Plutonium

Resxt if i have to premise things and they still get taken as just complaining thats fine. but i did say things on premise. im not just trying to complain. and yet no real discussion, just silenced and summed up to complaining and nothing gets done. im not your boss asking people to do shit for me for free, dont swing it that way. im trying to start discussion. isnt the reason why people do this on their free time? to fix things and stop the gatekeeping and whatnot? im saying its gotten to the point where it seems like everyone cant come to agree on working together or to make 1 good client. how did plutonium get to this point with all the games they support and run well? there had to be people actually wanting to work together to make cool shit like this happen.
and yeah i try to ask good questions like, how does plutonium go from being under activisions will to being able to have optic or faze or others to host tournaments using it, even if switching to 'legal' copies. and then when asked about bo3, were told to use something that doesnt work lol. most people seem to agree on that, from casual to the ones developing these clients and fixes. but they say otherwise when you ask in forums or directly to people involved. what did activision do?
nobody is asking you to do anything right now, settle down. its clear what people are asking and even clearer what im asking. its just odd that everyone wants to fork from the same client, all calling the last one shit, then tell you to use one of them. plenty of people out there who wanna do shit on their free time, plenty more who would sit there for hours obsessing over trying to fix something. if it werent the case, who the hell would know about plutonium? annoying is just another word to push for better - hence all the devs you keep bringing up as a means to take away any of my points. mustve gotten a PR team over there by now, paid by activision

the point was to have/start a discussion to see where it leads. yeah might sound or look like a debate at times, but trying to attack or flip it? from a staff? the point is to talk, not turn it into cancel culture. the second you cant have that, and nothing gets done, or talked about, youre bought out in some way. the avoiding of bo3 is obvious, thats about all that is apparent. and i dont think its for anything you mentioned.

DrSkum88 have you read anything I said or just doing damage control? The other client DONT work well.
If we pull numbers just from steam, bo2 has a 24hr active player count peak of 211 and bo3 is 7162.
Average players playing right now? 156 for bo2. 3146 for bo3
I bring up steam because most people won't use steam to play these games and if they do it would be more so on bo3 which is insufficient without all the fixes or patches from these clients.
On bo2 plutonium, there's a couple dozen zombie games i can join at pretty much any time. There's lobbies with 6/8 people and plenty others with full lobbies or slots to be filled.
On bo3 you literally are not gonna connect to official servers so you lose players there. The server browsers for these clients are also not good or working idk who told you that, maybe they're good to play with friends-only who have the same modpacks as you. But if you're talking about just being able to play the game and tap into that player count? No it does jack shit. With the numbers I gave you, there's no way that I should have to play only bo2 plutonium to get a good 'online' experience.
This is why there's pushback or people coming to you guys. Idk what is up with these media-trained-like responses because most of the time it doesn't answer any of the real questions or nuanced things people bring up in the replies or initial posts.
And like after all I mentioned, who is FutureRave? Nobody had ever heard of him, let alone when it comes to t7x and some staff in here just drops the fact hes the only one with the full fork. Thanks I guess? Idk why that's the only little info they give and yet gets you nowhere. Which proves there isn't any good client. So what's the real issue?

I understand some staff feel annoyed being asked about this all the time. But things change. If t7x, t7patch, cleanops, boiii and all the other knockoffs can do it, and all can work with legit copies of the game, then what is the issue? You guys already do it for bo2, bo1 and more. Nothing is stopping you, the cease and desist standpoint seems fair at face value but makes no sense when you point everything out. And isn't now the best time to ever do it for bo3?
The reason people come to plutonium is because you guys do it right. How can bo3 have way way more active players, but no matter what client you use, the server browser is dead despite the way higher player count?. Plutonium as a whole and bo2 specifically just works and there's way more lobbies with actual players playing.
We ask here because we know plutonium can do it and would do it best, and I think it would end up being the way people play bo3 on pc.
But is plutonium being complacent is the question. Are they telling people to accept the other BS clients and just overusing cease and desist as a simple way of saying "never"? Is it because plutonium think that if they went along to work on bo3, that it would somehow make all their previous work like bo2, bo1 less relevant/lower those player counts?
It sounds like I'm being standoffish but that's not the intention. Many people have asked, even asked for a discussion. Being annoyed over this is a choice, since there hasn't been a 'real' discussion. Why can all these other subpar clients that offer fixes, keep running throughout the years? They dont really bring anything to the table. Security patches for what? To play the same 1-2 lobbies if you're lucky? Or play offline? And ultimately just get bored and uninstall the game because there's no real remedy. There's a big playerbase that can't even play the game because no one can do it right. I bet theres a lot of people who uninstall bo3 just to go play bo2 plutonium- is that something plutonium staff think about?
I mean I myself have tried to go back to bo3 on multiple occasions and I keep coming back to bo2 plutonium cause it's good, it works and has good maps. But if I had the choice, I'd like to experience the same on bo3 because it literally is an upgrade from bo2 and has almost the same maps if not all of them.

Yeah it's a long reply, but like let's talk about this because we sure did talk back in the days to get all these other games like bo2 to run well and have support with plutonium.

I understand some staff feel annoyed being asked about this all the time. But things change. If t7x, t7patch, cleanops, boiii and all the other knockoffs can do it, and all can work with legit copies of the game, then what is the issue? You guys already do it for bo2, bo1 and more. Nothing is stopping you, the cease and desist standpoint seems fair at face value but makes no sense when you point everything out. And isn't now the best time to ever do it for bo3?
The reason people come to plutonium is because you guys do it right. How can bo3 have way way more active players, but no matter what client you use, the server browser is dead despite the way higher player count?. Plutonium as a whole and bo2 specifically just works and there's way more lobbies with actual players playing.
We ask here because we know plutonium can do it and would do it best, and I think it would end up being the way people play bo3 on pc.
But is plutonium being complacent is the question. Are they telling people to accept the other BS clients and just overusing cease and desist as a simple way of saying "never"? Is it because plutonium think that if they went along to work on bo3, that it would somehow make all their previous work like bo2, bo1 less relevant/lower those player counts?
It sounds like I'm being standoffish but that's not the intention. Many people have asked, even asked for a discussion. Being annoyed over this is a choice, since there hasn't been a 'real' discussion. Why can all these other subpar clients that offer fixes, keep running throughout the years? They dont really bring anything to the table. Security patches for what? To play the same 1-2 lobbies if you're lucky? Or play offline? And ultimately just get bored and uninstall the game because there's no real remedy. There's a big playerbase that can't even play the game because no one can do it right. I bet theres a lot of people who uninstall bo3 just to go play bo2 plutonium- is that something plutonium staff think about?
I mean I myself have tried to go back to bo3 on multiple occasions and I keep coming back to bo2 plutonium cause it's good, it works and has good maps. But if I had the choice, I'd like to experience the same on bo3 because it literally is an upgrade from bo2 and has almost the same maps if not all of them.

Yeah it's a long reply, but like let's talk about this because we sure did talk back in the days to get all these other games like bo2 to run well and have support with plutonium.