EPTAlso looking for FPS fluctuations seems kinda negative for the concentration on the game. Although when the mothership was new, you could tell when it spawned and cloaked the surrounding units
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread - Page 177
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
gingerfluffmuffnr2
107 Posts
Also looking for FPS fluctuations seems kinda negative for the concentration on the game. Although when the mothership was new, you could tell when it spawned and cloaked the surrounding units | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17708 Posts
https://old.reddit.com/r/Stormgate/comments/1f7s2jb/frost_giants_snowplay_gif_in_the_kickstarter_is/ Without "Snowplay" this game might best be developed in the SC2 world builder and played on BNet. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
Same with rollback - unless it's mostly designed to smooth out the cross-server experience. If this game ran at a lower tick rate (even the same as SC2) would that boost the performance? I don't fully understand it all anyway. edit: the funny thing is that the left side of that GIF is what SG looked like for me on a bad PC in late game co-op.  The occasional 1+ second stutter, sometimes 10+ seconds which was always super odd.Now that I have a 7800x3D I get no stutters, and while very late game co-op my FPS can get pretty low (40-60), it still feels smooth enough to play. I'm super curious how they will try this 3v3 mode... it doesn't seem possible, performance wise. I'm also a little worried about how they will handle heroes in 3v3 - do you have to buy them to use them? That's what's been implied already (buy this co-op hero and you will also have it in 3v3 mode.) I read some comments (not here I don't think) that they shouldn't be working on skins for people to buy, but why not? If the competitive experience is supposed to be F2P, give people something to spend money on. That's cosmetics, skins etc. | ||
|
Spirral
82 Posts
If corners were consciously cut to deliver certain features on time, then there are probably a lot of hotspots that could be made many times faster with some dedicated effort put into it. No idea whether this is doable this year or not, but I like to believe the engineers know what they are doing and performance was simply not a concern until now. With 3v3 coming up very soon though, we should see some serious efforts being put into optimization in the upcoming patches. In general I wouldn't be so worried about engineering problems. Those are probably the easier ones to fix moving forward. For me the main concerns are world building, design, art direction, and the game simply not being fun enough. I do not see how they fix that ever. I currently do not like how any of the factions looks or feels, and couldn't care less about the story. Maybe if they add a 4th faction that is actually cool? Can something really cool be even made in this art style? | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1018 Posts
| ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On September 03 2024 17:26 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote: Idk if that is even that big of a problem, cause you really dont have time play with pathing tricks when you just can send a scout shift clicked. If somethings up, the fog of war shadow or the lack of will tell you. Also looking for FPS fluctuations seems kinda negative for the concentration on the game. Although when the mothership was new, you could tell when it spawned and cloaked the surrounding units It's not a huge problem but it's a flaw for sure, and that's a good example of it being an issue. On September 04 2024 03:06 SoleSteeler wrote: There was a comment from Frost Giant within the past couple months saying that optimization can't (or shouldn't?) be done until they are "feature complete". I'm not sure what feature complete really entails - is it considered "complete" if 3v3 is in, even if it's in a "build in progress" mode? Hmmm. Feature complete would mean that all four pillars (Campaign, co-op, competitive 1v1/3v3 and custom maps) are in place at least. "Feature complete" is the biggest checkbox when moving a software development project from Alpha to Beta, and Stormgate isn't set to reach that mark until next year i think (the custom map features being probably last to come). For some of the graphics optimisation for sure it makes sense, especially when they are optional - you can say for example that raytracing is not at all optimised but have people test with it on sometimes, and just turn it off when you are playtesting other things in the game because of being an optional visual pretty. It makes sense to determine in which ways and how much you want to use that thing before putting a lot of hours into refining the performance. When it comes to the core CPU work that the game MUST do in order to play it at all, there is however much less wiggle room. The lower performance gets, the harder it is to test anything, the fewer people can contribute to testing and the more likely that you will have to rip out parts of the game (such as 3-player vs 2-player co-op, as 3-player has about half the FPS) and make major changes later if you make a bad estimation for how much performance gain you can later get via optimisation. That's why i gave the feedback to take an urgent look at performance and scope when they had only spent the development resources on one-map and two commanders, as it's much easier to pivot then if that early analysis shows that you might be biting off more than you can chew. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On September 04 2024 03:06 SoleSteeler wrote: There was a comment from Frost Giant within the past couple months saying that optimization can't (or shouldn't?) be done until they are "feature complete". I'm not sure what feature complete really entails - is it considered "complete" if 3v3 is in, even if it's in a "build in progress" mode? Hmmm. Which is completely true, and seen in most games (early versions are often worse as there's no point optimising things that will have to be rewritten anyway). I don't doubt them at all there. The problem I personally have is the performance is so bad that I struggle to see a world where it actually runs well. As it stands, running on an average PC that's around the specs they list on Steam, it's only playable (>30fps) in 1v1 for the first 10 minutes. No chance I'm running a 3v3 game, let alone whatever cool stuff people make in the editor. Are there other games where fps and input lag improved 10x between beta and full release? | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
| ||
|
KingzTig
155 Posts
On September 03 2024 23:47 SoleSteeler wrote: I'm not really sure what the point of the game being at 66 Hz is right now. There certainly is micro, but with the lower TTK there's currently not a lot of "wow" micro moments where the game can really make use of it. Maybe that will change later on. Same with rollback - unless it's mostly designed to smooth out the cross-server experience. If this game ran at a lower tick rate (even the same as SC2) would that boost the performance? I don't fully understand it all anyway. edit: the funny thing is that the left side of that GIF is what SG looked like for me on a bad PC in late game co-op. The occasional 1+ second stutter, sometimes 10+ seconds which was always super odd.Now that I have a 7800x3D I get no stutters, and while very late game co-op my FPS can get pretty low (40-60), it still feels smooth enough to play. I'm super curious how they will try this 3v3 mode... it doesn't seem possible, performance wise. I'm also a little worried about how they will handle heroes in 3v3 - do you have to buy them to use them? That's what's been implied already (buy this co-op hero and you will also have it in 3v3 mode.) I read some comments (not here I don't think) that they shouldn't be working on skins for people to buy, but why not? If the competitive experience is supposed to be F2P, give people something to spend money on. That's cosmetics, skins etc. exactly, I have been saying the same thing for a long time. Most games are designed and optimized around their vision, silent hill had the fog design because it couldn't render far objects for example. It's not like stormgate has anything needing the responsiveness, when they have so much PTSD over low TTK units/spells. Same way the game is built around an audience/playerbase that just isn't really there anymore. If this is going be an issue for custom mods, then they have pretty much screwed themselves right from the start. And it's interesting to see so many thinking 3v3 is gonna be that ONE mode to save it all, their plan is releasing an early 3v3, meaning unpolished etc. It's gonna be incremental updates. I am not sure what FG is banking on, but if they are looking for a no man's sky or FF14, they'd need a lot more fundings to do so. They need a major update that relaunch their game in clean slate, and get rid of the EA ugliness. Otherwise I don't see how this is going to end well for them, meanwhile zerospace is full priced so they aren't pressured to have a massive playerbase to upkeep, battle aces is not expensive to continue develope for (imo), gate of pyre (who knows) | ||
|
iamperfection
United States9647 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On September 04 2024 11:27 iamperfection wrote: Is the 3v3 going to have some hero's behind pay walls? I cant take it seriously as a competitive game mode if that is the case. As far as we know yes (although we know very little at the moment), and the problem with heroes costing over twice as much in SG as they do in SC2 likely extends to that as well. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1973 Posts
On September 04 2024 11:27 iamperfection wrote: Is the 3v3 going to have some hero's behind pay walls? I cant take it seriously as a competitive game mode if that is the case. i highly highly doubt they will be hard locked behind paywalls. My guess? Similar system to battle aces where u can unlock them through in-game currency. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On September 04 2024 12:06 Cyro wrote: As far as we know yes (although we know very little at the moment), and the problem with heroes costing over twice as much in SG as they do in SC2 likely extends to that as well. Do you have a source for this? So far FG have only said they will to avoid p2w elements, which would indicate heroes in 3v3 are free but have skins, pets etc. That being said, in the reddit q&a they dodged answering the question about monetisation and replied by saying they're working to make the game good. Which can only suggest heroes are either purchasable, or the team haven't decided yet. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On September 04 2024 12:20 CicadaSC wrote: i highly highly doubt they will be hard locked behind paywalls. My guess? Similar system to battle aces where u can unlock them through in-game currency. Yeah, people were (for some bizarre reason) fine with Battle Aces monetisation, although I suspect a lot of them were simply blindly praising anything that isn't SG, given half the comments around BA were talking about SG. Still, it could push FG to go for a 'heroes are purchasable with in-game earned currency' model. Problem with that model is it can fall anywhere from basically f2p to completely p2w based on how expensive they are. If you ask me, at least for the initial release, it has to be entirely f2p. They need to stick the landing | ||
|
gingerfluffmuffnr2
107 Posts
On September 04 2024 21:50 Fango wrote: Yeah, people were (for some bizarre reason) fine with Battle Aces monetisation, although I suspect a lot of them were simply blindly praising anything that isn't SG, given half the comments around BA were talking about SG. Still, it could push FG to go for a 'heroes are purchasable with in-game earned currency' model. Problem with that model is it can fall anywhere from basically f2p to completely p2w based on how expensive they are. If you ask me, at least for the initial release, it has to be entirely f2p. They need to stick the landing They need every cent, it has to go in p2w direction. If they had build an interesting universe with good characters, skins would be the best solution | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
Not to mention, people spent 100s on the kickstarter that offered no 3v3 heros. Charging those people more would also be nuclear for PR I wouldn't be against a hero pack bundle where you pay like $20 or whatever and get every hero unlocked on your account forever. But that can't come until after the game is good, and those who backed on kickstarter need to get it for free. I also don't think the League model works unless you have as many heroes as League does and can hence balance through volume. If you only have 3-6 heroes (or however many they have at the start) there will be very specific imbalanced combos, and having some of them behind a paywall puts you straight into p2w territory. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5469 Posts
At the very bottom, last comment. But they also talk about not wanting it to be P2W. So we'll see what their ideas here are ... Maybe you can play the hero for free up until level 5, which gives the same advantages as owning the hero in 3v3 mode, and post 5 gives you lots of cosmetics to unlock? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On September 04 2024 21:46 Fango wrote: Do you have a source for this? So far FG have only said they will to avoid p2w elements, which would indicate heroes in 3v3 are free but have skins, pets etc. That being said, in the reddit q&a they dodged answering the question about monetisation and replied by saying they're working to make the game good. Which can only suggest heroes are either purchasable, or the team haven't decided yet. SoleSteeler gave one The same hero purchases are apparently used for 3v3 and co-op. They're playable in co-op right now, and the state there is that if you want to play beyond early progression you need to pay 10 euros per hero (only one is unlocked without that). That doesn't really fly in a competitive mode, so i could see them implementing such a free hero rotation for 3v3, kind of like the LoL model. Most people do argue that such a system is not pay to win on the basis that heroes are supposed to be balanced so you can just play with the one that you have and win there. I personally do dislike the influence that those systems have on competitive game modes as developers tend to implement new heroes / guns / whatever form of power creep in an OP state which gives a kind of early-adopter pay 2 win advantage in practice even though it's not supposed to in an ideal world. Off the top of my head LoL, Tribes Ascend and Overwatch suffered greatly from this. Ultimately we don't know if there is going to be a better system than that. I think FG is still probably working out some details themselves, so we will have to wait and see what the monetisation is like. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
| ||
| ||
