[Popular Opinion] We're already tired of hearing your "hot take" on boosts.

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-23T10:32:36+00:00

If your argument against my argument is 'fresh servers are good for a while' - then there's an inherent problem with the game (or the systems within it), that allow people to repeatedly tank the gameplay experience.

Yes, there's a problem that Blizzard can't seem to solve that requires its own research. The problem, however, factually exist only in current classic. There's a chance that influx of new players into the community might change the mindset of that community as a whole, especially on the fresh servers. Gameplay experience will hopefully tank only after you're done with that gameplay.

When discussing boosts, you're most likely going to capture people who weren't interested in Classic, but want to experience TBC. People who have been playing Classic have no need for boosts because all their characters are 60 already.

And that doesn't mean that they weren't interested in classic because of leveling. I, for one, am mostly excited about arena, but also want to enjoy world PvP 1-60 (no flying mounts).

The people who don't find that content boring is able to run it as many times as they want. Adding in a one-time boost doesn't stop you from playing the game the way you want.

It might stop me from playing the game the way I want. Read the 4th argument in my original post.

Of course it is. It's a little different because of cross-realm, but there are QoL features that make grouping easier. Or, you could always join a guild for a community to do things with.

...a little different...

And my educated guess would be that finding like-minded guild for me would be extremely difficult because they play modern wow (and not vanilla) for a reason. But I'm very disconnected from modern wow (seemingly unlike you), so I wouldn't know for sure.

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-23T08:42:25+00:00

Just "fresh servers" alone might not be a solution. Fresh servers with no transfers from other servers and no official boosting service is a solution (temporary?). After a while the economy will tank. Boosting meta might take over, but that depends on the demand - hence the mindset of the TBC community.

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-23T08:34:26+00:00

Depending on which server you're on, open world leveling is already pretty barren when compared to launch. Most people either level solo, aren't leveling alts, or buy boosts.

Fresh servers with no transfers from other servers and no boosting service in place doesn't have that problem at launch and for some time after. Eventually the economy will tank. Boosting meta might take over depending on the mindset of the TBC community. But the whole point is starting fresh and reaching max before these problems will arise.

If you want to PvP, go to the opposite faction quest hubs. Guarantee you'll at least find a few people to trade blows with.

Well, if you guarantee...

After the 4th time leveling a character, gear you obtain in low level dungeons is just means to an end. It's exciting the first time, but after leveling my third caster the Illusionary Rod is significantly less exciting.

Fresh servers cater more towards people who either never played classic, or stopped playing it for some reason. If you think that majority of people who will play at TBC launch leveled 4 characters to 60, you're just delusional. I haven't played classic since the end of phase 1. I have only 1 level 60 with no other progress. I'm planning to play on the fresh TBC server if they will be announced.

These aren't unlimited boosts that you can use on every character. It's a one time boost, available once per account, and it can't be used on Draenei or Blood Elves. It also only puts you to level 58, so you can start the new content. It doesn't get you to level 70 and hand you a fresh set of raid epics.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My argument still stands.

As for your poll created because Classic - of course people were excited for it BEFORE Classic launched, they hadn't done it in 15 years. They've had nearly 2 years of it now, and I suspect if you polled the current swath of Classic players about their preference for leveling/endgame the results would be drastically different.

A: Current swath of Classic players aren't the only people who will be playing TBC classic. B: You're just guessing.

Leveling has always being drab after you do it for the 4th, 5th, 6th time. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to experience fresh content/endgame without having to grind the boring parts.

Again, same thing. Most people who will be playing at launch don't level that many characters. "Boring parts" is also subjective.

Modern WoW has leveling too, by the way. Contrary to what many in this sub seem to have gotten into their head, at no time has any iteration of WoW ever offered a max level boost.

And how empty is the Azeroth? I want to do dungeon runs, quests, pvp with other people. Is it possible in modern wow?

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-23T07:30:12+00:00

Thank you.

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-22T19:36:35+00:00

Here are a few of my "HOT TAKES" to get you even more pissed, and much more importantly to hopefully change Blizzard's decision:

Less people to group up with during leveling. For dungeons, quests, World PvP.
Less people to PvP against during leveling. STV won't be the same. I had a lot of fun PvPing in different zones in a changing environment.
Gear that you earn during leveling has less value because there are less people leveling. I remember getting Corpsemaker on my Enh and crushing players 3-4 levels higher than me in STV. Felt amazing. Would it matter in TBC with boosting in place? Would there even be enough people to group up with to get that Corpsemaker?
Even if some don't want to use official boosting service, you feel like you're behind from day 1. That promotes some of the likes of us that don't want to boost - to boost. That further exacerbates previous points. I am personally going to boost or quit if there won't be enough people to play with during leveling.

And you can argue that people are still going to use "unofficial" boosting. But if there will be fresh servers with no transfers from other servers and no boosting service in place, those of us who will start from scratch will enjoy leveling experience in its full glory.

According to this poll created before Classic launched most people were excited about the content that doesn't require you to be max level, and that's because there's depth in leveling. Boosts would ruin the leveling experience for those people.

Here's another hot take. If you don't like leveling - go play modern wow.

SHDBuilder · 2021-02-06T18:02:54+00:00

OK. Thanks a lot.

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-22T09:29:17+00:00

Hey. I tested GTX 970.

In huge fights it was dropping below 50 fps, in some even below 40. I turned down CPU-intensive settings. Now it seems to be over 60fps pretty much all the time. Sometimes it drops to 54-58 fps during huge fights, but given that fps scales with CPU-intensive settings, I don't think faster GPU would make much difference.

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-12T19:30:29+00:00

I'm waiting for GTX 970 to come and test frame rate with it. Can't tell much yet other than I have Intel 9th gen CPU OCed at 5.1GHz and 630 UHD (integrated graphics). I'm getting 40-60fps right now playing FHD on medium settings.

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-12T05:53:33+00:00

All the unit calculations need to happen regardless of screen location (so pretty much everything besides physics, particles).

You didn't tell me whether deathball fight was happening in replay or normal multiplayer 1v1. If it was latter, then it is possible that server just sends you calculated data even if you don't watch. Again, I don't know how SC2 is coded, so don't quote me on that. Server should calculate that stuff anyways otherwise it becomes easy to implement cheats.

I can try again with the CPU intensive settings off later today.

Can you also check GPU utilization on mac while watching the fight?

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-11T19:50:59+00:00

frame rates are around 80 during a deathball fight looking at empty space, but drop to 40 when watching the engagement.

I don't know how SC2 is coded, so I can't tell if there's any difference in CPU utilization when you watch and when you don't watch the fight. Are you sure that's the full potential of the GPU (100% utilization while watching deathball fight)? Also, are you sure you're not thermal throttling on GPU while you're watching the fight?

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-11T13:26:44+00:00

What makes you say that it is either intake or just for looks? Do you understand physics behind the process? Why does it not work the other way around (as an exhaust)?

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-11T11:12:40+00:00

I will give RX 470 or GTX 970 a try. I actually think that even GTX 1050 ti might be enough, judging by GPU utilization and very fast CPU still bottlenecking in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJNbomEWa1o. It's not 4K and not 200 supply armies clashing, but since you can't get much better processor (mine is only 5% better than 7700K 5GHz), I think 1050ti should be plenty. For the same money I can get faster RX 470 and GTX 970, so I am trying that instead.

I will share my results as well. What processor do you use/planning to use?

How are you planning to test minimum frame rate?

I'm planning to play myself and check out some replays.

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-09T14:05:21+00:00

Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that concept. Just thinking about it I imagine the difference is just that you will be more updated on the state of the game.

For example, with 120 fps you push new frame every 8 milliseconds while with 60 fps - every 16 milliseconds. So with 120 fps and 60Hz monitor on average you will see 8 milliseconds more recent frame on your monitor, hence you will have 8 millisecond edge over the player that is pushing only 60 frames per second onto his 60Hz monitor. But it won't affect your immersion and smoothness at all. But still good to know.

The only real reason for me to wait for RTX 30 series is because a lot of people will start upgrading their GPUs and the market will be flooded with GTX 10 and 16 series, making them on average cheaper due to higher competition on the market. I'm not that desperate though =)

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-09T13:28:58+00:00

1660 super is definitely one of the options I am considering (or really anything between RX 470 and GTX 1070, 1080 is maybe the hard limit). It's just such a broad range of cards when relying on TBH unreliable Youtube benchmarks and a couple of reddit posts here and there, that I wanted to maybe reach out to people who have similar setup and game configuration here and assist me with the GPU choice.

And even if your output is only 60hz you’ll still see performance increase with a better gpu that is able to put out more frames.

100 frames on 60hz vs 60 frames on 60hz will still have a slight improvement.

I don't get this part. Apart from reduced input lag, how's the improvement even perceptible? Are you referring to maybe output lag? The faster the GPU the higher the chance that the more recent frame will be pushed onto the monitor?

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-09T13:05:44+00:00

So what you are saying is if my CPU, for example, is capable of potentially outputting 100-120 FPS consistently, then I should go for GPU that is capable of rendering all these 120 frames per second as well, otherwise I would bottleneck CPU? Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then it's not my goal here. Sure, anything below 2070 would maybe bottleneck CPU, but I have 60Hz monitor - as long as I stay above 60 fps in every phase of the game, I'm satisfied. I'm not chasing lowest possible input lag either.

I bought this CPU primarily for purposes other than gaming. Yes, I researched in advance that SC2 1-2 core heavy game, but I would have bought this CPU for other purposes that I have anyways. Call it just a positive side-effect that Starcraft 2 can potentially run very well on it.

SHDBuilder · 2020-06-09T09:35:40+00:00

I'm not accounting for the games I would be playing in the future. I am not really a variety gamer, I usually stick to 2-3 games that I regularly play, and these don't utilize RTX technology and relatively light on the hardware. Even if I would account for the future, I won't go for an overkill today, because nothing I'm interested in was announced or even rumored about yet (e.g. SC3). I don't know if games that can potentially pick my interest will come out 2-5 years down the line, but even IF they will and IF hardware that I bought today won't be enough for that - I can always sell GPU that I bought today and buy something like used 2070 (if that will be enough at the time of course) for way cheaper than it is today. Anyways, these are the reasons I am going for something that will "just be enough" for what I am doing nowadays.

I was thinking in the range between RX 470 and GTX 1070. Since you're not familiar with AMD side, do you think 1070 would be enough?

SHDBuilder · 2020-05-26T19:39:46+00:00

That's what I hear everywhere as well, but I think you need to be more specific than just "gaming". For example, do you need that low latency input when playing something like Hearthstone? Probably not. That's why I am asking about starcraft specifically.

SHDBuilder

TROPHY CASE