Call of Duty: Black Ops

[DivideBYZero]

No doubt, and thats actually how I found out about it. I didn't bother to look it up before hand because I just assumed there would be some sort of actual progression in the prestige portion other than just customizing the looks of face paint, emblems, etc. As for it always being that way from what I gather it has but I've never personally played another CoD game before this one. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, I did enjoy playing it online but I was just a bit let down that a game that was touted as having a very in depth online multiplayer aspect seems to lack any real depth at all after level 50.

I'm not one to grind out more levels just to have a different icon next to my name or a custom face paint. Even if it was something small like a different gun available in prestige levels or upgrading attachments I would keep playing it. Something. Right now it just feels like I hit a wall and theres nothing left in the online portion for me. I guess part is just me venting because I just bought it last Wednesday and now kinda feel like I wasted my money on it. Ah well though, it will still be entertaining to play online with friends/family.

You do it for the prestige. The answer to your question is right there in the name...

 

[Kev]

wtf the matchmaking is so dumb sometimes. Why does it think that I want to join a HQ match where my team is down 175-0? Or how about the last demo match I joined where the other team was up 1-0 and there was only 10 seconds on the last bomb's timer?

I like that the game does this, the alternative is that the game doesn't fill back up when people drop off or rage quit. It was like that in the first few weeks of the game's release and was annoying as hell. They should not give you a loss if you played less than half the game though.

 

[digiram]

I like that the game does this, the alternative is that the game doesn't fill back up when people drop off or rage quit. It was like that in the first few weeks of the game's release and was annoying as hell. They should not give you a loss if you played less than half the game though.

If there is 10 seconds left or 1 kill left in a game, it should not throw you in there for a free loss though. They should be able to modify their algorithm or whatever to correct that. I don't mind going into the middle of a game or a little before it... even in a losing team. There have been times where myself or me and a buddy will join a losing team in a match already in progress and turn the game around. Those matches are great.

 

[Stuxnet]

Word was that in MW2 games didn't count for/against your stats unless you made some sort of contribution (kill someone, someone kills you, plant, defuse, etc).

Not sure if it was true or if it was implemented in BO.

"Lost cause" matches should not repopulate once the the 3/4 point has been reached, in my opinion. But the "Halo" method is 10 times worse. I gave up on that game because I got sick of 5v1 games. Stupid.

 

[Anubis]

so this vid does an excellent job showing the lag we see, This is a xbox vid but this happens on the PS3 a lot, seems neither one is immune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRtdHmXEjs

 

[basslover1]

Nuketown 24/7

anyone else notice that appeared yesterday as a playlist option

Just saw this, looks like the playlist is gone. Sucks, cause I really enjoy nuketown.

 

[BD2003]

so this vid does an excellent job showing the lag we see, This is a xbox vid but this happens on the PS3 a lot, seems neither one is immune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRtdHmXEjs

Of course neither is immune. The game is played on the internet. Lag is not a failure of design, its something that will always have to be dealt with. CoD does a very admirable job of doing so. So much to the point that the effects of lag are so difficult to spot that people have to put up crazy videos on the internet to prove their point. But by not understand whats really going on, that video serves to do nothing more than confuse people. By using theater mode as any sort of reference, he clearly doesnt know whats going on.

Back in the day, lag used to be in your face, so bad that no one needed to explain to you that the reason you got shot in the face was lag. Because you literally pressed a button and nothing happened for half a second. Anyone remember the terms LPB and HPW? If you dont, consider yourself lucky.

 

[Stuxnet]

Anyone remember the terms LPB and HPW?

Ahh... the good 'ol days of CS 1.3

 

[frumply]

Ahh... the good 'ol days of CS 1.3

Quake1/2 and maybe Action Quake, but certainly not during CS 1.x. I believe pretty much everyone had broadband at that point...

 

[coldmeat]

I'm at level 46, and I haven't played Nuketown once this whole prestige.

 

[Kev]

I remember playing Quake 3 on a 56k AOL connection because my parents wouldn't get comcast. Talk about lag.

 

[BD2003]

Quake1/2 and maybe Action Quake, but certainly not during CS 1.x. I believe pretty much everyone had broadband at that point...

Action Quake! You sir, have my heart.

I remember a 250 ping being actually pretty good by the standards of those days.

I can still remember the delicious crack of a headshot in that game, that shot red particles out 20 yards behind them. I wonder if there's a way to still play that game on a modern PC...

 

[Saint Nick]

I played Action Quake up until about 2005. Then I started CS.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

so this vid does an excellent job showing the lag we see, This is a xbox vid but this happens on the PS3 a lot, seems neither one is immune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HRtdHmXEjs

This is what happens when you allow players to individually host games.

 

[BD2003]

This is what happens when you allow players to individually host games.

This would happen in the exact same way with dedicated servers. Exactly the same. Probably worse in a lot of cases. But it wouldnt fix the underlying issue.

 

[dougp]

This is what happens when you allow players to individually host games.

Take your PC trolling elsewhere, all you've been posting is your negativity about console gaming. We get it, you're not happy with it - so leave our forums and join the others in the PC Gaming forum.

 

[CupCak3]

Just saw this, looks like the playlist is gone. Sucks, cause I really enjoy nuketown.

WHAT!?!?!?! That sucks. I really wanted to jump on that over this next weekend.

 

[Kev]

This would happen in the exact same way with dedicated servers. Exactly the same. Probably worse in a lot of cases. But it wouldnt fix the underlying issue.

at least it wouldn't give a ridiculous advantage to whoever was host. And you wouldn't have to worry about some clown with DSL on the other side of the country being host.

 

[BD2003]

at least it wouldn't give a ridiculous advantage to whoever was host. And you wouldn't have to worry about some clown with DSL on the other side of the country being host.

The host doesn't always necessarily get the advantage in all cases. They get screwed in just as many ways. It's definitely not a huge advantage.

And your second complaint is a failure of matchmaking. People with poor connections generally shouldn't be host, and they usually aren't. Dedicated servers are potentially worse. If the data center isn't nearby, it never will be, and geographic distance makes a huge difference. Also, one would have to assume the servers will be numerous and have super fast connections, which is far from a guarantee. Take left 4 dead for example - it had dedicated servers, an especially when the game was new, using them would make the game practically unplayable, the connection was so poor.

 

[fbrdphreak]

The host doesn't always necessarily get the advantage in all cases. They get screwed in just as many ways. It's definitely not a huge advantage.

And your second complaint is a failure of matchmaking. People with poor connections generally shouldn't be host, and they usually aren't. Dedicated servers are potentially worse. If the data center isn't nearby, it never will be, and geographic distance makes a huge difference. Also, one would have to assume the servers will be numerous and have super fast connections, which is far from a guarantee. Take left 4 dead for example - it had dedicated servers, an especially when the game was new, using them would make the game practically unplayable, the connection was so poor.

That's a very valid point. Dedicated servers can still be overwhelmed, like at launch of a hugely popular game. And what happens if/when those servers are taken down? Peer hosting may have its drawbacks, but with the reality of huge game launches and short runtimes (COD every year anyone?) peer hosting isn't looking so bad.

 

[BD2003]

That's a very valid point. Dedicated servers can still be overwhelmed, like at launch of a hugely popular game. And what happens if/when those servers are taken down? Peer hosting may have its drawbacks, but with the reality of huge game launches and short runtimes (COD every year anyone?) peer hosting isn't looking so bad.

Honestly, it's fine just the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CoD has the best netcode out there. If you dont think so, you dont know what bad netcode is. Sometimes it appears to choose a less than optimal host, but nothing is perfect. "Peer hosting" is you call it is perfectly fine as long as the actual running of the game doesn't interfere with the hosting, and the host is chosen appropriately.

Host advantage isn't really a major issue. First, there's only one host out of 12-18 players, so that potential advantage is diluted. Also, many situations arise that give the host a disadvantage. To put an extremely difficult to explain concept very simply, the host is "ahead" of everyone else. If he's running around being very aggressive, he can round a corner and kill you before you see him. But likewise, if the host is being passive, another player can round the corner and kill the host before the host gets word he's already dead. The host can turn corners faster but doesn't see into the future and can't escape his past, so to speak- for any player, if you can see it, you can kill it.

 

[coldmeat]

The host doesn't always necessarily get the advantage in all cases. They get screwed in just as many ways. It's definitely not a huge advantage.

And your second complaint is a failure of matchmaking. People with poor connections generally shouldn't be host, and they usually aren't. Dedicated servers are potentially worse. If the data center isn't nearby, it never will be, and geographic distance makes a huge difference. Also, one would have to assume the servers will be numerous and have super fast connections, which is far from a guarantee. Take left 4 dead for example - it had dedicated servers, an especially when the game was new, using them would make the game practically unplayable, the connection was so poor.

Those are fair points for a less popular game, but a game like BO would have thousands of servers. All I know is that the pc games I play that have dedicated servers work better almost all of the time than BO does. And isn't L4D a horrible example for dedicated servers, seeing as you didn't choose the server yourself?

 

[BD2003]

I see no reason why BO couldn't or shouldn't have a dedicated server option for those who want it. But it doesn't solve the fundamental issue of latency, and I would never want to give up matchmaking to go back to server browsers.

 

[Kev]

Honestly, it's fine just the way it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CoD has the best netcode out there. If you dont think so, you dont know what bad netcode is. Sometimes it appears to choose a less than optimal host, but nothing is perfect. "Peer hosting" is you call it is perfectly fine as long as the actual running of the game doesn't interfere with the hosting, and the host is chosen appropriately.

Host advantage isn't really a major issue. First, there's only one host out of 12-18 players, so that potential advantage is diluted. Also, many situations arise that give the host a disadvantage. To put an extremely difficult to explain concept very simply, the host is "ahead" of everyone else. If he's running around being very aggressive, he can round a corner and kill you before you see him. But likewise, if the host is being passive, another player can round the corner and kill the host before the host gets word he's already dead. The host can turn corners faster but doesn't see into the future and can't escape his past, so to speak- for any player, if you can see it, you can kill it.

You make valid points and have swayed me to share your point of view.

#neverhappensoninternet

 

[fbrdphreak]

I see no reason why BO couldn't or shouldn't have a dedicated server option for those who want it.

$$$ is the reason