Jump to content


Your thoughts on 1.0 Second Beta (HD Maps)


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

ortega456 #1 Posted 17 February 2018 - 07:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62783 battles
  • 1,075
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

Hey guys,

 

just have tried out the Betatest for 1.0 with the new HD maps.

 

I must say in contrast to mostly positive to euphoric feedbacks from some streamers I was kind of disappointed with the atmosphere and the performance.

 

1. Using the same settings as in the current Client I got only 1/4 of the fps (from 70 to about 20) using the improved graphics. Lowering all settings to minimum I barely got 25-30fps. When I switch to the standard engine i can get nice fps however the game looks really really shitty, like some 3D game from year 2000. With this settings the game really lost the atmosphere and appeal to it. While at the moment I can use the improved graphics on full HD with medium settings and still get 70fps I get much much nicer graphics so the 1.0 will be a graphical disastrous downgrade for me. I don't have a high end rig but it's still a very good machine thus getting 70fps now.

 

I remember WG claiming that the update 1.0 will mostly be negligable regarding fps drops but apperantly this is not the case. Who would have thought

 

2. The maps were flattened A LOT and they feel like having been gotten dumbed down. Everything feels so much flatter now and you can't use your gun depression that well anymore. Seems again like an atmospheric downgrade in my opinion. It just doesn't have the WoT Feeling to it anymore.

 

 

All in all 1.0 feels for me like a new game without much atmosphere and worse (!) graphics - at least for my hardware setup. Most important thing is that it just doesn't feel like fun anymore.

 

Can someone relate? What is your opinion on the 1.0 Beta especially for those guys without high end desktop machines??



evilchaosmonkey #2 Posted 17 February 2018 - 07:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16718 battles
  • 1,756
  • [EIGHT] EIGHT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

No problems or drop as far as I can tell on my system. FPS 100+

 

Did you try the tool that lets you see how your system does?



Shivva #3 Posted 17 February 2018 - 07:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29809 battles
  • 1,958
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
I had a different experience tbh, I found the new engine runs WoT a lot better on my potato PC. (around medium settings). Really liked the feel of the redone maps. Yes they are in general flatter but I think also helps to open the map up for more directions of fire, I felt I could support the middle more in games where I played on the flanks and support flanks from the middle too when I played there. Again just general feelings from the little I've played on the new maps.

ortega456 #4 Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62783 battles
  • 1,075
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

View Postevilchaosmonkey, on 17 February 2018 - 07:52 PM, said:

No problems or drop as far as I can tell on my system. FPS 100+

 

Did you try the tool that lets you see how your system does?

 

Yeah. It said on low settings I had an outstanding performance but in the live client it was max 30 fps. Maybe they'll optimize it some more.

 

View PostShivva, on 17 February 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

I had a different experience tbh, I found the new engine runs WoT a lot better on my potato PC. (around medium settings). Really liked the feel of the redone maps. Yes they are in general flatter but I think also helps to open the map up for more directions of fire, I felt I could support the middle more in games where I played on the flanks and support flanks from the middle too when I played there. Again just general feelings from the little I've played on the new maps.

 

 

Interesting. You seem to have had the opposite feeling to me. maybe it is just my taste of how it was supposed to be or I need to get adjusted to the new maps. However the terrible fps drops maybe skewed my persepciton of the whole thing.



Shivva #5 Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29809 battles
  • 1,958
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

 

Yeah. It said on low settings I had an outstanding performance but in the live client it was max 30 fps. Maybe they'll optimize it some more.

 

 

 

Interesting. You seem to have had the opposite feeling to me. maybe it is just my taste of how it was supposed to be or I need to get adjusted to the new maps. However the terrible fps drops maybe skewed my persepciton of the whole thing.

 

Were you playing a lot of hull down high gun depression tanks on the test?, the flattening may have screwed up some of your usual spots on maps and gave a negative feeling to the games.

Tinbawx #6 Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14747 battles
  • 1,251
  • [SNOB] SNOB
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

My fps are usually between 100-120 when there´s not much going on, dipping down into 80s-70s under stress. Rarely into the 60s. I´ve seen fps in the 50s once or twice while playing on test.

What I did notice is that textures tend to take some time to load in at the beginning of battles. Generally the load times for me are longer on the test server but I´d do have the test server client installed on my HDD while the actual game is on my SSD.

 

My computer is about 5 years old now, only the PSU and graphics card are newer. And it has never been set up anew or cleaned up (talking about the  HDD and SSD drives, it has ofc been cleaned of dust from time to time:)), so it might have acquired some quirks over the years.

 

System

i5-3570K @ 3.4 GHz

ASRock Z77 Extreme 4-M motherboard

16 GB RAM

Geforce GTX 1060 6GB

 

I run the game in 1920x1080 resolution with max details, except motion blur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Homer_J #7 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29674 battles
  • 31,403
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

 

Yeah. It said on low settings I had an outstanding performance but in the live client it was max 30 fps. 

 

What are your system specs, and have you updated your video driver?



ortega456 #8 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62783 battles
  • 1,075
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 17 February 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

 

What are your system specs, and have you updated your video driver?

 

T470p = core I7 7700HQ, Geforce 940MX, 4GB graphic ram, 8GB System Ram. All drivers up to date. Maybe I missed something or the laptop used the Intel card instead of the 940MX?

Homer_J #9 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29674 battles
  • 31,403
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

the laptop used the Intel card instead of the 940MX?

That's my guess.



IZMIR_METRO #10 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5730 battles
  • 82
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    12-18-2015

I'm Rolling 120fps+ without a single drop on every setting maxed out.

 

Ryzen 1700

16gb ram

gtx 1060 6gb

nvme ssd



ortega456 #11 Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 62783 battles
  • 1,075
  • Member since:
    06-08-2012
Ok guys, thanks for your feedback. I've tried to bind wot through the nvidia utility to the GeForce Card to no avail. Hope the released client will fix this in one way or another.

thestaggy #12 Posted 19 February 2018 - 10:52 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15395 battles
  • 1,973
  • Member since:
    04-24-2015

i3-6100

GTX 970 4 GB

8 GB RAM

 

I was getting 90 - 110 FPS with everything set to maximum.



mantazzo #13 Posted 19 February 2018 - 10:59 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6477 battles
  • 162
  • [LTUKP] LTUKP
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 10:49 PM, said:

Ok guys, thanks for your feedback. I've tried to bind wot through the nvidia utility to the GeForce Card to no avail. Hope the released client will fix this in one way or another.

 

Did you try checking in NVIDIA Control Panel? The "used GPU" settings are there; add the beta application and check which GPU is used on Auto. If Integrated - switch to High-Performance and save. Should help you. (Talking from my own experience with various games, some games tend to be launched with Intel GPU)

Simeon85 #14 Posted 19 February 2018 - 10:59 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,608
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

The flattening is a worry IMO, it is like every map has been modified so it perfectly suits Russian meds and heavies to sit hull down, whilst -10 gun depression tanks have no where to get hull down. 

 

Basically removing the only remaining weakness most higher tier Russian tanks have. 



Aikl #15 Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:04 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26013 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 08:49 PM, said:

Ok guys, thanks for your feedback. I've tried to bind wot through the nvidia utility to the GeForce Card to no avail. Hope the released client will fix this in one way or another.

 

Task manager should be able to tell you which GPU a program is actually using.

Spoiler

 

There might also be conflicts stemming from the program settings, e.g. the Nvidia software thinks the CT is the 'live' version. Try resetting or disabling 'custom' settings for WoT. I tried running the first 1.0 client on my integrated graphics, and performance suggested it would struggle on higher settings (but was about tolerable on low settings).



Celution #16 Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:12 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26350 battles
  • 1,683
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

View Postortega456, on 17 February 2018 - 07:39 PM, said:

2. The maps were flattened A LOT and they feel like having been gotten dumbed down. Everything feels so much flatter now and you can't use your gun depression that well anymore. Seems again like an atmospheric downgrade in my opinion. It just doesn't have the WoT Feeling to it anymore.

 

View PostSimeon85, on 19 February 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

The flattening is a worry IMO, it is like every map has been modified so it perfectly suits Russian meds and heavies to sit hull down, whilst -10 gun depression tanks have no where to get hull down. 

 

Basically removing the only remaining weakness most higher tier Russian tanks have. 

 

I actually think it's a general improvement, since I experienced that the old maps almost required a minimum of -8 degrees gun depression - hence why the whole "give everything -10 gun depression" meta started a while back. There are plenty of places and positions that still high degrees of require gun depression, and it will always be an important for the flexibility of the tank, especially now that you no longer can use hills and slants as easily to "fake" gun depression. Furthermore, all these random bumps, ditches and elevations were rather bad for the gameplay since you basically could go hull-down anywhere. Thus, it may actually increase the skill-gap between people who don't know how to use cover properly, and those who do. I always thought it was rather lame that terrain became so forgiving on many maps - shielding you from fire everywhere and thus decreasing the overal dynamic of the map.



Simeon85 #17 Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,608
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostCelution, on 19 February 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

 

 

I actually think it's a general improvement, since I experienced that the old maps almost required a minimum of -8 degrees gun depression - hence why the whole "give everything -10 gun depression" meta started a while back. There are plenty of places and positions that still high degrees of require gun depression, and it will always be an important for the flexibility of the tank, especially now that you no longer can use hills and slants as easily to "fake" gun depression. Furthermore, all these random bumps, ditches and elevations were rather bad for the gameplay since you basically could go hull-down anywhere. Thus, it may actually increase the skill-gap between people who don't know how to use cover properly, and those who do. I always thought it was rather lame that terrain became so forgiving on many maps - shielding you from fire everywhere and thus decreasing the overal dynamic of the map.

 

We'll have to see, though when I played the first sandbox versions I felt that basically everything was being moulded for an Obj.140.

 

i have also seen some worrying comments on WOTlabs from people who have gone in depth to all the maps saying that a lot the abusable positions or bushes on maps have gone, and that mid range combat in general is going to be harder, which in their opinion is likely to close the skill gap not widen it. 

 

I don't think we will really know until we have them live with the normal meta going. 



Dava_117 #18 Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:48 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 20240 battles
  • 3,649
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

Liked it a lot! Personal settings, with max textures and some good effect, works pretty fine: 30-40 fps with better quality (currently I'm on 20-27fps).

Maps looks somehow bigger, with similar gameplay as before. But I didn't manage to get all the maps, so still need to test them after x3 events run off. But everything is very promising including the new 3D penetration effect. 

Well done!



Aikl #19 Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:56 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26013 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostSimeon85, on 19 February 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

The flattening is a worry IMO, it is like every map has been modified so it perfectly suits Russian meds and heavies to sit hull down, whilst -10 gun depression tanks have no where to get hull down. 

 

Basically removing the only remaining weakness most higher tier Russian tanks have. 

 

I'm a bit worried too, though the text for the initial 1.0 beta release is rather interesting:

 

Gameplay improvements to select maps: The majority of HD maps didn’t call for level design changes and offer pretty much the same experience, but with greater visual fidelity. On the other hand, Erlenberg, Kharkov, Steppes, Ruinberg, and Fisherman’s Bay were considered problematic because of visible imbalances. They underwent prominent redesigns to end camp fests, ensure both teams have equal chances for control of the territory, and deliver an enjoyable experience for each vehicle class. In the next few weeks, we’ll walk you through changes to them, explaining how these changes should address imbalances. Now it’s your turn to give them another try and tell us if it worked. If not, we’ll keep on building on the initial changes with more redesigns until we get it right.

This might mean they're actually trying different things to adress the camping problems. I'm guessing it'll be a gradual change from 'passive' to 'active' (camping won't be as rewarding anymore). Hopefully the developers will do as they claim; explain what the idea behind the changes are.

In my eyes, removing the vantage points with cover would make open terrain much less of a problem - I'm quite allright with TDs being able to cover a flank, but not combining a good defensive position with a vantage point. It should be a matter of risk/reward ratio. Broken tanks are much less broken if there are counterplays against it - on many camping-oriented maps you face the choice between staring at heavies in a corridor or getting nuked if you dare cross the middle line of the map. It should not be like that.



Simeon85 #20 Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:03 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,608
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostAikl, on 19 February 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

 

I'm a bit worried too, though the text for the initial 1.0 beta release is rather interesting:

 

Gameplay improvements to select maps: The majority of HD maps didn’t call for level design changes and offer pretty much the same experience, but with greater visual fidelity. On the other hand, Erlenberg, Kharkov, Steppes, Ruinberg, and Fisherman’s Bay were considered problematic because of visible imbalances. They underwent prominent redesigns to end camp fests, ensure both teams have equal chances for control of the territory, and deliver an enjoyable experience for each vehicle class. In the next few weeks, we’ll walk you through changes to them, explaining how these changes should address imbalances. Now it’s your turn to give them another try and tell us if it worked. If not, we’ll keep on building on the initial changes with more redesigns until we get it right.

This might mean they're actually trying different things to adress the camping problems. I'm guessing it'll be a gradual change from 'passive' to 'active' (camping won't be as rewarding anymore). Hopefully the developers will do as they claim; explain what the idea behind the changes are.

In my eyes, removing the vantage points with cover would make open terrain much less of a problem - I'm quite allright with TDs being able to cover a flank, but not combining a good defensive position with a vantage point. It should be a matter of risk/reward ratio. Broken tanks are much less broken if there are counterplays against it - on many camping-oriented maps you face the choice between staring at heavies in a corridor or getting nuked if you dare cross the middle line of the map. It should not be like that.

 

Hope so, but from what I am reading on WOTlabs people seem to reckon that out of render range sniping was a lot easier on most maps and anyone vaguely caught out got wrecked.

 

But it might also have been the 'test server' meta with inexperienced players and lots of yoloing russians.

 

I do though like they seem to removing some of the more hard core corridor maps in the game. And like you say it;s all about counterplay, TD positions currently on many maps just have too much going for them, sight lines over open ground, elevation, concealment and hard cover, and they are often tucked away in corners or the back of the map so not flankable. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users