Couldn't agree more. I tried SA. Horrid. Ive been syaing it for YEARS. Stop trying to make a new client and bite th bullet and just inprove the resolution of the 2D client.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
New SA Client
- Thread starter Tinsil
- Start date
- Watchers 6
- Status
T
Trebr Drab
Guest
You're a good fanbois, Surge.
Last I noticed, this isn't about me, it's about UO.
"It took Ten THOUSAND attempts (and Failures at it, mind you) to make a Light Bulb work."
I'd call this more like a "dark bulb".
"It took seven years of ridicule, and relentless trying to get Post It Notes to be accepted as a viable product, at 3M."
There was no ridicule. The post it notes made it in an industrial "quick" fashion once the glue was used on these little note pads. Before that, the inventor, who stumbled onto it by accident trying to make other kinds of glue, was trying to find a use for it but didn't really have the right idea. It took a friend of his to come up with the post it note idea.
You remind me of my old High School football coach, Surge. He tried to run a special offensive package called the Lonesome Polecat. It relied on the other team not knowing how to defense it. Once they figured that out, it would be a total failure. So he called for it in a game, and the other team figured it out immediately. We lost about 30 years in that possession. It was not going to work, but the coach insisted on making it work. We ran that again in 2 more possessions, losing a total of almost 100 yards on it. It was only when the assistant coaches took over, leading to the head coaches dismissal, that we stopped using it.
And that's UO. Trying to make something work that clearly hasn't, and isn't going to. Sometimes, to be a success, you have to recognize what isn't going to work and move on to something that will. Not these guys though. They just make one mistake after another, often the same mistakes over again.
Last I noticed, this isn't about me, it's about UO.
"It took Ten THOUSAND attempts (and Failures at it, mind you) to make a Light Bulb work."
I'd call this more like a "dark bulb".
"It took seven years of ridicule, and relentless trying to get Post It Notes to be accepted as a viable product, at 3M."
There was no ridicule. The post it notes made it in an industrial "quick" fashion once the glue was used on these little note pads. Before that, the inventor, who stumbled onto it by accident trying to make other kinds of glue, was trying to find a use for it but didn't really have the right idea. It took a friend of his to come up with the post it note idea.
You remind me of my old High School football coach, Surge. He tried to run a special offensive package called the Lonesome Polecat. It relied on the other team not knowing how to defense it. Once they figured that out, it would be a total failure. So he called for it in a game, and the other team figured it out immediately. We lost about 30 years in that possession. It was not going to work, but the coach insisted on making it work. We ran that again in 2 more possessions, losing a total of almost 100 yards on it. It was only when the assistant coaches took over, leading to the head coaches dismissal, that we stopped using it.
And that's UO. Trying to make something work that clearly hasn't, and isn't going to. Sometimes, to be a success, you have to recognize what isn't going to work and move on to something that will. Not these guys though. They just make one mistake after another, often the same mistakes over again.
I know that a lot of criticism about the SA Client is legitimate; improvements are necessary. But honestly, if you find your right settings (especially UI Scale and Zoom Level), I think the SA graphics are not too bad. The handling of SA is better than the 2D Client (there still are minor issues, but nothing serious) once you are used to it. The interface in general is much better. Take a look at those screenshots and compare!
The overall impression and atmosphere of the SA Client is better. The screen is bigger. The controls are better customizable and accessible.
Here a 1:1 comparison of the details in my favorite zoom level. While the 2D Client looks more crisp and detailed, the SA Client looks much more realistic (sometimes still a little blurry though). (Stupid way to hold a shield, hehe!)
A lot of SA Client criticism surely is valid (especially blurry artwork, some item and monster artwork and performance issues), and improvements are necessary. But, to my opinion, compared to 2D the SA Client is not that bad and it deserves a chance. I also miss some of the fine KR artwork (especially plants and boats), and I hope that the developers will reconsider and add them to the SA Client again.
The overall impression and atmosphere of the SA Client is better. The screen is bigger. The controls are better customizable and accessible.
Here a 1:1 comparison of the details in my favorite zoom level. While the 2D Client looks more crisp and detailed, the SA Client looks much more realistic (sometimes still a little blurry though). (Stupid way to hold a shield, hehe!)
A lot of SA Client criticism surely is valid (especially blurry artwork, some item and monster artwork and performance issues), and improvements are necessary. But, to my opinion, compared to 2D the SA Client is not that bad and it deserves a chance. I also miss some of the fine KR artwork (especially plants and boats), and I hope that the developers will reconsider and add them to the SA Client again.
Well duh, of course it's possible.
The problem is - how long would it take?
I have no idea, I'm not an Art Director working for a game company, I'm not even an artist.
I could guess it would take more or the less the same time it took to redraw the art from scratch for KR. On one hand, they wouldn't need to produce new concept art, but on the other hand they would have to spend additional time to make sure that the new models actually look like the original models. Also, for the creatures polishing the current models as in Saphireena's screenshots wouldn't be enough - the creature and character models would have to be recreated and rendered with more frames of animation.
I think that KR graphics took between one and two years of work at the EA internal art department plus contractors - money which EA has already invested once. Maybe at some point if UO becomes ultra-popular they'll be happy to do it again...
This is just wild guesswork however - someone in the EA art department like TheGrimmOmen could give a more realistic estimate if they're allowed to, or among the fans Saphireena could give at least a more educated guess than me since she does work as Art Director for a pixel art game company.
W
woody_cats
Guest
wow impressed with your set up could you explain whats on each hotbar i want at least a simular set up
My honest impression is that SA is far closer to preserving the style of the legacy client, while attempting to implement the UI and other improvements found in KR.
Despite many other posts, I do not have a problem with SA's graphics. I do like the style better than KR (Although KR has better resolution), but again, I would like to see the 2D style preserved and enhanced in a a fashion far better than what has been done so far (See: Saphrieena's work). I would also like to see KR users have their toggle.
Simply echoing what you say, there is room for improvement. But I already think it's better than KR. It's more stable for me. It has some features KR didn't. It tries to stay true to the original style, coming very close in some respects. It's UI replaces a great deal of functionality I preferred from UOAssist.
It has a great deal of potential, and since beginning of open beta, I have not used anything else since.
Despite many other posts, I do not have a problem with SA's graphics. I do like the style better than KR (Although KR has better resolution), but again, I would like to see the 2D style preserved and enhanced in a a fashion far better than what has been done so far (See: Saphrieena's work). I would also like to see KR users have their toggle.
Simply echoing what you say, there is room for improvement. But I already think it's better than KR. It's more stable for me. It has some features KR didn't. It tries to stay true to the original style, coming very close in some respects. It's UI replaces a great deal of functionality I preferred from UOAssist.
It has a great deal of potential, and since beginning of open beta, I have not used anything else since.
I still like the 2D client better. It's sharper and I hate the fuzziness of the SA client. I will continue to give it a try though, I'm hoping with patches it will get better. Although, a big turnoff for me is seeing the way I look on my charger carrying a kryss. My feet look like they hit the ground, the charger looks like a pile of cloth and armor, and my kryss looks like a screwed up, stiff piece of string.
On the UI side, that I can't really complain about too much. My only complaint is my backpack looks too blurry, and the items too small. I like the scalable play window, as well as the hot bars. I haven't really tested out the macro's yet, because I haven't had much time to play with it. Last night while I was playing around with the settings my internet dropped out on me. (stupid thunderstorms) I'm hoping it will be back up by the time I get out of work today so I can play a little more with it.
On the UI side, that I can't really complain about too much. My only complaint is my backpack looks too blurry, and the items too small. I like the scalable play window, as well as the hot bars. I haven't really tested out the macro's yet, because I haven't had much time to play with it. Last night while I was playing around with the settings my internet dropped out on me. (stupid thunderstorms) I'm hoping it will be back up by the time I get out of work today so I can play a little more with it.
That is the 2D version.
W
WooWoo
Guest
i havn't tried the SA client yet but do the macros work the same as the 2d client? and am i going to have to redo them?
You will have to re-do your macro's. Nothing carries over from KR or 2D.
Thank you!
You are kidding me right? Two years for that? Un-freakin' believable.
S
Sabbath
Guest
The fact that you're asking which is which is sort of Hawkeye's point, I think
You're right Hawkeye, SA does offer enough similarities in style that 2d'rs should give it a chance as long as it's stable for them. The added bonus of having the advanced UI should make it a client that we all should give a chance.
The resolution issue might be dealt with over time in various ways by the devs but if not, it's still a fine client.
On the bright side of this is that it seems alot easier to make them and set hot keys.
Well fewer menus and some are faster to make.
Maybe thats not a good description. It's just better...
Perhaps more important: Would it be worth the wait?
Me, personally, I'd shell out 50-100 bucks just to get a client with that artwork, hands down.
I'm just curious: What makes you think it'd need more frames? Assuming you preserving the frame rate, if the improvement is made to each individual frame, why would more be needed? I mean, I suppose it'd make it move smoother, but quite frankly, I'm not unhappy with the current number of animations in 2D. Again, I don't know either, but I'm just wondering.
Aye, I've been asking GrimmOmen as well. Any kind of explanation as to why we're right or wrong, one way or the other, no matter how simple and even if I didn't understand it, I'd appreciate it.
S
sayler04
Guest
I don't know alot about programming languages, or technical specs. Sprites and polygons are only things I've thought about at the same time when I was thirsty in geometry class like 20 years ago. But I DO know alot about business, and I'm an expert in the hospitality industry. And like it or not, MMOs ARE a hospitality industry as much as a technical one, in that their success and proliferation relies upon the approval of the consumer. And for the most part, consumers require a product that is satisfying or better in all applicable categories.
One of those categories is ease of access. In restaurants, easy access would involve parking, location, and layout. It can also involve staff availability, clear menu description, and readiness of product. In MMOs, these involve speed, interface, and practicality of game mechanics. In these, SA hits the bullseye. The interface elements, quite reminiscent of KR, make it easy to use the various functions of the game. Expanded macro options make game activities easier than ever, and increased customization makes for a game experience that can be unique to the user. From a business standpoint, I have to give SA an A+ for ease of access.
Another category, though, is the aesthetic. In restaurants, hotels, resorts and the like, aesthetics involve, to a great degree, the appearance of the facility. Consumers expect a facility to be both appealing to the eye and current to competitors. This is why most chain restaurants will update their appearance every few years. It's here that SA really falls short.
SA's graphics are an eyesore.
Now, alot of die-hards, myself included, will excuse the atrocious graphics and continue to play, simply because UO is a great game; this is alot like restaurant regulars who will continue to eat at the same spot come hell or high water. But let's face it; if it ain't pretty, most people won't want it. If you had never played UO or any other MMO before, and you were comparing stills of UO, WoW, and others, which would you pick? The difference is like comparing Final Fantasy X with Final Fantasy 3, or comparing a Renior with my kid's stick drawing. From a business standpoint, SA gets a well-deserved F for aesthetics.
So which is more important? Unfortunately, I'd have to say graphics. Graphics are the first impression, and both in the hospitality of food and the hospitality of gaming, first impressions are key. If someone takes a look at your restaurant and its so ugly that they don't come in, you can never wow them with your expert cuisine, no matter how great the food is. If people take a look at UO and are so horrified at the graphics that they never give it a chance, they'll never find out how much fun the game is. In both cases, you end up missing out on their money.
Anyone remember those old text-based mmos? They all but died, and it was because of games like UO, with their awesome 16 bit graphics. SUre, there was a heck of alot more you could do in the text based games, but you had to exercise that old imagination muscle that has died off in the world of late. SO uo made it pretty, and the predecessors went the way of the speak n spell.
Basically, businesses operate on what the stupid consumer wants, and the stupid consumer wants pretty. No matter how great any other feature of SA might be, it ain't pretty, so it's bad business.
One of those categories is ease of access. In restaurants, easy access would involve parking, location, and layout. It can also involve staff availability, clear menu description, and readiness of product. In MMOs, these involve speed, interface, and practicality of game mechanics. In these, SA hits the bullseye. The interface elements, quite reminiscent of KR, make it easy to use the various functions of the game. Expanded macro options make game activities easier than ever, and increased customization makes for a game experience that can be unique to the user. From a business standpoint, I have to give SA an A+ for ease of access.
Another category, though, is the aesthetic. In restaurants, hotels, resorts and the like, aesthetics involve, to a great degree, the appearance of the facility. Consumers expect a facility to be both appealing to the eye and current to competitors. This is why most chain restaurants will update their appearance every few years. It's here that SA really falls short.
SA's graphics are an eyesore.
Now, alot of die-hards, myself included, will excuse the atrocious graphics and continue to play, simply because UO is a great game; this is alot like restaurant regulars who will continue to eat at the same spot come hell or high water. But let's face it; if it ain't pretty, most people won't want it. If you had never played UO or any other MMO before, and you were comparing stills of UO, WoW, and others, which would you pick? The difference is like comparing Final Fantasy X with Final Fantasy 3, or comparing a Renior with my kid's stick drawing. From a business standpoint, SA gets a well-deserved F for aesthetics.
So which is more important? Unfortunately, I'd have to say graphics. Graphics are the first impression, and both in the hospitality of food and the hospitality of gaming, first impressions are key. If someone takes a look at your restaurant and its so ugly that they don't come in, you can never wow them with your expert cuisine, no matter how great the food is. If people take a look at UO and are so horrified at the graphics that they never give it a chance, they'll never find out how much fun the game is. In both cases, you end up missing out on their money.
Anyone remember those old text-based mmos? They all but died, and it was because of games like UO, with their awesome 16 bit graphics. SUre, there was a heck of alot more you could do in the text based games, but you had to exercise that old imagination muscle that has died off in the world of late. SO uo made it pretty, and the predecessors went the way of the speak n spell.
Basically, businesses operate on what the stupid consumer wants, and the stupid consumer wants pretty. No matter how great any other feature of SA might be, it ain't pretty, so it's bad business.
I probably missed the post somewhere, but once SA is launched will they be shutting down KR?
While I also do not believe it has been directly stated, I think the odds are pretty good that yes, they will shut it down.
And Sayler04, I have to agree with you.
In the end, with graphics, I'll personally find a way to keep playing. I don't really even mind SA's too much as is now, I just think they could be better, and if they can't be, I would like to have an inkling why.
So I guess that makes me a die-hard customer. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to ask that the chef to cook the meat just a little bit more.
Yes, really not that hard to rebuild the macros, and besides in doing so, you'll learn how to create macros in the new client.
I forced myself onto KR about 5 months ago and now I can't even play in the 2d client, I find the UI cumbersome now.
I run legacy graphics in KR, why can't the SA client have the same level of graphical crispness?
There is a really good guide to the client at www.spellweave.com
I forced myself onto KR about 5 months ago and now I can't even play in the 2d client, I find the UI cumbersome now.
I run legacy graphics in KR, why can't the SA client have the same level of graphical crispness?
There is a really good guide to the client at www.spellweave.com
Right, because memories aren't perfect, just for horses and beetles, I did some screenies in Legacy, SA and KR for comparisons. I tried to scale all apprx to the same size by using the tiles as markers.
You can see from the screenshots that they did improve on the horse's bent forelegs and rider positions on both horse and beetle. Beetle has also been scaled down. And look at how beautifully the beetle is rendered!
Now, to point out what problems still remains with these 2 mounts in SA (to be fair, the devs have lots of mobs to render, not just these 2. However, the problem is horses and beetles are very common pets...):
Horse:
1) Manes don't remain nicely brushed all the time, I understand that, but the empty patch makes it look like it has an ugly bald patch. Note : The horses with short manes don't have this problem.
2) Chest narrows towards the shoulder, making it too skinny when you compare it to the hip
3) Back arch/rump is gone, it now looks as if the horse has a perfectly straight or even haunched back
4) Hooves protrude overly much making them seem too large, so large that they look like feet (hooves are actually the toes/toenails of horses).
5) Eyelids look swollen and droopping, horse looks like it's sleepy
6) Biggest problem, although the rider's legs don't touch the ground anymore, they still extend too far down. If you consider saddled horses, the stirrups where riders place their feet do not extend past the underbelly. Rider's legs are too straight, they should be spread outwards more when straddling a wide-bodied horse. Rider's sitting position also doesn't seem to be on top of the horse's back.
Beetle:
1) You see the head, an also non-existant thorax, and the abdomen (where the wing cases are), meaning you are left only 1 place to sit - on the head of the beetle
2) Again, it's a wide bodied mount, rider's legs are too straight. Notice how much more the legs are bent in the legacy client
I know it's a bit of nitpicking, but I'm trying just to explain what people instinctively know is wrong, but just can't pinpoint it, resulting in generic "the graphics is terrible" comments.
You can see from the screenshots that they did improve on the horse's bent forelegs and rider positions on both horse and beetle. Beetle has also been scaled down. And look at how beautifully the beetle is rendered!
Now, to point out what problems still remains with these 2 mounts in SA (to be fair, the devs have lots of mobs to render, not just these 2. However, the problem is horses and beetles are very common pets...):
Horse:
1) Manes don't remain nicely brushed all the time, I understand that, but the empty patch makes it look like it has an ugly bald patch. Note : The horses with short manes don't have this problem.
2) Chest narrows towards the shoulder, making it too skinny when you compare it to the hip
3) Back arch/rump is gone, it now looks as if the horse has a perfectly straight or even haunched back
4) Hooves protrude overly much making them seem too large, so large that they look like feet (hooves are actually the toes/toenails of horses).
5) Eyelids look swollen and droopping, horse looks like it's sleepy
6) Biggest problem, although the rider's legs don't touch the ground anymore, they still extend too far down. If you consider saddled horses, the stirrups where riders place their feet do not extend past the underbelly. Rider's legs are too straight, they should be spread outwards more when straddling a wide-bodied horse. Rider's sitting position also doesn't seem to be on top of the horse's back.
Beetle:
1) You see the head, an also non-existant thorax, and the abdomen (where the wing cases are), meaning you are left only 1 place to sit - on the head of the beetle
2) Again, it's a wide bodied mount, rider's legs are too straight. Notice how much more the legs are bent in the legacy client
I know it's a bit of nitpicking, but I'm trying just to explain what people instinctively know is wrong, but just can't pinpoint it, resulting in generic "the graphics is terrible" comments.
I think this is a good thread to comment on as long as players try to be constructive and not destructive. I believe most players on the boards here would like to see the new client succeed for the future of the game.
That being said I will first comment that I have not played KR that much and just took a quick run around in the new Beta client.
First things I noticed is thier is indeed not to much of a change from 2d and I really like the affects of the water running on my huge waterfall at my house that is pretty awesome. This affect was also thier during KR, but the one thing I found just to be I duno for the lack of words not realistic is riding on my etheral mount. I much prefer the graphics of 2D then the new client, I know that this is nick picking, but thats my opinion.
Being a player almost since beta I tend to stay with what I know best 2d which is not to say I will not try the new version. About oh 8 months ago or so I decided to take a break and play another EA game called Warhammer. The game is pretty differant the from 2d set of UO, but after a few weeks I was able to use and set up the macros and became familar with the interface. I actually really enjoyed it and warhammer became an addiction for like 4 months or so. But as with most leveling games the content becomes pretty boring after awhile and I came back to UO. TBH and I know I would be the small Majority here but I would love to have a 3d version of UO like warhammer it just seems more real to my eyes. But I imagine some players would not be able to play if thier computers were fairly old.
I'm hoping they can polish up the new client down the road after the launch but still keep the 2d client up to date with the patches. Oh will we be able to go to this new dungeon when the new exspansion comes out if we continue to play in the 2d client.
Lastly I wanta say THANKYOU to all involved with working on the new SA exspansion and client!!
That being said I will first comment that I have not played KR that much and just took a quick run around in the new Beta client.
First things I noticed is thier is indeed not to much of a change from 2d and I really like the affects of the water running on my huge waterfall at my house that is pretty awesome. This affect was also thier during KR, but the one thing I found just to be I duno for the lack of words not realistic is riding on my etheral mount. I much prefer the graphics of 2D then the new client, I know that this is nick picking, but thats my opinion.
Being a player almost since beta I tend to stay with what I know best 2d which is not to say I will not try the new version. About oh 8 months ago or so I decided to take a break and play another EA game called Warhammer. The game is pretty differant the from 2d set of UO, but after a few weeks I was able to use and set up the macros and became familar with the interface. I actually really enjoyed it and warhammer became an addiction for like 4 months or so. But as with most leveling games the content becomes pretty boring after awhile and I came back to UO. TBH and I know I would be the small Majority here but I would love to have a 3d version of UO like warhammer it just seems more real to my eyes. But I imagine some players would not be able to play if thier computers were fairly old.
I'm hoping they can polish up the new client down the road after the launch but still keep the 2d client up to date with the patches. Oh will we be able to go to this new dungeon when the new exspansion comes out if we continue to play in the 2d client.
Lastly I wanta say THANKYOU to all involved with working on the new SA exspansion and client!!
O
Old Man of UO
Guest
Biggest problem that I have with the 2D client, and why I switched to KR, is that it does NOT scale to a wide screen monitor.
I the largest windowed mode, everything is too small to see on a widescreen 22" monitor. If you run in Full Screen mode, you end up with two wide black bands on either side that are unusable.
Now, fix it so that I can scale the graphics to my monitor, improve the map and macro system so that I don't have to buy 3rd party programs for functionality, and what do you have? UO SA!
Stuff the graphics... that's NOT why I play UO.
I the largest windowed mode, everything is too small to see on a widescreen 22" monitor. If you run in Full Screen mode, you end up with two wide black bands on either side that are unusable.
Now, fix it so that I can scale the graphics to my monitor, improve the map and macro system so that I don't have to buy 3rd party programs for functionality, and what do you have? UO SA!
Stuff the graphics... that's NOT why I play UO.
All SA art threads merged. It was getting too messy.
Do remember we have a new beta forum for the discussion of this client, though I do ask you to be constructive and civil when posting there please.
Do remember we have a new beta forum for the discussion of this client, though I do ask you to be constructive and civil when posting there please.
I honestly tried to read this whole thread before actually posting this, but it quickly dawned on me that this thread was quickly denoting into a KR vs SA graphics post with a couple people every once in a while, saying "GRAPHICS DON"T MATTER" in various ways to spice things up. So here's my 2 cents.
I love KR graphics, At the time I couldn't enjoy KR because I had to use a program to emulate shadowing effects because my intergrated graphics card on my 5 year old PC didn't support pixel shader 2.0. I never tried it with the 2D graphics as the file download was just too large and the patching session too long for me to care anymore. So I can't say much about KR as it ran slow on my computer because i had to use CPU to simulate shading. I like SA. I like the new graphic models. Sure they're not as good as KR, but my only problem with them is they're not very detailed. Things just look too fuzzy but you know what, I can deal with it. My one, and only real problem, and I have no idea if this has been mentioned, but SA runs much slower than 2D does. I spent hours configuring my computer's settings and SA's ingame graphical settings to optimize how fast things ran. On the lowest settings and resolution I could have, I was STILL lagging while running on a mount like you would if you went to a shard with a ping of over 200. Also, my ping went up at least 40 on every shard on SA as opposed to 2D. I noticed no difference in the lag on Maximum graphical settings, or minimum, with everything essentially turned off and on a horrible resolution, yes I even changed my computers resolution. I still froze every couple of steps. I tried zooming in, minor improvements there. This is on my brand new laptop, not my 5 year old computer. Yes I know laptops aren't the best gaming platform, but It's all I currently have. I plan on updating the graphics card in this when I can however I don't think it would matter. My belief is that the SA client doesn't communicate as smoothly to the servers as 2D did. I don't know. Honestly I'd rather have that updated than a new, fancy client with all the shiny options put on. But that's just my opinion and I'm sorry if this has been mentioned otherwise. I love graphics, but I want better playability for me. I'm probably the only one who has this problem with SA as there didn't SEEM to be any complaints about my particular problem.
I love KR graphics, At the time I couldn't enjoy KR because I had to use a program to emulate shadowing effects because my intergrated graphics card on my 5 year old PC didn't support pixel shader 2.0. I never tried it with the 2D graphics as the file download was just too large and the patching session too long for me to care anymore. So I can't say much about KR as it ran slow on my computer because i had to use CPU to simulate shading. I like SA. I like the new graphic models. Sure they're not as good as KR, but my only problem with them is they're not very detailed. Things just look too fuzzy but you know what, I can deal with it. My one, and only real problem, and I have no idea if this has been mentioned, but SA runs much slower than 2D does. I spent hours configuring my computer's settings and SA's ingame graphical settings to optimize how fast things ran. On the lowest settings and resolution I could have, I was STILL lagging while running on a mount like you would if you went to a shard with a ping of over 200. Also, my ping went up at least 40 on every shard on SA as opposed to 2D. I noticed no difference in the lag on Maximum graphical settings, or minimum, with everything essentially turned off and on a horrible resolution, yes I even changed my computers resolution. I still froze every couple of steps. I tried zooming in, minor improvements there. This is on my brand new laptop, not my 5 year old computer. Yes I know laptops aren't the best gaming platform, but It's all I currently have. I plan on updating the graphics card in this when I can however I don't think it would matter. My belief is that the SA client doesn't communicate as smoothly to the servers as 2D did. I don't know. Honestly I'd rather have that updated than a new, fancy client with all the shiny options put on. But that's just my opinion and I'm sorry if this has been mentioned otherwise. I love graphics, but I want better playability for me. I'm probably the only one who has this problem with SA as there didn't SEEM to be any complaints about my particular problem.
S
slaveone
Guest
How is this whole thread not a violation of the non disclosure? PETRA where are you?!?!
Z
Zodia
Guest
Umm, did you miss the Client Open Beta that happened last Friday?
(SA content is still under NDA, but no SA content is being discussed in this thread)
S
slaveone
Guest
Well EXCUUUUUUUSE ME!!! Sorry i don't base my life around UO and keep up with every little turd dropped by EA. Last i remember if you even used the letters SA in a sentence here you had the MOD cops on ur butt lickity split. Guess once the people with the ban power got their beta codes it didn't matter anymore.....
Maybe you should just spend 5 minutes reading the forums and checking the Herald before you start playing thread police.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but the client is in OPEN beta and may be discussed. We even opened a new board to allow for that discussion. The content of the expansion however is still under NDA. The 'people with the ban power' are carefully monitoring the boards to ensure only the client is being discussed.
C
Cloak&Dagger
Guest
O.K. I more or less have this issue, and I have a few theories, but first let me clean up what you said.
The SA client seemlessly syncs with the servers, where as the 2d client actually does not. Now I have a few theories on this issue, as it does not effect all systems equally, first one is that the latency you would not normally notice in the 2d client, you are able to notice in SA due to its better sync rate, basically SA runs so smoothly that that 1ms is noticed when running, I came to this theory because it acts like "lag" and because while other people notice it while running around, on my screen they are running flawlessly. It happens to me as well, but I hope my explaination of why I think this way makes sense. The second theory has to do with a mid-range level of ram, This glitch does not seem to effect people with low levels of ram, or people that have 7 gigs of ram, but more the mid range like 4 gigs, not sure why it would do this but I came to that conclusion based on who it has effected.
If you would use the right forum *SA beta client forum* you would find a few conversations about a few various theories I have on why SA runs the way it does for the various people who complain about it. You can post asking questions, or pm. If you post tho I would suggest it in the other forum so it is easier to find than in this jumble that this thread has become.
@Cloak&Dagger
I personally didn't spend much time on Stratics since the open-beta was released, so at the time of posting I didn't know that there was a new board open to it. And like I said previously, I hadn't read the entire thread to get the hint that there was an SA client board. I just went on Uhall, saw the name of the thread and logically made the assumption that this would be a nice place to post my thoughts, I believe you can see now how I got there. I really don't care why things are causing problems as, if it's on the hardware end, I'm not going to spend the money to run a revamped decade and then some old game. I love it, but the money isn't worth it to me. Now If I was upgrading those parts already, sure. But I'm a college student, my upgrading is going to be limited. But thank you for shedding some light on the issue, I will check out the SA client board for more information. As long as this issue is fixed, SA will be a win for me.
I personally didn't spend much time on Stratics since the open-beta was released, so at the time of posting I didn't know that there was a new board open to it. And like I said previously, I hadn't read the entire thread to get the hint that there was an SA client board. I just went on Uhall, saw the name of the thread and logically made the assumption that this would be a nice place to post my thoughts, I believe you can see now how I got there. I really don't care why things are causing problems as, if it's on the hardware end, I'm not going to spend the money to run a revamped decade and then some old game. I love it, but the money isn't worth it to me. Now If I was upgrading those parts already, sure. But I'm a college student, my upgrading is going to be limited. But thank you for shedding some light on the issue, I will check out the SA client board for more information. As long as this issue is fixed, SA will be a win for me.
...
for the greater good.
You did NOT use this vile phrase towards an Objectivist... I KNOW you did not do that.
"for the greater good" the most meaningless phrase in existence used for the most evil acts in humanity.
The translation of that quote is no more and no less "Because I want it that way".
for the greater good.
You did NOT use this vile phrase towards an Objectivist... I KNOW you did not do that.
"for the greater good" the most meaningless phrase in existence used for the most evil acts in humanity.
The translation of that quote is no more and no less "Because I want it that way".
C
Cloak&Dagger
Guest
lol. I have more or less given up on this thread, especially since it was merged and is so big now. Just wanted to say, that is funny....Are we going to get examples of things that were "for the greater good"? lol...
*walks off laughing at the prospect of "the greater good"*
...
Gotta agree there... I hate mega threads in general and since there are so many different directions that the ones that merged into this one have gone (not to mention the derailment in my own by certain posters), yeah... not much left for this thread... might as well have locked them all in effect.
And nah... examples of the use of the phrase are well known but off topic to this board.
Gotta agree there... I hate mega threads in general and since there are so many different directions that the ones that merged into this one have gone (not to mention the derailment in my own by certain posters), yeah... not much left for this thread... might as well have locked them all in effect.
And nah... examples of the use of the phrase are well known but off topic to this board.
L
Loquacious Wrath
Guest
I do not like the 2d graphics. Most gamers would agree with this point of view.
I do not love the KR graphics. They could be better...
If UO is to ever attract new players, UO needs better graphics because graphics DO matter. They need graphics even better than KR.
I'm downloading the SA client right now...but I'm reading about how the SA graphics are worse than the KR graphics? Not a good sign...
World of Warcraft graphics, at Ultra settings, are very pleasing with a new computer with good graphics hardware, but I also think they could be better... I have high standards I suppose.
2d lovers would probably think the graphics in my sig are "good enough" for them too... *rolls eyes*
I do not love the KR graphics. They could be better...
If UO is to ever attract new players, UO needs better graphics because graphics DO matter. They need graphics even better than KR.
I'm downloading the SA client right now...but I'm reading about how the SA graphics are worse than the KR graphics? Not a good sign...
World of Warcraft graphics, at Ultra settings, are very pleasing with a new computer with good graphics hardware, but I also think they could be better... I have high standards I suppose.
2d lovers would probably think the graphics in my sig are "good enough" for them too... *rolls eyes*
E
Eman Resu
Guest
Hey there champ, if you have super-high standards for graphics you might wanna stick to games actually developed during the current decade/century.
L
Loquacious Wrath
Guest
Yes, I have been sticking with a more current game, WoW. I haven't played UO since I started playing WoW, yet I still pay for two UO accounts in hopes that the graphics will get better. I can affoard it for now...
I just played about 10 min of the SA client.
I see the KR interface merged with the 2d graphics. I wonder why there isn't a 1920x1200 resolution but there are many others supported? Regardless of which top resolution I use, the graphics are a bit blurry in certain aspects.
However, I DO like many of the 2d building graphics over the KR graphics...I think its that black line around the object that helps prevent the blurry effect people don't care for with KR.
Unortunatly, overall, I don't like the current SA 2d graphics and I hope they implement the KR graphics with some anti-blurriness effort...OR, turn up the resolution on the entire 2d pallet.
Or just redraw the 2d client with some higher resolution artwork? I look at Diablo III graphics, and wonder why we can't have those? Just look at these graphics and realize how the CAN "make the game". Plus, Diablo III will be multiplayer with PvE and PvP. If UO could just get looking as good as Diablo II...forget Diablo III.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/media/screenshots.xml#29
Beside the shoddy graphics, what else bothers me is there STILL is a moongate to Cove in Luna Bank, a wanted poster for Ricardo, and a Town Crier regarding some year-old event. Many semi-prime Luna plots are vacant on my shard. Evidence that people are quitting all the time. *sigh*
*goes off to enjoy more WoW on somebody's advice*
Jesus Christ! How far up your own backside are you?
I'll translate "for the greater good" for you in the context which it was obviously meant and which anyone with an above average IQ would have understood...
"For the greater good of UO", to fully extend the sentance, which more or less means "what is best for UO as a game in the long term", which as we all know is as few clients as possible for the Devs to maintain, update and add to. Having another graphical pallette to deal with in addition to the 2 theyve chosen to go with (2d and KR) will cause a further stretching of already scarce resource.
Of course the 5% of people dont care about this ... you seem to want your KR graphics at any cost. Well screw you. The Devs shouldnt pander to the extremely small minority of KR cheerleaders at the expense of the rest of the player base.
Let KR die. "For the greater good".
Oh thats right ... they are letting it die. Boo frickety hoo.
You total hypocrite.
Your entire KR graphics in the SA client thread was based on Because I want it that way.
Anyway ... you said you would quit UO if they ever made SA accessible to the 2d client. :loser:
D
dupadupa
Guest
i play on a dell latitude d630,
i used to switch between 2d and kr often, each used for different situations, 2d was always easier when hunting in groups due to kr art work on GD and stuff being to big, but otherwise i found kr good to use,
i like sa for the better than KR functionality, BUT.. i cant say im not dissapointed with the resolution of the artwork, cause honesty i am, i can only hope they do something, just feels all a bit patched together,
one negative i also show is sa runs slower on my laptop than kr, and before any one asks im running on a fresh install from 7 days ago and running on o&o defrag, has anyone else seen this? (hoping there is someone else running on a d630)
i used to switch between 2d and kr often, each used for different situations, 2d was always easier when hunting in groups due to kr art work on GD and stuff being to big, but otherwise i found kr good to use,
i like sa for the better than KR functionality, BUT.. i cant say im not dissapointed with the resolution of the artwork, cause honesty i am, i can only hope they do something, just feels all a bit patched together,
one negative i also show is sa runs slower on my laptop than kr, and before any one asks im running on a fresh install from 7 days ago and running on o&o defrag, has anyone else seen this? (hoping there is someone else running on a d630
)
C
Connor_Graham
Guest
I hate that black outline.....
I think the black outline make things ugly, yet it would help me see things better.
I give up. Devs just make the thing solid and keeping with the UO style and feel and make the UI comfortable, responsive and intuitive. Next expansion we can work on graphics or resolution or details. (Pirate ships, cannon wars, killer whirlpools, mermaids, seahorses..... sounds good? anyone?)
S
Sabbath
Guest
I gotta agree with Hildebrand - just make the client the best it can be UI and stability-wise and deal with the graphics as we go. I think that's what we're seeing but I certainly agree with that stance.
As for Siteswap...what the heck is wrong with you attacking someone like that? Why don't you just ask for this thread to be closed? Calm down.
As for Siteswap...what the heck is wrong with you attacking someone like that? Why don't you just ask for this thread to be closed? Calm down.
I think this thread has gone beyond serving any useful purpose. Let's bury it.
- Status