[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

    • Microsoft's fast coding model MAI-Code-1-Flash comes to Copilot Business and Enterprise by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft’s recently announced MAI-Code-1-Flash model is now generally available to GitHub Copilot Business and Copilot Enterprise customers. With this support, organizations can have more centralized policy controls and billing while finally being able to use Microsoft’s lightweight, first-party coding model. According to GitHub’s announcement, Business and Enterprise plan administrators must enable the MAI-Code-1-Flash policy in Copilot settings before developers can access the model. Microsoft says that MAI-Code-1-Flash is for fast, iterative coding work rather than the most demanding architectural or debugging tasks. GitHub’s official model comparison page says that the model is great for "general-purpose coding and writing," while it excels at fast, accurate code completions and explanations Microsoft introduced MAI-Code-1-Flash on June 2 as part of a broader collection of internally developed MAI models. GitHub subsequently expanded support to Copilot CLI, the Copilot cloud agent, GitHub.com chat, GitHub Mobile, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, and Xcode, but said support for managed Business and Enterprise customers was still on the way. In Microsoft’s own benchmark testing, MAI-Code-1-Flash scored 51.2% on SWE-Bench Pro, compared with 35.2% for Anthropic’s Claude Haiku 4.5. Microsoft also claimed that the model used up to 60% fewer tokens on SWE-Bench Verified. Do note that these are vendor-run results rather than independent measurements. The model is billed at provider list pricing under GitHub’s usage-based system. GitHub currently lists MAI-Code-1-Flash at $0.75 per million input tokens, $0.075 per million cached input tokens, and $4.50 per million output tokens. For organizations, the main incentive to use MAI-Code-1-Flash is likely to be efficiency rather than maximum capability. A smaller model that responds quickly and limits unnecessary output is quite useful for repetitive agent tasks at scale, especially after GitHub Copilot’s move toward usage-based billing. The "Flash" model is recommended for fast work and not necessarily for huge repositories with loads of context. It's better if teams compare their output with other larger models, especially if they're working on security-sensitive changes and complex, multi-file work.
    • yes AND no the "original" or plain/normal Optiplex 7010 won't be getting any more new firmware updates BUT the Optiplex SFF/SFF Plus {small form factor}, Micro/Micro Plus & Tower/Tower Plus 7010 editions DO get new updates such as this new one   and here are similar guides from the Dell web site for Dell systems: https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000390990/secure-boot-transition-faq https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000347876/microsoft-2011-secure-boot-certificate-expiration
    • AT&T has been spying on US citizens with the NSA for decades.. they just know how to keep it more under wraps.. the evil level is still there.
    • >Improved system sounds when using Windows in dark mode. The story behind that bug would be an interesting one.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      442
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      200
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      155
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      71
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!