Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Arturo Sanchez on December 30, 2014, 09:23:25 pm
-
Unless those very obvious rope bridges are made of spider webs, any person with common sense would know an airship would shred those bridges.
Plus water hazard is a terrible map for me to load in, taking a full 30 seconds after match start to load in (fatal in a 3 v 3). Removing those damn bridges might help matters.
-
Just like to point out (again) the graphical glitch on some of them.
-
Yeah water hazard is a weird one to load in to me also, (when windows says you're not responding press wait 4 times and it will work :] )
But yeah there's a couple of places where it's so dumb you can't shoot through.
Like the bridges, the bridge like gun structure in firnfeld, wreckage in duel etc.
Full speed moonshine galleon going for the hydrogen uppercut ram?
Oh wait it's stopped by a goddamn rickety rope bridge. #would happen irl
-
I like the fact that these bridges are there. Instead of just going around mountains there is at least something additional that pilots have to be aware of. In my opinion, there should be more bridges just so this map filled with something.
At least the bridges have an actual hitbox unlike most trees in this game.
-
most ppl fight in the open spaces anyway.
I barely encounter the bridges, they're just extra assets that increase my load time.
More often than not ppl fight in that big island where people can get cornered as people have to go around the mountain.
The bridges makes other terrain in the map ignorable for fear of trapping urself in a cage of easily breakable bridges that for some reason are solid as a mountain.
-
most ppl fight in the open spaces anyway.
I barely encounter the bridges, they're just extra assets that increase my load time.
More often than not ppl fight in that big island where people can get cornered as people have to go around the mountain.
The bridges makes other terrain in the map ignorable for fear of trapping urself in a cage of easily breakable bridges that for some reason are solid as a mountain.
Maybe I should start playing again. Sounds like a lot of noobs need to go to school....sigh...must wait...continue to hold hope they get the ship testing done and implement them in game.
-
most ppl fight in the open spaces anyway.
I barely encounter the bridges, they're just extra assets that increase my load time.
More often than not ppl fight in that big island where people can get cornered as people have to go around the mountain.
The bridges makes other terrain in the map ignorable for fear of trapping urself in a cage of easily breakable bridges that for some reason are solid as a mountain.
Maybe I should start playing again. Sounds like a lot of noobs need to go to school....sigh...must wait...continue to hold hope they get the ship testing done and implement them in game.
its mostly effected by the placement of spawns.
The spawns usually avoid the bridges to avoid said issue of having mobility severely nerfed. Plus the spawns after death are places to retreat to (like the big island in the corner, behind the giant mountain).
in 3 v 3 people spawn relatively close to the middle and hence meet at the center because why not? They enemy is literally a stones throw away on match start.
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
What cover?
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
What cover?
Projectiles hit bridges. They also allow environment-specific positioning and maneuvers. They are certainly more than "just extra assets that increase my load time".
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
What cover?
Projectiles hit bridges. They also allow environment-specific positioning and maneuvers. They are certainly more than "just extra assets that increase my load time".
more so on the dikes and isles.
the bridges are barely any of what you mention. you're not fully covered by the bridges.
-
While you're at it, remove the rock spires and buildings as well. They're too small anyway and I don't see any purpose in them being there. Heck, why keep the water floor and sky ceiling either? Remove those too, let us just hover in abstract space.
-
Oh I've had games like that. I think I already shared the screenshots
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
What cover?
Projectiles hit bridges. They also allow environment-specific positioning and maneuvers. They are certainly more than "just extra assets that increase my load time".
you're not fully covered by the bridges.
Exactly. Interesting, isn't it?
-
I like the bridges and use them frequently as cover.
What cover?
Projectiles hit bridges. They also allow environment-specific positioning and maneuvers. They are certainly more than "just extra assets that increase my load time".
you're not fully covered by the bridges.
Exactly. Interesting, isn't it?
Yeah the game took too long loading assets and connection timed out.
-
I'm not a programmer, and I have a very limited knowledge in the area, but I'm pretty sure the bridges have very little to do with your increased load time. They're pretty insignificant by my standards, unless they have some sort of hidden property that I'm not aware of.
I should think that the increased load time would be because of the rain, rather than the bridges
-
I'm not a programmer, and I have a very limited knowledge in the area, but I'm pretty sure the bridges have very little to do with your increased load time. They're pretty insignificant by my standards, unless they have some sort of hidden property that I'm not aware of.
I should think that the increased load time would be because of the rain, rather than the bridges
refinery loads faster than water hazard by about 10 seconds faster. and thats the map with the most shadows and clouds and effects. (it does kill framerate though)
plus my texture settings are low. The rain isn't loaded.
-
This brings up a good idea: what about destructible terrain?
If bridges could be rammed or shot down, that should solve mobility and "making sense" problems while keeping the game interesting.
That won't help with your lag though... Make sure pretty much everything is disabled or low. One or two of them can make a huge difference with lags.
-
This brings up a good idea: what about destructible terrain?
If bridges could be rammed or shot down, that should solve mobility and "making sense" problems while keeping the game interesting.
That won't help with your lag though... Make sure pretty much everything is disabled or low. One or two of them can make a huge difference with lags.
yeah everything is set to low.
But yeah in terms of raw data for destructible terrain. you would need to code a subroutine that checks the state of in game objects in a similar way to ships. But instead of just ships. Its the whole map, like a literal copy pasta of the code that checks the state of ships, but rewrote to accomodate for the nature of terrain.
That is alot of data to keep track of, where per game it is redundant to actually check the whole map's state as only a minor % of the terrain will actually be effected. As opposed to merely assets that need to load, applying static hit boxes and painting it all with the same characteristic.
Like I get why the bridges act the way they are as solid invincible objects, its to save both time and data efficiency. But in terms of practicality and immersion they're kinda iffy.
-
Practicality? How is an invincible bridge NOT practical?
-
Practicality? How is an invincible bridge NOT practical?
lore wise sure. invincible ROPE bridges are god like marvels.
But in terms of gameplay... do I gotta repeat the reasons?
-
I'm not sure why we're complaining about realism as far those bridges go. You do remember that the most prevalent game mechanic involves fixing parts by whacking them with various tools, right?
-
I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
-
I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.
I wish we could get a programming dev in on this
-
I think this topic has gotten to the point where we're going in circles.
Pretty much getting distracted for the main reasons why I wanted them removed.
1. no practical tactic use, for concealment nor cover. and to those that counter that, I merely have to point to the superior cover and means of concealment literally stones throw away from said bridges.
2. it delays load time as an extra asset to load.
1: I disagree. They're totally as effective cover as anything else. You can say "There's different cover" about anything on any map. I don't really think the mountains are totally superior either.
2: I'm holding to the idea that there is no way those tiny bridges are delaying your loadtime by that much. There's plenty of maps with more assets in them.
I wish we could get a programming dev in on this
Yeah queso should clear this up nicely.
On point 1 though, I wouldn't make it if alternatives were so close by. If it were an a series of isolated assets I would agree on your point. But frankly, a quick kero and you've jumped behind the next dike. I really don't see you thinking to yourself that you are much safer hiding behind the bridges than the solid mountain nearby.
I completely see you flying straight for that mountain as quick as possible.
-
Aren't you reaching when it comes to finding issues with this game? there are many more prominent issues that should be fixed.
-
Regarding 1: I consider the bridges to be among the most interesting entities on waterhazard as a lot of stuff can be done with them. Stating the spikes were "superior" is just silly as the bridges allow qualitatively different maneuvers compared to rock cover. E.g. It's possible to shield a junkers or mobulas balloon with the bridges while pointing your guns to a huge open space. You can use them to move from spike to spike with decent cover. They can be used to shake enemies, etc. There are many ways to integrate the bridges into your tactical positioning. If "trapping urself in a cage of easily breakable bridges" really is the only thing you can use them for, feel free to keep a safe distance yourself, but please don't try to dull down the map for all of us.
Regarding 2: So far I've assumed you mentioned this argument as some sort of joke. I think it to be utterly ridiculous and would be really suprised if loading the bridge model would take longer than a couple of ms. If the ammount of entities in water hazard really was problematic (something you are not able to tell) I'd suggest to get rid of a couple of houses in the north western village instead. A region I've not had a single encounter in yet after more than 5000 matches played.
-
So, as I do, I went testing Water Hazard.
After a few games on it, I can say two things.
First, things load slower on Water Hazard than other maps. It takes about a full second longer (on my PC) to render things in Water Hazard compare to other maps.
Second, the bridge is a little glitchy. Sometimes, the textures missing. Sometimes, they look like rainbows. Sometimes, they are jagged triangles.
But my conclusion is that none of these are game breaking. First few seconds, and sometimes few minutes, in GOIO is introductions and strategies; longer load time isn't a significant deal. Bridges are glitchy, but that makes it something to be fixed, not removed.
I for one find the bridges and structures in Water Hazard aesthetically pleasing. Others seem to find tactical use in them. Bridges should not be removed in Water Hazard.
-
Water Hazard is definitely one of the higher budget maps in the game. The bridges by themselves aren't going to change load times too crazily though.
-
Btw, what about Canyon? Its a map that takes just as long to render, and I met some people who have had trouble playing on it. Given its complexity, I imagine its about as expensive as Hazard.
-
So the whole argument still going on here is..."my PC sucks, change the game so I can play it?"
Thats it I'm outa here...
(http://i.imgur.com/DLmqhNR.gif)
-
3 pages of it, too!
-
In all honesty, GOIO isn't the most optimized game in the world. And since 2007, nothing runs as intended on PC.
Muse still have some work to do to smooth out the game.
That said, don't tale me wrong. GOIO is the one game I've never uninstalled, whatever patch, windows update, Mac os update, and computer viruses make it unplayable.
Btw, I always love the anime gifs. Salutes to Gilder.
-
In all honesty, GOIO isn't the most optimized game in the world. And since 2007, nothing runs as intended on PC.
Muse still have some work to do to smooth out the game.
Adding to this offtopic, Muse says on their site that minimum requirements are:
- Windows 7 or Mac OS X 10.6 or later, or Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, 32-bit
- 2 GHz processor
- 2 GB RAM
- Dedicated video card with 256 MB VRAM
- 3 GB available HD space
- Broadband Internet connection
Sadly I had the "pleasure" of playing GOIO on older computer (I'm having mine repaired) which has
-Dual Core 2,6Ghz processor
-4GB RAM
-Dedicated video card with 512MB memory
And the game set to 1300-something x 700-something resolution, with all graphical options set to LOW or DISABLED was pretty much unplayable (10-20 fps). This speaks for itself I think.
About the bridges - I used to bump into them all the time :D For me they hold no tactical potential (at least I'm not using it) but they probably aren't that much of a hassle to render. Personally wouldn't mind them removed.
-
Kinda think the bridges look quite nice on that map.. they help to break up an otherwise fairly bleak scene, which I'm guessing is why they're there (as with the buildings). As for tactical use, I've probably used them 2-3 times to place an object between me and a hwacha/ heavy flak. All in all, I'd probably be sad for about 10mins to see them go, but only if they are actually causing load issues, which seems unlikely..
-
Minimum specs are never useful. Someone at Muse should make a recommended specs, those are much more telling.
-
Minimum specs are never useful. Someone at Muse should make a recommended specs, those are much more telling.
That's a good idea. For me minimum specs should be the specs to run game smoothly on lowest (or almost lowest) graphical setting. Should the bar of "smoothly" be set on 30 fps or 60 fps is a matter of opinion (but I think 60 is more like it).
-
I mean, min spec hasn't been updated in a while while the game has changed a lot. Happens to a lot of games. One must remember though that even near identical hardware can run the same game differently. The closer you toe the line, the more unpredictable performance gets.
The game still does get tested to ensure it runs on min spec though, which reminds me of a picture I took over the summer.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3682778/minSpec.jpg)
-
I mean, min spec hasn't been updated in a while while the game has changed a lot. Happens to a lot of games. One must remember though that even near identical hardware can run the same game differently. The closer you toe the line, the more unpredictable performance gets.
The game still does get tested to ensure it runs on min spec though, which reminds me of a picture I took over the summer.
Oh I don't doubt that a min spec machine can still run the game, but min specs are basically only made to say yes, if you have this the game will run on your computer.
Run optimally, or in a consistently playable condition though? Completely different story.
-
min settings are a wishy washy line. What's considered playable, really?
E.g. Phelan has played a couple of competitive matches on a really crappy notebook which is below the min spec.
All settings minimal, resolution turned down to mid-90s standards and voila he was able to run the game with occasional lag spikes if someone placed a flare. Technically the game was just barely playable with that system... still I'd personally consider it a bit daring to state it fulfills the minimal requirements because of the non-game breaking performance drops during peaks and because I think noone wants to play games with a 640x480 resolution anymore these days.
Sadly I had the "pleasure" of playing GOIO on older computer (I'm having mine repaired) which has
-Dual Core 2,6Ghz processor
-4GB RAM
-Dedicated video card with 512MB memory
And the game set to 1300-something x 700-something resolution, with all graphical options set to LOW or DISABLED was pretty much unplayable (10-20 fps). This speaks for itself I think.
I ran the game with a very similar system just decently a while back. Min settings + 1680x1050 resolution.
now, after I've upgraded my graphic card I can run GoIO fluently on max settings:
Dual Core 3Ghz,
4GB RAM
GeForce GTX 560Ti