Since nobody asked me, ill ask you. BF1942/CoD

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Personally, i give both a great big thumbs down, because theyre not Tom Clancey games, and i cant speak for CoD, but BF1942 is more CPU intensive than RvS, even if you turn everything to the lowest settings you possibly can, the  game still isnt very easy to play.

The other thing about BF1942 is that its meant for large, -large- games, so if you have a CB with like, four people, the game is going to suck, because the maps are huge, and it will be once in a blue moon that you find and then kill somebody.  

CoD sounds fun, and i intend on getting it once at college and all that, but i think we should let RvS become established before we start throwing more games onto the ladder.

Just my thoughts.

[BTs_Mysterio]

I don't see where you get BF being more intensive than RvS. You should check up on that fact cause a lot of people say different.

[crypt]

Well, I just uninstalled CoD because it got old, fast. I also think that no one would play if it were to happen. Just like the AA ladder. As for BF1942, it's not even supported on GR yet, and I don't think a game will survive like that. (AA)

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Myst, running on my 1Ghz, G4 Powerbook, 1GB RAM, Radeom 9600, i find that RvS runs significantly smoother and better than BF1942.  In addition, RvS, to save processor speed, doesnt have a slider bar where you can set your view distance/fog level, lower, thereby allowing people with a better computer to see you before you see them.  

I havnt compared FPS numbers on the two games, but it is just the feeling i get from the two.  Also, RvS doesnt have as many spots where the game will "hiccup" so to speak, where a lot of new stuff is happening and the game freezes for just a second.  That happens to me frequently in BF1942.  Just doesnt play as well as RvS on my machine.

[Civrock]

not posting as BL admin.

[/color][/b]

In addition, RvS, to save processor speed, doesnt have a slider bar where you can set your view distance/fog level, lower, thereby allowing people with a better computer to see you before you see them.

this makes BF1942 a very unfair game in my opinion... it won't be skill anymore... it'll be the comp which wins the game for you. sux for all people with a less good machine.


and Flies... you sound as if u already decided that new ladders are coming. sry, but that?s not your call.

why did all the people who play AA not play on the ladder then? they had 2-3 seasons time... there were maybe 3-4 AA clans... and if they?d have played on the ladder... it?d be by far not enough to keep the ladder active and to make sense to keep it. that's my opinion.

you said it yourself... the BF-ladder will probably be a little ladder. and i can assure you already... it?ll be as active as the AA one. activity around zero and senseless to have. and also... BF is a pretty big game which needs a lot of players because of the big maps etc... this will make a ladder even more inactive.

the same can be said for CoD... only plus is that it has GameRanger support. BUT... activity is on GameRanger around zero already... guess what the ladder  activity would be around.


in my opinion we should stay with GhR and RvS for the present. especially since not even the RvS ladder can be considered active yet, although it's on GameRanger and has some activity there. BF1942 and CoD have none.


ADD: and btw...

And why should we ask you, if we add a ladder ?

because of the simple reason that there might be no (or not enough) interest for a ladder in the community and therefore no sense to add/have one.[/color]

[Typhy]

Myst, running on my 1Ghz, G4 Powerbook, 1GB RAM, Radeom 9600, i find that RvS runs significantly smoother and better than BF1942.  In addition, RvS, to save processor speed, doesnt have a slider bar where you can set your view distance/fog level, lower, thereby allowing people with a better computer to see you before you see them.  

I havnt compared FPS numbers on the two games, but it is just the feeling i get from the two.  Also, RvS doesnt have as many spots where the game will "hiccup" so to speak, where a lot of new stuff is happening and the game freezes for just a second.  That happens to me frequently in BF1942.  Just doesnt play as well as RvS on my machine.

I have almost the same computer. I have the TiBook with the 64MB ATI Radeon 9000 Mobility, same RAM and processor as you.

I get absolutely terrible framerates in BF1942, but I love the game. There are spots where, even with my graphics as low as they can go, I get about 5 FPS. So what? I'm used to it.

Oddly enough, I see the exact oposite "freeze" wise. BF1942's framerates are bad, but they never freeze, where as Raven Shield's do all the time.

No one's forcing you to play on the ladder, if you can't run the game, don't play it; that's common sense.

this makes BF1942 a very unfair game in my opinion... it won't be skill anymore... it'll be the comp which wins the game for you. sux for all people with a less good machine.

I'm on a very low end machine ( BF 1942 wise - 1GHZ, 1GB, 64MB ), and I'd can match Myst's G5 kill for kill. People used 300Mhz iMacs back at RS. They had a terrible disadvantage, but some of them, like Tech9ne, were every bit as good as me, on my high end G4.

I won't commit myself on this issue, I'd love to play some BF1942 on *DAMN, but I don't have the interest to activly persue a ladder. Just offering some things to consider.

[KoS Ultimo]

OMG COD IS SO FUN TO PLAY FOR CLAN MATCHES YOU GUYS HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH STRATEGY IS INVOLVED WITH TEAMWORK IN PLANTING AND DUSING THE BOMBS

[BFG]

I really don't understand all this.... Surely the greater range of games and game styles we can offer the greater the community grows etc.. This is how i see it.

The GhR Ladder is still unbelievably active - no worries there.

RvS ladder is still struggling to get off the ground... hopfully with time more clans and people will raise the activity levels.

The AA ladder hasn't taken off - there are however some clans that do play, and there are a lot of individual players that play and enjoy playing. So rather than scrap it completly why not consider altering the set up - say having a two week fun season - so that the there is a ladder which will keep up interest and whitch gives those gamers who want to play and compete on AA the ability to play and compete on AA.... Activity and demand of a ladder in my opinion won't grow unless there is a ladder for people to go and play on...

And the same goes for BF1942, CoD etc.... Perhaps the demand is low currently - perhaps we could try weekend battles (just playing friday saterday, sunday) or two week seasons... To give those who want to play the chance to play - and to tempt others to join and see how fun it is!

As im aware nothing has been decided on the activity off a ladder... But in my opinion a ladder is formed on the strenght of support for it and not on the strengh of negative feedback  

Just my 10pence

[c| Lone-Wolf]

What civic said.  Perhaps, Flies, you didnt read my post.  To even stand a chance in that game i have to set my distance view to virtually nill.  Which means im getting the shit shot out of me before i even see who is shooting at me.  I -CANT- physically see them, no matter how hard i look.  That makes it, like civic said, a game of computer power, rather than skill.  Because the playing field is different for people who have high end machines.

And youre right, i shouldnt shoot down other people's desires to play the game, and if it does get put on the *DAMN ladders, i wont participate.  But just because what, three, four people so far have said they want to play the game, isnt a good reason to add a ladder either.  If you want to play a game, then just do CB type games on your own time, if there is -real- demand for a ladder, then i think it should be added.  Not because just a very few people clamor for one, and half the community thinks there shouldnt be one.

[BTs_Mysterio]

But just because what, three, four people so far have said they want to play the game...

Lone,

10 People don't want the games.

11 Total people want the games.

I'd say the poll is going in favour of more games.

[Typhy]

What civic said.  Perhaps, Flies, you didnt read my post.  To even stand a chance in that game i have to set my distance view to virtually nill.  Which means im getting the shit shot out of me before i even see who is shooting at me.  I -CANT- physically see them, no matter how hard i look.  That makes it, like civic said, a game of computer power, rather than skill.  Because the playing field is different for people who have high end machines.

Having your view distance at max doesn't help you much. In the end, that doesn't matter. People with high end computers will have an advantage at every game. Use a little common sense. Don't use yourself as your only example, that means nothing to the rest of us - if you can't run it, don't play it.

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Myst, when i posted than, it was true, 59% of the people that voted had said "no".