Profile: nennafir
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Your First Impression of AoC is directly proportionmal to your Computer's power

  • Originally posted by Deviate
    

    Originally posted by nennafir
    

    I have somewhere around the recommended specs for the game, so yes I did read them. :P 7800 GTX and 2 gig ram.

    Again, I can in isolation get very good fps (30+) but this really tanks in cities or when a lot of people are around.

    CPU?

    
    Deviate...calm down...I read the system requirements on the back of the box and I have close to the recommended ones.  This includes the CPU requirements.  I am sorry if you find this so hard to believe, but there you go.

  • Posted: 5/22/08 4:54 PM
    Age of Conan
• • Your First Impression of AoC is directly proportionmal to your Computer's power

  • I have somewhere around the recommended specs for the game, so yes :P I did read the requirements. 7800 GTX and 2 gig ram.

    Again, I can in isolation get very good fps (30+) but this really tanks in cities or when a lot of people are around.

    Edit:   Before you ask, yes drivers are up to date and blah-blah-blah.  I in fact recently reformatted my hard drive and installed everything again, so I don't think that's the issue.

  • Posted: 5/22/08 4:49 PM
    Age of Conan
• • Your First Impression of AoC is directly proportionmal to your Computer's power

  • I can believe this.  The game is really pretty much unplayable for me.

    If I am out in the middle of nowhere and not in a city, I can get 30-ish fps.

    But when other players come along or when I'm in a city, it can tank very very quickly.

    So saying I get "30 fps" is really very deceptive, because what is really relevant is the MINIMUM FPS I get over say any given half hour period.  This minimum fps is something like 1/10 fps (that is, one frame every 10 seconds is about as bad as it gets) which is of course completely unplayable.

    To further compound issues, I find that tweaking the graphics settings does little at all.  If I set everything to zero with the lowest possible resolution (as in, even low settings don't set things at zero, but if I further go and turn everything off and view distance to 0, etc) it *STILL* has framerate issues, even though it is redering pretty much nothing at all.  On the other hand, if I set them to medium on a more reasonable resolution, I get only slightly worse framerate (with the caveat that of course it is still completely tanking with lots of people around.)

    I have looked at performance guides stickied in the main forums as well, with no luck.

    By contrast, I can run Neverwinter Nights 2 on max settings with 1920x1200 resolution, and the Witcher also on high graphical settings.  Age of Conan is much harder on my system than either of those other two games.

    I regretfully cancelled my subscription today, although it is still good until 6/26.  It's really too bad, as this is kind of $100 or so down the drain.  I had hoped the game would last me at least a month or two...

  • Posted: 5/22/08 4:30 PM
    Age of Conan
• • The AoC bashers were rite...

  • Originally posted by Wharmaster
    

     

    Originally posted by Gishgeron
    

    I am so confused....

     

    They are acting like they are surprised at how many players are there...but...didn't they set the hardcap on EA?  I don't care one fiddle for the debate between how awesome this game is versus how bad it is.  The fact I see here that disturbs ME is that, even when presented a situation in which they have complete and total control over potential players online, they STILL can't get it right.

     So...whats gonna happen when the game goes live?  I'm just insanely lost, I mean, they set in stone the fact that 'x' amount of players were gonna have access.  No more than that 'x' CAN be available.  Why in the hell are they having to ADD servers at this point?  Should they not have already had sufficient hardware preparation done for the EA???  Its not like they were dealing with variables here, they completely boxed the numbers on this.  Not one additional player is playing this right now than they allowed.

    I worry that this will translate into how they can handle the hardware when the numbers AREN'T within their control.  This kind of thing reeks of AO...not to say it IS like AO, lord knows that they can't do THAT again.  But if you can't avoid dropping the ball when you are in total control...how the bloody hell are you gonna hold on to it when you have ZERO control?

    they knew how many players they would have, but not what kind of server they would roll on. It seems there was more interest in FFA PVP than anticipated, so more servers were opened up.

     

    Simple enough for you?

    
    Except I don't think this is happening.  Set is at the top of the server list, and I assume that Set is the most populated.  Pretty much all of the bottom servers are pvp ones.  In other words, I don't think the pvp servers are seeing a lot of action here...people are doing the standard thing and going for the pve ones.

  • Posted: 5/18/08 12:50 AM
    Age of Conan
• • WHY FC WHY????

  • As others have said, I hope they keep it small.  48 vs 48 actually seems to big to me, to be honest.

    How many of you have played gamed where you have basically been lagged to death?  It's absolutely no fun at all. 

  • Posted: 5/13/08 11:50 PM
    Age of Conan