By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - MW2 BestBuy Dev chat: "PC has custom stuff like mouse control..."

vlad321 on 05 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
IllegalPaladin said:
JaggedSac said:

Just so people know, Valve implements their L4D "matchmaking"(I use the term loosely) using dedicated servers.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169669

"After spending a day at Valve's offices playing Left 4 Dead for the premier episode of the next season of the 1UP Show, the 1UP crew came away with a truckload of new info on the Xbox 360 version of the game. Without a doubt the biggest news is that Valve will be running dedicated servers on Microsoft's Live online service. And while they didn't indicate how many exactly they'd have going, they did imply that they'd have everyone covered, as in when you played online, you'd be on a dedicated server, period. That alone should go a long way toward making the game a great online experience, but they haven't stopped there. Splitscreen play will also allow you and a friend to play together on Live from one 360, and you'll be able to slice the screen whichever way you like -- horizontally or vertically."

 

This is in response to the person above griping about L4D not having dedicated servers.

Your point? I was playing the PC version.

Regardless, my general issue in my post was that I'm not a fan of having little control over what matches I'm placed into when they've generally ended up being very high ping games (200-300+). I've been placed into what looks like dedicated servers (assuming that's why there's a MOTD) and everybody there has had a high ping or in games where one guy has a ping of 50 and the rest have 400-700 ping. Hell, I've even had a high ping as a lobby host...

Going to a different game such as Team Fortress 2 for example, I'll do a server refresh and sort by the lowest ping servers (and other filters such as map and such) and I'll usually end up in servers where my ping is under 75-80 and I'm usually joining full 24 or 32 player servers.

That would be a problem with their matchmaking algorithms, not matchmaking in general.  In fact that would be quite easy to rectify.  Latency would be the highest priority in a good matchmaking system.  Perhaps Valve did not do this.

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
JaggedSac on 05 November 2009
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
IllegalPaladin said:
JaggedSac said:

Just so people know, Valve implements their L4D "matchmaking"(I use the term loosely) using dedicated servers.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169669

"After spending a day at Valve's offices playing Left 4 Dead for the premier episode of the next season of the 1UP Show, the 1UP crew came away with a truckload of new info on the Xbox 360 version of the game. Without a doubt the biggest news is that Valve will be running dedicated servers on Microsoft's Live online service. And while they didn't indicate how many exactly they'd have going, they did imply that they'd have everyone covered, as in when you played online, you'd be on a dedicated server, period. That alone should go a long way toward making the game a great online experience, but they haven't stopped there. Splitscreen play will also allow you and a friend to play together on Live from one 360, and you'll be able to slice the screen whichever way you like -- horizontally or vertically."

 

This is in response to the person above griping about L4D not having dedicated servers.

Your point? I was playing the PC version.

Regardless, my general issue in my post was that I'm not a fan of having little control over what matches I'm placed into when they've generally ended up being very high ping games (200-300+). I've been placed into what looks like dedicated servers (assuming that's why there's a MOTD) and everybody there has had a high ping or in games where one guy has a ping of 50 and the rest have 400-700 ping. Hell, I've even had a high ping as a lobby host...

Going to a different game such as Team Fortress 2 for example, I'll do a server refresh and sort by the lowest ping servers (and other filters such as map and such) and I'll usually end up in servers where my ping is under 75-80 and I'm usually joining full 24 or 32 player servers.

That would be a problem with their matchmaking algorithms, not matchmaking in general.  In fact that would be quite easy to rectify.  Latency would be the highest priority in a good matchmaking system.  Perhaps Valve did not do this.

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.



vlad321 on 05 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
IllegalPaladin said:
JaggedSac said:

Just so people know, Valve implements their L4D "matchmaking"(I use the term loosely) using dedicated servers.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169669

"After spending a day at Valve's offices playing Left 4 Dead for the premier episode of the next season of the 1UP Show, the 1UP crew came away with a truckload of new info on the Xbox 360 version of the game. Without a doubt the biggest news is that Valve will be running dedicated servers on Microsoft's Live online service. And while they didn't indicate how many exactly they'd have going, they did imply that they'd have everyone covered, as in when you played online, you'd be on a dedicated server, period. That alone should go a long way toward making the game a great online experience, but they haven't stopped there. Splitscreen play will also allow you and a friend to play together on Live from one 360, and you'll be able to slice the screen whichever way you like -- horizontally or vertically."

 

This is in response to the person above griping about L4D not having dedicated servers.

Your point? I was playing the PC version.

Regardless, my general issue in my post was that I'm not a fan of having little control over what matches I'm placed into when they've generally ended up being very high ping games (200-300+). I've been placed into what looks like dedicated servers (assuming that's why there's a MOTD) and everybody there has had a high ping or in games where one guy has a ping of 50 and the rest have 400-700 ping. Hell, I've even had a high ping as a lobby host...

Going to a different game such as Team Fortress 2 for example, I'll do a server refresh and sort by the lowest ping servers (and other filters such as map and such) and I'll usually end up in servers where my ping is under 75-80 and I'm usually joining full 24 or 32 player servers.

That would be a problem with their matchmaking algorithms, not matchmaking in general.  In fact that would be quite easy to rectify.  Latency would be the highest priority in a good matchmaking system.  Perhaps Valve did not do this.

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

noname2200 on 05 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:

 

 He should share this pearl of wisdom with Blizzard. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Perhaps Blizzard should share some of their money, since they do not need to ask anyone for any when they make their games :)  Unlike Splash Damage here.

Blizzard isn't its own publisher dude. They haven't been for years. Some publisher has to give them money.

In a separate post you pointed out that no one will give Splash Damage such funding because they (Splash Damage) "do not have the brand power to do so." That is correct. It's also personal to Splash Damage, rather than indicative of the market as a whole. Since I assume you posted that article as proof that the PC-only market is not viable, it seems you've defeated your own point now.

Name me a game that Blizzard did not publish(at least not in some form, because Blizzard usually handles their own North American ditributions, and gets others to do international).

 

Name me the companies making PC only AAA games(budget wise, not score).  I am actually interested in this, as I do not particularly know.  Which somewhat leads credence to my point.

Blizzard doesn't publish most games.

But to address the question you meant, I was referring to Blizzard's non-American operations, where they've had to use Vivendi, and now Activision's, services as the publisher.

As to your second question, "Blizzard" is the correct response. You keep claiming that PC-only can't be done successfully with big titles, but when confronted with the most obvious example of why you're wrong, you fall behind "they don't count." I don't think you've articulated a reason why, but I'm sure you have a good one. And by "good one" I don't mean "they're so good at what they do."

I'd also recommend looking into titles like STALKER, the Total War series, and Warhammer 40k. MMOs are also ridiculously expensive titles to make, but you've already conceded those. If you need more titles, head to PCGamer.com. They've got a nice list.

The facts disprove your assertion. Now, if you're willing to tone things down to "fewer and fewer huge-budget completely PC-exclusive releases that are not in any of these genres and are not from any of this list of publishers and I reserve another qualifier here are coming out nowadays" I would cheerfully concede.



IllegalPaladin on 05 November 2009
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
IllegalPaladin said:
JaggedSac said:

Just so people know, Valve implements their L4D "matchmaking"(I use the term loosely) using dedicated servers.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169669

"After spending a day at Valve's offices playing Left 4 Dead for the premier episode of the next season of the 1UP Show, the 1UP crew came away with a truckload of new info on the Xbox 360 version of the game. Without a doubt the biggest news is that Valve will be running dedicated servers on Microsoft's Live online service. And while they didn't indicate how many exactly they'd have going, they did imply that they'd have everyone covered, as in when you played online, you'd be on a dedicated server, period. That alone should go a long way toward making the game a great online experience, but they haven't stopped there. Splitscreen play will also allow you and a friend to play together on Live from one 360, and you'll be able to slice the screen whichever way you like -- horizontally or vertically."

 

This is in response to the person above griping about L4D not having dedicated servers.

Your point? I was playing the PC version.

Regardless, my general issue in my post was that I'm not a fan of having little control over what matches I'm placed into when they've generally ended up being very high ping games (200-300+). I've been placed into what looks like dedicated servers (assuming that's why there's a MOTD) and everybody there has had a high ping or in games where one guy has a ping of 50 and the rest have 400-700 ping. Hell, I've even had a high ping as a lobby host...

Going to a different game such as Team Fortress 2 for example, I'll do a server refresh and sort by the lowest ping servers (and other filters such as map and such) and I'll usually end up in servers where my ping is under 75-80 and I'm usually joining full 24 or 32 player servers.

That would be a problem with their matchmaking algorithms, not matchmaking in general.  In fact that would be quite easy to rectify.  Latency would be the highest priority in a good matchmaking system.  Perhaps Valve did not do this.

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.

Seems like a lot of effort just to replace what already worked well.



Around the Network
JaggedSac on 05 November 2009
noname2200 said:
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:
JaggedSac said:
noname2200 said:

 

 He should share this pearl of wisdom with Blizzard. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Perhaps Blizzard should share some of their money, since they do not need to ask anyone for any when they make their games :)  Unlike Splash Damage here.

Blizzard isn't its own publisher dude. They haven't been for years. Some publisher has to give them money.

In a separate post you pointed out that no one will give Splash Damage such funding because they (Splash Damage) "do not have the brand power to do so." That is correct. It's also personal to Splash Damage, rather than indicative of the market as a whole. Since I assume you posted that article as proof that the PC-only market is not viable, it seems you've defeated your own point now.

Name me a game that Blizzard did not publish(at least not in some form, because Blizzard usually handles their own North American ditributions, and gets others to do international).

 

Name me the companies making PC only AAA games(budget wise, not score).  I am actually interested in this, as I do not particularly know.  Which somewhat leads credence to my point.

Blizzard doesn't publish most games.

But to address the question you meant, I was referring to Blizzard's non-American operations, where they've had to use Vivendi, and now Activision's, services as the publisher.

As to your second question, "Blizzard" is the correct response. You keep claiming that PC-only can't be done successfully with big titles, but when confronted with the most obvious example of why you're wrong, you fall behind "they don't count." I don't think you've articulated a reason why, but I'm sure you have a good one. And by "good one" I don't mean "they're so good at what they do."

I'd also recommend looking into titles like STALKER, the Total War series, and Warhammer 40k. MMOs are also ridiculously expensive titles to make, but you've already conceded those. If you need more titles, head to PCGamer.com. They've got a nice list.

The facts disprove your assertion. Now, if you're willing to tone things down to "fewer and fewer huge-budget completely PC-exclusive releases that are not in any of these genres and are not from any of this list of publishers and I reserve another qualifier here are coming out nowadays" I would cheerfully concede.

Nowadays is the KEY qualifier here.  Compare the number of PC only AAA titles that are getting released now, to 5, 10, or 15 years ago.  Sure, there are some, but they are few and far between.

 

And as I said, MMOs have yet to be proven effective on consoles so of course they will be PC centric.  The same can be said of strategy games like Total War(although Halo Wars and LOTR:BFME2 were most likely profitable).  Until they are proven effective, why would someone bother making them.  Even listing these, there are a sad number of PC only AAA titles.

 

So maybe it is only for FPS, the PC bread and butter for the past 15 years, that has started to wain on the AAA PC exclusive front.  There is now STALKER and Crysis.  And Crysis is now going multiplat if I am not mistaken.

 

And I wasn't saying Blizzard doesn't count.  I am saying Blizzard is an exception that has the fan following and coffers to make PC exlusive titles.  They don't need to go to someone and ask for money.  If you think they rely on Vivendi or Activision to handle anything other than distribution, I believe you are mistaken.  Other devs are not relying on only distribution cost handling, but development cost handling as well.



vlad321 on 05 November 2009
IllegalPaladin said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
IllegalPaladin said:
JaggedSac said:

Just so people know, Valve implements their L4D "matchmaking"(I use the term loosely) using dedicated servers.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169669

"After spending a day at Valve's offices playing Left 4 Dead for the premier episode of the next season of the 1UP Show, the 1UP crew came away with a truckload of new info on the Xbox 360 version of the game. Without a doubt the biggest news is that Valve will be running dedicated servers on Microsoft's Live online service. And while they didn't indicate how many exactly they'd have going, they did imply that they'd have everyone covered, as in when you played online, you'd be on a dedicated server, period. That alone should go a long way toward making the game a great online experience, but they haven't stopped there. Splitscreen play will also allow you and a friend to play together on Live from one 360, and you'll be able to slice the screen whichever way you like -- horizontally or vertically."

 

This is in response to the person above griping about L4D not having dedicated servers.

Your point? I was playing the PC version.

Regardless, my general issue in my post was that I'm not a fan of having little control over what matches I'm placed into when they've generally ended up being very high ping games (200-300+). I've been placed into what looks like dedicated servers (assuming that's why there's a MOTD) and everybody there has had a high ping or in games where one guy has a ping of 50 and the rest have 400-700 ping. Hell, I've even had a high ping as a lobby host...

Going to a different game such as Team Fortress 2 for example, I'll do a server refresh and sort by the lowest ping servers (and other filters such as map and such) and I'll usually end up in servers where my ping is under 75-80 and I'm usually joining full 24 or 32 player servers.

That would be a problem with their matchmaking algorithms, not matchmaking in general.  In fact that would be quite easy to rectify.  Latency would be the highest priority in a good matchmaking system.  Perhaps Valve did not do this.

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.

Seems like a lot of effort just to replace what already worked well.

That's what I was thinking too...



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

JaggedSac on 05 November 2009
vlad321 said:
IllegalPaladin said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.

Seems like a lot of effort just to replace what already worked well.

That's what I was thinking too...

Well, someone must have a reason.



vlad321 on 05 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:
IllegalPaladin said:
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:

And what if I feel like sacrificing some latency for some other features, such as mods? How would matchmaking handle that then?

Mods would need to be registered with the master server that handles the matchmaking.  Then you can select whichever ones you want to be used when filtering for matchmaking.  The developer could have this automated where people can submit their mods and it shows up, or they could have some quality control over it and only add mods that meet quality standards.  Quite simple if you ask me.  They already do this with playlists.  They could just open up playlist submission to consumers.

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.

Seems like a lot of effort just to replace what already worked well.

That's what I was thinking too...

Well, someone must have a reason.

Probably about as good as the reason to make MW2 crap...



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

JaggedSac on 05 November 2009
vlad321 said:
JaggedSac said:
vlad321 said:
IllegalPaladin said:
vlad321 said:

So I have a selection for the mods, ping, people who play, maps, game type.... sounds an awful lot like a good ol' server browser to me except they spent a hell of a lot more time setting this up.

Seems like a lot of effort just to replace what already worked well.

That's what I was thinking too...

Well, someone must have a reason.

Probably about as good as the reason to make MW2 crap...

LOL.