I will tweak my settings to keep my FPS to be between 45 and 60 at the maximum fidelity for that range, but I'm not too picky. As long as I have settings that are making an actual impact to performance and visuals, so I can dial it in, I am happy.
Kilsin said:Do you crank the graphics up to max in the games you play for the best visual experience or are you more of a performance type of player with low to medium settings? #PRF #MMORPG #MMO #communitymatters
I crank the visuals to the max that I can without losing performance, then wwill roll back just a shade to prioritize performance over visuals. That being said, I try to buy the best hardware I can afford at the time to try to get both as close to max as I can.
I push for the best visuals that I can get as long as performance is maintained. It's pointless to have hi particle density effects, shadows, smooth edges, etc. if the frame rate blows because it kills my immersion in the game and that's always what I want (as much immersion as I can get). I anticipate that Pantheon will definitely pull me into the game with visuals and sounds. If I start to take a hit in performance, I will drop down settings but only begrudgingly so.
I will update my system when needed to improve performance. I currently have a 1080Ti card mainly for powering VR games I play but will upgrade when the next gen. of nVidia cards are released this year and would get two if it helps me squeeze the absolute most out of Pantheon.
Along this vein, what would be interesting is to see Pantheon ship with a "test" program, sort of like a cut-down version of the 3DMark diagnostic to help you with balancing it. The reason I say that, what might be fast in a dungeon might not necessarily be fast in an open area or in a raid. If there was a program that ran through different graphic scenarios that you might encounter in-game and then make suggestions, and give the option to save the settings to the Pantheon config files, that would be cool.
I doubt that it will be there, bit it would be kind of cool to have something like that.
If I set things so I can enjoy alle the eye candy when I'm meditating on a solitary hill top, everything could grind to a halt later when a huge train passes by in huge dungeon while my group is fighting multiple enemies casting visually spectacular spells. And if I set them to guarantee a useful FPS in the latter case, I'll probably miss a lot of said candy.
Ideally, I would enter a minimum FPS and let the game dynamically crank the settings up when possible and down as needed, maybe guided by video preferences set by me. To what extent such a system is feasible, I don't know.
Kilsin said:Do you crank the graphics up to max in the games you play for the best visual experience or are you more of a performance type of player with low to medium settings? #PRF #MMORPG #MMO #communitymatters
I am all about the mechanics. Performance comes first over visuals. What really happens is that if I cannot have both, I upgrade my machine so I can have both. I very much proudly consider myself a PC snob and will always raise a huge middle finger to anything specced to accomodate console range performance.
Performance always, first max it up see how well it runs, then tone it back down to get those sweet 60 fps, really important for me to have smooth gameplay, makes the game more enjoyable.
One thing that I feel the need to point out is the fact that minimun settings shouldn't make the game ugly or take objects aways from the screen, it should just be resolutions, textures and effects that change, the game world should stay more or less the same making the game run on low end machines well, but still keeping the art direction and game world as the artist envisioned it. When low setting take away objetcs and make the world feel empty that's bad, because so much of the environmental aesthetic is lost, when the high setting are just a better version of the low setting that's when you get a game that looks good on all machines.
Performance first. If you gave me a game with great gameplay that truly brought back the feel of EQ1, heck I would play that game even if it had EQ1 graphics. I appreciate great graphics, but for me the most important thing is the gaming experience and part of that experience is having good performance, so I will definitely sacrifice graphics for better performance.
Gameplay is super important to me. Great visuals next.
So it depends if I am solo, grouped or if I am raiding. It is great to see many beautiful animations solo or with a small group, but it usually gets too much for the eyes and the PC and the risk is to miss a valuable piece of information (roaming add for example). When I was raiding in the past, I used to low my settings.
Performance over visuals for sure, but you need a decent baseline of visuals if you want to bring in non-hardcore people. I do the same thing as many here and just crank the graphics to maintian at least 45fps anywhere within the game. I run a 1080ti atm also so I tend to upgrade when it is needed to enjoy the ultrawide 3440 resolution.
Simple process
I go for distance first. Shoot that clip plain all the way out. This I only compromise if absolutely necessary.
Then tune the main settings as high as I can get before I see any noticeable drop in performance.
Simple choosing between visual and performance, performance will always win out.