70 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

FPS, as graphics is good enough and more graphics means more people may burn through their wooden PC's.

Edited by Lily from animove, 20 July 2016 - 11:23 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

FPS

This is because the game handedly eclipses previous MW titles in the graphics department (one of the original design goals for the game), and I think smoothness during CQC is of paramount importance.

[DAYLEET]

Choice number one: Do you want the game not being crappy.

Choice number two: Do you want the game not being crappy.

I Vote for the game not being crappy, thank you. But i would have also added a third option "content" "game not crappy"

[Alistair Winter]

FX.

Except for the fact that the latest patch butchered the FPS for a lot of people, and probably requires a hot fix at some point, I think this game is 3-4 years old and needs a face-lift. It used to be an exceptionally beautiful FPS in 2012, but in 2016 (and 2017, soon), it's just not up there anymore.

[The Robot Jox]

thanks for everyone that keep voting i am going to make an xl sheet later on. seems FPS is what people care about.

[Tyler Valentine]

Both. Spend $300 on components and you can play this game on max settings with 60fps.

[The Robot Jox]

Tyler Valentine, on 20 July 2016 - 01:23 PM, said:

Both. Spend $300 on components and you can play this game on max settings with 60fps.

Hello, this is a related post, as you can see my system is above recommended specs. But lets not deviate from the voting. =D

http://mwomercs.com/...ff/page__st__20

Edited by The Robot Jox, 20 July 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[vettie]

To vote FPS

lucky enough to have both here

Also of note - Yesterday WAS patch day. Most likely (only a guess) loads were heavier and will be for a few days as players update whether they play or not. And it was a sizable download not to mention payload was probably heavier as people were "checking out" the patch...imo....

[Tarogato]

Option 3: optimise what we already have for better fps and no loss in quality.

[Percimes]

Until last fall I was playing on a intel Q9550. I've upgraded. I've made my choice. Now I have both.

[Peter2k]

Fps

[Xmith]

It's not the size, it's how you use it...

The devs as you described as being small and can't possibly tap their head and rub their belly at the same time must be doing something right. There are people here saying they have good FPS and FX.

So what's your point?

[The Robot Jox]

Xmith, on 20 July 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

It's not the size, it's how you use it...

The devs as you described as being small and can't possibly tap their head and rub their belly at the same time must be doing something right. There are people here saying they have good FPS and FX.

So what's your point?

you can vote if you like, describing my point here deviates from my original post, thanks.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

FX with conditions...

I would prefer more "minimum" graphics. Aka, I don't think people should be able to gain an advantage by turning things down....I think everything should still show on low....it should just look ultra ******.

So Fx-ish?

[The Robot Jox]

Akulla1980, on 20 July 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

Both, I got enough power err force

If I could only have one its FPS.

good one mate, you see this is what i wanted to see, what does the mwo comunity value more, even if you have both you choose FPS.

Cathy, on 20 July 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

I also have noth

well, like i said be nice and choose one that is more important to you.

[Kangarad]

FX

[GreenHell]

FPS!

I want at least 144 to match my monitor.

[Karl Marlow]

I choose melee combat

[JinSR]

FPS and stable latency.

It is a shooter (a steady shooter at that) so that means these things are just too important to give up for an extra bit of eye candy.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

FPS