Oh man

[Around999People]

Oh man, I'm exhausted, I have a migraine, I have to be up early, and I put in 5 hours into the game. Sat down at like 1 AM to play a quick match, ended up doing a single player match with 14 players, and half the new campaign ^~^ and just now got off at 6 AM.

Feedback will be put into my review, and some here.... we'll, the short version....


Stardock, you have excelled. Absolutely amazing. Ashes of the Singularity was in my top 5 games probably, but escalation is going up to probs top 3 now ^^

Yes I'm a fanboy, but the earned it.

[Frogboy]

Awesome!

[fukoushrimp]

holly

[Around999People]

Originally posted by lea-alfa:

holly

Yes! Bring back the dead! Lol

[Arachnid]

I haven't played this game in a couple weeks since my computer is getting rather old, and once a match gets to the 40+ minute mark, my computer starts going a lot slower. I love this game, but am really at this point waiting to build my new computer, and then I'll be unable to hold back and begin playing 14 player games myself :)

Look forward to the ensuing chaos!

Until then, my 7 1/2 year old AMD Phenom II 955 and 3 year old Radeon 7950 will have to do :)

Also, I just read that the top 10 or so people in the metaverse have either the 4 core 6700k or 7700k (Who the heck has that unreleased cpu?!), a 6 core CPU, or an 8 core (6950).

I'm waiting for either the 7700k (4 core), but hoping that AMD's 8 core Zen processor will be about the same speed as the 6950, and just buy that instead for double the cores for about 25% less performance per core than the 7700k (If you assume a linear performance increase due to the predicted clock speed of zen: 3.2 GHz, compared to the confirmed 7700k's 4.2 GHz).

And...just pretty much confirmed that the person with the 7700k must work at Intel. They haven't played a single match of the game, no campaign awards, 0 kills, and only has a ton of benchmarks with either the Nvidia 1050 or the 1080. Shame they didn't buy the game to also play it :P

[110]

Originally posted by Arachnid:

Also, I just read that the top 10 or so people in the metaverse

sorry what does this mean?

[Arachnid]

Originally posted by Quesocito:

Originally posted by Arachnid:

Also, I just read that the top 10 or so people in the metaverse

sorry what does this mean?

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/ladders/multi/overall/Ranked?viewType=myself

First click on the left "Benchmark". I basically searched by those using directx 12 (DX12) and by 1440p Extreme graphics (since crazy settings reportedly doesn't provide a visible improvement, yet performence takes a huge nosedive).

[110]

Originally posted by Arachnid:

Originally posted by Quesocito:

sorry what does this mean?

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/ladders/multi/overall/Ranked?viewType=myself

First click on the left "Benchmark". I basically searched by those using directx 12 (DX12) and by 1440p Extreme graphics (since crazy settings reportedly doesn't provide a visible improvement, yet performence takes a huge nosedive).

thanks, haha i couldnt believe that the top 10 players had those PC's, but i see now, and still cant believe that there is actually a ranking ladder for how well someone scored on a benchmark. im sorry i dont mean to be offensive i just cant understand how or why someone would care so much.. but i guess its like people going to look at cars at a car show and caring about that compared to actually racing the cars. different strokes for different folks..

i thought u were talking about the top 10 players according to skill or something.. not according to bench score :D

[Arachnid]

Originally posted by Quesocito:

Originally posted by Arachnid:

http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/ladders/multi/overall/Ranked?viewType=myself

First click on the left "Benchmark". I basically searched by those using directx 12 (DX12) and by 1440p Extreme graphics (since crazy settings reportedly doesn't provide a visible improvement, yet performence takes a huge nosedive).

thanks, haha i couldnt believe that the top 10 players had those PC's, but i see now, and still cant believe that there is actually a ranking ladder for how well someone scored on a benchmark. im sorry i dont mean to be offensive i just cant understand how or why someone would care so much.. but i guess its like people going to look at cars at a car show and caring about that compared to actually racing the cars. different strokes for different folks..

i thought u were talking about the top 10 players according to skill or something.. not according to bench score :D

Well, it has nothing to do with the top players. It just shows who has the best performing PC's. They can still be terrible, but it's their computer performance it's measuring under the Benchmark section, not a player's gameplay performance.

If you want to see who the top players are in terms of actually playing the game, that's where the Leaderboard comes in.

[Arachnid]

Originally posted by Quesocito:

I just cant understand how or why someone would care so much.. but i guess its like people going to look at cars at a car show and caring about that compared to actually racing the cars. different strokes for different folks.

People, like myself, care because our current computers run slow on this game, but are also in a position where we're interested in building new computers (Or upgrading) that can run all of the newest games as best as possible. Do you want your game to be hitching, etc., or do you want it to look and feel smooth?

I'll sometimes get lag late game between when I click a button, and when it actually registers that click.

The benchmarks online help act as a purchasing guide for how well certain components will perform in this game, which is important since I already play it.

I don't care about synthetic benchmarks, since those don't always reflect how parts will actually perform in a game. This benchmark more closely reflects actual gameplay (though not entirely, of course). Now, do you need 60 fps for an RTS game? No. However, since this game acts as a simulation, if your CPU can't keep up, then the simulation will literally slow down to a pace your computer can handle.

So, as an example, my computer, late game, is probably capable of running 1 second of actual gameplay in 6 real world seconds. So, if you had a good computer capable of running the game at full performance, the last 20 minutes of a game would literally only take 20 minutes, since your computer can keep up with the simulation speed of 1 game second = 1 real world second. For me, the last 20 minutes would take 20 x 6 =120 minutes (2 hours) of actual time, to get through just 20 gameplay minutes. Hope that explanation makes sense.

Simulation speed is primarily dictated by CPU speed, which is why I was bringing up how many cores there were, and their frequency.


I've also been holding out on even buying the Witcher 3, since I'm not playing that at all until I can play it in its full glory :D