Campaign Creations

Supposedly this is a more recent thing, I doubt Blizzard is insane enough to release the game performing like it is right now (they also can't figure out how their own region shit works, locking a lot of people out of beta randomly).

IskatuMesk wrote:Supposedly this is a more recent thing, I doubt Blizzard is insane enough to release the game performing like it is right now

Everything possible in Blizzard's world. You can't expect them either to push the release date as they essentially confirmed it was for March 12 (or so) ... period. No delays.

In addition, I think the general trend started with 1.5 for some users where they could play at Ultra settings with no zero problems and now if they have 40+ fps on Low, it's good.

IskatuMesk wrote:(they also can't figure out how their own region shit works, locking a lot of people out of beta randomly)

I am honestly more afraid of that aspect for WoL's 2.0.4. With the HotS beta, my login attempts had selections named such as "SC2 - I" or "Starcraft 2 - I" and one other case. I wonder if they have multiple login servers that might be mismatched somehow.

For some reason, on my XP computer, any mouse movement lags the game. People say this is usually due to v-sync issues but that's disabled and SC:BW had this problem until I enabled CPU throttling. I also didn't notice it during playtime with WarCraft III but both SCIIs have the issue. It probably isn't related to the games themselves, but it only started to happen recently and it makes ladder play impossible.

Are you sure your graphics settings aren't too high?

Lav, it happened with Brood War.

However, yes, I'm sure my graphics settings aren't too high. There's no difference in performance based on that.

Lavarinth wrote:Are you sure your graphics settings aren't too high?

Well, I heard some cases where players on ultra settings with no issues then were forced to be on low settings... like if SC2 suddenly went 5-10x slower over some patch. That's just not normal, period. No computer should become "useless" for a specific game overnight.

So my bets are more either SC2 itself being the issue or some odd side stuff (ex : CPU throttling) that the SC2 client became ultra-dependent due to a patch. It could also be that the changes heavily favor X video cards or processors and heavily dropped the ball on Y video cards or processors at the same time.

Ricky_Honejasi wrote:In addition, I think the general trend started with 1.5 for some users where they could play at Ultra settings with no zero problems and now if they have 40+ fps on Low, it's good.

Don't think I saw that, but the streaming process made loading maps from the editor take twice as long because it's "streaming" utterly nothing but wastes time anyways.

I am honestly more afraid of that aspect for WoL's 2.0.4. With the HotS beta, my login attempts had selections named such as "SC2 - I" or "Starcraft 2 - I" and one other case. I wonder if they have multiple login servers that might be mismatched somehow.

Yeah, I had two accounts and neither could be logged in. It was a key HKS just somehow got a hold of and gave it to me for the hell of it. I added it, but couldn't log in for weeks. Then I checked and the hots account had mysteriously vanished. I re-added it and it worked. This is not a new problem by any means, as I'd discover looking through TL for answers and find that they've had these kind of issues since the beta started.

I don't understand. Realms worked fine in BW and co (other than splits). How does this kind of shit even happen?

/edit

Sorry, I take all that back. HoTS performs way worse than WoL. An FFA on that exotic garden map brings me down to 1 frame every 10-20 seconds. Wow. Never seen that since wc3 on my old M Cyrix II.

IskatuMesk wrote:Sorry, I take all that back. HoTS performs way worse than WoL. An FFA on that exotic garden map brings me down to 1 frame every 10-20 seconds. Wow. Never seen that since wc3 on my old M Cyrix II.

Why do you think I've upgraded my cpu to the max, besides the LP coming in March? Far as I remember, my family wants me hanged for the bill I sent them. Over 3500. Libers.

If SC2 performance becomes that horribly wrong then I really feel it doesn't justify getting new computers just for it.

Like seriously, you could have the best computer for 2-3x speed (considering architecture and whatnot) for SC2 but it doesn't mean much if their lack of optimization makes everything 7-15x slower.

I'm sure wc3's amazing AI could still give me some hitches. With sc2 the major cpu sink seems to be the pathing, given that 100 zerglings moving will cause an immense drop while 3 dozen 110k tri models doesn't take off a single frame.

Ricky_Honejasi wrote:If SC2 performance becomes that horribly wrong then I really feel it doesn't justify getting new computers just for it.

Like seriously, you could have the best computer for 2-3x speed (considering architecture and whatnot) for SC2 but it doesn't mean much if their lack of optimization makes everything 7-15x slower.

Good point. It's like we'd never find decent programming ethics these days, and no one seems to want to understand the engines they make or the 3d itself...

Falchion wrote:Good point. It's like we'd never find decent programming ethics these days, and no one seems to want to understand the engines they make or the 3d itself...

Depends. If their best is only being able to do the job or to get more stuff done in general, it's possible they don't have the time or are unwilling to truly optimize. Maybe they have the mentality that they want to avoid modifying things in case a minor change screws up everything even if in theory it would speed up things a lot.

With programs in general, people care more that things works even if it is much slower rather than lightning speed errors. It's just that with video games, you do have the dilemma that speed matters much more and things are much more likely to go wrong for the slightest thing.

After downloading the latest patch, performance on my XP computer has dipped in the red and even running it on alpha (that's the hidden graphics setting below low) sees ridiculous performance hitches for no reason. It's not just a question of mouse movement anymore - it's all around disgusting.

If my memory is correct ...

As far XP goes, I believe that SC2 requires something RAM memory-wise that XP 32 bits tend to hit a wall quickly and you just can't go further whatever you do.

Like some settable limit being something like 384-400 MB RAM for something ultra-specific (simply can't recall what) which SC2 required more and performance suffered considerably without more. It required registry edits. You can go with 1+ GB with Windows 7 (and possibly WinXP 64 bits) for said thing.

Although it was a personal issue of mine even before any performance issues from 1.5 or further came into play. So it might simply have nothing to do with your case.

The game ran leagues better (still not superb, but not as disgusting) a few patches back - even after 1.5.