Anyone here plays WC3 with a Pentium 2 450MHz

[neoro]

Here are the specs..
Intel Pentium 2 450MHz
256MB SDRAM PC100
GeForce 2 MX440

I know the minimum requirements are at 400MHz..
but seeing that I am only 50MHz above the minimal requirements can I run the game smoothly at 800x600....

anyone here with specs close to mine...? running WC3

 

[thorin]

I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems.

Thorin

 

[AndyHui]

My brother plays with very similar specs. Get more RAM. That makes the biggest difference.

 

[fkloster]

WC3 has to go down in history as the HARDEST damn RTS game ever!

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: fkloster
WC3 has to go down in history as the HARDEST damn RTS game ever!

Huh?

Thorin

 

[fkloster]

Very difficult game to play i.e. vs. the computer AI. I load up a map, play 1vs1 against computer and get stomped every time

 

[neoro]

AndyHui.................

I have 256 now...
2x 64MB
1x 128MB..
all slots are full..

how much more RAM should I get...??

Is it laggy for net games??
i have dsl
301/100

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: fkloster
WC3 has to go down in history as the HARDEST damn RTS game ever!

No way, Empire Earth gets that honor...

 

[human2k]

Ive installed and played it on my brothers old HP celery 500MHZ with 256mb pc100 and TnT 32MB PCI...............it runs decently at the lowest resolution possible............solo games on battle.net or vs the computer are fine.....but in big games like 3v3/4v4 FOR GET IT!

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: fkloster
Very difficult game to play i.e. vs. the computer AI. I load up a map, play 1vs1 against computer and get stomped every time

Ya you have to go extreme def if you wanna beat the computer or you have to play against the comp(s) Co-op. Basically this is how the comp AI works:

1) Get hero and 2 units quick. (Set rally piont as hero).
2) Start scouting/creeping around the outter edge of the map.
3) Kill all creep until you find an enemy.
4) Keep pounding on that enemy until their dead.
5) Move to next enemy.

Thorin

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: neoro
AndyHui.................

I have 256 now...
2x 64MB
1x 128MB..
all slots are full..

how much more RAM should I get...??

Is it laggy for net games??
i have dsl
301/100

I used to play W3 on a 56k (48k) dialup with the system outlined above, with no problems.

Thorin

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: neoro
AndyHui.................

I have 256 now...
2x 64MB
1x 128MB..
all slots are full..

how much more RAM should I get...??

Is it laggy for net games??
i have dsl
301/100

I used to play W3 on a 56k (48k) dialup with the system outlined above, with no problems.

Thorin

Pfft, whatever. He said Warcraft 3, not Warcraft 2. No problems my ass.

Or were you talking about playing the WC3 mini-game "TheoryCraft" in the lobby? I'm sure that rig would play "TheoryCraft" with no problems. This game has extremely high requisites in my opinion to play it the way it should be played (ie. no frame loss ever, which can be the difference in battle). Difference between being good and getting slaughtered is unit control, ie "micro", and more specifically hero control. Keep your heroes alive and leveled and they alone can be the difference makers. Can't do that without a upper-end system.

Chiz

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: neoro
AndyHui.................
I have 256 now...2x 64MB - 1x 128MB..all slots are full..
how much more RAM should I get...??
Is it laggy for net games??
i have dsl
301/100

I used to play W3 on a 56k (48k) dialup with the system outlined above, with no problems.
Thorin

Pfft, whatever. He said Warcraft 3, not Warcraft 2. No problems my ass.

OMG did he really??????? BTW if yer having problems with yer ass you may want to get that checked.

Or were you talking about playing the WC3 mini-game "TheoryCraft" in the lobby? I'm sure that rig would play "TheoryCraft" with no problems. This game has extremely high requisites in my opinion to play it the way it should be played (ie. no frame loss ever, which can be the difference in battle). Difference between being good and getting slaughtered is unit control, ie "micro", and more specifically hero control. Keep your heroes alive and leveled and they alone can be the difference makers. Can't do that without a upper-end system.

Interesting opinion. Unfortunately Blizzard, myself, and others who have played on slightly lower end systems disagree. But at least you have a good sounding story to tell yer parents about why they're spending money upgrading or replacing your 'puter.

Thorin

PS > If you haven't noticed I get a little sarcastic when people start blowing up (or getting cheeky) just because they had a slightly different experience.....

 

[Scottee]

I've played on my PII400 @448, 320mb sdram, geforce2 ultra, cable modem. As mentioned earlier, it's fine as long as you play in small games. 2v2 online is about the biggest, and even then, if there's a lot of units on the screen, you won't be able to manage your units at all.

thorin, I slightly disagree. You can play Warcraft III perfectly fine on a low end system, as I have, but it's definitely not the way the game was meant to be played. With zero micromanagement capabilities, I can macromanage my way to level 10 or so on bnet. But without micromanagement, it's hard to start beating good people. When I switched to the new computer, an XP1700, I could actually micromanage with no frame loss, and my new account is at level 12 and rising. So yes, it is playable on a low end system. But it does play better, the way it's supposed to be played, on a better computer.

neoro, it will play fine on those specs if you only plan on playing the single player, or 1v1 online. But if you plan on playing team games online, my opinion would be to not get it. It's still a great single player game. But I'd rather not spend the money til I get a better system for myself.

 

[MikeMike]

empire earth has to be impossible, because they basically go like this(AI)

build build build build destroy

wile your only at

build

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: Scottee
I've played on my PII400 @448, 320mb sdram, geforce2 ultra, cable modem. As mentioned earlier, it's fine as long as you play in small games. 2v2 online is about the biggest, and even then, if there's a lot of units on the screen, you won't be able to manage your units at all.

Ok I do have to give ont he point about small games, since on my old sys I only did 1v1 and 2v2. But even with alot of units (all 4 armies) on the screen it managed fine.

thorin, I slightly disagree. You can play Warcraft III perfectly fine on a low end system, as I have, but it's definitely not the way the game was meant to be played. With zero micromanagement capabilities, I can macromanage my way to level 10 or so on bnet. But without micromanagement, it's hard to start beating good people. When I switched to the new computer, an XP1700, I could actually micromanage with no frame loss, and my new account is at level 12 and rising. So yes, it is playable on a low end system. But it does play better, the way it's supposed to be played, on a better computer.

Having never played past lvl10 on bnet (w/ my old sys) I can't agree or disagree with this statement. From what I saw/experienced it shouldn't matter but it's hard to say .... I can see where a slower sys would hold you back in doing serious micro in some larger games (3v3 4v4 etc).

Thorin

 

[abovewood]

It was slow at times with 10 or 12 players on my Celeron 1.1a with 512mb RAM and Radeon 7500 64mb.
But most of time, it is fine.

Normal AI isn't that bad.
Insane AI is hard to beat unless I go with massive air forces.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thorin
I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems.

Thorin

Yep, and I tend to call BS when I see it and not make it smell like roses. Its this EXACT kind of grossly generalized and completely inaccurate post that fills these boards with "OMG! MY SYSTEM SUCKS I AM MISSING 2 |3SMarks!!!!". If you can't give a complete and accurate account of your experiences, don't bother giving it. If this guy went out and bought the game only to be seriously disappointed b/c an "elite member" from AnandTech said it ran "with no problems", and found out it ran like a pig, you wouldn't feel guilty at all?

I reached LvL 18 (19 for a day) and a ladder high of 54 on USEast. The people I played with/against at that level hotkey everything and rarely use the GUI for unit control, only for attacking enemy units with AoE spells and focused fire. THAT is called micro. At around LvL 12 or 13, pretty much everyone micromanages their units to some degree. With multiple spell effects, particularly Bloodlust, its nearly impossible to attack/cast/move with the precision necessary to win on a low-end system. Its the same reason they made the best spells non-autocast. The game isn't easy, but thats what it takes to play it. Any gamer that prefers not to get clubbed like a baby seal knows that minimum system specs mean crap.

Now if you said:

I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems until I kept getting my ass handed to me at LvL 10.

I probably woulda just laughed it off and called you a noob.

Your comments don't surprise me though, most "elite" members attain that status 'neffing in OT, rather than giving sound advice in the technical forums. Then they get all salty b/c someone calls them on BS. Too funny.

Chiz

PS I can also run Doom III at 2048x1600x32 with 8x multi-AA and 64 tap AF with no problems

 

[ed21x]

yup, for kicks, i had it running on my pentium 2-400 with a Geforce1 card and 256 mb pc-133 ram, and it actually ran rather smoothly at the lowest resolution, which still looked fairly decent. Gotta give it Blizzard for caring for the lil people and yes, its totally possible to run it on a 56k. if you think about it, the game shouldn't be taking up more bandwidth then starcraft- in fact, it should take less because there are less number of characters on screen.

 

[RossGr]

We recently were running WCIII on a 400Mhz Celeron oc to 500MHz, 32Mb Tnt2 M64, 256Mb ram. Since it has only a 15" monitor I did not push the resolution, we ran 800x600 but we had surprisingly good experiances with the celeron.

 

[PCMarine]

Heh just for fun I installed WC3 on a P2 400 w/ Voodoo 3 2000

only @ 640x480 and lowest detail could we get it totally playable

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: thorin
I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems.

Thorin

Yep, and I tend to call BS when I see it and not make it smell like roses. Its this EXACT kind of grossly generalized and completely inaccurate post that fills these boards with "OMG! MY SYSTEM SUCKS I AM MISSING 2 |3SMarks!!!!". If you can't give a complete and accurate account of your experiences, don't bother giving it. If this guy went out and bought the game only to be seriously disappointed b/c an "elite member" from AnandTech said it ran "with no problems", and found out it ran like a pig, you wouldn't feel guilty at all?

No I wouldn't feel guilty because that was my experience ... if it agrees with yours or not is irrelevant. He asked if people had played on similar hardware to his, I have and my experience was fine as reported.

Your comments don't surprise me though, most "elite" members attain that status 'neffing in OT, rather than giving sound advice in the technical forums. Then they get all salty b/c someone calls them on BS. Too funny.

Not at all 'salty' and no BS, just experience and opinion. If you disagree thats fine then disagree and post. Don't just shoot yer yap off. Everyone's entitled to disagree they just aren't entitled to be rude about it. BTW Sounds like someone's got a slight case of Elite envy .... how sad for you ... perhaps you should go lay on a couch somewhere and tell the nice lady about all the mean elites that don't agree with you heh

. I couldn't give two shits what my status is and if you do a little search you'll see I've made maybe a dozen posts (in the life of the board) in OT (and any topic except for GH and Distributed actually).

PS I can also run Doom III at 2048x1600x32 with 8x multi-AA and 64 tap AF with no problems

Wow how nice for you

neoro Good luck with the game, let us know how it turns out.

Originally posted by: RossGr
We recently were running WCIII on a 400Mhz Celeron oc to 500MHz, 32Mb Tnt2 M64, 256Mb ram. Since it has only a 15" monitor I did not push the resolution, we ran 800x600 but we had surprisingly good experiances with the celeron.

Hmmmm sounds like a conspiracy Chiz. Everyone but you seems to find it ok on lower end sys'.

Thorin

PS > Yes I know I'm getting rude myself and so I'll extricate myself from this thread ... it just amazes me how some people like you can spout BS and try to put others down just because they had a poor experience and not a good one like someone else may have had

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: thorin
I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems.

Thorin

Yep, and I tend to call BS when I see it and not make it smell like roses. Its this EXACT kind of grossly generalized and completely inaccurate post that fills these boards with "OMG! MY SYSTEM SUCKS I AM MISSING 2 |3SMarks!!!!". If you can't give a complete and accurate account of your experiences, don't bother giving it. If this guy went out and bought the game only to be seriously disappointed b/c an "elite member" from AnandTech said it ran "with no problems", and found out it ran like a pig, you wouldn't feel guilty at all?

I reached LvL 18 (19 for a day) and a ladder high of 54 on USEast. The people I played with/against at that level hotkey everything and rarely use the GUI for unit control, only for attacking enemy units with AoE spells and focused fire. THAT is called micro. At around LvL 12 or 13, pretty much everyone micromanages their units to some degree. With multiple spell effects, particularly Bloodlust, its nearly impossible to attack/cast/move with the precision necessary to win on a low-end system. Its the same reason they made the best spells non-autocast. The game isn't easy, but thats what it takes to play it. Any gamer that prefers not to get clubbed like a baby seal knows that minimum system specs mean crap.

Now if you said:

I used to play with a C366@550 w/ 192MB RAM and a GF2MX400 @ 1024x768 with no problems until I kept getting my ass handed to me at LvL 10.

I probably woulda just laughed it off and called you a noob.

Your comments don't surprise me though, most "elite" members attain that status 'neffing in OT, rather than giving sound advice in the technical forums. Then they get all salty b/c someone calls them on BS. Too funny.

Chiz

PS I can also run Doom III at 2048x1600x32 with 8x multi-AA and 64 tap AF with no problems

Not everyone cares about reaching lvl foo on the bar server, most people don't play nearly as much as you obviously do.

Last christmas we played a bit of CS at work, I got the honor of playing it on a computer with a TNT2-M64, it was nowhere near perfect, and I wouldn't bet money on winning as long as I was sitting on that comp, but it was enough for some fun.

Or to put it another way, for the people who aren't nerds and feels that their objective in life is to win some computer game, a low end computer will play most games just fine.

Go ahead neoro, you'll be fine, you just won't be crushing the ladders with that comp.

 

[tart666]

anyone here with specs close to mine...? running WC3

I have a PIII-450, 256MB of PC100, Rage Pro 8MB.

Running at 800x600 no prob.

 

[neoro]

Thanks so much guys..
I think i will go to the nearest mall and pick up
a pirated copy for about USD $ 1.32 and try out on my pc..
If i think its smooth enough to endure 3-4 players at once
then i will get the original and go battle-netting..