Age of Conan

---

Originally posted by Jackdog

I think the main point is that I could take a high end video card stick in a extreme high end system and still  get less than 40 FPS. Piss poor coding any way you cut it. This game is not worth building a 4000 or 5000 dollar box for, even if fixed all the bugs and and added in 5 times the content, and managed to balance the classes.

---

Originally posted by Annekynn

 

---

Originally posted by fyerwall

---

Originally posted by Annekynn

 

 

---

Originally posted by Draccan

---

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

---

Originally posted by Arcken

What do these cards benchmark at during the 48vs48 sieges? Oh wait, they promised those at launch but didnt deliver did they....

 

---

 

urrm about 20 fps for me on average in the thick of it. You?
Wait... had to build city up first!
Wait there was a bug that prevented some guilds getting there about 9 days before they could, big whoop!

---

 

They said "sieges are in at launch"
sieges were not in at launch.
You know it. I know it. So stop pretending dude.

---

 

They werent? Then what exactly were players sieging when the first battlekeeps went up? Their dreams? First guilds on our server to get battlekeeps up sieged one another at the first opportunity just fine.

---

They were added about 1-2 weeks after launch, hence not in at launch.

---

 

Alright and how many guilds had their battlekeep up 1-2 weeks after launch? Thats like saying "tier 3 wasnt in at launch but was added 1-2 weeks later so im going to make a big deal out of it", even though no one even had tier 1 by then.

Actually there were quite a few people ready to build battle keeps, judging by the amount of siege wars that happened 1-3 days after they were patched in.

Originally posted by Rellek

 

---

Originally posted by Jackdog

 

I think the main point is that I could take a high end video card stick in a extreme high end system and still  get less than 40 FPS. Piss poor coding any way you cut it. This game is not worth building a 4000 or 5000 dollar box for, even if fixed all the bugs and and added in 5 times the content, and managed to balance the classes.

---

 
You should never build a system for one game, nor should you ever buy one game station for one game. It is a waste of money and no single game can justify buying a such a system. A 5000 dollar system is a lot for any computer and if it is that expensive, it is what you call bleeding edge, a system meant for enthusiasts that have the money to constantly buy new parts. Not only, these parts are much more expensive and lose value immediately after a few months.

 

so why are the fanbois making threads to show graphics tests made on such machines?Oops they just cut and pasted the framerates, and did not happen to list the specs on the test machines...hmm spin maybe LOL.

It's even funnier that the game still performance is only mediocre on as you call it "bleeding edge" overclocked 6 grand machines when the average gamer is trying to play on less than half that machine.  I bet less than half the gamers here are using Crossfire or SLI let alone 1500 CPU's or600 hundred dollar DDR3- 1800 memory. Some are sure, but it ain't gonna be me.

---

Originally posted by Jackdog
so why are the fanbois making threads to show graphics tests made on such machines?OOps they just cut and pasted the framerates, and did not happen to list the specsa on the test machines...hmm spin maybe LOL.
It's even funnier that the game still performance is only mediocre on as you call it "bleeding edge" overclocked 6 grand machines when the average gamer is trying to play on less than half that machine.  I bet less than half the gamers here are using Crossfire or SLI let alone 1500 CPU's or600 hundred dollar DDR3- 1800 memory. Some are sure, but it ain't gonna be me.

---

 
First, I don't play AoC. Second even after Everquest 2  had come out no machine reasonably play with all the settings turned to the maximum for a long time. AoC attempted that and there is a system configuration that is capable of having all the settings turned on in a very amount of short time. MMOs are designed to be played for years, and offering settings that won't be obtainable is part of that strategy.

If you really wanted to make any sort of argument, you would of looked at his source to see that the ATI card has all the settings maxed and NVIDIA was unable to match as it had a few settings turned down.

Originally posted by Rellek

 

---

Originally posted by Jackdog
so why are the fanbois making threads to show graphics tests made on such machines?OOps they just cut and pasted the framerates, and did not happen to list the specsa on the test machines...hmm spin maybe LOL.
It's even funnier that the game still performance is only mediocre on as you call it "bleeding edge" overclocked 6 grand machines when the average gamer is trying to play on less than half that machine.  I bet less than half the gamers here are using Crossfire or SLI let alone 1500 CPU's or600 hundred dollar DDR3- 1800 memory. Some are sure, but it ain't gonna be me.

---

 
First, I don't play AoC. Second even after Everquest 2  had come out no machine reasonably play with all the settings turned to the maximum for a long time. AoC attempted that and there is a system configuration that is capable of having all the settings turned on in a very amount of short time. MMOs are designed to be played for years, and offering settings that won't be obtainable is part of that strategy.
If you really wanted to make any sort of argument, you would of looked at his source to see that the ATI card has all the settings on high and NVIDIA is unable to match as it has a few settings turned down.

 

First of all I don't give a crap whether the Nvidia card beats the ATI or vice versa.  All I am saying is the testes were done on extreme high end computers and AoC still was a dog of a performer whether you are a ATI or Nvidia  owner the graphics performance of AoC sucks.

It is obvious you and I are talking about two different things, its unfortunate, but take comfort that the cost to play these graphically intense games will drop as better hardware comes out.

Originally posted by Rellek

It is obvious you and I are talking about two different things, its unfortunate, but take comfort that the cost to play these graphically intense games will drop as better hardware comes out.

if you read some of my other posts you will find that I play some of these graphically intense games such as EQII and LoTRO on very high settings with my little old low end Gigabyte motherboard ( $150)with a E8400 processor ( $189) , 2 gigs of DDR 8500 ( $120) and a EVGA 8800GT/512 ( $155) and still manage to get 60+ FPS in LoTRO with all settings maxxed at 1680 x 1050 and everything maxxed in EQII except shadows are tweaked and get 50 - 60 FPS. Don't really need a six grand computer except for epeen bragging in my opinion. LoTRO and EQII have pretty damn good graphics and a hell of a lot better gameplay than AoC. AoC just performs like shit and does not have the game play or the content that it should in my opinion.

Here are some real stats to chew on. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6192732/p-2.html

$6000 machine to play the game on ... yea right. All done on machines no where near that cost.

Their self proclaimed awesome machine can be brought for under $1000 or upgraded to easily without that quad and a cheaper one in place overclocked. Or Even their awesome system for 2k.

Jackdog I had a system just like yours and get 60 fps plus in AoC since day one. Would you care for my system specs and fraps as proof for average value?

Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures, Funcom's new massively multiplayer online role-playing game, lets players develop their characters and explore the mythical world of Hyboria. The game offers excellent graphics but also comes with equally breathtaking PC system requirements. Much of the game runs without a hitch, but like many MMORPGs, the true test of the hardware is in the large cities. High population counts, towering spires, long view distances, and tremendous amounts of shadowing all combine to make game frame rates about as viscous as corn syrup. Weaker computers will grind to a stop, while more powerful machines will limp along at less than half or even a third of their usual performance when faced with these large city environments. There isn't much you can do to avoid the frame rate hit, but you can upgrade a few key components to make the game a bit more playable.

Server conditions, population activity, and numerous other conditions make testing MMORPGs difficult. We increased our usual test duration to three minutes and used FRAPs to measure frame rates to compensate for the variability of our test runs. Our test ran through the streets of Old Terantia where we wound our way from the East Gate to the docks and back. The path has a mix of long view distances, heavily trafficked areas, and graphically varied regions that make the test brutal on the system hardware, as well as representative of the different scenery that the game offers. We found that the city test represents the absolute worst case scenario. We easily saw our frame rates double as soon as we stepped outside of cities, and combat instances in enclosed areas proved much less taxing than the civil environments.

Game Settings
Age of Conan has lots of adjustable settings and sliders, but most of them don't affect performance. However, there are a few settings you can tweak to easily double performance.

Graphics
The game's minimum system requirements starts with a GeForce 6600 video card, but we'd be surprised if you could do any more than look at the title screen with such an old card. We went through almost 20 video cards to identify the video cards that give you the most bang for your buck.

CPU
We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Toss your single-core processor in the dust bin of obsolete technology. Age of Conan practically requires a dual-core processor to run at all. We tested various speed quad-core, dual-core, and single-core CPUs from both Intel and AMD to help you decide where to devote your CPU budget.

Memory
Age of Conan requires 1GB of RAM to run, but that's barely enough to get the computer to boot in Windows Vista. We went ahead and tested the game with 2GB and 3GB of RAM to see what more reasonable amounts of system memory can do for performance.

Systems

A machine that featured the minimum system requirements--3GHz Pentium 4 processor, GeForce 6600 128MB video card, and 1GB of system memory--seemed reasonable, but we decided to build a test machine to see how the game performed on a system with the minimum required specifications. We didn't have many of the older parts, but we got close. We had to bump up the processor to a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and blew the dust off an old GeForce 6800. Even with slightly more powerful components, the game could barely run. We got the game to move at a semifluid pace in city environments with rock bottom settings, but playing on the min-spec system wasn't an enjoyable experience.

The game runs much better on a PC with the recommended 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB, and 2GB DDR2 memory system components. The recommended hardware let us crank the detail up to medium settings and even bump the resolution to 1600x1200 while maintaining very playable frame rates. The game played buttery smooth outside of the city areas.

Our self-proclaimed awesome system, a 3GHz Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 9800 GTX and 2GB of DDR2 RAM, ran the game without a hitch. We turned the settings up to high to experience Hyboria in all of its splendor.

 

System Setup:

Game Settings

Age of Conan has numerous settings, but mo