Too Many people

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

This weekend there definitely was too many players. It's not only a problem to the client, it's a massive problem for the server. Indar had awful lag. Hits registered like 1-3 seconds after the hit. Again ammopacks, repairs and healing weren't working. It took a lot of tapping of E to get inside a vehicle. This was at miller, but I'm quite sure there were lag problems on every server since double xp does attract a lot of players.

I'm going to assume that in that one instance, just about every single player on the server was in one hex.
That'd kill it too.

[Sledgecrushr]

No lag on connery, of course our pops topped out around 2800.

[Figment]

"Too many people take second best, but I won't take anything less. Its got to be... Yeaheheh... puhuhuhuhuhurfect."

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by RSphil

i see alot of people complain about optimization and mostly people with old pc's. they expect to play new games with 10 year old rigs and are shocked when they cant.

This - totally this. Obviously it's not always the case, but definitely much of the time.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Hamma

This - totally this. Obviously it's not always the case, but definitely much of the time.

Or the game could just run like crap.

I have a AMD Phenom II X6, 8gb of ram and AMD HD 7970 3gb video card. I can put the game on low or high and get the same FPS.. it makes zero sense. Actually I seem to get slightly better FPS on medium or high compared to low.

I can play Crysis 3 on highest settings no issue. I have Guild Wars 2 at high settings and even in WvW in the heat of battle I get 60-70 FPS. Actually I can add to this list. BioShock Infinite on high settings is fine. I get around 120fps on Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. Far Cry 3 on max settings runs in the high 60s for FPS.

Planetside 2 is consistently in the 30-40 FPS and much lower after every single patch lately.

[Snydenthur]

Originally Posted by Hamma

This - totally this. Obviously it's not always the case, but definitely much of the time.

Sony should change their minimum requirements. You can't really play the game with those cpus. That might be one of the reasons to this. I think the minimum cpu for this game is intel pentium g850. Even that would have problems in biggest fights, but at least you could fight in medium ones.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

Sony should change their minimum requirements. You can't really play the game with those cpus. That might be one of the reasons to this. I think the minimum cpu for this game is intel pentium g850. Even that would have problems in biggest fights, but at least you could fight in medium ones.

The computer I am currently playing on
Core 2 quad @2.4ghz
4 gig ram
Win 32 vista
Radeon hd 5570 1 gig

The game is stable after this last optimisation patch. Played about 6 hours without the desync bug. Pretty steady 60 fps in warpgate 18 fps in mid sized battles and 10 in large battles. Im running the game with everything turned off and monitor resolution turned down as far as I can take it. It is playable but looks like an old playstation 1 game.

[KodanBlack]

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

haha i can't wait for them to add the seemless oceans between continents that would bring a crap ton of players in and would add strategic "metagame" instead of just tactical metagame

Full out naval battles for floating cities and off-shore shelling of sea-side bases would be awesome!

[Koadster]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

Or the game could just run like crap.


I can play Crysis 3 on highest settings no issue. I have Guild Wars 2 at high settings and even in WvW in the heat of battle I get 60-70 FPS. Actually I can add to this list. BioShock Infinite on high settings is fine. I get around 120fps on Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. Far Cry 3 on max settings runs in the high 60s for FPS.

Planetside 2 is consistently in the 30-40 FPS and much lower after every single patch lately.

Because besides Arma 2/3 there is nothing more taxing then PS2, GW2 has scripted attacks doing predetermined damage. It doesnt have to track 10,000 bullets fired, 500 explosions, locations of all these plus where the players are.

People seem to forget with other comparisons.. They DONT WORK. Comparing a single player game that is optimized for a set amount of people at a given time or with scripted events compared to the choatic randomness of 300 people fighting at once.

[Snydenthur]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

The computer I am currently playing on
Core 2 quad @2.4ghz
4 gig ram
Win 32 vista
Radeon hd 5570 1 gig

The game is stable after this last optimisation patch. Played about 6 hours without the desync bug. Pretty steady 60 fps in warpgate 18 fps in mid sized battles and 10 in large battles. Im running the game with everything turned off and monitor resolution turned down as far as I can take it. It is playable but looks like an old playstation 1 game.

Well yeah, I forgot that some people are happy enough not to be too bothered about low framerates.

For me, the smallest playable fps is 30. It would be good to have at least 45 fps on average, but the best would be 60 or over. Preferably 120 to get the best out of 120hz monitor of course. The way I've seen it around forums, not a lot of people get that 45fps minimum, even 30 seems to be hard. But forums do have the minority of players. I wish soe would publish the average fps, since they do say it is monitored by them.

And btw, I think you can raise your settings a bit. 5570 isn't that bad. Try to aim to a situation where you are above those minimum framerates you mentioned. So I'd say you can raise settings enough to be gpu bound at 30fps. That way you can at least see a bit better.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by KodanBlack

Full out naval battles for floating cities and off-shore shelling of sea-side bases would be awesome!

Im looking forward to seamless oceans tieing all of the continents together. But the only naval battle I want to see is air carriers duking it out far above thr ground. Yes for air navy.

[Canaris]

I played on Miller almost every day over Easter and I have to say the server held up very strong even at peak times, there was a few performance issues and some lag hiccups about but I was extremely impressed with how well it worked out.

Anyone who had trouble over the weekend, please post up your PC & interwebz stats cos it might not be the game.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Koadster

Because besides Arma 2/3 there is nothing more taxing then PS2, GW2 has scripted attacks doing predetermined damage. It doesnt have to track 10,000 bullets fired, 500 explosions, locations of all these plus where the players are.

People seem to forget with other comparisons.. They DONT WORK. Comparing a single player game that is optimized for a set amount of people at a given time or with scripted events compared to the choatic randomness of 300 people fighting at once.

Oh, yea... i forgot that GW2 doesn't have 500 player scale maps with particle effects on all abilities, weather, actual water, destructible environments and NPCs moving around throughout each map, some even with large bosses with their own skills with particle effects... all in WvW which houses the 500 players... silly me. I thought it was a single player game with scripted events.

[SGOniell]

Runs nice on my i7, need to upgrade to 32Gb RAM over the summer I think, and get a cooling pad sooner, but I used to run it in high settings before some updates did something. I'll try going back up again tonight. For about $700 you can build a comp that'll perform outstandingly well for the price. My friend runs it with everything high, he's going for ultra later, and maybe enabling PhysX.

They really should change the min specs, my friend should be able to play it, but it just won't.

Eventually I'll put together an sli machine. Might use intel xeon or AMD opteron processors for it. I've got access to those at my college for all of the CAD and programs we run. The GPU's suck, but man is that xeon nice.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Hamma

This - totally this. Obviously it's not always the case, but definitely much of the time.

Well I don't think it is. It's a combination of PC specs along with the number of people going pew-pew and bang-bang within the given area.

There are things currently that only work intermittently now, such as squad/platoon members on the map. Often your squad mates are invisible (on the map) especially if they are far away and that didn't happen on the slightly lower pop PS1 even though there were many people who said its netcode was terrible (although what qualification they had to say that I don't know).

My PC is 18 months old and cost me around 1300 pounds new, which at the usual pound/dollar exchange rate for IT equipment would make it about, umm, 1300 dollars. (i72600k @ 3.4, 8Gb Ram, GTX560Ti 1Gb.)