wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Nov 1, 2019 7:56:44 GMT -5
Mine is the Oden, with every anti-recoil attachment I can put onto it. It is amazing with insane TTK when tuned to be accurate. Initially the recoil is crazy and it is a pain to use. It takes a while to unlock the right attachments, but when you finally turn it into a laser, it pays off. I think you overestimate Oden's TTK. Even with many "anti-recoil attachments" it has still >high recoil + low ROF< and if the opponent does not fire back it kills fast (any rifle kills fast from behind), but still you risk many pathetic fails & deaths vs lower recoil guns in a direct firefight... what means you cannot rely on Oden. >low recoil + high ROF< is always better.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 2, 2019 14:28:36 GMT -5
Okay so that's a fun bug... Playing some ground war and someone's character model didn't render properly.
I saw their shadow on the ground around a corner and waited for them to walk out. Sure enough the shadow walks out around the corner.
Just the shadow. No body.
After a half-second or so he must have turned and noticed me standing there (trying to figure out if maybe the shadow was displaying oddly from a window or something). I get shot and he finally pops into existence as I die.
I know there's a ton of memes about visibility being generally shit in this game, but this is ridiculous!
Pretty funny tho. Wish I recorded it.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Nov 5, 2019 4:25:45 GMT -5
After some more time I am officially sad that the maps suck. Maybe it's the spawns but man they are just not very good. Also no red dot for gun shots is truly a head scratcher.
I am not otherwise hating as much of this game as the subreddit is, currently. I would love to see this game with some quality remastered maps. I love the godly shotguns. The audio is great. The graphics are great (other than the bugs). As a huge soundwhore, I am not a hater of loud footsteps. I'm open to a more campy or slower COD for one cycle. (Perhaps because all I played in BO4 was Blackout...)
But the maps! Ugh. These are going to take some time to truly get down.
Also I don't get the lack of map voting and lobbies but whatever, that is an easy fix. Maps, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Blurred Wolf on Nov 5, 2019 12:33:45 GMT -5
Oh the shotguns do look good. Guess they'll be nerfed soon enough.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 5, 2019 15:28:37 GMT -5
The over-under shotgun is broken as hell.
Hip-fire one-shots at 16, ads at 20.
For reference, SMGs first drop off range is generally 12.5 meters.
With slugs, it one-shots at 40(!!!!!) meters.
This is with no other attachments.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Nov 6, 2019 23:39:09 GMT -5
^ well, looking at
1) size of maps and distances between buildings 2) the fact that most players camp/crawl in ADS mode (head glitching) that shotgun /725/ is not OP ... make it weaker and noone will use it.
1 HK range is ok, 2-3 HK range is irrelevant: TTK of 2-3 sec. is too big, without luck you 're dead 3 times in the meantime in any face to face contact, any machine gun kills faster I suppose.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 7, 2019 7:41:16 GMT -5
With easy-to-hit buckshot, the gun can one-shot with hip-fire when most SMGs need an extra bullet to kill. The gun one-shots with ADS when most SMGs need TWO extra bullets to kill.
And with slugs it's literally better than snipers. It has all the handling benefits of a shotgun and can one-shot on the body at basically any real engagement range you'll see on non-ground-war maps.
Also, it has two rounds in it so 2 shot range is plenty relevant, and engaging multiple targets up close isn't a death sentence.
So there's no reason to pick an SMG because this shotty beats them at any range where you shouldn't be using an AR instead. There's no reason to use a sniper (outside ground war) because this shotty handles better and has aim assist. There's no reason to use any other shotgun because this gun is just better.
This single weapon invalidates 3 entire classes of weapons. If that's not OP, I'm not sure what is.
There's a reason everyone and their brother is running it every single game.
|
|
Lexapro
True Bro
PSN: Lexa_pro
Posts: 1,066
|
Post by Lexapro on Nov 7, 2019 20:25:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry, we're not playing the same game if you don't think the 725 is OP. There are tons of tight hallways and closed spaces where the 725 completely dominates everything else. Even at medium range, it can OSK without ADS at all. Partial to full ADS only extends that range even further to completely unreasonable distances. It's obviously not as versatile as an M4 but it's just not fun to play against at all. You die instantly and they barely have to aim in your general direction.
If they want to slow down the ADS and keep the OSK ADS distance relatively intact, fine. But right now, it's way too effective from the hip and reloads too fast. There's no point using anything else within like 15M. And to your point, because people play "tactically", the 2 shot capacity isn't even a real weakness, as you have ample time to reload before getting pushed (or more likely, switch back to your overkilled M4).
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Nov 8, 2019 13:06:12 GMT -5
I'm sorry, we're not playing the same game if you don't think the 725 is OP. There are tons of tight hallways and closed spaces where the 725 completely dominates everything else. Even at medium range, it can OSK without ADS at all. There are more tons of spaces where it is completely dominated... Anything that supports running and gunning in MW2019 is priceless, people do not move, they pre-aim at where you can appear and wait and listen to footsteps, whether you hold 725 or MG34 it really does not matter... I am afraid they will nerf 725 it and it will become useless. btw: I play multiplayer only to level up LMGs to play co-op missions better equipped (and it is extremely boring experience ...) With easy-to-hit buckshot, the gun can one-shot with hip-fire when most SMGs need an extra bullet to kill. . I suppose ... that is how shotgun should work .... and if it does not work that way it is PoS and everyone complains about it... ======================= Last Update /1.07/: Good my LMGs are pretty high so far ... "Weapons • 725 Shotgun: Increase to ADS and Hip Spread, reduced damage range • M4A1 Assault Rifle: Reduced damage range, small recoil increase • Assault Rifles: Increased hip spread to reduce effectiveness up close, less damage at long range for full auto 5.56 rifles • SMGs: Increased move speed, increased ADS move speed, small reduction in sprint out time • UZI SMG: Increased damage range • MG34 LMG: Increased hip spread, damage range reduction, small ADS slow down • M91 LMG: Increased hip spread, small damage range reduction • PKM LMG: Increased hip spread, medium damage range reduction • Pistols: Increased move speed, reduced sprint out time, increased damage range • Crouch and Prone no longer adjust recoil" ======================= EDIT: So far in TDM stats in game you could see kills and assists (LOL) but not deaths (LOL), while in DOM: kills, deaths (!!) and captures, funny isn't it? After update 1.07: you won't see deaths stats in DOM 1. That is how they cover campers (and how tactical loitering game they produced) who get 10/20 kills vs 0 deaths so you won't realize what is going on, that some noobz in your team feed that guy, etc etc ... frustrated people quit, etc ... 2. That is why since today I began to have a piece of paper and a pencil around to mark my deaths so I know my performance, at least .. Probably .... In such a tactical loitering game they should remove deaths stats completely ...
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Nov 9, 2019 14:47:05 GMT -5
Initial response to the patch is that it is a welcome improvement. I spent most of my time in the Shoot House playlist. That map is better than any of the launch maps, and people appear to move around a lot more on it. I saw a lot less shotguns, which was fantastic. I'm not sure that the changes were enough to make SMGs worthwhile. I don't recall getting killed by many. I did get placed in a game where a random was using the Bizon for the first time and listening to him realize how trash it is was kind of heartbreaking.
I played a game or two on the new Ground War map and I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. There's a lot of wide open space and my initial thought is that's not a good thing.
It's interesting to see all of the glaring bugs that weren't addressed. There are a lot of issues with menus and UI being incorrect.
I said in a previous post this game needs a bunch of smaller maps, and Shoot House just proves that point.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 28, 2019 11:20:31 GMT -5
YouTuber Swagg got the chance to ask Joe Cecot some questions at a Season 1 launch event that they flew some YouTubers out to take part in.
Here's the take aways: Aniyah palace will be added to ground war eventually, but other content has priority right now.
They're looking at perk balance, that too much is loaded into a single slot.
They're looking at tank balance, and playing around with the accuracy of shots to make cross-mapping with them less reliable. (No mention of adjusting spawn times or simply blocking off the hill on quarry).
Spawns are being worked on across the board.
Dead silence is not going to be reworked into a perk. Footsteps will be adjusted. Joe says that they are working with pros to balance footstep volumes. (A couple pros have claimed that this is a lie.)
Map voting isn't an option because data from previous CoDs show people have a tendency to leave the lobby if their choice isn't selected. Map voting was removed because it caused lobbies to break up.
Lobbies are broken up after every match because they didn't have enough time to implement it the way the wanted, where the lobby would break up after a couple games.
Couldn't really comment on skill based matchmaking (SBMM). Just that matchmaking is different from game to game and that they are constantly tweaking things.
There are no plans to change the minimap since the way it is now is their vision. They wanted UAV to be more of a reward. When asked why ghost is so powerful, he didn't really have a response other than that's how ghost had always been in IW games and that they might look at it.
----
This whole conversation reeks of conflicting views. It's nonsensical.
We changed the minimap to make UAVs more rewarding. But ghost is gonna stay strong because that's the way it's always been. ...what? You can't change a long-standing core franchise mechanic for your "vision" and then turn around defend a related mechanic using an appeal to tradition in the same conversation.
There are so many logical fallicies here... It really seems like someone is running player "statistics" to make decisions and has absolutely no concept of observation bias.
If someone's going to leave the lobby over map, they're going to leave whether voting is an option or not. How is people leaving lobbies when a bad map gets selected preferable to voting on a map and only leaving if they lose a vote? In one scenario you have a 50/50 shot of preserving the lobby. Even from a backend perspective, you're reducing matchmaking server load by having the potential to keep them in a lobby instead of guaranteeing they reenter the queue. The decision is nonsense.
The only way you could justify it is saying that the stats show people leave after lost votes, which is a really easy data to pull. But without a vote you can't definitively prove they left the lobby over map. That stat is a lot harder to pull. So obviously people only leave over map if there's a vote. 🙄
Oh and if we're worried about keeping the lobby together, why on Earth does the lobby disband after each game? Or why were you planning to disband the lobby after a few games? It makes absolutely no sense.
The only justification for disbanding lobbies that makes any sense is that it's for SBMM.
And why have SBMM? Again, flawed stats. Because the statistics show SBMM gives new players a better time and they're more likely to spend money! And look at how much more the new players spend than the old ones! Don't worry about the fact old players aren't spending money because they're all having a bad time. We implemented this system and new players spend more money than old players. That's what or stats show and you don't need to think of it past that. 🤡🤡🤡
And definitely don't worry about the fact that new players will eventually become old players and become annoyed. New players is a limitless pool and their influx won't be affected at all by the massive amounts of bad press. The word of mouth recommendation of other people has never been a big factor in the success of any franchise. 🤡
I don't want to throw Joe under the bus, but it really seems like either he or one of the senior designers immediately under him has some sort of "vision" for this game and they're sticking to it despite the negative impacts on gameplay and the massive amounts of community backlash.
When your entire community, from Reddit to years-dedicated content creators on YouTube are all saying that a certain feature is bad or, worse, saying "I'm not having fun," that's when you as a game designer need to swallow your pride and listen. And if he's not the one pushing these poor choices, Joe needs to take the reigns as project lead and overrule the person(s) under him making these choices.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Nov 28, 2019 14:02:41 GMT -5
YouTuber Swagg got the chance to ask Joe Cecot some questions at a Season 1 launch event that they flew some YouTubers out to take part in. Here's the take aways: Aniyah palace will be added to ground war eventually, but other content has priority right now. They're looking at perk balance, that too much is loaded into a single slot. They're looking at tank balance, and playing around with the accuracy of shots to make cross-mapping with them less reliable. (No mention of adjusting spawn times or simply blocking off the hill on quarry). Spawns are being worked on across the board. Dead silence is not going to be reworked into a perk. Footsteps will be adjusted. Joe says that they are working with pros to balance footstep volumes. (A couple pros have claimed that this is a lie.) Map voting isn't an option because data from previous CoDs show people have a tendency to leave the lobby if their choice isn't selected. Map voting was removed because it caused lobbies to break up. Lobbies are broken up after every match because they didn't have enough time to implement it the way the wanted, where the lobby would break up after a couple games. Couldn't really comment on skill based matchmaking (SBMM). Just that matchmaking is different from game to game and that they are constantly tweaking things. There are no plans to change the minimap since the way it is now is their vision. They wanted UAV to be more of a reward. When asked why ghost is so powerful, he didn't really have a response other than that's how ghost had always been in IW games and that they might look at it. ---- This whole conversation reeks of conflicting views. It's nonsensical. We changed the minimap to make UAVs more rewarding. But ghost is gonna stay strong because that's the way it's always been. ...what? You can't change a long-standing core franchise mechanic for your "vision" and then turn around defend a related mechanic using an appeal to tradition in the same conversation. There are so many logical fallicies here... It really seems like someone is running player "statistics" to make decisions and has absolutely no concept of observation bias. If someone's going to leave the lobby over map, they're going to leave whether voting is an option or not. How is people leaving lobbies when a bad map gets selected preferable to voting on a map and only leaving if they lose a vote? In one scenario you have a 50/50 shot of preserving the lobby. Even from a backend perspective, you're reducing matchmaking server load by having the potential to keep them in a lobby instead of guaranteeing they reenter the queue. The decision is nonsense. The only way you could justify it is saying that the stats show people leave after lost votes, which is a really easy data to pull. But without a vote you can't definitively prove they left the lobby over map. That stat is a lot harder to pull. So obviously people only leave over map if there's a vote. 🙄 Oh and if we're worried about keeping the lobby together, why on Earth does the lobby disband after each game? Or why were you planning to disband the lobby after a few games? It makes absolutely no sense. The only justification for disbanding lobbies that makes any sense is that it's for SBMM. And why have SBMM? Again, flawed stats. Because the statistics show SBMM gives new players a better time and they're more likely to spend money! And look at how much more the new players spend than the old ones! Don't worry about the fact old players aren't spending money because they're all having a bad time. We implemented this system and new players spend more money than old players. That's what or stats show and you don't need to think of it past that. 🤡🤡🤡 And definitely don't worry about the fact that new players will eventually become old players and become annoyed. New players is a limitless pool and their influx won't be affected at all by the massive amounts of bad press. The word of mouth recommendation of other people has never been a big factor in the success of any franchise. 🤡 I don't want to throw Joe under the bus, but it really seems like either he or one of the senior designers immediately under him has some sort of "vision" for this game and they're sticking to it despite the negative impacts on gameplay and the massive amounts of community backlash. When your entire community, from Reddit to years-dedicated content creators on YouTube are all saying that a certain feature is bad or, worse, saying "I'm not having fun," that's when you as a game designer need to swallow your pride and listen. And if he's not the one pushing these poor choices, Joe needs to take the reigns as project lead and overrule the person(s) under him making these choices. The map vote data they have I'm sure is pretty clear. If you have a spike in people leaving after the map vote, then the map vote is probably the cause. You're wrong in that it's not the same as if people leave immediately after seeing the map, because people leaving after the map vote ends delays the beginning of the match. I have no idea why tanks have 100% precision but the Dragonov can't hit anything that you would want a sniper for. Yesterday, I was crouched behind the ammo refill crate on B at quarry and I got killed by a tank that shot from their spawn. People always complain about SBMM at launch of a COD game because it's mostly good players who play at launch, and then the Christmas noobs come and they put out a patch where they say they reduced SBMM and everyone calms down. That's not to say that SBMM isn't a cancer when implemented across all playlists, it's just that you need to wait until mid-January to start thinking it's going to be a long term issue.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 29, 2019 22:28:08 GMT -5
Whether I leave after vote or leave because of the map the game chose, the start of the game is still delayed. The menus don't take a long time to load (like BO4) so there's no need to inflate between match times to support the vote.
Clearly the best solution is to not tell players what map is picked until the game is loading. 🙄
And while I've seen many complaints about lobby balancing, I've never saw any complaints about SBMM on BO4. And if they were there, it wasn't even REMOTELY close to the level it is now.
I don't think I've EVER seen the sentiment "don't bother trying to get better, it's less rewarding and less fun to play of you do" reflected in any CoD before. Or any shooter. Or any game for that matter. Yet I'm repeatedly seeing that statement made by CoD YouTubers and posted in Reddit threads. It's a complete anomaly.
The game isn't fun.
At this point I'm only playing because I'm bored and there's nothing else out. I'm only playing to unlock attachments. I'm playing an unfun grind to unlock things. I'm basically playing RuneScape. I'm unlocking things in the hopes an update makes the game fun.
---
I've never seen a community of veteran players be so unified against a game before. Normally, while critical of parts of the game for sure, these players will defend the core game. Tons of people defended Halo 4, even though it's now agreed upon that it fell very flat. It's honestly impressive how quickly this game has fallen out of favor
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on Nov 30, 2019 4:26:22 GMT -5
I don't think I've EVER seen the sentiment "don't bother trying to get better, it's less rewarding and less fun to play of you do" reflected in any CoD before. Or any shooter. Or any game for that matter. Yet I'm repeatedly seeing that statement made by CoD YouTubers and posted in Reddit threads. It's a complete anomaly. Every MOBA or hero shooter I've ever played has had this problem. BO4 had the same problem IMO.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Nov 30, 2019 7:43:43 GMT -5
I don't think I've EVER seen the sentiment "don't bother trying to get better, it's less rewarding and less fun to play of you do" reflected in any CoD before. Or any shooter. Or any game for that matter. Yet I'm repeatedly seeing that statement made by CoD YouTubers and posted in Reddit threads. It's a complete anomaly. Every MOBA or hero shooter I've ever played has had this problem. BO4 had the same problem IMO. You could certainly argue that getting better results IS less fun for a lot of games. At some point it starts to become hyper competitive and, in an abstract sense, generally less fun. True of almost anything, video games or otherwise. There's probably quite a few NFL players who would not describe their jobs as "fun" in the same way highschool football was. But then again, most people who reach the no-fun hyper-optimizing point find something else rewarding in their performance there. But this game just doesn't have any incentive at all to get better. A big part is SBMM, but there's certainly other factors of course. I just don't recall ever seeing people responding to the question of, "How do I get better?" with "Well, you really don't want to." It's just insane, and to me signals massive underlying issues with the game.
|
|
|
Post by Broadband on Dec 1, 2019 1:02:24 GMT -5
Based on the recent interview with Joe Cecot, I have zero faith in MW2019 ever improving. It's pretty clear at this point that Infinity Ward are incompetent retards who wouldn't know good game design if it hit them in the face. Nothing short of a CoD: WWII-like situation will redeem this game. I don't plan on touching this game after December 3, unless they somehow do manage to unfuck the game in a big way.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Dec 1, 2019 21:09:27 GMT -5
*Kyle sits in his dorm room, alone, playing MW2019, thinking to himself "Honestly, the SBMM doesn't even seem that bad and if you're having a shit match I can still just leave."*
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 2, 2019 19:32:24 GMT -5
...[SWAGG Interview discussion]... This whole conversation reeks of conflicting views. It's nonsensical. We changed the minimap to make UAVs more rewarding. But ghost is gonna stay strong because that's the way it's always been. ...what? You can't change a long-standing core franchise mechanic for your "vision" and then turn around defend a related mechanic using an appeal to tradition in the same conversation. While I understand the conflict you see here I don't think it's as purposefully conflicting as you're making it out to be. The developers clearly reflect purposeful design intent in their desire to limit access to meaningful intel via the mini-map and UAVs. Maintaining their franchise's traditional strong implementation of a "Ghost" perk does fit with that intended desire. Now, that's not to say that it makes for an ideal design decision and it seems like he (Joe) is at least somewhat open to possibly modifying it to create a potentially "better" experience for some portion of the community. In having discussed this very same topic with matchmaking developers for another game I was informed that that's not actually true. Their backend data overwhelming showed that when players were given the ability to vote there was a significant increase in players who opt'd to quit when their preferred choice wasn't chosen. There's another reason why most developers are moving away from map voting. Again, as explained to me, backend data also showed that player fatigue set in quicker when lobby majorities naturally vote for the same collection of so-called "popular" maps repeatedly. It's not really surprising that the vote option could limit player access to a game's full gamut of available maps, but while a portion of the community clearly appreciate having that ability there's apparently a greater portion of the population who grow tired of repeatedly playing the same general selection of maps that the lobby mob chooses. Now, it's fair to say that individual perspectives will differ on the positive and negative values of these system choices, but the developers have the backend data to help reinforce what system is better for sustaining the general masses. And clearly the data showed that when player choice was removed by not having a map vote most players simply accepted whatever was automatically selected verse opt to quit; plus, with the added variability there was less of a fatigue factor impacting the general masses too. Again, this may not be the case from everyone's anecdotal experience, but on the whole it's what the backend data tends to reflect and I'm sure there's some clear similarities on this particular subject between different FPS franchises which is why it's becoming more of an industry trend. They were intending to allow lobbies to remain together for a few matches before forcing a lobby reset. And I suppose that they must have some data that showed people generally prefer to have new lobby experiences after a few matches and wanted to enact that within their system; plus, I would guess that it also allows the matchmaker to select a new group of available players based on the best connection & an updated understanding of player skills to formulate a more fair match than simply trying to re-order the existing lobby balance. The most important reason. It improves the experience for the general masses. While it does help give so-called "new" players a better experience, it also gives the vast majority of players an improved experience. It's true that the more people who find enjoyment with a game are more likely to consider further investment into it. But, there's much more incentive that exists for the developers when catering to the general masses than simply to seize onto potential cosmetic microtransations if that's where you're going with this. Multiplayer games require their populations to remain "healthy" in order to provide an enjoyable and sustainable experience from a long-term perspective. Making sure that the so-called silent majority which tends to make-up the overwhelming majority of a game's population are able to find enjoyment with the title's multiplayer directly helps to improve the longevity of the title's multiplayer. While catering to the upper ~20% of skilled and dedicated players may help with a game's general public image & likely streaming viewership, it doesn't necessarily help to sustain or grow the foundation if the experience for the general player-base isn't all that enjoyable. There's a balance that the developers look to strike in that they're trying to appease both sides of the proverbial player-base coin as best as possible. Do you have some stats to share? This sure sounds like a preconceived notation. The developers certainly have to contend with this. Bad perceptions are harmful. It's also why developers carefully weigh their decisions, may elect to remain silent on particular subjects, and make tweaks that sacrifice some of their desired experiences for a portion of the community in order to abate backlash or disinterest from other portions. I would agree that they have a vision for the game and in particular areas they're certainly trying to stick to it. As for the game's vision producing negative game-play experiences, well some of the feedback has been constructive and helpful toward improving the game-play experience, but others are more or less misguided or outright self-ish. And yet some simply hearken for an experience that isn't within the vision of what the developers were intending this game to provide. Entire community? Hardly. People posting on Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, Discord, or whatever social site does NOT make up the "entire community". All together they make-up a portion of the community and I'd venture a guess that it's not even half. Heck, probably not even a third of the "entire community". Nevertheless, the feedback given by this portion of the community is valuable and shouldn't be outright ignored; especially, with how groupthink & celebrity influencers can manipulate as well as sway people's opinions. And I have no doubt that the developers know this. Certainly tweaks are being made to address issues raised by this portion of the community, but at the same time some of the things they want are not going to happen or to the degree that they want them to be changed. Like I said, the developers have to balance their decisions based on doing what they know is best for the general silent population as well as to appease a percentage of the displeased outspoken population. It's a position that requires some tough decisions and often won't get fanfare from anyone.
|
|
gina
True Bro
in_sane
Posts: 10,120
|
Post by gina on Dec 3, 2019 13:13:45 GMT -5
I don't care about all that, because on the other side, with a serverbrowser, especially to the end of the cycle and beyond, there are big issues that can be avoided with such a matchmaking system, but I think at the start and throughout the main gaming life such a system provides a worse gaming experience. Seeing streamers sometimes wait to almost 15 min. to find a match that they want to play is ridiculous, because they get put in Piccadilly Lobbies for example they dont want to play in. So it has pros and cons.
They should rather focus on the main core issues with the game, how about the hitbox/player model size issue, the cam angle/peek issue, the miserable spawns, and finally fixing the foot step audio. For me I like to hear foot steps loudly, but on this game, in how the map design is, I think its very very wrong to implement it in such a way.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 3, 2019 23:48:33 GMT -5
On the topic of map voting, I still believe that the stats showing players leave more often due to map choice after vote vs no vote is just a product of observation bias. I however did not consider the bit about player fatigue over "favorite" maps, so I'll concede that point. And if they had only stated it was only because players leave (a point I disagree with), I would have generally okay with it and I probably wouldn't have said anything. But the stated reason for concern over players leaving is that it breaks up lobbies. Which is still a nonsense statement given we break up lobbies anyway. They were intending to allow lobbies to remain together for a few matches before forcing a lobby reset. And I suppose that they must have some data that showed people generally prefer to have new lobby experiences after a few matches and wanted to enact that within their system But why? If players want a new lobby they back out and get a new lobby. Isn't that what everyone does? Why break up everyone else who's having a good time? Yup. SBMM is the only real justification. Connection doesn't make sense given a dedicated server model. It would make total sense with a listen server, but dedicated servers aren't moving. The general masses seem pretty vocal about their awful experience right now. There's always a vocal minority, sure. People wanting the old minimap are (unfortunately IMO) a vocal minority. Most people don't seem to care much (probably because most people were never using it fully). And there's always some people semi-ironically calling for feature deletions ("delete Picadilly"), but that's not the type of movement (for lack of better word) we're seeing in players with SBMM. The amount of noise is more than just a vocal minority at this point. The biggest issue is that it leads to very little variation in games, and that's leading to player burnout. Which is not an improved experience. And it also leads to a total lack of felt progression. With SBMM, am I getting better at the game? I can't tell since it just matches me against seemingly harder people. But I have no way of knowing where I stand because the rank is hidden. And did I just pop-off that game? Or did SBMM just take pity on me after one or two below-average games? Aggressive SBMM casts doubt on my achievements while simultaneously hiding my progress from me. It's the worst of both worlds. And while there's plenty of games that use SBMM and players never know, it's gentle SBMM that works well and allows enough variation that players enjoy and feel progression. This game is so aggressive that everyone can feel it. And the casual players who would have never known otherwise can't help but be blasted in the face by it because every major youtuber and every reddit post has someone mentioning it. I agree that there should be SOME SBMM and that SOME of it definitely improves player experience. Most players are unaware that it's been in most CoDs for the past... forever. However its current implementation in MW is AWFUL. I agree that you need a healthy sustainable model, but like I mentioned above, I believe the issue goes beyond 20% based on the volume of comments about it. How many times have you seen gaming websites and e-sports sponsors put up articles about how tons of players don't like feature X in a game? It's all over pretty much every social media out there. Hard to keep saying it's a vocal minority at this point. Minimap is a vocal minority. SBMM is more than that. Just satire explaining how someone with no concept of observation bias would sell the benefits of a flawed system using misleading data. We're at the point that a major e-sports sponsor (Redbull) has published a post talking about why SBMM is bad for the game. Freakin Redbull of all companies. Kinda hilarious, honestly. Obviously not every single person who has bought CoD is posting on forums. But you can generally get a pretty good gauge of community opinions through them. They at least in part, represent the views of the community at large. There is definitely a bias toward the negative and you have to account for that. But eve when you consider the vocal minority, I think it's pretty clear where the community stands on SBMM. CoD has gone what, 12 years without strong SBMM? And the community has been pretty "healthy" and "sustainable" for all those years without it. I think that's pretty strong evidence that CoD does not need aggressive SBMM to be successful. --- Some anecdotal evidence from today after the patch. I got on shortly after it went live and there was very obviously a reduced player pool. All my ground war games were more like 20v20 instead of 30v30. The player pool was obviously not big enough. And that would mean SBMM has to be looser. And honestly? I had a FUCKING BLAST. It was fun as hell. Straight up the best night I've had on this game. Each game played out a little differently and it felt... fresh. But to be fair, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Maybe it was just because the players who tend to wait for patches and play right away are veterans and it's fun to play with them. Maybe reduced game-server load because so many people were busy patching meant a good connection leading to a better experience. Maybe they turned SBMM way down with this patch. All I know is that tonight was a ton of fun and I'm not quite sure why.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 5, 2019 8:01:47 GMT -5
Patch notes for season 1 did not list everything. Lots of stealth changes. Including gameplay changes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare/comments/e60cri/why_dont_we_get_the_actual_full_patch_notes/
FAL fire cap reduced. R9 range reduced. Tweaks to recoil on a couple guns. All stuff that players should definitely be told about.
On a different topic, I've seen quite a few people say that it takes too long to progress through the tier system. I didn't have that experience. I went through 5 or 6 tiers in 4 hours on patch night (haven't had a chance to play since and don't remember the exact number). I think that's an entirely reasonable speed. I wish it was more tied to xp rather than time though. Time only just promotes afkers with anti-idle macros.
For all my complaints about this game, I will be buying the battle pass to support this business model. They 100% got this part of the game right. I want them to continue to use it down the line, so I consider doing so an investment in the future regardless of how much I do or don't play this title (I continue to play due to lack of competing interests more than anything).
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 5, 2019 16:51:14 GMT -5
They were intending to allow lobbies to remain together for a few matches before forcing a lobby reset. And I suppose that they must have some data that showed people generally prefer to have new lobby experiences after a few matches and wanted to enact that within their system But why? If players want a new lobby they back out and get a new lobby. Isn't that what everyone does? Why break up everyone else who's having a good time? I know that in other FPS titles the act of manually backing out of the matchmaking process will reset the matchmaker's tracking of maps that you've recently played. This tracking helps the matchmaker give extra weighting to the maps that you haven't recently played. Essentially, the matchmaker is actively trying to limit having players play the same map multiple times in a row while also fostering a healthy rotation between all of the available maps. Now that doesn't mean that players can't, on rare occasions, end up playing the same map in back-to-back scenarios or in quick repeat scenarios (particularly when the map pool is shallow) b/c other players will have their map weightings weighed against yours too, but it definitely should prevent any potentially rare duplications from becoming three or more times in a row. So automatically resetting players with new groups of players after a few matches provides the backout service without losing the active tracking that the matchmaker has been compiling on you as it does for all players that are searching. Now, I'm not sure if this is the case with MW's matchmaker, but it seems logical that it might be. The dedicated server model doesn't undermine the connection component. The matchmaker is still going to look at people's pings to the fixed servers. It prioritizes pulling players who meet ideal ping ranges to the server that's closest to them before expanding the allowable ranges over the length of the search and begins to consider matching you with others on servers that may be less ideal to you. However, I don't think the population is at a point where the ping expansion needs to expand too much before a match can be created; at least, for most people unless you're in a pretty low pop region with no reasonably close server or your someone who's gaming at a very unusual time for your region (aka a pop trough period). While it's impossible for us to really know what the real majority think, or that there's any real focused consensus between them, what does seem clear is that the vast majority of streamers, content creators, legitimate pro players, and socially-interactive upper skilled players are of a particular mind on the subject of SBMM, or at least how its been implemented into MW, which is that they greatly dislike it. And, in all honesty, it makes sense as to why they'd dislike it given the history they've likely had with the franchise and the basic role of SBMM which is to value & emphasis match fairness; plus, their likely position within the game's skill spectrum. Plenty of the complainers make an actual living off of game-play that can feature running roughshot over less capably skilled players while many of the others simply enjoy being able to play casual matches where they don't need to "lean forward" as much while being able to perform well. Nothing surprising or all that wrong with those perspectives, but something to keep in mind is that in many cases the ability to have the experience that they particularly desire often comes at the expense of others. Matches that involve players who are over matched and teams that are poorly balanced are often detrimental to the experience for others. This is what SBMM is primarily designed & implemented to help limit. So while all those perspectives may be, more or less, united on the subject of SBMM they do not necessarily equate to the level of SBMM actually being bad for the game. It just means that there's a segment of the community, quite a loud one and one with plenty of community influence, that simply believes that SBMM negatively impacts their ability to experience the game as they wish to experience it. They also tend to rationalize, by way of projecting their perspective expectations, that it clearly must be bad for the game/franchise if they and those they socialize with have the same conclusions -- aka everyone else not on board with their sound logic are just safe space snowflakes. This is where I believe IW are continuously working to tweak the SBMM. They should want the casual social public matches to involve an acceptably wide amount of Individual-to-Individual skill-gap while at the same time maintaining a fairly competitive amount of Team-to-Team balance (probably maxing out somewhere within 60:40 to 70:30 match odds). This allows for a reasonable amount of variance between matches while still actively trying to prevent players from facing insurmountable match odds or from being massively outmatched at the individual level. I imagine IW will continue to make adjustments as they see fit based on feedback, but most importantly based on the backend data that they collect. I hear the argument relating to a "lack of felt progression" being used against SBMM all the time, but in all honesty I feel it's kind of a BS argument. From my perspective, it's less of a "felt" progression that people are complaining about. I'd argue that, for most, it's a lack of desired progression that they can observe by way of K/D ratios, SPM, & win percentages. People want to be able to look at their stats and see the kind of stat progress that they expect to see. And while I'm definitely a supporter of having K/D ratios, SPM metrics, & win percentages available I think it's vitally important for people to realize that they don't mean much without context. For the most part, people know when they're getting better at a game. It's often felt by way of obtaining further and further amounts of map, weapon, and item knowledge, by gaining a variety of experiences against different opponent strategies on the assortment of maps, then becoming quicker to diagnose the situations that may arise in matches and figuring out how best to confront or go about winning potential encounters, by becoming accustomed to and then honing their individual skills relating to the game's full assortment of mechanics; plus, by noticing a rise in the average skill levels of the competition a player may face-off against. Oh, and I think it's worth noting what exactly makes SBMM more aggressive or "strict". Strict SBMM involves a tight initial & max Individual-to-Individual skill-gap allowance (absent party variances) with a slow expansion interval rate (during the search process). It would also likely involve maintaining a tighter initial & max Team-to-Team balance limit and/or a slower expansion interval rate. The strict system would attempt to keep all players within a match at roughly the exact same skill level and the match odds as close to 50:50 for as long as possible at the cost of extended search times. This system is often exclusively used within a ranked environment where the mode is optimized for competitive settings and you can earn some form of visual representation of your Match-Make (skill) Rank. Personally, I haven't really seen any clear evidence of the SBMM being overly aggressive in MW; instead, I think the issue people are having with it actually relates to the current levels of available population for the matchmaker to pull from as well as the likely improvements that were made to the skill system itself relating to its ability to accurately assess, predict, and react. The incredibly deep player pool is what's letting the SBMM create matches that exhibit scenarios that are closer to the initial ping & skill parameters that the matchmaker starts with. I mean never before has the Call of Duty franchise had its player-base population mixed from three different platforms (Xbox, Playstation, & PC) and made available in one single pool for the matchmaker to pull from. Not to mention, the gaming industry recently had some pretty big advances made in regards to skill assessment/prediction (back in 2018) and I can't imagine that IW wouldn't have adopted aspects of those advancements into their own proprietary skill system. So I fully expect that accuracy & capability improvements are occurring within in the game's SBMM too which directly lends itself to creating quality matches more consistently. Fair enough. Yeah, I've read the article. Redbull has been a big eSports sponsor over many years. The sponsor pros and no doubt employ plenty of former pros and, in general, people who are naturally orientated around the high-level aspects of the games from a personal perspective. Basically, I'm not surprised by the article or its attempted perspective-take; especially, given the current social climate that exists.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 6, 2019 13:24:20 GMT -5
I know that in other FPS titles the act of manually backing out of the matchmaking process will reset the matchmaker's tracking of maps that you've recently played. This tracking helps the matchmaker give extra weighting to the maps that you haven't recently played. Essentially, the matchmaker is actively trying to limit having players play the same map multiple times in a row while also fostering a healthy rotation between all of the available maps. Now that doesn't mean that players can't, on rare occasions, end up playing the same map in back-to-back scenarios or in quick repeat scenarios b/c other players will have their map weightings weighed against yours too, but it definitely should prevent any potentially rare duplications from becoming three or more times in a row. So automatically resetting players with new groups of players after a few matches provides the backout service without losing the active tracking that the matchmaker has been compiling on you as it does for all players that are searching. Now, I'm not sure if this is the case with MW's matchmaker, but it certainly might be. It's not. There's been several times that I've ended up playing on the same map 3 or even 4 times in a row. MW is not tracking maps played as far as I can tell. Player pool is certainly high enough that competing priorities shouldn't be a big deal yet. Also, there's really no reason you couldn't track every player's last 10 maps played. Assuming there's less than 256 maps (there is) you can store each result in a single byte. Last 10 games means 10 bytes of data. For 10 million players that's... 100MB of data. Pretty sure we can fit that into the ramdisk. And that's ignoring the fact you could shrink it down to less than 1byte since 6bits should cover the map list, and it's ignoring the fact you don't actually need to store data on 10 million players since you can purge map data for any player who's been disconnected for longer than 2 hours or so. Presumably this doesn't happen because the matchmaker was never built for this. A given lobby has its own map rotation that map freshness. You just had to get them into a lobby and that's fine. I think it's been long understood by players that if you leave a lobby and re-queue, the lobby you end up in might be playing the same map you just played. I don't think any player has ever had trouble understanding why this happens or felt that it's a ridiculous occurrence (unlike say leaving a lobby only to be put back in the exact same lobby). I as a player manipulated the queue, and because I manipulated it there is a chance the result is not ideal. This is simple and straight forward for any player to grasp. That's not to say it can't be improved. But removing something people like (persistent lobbies) to fix a "problem" people are generally understanding of and more or less indifferent to is not a good approach. My connection to a dedicated server isn't going to vary much from game to game (as it would with a listen server model). If the server was good for one game, it will more than likely be good the next. Unlike a listen server where you're relying on the host having stayed in the lobby, a dedicated server didn't move out change. The routing didn't change. So disbanding every lobby in search of a better connection isn't generally justified with a dedicated server model. Connection conditions can of course change, and if it detects that your connection to that server has significantly worsened, then it could remove you from the lobby and look elsewhere, but this should be the exception not the rule. The current implementation is actually probably inducing a lot of server load (via connection tests) that doesn't need to be there. Ideally, it would ping other servers in the background between games and determine if it's your connection in general that's worsened or just the connection to that server. If it's just you, you still get to keep your lobby. If there's a significantly better option to you, it'll switch you. This would be relatively simply to implement, and very basic transparency would make players a fan of it. Just pop a soft alert saying "You have been removed from the lobby because we have found a server with a better connection. Connecting..." Wow! They're automagically getting me a better connection! Instead of being frustrated at losing my fun lobby I'm now happy that I'm being put into a new one! Communication goes a long way. So disbanding lobbies does not help with map selection (it's actually hurt, since the map intra-lobby map rotation that solved this problem is now gone). And with dedicated servers our game to game connection doesn't generally vary enough to matter. So other than SBMM, I still don't see justification for dismantling the lobbies. It's objectively bad for the game from a business perspective. I think we can agree that these people probably represent the upper 25% of players in terms of skill. And let's assume for a moment that SBMM is only bad for high skill players (which I disagree with, but I think we can agree that it has impacted high skill players). Lastly, we'll assume that high skill players are generally repeat customers since it takes practice to be good at something and it would be exceedingly rare for this to be someone's first Call of Duty and for them to already be in the top 25th percentile. If those (I believe reasonable) assumptions hold true, then as a business you're shooting yourself in the foot. A rule of thumb in business is that it costs you 5x as much to get a new customer as it does to get repeat business from an existing customer. Customer acquisition is significantly more expensive than customer retention, and repeat customers spend more than new buyers. This isn't just video games this is business everywhere. And with this system you're, at the very least, if nothing else, targeting the biggest negative impact squarely at your repeat customers. And without any stats to back it up it, social media implies that they're leaving. And a core part of feeling like you're getting better is being able to use those learned skills to get wins (whether the game or just a single gunfight within). But SBMM robs much of that agency from players. You add a new skill to your repertoire and it only benefits you for a game or two before your increased knowledge is immediately matched by other players that already figured it out. There is improvement. And as I get better at this title I know that I'm improving clinically speaking. But I don't FEEL like I am. And I have no way to prove it to myself, let alone anyone else. And I'm not referring to KD or stats. Take BO4. When I first started playing I used mainly ARs and considered the strife pistol to be pretty much trash. By the end of the life cycle, I could run that pistol as a primary. It was certainly a suboptimal choice to do so, but I had gotten good enough at the game that I could do it and it was actually one of my favorite ways to play. I could prove to myself that I was way better than I started by carrying games with the hot garbage that is the rk9. I don't get that in MW. When I break out a non-meta gun after playing with an mp5 for a series of games, I just feel like trash while I get dunked on. And eventually SBMM takes pity on me and puts me in lobbies where my non-meta trash can compete. And yeah, that non-meta trash lobby is probably higher in skill rank than it would have been in the same scenario a week after launch. Clinically I'm performing at a higher level with the Oden than I was week 1. But it's doesn't FEEL like it. It feels like I've gone nowhere. And that sucks. And when I start doing well with the Oden, is it because I'm actually playing well? Or is it because I'm getting pity wins due to being dunked on? Man. Pity wins feel so great... 🙄 Feeling that you got better shouldn't require a player to think about it with a theorycrafting/game dev point of view. Most people will never go remotely that far. They're just gonna go, "You know, I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere with this game... Maybe I'll look elsewhere..." Larger player pool helps any matchmaking system, but player population early in the life cycle of CoDs (now) had never been a major issue. SBMM is definitely more strictly targeting 50/50 win odds. But the system is relying on a simple assumption that simply isn't true. It's assuming that people are always playing at the same level and specifically playing to win. But they aren't. CoD is a casual game that otherwise encourages players to experiment and mess around. There's challenges and camos and weird classes to make in create a class. There's tons of different ways to play. And yes those different ways are usually trying to win simultaneously. But the focus is doing something different while also maybe winning. Not on winning no matter the cost. And that's why upper tier SBMM games get stale so quickly. Because the system is assuming you're going to continue to use that m4 every game forever. And when you switch? Get dunked on kid. If you wanna play casuals you gotta pay your fun debt and get demolished until your back in off-meta lobbies. At least you can take a fun-loan out to get back to meta-lobbies by sweating out a few games against off-metas. That's the problem with this implementation of SBMM. You have to slog through several unfun games to change up your play style. You can play casually, but you'll never get a truly competitive match out of the blue. If you want that, you gotta stomp some noobs for a while to get matched up against a bunch of sweats who all play identically. Then when you want to play casually again you basically gotta get shat on by the sweats to drop down. You have to consistently play one way or the other. You can't switch it up on a whim. It's the reason every drama has comedic relief. People need emotional variation or they get tired of that thing. It's basic entertainment "theory." With previous games you could play jokingly one round and play hard the next several. Then switch back. Then while you're joking around with throwing knives, some tryhards join the other team. You keep goofing off for another round or so, but then decide you wanna show these fools how to really play and call or that you're gonna drop a gunship next game. And you do. And you get a rivalry going for a couple matches. And it's a blast. And then someone leaves and you return to grinding out that pistol camo you've been putting off. And it's a ton of fun. You can't wait to do it again tomorrow. But none of that can happen in this game because of strict SBMM and how we break up lobbies.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Dec 7, 2019 10:17:21 GMT -5
SBMM means everyone in time approaches asymptotically to k/d ratio -> 1.0. /in fact less as you can suicide in many ways, but if we forget it, it would be 1.0/ Using underpowered weapons regularly (it is situational, just not the best fit vs opponents and map is enough) means systematically going below 1.0 and allowing others to get above 1.0. If everyone who plays regularly and with optimal setup is approx 1.0 who is a better player? To learn the truth, they should switch SBMM off for a while ... With SBBM on, you cannot afford to have fun using "strange/fun classes", as you will ruin your k/d ratio regardless what your skills are, as you always meet "better opponents". Without SBMM you can struggle to keep 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 kdr, depending on your skills, connection, etc. With SBMM there is only one target: 1.0. TLDR: With SBMM everyone who plays alone and wants to have the most challenges done (and assuming others would like the same and play alone) should statistically get kdr = 1.0 - suicide factor. Seems like a communist idea Everyone gets the same result! If you have a team: your kdr = 1.0 - suicide factor + teamwork factorThe last equation means lone wolves must have kdr < 1.0, if teamwork "works" ...
|
|
gina
True Bro
in_sane
Posts: 10,120
|
Post by gina on Dec 7, 2019 13:16:12 GMT -5
+2
Act iVi $ion been on the commi cucsukker trip for quite some time now..
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 7, 2019 19:33:52 GMT -5
https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare/comments/e7hhje/i_thought_something_seemed_off_lately_with_my_357/
How on Earth does this even happen? 😂
Like from a coding perspective I don't even know how this could happen.
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 8, 2019 13:45:31 GMT -5
So apparently the tanks got a stealth buff and the AK got a stealth nerf.
Because, everyone was talking about how tanks were needing a buff and about how the only AR worth using is the AK...
The PKM was also stealth nerfed at some point.
I don't even know what to say at this point... Is IW falling apart right now? Sure seems like it's falling apart at the seams. I feel like I'm watching Wha Happun? in real time.
|
|
Lexapro
True Bro
PSN: Lexa_pro
Posts: 1,066
|
Post by Lexapro on Dec 8, 2019 15:11:04 GMT -5
https://www.reddit.com/r/modernwarfare/comments/e7hhje/i_thought_something_seemed_off_lately_with_my_357/ How on Earth does this even happen? 😂 Like from a coding perspective I don't even know how this could happen. I tested this in an actual game and it's fine, the snakeshot comes out every time. There's definitely some differences between custom games and the servers. Like earlier in the cycle, having a riot shield on your back would protect you from ALL explosive damage 100%, but only in custom games.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Dec 9, 2019 3:44:07 GMT -5
Does anyone else notice additional input lag from this game? Is that even possible? I cannot remember another COD where I clearly fire and nothing happens and a tiny fraction of a second later I die. I always try to have low input lag equipment so I have never really experienced this before. In previous COD's I would fire, die, and then see on killcam that on their screen I didn't fire...which I always just took for lag, but not this. Am I just crazy or is anyone else experiencing this?
|
|
exaltedvanguard
True Bro
Hey look... uh... Over... uh... THERE!
Posts: 10,226
|
Post by exaltedvanguard on Dec 9, 2019 7:59:56 GMT -5
Input lag isn't the right term, but I know what you mean.
Mousey used to have an excellent post about this but his posts seem to have disappeared.
The short version is that CoD trusts the shooter, and your actions stop registering the moment the killshot lands on you (at the server).
So in these cases, you actually died already but your client doesn't know it yet. It hasn't gotten the message yet. So it keeps displaying you running around and shooting until it gets the message you died. It's just a fraction of a second but it's noticable. That's why once the server tells you, you never see yourself fire. The messages about you running and shooting are ignored since you're dead.
If you're playing ground war, this delay is more noticable than other modes. And custom games are even worse.
Total network delay under ideal network conditions is ping+1000/tickrate+processing time. Generally processing time is negligible. In small modes, tickrate is 62.5hz, and ground war is ~22hz. So groundwar has basically an unavoidable extra 30ms delay than other modes.
So if you're playing ground war with a ping of 55, you basically have a total network delay of 100ms. Fire a shot and you get a hit marker 1/10 of a second later. 100ms is noticable but not quite quantifiable by average people.
When you add in real world connections, things get even worse as packet loss and jitter will cause input buffering to maintain smooth gameplay appearance. Adding this input buffer further increases network delay, often significantly so.
Aside from ground war running at a low tickrate, these issues aren't new to CoD or shooter.
It's just far more noticable thanks to some game design choices in MW. Faster TTK, campy, "fat" character models, etc.
Because CoD trusts the shooter, you end up running into a lot of situations where someone else having a bad connection can negatively impact your gameplay. For example, on your screen you're well behind a corner, but on his you haven't made it through the door yet because he has a large network delay. So he shoots your exposed body, his shots count because we trust the shooter, and you die around the corner.
TLDR: You didn't fire because you were already dead you just didn't know it yet. Like a bad anime.
|
|