Death Warrant Forums

Ok so I know very well how this topic can quickly get ugly and I'm not interested in an arguement about a silly game.

I've spent alot of time reading and listening to webcast about MW2 before it came out and like most computer gamers, it didn't sound good for a few aspects of online games. The console vs. computer war is a very very old one. Let's not forget that the numbers are the reason "ALL" games bring the topic up to begin with. COD(anything) was going to sell this time around in big numbers no matter what. The game trailers pretty much sealed it for the console sales for sure. Sadly, they could have sold it for $100+ on the consoles and would have still done very well. I paid $50 for mine and still didn't like the price. Price wise, I hope that at the very least the lack of computer sales drops the price so more of us will buy it. I bought it when my son got it as a gift and said I should buy it. It is a great game. I would say in general it works pretty good. There are a few minor issues with the interface and IWnet that will hopefully be worked out or improved. I would be more than happy to answer any questions about the game and it's interface as best I can if you have them. I know that I've sat and played while thinking of the issues that might have kept me from getting MW2 and most of those issues aren't as bad as I had thought. I would like to point out a few things to consider.

I thought 9v9 might be a deal breaker for me. I feel the maps are actually well balanced for this player count. I know I'm one of the few here who actually like to play on big COD4 50 man servers. It seems 9v9 is more than what most of you play in COD4 so I don't think that would be a problem.

P2P isn't the best way for online games to be played. I know this and most everyone can agree. I knew going in that IW was going to have to do what no other game before it has done well. I think they've done an ok job of it. Player count obviously helps this aspect. IWnet decides who is the host and migrates the game well enough if the host disconnects. Honestly, I've witnessed no more lag and connection issues than we have had in COD4. I know most are saying "yes but you have a good connection" and while this is true I have played with everyone else here including ArmyMan that owns the game and it seems to me that Army has no more connection issues than he had before. The party system actually works well for this type of thing.

Competition.... All of us on vent who play together will tell you this game is fun. The people that are really good at COD4 are really good in this game as well. I would think the game feels enough like COD4 for this to be what you could expect if you were to get the game. The current way IWnet is setup wouldn't allow for a league in the way you are competing currently. I know very little about it but I'm told that the XBOX360 is doing it with COD4 which has been P2P from the start. I assume they will continue with this game. I've been told that there have already been talks of adapting competitive play on computers the very same way. I don't know enough about it to say if this is even possible but it is a thought. Instead of petitioning for something that likely will never happen in this game, why not petition IW to incorporate the features that you might require to run a league with their current system? Most of what is needed is already there in the current IWnet. It is also possible that they are already working on it. What would be wrong with helping them make it what you want?

One last point
Isn't it becomming more and more common that games and game developers are leaning towards consoles and less interest in computer versions? If you are boycotting this game and others for this reason, aren't you actually proving their point? Is it possible that Infinity Ward's shear numbers yet very little sales in the computer will steer other developers to agree and maybe even forego a computer version? If you're wondering, I own the XBox360, a PS3, the Wii, a huge stereo and display with the room for it all. Certain games play better on consoles but most of my time is spent playing on my computer.


Killa[DEATH]
go ahead. Hit me with it.

If all your interested in is Competitive play, then even the willing can do it with the current set up in MW2. I have been thinking about it and it should work in theory. You just use the party perc to your advantage. All players in a party end up on the same team. so how to set up a competitive game... Easy. One team creates a party of lets say 5 members. They then start a private match and invite the members of the other team. Since your members are in a party they would be automaticly teamed together, and the other clan will be fitted on the other team to balance the map. There you go now you can do a 5v5 TDM match or any other type of match available. And since its a private match, you wont have to worry about some one else joining in.

There all your problems now have been solved. So go out and buy the game.

DW_ImAnArmyMan wrote:If all your interested in is Competitive play, then even the willing can do it with the current set up in MW2. I have been thinking about it and it should work in theory. You just use the party perc to your advantage. All players in a party end up on the same team. so how to set up a competitive game... Easy. One team creates a party of lets say 5 members. They then start a private match and invite the members of the other team. Since your members are in a party they would be automaticly teamed together, and the other clan will be fitted on the other team to balance the map. There you go now you can do a 5v5 TDM match or any other type of match available. And since its a private match, you wont have to worry about some one else joining in.

Isn't who ever is hosting the game at a big advantage, ping wise , over those that are connecting to him ?

DW_Bomzin wrote:

DW_ImAnArmyMan wrote:If all your interested in is Competitive play, then even the willing can do it with the current set up in MW2. I have been thinking about it and it should work in theory. You just use the party perc to your advantage. All players in a party end up on the same team. so how to set up a competitive game... Easy. One team creates a party of lets say 5 members. They then start a private match and invite the members of the other team. Since your members are in a party they would be automaticly teamed together, and the other clan will be fitted on the other team to balance the map. There you go now you can do a 5v5 TDM match or any other type of match available. And since its a private match, you wont have to worry about some one else joining in.

Isn't who ever is hosting the game at a big advantage, ping wise , over those that are connecting to him ?

Of course not, The guys at IW said there is no host advantage.
(FYI, look in the column to the Right of the "Deaths" column.
Not a console port-over job eh?
Just funny screenshots. As for the competition, you will end up having to run a 3rd party application just to record it. :swondering: It'd kill my machine, so it's a no go for me. I might pub with it eventually, once the whole "new game" aspect wears off and we get some better ideas of it's staying power.

One of the major issues at TWL regarding atm is the fact that apparently joining members cannot see all the rules the host sets, which is another major issue for serious comping.

DW_Bomzin wrote: Isn't who ever is hosting the game at a big advantage, ping wise , over those that are connecting to him ?

So far as I can tell, it doesn't appear to be obvious who the host is. Many of the rounds I've been in I've scored at or near the top and have yet been able to tell if I'm hosting or not. Maybe I need to read up on the tell tale signs of hosting.

I did play yesterday during the morning and had some bad experiences with ugly connections. When I selected "Find Game" it started going through a process I hadn't seen before. Something to the effect of looking for games >50ms then it went to >60ms, 70ms, >80ms, >90ms, when it hit >100 it all disappeared and back to normal round starting. It was ugly and I ended up disconnecting which the game says counts as a loss for those of you who worry about that. lol Anyway, while going through this process it was saying it would find something like 19 possibilities(full games I assume) and then go on to the higher ping value. This left me with the thought about an issue this raises for dedicated servers. Their systems seems to work as I've said before but not without issue. I don't want to play in a game where I have bad connection. Their system will put you in such a game if nothing else is available. You have to choose your game type before it starts looking for a game for you to join. If I can't join something with a decent connection then I would rather select another game type. The odd thing about it is that ~100ms isn't that bad. But when I was playing it wasn't the response time(ping), it was more of the sporadic lag issues of either a bad host or my connection to the host wasn't the greatest. Later on in the day it seemed more games opened up and these issues went away. I couldn't help but think about how dedicated servers would allow me to choose a game that they are already playing and if it's full I then choose what I want to do about it. This sounds like a pingsnob to me but it only makes sense to me.

Pingsnob = A player who ONLY plays where his/her ping is low.

There's your word of the day.

Mobius the column you pointed out looks odd. Normally when I'm playing that column is full with 4 and 3 bars in green. I think it will show yellow when it is lower but most in game will be green. I'm going to guess that was a private match. I know I've played with Skillz and Army and I think Skillz was 3 bars green while I think Army went back and forth between green and yellow. Point being these guys live thousands of miles away from Texas and still able to play with Big Daddy...

As for TWL, I'm still quite sure IWnet could assist in and maybe even make a better way to record matches along with all the other stipulations comps would require. I'm wondering if someone from TWL or even just the comps community have contacted IW about this. It would seem fairly easy to do seeing as how the game engine is still the same as COD4 and CODWAW. As Army pointed out, their system might actually even work better than those other games but adapted to have a little more control. I'm curious though, why do you need to see the rules of a server before a comp? Aren't there set rules? If not, then why aren't they set? I would think with set rules in a league you should assume those are the rules set by the host. If this isn't the case then why are you in this comp?

Killa[DEATH]

Whether this 'solves' IWNet in the long-term is questionable, but dedis are back.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rqLUDfl26Y[/youtube]

OMFG! Low-G, inf-Tube!!!! Insane. :scool:

Snaggle.

If legit dedicated servers are added then I'll get the game. But if it's just a hack that allows someone to host a dedicated server then I'm still not sold.

Thanks for keeping us posted on everyhing guys.