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

Forums - PC - Modern Warfare 2 (PC) MP capped at 9v9 players

JaggedSac on 08 November 2009
psychoBrew said:
JaggedSac said:

I disagree, player count should revolve around the game's mechanics and maps.  If IW makes a really taut small squad combat game, I don't think they should be forced to provide mechanics to organize a large 32v32 game.

A 32v32 CoD match is a spawn and grenade spam fest.  A 32v32 Battlefield game is a completely different story.


The point is let the players decide.  You do think people have brains and are capable of making decisions for something as simple as what is fun, don't you?  If a group of people feel like goofing off with 32v32 on a map designed for 9v9, who is that hurting?  These restrictions are typical console bs and don't belong on the PC.  I can't believe you support IW for thinking they know how to make someone have fun better than the individual can figure it out on their own.

In any case, maps designed for 9v9 are not very good for PC standards.

LOL.  The bolded makes no fucking sense at all.

As for the first paragraph, I can kinda see your point, but IW's decision to use a matchmaking system based on rank and peer to peer hosting is what is causing this limitation.  It is a base game design that is causing the inability to do these large numbers of players.  IW decided that this type of online matchmaking was a better mechanic than having these ridiculous numbers of players on maps designed for close and personal squads.  Would this work for Battlefield?  Hell no.  Would this work for a game like Tribes?  Hell no.  Is it fine for CoD?  Yes.  Here is Bungie's thoughts on matchmaking from GDC 2008.  Notice the last line of the presentation.  "Peer to peer is the future".  You might want to get used to this, as IW and id seem to have drunk Bungie's koolaid.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91575&page=1



Around the Network
shio on 10 November 2009
JaggedSac said:
psychoBrew said:
JaggedSac said:

I disagree, player count should revolve around the game's mechanics and maps.  If IW makes a really taut small squad combat game, I don't think they should be forced to provide mechanics to organize a large 32v32 game.

A 32v32 CoD match is a spawn and grenade spam fest.  A 32v32 Battlefield game is a completely different story.


The point is let the players decide.  You do think people have brains and are capable of making decisions for something as simple as what is fun, don't you?  If a group of people feel like goofing off with 32v32 on a map designed for 9v9, who is that hurting?  These restrictions are typical console bs and don't belong on the PC.  I can't believe you support IW for thinking they know how to make someone have fun better than the individual can figure it out on their own.

In any case, maps designed for 9v9 are not very good for PC standards.

LOL.  The bolded makes no fucking sense at all.

As for the first paragraph, I can kinda see your point, but IW's decision to use a matchmaking system based on rank and peer to peer hosting is what is causing this limitation.  It is a base game design that is causing the inability to do these large numbers of players.  IW decided that this type of online matchmaking was a better mechanic than having these ridiculous numbers of players on maps designed for close and personal squads.  Would this work for Battlefield?  Hell no.  Would this work for a game like Tribes?  Hell no.  Is it fine for CoD?  Yes.  Here is Bungie's thoughts on matchmaking from GDC 2008.  Notice the last line of the presentation.  "Peer to peer is the future".  You might want to get used to this, as IW and id seem to have drunk Bungie's koolaid.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91575&page=1

P2P isn't the future when alot more than just having a good connection is lost. And P2P is but the tip of the iceberg of what IW did to MW2:

Explain to me why they had to remove lean, increased price, removed mod support, no custom maps, etc...



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
superchunk on 10 November 2009

wow, seriously!

I didn't care about dedicated servers much, but PC shooters have had 64 players as an option for a long time now. 18 is just stupid and definitely keeping me from buying it.

I'm glad I'm waiting the next Battlefield game. Far better IP anyways.



JaggedSac on 10 November 2009
shio said:
JaggedSac said:

LOL.  The bolded makes no fucking sense at all.

As for the first paragraph, I can kinda see your point, but IW's decision to use a matchmaking system based on rank and peer to peer hosting is what is causing this limitation.  It is a base game design that is causing the inability to do these large numbers of players.  IW decided that this type of online matchmaking was a better mechanic than having these ridiculous numbers of players on maps designed for close and personal squads.  Would this work for Battlefield?  Hell no.  Would this work for a game like Tribes?  Hell no.  Is it fine for CoD?  Yes.  Here is Bungie's thoughts on matchmaking from GDC 2008.  Notice the last line of the presentation.  "Peer to peer is the future".  You might want to get used to this, as IW and id seem to have drunk Bungie's koolaid.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91575&page=1

P2P isn't the future when alot more than just having a good connection is lost. And P2P is but the tip of the iceberg of what IW did to MW2:

 

Explain to me why they had to remove lean, increased price, removed mod support, no custom maps, etc...

I laugh everytime someone talks about fucking leaning.

Increased price was most likely Activision's call.  Probably because they think people will pay it.  It is a top seller on Steam right now.  We shall see if it stays there.

Mod and map support is probably due to the P2P matchmaking.  In order to support that, IW would have to have developed a submission system for mods and maps so that they could roll them out into playlists.  They obviously didn't think it was worth it.  If it is highly demanded, future games that use P2P matchmaking will probably implement a system enabling it.

As far as good connection, I play P2P games online all the time and I whoop the shit out of people.  Host, no host, doesn't matter to me.  Maybe I have an uber connection or something, but I have absolutely no complaints about P2P gaming.