Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

No...Open beta is not to give people a good impression. It is to stress test and optimize. There are breaking points in the code of any MMO that you can't tell are there with only a thousand or so online. The goals of an open beta are as follows...

1) Stress test
2) Fix breaking points to ensure stability
3) Determine a "Critical Mass" of a server (The number of people required to create a moving economy and make sure it is easy to find groups)
4) Finish up the polish job

Vanguard Beta, is not like the LotR Online beta, where they have to offer a sweepstakes prize in order to get people to play in beta.

And again...

Wizardry: The Shader Caching is a NEW OPTIMIZATION that is only available right now for knowledgable people to test. Once they fix the bugs it WILL be turned on or available in the settings menu.

And also... They DID have to heavily mod the Unreal engine, and if you can't tell that just by looking at the game then I'm not so sure you know what engines do. And again... a sizeable portion of the VG engine are pieces of the Unreal 3 engine. Chances are they are still having compatibility issues with the 6000 nvidia line....something they have to fix, but definately nothing to throw your arms up in disgust over. Compatibility issues occur in every game. My girlfriends old gpu had huge graphical anomalies when playing WoW when it launched. It got fixed.

Originally posted by Vengeful
No...Open beta is not to give people a good impression. It is to stress test and optimize. There are breaking points in the code of any MMO that you can't tell are there with only a thousand or so online. The goals of an open beta are as follows...

1) Stress test
2) Fix breaking points to ensure stability
3) Determine a "Critical Mass" of a server (The number of people required to create a moving economy and make sure it is easy to find groups)
4) Finish up the polish job

It is also to show off the game and raise interest.  The devs have stated that the game is being rushed out the door due to running out of money and they'd prefer more time on it.  This means that open beta had to come earlier than they would have liked.

I admire the devs for being transparent about this, but I wish (like they do) that they could get running at a playable FPS for grouping on less than top-of-the-line PCs.

I sure as Hell notice a big difference between 35 FPS and 60 FPS in World of Warcraft, so what you're saying is a lie.

Originally posted by SmileyMan
I sure as Hell notice a big difference between 35 FPS and 60 FPS in World of Warcraft, so what you're saying is a lie.

Actually, the guy you were replying to (that said that 35 FPS is more than can be seen by the human eye) is both right and wrong.  If you just leave the camera completely still, then you can't tell the difference between 35 and 60 FPS.  However, when you start moving the camera around, moving, and actually playing the game then the 60 FPS becomes apparent because you don't have slowdown (that you can tell with the human eye) when you turn the camera.  That's why so many FPS gamers desire 60 FPS.  It's because they want it to stay above about 35 FPS all the time - even if there are crazy explosions and stuff going on, etc.

I'm really tired of everyone simply dismissing performance complaints.  Some of us know what we're talking about. I'm not in the video game industry, but I have been a software engineer for the last decade and know a performance issue when I see it. I also know when it is clearly my system and clearly NOT my system.

While my system is no longer top of the line, the only thing worth upgrading at this point is the video card. The performance difference between the CPU I have and the top of the line price-break-range CPU today is minimal (I'm not going to spend $1,000 for a quad core and an E6600 Core Duo is only about 20% faster than what I have).

My system is an AMD64x2 3800+ with an A8N-Sli board, 2gb RAM, 10,000 RPM Raptor (SATA) and a 7800 GTX. I have it connected to my 30" Apple Cinema Display and I play nearly all games in 2560x1600.

I can play Battlefield 2 with very high to highest settings at 2560x1600 and maintain consistent 35+ FPS. I have no problem in any game, though I do play Oblivion in 1600x1200, instead of 2560x1600.

In Vanguard, I run at the low resolution of 1280x800 with everything turned very low and my average framerate tends to stay between 15fps and 35fps. And it looks like complete crap. So I find it hard to believe that people with a lot of the systems they claim to be running (3200+ with GeForce 6600 and 1gb ram, for example) are really playing in a decent resolution with everything turned high and pulling down 50 FPS. That's just ridiculous.

I'm not averse to dropping cash on a new machine when it is warranted. I tend to build a new top of the line machine every 12 months. At this point, however, there isn't a lot other than the 8800 GTX that justifies the expense since the improvements one can expect are not even really of modest levels.  However, if I knew that "with X, Y and Z systems, you can run this game in the highest resolution with the highest settings", I would be all over it. No sweat. But I haven't seen that. All I've seen is choppy, fuzzy looking videos and still images from people claiming to have one machine or another and getting one result or another.

Now, I won't say that nobody is getting great performance on any particular machine. But stop being dumbasses and sticking your heads in the ground and drawing the idiotic conclusion that because the game works fine for you that it has absolutely no problems and any flaws or lacking performance MUST be due to poor hardware or stupid end-users.

Originally posted by Cronjob
I'm really tired of everyone simply dismissing performance complaints.  Some of us know what we're talking about. I'm not in the video game industry, but I have been a software engineer for the last decade and know a performance issue when I see it. I also know when it is clearly my system and clearly NOT my system.

While my system is no longer top of the line, the only thing worth upgrading at this point is the video card. The performance difference between the CPU I have and the top of the line price-break-range CPU today is minimal (I'm not going to spend $1,000 for a quad core and an E6600 Core Duo is only about 20% faster than what I have).

My system is an AMD64x2 3800+ with an A8N-Sli board, 2gb RAM, 10,000 RPM Raptor (SATA) and a 7800 GTX. I have it connected to my 30" Apple Cinema Display and I play nearly all games in 2560x1600.

I can play Battlefield 2 with very high to highest settings at 2560x1600 and maintain consistent 35+ FPS. I have no problem in any game, though I do play Oblivion in 1600x1200, instead of 2560x1600.

In Vanguard, I run at the low resolution of 1280x800 with everything turned very low and my average framerate tends to stay between 15fps and 35fps. And it looks like complete crap. So I find it hard to believe that people with a lot of the systems they claim to be running (3200+ with GeForce 6600 and 1gb ram, for example) are really playing in a decent resolution with everything turned high and pulling down 50 FPS. That's just ridiculous.

I'm not averse to dropping cash on a new machine when it is warranted. I tend to build a new top of the line machine every 12 months. At this point, however, there isn't a lot other than the 8800 GTX that justifies the expense since the improvements one can expect are not even really of modest levels.  However, if I knew that "with X, Y and Z systems, you can run this game in the highest resolution with the highest settings", I would be all over it. No sweat. But I haven't seen that. All I've seen is choppy, fuzzy looking videos and still images from people claiming to have one machine or another and getting one result or another.

Now, I won't say that nobody is getting great performance on any particular machine. But stop being dumbasses and sticking your heads in the ground and drawing the idiotic conclusion that because the game works fine for you that it has absolutely no problems and any flaws or lacking performance MUST be due to poor hardware or stupid end-users.

Ahh, very well said!

And I completely concur!

Originally posted by Cronjob
I'm really tired of everyone simply dismissing performance complaints.  Some of us know what we're talking about. I'm not in the video game industry, but I have been a software engineer for the last decade and know a performance issue when I see it. I also know when it is clearly my system and clearly NOT my system.

While my system is no longer top of the line, the only thing worth upgrading at this point is the video card. The performance difference between the CPU I have and the top of the line price-break-range CPU today is minimal (I'm not going to spend $1,000 for a quad core and an E6600 Core Duo is only about 20% faster than what I have).

My system is an AMD64x2 3800+ with an A8N-Sli board, 2gb RAM, 10,000 RPM Raptor (SATA) and a 7800 GTX. I have it connected to my 30" Apple Cinema Display and I play nearly all games in 2560x1600.

I can play Battlefield 2 with very high to highest settings at 2560x1600 and maintain consistent 35+ FPS. I have no problem in any game, though I do play Oblivion in 1600x1200, instead of 2560x1600.

In Vanguard, I run at the low resolution of 1280x800 with everything turned very low and my average framerate tends to stay between 15fps and 35fps. And it looks like complete crap. So I find it hard to believe that people with a lot of the systems they claim to be running (3200+ with GeForce 6600 and 1gb ram, for example) are really playing in a decent resolution with everything turned high and pulling down 50 FPS. That's just ridiculous.

I'm not averse to dropping cash on a new machine when it is warranted. I tend to build a new top of the line machine every 12 months. At this point, however, there isn't a lot other than the 8800 GTX that justifies the expense since the improvements one can expect are not even really of modest levels.  However, if I knew that "with X, Y and Z systems, you can run this game in the highest resolution with the highest settings", I would be all over it. No sweat. But I haven't seen that. All I've seen is choppy, fuzzy looking videos and still images from people claiming to have one machine or another and getting one result or another.

Now, I won't say that nobody is getting great performance on any particular machine. But stop being dumbasses and sticking your heads in the ground and drawing the idiotic conclusion that because the game works fine for you that it has absolutely no problems and any flaws or lacking performance MUST be due to poor hardware or stupid end-users.

 

Bad news! You won't be playing any new games at that resolution on a 7800 GTX. Your machine isnt bad at all but it's just plain nuts to expect to run at that resolution with those specs. It's not just Vanguard, try and play R6:Vegas or Armed Assault at that resolution and you will experience the ultimate slideshow. I run Vanguard at 1920 x 1200 (Max everything) and its perfect, I can even see myself being able to extend the clipping plane (when the devs stop it from auto adjusting ). That's running on a QX6700 with an 8800 GTX. Conroe's are up to 100% faster than AMD X2, depending on how CPU based the task is, so it is a worthwhile investment. Your expectations are a little high tbh, I wouldnt plan on gaming at that resolution (with eye candy maxed) in 2007 unless you are running SLI 8800's.

**EDIT** Your FPS is a bit low for 1280 x 800 tbh, not sure why that is.

AMD 64+ 3500 @2.6 Ghz
2 Gb RAM
2 x 7800GT SLI @ 500/1200

.......for a total of 23-28 FPS, pretty sad