my beta review
mobetta
Join Date: 2010-07-23 Member: 72693Banned
Join Date: 2010-07-23 Member: 72693Banned
Ok so i started playing ns2 yesterday for the first time in a very long time. Its alot better then it used to be. The big things that need to be improved is the frame rate. I have a 920 i7 and gtx480 and with all setting maxed i was only getting 40-70 fps. Imo thats unplayable in a competitive game like ns2. So please improve that. Also the game doesn't seem to have all the items in it. Betas are to be where all the content is done and ur just testing for bugs. So i hope theres more game content. Also the graphics are pretty good but one thing that i found really ugly was the top down commander view. Its like u turned on noclip and went up out of the map. U can see blackness and it could just be much better graphically imo. Its pretty ugly how crappy the rts view looks. Now the control is cool but it just needs improve ment.
But over all it was a blast playing the game. I wish there was more of a noob guide at how everything works but im sure thats something that could be done later. The first thing u guys at ns2 should be doing is improve frame rate and add game content. Graphics can be fixed later down the road. Also tbh i think the commander top down view would be better if it was just a 2d map that was pulled down on ur screen. Almost like a big minimap. That would look so much better. Anyways this game looks awesome keep up the good work.
But over all it was a blast playing the game. I wish there was more of a noob guide at how everything works but im sure thats something that could be done later. The first thing u guys at ns2 should be doing is improve frame rate and add game content. Graphics can be fixed later down the road. Also tbh i think the commander top down view would be better if it was just a 2d map that was pulled down on ur screen. Almost like a big minimap. That would look so much better. Anyways this game looks awesome keep up the good work.
Comments
can we answer this in 24hours? hoping a new build will go live tonight.
Note: Needs a substantial PC to run in its current build.
Number of players online : Variable , from low numbers to packed servers at new build releases.
Usual server limits 10 , some at 8 , others at 12 - 14.
I believe the target number of players is 32 ( 16v16), but I dont have a quote from the devs toback up that claim.
Should you buy ?
If you are looking to buy and play a game now, no!
If you want to be part of the new NS game as it matures and develops as you watch and play, and are prepared to accept the growing pains of a development in progress, yes.
On a personal note, I must say its amazing to see a game developing as I play each build, even more amazing is how the community is interacting with the devs and effecting a number of things. Things are shaping up to make for a amazing game.
Oh, and as a NS player... this isnt NS 1 with updated graphics. A lot of mechanics have changed as well but being a NS 1 vet does help you adjust into the game proper.
As of current build it's marginally playable. If you don't have a beefy system it's going to lag a lot and even if you do have a beefy system it'll still lag because of all the server-side issues. As far as how fun it is, I play several games a week....I don't really find it engaging enough to play anymore. If you're interested in testing a game in development then maybe it's worth your time otherwise it's probably not. At least not yet. There are some, *hopefully*, major client and server-side performance improvements coming in this next build (162).
look at it this way - if you spend your $ now then you are supporting the dev's during the development phase - this means the game gets better faster :)
I'm sure they will add like a top down view "skybox" for the commander to resemble outer space.
40-70 FPS is unplayable? That's ridiculous. The only CONCEIVABLE reason that could even make a TINY BIT of sense is if you're some crazy pro gamer, but if you were one of those you wouldn't max all the graphics settings.
Well i dont play games for money but i do play in tournaments for fun. Yes pro gamers turn graphics on max not when there trying but when there just pubbing. It is unplayable when its the fps is jumpin all around. When all kinda crasy alien dogs are jumping around i need to beable to track them without my fps changing.
I'd say NS2 is at a very good state for a closed beta atm.
This, and Tycho's.
If your lowest FPS is 40, then I don't see how anyone could have problems tracking "alien dogs". The problems seem to be more on the server's side, where the tick rate fluctuates and therefore influences hit registration. You could have 200 FPS and it'd be the same story.
Don't get me wrong, there still is optimization to be done client side so people (especially older systems) can run the game smoother.
That said there is said to be major server memory leak fixes coming into build 162 so if the low tickrates get improved it will become much smoother and feel a lot more precise.
Besides, all your points in your first post has already been commented by UWE and will be fixed.
It's been a lot of fun releasing weekly betas and I expect at some point in the not distant future the gameplay will really come together.
Besides, all your points in your first post has already been commented by UWE and will be fixed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because YOU are happy playing on 30fps, doesn't mean other people are, I generally don't bother playing any game where I don't get a constant 70+ fps. I don't even like playing on consoles because they generally run games at a low fps and most TVs have poor refresh rates.
I guess its just something you develop the more you play and the more you are aware of the effects of low and high frame rates, I used to play css when it was in beta on a pos machine at 15-40 fps and it didn't bother me at all, but now I wouldn't even look at a game that ran at 30-60 fps, I played Black Ops for 5minutes at 50fps until I turned it off and didn't bother playing it again until I got my PC upgraded.
I guess its just something you develop the more you play and the more you are aware of the effects of low and high frame rates, I used to play css when it was in beta on a pos machine at 15-40 fps and it didn't bother me at all, but now I wouldn't even look at a game that ran at 30-60 fps, I played Black Ops for 5minutes at 50fps until I turned it off and didn't bother playing it again until I got my PC upgraded.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
I guess its just something you develop the more you play and the more you are aware of the effects of low and high frame rates, I used to play css when it was in beta on a pos machine at 15-40 fps and it didn't bother me at all, but now I wouldn't even look at a game that ran at 30-60 fps, I played Black Ops for 5minutes at 50fps until I turned it off and didn't bother playing it again until I got my PC upgraded.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This made me laugh, a long - deep - rumbling laugh that would make the Jolly Green Giant soil his pants (get it?). I can certainly understand wanting 70+ FPS in a FPS game. RTS games also benefit from such framerates as well. I have to wonder if you sneer and guffaw when you go to the movies or watch TV at ~25 FPS. Do you blather and froth at the mouth when watching a slide-show?
Now, now, these aren't exactly the same thing, sure. Playing a multiplayer game online is not the same as slowly molding the shape of your buttocks into your couch while you watch tv. However, the fact that you were unsatisfied with 50 FPS in your Black Ops is what kills me. I have serious doubts about your understanding of the way games work, about the way your monitor works, and how fast human eyes can respond.
However, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong (directly), but that I find your haughty antics of high expectations to be very very humorous.
Basically, the limiting factor is the refreshrate of your monitor. (if the sources are correct, especially the usaf "1/220th of a second" stuff)
(Also he missed to add, that you should enable triple buffer if you use v-sync because it could cause input lag otherwise[dunno if this is 100% correct, but i read it somewhere])
Basically, the limiting factor is the refresh rate of your monitor. (if the sources are correct, especially the usaf "1/220th of a second" stuff)
(Also he missed to add, that you should enable triple buffer if you use v-sync because it could cause input lag otherwise[dunno if this is 100% correct, but i read it somewhere])<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much. (edit->) probably 95% of the time monitors will be set and have a max of 60hz. I've worked with systems where the display properties offer 75 and 80hz but I don't know if the monitor is even giving me that.
The test on pilots that was mentioned has me curious though. It says they flashed the image of a plane, so I assume that means one image at one time, once. I would have assumed that flashing multiple images within the same time frame and having the pilots identify them would have been a better test on the speed of a human eye since it's more stressful on the photoreceptors.
Nice link though, simple and informative.
There is simply no way how you could test this game in its current state for competitive gameplay. Its just not possible.
Now, now, these aren't exactly the same thing, sure. Playing a multiplayer game online is not the same as slowly molding the shape of your buttocks into your couch while you watch tv. However, the fact that you were unsatisfied with 50 FPS in your Black Ops is what kills me. I have serious doubts about your understanding of the way games work, about the way your monitor works, and how fast human eyes can respond.
However, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong (directly), but that I find your haughty antics of high expectations to be very very humorous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite the fact there is a massive difference between WATCHING tv and PLAYING a game, tv frames are interlaced so the frame rate isn't very noticeable.
It seems that it is you that lacks the understanding of how games and monitors work, and yes I do have a 120hz monitor, I find it very irritating to use a 60hz monitor. I can easily tell the difference between 50fps, 100fps, and 200fps just by playing for a few seconds, and fps doesn't just affect how the game is displayed.
Again, just because YOU are happy with mediocre frame rates and can tell little difference, doesn't mean others are, that is what idiots like you don't seem to understand.
It seems that it is you that lacks the understanding of how games and monitors work, and yes I do have a 120hz monitor, I find it very irritating to use a 60hz monitor. I can easily tell the difference between 50fps, 100fps, and 200fps just by playing for a few seconds, and fps doesn't just affect how the game is displayed.
Again, just because YOU are happy with mediocre frame rates and can tell little difference, doesn't mean others are, that is what idiots like you don't seem to understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, guy. We'll go with that. Now go back to lurking so the conversation will return to important things and not satisfying your FPS crack habit.
For a fast-paced competitive game that NS2 is trying to be, 60fps as a minimum really is a must for some of us. No doubt a lot of people are happy to keep above 30 but there is a signficant crowd (the competitive scene) who demand more.
Hell, I forked out for the Samsung 120Hz TFT as the muggle 60Hz ones just weren't cutting it.
By competitive you mean CAL worthy? If you do then well come back later... Here I thought we were supposed to be testing core gameplay mechanics.... Guess I was wrong again....
So maybe some haven't considered that yet but to then start complaining about the performance as if nothing engine-wise will change when it is CLEARLY TOP PRIORITY makes me question how much people think before writing on here. I can't give exact frame rate numbers but this new build has the game running much better for me than 161 and I have no reason to believe this is the best it will get.
That being said I would love to see more improvements and the current frame rate is <b>clearly</b> too low for a competitive FPS. Not too low to play (for me at least), but killing each other still requires a bit of luck with some of the remaining server performance issues. I've also noticed that visual frame rate (although improved a bit low still) is not making the game hard to play it's actually the server bogging down over time which is still recognized as a current problem.
So people complaining about their 30 FPS not letting them play competitively are <b><u>way ahead of things</u></b> and should just wait a bit and in a couple cases need to upgrade their hardware. On the other hand people arguing that the FPS is 'fine' need to realize it is not fine, at least not when compared to other titles of similar genres; but that is why it is still being worked on.