Multiplayer is terrible on PC :(

[Eddie H]

I'm sorry but dedicated servers ruin this game on PC... should have peer to peer matchmaking like mw2 and most of the other cods so you can just find a nice normal game of 6 v 6 team deathmatch, the way the game is meant to be played and what the maps are designed for. All the the stupid hardcore servers or high xp servers with way too many players on are just not fun. 64 bloody players on maps the size of shoeboxes is just ridiculous.... Just want to play some normal team deathmatch... hardcore is for people who can't aim...such a shame :(

[Alastora]

It's more like the other way around. Let me just say, putting it into perspective before anything, this game is 8 years old so it is the servers that actually saves multiplayer. This isn't the release of the game in 2008 where it was fresh and a much larger variety to choose from. There are smaller servers, but due to this game's age, they don't keep players constantly. This is one reason why the bigger servers are useful.

Speaking on big servers, it's a matter of preference. When I played COD4's multiplayer, I went crazy seeing a 32 player server and all of the action and just thought of all of the kills I would rack up. I OD'ed on servers like that, playing the game to death. Again though, that's a matter of taste. It's not for everyone. WAW actually has the biggest maps of all CODs. There are enough large maps for 30+ players and there's the occasional small maps like Dome (smallest map in the game) or Courtyard which are chaotic, but a lot of people like that along with something like Ground War Nuketown on the newer Black Ops games. There's only one server that goes up to 64 players. The highest of any other server is 40+ all the way down to 16 or 18 as far as I know. I agree there are too many hardcore servers.

There are some normal health servers though. The game is just very old at this point, so a lot of people are impressed more with what we have. They tell us they thought the game was dead and are happy to see players still playing. In my opinion, I think COD should have both matchmaking (I wouldn't touch it) and dedicated servers for the option of choice. Matchmaking would satisfy you all and Dedis for the rest of us that like a variety of choice.

I had a good laugh with the "hardcore is for people who can't aim" comment. I don't know if I can agree with that, but I do prefer normal health myself.

[Eddie H]

Hi yeah I understand your views on how its nice people are still keeping this game alive with dedidcated servers... but in the wrong way in my opinion... why cant there just be some normal 6 v 6 dedicated servers at least? 32 players is still far too many for these small maps... its just constant grenade spam and kill death kill death... boring! same goes for cod 4 on here thats pretty much ruined too, though slightly better. call of duty has always been a 6 vs 6 game.... if you want 64 players then play battlefield on big suitable maps. Hardcore is rubbish as you can out gun a sniper the other side of the map with a sub machine gun with one shot. Its for people who cant deal with a longer time to kill where you need more consistent aim.

[Alastora]

Heh if it was only 6 vs 6, I'd probably have never went these many years with COD. I play a couple of BF games, but COD is different in what it does. People always bring up BF when talking about number of players or vehicles haha. COD had vehicles going way back as well. In my opinion, 6 vs 6 for dedi servers would be a waste, although they are done on games like MW3 which is 18 players, but MW3 has small maps and a bunch of empty servers. If Homefront had a chance to properly develop, I'd probably be on that as it's a good blend of both games which I'd like to see.

Let me ask you this: If CODWWII introduced 48 players on larger maps than WAW, would that be cool, or would you still prefer a quiet 6 vs 6? I played 4-player splitscreen Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, and Halo when I had a console, but started online multiplayer on PC first. I'm usually kill kill kill kill kill kill and on and on and then the occasional death hehe. For some players, I can understand though. Lots of people need matchmaking as they may not be as fast to react when there's lots of action.

If you feel up to it, check out the map Outskirts when it's being played and let me know your opinion. Outskirts is the biggest MP map and a lot of areas don't even get used, even with 40+ players. I'd like to know how that feels to you.

[FutureNova]

Originally posted by PDEAlastora:

It's more like the other way around. Let me just say, putting it into perspective before anything, this game is 8 years old so it is the servers that actually saves multiplayer. This isn't the release of the game in 2008 where it was fresh and a much larger variety to choose from. There are smaller servers, but due to this game's age, they don't keep players constantly. This is one reason why the bigger servers are useful.

Speaking on big servers, it's a matter of preference. When I played COD4's multiplayer, I went crazy seeing a 32 player server and all of the action and just thought of all of the kills I would rack up. I OD'ed on servers like that, playing the game to death. Again though, that's a matter of taste. It's not for everyone. WAW actually has the biggest maps of all CODs. There are enough large maps for 30+ players and there's the occasional small maps like Dome (smallest map in the game) or Courtyard which are chaotic, but a lot of people like that along with something like Ground War Nuketown on the newer Black Ops games. There's only one server that goes up to 64 players. The highest of any other server is 40+ all the way down to 16 or 18 as far as I know. I agree there are too many hardcore servers.

There are some normal health servers though. The game is just very old at this point, so a lot of people are impressed more with what we have. They tell us they thought the game was dead and are happy to see players still playing. In my opinion, I think COD should have both matchmaking (I wouldn't touch it) and dedicated servers for the option of choice. Matchmaking would satisfy you all and Dedis for the rest of us that like a variety of choice.

I had a good laugh with the "hardcore is for people who can't aim" comment. I don't know if I can agree with that, but I do prefer normal health myself.

I'm not gonna lie but mw2 and mw3 have so many hackers but on waw and cod 4 I run into none because of the custom servers

[Sherms]

Thats funny, "how its supposed to be played." But the funny thing is that these are war games and war doesnt typically follow 6v6. And these new cod games with the matchmaking system have almost zero players and the game dies after a few months, whereas this game is almost 9 years old and has a strong fan base.

These new cod games with the matchmaking destroy pc communities because you used to be able to just join private dedicated servers that you and your friends like to play and play while you wait for them to join. But these 6v6 matchmaking lobbies made it difficult to play 12 friends in the same game. And waiting in a lobby for players isnt as much fun as waiting on a private dedicated server where you can actually play the game and wait for your friends to join.

And I have been a part of many cod clans from different countries and all the clans I have been a part of loved COD before the matchmaking, smaller maps (no REAL use for a sniper rifle; quick scopes are realistic lol), smaller # of players, less customizable for mods and mapping, no private dedicated servers for the pc community to thrive.

I am still in 2 different COD clans and both have tried to move to the new CODs and have moved back to COD4 and WaW. The others that I have been a part of have left COD completely and none play the new CODs for more than 3 months. BF1 has picked up the shambles of what were once very strong COD communities.

As for hardcore servers, aim makes sense. You have to aim regardless of hardcore or not. It doesnt make sense for normal health because, not everyone has 100hp and a shot to the chest doesnt take you down "x" amount of health. If you get hit in the chest, your lungs can fill up with blood and you die. It's called reality. Makes sense. A head shot and most likely you are dead. These new cods are just run and gun games which dont make sense, since in real war, we dont just run out of cover unless you want to die fast and foolishly.

6v6 is for people who want to have limits to war and cant think or play tactically besides running and gunning. Good luck with that if you decide to do that in real combat situations!

These war games were made to try and simulate as much as they could, real combat while still trying to make the game, "a game."

If you want 6v6, run and gun, go play the new cods. Oh wait, the player base is almost non existent. Wonder why?!

These new CODS are just quick reflex games which is fun, but there is no variety where you play as a team cover different line of sight angles as you move up the offensive line at your teams pace (fast, medium or slow). These new CODS are just about who has the fastest reflexes and that is just one speed whereas the old CODS required more tactics as you had to play against different paces of speed and can still use your reflexes.

But a person who has visual of an angle for a longer time and is under cover is at a bigger advantage than someone who runs around a corner and has to scan the area before spotting someone that is behind cover.

So in essence, you want Run and Gun which is fast paced only, go play the new CODs with the "large" playerbase.

There is probably a reason you decided to come check out these older CODs and arent playin the newest CODs.

[Sherms]

BTW, it is hard to take a person seriously when they have less than 200 hrs between MW2, BLOP2, BLOPS3

It's like taking a review of a car from someone who sat in the car but didnt even drive it.

[nomorevideos]

Originally posted by PDEAlastora:

Heh if it was only 6 vs 6, I'd probably have never went these many years with COD. I play a couple of BF games, but COD is different in what it does. People always bring up BF when talking about number of players or vehicles haha. COD had vehicles going way back as well. In my opinion, 6 vs 6 for dedi servers would be a waste, although they are done on games like MW3 which is 18 players, but MW3 has small maps and a bunch of empty servers. If Homefront had a chance to properly develop, I'd probably be on that as it's a good blend of both games which I'd like to see.

Let me ask you this: If CODWWII introduced 48 players on larger maps than WAW, would that be cool, or would you still prefer a quiet 6 vs 6? I played 4-player splitscreen Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, and Halo when I had a console, but started online multiplayer on PC first. I'm usually kill kill kill kill kill kill and on and on and then the occasional death hehe. For some players, I can understand though. Lots of people need matchmaking as they may not be as fast to react when there's lots of action.

If you feel up to it, check out the map Outskirts when it's being played and let me know your opinion. Outskirts is the biggest MP map and a lot of areas don't even get used, even with 40+ players. I'd like to know how that feels to you.

Dedicated servers are and will always be better than peer to peer. If you wanna play peer to peer, go play on console. Simple as that. Actually, when it comes to any CoD and its multiplayer mode, just play on console. I know the FOV is ♥♥♥♥ (unless you never got used to 90+, then you're still able to endure it) and framerates aren't perfect depending what title you play (though up until Ghosts or AW it's actually at around 60fps in mp mode), but at least there is a decent player population. CoD on PC is dead. The majority left playing are hardcore players (not as in the game mode, but rather the dedication of the player), ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and literally hundreds of angry germans who will flame the text and audio chat with their sauerkraut attitude. Also I am talking about the entire franchise again, not about w@w as single game.

[nomorevideos]

Originally posted by Sherms:

BTW, it is hard to take a person seriously when they have less than 200 hrs between MW2, BLOP2, BLOPS3

It's like taking a review of a car from someone who sat in the car but didnt even drive it.

People play on console too and I bet from the title of this thread OP is a former console player. Not trying to defend OP, but jsut wanna let you know that PC isn't the only platform where CoD is available. Also please try not to go on a rant how "PC is the best way to play CoD because resolution and blahblah", because it simply isn't. I'd trade a "bit politer" and bigger playerbase any day over the potentially 140fps+ (if you have a fitting monitor) and higher resolutions. Though at this point I sadly couldn't go back to the horrible 60-70 FOV.

[Eddie H]

Yes I did use to play all these old cod games a lot on ps3 for hundreds of hours! and apart from the FOV the experience is much better than PC. but waw is filled with hackers and mod menus on consoles now :( I bought them on PC hoping to get a similar experience but with nicer graphics and framerates and M&K controls. MW2 and MW3 is still pretty decent on here though as that has proper match making, and have yet to come across any hackers, never have trouble finding games either and never much lag. I shall just have to live with playing them... as dedicated servers just allow people to basterdize these classic old games. such a shame :(

[Alastora]

Originally posted by nomorevideos:

Originally posted by PDEAlastora:

Dedicated servers are and will always be better than peer to peer. If you wanna play peer to peer, go play on console. Simple as that. Actually, when it comes to any CoD and its multiplayer mode, just play on console. I know the FOV is ♥♥♥♥ (unless you never got used to 90+, then you're still able to endure it) and framerates aren't perfect depending what title you play (though up until Ghosts or AW it's actually at around 60fps in mp mode), but at least there is a decent player population. CoD on PC is dead. The majority left playing are hardcore players (not as in the game mode, but rather the dedication of the player), ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and literally hundreds of angry germans who will flame the text and audio chat with their sauerkraut attitude. Also I am talking about the entire franchise again, not about w@w as single game.

Learn to quote the right person. For some reason, you always seem to quote me instead of the main topic.

Originally posted by doubleAA:

I shall just have to live with playing them... as dedicated servers just allow people to basterdize these classic old games. such a shame :(

Bast*rdize? Yes, stick to MW2 and 3. There's also remastered/ported options on newer consoles. Handholding is best for you.

[nomorevideos]

Originally posted by PDEAlastora:

Originally posted by nomorevideos:

Dedicated servers are and will always be better than peer to peer. If you wanna play peer to peer, go play on console. Simple as that. Actually, when it comes to any CoD and its multiplayer mode, just play on console. I know the FOV is ♥♥♥♥ (unless you never got used to 90+, then you're still able to endure it) and framerates aren't perfect depending what title you play (though up until Ghosts or AW it's actually at around 60fps in mp mode), but at least there is a decent player population. CoD on PC is dead. The majority left playing are hardcore players (not as in the game mode, but rather the dedication of the player), ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and literally hundreds of angry germans who will flame the text and audio chat with their sauerkraut attitude. Also I am talking about the entire franchise again, not about w@w as single game.

Learn to quote the right person. For some reason, you always seem to quote me instead of the main topic.

Originally posted by doubleAA:

I shall just have to live with playing them... as dedicated servers just allow people to basterdize these classic old games. such a shame :(

Bast*rdize? Yes, stick to MW2 and 3. There's also remastered/ported options on newer consoles. Handholding is best for you.

First off, I know how to "quote the right person" and I am pretty sure that I clicked on OP's post and not yours. Anyways, maybe I just clicked on yours by accident/out of habit. In case that happened, sorry for all the trouble I caused you buddy.