Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Bored Druid ThreadFollow

#10902 Oct 22 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
The quality of the video is disturbing, the video itself I don't really care about one way or another.
#10903 Oct 22 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
240p makes eyes bleed, yes, but the thing in the video disturbed me.

Reminded me of Little Britain for some reason.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10904 Oct 22 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I can only assume the new WoW expac is one big joke...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10905 Oct 22 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
The Pandaren are cool and I'm glad they're making them a playable race. The Monk class looks interesting, but I'm not sure the game needed another agility DPS class.

The thought of spending five levels and possibly two years in limbo between Kung Fu Panda and Mulan, though. Ugh. I wouldn't mind a single zone being Asian themed, but an entire freakin' expansion? Pandaren weren't THAT big in WC3. They were a joke made for April Fool's Day that starred as a sidekick to Rexxar when he freed Durotar and all that.

It would be like making an entire expansion revolve around how Deckard Cain from Diablo, or Sarah Kerrigan from StarCraft, showed up in Azeroth, all because you got a Mini Diablo and Zergling pet if you bought the Vanilla collector's edition back in the days.

They sort of blew it out of proportions. They took a well-liked joke character and thought the fanbase would enjoy an expansion revolving around them. The problem being that such an expansion would take a pretty huge step away from the Warcraft atmosphere.

I just don't think East Asia when I think Azeroth...

Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 11:29pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10906 Oct 22 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
I'm praying that it's a joke, but deep down, I know it isn't. I think I'm pretty much done with WoW now, anyways, no raiding for an entire expansion has killed it for me.

I'll just move on to CoD4, MW3, BF3, LoL, possibly Blizzard DotA, Diablo 3, Skyrim, any other RPG's that aren't freaking dark souls, and Tribes Ascend.

Also: New PC is gonna cost me so much god damned money, but it should be worth it, being able to run BF3 at 100+ fps on medium settings, although I'll probably just end up doing what I did in Bad Company 2, and turn everything down, so I get more FPS, and make it harder for people to go Bushwookie on my ***.
#10907 Oct 22 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
You don't really need more than 100 FPS in a game. Hell, 100 is more than the eye can register anyway. Avatar was filmed at 24 FPS.

Think about it. Just think about it.

Smiley: glare

Edit: Unless your LCD screen isn't locked at 60 FPS, anything above is just a waste of pretty graphics. Turn up them graphics and play at 60 FPS.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 12:44am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10908 Oct 22 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
I run CoD4 at between 150 and 250 frames per second, it allows me to move slightly faster, jump slightly further, and generally makes the game feel even more fast paced than it is. Combine that with seta_cgf fov 100 and the game doesn't look like a god damned console port anymore. This is why you need to mess around with console commands when you're playing PC games, so that it isn't locked at 60/30 frames a second.

CoD4 gets capped at 320 frames per second, otherwise the movement advantages become overwhelming in the hands of skilled players. At 320 Fps, it's like your playing god damned Quake live in comparison to default settings. Playing at 60 fps with FoV 60 (what consololololol is capped at) just feels so slow I'd rather not play the game.
#10909 Oct 22 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Why would an increase in frame rate also increase your movement speed? Smiley: dubious

But that's besides the point. If your monitor is locked at 60 FPS then it won't matter if you're running the game at 60 FPS or 300 FPS. Your monitor will only show you 60 FPS.

Edit: The only reason for running a game at lower details is to prevent latency during sequences that require a lot of processing. Lower graphics settings and thus a higher FPS would mean less processing and thus less input lag, resulting in a more fluid experience when in a heated battle or whatever. You'd be better off turning on v-sync and just reducing your graphics settings if you experience input lag during combat. 100-200 FPS is just overkill.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 1:27am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10910 Oct 22 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
It doesn't matter what you're monitor shows you. Once you play a game at 320 fps, go back and play it at 60. You can feel the difference.
#10911 Oct 22 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
I just loaded up WoW, turned off v-sync and set it to Low settings. I'm getting 250 FPS now. And now I set it back to Good settings and v-sync enabled, getting 60 FPS.

Honestly? Didn't feel a difference.

Remember, only my FPS is locked at 60. My GFX card is still capable of delivering ~200 FPS at these settings, so my FPS won't drop below 60 FPS unless something crazy happens.

Unless you've got a monitor that is able to display more than 60 FPS, you shouldn't notice a difference. Mind over matter, though. You might think it feels differently because you're aware that the FPS have been increased.

"FPS" was used way too many times in this post.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 1:38am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10912 Oct 22 2011 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
Quote:
Honestly? Didn't feel a difference.


Try it in a fast paced first person shooter, CoD4, Quake, Tribes. You WILL notice.
#10913 Oct 22 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
The issue seems to be that we're talking about two different comparisons, Rio.

I'm comparing 200 FPS without v-sync to 60 FPS with v-sync on the same card. You're comparing 200 FPS without v-sync to 60 FPS without v-sync on two different cards.

Naturally, if the card can't provide more than 60 FPS, it'll drop below that threshold during heavy processing, whereas the card that supports 200 FPS can be locked at 60 FPS and not drop during heavy processing because it supports... 200.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10914 Oct 22 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Dammit, I decided to call it an early night tonight, but that was three hours ago, immediately before getting into the MoP discussion here and at the O-boards.

Need to get up early and write a 5-page essay/analysis on something I've yet to find.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10915 Oct 22 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
T-.0031
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#10916 Oct 22 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
Mazra wrote:
I'm comparing 200 FPS without v-sync to 60 FPS with v-sync on the same card. You're comparing 200 FPS without v-sync to 60 FPS without v-sync on two different cards.


You've lost me. I didn't mention two different video cards once. I've played CoD4 locked at 60 frames a second, and I've played it when it's allowed to put out as much fps as my card can give. You notice the game "feeling" slower when it's locked at 60.
#10917 Oct 23 2011 at 5:05 AM Rating: Good
**
614 posts
At least in Cod 1 and 2 there were things you couldn't do without solid 125 fps. Certain trickjumps for example.
Other than that I don't know, I only need the game to run smoothly and thatä's enough for me.
#10918 Oct 23 2011 at 6:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Sgriob wrote:
You've lost me. I didn't mention two different video cards once. I've played CoD4 locked at 60 frames a second, and I've played it when it's allowed to put out as much fps as my card can give. You notice the game "feeling" slower when it's locked at 60.


Then I've no idea why. Smiley: frown

I know the feeling of having a video game move faster, or more fluidly, at higher frame rates, but usually that's going from 30 FPS to 60 FPS. If your card has issues generating the frames, you end up with a slight input lag (slower acceleration when moving, hitting buttons, etc.), but I can't for the life of me see how going from 60 FPS to 200 FPS on a standard monitor would generate the same kind of feeling.

Maybe it's like when I tried to load up Lemmings on my old 2.4GHz QC and the game, because it lacked a FPS lock, just went into hyper mode. That might be the same thing you're talking about with CoD, though you'd think the developers would prevent players from moving faster than other players in a multiplayer game...

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 2:17pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10919 Oct 23 2011 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
FMyLife wrote:
Today, I introduced my new boyfriend to my parents. Everyone knows he's into the emo scene, but this didn't stop my dad from slowly looking him up and down, then saying, completely deadpan, "You never told us you were a lesbian, honey." FML

This is too funny to not share.
#10920 Oct 23 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
Mazra wrote:
Maybe it's like when I tried to load up Lemmings on my old 2.4GHz QC and the game, because it lacked a FPS lock, just went into hyper mode. That might be the same thing you're talking about with CoD, though you'd think the developers would prevent players from moving faster than other players in a multiplayer game...


It's exactly like that, except less extreme. Luckily, that can't happen with CoD4, because seta_max fps only allows for you to cap your rig at 320 frames a second.
#10921 Oct 23 2011 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
But surely IW made sure some people couldn't move faster, jump higher and all that simply because they were running at higher FPS?

That would completely ruin multipla-- wait, CoD4 is Modern Warfare, right? Smiley: lol Never mind then.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10922 Oct 23 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
They did stop people running at higher fps. It caps at 320.
Quote:
That would completely ruin multipla-- wait, CoD4 is Modern Warfare, right? Smiley: lol Never mind then.


What's wrong with CoD4, it's the only decent Call of Duty, since the first one. WaW sucked really hard, MW2 need so many tweaks that some guys decided to recode the entire multiplayer so that Dedicated servers were supported. And Black Ops? Black Ops was stupid. The entire gun balance is based around the Famas. The only thing that even competes with the Famas is the AK-74u with rapid fire attachment.
#10923 Oct 23 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
I'm just seriously confused about how the FPS your computer is generating can, in any way, affect the actual speed and capability of the player's character. Once you hit the cap of what your eye is going to notice a difference over, then you don't really need to go any higher for any reason I can tell.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10924 Oct 23 2011 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
Like smunks said, there are jumps and tricks that you just can't do without running at certain fps break points. For instance The jump made in this video at 3 minutes ish can't be done at the default 91 frames per second cap.

There's an entire promod community that makes sure they're squeezing every available frame per second out of their rigs, because it helps them.
#10925 Oct 23 2011 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Was just referring to the silly amount of hacking going on in MW1. At least last time I played it.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#10926 Oct 23 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
**
584 posts
What platform did you play on? Because the only thing I come across is the occasional aimbot, but most server admins are good about banning people really quickly, if punkbuster doesn't catch it.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 3587 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (3587)