Not sure I understand the need to reduce the shade radius if you want to cut down on them. The smaller the radius, the more incentive there is to make even more of them than before. If you want to reduce the number of them you will need to do something like increase the price of them.
<!--quoteo(post=2031647:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:20 PM:name=Mr.Greedy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr.Greedy @ Nov 21 2012, 06:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031647"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Decreasing the amount of heal for crags is just a bad decision and will not prevent cragspamming.
Increase the heal and make them non-stacking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea the key is that commanders are using a lot of cregs to buy time for their team to get there due to lack of alien hive to hive teleport like NS1. The worse cregs individually get the more of them get spammed to make up the difference.
As for shades I used to make 1 per room to cover but now I am spamming them like crazy b/c range is so short. You need one like every 10 ft.
They should at least show the radius that buildings you want to place are going to have then. Sentries, Phase Gates and Robotic Factories already have an indicator for their angle of effect - why can't I see on my Observatory, Shade, Crag, Whip, Cyst or Shift what radius they are going to have before I place them?
But yeah, it seems like they more and more try to prevent aliens from using any tactics they might develop instead of actually adding any more. If you don't want players to use the same tactics over and over, provide better alternatives instead of just taking things away!
Getting forward bases with Shifts -> sorry, have to nerf into micromanagement and resource oblivion. Assisting your players with Shades through walls by placing them in strategic spots or allowing to plant cloaked cysts into enemy territory for some Bone Wall surprises -> nah, can't expect a pub marine commander to use scans on one of the most fragile and easily countered buildings on the alien side.
There was no real need to complain about Shade-first khammanders because they could at least get their returns in buildings that they were lacking in infantry support. Now it's really not viable at all anymore to go Shade first.
<!--quoteo(post=2031677:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:44 PM:name=Agiel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Agiel @ Nov 21 2012, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031677"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe Andi is on vacation so we won't get his explanation until he's back, but looking at the numbers here are (most of) the changes that went into build 230. As far as I know there were no changes in 232. <ul><li>Wall jump upward boost increased from 2 to 2.5.</li><li>Wall jump vertical modifier decreased from 9 to 5. (This is probably your problem, but was a weird one and I agree with the change)</li><li>Wall jump forward boost increased from 1.18 to 1.2.</li><li>Minimum wall jump speed increased from 8.5 to 9.</li><li>Maximum fall acceleration increased from 6 to 9.</li><li>Ground acceleration increased from 85 to 140.</li><li>Ground friction increased from 12.16 to 20.</li><li>Wall walk code (completely?) reworked and should feel a lot better now.</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ya. i see no diffs in skulk.lua between 232 & prior patch.
one other thing that was new in 230 was.. <!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1--> // prevent jumping against the same wall constantly as a method to ramp up speed<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
<!--quoteo(post=2031696:date=Nov 21 2012, 08:06 PM:name=pRiNcEkAhUnA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pRiNcEkAhUnA @ Nov 21 2012, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031696"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't balance a game when the players get extremely poor performance around shooting marines. Any balance change you do will not have a true effect on the actual balance. When players can't see what they are doing it just turns into a luck frag fest full of frustrated players. However we do appreciate that UWE is attempting to balance the product we bought so the game will seem more fair, but I don't understand why they are constantly trying these new balance builds when (like I said above) the players can not see what they are doing in combat because of poor optimization.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?
<!--quoteo(post=2031729:date=Nov 21 2012, 04:37 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 21 2012, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i7 @ 3.8 and 460 SLI
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.
I'm fine with these crag/shade nerfs if it's a short-term fix to improve the quality of the pub game. However I hope that "competitive players never use this as it is, so it's okay to nerf it for pubs" isn't going to be a common balance technique in the future.
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I'm not playing competitive and looking to max out my FPS for that reason, but I wouldn't expect the 460, even in SLI to be pushing out the best of the best FPS - a single 480 will push out 100+ FPS on a rather consistent basis and i think you should look into that.
My 60-80 FPS is more then acceptable to me for playing this game
I haven't seen it so much in this topic chain but in others all the alien players just complain about the nerfs and changes. Even if the game becomes unbalanced in the marines favor (which is unlikely) the aliens would only then see how it is to get raped repeatedly despite a good team putting forth a great effort. It's hard to make an asymmetrical game and satisfy the less intellectually gifted, keep up the good work UWE and keep on paying attention to the constructive criticisms.
I find it a bit odd that despite all of the nerfs and the removal of the w hive tres onos that aliens generally dominate the game (hello 60%+ winrate) when it was pretty even before that (if a bit dull). I'm not a big fan of the all the alien structure nerfs, especially the crags. Why not instead of making them ###### ass weak have the structures lose their passive abilities when on fire like someone else suggested in the forums? I mean, marines have an equivalent to crag span and that is MAC spam which is easily countered by bile bomb(Stuns MACs, greatly damages them), why not have something similar?
<!--quoteo(post=2031749:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:18 PM:name=sdelcos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sdelcos @ Nov 21 2012, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031749"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I find it a bit odd that despite all of the nerfs and the removal of the w hive tres onos that aliens generally dominate the game (hello 60%+ winrate) when it was pretty even before that (if a bit dull). I'm not a big fan of the all the alien structure nerfs, especially the crags. Why not instead of making them ###### ass weak have the structures lose their passive abilities when on fire like someone else suggested in the forums? I mean, marines have an equivalent to crag span and that is MAC spam which is easily countered by bile bomb(Stuns MACs, greatly damages them), why not have something similar?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If crags can snipe marine structures from an adjacent room and can walk around and MACs can heal marines then I'm all for it.
Even better, MAC just becomes an upgrade for the marine armory (but seriously, that would be pretty damn amusing to watch).
<!--quoteo(post=2031729:date=Nov 21 2012, 04:37 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 21 2012, 04:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mobo - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ CPU - AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) GPU - ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit GDDR5 You called that crap... Stop trying to convince yourself that you can run this game 'as smooth as a baby's butt" This game has SERIOUS performance issues anywhere near combat.
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe turn down some settings? I know the shadows are killer, as is the atmospheric effects.
I'm running an i5 @ 4.0 and a single 460 at 1920x1200, and I get 30-80 FPS with all settings maxed minus AA turned off. Unless you're running a higher resolution than me, I don't see what's slowing you down aside from settings.
<!--quoteo(post=2031778:date=Nov 21 2012, 10:06 PM:name=Avalon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Avalon @ Nov 21 2012, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe turn down some settings? I know the shadows are killer, as is the atmospheric effects.
I'm running an i5 @ 4.0 and a single 460 at 1920x1200, and I get 30-80 FPS with all settings maxed minus AA turned off. Unless you're running a higher resolution than me, I don't see what's slowing you down aside from settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing you can do to help performance unless you have a crappy graphics card because NS2 is always going to be bottlenecked by your CPU.
Im not sure how this is going to reduce the spamming of craigs... from what i can tell from the post craigs cap out healing other sturctures at 4 and cap out healing themselfs (isnt 5 craigs still spamming)
Ideally you don't want to cap structures, capping amount of structures limits creativity. You need something to counter them for example buffing grenade launcher damage against buildings or the flamethrower or anything like that.
<!--quoteo(post=2031772:date=Nov 21 2012, 09:44 PM:name=pRiNcEkAhUnA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pRiNcEkAhUnA @ Nov 21 2012, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mobo - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ CPU - AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) GPU - ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit GDDR5 You called that crap... Stop trying to convince yourself that you can run this game 'as smooth as a baby's butt" This game has SERIOUS performance issues anywhere near combat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, i'm honestly not seeing it.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. System Model: EX58-UD5 BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz Memory: 12288MB RAM Available OS Memory: 12286MB RAM Page File: 2122MB used, 22446MB available Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 Manufacturer: NVIDIA Chip type: GeForce GTX 460 v2 DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC Display Memory: 4049 MB Dedicated Memory: 977 MB Shared Memory: 3072 MB Current Mode: 1176 x 664 (32 bit) (60Hz) Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor Monitor Model: SONY TV Monitor Id: SNY5801 Native Mode: 1280 x 720(p) (60.000Hz) Output Type: HDMI Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um Driver File Version: 9.18.0013.0697 (English) Driver Version: 9.18.13.697 DDI Version: 11 Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
My hard drive is a Solid State Intel 120Gb drive on a SATA connection
I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference in combat vs out of combat - the game play is great for me. I'd love to know what the percentage of people having these performance issues were to the total number of players..
<!--quoteo(post=2031796:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:30 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 21 2012, 06:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference in combat vs out of combat - the game play is great for me. I'd love to know what the percentage of people having these performance issues were to the total number of players..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "my leg is broken" - "really? mine is working fine, I don't believe you"
I have massive performance issues on i7-950 / GTX 560 / 12GB RAM / SSD as well. 120FPS in some areas, but once the game goes past six minutes it's like there is a magical FPS fairy that just steals FPS until exos and bilebomb comes out and it varies from 40-120 FPS. there isn't really a way to defend the game's performance when Crysis 3 <i>alpha</i> looks better and requires less out of a computer.
<!--quoteo(post=2031786:date=Nov 22 2012, 02:18 AM:name=maD maX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (maD maX @ Nov 22 2012, 02:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Im not sure how this is going to reduce the spamming of craigs... from what i can tell from the post craigs cap out healing other sturctures at 4 and cap out healing themselfs (isnt 5 craigs still spamming)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2031800:date=Nov 21 2012, 10:35 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 21 2012, 10:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031800"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"my leg is broken" - "really? mine is working fine, I don't believe you"
I have massive performance issues on i7-950 / GTX 560 / 12GB RAM / SSD as well. 120FPS in some areas, but once the game goes past six minutes it's like there is a magical FPS fairy that just steals FPS until exos and bilebomb comes out and it varies from 40-120 FPS. there isn't really a way to defend the game's performance when Crysis 3 <i>alpha</i> looks better and requires less out of a computer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol - My first thought honestly was that the OP was going to be attempting to run this on some asinine system specs dating back 5-10 years..
but yeah I'm not shooting from the hip , I'm basing my opinion on two of my own personal computers, then off of 4 friends I play with on a regular. Yet to hear any ######. That to me is a good sampling, that's 6 different machines and 6 different hardware sets that are running the game without complaint. So I would be really interested to know, 1 out of 10? 1 out of 20?
I play the game, I never have "system lag" or actual lag stop me from playing the game... none of us in my group have ever shouted "Damn FPS!" - I can't say as I really give two craps about what exactly the FPS is counting at the moment.. if the game play is solid, I hit my target when I want to and I'm not having choppy game play I don't care. It's a game.. It's my relax time and I kick back and enjoy it. The only game to screw me so far FPS wise is IL-2 Cliffs of Dover , that game was just broken...
I agree - computers vary so widely that one persons issue may never be duplicated... Drivers, installed programs, registry entries, etc....
<!--quoteo(post=2031758:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:25 PM:name=sdelcos)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sdelcos @ Nov 21 2012, 06:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're thinking of the ARCs, the MACs are the little welder robots that can move around and partly heal marines by welding their armor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2031600:date=Nov 21 2012, 02:00 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Nov 21 2012, 02:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reduced Shade cloaking radius from 20 to 14. Re-balanced Crags so they now self-heal, but only give 3% health every 2 seconds (min 10, max 40). (was 5%, min 10, max 50).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Guess I'll just need to spam more shades and crags now, Oh well.
<!--quoteo(post=2031800:date=Nov 21 2012, 07:35 PM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 21 2012, 07:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031800"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there isn't really a way to defend the game's performance when Crysis 3 <i>alpha</i> looks better and requires less out of a computer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->There's multiple ways of defending it. Here's one: Crytek has ~638 employees.
What happens at six minutes? Do any settings affect that performance drop?
<!--quoteo(post=2031629:date=Nov 21 2012, 05:07 PM:name=xmaine)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xmaine @ Nov 21 2012, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've noticed that in mid sized games, Aliens expand much more quickly compared to marines. I think the cooldown on cysts needs to be increased.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because marines on one base get: all six armour/weapon upgrades, shotguns, welders, gls, flamethrowers, phase tech, arcs, macs, mines, observatories, scans, medpacks/ammo drops, and can place forward armouries to assist. On one hive, aliens get: two mutations, and one support stucture.
If aliens are on one hive, they have lost the game. Simple as that. There are almost no viable strategies besides skulk rushing that you can do from one hive. This fact is probably the root of most complaints about alien balance problems. Making it harder for aliens to expand is just a bad idea.
<!--quoteo(post=2031693:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:01 PM:name=ZeCruiser)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZeCruiser @ Nov 21 2012, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for crag heal reduction. I think this is the wrong approach. The problem is their healing stacks and heals the other crags around them. This makes it incredibly difficult to take the crags out if there are more than four of them in a single place. Marines don't really have a way of shutting that healing down, either. At least I don't think they do. Or would the flamethrower fall into the category?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arcs and GLs both make crags drop. You can almost hear the alien economy buckle as four shots take down four crags.
<!--quoteo(post=2031729:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:37 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 21 2012, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, wait, so not being able to spend $400 on a cpu (to say nothing of the mobo, ram, gfx, and ssd) makes us paupers and thus unentitled to an opinion on performance? What CPU are you thinking of that is so much better than the i7 that your setup qualifies as less than top end?
<!--quoteo(post=2031854:date=Nov 21 2012, 08:23 PM:name=PseudoKnight)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PseudoKnight @ Nov 21 2012, 08:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031854"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's multiple ways of defending it. Here's one: Crytek has ~638 employees.
What happens at six minutes? Do any settings affect that performance drop?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> sorry - I'm not attempting to say NS2 should be up to that level of performance 1 month after release. I was making a comparison / example to show how far the performance has to go. it's extremely frustrating when people defend the performance so religiously when I still suffer FPS drops on the lowest settings with a decently high-end machine.
basically the longer the game goes on, the more FPS suffers due to more cysts / infestation, spores, bile, exosuits, jetpacks, umbra, etc. it's not any setting in particular.
there are also just certain areas of maps that drop FPS massively. South Tunnels (ns2_tram) comes to mind. all of Refinery is basically unplayable for me. I think I've played fewer than four games on that map because it's such an FPS drain.
Comments
Increase the heal and make them non-stacking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea the key is that commanders are using a lot of cregs to buy time for their team to get there due to lack of alien hive to hive teleport like NS1. The worse cregs individually get the more of them get spammed to make up the difference.
As for shades I used to make 1 per room to cover but now I am spamming them like crazy b/c range is so short. You need one like every 10 ft.
But yeah, it seems like they more and more try to prevent aliens from using any tactics they might develop instead of actually adding any more. If you don't want players to use the same tactics over and over, provide better alternatives instead of just taking things away!
Getting forward bases with Shifts -> sorry, have to nerf into micromanagement and resource oblivion.
Assisting your players with Shades through walls by placing them in strategic spots or allowing to plant cloaked cysts into enemy territory for some Bone Wall surprises -> nah, can't expect a pub marine commander to use scans on one of the most fragile and easily countered buildings on the alien side.
There was no real need to complain about Shade-first khammanders because they could at least get their returns in buildings that they were lacking in infantry support. Now it's really not viable at all anymore to go Shade first.
<ul><li>Wall jump upward boost increased from 2 to 2.5.</li><li>Wall jump vertical modifier decreased from 9 to 5. (This is probably your problem, but was a weird one and I agree with the change)</li><li>Wall jump forward boost increased from 1.18 to 1.2.</li><li>Minimum wall jump speed increased from 8.5 to 9.</li><li>Maximum fall acceleration increased from 6 to 9.</li><li>Ground acceleration increased from 85 to 140.</li><li>Ground friction increased from 12.16 to 20.</li><li>Wall walk code (completely?) reworked and should feel a lot better now.</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ya. i see no diffs in skulk.lua between 232 & prior patch.
one other thing that was new in 230 was..
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1--> // prevent jumping against the same wall constantly as a method to ramp up speed<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i7 @ 3.8 and 460 SLI
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I'm not playing competitive and looking to max out my FPS for that reason, but I wouldn't expect the 460, even in SLI to be pushing out the best of the best FPS - a single 480 will push out 100+ FPS on a rather consistent basis and i think you should look into that.
My 60-80 FPS is more then acceptable to me for playing this game
If crags can snipe marine structures from an adjacent room and can walk around and MACs can heal marines then I'm all for it.
Even better, MAC just becomes an upgrade for the marine armory (but seriously, that would be pretty damn amusing to watch).
I feel incredibly powerful.
<a href="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=109446821" target="_blank">http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/file...s/?id=109446821</a>
15 fps fade is fun.
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mobo - ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+
CPU - AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz
RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
GPU - ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit GDDR5
You called that crap...
Stop trying to convince yourself that you can run this game 'as smooth as a baby's butt" This game has SERIOUS performance issues anywhere near combat.
my 30-80 FPS may be "playable", but it's not enough to play the game properly, pretty much forcing me away from the competitive scene of the game. Ideal FPS, as I have a 120hz monitor, is a minimum of 90 in fights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe turn down some settings? I know the shadows are killer, as is the atmospheric effects.
I'm running an i5 @ 4.0 and a single 460 at 1920x1200, and I get 30-80 FPS with all settings maxed minus AA turned off. Unless you're running a higher resolution than me, I don't see what's slowing you down aside from settings.
I'm running an i5 @ 4.0 and a single 460 at 1920x1200, and I get 30-80 FPS with all settings maxed minus AA turned off. Unless you're running a higher resolution than me, I don't see what's slowing you down aside from settings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing you can do to help performance unless you have a crappy graphics card because NS2 is always going to be bottlenecked by your CPU.
CPU - AMD FX-6100 Zambezi 3.3GHz
RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
GPU - ASUS ENGTX570 DCII/2DIS/1280MD5 GeForce GTX 570 (Fermi) 1280MB 320-bit GDDR5
You called that crap...
Stop trying to convince yourself that you can run this game 'as smooth as a baby's butt" This game has SERIOUS performance issues anywhere near combat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah, i'm honestly not seeing it.
Operating System: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1
System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
System Model: EX58-UD5
BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz
Memory: 12288MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 12286MB RAM
Page File: 2122MB used, 22446MB available
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 460 v2
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Display Memory: 4049 MB
Dedicated Memory: 977 MB
Shared Memory: 3072 MB
Current Mode: 1176 x 664 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: SONY TV
Monitor Id: SNY5801
Native Mode: 1280 x 720(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: HDMI
Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um
Driver File Version: 9.18.0013.0697 (English)
Driver Version: 9.18.13.697
DDI Version: 11
Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
My hard drive is a Solid State Intel 120Gb drive on a SATA connection
I'm sorry, but I don't see any difference in combat vs out of combat - the game play is great for me. I'd love to know what the percentage of people having these performance issues were to the total number of players..
"my leg is broken"
- "really? mine is working fine, I don't believe you"
I have massive performance issues on i7-950 / GTX 560 / 12GB RAM / SSD as well. 120FPS in some areas, but once the game goes past six minutes it's like there is a magical FPS fairy that just steals FPS until exos and bilebomb comes out and it varies from 40-120 FPS. there isn't really a way to defend the game's performance when Crysis 3 <i>alpha</i> looks better and requires less out of a computer.
arcs. are. amazing.
- "really? mine is working fine, I don't believe you"
I have massive performance issues on i7-950 / GTX 560 / 12GB RAM / SSD as well. 120FPS in some areas, but once the game goes past six minutes it's like there is a magical FPS fairy that just steals FPS until exos and bilebomb comes out and it varies from 40-120 FPS. there isn't really a way to defend the game's performance when Crysis 3 <i>alpha</i> looks better and requires less out of a computer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol - My first thought honestly was that the OP was going to be attempting to run this on some asinine system specs dating back 5-10 years..
but yeah I'm not shooting from the hip , I'm basing my opinion on two of my own personal computers, then off of 4 friends I play with on a regular. Yet to hear any ######. That to me is a good sampling, that's 6 different machines and 6 different hardware sets that are running the game without complaint. So I would be really interested to know, 1 out of 10? 1 out of 20?
I play the game, I never have "system lag" or actual lag stop me from playing the game... none of us in my group have ever shouted "Damn FPS!" - I can't say as I really give two craps about what exactly the FPS is counting at the moment.. if the game play is solid, I hit my target when I want to and I'm not having choppy game play I don't care. It's a game.. It's my relax time and I kick back and enjoy it. The only game to screw me so far FPS wise is IL-2 Cliffs of Dover , that game was just broken...
I agree - computers vary so widely that one persons issue may never be duplicated... Drivers, installed programs, registry entries, etc....
Well then put a cannon on MACs (Bahahah).
Re-balanced Crags so they now self-heal, but only give 3% health every 2 seconds (min 10, max 40). (was 5%, min 10, max 50).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Guess I'll just need to spam more shades and crags now, Oh well.
What happens at six minutes? Do any settings affect that performance drop?
That's because marines on one base get: all six armour/weapon upgrades, shotguns, welders, gls, flamethrowers, phase tech, arcs, macs, mines, observatories, scans, medpacks/ammo drops, and can place forward armouries to assist. On one hive, aliens get: two mutations, and one support stucture.
If aliens are on one hive, they have lost the game. Simple as that. There are almost no viable strategies besides skulk rushing that you can do from one hive. This fact is probably the root of most complaints about alien balance problems. Making it harder for aliens to expand is just a bad idea.
<!--quoteo(post=2031693:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:01 PM:name=ZeCruiser)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZeCruiser @ Nov 21 2012, 06:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031693"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for crag heal reduction. I think this is the wrong approach. The problem is their healing stacks and heals the other crags around them. This makes it incredibly difficult to take the crags out if there are more than four of them in a single place. Marines don't really have a way of shutting that healing down, either. At least I don't think they do. Or would the flamethrower fall into the category?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arcs and GLs both make crags drop. You can almost hear the alien economy buckle as four shots take down four crags.
<!--quoteo(post=2031729:date=Nov 21 2012, 06:37 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 21 2012, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2031729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What kind of rig are you running?
I run two - one being a dual core AMD 2.5 chip with a GTX275... runs playable (some noticeable fps drop from my other rig, but very playable)
My main rig is a i7 2.67 with a GTX 460 - runs smooth as a baby's butt..
these are by no means top of the line computers, and they hold their own in this game very well.
So my question to you, What crap "gaming" rig are you attempting to play on?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, wait, so not being able to spend $400 on a cpu (to say nothing of the mobo, ram, gfx, and ssd) makes us paupers and thus unentitled to an opinion on performance? What CPU are you thinking of that is so much better than the i7 that your setup qualifies as less than top end?
What happens at six minutes? Do any settings affect that performance drop?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry - I'm not attempting to say NS2 should be up to that level of performance 1 month after release. I was making a comparison / example to show how far the performance has to go. it's extremely frustrating when people defend the performance so religiously when I still suffer FPS drops on the lowest settings with a decently high-end machine.
basically the longer the game goes on, the more FPS suffers due to more cysts / infestation, spores, bile, exosuits, jetpacks, umbra, etc. it's not any setting in particular.
there are also just certain areas of maps that drop FPS massively. South Tunnels (ns2_tram) comes to mind. all of Refinery is basically unplayable for me. I think I've played fewer than four games on that map because it's such an FPS drain.