Profile of and

Can anyone actually have the games AA set to anything above low without major FPS loss?

I have an i5 3570K, 8gb Ram, GTX670 2gb and I can run everything on high apart from image quality on "high" and AA set to low.

It runs between 40 and 60 FPS but if I set AA to medium it drops drastically.

Just interested to see if anyone can get better performance with a simalar rig.

As far as I know, the medium and high AA settings actually renders the game at a higher resolution (1.5x or 2.0x) and then scales the game down to your screen.

This is extremely demanding, and I would not think anyone would get good performance using these AA settings unless they have a radeon 290, gtx 780 or higher.

Basically, if you want AA, stick to the other settings or the AA settings in the Windows control panel for ATI/Nvidia.

"Starcraft 2 includes a built-in command buffer that also adds input latency to smooth out and jittering or higher ping players - no amount of tweaking will reduce or alter that."

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158

It's at about 120-150ms

This post goes into more detail about the command buffer:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tech-support/267518-things-about-latency

Basically, you're right that there is a built-in buffer, but it's added on top of your ping to the server. It's reasonable to assume that the same goes for COH2. So the fact that the COH2 server is placed in the US should give significant additional latency for european players. And the latency difference between SC2 and COH2 is very noticeable, so there's that. At least, microing in SC2 simply feels much more responsive.

CoH1 it all depended who you were playing. Against a Chinese player or west coast north american the game was atrocious. Even some Europeans that had I had bad routing to would be a horrible experience. Although the CoH2 battle servers don't give you offline smoothness it's a lot more consistent and enjoyable than it used to be.

Yes, COH1 definitely had more variation, and it was far from good. Again, as I've repeated a bunch of times, the battle servers are an improvement. My point was simply referring to a best case scenario where you played against another local player. In COH1, the best case was simply better than it now. My point is that having a local server in EU would allow the best of both solutions.

Dota2 has localised servers because the player base can support it, at a peak of about 5k players the CoH2 player base can definitely NOT support localised servers. If the player base grows exponentially then it may be worth investing in localised servers, until then I am quite content with their networking solution.

As I stated in my last post, for the battle server Relic simply rents space on an Amazon server. It's a highly scalable problem and it's not something that requires expensive investments. It should be perfectly feasible for a game with a player base like COH2 to have a server in Europe. With the expansion being marketed as a multiplayer only game, I think this is something european players should care about.

doesn't change the fact that australia is pretty much the edge of the world.
You will pretty much always have lags, in any online game, because wherever servers would be, it would be far.

And the coh1 level of control was provided to you by P2P connections, you know, the ones we had before battle servers that were absolutely horrible.

Yes, you will always have latency in online games. But at the moment, the latency in COH2 for european players is 3 times as high as it is for other RTS games. In SC2 or DOTA the latency to the server is 50 ms. For COH2, as the server is placed in the US, the latency is 140 ms, and it's simply too much.

No doubt p2p gave problems in COH1, but if you did get paired in an 1v1 against an another european, and if the connection was stable, you would have a nice low latency game. That's simply not possible now in COH2, and I really think it's too bad.

Look, the only reason I'm petitioning for this is because I want COH2 to be a viable competitive game for europeans. I get it that for casual play latency doesn't matter as much, but I don't see the reason to take a contrarian position on this.

Well, I'm the eu player and I don't have any issue dodging anything/microing.
Perfect responsiveness can be achieved only if you play sp or sit on the servers.

There isn't really any issues anymore since battleservers for vast majority of players and only a handful still complain.

Look, I get it, battle servers is an improvement, and I think it is good step too.

However, playing with a ping of 140 is just not good. Play any other game COH1, SC2, DOTA2, whatever, and you have perfect response due to low latency.

I also get it that for some people, who casually play a few games of 3v3 or 4v4, they might not care or might not notice. I mean, I hate playing at less than 60 fps, but for some 20 fps is fine.

But for this game to be playable at a competitive level, command latency needs to go away.

Ask any SC2 or DOTA2 player if they could have proper control at 140 ms and they would clearly answer no.

I have raised my voice in the official forum about this as well. We need a Battle Server/s in the Europe as well. Simple as that.

With the coming expansion/DLC essentially being multiplayer only, I think this is something european players should care about...