My computer doesn't suck, this game is very poorly "optimized"

[ChonkyRat]

the fps drops a ton from 60 and the gameplay gets jaggy. even playing around with a bunch of settings and making it look ugly, the fps issues still happens.

[🅳🅳🅴🆅🅸🅻 ☠]

same here, gtx980, drops to 40-50 fps

[Captain Ballin]

egh the graphics are not a huge focus for this gaem, i set them to minimal and ive seen them at max, they were egh even then

[Zoratsu]

2 words "Graphic ♥♥♥♥♥♥"
the game is a Freaking ARPG, for standard you don't want nor care about Graphics style Crysis on it

[ChonkyRat]

dont tell me what i want according to what you prefer, lol.

fact is the game is constantly dipping in fps and it shouldn't be.

[thr335ec]

I play maxed aax8 etc etc, i5 3570k clocked at 4.7ghz 16 gig ram and sli gtx 970! Smooth as butter. It never dips for me. Maby something is bottlenecking your pc's?

[Toadally Awesome]

Optimization and FPS are two words that from having been used by some people together, are being copied by many others. Your fps depends on the whole "juice"(a bad term but you get it) your PC can get out of the game. It's true that lowering the graphics put less strain and as an extension better pefrormance, but the more stuff that happens on screen the fps will be invevitably reduced at some areas.

If the game was "poorly" optimized, it would mean that no matter what, it would run at 5-10 FPS on any machine regardless of settings. Poor optimization means that the code is done in a way that lowering the specs doesn't improve the performance.

As for whether the game has poor performance, I'd give it a 6/10. Your PC may not suck, but only godlike PCs can run ARPGs super smooth.

[ChonkyRat]

Originally posted by RedDan:

I play maxed aax8 etc etc, i5 3570k clocked at 4.7ghz 16 gig ram and sli gtx 970! Smooth as butter. It never dips for me. Maby something is bottlenecking your pc's?

4690k @ 4.4, 8gb ram, 290x.

no, for this game i dont have a bottle neck. i also absolutely dont believe you have 60fps at all times.

[Emperor Palpoutine]

Originally posted by Mysteriouser Challenger:

As for whether the game has poor performance, I'd give it a 6/10. Your PC may not suck, but only godlike PCs can run ARPGs super smooth.

I still find it funny whenever a game like GD devides to nose dive (FPS-wise) when I'm playing multiplayer and there's a lot of spells going on around me but I can run games with MAX graphics and resolution (on a 20 inch screen at 1680x1050) like Fallout 4, all the crysis games, BF4 on a 64 players full server, etc. with my FX-8350, 16 gig RAM and GTX-970.

If the explanation is not "optimization", then what is it? The only games that that I get FPS drops are games in beta, early access, etc. or made by small teams (such as GD). You can't say it's ARPGs that are demanding for the hardware as I can play any other ARPG max graphics like D3 with maximum party size yet never experience any lag/FPS drops.

For the size of the dev team, they did great work, and I applaud them but it is still not perfect and would still require some more work. Maybe it's simply how the engine processes multiplayer that is not fully optimized yet as I have no issue in single player.

[ChonkyRat]

Originally posted by Mysteriouser Challenger:

Optimization and FPS are two words that from having been used by some people together, are being copied by many others. Your fps depends on the whole "juice"(a bad term but you get it) your PC can get out of the game. It's true that lowering the graphics put less strain and as an extension better pefrormance, but the more stuff that happens on screen the fps will be invevitably reduced at some areas.

If the game was "poorly" optimized, it would mean that no matter what, it would run at 5-10 FPS on any machine regardless of settings. Poor optimization means that the code is done in a way that lowering the specs doesn't improve the performance.

As for whether the game has poor performance, I'd give it a 6/10. Your PC may not suck, but only godlike PCs can run ARPGs super smooth.

this isn't true at all, diablo 3 is far more demanding than this game. it was horrendous to run for a couple years but as of about a year and half ago blizzard really fixed up it's performance. especially regarding sound issues.

i do agree with your words on optimization, thats why i wanted to highlight the word (i used quotes) in the title. its been thrown around way too much and people dont really know waht it means. however i threw it in since people would gravitate over here, naturally.

grim dawn should not be suffering such poor performance.

[Bruce]

Yup, game is horrible optimized and devs think it´s all ok.

[Toadally Awesome]

Originally posted by Fabulous Platypus:

For the size of the dev team, they did great work, and I applaud them but it is still not perfect and would still require some more work. Maybe it's simply how the engine processes multiplayer that is not fully optimized yet as I have no issue in single player.

Be that as it may, there are two things to take in mind. First of all, all the games you mentioned have a much less APM rate(like hundreds less) than an ARPG. You did mention diablo later but hold on to that for a minute.

GD's team are not the ones who made the engine. Developers from companies all around get to spontaneously use an engine version from a big (sometimes nameless) company. For example a team of a new indie RPG(Like battlefield: gothic) using Unreal 4. See it like renting an engine. So Grim Dawn's engine is something that was made to support games, not something that was made for the company to adhere to the needs of a specific game(Like every Blizzard game).

Finally, Grim Dawn's multiplayer uses a peer-to-peer system. Simply put without much networking terms, you connect to Grim Dawn's Server, and then it connects you to an open game server. You do not stay on the game server all the time. In Peer-To-Peer gameplay, the player with the slowest internet connection is the one who controls everyone's internet connection.

Blizzard's diablo server(s) are big enough to hold the players and the games themselves, and as such there are no such issues. Hope these clarify your issues.

[sean_kearney]

Originally posted by {Veiny Dog}Lara Croft:

the fps drops a ton from 60 and the gameplay gets jaggy. even playing around with a bunch of settings and making it look ugly, the fps issues still happens.

Steam does not seem to care about how well games play. I'm so fed up with them I'll only buy DVD versions of games from now on.

[Percello]

Try reducing corpse duration. It's not necessary and it helps with FPS.

[Nordblut]

Originally posted by {Veiny Dog}Lara Croft:

Originally posted by RedDan:

I play maxed aax8 etc etc, i5 3570k clocked at 4.7ghz 16 gig ram and sli gtx 970! Smooth as butter. It never dips for me. Maby something is bottlenecking your pc's?

4690k @ 4.4, 8gb ram, 290x.

no, for this game i dont have a bottle neck. i also absolutely dont believe you have 60fps at all times.

And I believe it. My PC is almost a 6 year old high end and I can run this game smoothly with max settings. Only if the monitor is flooded with enemies and effects the FPS drops and that´s normal.

[Emperor Palpoutine]

Originally posted by Mysteriouser Challenger:

Be that as it may, there are two things to take in mind. First of all, all the games you mentioned have a much less APM rate(like hundreds less) than an ARPG. You did mention diablo later but hold on to that for a minute.

GD's team are not the ones who made the engine. Developers from companies all around get to spontaneously use an engine version from a big (sometimes nameless) company. For example a team of a new indie RPG(Like battlefield: gothic) using Unreal 4. See it like renting an engine. So Grim Dawn's engine is something that was made to support games, not something that was made for the company to adhere to the needs of a specific game(Like every Blizzard game).

The engine was made for TQ several years ago so it IS actually MADE for an ARPG. Though, it was said around (can't find source) that they had to rework the way it was handleling multiplayer processes. As I'm only getting FPS drops in multi... it could explain why as it was not developped mainly for multiplayer.

Originally posted by Mysteriouser Challenger:

Finally, Grim Dawn's multiplayer uses a peer-to-peer system. Simply put without much networking terms, you connect to Grim Dawn's Server, and then it connects you to an open game server. You do not stay on the game server all the time. In Peer-To-Peer gameplay, the player with the slowest internet connection is the one who controls everyone's internet connection.

You did not understand what I wrote it seems as I talked about FPS drops, not ping/ms lag or delays. I'v been gaming online for the past 15 years, I know ALL about p2p vs dedicated servers, etc. but it changes nothing over the facts: I can play with ppl in LAN if I want, I'm still gonna experience some severe FPS drops with my good hardware when there's a lot of big spells going around (mainly "storm callers" builds spamming lightning everywhere) and/or a LOT of mobs running/attacking/casting spells around. Nothing to do with internet.

Originally posted by Mysteriouser Challenger:

Blizzard's diablo server(s) are big enough to hold the players and the games themselves, and as such there are no such issues. Hope these clarify your issues.

See previous explanation.

TL:DR: it is not internet lag or delays at all, it's FPS drops which is most likely the result of optimization issues but I'm not bashing the devs about it (they made a GREAT game). I'm simply stating the truth that it is not perfect and that even with good hardware like mine (FX-8350, 16gig RAM, GTX-970) you can and will most likely experience some FPS drops in multiplayer sessions when there's a lot of stuff going on at the same time in your screen.