[Official] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2


Recommended Posts

Great to see some people understand the positive side about this change. I've said it time and time again, the PC version of Call of Duty 4 was ruined by the community and how 'all over the place' the entire experience felt. Each and every server had a different rule-set, despite applying various filters you could never avoid these massively customized servers. Then some guy felt a few perks should be restricted, then he felt certain weapons shouldn't be allowed on the server, then you had a player-count 300% above the actual comfortable limit of the map, then the host had to change core settings and worst of all, you had a player who always suffered from god-complex, kicking and banning everyone he disagreed with.

oh I totally agree with you on that, it frustrated the heck out of me when certain servers would ban X gun, or X perk because they felt it was "overpowered", which in practise usually just meant the admins of the servers couldn't counteract it properly.

But on the flip side, I enjoy playing on certain servers with certain communities. For example in TF2, I often visit a server that has a wide variety of custom user maps on rotation, or some days I might just feel like playing 2fort, so I visit a 24/7 2fort server. I don't experience annoying "host ended game" either (Although of course, they say they've solved this in MW2, but you will still have a brief migration period)

All of that would be taken away if Valve made TF2 or future games act like MW2 will do.

I just don't see why there can't just be a happy medium between the two, i.e have a matchmaking service that acts in the same way the console version does, yet also have dedicated servers and SDK's for those that want one, or keep it as it is in COD4, but isolate those servers that modify the rules (I believe TF2 does this)

You might like/love it but removing it entirely is going to upset a ton of longterm PC gamers who deliberately play on PC because it's the way it is. I own both PS3 COD5 and PC for this reason.

The cynic in me also suggests that they will just use this as a way of ramming paid map packs down our throats every so often like the console versions have, although I'm sure you could argue they have no incentive to do so otherwise.

oh I totally agree with you on that, it frustrated the heck out of me when certain servers would ban X gun, or X perk because they felt it was "overpowered", which in practise usually just meant the admins of the servers couldn't counteract it properly.

But on the flip side, I enjoy playing on certain servers with certain communities. For example in TF2, I often visit a server that has a wide variety of custom user maps on rotation, or some days I might just feel like playing 2fort, so I visit a 24/7 2fort server. I don't experience annoying "host ended game" either (Although of course, they say they've solved this in MW2, but you will still have a brief migration period)

All of that would be taken away if Valve made TF2 or future games act like MW2 will do.

I just don't see why there can't just be a happy medium between the two, i.e have a matchmaking service that acts in the same way the console version does, yet also have dedicated servers and SDK's for those that want one, or keep it as it is in COD4, but isolate those servers that modify the rules (I believe TF2 does this)

You might like/love it but removing it entirely is going to upset a ton of longterm PC gamers who deliberately play on PC because it's the way it is. I own both PS3 COD5 and PC for this reason.

The cynic in me also suggests that they will just use this as a way of ramming paid map packs down our throats every so often like the console versions have, although I'm sure you could argue they have no incentive to do so otherwise.

And this, is why I like the other, usual version of PC gaming. You can revisit the same server, with the same community, and have a great time. With a specific map as well.

Damn this is arkward...

Also, Paid Map Packs wouldn't work because surely the map files will just be put online for the pirates to download?

And this, is why I like the other, usual version of PC gaming. You can revisit the same server, with the same community, and have a great time. With a specific map as well.

Damn this is arkward...

Also, Paid Map Packs wouldn't work because surely the map files will just be put online for the pirates to download?

You could say that again, 170 hours on the same server :laugh: - http://www.gametracker.com/server/85.236.1...yer/Audioboxer/

As for pirating the maps, if it's secured through steam, doubt it.

You could say that again, 170 hours on the same server :laugh: - http://www.gametracker.com/server/85.236.1...yer/Audioboxer/

As for pirating the maps, if it's secured through steam, doubt it.

Oh it uses Steam? I like it even more. Steam means it'll run VAC too right?

Great to see some people understand the positive side about this change. I've said it time and time again, the PC version of Call of Duty 4 was ruined by the community and how 'all over the place' the entire experience felt. Each and every server had a different rule-set, despite applying various filters you could never avoid these massively customized servers. Then some guy felt a few perks should be restricted, then he felt certain weapons shouldn't be allowed on the server, then you had a player-count 300% above the actual comfortable limit of the map, then the host had to change core settings and worst of all, you had a player who always suffered from god-complex, kicking and banning everyone he disagreed with.

Players should not be allowed to have this kind of control at all, it has been the Achilles' heel of "server browser" games for ages, plus the worst of all, most hosts have no idea how terrible their connections or computers were - So despite the server browser reporting green connection, the lag could be horrendous due to terrible internet connections - At least matchmaking 'pings' the host before choosing and actually selects the best host available almost every time.

Matchmaking provides for standardized settings EACH AND EVERY TIME! Select your game-mode and you are 100% sure you won't get thrown in some terrible, messed up game. By creating a more closed environment it's easier to leave pirates in the cold and get rid of cheaters the first time around.

you are picking the worst examples of privately-run servers just to prove a point...

i can only agree with the 'all over the place' line if a particular game doesnt have a working filter system for the server browser...and that 'archilles heel' you are talking about only really applies to games with an utterly broken server browser, which is basically what nobody likes to play anyway... plus, pc games dont report the connection in colours, it reports in milisecond pings...

and about matchmaking... its strictly a 'jump right in' feature, and to think that they have erased all our other options just for this... what happened to clans having their password protected servers , geographically located where every member can get a good ping?

I can agree with the fact you'd like some "custom" servers once and awhile, based on custom maps or perhaps some sort of modification, that is sad to lose but again, you have to look at what you gain as well. One thing I 'forgot' was leaderboards. I mean, it's not important but I'd say most people were lying if they didn't enjoy checking out their global standing, K&D ratios, kills, scores etc. and with a closed matchmaking system that is possible! Means you can see every kill you ever made and not just based on one server - I personally like that.

Having both systems, the old "server browser" system and the new one is not a good idea, first off it kills most of the great features the more closed matchmaking system offers plus it kills the point of matchmaking. By removing players from the matchmaking system you are effectively increasing search times and removing the efficiency of the matchmaking system. It HAS to be one or the other, it can't be both without destroying one of the systems.

Honestly, I think if most people tried to see the great features a closed system had to offer, there wouldn't be so much damn crying. It's a radical change and that is the sole reason why a lot of people are rebelling at this point - I don't blame you but at least have en open mind about it.

carmatic: No I'm not, I'm picking the experience I had from playing Call of Duty 4 on the PC for a few weeks, it took AGES to find a public server with somewhat standardized settings. EVERY server is different, every server is a complete change from the other - It's horrible.

you could say im close minded, but imposing thieir no-server multiplayer system on PC gaming is like clearing out a lush jungle to make way for a plantation... a whole ecosystem is gone, just so they can make more money

if people want a nice and controlled atmosphere, maybe they should stick to consoles, they are like pleasant parks and gardens , compared to the wilderness where FPS gaming came from in the first place

The non-dedicated server issue on PC is horrible. I hope IW realizes that PC gamers playing MW2 are a fraction of the number of PS3 or X360 players. This means there are much fewer PC players in a given area than console gamers, therefore added distance between the host and players, and increased lag.

I know they added this feature to combat piracy, but seriously, this is at the expense of sales and enjoyment factor. I won't be buying this unless I'm sure it will be playable.

Anybody know proper PC System requirements for this game, googling gives me vague results.

Thanks, both ran pretty well so this one should run as well.

And I am not fan of multi-player as well, I never really was comfortable with it, am better off with SP. So am never gonna miss that side of the game. :)

DICE Makes Hay With Dedicated Server Controversy

Earlier this morning, the executive producer for the Battlefield franchise tweaked Call of Duty over Infinity Ward ending dedicated server support, "confirming" that, yes, dedicated server support is "a given" in Battlefield titles on the PC. "Dedicated servers FTW. What ever secures a better online experience is a given for us," Tweeted DICE's K.M. Troedsson.

KM Troedsson (L_Twin) on Twitter [thanks Cirap]

:laugh: Activison you can screw off.

That tweet (

from L_Twin) was great. It was a pretty subtle dig at Infinity Ward (he didn't mention IW or Modern Warfare), and honestly, IW deserves all of the heat that is getting thrown at them for removing dedicated servers. Regardless of what Bowling said in the podcast about the possibility of IWnet evolving over time, I think we all know that is never going to happen. The system will never be anything more than a misguided attempt at mimicking a multiplayer system that is already inferior to server lists and dedicated servers.
DICE Makes Hay With Dedicated Server Controversy

:laugh: Activison you can screw off.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

Battlefield series on consoles may have dedicated servers but its still matchmaking so it makes no difference really :p

I see how dedicated servers are needed with 64player games but COD is only...what 16?

i cant believe the pc crowd are going to have to use this match making crap.

i can see how it makes things easier on consoles, but im sick of being dumped off in matches full of idiots, there being no servers, or it being too laggy.

id rather just find a server i like, and become a regular.

definatly just lowered the chance of me buying this now.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

Battlefield series on consoles may have dedicated servers but its still matchmaking so it makes no difference really :p

I see how dedicated servers are needed with 64player games but COD is only...what 16?

I believe he was talking about the BF series on the PC, not including BF:Heroes. Like BF2 and BF2142.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

Bad Company 2 is coming to PC, which is what he is talking about.

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

You can "party up" with others or create private matches.

Just to be clear, and someone asked this earlier in the thread.

The PC version does NOT have LAN support either. So, no Hamachi won't get more popular with the PC crowd with MW2. In fact, it won't work at all. Isn't that great?

Just to be clear, and someone asked this earlier in the thread.

The PC version does NOT have LAN support either. So, no Hamachi won't get more popular with the PC crowd with MW2. In fact, it won't work at all. Isn't that great?

Err, WHAT.

Well, that kinda sucks. Screw them. Got a link for that?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • So I did a quick test based on 3+ different public instances from the litany at searx.space ... and it spins everything rather differently. It seems that SearXNG is a meta-search engine (queries multiple search indexes rather than only Google's or Bing's or Wikipedia's or Reddit's) that operates in two modes: > public instances ... each instance opens itself to outside users who piggyback on its cached search history; this instance's own identity becomes known/tracked but end-users are hidden similar to an anonymization proxy; this instance's querying of major search indexes may be API based [rated limited, blocked, etc.]). > private instances ... your private install/instance that itself queries multiple (configurable) search indexes of crawled web content; every major Search Engine associates all traffic to your private instance (so your traffic is tracked via network usages) but client-side tracking (your own browser/computer specs) is flushed because it's a "server" doing the querying rather than your browser. My test asked the same 1 question to the 3+ engines and they all returned vastly different results: some had CAPTCHA failures against Google, some had failures against Wikipedia, and the actual results were also different -- some had auto-complete enabled, others returned a wikipedia highlighted excerpt despite the Wikipedia failure (hinting at results being cached from previous keyword matching), and others just gave an Are-You-Human non-CAPTCHA loop before returning random results. So this begs the caveat: Search query results will vary based on which instance is used because every instance queries the other search indexes separate (and thus its results are influenced on that instance's aggregate search history and index-access limitations). The major distinctions for SearXNG versus DDG or Brave: > The search UI is 'untracked' since no UI trackers are baked-in which would phone home or lay cookies into your browser (for DDG/Brave usage stats), > There is no 'crawler' that canvasses the Internet to discover fresh content (it leaves that to the major search indexes), > Queries multiple search indexes ("meta-search engine") based on the configurations and usage history of the server instance, > Privacy-friendly due to its ability to shield user tracking via standing up a non-local server instance connectable to major VPN providers: queries would all appear to come from general VPN/Proxy providers rather than your private instance (whether installed locally or on your own VPS in the cloud). PS: I've previously come across specialized search engines of this nature that indexes searches across media assets like YT, OF, etc. SearXNG seems to be a good backbone...if the rate-limiting/captcha/etc. issues were resolved.
    • For a guy who claims to hate Farage and the ignorant, gullible, rightwing racist skinheads sponsored by Putin that his lies represent, you sure are quoting them time and time and time again, mate. I guess you're conveniently ignoring the fact that your country and commonwealth just happened to work much better when it was still part of the E.U.? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
    • Do you live in the U.K? Do any of the people here that are against the UK leaving the E.U, live in the U.K? If not then why are you bothered? If you do live here then it is a different thing . Brexit was a good idea, should have done it years before, it was done badly, but the idea was good. You are saying the same thing as remainers do, oh we did what Putin wanted, we listened to the lies and Farage. I hate Farage and never believed most of what he said, certainly did not believe the £350m a week for the NHS. But we did pay a lot of money to the E.U and yes some of it came back, but what is the point of paying it out for only some of it to come back? Get out of the E.U, no money to them and in theory we can use the money to do things in the country. I said in theory, but our governments are a total and complete waste of space. No matter what colour rosette they wear. You and others say it was a mistake and yet the two main parties in the U.K are not looking at rejoining the EU, I wonder why that is? I was not tricked by anyone. Makes no odds now, we are out and have been for 10 years, what we need is a decent government to run the country. All they do is shout at each other like a load of kids and seems to do nothing and make this country more into a police and nanny state. Getting more like China all the time.
    • 4TB TEAMGROUP MP44Q, 2TB T-Force G50, and 2TB WD My Passport SSDs drop to great prices by Fiza Ali Prime Day may be over, but there are still worthwhile storage deals available, including discounts on SSDs for shoppers who missed the event or are looking to upgrade their storage solution. Particularly, 2TB Western Digital My Passport, 2TB TEAMGROUP T-Force G50, and 4TB TEAMGROUP MP44Q SSD are selling at great prices with up to 23% off. The 2TB TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 is an M.2 2280 PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe SSD with sequential read speeds of up to 5,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 4,500MB/s. The drive has an endurance rating of 1,300 TBW (terabytes written) and features a DRAM-less design. The company specifies a mean time between failures (MTBF) of 3 million hours. The drive includes an "ultra-thin" graphene heat spreader that helps dissipate heat without significantly increasing the drive's thickness. It also supports S.M.A.R.T. monitoring, allowing compatible software to monitor drive health and operating status. The SSD is rated for operating temperatures from 0°C to 70°C, with a storage temperature range of -40°C to 85°C. The drive is backed by a five-year limited warranty as well. 2TB TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 SSD: $269.99 (Amazon US) The TEAMGROUP MP44Q is an M.2 2280 PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe SSD that delivers sequential read speeds of up to 7,000MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 5,900MB/s. It uses 3D QLC NAND flash memory to provide 4TB of storage capacity for games, applications, media files, and other data. The drive has an endurance rating of 2,000 TBW and an MTBF of 1.6 million hours. The SSD features a DRAM-less design and supports TEAMGROUP's S.M.A.R.T. monitoring software, allowing users to monitor drive health, temperature, and remaining lifespan. For thermal management, the MP44Q also includes an "ultra-thin" graphene heat spreader. It is designed to operate at temperatures between 0°C and 70°C and can be stored at temperatures ranging from -40°C to 85°C. The SSD is also backed by a five-year limited warranty. 4TB TEAMGROUP MP44Q SSD: $478.99 (Amazon US) The 2TB WD My Passport SSD connects via a USB-C port using the USB 3.2 Gen 2 interface. It delivers sequential read speeds of up to 1,050MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 1,000MB/s through NVMe technology. In terms of security features, the drive includes password protection with 256-bit AES hardware encryption. The SSD is also designed to resist shock and vibration and is rated to withstand drops from heights of up to 6.5 feet. The recommended operating temperature range is 5°C to 35°C, while the non-operating temperature range is -20°C to 65°C. This drive is also backed by a five-year limited warranty. 2TB Western Digital My Passport SSD: $279.99 (Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Yeah... The root of my comment, ostensibly, is how to spin the story via the actual technical merits of the solution! * Decentralized (aka federated) solution with built-in encrypted ephemeral message transport, * Transport via Relays (intermediary servers) with no message archival, * Second configurable pathway are actual email servers (if DNS records are programmed accordingly) via IMAP protocols carriage, * "Chat-over-Email" is the design pattern adopted; it can either leverage full-blown Email Server (must use the INBOX folder) to exchange all received messages/edits/reactions (so be weary of notifications overloads) [best practice is creating a separate email acct used explicitly for federated chat purposes!] or leverage its built-in Relay Server mechanism which actually resides on-device (by default but can be configured otherwise), * By virtue of be a decentralized/federated model, all other intermediary servers who may pass-along messages (while the recipient's final relay/device is inaccessible) cannot snoop on the messages due to the encrypted nature of contents. The intermediaries may, however, analyze the metadata due to the simple fact that routing mechanisms require hints for relay destinations. Unfortunately, whomever is posting about DeltaChat across socials are misleading with "zero metadata" claims -- especially when the Relays (according to their own technical documents) mandate the addition of chat-version metadata and other decorations in order to actually transport any message. -- Based on this summary, I'd prefer if they'd better dual-path message transport (email server add-in, federated relay engine) rather than patch-on email protocols to existing federated social media frameworks. They're frankensteining something rather than extending widely-deployed technology stacks.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      492
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      225
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!