EPTStormgate/Frost Giant Megathread - Page 162
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
| ||
|
gingerfluffmuffnr2
107 Posts
On August 17 2024 04:33 SoleSteeler wrote: The extremely bad reaction is almost comical at this point... seems a little overblown to me. Even positive posts I'm suspicious they're fake now! Fgs has a lot of work to do Self inflicted, what a way to fuck up a 40 mil investment | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16125 Posts
On August 17 2024 04:33 SoleSteeler wrote: The extremely bad reaction is almost comical at this point... seems a little overblown to me. Even positive posts I'm suspicious they're fake now! Fgs has a lot of work to do I genuinely encourage you to try the game for yourself if you don't believe how polarized the discourse around it is. It is free after all. I just wouldn't invest a penny in the game unless you know for sure that you like it enough to invest in its future development. I want to feel bad for the people who gave FrostGiant money based on their promises without ever seeing the final product, but then again, I can't feel bad for adults who are that reckless with their money. They gotta learn their lesson eventually. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17708 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On August 17 2024 04:33 SoleSteeler wrote: The extremely bad reaction is almost comical at this point... seems a little overblown to me. Even positive posts I'm suspicious they're fake now! Fgs has a lot of work to do Extremely online gamers have no concept of subtlety, every game is either 10/10 best thing ever or 0/10 worst thing ever. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On August 17 2024 08:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: How is netcode rollback doing during big battles? I read FG is telling people to turn it off. It often hurts rather than helping due to the massive CPU load involved with resimulating the last chunk of the game every time somebody gives a command, which makes fairly low framerates quite a lot lower and less stable. That means that you need a high end PC to benefit properly in 1v1, and probably shouldn't use it in co-op regardless because the CPU load will wreck your framerate and make the game misbehave for your allies as well. It has much more benefit and less cost if you have high ping, high end PC and are playing 1v1. Campaign is a lot laggier than Starcraft either way because you have to play it like a custom map, through the server. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On August 17 2024 11:10 Cyro wrote: It often hurts rather than helping due to the massive CPU load. It's a good benefit if there aren't many units on the map (so not co-op etc) and you have high ping. And IIRC it’s not spreading the load much across cores right? Kinda as SC2 Not that you’re privy to the internals or anything, but you do seem to know your shit, I assume there’s a whole bunch of optimisation that’s at least possible over time right? Otherwise I mean building a game where even 1v1 has a bigger supply cap, with an ostensible future big focus on co-op and 3v3 seems somewhat daft to do in conjunction with this higher tick rate engine + rollback etc | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
And IIRC it’s not spreading the load much across cores right? Kinda as SC2 For the core game simulation yes, and that's the repeated work with rolling back. I really don't know about the optimisation, there is probably a lot of minor stuff that can be done but when it comes to larger gains i am highly skeptical without revisiting the scope For co-op there are two big things that stick out to me, firstly that they're trying to increase the tick rate from 22.4hz to 64hz and secondly that they are going from 2 players to 3. Both of those changes probably each cut performance in half compared to SC2's 22.4hz 2vAI, which i feel does have a good performance level (it's heavy at times, but a reasonably low end PC can still play it and a high end PC can run smooth. It was bad in 2015 and aged out well). I believe that there is a critical need for radical improvement (like +200% rather than +20%) and have doubts that they can achieve that with those features. I raised the 3vAI having half of the performance of 2vAI and the huge performance hole when they had made only one co-op map but didn't get anywhere with it. Right now they have 3vAI live and a large fraction of games just lock up and fail to complete when more than a certain number of units get on the map and some PC can't handle it. They can probably technically fix that by making the game run in slowmotion or drop that player or something, but it's not going to be a good experience or let most players play with only iterative improvements. A faster tick rate for lockstep games is good, but only so long as the performance level of the game is where it needs to be. It's especially problematic in multiplayer because the speed of the slowest CPU playing the game will affect the gameplay of every other player. You see this in SC2 for example when playing Dead of Night, sometimes the game speed is 20% slower at night because your allies CPU is choking on all of the pathing AI and the game speed is adjusted downwards dynamically so that they can keep up without a desync or drop. That's rough, but with a far lower baseline performance level and 50% more players ingame (2 that aren't you, instead of 1) those kinds of negative effects are far more frequent, disruptive and unavoidable. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
On August 17 2024 05:43 Vindicare605 wrote: I genuinely encourage you to try the game for yourself if you don't believe how polarized the discourse around it is. It is free after all. I just wouldn't invest a penny in the game unless you know for sure that you like it enough to invest in its future development. I want to feel bad for the people who gave FrostGiant money based on their promises without ever seeing the final product, but then again, I can't feel bad for adults who are that reckless with their money. They gotta learn their lesson eventually. I've got 40 hours in (i was in the alpha) and genuinely enjoy it. I enjoyed it more later on after my first impressions last year. I got a 7800x3D CPU now - I just played a co-op game. My CPU usage never got that high (some cores around 40-50%, a couple around 80%). Maybe there's some performance bug. (Big difference from my i5-6600!) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
For an easy check if you're CPU bound, your GPU load will be under ~95% while you don't have an FPS cap on. You can also capture a game with a tool like capframex https://www.capframex.com/ to view and share performance with a high level of fidelity. | ||
|
KingzTig
155 Posts
| ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States695 Posts
On August 17 2024 13:01 KingzTig wrote: Uninstalled today. I just don't get the game. Everything about it just feels so boring, and some games you just spend more time creep farming than actually fighting strategic points with micro Yeah, totally agreed, that's how I feel about the game too. It feels boring, it feels trauma, like everything that's bad about a 1vs1 game is felt. | ||
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2371 Posts
| ||
|
kAra
Germany1437 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/CmHgQG7/dbdbdeb.jpg) | ||
|
sertas
Sweden890 Posts
| ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4369 Posts
On August 17 2024 18:15 sertas wrote: Doesn't look so dead to me. 3k+ concurrent daily peak is very good for a game of this quality. I don't know of any game this bad with this many players. First weekend after launch and it is advertised when you open steam. That will push you up a little bit. | ||
|
moomin22
30 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7188 Posts
On August 17 2024 19:33 moomin22 wrote: I see so many comments about "yeah but the 1v1 is amazing" and yet every try hard twitch streamer I watch is full of anger about the state of balance and the game (apart from the ones who are banking on this restarting their careers) People malding over 1v1 balance in a competitive RTS? Yeah, that never happened before :D | ||
|
kAra
Germany1437 Posts
| ||
|
Spirral
81 Posts
On August 17 2024 18:01 kAra wrote: Interesting how the all time peak (July 30th) was before the game even went F2P. That would mean it failed to attract any new players after the actual EA release? Nice case study of how not to release a game I guess... | ||
| ||
