Optimization 2020

[Stelawrat.6589]

**Re: Updating to DirectX 12**

 

I've never used an app to modify any game, but because my FPS/Ping had inexplicably, significantly deteriorated recently, yesterday I decided to take a chance.

 

Using [MukLuk's guide,](

) I updated GW2 to DX 12, the only change I made. Then I launched the client & it crashed, leaving me with an error message & advice to contact Anet... So I tried again, because I couldn't believe my luck, with the same result of course. I followed the advice, sending the info to Anet.

 

Then I checked [the download site,](https://github.com/fmmmlee/GW2-Addon-Manager/releases/tag/v1.2.2) browsed the "Issues" section & followed what worked for someone else in the same situation, i.e., I deleted the "bin64" Folder from the GW2 Program File Folder & relaunched the game & it worked perfectly!

 

I'm not particularly tech savvy & was a bit wary of using this app, but I have to admit that it stabilized the FPS/Ping problem fairly well. I always thought the graphics were beautiful, so I think for me, there is some improvement, but nothing that really jumps out at me. I think there is more detail, the colours might be a bit more vibrant. In an attempt to fix the FPS, I had pretty much reduced everything that I could with respect to the graphics & I don't want to readjust them yet, for fear of losing the gains I just made.

 

I'm putting my laptop specs here, only so others can compare, to see if they think this app would help them as well:

Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg - 16 months old

Processor: Intel Core i7-8750H 6 Core (2.20GHz, up to 4.10GHz with Turbo Boost, 9MB Cache)

OS: Windows 10 Home 64

Display: 15.6" FHD (1920 x 1080) NVIDIA® G-SYNC, 144 Hz, 300 nits, software enabled Dolby Vision HDR

Memory: 16GB (8GB + 8GB) DDR4 2666MHz

Hard Drive: 512GB Solid State Drive PCIe

Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX 2060 6GB

 

So, from a grateful fan, a big thank you to Mukluk.9082! :)

 

EDIT: fixed app link.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"dace.8019" said:

> I honestly cannot believe some people in this thread are aguing against improving this game's performance. It is probably the most significant problem it has.

 

It's not that hard to believe ... for some people, a game that has better stuff is a game they can't play; they are limited by their gear. For others that are more astute ... recognize that performance is something you have to pay for and realize what we would pay for what we would get isn't that so good a proposition.

[dace.8019]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"dace.8019" said:

> > I honestly cannot believe some people in this thread are aguing against improving this game's performance. It is probably the most significant problem it has.

>

> It's not that hard to believe ... for some people, a game that has better stuff is a game they can't play; they are limited by their gear. For others that are more astute ... recognize that performance is something you have to pay for and realize what we would pay for what we would get isn't that so good a proposition.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you correctly - do you believe that improved performance will only benefit people with high-end or expensive systems? IMO, improved performance should positively impact all users, and quite often the biggest gains (in % terms) from improved performance are usually seen on the oldest/weakest specs.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"dace.8019" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"dace.8019" said:

> > > I honestly cannot believe some people in this thread are aguing against improving this game's performance. It is probably the most significant problem it has.

> >

> > It's not that hard to believe ... for some people, a game that has better stuff is a game they can't play; they are limited by their gear. For others that are more astute ... recognize that performance is something you have to pay for and realize what we would pay for what we would get isn't that so good a proposition.

>

> I'm not sure I'm following you correctly - do you believe that improved performance will only benefit people with high-end or expensive systems? IMO, improved performance should positively impact all users, and quite often the biggest gains (in % terms) from improved performance are usually seen on the oldest/weakest specs.

 

I think what's being said is that Anet could charge more for GW2 (like subscription or charging more for content that is only available for actual cash instead of gems, things like that) in order to bring in more capital to spend on performance improvements. Then, the point turns to being careful what is wished for because should this type of thing come to pass, there is no guarantee that the studio would actually be willing and/or able to make the performance improvements that the players want.

[Sinful Mustache.3589]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> How many newer games are based on 10+ year old spaghetti code, built in-house by devs who are no longer with the company?

 

Where can i read about gw2 legacy code?

 

As it was mentioned many times already, there are only 4 main graphics settings that impact performance very much

1. Dont use "Ultra" shadows

2. Dont use "All" reflections

3. Set both character limit AND quality to Lowest

Done. This ads a LOT of fps yet without lowering every other setting

[maddoctor.2738]

Arenanet already has an engine team, paid to implement engine changes, it's not like they'd need to hire more people, or charge a sub to make performance better. The "hardware requirements" for the game are set by the higher ups which is what is so surprising about them. A single person created a mod that uses a DX12 wrapper that offers performance improvements for many users, the fact that the entire engine team of Arenanet isn't doing anything means there is a certain level of neglect (or ignorance) by those higher at the top, and by no means an indicator of lack of skill by the developers. After all, some of those same developers updated the engine of Guild Wars 1 in their free time to add rather large engine improvements.

 

It's not that they can't, they are told not to.

[Vancho.8750]

They should address their technical debt, optimization is not only about FPS, at some point the game will crumble like it did in May on EU and it might not be recoverable this time.

[Thornwolf.9721]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"krz.1327" said:

> > I don't understand why won't they at least give us an option to turn off other people's combat effects. Not only they lower fps but also you can't see anything, combat in gw2 is just looking at numbers, you can't see enemies or your character.

>

> This. This is a change that would benefit the game and allow people to play based on their own rigs capability. Add a feature that limits the effects down to your party or self. Keeping the settings the same since the last laptop and you can see game performance degrade over time the more flash that is added, not to mention screen noise. This change would be a QoL change that might impact performance in all game modes.

 

Yes, but the issue with that is? It effects their bottom line. You can't reinforce to buy you're flashy skins if those wearing them can't be seen? Right? Right? Thats an actual method of monetization. Reinforce the payment of an object, by making it visible. Likewise People likely wouldn't even go for legendary weapons and such without their flashy-ness being showcased to the world. Id love a scaler to turn it off for anyone outside of my party (Just the effects not the armor.) But Id like an option to toggle off my chest-plate so I Can run around shirtless and show my norns tattoos/charr fur patterns... Thats not anymore likely to happen than this.

 

A-net could care less about our performance, well-being or even enjoyment of the product. We're just expected to consume it~ Sadly.

[KrHome.1920]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Arenanet already has an engine team, paid to implement engine changes, it's not like they'd need to hire more people, or charge a sub to make performance better. The "hardware requirements" for the game are set by the higher ups which is what is so surprising about them. A single person created a mod that uses a DX12 wrapper that offers performance improvements for many users, the fact that the entire engine team of Arenanet isn't doing anything means there is a certain level of neglect (or ignorance) by those higher at the top, and by no means an indicator of lack of skill by the developers. After all, some of those same developers updated the engine of Guild Wars 1 in their free time to add rather large engine improvements.

>

> It's not that they can't, they are told not to.

The DX12 wrapper even **de**creases your performance on lower end systems, which is normal since it is a wrapper. A wrapper consumes resources itself.

 

 

Read the description at minute 3:15!

 

Besides that people have extremely unrealistic expectations how such a game should run. You won't find any game that runs at high framerates when 150 players (3 full zergs in WvW) spam skills at each other. Games like Battlefield support the newest APIs, do less game logic calculations and are nevertheless limited to 64 players on a huge map to achieve acceptable framerates. Put all players in BF at one spot (which is normal in WvW) and watch your framerate tank to below 30 even on a high end CPU.

 

The next gen BF games will support 128 players. But even this has still much lower demands than a typical 3 way WvW or a worldboss fight.

 

[PeerlessArch.6547]

Nothing is more maddening when talking about frame rate and optimization with those of us on higher end systems, then when people chime in with "tUrN YoR gRafIcS DoWn."

 

I mean come on.... The point is this game isn't optimized worth a kitten, and it's 2020, and it should be. End of story.

[Deepcuts.9740]

I never understand players taking Anet's side on this, saying "but it costs money, so no go".

Me thinks that a lot if not all these posts are from undercover Anet, because I really cannot comprehend players not wanting a better experience (see D912pxy).

Last time I checked, 99% of my guild bought all expansions and a lot of them buy gems with real money frequently.

And as long as smaller companies with a LOT smaller player base and a LOT smaller income can do it, I really can't put the blame on anyone but Anet for this.

 

[Aza.2105]

Graphically GW2 has aged great. Anet made the right choice when they decided to focus on art style instead of technical feats. The only thing they need to do is make it so the game runs well on modern machines. I hope we get some optimizations for the EoD xpac.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"KrHome.1920" said:

> Besides that people have extremely unrealistic expectations how such a game should run. You won't find any game that runs at high framerates when 150 players (3 full zergs in WvW) spam skills at each other. Games like Battlefield support the newest APIs, do less game logic calculations and are nevertheless limited to 64 players on a huge map to achieve acceptable framerates. Put all players in BF at one spot (which is normal in WvW) and watch your framerate tank to below 30 even on a high end CPU.

>

> The next gen BF games will support 128 players. But even this has still much lower demands than a typical 3 way WvW or a worldboss fight.

>

 

The problem is that Guild Wars 2 has horrible performance even with very few people around.

Also, are you really comparing a character in Battlefield with a character in Guild Wars 2? There is a giant difference in image quality and pixel count between a player in Guild Wars 2 and a player in the latest Battlefield. Plus the complex and changing/destructible environment compared to the mostly static Guild Wars environment.

[dace.8019]

> @"Aza.2105" said:

> Graphically GW2 has aged great. Anet made the right choice when they decided to focus on art style instead of technical feats. The only thing they need to do is make it so the game runs well on modern machines. I hope we get some optimizations for the EoD xpac.

 

You sort of caught the truth of it by accident - graphically the game is OK, but the art direction is what really carries it and has allowed the visuals to age well. They are closely linked but seperate.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> and pixel count

 

~~pixel~~ polygon

 

Sorry to nitpick

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Deepcuts.9740" said:

> I never understand players taking Anet's side on this, saying "but it costs money, so no go".

 

 

The question isn't if it costs money. The question is how much players will pay for a QoL improvement that isn't content. The 'no go' part is that people who say this understand that what players want and what players are willing to pay for are NOT the same things.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Deepcuts.9740" said:

> > I never understand players taking Anet's side on this, saying "but it costs money, so no go".

>

>

> The question isn't if it costs money. The question is how much players will pay for a QoL improvement that isn't content. The 'no go' part is that people who say this understand that what players want and what players are willing to pay for are NOT the same things.

 

The answer is zero. Anet is a service, if the service does not provide its service it makes no money. It's called the cost of running a business and if they are not willing to pay their own expenses then that's on them. There is nothing to discuss here. Maintaining servers and keeping code up to date is already baked into what was paid for. If they want more funding they have to create product people are willing to buy, its as simple as that.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Deepcuts.9740" said:

> > > I never understand players taking Anet's side on this, saying "but it costs money, so no go".

> >

> >

> > The question isn't if it costs money. The question is how much players will pay for a QoL improvement that isn't content. The 'no go' part is that people who say this understand that what players want and what players are willing to pay for are NOT the same things.

>

> The answer is zero. Anet is a service, if the service does not provide its service it makes no money. It's called the cost of running a business and if they are not willing to pay their own expenses then that's on them. There is nothing to discuss here. Maintaining servers and keeping code up to date is already baked into what was paid for. If they want more funding they have to create product people are willing to buy, its as simple as that.

 

Well, let's be honest here ... Anet upgrading the Engine is not related to their ability to provide their service because this game has run under the current engine for 8 years and there is also no concievalbe reason they couldn't continue to do so either ... so to claim an engine upgrade is _needed_ to provide the service they have already offered for many years and imply it's a cost of doing business makes no sense.

 

So yes, there is LOTS to discuss here because the fact is that if you think that an engine upgrade is part of Anet's 'cost of doing business', you just sound **exactly** like the kind of player I'm talking about that doesn't want to pay for a QoL upgrade. This is a user want, not a business need. If it's not a business need, then the cost is NOT necessarily part of cost of running the business and you should not be so dismissive of the idea that players should be willing to pay for some of the cost of implementing such things. The current structure of the game doesn't allow for Anet to collect funds from active players for such an upgrade ... so why would you think Anet is just going to up and give a new engine to us at their expense? You're just not being objective here.

[Redfeather.6401]

I do not have a dx12 graphics card. ?

Was told my card can support some of dx12 features but not all. But dxdiag does not mention 12 in the list.

[Solvar.7953]

I think an engine upgrade, at some point (that point maybe being now) is a business need. GW1 survives with an old engine because they don't keep adding more visual effects that tax the system. If GW2 had basically stayed at release levels in terms of graphical effects, performance would likely be fine, but people would then complain that the graphic quality is poor.

In a theoretical world where you have a poorly performing GW2, and some other game that is equally good but performs many times better, people will move to that other game, so GW2 loses customers. Now such theoretical situations are almost never that simple - a more realistic one might that I prefer the GW2 gameplay, but the performance is so bad, that I find it annoying to play, where as the other games gameplay may not be quite so good, but the performance being so much better makes up for it.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

>

> Well, let's be honest here ... Anet upgrading the Engine is not related to their ability to provide their service because this game has run under the current engine for 8 years

 

But it is, they increase the demand on the engine without enhancing it. Performance has been degrading without any changes to the user's systems. That means that whatever new items they add they are losing performance today, that's why they need to address their performance in whatever is needed. Be that engine, packet size, memory usage or whatever. Where I disagree with you is that performance is not being maintained, its getting worse. That's where they need to address issues. They have even come out and said there are issues, note the WvW subforum.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> So yes, there is LOTS to discuss here because the fact is that if you think that an engine upgrade is part of Anet's 'cost of doing business', you just sound **exactly** like the > kind of player I'm talking about that doesn't want to pay for a QoL upgrade. This is a user want, not a business need.

 

You can't see how much funding I have provided ANet, else you would question less. But lets go with I have spent nothing on the game except buying it and the expansions.

The cost of business is maintaining the same level of service that users have spent at the time of purchasing the service. The cost to the business is keeping the level of service at the same point that people purchased it at. They aren't doing that. That means that's a cost to them. In business when a contract is established you can't say oops I did my math wrong and you won't get what you paid for. The side of the contract that isn't living up to their contractual requirements has to spend money to resolve the issue. That's where we are at. I am not saying I side with the change the engine group, but if they aren't focusing on optimizing their options than they are doing a dis-service to people by proving a degraded service from what people were getting and trying to play players by not saying, sorry min system requirements are now 'x'.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> If it's not a business need,

It is though. If you release changes that have negative impact on gameplay you make less money. That's what makes it a business issue. Plus I work in the service industry and in software development. You spend money to make money. If you are just trying to cash in on past expenses you will find you lose your client base. You need to continue to spend to try and ensure your product is relative and up to date. You don't pass those costs to your customer or they are going to walk. You spend that money to acquire new customers.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> then the cost is NOT necessarily part of cost of running the business

Again, no. Its is the cost of doing business if degrade your own service.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> and you should not be so dismissive of the idea that players should be willing to pay for some of the cost of implementing such things.

We are already doing so every time we buy anything from the gemstore with cash. When players do that they are investing in the game but will still expect the same level of service. I can't speak for others but for the people that I know that use cash for gem store items we view it as supporting future development. If doing well Anet gets more, if not doing so well, less to none. Its in their best interest to enhance performance from their side if they want more funding. Players that bought into the game already paid for a level of performance and if degrading with new changes, that's not on them.

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> You're just not being objective here.

If you haven't seen that I try and view things from both sides after all the posts I have done, well it is what it is. But this one is where I would say, stop putting words in their mouths and let them make the statements themselves, you aren't doing any service to any players. If they should be charging a sub to maintain the game let them come fourth and say it themselves. ANet has a team to address issues, let them answer the question themselves. What are they doing to improve performance? Does the system requirements need to change? Are they letting artist resources impact game performance? Are they introducing memory leaks with new features and not finding them until players report enough issues? We all pay for a service and expecting the service provider to be part of the conversation is not out of bounds. Just did the New World trial and in the feedback rated GW2 the highest of the MMOs that I play, that said, I am not giving them a free pass, especially even less so when players just want to be part of the 'nope' culture and try and put words in statements that if true Anet should make but they don't. So, as I am now saying, they are a grown company, let them come out and say what they will themselves.

 

 

[krz.1327]

> @"krz.1327" said:

> I don't understand why won't they at least give us an option to turn off other people's combat effects. Not only they lower fps but also you can't see anything, combat in gw2 is just looking at numbers, you can't see enemies or your character.

 

Friend told me he watched GW2 gameplays and he was turned off by how much is happening on the screen because you can't see anything, great job anet

[Obtena.7952]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > then the cost is NOT necessarily part of cost of running the business

> Again, no. Its is the cost of doing business if degrade your own service.

 

That's a contrived statement. If there is an 'increase in demand' on the engine, there are many solutions to that problem. It is NOT a foregone conclusion that Anet upgrade the engine at their cost to solve that.

 

One thing is certain ... do not try to portray engine upgrade needs to happen as a cost to Anet because of a breakdown or degradation of service because there is NOTHING that prevents Anet from continuing to provide the CURRENT service with the business model that exists. it doesn't matter what decision Anet makes here ... some users are negatively affected by either choice. The only difference is that one choice has a massive cost and the other doesn't. It's a question of how much players are willing to pay.

 

 

[coso.9173]

by some comments we would still be playing Atari games, since any improvement means some people won't be able to play newer games with higher requirements.

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"coso.9173" said:

> by some comments we would still be playing Atari games, since any improvement means some people won't be able to play newer games with higher requirements.

>

 

At some point the number of ppl that dont upgrade isnt worth it holding back the ppl that are upgrading yet have a bad experience because the game hasnt seen any real improvements on that front.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"coso.9173" said:

> by some comments we would still be playing Atari games, since any improvement means some people won't be able to play newer games with higher requirements.

>

 

Well, that's absurd. No one is saying new games can't be developed with higher requirements. What is important here is that if you are a customer of a game and you purchase that gaming service, the provider better think VERY hard about the consequences of providing an upgrade to that service if it has a negative impact on customers that purchased that service based on it's _original_ requirements.