Valorant

Valorant Dev Tracker




27 Apr

Comment

Originally posted by iDoomfistDVA

Any ETA for us Ryzen bois?

There's a patch this week with some improvements!

Comment

Originally posted by mavericked

Gotcha, I appreciate the response. My friend just purchased another stick of ram to go run dual channel (just to test our theory of 1 stick vs 2) and he's seeing a 50-60 fps peak increase in fps. I actually saw a similar phenomena in Overwatch with RAM frequency, but I don't recall if I was single or dual channel. Just figured I'd share. Thanks again!

For sure! I considered adding dual channel memory to our min and recommended specs. We see the same thing internally where the game won't run well on one stick of RAM. It seems like it may be more popular to run just one stick of RAM than we originally thought. Dual channel RAM is going to speed a computer up a ton and not just for VALORANT.

Comment

Originally posted by Rawzlekk

I have a Ryzen 7 2700x with a GTX 980 Ti. Haven’t had big fps issues. I can consistently get 150-200 depending on what’s happening on the screen. In fact I don’t even notice the drops so I can’t say I really know what I get during fights or anything like that.

This is for another thread but the bigger issue for me is this “Network Problem” icon that’s consistently popping up when I have 39-45 ping. The stuttering can get really bad, like unplayable bad at times. And it’s super frustrating when I seemingly have good ping. I turned on the ping chart and there are occasional spikes that the KDA board doesn’t show, but the spikes are up to 50-60 ping which doesn’t seem to justify major stuttering.

The ping chart averages over 1/10th of second. I think the scoreboard is 1/4th of a second. It's possible you're seeing really transient ping spikes that are actually much higher than the chart shows.

Could also be packet loss so you might try turning that chart on as well.

Comment

Originally posted by Dnomes

Cmon Riot, it's so f**king SIMPLE!

.RunValorant(parallelize = true, threadCount = THREADS.MAX, coreCount = CORES.MAX) parameters, shit, how did the devs forget those options?

There are a lot of metrics that go into development, and it doesn't seem you really care about the performance bounds on either side of the userbase, plus visual fidelity isn't the only performance drain in the game, considering there's a lot of logic going on in the background. Cores and threads doesn't necessarily == FPS, as some tasks just don't benefit from being 'split' up like that.

From my anecdotal evidence, the game runs great in terms of frametime and framerate on low end and high end setups, that I have run the game on, which is really really commendable.

Cmon Riot, it's so f*cking SIMPLE!

.RunValorant(parallelize = true, threadCount = THREADS.MAX, coreCount = CORES.MAX) parameters, sh*t, how did the devs forget those options?

Ahh sh*t you're right I forgot.

On a more serious note though, we do hold ourselves to a high perf bar for the game. I'm glad players are giving us perf information from the more subjective side. We do have numbers but hearing from player's experiences directly as well is great, both when they're having a great performance and when they think we're missing the bar.

Comment

Originally posted by Devilishola

It's definitely a problem when I get the same FPS on Apex Legends - a complete BR game with a map 100x the size of this to render. I made a thread a while ago and got replies from a Riot Dev (link below), it turns out the game is heavily single threaded with almost no bottleneck on any GPU that's past a few generations old.

It's still very strange they've chosen to go with singlethreading over multithreading with how the CPU market is right now. I hope they optimize the game well, I'm a bit disappointed seeing only 180fps average.

Link Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/fxlcxu/riot_pls_valorant_doesnt_use_100_of_the_gpu_and/

I just want to jump in and clarify that our game is indeed multi-threaded. The game is using 3+ threads nearly 100% of the time. It varies based on the amount of work that can be multi-threaded at the time.

My post was to clarify that on higher end systems the best way to improve framerate is to increase core-clock of the CPU and to let people know upgrading their GPU wasn't going to help as much if you already have a pretty modern GPU.

That being said we can always look at multi-threading more of the systems to get even better performance on systems that have a large number of cores. It's something we're aware of.

Comment

Originally posted by Backha

Hi, is there any ETA on the requirements update? I was planning on buying new laptop for better valorant experience :)

We're still working on AMD optimizations, so I don't have an AMD-equivalent yet. It's hard to make a recommendation without knowing how the different parts perform :-)

Comment

Originally posted by Twitch_d33r

Ok. But can you recommend any way to change valorants code to be compatible with 32 bit? I really want to play it but my laptop is 32 bit and I can't upgrade windows because its a family computer and my family does not want me to.

We will not be supporting 32-bit :(

Comment

Originally posted by Ben_the_Silva

A game rated 16 which doesn’t allow profanity...

edgy (the mature content option allows it)

Comment

Originally posted by Risons_

Isn't there a setting? I'm pretty sure it is.

Allow Mature content turns on blood and turns off the profanity filter.

Comment

Originally posted by mavericked

Awesome to hear! How important is RAM for framerate in Valorant? Overclocking my DDR4 ram (I only have 1 stick) from 2400 -> 3200 yields about 40 fps more on average. What's weird is that OC'ing my CPU from 4.4 to 5.1 yields almost nothing, which is really making me scratch my head.

Performance is really complicated, memory access speed is definitely going to help with game performance but how much will depend on all your other components too.

If overclocking the ram helps but overclocking the CPU doesn't then it sounds like memory access speed is the bottleneck for you. This is pretty rare in my experience but isn't impossible.

I have seen other people have memory bottlenecks on one stick of ram but usually those players have integrated GPUs which places extra demands on memory access speed/bandwidth.

Comment

Originally posted by sodali_ayran

Nice idea but I believe it should be on low priority. Also I think that this buy menu will not stand for long. For some reason it feels a little bit off to me. Maybe it's because it covers all your screen and there is not empty space for new guns or something. So maybe the next iteration of the buy menu will be so different your idea may not be usable at all.

We won't be adding new guns for a while, so the shop you see will be around for the foreseeable future (though we'll be adding some QoL stuff over time.) We like the current "all-up" layout because it presents all of your options up front, and makes mixing/matching guns, abilities, and armor a lot easier compared to other approaches.

In the meantime we'll look at ways to make broken armor more noticeable for folks who might be missing it.

Comment

Originally posted by Doulikevidya

To give you a more forward response to what the anticheat dev said... I think he is insinuating that yes, the anticheat can read your webpages and record your inputs. He just states that riot has no interest in any of your browsing habits.

I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted his answer.

The distinction that I'm making is that it's not that Vanguard being an anti-cheat gives it the ability to read things from your computer, it's that all regular programs on your PC can access basically everything.

Every game you install, every program (Discord, Steam, OBS, GeForce Experience, Origin, Epic Game Store, Battle.net, etc etc) could read your browsing history and record your keystrokes.

Most programs are well behaved but it's not because they are restricted in their permissions (like phone apps) but because the developers have no interest in your browsing history (same with Vanguard).

Comment

I haven't been able to reproduce this on any of my machines with any version of VMWare so far.

If you message me I'd be willing to look at your logs to see if there's anything going on.

Comment

We have improvements coming for systems like yours in the next patch. Personally I saw my i9 framerate go from about 220 to 280 (and others with better OC characteristics were getting above 300, YMMV).

I wouldn't say that Fortnite is necessarily a more demanding game, Valorant's networking and movement model is very demanding (in part due to the high number of updates per second the server sends).

It would be a nice long term goal to increase the usage of additional cores but going from 2 or 3 cores heavily utilized to an arbitrary number isn't as simple as a configuration change. Concurrency issues are some of the trickiest problems in all of programming and so work needs to be spread across cores very carefully to prevent subtle bugs from appearing.

On the other hand we think there's still a bunch more performance improvements that we can get into the game and we're hoping to deliver some this patch but we are also hoping to continue to improve in the futu...

Read more
Comment

Originally posted by Sheroclan

Hey Arkem!

Is there any update on this by chance? A ton of us have keys and we've just had a decent sized tourney over the weekend. Would love 40ms vs the 150-250 we currently get.

Thanks!

No update yet sorry!

We have some regions coming online early next month but that doesn't include OCE. I think OCE is in the next batch though!

Comment

Originally posted by DerWici

I'm using VMware Workstation 15 Player (15.5.2 build-15785246)
still not working

Not to use a cliche, but it works on my machine :(

I've tested the latest 15.5.2 and 15.1.0 releases with no issues.

I'll take another look though

Comment

Originally posted by GamerKey

Quick question regarding the article about fog of war:

How did you handle wallbanging people if the engine might despawn an actor due to, let's call it something like, "not being line-of-sight relevant"?

If the actor doesn't exist for the client I'd wager their hitbox doesn't, either, otherwise wallhacks could just start tracking and making hitboxes visible.

And if the maps are carefully designed to not contain wallbangs between two cells that cannot see each other to solve this problem, isn't that a concern that needs to be communicated clearly to future map-makers?

The hitboxes always exist on the server even when they don't exist on the client and since shooting is server authoritative ("server sided") then the game will always know whether you hit or not.

I've tried to make the fog of war system as light on map authoring requirements as possible and so far the only real restriction is that in some situations geometry needs to be tagged as "transparent to fog of war" to avoid bugs. This doesn't happen very often though and in general map designers don't need to think about fog of war at all.

Comment

Originally posted by throwaway237169

Please whatever you do keep in mind those who struggle with motor disabilities who use ahk has a way to rebind keys to assist with those disabilities to make the game easier under the circumstances. Banning only the mouse mouse events from allowing the use of these aimbots would suffice without restricting some players with disabilities.

This is what I'm planning for this patch, we'll see how it goes. I hope we don't need to block all the features of AHK.

Comment

Originally posted by we69420

Can the anti-cheat read my open webpages or record my input when the game is open?

We're not interested in your browsing habits.

It's important to know though that almost every program on your computer can record your input or read your open webpages. This is because it doesn't take any special permissions to do so (not even admin access in many cases).

If this is something that you're worried about I recommend being extra careful about the software you install.

Comment

Originally posted by Zodiii

That's awesome! That was a neat read. The pragmatic approach is always good, so many people throw out the whole thing because it's not perfect. But I assume cheats are similar to attackers, it's all about increasing that barrier to entry and making it harder and harder until it's not worth it except to all but the most dedicated, and then you build detections around their behaviors. I think I have more questions now than I did before. Really cool, keep up the good work!

Thanks!

It's exactly like you say, very similar to threat modeling in infosec :)