103 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Foxfire kadrpg, on 24 October 2015 - 08:02 AM, said:

In the mean time, I still don't understand why someone is upset that others would take different steps to more consistently secure victory: It's a sign of autism to insist someone else is playing with their toys "the wrong way"

I'm not upset. I do it myself. I turn settings down to see better. But there's a great amount of lunacy to it that can be cured with a Russian backhand.

[InRev]

Every dollar spent on upgrading a potato is a dollar not spent on the game.

PGI shot themselves in the foot by building a free to play title using CryEngine. Yes, I know it was the cheapest option at the time, but it was short-sighted considering how many problems they have had with optimization, netcode, basic features (like PiP and Weapon Modes for LBX) etc. It makes you wonder how much money they have blown on man-hours in order to just make CryEngine work for F2P. I doubt it was worth it.

But hey, at least we don't have this problem:

Spoiler

Try being a sneaky Tank Destroyer when your opponent can just remove all scenery

[Cementi]

Kira Onime, on 24 October 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

Allot of the top players reduce their game settings since the new maps do nothing to help you see something.

My personal opinion is that this is no better than a player that uses an exploit. Sadly there is no way to enforce it. I personally will run with the best settings I feel my game will handle for two reasons.

1. It looks better and frankly allows me to immerse myself into the game more. That does not mean I will not tweak settings. Many games use bloom which in my opinion makes them look worse than not running it. So for me it is off (N/A for MWO). Cockpit glass for example......the scuff marks when they first came out literally gave me a headache. Took me awhile to get used to them. When they put in the toggle option I instantly took them off. Not because I felt it gave an advantage, it might, but even after I got used to it there was still unnessesary eye strain. At least for me.

2. I feel running lower settings just so you can game the system is cheating. I know alot of people disagree and thats fine. I am not here to condemn them. I simply am saying that I personally will not use anything that at all feels like cheating to me. Heck I feel dirty every time I run my arctic cheetah and it even has a sub optimal build on it (which still does well). Other than group drops I avoid meta mechs for the most part. What is the fun in playing a predetermined build that came from someone else. It is the same for maps. I think that some of these maps look GREAT, but only on high settings (just about everything is maxed for me). Taking away that apperance to give myself a nearly insignificant edge would only cheapen the experiance.

Most games have an object draw distance feature. I feel MWO probally does as well but it is put in with some of the detail options and is not specified. About the only change they could do would be to reduce the distances things are drawn when certain settings are lowered so people could not remove alot of the visual obsucurity without losing draw distance. That way a player with a low quality cpu is not punished. Currently if you tweak the right settings you remove some of the clutter and can see just as far. Reducing how far one could see when removing the clutter could even things up a bit as those with high detail would have to deal with the clutter.

Sadly it is a topic/change that will generate alot of hate from the epeens. Though I imagine there are a few top tier players out there that wish they could play competively on higher detail.

[Kira Onime]

Cementi, on 24 October 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

My personal opinion is that this is no better than a player that uses an exploit. Sadly there is no way to enforce it. I personally will run with the best settings I feel my game will handle for two reasons.

Well thankfully "I feel like" is not an argument for anything.

I feel sorry for you if using in-game options is considered "cheating" in your world.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Muddy Funster, on 24 October 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

After upgrading my rig and now running everything on max at 80-120 fps depending on map, I have been playing atrociously. Either I'm still being awestruck with the new beauty of the game or I find it difficult to see enemy 'mechs with all the shadows and explosions everywhere. I don't even feel like playing now, because I'm now just some noob who dies too quickly without doing half of what I was before. Why should I be forced to turn everything down to play competitively?

Everything on 'Very High' except AA. Not a min/max player.

[Mister Blastman]

InRev, on 24 October 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

Every dollar spent on upgrading a potato is a dollar not spent on the game.

PGI shot themselves in the foot by building a free to play title using CryEngine. Yes, I know it was the cheapest option at the time, but it was short-sighted considering how many problems they have had with optimization, netcode, basic features (like PiP and Weapon Modes for LBX) etc. It makes you wonder how much money they have blown on man-hours in order to just make CryEngine work for F2P. I doubt it was worth it.

But hey, at least we don't have this problem:

Spoiler

Try being a sneaky Tank Destroyer when your opponent can just remove all scenery

Is that World of Tanks? I have never played it and my question might be obvious--but there are lots of tank games out there.

The top picture doesn't look half bad. But I still play games from the 1980s so I don't really care about graphics that much.

[Ultimax]

Mister Blastman, on 24 October 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

I understand it perfectly. I know why they are there. But the theme of this thread is, "Why can't I play with all the options on and still be competitive?"

The answer is because PGI has failed and continues to fail at optimizing the game.



Also because PGI thinks making it difficult to see anything on any map is good for gameplay.


This is a first person shooter, trying to nerf our eyeballs because they fail at gamebalance is pretty pathetic.

[Mister Blastman]

Ultimatum X, on 24 October 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

The answer is because PGI has failed and continues to fail at optimizing the game.



Also because PGI thinks making it difficult to see anything on any map is good for gameplay.


This is a first person shooter, trying to nerf our eyeballs because they fail at gamebalance is pretty pathetic.

This is CryEngine. It is a pile of crap and you can't optimize it. I'm willing to bet it is one of the reasons Star Citizen is so behind. But that's their fault. They should have known from Living Legends how much of a piece of junk it is and chosen a better technology.

Fog and color blending has to go. I hate playing like I'm on a 1970s black and white television set all the time.

[Cementi]

Kira Onime, on 24 October 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

Well thankfully "I feel like" is not an argument for anything.

I feel sorry for you if using in-game options is considered "cheating" in your world.

It was not an arguement. Simply stating my opinion. Feel free to twist it however you want.

*edit* Oh and no need to feel sorry for me. Im perfectly content with my morals and need no feelings of sympathy from you.

Edited by Cementi, 24 October 2015 - 08:52 AM.

[Mystere]

Monkey Lover, on 24 October 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

Just wait for the ecm balance everyone will be in a red box soon and its not going to matter if you can see them. Just shoot at the red box.

That's the law of unintended ( ) consequences right there.

[Kira Onime]

Cementi, on 24 October 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:

It was not an arguement. Simply stating my opinion. Feel free to twist it however you want.

*edit* Oh and no need to feel sorry for me. Im perfectly content with my morals and need no feelings of sympathy from you.

Some opinions are better kept to ones self.

[Thorqemada]

I try to play at the most high settings my PC can compute while having a smooth gameplay experience.
Currently Environment is set to Medium bcs i have on the Live Servers way lower FPS than on the Testing Ground and Environment on Medium keeps me most of the time close to ~45min FPS.

Post Processing, Shading, Texturing is Very High.

Every other stuff High.

Usually i have 45 to 60 (capped - uncapped way above >100) FPS.

There are Team/Mech/Combateffect/Map-Location situations where my FPS tank for no obvious reason - it seems some of these combinations are poison to compute and take way to much ressources when the testing ground has on the same map location >100% more FPS i.e. like E4 on New Caustic Valley.

These situations do not work with low settings as well...

In the end with all these fast Mechs and Ligthspeed-Weapons MWO has become pretty "Twitchy" and every Twitch game is fundamentally depending on its FPS!

[Mystere]

Kira Onime, on 24 October 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

I reduce most of my settings to be able to keep a steady 60FPS+ at all times, something not easily achievable on the new maps since either them or the game has piss-poor optimization.

What is this obsession with 60+ fps? Unless you're Superman or the Flash, 30-40 FPS is fine for mere mortals. MWO isn't even a twitch shooter.

[Kjudoon]

I like the fact that the fog and dark wrecks the long range meta. More maps need it. Then again, I just use LRMs for the long range game, so... yeah. I'm biased towards wrecking the df meta.

[Kira Onime]

Mystere, on 24 October 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

What is this obsession with 60+ fps? Unless you're Superman or the Flash, 30-40 FPS is fine for mere mortals. MWO isn't even a twitch shooter.

I find 30-40 to be very choppy and inconsistent and yes, I can tell without looking at the counter when it drops in those ranges.

[InRev]

Mister Blastman, on 24 October 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Is that World of Tanks? I have never played it and my question might be obvious--but there are lots of tank games out there.

The top picture doesn't look half bad. But I still play games from the 1980s so I don't really care about graphics that much.

War Thunder.

The problem wasn't how the game looked but rather that when you turned the graphics settings down, all those bushes disappeared. Which meant you couldn't hide in them. In Simulator Mode, there are no nameplates to mark tanks so you have to use the Mark I eyeball to spot enemies. If someone could remove all the bushes in the game by moving a graphics slider it meant that people who play the game on high settings were at a distinct disadvantage because the bush in which they thought they were hiding didn't actually exist for the other player on low settings.

It was hugely controversial for years because comp players would play the game using PS1 settings and completely negate all the concealment on the map, causing huge gameplay issues. Supposedly Gaijin has fixed or is planning to fix it but I've given up on that game for other reasons.

[Spr1ggan]

Not everyone has the top Intel CPU and an SLI/XFIRE setup. I would rather play at a solid framerate than all settings maxed and have the framerate dropping at times. I run all low apart from textures, environment, and object detail. There's still fog on forest colony etc.

In my opinion though, a solid framerate is a top priority in any multiplayer shooter.

[Burktross]

InRev, on 24 October 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

Every dollar spent on upgrading a potato is a dollar not spent on the game.

PGI shot themselves in the foot by building a free to play title using CryEngine. Yes, I know it was the cheapest option at the time, but it was short-sighted considering how many problems they have had with optimization, netcode, basic features (like PiP and Weapon Modes for LBX) etc. It makes you wonder how much money they have blown on man-hours in order to just make CryEngine work for F2P. I doubt it was worth it.

But hey, at least we don't have this problem:

Spoiler

Try being a sneaky Tank Destroyer when your opponent can just remove all scenery

Bruh! That's hilarious! It's like Operation Flashpoint vs Arma 2!!!

[Mazzyplz]

after upgrading my rig i was lost yeah, tuned it back a little bit for fps as well, now 40+

it still took a while to get used to the new vid specs but i like the extra challenge

i even play with the glass on

[Goose]

Cementi, on 24 October 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

My personal opinion is that this is no better than a player that uses an exploit. Sadly there is no way to enforce it.

Teh Proverbial Unfair Advantage, being a list where Particles and/ or PostProcessing settings of Low belong, should put players in a separate que …

All of them: No ratio of system spec-to-settings is necessary …