Multiplayer is Sh1t!!!

Soby wrote: »

Like search + destory,domination,sabotage?

Yes but even in these games all it comes down to is running around shooting people in the face and there is rarely if any teamplay in my experience.

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

Does anyone else think multiplayer is **** and wish they would concentrate more on making the one player game longer and more challenging?

I bought it for the multiplayer and havent even played the single player campaign...

Adyx wrote: »

Well it's not like I have much choice unless some of my mates are online too. But you're missing my point. I love the setting of MW(2) but I just think they could have made multiplayer so much better. There's little incentive to play as a team.

Thats the same in all multiplayer games unless you're in a Clan or playing with mates.

I used to play BF2 religiously, that game was completely geared towards team play what with the ability to create squads etc. And most of the time your squad mates just used you to spawn on you and went off as lone wolves.

Play domination and try tagging up with other players and going around in groups... But you need to take the lead, don't expect other players to join with you, I have found that if I tag up with other players they tend to catch my drift and join in.

Keyzer wrote: »

Thats the same in all multiplayer games unless you're in a Clan or playing with mates.

I used to play BF2 religiously, that game was completely geared towards team play what with the ability to create squads etc. And most of the time your squad mates just used you to spawn on you and went off as lone wolves.

Play domination and try tagging up with other players and going around in groups... But you need to take the lead, don't expect other players to join with you, I have found that if I tag up with other players they tend to catch my drift and join in.

True I suppose. I also did most of my multiplayer gaming in BF2 and BF2142 (was even in a clan for a while) so that's what I prefer. MW2 is good for a laugh with mates in short bursts though.

weisses wrote: »

MW2 is a console port.

not true.

Compared to previous CoD MoH series this game lacks all the support for a proper gameplay ie no dedicated servers.

gameplay != how multiplayer connections work.

The fact that they left it out has all to do with making money on future DLC and to keep total control and not creating the best gameplay for everyone

There are lots of not quite so nefarious reasons why they would have gone the match making route. Uniform interface/testing setup being one. Casual gamers are given in all likely hood a more enjoyable experience than with dedicated. Sure hurts clans/large groups but those at the end of the day are a small market segment.

Even isp are starting to come down on PC gamers because playing through IW'S superior p2p connection they think gamers are illegally downloading so they get throttled

isp's having crap filtering s(h)/w isn't IW's fault

Still not convinced ? just check all the different official fora

The only official fora on the game is @ IW's site, unlikely you'll find it there.

weisses wrote: »

point 1 disagree specially compared to previous cod games

Look up what console port means then. Parallel development targeting multiple platforms is not a console port. Most game dev teams pick a console as a lead target because of their commercial requirement and also performance characteristics. In general what runs fast/looks pretty on an xbox will run fast and look pretty on a pc. Keeping consoles in mind from the beginning is done mostly for performance/memory reasons.

point 2 disagree ... they went from a superior online gameplay to crap p2p gameplay .... thats a fact ... pc magazines where not allowed to make a review before official release ...

p2p is a means to achieve connections between players. Latency from using p2p might impact gameplay capabilities but it does not change gameplay. Several games have embargoed reviews prior to launch of the title, I don't see how its relevent.

point 3 disagree ... ..why not create both ... p2p for the casual ones gamers and dedicated support for proper gamers when u are so concerned about your gamers its about control control control.

I like it, you call yourself a proper gamer, yet you've glossed over that using dedicated servers in the past hasn't exactly been a bump free ride. For a great example see BF2's initial MP issues.

.. if casual gamers are supposed to be to dumb to find a game/map and connect to a dedicated server they fancy ...they sure not smart enough to change the NAT settings on their router

To start with IW is published by Activision who own DemonWare, so I presume they use their networking library which can be quite successful in poking holes through a lot of nat types.

And imo its not their inability to use game browsers, its the near on impossibility to find people of your own level with dedicated servers without being involved in a community. For examples see CS, CS:S, BF:V, Cod4...
Mostly involve a mess of being wiped the floor with or doing the same to someone else.

Match makings biggest asset is that it avoids this.

point 4 disagree again ...Its a fact that isp are throttling people for excessive usage of bandwidth it's something they should have known @ IW and being throtteld means you cant play the game @ night ..

Sorry what? ISP's have been throttling connections before MW2, you expect IW to change their game because x ISP in y Country misconfigured their equipment? At the end of the day move isp's, customers leaving isp's will quickly make them fix equipment/settings or change them.

point 5 disagree ... check that forum maybe should have left out the word official

Its not official if its on their forum, as you've conceded there. That is no different than you saying it here, or monkeys on the moon.

Nietzschean wrote: »

Most game dev teams pick a console as a lead target because of their commercial requirement and also performance characteristics. In general what runs fast/looks pretty on an xbox will run fast and look pretty on a pc.

But what works on a console will not always work on a pc .... Take bc2 they need more time to make the game perfect for pc because the pc is superior to the console ... so you can implement more and different things something IW failed to do with MW2

Nietzschean wrote: »

p2p is a means to achieve connections between players. Latency from using p2p might impact gameplay capabilities but it does not change gameplay.

when i experience much lag messed up anti lag crappy hosts etc etc then i consider that as crappy gameplay

Nietzschean wrote: »

I like it, you call yourself a proper gamer, yet you've glossed over that using dedicated servers in the past hasn't exactly been a bump free ride. For a great example see BF2's initial MP issues.

i winked ... i know dedicated servers are not gods gift to gamers

Nietzschean wrote: »

And imo its not their inability to use game browsers, its the near on impossibility to find people of your own level with dedicated servers without being involved in a community. For examples see CS, CS:S, BF:V, Cod4...
Mostly involve a mess of being wiped the floor with or doing the same to someone else. Match makings biggest asset is that it avoids this..

i saw people with rank 8 ot 9 being matched up against people who where on level 70 and getting wiped off the map .. happens all the time

Nietzschean wrote: »

Sorry what? ISP's have been throttling connections before MW2, you expect IW to change their game because x ISP in y Country misconfigured their equipment? At the end of the day move isp's, customers leaving isp's will quickly make them fix equipment/settings or change them.

So its okay that people cant play MW2 because IW/activision and all the isp are in a fight over p2p protocols MW2 for the ps3 is working fine with p2p btw

weisses wrote: »

But what works on a console will not always work on a pc .... Take bc2 they need more time to make the game perfect for pc because the pc is superior to the console ... so you can implement more and different things something IW failed to do with MW2

PC has more performance and more memory, which is obviously superior. But i imagine in the case of a BF series game its probably to do with control scheme's and interfaces for some of the vehicles/team/squad stuff. I don't know what you expected them to put in a PC version of a pure fps they couldn't put into a console one?

when i experience much lag messed up anti lag crappy hosts etc etc then i consider that as crappy gameplay

Sorry but play with other people or get a faster connection. Yes p2p does tend to lead to more latency problems. Its not perfect, its its big obvious defect, but then again thats not gameplay.

i saw people with rank 8 ot 9 being matched up against people who where on level 70 and getting wiped off the map .. happens all the time

there have been only 2 reasons i've played against anyone below level 50 since i got above it
1) Prestige mode
2) in a party with players of a higher rank(often clans)

In my experience it doesn't happen all the time, and level != true skill rating. Which isn't perfect in the game when larger groups form but 1/2 people its surprisingly effective.

So its okay that people cant play MW2 because IW/activision and all the isp are in a fight over p2p protocols MW2 for the ps3 is working fine with p2p btw

the ISP is in a fight with torrent users. IW/Activison arn't fighting anyone, they provide a service, if your isp isn't supplying a service get a new one. not IW's fault. MW2 for the ps3 might use a different port range, but its putting through the same sort of traffic as the pc one, so if the performance is different for some users that again is some silly filtering by the ISP. Should activison do something about users with 3G modems ? or those behind firewalls?

weisses wrote: »

My connection is fine 3/2 down/up i play cod4 on uk servers with a ping of 50 but it took me 20 minutes to get into a match of mw2 this afternoon

By myself i've never waited longer than 20seconds.

So it does happen .. there goes the whole idea of the casual gamer playing against other casual gamers, ..."Match makings biggest asset is that it avoids this" .... that's your quote

Sorry your somehow taking something out of what i've said that isn't there, its not a flaw in their system if you play with someone in a party who's far better and puts off the true skill rating. all it could do is split you into seperate games.

Change provider just to play a MW2!!?? what planet are you on !!

I know several people who picked/changed isp's depending on the gaming experience on that isp. MW2 is nothing revolutionary here...

since when do i the consumer have to suffer because some greedy game developer can't get their act together and provide a gaming solution for everyone like i said before

Sorry what? it in all likelyhood cost them more to do it this way than dedicated servers. And it is effectively industry standard to use p2p now. maybe not pc fps, but thats not a big market segment.

... if IW is so convinced about iw-net being superior over dedicated servers why not implement both

Why should they? tiny proportion of people arn't happy, can damn well be sure that % of people probably weren't happy with cod4 either. Its not economically advisable or a remotely good idea to split the online community via 2 connectivity methods.

...everyone is happy then ..you can use iw net and i can log on to those tricky dedi servers

Don't be making silly assumptions about other people.

weisses wrote: »

iI honestly never heard/read that people switched providers because they got throtteld during online gaming ... only recently with this mw2 debacle i found that out

You just sound like your venting because you suffer from connection/isp issues, so i think i'll stop replying.

The knife guys have some skill, at least, the dual shotties are a cheap way to get a semi aimed instakill before I get to reply with enough bullets:rolleyes: to kill them.

Frustrating michael bay multiplayer and inherently flawed in a few, now well exploited ways.

Its a pity because there is so much potential there.