|
On April 06 2013 16:12 TyrantPotato wrote:so from what ive read. its a poor shitty revamp in-order to squeeze a few bucks out of an old game? really dont wanna waste money  idk what to do @.@>@>@>2
As far as i see it, while yes, it is a revamp to squeeze a few more bucks out of an old game, it seems solid enough to be worth the cheap price and makes it easier to be nostalgic. While i won't really play it much now, i still bought it because there will definitely be moments in the future where i will play it with other people just for old times sake and steam makes that easy.
|
Hmmm... I would like to see the main demographic that bought the game. Right now in the game I can see 10 lobbies with no more than 11, 12 people on them. For a saturday morning, at 11:37 (CET) I was hoping to catch more gamers
|
I don't know, for me I just don't think 20 bucks are worth the nostalgia trip. You can get newly made multiplayer games that are really good for the same price. I'll probably pick it up on a sale if there's still people playing it.
|
On April 06 2013 16:12 TyrantPotato wrote:so from what ive read. its a poor shitty revamp in-order to squeeze a few bucks out of an old game? really dont wanna waste money idk what to do @.@>@>@>2
A lot of people (me included) would like to play this awesome game, but on 23 inch monitor it's just looks so bad that it hurts my brain. This high res support is pretty much all many people need to enjoy this game again.
That said, I will buy it but 20$ is way too much imo, 10$ would be a good price. Hell, i even bough CS:GO for 10 euro which is completely new game.
|
Japan10647 Posts
I imagine price should go down fairly quickly.
Prices of games on release are always retarded
|
Trying to get into a game right now. SO EXCITED TO PLAY THIS OMG!
|
i guess the servers are seperated by regions, not sure how many regions but i changed my stream download region to a europe location ( im located in eastern USA) and the lobby games were different, the NA server was pretty dead lobbywise
|
ugh, the frame rate is absolutely unplayable for me + friends, getting <5 fps most of the game
this shit ran better on my old pentium 2
|
|
|
I have fixed all multiplayer lag for I was experiencing previously by having all players turn off their second screens. The game went from completely horrible and unplayable to without lag.
|
My fps still drops when text pops up, still unplayable.
I'm not gonna turn off my 2nd screen...
|
On April 06 2013 14:55 GiygaS wrote:
So I just got this and I need to try catching up with my friends who actually played when they were younger :/. Can anyone give any tips on how to get better? What sort of strategies should I go for? I'm just completely lost right now.
I haven't gotten to play HD because I run XP, this is all from memory, and I'm at work. But if you're playing standard start in dark ages you need to pick a civ with a good early game and have a plan. Mongols & Huns are generally regarded as the two best civs because they can reach feudal age quickly, have strong feudal/castle ages, and both have a solid imperial age. There's debate as to which is better but I personally prefer Mongols as you can tech to feudal faster than anyone.
Chinese, Mayans, and Persians all have strong early games as well. As do Byzantines and if memory serves Saracens are up there too. Early game food+wood are most vital resources. Later gold replaces wood. Feudal or castle rush is real strong.
|
Is there a way to lower the resolution and graphics? I can't find anything in the options. Thanks!
edit:
holy the fps is pretty bad lol
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
Updated the OP with player list to come.
Multiplayer is unplayable for me right now, I used the reddit fix mentioned above and it still lags like crazy.
|
On April 07 2013 00:02 Romitelli wrote:
Updated the OP with player list to come.
Multiplayer is unplayable for me right now, I used the reddit fix mentioned above and it still lags like crazy.
Were you or any of the people you played with using multiple screens? Turning off any second screen while running the game completely fixed the problem for me and the several other people I was playing with.
|
Japan10647 Posts
On April 06 2013 22:25 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 14:55 GiygaS wrote:
So I just got this and I need to try catching up with my friends who actually played when they were younger :/. Can anyone give any tips on how to get better? What sort of strategies should I go for? I'm just completely lost right now. I haven't gotten to play HD because I run XP, this is all from memory, and I'm at work. But if you're playing standard start in dark ages you need to pick a civ with a good early game and have a plan. Mongols & Huns are generally regarded as the two best civs because they can reach feudal age quickly, have strong feudal/castle ages, and both have a solid imperial age. There's debate as to which is better but I personally prefer Mongols as you can tech to feudal faster than anyone. Chinese, Mayans, and Persians all have strong early games as well. As do Byzantines and if memory serves Saracens are up there too. Early game food+wood are most vital resources. Later gold replaces wood. Feudal or castle rush is real strong.
Having played AoE2 fairly competitively, this is what I can say about this:
there is no debate about who is better with Mongols/Huns, Huns are universally considered to be the best civ. It's true that you can 9 or 10 minute Feudal with Mongols but you lose momentum rapidly because you are forced to build houses, so your economic advantage ends, whereas for Huns their advantage persists. In fact, it gets even better since you have to build more houses more often as you macro. Also, a 9 or 10 minute Feudal doesn't accomplish anything against most decent players. Flushing (feudal rushing, age 2 rushing with some combination of skirmishers/pikes/scouts generally) requires a good economy, and getting to Feudal at 10 is great but you won't have a good enough economy to support your rush.
Huns are much better than Mongols in Castle.
Most 1v1s don't get to Imperial, so it's not like it matters much.
Mongols are defacto second-best but it's not as clear cut as Huns being #1. There are merits for Aztecs and Mayans, but again, not really that clear, as these civilizations are so rarely played in 1v1.
in 2v2s the best team combination is Hun/Mongol.
3v3 Persians and Britons become strong because of their booming capabilities, but generally you still want a Hun and a Mongol on the team. On standard Arabia you could force colors so that you could predict who would be the pocket (person in the middle) and you would generally put the Hun and Mongol on the edges and the 3rd guy in the middle. Edges flush, pocket usually knight rushes while booming. Aztecs, Mayans, Persians, Britons and rarely Chinese are often picked for the pocket. Rarely you will see Goths on edges too (for M@A rushes and drushes and the like)
On water maps Huns are still the best 1v1, Vikings very good, Persians very good. Vikings best in team games. Saracens become viable.
|
I love how you have to turn off a monitor for the game to work.
Whose bright idea was this?
|
On April 07 2013 01:40 KillerSOS wrote:
I love how you have to turn off a monitor for the game to work.
Whose bright idea was this?
You mean 2nd monitor must be unplugged or else game's not working?
I hear so much about lag and other bad stuff, not sure if i want to pay 17euro for that now.
|
I played for about an hour last night. Had no frame rate issues, and certainly didn't have to turn off my 2nd monitor.
Overall love it, hyped to play it more!
|
On April 07 2013 00:02 Romitelli wrote:
Updated the OP with player list to come.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/WindWolf1/
If anyone want to play, you can add me. However I'm going to ask you this:
Tell me that you are from TeamLiquid.net when I'm asking you after you've added me (preferably by telling me who you are on TL.net).
Ask before if I'm available to play. Due to my RL schedule, I may be online but not available for play
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
