21 replies to this topic

[Bloodtau]

Players suddenly appearing out of no where, seeing 5 players when there are in fact like 100 of them, crazy skill lag when there are more than 100 players in one area, certain skills not casting, the list goes on.

It's 2012, why is stuff like this still happening? they have had MONTHS to fix this but seem to not give a damn.

[yahikodrg]

Don't complain on guru post it on their officials forums...

[TGIFrisbie]

Bloodtau, on 01 December 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Players suddenly appearing out of no where, seeing 5 players when there are in fact like 100 of them, crazy skill lag when there are more than 100 players in one area, certain skills not casting, the list goes on.

It's 2012, why is stuff like this still happening? they have had MONTHS to fix this but seem to not give a damn.

The internet hasn't changed.  Once we are all on fiber optics and our computers are timed in pulses and not hertz, maybe then.

[Al Shamari]

Bloodtau, on 01 December 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

It's 2012, why is stuff like this still happening? they have had MONTHS to fix this but seem to not give a damn.

Yeah, I guess the fact that they programmers have answered questions relating to the culling issues in extensive details, explaining the problem and how they're attempting to go about fixing it, etc is just synonymous with not giving a damn.

[borovnica]

Bloodtau, there is nothing wrong with their netcode, they have a culling problems in WvW... Simply said, game is registering players there, but is not rendering them on time. They know that this is a big issue, and all we can do is hope they will fix this ASAP.

[Bloodtau]

gets a bit annoying =(
Love the idea of big epic wars but right now, the game isn't delivering that

[Pusha]

Just wait for Darkfall UW or ESO or farther down the line Archage (at least in America)

[Gremlin]

I don't know if they will fix this but I have to assume they are working on it.

The annoying thing is I cannot believe in all the play testing they didn't put in the maximum number of players into wvw and see what happened.

If they did and it worked perfectly then what is the problem now.
Its the part of the game I never tried out in the beta as I was too busy trying out all the different classes in pve.

[Al Shamari]

Gremlin, on 01 December 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

I don't know if they will fix this but I have to assume they are working on it.

The annoying thing is I cannot believe in all the play testing they didn't put in the maximum number of players into wvw and see what happened.

If they did and it worked perfectly then what is the problem now.
Its the part of the game I never tried out in the beta as I was too busy trying out all the different classes in pve.

Testing on alpha servers is entirely different than running something on live servers, end of debate.

[Bloodtau]

Al Shamari, on 01 December 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Testing on alpha servers is entirely different than running something on live servers, end of debate.

Actually no, it was this freaking bad during beta also. Did they do anything? did they 'eck...

[Al Shamari]

Bloodtau, on 01 December 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Actually no, it was this freaking bad during beta also. Did they do anything? did they 'eck...

I'm sorry, I guess you don't understand the difference between "alpha servers" and "live servers". The beta was still being run on live servers...

[Bloodtau]

Al Shamari, on 01 December 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

I'm sorry, I guess you don't understand the difference between "alpha servers" and "live servers". The beta was still being run on live servers...

Said nothing about alpha servers. You seemed to think that play testing only happened on alpha servers, which isn't true.
Remember all those stress tests? Those were in the beta, to test exactly this kind of stuff

[Al Shamari]

Bloodtau, on 01 December 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Said nothing about alpha servers. You seemed to think that play testing only happened on alpha servers, which isn't true.
Remember all those stress tests? Those were in the beta, to test exactly this kind of stuff

And it's been worked on since the stress tests in beta, it's just a more complicated issue than people here seem to think. They can't just flip a switch and culling is automatically fixed.

Edited by Al Shamari, 01 December 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[NotKMoose]

I don't know how many MMO's you've played that can have large scale unscripted PvP confrontations in realtime, but their all going to be laggy when you have so many people on your screen.

[PariahX]

Bloodtau, on 01 December 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Actually no, it was this freaking bad during beta also. Did they do anything?

Actually no, that is not how I remember it.   Rendering issues were no where near the same the BWE's but those tests were mostly held with artificially low map population caps.  When the game went live and people started screaming about the insane long queues for the WvW maps, they bumped it up a good bit and then we started to see the culling issue.  I think there was one other change made around the same time for other performance that actually made things worse a few weeks after release.

Maybe now that WvW is less popular they could drop the WvW map population caps back down to beta test levels.  The BWE's were actually pretty fun in WvW because you ended up getting know everyone on your team.  I think the map caps were around 60 for each side or so and you rarely saw massive zergs running around to create the rendering problem.  If there is not tech to fix it by the Feb WvW update patch then I strongly suggest they put us back on population restriction.  I would rather play with fewer people and queues than this silly keyboard faceroll on inc hoping you hit somethin and guessing how many are there.  

[Gremlin]

Not trying to be awkward here just trying to understand what the aim is with wvw.

Presumably given that its server vs server they imagined that at some point it was possible for two full servers to go head to head.
If that is proving  unrealistic  then maybe the concept needs a big rethink.

World vs World sounds impressive, its a great selling point for the game but if the majority of players don't have the connection or processing power to handle the strain of so many players its not going to be fun.

If 60 vs 60 was tested and worked then maybe that is the answer, but I guess that would mean giving up on the server vs server idea and don't think Anet are ready to do that yet.

I will however have a lot of respect for them if they find it doesn't work and they admit it and move on.
As I say I want this part of the game to work and be fun and if big changes have to be made then lets make them and get back to playing.

[Alderaan]

PariahX, on 01 December 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Actually no, that is not how I remember it.   Rendering issues were no where near the same the BWE's but those tests were mostly held with artificially low map population caps.  When the game went live and people started screaming about the insane long queues for the WvW maps, they bumped it up a good bit and then we started to see the culling issue.  I think there was one other change made around the same time for other performance that actually made things worse a few weeks after release.

Maybe now that WvW is less popular they could drop the WvW map population caps back down to beta test levels.  The BWE's were actually pretty fun in WvW because you ended up getting know everyone on your team.  I think the map caps were around 60 for each side or so and you rarely saw massive zergs running around to create the rendering problem.  If there is not tech to fix it by the Feb WvW update patch then I strongly suggest they put us back on population restriction.  I would rather play with fewer people and queues than this silly keyboard faceroll on inc hoping you hit somethin and guessing how many are there.  

Exactly.  Culling wasn't as issue in beta.  I 'd also prefer a smaller cap if it means no culling and i can actually run around in small groups.  This zerg swapping of capture points is not in the least fun.

[GSSB Lunaspike]

Alderaan, on 01 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Exactly.  Culling wasn't as issue in beta.  I 'd also prefer a smaller cap if it means no culling and i can actually run around in small groups.  This zerg swapping of capture points is not in the least fun.

Define small, there is already spvp/tpvp if you can find anyone to play with =P

[Arzalis]

Culling was just as big in the BWEs, there were just less people playing it because everyone was more excited about sPvP and PvE.

Also, 60 per team? It was stated to be around 300 per team and they upped that cap.

[Ngamok]

Arzalis, on 01 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Culling was just as big in the BWEs, there were just less people playing it because everyone was more excited about sPvP and PvE.

Also, 60 per team? It was stated to be around 300 per team and they upped that cap.

The answer we got that it was 500 per map so that's 166.6666 per team per map.

[PariahX]

Arzalis, on 01 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Culling was just as big in the BWEs, there were just less people playing it because everyone was more excited about sPvP and PvE.

Also, 60 per team? It was stated to be around 300 per team and they upped that cap.

I disagree that culling / rendering bug was an issue in the BWE's since we never saw it (there were times of crazy lag while they fiddled with settings and server loads, all part of beta testing but that was different).  We cannot assume there would have been the same culling issues at those population cap levels.  We had some incredible 3-way fights in SM without problems but as noted, the map population caps were much lower in the BWEs and never ever anything close to 300 per team, in fact never even close to 300 players total on any WvW map in the betas.  We were never told what exactly the numbers were they tested with and have not been told since what the caps are now so all numbers talk at this point is pure speculation including my ~60 players per side in the betas but it was something a lot of us were trying to figure out at the time because it had huge implications for the future of what WvW could be, large scale battles or not.

Ngamok, on 01 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The answer we got that it was 500 per map so that's 166.6666 per team per map.

That answer was given as a target number they believed was possible before the BWE's even began and no one ever said they got to that point at launch.  We have never been told hard numbers on WvW map caps or server population caps because those have been dynamic throughout the games life.  I would love to know what those numbers are today and think seeing the history of those changes and when rendering became a serious issue might be very telling.  The insane queues for WvW that servers faced at launch caused them to increase some caps beyond what I think their engine and bandwidth can handle.  I do not remember facing the rendering problem in the first few weeks after launch but it was so difficult to get into WvW that maybe my memory has been tainted.

[Norseman]

I dunno, I adapted. Rather than charging in when I see red, with my face bouncing off my keyboard, I pause for a few seconds to allow rendering to kick in. Perfect? Of course not. But it allows me to enjoy WvW just fine.

I wish it were fixed but it's hardly the end of enjoyment. Also I haven't had lag issues in a few weeks so either they fixed something or it's just a function of the lower populations in WvW. JQ often gets the outmanned buff these days so that might be it.