|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On February 21 2015 00:39 Laserist wrote:
In forums someone mentioned that he/she contacted with the support and the team said that they isolate the fps problem related with "not utilizing the CPU fully" or some sort of thing. Also someone reported serious memory leak.
I can confirm it is not even remotely about the graphics card. My 970 would laugh to this engine with minimum graphics and still have shite fps after having moderate amount of units.
The good thing is this problem will be solved eventually at some point, I hope people'd return/buy the game after that.
The game definitely only uses a fraction of the hardware present in a computer, which might explain its FPS issue.
Well, if you have an 8 core CPU, sc2 only uses about 15% of it yet it's highly CPU bound.. it just doesn't run as badly as this game does. IF, and really gotta stress the IF they have some kind of issue where they can just adjust a few lines of code or recompile the game and performance triples, then sweet, awesome for them - but i doubt they can do much without a huge engine rework. That's why i'm extremely skeptical and cautious when i look at a game and it performs TERRIBLY on high end hardware. They're rarely fixed, sc2 has a lot of problems and it's much higher profile. It's still a 32 bit directx 9 game that maxes one core and uses like 40% of a second core and has massive frame pacing issues so that 50fps in sc2 is less smooth than 30-35fps in some other games.
The other one that i played recently was Wildstar with similar issues (best hardware dropping below 30fps in situations where it's really not acceptable to have laggy and slow game, some of the hardest and probably twitchiest raid content to ever be seen in an MMO) and that saw minor improvements but studio's that are sinking like Carbine and maybe the Grey Goo developers often just won't bother to rewrite half of their game engine if they didn't even take the time to get it right the first time, sadly
|
On February 21 2015 06:37 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 00:39 Laserist wrote:
In forums someone mentioned that he/she contacted with the support and the team said that they isolate the fps problem related with "not utilizing the CPU fully" or some sort of thing. Also someone reported serious memory leak.
I can confirm it is not even remotely about the graphics card. My 970 would laugh to this engine with minimum graphics and still have shite fps after having moderate amount of units.
The good thing is this problem will be solved eventually at some point, I hope people'd return/buy the game after that. Show nested quote +The game definitely only uses a fraction of the hardware present in a computer, which might explain its FPS issue. Well, if you have an 8 core CPU, sc2 only uses about 15% of it yet it's highly CPU bound.. it just doesn't run as badly as this game does. IF, and really gotta stress the IF they have some kind of issue where they can just adjust a few lines of code or recompile the game and performance triples, then sweet, awesome for them - but i doubt they can do much without a huge engine rework. That's why i'm extremely skeptical and cautious when i look at a game and it performs TERRIBLY on high end hardware. They're rarely fixed, sc2 has a lot of problems and it's much higher profile. It's still a 32 bit directx 9 game that maxes one core and uses like 40% of a second core and has massive frame pacing issues so that 50fps in sc2 is less smooth than 30-35fps in some other games. The other one that i played recently was Wildstar with similar issues (best hardware dropping below 30fps in situations where it's really not acceptable to have laggy and slow game, some of the hardest and probably twitchiest raid content to ever be seen in an MMO) and that saw minor improvements but studio's that are sinking like Carbine and maybe the Grey Goo developers often just won't bother to rewrite half of their game engine if they didn't even take the time to get it right the first time, sadly
I think it is early to talk about what gates the performance and how hard it is to solve since we have no clue what the problem actually is and how easy to fix it. It seems a major issue to me but I'll stay skeptical until any dev told us otherwise.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On February 21 2015 08:04 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 06:37 Cyro wrote:On February 21 2015 00:39 Laserist wrote:
In forums someone mentioned that he/she contacted with the support and the team said that they isolate the fps problem related with "not utilizing the CPU fully" or some sort of thing. Also someone reported serious memory leak.
I can confirm it is not even remotely about the graphics card. My 970 would laugh to this engine with minimum graphics and still have shite fps after having moderate amount of units.
The good thing is this problem will be solved eventually at some point, I hope people'd return/buy the game after that. The game definitely only uses a fraction of the hardware present in a computer, which might explain its FPS issue. Well, if you have an 8 core CPU, sc2 only uses about 15% of it yet it's highly CPU bound.. it just doesn't run as badly as this game does. IF, and really gotta stress the IF they have some kind of issue where they can just adjust a few lines of code or recompile the game and performance triples, then sweet, awesome for them - but i doubt they can do much without a huge engine rework. That's why i'm extremely skeptical and cautious when i look at a game and it performs TERRIBLY on high end hardware. They're rarely fixed, sc2 has a lot of problems and it's much higher profile. It's still a 32 bit directx 9 game that maxes one core and uses like 40% of a second core and has massive frame pacing issues so that 50fps in sc2 is less smooth than 30-35fps in some other games. The other one that i played recently was Wildstar with similar issues (best hardware dropping below 30fps in situations where it's really not acceptable to have laggy and slow game, some of the hardest and probably twitchiest raid content to ever be seen in an MMO) and that saw minor improvements but studio's that are sinking like Carbine and maybe the Grey Goo developers often just won't bother to rewrite half of their game engine if they didn't even take the time to get it right the first time, sadly I think it is early to talk about what gates the performance and how hard it is to solve since we have no clue what the problem actually is and how easy to fix it. It seems a major issue to me but I'll stay skeptical until any dev told us otherwise.
Well it's almost certainly CPU related, but you could easily confirm that for sure in about 5 minutes. That's a very broad issue though.
|
On February 21 2015 08:13 Cyro wrote:
Well it's almost certainly CPU related, but you could easily confirm that for sure in about 5 minutes. That's a very broad issue though.
I completely agree as I stated in my first post. My 970 should chew this game in min. settings. I just am not sure about how big it is to fix.
|
On February 20 2015 18:47 -Archangel- wrote:
Even after the patch the number of players keep dropping fairly fast. Now it is under 350 at peak.
And top players have problems finding games within few minutes due to too little of a player base.
Many streamers have also left it as well. I wonder if devs plan to do something about this soon.
other than lower the price. what do you expect them to do?
as i said months ago. it was bad move to avoid having the beta test they promised.
they are now paying the price for this.
i remember in their "apology" they mentioned how they "hoped" to have a full beta test.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions, apologies, and hopes.
what is the over/under on the # of days before this game ends up in some kind of "Humble Bundle" ?
i say about 280... just in time for XMas.
|
On February 21 2015 03:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 23:17 StalkerFang wrote:On February 20 2015 19:43 GGzerG wrote:On February 20 2015 18:47 -Archangel- wrote:
Even after the patch the number of players keep dropping fairly fast. Now it is under 350 at peak.
And top players have problems finding games within few minutes due to too little of a player base.
Many streamers have also left it as well. I wonder if devs plan to do something about this soon. It is just honestly boring because it is too slow paced and needs things like replays. I am honestly a little upset I paid so much money for it and got so hype about it. I hope it becomes better with updates / new expansion pack or something still though, it is fun but I think the biggest problem is that everything is too slow, besides the fact that artillery + anti air just seems like the focal point of the game, which is also boring because it leads to stale mates and randomness IMO. EDIT : No i'm not in Korea, I have been streaming on Afreeca.TV, it is the Global Afreeca for non Koreans :-P I'm not sure that the devs will be open to changing the pacing issues with the game to be honest. I played in the beta and was super hyped about the game but decided not to buy it because of this. The slow speed of the game and honestly fairly boring units was one of the biggest complaints from what I saw. The devs want the game to be more about strategic choices rather than macro and micro mechanics, which was unfortunate for me because honestly micro is my favorite part of SC2. While I'm on this topic, the other thing that annoyed me about the game was the design approach for the humans. They literally designed the humans to be 'the turtle race', when in my opinion discouraging turtling should be one of the key goals of any RTS. I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that turtling is a healthy strategy in any game really (camping in FPS etc), so it blew my mind that they would actively try and design a race around it. I was never much good at the game at all but playing against turtling humans made me want to rip my hair out. Is this actually how the human race ended up being played at a high level? I'd be very interested to know. Also I think walls and air units with ammo restrictions are annoying, but that's just my opinion. I haven't really thought about whether it's good design. Well human can try to turtle with 0 supply turrets but Goo and Beta Epic units wreck them. You just to need to guard the Epics from teleport until it is finished. After that take the epics and some units and go wreck their base. Human Epic is weakest by far and if they turtle too much they can easily get themselves into unwinnable situation. Unlike Sc2 where Protoss turtle actually takes them to unstopable armies (at least for average gamers).
Yeah that's good, originally I was really against the idea of the epic units but they're a really good solution to a heavily turtling opponent.
|
The performance issues are one problem.
Lacking features like replays etc an other one.
Now please don´t get me wrong I don´t think it is a bad game.
I just have a really hard time seeing this game be a succesful multiplayer title.
I feel the kind of rts player that actually plays rts games outside of the campaign and skirmishes wants things this game just won´t offer.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
I just want vast performance improvements (it's 2015.. Total Annihilation ran fine 18 years ago with hundreds of units and "3d" terrain, projectiles etc - if you can't get enough performance with new features on the highest end hardware, don't make them mandatory!) as well as replays, maybe spectate function and then some very obvious major balance problems like humans being able to put conduit on huge fractions of some maps, but only tiny corners of others due to the areas that you can and can't build over. With that, plus a steady cycle of maps, it could make for a fun casual 1v1/2v2 game
i'm just frustrated with the performance because my idea of an ideal RTS/FPS game.. the first thing that comes to mind is the input has to work, units have to respond well. I don't like the feeling of having to fight with my UI and microstutter to do basic functions like moving the camera, and grey goo and starcraft 2, even though we have 18 years of CPU development, perform like TRASH compared to the old RTS games i used to play. Total Annihilation, Warcraft 3 - cmon, we got this right. Why are we breaking it? If it's a surprise to devs that their game runs badly, it really shouldn't be. Performance either -is- or should be the first consideration. An amazing game that performs badly on high end hardware and is unplayable for some of the more fun game modes on midrange systems isn't an amazing game any more and there's just no way around that.
welcome to TL btw~
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
To be honest, there is absolutely nothing strange in RTS games being CPU taxing. Pathing algorithms alone can eat 100% of resources with ease. And it's not like pathing is some "new" feature, nah, it's mandatory. Add the certain limitations of natural RTS engine and it becomes apparent that it is rather tricky (to not say unbearable) to make a modern RTS that uses more than a single core efficiently.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
They can drop everything on 1 core if they want, but there's no reason for somebody with the fastest CPU on the planet to see 30-60fps in 1v1 for big portions of the game just because you have lots of units or you're near a human base~
considering you'll get half the performance in 2v2 and people with far weaker CPU's have to be able to play the game effectively
|
Well yeah I have a GTX 980 and quite frankly speaking I can´t think of a RTS with worse performance than Grey Goo.
This kind of kills the game before you even get to the point where you invest a lot of time in it.
|
On February 21 2015 15:37 lolfail9001 wrote:
To be honest, there is absolutely nothing strange in RTS games being CPU taxing. Pathing algorithms alone can eat 100% of resources with ease. And it's not like pathing is some "new" feature, nah, it's mandatory. Add the certain limitations of natural RTS engine and it becomes apparent that it is rather tricky (to not say unbearable) to make a modern RTS that uses more than a single core efficiently.
Tell that to Oxcide devs that made a RTS engine that is 64 bit only and uses all cores very well and as result can do stuff GG can only dream of.
|
more apologies .. wishes.. hopes and dreams...
https://www.greybox.com/greygoo/en/forum/topic/2052/?page=1#post-18909
"I am editing the video to have an overlay that states that we are looking to support dedicated servers."
lots of big promises for the future and mediocre execution.
i said it once ... i'll again...
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
|
Too bad. I was hoping for a good new rts game. Guess i will buy it later in a steam deal.
|
Yeah, performance killed this for me.... I really don't get how you can put a game out that runs this BAD... AND i don't get how this wasn't obvious in the early versions the developers made...
|
On February 22 2015 08:42 Velr wrote:
Yeah, performance killed this for me.... I really don't get how you can put a game out that runs this BAD... AND i don't get how this wasn't obvious in the early versions the developers made...
it was obvious.... please see my post from a long long time ago.
please note my complaint about framerate issues.
i was really negative on this game right from the closed alpha... and i had lots of people in agreement with me.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/472556-grey-goo-new-rts-from-original-c-and-c-devs?page=4#75
|
On February 22 2015 08:42 Velr wrote:
Yeah, performance killed this for me.... I really don't get how you can put a game out that runs this BAD... AND i don't get how this wasn't obvious in the early versions the developers made...
The problem isn't how hard it is to find. Its about how hard it is to fix and prevent.
Writing code that supports the many things needed for a complex game while having that code be as lean and efficient as possible is very technical and time consuming, all to often corners get cut and then when months down the line you discover that your game lags at 100 units on the screen it is to late to fix it without going back and re-writing large parts.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On February 21 2015 23:53 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 15:37 lolfail9001 wrote:
To be honest, there is absolutely nothing strange in RTS games being CPU taxing. Pathing algorithms alone can eat 100% of resources with ease. And it's not like pathing is some "new" feature, nah, it's mandatory. Add the certain limitations of natural RTS engine and it becomes apparent that it is rather tricky (to not say unbearable) to make a modern RTS that uses more than a single core efficiently. Tell that to Oxcide devs that made a RTS engine that is 64 bit only and uses all cores very well and as result can do stuff GG can only dream of.
The only stuff from Oxide that i'm aware of is Star Swarm, which doesn't actually see good core usage and performance unless you're using nvidia+directx12, though it's a very extreme scenario by design
all to often corners get cut and then when months down the line you discover that your game lags at 100 units on the screen it is to late to fix it without going back and re-writing large parts.
That's why i'm of the strong opinion that you should compromise on whatever you was trying to do gameplay-wise instead of even risking getting to the point where nobody can run your game. If you have to think "well, this might actually perform quite badly" then you should already be very seriously thinking about how it runs, how it will run and what you can do to change that. The standard "We're aware of performance issues and looking into it" afterthought just doesn't work and has killed several high profile games.
|
If the framerate issue is cpu related, I wonder if I can take my graphics off minimum without it affecting my framerate...
|
man this game is a letdown
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
