Call Of Duty: Black Ops 3
Discussion
22 said:
One person being a self-declared beast at the game doesn't explain how whole lobbies/clans can have massively varying results game to game. Having a paddy because there are repeated experiences that go against your IT/competitive gamer insight isn't educating anybody. There have been similar threads on all the CoD games, I don't recall people broadly experiencing the same previously. I'm normally anti-Treyarch, but I WANT to like the game as seemed it had the potential to be half decent.
Seriously? Every cod game get this and thats because people don't understand how networking works. I'm not saying that the game is perfect but it's not for the reasons people band about.
It really annoys me when people go on about lag comp, or say that they shouldn't have any problems because they have a 50mb connection. It just shows a real lack of understanding.
Mastodon2 said:
I hear one guy, trying to make himself out as an internet badass and an Activision apologist, against a tidal wave of complaints that the MP in this game is f
ked. But I suppose we should believe you over thousands of complaints across all the big gaming forums, right?
Because the mindless masses are always right? ked. But I suppose we should believe you over thousands of complaints across all the big gaming forums, right? Not quite. In all the games we've heard from players seemingly on the wrong side of a connection. We've never seen whole teams being hopeless one game and nearly to your standard the next.
Adamantium84 said:
Seriously? Every cod game get this and thats because people don't understand how networking works.
I'm not saying that the game is perfect but it's not for the reasons people band about.
It really annoys me when people go on about lag comp, or say that they shouldn't have any problems because they have a 50mb connection. It just shows a real lack of understanding.
I'm not saying that the game is perfect but it's not for the reasons people band about.
It really annoys me when people go on about lag comp, or say that they shouldn't have any problems because they have a 50mb connection. It just shows a real lack of understanding.
From reading up about the Cod servers I thought the servers were peer to peer with lag compensation built into the network system for the game..
AW was even worse because the matchmaking was solely skill based and didn't take into account regions whatsoever.
AW was seriously iffy and BO3 seems to feel the same way, you can see a guy pop around the corner and before you aim at them they can kill you instantly, while on the kill cam he's hit you with a good few second burst.
Battlefield 4 you get none of the 'lag compensation' issues and they are dedicated servers so it makes sense right?
AW was even worse because the matchmaking was solely skill based and didn't take into account regions whatsoever.
AW was seriously iffy and BO3 seems to feel the same way, you can see a guy pop around the corner and before you aim at them they can kill you instantly, while on the kill cam he's hit you with a good few second burst.
Battlefield 4 you get none of the 'lag compensation' issues and they are dedicated servers so it makes sense right?
TonyTony said:
From reading up about the Cod servers I thought the servers were peer to peer with lag compensation built into the network system for the game..
AW was even worse because the matchmaking was solely skill based and didn't take into account regions whatsoever.
AW was seriously iffy and BO3 seems to feel the same way, you can see a guy pop around the corner and before you aim at them they can kill you instantly, while on the kill cam he's hit you with a good few second burst.
Battlefield 4 you get none of the 'lag compensation' issues and they are dedicated servers so it makes sense right?
I don't know where you were reading but that's wrong. AW was even worse because the matchmaking was solely skill based and didn't take into account regions whatsoever.
AW was seriously iffy and BO3 seems to feel the same way, you can see a guy pop around the corner and before you aim at them they can kill you instantly, while on the kill cam he's hit you with a good few second burst.
Battlefield 4 you get none of the 'lag compensation' issues and they are dedicated servers so it makes sense right?
Traditionally cod was always p2p on console until aw.
Aw has dedicated servers as does bo3.
Lag compensation is present in all online games regardless of whether there are dedicated servers or p2p.
Lag compensation is necessary as everybody in the game has a different ping time to the host and this works to even that out.
These are basics of networking.
Aw did have skill based matchmaking but it still took region into account first.
Bo3 doesn't have skill based matchmaking.
If you are worried about being matched with people far away, buy a router which allows you to define this.
Edited by Adamantium84 on Saturday 21st November 22:05
How did the clans on COD manipulate the system to ensure they were always had the host on their team? I recall in the days before party chat when you'd have a clan of players in the lobby all talking, and they'd say "oh, we're not hosting this, lets look for another" and quite en masse. They could obviously see whether or not they had the hosting player, but I could never see a way to tell. You just had to play and see if you felt fast or slow, deadly of hopeless!
The game is broken,within 1 game you can go from killing people with 3-4 bullets to literally taking 20 odd hits to kill.
What I would say is some player don't have this issue ,it is not skill it is a fked game.
I played ut instagib to a very high competitive level ,I know how to aim and guarantee I am making the first shots on target on at least 80% of encounters ,yet I will lose 70% of them ,despite me having put at least 8-10 bullets into them before they get there first shot off.h
my youngest played for the best sniper clan in Europe ,He is lethal,when he played it he found exactly the same issue ,the one hit sniper rifle ...in some instances was taking 3 bullets to kill ..all with head shots.
What I would say is some player don't have this issue ,it is not skill it is a f
ked game.I played ut instagib to a very high competitive level ,I know how to aim and guarantee I am making the first shots on target on at least 80% of encounters ,yet I will lose 70% of them ,despite me having put at least 8-10 bullets into them before they get there first shot off.h
my youngest played for the best sniper clan in Europe ,He is lethal,when he played it he found exactly the same issue ,the one hit sniper rifle ...in some instances was taking 3 bullets to kill ..all with head shots.
franki68 said:
The game is broken,within 1 game you can go from killing people with 3-4 bullets to literally taking 20 odd hits to kill.
What I would say is some player don't have this issue ,it is not skill it is a fked game.
I played ut instagib to a very high competitive level ,I know how to aim and guarantee I am making the first shots on target on at least 80% of encounters ,yet I will lose 70% of them ,despite me having put at least 8-10 bullets into them before they get there first shot off.h
my youngest played for the best sniper clan in Europe ,He is lethal,when he played it he found exactly the same issue ,the one hit sniper rifle ...in some instances was taking 3 bullets to kill ..all with head shots.
As I said previously, the hit detection in Treyarch games is notoriously iffy. What I would say is some player don't have this issue ,it is not skill it is a f
ked game.I played ut instagib to a very high competitive level ,I know how to aim and guarantee I am making the first shots on target on at least 80% of encounters ,yet I will lose 70% of them ,despite me having put at least 8-10 bullets into them before they get there first shot off.h
my youngest played for the best sniper clan in Europe ,He is lethal,when he played it he found exactly the same issue ,the one hit sniper rifle ...in some instances was taking 3 bullets to kill ..all with head shots.
In fact, tests showed that in bo2 shooting certain parts of a character models body actually did no damage at all. This was hard coded in to the game.
Also, with this game there is an issue with how flinch works. In some instances when shooting first, retaloratory fire will cause you to flinch off target while your opponent does not.
It's a case of learning to manage recoil and flinch to bring yourself back on target.
Treyarch have said that this was a design choice in an attempt to focus more on gun skill in this game.
This can result in instances where you shoot first and lose the gun fight.
(as a side point, people's main reason for not liking ghosts was that the melty kill times meant that whoever shot first would always win the gun fight. The general consensus was that people wanted a game where a higher level of gun skill was needed as this would result in a higher skill gap).
At no point have I said the game is perfect. My points were that the issues people are having are not caused by what they are saying.
To those having problems, what is your NAT type? Have you manually configured your router and Internet settings? When in a match what does your ping normally register as?
I ought not feed the troll, but not once have you tried to explain how whole lobbies can suffer one game and be beasts the next. Different players on varying connections. I built a man-cave a while back for a few of us yokels which is used exclusively for gaming - dedicated (although sometimes poor) infinity broadband and a cracking 4g signal (granted with its own NAT issues). I happily accept the frailties of my own connection(s), it makes less sense to see whole teams of good players either struggling or ruling the roost at the flip of a coin.
I can be part of a team who are, without exception, miles off the pace one game, to getting all my kill streaks, get killed, and then get them all again, with my team mates enjoying broadly the same. I'm not *that* good, but neither was I *that* bad in the previous game. If it was just me, I'd accept some of what you say, as has probably been the case game after game.
This is different, every player struggles once in a while (except you of course) but I have never seen lobbies where the outcome for a whole team is 'decided' by factors beyond the strength of one man's connection.
Of course, I've posted this before with "oh you must be right" as your educating-the-mindless-masses unrivalled insight. Please do try and explain, but probably not by repeating what you've already said as it doesn't quite fit the scenario most of us are seeing.
I can be part of a team who are, without exception, miles off the pace one game, to getting all my kill streaks, get killed, and then get them all again, with my team mates enjoying broadly the same. I'm not *that* good, but neither was I *that* bad in the previous game. If it was just me, I'd accept some of what you say, as has probably been the case game after game.
This is different, every player struggles once in a while (except you of course) but I have never seen lobbies where the outcome for a whole team is 'decided' by factors beyond the strength of one man's connection.
Of course, I've posted this before with "oh you must be right" as your educating-the-mindless-masses unrivalled insight. Please do try and explain, but probably not by repeating what you've already said as it doesn't quite fit the scenario most of us are seeing.
Mastodon2 said:
Guys, guys, don't worry - the game isn't broken, this Activision shill account said so.
Again, do you read my words. I have at no point said that there is nothing wrong with the game. For all intents and purposes it may be broken for some and maybe even all people.
But the reasons for this are not those which are being banded about by people who think that they know what they're talking about.
Now if people are just going to say 'doesnt work' without considering that their network configuration is, at least partially, to blame then fine. But that's very short sighted.
I'm sure that there are, at the very least, some tweaks which you could make which would improve your experience with the game. It may not make it perfect, but at least playable, maybe.
But no I understand its easier to just slate the game and anyone who dares to question your misconceptions.
22 said:
I ought not feed the troll, but not once have you tried to explain how whole lobbies can suffer one game and be beasts the next. Different players on varying connections. I built a man-cave a while back for a few of us yokels which is used exclusively for gaming - dedicated (although sometimes poor) infinity broadband and a cracking 4g signal (granted with its own NAT issues). I happily accept the frailties of my own connection(s), it makes less sense to see whole teams of good players either struggling or ruling the roost at the flip of a coin.
I can be part of a team who are, without exception, miles off the pace one game, to getting all my kill streaks, get killed, and then get them all again, with my team mates enjoying broadly the same. I'm not *that* good, but neither was I *that* bad in the previous game. If it was just me, I'd accept some of what you say, as has probably been the case game after game.
This is different, every player struggles once in a while (except you of course) but I have never seen lobbies where the outcome for a whole team is 'decided' by factors beyond the strength of one man's connection.
Of course, I've posted this before with "oh you must be right" as your educating-the-mindless-masses unrivalled insight. Please do try and explain, but probably not by repeating what you've already said as it doesn't quite fit the scenario most of us are seeing.
I intend to respond to this but it will be a very long post and I don't have time right now. I can be part of a team who are, without exception, miles off the pace one game, to getting all my kill streaks, get killed, and then get them all again, with my team mates enjoying broadly the same. I'm not *that* good, but neither was I *that* bad in the previous game. If it was just me, I'd accept some of what you say, as has probably been the case game after game.
This is different, every player struggles once in a while (except you of course) but I have never seen lobbies where the outcome for a whole team is 'decided' by factors beyond the strength of one man's connection.
Of course, I've posted this before with "oh you must be right" as your educating-the-mindless-masses unrivalled insight. Please do try and explain, but probably not by repeating what you've already said as it doesn't quite fit the scenario most of us are seeing.
I'm sure you'll wait with baited breath.
Well, I made it to level 55. Thank fk for that. I know if I hadn't had the double XP weekend to rely on, I'd never have made it. It just wasn't fun enough, and by level 35 or so I really felt like it had run out of steam. Seeing that the double XP weekend stretched from Friday to Monday morning, I knew I just had to make one last concerted effort to get to level 55, unlock the achievement for doing so and then sling the game into the trade in pile.
I have typically always looked to get to the maximum level or prestige once in COD games, because whether or not you liked or loathed it, it would at least give you some experience to base your assessment of the game on. This is another try hard effort from Treyarch, but despite the effort they've put into it, it comes off like a bag of slack. I will continue to rant in a slightly aimless fashion at things I liked, or didn't like:
1) The weapon selection in the game is piss poor. Despite there being loads of guns, and the differences in handling being noticeable (not hard when it's a fictional arsenal), the good guns are few and far between. The Man O War assault rifle is so much better than anything else in the class that I used it almost exclusively to finish off. You'd be a fool not to go for it the second you unlock it. It sights quickly, especially with a boost from the Perk 1 slot quick sight buff. There is a hint of trigger lag, but not so much you'll feel like you're wielding an LMG. It punches hard, and doesn't recoil much. The accuracy, even without a grip or stock, is just fantastic. The other assault rifles felt like peashooters in comparison. They might have handled quicker but had nowhere near the stopping power of the Man O War. It almost feels like, in the interest of choice, the MOW needs scaled back and the other assault rifles scaled up.
The rest of the weapons being crap is sort of tied into map design. The three channel map design is everywhere in this, and the introduction of waist height cover boxes and longer sight lines is clearly an effort on Treyarch's part to increase the gun skill in this game. This has the effect of stymieing the subs to a degree, they're still ridiculous up close but their usefulness is curtailed. Black Ops 2 was probably the fastest and most intense COD MP, and the SMG ruled the roost in that game. I guess Treyarch didn't want another blitz style shooter like that, and the effort they've made to slow the pace is tangible in lots of the design.
Shotguns, LMG's and sniper rifles, forget it. Not useful enough to trump an SMG or AR.
2) The Specialist system was designed to give every player some creative freedom to style a character how they wanted, and play how they wanted, but it didn't work and it was probably one of the most irritating things about the MP in BO3. Every character looked roughly the same, no matter which colour jacket you selected, so it made everyone feel very samey. There was a lot more personal freedom in choosing aesthetic kit for a generic fighter, rather than having to have a distinct look and feel for each specialist. Like, Battery has an amazing special weapon but her design is crap. That black cyborg guy has the most irritating voice in gaming. The winner's circle jerk after each game only serves to highlight how naff and samey the characters look despite your efforts to style them, whilst also showing of the game's curious inability to display the emblems and calling cards you worked so hard for.
3) As mentioned above, the map design isn't great. Combine was being played again and again in KC lists tonight, because it's one map that always finishes quickly - which means high score. You never run out of time on Combine, despite it being a really basic and tedious map. The central area is a no-man's land save for dashing to get tags. Shootouts down alleyways on the sides of the map feel like playing fking volleyball. Larger, more free form maps like Havoc and Hunted are still st, because by any standard they're boring, particularly Havoc where all the players migrate to the (surprise!) corridor section and the spawns enforce this virtual rope-pull of shooting. I don't know if the best maps will be kept back for DLC but I couldn't give a fk if they were, I won't be playing this again and I'm not sure who would find long term enjoyment in it.
4) As I'd mentioned earlier, the balance between scorestreaks and shooting is better. No longer do you feel like you're constantly spawning to be ttted by another streak. However, the Specialist abilities spoil that balance. War Machine and Scythe are overpowered. Purifier is good but well balanced because of it's range. The Sparrow's arrow is too strong. Other classes have really st specialist weapons. The specialist abilities are also st - what do you really want, an electric cannon of the chance to leap backwards a few steps? A rapid fire grenade launcher or a laughable bullet vest?
The more you play, the more the sense pervades that Treyarch were really struggling to strip things down to the basic, compelling duelling of MW and WaW. However, in the relentless drive to innovate, they spin a few new ideas into the mix and the resulting mess just doesn't work out. Consumer demand has fking wrecked COD, because WaW had the perfect balance of guns, streaks, great maps, good shooting and decent spawns. But every year, there is more slap piled to the point where we're so far removed from a truly incredible COD that I can barely remember what they felt like.
k for that. I know if I hadn't had the double XP weekend to rely on, I'd never have made it. It just wasn't fun enough, and by level 35 or so I really felt like it had run out of steam. Seeing that the double XP weekend stretched from Friday to Monday morning, I knew I just had to make one last concerted effort to get to level 55, unlock the achievement for doing so and then sling the game into the trade in pile. I have typically always looked to get to the maximum level or prestige once in COD games, because whether or not you liked or loathed it, it would at least give you some experience to base your assessment of the game on. This is another try hard effort from Treyarch, but despite the effort they've put into it, it comes off like a bag of slack. I will continue to rant in a slightly aimless fashion at things I liked, or didn't like:
1) The weapon selection in the game is piss poor. Despite there being loads of guns, and the differences in handling being noticeable (not hard when it's a fictional arsenal), the good guns are few and far between. The Man O War assault rifle is so much better than anything else in the class that I used it almost exclusively to finish off. You'd be a fool not to go for it the second you unlock it. It sights quickly, especially with a boost from the Perk 1 slot quick sight buff. There is a hint of trigger lag, but not so much you'll feel like you're wielding an LMG. It punches hard, and doesn't recoil much. The accuracy, even without a grip or stock, is just fantastic. The other assault rifles felt like peashooters in comparison. They might have handled quicker but had nowhere near the stopping power of the Man O War. It almost feels like, in the interest of choice, the MOW needs scaled back and the other assault rifles scaled up.
The rest of the weapons being crap is sort of tied into map design. The three channel map design is everywhere in this, and the introduction of waist height cover boxes and longer sight lines is clearly an effort on Treyarch's part to increase the gun skill in this game. This has the effect of stymieing the subs to a degree, they're still ridiculous up close but their usefulness is curtailed. Black Ops 2 was probably the fastest and most intense COD MP, and the SMG ruled the roost in that game. I guess Treyarch didn't want another blitz style shooter like that, and the effort they've made to slow the pace is tangible in lots of the design.
Shotguns, LMG's and sniper rifles, forget it. Not useful enough to trump an SMG or AR.
2) The Specialist system was designed to give every player some creative freedom to style a character how they wanted, and play how they wanted, but it didn't work and it was probably one of the most irritating things about the MP in BO3. Every character looked roughly the same, no matter which colour jacket you selected, so it made everyone feel very samey. There was a lot more personal freedom in choosing aesthetic kit for a generic fighter, rather than having to have a distinct look and feel for each specialist. Like, Battery has an amazing special weapon but her design is crap. That black cyborg guy has the most irritating voice in gaming. The winner's circle jerk after each game only serves to highlight how naff and samey the characters look despite your efforts to style them, whilst also showing of the game's curious inability to display the emblems and calling cards you worked so hard for.
3) As mentioned above, the map design isn't great. Combine was being played again and again in KC lists tonight, because it's one map that always finishes quickly - which means high score. You never run out of time on Combine, despite it being a really basic and tedious map. The central area is a no-man's land save for dashing to get tags. Shootouts down alleyways on the sides of the map feel like playing f
king volleyball. Larger, more free form maps like Havoc and Hunted are still st, because by any standard they're boring, particularly Havoc where all the players migrate to the (surprise!) corridor section and the spawns enforce this virtual rope-pull of shooting. I don't know if the best maps will be kept back for DLC but I couldn't give a fk if they were, I won't be playing this again and I'm not sure who would find long term enjoyment in it. 4) As I'd mentioned earlier, the balance between scorestreaks and shooting is better. No longer do you feel like you're constantly spawning to be t
tted by another streak. However, the Specialist abilities spoil that balance. War Machine and Scythe are overpowered. Purifier is good but well balanced because of it's range. The Sparrow's arrow is too strong. Other classes have really st specialist weapons. The specialist abilities are also st - what do you really want, an electric cannon of the chance to leap backwards a few steps? A rapid fire grenade launcher or a laughable bullet vest?The more you play, the more the sense pervades that Treyarch were really struggling to strip things down to the basic, compelling duelling of MW and WaW. However, in the relentless drive to innovate, they spin a few new ideas into the mix and the resulting mess just doesn't work out. Consumer demand has f
king wrecked COD, because WaW had the perfect balance of guns, streaks, great maps, good shooting and decent spawns. But every year, there is more slap piled to the point where we're so far removed from a truly incredible COD that I can barely remember what they felt like. Adamantium84 said:
As I said previously, the hit detection in Treyarch games is notoriously iffy.
In fact, tests showed that in bo2 shooting certain parts of a character models body actually did no damage at all. This was hard coded in to the game.
Also, with this game there is an issue with how flinch works. In some instances when shooting first, retaloratory fire will cause you to flinch off target while your opponent does not.
It's a case of learning to manage recoil and flinch to bring yourself back on target.
Treyarch have said that this was a design choice in an attempt to focus more on gun skill in this game.
This can result in instances where you shoot first and lose the gun fight.
(as a side point, people's main reason for not liking ghosts was that the melty kill times meant that whoever shot first would always win the gun fight. The general consensus was that people wanted a game where a higher level of gun skill was needed as this would result in a higher skill gap).
At no point have I said the game is perfect. My points were that the issues people are having are not caused by what they are saying.
To those having problems, what is your NAT type? Have you manually configured your router and Internet settings? When in a match what does your ping normally register as?
I do have nat issues,I can only get a strict nat,regardless of openinG ports etc,still never got to the bottom of this.In fact, tests showed that in bo2 shooting certain parts of a character models body actually did no damage at all. This was hard coded in to the game.
Also, with this game there is an issue with how flinch works. In some instances when shooting first, retaloratory fire will cause you to flinch off target while your opponent does not.
It's a case of learning to manage recoil and flinch to bring yourself back on target.
Treyarch have said that this was a design choice in an attempt to focus more on gun skill in this game.
This can result in instances where you shoot first and lose the gun fight.
(as a side point, people's main reason for not liking ghosts was that the melty kill times meant that whoever shot first would always win the gun fight. The general consensus was that people wanted a game where a higher level of gun skill was needed as this would result in a higher skill gap).
At no point have I said the game is perfect. My points were that the issues people are having are not caused by what they are saying.
To those having problems, what is your NAT type? Have you manually configured your router and Internet settings? When in a match what does your ping normally register as?
However my ping is usually 35-45,and more importantly restricted to strict in other cod games did not affect my gameplay,not more importantly does it with other games .
I am finding the whole experience very odd,last night I knifed 2 people in the face (in the game you will be glad to know) ,neither died .games where one minute I could kill kill someone with one burst across the map ,thEn immediately stick 3-4 bursts into someone from very close range to no effect.
And I'm exhausted by running behind buildings (not walls) and being shot with the kill cam showing me 10 yards behind where I was in the game .
It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.
I switch to cod aw with the same nat type and whilst not perfect it's very playable and predictable.and it never takes a full round of hits to kill someone which is what I am finding in bo3.
franki68 said:
I do have nat issues,I can only get a strict nat,regardless of openinG ports etc,still never got to the bottom of this.
However my ping is usually 35-45,and more importantly restricted to strict in other cod games did not affect my gameplay,not more importantly does it with other games .
I am finding the whole experience very odd,last night I knifed 2 people in the face (in the game you will be glad to know) ,neither died .games where one minute I could kill kill someone with one burst across the map ,thEn immediately stick 3-4 bursts into someone from very close range to no effect.
And I'm exhausted by running behind buildings (not walls) and being shot with the kill cam showing me 10 yards behind where I was in the game .
It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.
I switch to cod aw with the same nat type and whilst not perfect it's very playable and predictable.and it never takes a full round of hits to kill someone which is what I am finding in bo3.
A strict NAT type will cause all sorts of problems. However my ping is usually 35-45,and more importantly restricted to strict in other cod games did not affect my gameplay,not more importantly does it with other games .
I am finding the whole experience very odd,last night I knifed 2 people in the face (in the game you will be glad to know) ,neither died .games where one minute I could kill kill someone with one burst across the map ,thEn immediately stick 3-4 bursts into someone from very close range to no effect.
And I'm exhausted by running behind buildings (not walls) and being shot with the kill cam showing me 10 yards behind where I was in the game .
It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.
I switch to cod aw with the same nat type and whilst not perfect it's very playable and predictable.and it never takes a full round of hits to kill someone which is what I am finding in bo3.
This game clearly has some matchmaking issues relating to how it deals with NAT type compared to other games.
Who is your isp? Are you on fibre? What speeds are you receiving?
Wired or wireless? If wireless where is your router in comparison to your console?
Ps4 or xbone?
Are other people using your connection while you are playing?
It's funny that you say 'It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.'
This is exactly the problem with online gaming. Every person in the match will have various different ping times which essentially means that you have 12 people playing the game on different time lines.
This is why lag compensation is needed. Without it you would never ever be able to shoot anybody because they wouldnt ever actually be where they appear to be on your timeline.
It sounds to me like you are encountering games where there is so much disparity in ping times and connection quality that lag compensation cannot account for it. This results in the classic 'i shot him with a whole clip and he killed me with two bullets' scenario as actually he killed you before you shot all those bullets at him. This will often result in kill cams where it looks like you didn't shoot at him at all.
Baryonyx said:
3) As mentioned above, the map design isn't great. Combine was being played again and again in KC lists tonight, because it's one map that always finishes quickly - which means high score. You never run out of time on Combine, despite it being a really basic and tedious map. The central area is a no-man's land save for dashing to get tags. Shootouts down alleyways on the sides of the map feel like playing fking volleyball. Larger, more free form maps like Havoc and Hunted are still st, because by any standard they're boring, particularly Havoc where all the players migrate to the (surprise!) corridor section and the spawns enforce this virtual rope-pull of shooting. I don't know if the best maps will be kept back for DLC but I couldn't give a fk if they were, I won't be playing this again and I'm not sure who would find long term enjoyment in it.
Maps are pretty poor. And no Nuk3town - just what the fking volleyball. Larger, more free form maps like Havoc and Hunted are still st, because by any standard they're boring, particularly Havoc where all the players migrate to the (surprise!) corridor section and the spawns enforce this virtual rope-pull of shooting. I don't know if the best maps will be kept back for DLC but I couldn't give a fk if they were, I won't be playing this again and I'm not sure who would find long term enjoyment in it. k?Fringe is a stand out in a sea of mediocrity. Evac is close behind.
Combine can DIAGF.
Adamantium84 said:
A strict NAT type will cause all sorts of problems.
This game clearly has some matchmaking issues relating to how it deals with NAT type compared to other games.
Who is your isp? Are you on fibre? What speeds are you receiving?
Wired or wireless? If wireless where is your router in comparison to your console?
Ps4 or xbone?
Are other people using your connection while you are playing?
It's funny that you say 'It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.'
This is exactly the problem with online gaming. Every person in the match will have various different ping times which essentially means that you have 12 people playing the game on different time lines.
This is why lag compensation is needed. Without it you would never ever be able to shoot anybody because they wouldnt ever actually be where they appear to be on your timeline.
It sounds to me like you are encountering games where there is so much disparity in ping times and connection quality that lag compensation cannot account for it. This results in the classic 'i shot him with a whole clip and he killed me with two bullets' scenario as actually he killed you before you shot all those bullets at him. This will often result in kill cams where it looks like you didn't shoot at him at all.
pc,wired connection 200mbps download speed and a ping of 6.I understand totally what you are saying,the issue is it is only this game I have this issue with,not really a problem on aw and there my nat type is strict,nor has it ever been an issue on any other online fps.Only Black op2 and now 3 have I encountered this problem to such a degree .And the variation between matches I can deal with ,but it varies within the match,I can kill people in 4 bullets across the map one minute and the next a full magazine has no impact at point blank range .This game clearly has some matchmaking issues relating to how it deals with NAT type compared to other games.
Who is your isp? Are you on fibre? What speeds are you receiving?
Wired or wireless? If wireless where is your router in comparison to your console?
Ps4 or xbone?
Are other people using your connection while you are playing?
It's funny that you say 'It feels like I'm playing one game and the computer processing the match is playing some thing different.'
This is exactly the problem with online gaming. Every person in the match will have various different ping times which essentially means that you have 12 people playing the game on different time lines.
This is why lag compensation is needed. Without it you would never ever be able to shoot anybody because they wouldnt ever actually be where they appear to be on your timeline.
It sounds to me like you are encountering games where there is so much disparity in ping times and connection quality that lag compensation cannot account for it. This results in the classic 'i shot him with a whole clip and he killed me with two bullets' scenario as actually he killed you before you shot all those bullets at him. This will often result in kill cams where it looks like you didn't shoot at him at all.
Im going to do a video when I get time .
iphonedyou said:
Maps are pretty poor. And no Nuk3town - just what the fk?
Fringe is a stand out in a sea of mediocrity. Evac is close behind.
Combine can DIAGF.
I've seen a video of the re-imagined Nuketown and it looks dreadful, I really don't like the makeover they've given it. Lights on the floors, what is that all about? But in terms of build, it's always been a great map. Much loved by players because the score came fast and easy, yet as I've mentioned, more interesting to play because the cover opposed the main sightlines. I always enjoyed playing it on the previous games, so I was really disappointed to see that it hadn't made it into this game. I thought when I ordered a copy from Amazon months ago, that they had promised Nuketown for orders before release. I was surprised not to get it, and it just feels like another slap in the face from a franchise that has lazily relied on pre-orders for a long time. k?Fringe is a stand out in a sea of mediocrity. Evac is close behind.
Combine can DIAGF.
I didn't mind Fringe much, as it had some more interesting parts around the outside of the map whilst still having that central kill zone area. Evac was one of the better maps, but it didn't seem to come up very much. I quite liked Infection, in terms of look and design, but that seemed fairly rare in the playlists too. Redwood was absolutely s
t, I hated that map. If you were having a bad game, you couldn't even shoot down loads of scorestreaks with a launcher to pass the time. Aquarium was a decent map too, but there wasn't one map as good as even the worst map on World At War. Look at this map shot from the WaW maps - great design and interest evident even from a top down view, never mind once you consider the elevation changes and multiple levels in some maps, all before we were jumping around and powersliding with f
king jet boosters. 
I don't know if I'll even bother with the next COD, unless the announcement of next year's title takes it dramatically away from the future war scenario. Activision need to f
k off, and come back with a new engine and a historic setting. WW2, Vietnam, Gulf War, whatever. Go back to what the players used to rave about, rather than feeding the nonsense created by the rot that set in when MW2 jumped the shark. It's almost like there is a fear from Activision about going back to basics, as if players will revolt against a stripped back COD game that focuses on the shooting and has less influence from Scorestreaks (although Treyarch have ironed this out to a degree). My MP gaming now is taken up a lot by Destiny, which has unlocked a really compelling system after a dreadful first year. I hope The Divison does more of the same. Call Of Duty is a relic, and whilst I don't ever see it turning into a beautiful PVE experience like Destiny, the cracks in the old formula are showing. I also seem to recall on an older Call of Duty, you could manage your matchmaking preferences from the game to select better connections or connections to local territories. This seems to have disappeared again, I wonder if it was perhaps because players were using it too much and slowing down matchmaking for casuals overall, leading to frustration. I'd happily wait thirty seconds to find a really good game, than take an instant drop into a game where you're well behind the curve.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff