Call of Duty 2016 ( Infinite Warfare)

Copy and paste since ghosts? :p

I don't mind it. Only played frontline on it up to yet. Like every COD, it takes me about half a year to get to level 55 then after that i tend not to touch it again as i feel like i have finished it lol.

Blops 3 had good map structure, it used the 3 lane system which I personally think is great. Ghosts maps were horrendous and AWs were poo as well thanks to there being multiple levels to a map so you'd constantly be shot shot either in the back or from above.
 
Not bothered with this. Seems like I made the right choice given the comments in here. I uninstalled blops3 the other day too as i was struggling to get a decent lobby. Ah well, TF2 is keeping my occupied for now. Might get BF1 in the xmas sales too.

Seems like IW dropped the ball with IW!! :p
 
I might dump this while it's still worth something. Done about 5 hours on MW:R and it's good but I think it's spoilt by the community. Too many quick scopers and camping going on.

And don't get me started on IW :o
 
Blops 3 had good map structure, it used the 3 lane system which I personally think is great. Ghosts maps were horrendous and AWs were poo as well thanks to there being multiple levels to a map so you'd constantly be shot shot either in the back or from above.

3 lane maps are classic and work well. All the best destiny pvp maps are 3 lane. And look at Dust 2 from counter strike. 3 lanes works.
 
I dont get what makes a 3 lane map if you catch my drift. Any diagrams online? Tried searching but not much comes up.

Basically there are 3 main routes to get from one side of the map to the other, with maybe a few cut throughs.

The best visual example of this would be Gauntlet on BO3.

You have 3 distinct lanes, 1 in the jungle, 2 in the snow and 3 urban street.
 
I've been playing BO3 tonight and it really is quite shocking - and rather sad - how much better BO3 is than this game. I just find IW to be boring. I think they've made it too serious which means it's just not much fun to play.
 
An analysis of the netcode and server tick rates in IW and MW;R. It isn't good news.

4-bar is under 120ms of ping. 3-bar is under 175ms, 2-bar is under 220ms, and you're on 1-bar if you're over 220ms.
Both games use an hybrid system of dedicated servers and P2P servers.
When you play on a dedicated server, a client sends 100 updates per second to the server, but the server only sends 20 updates per send to the client (100/20 Hz).
When you play on a P2P server, the update rates are 100/10 Hz. As a matter of fact, BF1 and Overwatch use 60/60.
In optimal conditions (25ms ping to a dedicated server, 91 FPS without V-sync, zero packet loss, 1ms screen response time), the real latency is, in average, 100ms. This will be much higher on consoles due to 60 FPS V-sync, TV screens, and of course, higher delays to the hosts (dedicated or not).
The variance in testing the delays shows a real problem in dealing with the latency - other games are much more consistent in that regard.
You can lag up to 500 ms and still have your hits registered, hence provoking some bad deaths far behind cover.
If you're the host on a P2P server, you can still hit players even if they're lagging up to 900 ms, leading to even more BS deaths!

:eek::(
 
Tried this again last night. I played for a whole minute before turning it off. The connection in this game is just horrible.
 
This is the first CoD game since Ghosts I have zero interest in playing, hell I played Advanced Warfare more.

My only temptation to put IW in is to try zombies.
 
Back
Top Bottom