The thing that’s really annoying is when you move/cancel the blunder’s animation the animation starts where ever their standing even if their not near the electric water.
This is probably the worst experience I’ve had in this game so far; if you’re not a two-shotting warrior or thief, that just so happens to have berserker gear, have fun completing this achievement.
What else is there to do in the game? Grinding legendaries is almost the same as grinding achievements.
I don’t do either, and I’ve been playing off an on since last September. If you really don’t see any other options this isn’t the right game for you.
I asked what else is there to do in this game and you say the game isn’t for me, what? I don’t think you’re aware endgame is pretty much cosmetic.
I have 14 character slots and five max-level toons. I’ve never done guild missions, fractals, and only ever entered one dungeon since I started playing the game, and I have not yet run out of things to do. Most of my toons have a specific look that I like, I’m an artist and visual appeal is very important to me.
There is no such thing as “endgame.”
So you’re saying endgame is rerolling chars? Wonderful!
Not rerolling, rolling new ones. It is endgame for some people, including myself. Endgame is what you make it.
If you aren’t going to play the game then why should you get what others have received? If you’re late to the bucks party and the stripper is just packing up, do you really think she/he will perform again just for you?
Achievement points are just a bit of fun (much like strippers!). If you’re able to treat them as such then you may feel less disappointment.
Rerolling chars isn’t fun for a lot of people. Not having access to achievements is redundant, it’s like buying a game and saying “Hey look at all these achievements you’ll never get because we locked the content away” Also comparing video games to strippers, what the kitten?
There’s a Moa race achievement, it cost 50 silver a pop at a chance to get the achievement, how are new players suppose to afford this? This is ridiculous, I’m pretty sure less than 1% of players actually have all the achievements.
Why the sudden change? Last year the achievements were feasible, even the holiday ones, now it’s just pointless
Okay now this I have an objection too. The Emporer title costs a whole lot more than 50 silver and that’s been in the game since launch. How are new players supposed to get it? They save for it, that’s how.
Not everything needs to be attainable right away.
Yeah but the Moa Race achievement is time limited, the Emperor title is permanent and allows people to work for it in time
The moa race is permanent content, not time limited.
I thought it was part of the dragon bash achievements?
What else is there to do in the game? Grinding legendaries is almost the same as grinding achievements.
I don’t do either, and I’ve been playing off an on since last September. If you really don’t see any other options this isn’t the right game for you.
I asked what else is there to do in this game and you say the game isn’t for me, what? I don’t think you’re aware endgame is pretty much cosmetic.
I have 14 character slots and five max-level toons. I’ve never done guild missions, fractals, and only ever entered one dungeon since I started playing the game, and I have not yet run out of things to do. Most of my toons have a specific look that I like, I’m an artist and visual appeal is very important to me.
There is no such thing as “endgame.”
So you’re saying endgame is rerolling chars? Wonderful!
I’m saying if you don’t find within yourself a reason to continue playing, don’t expect Anet to hand-deliver one in a gold-plated box.
I never said I wouldn’t stop playing, I just said achievements at this point are bogus because of temporary content.
What else is there to do in the game? Grinding legendaries is almost the same as grinding achievements.
I don’t do either, and I’ve been playing off an on since last September. If you really don’t see any other options this isn’t the right game for you.
I asked what else is there to do in this game and you say the game isn’t for me, what? I don’t think you’re aware endgame is pretty much cosmetic.
I have 14 character slots and five max-level toons. I’ve never done guild missions, fractals, and only ever entered one dungeon since I started playing the game, and I have not yet run out of things to do. Most of my toons have a specific look that I like, I’m an artist and visual appeal is very important to me.
There is no such thing as “endgame.”
So you’re saying endgame is rerolling chars? Wonderful!
Someone pointed out in another thread that there are some WvWvW related achievements that will literally take YEARS of dedicated effort to achieve. And I don’t mean one or two years, I mean doing the same exact thing 8 hours a day for like five years without a day off.
If you seriously consider ticking off a series of boxes on a list to be such an important activity that it will consume years of your life, I feel sorry for you.
I don’t see a problem with achievements that would take years to get, I have a problem with achievements that expire and never have access to. This game is almost built around completing achievements. So what’s the point? Why bother with achievements anymore?
I never bothered with them in the first place. I play the game and once in a while a message pops up “Harpy Slayer – 2000 kills” I say “huh,” and continue playing. But I don’t go “oh, I still need my 5000 kills with a left-handed cheese grater achievement, I’ll buy an exotic one off the TP and dedicate the next week of my life to grating every mob I see.”
But then, I grew up during an era where they didn’t hand out trophies just for showing up. I don’t need a gold star on my homework assignment to feel good about myself.
If the game itself isn’t enough to keep you playing, why should a checklist and a handful of titles make it so?
What else is there to do in the game? Grinding legendaries is almost the same as grinding achievements.
Someone pointed out in another thread that there are some WvWvW related achievements that will literally take YEARS of dedicated effort to achieve. And I don’t mean one or two years, I mean doing the same exact thing 8 hours a day for like five years without a day off.
If you seriously consider ticking off a series of boxes on a list to be such an important activity that it will consume years of your life, I feel sorry for you.
I don’t see a problem with achievements that would take years to get, I have a problem with achievements that expire and never have access to. This game is almost built around completing achievements. So what’s the point? Why bother with achievements anymore?
There’s a Moa race achievement, it cost 50 silver a pop at a chance to get the achievement, how are new players suppose to afford this? This is ridiculous, I’m pretty sure less than 1% of players actually have all the achievements.
Why the sudden change? Last year the achievements were feasible, even the holiday ones, now it’s just pointless
Okay now this I have an objection too. The Emporer title costs a whole lot more than 50 silver and that’s been in the game since launch. How are new players supposed to get it? They save for it, that’s how.
Not everything needs to be attainable right away.
Yeah but the Moa Race achievement is time limited, the Emperor title is permanent and allows people to work for it in time
There’s a Moa race achievement, it cost 50 silver a pop at a chance to get the achievement, how are new players suppose to afford this? This is ridiculous, I’m pretty sure less than 1% of players actually have all the achievements.
Why the sudden change? Last year the achievements were feasible, even the holiday ones, now it’s just pointless
I quit last year sometime after the Karka event, I’m back and I noticed I missed 4 or 5 temporary events that I can’t complete the achievements for. From what I heard Anet does this to bring players back in.
So, what’s the point? Collecting achievements is about completeness but I’m unable to complete them in the first place. I could even go back to GW1 and start grinding achievements for Hall of Monuments in GW2.
This is very discouraging for new players and returning players, does anyone else feel the same?
The 20 slot bag alone makes the whole thing worth it. Those things are bloody expensive.
The Karka Shell trinket is really nice too. If you didn’t get that it sucks. Everything else is, meh.
And “DOZENS of gold” is a serious exaggeration. It’s probably 2-5g worth of exotics was the average for level 80s.
Yeah the 20 slot bag made it worth it, but the level 80s had a chance of getting a precursor on top of the bag. What’s the use of low level exotics? What’s the use of level 80 exotics?
The store halloween items were account bound, why not make the books account bound also? And who had time to get all the pages on all their characters? What if I wanted to simply change my name/profession/race after the event was over? Nope , sorry, soulbound, try again next year.
I use a Glamour Build. I’m not 80 yet (50 actually) but this has been great for everything I’ve wanted to do so far. I swap Focus and Torch depending on what’s going on.
Yes, this is the exact glamour build I’m talking about. But why use any other build over a glass cannon in WvW?
Edit: Also why did you get Halting Strike? Doesn’t seem worth it.
From personal experience it seems the best way to be effective in WvW is build like a glass cannon. I’ve tried a glamour/confusion build and it only worked decently defending against zergs which is only about 10-20% of my whole time spent in a WvW; for me at least. If you even attempt to skirmish small groups or 1v1 with a glamour build you’ll more than likely end up losing if their built like a glass cannon.
So, is this why Rune of Divinity are the most expensive and sought after runes because WvW = Glass cannon?
1) I stated how to fix the FX8000’s problem in my second post which you obviously did not read
“start /AFFINITY 55 /B /WAIT c:\path\to\gw2.exe”
2) The 1090t has 6 cores. The FX8000 has 4 with hyperthreading. Likewise, the FX4000 is really a dual-core CPU. I don’t care what the spec sheet says, I trust the technical data more.
3) I redid my comparison of 3.2 vs 4.8GHz. And it’s still a linear increase at 1024×768 because it was CPU-limited to begin with, even at 5760×1080.
It was a 3ghz to 4ghz overclock by tom’s hardware, I don’t know why you’re addressing to me and not them. Also how does 2500k overclocking correlate to this thread’s topic?
And, again, for the 4th? 4th time?? This topic is not about AMD vs Intel. This thread was over on day one, but you babies keep flocking back stating the obvious. How long has the FX series been out? Almost a year now? You’d think after almost a year the intel fanboys would have gone home by then…
Here you go I cropped in the attachment this time because you are clearly have eye problems.
Get your facts straight. You are just refusing to see that the Phenom X6 and the FX-8150 are very different architectures. Past results are not assurance of anything. The bulldozer architecture has severe drawbacks in many areas, that may show up or not depending on the CPU task, and will show up especially in desktop performance, as the bulldozer architecture is heavily oriented to server workloads.
Bulldozer weak spots:
Shared Op Decoders
Less integer execution units
High L2 cache latency
High Branch Misprediction Penalty
Low L1 Instruction Cache Hit Rate
Desktop Performance Was Not the Priority
No matter how rough the current implementation of Bulldozer is, if you look a bit deeper, this is not the architecture that is made for high-IPC, branch intensive, lightly-threaded applications. Higher clock speeds and Turbo Core should have made Zambezi a decent chip for enthusiasts. The CPU was supposed to offer 20 to 30% higher clock speeds at roughly the same power consumption, but in the end it could only offer a 10% boost at slightly higher power consumption. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5057/the-bulldozer-aftermath-delving-even-deeper/12
“Past results are not assurance of anything” lol right.
You’re stating the obvious again, you’re starting to bore me.
We’re focusing on minimal fps because unlike many other SP/MP games Guild Wars 2 and generally most mmos are CPU bound and not limited by the GPU. Hence why tom’s hardware reviewers adjusted the settings low and use high end GPUs to help show the CPU performance and not the GPU’s performance. This is why we look at the minimal fps; they show the most CPU intensive parts of the game, i.e ZERGS.
Yes, the minimum fps usually happens at the most intesive parts of the game. However you cannot accurately interpret them in a benchmark because it doesn’t state whether its an isolated case or if it happens a lot. It’s not a standard deviation. You can’t state with bar charts how often a particular gfx dips to low fps, you need a performance curve.
A videocard that dips once or twice into low minimum fps is very different than one that consistently goes there. Look at the example benchmark screenshot below. Would you say the GTX 680 is the better card, since it has a min fps of 45 vs the 7970 that has 38? Ofc not. The averages paint the better picture. (Taken from HardOCP).
A FX-8150 and a 1100T will go back and forth on synthetic benchmarks, but the point is they are synthetic and not real world gaming results. Look at World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, and Civilization V which are CPU bound games; the FX-8150 performs similarly to a 1100T when it comes to CPU bound games. On the other hand the 1100T is performing significantly better (30% BETTER) than the FX-8150 when it comes to this game, Guild Wars 2.
True, the discrepancy is monumental. However, due to bulldozer’s architecture differences, it’s still a gamble which performance improvements can be done to alleviate this.
Overclocking high TDP CPUs is much more difficult than low TDP ones? Wrong. The black edition CPUs are known for being unlocked and having a high TDP for amazing overclocks. I honestly don’t know why you replied to this because you missed the point I was trying to make to that person; Let me give you an example off the wall example, “I’m going to buy this super duper energy efficient desktop computer! But the model of my car is a 2004 Hummer H2!”
The tomshardware reviews you linked are irrelevant to this conversation since we were talking about Pentium Dual cores and not i3s. On top of that the games benchmarked are GPU bound and not CPU bound. I’m sure even old Athlons can maintain 60 fps minimal on these SP/MP games.
If you find the links irrelevant, then I really don’t know what else to say. The first link compared the FX-4100@3.6GHz with an i3-2100@3.1GHz that is very close to a Pentium G680. The second link is a $500 PC that uses a Pentium G680 in various benchmarks. You said “A Pentium Dual core might be a good choice over an FX CPU, if you want to pay $90 to play one certain game…” — this proves that a Pentium G680 can chug away nicely in many more than just one game…
Here’s my attachment again; don’t let it go over your head too.
Lol. Hardly. I’ve probably used more AMD CPUs in my life than Intel ones. I just don’t think AMD is going in the right direction at the moment. They are distancing from Intel to go the ARM route. Lets see how that turns out.
And, again, for the 4th? 4th time?? This topic is not about AMD vs Intel. This thread was over on day one, but you babies keep flocking back stating the obvious. How long has the FX series been out? Almost a year now? You’d think after almost a year the intel fanboys would have gone home by then…
Update Sept 27: We’ve re-tested the game with the release client and we’re not seeing a notable performance difference. The Core i5 gained a few FPS (as did the AMD FX-4100 to a lesser extent), but all of the other results remain similar to our published numbers. NCSoft let us know that they’re working with AMD to improve FX-series CPU performance, and if this happens in the near future we may revisit Guild Wars 2 with new benchmarks.
Here you go I cropped in the attachment this time because you are clearly have eye problems.
You keep mentioning “best case scenario” like it means anything.
Yes, sorry the average fps. So tell me why I would care about fps over my monitor’s refresh rate or care more about average fps over my min. fps. Excluding min. fps is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
Do you even know what an average of a distribution means? Trading the average for the minimum is trading a measure of centrality of a distribution that uses all data points vs one data point. This is why I generally don’t like when benchmark sites post minimum fps measures — if they posted the standard deviation, at least people would go read about what that means.
An underclocked FX-4000 @ 3.0ghz to stock 4.0ghz resulted in a 41-43% increase in performance while the 2500k gained 4 min. fps. As for an FX-4000 beating a G860 slighty at stock clocks, take in to account the FX-8150 doing 20-27% worse than an 1100T only in Guild Wars 2. Also take in to account the mediocre overclocking the G860 is able to accomplish.
And yeah TDP a dual core vs a 4 core, I’ll take that into account when users use multi-monitors, multi-gpus, drive gasoline cars, and accidently leave their lights on.
Sorry, but no. Overclocking high TDP CPUs is much more difficult than low TDP ones. The FX-4100 is a 95W CPU — that’s the same as an i5-2500K. Inefficiency per Watt at its best.
We’re focusing on minimal fps because unlike many other SP/MP games Guild Wars 2 and generally most mmos are CPU bound and not limited by the GPU. Hence why tom’s hardware reviewers adjusted the settings low and use high end GPUs to help show the CPU performance and not the GPU’s performance. This is why we look at the minimal fps; they show the most CPU intensive parts of the game, i.e ZERGS.
A FX-8150 and a 1100T will go back and forth on synthetic benchmarks, but the point is they are synthetic and not real world gaming results. Look at World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, and Civilization V which are CPU bound games; the FX-8150 performs similarly to a 1100T when it comes to CPU bound games. On the other hand the 1100T is performing significantly better (30% BETTER) than the FX-8150 when it comes to this game, Guild Wars 2.
Overclocking high TDP CPUs is much more difficult than low TDP ones? Wrong. The black edition CPUs are known for being unlocked and having a high TDP for amazing overclocks. I honestly don’t know why you replied to this because you missed the point I was trying to make to that person; Let me give you an example off the wall example, “I’m going to buy this super duper energy efficient desktop computer! But the model of my car is a 2004 Hummer H2!”
The tomshardware reviews you linked are irrelevant to this conversation since we were talking about Pentium Dual cores and not i3s. On top of that the games benchmarked are GPU bound and not CPU bound. I’m sure even old Athlons can maintain 60 fps minimal on these SP/MP games.
Here’s my attachment again; don’t let it go over your head too.
1) Yes, Tom’s Hardware knows how to benchmark games. Min fps on a CPU bound chart is still a best-case scenario. As soon as you put a lesser GPU in that system (or increase the resolution), everything will decrease. Read my post above.
2) If you want to compare CPU prices, do it in an unbiased way:
i5-2500K priced at ~$220 — 68.9fps — 100%
Pentium G860 priced at $90 — 52.9fps — 76.8%
FX-4000 priced at ~$105-$120 —31.9fps -- 46.3%
Sorry, but there is no possible reason for choosing any AMD processor for this game, at this moment. I really hope that can change in the future.
What does it being best-case scenario have to with anything anyways? No one is talking about GPU performance.
I wasn’t talking about GPU performance either. Those are CPU performance numbers.
And there’s a problem with your percentages; it only takes into account the highest possible fps and excludes the most demanding parts (min. fps). There’s also another problem using this chart because all CPUs are clocked at 3.0ghz and doesn’t show the performance out the box or what would happen with overclocking potential. What this chart does show is clock for clock performance which is irrelevant unless you’re dumb enough to down clock your CPU on purpose to play games.
Getting a little bit bias there pal’
These are not based on highest possible fps, but average fps — huge difference there. There is no reason to compare minimum fps, other than seeing an estimate on the variation of the measure.
Lets do another comparison then:
i5-2500K@3GHz priced at ~$220 — 68.9fps — 100%
Pentium G860@3GHz priced at $90 — 52.9fps — 76.8%
FX-4000@4GHz priced at ~$105-$120 —54.4fps -- 79%
A 1GHz overclock yielded 1.5fps on a best-case scenario over the Pentium G860… lol
Lets not even compare the TDP numbers between both architectures, if you have to pay for your energy.
You keep mentioning “best case scenario” like it means anything.
Yes, sorry the average fps. So tell me why I would care about fps over my monitor’s refresh rate or care more about average fps over my min. fps. Excluding min. fps is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
An underclocked FX-4000 @ 3.0ghz to stock 4.0ghz resulted in a 41-43% increase in performance while the 2500k gained 4 min. fps. As for an FX-4000 beating a G860 slighty at stock clocks, take in to account the FX-8150 doing 20-27% worse than an 1100T only in Guild Wars 2. Also take in to account the mediocre overclocking the G860 is able to accomplish.
And yeah TDP a dual core vs a 4 core, I’ll take that into account when users use multi-monitors, multi-gpus, drive gasoline cars, and accidently leave their lights on.
A Pentium Dual core might be a good choice over an FX CPU, if you want to pay $90 to play one certain game…
CPU benchmarks using game engines are made so as to answer the question “If you had a GPU with infinite performance, how far would your CPU be able to push the game?”. That’s why a 7970@1280x1024 is used, so that the GPU is not the bottleneck, the CPU is.
Please note Tom’s Hardware probably knows how to benchmark games and more than likely don’t stare at sky or walls to make their reviews; surely the min. fps means the most CPU intensive moments, i.e zergs…
I also don’t know how many more times I have to post these, it’s like you Intel Faboys have blinders on strictly for any relevant information regarding AMD CPUs.
Lets get this straight.
1) Yes, Tom’s Hardware knows how to benchmark games. Min fps on a CPU bound chart is still a best-case scenario. As soon as you put a lesser GPU in that system (or increase the resolution), everything will decrease. Read my post above.
2) If you want to compare CPU prices, do it in an unbiased way:
i5-2500K priced at ~$220 — 68.9fps — 100%
Pentium G860 priced at $90 — 52.9fps — 76.8%
FX-4000 priced at ~$105-$120 —31.9fps -- 46.3%
Sorry, but there is no possible reason for choosing any AMD processor for this game, at this moment. I really hope that can change in the future.
What does it being best-case scenario have to with anything anyways? No one is talking about GPU performance.
And there’s a problem with your percentages; it only takes into account the highest possible fps and excludes the most demanding parts (min. fps). There’s also another problem using this chart because all CPUs are clocked at 3.0ghz and doesn’t show the performance out the box or what would happen with overclocking potential. What this chart does show is clock for clock performance which is irrelevant unless you’re dumb enough to down clock your CPU on purpose to play games.
I never said “intel 4 lyfe” or “AMD sux balls”. I gave the main reason why the Bulldozer architecture was a huge flop and linked an article that explains it in more detail. Are you gonna say that every major reviewer is also an Intel fanboy for stating the same things I did?
As for the benchmarks, I had a linear increase going from 3.2GHz/29fps to 4.7GHz/39fps in a controlled test (the same scene up logout/login, overlay in far top-right). This doesn’t mean that TH benchmarked the game wrong; I just can’t reproduce the results they got on my hardware with regards to OC’ing a 2500k.
No one is arguing you tool, you come in a thread spouting things everyone already knows. This isn’t an hurr derr AMD vs Intel topic. WE KNOW BULLDOZER DIDN’T PERFORM AS EXPECTED, AMD KNOWS, EVERYONE KNOWS. FOR THE 3RD TIME. LOOK AT THE CHARTS. Now tell me why Guild Wars 2 is the only game that has a problem with certain AMD CPUs? Now don’t ramble off this time and state the obvious again.
Also the TH results were done at 1280×1024 not 5760×1080, no wonder you’re having problems replicating the results.
4100 is getting 41 min. fps @ 4ghz It’s really not that bad when you OC. I wouldn’t worry about it
Kalec.6589 is correct, those CPU benchmarks show a best in case scenario, meaning its only going downhill from there.
CPU benchmarks using game engines are made so as to answer the question “If you had a GPU with infinite performance, how far would your CPU be able to push the game?”. That’s why a 7970@1280x1024 is used, so that the GPU is not the bottleneck, the CPU is.
Please note Tom’s Hardware probably knows how to benchmark games and more than likely don’t stare at sky or walls to make their reviews; surely the min. fps means the most CPU intensive moments, i.e zergs…
I also don’t know how many more times I have to post these, it’s like you Intel Faboys have blinders on strictly for any relevant information regarding AMD CPUs.
