I've been playing NS1 since it had babblers. That was over 10 years ago. I've been playing FPS games since Wolfenstein 3D was the only FPS. I'm better than most people at FPS, but I'm not pro at all. I can aim, but people who are really good own me. Yet, I've always sucked at RTS. I've never really commanded NS very much at all.
Until this past week I decided a new policy. If I joined an NS2 team and nobody comm'd in 5 seconds, I would command. As a result, I have commanded a lot of public games on both sides. And here is what I see.
The commander can not win the game, they can only lose the game, for either side. If the commander screws up too badly, it doesn't matter what the team does, it's GG. But if the commander is doing the job well enough, and the team is still losing, there is very little the commander can do to push back. Comebacks usually only happen if a bunch of players leave/join in the middle of a match.
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.
<!--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-->
I'm aware of what bunnyhopping is, I played Quake, I'm using it as a frame of reference but I haven't played a shooter like that in years...too much StarCraft, WoW and CoD (yes you may rally the pitchforks and torches).
<!--quoteo(post=2051133:date=Dec 25 2012, 06:00 PM:name=Apreche2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apreche2 @ Dec 25 2012, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The commander can not win the game, they can only lose the game, for either side. If the commander screws up too badly, it doesn't matter what the team does, it's GG. But if the commander is doing the job well enough, and the team is still losing, there is very little the commander can do to push back. Comebacks usually only happen if a bunch of players leave/join in the middle of a match.
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the biggest problem I have with NS2 in that there exists "Hero" units that skew the balance of the game. There can be one-man wrecking crews that completely decimate the opposing side and in some cases make teamwork pointless. What can aliens do when one person can singlehandedly egglock the team? What can marines do when a lifeform is able to singlehandedly shutdown one side of the map?
Get better?
Yeah sure that's always an option, but I am of the opinion that skill should not trump teamwork and that is exactly what is happening. The victory outcome should be decided by the better commander and the team with superior teamwork. Skill is an important factor, but should not be the deciding one. And skill shouldn't even be a factor when it comes to balancing a game as "skill" isn't a set value. How is it balanced when you have "Platinum" level players facing off against "Master" level players? The lack of any meaningful way of ranking players according to skill is quite a detriment to the fun factor of the game in my opinion.
What makes NS2 any different from a TDM when frags seem to be the general indicator of a skilled team? I obviously don't believe this as I am of the opinion that frags mean jack in this game, but I am under the impression that this is the opinion of some people in the community.
As for the OP, I agree with #2. There are some people who claim to be unaffected by the game's discrepancies, but I certainly feel the love when my AR feels like it only has 25 bullets at best and my shotgun deciding to shoot far fewer pellets than it should or outright shooting blanks.
<!--quoteo(post=2051023:date=Dec 25 2012, 10:20 AM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 25 2012, 10:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051023"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh what. So now it's "still don't drop below 60 unlesss ____"
What happened to the always running 60fps? What's next? I can maintain 60fps until there's heavy cysting? Till there's GL spam? Pick a story and stick with it or frap your game and let other people be the judge.
As mentioned, I am running i7@4ghz, 2GB 6950 in crossfire and a 3xRaid0 setup, and I can't remember the last time an ENTIRE match ran constantly above 60fps. Sure, if I'm staring at an extractor or following a fellow marine it'll hover above 60. Once I enter combat with more than 4 or 5 pplayers involved, though, those random mini stutters and framedrops become painfully acute.
The AlgerianJoin Date: 2012-12-22Member: 175962Members
<!--quoteo(post=2051133:date=Dec 26 2012, 12:00 AM:name=Apreche2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apreche2 @ Dec 26 2012, 12:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The commander can not win the game, they can only lose the game, for either side. If the commander screws up too badly, it doesn't matter what the team does, it's GG. But if the commander is doing the job well enough, and the team is still losing, there is very little the commander can do to push back. Comebacks usually only happen if a bunch of players leave/join in the middle of a match.
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much this. When I loose badly, it's most of the time the commander's fault, whether I play in alien or marine. Sometimes it's the team, they're scared to die, so they run away instead of holding the line or attacking when they should do so.
In the end, the game itself is fairly balanced, the only thing I would change is removing the tentacles whip the ability to throw back grenades.
A good commander can definitely win the game on pubs by keeping his team working together on important goals. Sure he can't win if his team is getting crushed horribly, but if its anywhere near even the com will often be the difference. And how do you stop that alien rampaging half the map? Easy, lockdown before he gets a pg. Or, on aliens, lame up the hives and no solo high end rambo is going to want to run into 6 hydras with gorges. Again, if they have 2-3 great players and you have none, well no ###### you're going to lose. But teamwork> one great rambo every time.
You guys seem to be concentrating on this idea of the "one great rambo". As if there is only one person per server with any skill, and the rest of the world is nubs. I've commanded games were almost my entire team is nubs, and are not very good at biting/aiming. The other team is mostly decent. There weren't any individual gods of fps skill. My team simply lost every engagement, and got very few kills. I've also played the exact opposite game where we steamrolled the other team, and they never had a chance.
Most games I see there is actually a lot of teamwork. People go where the danger/action is. Nobody wants to sit around doing nothing. They want to go and make a difference. It's just that when the squad of marines runs into a swarm of skulks which one comes out on top? In the early game it's the group that is better at aiming/biting/dodging. That early victory results in that team getting more res/tech points and more upgrades. Thus the momentum builds for that team making it even harder for the less skilled team to win the next encounter. And before you know it, you've got level 1 shotguns against onos, or you've got skulks and lerks against an exo/arc train.
Now, not every game is such a blowout. Often, the difference in skill is smaller. Both teams have a mix of players of all skill levels. So which one wins? Again, it's whichever one wins most of those early encounters. Just because you're somewhat evenly matched, someone still wins, and someone still dies.
Team stacking is a very common complaint. People see who the good players are, and they want to join those players in order to win. Here's a better idea. Practice so that you can be the difference maker, and whichever team you are on will be the one with the advantage, because they have YOU. Again, it's all about the battles where marines build their extractors. If you are a marine, you have to be able to kill the skulks who try to stop you. If you are a skulk, you have to be able to bite them all to death before they build up and move forward.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
building a system right now i7, 8 gigs ram, etc etc , for way less than that. idk where people get these inflated prices for pc building.. sure intel chips are expensive for top end but you shouldnt need to spend that much at all.
<!--quoteo(post=2050435:date=Dec 23 2012, 08:04 PM:name=Kazel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kazel @ Dec 23 2012, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS with less than 150 ping, YOU WERE A GOD.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
at least back then when you shot someone , your fire mightve been delayed, but a hit was still a hit. i sorta miss those days.
<!--quoteo(post=2051143:date=Dec 25 2012, 04:48 PM:name=Makenshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Makenshi @ Dec 25 2012, 04:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051143"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh what. So now it's "still don't drop below 60 unlesss ____"
What happened to the always running 60fps? What's next? I can maintain 60fps until there's heavy cysting? Till there's GL spam? Pick a story and stick with it or frap your game and let other people be the judge.
As mentioned, I am running i7@4ghz, 2GB 6950 in crossfire and a 3xRaid0 setup, and I can't remember the last time an ENTIRE match ran constantly above 60fps. Sure, if I'm staring at an extractor or following a fellow marine it'll hover above 60. Once I enter combat with more than 4 or 5 pplayers involved, though, those random mini stutters and framedrops become painfully acute.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you realize how rare it is for an entire team to get exos? Hell it's rare Marines even get Exos at all. That really sucks for you, spending all that money on a rig and you can't even break 100 fps. I hope you built it yourself so at least you saved some money. I can't even comprehend why you're not getting way above 60 fps. I mean I was getting like 30-50 fps on my old dual core rig back in beta when ###### was really laggy. I guess I'll take it as money well spent for me, and not for you. GG no re. Something must be wrong with your comp if you cant hold 60 fps in a room with 5 players, especially with your supposed specs. That really just isn't normal.
<!--quoteo(post=2051168:date=Dec 25 2012, 08:16 PM:name=The Algerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Algerian @ Dec 25 2012, 08:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051168"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much this. When I loose badly, it's most of the time the commander's fault, whether I play in alien or marine. Sometimes it's the team, they're scared to die, so they run away instead of holding the line or attacking when they should do so.
In the end, the game itself is fairly balanced, the only thing I would change is removing the tentacles whip the ability to throw back grenades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea. I am sure everyone here has taken down 2-3 skulks by themselves at one point. You cannot be intimidated by them when they are so squishy. But it hurts when you kill so many skulks at an important far away point/base and the commander keeps ignoring you when you request a phase or armory. Like you can keep holding that point forever when barely any ammo left. And the rest of the team keeps pushing one point where they are locked with aliens.
People with bad performance are probably playing on bad servers. I run a lenovo Y580. It has 660m, i7-3610QM with 8 gigs of ddr3. There is a huge performance drop with tethering and choppiness/hitbox lag when playing on low performance servers. It feels similar to performance issues on my side but its obviously not since it happens on regular early fights on some 16 man servers, but doesn't happen on some of the better 24 man servers even during large late game battles. To run 24 man the server needs something like a single core with over 4ghz processing power for it to run reasonably well but even that might lag on fights. I think servers are trying to push more slots because people want to play on larger servers which causes performance issues on the server. This is worsened by the high performance requirements of the servers. Ofcourse my performance drops a bit during large battles, perhaps more then it should, but it is still very playable. When performance is bad enough to notice for me its generally bad for everyone on the server. It would also explain why people with computers that can obviously play the game maxed out are having problems.
<!--quoteo(post=2051368:date=Dec 26 2012, 10:53 AM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 26 2012, 10:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051368"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you realize how rare it is for an entire team to get exos? Hell it's rare Marines even get Exos at all. That really sucks for you, spending all that money on a rig and you can't even break 100 fps. I hope you built it yourself so at least you saved some money. I can't even comprehend why you're not getting way above 60 fps. I mean I was getting like 30-50 fps on my old dual core rig back in beta when ###### was really laggy. I guess I'll take it as money well spent for me, and not for you. GG no re. Something must be wrong with your comp if you cant hold 60 fps in a room with 5 players, especially with your supposed specs. That really just isn't normal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or you can just pull your head out of your ass and realize that there are issues with the engine. I run BF3 and on high and Metro2033 with 3 monitors.
This is the only game I play on a single monitor that's capable of supporting multi monitor gaming. Even that pile of garbage GTA4 ran on 3 monitors.
You are not the only one that knows how to build a computer. I've had to work as anything from a PC technician to network engineer to embedded and mobile developer. Stop assuming just because the game supposedly runs flawless for you (which I sincerely doubt; as I said, frap it and we'll talk) that other people have no experience with computers.
<!--quoteo(post=2051565:date=Dec 26 2012, 04:50 PM:name=Makenshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Makenshi @ Dec 26 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or you can just pull your head out of your ass and realize that there are issues with the engine. I run BF3 and on high and Metro2033 with 3 monitors.
This is the only game I play on a single monitor that's capable of supporting multi monitor gaming. Even that pile of garbage GTA4 ran on 3 monitors.
You are not the only one that knows how to build a computer. I've had to work as anything from a PC technician to network engineer to embedded and mobile developer. Stop assuming just because the game supposedly runs flawless for you (which I sincerely doubt; as I said, frap it and we'll talk) that other people have no experience with computers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->*Snip* Be nicer. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=2051352:date=Dec 26 2012, 09:28 AM:name=Apreche2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Apreche2 @ Dec 26 2012, 09:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That early victory results in that team getting more res/tech points and more upgrades. Thus the momentum builds for that team making it even harder for the less skilled team to win the next encounter. And before you know it, you've got level 1 shotguns against onos, or you've got skulks and lerks against an exo/arc train.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This sums up my ns2 experience, if your team is not right on the ball (especially aliens) from the get go or your not the dominant team in the first ~10min or so it's over. My motto if you can only play at your best at one time make it when the match starts.
<!--quoteo(post=2051643:date=Dec 26 2012, 09:56 PM:name=awwwsnap)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (awwwsnap @ Dec 26 2012, 09:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051643"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->*Snip* Be nicer - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll just say that the burden of proof falls on you to prove your claim of getting constant 60fps by making a recording of it. I mean it shouldn't be a problem for you to make a video @ 60fps and never drop below 60 for the entire duration of the game right? That's what your claiming your desktop can do so you obviously need to back up your claim with some proof. Unless of course you're just some kiddie resorting to petty attacks to hide the fact you're lying out of your ass.
But it's quite plain to see that you are telling the truth, but one can never be too sure on the Internet. A rather lurid place filled with people who love to make bold statements, yet never back it up with a shred of evidence. These people are obviously overcompensating for something. Ever seen those people who drive Hummers? Yeah like those people except the vile denizens of the web also hide under the veil of anonymity. Such cowards...
AngeluszHarmonic entropistJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18072Members, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=2051755:date=Dec 27 2012, 12:42 PM:name=Squishpoke)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squishpoke @ Dec 27 2012, 12:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051755"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->mods pls lock terribad thread k thx<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=2051758:date=Dec 27 2012, 12:54 PM:name=Side1Bu2Rnz9)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Side1Bu2Rnz9 @ Dec 27 2012, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->agreed... this thread started as a bad joke and it's not gotten any better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<sup>Let us be the judges of that. If you feel something is offensive, report the post. Don't ask for moderation through another post.</sup>
That being said, I agree that this thread has run its course. <!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--> *Locked*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Comments
Until this past week I decided a new policy. If I joined an NS2 team and nobody comm'd in 5 seconds, I would command. As a result, I have commanded a lot of public games on both sides. And here is what I see.
The commander can not win the game, they can only lose the game, for either side. If the commander screws up too badly, it doesn't matter what the team does, it's GG. But if the commander is doing the job well enough, and the team is still losing, there is very little the commander can do to push back. Comebacks usually only happen if a bunch of players leave/join in the middle of a match.
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.
I'm aware of what bunnyhopping is, I played Quake, I'm using it as a frame of reference but I haven't played a shooter like that in years...too much StarCraft, WoW and CoD (yes you may rally the pitchforks and torches).
I apologise for my misinformation though :)
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the biggest problem I have with NS2 in that there exists "Hero" units that skew the balance of the game. There can be one-man wrecking crews that completely decimate the opposing side and in some cases make teamwork pointless. What can aliens do when one person can singlehandedly egglock the team? What can marines do when a lifeform is able to singlehandedly shutdown one side of the map?
Get better?
Yeah sure that's always an option, but I am of the opinion that skill should not trump teamwork and that is exactly what is happening. The victory outcome should be decided by the better commander and the team with superior teamwork. Skill is an important factor, but should not be the deciding one. And skill shouldn't even be a factor when it comes to balancing a game as "skill" isn't a set value. How is it balanced when you have "Platinum" level players facing off against "Master" level players? The lack of any meaningful way of ranking players according to skill is quite a detriment to the fun factor of the game in my opinion.
What makes NS2 any different from a TDM when frags seem to be the general indicator of a skilled team? I obviously don't believe this as I am of the opinion that frags mean jack in this game, but I am under the impression that this is the opinion of some people in the community.
As for the OP, I agree with #2. There are some people who claim to be unaffected by the game's discrepancies, but I certainly feel the love when my AR feels like it only has 25 bullets at best and my shotgun deciding to shoot far fewer pellets than it should or outright shooting blanks.
oh what. So now it's "still don't drop below 60 unlesss ____"
What happened to the always running 60fps? What's next? I can maintain 60fps until there's heavy cysting? Till there's GL spam? Pick a story and stick with it or frap your game and let other people be the judge.
As mentioned, I am running i7@4ghz, 2GB 6950 in crossfire and a 3xRaid0 setup, and I can't remember the last time an ENTIRE match ran constantly above 60fps. Sure, if I'm staring at an extractor or following a fellow marine it'll hover above 60. Once I enter combat with more than 4 or 5 pplayers involved, though, those random mini stutters and framedrops become painfully acute.
What decides the game is the FPS battles that happen near the resource and tech points in the early game. Whichever team wins those battles and wins consistently will take more territory and eventually win, assuming the commanders don't screw up.
In other words, the team I see win 90+% of the time is the team with better skills. That sounds like a balanced game to me! It would be kinda screwed up if the team with less skills won, right? If you don't like losing, I suggest you practice aiming/biting instead of complaining about this or that being OP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much this.
When I loose badly, it's most of the time the commander's fault, whether I play in alien or marine.
Sometimes it's the team, they're scared to die, so they run away instead of holding the line or attacking when they should do so.
In the end, the game itself is fairly balanced, the only thing I would change is removing the tentacles whip the ability to throw back grenades.
Most games I see there is actually a lot of teamwork. People go where the danger/action is. Nobody wants to sit around doing nothing. They want to go and make a difference. It's just that when the squad of marines runs into a swarm of skulks which one comes out on top? In the early game it's the group that is better at aiming/biting/dodging. That early victory results in that team getting more res/tech points and more upgrades. Thus the momentum builds for that team making it even harder for the less skilled team to win the next encounter. And before you know it, you've got level 1 shotguns against onos, or you've got skulks and lerks against an exo/arc train.
Now, not every game is such a blowout. Often, the difference in skill is smaller. Both teams have a mix of players of all skill levels. So which one wins? Again, it's whichever one wins most of those early encounters. Just because you're somewhat evenly matched, someone still wins, and someone still dies.
Team stacking is a very common complaint. People see who the good players are, and they want to join those players in order to win. Here's a better idea. Practice so that you can be the difference maker, and whichever team you are on will be the one with the advantage, because they have YOU. Again, it's all about the battles where marines build their extractors. If you are a marine, you have to be able to kill the skulks who try to stop you. If you are a skulk, you have to be able to bite them all to death before they build up and move forward.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
building a system right now i7, 8 gigs ram, etc etc , for way less than that. idk where people get these inflated prices for pc building.. sure intel chips are expensive for top end but you shouldnt need to spend that much at all.
at least back then when you shot someone , your fire mightve been delayed, but a hit was still a hit. i sorta miss those days.
What happened to the always running 60fps? What's next? I can maintain 60fps until there's heavy cysting? Till there's GL spam? Pick a story and stick with it or frap your game and let other people be the judge.
As mentioned, I am running i7@4ghz, 2GB 6950 in crossfire and a 3xRaid0 setup, and I can't remember the last time an ENTIRE match ran constantly above 60fps. Sure, if I'm staring at an extractor or following a fellow marine it'll hover above 60. Once I enter combat with more than 4 or 5 pplayers involved, though, those random mini stutters and framedrops become painfully acute.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you realize how rare it is for an entire team to get exos? Hell it's rare Marines even get Exos at all. That really sucks for you, spending all that money on a rig and you can't even break 100 fps. I hope you built it yourself so at least you saved some money. I can't even comprehend why you're not getting way above 60 fps. I mean I was getting like 30-50 fps on my old dual core rig back in beta when ###### was really laggy. I guess I'll take it as money well spent for me, and not for you. GG no re. Something must be wrong with your comp if you cant hold 60 fps in a room with 5 players, especially with your supposed specs. That really just isn't normal.
When I loose badly, it's most of the time the commander's fault, whether I play in alien or marine.
Sometimes it's the team, they're scared to die, so they run away instead of holding the line or attacking when they should do so.
In the end, the game itself is fairly balanced, the only thing I would change is removing the tentacles whip the ability to throw back grenades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea. I am sure everyone here has taken down 2-3 skulks by themselves at one point. You cannot be intimidated by them when they are so squishy. But it hurts when you kill so many skulks at an important far away point/base and the commander keeps ignoring you when you request a phase or armory. Like you can keep holding that point forever when barely any ammo left. And the rest of the team keeps pushing one point where they are locked with aliens.
I think servers are trying to push more slots because people want to play on larger servers which causes performance issues on the server. This is worsened by the high performance requirements of the servers.
Ofcourse my performance drops a bit during large battles, perhaps more then it should, but it is still very playable. When performance is bad enough to notice for me its generally bad for everyone on the server. It would also explain why people with computers that can obviously play the game maxed out are having problems.
Or you can just pull your head out of your ass and realize that there are issues with the engine. I run BF3 and on high and Metro2033 with 3 monitors.
This is the only game I play on a single monitor that's capable of supporting multi monitor gaming. Even that pile of garbage GTA4 ran on 3 monitors.
You are not the only one that knows how to build a computer. I've had to work as anything from a PC technician to network engineer to embedded and mobile developer. Stop assuming just because the game supposedly runs flawless for you (which I sincerely doubt; as I said, frap it and we'll talk) that other people have no experience with computers.
This is the only game I play on a single monitor that's capable of supporting multi monitor gaming. Even that pile of garbage GTA4 ran on 3 monitors.
You are not the only one that knows how to build a computer. I've had to work as anything from a PC technician to network engineer to embedded and mobile developer. Stop assuming just because the game supposedly runs flawless for you (which I sincerely doubt; as I said, frap it and we'll talk) that other people have no experience with computers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->*Snip* Be nicer. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
This sums up my ns2 experience, if your team is not right on the ball (especially aliens) from the get go or your not the dominant team in the first ~10min or so it's over.
My motto if you can only play at your best at one time make it when the match starts.
"I cant win as marines because my computer cant handle the game on max settings"
Also the spark engine isn't broken. If it was, then the game wouldn't even compile to begin with.
I'll just say that the burden of proof falls on you to prove your claim of getting constant 60fps by making a recording of it. I mean it shouldn't be a problem for you to make a video @ 60fps and never drop below 60 for the entire duration of the game right? That's what your claiming your desktop can do so you obviously need to back up your claim with some proof. Unless of course you're just some kiddie resorting to petty attacks to hide the fact you're lying out of your ass.
But it's quite plain to see that you are telling the truth, but one can never be too sure on the Internet. A rather lurid place filled with people who love to make bold statements, yet never back it up with a shred of evidence. These people are obviously overcompensating for something. Ever seen those people who drive Hummers? Yeah like those people except the vile denizens of the web also hide under the veil of anonymity. Such cowards...
agreed... this thread started as a bad joke and it's not gotten any better.
<!--quoteo(post=2051758:date=Dec 27 2012, 12:54 PM:name=Side1Bu2Rnz9)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Side1Bu2Rnz9 @ Dec 27 2012, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2051758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->agreed... this thread started as a bad joke and it's not gotten any better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<sup>Let us be the judges of that. If you feel something is offensive, report the post. Don't ask for moderation through another post.</sup>
That being said, I agree that this thread has run its course.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->
*Locked*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->