Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Routver

I always thought CoD4 had plenty of balance problems regarding perks, grenade launchers and more. I personally enjoyed games like L4D way more.

 

I don't really agree with grenade launchers being overpowered. It takes a second to switch from normal gun fire to your grenade launcher. On top of that, it's very unreliable.

I never saw the point of the underbarrel grenade launcher. It's less accurate and slower.

What about people in S n D who would fire the 'noob tube' at the very beginning of the match on spawn locations, often taking out several people? On some maps it was easily exploitable, sometimes you saw someone take out 4 or 5 people in one shot.

I will admit I never actually played Search and Destroy, or at least never seriously.

Originally posted by Bigdavo

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Routver

I always thought CoD4 had plenty of balance problems regarding perks, grenade launchers and more. I personally enjoyed games like L4D way more.

 

I don't really agree with grenade launchers being overpowered. It takes a second to switch from normal gun fire to your grenade launcher. On top of that, it's very unreliable.

I never saw the point of the underbarrel grenade launcher. It's less accurate and slower.

 

What about people in S n D who would fire the 'noob tube' at the very beginning of the match on spawn locations, often taking out several people? On some maps it was easily exploitable, sometimes you saw someone take out 4 or 5 people in one shot.

Yeah but after like a year it was easy to avoid that. When I was playing the most I knew what maps that would happen on and how best to avoid it. I only got cought when sleeping. Otherwise Gameloading is right. It was a clunky weapon and a pain to switch from. I was often caught with the wrong one out and it cost me.

Also Gameloading you should give it a shot hardcore S n D is great if your playing with some good friends.

Originally posted by goneglockin

I won't be buying it either.  If I wanted to play a stunted FPS game, I'd go to Toys R' Us and pick up a brat box and a frontal lobotomy.

With increasingly powerful hardware that only gets cheaper while software's need for it struggles to keep up, consoles will inevitably go back to being simply children's toys.

 

Simply children's toys? really? that's funny it's as if your saying the advances in technology/hardware are only for computers and completly ignoring advances in consoles. Wow...

Originally posted by Arndur

1 IW has no mandate to provide players with basicly things that don't make them money.(mods different rule sets)

They created the mandate from the first CoD title with multiplayer and dedicated server support. Not too familiar with the series, are you? There are ample videos on the internet with interviews with the developers for previous CoD titles where they talk about their commitment to the PC gaming community and support for dedicated servers, prior to this latest fiasco.

2 This makes the game universal. A player would not have to be suprised by a rule set or mod when he loads in.

Players aren't surprised; the command console for each server constantly tells you what the server rules are, and the mods are live on mic telling players what the rules are.

3 If it matches by ping whats the problem? Wouldn't people share a common ping?

People, yes. Community, no. Many people from different areas of the world want to play together; not ad-hoc games, but with players they know and communities they know. A dedicated server provides the bandwidth needed to maintain a usable ping for all of the players connecting to it. P2P does not.

4 Invite your friends to a game and go. XBL players have managed to do this for years is this to much for PC players?

If PC players wanted the limitations of consoles, again, we would play on a console. Why should I invite my friends to a game, when I can host my own server?

O thats right if you wanted to do it that way you could play console games. Well I guess if you want dedicated servers you can play COD4 or a different FPS.

Three things here;

1.  CoD was PC-exclusive for CoD and CoD 2, as well as all the expansion packs. Consoles didn't even see CoD until CoD3.  PC gamers gave Infinity Ward the success they needed to reach the point they are at today, and have continued to support them, until this latest announcement.

2. The news that there would be no dedicated servers was not released / leaked until four weeks (give or take) before release. Prior to this, there was no mention at all that there would be no dedicated server support.  So it is very easy to see why PC gamers would see this as an attempt to rip them off, especially those who pre-ordered the game.

It seemed pretty clear that IW / Activision was trying to sell the game without telling the PC community that there was no dedicated server support.

3. You are correct, and we will.  Already cancelled my pre-order, and looking forward to Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Along with 175691 of my fellow PC gamers (which at $60 a pop for MW2, that's a nice little $10,541,460.00 lost).

Since IW and Activision can apparently afford it, I have no problem not giving them my money.

Originally posted by Somnulus

Originally posted by Arndur

1 IW has no mandate to provide players with basicly things that don't make them money.(mods different rule sets)

They created the mandate from the first CoD title with multiplayer and dedicated server support. Not too familiar with the series, are you? There are ample videos on the internet with interviews with the developers for previous CoD titles where they talk about their commitment to the PC gaming community and support for dedicated servers, prior to this latest fiasco.

2 This makes the game universal. A player would not have to be suprised by a rule set or mod when he loads in.

Players aren't surprised; the command console for each server constantly tells you what the server rules are, and the mods are live on mic telling players what the rules are.

3 If it matches by ping whats the problem? Wouldn't people share a common ping?

People, yes. Community, no. Many people from different areas of the world want to play together; not ad-hoc games, but with players they know and communities they know. A dedicated server provides the bandwidth needed to maintain a usable ping for all of the players connecting to it. P2P does not.

4 Invite your friends to a game and go. XBL players have managed to do this for years is this to much for PC players?

If PC players wanted the limitations of consoles, again, we would play on a console. Why should I invite my friends to a game, when I can host my own server?

O thats right if you wanted to do it that way you could play console games. Well I guess if you want dedicated servers you can play COD4 or a different FPS.

Three things here;

1.  CoD was PC-exclusive for CoD and CoD 2, as well as all the expansion packs. Consoles didn't even see CoD until CoD3.  PC gamers gave Infinity Ward the success they needed to reach the point they are at today, and have continued to support them, until this latest announcement.

2. The news that there would be no dedicated servers was not released / leaked until four weeks (give or take) before release. Prior to this, there was no mention at all that there would be no dedicated server support.  So it is very easy to see why PC gamers would see this as an attempt to rip them off, especially those who pre-ordered the game.

It seemed pretty clear that IW / Activision was trying to sell the game without telling the PC community that there was no dedicated server support.

3. You are correct, and we will.  Already cancelled my pre-order, and looking forward to Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Along with 175691 of my fellow PC gamers (which at $60 a pop for MW2, that's a nice little $10,541,460.00 lost).

Since IW and Activision can apparently afford it, I have no problem not giving them my money.

 

!3 million copies of CoD4 and less then 200,000 people here missing. Most likely their choice they decided is for the greater good and your not the greater good.  Also I meant loading into a server to find out what its rule sets and mods are. Sometimes the name is not enough and I am suprised by what I find. My connection for some reason is lacking on the PC and it takes awhile to load into BF2 and TF2 servers. I don't want to waste my time because as I join one a server I couldve joined fills up and Im stuck waiting again. O thats right no waiting around. I paid $50 for a game I don't want to sit there or have to pay someone els emoney to play my game. To me that throws the whole community thing out the window. It gives people who can own a server the ablitiy to make a profit. How would you react if IW oftered dedicated servers only through them and you had to pay them say $5 a month for a spot? O and CoD2 was not PC exclusive it came out on the Xbox 360 a month later.

Also thats not a mandate, I think L4D2 is proof in itself that devs will change ways and not bother listening to the minority. Which fyi the people who singed the L4D2 boycott and this MW2 petition are.

Hmm just saw that if host quits a new host is found unlike CoD4 point for IW.

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

Originally posted by MasterChaosX

I was looking forward to this game until i heard about no dedicated servers. forget about the game now

 

No dedicated servers? Source pls

look for the sources urself IWnet is what pc will be using for matchmaking we dont have any servers just console matchmatching on the pc which is what every1 is anoyed about

Originally posted by Arndur

!3 million copies of CoD4 and less then 200,000 people here missing. Most likely their choice they decided is for the greater good and your not the greater good. 

That's just fine. As I said, I'm voting with my wallet. At this point in time, given the lack of reply or action by IW, they can go their way and I will go mine.

Time will tell if this is indeed the greater good. I would think with Activision bleeding red and their stock dropping rapidly, they would want the additional cash. Ah well.

Oh; those signatures I mentioned are from one NA petition. There are others running from outside the U.S. (Germany, S. Africa, Australia, Great Britain, etc.) that I did not include in my computation.

That also does not include those who are aware of the situation, chose not to sign the petition, but also chose not to purchase MW2.

Also I meant loading into a server to find out what its rule sets and mods are. Sometimes the name is not enough and I am suprised by what I find. My connection for some reason is lacking on the PC and it takes awhile to load into BF2 and TF2 servers. I don't want to waste my time because as I join one a server I couldve joined fills up and Im stuck waiting again. O thats right no waiting around. I paid $50 for a game I don't want to sit there or have to pay someone els emoney to play my game.

It sounds as though you have PC issues. If your personal connection (hardware / software / ISP) is lacking, that has no effect / impact on whether the server you are trying to connect to is providing maximum bandwidth, moderator support, unique player-created content, etc.

Specifically, if you are having issues connecting to a TF2 server, it is entirely on you. Never had a single issue connecting to a TF2 server, ever.

I have never waited longer than ten seconds to get into a server, particularly when there are over / around 20,000 servers to choose from in CoD4 MW alone.

I have three CoD4 MW servers on my favorites list, two from the same server clan.  I play on those three servers only, and I've never needed to wait more than ten seconds to get into my server of choice.

To me that throws the whole community thing out the window. It gives people who can own a server the ablitiy to make a profit. How would you react if IW oftered dedicated servers only through them and you had to pay them say $5 a month for a spot? O and CoD2 was not PC exclusive it came out on the Xbox 360 a month later.

 I would not care. You see, I already contribute to my dedicated servers of choice, normally every three months, a minimum of twenty dollars. I value their moderator support, rule sets, and bandwidth that much.

If IWNet is ready, willing, and able to put someone LIVE on these imaginary dedicated servers you describe who will ban someone immediately when they think they are cheating, spend a minimum of four to six hours a day moderating at no pay, AND include all of the perks of having a dedicated server (the ability to run mods, unique rule sets, maximum bandwidth) then yes, I would pay. I already do.

Also thats not a mandate, I think L4D2 is proof in itself that devs will change ways and not bother listening to the minority. Which fyi the people who singed the L4D2 boycott and this MW2 petition are.

Yes, that is logic; compare a game franchise with two games (actually, one, since L4D2 hasn't released yet) to a franchise that has released five games in the same military combat genre, two of which were PC-only releases.

The L4D2 boycott has absolutely no relation whatsoever to this issue.

Hmm just saw that if host quits a new host is found unlike CoD4 point for IW.

Have you ever actually played CoD4 MW multiplayer? What are talking about? Dedicated servers don't QUIT.

They run, every day, all day, 24/7. I don't need anyone or anything to "find a new host".

This last statement makes me wonder if you have played the CoD 4 MW PC multiplayer at all.

Originally posted by Somnulus

Originally posted by Arndur

!3 million copies of CoD4 and less then 200,000 people here missing. Most likely their choice they decided is for the greater good and your not the greater good. 

That's just fine. As I said, I'm voting with my wallet. At this point in time, given the lack of reply or action by IW, they can go their way and I will go mine.

Time will tell if this is indeed the greater good. I would think with Activision bleeding red and their stock dropping rapidly, they would want the additional cash. Ah well.

Oh; those signatures I mentioned are from one NA petition. There are others running from outside the U.S. (Germany, S. Africa, Australia, Great Britain, etc.) that I did not include in my computation.

That also does not include those who are aware of the situation, chose not to sign the petition, but also chose not to purchase MW2.

Also I meant loading into a server to find out what its rule sets and mods are. Sometimes the name is not enough and I am suprised by what I find. My connection for some reason is lacking on the PC and it takes awhile to load into BF2 and TF2 servers. I don't want to waste my time because as I join one a server I couldve joined fills up and Im stuck waiting again. O thats right no waiting around. I paid $50 for a game I don't want to sit there or have to pay someone els emoney to play my game.

It sounds as though you have PC issues. If your personal connection (hardware / software / ISP) is lacking, that has no effect / impact on whether the server you are trying to connect to is providing maximum bandwidth, moderator support, unique player-created content, etc.

Specifically, if you are having issues connecting to a TF2 server, it is entirely on you. Never had a single issue connecting to a TF2 server, ever.

I have never waited longer than ten seconds to get into a server, particularly when there are over / around 20,000 servers to choose from in CoD4 MW alone.

I have three CoD4 MW servers on my favorites list, two from the same server clan.  I play on those three servers only, and I've never needed to wait more than ten seconds to get into my server of choice.

To me that throws the whole community thing out the window. It gives people who can own a server the ablitiy to make a profit. How would you react if IW oftered dedicated servers only through them and you had to pay them say $5 a month for a spot? O and CoD2 was not PC exclusive it came out on the Xbox 360 a month later.

 I would not care. You see, I already contribute to my dedicated servers of choice, normally every three months, a minimum of twenty dollars. I value their moderator support, rule sets, and bandwidth that much.

If IWNet is ready, willing, and able to put someone LIVE on these imaginary dedicated servers you describe who will ban someone immediately when they think they are cheating, spend a minimum of four to six hours a day moderating at no pay, AND include all of the perks of having a dedicated server (the ability to run mods, unique rule sets, maximum bandwidth) then yes, I would pay. I already do.

Also thats not a mandate, I think L4D2 is proof in itself that devs will change ways and not bother listening to the minority. Which fyi the people who singed the L4D2 boycott and this MW2 petition are.

Yes, that is logic; compare a game franchise with two games (actually, one, since L4D2 hasn't released yet) to a franchise that has released five games in the same military combat genre, two of which were PC-only releases.

The L4D2 boycott has absolutely no relation whatsoever to this issue.

Hmm just saw that if host quits a new host is found unlike CoD4 point for IW.

Have you ever actually played CoD4 MW multiplayer? What are talking about? Dedicated servers don't QUIT.

They run, every day, all day, 24/7. I don't need anyone or anything to "find a new host".

This last statement makes me wonder if you have played the CoD 4 MW PC multiplayer at all.

Well the last one wasn't for you, I jsut didn't feel like making another post just for that line. I play COD on XBL have never claimed to have played it on PC other then LAN. But really how different is it from BF2 or any other game with dedicated servers? I never claimed I don't get good bandwidth from a server either. I run at a nice low ping at all times. Of course I run at a nice low ping in  P2P games too. You missed the whole point to the L4D2 reference calling the petition pointless for MW and showing that a dev that has a much longer standing tradtion of doing something will change for the better intrest of the company and consumer. Yes PC players are getting screwed but chances are the console players might be getting a better game for this because maybe they did really get hurt by pirating and the fact that they sold far more copies on the PS3 and X360 made them see where their priorties are. Money makes the world go round not the original fans sadly. Just ask the hardcore Nintendo fan.

And untill you can compile a accurate list that shows who all has said they won't buy the game it still stands that it a small fraction compared to the number that still will get it and the console market.

Actually there are more console releases of Call of Duty than there are PC releases.

If we include the expansion pack, there are 2 PC exclusive Call of Duty games.
There are 3 exclusive console Call of Duty games and that's not including the two portable Call of Duty games.

Try to think of it this way: If they don't support dedicated servers, they will lose $10 million+; If they do support them, I don't think anyone is going to not purchase the game because of it. Hrm, to have $10 million or to pass on it...

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually there are more console releases of Call of Duty than there are PC releases.

If we include the expansion pack, there are 2 PC exclusive Call of Duty games.
There are 3 exclusive console Call of Duty games and that's not including the two portable Call of Duty games.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, Gameloading. I stand corrected.

The thing that is causing the most ire among PC users is the fact that IW waited until the last possible moment to announce (or it was leaked... still not certain on that) that there would be no dedicated server support.

And no matter how you slice it, 8 vs. 8 will never match up to the potential 64 vs. 64 combat that dedicated servers can offer.

Regardless; if it is IW's intent to simply write off PC game development, then they should just do it. That way they can be crossed off of the list of studios supporting PC game development and any and all future releases from them can be ignored by the PC community.

Again, if they are fine with that, so be it. As a poster prior to me stated, if all it takes to pick up an extra $10 million dollars is to add dedicated server support, it is a rather small adjustment to make. I am certain PC gamers would be willing to wait for the additional development required.

so it doesn't make sense when a team with someone having a 25 kill streak wins?

The chances of you winning against a team when they are massacring you are pretty slim, higher chance of you leaving at that point than staying until the game is over anyways, so Inf. Ward just saved you the time hitting start then flip down to "leave game".

Originally posted by Arndur

Well the last one wasn't for you, I jsut didn't feel like making another post just for that line. I play COD on XBL have never claimed to have played it on PC other then LAN.

Your previous posts made it seem as though you had, or were claiming you had. If you had played CoD4 MW on dedicated servers, I think you would notice the difference.

But really how different is it from BF2 or any other game with dedicated servers?

It's not; that is rather the point. BF and DICE studios will still be offering dedicated server support on their upcoming Battlefield 2: Bad Company title. And that is a good thing. If IW was still offering dedicated servers, this would all be moot.

The point is that CoD4 MW was a very robust title, made even better on the PC by dedicated server support. If IW wants to throw that away, it's their business; but they shouldn't be surprised by the reaction from the PC target audience, particularly when they spring this change on them at the last minute.

I never claimed I don't get good bandwidth from a server either. I run at a nice low ping at all times. Of course I run at a nice low ping in  P2P games too.

And I never stated that you did; I replied to your connection issues, which are still indicative of a hardware / software / ISP issue and not the capability of the dedicated server you were attempting to connect to.

You missed the whole point to the L4D2 reference calling the petition pointless for MW and showing that a dev that has a much longer standing tradtion of doing something will change for the better intrest of the company and consumer.

I am a consumer; this is not better for me.

Yes PC players are getting screwed but chances are the console players might be getting a better game for this because maybe they did really get hurt by pirating and the fact that they sold far more copies on the PS3 and X360 made them see where their priorties are. Money makes the world go round not the original fans sadly. Just ask the hardcore Nintendo fan.

Yes, I agree. And I have no issue with IW / Activision deciding that their money is better spent developing games for the console. If they had instead announced that MW2 would be console-only, I would have shrugged my shoulders and said, "oh well" and IW would have disappeared into the bin of once-great PC game developers.

Rather, they are saying that they are developing for the PC and giving us one of the most robust PC games they have ever developed, while simultaneously taking away one of the most vibrant parts of the PC game. 

All the while, they are trying to tell the PC gaming community that this is an improvement; that 8 vs. 8 P2P matches are an improvement over 40 vs. 40 dedicated server matches, that sparsely developed buy as you go new map content is better than player-developed free map content.

All under the context of not even speaking one single word about these changes until just before the release of the game.

Those things make PC gamers irate, particularly when they have been anticipating this game.

And untill you can compile a accurate list that shows who all has said they won't buy the game it still stands that it a small fraction compared to the number that still will get it and the console market.

How much is an acceptable loss? $1 million? $2 million? Fiscally, their attitude simply doesn't make sense.

That is up to them to decide, though. All I know is that before that point four weeks or so ago, this was the game I was going to purchase. Now, it's not.  That's all.

I wish them luck; but they simply aren't part of my personal list of anticipated development studios anymore. And I imagine there are a good number of PC gamers that feel exactly as I do.  Which explains the petition(s).

No dedicated servers?  6v6 or 8v8 multiplayer?  WTF?  Another game screwed over because of consoles.

I was super pissed when I heard they weren't having dedicated servers for this game. AND, all the third party businesses (LAN parties, ala starcraft, server hosting, etc) lose out too. Put on top of this that fact that most ISPs charge (or are looking to charge - *Time Warner Stink Eye*) for bandwidth usage, imagine what the home PC game is going to be pushing when its uploading 7x its typical usage. ANNNND, I'd bet that 90% of the people don't have an even band modem. Meaning they get the cheap deal that lets them download at 300mb but upload at 50mb. Perfect for browsing, or for receiving and sending positional information back to the game server. Terrible for trying to push information back to all 7 clients. ANNNND, a dedicated server on a DELL 2970 uses 400MB of RAM and about .75MHz at IDLE! And you're home PC is going to push a game and not feel the effects? I guess that's why they ended up with an average of 6v6 in betas.

Anyway! We're all made for the same reason StarCraft fans are mad. They've removed the way 'we' played the game so 'we' aren't going to buy it. And it shouldn't take a genius ... in fact, you even brought it up ... WTF do you think TF2 is? Its a user created MOD for half-life. Counter-Strike had more people connected than any other FPS at the time. User created MOD. Halflife2 is still kicking because of the modding.

Where is MW2 going to be in a year? Replaced by the next big thing because it can't keep up.

Originally posted by Ginaz

No dedicated servers?  6v6 or 8v8 multiplayer?  WTF?  Another game screwed over because of consoles.

This has clearly nothing to do with consoles. If it had anything to do with consoles dedicated servers would have already been removed since Call of Duty 2.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Ginaz

No dedicated servers?  6v6 or 8v8 multiplayer?  WTF?  Another game screwed over because of consoles.

 

This has clearly nothing to do with consoles. If it had anything to do with consoles dedicated servers would have already been removed since Call of Duty 2.

Also take a look at MAG I believe 256 max players in a game. Consoles can get bigger games they just don't bother with it.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Routver

I always thought CoD4 had plenty of balance problems regarding perks, grenade launchers and more. I personally enjoyed games like L4D way more.

 

I don't really agree with grenade launchers being overpowered. It takes a second to switch from normal gun fire to your grenade launcher. On top of that, it's very unreliable.

I never saw the point of the underbarrel grenade launcher. It's less accurate and slower.

Hmm, actually there are plenty of videos there showing how easy it is to rack up kills with it at youtube. Just point at bottleneck parts of the maps and bam. Oh yeah, and unlike frag grenades they explode in contact so there's no way to run. Balance surely wasn't in the top of IW's priorities list, they could have done it harder to use or something.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Call of Duty 4 had some questionable design decisions as far as killstreaks and perks are concerned.

In my opinion, The helicopter was just unbalanced and the martyrdom perk rewarded people for dying.
It pales to what is clearly the worst design decision ever.

One of the newest leaked kill rewards is the Tactical Nuke, which you can get after a Killstreak of 25 kills.

So what happens once the nuke goes off? The game ends. The team which used the nuke wins.

Considering you have much more killstreak options now, getting to 25 is now even easier.

Game breaker? That is a bit of a exaggeration and I disagree about the helicopter being OP, it wasn't too hard to hide from it on most levels, martyrdom was pretty annoying though when you'd kill multiple people and run into a trail of death.

If 25 kills is too common I would bet on them changing it quick smart but I don't think we will be seeing this too often.

MW2 will be awesome :D

img177.imageshack.us/img177/7559/pcmw2.png

Actual dev quote:

02:54 Moriarte

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

02:55 Mackey-IW (Mackey-Infinity Ward staff)

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

PC version is also getting an option for auto aim

Glad I saw this thread. I would have bought this game without knowing about all of this.

I admit that I have played a FPS game with P2P multiplayer, and that I did have a lot of fun with it at the time... the year was 1995, the game was Doom 2, and the lag was horrible.

For all you people that haven't seen the Dev Chat, where most of this info is coming from and need some comic relief, or just to affirm that you are a dumbass if you buy this on PC..

http://forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Gaming/Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2-Live-Chat-Session-Transcript/td-p/67692

Thank god for DICE is all I gotta say.

Indeed. I just called my wife today and told her to cansel my preorder of  cod mw2..

$60.00 for matchmaking and only 9V9 i think not. I dont care about a storyline i want to compete.

BF Bad Company 2 is lookin really damn nice now.

Infinity Ward is not the same Company it use to be. They are Fkin the whole pc community with this crap assed console port release.