Guild Wars 2

my pc—————
-intel i7-4771
-Nvidia geforce gtx-770 4GDDR5 OC
-gigabyte z97x-gaming 3
-8GB ram

BUT…. zerg—>fps:20~30

That’s normal.

An Error Prevented Saving:

Message Body length must at least be 15.

that’s normal ?! really?! I’m feel a little disappointed as my new computer.

You shouldn’t. This is how any MMO works. Your machine will crush mostly every game you throw at it unless you play in 1920×1080. It’ll crush everything then.

Most games don’t have over a hundred players/npc’s on screen at the same time, this is what is destroying your FPS, turn down the character model limit in your graphics options for some relief.

It’s quite simple this has been argued till we’re all blue in the face Guild Wars 2 is “Unoptimized” and needs a drop down menu to choose from “DirectX 9” to “DirectX 10-11+” support this has ALOT to do with the fact that big zergs get raging low fps amongst other things. Guild Wars 2 is coded in OLD kitten technology regardless of when it went into creation. theirs zero options for people that benefit from modern direct x! let alone Guild Wars 2 cant balance multi CPU/Threads worth kitten.

No GW2 was designed at the time for a two core minimum platform in a time when quad cores were only found in uber gaming platforms. Also when Dx10 was just out and EVERYONE hated Vista, 64 bit or not.

What you are asking for is like someone asking a group of automotive engineers to take their latest front wheel drive coupe and turn it into a four wheel drive hybrid because times have changed since the project was started. It’s not a trivial task.

Direct X 11 MAY HELP with issues but it’s not going to cure this game of it’s problems. Nor will that Mantle crap. It’s in beta even still.

Perfect example is World Of Warcraft.

ArenaNet needs to PAY “CRYENGINE”, “CRYTEK” to teach them how to optimize ill get hate for this one but to bad truth needs to be told lol and i know im gunna hear oh but ones an mmo and ones a fps ive played mmo’s and fps back and forth that will run circles around GW2 as far as optimization goes so that excuse to me in invalid.

Sorry buddy, that’s not gonna work either. This is how an MMO works. If you don’t like, that’s too bad for you. I am also going to just… not acknowledge your messages now.

Avelos.6798:

Sorry buddy, that’s not gonna work either. This is how an MMO works. If you don’t like, that’s too bad for you. I am also going to just… not acknowledge your messages now.

Oh well that’s cute here’s a “CryEngine”, “CryTek” that’s a new upcoming mmo! made with that engine BUD. only in china right now and in beta but ill tell ya right now it will run like a dream smooth as glass with proper core/thread balance and modern and up to date direct x support and of course the best of all the cry engine which talking from experience runs like a dream. and avid gamers on pc KNOW this.

^CryEngine MMO thats still in beta and only in china as of right now this is what a well polished game engine looks like be sure to keep it in your pants pusscake.

Game engine running DirectX 9, need I say anymore?

Then feel free to help get ANet the funds they need for it by buying Gems in the gem store. They don’t have a monthly subscriber fee anyway so it’s not like they can just throw money at someone to make their game better.

Yeah, I am sure they are hurting Avelos, considering I saw a Feb 2014 report saying they made a 150M dollar profit in the last year alone and the majority of it was because of GW2. Now that was NCSOFT and I am not sure how Anet is tied in with them, but rest assured they are not broke by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically when the devs started making gw2 they chose to keep using the gw1 engine. For whatever reason, once that choice was made, there is really no going back. It would be probably easier at the moment to implement dx11 in the current engine than rewrite further for a third party engine.

Third party engines have many pluses, but come at a financial cost. My best guess was the during development, anet was not swimming in cash even with ncsoft support. The the cost in learning to use the new engine, man hours lost from not being able to use the old code/assets from gw1, and licensing costs was probably too much at the time and a decision was made to keep over head low and push development forward without an even higher burn rate.

Remember development was started in 2007 and headed into the great global recession as well. Credit and capital was virtually nonexistent for a year or so and a high capital burn rate was probably unacceptable in that financial environment. In hindsight, the decisions made hobbled the game performance and are bad for the game and players in general, but i can see a bit of the logic behind them as well.

Anet is only part of that 150 million profit. Remember a 200 man company with an industry average salary has a burn rate of a few million a month; to survive a bad game a reserve of a few hundred million is necessary. The only studio that has that kind of capital is blizzard. Most studios are pretty broke; if they were doing very well, there would be no need for publishers like ncsoft to even provide capital for development in the first place.

It’s to bad that “Sierra/Dynamix.” isn’t around anymore those were hand’s down the best bunch of dev’s ive ever seen that cared about their product and talked with the community that played their games one on one and fixed issues immediately and it didn’t cost anything i will say and continue to say they were as good as it ever got as far as devs in my honest opinion. oldschool.

I don’t think they make decisions that hobbled the game, just decisions that were logical for the time. Should they have reconsidered as development dragged on or the schedule was extended for content creation? Maybe.

My feeling is the engine ran great until they added loads of players. By then it was too late to do anything significant.

Behellagh.1468:

My feeling is the engine ran great until they added loads of players. By then it was too late to do anything significant.

It is basically a heavily modified engine that GW1 ran and that game was instanced based.

GW2 did appear to run a lot better in it’s early days I do agree.

CryEngine was used in AION, and in big Battles it was also a dia-show with very low frames.
Also players there were mostly not rendert before there were so near to you that archers could already kill you in the moment you saw them.

Also what a lot people don’t notice i think is, that GW2 has by far the most detailed armors and cloth simulation of all current MMOs i know. That simply costs a lot of power to render.

Exiled Dbl.9035:

Avelos.6798:

Sorry buddy, that’s not gonna work either. This is how an MMO works. If you don’t like, that’s too bad for you. I am also going to just… not acknowledge your messages now.

Oh well that’s cute here’s a “CryEngine”, “CryTek” that’s a new upcoming mmo! made with that engine BUD. only in china right now and in beta but ill tell ya right now it will run like a dream smooth as glass with proper core/thread balance and modern and up to date direct x support and of course the best of all the cry engine which talking from experience runs like a dream. and avid gamers on pc KNOW this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhdIkXCZ84

^CryEngine MMO thats still in beta and only in china as of right now this is what a well polished game engine looks like be sure to keep it in your pants pusscake.

Your ignorance of how a game gets developed and maintained speaks volumes…..Anet can’t move to an entirely new Engine for a game that has been out for over 2 years….the suggestion is laughable. And why would a company help another “optomize” it’s game if they are not using their technology (even if they could considering the Anet engine is proprietary)? If you want to state the current Engine and API is less than ideal for a large scale MMO, you are stating what most everyone already knows, but your “solution” to the problem is just ignorant of the realities of any reasonable business model.

They COULD try to move it to a better version of DirectX, but since 10 is iffy in terms of performance improvements and 11 is still BETA, that’s not a great choice for a nearly 2 year old game either. Also, the resources involved in moving a game to another version of Direct X is NOT trivial.

There best bet would be to try and compile an x64 Client but that would take a LOT of resources that are currently better spent on content development. It is also questionable whether or not an x64 client would generate much performance improvement as the graphics would still be saddled with the DX9 bottleknecks.

Brother Grimm.5176:

There best bet would be to try and compile an x64 Client but that would take a LOT of resources that are currently better spent on content development. It is also questionable whether or not an x64 client would generate much performance improvement as the graphics would still be saddled with the DX9 bottleknecks.

That would mainly help against OOM crashes that people even on 64-bit windows have with to high details in big zerks i think.

x64 Wont help, we are barely scraping the 3GB mark on most client activity

new game engine is a pipe dream. You are talking MILLIONS in RD/Testing and 2+ years before that would even be ready. A company that is making 150M/year on the product aimed for a new engine would be STUPID to start working on a project like that now.

DX10/11.2/12 – Now this is probably the most feasible solution. But again, will take RD/Testing and a lot of time (2+ years) before we see fruitful results. Remember when GW2 was released and how unbalanced the zones where? How crappy even the top end systems were handling the game? If they upgrade to DX10+ we are right back there out of the gate. And months, if not years, until we see actual performance improvements. So, while this is less of a pipe dream as opposed to a new game engine, dont hold your breath.

sirsquishy.8531:

x64 Wont help, we are barely scraping the 3GB mark on most client activity
…..

The game is not memory starved NOW….but an x64 client would be ABLE to utilize more than 3GB (the MAX a 32-bit client can) and could be programmed to USE more memory if available. Also, access to more memory is just ONE of the many advantages 64-bit code has to offfer (and usually NOT the primary place performance is increased).

The max amount of RAM a 32-bit application can use is 3.96 GB. This game uses more than 3 GB fairly often so uh, had to correct you. :P

Since people crashing because the game exceeded the RAM limit is at such a low number, 64 bit client is not a priority. Otherwise I’m not seeing where it can help otherwise.

That’s a theoretical amount (a limitation of the processor in 32 bit mode)….but at least 512MB has to be allocated for the OS, so no Windows application can ever use more than 3.5GB (most should never go over 3GB). Also, the comparison to what it currently uses is pointless as with 64 bit code, there is no LONGER a 4 gallon tank everything MUST fit into. It opens up a myriad of possibilities that code changes in the Client could take advantage of that cannot be done now due to the 3GB limit.

Also, just having more memory available is NOT what would allow for some huge performance improvements (tho that would improve things like load times and swap file delays)….the entire game runs as a Database…it’s a flat file DB and that could GREATLY be performance improved with 64-bit code….(and not just loading more stuff into more available memory). Standard DB servers can have a +300% performance improvement when moved form 32 bit to 64 bit platforms (yes that’s a best case scenario and I am no implying the game would run 3 times better / faster).

Your point about memory crashes is valid, but the main reason is that developing 64-bit code properly (not just recompiling existing code) is a different programming skill set and is neither cheap nor easy. It just does not make economic sense when the game is currently running ok and generating revenue.

The majority of OOM crashes have been related to Textures. The more textures you load, the more the gw2.exe process has to load, and the more memory the 32bit app uses.

The most memory a single 32bit.exe process can load is 3.38GB. 512MB is used by the system, 128MB is used by the user environment. (under Win7 and Win8)

I have tested this thoroughly and have found the same results (the max ram I have EVER seen gw2.exe use was 3.12GB of ram), so that’s 260MB of ram that it still has to work with. (Max settings 1080p) (with Super Textures, Character quality, and Reflections turned down, my Game client floats between 2.6GB and 2.8GB at 1080p)

As for the Giant 18.4GB Database file. While a x64 based Database front end client will be able to handle opening, calling, and polling data in that large crappy file, a bit faster, there is still the inherent issue of it being a flat file DB. Also, its data structure is amended to the end of it and there are no DB maintenance plans to organize and re-order the dynamic indexes, a faster DB client/Engine will not take benefit from this design flaw.

(BTW, your 300% performance increase statement is only true for proper database servers. MySQL, MSSQl, Oracble, InnoDB…ect)

So no, currently a x64based client would not fix a lot of issues.

So you are saying 64bit data move commands would not improve performance…..with a straight face. I’m not talking about simply recompiling the existing code so it’s native 64 bit (that WOULD improve the performance a bit), but completely re-writing the client to take advantage of 64 bit specific code (mostly data moving).

Just recompiling the existing code to 64 bit executable would not result in much performance gain, with that I agree.

Brother Grimm.5176:

So you are saying 64bit data move commands would not improve performance…..with a straight face. I’m not talking about simply recompiling the existing code so it’s native 64 bit (that WOULD improve the performance a bit), but completely re-writing the client to take advantage of 64 bit specific code (mostly data moving).

Just recompiling the existing code to 64 bit executable would not result in much performance gain, with that I agree.

yes, just talking a recomipling (cheapest and fastest method)

If we are talking about a complete rebuild from the ground up, then we are talking about a completely different discussion.

from that perspective you can even talk different APIs, calls, and resource management systems. Thats an overhaul instead of a base code change.
But that single database with how its managed (it needs a cleanup system!!) is still going to be the software bottle neck no matter what they throw at this application/game.

Diablo.3416:

Behellagh.1468:

My feeling is the engine ran great until they added loads of players. By then it was too late to do anything significant.

It is basically a heavily modified engine that GW1 ran and that game was instanced based.

GW2 did appear to run a lot better in it’s early days I do agree.

This is what frustrates me – when I bought this a year + ago, it ran REALLY smoothly at “Best Appearance”, and I had nowhere NEAR the slideshow that world events and ginormous zergs have become.

Admittedly that was a bit after launch; but even between then and mergerservers (between which timeframes we saw a small decline in players in major events), performance seemed to continue to degrade.

For me, it got better this last patch, but worl events are still a lagfest.

Game runs fine ty Anet. Looks great too.

As for 64bit….There are very few cases where a 64bit native client will do anything for performance by it self. And as a matter of fact most 64bit operations have more overhead and in an already CPU starved process, could hurt performance. Also, you seem to be mixing up 32bit OS and 32bit program limitations. A single 32bit program can only use up to 3.96 GB, and this is not a theoretical limit, as 32bit OSs are not limited to 4GB of RAM and can use up to 64GB, as PAE has been around a long time and anyone who has worked with servers will know this, it is just that MS has always artificially limited the RAM limit on its OS, this can be seen even with new versions all 64bit, 7HB was 8GB, 7HP was 16GB and so on, if they wanted to they could have released a 32bit OS with the ability to use 64GB of RAM (and their 32bit server OSs did), however you would still be limited to the LARGE ADDRESS AWARE of the process to be able to use only 4GB, but would not be impacted by the memory overhead of the OS or other background processes.

You have some facts mixed up. PAE allows the OS to handle up to 64GB, but each individual program that is 32-bits is STILL limited to using 4GB total address space….PERIOD. You cannot compile a 32-bit program to use more memory (That’s a limitation of how an Intel processor works in 32-bit mode).

PAE allows for the OS to utilize additional memory so the use of Swap Files is greatly reduced when multiple processes are active (without PAE, all operations above the main memory size (or 4GB) must be handled by a swap file even if more than 4GB of memory is physically present).

Many of the designs behind the mechanics of GW2 can be a nuisance. Due to the way how their client works, I experience bad lag during peak times. The game’s client is fighting with one of the data server my ISP uses to send data to them due to the way the client works.

Fuji.6284:

Many of the designs behind the mechanics of GW2 can be a nuisance. Due to the way how their client works, I experience bad lag during peak times. The game’s client is fighting with one of the data server my ISP uses to send data to them due to the way the client works.

Seriously? Your ISP is throttling your bandwidth during peak times (it has become a very common practice with providers these days). Whoever told you it has anything to do with GW2’s client is flat out lying to you (let me guess….someone at your ISP?).

If that was a troll post, it was masterfully done….Kudos!

Brother Grimm.5176:

You have some facts mixed up. PAE allows the OS to handle up to 64GB, but each individual program that is 32-bits is STILL limited to using 4GB total address space….PERIOD. You cannot compile a 32-bit program to use more memory (That’s a limitation of how an Intel processor works in 32-bit mode).

PAE allows for the OS to utilize additional memory so the use of Swap Files is greatly reduced when multiple processes are active (without PAE, all operations above the main memory size (or 4GB) must be handled by a swap file even if more than 4GB of memory is physically present).

I am assuming you didn’t read my post, did you?

TinkTinkPOOF.9201:

I am assuming you didn’t read my post, did you?

Not completely….so my bad.

Brother Grimm.5176:

TinkTinkPOOF.9201:

I am assuming you didn’t read my post, did you?

Not completely….so my bad.

All good. Today 64bit processes are becoming more normal, and really there is no reason in this day not to write it as 64bit, even if it doesn’t need the address space, 32bit OSs have tapered off a great deal, only down side is some loss of backwards support with 16bit programs, on the business side of things we have some programs for tools that only have 16bit programs for them and as such keep around an old computer or two for using them, this is pretty common in some industrial fields and plants. But what we need is an API update above all, anything else is only going to be a FPS here or there, but the game is made and sold, and changing the API at this point is not going to happen, if we ever get an expansion like we heard about some time back, that would be the best chance we have for an API update, as it’s a large undertaking already, so why not do an API update for the better? Then again, if it is that big of an update and it is on a new API/engine, I expect it will not be a free expansion, but truth be told I would be fine with that so long as it had some worthy content with it.