recode everything so that we will have dedicated servers whether or not IW/Activision likes it. Then everyone will just torrent the game and play on dedicated servers where the max is whatever we want it to be. Hell, they'll probably even code a different type of anti-cheat program all together lol. PC gamers will have the last word on this, that's for sure!

[CAUTION]

I bet some coders are already pondering up ways to recode everything so that we will have dedicated servers whether or not IW/Activision likes it. Then everyone will just torrent the game and play on dedicated servers where the max is whatever we want it to be. Hell, they'll probably even code a different type of anti-cheat program all together lol. PC gamers will have the last word on this, that's for sure!

WeaponX I hope your right, I will keep my fingers and toes crossed.

[Spawne32]

this explanation by grant collier was good for COD4, too bad he got promoted for such an awesome game

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

[Psykocyber]

this explanation by grant collier was good for COD4, too bad he got promoted for such an awesome game

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

It's crazy how much can change in just two years. We can already call it "the good old COD days", how sad

[PaganII]

I signed at about 75K. This is getting a lot of noise. Who cares what level anyone is. You can be terrible but if you play long enough you get to 4 star. I always started a new player instead of going prestige. Fun using a pistol to take on generals! You can always pick up guns anyway in WaW. I'd rather play on a strict HC server and/or custom maps. Ya, and that GER server with the snowy Christmas CoD4 map brought a smile last year. No more in MW2....

[Luka_Aveiro]

If the game has a LAN multiplayer game option, you could use hamachi in order to create a virtual lan to play with your friends but i don't know if its really reliable...

[003]

I bet some coders are already pondering up ways to recode everything so that we will have dedicated servers whether or not IW/Activision likes it. Then everyone will just torrent the game and play on dedicated servers where the max is whatever we want it to be. Hell, they'll probably even code a different type of anti-cheat program all together lol. PC gamers will have the last word on this, that's for sure!

If that did happen though, the userbase would not be that large, and would mainly consist of very hardcore players and clans. I don't think it would be very fun for your typical CoD player

[Easybeat]

I think the protests may be having an effect, I don't think this was around 2 days ago.

A cap from Amazon offering a $20 discount voucher for pre-ordering and is being applied to all existing pre-orders.



If this hasn't been around for a while (and I don't think it has) I would say at least someone is hurting, because there is no way that this game should have any discount prior to launch.


EDIT - its across all platforms - my mistake

[Eastcoasthandle]

Perhaps I missed the post but if any of you were around when P2P was the only means to get online play should know that "He who hosts owns the most". No seriously, the person who actually hosts a P2P gets the lowest ping, lowest lag, etc. This is one of many reason why we are using dedicated servers now.

[CAUTION]

Perhaps I missed the post but if any of you were around when P2P was the only means to get online play should know that "He who hosts owns the most". No seriously, the person who actually hosts a P2P gets the lowest ping, lowest lag, etc. This is one of many reason why we are using dedicated servers now.

What's funny is I heard the same thing yesterday from a coworker. He play's Gears of War 2 on xbox live and he stated that the person who hosts a P2P gets very low ping. Which makes perfect sense. This entire situation is just crazy.

[Psykocyber]

Comment on Amazon.co.uk:
"This game is terrible and by buying it you are supporting Al-Qaeda, Mexicans and Satan."

Maybe a bit extreme?

[Crit]

I think the protests may be having an effect, I don't think this was around 2 days ago.

A cap from Amazon offering a $20 discount voucher for pre-ordering and is being applied to all existing pre-orders.



If this hasn't been around for a while (and I don't think it has) I would say at least someone is hurting, because there is no way that this game should have any discount prior to launch.

Does the voucher not apply to a "future video game purchase"?

[Easybeat]

Does the voucher not apply to a "future video game purchase"?

Yes, but I will have to climb down on my original post as it seems to have appeared across all platforms as well.

Sorry.

[BobyTT]

Comment on Amazon.co.uk:
"This game is terrible and by buying it you are supporting Al-Qaeda, Mexicans and Satan."

Maybe a bit extreme?

Sounds about right. IW have the same soul like the other scumbags. Since IW cut the head of the entire PC community that played COD4-5 And thats a lot of people...

[villa1n]

this explanation by grant collier was good for COD4, too bad he got promoted for such an awesome game

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

This is a perfect summation of why we all liked COD4 and how their philosophy has completely backtracked and 180'd

[Solus Corvus]

Perhaps I missed the post but if any of you were around when P2P was the only means to get online play should know that "He who hosts owns the most". No seriously, the person who actually hosts a P2P gets the lowest ping, lowest lag, etc. This is one of many reason why we are using dedicated servers now.

I remember multiplayer Doom 1/2. If you were lucky you had a network to play on, otherwise you had to dial into a BBS with IPX emulation to be able to get 4 players. But nobody actually hosted the game - it was true peer-to-peer. There were serious issues if anybody's machine started acting up because everyone got game updates at the speed of the slowest player. It also made cheating really easy because all the clients had to agree on the outcome (sorta). But the very next id software game ( quake ) supported true client/server with 16 players - and quakeworld released in late '96 supported 32 players already.

The multiplayer system described so far for COD:MW2 sounds like a client/server layout with the server simply always being on one of the client machines. It has some of the advantages of client/server layout like a laggy player won't slow everyone else down. But it will make cheating even easier IMO. All someone has to do is hack the server on their machine and then when the game picks them as the host (because of their monster machine/connection) they basically have full control over the match to do whatever they want.

A dedicated server allows for so much more though. Players can inform admins about cheaters. Admins can record server side demos and investigate the allegations. Players can be banned. And then the COMMUNITY on that regularly visits that server won't have to deal with that particular scumbag again. But in IW's system how are you supposed to deal with cheating? The clients can't record server side demos and client side demos aren't proof of cheating (client side prediction messes that up). Even if someone is caught, why should they care? The servers are transient, they'd probably never end up connecting to that player host ever again anyway. So even if there are robust administration options in COD:MW2 (not a given) the player hosting the game would need to be a competent admin (also not a given) - and even then his efforts would be wasted as soon as the match shut down. And if there aren't robust admin controls then how the hell is the community supposed to deal with cheaters, griefers, etc? I'm curious to see how IW implements this, but I can already see a lot of potential problems introduced by this method.

[Eastcoasthandle]

I remember multiplayer Doom 1/2. If you were lucky you had a network to play on, otherwise you had to dial into a BBS with IPX emulation to be able to get 4 players. But nobody actually hosted the game - it was true peer-to-peer. There were serious issues if anybody's machine started acting up because everyone got game updates at the speed of the slowest player. It also made cheating really easy because all the clients had to agree on the outcome (sorta). But the very next id software game ( quake ) supported true client/server with 16 players - and quakeworld released in late '96 supported 32 players already.

The multiplayer system described so far for COD:MW2 sounds like a client/server layout with the server simply always being on one of the client machines. It has some of the advantages of client/server layout like a laggy player won't slow everyone else down. But it will make cheating even easier IMO. All someone has to do is hack the server on their machine and then when the game picks them as the host (because of their monster machine/connection) they basically have full control over the match to do whatever they want.

A dedicated server allows for so much more though. Players can inform admins about cheaters. Admins can record server side demos and investigate the allegations. Players can be banned. And then the COMMUNITY on that regularly visits that server won't have to deal with that particular scumbag again. But in IW's system how are you supposed to deal with cheating? The clients can't record server side demos and client side demos aren't proof of cheating (client side prediction messes that up). Even if someone is caught, why should they care? The servers are transient, they'd probably never end up connecting to that player host ever again anyway. So even if there are robust administration options in COD:MW2 (not a given) the player hosting the game would need to be a competent admin (also not a given) - and even then his efforts would be wasted as soon as the match shut down. And if there aren't robust admin controls then how the hell is the community supposed to deal with cheaters, griefers, etc? I'm curious to see how IW implements this, but I can already see a lot of potential problems introduced by this method.

If you ever played RaceDriver: Grid online that maybe how IW.Net might be. In Grid you have:
Quick Race
Custom Match
Create a Session
Private Session
Grid uses an online voting system to remove problem player which never did work right. Because so many just didn't care if others cheated. I do believe this is also some sort of hybrid P2P online game play as there are no dedicated servers. Someone most host the game in order for you to see a lists of servers to choose from. If the host leaves it's transferred to the next player. So far having 12 players online (I think it's 12) hasn't really shown any real problem. Sometimes you are notified that you are now host which really has no meaning to you. But in a racing game you are not expecting a lot of players so it's fitting for this type of setup online.

[slim142]

132k petitions DAM

IW still has time to fix their biggest mistake ever...

[Solus Corvus]

If you ever played RaceDriver: Grid online that maybe how IW.Net might be. In Grid you have:
Quick Race
Custom Match
Create a Session
Private Session
Grid uses an online voting system to remove problem player which never did work right. Because so many just didn't care if others cheated. I do believe this is also some sort of hybrid P2P online game play as there are no dedicated servers. Someone most host the game in order for you to see a lists of servers to choose from. If the host leaves it's transferred to the next player. So far having 12 players online (I think it's 12) hasn't really shown any real problem. Sometimes you are notified that you are now host which really has no meaning to you. But in a racing game you are not expecting a lot of players so it's fitting for this type of setup online.

No, I haven't played it online but it doesn't sound very inspiring. Does it support mods, custom tracks/cars, etc? Does it have any sense of community?

Also, there is no hybrid p2p in networking terms. If all the machines have the same status, then it's peer-to-peer. If any machine has a higher status and controls the others in some way then it's client/server, even if the machine hosting the server is also hosting a client. The distinction that we are talking about is the ability to have dedicated servers setup and run by a third party versus only having locally hosted servers and/or official dedicated servers.

[=SOC= Admiral]

We arent as stupid as the console gamers for the sole reason we wouldnt be cought dead in a situation like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59P6m...layer_embedded

Oh yea and anyone there remember the saying The CUSTOMER is ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!

[Eastcoasthandle]

No, I haven't played it online but it doesn't sound very inspiring. Does it support mods, custom tracks/cars, etc? Does it have any sense of community?

No, there is no support for mods (although patch 1.3 is suppose to offer DLC). There is no sense of community in the sense you would expect from dedicated servers. There is a lobby in which people can text (no voice/voip option for this game on the PC). So people do "chat" among themselves in each lobby setup to start a vote on which race we choose. The vote system can be an issue if you want a particular race using a certain class of cars. For example, you want to derby race while everyone else wants to race the Lacetti in Spa (for example). You then have to find a lobby inwhich a derby race is in session. So, don't expect to be able to get others to vote for it if they have racing in mind.

Also, there is no hybrid p2p in networking terms. If all the machines have the same status, then it's peer-to-peer. If any machine has a higher status and controls the others in some way then it's client/server, even if the machine hosting the server is also hosting a client. The distinction that we are talking about is the ability to have dedicated servers setup and run by a third party versus only having locally hosted servers and/or official dedicated servers.

I used the term loosely and still stand by using it. There is very little information I was able to find at the time that explained exactly how their matchmaking system worked. Therefore, I used the term hybrid in place of it until there is documented information on exactly how they have their PC online system setup.

[Easybeat]

If you ever played RaceDriver: Grid online that maybe how IW.Net might be. In Grid you have:
Quick Race
Custom Match
Create a Session
Private Session
Grid uses an online voting system to remove problem player which never did work right. Because so many just didn't care if others cheated. I do believe this is also some sort of hybrid P2P online game play as there are no dedicated servers. Someone most host the game in order for you to see a lists of servers to choose from. If the host leaves it's transferred to the next player. So far having 12 players online (I think it's 12) hasn't really shown any real problem. Sometimes you are notified that you are now host which really has no meaning to you. But in a racing game you are not expecting a lot of players so it's fitting for this type of setup online.

How about bandwidth though? I could see a racing game using a lot less than an FPS.

[Eastcoasthandle]

How about bandwidth though? I could see a racing game using a lot less than an FPS.

Bandwidth is fine for that game.

[annihilat0r]

Comment on Amazon.co.uk:
"This game is terrible and by buying it you are supporting Al-Qaeda, Mexicans and Satan."

Maybe a bit extreme?

im all for satan, that guy's cool.