I’m having a rough time hosting the games because it halves my FPS, I don’t have bad hardware, a 7700k @ 5.1GHz and a 2080Ti, playing solo I get 160-300 fps, but as soon as I host a multiplayer game I get 50-160. I just need a way to minimize the performance impact, visual settings don’t change the fps at all so it is cpu limited in that aspect.
no. no. no.
Crate has announced a new renderer, which should mitigate your performance issue (50 FPS sounds still good to me, if this is the worst you have in combat).
To elaborate on the previous response - Crate was not in the position to set up dedicated servers at release, and they have no plans to add them more than 3 years later.
I mean, all the server stuff has to be there to some extent. The host acts as the dedicated server for others, which is why I’m getting the performance impact and not my friend. I just wish I could run a portion of that on a different machine on my network without buying the game again.
However I’m curious as to how Deferred Rendering would help in this instance, as far as I can understand, My issue is a CPU bound problem. My understanding of how Deferred Rendering works might be wrong, but I’m not sure how much it would effect performance on a CPU level, I thought Deferred Rendering was for more GPU lighting efficiency. I can’t seem to find any notes on how deferred rending can improve performance in a CPU bound scenario.
I would also like to clarify, I don’t want them hosting servers, I just wish I had the option of hosting a server on another computer on my network for me and my friend. 50 may be enough for some players, but fps under 100 makes it hard for me to play any longer than an hour as it gives me a headache. I’ve been wanting to upgrade my CPU but with intel stuck at 14nm it hasn’t been worth it yet.
You could try this, see if it helps.
I don’t know either, but it seems to help.
Player hosted servers were mentioned in the past, but Crate has not announced anything regarding them.
Can you say, why that is? I’m genuinely curious.
I’m less confident it is a CPU bound scenario, I did some testing with steam family sharing shenanigans.
Playing through the same section, Warden’s Laboratory Rift.
Desktop as the client and my laptop as the host
I averaged 30% CPU Utilization
64% GPU Utilization
Average of 240FPS, and a min of 153 and a max above 300.
Desktop as the server and my laptop as the client
I averaged 37% CPU Utilization
63% GPU Utilization
Average of 130fps a min of 70 and a max of 220
Moving around and doing things on my laptop and desktop at the same time isn’t easy, but the more I was doing on my laptop the less FPS my desktop got, even when the laptop was in a different area. The small increase in CPU utilization, and I’d call 63 vs 64 margin of error. I’m not sure where this performance impact is coming from. When the laptop was the host I just minimized the game so no gpu rendering was happening.
Maybe this is actually just a performance bug that can be resolved through a patch not a dedicated server. I can’t play with my friend like this because steam family sharing has a 5 minute cut-off, so I was just making a mad dash to the boss.
I wish I could do more to find out what is causing this huge frame drop in multiplayer vs single player, If I had bought this on GoG I would have been able to do this method of running the game on another system I think since it is DRM free? I’m not entirely sure how that would work though.
It just looks choppy to me. I can’t go watch a movie at a cinema because I get a migraine. Everything looks a lot more fluid with higher framerates. Moving the mouse on a 60Hz display looks like a slideshow to me, it’s better on 144hz I wish more games could reliably hold 240FPS, I’d jump on a 240Hz monitor if they did.
This didn’t have any discernible performance difference between mins and max, average did seem slightly higher.
There was no difference between disabling every other core vs just disabling core 0, both resulted in 1 core not being favored.
Changing “maxResourceThreads” had no difference, I tried 4, 8, and 16. Tried setting read only to keep it from being changed as well but there was no noticeable performance change. and always favored core 0 until changing affinity
Thanks for the suggestion though I didn’t see this previously.
You seem to have incredible eye-sight. Yes, I was wondering if you could watch movie or TV.
I can’t advise you further on the technical things. Deferred Renderer will come. Let us know, if the issue persists then.
The biggest critique i hear in other RPG/ARPG related forums is always that multiplayer sucks because of matchmaking, mods and hacks.
It would be really great if the devs would dedicate one of the next big patches explicitly to “fix multiplayer”. And when i say fix i dont mean fix like get rid of this or that, no, rather to work out a standalone MP mode where you’re only able to play just the vanilla game sans mods, hacks and all the other cheaty stuff.
Devs themselves have stated that if they wanted a multiplayer mode, aka closed servers, it should have been made probably even before the official release. Now it’s too late and with mods being encouraged, there’s next to no chance of that ever happening.
If that’s really the case then all i can say is: incredibly massive opportunity missed
At the time there simply wasn’t the money available to think of having closed servers.
The focus was on single player, not multiplayer. It was a conscious decision but if it was going happen, it should have happened before the official release.
I’m honestly glad the focus was on single player. Tired of devs these days just focusing on multiplayer and then have an half assed single player. Plus Crate is not exactly swimming in money on the same levels of EA, closed servers is an extremely expensive endeavor that also requires a lot of manwork.
Why? All ARPGs have extensive multiplayers, which people will cheat and abuse anyway. One of the main things I love about Grim Dawn is that it is single player focused.
Why? Simply because up till now only D3 managed to deliver an “enjoyable” multiplayer among all ARPGs i know (sans excessive botting) , the problem is just that the rest of D3 sucks.
GD’s opportunity would’ve been to deliver a complete package, instead GD is just like a another " really cool … but " product again.
Path of Exile…
Look, YOU think that GD is another “really cool … but” product
What is so fun about multiplayer anyways, just a bunch of morons.
Or the devs ran out of money before finishing the game because of server related costs and we wouldn’t have a game at all.
When the Kickstarter was running Medierra said he thought they’d need $2 mil to do closed servers and that was back in 2012. They were asking for $250,000 and that 2 mil would have been on top of the Kickstarter goal.
Look, i’m not trying to take one side in this Argument, but i find it rather curious and interesting, that in one Hand the GD Community expect that everyone accept every Kind of Playstyle. People GD-Stash? No Problem it’s Grim Dawn after all, you can do what you want. People use tons of Mods? No Problem either because it’s Grim Dawn after all. It’s okay if everyone have his own playstyle and the way he want to play… except if it comes down to Multiplayer, than People get rude, make fun about it etc… and justify their behaviour with this “but this Game is focused on Singleplayer anyway”. Yet i’ve to point out one of the Reasons, why this Genre even exist in the first Place and why this genre have become so popular overall the past 23 Years. Not saying there isn’t also a huge portion of Folks who won’t and can’t enjoy it solo, but Multiplayer is a Part of it’s appeal and why it was so successfull in the first place. And if you look at as example Torchlight Series, which might still have sold on release 500k copies but a majority of peope said like “The Game was great, but it misses Multiplayer” and than look at Torchlight 2, which had Multiplayer and sold over 2 Millions at Release, it kinda bothers me that people still try to discredit Multiplayer (as much as it bothers me if it’s the other extrem too like PoE or D3 with it’s forced online and MP Focus… i’m more a fan of the D1+2 Classic vibes where everything was in the middle and everyone could enjoy for themself how he wants to play). I played a big Portion of the Game solo, that’s true, but it still doesn’t change that the most Fun i had with GD was via Multiplayer with friends, and after Torchlight i wouldn’t have bought another Hack’n’Slay if they would’ve cutted the MP entirely. (And that counts vica versa as well, some of my Friends still can’t get it work in their brains that i most likely won’t even start Lost Ark with them, simply because it’s online only and for that alone the game already failed for me).
Not saying that Grim Dawn wouldn’t have profit from “closed” dedicated Servers, but there needs a certain Point (and that’s why some of this people here are so frustrated) where People like you have the accept the fact that dedicated Servers won’t happen for GD, for one because of “priorities” for another one that they simply didn’t have the ressources for Dedicated Servers.
Still i’d argue Multiplayer can be great for Grim Dawn, if you simply play with friends and people you trust(if “legit” MP is your issue).
Which is the other extreme which bothers me. While we both have a different opinion about D3 in general it seems. The thing which you call out as the best aspect about Diablo 3 is infact for me the absolute worst about Diablo 3 next to the (RM)AH (which atleast he latter one they’ve gotten rid already…) and if it’s not for the Console-Version, Diablo 3 would never had a chance to land on my top 3 Favorites HNS of all Time. Diablo 2 should’ve been your example, because Diablo 2 could fullfill everyones desires. You could play it solo or multiplayer with your solo chars in LAN or open server… or more hackfree in closed servers of Battlenet. And its sad to see that an 1998 Game knew how it’s done right and than see how nowdays many of this Games needs to be forced down to your throat with online-only.
@LightningYu I know the story about ARPGs and that you appreciate playing MP and trading etc. But there are still many who plays these kinda games single player (Diablo 2 single player is possibly more popular than ever before for instance). I think it is kinda nice that for once there is an ARPG where the single player and “do what da fuq you want” is encouranged. In other ARPGs its like “oh shit we perhaps need some single player mode” “oh crap people are botting and buying items and chars on ebay that is not good but we can’t stop it”.
Look, PoE is still (?) not possible to download and play offline. So they are missing something too that they can’t offer a good offline experience (some might disagree with me here that it is possible to play it solo, albeit online).
And just because a genre started out a certain way, doesn’t mean it can’t evolve into different sub-genres and preferences. Grim Dawn is perfect for me, mostly since its a single player non-competitive game. Why does all ARPG’s have to go in the same directions? We have had tons of suggestions like “can’t you implement paragons like in D3”, “can’t you make random maps like in Diablo 2”, “can’t you make this that they have in PoE”… if this was to be pushed to its limits, we would have no differences in these games.
The times I have played MP in GD, it did not feel balanced or fair - there was no challenge. I would enjoy it more if it was more balanced, and that is something that can be done “pretty easy”. So for me, the issue is not dedicated servers and prevention of “cheats” but more the actual gameplay balance in it self.
At the end of the day, you can play MP GD.