• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CoD Cold War open beta this weekend on PS4 (XBOX & PC on 15th)

Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
Hate to be that guy, but going 45-10 and 30-12 would indicate you were way too good for who you were matched up with?

I'm sure with a bigger player base, the step ups will be less gradual.

Having said that, I welcome these systems that stop people from piling on those with less ability.
How dare someone be good at the game. Every player should go 5-5 in the interests of fairness. After all, we wouldn't want someone killing a bunch of players without dying in an online team deathmatch game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smart_brazileiro

BigLee74

Member
Mar 14, 2014
532
1,138
575
Scotland
How dare someone be good at the game. Every player should go 5-5 in the interests of fairness. After all, we wouldn't want someone killing a bunch of players without dying in an online team deathmatch game.
Behave yourself. The guy went 45 - 10. He's clearly noob stomping (although likely through no fault of his own). In that game, he's the same sweaty player to others he moans he then gets paired against in the subsequent game.

To many folk are all about K/D ratio and nothing else, and that's generally why they don't like the skill based match making. Otherwise, what is there to complain about? I'm quite happy that the game tries to match me with players of my level. It means I rarely have a player going 45-10 against my team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graciaus
Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
Behave yourself. The guy went 45 - 10. He's clearly noob stomping (although likely through no fault of his own). In that game, he's the same sweaty player to others he moans he then gets paired against in the subsequent game.

To many folk are all about K/D ratio and nothing else, and that's generally why they don't like the skill based match making. Otherwise, what is there to complain about? I'm quite happy that the game tries to match me with players of my level. It means I rarely have a player going 45-10 against my team.
Lobbies should be based on connection only. SBMM has no place in these games. One, because it doesn't work and two, because it's easily by passed by reverse boosting.

If you're getting stomped, get better. Those of us who have been playing these games for over a decade had to do it.
 

CrysisFreak

Perfection. Erection.
Apr 9, 2020
2,008
5,117
605
Oh my god.
Unlike the alpha the beta has adjustable FOV on PS4 Pro. Fuck yeah!
But greying out "HDR calibration" ingame and telling the player to use some system menu is retarded. Fix this.
Oh yeah before I forget fuck SBMM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa

SkylineRKR

Member
Jun 22, 2011
9,550
653
825
Holland
I hate SBMM.

Just get better. I don't play that much CoD, the first MW and last MW the most for a few 100 hours each, but my first few matches were always complete shite on myself. No map knowledge, sloppy aiming and movement... Black Ops Beta also started kinda eh, but all my games today turned out to be good. I don't see why that should be punished with being matched up with quick scopers and other adepts for your next game.

SBMM shouldn't be a priority over connection and many other things. And reverse boosting was easy to exploit, just do some dumb shit and dominate the next match ups. Many times i've been propelled into unfun lag fests after dominating a game in MW. Which mostly made me end my session.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hououinkyouma00

Droxcy

Member
Jan 21, 2018
599
330
565
Southern California
twitter.com
I am a long time CoD player both hardcore and casual and for some reason this one just feels off. I love Treyarch too, I feel like I’ll be focusing on zombies & SP this go around and their addition to warzone. MP feels rushed for sure also the SBMM doesn’t belong in these games once again.
 

BigLee74

Member
Mar 14, 2014
532
1,138
575
Scotland
Lobbies should be based on connection only. SBMM has no place in these games. One, because it doesn't work and two, because it's easily by passed by reverse boosting.

If you're getting stomped, get better. Those of us who have been playing these games for over a decade had to do it.
Yeah, OK.

If only everybody was as good as you/had been playing as long as you/plays as often as you and with as much laser focused dedication as you, then we wouldn't need skill based match making.

What a world that would be, huh?
 
Last edited:

Archvile82

Banned
May 20, 2020
109
97
180
This shit just pisses me the fuck off. These people need to stop interfering with every facet of society. Like seriously fuck off. I don't care if you wanna be a different fucking made up gender but stop trying to push it on other people and into video games that I want to play. No one who served in the Special Forces in the 80's identified as a transgender or any other of the 37 fucking made up genders.

And the devs of this game went out of their way to add this classified option to the game in order to please these people and they still are not happy about it. Fuck off.
Trouble now is you got a lot of them working in media, especially gaming to push their agenders, so if it earns the game review a few more points to that 90% + the publisher will add it to grab wide appeal.

It is messed up...it's like someone gate crashing a private party and making sure they are center of attention.
 
Last edited:

HTK

Member
May 13, 2011
244
203
740
They should prioritize connection first and let natural selection do its thing.

Encourage players to get better not lie to Timmy and tell him he's a great player when he's not.
 

Kagero

Member
May 31, 2016
1,660
2,242
555
Toronto
noisackda.blogspot.ca
I’m enjoying it. Noob question about FOV. As a console gamer, I’m not too familiar with it. What’s the best setting? Does cranking it up to 100 kill frame rate? I can see having a wider field of view in FPS games to be advantageous, but that would effectively also shrink everything down correct? If you have shitty aim like me, would sticking to default settings be better? Maybe I’m confused about what FOV means lol.
 

Kagero

Member
May 31, 2016
1,660
2,242
555
Toronto
noisackda.blogspot.ca
Doesn't have the same appeal as MW but I'll give it a go. Compared to MW it lacks fidelity and the formula is more of the same, whereas MW feels like they've understood what the veteran player base liked about the early cod games.
I actually find this very different then MW. In MW, I’m way more tactical. I can’t run around like a chicken with it’s head cut off. I find, Cold War is a lot more frenetic. A little more to the DNA of COD.
 

chonga

Member
Aug 17, 2020
148
257
230
I’m enjoying it. Noob question about FOV. As a console gamer, I’m not too familiar with it. What’s the best setting? Does cranking it up to 100 kill frame rate? I can see having a wider field of view in FPS games to be advantageous, but that would effectively also shrink everything down correct? If you have shitty aim like me, would sticking to default settings be better? Maybe I’m confused about what FOV means lol.
The best setting will be the one you're most comfortable with looking at. That will depend on how big your screen is, how far away you are etc.

And yes cranking it higher will reduce frame rate. The game has to display more information at once. It has always been the excuse for why there never was one. The game gets designed for a set FoV and they try to hit 60fps for that FoV. Introduce a slider and all you'd be doing is gimping your frame rate - unless the slider only does downwards. Alternatively they could make it such that graphics are dialled down in some other way when you increase the FoV, or run at a low resolution for example. Either way - something has to give.
 

Nvzman

Member
Dec 23, 2013
2,049
84
425
Doesn't have the same appeal as MW but I'll give it a go. Compared to MW it lacks fidelity and the formula is more of the same, whereas MW feels like they've understood what the veteran player base liked about the early cod games.
im sorry dude but new IW didn't understand shit about the older cods. Nobody remembers Call of Duty 4 or Modern Warfare 2 for being campfests with shit level design that makes visibility terrible. They may have had camping/cheese but in those games camping was not being actively encouraged and was never the "viable" playstyle, it was just a thing lower skill-level players did to make up for poor movement and poor aim. Another thing is that those games deliberately designed weapons with their ammo pool in mind (etc: the SCAR and Vector in MW2 were powerful and super fast, respectively, but they had low ammo so you had to make your shots count), whereas in new MW you can put 60 ammo magazines on virtually any weapon you want, which completely negates the need for good aim whatsoever when you die in something like 3 bullets and shooting (even without a suppressor) doesn't put you on the radar. It's old school cod if old school cod actively rewarded the lowest skill playstyles imaginable, which they never did. And the map design in those games were leagues better.

I've only played a bit of the Cold War beta (waiting for the PC beta but I do have a PS4) but I can already say it was way more enjoyable then the shitty 2019 MW mp, and I even got Damascus in that bc of corona. 2019 MW mp is pure dogshit.
 
Last edited:

Kagero

Member
May 31, 2016
1,660
2,242
555
Toronto
noisackda.blogspot.ca
The best setting will be the one you're most comfortable with looking at. That will depend on how big your screen is, how far away you are etc.

And yes cranking it higher will reduce frame rate. The game has to display more information at once. It has always been the excuse for why there never was one. The game gets designed for a set FoV and they try to hit 60fps for that FoV. Introduce a slider and all you'd be doing is gimping your frame rate - unless the slider only does downwards. Alternatively they could make it such that graphics are dialled down in some other way when you increase the FoV, or run at a low resolution for example. Either way - something has to give.
I see, this helps a lot. Not worth the frame rate drop for me. I guess I’ll have to get used to default settings then. Thanks for the explanation.
 

HTK

Member
May 13, 2011
244
203
740
im sorry dude but new IW didn't understand shit about the older cods. Nobody remembers Call of Duty 4 or Modern Warfare 2 for being campfests with shit level design that makes visibility terrible. They may have had camping/cheese but in those games camping was not being actively encouraged and was never the "viable" playstyle, it was just a thing lower skill-level players did to make up for poor movement and poor aim. Another thing is that those games deliberately designed weapons with their ammo pool in mind (etc: the SCAR and Vector in MW2 were powerful and super fast, respectively, but they had low ammo so you had to make your shots count), whereas in new MW you can put 60 ammo magazines on virtually any weapon you want, which completely negates the need for good aim whatsoever when you die in something like 3 bullets and shooting (even without a suppressor) doesn't put you on the radar. It's old school cod if old school cod actively rewarded the lowest skill playstyles imaginable, which they never did. And the map design in those games were leagues better.

I've only played a bit of the Cold War beta (waiting for the PC beta but I do have a PS4) but I can already say it was way more enjoyable then the shitty 2019 MW mp, and I even got Damascus in that bc of corona. 2019 MW mp is pure dogshit.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. If it weren't for WARZONE this would have been the worst CoD in the history of CoDs. I wouldn't be surprised if 90%+ players are playing WARZONE, Modern Warfare MP is by far the worst.
 
Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
I've said this before and I'll say it again. If it weren't for WARZONE this would have been the worst CoD in the history of CoDs. I wouldn't be surprised if 90%+ players are playing WARZONE, Modern Warfare MP is by far the worst.
It really is. Scump was fined for saying that very thing. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Nvzman

Nvzman

Member
Dec 23, 2013
2,049
84
425
I cannot consciously accept that anyone alive on this planet could honestly believe that Ghosts, Black Ops 3, and Infinite Warfare are better than MW2019, let alone "by far."
Ghosts was a slightly less campy MW, if anything I'd argue Ghosts is what MW is most similar to, the maps are equally shitty and gigantic for the most part too. Black Ops 3 was pretty good lol, it was the only solid advanced movement cod game. The maps were great, specialist abilities were interesting for the most part, guns were balanced well before the DLC, at launch it was a pretty great cod. IW is the only COD I'll agree is worse than MW, I refunded Infinite Warfare after playing it for two hours, it was straight garbage.
 

CrysisFreak

Perfection. Erection.
Apr 9, 2020
2,008
5,117
605
I cannot consciously accept that anyone alive on this planet could honestly believe that Ghosts, Black Ops 3, and Infinite Warfare are better than MW2019, let alone "by far."
MW is just so campy, sweaty and frustrating tbh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max_Po

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
6,777
6,853
800
USA
Ghosts was a slightly less campy MW, if anything I'd argue Ghosts is what MW is most similar to, the maps are equally shitty and gigantic for the most part too. Black Ops 3 was pretty good lol, it was the only solid advanced movement cod game. The maps were great, specialist abilities were interesting for the most part, guns were balanced well before the DLC, at launch it was a pretty great cod. IW is the only COD I'll agree is worse than MW, I refunded Infinite Warfare after playing it for two hours, it was straight garbage.
Maybe you don't remember it so well but the maps in Ghosts were definitely nowhere near the size of MW2019.

BO3 was atrocious and I would've stopped playing the series then if it weren't for MWR the next year. The maps were the smallest, most simplistic and most symmetrical the series has ever had, all of the guns looked and sounded like ass and it launched with fewer guns and maps than any CoD to date.

I was absolutely ecstatic when MW made the maps less claustrophobic and predictable, for me it will always be light years ahead of the dark period we had in the middle of this generation.
 

CrysisFreak

Perfection. Erection.
Apr 9, 2020
2,008
5,117
605
Maybe you don't remember it so well but the maps in Ghosts were definitely nowhere near the size of MW2019.

BO3 was atrocious and I would've stopped playing the series then if it weren't for MWR the next year. The maps were the smallest, most simplistic and most symmetrical the series has ever had, all of the guns looked and sounded like ass and it launched with fewer guns and maps than any CoD to date.

I was absolutely ecstatic when MW made the maps less claustrophobic and predictable, for me it will always be light years ahead of the dark period we had in the middle of this generation.
Less predictable + insanely short TTK + SBMM + claymores + meta M4 = kill me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nvzman

chonga

Member
Aug 17, 2020
148
257
230
I see, this helps a lot. Not worth the frame rate drop for me. I guess I’ll have to get used to default settings then. Thanks for the explanation.
Well, to be clear that's only the default side effect. As I mention they may choose to employ other techniques to avoid frame drop such as reducing the dynamic resolution further or dialling graphical effects back. And I haven't played the beta because the alpha sucked balls in my opinion so I can't tell which applies.
 
Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
I cannot consciously accept that anyone alive on this planet could honestly believe that Ghosts, Black Ops 3, and Infinite Warfare are better than MW2019, let alone "by far."
Black Ops 3 is one of the best CoDs. Granted, if you don't like boost jumping you won't like it, and that's fair enough.

Ghosts and IW were terrible, and that's coming from someone who didn't mind the boost jumping. The common denominator? Incompetence Ward. Ghosts. Infinite Warfare. Modern Warfare. All atrocious.
 

Nvzman

Member
Dec 23, 2013
2,049
84
425
Maybe you don't remember it so well but the maps in Ghosts were definitely nowhere near the size of MW2019.

BO3 was atrocious and I would've stopped playing the series then if it weren't for MWR the next year. The maps were the smallest, most simplistic and most symmetrical the series has ever had, all of the guns looked and sounded like ass and it launched with fewer guns and maps than any CoD to date.

I was absolutely ecstatic when MW made the maps less claustrophobic and predictable, for me it will always be light years ahead of the dark period we had in the middle of this generation.
People bitched ferociously when ghosts came out for having huge maps, what on earth are you talking about? Some MW maps are bigger but a large majority of them are around ghost's size or slightly smaller.
Maps like flooded were absolutely massive:


BO3 being atrocious is your opinion, and unfortunately that's one in the minority. The pros and casuals both liked it a good deal, and Black Ops 3 wasn't that small. The maps only felt small because of the exo movement, but to be honest the largest maps are usually the worst playing ones in cod. And symmetrical ones are usually the maps that play the best, thats why people love maps like hijacked, nobody wants a visual clusterfuck where the map is filled with bloat and stupid bullshit peek spots like in MW2019.

MW's maps are universally panned dude, I'm sorry but that's some shit taste if you'd prefer any map in MW over the maps in virtually any other cod game. They legitimately have no flow and feel like they were never playtested. And unlike Ghosts even the DLC/update maps are absolute dogshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Bloody-Nine

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
6,777
6,853
800
USA
And symmetrical ones are usually the maps that play the best, thats why people love maps like hijacked, nobody wants a visual clusterfuck where the map is filled with bloat and stupid bullshit peek spots like in MW2019.
It's okay if you like them, but symmetrical maps are most certainly not classic CoD. That's just not what CoD4 or MW2 were about.

If you think MW2019 maps have no flow then I don't know what to tell you other than I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Maybe you're perception of the negativity is inflated because it coincides with your opinion and that's why you think this game is so universally hated but I would bet the player base is larger than the last few entries were.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MDSLKTR
Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
It's okay if you like them, but symmetrical maps are most certainly not classic CoD. That's just not what CoD4 or MW2 were about.

If you think MW2019 maps have no flow then I don't know what to tell you other than I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Maybe you're perception of the negativity is inflated because it coincides with your opinion and that's why you think this game is so universally hated but I would bet the player base is larger than the last few entries were.
The player base is large because of Warzone. The MW maps have flow? Possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read regarding this series. Shoothouse, maybe.

I mean, they even ruined the CoD 4 maps by putting fucking doors everywhere. Nothing says flow like running into doors.
 
Last edited:

Thicc Team Six

Gold Member
May 18, 2020
751
1,800
600
One step at a time. They just switched to battle pass model, which is much better than the crap they were doing for 10 years with the paid map packs. MW 2019 actually has a playerbase that survived well into the next year. Its still getting maps, guns, and characters. Thats a huge improvement over the usual cycle.
Certainly. I'm really happy they are actually sticking with Warzone as well. As I understand it they considered a new BR with this release at one point in time. Still, I can't help but imagine that they are not maximizing profit with the annual sequel model vs. the constant update live game model. I would love to see their numbers/do the analysis on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub_Level

manfestival

Member
Nov 12, 2009
12,120
2,847
1,145
There are some seriously bitter people in here geez. It seems like a bunch of self loathing people. Like those girlfriends that keep going back to their abusive but replace that girlfriend with some of yall(and your wallets) and that boyfriend call of duty


I look forward to playing the beta next week
 

TheKratos

Neo Member
Sep 21, 2020
25
16
85
My main issue with SBMM is it forced you to play the meta, you can't just chill and go for camp challenges etc. One other thing is why does my team suck if there's SBMM? How come my opponents are only on my lvl?
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
6,777
6,853
800
USA
Still sold on the game, although I feel like the movement wasn't as smooth this weekend and I had a lot of microstutter/framerate hiccups on base PS4.

Excited to try the PC beta next week.
 
Feb 9, 2018
4,306
8,367
575
There are some seriously bitter people in here geez. It seems like a bunch of self loathing people. Like those girlfriends that keep going back to their abusive but replace that girlfriend with some of yall(and your wallets) and that boyfriend call of duty


I look forward to playing the beta next week
As analogies go that is one of the worst I've ever seen.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
Feb 24, 2015
4,709
3,305
545
Looking forward to trying this on PC. COD's typically a guilty pleasure, even if I don't check out every iteration.
 

DiegoAndrad

Neo Member
Oct 11, 2019
46
76
165
Brazil
im sorry dude but new IW didn't understand shit about the older cods. Nobody remembers Call of Duty 4 or Modern Warfare 2 for being campfests with shit level design that makes visibility terrible. They may have had camping/cheese but in those games camping was not being actively encouraged and was never the "viable" playstyle, it was just a thing lower skill-level players did to make up for poor movement and poor aim. Another thing is that those games deliberately designed weapons with their ammo pool in mind (etc: the SCAR and Vector in MW2 were powerful and super fast, respectively, but they had low ammo so you had to make your shots count), whereas in new MW you can put 60 ammo magazines on virtually any weapon you want, which completely negates the need for good aim whatsoever when you die in something like 3 bullets and shooting (even without a suppressor) doesn't put you on the radar. It's old school cod if old school cod actively rewarded the lowest skill playstyles imaginable, which they never did. And the map design in those games were leagues better.
What? My uncle used to camp on CoD and MW2 at every single match. He would get into a building, put claymores at the doors/stairs and proceed to do something like 80/2 K/D ratio. He even got banned from some servers after being mistaken for a cheater.

After MW2 he left CoD as the subsequent games made it difficult to camp effectively by having more entrances to buildings.