After MW3 i sweared i didn't buy any cod anymore. But then i boworred it with patch 1.02. It was great!
I bought it and a week later new patch. i just should have wait a week longer and i would be 60 bucks richer.
This hosting-system and matchmaking with other countrys is a joke.
if every host just leave the lobby there wouldn't be any game anymore.
and nobody would enjoy the game anymore.
(anybody still enjoy it?!- yestarday i quit after 1 hour, today 20 mins)
it would end that a gamer with e 3g wifi spot host the game.
So they would have to change the hosting-system.
If they are smart, they would think about it .
it is always better if on person has a little advantage but no host migrations instead of a disadvantgage and host migrations 5 times a game.
They want to use my connection so i should get a refund for it.
what are your opinions?
PS:Maybe with the double-ep weekend there will be a patch but i don't think so.
Just want patch 1.02 back where everythink was ok
Amen! When hosting my game ALWAYS is bad and it feel like I am running in quicksand with lightweight and extreme conditioning! They MUST fix this!
Host advantage just makes perfect logical sense. So one person gets a slight adavnatge but everyone else is on a even level, nobody quits unless they are getting totally destroyed by the host. But then there are no host migrations, fewer solo players get thrown into a guarantee'd loss. I'd love to hear some arguements against the host advantage idea, if there are any. Why Treyarch dont do it is beyond me.
Host or not, nobody should have an advantage. Everyone, host included, should be on an even level.
But this way we could finish our games, and wouldn't see 5 host migrations in a game.
Of course it isn't perfect, but it is better than the situation atm.
atm every game is 1 host migration and 11 player have a advantage against him.
Of course i leave as a host....
A smooth-running, fair game should accomplish that. No need to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I don't see why any player should be given an advantage just because they're chosen as host.
If the game's fair and running (reasonably) smoothly, the host should have no reason to quit, unless it's a rage-quit because they're losing, and I don't think that pampering their delicate ego is any reason to give them a pity-advantage either.
No, the game should be fair and equal for everyone IMO.
Mojo, they've proven that they don't know HOW to make a smooth-running, fair game. In the past, where the host had advantage, was the closest they've come. Now everyone on the other team seems to have the host advantage.
My point is that a fair and even game where nobody has an advantage should be their goal, and what they strive to achieve, not to intentionally give an advantage one way or the other.
The only reason you see so many host migrations now, is because people believe that, as host, they are at a disadvantage. Take away that disadvantage, and your take away their reason to quit. I just think it would be unecessary, and even excessive, to ALSO reward them for staying on top of that.
Also, giving the host an advantage, no matter how small, would diminish their accomplishments while hosting. You'll always have people claiming "You only beat me/Your team only won because you had an advantage".
Players who host more often would gravitate upward on the Leaderboards due to receiving more frequent advantage.
There will always be a certain percentage of the population who will strive to gain and exploit any advantage possible, regardless how small, which means that there would probably be people lobby hopping, or quitting games the moment they realized they weren't host, striving to get into games where THEY have the advantage.
No, I STILL think the end-goal should be a fair and even playing field for EVERYONE. I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe outcomes should ultimately be determined by SKILL, not by who has the best/worst internet, or who gets chosen as host.
I am not sure it was an intentional thing:
While the game is being played, the host would get the "gamestate" 1st and share the information with everyone in lobby, allowing them to see the changes in the game so they can react to changing conditions.
It is obvious, that if things are left alone, that the host would be able to react to players movements slightly faster, because they would get the information 1st.
The delay between the clients sending information, the host receiving the information, and others getting it, is inherit lag and cannot be helped (lag compensation aids with this of course).
But someone had the idea: "Hey, let's make it so the host does not have this advantage".. the pendulum swung too far in the other direction (so many believe)
You're probably right. But, in a perfect world, everything should be fair and equal across the board for all players, IMO.
Personally, I think they were on the right track but, like you said, the pendulum just swung too far. It seems to me that, if they can swing the pendulum one way or the other, though, they should (theoretically, of course), be able to move it closer to the center as well.
If it is possible, I'd prefer see them try to fine-tune and perfect the system so that we might come closer to this "perfect world" rather than just say "screw it" and swing that pendulum all the way back to where the host had the advantage, that's all.