Steam Games!

Peter Tsang said:
I have tried restarting my PC and the modem but they dont help at all

I am 28, I think what I need is the game browser like all the CoD games before. The current MP arrangement is not handy nor efficient. It tries to "Find" a game quickly for you, but what I end up with is a fail message and no game at all!
So I paid HK$320 for a game which gives me no multiplayer and needs me to sort out my hardware issue...I really don't understand wy so many people say MW2 is a good game by the look of this.
Click to expand...

I do agree how CoD now handles multiplayer isn't as good as a list, especially on PC where we expect better than the console 'tards.

However, you could try and find an IP for a good server and connect directly if it lets you
 
geon106 said:
I do agree how CoD now handles multiplayer isn't as good as a list, especially on PC where we expect better than the console 'tards.

However, you could try and find an IP for a good server and connect directly if it lets you
Click to expand...

As I said. MW2 doesn't work like this. It isn't a Client/Server model for hosting. There are no servers that you can directly connect to.

You matchmake and play P2P with other players directly, with one of them hosting. It's not as good a method as the traditional S/C one that most FPS games have used since Quake.
 
orderoftheflame said:
As I said. MW2 doesn't work like this. It isn't a Client/Server model for hosting. There are no servers that you can directly connect to.

You matchmake and play P2P with other players directly, with one of them hosting. It's not as good a method as the traditional S/C one that most FPS games have used since Quake.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah its meant to be a faster way, via P2P.

But like the OP i also dislike it. Good old server browsings like Quake and source games etc is far better. But thats just my 2 pence
 
I'll break it down for you.

3 basic types of NAT : Open, Moderate, Strict. That depends on your ISP and router settings.

Open can communicate with Open, Moderate, and Strict.
Moderate can communicate with Open and Moderate.
Strict can communicate with Open.

So hosting is often not permitted on strict NAT because of the restrictions it imposes.

Joining a peer-to-peer game on strict NAT is also asking for trouble. As your communications with moderate (the majority) and strict players will be forwarded via another machine in the peer network. So you incur more latency, packet drops, ect... Some games just plain refuse strict players.

In a server-client system, with dedicated servers, that's a non issue.

In a server-client system, with a player hosting, that's also a non issue provided you managed to connect with the host in the first place. Host migration will probably kick you out of the game if the new host is not open NAT.
 
I'm confused. The OP bought a (nearly) 2 year old CoD game and seems completely oblivious to all the criticism of it and is raging about some seriously old news?

Is this a troll thread? :confused:
 
Peter Tsang said:
What I am not happy about it is that why not leave it as it is, there is no need to remove the UI features likeit used to be.

Battlefield still uses its old interafce a gmae browser lists all the games and leave it for the players to decide what to jonn
Click to expand...

Damn. Can't wait for him to try Battlefield 3. :D
 
put down the keyboard, buy a console, and try again on PC when you're older than twelve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom