Punished for having low graphic settings

[bitterwinter]

I can certainly sympathise with your post OP - I used to run WoW on a laptop too from when I first joined in MoP all the way to the end of BFA. It was very frustrating to see the large leaps in system requirements starting from Legion (and wod to an extent) but it is the unfortunate nature of PC gaming. As hardware and technology evolves, so does the game engine and its demands on the system as developers implemement newer and bigger things. It's a slow, uphill battle.

I'd follow what others have said in the thread and try to at the very least run the game with projected textures on. If the game struggles with that then whilst it may not be an option right now - it would be worth to eventually upgrade to a desktop PC if you can. It'll save you money in the long run as you can upgrade parts piece by piece.

[Phuongvi]

This is the recommended setting :
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 or AMD Radeon R9 280 or later.

I would like to know what is ggraphic card and if you had a look at recommendation spec first before buying the game



Anyway, no chance that I will read 9 pages to find the answer

[chiddie]

Why would you be rewarded intentionally (by having easier to see/manage effects) for having lower settings?

In the FPS PvP scene it was like this since forever: the lower the settings, the best you could play.

Maybe I’m growing old but this game has now to many lights/effects to visually manage, it can be often difficult.

[Lochton]

In the FPS PvP scene it was like this since forever: the lower the settings, the best you could play.

Maybe I’m growing old but this game has now to many lights/effects to visually manage, it can be often difficult.

You can reduce particle density and texture without turning it off.

You don't really get any benefits by playing on the lowest setting possible in World of Warcraft, even recommended setups can run better.

- - - Updated - - -

Alrighty. Gave you time and benefit of doubt but had to try it out myself.

Hey guys could someone PLEASE help me and even test for yourself! All graphics must be on the lowest possible setting.

Everything on low on two setups. A laptop from 2014, and a PC from 2018.

First in HoA, You CANNOT see "Sin Quake" from the Halkas - I was wondering why I was getting one-shot and there is literally no indicator; I only discovered this by watching a streamer and realised holy shit theres a massive easy to see swirl on the floor.

I had no issues seeing any of the abilities of this boss at the lowest setting on both the PC and the laptop - system issues on your side or a bug?

Secondly in DoS, the oil that splurts out of those pipes doesn't show! So I thought fine I can cross.... NOPE got pushed off by invisible oil and I felt so fucking bad the team had to wait for me. Door of Shadows saved my ass but it shouldn't have to be like this.

Please please please if someone knows how to report to Blizzard, please do, I don't think they test on low graphics. THANK YOU FOR READING!

This one is different, and it is all on the player to notice the game's surroundings. I could NOT see the running oil from the pipes at the lowest setting on both the PC and the laptop - BUT - there is a CLEAR warning sign that the oil is flowing. Above each pipe is a red spinning light when the oil is flowing. If the oil doesn't flow, the light doesn't spin.

[Sansnom]

You're punished in any (clearly not any, but almost) game for playing on the lowest settings. It's been like that forever. How can you expect to play on the lowest settings AND have everything showing the same as on higher settings?

Well, graphics settings should really only affect cosmetic visuals rather than game play visuals. If there are pools of deaths of the floor, it should also be visible always, regardless of graphic settings. The difference should only be in low setting it would be a flat texture while in higher setting it would be have more visual effects.

[Lochton]

Well, graphics settings should really only affect cosmetic visuals rather than game play visuals. If there are pools of deaths of the floor, it should also be visible always, regardless of graphic settings. The difference should only be in low setting it would be a flat texture while in higher setting it would be have more visual effects.

Well, you could call the oil in DOS for cosmetic as there is an indicator of danger without the oil.

[Dimmune]

Also, do you have "Projected Textiles" turned on? I didn't read the rest of the pages as a TLR. This helps you see abilities as well as the "Essential" function.

[clevin]

9 pages and a ton of people making assumptions but this is an easy issue and there's really only one correct answer:

1) Run with at least the required min system. If you don't do that, it's on you.

2) If you do have at least the minimum then when running on the lowest settings, with projected textures off, the game should show any effects that can severely damage or kill you. Period.

There's no rational argument against this. If Blizzard can't do this, then they either set the requirements too low or they have made it possible for a player to set their graphics too low.

The solution is easy. Blizzard should never let something like Projected Textures be turned off if it's critical to seeing things that will damage you. Yes, some people will whine, but if it's a requirement, the response is the same as all of you saying "OP needs to run a system that meets requirements" - tough shit, it's a requirement. IN fact, I'd argue that the setting should not exist and they should simply always be enabled if they're needed to see deadly effects.

After all, this is the point off having system requirements - it's an assurance that you will be able to play the game at a fundamental level and, yes, seeing things that will kill you is included in that. Once those requirements are set, Blizzard needs to test them thoroughly. That's why any company worth its salt will have compatibility labs with various test systems.

[Lazy Gecko]

I agree with the principle that any graphic settings selectable from the available ingame options, without resorting to any back end config file or console command manipulation, should be designed to be as uncompromising to the playability as possible. I think that ought to be a pretty baseline QA checkbox for a professional product. Hell, I'm having enough trouble reading AoE effects as it is with normal settings and I think it's a general readability issue that they need to adress.

Remember when games used to be the opposite though? Disable lighting for fullbright and force texture mipmaps to the absolute lowest for that competitive edge.

[De Lupe]

You can get away with lowest graphic settings, just ensure you got "Projected Textures" enabled to see effects on grounds to avoid.

<-----Toaster owner here. Can confirm this method. Turn the settings low, but leave Projected Textures active. Problem solved.

[Lochton]

Also, do you have "Projected Textiles" turned on? I didn't read the rest of the pages as a TLR. This helps you see abilities as well as the "Essential" function.

The person had it at the lowest setting (Graphical setting 1) which doesn't have projected textures, but it does have spell density at essential.

- - - Updated - - -

9 pages and a ton of people making assumptions but this is an easy issue and there's really only one correct answer:

1) Run with at least the required min system. If you don't do that, it's on you.

IF you do have at least the minimum then when running on the lowest settings, with projected textures off, the game should show any effects that can severely damage or kill you. Period. There's no rational argument against this. If Blizzard can't do this, then they either set the requirements too low or they have made it possible for a player to set their graphics too low.

The solution is easy. Blizzard should never let something like Projected Textures be turned off if it's critical to seeing things that will damage you. Yes, some people will whine, but if it's a requirement, the response is the same as all of you saying "OP needs to run a system that meets requirements" - tough shit, it's a requirement. IN fact, I'd argue that the setting should not exist and they should simply always be enabled if they're needed to see deadly effects.

After all, this is the point off having system requirements - it's an assurance that you will be able to play the game at a fundamental level and, yes, seeing things that will kill you is included in that. Once those requirements are set, Blizzard needs to test them thoroughly. That's why any company worth its salt will have compatibility labs with various test systems.

But as I stated, when projected textures off, there is still warning indicators if the player would just mind their surroundings.

[chiddie]

9 pages and a ton of people making assumptions but this is an easy issue and there's really only one correct answer:

1) Run with at least the required min system. If you don't do that, it's on you.

IF you do have at least the minimum then when running on the lowest settings, with projected textures off, the game should show any effects that can severely damage or kill you. Period. There's no rational argument against this. If Blizzard can't do this, then they either set the requirements too low or they have made it possible for a player to set their graphics too low.

The solution is easy. Blizzard should never let something like Projected Textures be turned off if it's critical to seeing things that will damage you. Yes, some people will whine, but if it's a requirement, the response is the same as all of you saying "OP needs to run a system that meets requirements" - tough shit, it's a requirement. IN fact, I'd argue that the setting should not exist and they should simply always be enabled if they're needed to see deadly effects.

After all, this is the point off having system requirements - it's an assurance that you will be able to play the game at a fundamental level and, yes, seeing things that will kill you is included in that. Once those requirements are set, Blizzard needs to test them thoroughly. That's why any company worth its salt will have compatibility labs with various test systems.

Point 1 actually raises another interesting issue: the requirements for the trial period to work fine are far lower than SL requirements.

I recall the the opener said that he decided to sub after having done the 1-20 tranche and saw it was running fine. Of course it was since old zones are empty and graphics settings were lower.

Of course (2) one may imagine that not all the zones have the same age and latest exp could be more resources demanding but you can’t see it until... well, you get to the actual zones.

[clevin]

Point 1 actually raises another interesting issue: the requirements for the trial period to work fine are far lower than SL requirements.

I recall the the opener said that he decided to sub after having done the 1-20 tranche and saw it was running fine. Of course it was since old zones are empty and graphics settings were lower.

Of course (2) one may imagine that not all the zones have the same age and latest exp could be more resources demanding but you can’t see it until... well, you get to the actual zones.

If Blizzard actually sets the PC requirements differently, that's a fail on their part. If it's just that those zones are less demanding, eh.


My point is simply that Blizzard should set system requirements and then test them for current expansion content, including whether you can see stuff on the ground that will hurt or kill you in instances. That's their responsibility and they seem to have failed here.

- - - Updated - - -

The person had it at the lowest setting (Graphical setting 1) which doesn't have projected textures, but it does have spell density at essential.

But as I stated, when projected textures off, there is still warning indicators if the player would just mind their surroundings.

Nah. This is a blizzard issue, not a player one. Players shouldn't have to watch for subtle visual cues when the actual code generates big obvious ones. The lowest settings should show the big obvious ones if the player has a system that meets or exceeds min requirements.

The only time the player would be at fault is if they are playing on a system that is below minimum requirements.

[Lochton]

Nah. This is a blizzard issue, not a player one. Players shouldn't have to watch for subtle visual cues when the actual code generates big obvious ones. The lowest settings should show the big obvious ones if the player has a system that meets or exceeds min requirements.

The only time the player would be at fault is if they are playing on a system that is below minimum requirements.

But if you are running the minimum requirement that Blizzard has stated on their website, then you can also run more than graphical setting 1. And what happened to the days where the player needed to actually mind their surroundings? I mean, the only thing troublesome with playing at setting 1 was, "oh no, I can't see the oil" but then that is solved with, "oh look, warning lights".

I have now, since this thread was made, run all Shadowlands dungeons at graphical setting 1, and the oil spill is the only thing that really could prove a challenge if people don't pay attention to the game.

If you're running graphic setting 1, then you're running it by choice or your computer is below the minimum requirement.

[clevin]

But if you are running the minimum requirement that Blizzard has stated on their website, then you can also run more than graphical setting 1. And what happened to the days where the player needed to actually mind their surroundings? I mean, the only thing troublesome with playing at setting 1 was, "oh no, I can't see the oil" but then that is solved with, "oh look, warning lights".

Oh come on, entire effects simply vanishing is not acceptable. There are a ton of lights and crap in that area of DoS and nothing about a light flashing says 'you'll get pushed off here if you're by the spout when this light is flashing'. You're stretching here.

As for being able to run higher than 1 if you have a min system... if that's accurate and if setting 1 causes effects to vanish, then it should not exist. Setting 1 should be "the lowest setting that shows critical effects and one which can be run on a system meeting min requirements."

If those effects show on 1 but only if you have Projected Textures on, then it should not be able to be disabled on setting 1.

[Lochton]

Oh come on, entire effects simply vanishing is not acceptable. There are a ton of lights and crap in that area of DoS and nothing about a light flashing says 'you'll get pushed off here if you're by the spout when this light is flashing'. You're stretching here.

Set your graphic setting to 1, run DOS, look at the pipes on the top. These lights ONLY flash when the oil spills.

As for being able to run higher than 1 if you have a min system... if that's accurate and if setting 1 causes effects to vanish, then it should not exist. Setting 1 should be "the lowest setting that shows critical effects and one which can be run on a system meeting min requirements."

My laptop is that of the minimum requirement. Can push to setting 3 without issues. There is a reason they announce minimum requirements.

If those effects show on 1 but only if you have Projected Textures on, then it should not be able to be disabled on setting 1.

There is no other dungeon but the one, where setting 1 can kill you if you don't pay attention. Edit: Let me rephrase. All dungeons can kill you if you don't pay attention. DOS just has a higher chance of doing so if you don't pay attention.

[Sansnom]

Well, you could call the oil in DOS for cosmetic as there is an indicator of danger without the oil.

I am not actually familiar with the exact detail mentioned so I cannot really compare it directly. My response was really a general one, that visual clues should be the present and be just as visible in minimum settings as well as max. The lower graphic setting should ideally only be the visual appeal.

However, the ability to detail such detail is subjective. Reduced or omission of particle effects can affect the players ability to detect dangers. Add to this is many players watches you tube for boss mechanics and these videos may be produced with a higher graphic effect setting which may produce a different results than a player may see on their screen.

[Lochton]

I am not actually familiar with the exact detail mentioned so I cannot really compare it directly. My response was really a general one, that visual clues should be the present and be just as visible in minimum settings as well as max. The lower graphic setting should ideally only be the visual appeal.

However, the ability to detail such detail is subjective. Reduced or omission of particle effects can affect the players ability to detect dangers. Add to this is many players watches you tube for boss mechanics and these videos may be produced with a higher graphic effect setting which may produce a different results than a player may see on their screen.

But making these demands would just increase the minimum requirements needed for the game, and thus people under that will log in, play at the lowest, and the complaint will then continue that they can play the game under the minimum requirement, so why would Blizzard demand higher.

Currently, a minimum requirement setup can play the game at 2-3 graphical setting the minimum (I know, as my laptop is at the minimum requirement).

[Djuntas]

Mate its been like this for years...I remember solo firelands bird fire mount not seeing the fire circels because I had turned down particels...Just take the FPS hit.

[Zig Zug]

No, that's stupid. Gameplay critical elements should not be possible to be turned off.

No, that's stupid. Gameplay shouldn't be designed to cater to the lowest hardware tier of the population.

If you're an adult and choosing to play like this, you're stupid, not the game, nor the concept.