I forget what game long ago did this. It wasn't tribes 1, but there was a FPS type of game that didn't have dedicated servers for whatever reason, and it was "cheat city." The games biggest and really only flaw online was cheaters were uncontrollable and pretty much made finding a solid OMGHAX free game undoable.
its killing me, I remember you could play with alot of people, and it was WAAAAAY back when Gamespy first came out. You were forced to use the GS server browser, which only showed you servers in your area. Anyways, it was hosted by one of the players and putting the lag aside (which was also a big problem even on cable hosted machines), there were no cheat free games. Might run into similar problems with Modern warfare as well :(
there is still VAC(which banns after some time so u dont find out which hack doesnt work(at least not so fast - more ppl use it in the time and get banned), and not only kicks like punkbuster does most of the time) + im pretty sure they will (need to) implement a votekick, problem solved.
PS: im not sure if vac banns are only global for one engine or all vac supported games somebody has on steam, i know(funny reads in the steam forums of all the haxx0rs) if you get banned in something like cs, it will ban you in all source games you got on this account. (still wanna try cheating?)
PPS: And mw2 cost a LOT(up to 60$ if im right?) so risking a ban at first pretty much hurts even more.
PPPS: i see a new market in anticheat engines - for valve :O, making vac better - sells more copys -> more money!
Probably wouldn't buy it/cancel pre-order. Along with being very sad about the decision to not include a separate dedicated server package. It was one of my worries when they decided not to go with the source engine. They would miss out on all those features.
<!--quoteo(post=1736501:date=Nov 6 2009, 05:10 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Nov 6 2009, 05:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why you'd ask this when it has already been said there will be a dedicated server with the game release.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1736483:date=Nov 6 2009, 09:37 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Nov 6 2009, 09:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is still VAC(which banns after some time so u dont find out which hack doesnt work(at least not so fast - more ppl use it in the time and get banned), and not only kicks like punkbuster does most of the time) + im pretty sure they will (need to) implement a votekick, problem solved.
PS: im not sure if vac banns are only global for one engine or all vac supported games somebody has on steam, i know(funny reads in the steam forums of all the haxx0rs) if you get banned in something like cs, it will ban you in all source games you got on this account. (still wanna try cheating?)
PPS: And mw2 cost a LOT(up to 60$ if im right?) so risking a ban at first pretty much hurts even more.
PPPS: i see a new market in anticheat engines - for valve :O, making vac better - sells more copys -> more money!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While cheating is lame, the VAC solution of banning you from ALL VAC secured games is ridiculous - people are seriously lacking perspective.
The monetary damage you incur for actually breaking REAL laws can be less than that incurred for mildly inconveniencing some people in a fricking video game. Yeah that makes sense.
What, are we going to start chopping off hands for petty theft again too?
Especially since VAC has a noted REAL history of false positives.
<!--quoteo(post=1736479:date=Nov 6 2009, 03:43 AM:name=sicbud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sicbud @ Nov 6 2009, 03:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, how would you react if UWE announced that NS2 would not be supporting dedicated servers and would only be P2P like Modern Warfare 2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@ Temphage I can't see why you'd have a problem with VAC banning people from VAC secured servers for all games. If someone does it in one they're more than likely going to do it in another. I've never come across VAC giving false positives either (not saying it doesn't happen, but noone I know has ever encountered it). The cheaters have no leg to stand on, they agreed to Steams EULA when they signed up, they broke it so Valve can do whatever they deam fair.
No dedicated servers is a terrible idea for a FPS I don't know what Modern Warfare are thinking, I can't think of any successful P2P FPS off the top of my head (last one I head was dragon rising *shudder*). That was traded in after a week.
<!--quoteo(post=1736508:date=Nov 6 2009, 01:41 PM:name=Rhodri)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rhodri @ Nov 6 2009, 01:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736508"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@ Temphage I can't see why you'd have a problem with VAC banning people from VAC secured servers for all games. If someone does it in one they're more than likely going to do it in another. I've never come across VAC giving false positives either (not saying it doesn't happen, but noone I know has ever encountered it). The cheaters have no leg to stand on, they agreed to Steams EULA when they signed up, they broke it so Valve can do whatever they deam fair.
No dedicated servers is a terrible idea for a FPS I don't know what Modern Warfare are thinking, I can't think of any successful P2P FPS off the top of my head (last one I head was dragon rising *shudder*). That was traded in after a week.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In most european countrys (germany got that even better) eula's do mean a ###### ;D
<!--quoteo(post=1736500:date=Nov 6 2009, 12:09 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 6 2009, 12:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736500"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That horrible abomination unto its name, Shadowrun didn't have dedicated servers.
Hey, the game's dead! Weird.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shadowrun does support dedicated servers and the game is not dead. Interesting that you use that game as an example for why you need dedicated servers, as there currently are none running. There is still a good size player base though, and if it wasn't for matchmaking the game would actually be dead.
Anyway, I sorta agree what John Carmack <a href="http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/11/dedicated-servers-and-rage-news-you-probably-dont-want-to-hear.html" target="_blank">said recently</a> when he said that servers are of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming. Skill based automated matchmaking with parties is such a better system, and if the game runs well hosted on home connections (peer to peer or server/client), then I am all for it.
The only real reason I see for keeping dedicated servers around are for things like clan servers or something along that line, but competitive gaming is alive and well on the consoles in games like modern warfare and halo without these things, which makes me wonder if it is really even needed. Of course ideally it would be great to have both.
<!--quoteo(post=1736481:date=Nov 6 2009, 04:52 AM:name=corpsman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (corpsman @ Nov 6 2009, 04:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I forget what game long ago did this. It wasn't tribes 1, but there was a FPS type of game that didn't have dedicated servers for whatever reason, and it was "cheat city." The games biggest and really only flaw online was cheaters were uncontrollable and pretty much made finding a solid OMGHAX free game undoable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not the game your thinking of but Combat Arms has a central server system and has had a terrible hacker problem.
Ok, this is a totally pointless thread. Discussing a "what-if" that has never been hinted at happening. Moving to off topic to continue bashing other games that have done this :P
<!--quoteo(post=1736603:date=Nov 6 2009, 10:16 PM:name=Konohas Perverted Hermit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Konohas Perverted Hermit @ Nov 6 2009, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736603"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Easy, I would be like cool, less 10 year olds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Modern warfare 2 is getting what it deserves. Too many server admins make stupid ass rules that ruin the gameplay of the game, who the hell bans people for balanced perks and weapons built into the game. Nearly every server wrecks the game, and infinity ward is putting a end to it. Thanks, server admins.
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
Thanks for your blind ignorance fuzzy. I guess getting burned by one server is so bad that you ignore the 17,999 other ones? When your precious forced 9v9 p2p matches, full of nothing but mic spammers and map exploiters get too much for your tiny mind to handle, maybe you'll wonder what happened?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2009
GTFO, I hate this discussion!
Dedicated servers mean low ping, communities around servers, LOW PING, clan servers, LOW PING, admins, LOW PING! Possibility to play on LAN (lan parties anyone?) and LOW PING!
Did I mention they are good for low ping? Go host 4vs4 on your crappy local connection peer to peer crap, while running the game client on the same machine. Damnit that is a tech dating back to the early days of online gaming (Doom, Duke3d)! Seriously GTFO! As long as the infrastructure is not there yet, no company can guarantee worldwide performance and support for online play without bleeding money for the serverfarms (which are then dedicated servers D'OH!), especially for a larger playercount!
Game development is all about GOING FORWARD not backwards in time.
/rant mode off
There is no way in hell anyone with half a brain can seriously defend peer to peer matchmaking for games that are supposed to be played with an amount of players that exceed the client connection capacity. Because that is what it means if dedicated servers are gone. As long as this is not up to par yet, peer to peer for 16vs16 or larger games is simply no option or even possible with people jittering all over you screen due to packet-loss and latencies that are insanely high!
IF they would announce something silly like that, i would most propably ask for a refund and start something like THIS petition to make their scrotums twitch in terror <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw" target="_blank">http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw</a> <- modern warfare dedicated server petition
<!--quoteo(post=1736945:date=Nov 9 2009, 10:53 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Nov 9 2009, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->GTFO, I hate this discussion!
Dedicated servers mean low ping, communities around servers, LOW PING, clan servers, LOW PING, admins, LOW PING! Possibility to play on LAN (lan parties anyone?) and LOW PING!
Did I mention they are good for low ping? Go host 4vs4 on your crappy local connection peer to peer crap, while running the game client on the same machine. Damnit that is a tech dating back to the early days of online gaming (Doom, Duke3d)! Seriously GTFO! As long as the infrastructure is not there yet, no company can guarantee worldwide performance and support for online play without bleeding money for the serverfarms (which are then dedicated servers D'OH!), especially for a larger playercount!
Game development is all about GOING FORWARD not backwards in time.
/rant mode off
There is no way in hell anyone with half a brain can seriously defend peer to peer matchmaking for games that are supposed to be played with an amount of players that exceed the client connection capacity. Because that is what it means if dedicated servers are gone. As long as this is not up to par yet, peer to peer for 16vs16 or larger games is simply no option or even possible with people jittering all over you screen due to packet-loss and latencies that are insanely high!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's be fair here. There's a significant number of players out there (read: X-Box Live-type players, kiddies or otherwise) who are really looking for the 6v6 or less games because you can actually wrap your head around the strategies involved. I'll be honest: I've had lots of fun on a party voice chat in X-Box Live with 3 of my friends where we're matched with 4 other players, play some kind of tactical game type (CTF, 'Bomb the target', etc) and then we're matched with 4 new people for the next one.
This is a completely different mindset and style of playing an FPS, but that doesn't make it less <i>valid</i> or anything.
Don't get me wrong, I love old fashion FPS communities and 'Ye Old Ways.' But it doesn't mean that the lack of dedicated server support means that Infinity Ward is trying to make the same experience for less. I would hope they know that it's a completely different ballgame without dedicated servers, and that's what they want.
Personally, I think it's a mistake. I'm just saying that peer-to-peer match making is actually a valid way to do multiplayer, and it will become more and more valid and practical as bandwidth and processing power increase.
I'm with Drfuzzy on this. Pretty annoying in MW1 to get hit by surprise, jump and turn on reflex, and get a lucky headshot off. Then get banned for bunnyhopping.
Much as I'm against losing dedicated servers I played some MW2 MP today and it wasn't half bad. The only noticeable lag is an enemy dying to your shots, the rest of it is fine.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1737003:date=Nov 10 2009, 03:25 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Nov 10 2009, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1737003"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Don't get me wrong, I love old fashion FPS communities and 'Ye Old Ways.'<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny thing is that the "Ye Old Ways" is what console matchmaking peer2peer multiplayer is based on. Like I said, dating back to the early days of multiplayer.
But you do have a fair point that server admins can indeed screw up the servers, however. My question is: are all servers like this, or are a few bad apples screwing over common sense? I know from my experience in other games that there are always a few servers with moronic admins and/or rules:
Worst example for me was in Forgotten Hope - a bf1942 mod, where there was/is a server called Arischer Kämpfer with the following things<ul><li>Kicking good players that played on the allied team, because the Axis team must win and a good allied player might stop this from happening</li><li>Kicking players because they want the Königs Tiger and those players happen to drive them</li><li>Kicking players who destroy the Königs Tiger (cause it is quite easy if you know how, see point one)</li><li>Kicking players if they say something against their racism and fascism chats</li></ul>
But even so, that was one extreme example out of a large list of good servers with good admins and mod server were easily recognized due to filters...
I'm sure that even in the world of CoD there are good servers as well and something called a favorites list...
And there is only so much an anti-cheat system can do like Vac (which is slow with bans) and Punkbuster. Good admins are much better then any of these things...
<!--quoteo(post=1736808:date=Nov 9 2009, 01:43 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drfuzzy @ Nov 9 2009, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1736808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Modern warfare 2 is getting what it deserves. Too many server admins make stupid ass rules that ruin the gameplay of the game, who the hell bans people for balanced perks and weapons built into the game. Nearly every server wrecks the game, and infinity ward is putting a end to it. Thanks, server admins.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not like that will stop the masses from buying the game.
Comments
I'd cry more about the FOV of 65 in the pc version.
its killing me, I remember you could play with alot of people, and it was WAAAAAY back when Gamespy first came out. You were forced to use the GS server browser, which only showed you servers in your area. Anyways, it was hosted by one of the players and putting the lag aside (which was also a big problem even on cable hosted machines), there were no cheat free games. Might run into similar problems with Modern warfare as well :(
PS: im not sure if vac banns are only global for one engine or all vac supported games somebody has on steam, i know(funny reads in the steam forums of all the haxx0rs) if you get banned in something like cs, it will ban you in all source games you got on this account. (still wanna try cheating?)
PPS: And mw2 cost a LOT(up to 60$ if im right?) so risking a ban at first pretty much hurts even more.
PPPS: i see a new market in anticheat engines - for valve :O, making vac better - sells more copys -> more money!
Hey, the game's dead! Weird.
To start a discussion? For the hell of it?
I realize it has already been announced.
PS: im not sure if vac banns are only global for one engine or all vac supported games somebody has on steam, i know(funny reads in the steam forums of all the haxx0rs) if you get banned in something like cs, it will ban you in all source games you got on this account. (still wanna try cheating?)
PPS: And mw2 cost a LOT(up to 60$ if im right?) so risking a ban at first pretty much hurts even more.
PPPS: i see a new market in anticheat engines - for valve :O, making vac better - sells more copys -> more money!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While cheating is lame, the VAC solution of banning you from ALL VAC secured games is ridiculous - people are seriously lacking perspective.
The monetary damage you incur for actually breaking REAL laws can be less than that incurred for mildly inconveniencing some people in a fricking video game. Yeah that makes sense.
What, are we going to start chopping off hands for petty theft again too?
Especially since VAC has a noted REAL history of false positives.
I would make a mod that supports it.
No dedicated servers is a terrible idea for a FPS I don't know what Modern Warfare are thinking, I can't think of any successful P2P FPS off the top of my head (last one I head was dragon rising *shudder*). That was traded in after a week.
No dedicated servers is a terrible idea for a FPS I don't know what Modern Warfare are thinking, I can't think of any successful P2P FPS off the top of my head (last one I head was dragon rising *shudder*). That was traded in after a week.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In most european countrys (germany got that even better) eula's do mean a ###### ;D
Hey, the game's dead! Weird.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shadowrun does support dedicated servers and the game is not dead. Interesting that you use that game as an example for why you need dedicated servers, as there currently are none running. There is still a good size player base though, and if it wasn't for matchmaking the game would actually be dead.
Anyway, I sorta agree what John Carmack <a href="http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/11/dedicated-servers-and-rage-news-you-probably-dont-want-to-hear.html" target="_blank">said recently</a> when he said that servers are of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming. Skill based automated matchmaking with parties is such a better system, and if the game runs well hosted on home connections (peer to peer or server/client), then I am all for it.
The only real reason I see for keeping dedicated servers around are for things like clan servers or something along that line, but competitive gaming is alive and well on the consoles in games like modern warfare and halo without these things, which makes me wonder if it is really even needed. Of course ideally it would be great to have both.
Not the game your thinking of but Combat Arms has a central server system and has had a terrible hacker problem.
huh?
Dedicated servers mean low ping, communities around servers, LOW PING, clan servers, LOW PING, admins, LOW PING! Possibility to play on LAN (lan parties anyone?) and LOW PING!
Did I mention they are good for low ping? Go host 4vs4 on your crappy local connection peer to peer crap, while running the game client on the same machine. Damnit that is a tech dating back to the early days of online gaming (Doom, Duke3d)! Seriously GTFO! As long as the infrastructure is not there yet, no company can guarantee worldwide performance and support for online play without bleeding money for the serverfarms (which are then dedicated servers D'OH!), especially for a larger playercount!
Game development is all about GOING FORWARD not backwards in time.
/rant mode off
There is no way in hell anyone with half a brain can seriously defend peer to peer matchmaking for games that are supposed to be played with an amount of players that exceed the client connection capacity. Because that is what it means if dedicated servers are gone. As long as this is not up to par yet, peer to peer for 16vs16 or larger games is simply no option or even possible with people jittering all over you screen due to packet-loss and latencies that are insanely high!
Dedicated servers mean low ping, communities around servers, LOW PING, clan servers, LOW PING, admins, LOW PING! Possibility to play on LAN (lan parties anyone?) and LOW PING!
Did I mention they are good for low ping? Go host 4vs4 on your crappy local connection peer to peer crap, while running the game client on the same machine. Damnit that is a tech dating back to the early days of online gaming (Doom, Duke3d)! Seriously GTFO! As long as the infrastructure is not there yet, no company can guarantee worldwide performance and support for online play without bleeding money for the serverfarms (which are then dedicated servers D'OH!), especially for a larger playercount!
Game development is all about GOING FORWARD not backwards in time.
/rant mode off
There is no way in hell anyone with half a brain can seriously defend peer to peer matchmaking for games that are supposed to be played with an amount of players that exceed the client connection capacity. Because that is what it means if dedicated servers are gone. As long as this is not up to par yet, peer to peer for 16vs16 or larger games is simply no option or even possible with people jittering all over you screen due to packet-loss and latencies that are insanely high!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's be fair here. There's a significant number of players out there (read: X-Box Live-type players, kiddies or otherwise) who are really looking for the 6v6 or less games because you can actually wrap your head around the strategies involved. I'll be honest: I've had lots of fun on a party voice chat in X-Box Live with 3 of my friends where we're matched with 4 other players, play some kind of tactical game type (CTF, 'Bomb the target', etc) and then we're matched with 4 new people for the next one.
This is a completely different mindset and style of playing an FPS, but that doesn't make it less <i>valid</i> or anything.
Don't get me wrong, I love old fashion FPS communities and 'Ye Old Ways.' But it doesn't mean that the lack of dedicated server support means that Infinity Ward is trying to make the same experience for less. I would hope they know that it's a completely different ballgame without dedicated servers, and that's what they want.
Personally, I think it's a mistake. I'm just saying that peer-to-peer match making is actually a valid way to do multiplayer, and it will become more and more valid and practical as bandwidth and processing power increase.
Much as I'm against losing dedicated servers I played some MW2 MP today and it wasn't half bad. The only noticeable lag is an enemy dying to your shots, the rest of it is fine.
Funny thing is that the "Ye Old Ways" is what console matchmaking peer2peer multiplayer is based on. Like I said, dating back to the early days of multiplayer.
But you do have a fair point that server admins can indeed screw up the servers, however. My question is: are all servers like this, or are a few bad apples screwing over common sense? I know from my experience in other games that there are always a few servers with moronic admins and/or rules:
Worst example for me was in Forgotten Hope - a bf1942 mod, where there was/is a server called Arischer Kämpfer with the following things<ul><li>Kicking good players that played on the allied team, because the Axis team must win and a good allied player might stop this from happening</li><li>Kicking players because they want the Königs Tiger and those players happen to drive them</li><li>Kicking players who destroy the Königs Tiger (cause it is quite easy if you know how, see point one)</li><li>Kicking players if they say something against their racism and fascism chats</li></ul>
But even so, that was one extreme example out of a large list of good servers with good admins and mod server were easily recognized due to filters...
I'm sure that even in the world of CoD there are good servers as well and something called a favorites list...
And there is only so much an anti-cheat system can do like Vac (which is slow with bans) and Punkbuster. Good admins are much better then any of these things...
Its not like that will stop the masses from buying the game.
Enuff Said.