[360, PS3] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

[Scott_Arm]

...

Plus, the terribleness of the netcode should be obvious to the blind eye when playing with really poor host. It's not even jumpy or anything, you cannot move at all, it keeps rewinding you back. I'm guessing they use Doom 2 code modified for p2p or something.

Only time I've seen the game stop is when the game is about to drop and not recover because of failed host migration, if it does host migration.

So far I haven't seen any lag. It has all been hidden with lag compensation. It is there, but I'd say my experience, so far, has been very good. 10 hours +.

The only problems I've had is problems with the part system, with one player being left behind, or players from the party being moved onto the opposing team during match making. It seems like a lot of people do not have Open NAT, and are either moderate or worse.

 

[RobertR1]

You can see the lag in the killcam. You'll die thinking you were in a firefight with the other guy but when you watch the kill cam, it'll show you barely getting off a shot while the other guy drops a few rounds into you and puts you down. However, this doesn't happen often so I'm not bothered. I don't care enough to be annoyed by it. The game is fun and fine for me 95% of the time.

As Scott pointed out, they need to work on keeping the parties together better.

 

[betan]

Only time I've seen the game stop is when the game is about to drop and not recover because of failed host migration, if it does host migration.

So far I haven't seen any lag. It has all been hidden with lag compensation. It is there, but I'd say my experience, so far, has been very good. 10 hours +.

There is lag hiding?
Seriously, I think it's great that you guys don't see or feel the lag but it's always there, like the first one. Even if they could hide lag successfully, killcam would always give it away.

The only problems I've had is problems with the part system, with one player being left behind, or players from the party being moved onto the opposing team during match making. It seems like a lot of people do not have Open NAT, and are either moderate or worse.

Can you elaborate? What does NAT type have to do with game breaking parties?

For small parties (up to 4) I haven't encountered it yet. For more than 6 or so I always thought it's a late balancing attempt (based on rank/skill or network).

 

[Scott_Arm]

For small parties (up to 4) I haven't encountered it yet. For more than 6 or so I always thought it's a late balancing attempt (based on rank/skill or network).

NAT type seems to be causing problems with people joining parties. Maybe it has nothing to do with players getting dropped from parties while the rest of the party continues on. They could be unrelated.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Plus, the terribleness of the netcode should be obvious to the blind eye when playing with really poor host. It's not even jumpy or anything, you cannot move at all, it keeps rewinding you back. I'm guessing they use Doom 2 code modified for p2p or something.

Nah, their netcode stems back from Q3:A, modified for P2P

Hell,their engine is basically a very very very very very very very modified Q3:A. Probably nothing left of the original code though. In CoD2 you could still spot Q3:A bugs

I totally agree that the netcode is not particularly good (however, its better than most other P2P netcodes).

You can see the lag in the killcam. You'll die thinking you were in a firefight with the other guy but when you watch the kill cam, it'll show you barely getting off a shot while the other guy drops a few rounds into you and puts you down. However, this doesn't happen often so I'm not bothered. I don't care enough to be annoyed by it. The game is fun and fine for me 95% of the time.

Agreed.

 

[nightshade]

The matchmaking got me bumped with a bunch of Singapore guys today with whom I used to play COD4 & therefore the connectivity was near perfection. Fortunately the game type was Ground War.

So I had non stop fun with them for 2 hours or so. It was addictive

 

[NRP]

When I select "Find Match", it says something like "looking for 100ms ping games . . ." or something. Anyone else notice that?

I haven't noticed much lag, maybe only a handful of games. The netcode seems to work well, at least in the US.

 

[specwarGP2]

In my eyes, all your issues seem just to be bound by lack of (aiming)skill

I do not agree with you. All the points Phil brought up were valid. The killstreaks especially seem overpowered. I saw a guy go 30-0 on FFA last night and he was camping for most of the match. In the thousands of FFA matches I've played on COD4, I've only seen one person go undefeated - me - and it's NOT easy because you can only get off one killstreak in an undefeated run wheareas in MW2 your killstreaks stack.

Maybe its because I've only played a few hours, but I'm not so sure I like MW2 as much as COD4 because the majority of kills in COD4 were earned by skill. I could win matches easily without ever getting the helo. Now it seems like the weps are easier to shoot (less recoil) and the bulk of your kills come from killstreaks.

The game does feel a lot more polished than COD4 though.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I do not agree with you. All the points Phil brought up were valid.

Explain this to me:

Ive played as little as phil does, and my KDR is 1.97. I have no map knowledge. I should be as bad as he is if map knowledge and killstreaks is as important as he claims. But since my kills per minute and kdr is in a different league, the only conclusion i can think of is that you just dont aim well enough (or you move around stupidly)

How can you explain it differently?

What possible other explanation is there, except for that your aim and possibly movement is not good? Everything else is equal, but i keep killing he keeps dying.

Just because somebody is not able to do particularly well doesn't mean that things are unbalanced or overpowered. It could just be that he is worse than the other players. (althought i do agree that killstreaks are to powerful for my tastes, as i prefer to shoot things)

However, i think most of phils issues come from him playing with 1-2 friends and thus get matches with full clans (any decent clan will rape a bunch of randoms, unless there is an elite player in the random squad).

Unless you guys can come up with some other plausible explanation, the issues are related to skill, not balancing.

I saw a guy go 30-0 on FFA last night and he was camping for most of the match.

Yes. camping often the easiest way to get amazing killstreaks. If you camp the correct spot (and camp by moving around in the same area, not staying in the same exact spot)

In the thousands of FFA matches I've played on COD4, I've only seen one person go undefeated - me -

You cannot have played particularly good people then. 25-0 is not particuarly rare (max in FFA CoD4 is 25kills.)

Ive seen people have kill streaks lastings 54+ in CoD4, TDM and headquarters. Elite players, random teams usually does the trick. They are so good that i have no chance killing them unless i spot them at an advantage (before they spot me), and 25-0 was not an accomplishment that i found particularly hard or rare in FFA. (Aspecially if the room is not full)

and it's NOT easy because you can only get off one killstreak in an undefeated run wheareas in MW2 your killstreaks stack.

There is NO KILLSTREAK STACKING.

After the 3 killstreak bonuses you get nothing more. But you can select your bonuses to start from say 7kills instead of 3. Example: My killstreaks are 3- uav -5 predator (gonna swap it out for pavelow but anyways) -7 harrier yet. The harrier yet often gives me 5-10 kills just like a chopper. I dont get any more kill streaks bonuses from that.

But if i select 7-harrier -11 pavelow -25 nuke. I get 3 very powerful killstreaks. but i need way more kills to get bonuses.

 

[specwarGP2]

Explain this to me:

Ive played as little as phil does, and my KDR is 1.97. I have no map knowledge. I should be as bad as he is if map knowledge and killstreaks is as important as he claims. But since my kills per minute and kdr is in a different league, the only conclusion i can think of is that you just dont aim well enough (or you move around stupidly)

How can you explain it differently?

Simple. If everything else was equal, then yes, it would be the difference in skill in aiming. But all things are not equal. So it's a number of factors. I said his points are valid, you discount them because... he's not you?? How does that make any sense?

You cannot have played particularly good people then. 25-0 is not particuarly rare (max in FFA CoD4 is 25kills.)

Ive seen people have kill streaks lastings 54+ in CoD4, TDM and headquarters. Elite players, random teams usually does the trick. They are so good that i have no chance killing them unless i spot them at an advantage (before they spot me), and 25-0 was not an accomplishment that i found particularly hard or rare in FFA. (Aspecially if the room is not full)

I've played ~90k matches almost exclusively FFA in COD4. Maybe I got lucky and only played crappy players all this time. *shrug*

It's easier to get long killstreaks in other modes for a number of reasons. One of which is that more likely to spawn next to an enemy in FFA. Another is that its harder to kill opponents with airstrikes or the helo. I've had multiple 20+ killstreaks in TDM, and its not that hard compared to FFA.

There is NO KILLSTREAK STACKING.

Huh? Using your example (7 - harrier; 11 - pavelow; -25 nuke) kills earned from one streak count towards the other... how is that not stacking?

Oh and I guess they do stack in COD4 too. It's just that getting the airstrike and helo aren't that big of a deal in FFA because you dont get that many kills with them anyway. I consider myself very lucky if I get 5-7 kills using them! MW2 on the other hand... instead of going out and getting kills with their weps, people want to camp a lot more to preserve their killstreak which can rack up massive numbers of kills -_-

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Simple. If everything else was equal, then yes, it would be the difference in skill in aiming. But all things are not equal. So it's a number of factors. I said his points are valid, you discount them because... he's not you?? How does that make any sense?

What is not equal?

We have the same shitty weapons.No cool upgrades, No map experience. We play the same game. I and many others have no problems with anything that higher levels can do.

He has.

What is left in the equation? What other factors outside of skill( Aiming & tactical? )

I've played ~90k matches almost exclusively FFA in COD4. Maybe I got lucky and only played crappy players all this time. *shrug*

You have to if youve only seen yourself do 25-0. surely, you do not believe that your the only one in the world who can do this?

Why are you so shocked that others can do 30-0 in mw2?

Your KDR in CoD4 according to yourself is significantly less than 2.0. That is not particularly good. Its worse than me, and i dont consider myself particularly good compared to the players that are really good.

If you would run into an elite player in FFA, you would get smoked. You said yourself youve never seen people do consistently 5-6 kdr.

I know many players who average (out of 500k+ kills) 6+ kdr. Top 1% (or maybe top 0,5% players or maybe even less. I dunno the distrubution, i assume its extremely low %.) If you have never met such a player, then obviously you must have been extremely lucky in your player matchings.

When i encounter elite players, i get raped. It happends extremely rarely that i do (like maybe 10 times in FFA games through the many thusand games ive played) , and when i dont encounter them, i usually rape everybody.

Aslo note that in my book everybody 95+% of all players are crap. I guess i should have been more diplomatic and said "youve only met pretty average players". Elite players are many many std deviations away from the mean, and very few of them bother to play FFA as its absolutely no challenge. Thus its entirely possible that youve never encountered any.

It's easier to get long killstreaks in other modes for a number of reasons. One of which is that more likely to spawn next to an enemy in FFA.

Imo, it depends if you play with randoms or in a clan. With a full party, its easier because you can utilize proper teamwork.

With randoms, Its harder to get long killstreaks in team based modes because your likely to encounter several opponents at once and you cannot team work (as random average people are just to stupid and dont have mics). Thought i guess it works both ways, as you can have random shitty players on the opposing team


In FFA its allmost allways 1vs1. You just have to be better than whoever you meet, not better than several players combined.

I dont understand how spawning close to an enemy matters at all. It doesn't matter if you spawn close to an enemy or if you encounter the enemy by suprise, its exactly the same, wether you just spawned or not doesn't really change anything. Exactly the same in my book. Aim at the guy, shoot him.

Its not like you allways meet enemies in TDM head on. Good players allways flank in TDM so they dont get into a situation where they suddenly have to face 4 players vs themselves.

For me, my KDR in FFA is through the roof compared to what i do in team based modes. Much more things that can be determined outside of skill (multiple targets etc) in tdm.

My FFA in MW2 is probably 3-5. Team based? less than 2 on average.

In MW1, similar distrubution.

Another is that its harder to kill opponents with airstrikes or the helo. I've had multiple 20+ killstreaks in TDM, and its not that hard compared to FFA.

Its easier to kill opponents in FFA with Helo, imo, because any decent team will simply destroy your helo instantly in TDM. Airstrikes i agree, because your more likely to hit multiple targets.

Huh? Using your example (7 - harrier; 11 - pavelow; -25 nuke) kills earned from one streak count towards the other... how is that not stacking?

Doesn't killstreak stacking imply that you would get additional killstreak bonuses AFTER youve gotten the first ones?? Like 25 kills in a row gets you nuke. You get 3 more kills and get another uav?

Its not like the killstreaks are separable. 25 kills in a row is still 25kills in a row, regardless if you get any bonus meanwhile?

 

[nightshade]

Well I've done 40-0 killstreak & some more close to that in COD4 [PC] TDM, it isnt that much of a deal when you are playing avg. to below avg players on an over crowded server.

 

[specwarGP2]

What is not equal?

We have the same shitty weapons.No cool upgrades, No map experience. We play the same game. I and many others have no problems with anything that higher levels can do.

He has.

What is left in the equation? What other factors??? Name them.

Oh please. Do you both play the same exact opponents? Of course not. so Right there thats one significant difference.

You have to if youve only seen yourself do 25-0. surely, you do not believe that your the only one in the world who can do this?

Why are you so shocked that others can do 30-0 in mw2?

Maybe I'm wrong, and 90k matches isn't enough to make an informed opinion. But based on what I've seen, going undefeated in FFA is extremely difficult, and like most things that are extremely difficult to do, it requires either a lot of skill or a lot of luck, and most likely a combination of the two. In my case it was mostly luck.

Oh, and I'm not shocked at all that anyone can go 30-0 in MW2. The way the killstreaks are designed, its not hard at all. Like I said earlier, a lot of skill has been removed in these kill streaks.

Your KDR in CoD4 according to yourself is significantly less than 2.0. That is not particularly good. Its worse than me, and i dont consider myself particularly good compared to the players that are really good.

Well yes. When I first played this game my KDR was awful. It took me a long time to get used to the controller and figure out what play style suited me best. If I was to start brand new today, I'm sure my KDR would be 2.0 -2.5.

If you would run into an elite player in FFA, you would get smoked. You said yourself youve never seen people do consistently 5-6 kdr.

Maybe I have run into an elite player and didnt realize it... who knows? Oh and I know there are people that can do 5-6 KDR - I think it's possible but extremely rareand even harder to do in FFA on a consistent basis.

With randoms, Its harder to get long killstreaks in team based modes because your likely to encounter several opponents at once and you cannot team work (as random average people are just to stupid and dont have mics). Thought i guess it works both ways, as you can have random shitty players on the opposing team

How is what you described any different than what goes on in FFA? Obviously there's no teamwork and on top of that you have more people trying to kill you.

Its easier to kill opponents in FFA with Helo, imo, because any decent team will simply destroy your helo instantly in TDM. Airstrikes i agree, because your more likely to hit multiple targets.

That is if you play a well organized team. More often than not you probably play against a team of random people and when you get the helo you get 5-10 kills because they're all bunched up together. I would be extremely happy if I got 5 kills with the helo in FFA.

 

[zola]

... in MW2 your killstreaks stack.

I don't mean to join in on the discussion but I just wanted to contribute the fact that the killstreak rewards all must be earned by aim and shoot gun kills and not airdrop kills. For example, if I got 5 kills in a row without dying using just my own skill/luck and I was rewarded with a portable gun turret, then even if I got an additional 4 or 5 kills with that new turret, none of those would count towards the next killstreak reward (i.e. my killstreak would NOT be 9 or 10 for purposes of getting bonus attack packages) - I would need to 'manually' get 2 more kills myself to get the 7 killstreak reward like the harrier.

 

[eastmen]

I do not agree with you. All the points Phil brought up were valid. The killstreaks especially seem overpowered. I saw a guy go 30-0 on FFA last night and he was camping for most of the match. In the thousands of FFA matches I've played on COD4, I've only seen one person go undefeated - me - and it's NOT easy because you can only get off one killstreak in an undefeated run wheareas in MW2 your killstreaks stack.

Maybe its because I've only played a few hours, but I'm not so sure I like MW2 as much as COD4 because the majority of kills in COD4 were earned by skill. I could win matches easily without ever getting the helo. Now it seems like the weps are easier to shoot (less recoil) and the bulk of your kills come from killstreaks.

The game does feel a lot more polished than COD4 though.

I can take out almost all the killstreak rewards easily. The only ones being the bombing. But everything out the lock on rocket launchers will take out in 1 or 2 shots.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm really enjoying the campaign. The people that hate the lame AI and the seemingly endless respawn will still hate it, but some of the levels are incredibly intense. The environments are really well detailed, and the highly tuned scripting adds a lot to the atmosphere. I think the only thing holding back the visuals is the low res, but the frame rate is more important than resolution in this one.

 

[ShadowWolf64]

I'm really enjoying the campaign. The people that hate the lame AI and the seemingly endless respawn will still hate it, but some of the levels are incredibly intense. The environments are really well detailed, and the highly tuned scripting adds a lot to the atmosphere. I think the only thing holding back the visuals is the low res, but the frame rate is more important than resolution in this one.

That's the reason why I feel COD4 and MW2 campaigns are incredibly lackluster..It seems IW is incapable of creating good enemy AI and instead still rely on respawning an endless amount of enemies until you reach a certain checkpoint BS..No wonder the campaign levels feel "intense".....

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Actually, I hated COD4 because of the lameass respawning but its much less of an issue in MW2 I think. Actually, I dont really get the feeling there is respawning going on. Well, ofcourse new enemies keep coming but its not like in COD4 where you could spend 30 minutes trying to kill everybody in one house just to keep wondering actually how many soldiers you can fit in a house... If you want to clear some enemies before going further in MW2 you can so for me its fine.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well, I think they would be capable of doing good AI if they wanted. I just don't think they have any interest. They want you to be overwhelmed with huge amounts of enemies. It's a design choice, not to everyone's liking, but it isn't from lack of technical ability.

 

[ShadowWolf64]

Well, I think they would be capable of doing good AI if they wanted. I just don't think they have any interest. They want you to be overwhelmed with huge amounts of enemies. It's a design choice, not to everyone's liking, but it isn't from lack of technical ability.

I believe they are incapable of doing good enemy AI because if they were capable of doing it, they would have done so already.It's a pretty lame "design" choice to be honest with you.For example, the Halo games have always had good enemy AI especially on the Legendary difficulty settings.That is why I prefer Halo's campaign over COD simply because in Halo SP its actually challenging, unlike that of COD.Besides, I don't play COD for the lamp sp I play it because it has a fun multiplayer component..