259 réponses à ce sujet

[GunWraith]

Air Quotes wrote...

Uchimura wrote...

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

MoeRayShep wrote...

[...] The ones who did the technical work on it should be fired.

The probably were let go already...only to be rehired for ME4. YAY! The cycle of horrible QA continues.

So they should be fired for something hardly anyone took notice of before for a year in an otherwise highly functional game? Sounds good.

 

Actually we all took notice. By ****ing on BSN about broken Geth, abnormal accuracy, insane enemy awareness and so on and on for a WHOLE YEAR. And if you look at it closely - most of the posters were those with good PC's who were playing at 2x difficulty or more. 

This.

So much this. I've been trying to figure out since release why difficulty seemed to spike if I was soloing or hosting, yet when others would host the difficulty would vary. Finally we have a reason that makes sense and is demonstrable, so there is a bit of tension right now over it.

I don't necessarily want someone to lose a job over it, but it would be nice if Bioware confirmed it and made it a priority to fix. If not now, at least in ME4 MP if it uses the same Unreal Engine.

[capn233]

I doubt there are hardly any hosts deliberately locking framerate low.

I think the behavior described in the OP is more the result of latency, but could partly be from a slow host machine.

I think we need a permanent tin foil hat club on BSN.

[crashmatusow]

ipkh wrote...

Lets get one thing straight about the frame rate issue.
Consoles are specced at 30fps and the AI is based around it for Consoles only.
PC has always been a 60fps type environment. Most monitors are specced at 60hz at a minimum and many go even higher, although 60hz is the default for most LCDs. Therefore the game would be optimized for 60fps with vsync on the PC.

This is why PC, Xbox360 and PS3 don't get to play the same match.

Next gen Consoles will be specced at 60fps or higher now that most HDTVs support 1080P @60hz.

you're assuming that they did a proper port.

[MaxShine]

Caratinoid wrote...

@100RenegadePoints

Are you sure that it was 250FPS? Any kit with less then 900 shields wouldn't be able to recharge it's shields at all, making extraction very unlikely.

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Edit: Ok, I guess these kits all had more than 900 shields.
I just tried the same thing with a Human Adept, this kit would hardly regenerate any shields at 250fps, maybe 10 shields in 20 seconds. Pretty terrible...

Modifié par 100RenegadePoints, 18 février 2013 - 09:04 .

[HolyAvenger]

GunWraith wrote...

If not now, at least in ME4 MP if it uses the same Unreal Engine.

Off topic, but ME4 will be on Frostbite no? DA3 has been confirmed to be on that.

Unreal is done.

[Arppis]

Air Quotes wrote...

The game is fundamentally broken. Experience varies DRASTICALLY depending on FPS. On modern game that's released in 2012 it's unacceptable. It should handle 60 FPS with no issues.

Yet it's made for 30 and with 60, you're fighting a 2x tougher enemies. All balance changes, all buffs and nerfs are meaningless, when the core is broken.  

And Bioware refuses to comment. 

So this is why they are more accurate on PC? I mean... they already shoot trough every possible crack and hit you even when you dodge and shoot around walls!

Sounds extremely stupid if they get more accurate than that (this example is from consoles).

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

^^^^ lol 2001.

2001.



....


Geez.....

[llandwynwyn]

100RenegadePoints wrote...

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Poor souls.

Air Quotes wrote...

For consoles there should 4 challenges - Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum.

For PC - 15 FPS, 30 FPS, 60 FPS and 120+ FPS

lol but accurate

[MaxShine]

llandwynwyn wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Poor souls.

They were well compensated, I used arc grenades and rockets for the win, so they did get their well deserved credits in the end, don't worry.

[Domnuxx]

100RenegadePoints wrote...

llandwynwyn wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Poor souls.

They were well compensated, I used arc grenades and rockets for the win, so they did get their well deserved credits in the end, don't worry.

I think you mean multi-frag grenades (assuming you were the Destroyer and those kits were in one game).

[NovaCypher]

I'm confused.

What added benefit is there to playing with 30 fps?

[udinbak4]

Instead of pairing up players from different continents, Origin should pair players according to FPS, i.e. PC performance, and internet connection.

Problem solved.

[stromguard555]

Wasn't the entire ME trilogy designed for console and then adapted to PC? If this is the case, then the answer as to why this is happening is answered. A game developed for one system and adapted to another is going to have compatibility issues. And I would think something like variation in fps would be a rather negligible issue for a developer.

As far as difficulty goes, for all you complaining that Platinum is too easy, here is your solution to get higher difficulty levels.

[Fortack]

Caratinoid wrote...

Lag is only manageable when the host is not running at a high frame rate. At 60 FPS and higher you are more  likely to get killed before you can see it on your screen, especially noticeable when you are the last man standing and not the host.

Yeah, death before dying crap happens, but only when the host is relatively far away. I almost always play with fellow Europeans and they play / host (like me) @ 60 FPS. Regardless who's hosting those games feel very similar in terms of difficulty / AI behavior (including the rare off-host last man standing thing).

capn233 wrote...

I doubt there are hardly any hosts deliberately locking framerate low.

Not yet, but that's b/c they do not know how FPS affect the game. Easier games = faster credits = a farmer's dream.

I don't really care bout farmers b/c I play private games almost exclusively. However, I don't like the fact that FPS affect difficulty. If Bioware doesn't mind people playing games with varying difficulty, I don't see why we're not allowed to increase difficulty through modding the ini file by adding more enemies.

I got dropped in a modded game a couple weeks ago. I believe the host was some Russian guy who quadrupled the number of enemies. We got wiped during the wave 3 hack (just me and the host, the other players left the game in wave 1) by 25 Cannibals, 8 Marauders, 7 Brutes, and 4 Banshee (or something). It was a pretty awesome game, but I quit the lobby b/c you risk a ban for doing stuff like that.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

udinbak4 wrote...

Instead of pairing up players from different continents, Origin should pair players according to FPS, i.e. PC performance, and internet connection.

Problem solved.

For Mass Effect 3, maybe.

Other (some of them) Origin titles are not coded so poorly....

This is, in the end, a Bioware issue, not an Origin issue. Origin is terrible at matchmaking, but Origin also shouldn't have to modify your game to make things work between peers.

Exhibit #1,946,731,905 why the Doctors hosed us selling BW to EA.

Modifié par Qui-Gon Glenn, 18 février 2013 - 01:28 .

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

stromguard555 wrote...

Wasn't the entire ME trilogy designed for console and then adapted to PC? If this is the case, then the answer as to why this is happening is answered. A game developed for one system and adapted to another is going to have compatibility issues. And I would think something like variation in fps would be a rather negligible issue for a developer.

As far as difficulty goes, for all you complaining that Platinum is too easy, here is your solution to get higher difficulty levels.

No.

It was a PC game first, released on PC and xBox. Originally published by Microsoft and BW....

Modifié par Qui-Gon Glenn, 18 février 2013 - 01:30 .

[HolyAvenger]

Pretty sure ME1 was developed for console then ported to PC. Microsoft initially wanted it to be Xbox exclusive, iirc.

[AlmightyMudcrab]

Qui-Gon Glenn wrote...



It was a PC game first, released on PC and xBox. Originally published by Microsoft and BW....

Wrong. It was released on the Xbox in 2007 then for the PC in 2008 sometime.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Pretty sure ME1 was developed for console then ported to PC. Microsoft initially wanted it to be Xbox exclusive, iirc.

That is fair, I bought the game for $10 after I had tried playing ME2 first and didn't understand why I had to die at the beginning of the game. Thus the addiction began.

Looking back, I think you are right. But of course, it was developed on a PC for xBOX, so it was first played, and available, on PC   (yes, this is a trite as it gets)

[Grunt_Platform]

theSatirist wrote...

all those petty little squabbles aside: am i the only one who wonders why any game developer would use a game engine that scales enemy difficulty with framerates? i'm obviously not a gamedeveloper myself, but that just sounds like plain bullsh*t. seriously, why would anyone use such an engine?

that's about as stupid as an ebook reader that changes contents of ebooks, depending on the distance between display and the readers eye!?!

It's not deliberate, it's a quirk of the way various things are calculated based on frame rate.

If an enemy is programmed to shoot where you were standing 15 frames ago, that's a lot closer to your current position at 60fps than at 30fps (thus enemies are more accurate at the higher framerate). Similar quirks would come up in any spot where time is a factor.

[MaxShine]

Domnuxx wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

llandwynwyn wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Poor souls.

They were well compensated, I used arc grenades and rockets for the win, so they did get their well deserved credits in the end, don't worry.

I think you mean multi-frag grenades (assuming you were the Destroyer and those kits were in one game).

I played several games with them... Anyways, be assured that they got enough credits for participating in the experiment.

[MaxShine]

Air Quotes wrote...

100RenegadePoints wrote...

Caratinoid wrote...

@100RenegadePoints

Are you sure that it was 250FPS? Any kit with less then 900 shields wouldn't be able to recharge it's shields at all, making extraction very unlikely.

Yep, that was 250 fps, I used playclaw to display in game fps. The Kits used were TGI,TSent,QFI and Destroyer.

Edit: Ok, I guess these kits all had more than 900 shields.
I just tried the same thing with a Human Adept, this kit would hardly regenerate any shields at 250fps, maybe 10 shields in 20 seconds. Pretty terrible...

 

This is hilarious. And for a game of 2012 it's 5x more hilarious. Does anyone know if Gears Of War has the same problem? Or any other Unreal engine MP games? 

Video demonstrating the effects of a high frame rate on shield regeneration for certain kits:
(Frame rate is displayed in the video)



This is pretty bad...

Modifié par 100RenegadePoints, 18 février 2013 - 01:53 .