official Guild Wars 2

[Wakers]

The average PC has far less processing power than the new consoles, and far more API overhead taxing the CPU even with DX11.  Most gamers still aren't even quad core.

 

Given the large lack of knowledge about programming in some of these responses I'm not even going to bother.

 

Classic cop-out if ever I saw one.

 

Since when do PC gamers have average PCs?  "Most gamers still aren't even quad core" bollocks.  Any semi-enthusiast gamer is.  Heck, even the dual core i3s are about as powerful as the new console APUs when it comes to processing performance.

[Athernar]

It would still allow the API to draw a lot more.  If it is.  I don't believe GW2 is, but the graphics engine most likely is.

 

The API can only draw that which the engine tells it to, if the engine is single threaded, then the capability of DX11 to receive commands across multiple threads is irrelevant.

[spaceelf]

And pc gamers have average pcs often as not?

 

But now matter how you look at it it's pointless to talk about because the game will never be ported to a console.

I was referring to Steams hardware survey.  Can't really speak for whether or not it will end up on a console, not being Arenanet.

 

I still believe GW2 will get a DX11 version this year or next...not that it matters to me much anymore until the expansions hit.

[Blackhearted]

The average PC has far less processing power than the new consoles, and far more API overhead taxing the CPU even with DX11.  Most gamers still aren't even quad core. Given the large lack of knowledge about programming in some of these responses I'm not even going to bother.

I think you overestimate how powerful the new consoles are by quite a bit. By today's standards a console like the xbox one is equal to rather cheap pc build. The ps4 isn't much better in that regard.

[Wakers]

Yes, because every computer that Steam is installed on is a machine meant for playing AAA games.

 

That's a massive fallacy.

[spaceelf]

I think you overestimate how powerful the new consoles are by quite a bit. By today's standards a console like the xbox one is equal to rather cheap pc build. The ps4 isn't much better in that regard.

I don't disagree...or I would've bought one already instead of building a new PC.  But they are far more powerful than they'd need to be for Guild Wars 2.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Keep it civil please. Fine to have disagreements but no need to be rude about it.

[trag3dy]

I was referring to Steams hardware survey.  Can't really speak for whether or not it will end up on a console, not being Arenanet.

 

I still believe GW2 will get a DX11 version this year or next...not that it matters to me much anymore until the expansions hit.

 

The game engine that GW2 is using is over 10 years old. It would take quite a lot to update it to dx11.

 

 

I don't disagree...or I would've bought one already instead of building a new PC.  But they are far more powerful than they'd need to be for Guild Wars 2.

 

That's not true at all. I can't imagine how bad wvw would be on a console.

[spaceelf]

The game engine that GW2 is using is over 10 years old. It would take quite a lot to upgrade it to dx11.

 

That's not true at all. I can't imagine how bad wvw would be on a console.

Unreal Engine 3s first release was in 2006, and it isn't the same engine it was then.  I doubt Arenanets is the same as it was ten years ago either.  But anyway.

 

Since neither of us has the game running on a console I can't really debate that any more than I already have.

[trag3dy]

Unreal Engine 3s first release was in 2006, and it isn't the same engine it was then.  I doubt Arenanets is the same as it was ten years ago either.  But anyway.

 

Since neither of us has the game running on a console I can't really debate that any more than I already have.

 

Difference being that Unreal engine was made to run on as many systems as possible, consoles included. That's pretty much comparing apples and oranges.

[Athernar]

The game engine that GW2 is using is over 10 years old. It would take quite a lot to update it to dx11.

 

That's not really an accurate statement, the GW2 engine is derived from but is a departure from the GW1 engine - so it say it's "10 years old" is misleading.

 

GW1 used a DX8-9 forward renderer, GW2 has a DX9-only deferred renderer with 3rd-party occlusion culling middleware for example. GW2 also has a new audio engine. (Which got optimised a few months ago)

 

--

 

But really, the problems with GW2 perf-wise are bigger than the choice of API, the game simply needs a solid optimisation pass done by employees - not contract workers.

[Anibal P]

Maybe my PC is waybetter than the average but in Lions Arch it only lags when half the server is there, or it seems like half the server is there, otherwise it's not bad at all

[Blackhearted]

GW1 used a DX8-9 forward renderer, GW2 has a DX9-only deferred renderer with 3rd-party occlusion culling middleware for example. GW2 also has a new audio engine. (Which got optimised a few months ago)

 

They've worked on the audio code sometime recently? Can i now do long and large events like the claw of jormag without the game randomly deciding to hang itself(due to the audio code freaking out)?

[Athernar]

They've worked on the audio code sometime recently? Can i now do long and large events like the claw of jormag without the game randomly deciding to hang itself(due to the audio code freaking out)?

 

It freed up some CPU, thus increasing overall perf. Stability-wise I cannot say, I've not had any issues with the game - then again I only really load it up to see if they've made progress with performance and to check out new content briefly.

[Wakers]

They've worked on the audio code sometime recently? Can i now do long and large events like the claw of jormag without the game randomly deciding to hang itself(due to the audio code freaking out)?

 

Yes, it was a while ago.  I think their first attempt caused it to cut out for a lot of people in big fights, and then they had a second go at it and it seemed to fix all issues.

 

Regarding performance in Lions Arch - for me it's always around 60FPS unless I go through the centre - where the fountain is, then into the mystic forge area and crafting / bank / trading area.  Then it hovers around 30FPS.

[trag3dy]

So anet is nerfing crit damage in the update this next week. Instead of fixing the core issues that make berserker gear the best stat combo. The funniest part is that the devs themselves admit that the nerf will do **** all to fix the "issue".

 

I'm glad I didn't take the time to craft ascended armor. And the break I've taken from the game since the last update may continue a while longer.

[Blackhearted]

There's details somewhere of what's coming next week aside from "more scarlet and a new permanent world boss"?

[trag3dy]

Not really. I'm not sure why they didn't do an over view of the upcoming patch like they normally do.

 

I'm thinking that their weekly stream might replace the over view.

 

But for now this is the best I can do for an over view..

 

http://dulfy.net/2014/01/17/gw2-ready-up-skill-and-balance-developer-livestream-notes/

 

Warrior longbow takes yet more nerfs because of pvp, that almost makes me so happy. They really need to divide their balance changes between pvp and pve like they had in GW1. 

[Wakers]

In other news regarding future updates, they're going to be releasing a performance update at some point in the near future - not only to fix skill lag and server performance in busy areas, but also to improve client performance on lower end hardware.

 

So that might help some people with performance issues.  

[spaceelf]

Indeed.

http://www.tinyurl.com/mwuftgs

(this forum+ie11=sigh)

[trag3dy]

It's great to see they have performance fixes in the work. Hopefully they can do something to cut down on load times. Back when the game first came out it used to take 15-20 seconds to load into LA now it takes a solid minute or so.

[spaceelf]

It's great to see they have performance fixes in the work. Hopefully they can do something to cut down on load times. Back when the game first came out it used to take 15-20 seconds to load into LA now it takes a solid minute or so.

I can't even play this game when it's on my hard drive.  Heh.  (Not literally, but you know what I mean.)

[Blackhearted]

It's great to see they have performance fixes in the work. Hopefully they can do something to cut down on load times. Back when the game first came out it used to take 15-20 seconds to load into LA now it takes a solid minute or so.

 

I'd wager part of that increase is due to how you're not limited to seeing extremely low numbers of people on screen at once anymore like you were at launch.

[trag3dy]

I'd wager part of that increase is due to how you're not limited to seeing extremely low numbers of people on screen at once anymore like you were at launch.

 

That's the thing though, load times shot up before they ever fiddled with the culling. And I'm not the only one by far who has noticed the issue.

[Wakers]

I think that's server side more than anything, load times on a "high" as opposed to "very high" population server as massively different, for me at least.

 

I play on Whiteside Ridge most of the time.  Loading LA takes about 20 seconds most of the time, however there's the odd time I'm sat there for twice that long.  Everywhere else tends to load in about 10 seconds.

 

If I guest on a very high pop server, load times are abysmal.