|
On August 28 2015 12:13 LegalLord wrote:I'm not really as worried about who will play in the tournament as about who will be there to watch it . I'd like to win some easy $$ if theres not many competitors, Is the game fairly balanced at all or does any race favored?
|
I hope they invite the sc2 guys and place the tourney far enough in the future to give them time to practice. It could be their project before lotv comes out.
Imagine huk, crank, destiny, kane showing up for fun and potential profit.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Well, they had their chance to win those guys over. Kinda blew it with a weak release.
|
Hey LegalLord, how is the balance of the game atm?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Truth be told, I haven't been following it too much lately. Seems adequate though.
All races are playable competitively, if that's what you want to know.
|
I bet BETA is the strongest faction. It was before already (with the exception of some early goo shenanigans), but there were hardly any decent beta players. Most of the good players played Humans... which resulted in humans getting nerfed on all fronts several patches in row.
So yeah, if you want to win that tournament, play Beta. That's just based on the patch notes though... haven't played GG in a good while, since it's not that fun really... units move so slow and are rather bland, and they keep nerfing unit speeds as well.
|
lol they made the game even slower?
|
United Kingdom20162 Posts
On July 11 2015 09:59 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2015 23:08 Cyro wrote:Optimizations
• AI processing is now distributed among multiple cores to improve performance in scenarios where there are multiple AI. This change invalidates prior save files • Forward renderer implemented making a 25% reduction in draw calls when Advanced Renderer is disabled • Shadow and water shader LODs implemented, reducing draw calls another 25% when shader detail is set to low • Moved the regeneration of navigation meshes to a background thread to avoid stalling the game logic thread in certain situations Well, i'm somewhat impressed, that should make a dent. All of those are EXTREMELY important and those are huge draw call reductions. Having only 50-65% as many draw calls as well as change #1 and #4 could easily make the game feel like it has 2x as much performance, but i'l have to play and see tl;dr disable Advanced Renderer and set Shader Detail to low if you care about performance. No matter what system you have. Some guy said the menu didn't stutter any more, it still stutters like crazy, easily visible on 60hz screen. While averaging 115fps, 15% of frames slower than 60fps in my benchmark. It might be way less obvious than before if you're on 60hz, but it's still really messed up ok got some data, played a 1v1 vs ai FPS overall through 20 minutes: --- FPS at start of game: ^Even though the general trend seems to be at ~170fps, there are a lot of faster and much slower frames. Dragging the camera is laggy right from the start of 1v1 vs AI on the best systems available --- FPS later in the game with supply cap for me, hardly any supply for him: --- Overall: Tried to take some screenshots but failed and no replays >__> Haswell i7 @4.5ghz, dual channel 2200c9 RAM. Max load on single gtx980 @1080p was about 25-30%. I'm guessing several things: 1; animation tied to tick rate of the game 2; tick rate approx (probably exactly) 20hz (starcraft 2's is 16hz, about 22hz on Faster game speed) 3; ticks take longer for CPU in this game engine than in SC2. The huge delays on the "there was just a game tick" frames are much worse and the whole game response (such as if you're dragging the camera somewhere) will completely stop for the ~25ms that the tick is being processed for. Due to this problem, you're basically playing the whole game with your input being handled at 40fps. It's weird and bad on 60hz, but a complete deal breaker if you want to play at higher than 40fps. That actually gets worse with more units, ticks take longer. Usually RTS games will have a tick rate and that delay before handling your input, but you will be able to visually give the commands and do stuff like drag the camera unhindered. In starcraft 2, and much worse in grey goo, you can't do that. Since my #1 priority in an RTS/FPS game is clean input and gameplay (i really don't care what it looks like) this is literally just game breaking for me and i probably won't play, i doubt they will fix it. Selfish question Cyro: can you explain the solution to this tick rate problem to me? I'm a software engineering student, it hasn't come up but I'd like to start understanding things like this. I googled tick rate but couldn't find anything specific along these lines
Sorry i didn't see this post for months
It's just a quirk of the engine style used. Two options for example would be using a different engine style like Planetary Annihilation did (i have not seen how that worked out for them)
OR if you want to/have to use this engine style, it's critically important to look at the calculations you're doing on every tick and how long it takes for any given CPU. If you have 100fps on an i5 2500k but 20x per second there's a frame that takes 50ms (1/20'th of a second) whenever you have input or you're scrolling the map etc, it's going to feel like you're playing at 20fps, not 100fps because you have those frames so often which take 1/20'th of a second. A solid, stable 40ish FPS is preferred to 100fps which feels like 20fps because of very uneven frametime distribution.
Sc2 engine is similar, here's a few pics from it: Game paused in a replay, looking at a base where drones were mining: game simulation is not done when the game is paused, so there are no slow frames and the frametime consistency is very solid
Game unpaused in the same place with sped up gameplay, i benchmarked this because it looked particularly stuttery and weird and me and friend looking at shared replay immediately identified it - it's way worse than sc2 usually is:
Some regular gameplay:
SC2 has a tick rate of ~22hz @ faster, Grey Goo has ~20hz.
SC2's engine is problematic, but it's much better. The main difference is the amount of CPU time spent on each tick - when that tick happens every 1/20'th of a second, sc2 spends longer than usual to make the next frame but it gets it done fairly fast. Motion and input is slightly disrupted and it's visible, but it's not completely game breaking to me - it's just annoying.
When Grey Goo has to do a simulation tick, it freezes for far longer (and that happens earlier in the game too) which makes it much more obvious and problematic.
They're probably being less efficient with the work being done every time one of those ticks is reached or doing way more work - one example that i identified for that was the harvester counts. When i was playing, i could build extractors all over the map and then it would generate a huge trail of workers running expansive pathfinding simulation among other stuff in order to deliver the resources to you. As a result of that, if you build a bunch of extractors, game performance would heavily degrade to a small fraction of what it was at before. If we ran sc2 the same, got both players to 200/200 supply and then added 200 workers each for them, the engine would perform badly too! This behavior could be bypassed by having the resources given to you without spawning 30 worker drones (or coming up with some other solution) but every CPU was overwhelmed well beyond the point where the engine was fun to use and interact with for me at any stage of the game.
I reread my last post, i guess that's repeating a lot of info - but there's not much else to it. The engine is just doing some really heavy stuff on the ticks that i can't entirely identify - if you start an sc2 1v1 game on my CPU, the slowest frames will take about 5 milliseconds (~200fps). If i started a Grey Goo game, immediately right from the start of the game, the "tick frames" would take about 20-25 milliseconds (~50-40fps), which is 1/4 to 1/5'th of the performance of sc2. Average FPS wasn't that much lower - but it's the slowest frames that really matter, especially if they're as frequent as 20 times per second. Both games would degrade in performace as more and more units entered the game and there was more stuff to simulate, as these engines do.
I'm probably getting a new CPU within about 3 weeks (binned 6700k+ddr4 - hopefully ~4.8ghz) and at that time i'l be somewhat interested in doing sc2 engine comparisons, particularly for RAM and stuff like 2ghz vs 4ghz on CPU to look at frametime distribution, time taken on slow vs fast frames then. I'l likely make a thread on tech section if anyone is interested in looking at those results
|
On September 01 2015 01:49 Cyro wrote:if you start an sc2 1v1 game on my CPU, the slowest frames will take about 5 milliseconds (~200fps). If i started a Grey Goo game, immediately right from the start of the game, the "tick frames" would take about 20-25 milliseconds (~50-40fps), which is 1/4 to 1/5'th of the performance of sc2.
thanks for this detailed info.
|
GG is 15.99euros on the humble store, time to play some friendlies
|
On August 28 2015 12:52 GGzerG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 12:13 LegalLord wrote:I'm not really as worried about who will play in the tournament as about who will be there to watch it . I'd like to win some easy $$ if theres not many competitors, Is the game fairly balanced at all or does any race favored?
Goo is OP, try to dodge Bikerush in bracket, good luck
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Another $20 sale with a free weekend for those that are interested in the game.
|
Free MP weekend is what AoA could use. GG is broken at core design.
|
On October 16 2015 04:37 -Archangel- wrote: Free MP weekend is what AoA could use. GG is broken at core design.
What AoA could do with is a tombstone.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
AoA seems to have settled at a higher level than GG's average points, but it doesn't really look like it's thriving either. Reviews are pretty middling and it didn't really live up to the hype that people gave it here. Had a lot of the same problems as GG but it had the advantage of not being $50 on release.
|
On October 17 2015 15:42 LegalLord wrote: AoA seems to have settled at a higher level than GG's average points, but it doesn't really look like it's thriving either. Reviews are pretty middling and it didn't really live up to the hype that people gave it here. Had a lot of the same problems as GG but it had the advantage of not being $50 on release. Actually AoA has different problems than GG. AoA has no tutorial coupled with a more complex game than both GG and SC2 , also has worse UI than both GG and SC2. It didn't help that SP campaign was not as good as previous C&C games.
Unlike GG, AoA did release without big performance problems (but they still had too many crashes at release), it had proper server side MP and it released with replays and observer features (although both very basic). It also has 3v3, 4v4 and bigger maps. Balance in AoA was less broken at release than in GG. GG had broken walls that ruined gameplay from day1, AoA had nothing similar.
GG had better marketing from day 1 and still has.
|
Unfortunately both games were a disappointment for me
|
On October 17 2015 20:35 TaShadan wrote:Unfortunately both games were a disappointment for me I am still waiting for AoA do finish their patching and enhancing process before I decide that. GG devs already did that and game is still a failure in base design.
|
GG has a lot of players right now thanks to the free weekend.
Too bad I don't have Windows on my devices right now... Hope that it gets a bit of growth, Before this weekend it was growing a bit, if it gets a stable 100 concurrent i will most likely buy it.
|
On October 18 2015 00:33 TMG26 wrote: GG has a lot of players right now thanks to the free weekend.
Too bad I don't have Windows on my devices right now... Hope that it gets a bit of growth, Before this weekend it was growing a bit, if it gets a stable 100 concurrent i will most likely buy it. 100 concurrent users is a lot? -.-?
|
|
|
|