12 replies to this topic

[OlafxD]

whats ur thoughts about this?

 

i think there should be a limit to QM and rankgames, cuz it kills the whole concept of multitasking which used to be the most fun/challenging part on ra2/yr, where u had to be able to play at 3-4 places at the same time.

 

nowadays with the higher resolutions its pretty easy to control that, not to talk about splits are not that effective.

 

p.s. im surprised noone has made a topic yet about this :O

[Enj0y]

tbh I cant play any more with low reso

 

1920x1080 is the way to go

Edited by Enj0y, 18 April 2014 - 10:26 AM.

[Shauny]

1920x1080 is cool. but iv played the two lower resos and they aren't bad at all. (this isint a dig at you) but you dont play that much do you tomi? So only real people it would affect is the "active " players, I dont think its a good idea imo. Then again i dont QM so it makes no odds to me

[BornL33T]

Here:

http://xwis.net/forums/index.php/topic/175078-high-resolution/

 

 

Many games limited high resolution online and some others considered it as a cheat (like Diablo 2).
I just find it a bit lame that my opponent can see half of the map with his 2*** resolution while i only see a small part.
In addition high resolution allow to easy spot micro/splits and avoid scrolling the screen every 5 sec to see if something wrong happening.

So why not to add screen resolution limit (max 1600 for example) to the QM and CM games?

 

What NeoGrant said:

 

As if we haven't got enough problems, wanna restrict players from playing in a resolution they are comfortable and happy with?

 

What marsh think:

 

seriously? go buy a bigger monitor and don't whine

 

The point here, pushy slow-hands like some of who posted in that topic can't make it vs players like piners if they plays same resolution, no doubt that slow resolution players have managed to counter the limited vision with increased apm, better reaction and tc.

 

btw what happened to your 1400x900 reso

[OlafxD]

oh didnt see that topic.

 

kinda get what he means, as mentioned in my first post.

 

btw never used 1400x900 reso, 1366x768 and 1280x768 at a time, atm 1024x768. guess ur confusing me up with someone else.

Edited by Tomi, 18 April 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[BornL33T]

ah sorry.

[fir3w0rx]

Having a higher reso (1920x1080) is the only 'advantage' I have against good players who use smaller resos, and I still lose... please don't disable it!

[Shauny]

Fir3 who are you in ra2 anyways!?

[fir3w0rx]

Fir3 who are you in ra2 anyways!?

fir3w0rx or Atari2600, but I rarely play (only like a couple of games a month) coz I bought tooo many games and now I have to play them all

 

I just jumped on now to kick all your as**s!

Edited by fir3w0rx, 18 April 2014 - 12:07 PM.

[AlliedPlayer]

Reso shouldn't be restricted in my opinion.... The higher (see more map) u go... The harder it is to click individual objects... But see more maps (obv)The smaller(less map on screen) the harder to see more map bit easier to click objects n gotta learn micro more Both pros n cons. Play what you're comfortable with, let others do the same - just like allies / sovs / yuri factions

[dsector]

Try playing on a 24'' monitor on a small resolution and see how bad it looks. It wouldn't be fair to make someone play the game with pixels the size of coins.

 

If you're not playing on your monitor's native resolution, then all of the pixels need to be stretched to fit the whole screen, making the game look horrible.

[PiNeRs]

this is why I play 800x600 screen reso, tomi. Its just way harder and more fun.

[tbiol]

1024x768 (i use on GR)

 

1440x900 ( i use when i record)

 

1920x1080 (when i feel like switching to it

 

I notice more difference between 1024 to 1440 than from 1440 to 1920.

 

 

I know what you are saying though, it'd be nice to know how well someone matches up against you when you both have to use the same parameters.  But, who's going to be penalized?  Should one have to come down, and the other have to move up?