rhombusLerk QueenJoin Date: 2011-06-23Member: 106055Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2050094:date=Dec 22 2012, 11:33 PM:name=SabaHell)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SabaHell @ Dec 22 2012, 11:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050094"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe lowering the settings may help in more ways than one.
The devs have said and will continue to say that they're working on performance. This isn't a AAA title. A lot of things are broken with this game, but doesn't mean that they don't know it or aren't working on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I edited one of my previous posts for you, Neo. Unfortunately it's going to be like that for a while.
I find it funny that this person is trying to do something with the engine that it wasen't intented to do (or not yet at least) and then complains that the game doesn't work good when doing it..
THIS GAME ISN'T MADE FOR LARGE NUMBERS. Large numbers not only break BALANCING issues, but MAPS are literally built with 6v6 or 8v8 in mind, and when you go over that it is just too easy to take advantage of imbalances and flaws and give one side a clear advantage.
This is like me taking BF3 and wanting to play with 50,000 people in one server. Sure you could mess around and make a server that will allow it, BUT THE GAME WILL DEFIANTLY RUN LIKE ######! lol
Just because the game doesn't have full fps when you try doing something the game wasn't intended on doing doesn't mean the engine is broken, or the dev team failed in making a decent engine.
This game isn't meant for more than 8v8 and if YOU MUST play with more people i suggest just getting a different game. NS2 devs aren't loosing income at all if you go to another game as you already have bought it, so they wont be too heart broken you do not liek their game ;)
Marine commander is absolutely awesome. Everyone who likes RTS will love to comm Marines. Unlike the Alien kham you have actually to actively play instad of watching your skulks run around the map while your harvesters grow and upgrades are in research.
Its not the marine comm who needs to be easier, its the alien Khamm who needs to get harder. Right now you cant do very much wrong with alien Kham, while a bad marine comm is a freeloss for the marine team. It even makes sense to jump out of the hive to support your mates in battle. That shows clearly that Khammander got not enough possibilitys to actively support his team.
<!--quoteo(post=2050139:date=Dec 23 2012, 07:58 AM:name=slimebuck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (slimebuck @ Dec 23 2012, 07:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050139"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This game isn't meant for more than 8v8 and if YOU MUST play with more people i suggest just getting a different game. NS2 devs aren't loosing income at all if you go to another game as you already have bought it, so they wont be too heart broken you do not liek their game ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, in all honesty, I mean, c'mon. I like NS2 as well but I don't get it how you can argue that the Engine is in a fine shape. Of course you could say, it's not the fault of the engine when the performances collapses in larger battles, though, it does so even in smaller skirmishes not the mention how damn hard it is to hit as a marine. With hit, I mean to hit the target + getting the engine realized you've hit. I might as well understand that the majority here on the forum want to the defend the game, though I see no point in turning down a very obvious complain you just can't argue about - currently, the performance and hit registration is flawed. Yeah, it became way better since the ol' days of beta but still, why should a customer who bought this game care about it?
It might be common practice to release half-down software nowadays and I won't blame such a small team as the devs of NS2 for doing it. Still, I think it is a bit strange to tell people who've bought a released software to wait a few month until this game is in a shape good enough to be played for a majority of the people. Performance and the hit registration makes it extremely difficult for marines to win. I see not problem with the way the commander works - it is way less micromanagmet than in NS1 and marines did pretty well there. All kind of balance though won't change anything if the majority of the marines simply don't hit.
This "L2P"-attitude slowly starts to go on my nerves. In general, I assume that most NS2 players have ever played an Ego-Shooter before are are on an average skill level. That granted, either the marines somehow act like they've never played a shooter when it comes to NS2 or the engine makes it utterly hard to play on a high level. What kind of argument is it to tell a customer that the software might still a few more month, maybe even another half a year until it can be played in terms of performance on a level equal to other available shooters out there? I know that even the playerbase now take's it as granted that you buy a "released game" and still call it "in development". Of course it is, so is every piece of software - it gets updated, bugfixed an such but we all know that there's a lot more to be done for NS2 when it should be able to compete in terms of performance with other games out there.
Marines had been clawing back to some decent win rates before the x-mas sale green-flood. Now its all about training greens up.
Note, I just had my own "Marines cant win" thread just a couple of weeks ago. Skill pools and playing on a variety of servers (not just UWE official) brought about a change in what I was seeing.
Marines can win... but its still the aliens game to lose more often than not. But give me 2 marines that can shoot straight and a commander that knows an opportunity when he sees it and magic can happen for marines!
Basically everything has been said already. Im running NS2 on a laptop on the lowest settings and im having fun. What it boils down to is: You're a new player who can't play the game yet and you direct you anger to the game's performance. NS2 takes much more than a couple of weeks, a couple of months to learn.
In my own experience, performance varies quite substantially.
For every person who says the game runs just fine on their self-acknowledged 'crappy' hardware, there is another one with great hardware getting terrible performance problems.
On Friday (after the last patch came out) I was getting 40fps average. Now I get 20 (at spawn), down to 10 in fights of only 2-3 people. I have not changed my graphics (currently running 1366x760 and ALL other settings on lowest)
my specs are:
intel i7-2600 @ 3.4 GHz 8GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz nvidia geforce 560 Ti with latest drivers (310) windows 7
What the OP was likely saying had nothing to do with battlefield 3 being a better game, but that it can handle serveral more players on a server without such severe performance problems, and that Marines depend more on good performance than Aliens do. (It is a lot harder to shoot a speeding skulk at 12fps than bite a marine at the same speed).
Therefore, comments such as 'go back to playing another game' are unwelcome. We are on this forum to discuss THIS game.
My suggestion to the devs would be as follows:
-Continue working on performance (which HAS been improving) -Revise the system requirements stated - they are clearly not accurate if so many people are having performance problems. It is a horrible experience for a gamer to spend a lot of money (please note that in many countries $25 is actually a fair sum of a person's salary) on a game, checking that they have well above the 'recommended' requirements only to get unplayable fps even on lowest graphics.
I cannot find the setting to turn particle effects 'off' anywhere, the lowest setting is 'low' (and I have updated to 235) .
I understand that these things take time to sort out, but it is not fair of anyone to tell another person to stop playing, or condescendingly tell them to learn to get better without listening to their concerns.
EDIT: It is also unhelpful to tell players to stop playing on pub servers. Many of us do not know other professional gamers to start a clan with, and do not have the time to get good enough to join an existing clan. Pub servers thus <i>are</i> the game for them, and they have just as much right to enjoy it as competitive gamers.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2050294:date=Dec 23 2012, 05:24 PM:name=Andinagama)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andinagama @ Dec 23 2012, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050294"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I cannot find the setting to turn particle effects 'off' anywhere, the lowest setting is 'low' (and I have updated to 235) .<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it was set to off, it would give you a clear advantage in terms of visibility. That is why there is only low. I'm also very confused at some of the specs some people have combined with super low performance...
I've ran a 2nd generation C2D (E6420 @ 3.2Ghz) and the game was "playable" 20-40FPs with small dips to 15 in huge fights
I'm now running an i5 2500K @ 4.2Ghz and the game runs like a dream (50-60FPS in combat and 80+ running around the map)
-> but I've also heard people complain, while bing on 4.5-4.8Ghz and seeing dips to 10FPS just like you at stock speeds. A the horrors of PC development, all those different config require different stuff
I for one am amazed at the compatibility with hardware of this engine though...
@OP, random performance issues aside. The maps that are out currently are also not big enough for more then 18 players, add to this the already balance issues with lots of players and it is a recipe for disaster... BTW the general concensus is, the more players the easier it becomes for marines with their building force and expansion speed increase and of course the potential egglocking issues for aliens and more exposed cyst chains to more players
I think these performance issues on high end machine can also be related to server performance problems. I run ns2 just fine but there are times when I seem to have 10 fps, when the counter in fact shows up a healthy 50. What I mean by it "seem" is that the models are moving as if I saw a slideshow. Once, I even saw a lerk, floating on the spot in midair, no animations. I could shoot him, blood splatters but no dmg numbers of course and I was able to walk through it. Issues like this may happen much more often, just on a smaller scale.
<!--quoteo(post=2050306:date=Dec 23 2012, 01:01 PM:name=bERt0r)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bERt0r @ Dec 23 2012, 01:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I mean by it "seem" is that the models are moving as if I saw a slideshow. Once, I even saw a lerk, floating on the spot in midair, no animations. I could shoot him, blood splatters but no dmg numbers of course and I was able to walk through it. Issues like this may happen much more often, just on a smaller scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This happens usually when players lose their connection without disconnecting.
<!--quoteo(post=2050304:date=Dec 23 2012, 01:53 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Dec 23 2012, 01:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it was set to off, it would give you a clear advantage in terms of visibility. That is why there is only low. I'm also very confused at some of the specs some people have combined with super low performance...
I've ran a 2nd generation C2D (E6420 @ 3.2Ghz) and the game was "playable" 20-40FPs with small dips to 15 in huge fights
I for one am amazed at the compatibility with hardware of this engine though...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other than lerk gas (I think it's a particle?) there are no particles where turning them off would give you an advantage. None. You could make it so that the off option just doesn't change the "important" particles anyway but gets rid of things like bullet tracers and bullet sparks. This is actually important since anything that you can toggle off that doesn't impact gameplay should be able to be toggled off when performance is this bad where it's unplayable for anybody who doesn't own a current-gen processor.
20-40fps with dips to 15 is <b>NOT</b> playable. No one should have to suffer through this. 40fps is not enough to even kill skulks who are running at you on the floor, the only thing you can do is use a grenade launcher. You need at least a solid 80 to stay competitive. 60 MAY be enough, if you are playing against bad players.
You are amazed at the hardware compatibility because you have low standards and you are one of the lucky few, where most of my friends are always experiencing latency or crashing issues and a framerate worse than 2 patches before. Played a game once where 3 out of the 6 of our players crashed at the same time, without a pause feature or an official competitive config this was a huge disaster. As a playtester you should be aware of how big of an issue all of this is.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2050382:date=Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Other than lerk gas (I think it's a particle?) there are no texture-based particles where turning them off would give you an advantage. None. You could make it so that the off option just doesn't change the "important" particles anyway but gets rid of things like bullet tracers and bullet sparks. This is actually important since anything that you can toggle off that doesn't impact gameplay should be able to be toggled off when performance is this bad where it's unplayable for anybody who doesn't own a current-gen processor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> FYI there much are more particle FX then spore, have you seen those crazy screenshots that block the entire view with all of them activated at once?
Indeed...
<!--quoteo(post=2050382:date=Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->20-40fps with dips to 15 is NOT playable. No one should have to suffer through this. 40fps is not enough to even kill skulks who are running at you on the floor, the only thing you can do is use a grenade launcher. You need at least a solid 80 to stay competitive. 60 MAY be enough, if you are playing against bad players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ugh get of it, and good show for ignoring the quite obvious quotation marks... Also I was able to kill plenty of walljumping and frantically moving Skulks at ~30 FPS. I never said it was acceptable and the increased mouselag was annoying, but it was "playable" to some extend. The thing that does make it unplayable is the huge changes in FPS, going from 40-20 and back... And those dips to 15 are quite unacceptable, but fact is on oldschool 2006 hardware, you simply don't have the power to brute force your way through the current kinks in the engine.
<!--quoteo(post=2050382:date=Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are amazed at the hardware compatibility because you have low standards and you are one of the lucky few, where most of my friends are always experiencing latency or crashing issues and a framerate worse than 2 patches before. Played a game once where 3 out of the 6 of our players crashed at the same time, without a pause or an official competitive config this was a huge disaster. As a playtester you should be aware of how big of an issue all of this is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Indeed, I am quite amazed at the hardware compatibility they managed in such a short time.
<b>List of stating the obvious:</b> Of course there are issue with some hardware Of course there are random oddball exceptions to the rule (High end machines, low performance) Of course there is the NVIDIA bug for the GTX 400 and 500 series with random disfigured polygon Of course there it should have better performance Of course AMD has some serious issues.
All of these issues are know and the devs are working hard on trying to get them out of the way... But for such a small team and an engine that is still under heavy development. Yep, pretty good in terms of compatibility. With some exceptions that are quite horrendous. But overall the game does run on all kinds of hardware... I've seen much worse performing engines on release from much bigger companies...
I run the game on a chipset that originally came out in 2009 and a gpu that came out that year as well. My computer would cost around $900 to fully assemble today, which in my opinion is pretty mediocre. It is just about 2013. People constantly compare this game to other fps games that are 2-3 years old that are basically console ports, meant to run on hardware that came out 2005. I just ran a 12 minute long benchmark on summit in a 20+ player game. I had a min/max of 40-80 fps with an average of 53.
If you really have that much trouble with the performance of this game, upgrade your CPU. It's really that simple.
Does anyone else remember playing half-life back in 2000?. When I first got into internet multiplayer, I was on dial up. A 250ms ping was pretty good for that time and if you had above 30 fps, that was alright as well. Some people complain they can't play when they have over a 50ms ping and under 60 fps. It makes me cringe.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does anyone else remember playing half-life back in 2000?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last video cards I remember owning were the 9200 SE and the GeForce 2 <a href="http://youtu.be/meLg7jSHT20" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/meLg7jSHT20</a>
both could barely run halo at 30fps.
Later on I got my Q6600 and a 8800GT both to play the Orange Box games. Played TF2 at 200fps but good luck getting more than 30 now without a i5 or equivalent.
My brand new present/computer ~$500 (Keep in mind that it was on sale + it was a DIY parts & case kit, so no manufacturing cost) can run this just fine at medium give or take. Really all I have to blame is my cheapo hand me down unresponsive logitech mouse.
<!--quoteo(post=2050092:date=Dec 22 2012, 11:29 PM:name=Samus1111111)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Samus1111111 @ Dec 22 2012, 11:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're dropping to 10 fps, then you don't have as good a comp as you think you do.
I run the game with maxed settings and I run at about 50 fps normally and drop to 25-30 in large fights. And by large fights I mean most of both teams in the same place with almost every single particle effect possible going off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is unacceptable in this day and age. There are better looking games that manage much better performance. There is no way around that.
My opinion on this is partly due to how impossible average/good skulks are to hit for anyone that isn't an experienced or very skilled player. Skulks are a class that I find insanely easy to play by just bunnyhopping (which is ######ng infuriating since it dodges 50% of bullets if you don't have sick aim), wall jumping and landing a few bites even against good marine players. Good rifle and shotgun play vs decent skulks and lerks however is like playing pro quake 3/live. You can lone wolf as a skulk and do good by the team almost all the time but going lone as a marine is a death sentence and a detriment in most cases. Too much effort from marines, too little from aliens.
How often do you see a squad of marines against a squad of aliens of the same size and win? Considering that each team is average skill with equal tech. Almost never unless there's a 3 or more exos or they engage in a tight corridor. It's nearly always a slaughter and skulks repeatedly jump up and down holding down left mouse and W.
Another is the sufficient lack of punishment to alien failures. If a marine comm doesn't beacon his base in time to an attack, it's very likely to be game over from then a mistake that in some cases when your announcer is spammed by marines wanting hp and ammo, it can be missed. If an exo squad doesn't make sufficient progress quickly enough then it's spreading them thin, losing RTs and losing bases. Too easy to harass marine RTs and too difficult for marines in 16+ servers. All classes on alien can respond quickly to a hive threat and defend from multiple angles whereas marines either casually phase gate and get insta-gibbed or they beacon which is expensive and spreads marine teams thin again.
As far as performance issues goes, still needs optimizing but it's much better than previous patch. Anything 20+ starts to drain on my pc but 16/16 is fine.
I guess the conclusion is that where do you balance this game? Pub play or competitive play. It can't be both for a game like this. I'm an average marine and an average alien yet I perform much better as alien in most games. The skill requirement just seems too swayed. Maybe it's just be bitcing or calling out OP but I see a problem here primarily with how dominating skulks can be early game and how little effort alien early game takes to get ahead. All I ever see is skulks absolutely dominating marines in pubs just by bunnyhopping, not even bothering to wall walk or flank and sniping RTs with little effort.
<!--quoteo(post=2050082:date=Dec 22 2012, 08:11 PM:name=AM|Angry_AGAIN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AM|Angry_AGAIN @ Dec 22 2012, 08:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050082"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the guys who didnt read or understand.. The compare between BF3 and NS2 are the RIGS and the system performance. Building a game for a hardcore playerbase of 1000 players with only 10% that will and can afford a 3000$ rig for Ns2 is just stupid...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm playing on a rig that cost about 400-500 to build and I don't drop below 60 fps. Your rig is just not that good lol.
<!--quoteo(post=2050779:date=Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm playing on a rig that cost about 400-500 to build and I don't drop below 60 fps. Your rig is just not that good lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good for you. Meanwhile, there are people like me who are running on a 4.0ghz i7, 3xRaid0, 2GB 6950s in Crossfire and can't even play without fps dips on a single monitor. Or are you saying you built a better rig for 400 bucks?
Just because you don't have a problem running the game doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the engine. Fact of the matter is, NS2 has the worst performance I have seen out of any game I have played since GTA4.
<!--quoteo(post=2050420:date=Dec 23 2012, 07:19 PM:name=sharnrock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sharnrock @ Dec 23 2012, 07:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050420"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does anyone else remember playing half-life back in 2000?. When I first got into internet multiplayer, I was on dial up. A 250ms ping was pretty good for that time and if you had above 30 fps, that was alright as well. Some people complain they can't play when they have over a 50ms ping and under 60 fps. It makes me cringe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember playing CS @ 640x480 at 20fps with 150-200 ping (NS was even worse). ###### sucked man but I still had a ton of fun. But these are different times, NS2 SHOULD get much better FPS than it does. It's not like it was back in the day where the hardware hadn't caught up with the software.
<!--quoteo(post=2050779:date=Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm playing on a rig that cost about 400-500 to build and I don't drop below 60 fps. Your rig is just not that good lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're lying or just stupid.
At the public level this game is played, Marine losses are more attributable to Marine players not knowing how to play than problems with the engine. The first problem is Commanders who take forever to respond to anything and can't manage resources/upgrades. The second problem is Marines who don't have the aggressive spirit required to pressure Aliens and contend for map control. It's not even that Aliens can stop their attempts (In just about every pub I can rambo down a few RTs before anybody responds), it that they're not even trying to be aggressive.
<!--quoteo(post=2050769:date=Dec 25 2012, 03:17 AM:name=RaZDaZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaZDaZ @ Dec 25 2012, 03:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050769"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My opinion on this is partly due to how impossible average/good skulks are to hit for anyone that isn't an experienced or very skilled player. Skulks are a class that I find insanely easy to play by just <b>bunnyhopping</b> (which is ######ng infuriating since it dodges 50% of bullets if you don't have sick aim), wall jumping and landing a few bites even against good marine players.
...
All I ever see is skulks absolutely dominating marines in pubs just by <b>bunnyhopping</b>, not even bothering to wall walk or flank and sniping RTs with little effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in case people misunderstand you, there is no bunnyhopping in ns2. i repeat, <b>there is no bunnyhopping in ns2</b>.
please use the phrase "jumping repeatedly" to describe what you're doing next time. be a protector of peace and harmony on the forums! thank you very much.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=2051003:date=Dec 25 2012, 01:41 PM:name=cream)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cream @ Dec 25 2012, 01:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051003"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in case people misunderstand you, there is no bunnyhopping in ns2. i repeat, <b>there is no bunnyhopping in ns2</b>.
please use the phrase "jumping repeatedly" to describe what you're doing next time. be a protector of peace and harmony on the forums! thank you very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was waiting for someone to quote/highlight that bit :P
<!--quoteo(post=2050836:date=Dec 24 2012, 02:12 PM:name=SixtyWattMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SixtyWattMan @ Dec 24 2012, 02:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I remember playing CS @ 640x480 at 20fps with 150-200 ping (NS was even worse). ###### sucked man but I still had a ton of fun. But these are different times, NS2 SHOULD get much better FPS than it does. It's not like it was back in the day where the hardware hadn't caught up with the software.
You're lying or just stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can assure you that is not the case. All of this complaining I've heard about ATI stuff and having to have an I5 or higher is just not true lol. I'm playing on an I3 and still don't drop below 60 on a full 24 player server unless over half the team is on exos(which is almost never). U must be mad.
Marines are also quite easy. New players will be new.
<!--quoteo(post=2051017:date=Dec 25 2012, 02:53 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Dec 25 2012, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051017"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was waiting for someone to quote/highlight that bit :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would it be possible for you to pick up and correct those rather than waiting for someone else to do it?
Having to cope with constant misinformation is part of the reason why the vast majority of potentially valuable posters decide to skip the forums.
<!--quoteo(post=2050836:date=Dec 24 2012, 05:12 PM:name=SixtyWattMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SixtyWattMan @ Dec 24 2012, 05:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're lying or just stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure you can make a rig now that costs $500 and can run NS2.
Decent 4/8GB RAM - $40 DECENT motherboard - $80 Core i5-3570K - $220 Video card that can run NS2 at pretty much any fps the CPU can dish out - $130 Power supply and case - $60
= $530
Not counting any sales or reusing hardware from your previous build. Core i5-3570K overclocked can run NS2 at 120fps in most cases according to owners of the CPU.
The sad thing is that I load a lot faster than both my friends running on I5s. There must be other things going on here, whether it be their settings, or whatever. I'm just stating the facts that if you're spending 1000-3000 on a rig, and you can't even play NS2 without crappy performance, then you really ######ed up. You definitely got ripped off, and more likely than not there is something wrong with the electrical flow throughout your machine(likely caused by a weak powersupply, but could be other problems as well). There is no ######ing way you could spend 1000 bucks on a rig and not have great performance in this game, far surpassing that of my own, and in standard 6v6 scrims for fun I run at about 85-100 fps.
Bottom line is, if you spent a lot of money on your rig(over $500), and still can't play the game, then you're either A) bad at building a comp, or B) too lazy to build your own so you got ripped off and got a machine that isn't actually worth that much.
Comments
The devs have said and will continue to say that they're working on performance. This isn't a AAA title. A lot of things are broken with this game, but doesn't mean that they don't know it or aren't working on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I edited one of my previous posts for you, Neo. Unfortunately it's going to be like that for a while.
THIS GAME ISN'T MADE FOR LARGE NUMBERS. Large numbers not only break BALANCING issues, but MAPS are literally built with 6v6 or 8v8 in mind, and when you go over that it is just too easy to take advantage of imbalances and flaws and give one side a clear advantage.
This is like me taking BF3 and wanting to play with 50,000 people in one server. Sure you could mess around and make a server that will allow it, BUT THE GAME WILL DEFIANTLY RUN LIKE ######! lol
Just because the game doesn't have full fps when you try doing something the game wasn't intended on doing doesn't mean the engine is broken, or the dev team failed in making a decent engine.
This game isn't meant for more than 8v8 and if YOU MUST play with more people i suggest just getting a different game. NS2 devs aren't loosing income at all if you go to another game as you already have bought it, so they wont be too heart broken you do not liek their game ;)
2) Yeah, right.
Its not the marine comm who needs to be easier, its the alien Khamm who needs to get harder. Right now you cant do very much wrong with alien Kham, while a bad marine comm is a freeloss for the marine team. It even makes sense to jump out of the hive to support your mates in battle. That shows clearly that Khammander got not enough possibilitys to actively support his team.
Well, in all honesty, I mean, c'mon. I like NS2 as well but I don't get it how you can argue that the Engine is in a fine shape. Of course you could say, it's not the fault of the engine when the performances collapses in larger battles, though, it does so even in smaller skirmishes not the mention how damn hard it is to hit as a marine. With hit, I mean to hit the target + getting the engine realized you've hit. I might as well understand that the majority here on the forum want to the defend the game, though I see no point in turning down a very obvious complain you just can't argue about - currently, the performance and hit registration is flawed. Yeah, it became way better since the ol' days of beta but still, why should a customer who bought this game care about it?
It might be common practice to release half-down software nowadays and I won't blame such a small team as the devs of NS2 for doing it. Still, I think it is a bit strange to tell people who've bought a released software to wait a few month until this game is in a shape good enough to be played for a majority of the people. Performance and the hit registration makes it extremely difficult for marines to win. I see not problem with the way the commander works - it is way less micromanagmet than in NS1 and marines did pretty well there. All kind of balance though won't change anything if the majority of the marines simply don't hit.
This "L2P"-attitude slowly starts to go on my nerves. In general, I assume that most NS2 players have ever played an Ego-Shooter before are are on an average skill level. That granted, either the marines somehow act like they've never played a shooter when it comes to NS2 or the engine makes it utterly hard to play on a high level. What kind of argument is it to tell a customer that the software might still a few more month, maybe even another half a year until it can be played in terms of performance on a level equal to other available shooters out there? I know that even the playerbase now take's it as granted that you buy a "released game" and still call it "in development". Of course it is, so is every piece of software - it gets updated, bugfixed an such but we all know that there's a lot more to be done for NS2 when it should be able to compete in terms of performance with other games out there.
Note, I just had my own "Marines cant win" thread just a couple of weeks ago. Skill pools and playing on a variety of servers (not just UWE official) brought about a change in what I was seeing.
Marines can win... but its still the aliens game to lose more often than not. But give me 2 marines that can shoot straight and a commander that knows an opportunity when he sees it and magic can happen for marines!
For every person who says the game runs just fine on their self-acknowledged 'crappy' hardware, there is another one with great hardware getting terrible performance problems.
On Friday (after the last patch came out) I was getting 40fps average. Now I get 20 (at spawn), down to 10 in fights of only 2-3 people.
I have not changed my graphics (currently running 1366x760 and ALL other settings on lowest)
my specs are:
intel i7-2600 @ 3.4 GHz
8GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz
nvidia geforce 560 Ti with latest drivers (310)
windows 7
What the OP was likely saying had nothing to do with battlefield 3 being a better game, but that it can handle serveral more players on a server without such severe performance problems, and that Marines depend more on good performance than Aliens do. (It is a lot harder to shoot a speeding skulk at 12fps than bite a marine at the same speed).
Therefore, comments such as 'go back to playing another game' are unwelcome. We are on this forum to discuss THIS game.
My suggestion to the devs would be as follows:
-Continue working on performance (which HAS been improving)
-Revise the system requirements stated - they are clearly not accurate if so many people are having performance problems. It is a horrible experience for a gamer to spend a lot of money (please note that in many countries $25 is actually a fair sum of a person's salary) on a game, checking that they have well above the 'recommended' requirements only to get unplayable fps even on lowest graphics.
I cannot find the setting to turn particle effects 'off' anywhere, the lowest setting is 'low' (and I have updated to 235) .
I understand that these things take time to sort out, but it is not fair of anyone to tell another person to stop playing, or condescendingly tell them to learn to get better without listening to their concerns.
EDIT: It is also unhelpful to tell players to stop playing on pub servers. Many of us do not know other professional gamers to start a clan with, and do not have the time to get good enough to join an existing clan. Pub servers thus <i>are</i> the game for them, and they have just as much right to enjoy it as competitive gamers.
If it was set to off, it would give you a clear advantage in terms of visibility. That is why there is only low. I'm also very confused at some of the specs some people have combined with super low performance...
I've ran a 2nd generation C2D (E6420 @ 3.2Ghz) and the game was "playable" 20-40FPs with small dips to 15 in huge fights
I'm now running an i5 2500K @ 4.2Ghz and the game runs like a dream (50-60FPS in combat and 80+ running around the map)
-> but I've also heard people complain, while bing on 4.5-4.8Ghz and seeing dips to 10FPS just like you at stock speeds. A the horrors of PC development, all those different config require different stuff
I for one am amazed at the compatibility with hardware of this engine though...
@OP, random performance issues aside. The maps that are out currently are also not big enough for more then 18 players, add to this the already balance issues with lots of players and it is a recipe for disaster... BTW the general concensus is, the more players the easier it becomes for marines with their building force and expansion speed increase and of course the potential egglocking issues for aliens and more exposed cyst chains to more players
What I mean by it "seem" is that the models are moving as if I saw a slideshow. Once, I even saw a lerk, floating on the spot in midair, no animations. I could shoot him, blood splatters but no dmg numbers of course and I was able to walk through it.
Issues like this may happen much more often, just on a smaller scale.
Issues like this may happen much more often, just on a smaller scale.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This happens usually when players lose their connection without disconnecting.
I've ran a 2nd generation C2D (E6420 @ 3.2Ghz) and the game was "playable" 20-40FPs with small dips to 15 in huge fights
I for one am amazed at the compatibility with hardware of this engine though...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other than lerk gas (I think it's a particle?) there are no particles where turning them off would give you an advantage. None. You could make it so that the off option just doesn't change the "important" particles anyway but gets rid of things like bullet tracers and bullet sparks. This is actually important since anything that you can toggle off that doesn't impact gameplay should be able to be toggled off when performance is this bad where it's unplayable for anybody who doesn't own a current-gen processor.
20-40fps with dips to 15 is <b>NOT</b> playable. No one should have to suffer through this. 40fps is not enough to even kill skulks who are running at you on the floor, the only thing you can do is use a grenade launcher. You need at least a solid 80 to stay competitive. 60 MAY be enough, if you are playing against bad players.
You are amazed at the hardware compatibility because you have low standards and you are one of the lucky few, where most of my friends are always experiencing latency or crashing issues and a framerate worse than 2 patches before. Played a game once where 3 out of the 6 of our players crashed at the same time, without a pause feature or an official competitive config this was a huge disaster. As a playtester you should be aware of how big of an issue all of this is.
FYI there much are more particle FX then spore, have you seen those crazy screenshots that block the entire view with all of them activated at once?
Indeed...
<!--quoteo(post=2050382:date=Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->20-40fps with dips to 15 is NOT playable. No one should have to suffer through this. 40fps is not enough to even kill skulks who are running at you on the floor, the only thing you can do is use a grenade launcher. You need at least a solid 80 to stay competitive. 60 MAY be enough, if you are playing against bad players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ugh get of it, and good show for ignoring the quite obvious quotation marks... Also I was able to kill plenty of walljumping and frantically moving Skulks at ~30 FPS. I never said it was acceptable and the increased mouselag was annoying, but it was "playable" to some extend. The thing that does make it unplayable is the huge changes in FPS, going from 40-20 and back... And those dips to 15 are quite unacceptable, but fact is on oldschool 2006 hardware, you simply don't have the power to brute force your way through the current kinks in the engine.
<!--quoteo(post=2050382:date=Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 23 2012, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050382"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are amazed at the hardware compatibility because you have low standards and you are one of the lucky few, where most of my friends are always experiencing latency or crashing issues and a framerate worse than 2 patches before. Played a game once where 3 out of the 6 of our players crashed at the same time, without a pause or an official competitive config this was a huge disaster. As a playtester you should be aware of how big of an issue all of this is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Indeed, I am quite amazed at the hardware compatibility they managed in such a short time.
<b>List of stating the obvious:</b>
Of course there are issue with some hardware
Of course there are random oddball exceptions to the rule (High end machines, low performance)
Of course there is the NVIDIA bug for the GTX 400 and 500 series with random disfigured polygon
Of course there it should have better performance
Of course AMD has some serious issues.
All of these issues are know and the devs are working hard on trying to get them out of the way... But for such a small team and an engine that is still under heavy development. Yep, pretty good in terms of compatibility. With some exceptions that are quite horrendous. But overall the game does run on all kinds of hardware... I've seen much worse performing engines on release from much bigger companies...
If you really have that much trouble with the performance of this game, upgrade your CPU. It's really that simple.
Does anyone else remember playing half-life back in 2000?. When I first got into internet multiplayer, I was on dial up. A 250ms ping was pretty good for that time and if you had above 30 fps, that was alright as well. Some people complain they can't play when they have over a 50ms ping and under 60 fps. It makes me cringe.
CS with less than 150 ping, YOU WERE A GOD.
both could barely run halo at 30fps.
Later on I got my Q6600 and a 8800GT both to play the Orange Box games. Played TF2 at 200fps but good luck getting more than 30 now without a i5 or equivalent.
I run the game with maxed settings and I run at about 50 fps normally and drop to 25-30 in large fights. And by large fights I mean most of both teams in the same place with almost every single particle effect possible going off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is unacceptable in this day and age. There are better looking games that manage much better performance. There is no way around that.
How often do you see a squad of marines against a squad of aliens of the same size and win? Considering that each team is average skill with equal tech. Almost never unless there's a 3 or more exos or they engage in a tight corridor. It's nearly always a slaughter and skulks repeatedly jump up and down holding down left mouse and W.
Another is the sufficient lack of punishment to alien failures. If a marine comm doesn't beacon his base in time to an attack, it's very likely to be game over from then a mistake that in some cases when your announcer is spammed by marines wanting hp and ammo, it can be missed. If an exo squad doesn't make sufficient progress quickly enough then it's spreading them thin, losing RTs and losing bases. Too easy to harass marine RTs and too difficult for marines in 16+ servers. All classes on alien can respond quickly to a hive threat and defend from multiple angles whereas marines either casually phase gate and get insta-gibbed or they beacon which is expensive and spreads marine teams thin again.
As far as performance issues goes, still needs optimizing but it's much better than previous patch. Anything 20+ starts to drain on my pc but 16/16 is fine.
I guess the conclusion is that where do you balance this game? Pub play or competitive play. It can't be both for a game like this. I'm an average marine and an average alien yet I perform much better as alien in most games. The skill requirement just seems too swayed. Maybe it's just be bitcing or calling out OP but I see a problem here primarily with how dominating skulks can be early game and how little effort alien early game takes to get ahead. All I ever see is skulks absolutely dominating marines in pubs just by bunnyhopping, not even bothering to wall walk or flank and sniping RTs with little effort.
The compare between BF3 and NS2 are the RIGS and the system performance.
Building a game for a hardcore playerbase of 1000 players with only 10% that will and can afford a 3000$ rig for Ns2 is just stupid...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm playing on a rig that cost about 400-500 to build and I don't drop below 60 fps. Your rig is just not that good lol.
Good for you. Meanwhile, there are people like me who are running on a 4.0ghz i7, 3xRaid0, 2GB 6950s in Crossfire and can't even play without fps dips on a single monitor. Or are you saying you built a better rig for 400 bucks?
Just because you don't have a problem running the game doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the engine. Fact of the matter is, NS2 has the worst performance I have seen out of any game I have played since GTA4.
I remember playing CS @ 640x480 at 20fps with 150-200 ping (NS was even worse). ###### sucked man but I still had a ton of fun. But these are different times, NS2 SHOULD get much better FPS than it does. It's not like it was back in the day where the hardware hadn't caught up with the software.
<!--quoteo(post=2050779:date=Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 24 2012, 02:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm playing on a rig that cost about 400-500 to build and I don't drop below 60 fps. Your rig is just not that good lol.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're lying or just stupid.
...
All I ever see is skulks absolutely dominating marines in pubs just by <b>bunnyhopping</b>, not even bothering to wall walk or flank and sniping RTs with little effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in case people misunderstand you, there is no bunnyhopping in ns2. i repeat, <b>there is no bunnyhopping in ns2</b>.
please use the phrase "jumping repeatedly" to describe what you're doing next time. be a protector of peace and harmony on the forums! thank you very much.
please use the phrase "jumping repeatedly" to describe what you're doing next time. be a protector of peace and harmony on the forums! thank you very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was waiting for someone to quote/highlight that bit :P
You're lying or just stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can assure you that is not the case. All of this complaining I've heard about ATI stuff and having to have an I5 or higher is just not true lol. I'm playing on an I3 and still don't drop below 60 on a full 24 player server unless over half the team is on exos(which is almost never). U must be mad.
Marines are also quite easy. New players will be new.
Would it be possible for you to pick up and correct those rather than waiting for someone else to do it?
Having to cope with constant misinformation is part of the reason why the vast majority of potentially valuable posters decide to skip the forums.
I'm pretty sure you can make a rig now that costs $500 and can run NS2.
Decent 4/8GB RAM - $40
DECENT motherboard - $80
Core i5-3570K - $220
Video card that can run NS2 at pretty much any fps the CPU can dish out - $130
Power supply and case - $60
= $530
Not counting any sales or reusing hardware from your previous build.
Core i5-3570K overclocked can run NS2 at 120fps in most cases according to owners of the CPU.
Bottom line is, if you spent a lot of money on your rig(over $500), and still can't play the game, then you're either A) bad at building a comp, or B) too lazy to build your own so you got ripped off and got a machine that isn't actually worth that much.