Printable View
How about we all voluntarily rate our Pcs and connections and post it after our names. You no on a scale of say 1 to 10? This way we would be able to match games better. Maybe someone could come up with a chart or something? I imagine mine would rate a 9 or 10 being a new Core 2 Duo 6600 ,8800 vid card and cable.
Mine is a 5. I can run the campaign okay, a 3000 man siege battle gives my computer a .75 framerate, online is a nightmare, but singleplayer is normally fine if I use medium or small unit sizes. I don't even remember the CPU I have and the video card is a (recently upgraded from a 5200) 5600.
Based only on multiplayer (which I've tried twice, only to see my computer defecate a brick) I'd give it a 0,5.
Im more interested about those of us who play all the time but thanks for the input :laugh4: And again Id like it to be able to be seen in the lobby. Maybe we can give an award for good pcs and connections :laugh4: Ill have a shot at last.
My apologies, I just heard the crickets chirping and, as I normally do, butt in, especially when unnecessary.
E6300 (Core 2 Duo), 2gb ram, 7600GS 256MB and cable (512kb/s)
quad pro/ 8 gigs of ram/ 1024 meg vid card
;)
Guys what I want is a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 on how well your pc plays MTW2. Also the idea is for everyone who plays to put this at the end of their name. Im just wondering what you all think of the idea.
I know someone who has same configurations as I have, yet he has 1mb/sec and he has no lag in 3v3 matches. I have lag in 3v3 for instance but no lag in 2v2.
Maybe a speed test would be a good measure that we could post. Mine is slowed quite a bit by my wireless router I would imagine
GAH!
Too subjective. Vanya sez youz must provide a well-defined methodology or tool that results in a comparable number, like 5.2.
A rating of 5.2 or 7.3 means a lot more than "Oh, I think my pc is purdy good 'cause ole Bubba down the road has a 486 that don't run no nothin' any more!"
Not that there's anything wrong with playing M2TW on a 486.
Vanya's current specs are:
286 55 MHz
1 MB RAM
16 MB HD with Stacker 6.66 installed, making total space available just under 2.2 GB.
Green monochrome monitor (green is the purist's choice!)
300 Baud Modem
Networked with a 30-yr old VAX mini-computer
VI Editor for Windows installed (a must have for any purist!)
A loud dot-matrix printer - great for printing epic battle screen caps in ASCII art!
Vanya would rate His cute little war machine an 11 on a scale from 1 to 10!
:no: :shame:
GAH!
Intel Core2 Processor 6400 @ 2.13GHz (each)
1 GB of RAM
256MB ATI Radeon X1300PRO Video Card
I'd probably rate myself as an 8/10 or thereabouts, given that dual core processors aren't supported by M2TW and my video card is by far the weakest asset of my PC.
I also have all my visual settings to a minimum when playing online.
I think your right. Your cpu is fine but 1 more gig of ram and a better card would make u a 10 :beam: That is if you have cable.
1 GB ram memory
256 mb 7600GT videocard
AMD 3500+ ~ 2,2 GHz
I rate that 10/10 for SP play as I can play everything on High (except Ant-Aliasing which I don't use anyway as I see no use in it)
For MP I have cable internet 100mb/sec, which I obviously rate 10/10 because it's free (read: comes with the rent of my flat, that's 250 euro's a month, so I guess my flat is worth 10 euro's)
And because of this line I can still play at high graphics on MP without lag against players from Europe.
No wonder if you have 512kb/sQuote:
I have lag in 3v3 for instance but no lag in 2v2.
This game demands loads, which is a bad thing. I doubt switching graphics and sounds down even helps for you.
Your opinion about the performance of mtw2 shows, that the rating system is crap. I would give mtw2 a score of 2/10 with your system. If you have bigger battles, you must have much lags. And we are here in the MP Forum and rate the MP Performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Can you explain your opinion? I cannot see any reason, why a game that has less features like MTW VI in MP should need more Bandwidth. Sry, but that makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
The lag is because the engine is very limited in handling a bigger number of units on field.
Have you seen my connection speed? Then you'll wonder why the rating is highQuote:
If you have bigger battles, you must have much lags. And we are here in the MP Forum and rate the MP Performance.
You lag because your internet speed is low, I never lag, even tho my computer isn't the bestQuote:
Can you explain your opinion? I cannot see any reason, why a game that has less features like MTW VI in MP should need more Bandwidth. Sry, but that makes no sense.
i have to agree on the connection speed because of the many animation moves that have to be transferred in packets.
however if only stats are transferred than that would explain why there are differences in game replays and after battle screenshots between different players.
But that means, that the game engine is crap because the graphic animation cannot be the base for state calculation. That is strange. In my opinion that is the wrong solution for a battle simulator with many soldiers. We don't want to rate any internet connection, we should rate the game. And in my opinion because of the terrible engine I would give the game 2/10 (technical) and content only 1/10 because most features in MP are a step back instead of forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Strange, that all reknown reviewers rate the game about 9/10 ~D
This game shouldn't require a broadband connection. There is very little data transfered over the network during a battle. All that gets transfered are the commands that each player gives to his units. These go to the host and are retransmitted out to the other machines. Also, the reason players see better performance using Hamachi is that GameSpy is taken out of the loop. There is no technical reason to keep GameSpy, which is only a match making service, in the loop during the battle itself.
Aye, as I said, this version of GameSpy sucks
tho I must also say that Hamachi can seriously lag:
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/letitallh...etitallhangout
Lags for the same reasons that GS lags.
i have also heard some say that hamachi servers can be loaded down just like the gamespy lobby.
maybe if sega got two or three servers running to take up overflow it might help.
better yet why not have sega actually let gamespy provide and give technical support to a better server. since it is segas server. this is evident if you ever go on gamespy and try to get support help. they will tell you right off that gamespy does not support mtw2 multiplayer. how they can put their name on the lobby and require you to have an account with them to use the server but not offer support is beyond me.
sega is supposed to assume responsibility over the mtw2 server but as i have found out there has not been much of any improvement made to fix the server or the network coding issues. i had an email from sega stating there would be improvements in network code for patch 1.02 but they did not hold up to that statement.
It's not just GameSpy. Jamie Furgeson says the game's network code has to be redesigned, and they are looking into that for the next game. I would say for starters that next time the game should not rout the data packets through the match making server.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Make the matchmaker server optional, other games offer several services at the same time, including direct IP.
Gil Jaysmith told us that there is no server side support from GameSpy. If you contact GameSpy Customer Support, they will tell you that the problems are in the client software (the game itself), and that it's up to the company that developed the game to correct the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
The problem may be too deeply embedded in the design of the engine to address in a patch. That's my impression after reading Jamie Furgeson's statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech