Blackops 24hr server blackout

vampiejay

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Likes
0
#1
Does anyone think this will help get something done regarding the server crashes that don't appear to be being talked about or done about.?
 

buttscratcher

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Likes
1
#3
Does anyone think this will help get something done regarding the server crashes that don't appear to be being talked about or done about.?
Although I can appreciate the sentiment behind the idea, no.

I sent a (wish I could edit) semi-nasty reply to a support ticket reguarding the server crash issue today. Although my message was not polite, it was a bit helpful for me to get my head around the deal.

Activision & Treyarch dont care. They have their money. Gameservers.com with the exclusive deal do not care, in fear of gutting their golden goose (and any future prospect of a simular deal.)

The only hope of any real effort reguarding the crashes would be legitmate pressure from gameservers.com. The only way thats happening would be mass server cancelations - not 1 day "sit ins".



Butt



PS. On the topic of server crashes (sorry OP for a off toipc spin) is there any way this could be a ddos deal? This is an established engine right? The game is pretty simple compared to others of its type. Nothing overly complex/taxing right?

I was thinking about this the other day, and it (the crashes) remind me of our server getting crashed back in the day. With one provider, and all the games being hosted from the same/limited location(s), wouldn't it be easy for someone to piss in everones cheerios at the same time? If the wikileak group can ddos Mastercard and other high profile companies, why not a gameserver company?

Lets face it, the exclusive gameservers.com deal pissed off alot of people, and cost several server companies potential revenue. There would be many people happy to see this game and one provider contract, have ongoing problems.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Likes
1
#4
Although I can appreciate the sentiment behind the idea, no.

I sent a (wish I could edit) semi-nasty reply to a support ticket reguarding the server crash issue today. Although my message was not polite, it was a bit helpful for me to get my head around the deal.

Activision & Treyarch dont care. They have their money. Gameservers.com with the exclusive deal do not care, in fear of gutting their golden goose (and any future prospect of a simular deal.)

The only hope of any real effort reguarding the crashes would be legitmate pressure from gameservers.com. The only way thats happening would be mass server cancelations - not 1 day "sit ins".



Butt



PS. On the topic of server crashes (sorry OP for a off toipc spin) is there any way this could be a ddos deal? This is an established engine right? The game is pretty simple compared to others of its type. Nothing overly complex/taxing right?

I was thinking about this the other day, and it (the crashes) remind me of our server getting crashed back in the day. With one provider, and all the games being hosted from the same/limited location(s), wouldn't it be easy for someone to piss in everones cheerios at the same time? If the wikileak group can ddos Mastercard and other high profile companies, why not a gameserver company?

Lets face it, the exclusive gameservers.com deal pissed off alot of people, and cost several server companies potential revenue. There would be many people happy to see this game and one provider contract, have ongoing problems.

Activision & Treyarch dont care. They have their money. Gameservers.com with the exclusive deal do not care, in fear of gutting their golden goose (and any future prospect of a simular deal.)
Treyarch don't care because they have their money. Now where have I seen that posted literally a million times before? Would it be on the official forums? I think it was.

It was wrong the first time it was posted, and it is wrong the millionth time as well, just as it will be wrong the next time it is posted. Of course they care, which is why they continue to patch the game and try to fix it. They are also working behind the scenes trying to get the server crashes fixed. The fact that you don't hear anything at all about it may be annoying from a certain perspective (and I understand that annoyance), but it doesn't mean nothing is being done.

Also Gameservers.com care since when things go wrong, they loose custom (which they are all the time). The problem for them is there is nothing they can do about it. It is a Treyarch problem, and they are powerless to fix it. Also, they have made it clear they can't update anyone about what's being done until Treyarch tell them they can.

Don't take what I've said as a total defence of Treyarch. It isn't. I don't agree with the way they've released the game in the state it's in, and I don't agree with the way their patches fix things, only to wreck it again with the next patch. And I certainly don't agree with them working with no transparancy. I agree with their critics on that score: they should be more open about what they are doing.

However, I do know the mind-set of developers, and I do know they care about their work. They want their game to be successful and fun, and they are doing enough to prove to everybody that this is the case. So, on that basis, I just wanted to put things into some kind of perspective.
 

vampiejay

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Likes
0
#5
Question i keep asking myself who's fault is it

Treyarch - bad server code

Gameservers - incompatible hardware

ok we all know that treyarch released the game which wasn't and still isn't compatible with all machines. Could the same be said for the server code not being compatible with all Gameservers boxes?

Gameservers has stated that they have some servers running that have never crashed so to me this indicates hardware compatibility issue because the code is working fine on some machines.

Just my thoughts.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Likes
1
#6
Tally the devs may think what they wish, but the power of a paycheck, in these economic times, thinks and speaks much louder.
You are right, Mike, but the point is, if they didn't care and did nothing, then it will affect their next release - no one will buy it. They knew that with World at War and so did everything they could to lick it into shape, and they know it for this release as well. They know they MUST care; for the sake of their next pay check.

The thing that is causing these games to be released in such bad shape is the brutal development cycle of under 2 years. If they had even as little as 6 months more, they wouldn't be in such bad shape on release. So they know, the only thing to do is post-patch and fix it on the fly. It isn't the dev houses that are causing this - it's Activision. I know one dev house that had enough of it and jumped ship, even if it did take a helping hand to do it.
 

vampiejay

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Likes
0
#7
@tally if thats the case surly the logical thing to do is have 3 dev houses working on a release at anyone time so say lets take sledge hammer, iw and treyarch

2010 - treyarch release
2011 - Iw release
2012 - sledgehammer release
and so no games would be in better shape this way i feel
 

ButchCassidy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Likes
2
#8
Let's face it these same issues have been plaguing COD releases for a number of years now ever since they moved the cycle to 1 a year.

It won't change..

I have Black Ops and If this is the standard that we can expect from now on then i'm quite pleased that my Clan have decided to drop the COD franchise for the next installment.

Time to move on for me personally and a lot of my friends.
COD is no longer the fun it was and the community has changed dramatically since CODMW let alone COD1.
The game seems to consist of endless Bling and very little substance gameplay wise.
With perks and weapons now almost elminating any type of team play..It's all Me, Myself and I, these days..

To quote the Righteous Brothers "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin" Call of Duty..lol
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Likes
1
#10
I would say the main issues are on the Netcode, so with Demonware and Steamcloud. Its the first time its being used (IW / MW2 used Steamcloud but with IWNet Technology, not DW).
MW2 did use Demonware - for PS3. So it's not like its unchartered territory for them. I think, and I actually hate to say this, it comes down to this fact: Treyarch are not as competent as perhaps they should be. I think they struggle with this stuff. I come to that conclusion based on the fact that they keep ballsing it up again and again. It they were competent, they wouldn't break what they fixed in one patch with the next one.

Sorry, as much as IW broke the communities trust with IWnet, they were the better dev house. They only ever produced one duff patch in their history - the infamous COD2 1.2 patch. It remains to be seen what they will produce in the aftermath of IWGate, but time I suppose will tell.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Likes
1
#11
Their next release and all future CoD releases have already been adversely affected. We do not blame the Developer Studios.. We blame Activision.

So many of us have already WALKED AWAY.

As Butch put it;

To quote the Righteous Brothers "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin" Call of Duty..lol


Many of us are done whipping that dead horse... and we so loved the CoD games.

Its over. Activision has only themselves to blame.
I wholehartedly agree that it's all Activision's fault. And I understand those that have felt its high time to move on. The problem for a lot of us that feel similarly, is that a high realism game like RO or RO2 just wont cut it. I just couldn't grow to love it no matter how much I tried. I'm hoping that one of the other games will do it for me - either Brink, Homefront, or even Breach (though I doubt a $20 game will do it for me) or Duke Nukeum. If so, then I will also move on.

For me the issue is stagnation - I just don't see anywhere else they can go with all these MW1 clones. MW1 was a quantum leap in technology over COD2, and the whole raft of new features it had were fresh and original. Now, it's just same old-same old. When it comes down to it, Blops is pretty boring. I've already started playing older games again because it just gets boring prestiging over and over again.

I too am looking for a new game. However, what has kept me with COD is the 5 years I've invested in its technology. Modding for it is, for me, now just a walk in the park as I have mastered its scripting language. I like the comfort zone that creates. However, I am willing to learn new tricks if the game grabs my imagination.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

bacon

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Likes
0
#12
I honestly think this is the case.

a. They don't know what the root of the problem is

or

b. They know what it is but don't know how to fix it.

I am going with a because if they new they would have said hey guys we figured out what was wrong, now we are working on figuring out how to fix it.

This is the bs that happens when you don't test your software. I guess that would be to expensive, and a mp beta was out of the question.
 

Kalms

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Likes
2
#13
Or - which is sometimes known to happen within large organizations -

c. those who would be able to fix it, are not given mandate to do so [because they are told that their skills are absolutely needed for something else]

There are various reasons for having/not having an MP beta. Choosing not to have an MP beta 'because performing the beta costs too much $$$' is rarely an argument brought up. More common is that it clashes with marketing or lack of dev resources.
 

zeroy

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Likes
2
Location
Louth, Ireland
#14
Or - which is sometimes known to happen within large organizations -

c. those who would be able to fix it, are not given mandate to do so [because they are told that their skills are absolutely needed for something else]

There are various reasons for having/not having an MP beta. Choosing not to have an MP beta 'because performing the beta costs too much $$$' is rarely an argument brought up. More common is that it clashes with marketing or lack of dev resources.
Ill go with this "c" actually, as i can easily see this happening. The Teams that are "left behind" fixing the game may not be the guys who are the most competent or knowledgeable on some issues.
 

HarryBall

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Likes
0
Location
Lansing Mi
#16
The only thing this will do is make sure that in two years we dont have a COD game for PC. Im sure that they are tired of hearing from us. The money is in the consoles. No need to prove that point. I wish you all the luck, I just feel after all these years of shitty games, they could have put one out that worked out of the box....( The PC communities Hope,dreams,wishes, desires, and wants havnt changed from day one.)
 

Omega*

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Likes
0
Location
Tulsa, OK
#17
I agree with Tally that Treyarch may not be as competent as IW when it comes to certain dev issues. First, let me say that I loved WaW after it was adequately patched, so I've had some love for Treyarch in the past.

I seem to remember WaW being a performance hog on my computer, even when compared to the graphically superior MW1. Poor optimization of IW's engine was apparent in WaW, but most gamer's rigs could run it as system specs required were still relatively low.

MW2 was a big jump in many categories and more resource hungry, and a decent computer was needed to play the game, but the game ran very well. As much as I HATED the playlists, lobbies, host migration, etc., MW2 was fabulously optimized. (something Blops has been a miserable failure at).

Sometimes it's hard for me to differentiate poor performance caused by netcode or FPS / system lag, but it's definitely there in Blops more than any CoD title I have ever played. Perhaps the MW2-esque graphics and system demands have finally revealed and caught up with Treyarch's sluggish optimization of IW's original MW1 code. The extensive stat tracking and constant data exchange can't be helping server performance either....

I also agree that CoD in its current form has run its course. Perks, killstreaks, and ranks are starting to get stale, or at least their current implementation of such features, and a staple of the series, gameplay, is rapidly eroding as a PC shooter IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Likes
1
#18
I agree with Tally that Treyarch may not be as competent as IW when it comes to certain dev issues. First, let me say that I loved WaW after it was adequately patched, so I've had some love for Treyarch in the past.

I seem to remember WaW being a performance hog on my computer, even when compared to the graphically superior MW1. Poor optimization of IW's engine was apparent in WaW, but most gamer's rigs could run it as system specs required were still relatively low.

MW2 was a big jump in many categories and more resource hungry, and a decent computer was needed to play the game, but the game ran very well. As much as I HATED the playlists, lobbies, host migration, etc., MW2 was fabulously optimized. (something Blops has been a miserable failure at).

Sometimes it's hard for me to differentiate poor performance caused by netcode or FPS / system lag, but it's definitely there in Blops more than any CoD title I have ever played. Perhaps the MW2-esque graphics and system demands have finally revealed and caught up with Treyarch's sluggish optimization of IW's original MW1 code. The extensive stat tracking and constant data exchange can't be helping server performance either....

I also agree that CoD in its current form has run its course. Perks, killstreaks, and ranks are starting to get stale, or at least their current implementation of such features, and a staple of the series, gameplay, is rapidly eroding as a PC shooter IMHO.
Good post. I think you've nailed it with that one.

Further to COD running it's course, I felt the same with COD2 - I was looking forward to COD4 before it was out because I'd had enough of World War II, but I didn't imagine that COD4 was going to be the quantum leap in feeatures and gameplay that it was. We had never had create-a-class, XP, unlocking, or perks before, so it was fresh and exciting. Now, 4 years on, I'm at the same stage I was with COD2: I've done all the perks and create-a-class. I want something new. Blops for me is too much like MW2 - it feels like MW2 on speed (because the avatar movement in Blops is much faster than MW2, which is a little stiff), played on different maps.

I'm going to give this new Homefront game a good go, but one thing that puts me off a little is that it's a MW clone/look-a-like. As I've said, I'm really bored now with all this perk/XP/battle points stuff. It will really have to play well for me to stick with it, or failing that, the mod tools will have to appear and allow us to do some super stuff with them. Otherwise, I'll end up passing on it after a couple of months.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom