|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 8, 2009 1:29:58 GMT -5
Zero, that's what people mean when they ask for dedicated servers. On the PC at least, dedicated servers have ALWAYS been run by the people and that's not something people want to change. There are a few instances where the developer will provide a few official servers (neither cod4 nor waw had this) but the overwhelming majority of dedicated servers is for the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by xg08zero on Dec 8, 2009 1:46:36 GMT -5
of course, was just responding to this post OH gawd yes I'd LOVE dedicated servers. At this point I think M$ needs to pony up some of that gobs of cash we pay them for gold and MS points and build their own dedicated server farm. They could easily build in some code to have it dynamically adjust which dedicated servers it starts up and closes down based on need and have it support a multitude of games. That would beat the pants out of Sony and justify our subscription costs. But I doubt they would be even remotely interested in the idea at M$. which seemed to imply that IW would host their own dedicated server 'farm', which is not what the PC consumer base is asking for |
|
|
|
Post by mw0swedeking on Dec 8, 2009 1:52:07 GMT -5
just one thing I want to say about the original topic... Aim assist. I find it very noticeable, and so at close range if you and an smg are looking down your sights they get a pretty good advantage there that you don't (That's how aim assist works right? SMGs get it in close range, ARs get it at mid range, snipers get it long range? not sure where lmgs or shotguns fit in). I, for one, can tell when I am using an SMG and shooting at someone at range, and aim assist is not helping at all. So I would say better to swap to your secondary for close range be it a pistol, shotgun, or machinepistol than to use SoH pro for your FAM16. Yeah you can look down your sights quick, but it is harder to hit them. Besides ADS time of an AR with SoH pro is probably comparable to a SMG w/o, and when they hit you with the first shot, you're sights bounce up.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 8, 2009 2:09:19 GMT -5
zero: Given his references to Microsoft, Gold (as in Xbox Live Gold Subscription), Microsoft Points (more Xbox live stuff), and covering an array of games, I think it's safe to say he's talking about the Xbox 360 where having user-run dedicated servers would be much more difficult than for PC.
|
|
|
|
Post by xg08zero on Dec 8, 2009 2:44:17 GMT -5
ah my mistake, guess it was a 360 reference
anyway enough on the old, tired issue of dedicated servers, let the original topic discussion continue =]
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371 
|
Post by mannon on Dec 8, 2009 3:12:06 GMT -5
I'm all for matchmaking as well. I loved it back in Halo 2. I knew I could join game with people of roughly equivalent skill level. There was enough variation in skill levels that I would usually still be up against a few more skilled players to learn from, and some less skilled ones too, but not by overwhelming margins.
I rather liked being able to see people's rankings too. The ranking system is not the same as the pure ranks in MW2 either, but closer to a chess ranking system. It was fun climbing the rankings, knowing I was getting better and better and having some idea how good the people I was playing against were.
|
|
|
|
Post by xg08zero on Dec 8, 2009 12:44:19 GMT -5
@original topic
anyone who hasn't should try the Famas + ACOG. I absolutely love it and can't stop using it
now I know, I know - ACOG is hardly ever used because of the recoil increase that drives people nuts...
but with SoH Pro, ACOG ADS is pretty quick, and once you're ADS - your accuracy is SPOT ON for that burst fire. The biggest problem people have is how trigger happy they are. The Famas ACOG recoil only takes a few more milliseconds to center back - if that first burst misses or doesn't kill, calm down and breathe, and line up the next burst, rather than frantically pulling the trigger to finish it off - just calm down and let the recoil settle
personally I find the RDS/Holo a waste for the Famas, since it has great Iron Sights. They don't help zoom or accuracy, just help the player if they're incapable of lining up perfectly fine iron sights. The ACOG however - don't think of it as a zoom - think of it as a way to increase the target's hitbox. While that person sees you and is trying to line up their ironsights/RDS/Holo on you, you quickly zoomed (with SoH Pro), and you instantly have an enlarged hitbox, which is easier to aim at and makes you faster to the trigger to land that burst - all in a relatively short timeframe while the other is still lining up ironsights/RDS/Holo to what little parts of the body he sees of you
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 13:15:54 GMT -5
just one thing I want to say about the original topic... Aim assist. I find it very noticeable, and so at close range if you and an smg are looking down your sights they get a pretty good advantage there that you don't (That's how aim assist works right? SMGs get it in close range, ARs get it at mid range, snipers get it long range? not sure where lmgs or shotguns fit in). I, for one, can tell when I am using an SMG and shooting at someone at range, and aim assist is not helping at all. So I would say better to swap to your secondary for close range be it a pistol, shotgun, or machinepistol than to use SoH pro for your FAM16. Yeah you can look down your sights quick, but it is harder to hit them. Besides ADS time of an AR with SoH pro is probably comparable to a SMG w/o, and when they hit you with the first shot, you're sights bounce up. incorrect. Aim-aisst works from YOU out to X distance. the reason the M16/famas in cod4/6 on console can beat down is because with steady aim and plenty of practice you've essentually got a great medium to very long range assault rifle, and a point blank auto-aiming shotgun. aim assist extends out to the maximum damage range of the weapon. |
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 13:17:11 GMT -5
zero: Given his references to Microsoft, Gold (as in Xbox Live Gold Subscription), Microsoft Points (more Xbox live stuff), and covering an array of games, I think it's safe to say he's talking about the Xbox 360 where having user-run dedicated servers would be much more difficult than for PC. UT3 allows this (one xbox 360 can run 1 dedicated server), wish COD would allow it. Ive got so many 360's id just leave one on the LAN and have host 100% of the time. |
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 13:21:30 GMT -5
zerothe matchmaking is amazing on 360. its currently doing a great job when im by myself in ffa of finding me a game where im top 3 (win them #1 prolly 85-90% of the time, never outside of top 3). there's normally (including myself) 2-3 top players, afew OK players and a couple of cannon fodders. when you game with a party it can be abit more iffy as it averages the entire party together. if i play with people around my skill level then it works out fine and the matches are great. if i play with friends that are way under my skill level it gets iffy, 2 things tend to play out: 1) i achive total rampage mode without even trying 2) i bring the averages of my party too high and we loose because while I do very well, the rest of my party is too far outmatched the truematch servers on XBL look at: 1) (by a country mile) win ratio 2) kill ratio 3) everything else aslong as your win ratio stays around 1:1 you're fine. If you let it hit 3:1 you get to play with better competition until around a 10:1 ratio. above 10:1 and you will randomly get matches of absolute stone cold killers that tend to be awesome matches! i love SOHP, but never use it because i tend to killstreak beyond 2 clips of ammo LoL dont like acog because rds/holo sight targets faster (as in they AIM faster) are more accurate and ADS faster. m16+RDS was the way to go in cod4, but dont like rds/holo on m16/famas. greatly preffer the tube. i find you get more medium range tube kills a match than you do ultra long range RDS/holo kills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 8, 2009 14:41:48 GMT -5
the truematch servers on XBL look at: 1) (by a country mile) win ratio 2) kill ratio 3) everything else aslong as your win ratio stays around 1:1 you're fine. If you let it hit 3:1 you get to play with better competition until around a 10:1 ratio. above 10:1 and you will randomly get matches of absolute stone cold killers that tend to be awesome matches! I hope they don't follow a similar formula on PSN, because I feel that judging a player by win ratio is pretty useless. There are often maps where I can easily get between a 4 to 8:1 KDR, and often end up on the losing team, so despite being far superior to my teammates, and most of the opposition, I get a nice fat loss against my name for doing nothing wrong... I feel it should primarily go on KDR, then accuracy, then win ratio, as this would guarantee that more regularly skilled, high scoring players would end up together, as against a system whereby a good player can keep getting punished for having crap teammates and is constantly then kept being put with aforementioned crap teammates... Indy. |
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Dec 8, 2009 16:47:07 GMT -5
Before any kind of matching system could be made for PSN, IW would need to get their Leaderboards fixed so they don't always calculate data from day 1 into your overall rank. People don't realize that the more they play the game, the more inaccurate your rank/K:D ratio/win ratio becomes in relation to your current skill level.
Also, win ratio is partially broken in MW2 because simply leaving a laggy room will count as a loss, and lack of balancing in the first place will often place you on a severely underpowered team resulting in a loss (since people leave the underpowered teams more often than the overpowered ones).
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 17:54:51 GMT -5
everything you say is untrue.
Players with little stats are NOT counted the same as players with a larger stat history.
A player with 1 win, 1 kill & (depending how u want to abuse it accuracy) can have a greater than 1,000:1 ratio in every stat. Yet that player will CONTINUE to be grouped with lower class players.
The more you play, the more accurate your ranking.
You have 60 seconds from the time you join a team on xbl before a stat is counted as a win or loss
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 17:58:47 GMT -5
im not a big W@W fan, but on W@W i have around a 2:1 kdr and a higher than 1:1 win ratio.
when i play dom, because ive played ALOT of dom with the top 1,500 on the board (i have played alot of dom & FFA with top 100 players...) i get grouped with top players.
when i make a new account to level & sell i for COD4 or W@W, i dont get grouped with the top FFA players even when I have a 5:1 kdr and a 200:0 win ratio with a 200 win streak.
the XBL system works VERY well. PC and PSN would only be so lucky to have the trueskill rankings.
The average PC player may have slightly higher skill than the average console player, but you will find that on XBL you will not do as well as any other system because in games that use trueskill correctly, youll find more difficult matches.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 18:07:45 GMT -5
for every tdm/ffa/dom match i join & go 3:1+ itll immediately turn around and find people to add that knock me down to 1.5-2:1
that's a huge difference. when i go play cod4 pc tdm. once i warm up (the games are different and flow differently) my kdr isn't going to change. there isn't any way the (non existint) system can find higher quality players to constantly re-balance the matches.
2 nights ago i was playing with some very low level players helping them in DOM. obviously i had no compition for 5-6 rounds. their stats were coming up, got near a 1:1 win ratio and kdr's passed .75 (huge accomplishment as they're .5 cod4 players and previously .5 in mw2.)
as soon as that happened it found a party of 4 average players to join us and we had much more competitive matches from there on out.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 18:10:51 GMT -5
trueskill could be tweaked to be improved, but i wouldn't trade how it works in COD4 W@W or MW2 for any other way to do it.
(lemmie put it this way, we have more competative matches with trueskill than my uber high end gamebattles DOM team has. we've actually lost regular matches b/c it tries to match party size+average party skill rating to party size+average party skill rating)
im not uber good or a god, but ive played an aweful lot for an aweful long time and im way, way above average. PC > console hardware wise, but playability/fun ill be the FIRST person to tell you PC can't touch console.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 18:13:18 GMT -5
oh and indy, win ratio is a great rating.
just because someone has a 5:1 kdr doesn't mean they're worth a shit beyond FFA.
i have friends who go 2-4:1 in FFA/TDM who can't play HQ, S&D or DOM worth a shit. not because they're afraid of dieing/trading kills. kdr just has no bearing outside of 1v1, tdm and ffa.
|
|
scorp
True Bro
Posts: 10,318
|
Post by scorp on Dec 8, 2009 20:21:58 GMT -5
Burst weapons suck if you don't have a godly connection...
Far too many times I've put in 2+ burst of the FAMAS with stopping power, only to be left with a death and no hit markers on a very slowly, or not moving at all target...
Stopped using it after that happened again today. Killed a guy, another guy, then fired 2 burst on the third, nothing happens(no hit markers what so ever), he looks up then kills me. >_>
|
|
|
|
Post by mw0swedeking on Dec 8, 2009 21:59:26 GMT -5
just one thing I want to say about the original topic... Aim assist. I find it very noticeable, and so at close range if you and an smg are looking down your sights they get a pretty good advantage there that you don't (That's how aim assist works right? SMGs get it in close range, ARs get it at mid range, snipers get it long range? not sure where lmgs or shotguns fit in). I, for one, can tell when I am using an SMG and shooting at someone at range, and aim assist is not helping at all. So I would say better to swap to your secondary for close range be it a pistol, shotgun, or machinepistol than to use SoH pro for your FAM16. Yeah you can look down your sights quick, but it is harder to hit them. Besides ADS time of an AR with SoH pro is probably comparable to a SMG w/o, and when they hit you with the first shot, you're sights bounce up. incorrect. Aim-aisst works from YOU out to X distance. the reason the M16/famas in cod4/6 on console can beat down is because with steady aim and plenty of practice you've essentually got a great medium to very long range assault rifle, and a point blank auto-aiming shotgun. aim assist extends out to the maximum damage range of the weapon. How does that make sense? I mean I believe you, but why? That seems to REALLY make the SMGs inferior. Wouldn't it make more sense to have ranges not work up close for guns that aren't supposed to be close quarters weapons? Or have SMGs have stronger but shorter aim assist range or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 9, 2009 4:15:41 GMT -5
oh and indy, win ratio is a great rating. just because someone has a 5:1 kdr doesn't mean they're worth a doo-doo beyond FFA. i have friends who go 2-4:1 in FFA/TDM who can't play HQ, S&D or DOM worth a doo-doo. not because they're afraid of dieing/trading kills. kdr just has no bearing outside of 1v1, tdm and ffa. Obviously game type plays a part, yet I regularly struggle to find a group of people online who can get any sort of co-ordination going to handle other game types. A prime example is on DOM whereby you'll be the only one on the team trying to defend your own areas because the rest of the team is off frag-hunting... So yet again I get a loss for actually trying to play the game correctly. Maybe I'm just incredibly unluucky with the team selections I get given, although as a CS veteran from just after Beta days, I'm used to seeing a bunch of headless chickens running round, the difference being there that I could still influence the result strongly as against having negligible impact overall most of the time in MW2. It's getting to the point where I'm only thinking of playing S&D because it's nature is more suited to more careful gameplay, although I'll still get stuck with the muppets who run off blindly straight into 3-4 enemies... I go with KDR as it's a far greater example of personal ability than win ratio is, as you're not at the mercy of other players as much, in order to get a good score. Would be nice if we had more comprehensive stats that showed performance across all game types. Indy. |
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 9, 2009 6:32:26 GMT -5
MW2 is a team game. Unless you play with friends only, win ratio means absolutely nothing. Unless you COMPLETELY clutch your win ratio relies at least somewhat upon your team. It's further skewed by joining a game that's almost over, the fact that leaving counts as a loss, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Dec 9, 2009 10:00:18 GMT -5
everything you say is untrue. Players with little stats are NOT counted the same as players with a larger stat history. A player with 1 win, 1 kill & (depending how u want to abuse it accuracy) can have a greater than 1,000:1 ratio in every stat. Yet that player will CONTINUE to be grouped with lower class players. The more you play, the more accurate your ranking. You have 60 seconds from the time you join a team on xbl before a stat is counted as a win or loss I'm talking about PSN, not XBL. In PSN your stats are aggregated over time. In a truly accurate system the game would only calculate a certain segment of time (ex. last 30 hours played) towards your ranking, otherwise players have little or no chance of rising up the ranks and are forced to create a new account (which is common on PSN). |
|
|
|
Post by novanleon on Dec 9, 2009 11:36:21 GMT -5
Let me clarify my point above. The MW2 leaderboards rank you based on a score value that increases as your kills, wins, etc. go up, proportional to your K:D and W:L ratio (basically, the higher your ratio, the more points you earn). Because of this, players who've logged 1 minute and have a 10:0 K:D ratio won't be ranked high on the ladder; because they haven't aggregated enough points. Time and a consistently high K:D/W:L ratio is required to earn the points necessary to compete with players who've been playing longer than you. What I'm referring to in my above posts is that "rank" or "score" isn't a truly accurate measurement of a player's skill. Speaking as a PS3 player, the MW2 leaderboard system is inaccurate for two reasons: - Average or poor players can easily have a higher score than better players simply by logging more time in the game. I'm an average player but my score is higher than several of my friends who are consistently better players in-game.
- Stats aggregate over time and do not "sunset". This means that your score is representative of your gaming performance since you started playing, and not necessarily of your current skill level. Because of this, your leaderboard score/rank is not usually an accurate representation of your current skill level, since players usually improve in skill over time. The inaccuracy increases as more time passes and as the player improves.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradqqqqq on Dec 9, 2009 16:08:59 GMT -5
Terminators are 1887's Right?
I also seem to do better when I use Soh pro because the fast reload time seems to make me play at a faster beat. Pro or not I still play faster/better.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Dec 9, 2009 16:38:39 GMT -5
Let me clarify my point above. The MW2 leaderboards rank you based on a score value that increases as your kills, wins, etc. go up, proportional to your K:D and W:L ratio (basically, the higher your ratio, the more points you earn). Because of this, players who've logged 1 minute and have a 10:0 K:D ratio won't be ranked high on the ladder; because they haven't aggregated enough points. Time and a consistently high K:D/W:L ratio is required to earn the points necessary to compete with players who've been playing longer than you. What I'm referring to in my above posts is that "rank" or "score" isn't a truly accurate measurement of a player's skill. Speaking as a PS3 player, the MW2 leaderboard system is inaccurate for two reasons: - Average or poor players can easily have a higher score than better players simply by logging more time in the game. I'm an average player but my score is higher than several of my friends who are consistently better players in-game.
- Stats aggregate over time and do not "sunset". This means that your score is representative of your gaming performance since you started playing, and not necessarily of your current skill level. Because of this, your leaderboard score/rank is not usually an accurate representation of your current skill level, since players usually improve in skill over time. The inaccuracy increases as more time passes and as the player improves.
Wouldn't the two factors offset? I mean, the first factor rewards you for playing time, which overrates players who play a lot. The second factor penalizes you for your learning experiences... which underrates players who play a lot. Clearly they won't offset perfectly, but you have one factor that overrates you as you play more and another that underrates you as you play more, so the sum of the two should result in a quasi-accurate rating. |
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 9, 2009 17:07:02 GMT -5
This is exactly why I preferred Halo 2's ranking system. It basically works like a chess ranking system, and you can actually go down in ranking. Your score won't go down in MW2 if your performance dips, you'll just keep accumulating points, even if you are losing games. The ranking system was very transparent. It still had to be based off of both kills/deaths and wins/losses but every game you played was a potential opportunity to bring your rank up some.
It wasn't perfect either, but I liked it better than this. It also meant that time spent playing alone would not bring you up the ranks, nor were you stuck with your original learning curve. I'm personally not at all a fan of the aggregate ranks in MW2. For one thing when playing other game types your KDR really shouldn't matter, hence you should be playing to win, not to boost your KDR, but if you do that you're penalized in your KDR since MW2 doesn't even let you split your stats by gametype the way W@W did.... bleh... That's just silly.
I also rather like experimenting and I want to learns some weapons I'm currently no good with, but that's really hurting my KDR. Your stats should definitely sunset or something or there should be a different filter at least. I don't mind seeing my aggregate stats, but to say they are not the most important stats is an understatement.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 9, 2009 19:15:39 GMT -5
I don't really have a clue how the MW2 ranking system works, however I'd like to point out that your level is NOT the same thing as a rank and you can probably go down in rank. Your level is nothing more than what it would be in an RPG; a way that as you progress you unlock more things.
Personally, I don't bother with going anywhere near statistics in MW2. I feel there are too many factors that make them pointless.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 9, 2009 21:23:24 GMT -5
low ranked or new players CAN NOT move up the leaderboard to play with higher end players without hacking the leaderboard to have > 1,000:1 ratios.
which still does not matter as it look at some (unknown) minimum number of hours played after a certain amount.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Dec 9, 2009 23:54:35 GMT -5
MW2's ranking system is an experience based one. that means that it has no penalties for losing, doing bad, etc. I would like to see the addition of a skill based one similar to Halo where you can rank up by beating higher ranked players and go down by losing to lower ranked ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 10, 2009 0:24:49 GMT -5
No, it's not. I don't really know or care what goes on with the ranking that you can't see, but the level next to your name IS NOTHING CLOSE TO A RANKING AND IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. Level is NOTHING MORE than an unlock system.
It's like everybody's first FPS was Halo and they associated a number next to a name with ranking for everything.
|
|
