Asking low-spec gamers on PoF

[Ydeirt.3905]

With the expansion going on sale again, i'm thinking to buy the PoF expansion but first i wanted to know how optimized is the maps compared to HoT expansion?

Since most of HoT maps (LW2 also quite laggy for me on med to low setting) are laggy for me (fps side), so i'm hoping to get some insight from low-spec'd gamer whether the maps have better fps than HoT maps.

[ReaverKane.7598]

PoF maps themselves don't have much issues... Some of the Living World ones, on the other hand... Ouch.

Istan, for example usually brings down a lot of people's FPS by a considerable margin. Or it did... Haven't been there in a while.

Honestly, try at your own peril. GW2 isn't a very low-end friendly game. My machine isn't a low spec machine or anywhere close, but it drops 20-30FPS whenever i'm in a world boss... The thing is that the engine is built on top of the old Guild Wars 1 engine... And back when it was being developed, people were still thinking that single-core performance was going to increase, and you should keep stacking on it, and if you know something about PCs, you'll know it hasn't. The main development was multi-core performance, but GW2 isn't optimized on that end, and i really don't know if gw2 or any MMORPG can really hold up in that regard without changing a lot of how they design the game engines, honestly.

Some people, and other MMORPGs sought a solution in updating their engines to handle more recent DirectX API's (DX11 and 12, supposedly have methods to improve multi-core performance). GW2 Devs disagree, and vow that updating the engine to more recent APIs won't improve performance (although the same statement says the same about switching to a 64bit client, and we all know how that turned out).

 

[steki.1478]

I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> PoF maps themselves don't have much issues... Some of the Living World ones, on the other hand... Ouch.

> Istan, for example usually brings down a lot of people's FPS by a considerable margin. Or it did... Haven't been there in a while.

> Honestly, try at your own peril. GW2 isn't a very low-end friendly game. My machine isn't a low spec machine or anywhere close, but it drops 20-30FPS whenever i'm in a world boss... The thing is that the engine is built on top of the old Guild Wars 1 engine... And back when it was being developed, people were still thinking that single-core performance was going to increase, and you should keep stacking on it, and if you know something about PCs, you'll know it hasn't. The main development was multi-core performance, but GW2 isn't optimized on that end, and i really don't know if gw2 or any MMORPG can really hold up in that regard without changing a lot of how they design the game engines, honestly.

> Some people, and other MMORPGs sought a solution in updating their engines to handle more recent DirectX API's (DX11 and 12, supposedly have methods to improve multi-core performance). GW2 Devs disagree, and vow that updating the engine to more recent APIs won't improve performance (although the same statement says the same about switching to a 64bit client, and we all know how that turned out).

>

The thing is, its gonna be money wasted if i tried it without knowing how it works for me first. But man that 20-30 fps drops is too much for me then.

So places does have different kind of fps for me, so being the worst on which i can only try to bear with it. The only place that have good fps is usually places with snow, though i'm not really sure how it works in PoF.

Well for updating engine, i can't at the moment. First because i use a laptop, second being big money is an issue rather just buying the expansion.

Ah well, too bad for me then.

 

> @"steki.1478" said:

> I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

 

Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

 

[steki.1478]

> @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

 

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

>

> Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

>

Generally PoF maps just come with slight fps drops (maybe 5 less than HoT, somewhere there's barely difference) and occasional larger drops in very specific areas (just like ones I mentioned in HoT). Considering that PoF maps have very low replayability, fps drops shouldnt be an issue at all. Test all areas I mentioned and see how they work for you, theres no need for benchmark because large fps drops are tied to very specific encounters.

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

>

> > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

> >

> > Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

> >

> Generally PoF maps just come with slight fps drops (maybe 5 less than HoT, somewhere there's barely difference) and occasional larger drops in very specific areas (just like ones I mentioned in HoT). Considering that PoF maps have very low replayability, fps drops shouldnt be an issue at all. Test all areas I mentioned and see how they work for you, theres no need for benchmark because large fps drops are tied to very specific encounters.

 

I wish i can actually test it without paying it first, its because i tried to buy it for my gf aswell but her laptop is a tad worse than mine. So if on me already <15-20 then i'll be worse for her especially she aren't a pvp player and a casual gamer. So scratch off pvp/wvw and raids, open world is all she can enjoy so far.

[steki.1478]

> @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> >

> > > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

> > >

> > > Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

> > >

> > Generally PoF maps just come with slight fps drops (maybe 5 less than HoT, somewhere there's barely difference) and occasional larger drops in very specific areas (just like ones I mentioned in HoT). Considering that PoF maps have very low replayability, fps drops shouldnt be an issue at all. Test all areas I mentioned and see how they work for you, theres no need for benchmark because large fps drops are tied to very specific encounters.

>

> I wish i can actually test it without paying it first, its because i tried to buy it for my gf aswell but her laptop is a tad worse than mine. So if on me already <15-20 then i'll be worse for her especially she aren't a pvp player and a casual gamer. So scratch off pvp/wvw and raids, open world is all she can enjoy so far.

 

You can test HoT areas I mentioned. I thought you already owned it.

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > >

> > > > > @"steki.1478" said:

> > > > > I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

> > > >

> > > > Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

> > > >

> > > Generally PoF maps just come with slight fps drops (maybe 5 less than HoT, somewhere there's barely difference) and occasional larger drops in very specific areas (just like ones I mentioned in HoT). Considering that PoF maps have very low replayability, fps drops shouldnt be an issue at all. Test all areas I mentioned and see how they work for you, theres no need for benchmark because large fps drops are tied to very specific encounters.

> >

> > I wish i can actually test it without paying it first, its because i tried to buy it for my gf aswell but her laptop is a tad worse than mine. So if on me already <15-20 then i'll be worse for her especially she aren't a pvp player and a casual gamer. So scratch off pvp/wvw and raids, open world is all she can enjoy so far.

>

> You can test HoT areas I mentioned. I thought you already owned it.

 

I did yea, but those test is kinda weird because the fps is rather inconsistent. I just test bloodfen again, some upper part being too laggy and the bottom part goes around 25-30 fps. Uneven frame rate all over the maps making me confuse lol.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > PoF maps themselves don't have much issues... Some of the Living World ones, on the other hand... Ouch.

> > Istan, for example usually brings down a lot of people's FPS by a considerable margin. Or it did... Haven't been there in a while.

> > Honestly, try at your own peril. GW2 isn't a very low-end friendly game. My machine isn't a low spec machine or anywhere close, but it drops 20-30FPS whenever i'm in a world boss... The thing is that the engine is built on top of the old Guild Wars 1 engine... And back when it was being developed, people were still thinking that single-core performance was going to increase, and you should keep stacking on it, and if you know something about PCs, you'll know it hasn't. The main development was multi-core performance, but GW2 isn't optimized on that end, and i really don't know if gw2 or any MMORPG can really hold up in that regard without changing a lot of how they design the game engines, honestly.

> > Some people, and other MMORPGs sought a solution in updating their engines to handle more recent DirectX API's (DX11 and 12, supposedly have methods to improve multi-core performance). GW2 Devs disagree, and vow that updating the engine to more recent APIs won't improve performance (although the same statement says the same about switching to a 64bit client, and we all know how that turned out).

> >

> The thing is, its gonna be money wasted if i tried it without knowing how it works for me first. But man that 20-30 fps drops is too much for me then.

> So places does have different kind of fps for me, so being the worst on which i can only try to bear with it. The only place that have good fps is usually places with snow, though i'm not really sure how it works in PoF.

> Well for updating engine, i can't at the moment. First because i use a laptop, second being big money is an issue rather just buying the expansion.

> Ah well, too bad for me then.

>

> > @"steki.1478" said:

> > I play on 10-20 fps on average (can get lower in some more crowded/terrain intense places). If gliding through VB canopy, DS's final boss, Xera's platforms or bloodstone fen, ember bay (ley lines for example) didnt cause many troubles you'll be fine for most of PoF. The only places where it was almost impossible to play for me are legendary bounties (not quite crowded today so it's slightly better) and last PoF story instance with some bosses being just slightly more bearable (mostly Istan or newest LS maps because they are popular).

>

> Ah, which map do you think can be a benchmark for me for atleast know how heavy the game is?

>

I think i mislead you there... That's me on a very high graphics settings, that drop.

My old junkPC, a 2008 dual core with a broken GPU, i could play reasonably well, but i'd drop to like 10FPS on world bosses, from a ~30FPS outside bosses. That's with pretty much all sliders to minimum.

The lower your settings the less impact you'll feel.

I'd just have to lower the number and quality of other player models the game draws (you have settings for that) and i'd not have any losses, or barely any. As it is, i have it all mid-high, and i get a drop from steady (limited) 60 to 30-40FPS.

 

The game isn't the most potato-PC friendly out there but it's not entirely unplayable.

A good benchmark would be WvW and World bosses. Try for something like Tequatl at high time. That should give you a good idea of how stressed the PC will get, also a good FPS killer (on a starting map, no less) is the Frozen Maw World boss on Wayfarer Foothills. The snow around the boss stresses your graphics a bit, so it'll be a good stress test, if you can find a full map on that Meta event.

 

Those are all on the F2P areas, so you should be able to test before paying.

[Randulf.7614]

I struggle a bit more on PoF and significantly more so in LS4 than I do in HoT. Most of the maps are OK due to the wide open areas, but Amnoon is an fps killer as is anywhere with a lot of detail like temples ad smoky bits

 

ls4 maps are just horrific though. As pretty and often well designed as they are, they didn;t really need to be quite the jump up in performance reqs as they were. Istan is just horrible. I whizz through it on successive runs just to avoid having to keep changing my settings each time I zone in/out. Istan suffers more for having a pretty poor meta event which is great for loot/gold but often unplayable for anyone with a lower spec machine (huge groups, packed together and blinding sfx). You pretty much have to turn off post processing to do much under such circumstances

[zabandija.9623]

In short, they take longer to load and crowded events lag crazy heck

[Urud.4925]

Not to criticize your question but... are 5 fps so important to let you skip a whole expansion? I mean, I'm able to play PoF with my Pentium G2010 and a Nvidia GT520 without much issues (loading screens are slow - no SSD) but the game is totally playable, even with my main thief. Sure I haven't all the details at max, but better to lower a bit the details than missing the whole expansion, especially at the current price. For me at least.

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"Urud.4925" said:

> Not to criticize your question but... are 5 fps so important to let you skip a whole expansion? I mean, I'm able to play PoF with my Pentium G2010 and a Nvidia GT520 without much issues (loading screens are slow - no SSD) but the game is totally playable, even with my main thief. Sure I haven't all the details at max, but better to lower a bit the details than missing the whole expansion, especially at the current price. For me at least.

 

Sorry but <12-18 fps with 5 fps difference is actually important. If i bought a game, surely i want to enjoy every content possible without the headache of having to play <12-18 fps. But with current situation it isn't possible, i bought 2 copies for me and my partner and i imidiately regret it because of the issue. I'm not blaming the game being so detailed and polish, but how one can know know much difference between the base game, HoT and PoF interms of performance before actually getting into it. HoT was fine and some barely playable, but PoF is unplayable for us. So we decided to ask a refund couple hours of "trying". The only playable parts of PoF is the bare desert which net 20-25 fps with some drops to <18 fps.

For the record i play with everything mostly low and few on medium and i actually tested lots of areas before finding a "sweet-spot" setting (settings which doesn't impact fps or lots of it).

[Urud.4925]

:/ I'm sorry that it's unplayable for you. [system requirements](https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/201862958-Minimum-System-Requirements "System requirements") for PoF are indeed higher than HoT. And those are the minimum, I know. In some points, as others said (like Amnoon city and Istan) is quite laggy. I hope they'll refund you.

[XenoSpyro.1780]

Define "low spec". I test ran this game on an i7 930, and it only ran slightly worse than on an overclocked 1700. You'll be fine.

 

Verdant Brink is the most draining area in the game with the LA crafting area being a close 2nd. If you can play through that, you can play through the rest of the game. Put everything at the lowest and call it a day.

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"Urud.4925" said:

> :/ I'm sorry that it's unplayable for you. [system requirements](https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/201862958-Minimum-System-Requirements "System requirements") for PoF are indeed higher than HoT. And those are the minimum, I know. In some points, as others said (like Amnoon city and Istan) is quite laggy. I hope they'll refund you.

 

I hope so, its just a surprise for me really. The jump in performance requirement is quite high for me.

 

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> Define "low spec". I test ran this game on an i7 930, and it only ran slightly worse than on an overclocked 1700. You'll be fine.

>

> Verdant Brink is the most draining area in the game with the LA crafting area being a close 2nd. If you can play through that, you can play through the rest of the game. Put everything at the lowest and call it a day.

 

I'm using a 5 years old laptop.

Core i5-3230M 2.6Ghz

Geforce GT 635M 2GB

The only small good bits is that i use 8gb RAM but still its DDR3 and i can't overclock a laptop.

As i was saying i already tested it, on my experience on the map, PoF is worse in terms of performance for me rather than those 2 areas. I got low fps aswell in HoT maps but in PoF not only i got low fps but also stutters.

[alchemist.6851]

> @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > @"Urud.4925" said:

> > :/ I'm sorry that it's unplayable for you. [system requirements](https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/201862958-Minimum-System-Requirements "System requirements") for PoF are indeed higher than HoT. And those are the minimum, I know. In some points, as others said (like Amnoon city and Istan) is quite laggy. I hope they'll refund you.

>

> I hope so, its just a surprise for me really. The jump in performance requirement is quite high for me.

>

> > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > Define "low spec". I test ran this game on an i7 930, and it only ran slightly worse than on an overclocked 1700. You'll be fine.

> >

> > Verdant Brink is the most draining area in the game with the LA crafting area being a close 2nd. If you can play through that, you can play through the rest of the game. Put everything at the lowest and call it a day.

>

> I'm using a 5 years old laptop.

> Core i5-3230M 2.6Ghz

> Geforce GT 635M 2GB

> The only small good bits is that i use 8gb RAM but still its DDR3 and i can't overclock a laptop.

> As i was saying i already tested it, on my experience on the map, PoF is worse in terms of performance for me rather than those 2 areas. I got low fps aswell in HoT maps but in PoF not only i got low fps but also stutters.

 

dude, i’m using an 8 year old laptop.. i changed my hard disk to ssd and drop all the graphical details to bottom.. it runs alright to play any content

[MikeL.8260]

As someone that only recently updated his rig (Ryzen 5 <3) I can tell you with utmost confidence that PoF maps are MUCH better than the HoT ones by a large margin. I had an AMD FX 8320 paired with a GTX1050ti and in HoT maps i don't ever remember getting more than 15 fps on medium settings while in the PoF maps the game was actually playable most of the time with 20-25 FPS on medium/high so I'd say go for it, it's worth it.

[Ydeirt.3905]

> @"alchemist.6851" said:

> > @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

> > > @"Urud.4925" said:

> > > :/ I'm sorry that it's unplayable for you. [system requirements](https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/201862958-Minimum-System-Requirements "System requirements") for PoF are indeed higher than HoT. And those are the minimum, I know. In some points, as others said (like Amnoon city and Istan) is quite laggy. I hope they'll refund you.

> >

> > I hope so, its just a surprise for me really. The jump in performance requirement is quite high for me.

> >

> > > @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > > Define "low spec". I test ran this game on an i7 930, and it only ran slightly worse than on an overclocked 1700. You'll be fine.

> > >

> > > Verdant Brink is the most draining area in the game with the LA crafting area being a close 2nd. If you can play through that, you can play through the rest of the game. Put everything at the lowest and call it a day.

> >

> > I'm using a 5 years old laptop.

> > Core i5-3230M 2.6Ghz

> > Geforce GT 635M 2GB

> > The only small good bits is that i use 8gb RAM but still its DDR3 and i can't overclock a laptop.

> > As i was saying i already tested it, on my experience on the map, PoF is worse in terms of performance for me rather than those 2 areas. I got low fps aswell in HoT maps but in PoF not only i got low fps but also stutters.

>

> dude, i’m using an 8 year old laptop.. i changed my hard disk to ssd and drop all the graphical details to bottom.. it runs alright to play any content

 

Believe what you want, i'm not saying that it don't work with everyone.

It's my laptop, its what i used and i tested on them "a lot". I used to try to benchmark many games since i used to play with potatoes even before using this laptop.

If it can work for you on all content, then its good for you.

Tho i'm thinking to upgrade later on, my gf just upgrade aswell with i5 930mx so it runs quite good for her now.

 

 

> @"MikeL.8260" said:

> As someone that only recently updated his rig (Ryzen 5 <3) I can tell you with utmost confidence that PoF maps are MUCH better than the HoT ones by a large margin. I had an AMD FX 8320 paired with a GTX1050ti and in HoT maps i don't ever remember getting more than 15 fps on medium settings while in the PoF maps the game was actually playable most of the time with 20-25 FPS on medium/high so I'd say go for it, it's worth it.

 

GTX1050Ti dude i cried. I tested the expansion with Low to Med setting. The only thing on med setting is the shader and shadow since i tested it on many areas, sometimes i even lower the shader but the resolution is quite blurry. Theres an area i tested and got 5-7 fps. So yea, gotta need an upgrade.

[Paradox Reaper.7249]

its not bad, then i got a gpu it is much better now.

[Cristalyan.5728]

> @"Ydeirt.3905" said:

>

> I'm using a 5 years old laptop.

> Core i5-3230M 2.6Ghz

> Geforce GT 635M 2GB

> The only small good bits is that i use 8gb RAM but still its DDR3 and i can't overclock a laptop.

> As i was saying i already tested it, on my experience on the map, PoF is worse in terms of performance for me rather than those 2 areas. I got low fps aswell in HoT maps but in PoF not only i got low fps but also stutters.

 

Not the specifications of your machine are the issue, not the age, but the type of your machine itself.

I use for me a desktop with Core i5/GeForce GT440 (1 GB)/ 16 GB DDR3 / SSD. I play with almost all the settings at max. I have low FPS only in Verdant Brink (I don't know why). If I lower the settings on the video I can play VB also without problems.

My wife uses (**not for gaming**) a laptop with Core i7 / 8GB DDR 4 / GTX 950M / classical HDD.

Of course, I installed GW2 on the laptop too B) - but I experienced what you signaled - low FPS / different frame rates on the same map etc (at max settings). Even if the laptop seems stronger than my older desktop, the performances in this game were lower. So, I think that the way a laptop uses the hardware (for energy balance purposes?) is different from how a desktop works.

 

Try to go to a service point with your laptop. Ask for a cleaning (the cooling fans) / maybe a new thermal conductor paste for CPU. You will be surprised how much dust and dirt a laptop can gather in 5 years. Even if it works in a clean environment. Try to use a cooling pad for your laptop. After this try again the PoF maps.

 

Note: If you will buy a machine for playing games, be sure to not buy a laptop. No matter how high the technical specifications are. A desktop is always the solution for gaming.