Agreed. But even on BF3, I have everything set to Ultra (MSAA turned off though) and 1440p (native res). When I'm looking through the scope, instead of barely being able to detect a guy laying down out there in my sniper scope, I see lets say total sand colored texture, and, clear as day, a guy laying right there to shoot.
Way way too easy...
Its probably different in BF4.
Terrain Decoration low:
Terrain Decoration Ultra:
That's crapload of difference, and DICE were pretty retarded to design it that way. There shouldn't be ANY advantage to run different visual settings. Seriously.... wtf.
Most FPS are that way lol. If you're willing to sacrifice some eye candy it makes some things clearer - I did it in CSS at least. When visual settings are basically designed to put more crap on the screen it's obviously going to be a tradeoff.
Yup CSS was played on all low even though my system could handle it at the time. I think I did something similar with BC2 when it was out.
That's crapload of difference, and DICE were pretty retarded to design it that way. There shouldn't be ANY advantage to run different visual settings. Seriously.... wtf.
I think in CS smoke grenades not only killed your frame rate, but there was distinct visibility differences as well. I dont quite remember what it was, but I remember turning it down.
Its probably different in BF4.
Terrain Decoration low:
Terrain Decoration Ultra:
I seem to remember having it the other way around in 1.6. I think low quality smoke had some cartoonish looking smokescreen with 100% density. But medium or higher had the chance of seeing faint outlines of people standing in the middle of it.
Maybe I'm a noob but I have no idea what map that is. Haha.
Yeah that's part of the reason I have always kept my GFX settings on low.
BTW I pulled this clip out of my gameplay footage last night, what do you guys think - hacker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBwLgvN4qW8
That's crapload of difference, and DICE were pretty retarded to design it that way. There shouldn't be ANY advantage to run different visual settings. Seriously.... wtf.
I think its Paracel Storm, where B would be on 64 player Conquest. Or maybe the Test Range.
Yeah that's part of the reason I have always kept my GFX settings on low.
BTW I pulled this clip out of my gameplay footage last night, what do you guys think - hacker? www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBwLgvN4qW8
(look closely during the killcam footage to see the guy's silhouette off in the distance somewhere through the brick wall)
Can't watch the video at work but suav whoring?
His stats are farily average. Maybe he had a better angle and then ran while the camera was panning over. Or was parachuting down and took some pot shots at you. But that bullet does look like it came through that wall behind you. I just dont see the point in cheating if your KD is just over 1, and your W/L is .56. Accuracy is less than mine, and didn't think that was even possible.
The kill cam thing can be explained, but not the damage on the mtar. It does 25 damage at 0-8 meters, he was clearly farther out than that. Headshots are x2 damage right?
The only way you go from 100 to 0 health that fast is a 1-shot, but lets just skip that and assume it was 2 shots, we'd know for sure if it was 3 or more shots right? OK, so he was more than 8m out, so lets say 24.99 damage x2 headshot x2 shots<100. That means he was less than 8m in, or hit you with 3 bullets which doesn't fit that video.
That's crapload of difference, and DICE were pretty retarded to design it that way. There shouldn't be ANY advantage to run different visual settings. Seriously.... wtf.
The shot looks like a bolt action trail though. You don't normally see trails like that on carbines. It was a single shot. Noticed in the kill feed it just says he killed him, not a specific weapon. I dont think he used an MTAR, but that might have been the main weapon on his kit. Maybe he picked up a sniper rifle.