Is this the end for Dedicated servers?

soup dragon · 21-10-2009, 09:48

Any PC gamers looking forward to the release of the next instalment in the Call of Duty franchise - CoD:Modern Warfare 2 might be interested/outraged (please delete as appropriate!!) in this news.

http://www.thedadsarmy.net/news/196-...s-pc-community

The petition already has over 110k signatures.

**Graham M** · 21-10-2009, 09:50

That's idiotic.

21-10-2009, 10:06

I reacted the same as most people however I can see the reasoning. These games all use a perks system so anyone who buys the game on release day and plays it to death has A: experience of the game B: Perks which give you better weaponary extra bombing equipment or even the ability not to be heard or seen on radar.
This heavily puts a disadvantage on a player that has bought it months after release or does not have the time to play it to death.
The matchmaking idea makes it easier for the more casual player to find games where he is not getting pwned as soon as he/she joins which I find very off putting.
Of course this mean clans with members at different levels are going to find it hard to play together and the question you have to ask is is clan membership greater numbers than the casual player? I have no idea but I feel there are more individuals playing the game than groups.
IMO though they should still give the dedicated servers and get rid of the stupid perk system which then would leave a level playing field and allow skill to come back into the game instead of who can play the game for longer and have a bigger gun

**Paul M** · 21-10-2009, 10:38

Ive never played such games, and probably never will, but even I can see how stupid this is ....

mackzjh · 21-10-2009, 13:42

Robert Bowling (fourzerotwo) is the community manager, he's already responded to this, sounds like they're sticking to their guns and not allowing dedicated servers.

http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=745

Looks like that's the end for competitive Call of Duty.

21-10-2009, 14:22

well on the face of it it does not look to bad. As long as you set your clan up in the PARTY you can move from game to game together as a group. PRIVATE will allow you to have your matches so it aint all bad

DaiNasty · 21-10-2009, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by zing

well on the face of it it does not look to bad. As long as you set your clan up in the PARTY you can move from game to game together as a group. PRIVATE will allow you to have your matches so it aint all bad

Yep, I read it that way as well. Mind you, there's still a LOT of gotchas involved. Can your party include players from different countries and can you allow all different skill levels?

And the main issue of course. Will the ping with 15 v 15 still be playable?

I've cancelled my pre-order and will await reports with interest.

21-10-2009, 17:45

if the host has Vms 1.5 meg upload at least you have a chance lol

My understanding is a party can have anyone in it

I cannot see why Dedicated servers can not be set up running windows and use a bot host. I have done that in the past at home when I had problems with ports for dedicated moh servers

Xan · 27-10-2009, 17:22

I've cancelled my pre-order pc community made this game what it is today and this is the way they pay us back

looks like this will be my next game Battlefield: Bad Company 2 with Dedicated servers

looks great

icestar2 · 27-10-2009, 18:55

I cant say I was to happy about this myself. The only reason I'll still buy it is I actually really enjoy the SP side of the COD games. I dont really much care for the online anymore its just much of the same.

**Rob** · 27-10-2009, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by zing

I cannot see why Dedicated servers can not be set up running windows and use a bot host. I have done that in the past at home when I had problems with ports for dedicated moh servers

But to operate, because they aren't providing any dedicated server files, the machine needs a graphics card. That rules out use of standard rack mount servers in any data centre, and a tower style computer will just be too costly on space and energy. In any case since there is no rcon (remote control) type stuff, since there is no server file, the only means of control would be some sort of remote desktop and that, as I've seen posted elsewhere, would conflict with active-x controls.

For me it's less about dedicated servers, and mostly about playability. The matchmaking stuff may work well for the casual player, but effectively you are reducing the PC to the level of a console. this IWnet, or whatever it is seems to be a means of identifying who is hosting at any one time, It's not Infinity Ward providing a whole load of servers in a data centre somewhere. Thus the capacity of the service will be limited by the host's connection bandwidth. Maybe in a couple of countries that will work, but we know from the posts on Cable Forum that many users, even with decent cable connections, struggle to host on their consoles. The era of the big 32 slot, and even the mega 64 slot servers is history. The lack of dedicated servers is a step backwards for technology.

27-10-2009, 19:11

well 32 slots are to big for most of the maps anyway. Only any point in something liek battlefield 2. I still feel the majority pc gamer is the casual none clan player. It is mainly putting the clans noses out of joint as for playabilty you know my opinion well enough now since the perk system

Xan · 27-10-2009, 19:57

i hate the perk system as well.The best cod games i played was UO and COD2 then world at war came out, and that had the perks great game but i lost it by then and became a casual player.I think it was the BF that COD copied with the perk system.