Is Anet ever going to adequately address the poor optimization of the game engine?

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

I addressed the problem by buying an i5 8600. 16gb ddr4. Gtx1080. I run a smooth 60+ fps with max settings most of the. Only hit in frame rate is during worldboss battles and wvw blobs.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > I've been on an I5 and GTX 670 for a number of years and I double your frame rate. You probably have something else going on if you're not pulling better than 30 fps.

>

> What resolution are you running at? I have a very hard time believing you pull more than 40fps average while in Lions Arch. I run at 2560x1440 & my GPU is a EVGA GTX 970 4GB so my hardware most certainly is not the problem.

 

Have you ever checked your GPU usage? And more importantly your VRAM usage?

[Stalkingwolf.6035]

reduce shown characters on screen. this helps a lot

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

 

I've seen a few people report this, even with (as far as GW2 goes) wildly over the top graphics cards. I don't experience it, and I have everything ramped right to the top on graphics, and don't have a wildly overclocked CPU. (4.7GHz with the active core count during GW2 use.) I've also been unable to reproduce the frame rate drops some people report from standing in specific areas, which is interesting.

 

That leads me to wonder, because I absolutely believe you experience this, if there is something else triggering the issue. If you have GPU-Z or something, can you check if it is reporting GPU throttling for any reason during those FPS drops? Like, is it lowering the clocks because there is nothing to do (eg: CPU is the bottleneck), or because of voltage or thermal limits, or something else?

 

I hope that if we can figure out what is going on, it may help a bunch of people out, and maybe even me as time goes on, because if it happened to you, it might well happen to me tomorrow.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

>

> I've seen a few people report this, even with (as far as GW2 goes) wildly over the top graphics cards. I don't experience it, and I have everything ramped right to the top on graphics, and don't have a wildly overclocked CPU. (4.7GHz with the active core count during GW2 use.) I've also been unable to reproduce the frame rate drops some people report from standing in specific areas, which is interesting.

>

> That leads me to wonder, because I absolutely believe you experience this, if there is something else triggering the issue. If you have GPU-Z or something, can you check if it is reporting GPU throttling for any reason during those FPS drops? Like, is it lowering the clocks because there is nothing to do (eg: CPU is the bottleneck), or because of voltage or thermal limits, or something else?

>

> I hope that if we can figure out what is going on, it may help a bunch of people out, and maybe even me as time goes on, because if it happened to you, it might well happen to me tomorrow.

 

I'm pretty sure it's object overload. Especially in Sandswept Isles inquest area where not only game spams bajillion awakened and inquest but also generates the cube area above with even more models. Same FPS drops happen in big zergs.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

> >

> > I've seen a few people report this, even with (as far as GW2 goes) wildly over the top graphics cards. I don't experience it, and I have everything ramped right to the top on graphics, and don't have a wildly overclocked CPU. (4.7GHz with the active core count during GW2 use.) I've also been unable to reproduce the frame rate drops some people report from standing in specific areas, which is interesting.

> >

> > That leads me to wonder, because I absolutely believe you experience this, if there is something else triggering the issue. If you have GPU-Z or something, can you check if it is reporting GPU throttling for any reason during those FPS drops? Like, is it lowering the clocks because there is nothing to do (eg: CPU is the bottleneck), or because of voltage or thermal limits, or something else?

> >

> > I hope that if we can figure out what is going on, it may help a bunch of people out, and maybe even me as time goes on, because if it happened to you, it might well happen to me tomorrow.

>

> I'm pretty sure it's object overload. Especially in Sandswept Isles inquest area where not only game spams bajillion awakened and inquest but also generates the cube area above with even more models. Same FPS drops happen in big zergs.

 

That is absolutely a credible theory, but I'm not sure that it syncs with my experience of getting 80-120 FPS in those regions. I mean, I absolutely am not trying to rule out "too many objects" as the root cause here. That'd be my fallback if there is nothing else that can be identified -- and the "GPU downclocks due to idleness" would be a very big indicator that was what was happening.

 

It kind of also requires that we assume the developers at ANet are not properly aware of the limitations of the engine, and having worked in places with similar sorts of limits, it is ... hard, shall we say, not to be aware of how much the developers are cursing about that sort of problem, to get QA pushback if you abuse the limits, and that sort of thing.

 

So, again, definitely not impossible that is what is happening, but I'd like to be more certain before giving up asking, y'know? (Plus, if that is the case, the more evidence we have, the more convincing we will be to ANet to knock that kitten off, y'know?.)

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > > Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

> > >

> > > I've seen a few people report this, even with (as far as GW2 goes) wildly over the top graphics cards. I don't experience it, and I have everything ramped right to the top on graphics, and don't have a wildly overclocked CPU. (4.7GHz with the active core count during GW2 use.) I've also been unable to reproduce the frame rate drops some people report from standing in specific areas, which is interesting.

> > >

> > > That leads me to wonder, because I absolutely believe you experience this, if there is something else triggering the issue. If you have GPU-Z or something, can you check if it is reporting GPU throttling for any reason during those FPS drops? Like, is it lowering the clocks because there is nothing to do (eg: CPU is the bottleneck), or because of voltage or thermal limits, or something else?

> > >

> > > I hope that if we can figure out what is going on, it may help a bunch of people out, and maybe even me as time goes on, because if it happened to you, it might well happen to me tomorrow.

> >

> > I'm pretty sure it's object overload. Especially in Sandswept Isles inquest area where not only game spams bajillion awakened and inquest but also generates the cube area above with even more models. Same FPS drops happen in big zergs.

>

> That is absolutely a credible theory, but I'm not sure that it syncs with my experience of getting 80-120 FPS in those regions. I mean, I absolutely am not trying to rule out "too many objects" as the root cause here. That'd be my fallback if there is nothing else that can be identified -- and the "GPU downclocks due to idleness" would be a very big indicator that was what was happening.

>

> It kind of also requires that we assume the developers at ANet are not properly aware of the limitations of the engine, and having worked in places with similar sorts of limits, it is ... hard, shall we say, not to be aware of how much the developers are cursing about that sort of problem, to get QA pushback if you abuse the limits, and that sort of thing.

>

> So, again, definitely not impossible that is what is happening, but I'd like to be more certain before giving up asking, y'know? (Plus, if that is the case, the more evidence we have, the more convincing we will be to ANet to knock that kitten off, y'know?.)

 

Few years ago I read a statement that devs consider 30fps as stable, that may suggest that while they know engine limitations they also think "make things cute instead of smooth". In my case I don't have powerful core CPU like yours so I know my limitations aswell. However while getting stable 60 FPS in old maps I get 40 or less in new ones in some places (biggest offenders are amnoon and sandswept). That's why I believe object overload is the problem here.

[Donutdude.9582]

From what I've gathered over the years, GW2 is a CPU-intensive game that works really well with CPUs that have high single-core performance values compared to multi-core.

 

The solution it seems is to use a CPU that has high single-core performance values in order to achieve optimal game performance. If your CPU is a multi-core specialist then you will see worsening results the more modern you go.

[ugrakarma.9416]

im completely in favor if they instead focus on expansion, focus on engine rework.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > > > Since poF and especially for LW4 it feels like maps work much worse. They are beautifuly designed but devs should consider engine limitation and maybe design maps the way it doesn't kill FPS (even if there are no players around).

> > > >

> > > > I've seen a few people report this, even with (as far as GW2 goes) wildly over the top graphics cards. I don't experience it, and I have everything ramped right to the top on graphics, and don't have a wildly overclocked CPU. (4.7GHz with the active core count during GW2 use.) I've also been unable to reproduce the frame rate drops some people report from standing in specific areas, which is interesting.

> > > >

> > > > That leads me to wonder, because I absolutely believe you experience this, if there is something else triggering the issue. If you have GPU-Z or something, can you check if it is reporting GPU throttling for any reason during those FPS drops? Like, is it lowering the clocks because there is nothing to do (eg: CPU is the bottleneck), or because of voltage or thermal limits, or something else?

> > > >

> > > > I hope that if we can figure out what is going on, it may help a bunch of people out, and maybe even me as time goes on, because if it happened to you, it might well happen to me tomorrow.

> > >

> > > I'm pretty sure it's object overload. Especially in Sandswept Isles inquest area where not only game spams bajillion awakened and inquest but also generates the cube area above with even more models. Same FPS drops happen in big zergs.

> >

> > That is absolutely a credible theory, but I'm not sure that it syncs with my experience of getting 80-120 FPS in those regions. I mean, I absolutely am not trying to rule out "too many objects" as the root cause here. That'd be my fallback if there is nothing else that can be identified -- and the "GPU downclocks due to idleness" would be a very big indicator that was what was happening.

> >

> > It kind of also requires that we assume the developers at ANet are not properly aware of the limitations of the engine, and having worked in places with similar sorts of limits, it is ... hard, shall we say, not to be aware of how much the developers are cursing about that sort of problem, to get QA pushback if you abuse the limits, and that sort of thing.

> >

> > So, again, definitely not impossible that is what is happening, but I'd like to be more certain before giving up asking, y'know? (Plus, if that is the case, the more evidence we have, the more convincing we will be to ANet to knock that kitten off, y'know?.)

>

> Few years ago I read a statement that devs consider 30fps as stable, that may suggest that while they know engine limitations they also think "make things cute instead of smooth". In my case I don't have powerful core CPU like yours so I know my limitations aswell. However while getting stable 60 FPS in old maps I get 40 or less in new ones in some places (biggest offenders are amnoon and sandswept). That's why I believe object overload is the problem here.

 

Hrm. Well, 30FPS is also considered good enough for some AAA games on console, so I guess that is a pretty legit position in the industry.

 

I see what you mean, and agree. That does sound like it is using more CPU on the new maps, which isn't entirely shocking, but also that it has gone too far in terms of cost on older systems -- at least, until they manage to move some more of that layout work off the main thread and onto other cores.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Donutdude.9582" said:

> From what I've gathered over the years, GW2 is a CPU-intensive game that works really well with CPUs that have high single-core performance values compared to multi-core.

>

> The solution it seems is to use a CPU that has high single-core performance values in order to achieve optimal game performance. If your CPU is a multi-core specialist then you will see worsening results the more modern you go.

 

Yeah, this is why an AMD user is likely to see worse performance than an Intel user in GW2, today. In a bunch of other games that is .... less true, though honestly, most of them end up with something that depends on single threaded performance somewhere. Anyway, yeah, today that is basically the long and short of "what hardware to upgrade next" once you own, like, an NVIDIA 9XX or 10XX GPU, or whatever the AMD GPU equivalents are.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> im completely in favor if they instead focus on expansion, focus on engine rework.

 

Sadly, I'm pretty confident that you are mistaken about this. It sounds like a good idea, but in practice it turns out not to be nearly so appreciated. Take a look at the WoW character model reworks for an example of something related, or the reception of the huge reworks done to early game WoW in Cataclysm, both of which similarly focused on "not current story" advancements.

 

Regardless, I'm not aware of any company that has tried that and, truthfully, it usually isn't as productive as you might imagine: people doing engine development don't need graphic artists, map designers, quest builders, story people, etc. They just need to focus on the engine, making it faster typically without having to change the way it interacts with those higher level components.

 

I can't be certain this is true for ANet, but I'd venture to say I'm pretty confident that after mounts were added, core engine stuff is no longer a huge focus, at least until the next engine, for enabling new capabilities.

 

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn they were actively working those folks in the background to make it faster already. :)

[Wander.5780]

I've tried all of the suggestions here... disabled shadows entirely, set character model limit to medium, set LOD to medium, set sampling to Native, nothing makes a difference and I still can't get above 45-48 FPS at best in LA. If the devs aren't going to actually work on optimization, maybe they can at least give us a concrete method of raising our FPS to a level that is acceptable with our hardware configurations in 2018.

[Malediktus.9250]

You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

[ugrakarma.9416]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > im completely in favor if they instead focus on expansion, focus on engine rework.

>

> Sadly, I'm pretty confident that you are mistaken about this. It sounds like a good idea, but in practice it turns out not to be nearly so appreciated. Take a look at the WoW character model reworks for an example of something related, or the reception of the huge reworks done to early game WoW in Cataclysm, both of which similarly focused on "not current story" advancements.

>

> Regardless, I'm not aware of any company that has tried that and, truthfully, it usually isn't as productive as you might imagine: people doing engine development don't need graphic artists, map designers, quest builders, story people, etc. They just need to focus on the engine, making it faster typically without having to change the way it interacts with those higher level components.

>

> I can't be certain this is true for ANet, but I'd venture to say I'm pretty confident that after mounts were added, core engine stuff is no longer a huge focus, at least until the next engine, for enabling new capabilities.

>

> I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn they were actively working those folks in the background to make it faster already. :)

 

Yeah, theres a bit speculation of mine, since we dont know really how this "engine" was built or they code structure. Speculating that it was made in the traditional way, there is an engine that runs "scritpts"/files, in the scripts are the graphics, textures, etc. then it would not be so difficult, since the hard-code, low level api calls(especially the directx) would all be concentrated in one place. And microsoft usually are generous in its API's updates, they dont change too much procedures names or parameters(unlike google/android that delete/change stuff radically even in minor api updates). .... But if it was to the contrary, there were pieces of hard code and low level api calls scattered, really will be a monunmental work. ..., Let's remember that they did the 64-bit version, which in theory would be equally difficult as a Direct x upgrade. And neither was it so difficult, probably because of the factors I explained above.

[Dreadshow.9320]

6 year old game with tones of new features, fx and visuals added over the years it would take another 6 years so...no.

[Obtena.7952]

I like how anytime someone's performance drops, it's Anet's fault.

[Wander.5780]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

> That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

 

I’ve worked in IT for 10 years and I’ve been building gaming PCs since I was 13 years old, (I’m 30 now)

and not once have I ever heard of the need to OC RAM to make a 6 year old game run well... that is just ridiculous and should be totally unnecessary. My experience with messing with RAM voltages has always been inconsistent, and the performance benefit has always been totally negligible when comparing it to overclocking a CPU or GPU. If we have to jump through these hoops to make a 2012 game run well in 2018 hardware, that is ridiculous. If I can’t change the in-game graphics settings to yield a better framerate, with state of the art hardware, then I’m sorry but that is 100% on the developers.

 

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > @"ugrakarma.9416" said:

> > > im completely in favor if they instead focus on expansion, focus on engine rework.

> >

> > Sadly, I'm pretty confident that you are mistaken about this. It sounds like a good idea, but in practice it turns out not to be nearly so appreciated. Take a look at the WoW character model reworks for an example of something related, or the reception of the huge reworks done to early game WoW in Cataclysm, both of which similarly focused on "not current story" advancements.

> >

> > Regardless, I'm not aware of any company that has tried that and, truthfully, it usually isn't as productive as you might imagine: people doing engine development don't need graphic artists, map designers, quest builders, story people, etc. They just need to focus on the engine, making it faster typically without having to change the way it interacts with those higher level components.

> >

> > I can't be certain this is true for ANet, but I'd venture to say I'm pretty confident that after mounts were added, core engine stuff is no longer a huge focus, at least until the next engine, for enabling new capabilities.

> >

> > I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn they were actively working those folks in the background to make it faster already. :)

>

> Yeah, theres a bit speculation of mine, since we dont know really how this "engine" was built or they code structure. Speculating that it was made in the traditional way, there is an engine that runs "scritpts"/files, in the scripts are the graphics, textures, etc. then it would not be so difficult, since the hard-code, low level api calls(especially the directx) would all be concentrated in one place. And microsoft usually are generous in its API's updates, they dont change too much procedures names or parameters(unlike google/android that delete/change stuff radically even in minor api updates). .... But if it was to the contrary, there were pieces of hard code and low level api calls scattered, really will be a monunmental work. ..., Let's remember that they did the 64-bit version, which in theory would be equally difficult as a Direct x upgrade.

 

Yeah, basically as ANet said ages ago: the bottleneck isn't DX9, it is stuff they wrote, which wouldn't have to change fundamentally for the 64-bit port. So jumping to DX11 wouldn't bring any immediate return. (Once they fix their own stuff, it might. Nothing stays static forever.)

[Malediktus.9250]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

> > That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

>

> I’ve worked in IT for 10 years and I’ve been building gaming PCs since I was 13 years old, (I’m 30 now)

> and not once have I ever heard of the need to OC RAM to make a 6 year old game run well... that is just ridiculous and should be totally unnecessary. My experience with messing with RAM voltages has always been inconsistent, and the performance benefit has always been totally negligible when comparing it to overclocking a CPU or GPU. If we have to jump through these hoops to make a 2012 game run well in 2018 hardware, that is ridiculous. If I can’t change the in-game graphics settings to yield a better framerate, with state of the art hardware, then I’m sorry but that is 100% on the developers.

>

 

The thing is modern CPUs are RAM latency and bandwith starved. Tuning your RAM to the maximum can easily give +20% FPS compared to even 4266CL17 XMP profiles

[Boondocks.9216]

> @"Wander.5780" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

> > That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

>

> I’ve worked in IT for 10 years and I’ve been building gaming PCs since I was 13 years old, (I’m 30 now)

> and not once have I ever heard of the need to OC RAM to make a 6 year old game run well... that is just ridiculous and should be totally unnecessary. My experience with messing with RAM voltages has always been inconsistent, and the performance benefit has always been totally negligible when comparing it to overclocking a CPU or GPU. If we have to jump through these hoops to make a 2012 game run well in 2018 hardware, that is ridiculous. If I can’t change the in-game graphics settings to yield a better framerate, with state of the art hardware, then I’m sorry but that is 100% on the developers.

>

 

I haven't been in IT for 10 years but I've been developing since 2006, built a game engine based on DX9 and C++ in 2009, started game development for indie studios in 2012, and gotten an undergrad in Game/Simulation Programming plus other degrees . I too have been building computers for years. We can go into the details of how familiar we are with hardware/software and our credentials all day but the fact still remains that DX11 is not going to be cost-effective or worthwhile and your argument does not provide any validation that you are correct.

 

I recently started playing again and I get 60+ fps with an overclocked 3770k and 4gb gtx680. It would seem that your issue is related more to processes running on your cpu, defective hardware, or something else outside of the game. Have you checked temps of your hardware? Intel tends to throttle if hardware gets too hot. There are a multitude of factors that go into the performance of an application and it's nearly impossible to optimize for PC because of the differences in hardware that people have.

[AegisFLCL.7623]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > @"Wander.5780" said:

> > > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > You should get the Samsung B-Die based DDR4 RAM and overclock and tweak it as good as you can. Gives more FPS boost than anything else for this game. It is a lot of work since RAM has so many different timings and 3 different voltages that need to be adjusted, but its worth it.

> > > That is assuming you did not bought a cheap mainboard. RAM overclocking resuls also greatly vary by mainboard quality.

> >

> > I’ve worked in IT for 10 years and I’ve been building gaming PCs since I was 13 years old, (I’m 30 now)

> > and not once have I ever heard of the need to OC RAM to make a 6 year old game run well... that is just ridiculous and should be totally unnecessary. My experience with messing with RAM voltages has always been inconsistent, and the performance benefit has always been totally negligible when comparing it to overclocking a CPU or GPU. If we have to jump through these hoops to make a 2012 game run well in 2018 hardware, that is ridiculous. If I can’t change the in-game graphics settings to yield a better framerate, with state of the art hardware, then I’m sorry but that is 100% on the developers.

> >

>

> The thing is modern CPUs are RAM latency and bandwith starved. Tuning your RAM to the maximum can easily give +20% FPS compared to even 4266CL17 XMP profiles

 

Not entirely true. You won't see a large improvement in average FPS but you generally see a solid improvement in minimum FPS.

 

I can't remember which rig I had at the time, but I specifically tested this within LA around the MF and Crafting areas. The gain on minimum FPS was around 5-7 FPS from overclocking my ram; pretty sure it was on my 4670k @ 4.5, and samsung wonder ram @ 2400mhz. It brought me from the low 40s, to the low 50s which was a massive improvement for densely populated areas.

 

**This reminds me you can also reduce the range on your FOV setting to gain back a decent amount of FPS, if you've adjusted it from its default position that is.

[SoulSin.5682]

> @"Donutdude.9582" said:

> From what I've gathered over the years, GW2 is a CPU-intensive game that works really well with CPUs that have high single-core performance values compared to multi-core.

>

> The solution it seems is to use a CPU that has high single-core performance values in order to achieve optimal game performance. If your CPU is a multi-core specialist then you will see worsening results the more modern you go.

 

That's like the short version of every MMo performance released in the past 20 years.

I am yet to play a MMo game that doesn't hangs when there is an absurd amount of players on the screen. Regardless of computer.

 

MMos are different from you common single player game, developers have few to no control to the amount of players that will sit in the same area at the same time.

GW2 is NOT a heavy game, my 6~8 year old computer can run almost at max settings if I am alone in the middle of the maps killing some randon mobs.

I don't believe tough, that even the best computer of the world, overclocked, can run a meetting of 3 zergs at WvW at absolute max settings.

 

Single players games have a caveat, the developers can control the amount of stuff in you screen at any point of the game. Which means they can "optimize" the performance at some key points so that the players doesn't notice any performance drops.

[crepuscular.9047]

GW2 is a tab targeting MMO, not an action MMO, so FPS isn't that important, 24-30FPS is fine

 

the game engine is still in good shape handling the latest hardware