TX_Angel
-
Posts
2,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by TX_Angel
-
-
This will be the last expansion of the game imo. Looks like lights out after this year.
Don't be silly, the game will be here for years, it just won't get lots of new stuff.
SWG got its last expansion in 2005, it didn't close until 2011.
-
I thought thats physically not possible with mine. I only have two DVI connectors like all cards Ive seen. I have no idea how any of the other connectors allow for monitors to connect. I take it I need a special cable/plug/something between my monitor and the card but couldnt figure out what exactly I need.
Does your card not have a DisplayPort or HDMI connector, in addition to the pair of DVI ports? It *should*, but I suppose it is possible there exist cards without them.
It doesn't matter all that much anyway, within the next year or two, you really are going to want to upgrade it.
I play none of those. I used to play prototype 2 but cant because the ATI drivers are messed up for my card, the current drivers offer no support for my card as far as Ive seen and the only way to play that particular game would require older drivers.Other games I play are D3, star trek online, eve online, sins of a solar empire: star trek mod.
I haven't played most of those, so I'm not up on what STO or EvE requires these days. I suspect being MMOs, they need CPU like SWTOR does, but it is worth asking someone who plays them.
Your CPU is well suited to single player games where the GPU is what counts. Games that either have tons of players, or that have tons of separate things to process, are CPU bound. ARMA III is a good example of a CPU bound game, due to how many moving parts it has. Call of Duty, on the other hand, tends to be GPU bound, except in heavy multi-player of course, where CPU helps.
Speaking of which, the newer games like Battlefield Hardline use multi-cores nicely, which is why your CPU keeps up. If SWTOR had been written to use all your cores, you likely wouldn't be having these problems. The issue is that you're not using them. Open up task manager while playing SWTOR in a warzone (right click your toolbar and click task manager), click on the second tab (performance) and click on your CPU. With 6 cores, you should be seeing 30-35% CPU usage while playing SWTOR, unless you have other things running (web browser, music, videos, etc.)
-
Big thanks again for the very detailed reply
Sure thing.
If I figure out one day how to run three monitors with the right hardware I probably will do that. My current graphics card and most Ive seen only support two monitors. Do I need a dvi hub or another card to run more monitors?Actually, your current card should be able to support three monitors, it has EyeFinity technology to turn multiple screens into one display. EyeFinity is AMD's name for it, Surround is NVidia's name for it, they both do the same thing.
Your biggest limitation will be the 1GB of VRAM on your card for three screens, it will probably work for SWTOR, but little else these days.
You simply plug three monitors into your card, go into AMD's control panel and click the EyeFinity tab and set it up. Bezel correction options are in there so that the card renders the "blank space" behind each bezel so it all lines up correctly. The thing is, you do need three screens, the game is centered and if you play on two, your toon and everything you're looking at will be blocked by the bezels. There is no way to move the "center" to one monitor, so you do need three monitors.
It is ALSO worth noting that many cards will not work with three HDMI only monitors. I've had nothing but problems (mostly with AMD cards) getting three 1080p HDMI monitors to work. I stopped fighting it and switched to monitors with displayport, got cards with three displayport connectors, and it works perfectly the first time, every time.
Example GTX 960 card with 1 HDMI, 2 DVI, 1 DisplayPort:
Example GTX 960 card with 1 HDMI, 1 DVI, 3 DisplayPort:
The first card works fine with one monitor, and SHOULD work fine with 2 DVI monitors and 1 DisplayPort monitor. The second card works perfectly with three displayport monitors.
Other solutions can and do work, sometimes, but I prefer guaranteed solutions.
Multiple HDMI monitors "sometimes" work, and I hate "sometimes. My friend noted that the gtx I selected only has 128bit so he suggested to find one with 256bit. But we couldnt find one either. Thats why we went for a 4gb version thinking it would compensate. Guess that didnt work out as planned.The memory interface only matters if it is the bottleneck. Consider that 2GHz memory at 128-bit is exactly the same performance as 1GHz memory at 256-bit.
The new High Bandwidth Memory on Fury and Fury X for example has a 4096-bit interface, but it is very slow compared to the 384-Bit GDDR5 interface on the 980 TI. Now, when you multiple the two together, the Fury X does have faster memory, but even that only matters at 4k resolutions. In multiple tests, the 980 TI tends to be faster at lower resolutions, the Fury X faster at 4k, but the difference is minor for the most part.
This is the same as the 2GB vs 4GB thing, it only matters if that is the limitation. Adding more of anything only helps if a shortage of that thing is what it causing the slowdown.
In your case, what is causing your slowdown is your CPU, not your GPU. I think $300 spent on a CPU and motherboard will provide you a far larger boost to SWTOR than a GPU upgrade will.
HOWEVER... that being said... if you play OTHER games, then that may not be true. I suspect your CPU is fine for many games such as Tomb Raider, GTA V, Fallout 4, etc. Your GPU becomes the limiting factor in some of those cases.
Each game is different.
It really sucks that what you expect is the opposite of what you get.Yep:
Nvidia GT 730 - 4GB - $80
That card is actually SLOWER than the built in Integrated graphics of Intel's new Skylake chips. The 4GB card exists to pray on the uninformed.
Watch that video (LinusTechTips for the Win!) if you'd like to see what I mean. There is a whole section of products that have no reason to exist, but they do because they prey on people who don't know better.
Look on the bright side, now you do!
This really helped me selecting the right hardware. Im very grateful for the help *force pat on the back*Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad it was helpful!
-
I bit the bullet and bought an Acer Predator 17. Can play the game in ultra with no issues whatsoever. Look up the stats and it will give you an idea to aim for.
It is worth noting that the "Acer Predator 17" is actually a line of notebooks, not a specific one.
Example:
http://amzn.to/21xYS3q - This machine has a GTX 970M in it
http://amzn.to/1R6GtG8 - This machine has a GTX 980M in it.
Bot hare Acer Predator 17 notebooks, but the latter has far more GPU power in it. Now that doesn't matter for SWTOR, both have plenty, but it is worth a mention
---
It is ALSO worth noting that your machine has an Intel Skylake i7-6700HQ, a 2.6GHz true quad core chip that turbos to 3.5GHz (which it will get close to for SWTOR, since it only uses 2 cores).
It is a top of the line CPU in a $1,500 notebook that SHOULD run everything maxed out (if not, it would be a waste of money).
---
BTW, if you have money to burn, try this one:
Acer Predator 17
6th Generation Intel Core i7-6700HQ processor 2.6GHz
32GB DDR4 Memory
1TB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, 512GB PCIe Solid-State Drive
6X Blu-ray Disc
17.3" Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) widescreen LED-backlit IPS display
NVIDIA GeForce GT980M with 4GB GDDR5 VRAM
Windows 10 Home, Up to 5.5-hour battery life
That is a beast of a machine, but for $2,600 it bloody well should be. It does have a really nice SSD in there, a beautiful IPS Ultra HD 4k screen, and a very nice GPU. It would also play SWTOR on ultra detail, but due to the resolution, something like GTA V would struggle to run at ultra on that, it doesn't quite have enough GPU for that.
-
We talked upgrades before -- -- I'm the guy with the AMD Phenom II X4 925 2.8GHz; upgraded from a 9800 GTX+. 512Mb to a GTX 960 2GB last February, and just put a 1TB Samsung SSD in a few weeks ago. I actually remember, but the post was more meant for everyone else, not you.
I simply wished to point out that there are almost no blanket answers in the PC business. A part will work wonders for one person, and do almost nothing for the next person.
And frankly, you had a MASSIVE upgrade, the 9800 GTX+ was an AWESOME card in its day, but that day was not yesterday.
The OP has a far more recent card compared to that. I still think you need a new CPU, a nice i5-6500 would rock your world.
-
512kps...1020kps...back to 512kps...really you can't do better than this...shouldn't take hour or more for just a small update...also why can you give how much the update download going to be...
You either have a problem with your ISP, your computer, or your router. Something is blocking bitraider from running well on your end, and it could be a number of things. That is why these things are so hard to figure out, there are multiple points of blockage that have to be looked at.
-
Now you are assuming that every one is in the same financial situation as you are. Financing 15 dollars a month at an interest rate is 15+% is (average interest for people starting out is 20+%) ridiculous and in my opinion financially irresponsible.
There is no interest charged if you pay your account in full each month. You get at least a 25 day grace period, but decent cards give you more than that, I think BofA gives me 35 days, but either way, I haven't paid them a dime of interest all year, despite charging many thousands of dollars to my cards.
Having credit cards does not require being in a great financial position, it requires $200, which if you don't have, you probably need to fix that before playing games.
Take $200 into BofA, open a secured credit card, you'll get fraud protection, cash back, and a "real credit card" that no one but you will know is secured. As you save more money, you can slowly add to it, give them another $100, your limit goes up $100.
-
First: Let's just set aside the whole credit card suggestion. I believe it's a nonstarter and does little to accomplish the stated goal of the other suggestion: Get players paying.
Thanks for saying that. It feels like everyone focused on that and ignored the rest. If the credit card idea is a nonstarter, or just bad in general, fair enough, I have no problem with that. It was just one of many ideas I posted about.
Second: Removing restrictions but capping level/progress is a viable alternative to the current system. Both are designed towards giving a F2P player a taste of the game with the intent of inducing said player to subscribe. The current system (with which I am fine) employs the "stick" of restrictions. The proposed alternative of capping progress utilizes the "carrot" of allowing the player to experience everything the game offers ... without letting the player ... er, finish. There, I said it. Capping progress is just one, big, tricksy tease that promises everything, but stops you at third base.You summed it up perfectly. Enjoy the full game unrestricted, right up to a point, then sub time comes.
I don't think it is helping the game to have a million people playing for months on end for free, never to pay anything (or $5 once, which is almost the same thing).
The question of F2P restrictions comes down to "what is most likely to get people to sub". Maybe the current system is it, maybe not. I was putting fourth a suggestion on ideas that might improve the conversation rate from F2P to subs.
Third: One could argue that striking the F2P players with a softer stick might induce them to subscribe. Others could argue that swapping out a sturdy hickory switch for a silk ribbon moots the purpose of the stick. Regardless, we should not seek both the easing of the stick and the offer of the carrot. We cannot make F2P the more attractive choice.^ This, all this, one thousand percent this. Too many of the F2P threads want to ease the stick without improving the carrot. All that does is make F2P more attractive.
Of all the F2P/subscription revisions I've seen, I actually like the level cap idea. Impose a level cap on F2P and I could then endorse easing some F2P and Preferred restrictions (like the credit cap). Of course, as posited, the OP's suggestion dooms the Preferred option. If I cannot access my 65s once I drop my sub, then my characters are being held hostage. I, personally, have no qualms about requiring a (subscription) fee from players to extract their characters from limbo. But I imagine some players would blow their tops like characters in a Jet.com commercial.Consider this. I have 30 toons on Harby right now, if I unsub, I won't be able to play with them all. Since I have all the server slots unlocked, my understanding is that 14 of them will be "held hostage", since the max limit is 16 under preferred with all server slots unlocked.
So, how is having max level toons "held hostage" by a level cap limit for F2P any different than having toons "held hostage" by a toon limit for F2P?
-
I just noticed that the mainboard you suggested are MICRO boards. Are there non-micro boards available for those CPUs too? Just curious since I always used the non-micro boards, dunno what they are actually called. I forgot
Yes, I normally suggest ATX-micro boards when I'm making suggestions in the blind, not knowing what kind of case someone has. They will fit into almost anything and reduce the risk that you'll buy something that will show up and not fit.
I personally much prefer full size boards, but not everyone has the case for that and I understand.
The H110 motherboards are almost all micro boards, due to their reduced price and feature set compared to H170 boards.
For H170 boards, a nice one is this one:
ASUS H170-Plus D3 - $98
One benefit of this board is that it takes DDR3 rather than DDR4, which costs less and you might be able to reuse existing RAM on it. I have a i5-6500 installed on this board with DDR3-1600 memory running at 1.5v, which is above the "official spec" of 1.35v for DDR3 for Skylake, but this board seems to not care.
If you want DDR4 support:
Gigabyte H170D3H - $105
I selected mine for noise reasons too. How would you describe the noise level?Very quiet, in the right case, nearly silent.
I have one of those installed in this case:
Corsair Carbide Series 100R Silent Edition - $60
The above ASUS H170-PLUS D3 motherboard is also in that case, along with a AMD R9 280 GPU, and frankly even while gaming you can't hear anything, it is whisper quiet.
The case is $10 more than the "non-silent edition", but I think the $10 is worth silence.
Well, Im using two monitors with both running 1920x1080, only one for gaming. Does that count? And Im not sure about the relevance of 1080p while gaming. I only know the relevance for playing videos or streaming.What if I upgrade to a 256bit version of that card instead of 128bit?`Would you say its worth it with the setup you suggested?
1080p for gaming gives you about 2 million pixels to drive, if at 60fps, then your GPU has to render 120 million pixels per second. If you were gaming at 2560x1440 (otherwise known as 1440p), then you'd have 3.6 million pixels to drive, or 216 million per second. If you had three 1080p monitors, you could game in NVidia Surround and put SWTOR on all three screens (a wonderful experience if you have never done it, makes the game a different experience), then you'd have 6 million pixels or drive, or 360 million per second.
More pixels requires more GPU horsepower.
In your case, the second monitor doesn't really matter. Yes, it takes *something* to run the second screen, but nothing worth worrying about. Playing on one screen and leaving the other for chat, web browsing, netflix, etc. is almost the same as just playing on one screen.
As for the memory interface, I'm not aware that a 256-bit option exists for the GTX 960, can you provide a link to such a card? I'd be interested to see it. The older GTX 760 card had a 256-bit memory interface, but that is a completely different card and is slower by 25% than the GTX 960.
As for 4GB vs 2GB on a GTX 960 level card, if I may be blunt... in most cases, the higher memory version is offered to sell to people who don't know what is needed and what is not. There exist 4GB versions of cards half the performance of the GTX 960. Why? To sell to the uninformed. (4GB is more than 2GB, so it MUST be faster!)
The GTX 960 doesn't have the hardware to play games at resolutions and detail levels that require 4GB at an acceptable frame rate. Save your money and get the 2GB version.
If you think you'll upgrade to something more than a single 1080p display for gaming, such as 1440p or perhaps three 1080p screens, then a GTX 970 4GB might be a wise purchase. Anything over 1080p single screen gaming, *in general* I suggest a GTX 970, the extra performance is needed for more pixels.
-
I'll just throw in a quick note that I LOVE the results I got from upgrading to a GTX 960.
What CPU do you have? What GPU did you come from? Do you PvE solo, PvE group, or PvP group?
I ask, because all of those make a big difference to figure out if the upgrade makes sense for anyone else.
-
Big thanks for the (long) replies
You're very welcome!
I had a talk with a friend about it and we think a 600w power supply like this one should sort out one problem:Depends on the price you can get it for. I suggest this one:
EVGA 600W B PLUS Bronze certified - $45
I have one, I've used it, works perfectly, cheap price!
As for the graphics card we think a 4096MB GeForce GTX 960 will do nicely. 128bit should be fine, 256bit is 50 bucks extra. Not sure if its worth it if I find such a card. That generation is one year old while mine is six years old now. Im in europe and I didnt find it on the US amazon page.According to a page I found to compare hardware there is a 144% increase of performance between my old card and this one. http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2436&gid2=368&compare=geforce-gtx-960-2gb-vs-radeon-hd-5830
Guess if I change the other hardware I wait two more months.
In my professional opinion, the 4GB is completely wasted on a GTX 960. The limited 128-bit memory interface will prevent it from being useful since you really need 4GB for gaming above 1080p, such as 1440p, multiple monitors, or 4K, and that card doesn't have the power to do that.
The GTX 960 was tailor made for 1080p gaming, in fact the 2GB card will handle almost anything on the market today at medium to high detail levels, at 45-60 fps at 1080p without a fuss. It also is very power supply tolerant, running just fine off a 300w power supply.
The GTX 970 does need 4GB and it was designed for 1440p gaming, or multiple monitor 1080p gaming, and it does need a bit more power supply, the above 600w unit will work nicely (as would a 500w to be honest)
---
The above being said, I can tell you from personal experience the GTX 960 is actually enough for multiple monitor gaming for SWTOR. My son plays with me and he had a Sandy Bridge Intel i5 chip in a cheap Dell Vostro desktop (i5-2310) and a GTX 960 video card. The primary limit to frame rate was CPU, but he played on three monitors in SWTOR and it worked reasonably well. Not always silky smooth, but for a year, it was fine. He has a better one machine now, but for a year it worked well enough.
I suspect you'll put a newer video card in and be disappointed in the experience, if SWTOR is your gauge of success. I have an older machine with a ATI HD 5850 in it and the GPU is not the limiting factor for SWTOR (that machine runs on a 1080p monitor), it is the CPU in that machine (a Core2Quad Q6600). The performance is completely unacceptable by any definition regardless of location or what you're doing, but that is due to the 9 year old CPU, not the GPU.
-
I hate instance warzones and never queue for them. I won't even do it to get the companions that need WZ participation. There's really nothing they can do with WZs that will ever make me want to play them.
How about rewards for open world PvP? The only games I've enjoyed PvP in were objective based, open world ones.
There is effectively no open-world PVP in SWTOR. Oh sure, there is a TINY bit, but not really. If that is your thing, you need a new game.
-
I have ~300$ saved up for upgrades at the moment. I hope thats enough for good graphics card and a combatible power supply. What graphics card generation should I aim for? How do I determine if my hardware is balanced to get the results Im looking for? Should I change my other hardware?
Side note:
Your HD 5830 has 1120 stream processors running at 800 MHz. It has 1GB of RAM (which is starting to show its age).
For $300, you can buy either a NVidia GTX 970 or a AMD R9 390.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-GeForce-GTX-970
That page gives you some idea of the differences, but in reality the two cards are more or less the same performance. The AMD card does consume nearly TWICE the power of the NVidia card however to do it. Both are way overkill for SWTOR however, but since you asked about $300 price points, there you go:
NVidia GTX 970 4GB - $305
AMD R9 390 8GB - $315
I would still buy a GTX 960 if SWTOR is your main game and you're playing at 1440p or less on a single monitor (or 1080p on three monitors, it will do that too). If you get anything less than a 960, I don't think you'll notice much of an improvement, you're replacing and older mid-range card with a newer entry level card in that case, it isn't really worth doing IMHO.
If your budget is FIRM at $300... With your existing card, I'd be inclined to go with the i3-6100, anything that runs on that card will run on the i3, and save you money. But if you want some future proofing, get the i5, it will be faster for other games having 4 cores. It just doesn't matter for SWTOR.
-
SWTOR, like most MMOs, relies heavily on the CPU. The FX-6110 is probably OK for normal PvE, but will have poor fps (frames per second) in crowded areas, warzones and OPs. The best option for SWTOR at this time is an Intel Haswell or Skylake i5 processor, but you could also make some improvement by upgrading your current motherboard to an FX-8350/8370.
Frankly, that wouldn't be much of an upgrade for SWTOR, the single core performance is just not an improvement (since they are basically the same chip with 2 more cores)
A H110 or H170 motherboard is pretty reasonable and in SWTOR, even a dual core i3-6100 will run faster than anything AMD makes.
Graphics-wise, an R7-370 or GTX-950 would get you basic mid to high graphics in SWTOR and should work fine with a 400watt or better power supply. (Assuming 1920x1080)You could go as high as an R9 380(X) or GTX-960/970 with a standard 500/550 watt power supply. (You gave no specs for your power supply.)
The R9 cards are power hungry, but the GTX 960 is shocking low power. I have one installed in a ASUS M32CD prebuilt desktop using the factory 300 watt power supply, it plays the game perfectly.
It is over the OP's budget, but that is something he might want to consider:
ASUS M32CD - $450
Intel i5-6400
8GB DDR4
1TB HD
It comes with AC wireless, Windows 10, and the whole point of course is that you get to keep your current machine. I will caution, it comes with a H110 motherboard, so if you don't care about having 2 machines, you can upgrade your current machine for less with a H110 board and i5-6400. But if you take the $340 option I posted and instead buy the ASUS machine and add a 8GB stick of RAM, it isn't that much more money and you get two computers out of it.
8GB DDR4 (to make the ASUS M32CD have 16GB of RAM) - $34
-
My current hardware:
AMD FX-6110
Gigabyte 970A-UD3P mainboard
Corsair pc18166 DDR3 8gb RAM
Radeon HD 5830 1024MBytes GDDR5
I have ~300$ saved up for upgrades at the moment. I hope thats enough for good graphics card and a combatible power supply. What graphics card generation should I aim for? How do I determine if my hardware is balanced to get the results Im looking for? Should I change my other hardware?
Your biggest challenge is going to be your CPU, not your GPU.
Yes, the GPU is getting long in the tooth, and an upgrade is due there, but dropping a modern video card into that machine will do far less for SWTOR than you probably expect it to.
SWTOR is only using 2 of your cores, and that CPU is terrible in single core performance. Frankly it isn't that great at multicore either.
Example:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/348/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6100_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
That compares is to a modern Intel i3 DUAL core chip (you have a 6 core). The Intel chip is 119% faster in single threaded performance (such as things like SWTOR) and is still 16% faster in anything that will use all 6 of your cores (which is very little in terms of gaming). It also does it using half the power.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/356/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6100_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-6500.html
Compare it to a modern 4 core Intel chip, it is 115% faster in single threaded stuff and 62% faster in multithreaded stuff (while still being 2 cores short).
Sadly, AMD rather sucks for CPUs at the moment, outside of very low cost APU based system at the bottom of the market.
---
GPUs are easier, SWTOR will play at full detail without a fuss on a GTX 960:
EVGA GeForce GTX 960 2GB - $180
But if you put that GPU into your current machine, it won't actually help all that much, your current GPU is enough for SWTOR. I also wouldn't go with less GPU, a 750 TI is a nice card, but not really an upgrade over your current card. A 950 is, but at $150, not worth it for the price (at $120 it would be).
A better choice would be:
Gigabyte H170 motherboard - $85
Kingston HyperX 16GB DDR4 - $70
Intel i5-6400 - $185
Total cost - $340
More than you wanted to spend, but you'd have a really nice system. You could skimp and go to a H110 board, but I think for a i5, that would be a mistake.
If you want cheaper:
Gigabyte H110 Motherboard - $64
Intel i3-6100 - $122
You can likely use your existing RAM on that motherboard since it takes DDR3, but if it doesn't work (voltages have changed for DDR3 over time):
Crucial DDR3 16GB - $57
Total without RAM - $186
Total with RAM - $243
-
If anything KOTFE and its near-exclusive focus on solo Story seems like it is the product of vision. "We're BioWare, dammit, our passion is story so we're going to rededicate ourselves to that. We'll include new group content and PVP periodically, and we'll make existing Ops relevant at max-level, in order to give something to those players, but our focus and commitment is going to be to crafting a compelling ongoing story."
All fair points, except KotFE isn't NEARLY enough story for the cost, and it isn't even that great of a story.
I've read fan-fic more interesting than KotFE. It isn't all that.
-
You are totaly wrong.
We (players) need to get them to play! There is no matter who play the game (sub, pref or f2p). The number of players online is the only matter for us.
EA need to get them to pay RL money. CM packs is good enough.
No one (not us, nor EA) need to get them sub really.
F2P players largely aren't paying or buying CM packs. EA said some time ago that 80% of CC sales were to subs.
So perhaps we should all just unsub and stop spending money on the game. I'm sure it'll have a real bright future!
-
It would be a real shame if they're looking at each little bit of the game for RoI, instead of looking at the holistic game and whether a broad selection of players in numbers are paying for it.
I agree completely... But I don't believe that they have anyone in management left at Bioware who gets that point...
Not everything is metrics. Sometimes you need a vision and some faith. After all, the game had to be designed and created before any metrics existed.
Look at Apple under Steve Jobs and Apple under Tim Cook, to see the difference between a vision guy and an operations guy.
-
I understand, so if their main focus is not raid, then they should left it there rather than rescale it.
You could debate that front to back until the cows come home. It isn't going to be changed back at this point, for better or worse.
-
With the astronomical amount of credit card debt in this society there's every reason in the world to not have one.
Since when does "having a credit card = filling it up and not paying it off?"
I have tens of thousands of dollars of open limit on my cards. They are all set to auto-pay in full each month. I never charge anything that I don't already have the money on them to pay for. Simple.
The difference is that I get purchase production, fraud protection, and cash back while using them, and a 30 day interest free loan from Bank of America.
Then there is the issue of credit card fraud. Even though you aren't liable the hassle involved with disputes, account closures, re entering info and so forth isn't worth it when you can easily walk into any major department store and buy a game card.Hassle? Have you done it recently? BofA lets you dispute right on their web site. They take 5 min on the phone if you would prefer, it isn't remotely a hassle.
When I had my account number stolen recently (unrelated to my identify theft thing), I went to their web site, marked the last "good transaction", the rest were charged back, they canceled the card and issued a new one which I had 48 hours later.
No stress to me, since I have other cards to use in the meantime. And the cards I use for the "monthly auto-debit stuff" like DirecTV and the water bill are different to the cards I use in stores and online.
This really isn't hard, if you take an ounce of prevention and planning to it.
F2P restrictions are fine as is and personally if you ask me they need to be stricter. If its basically a trial account it should be treated as one.That is exactly what my OP suggested.
-
So this had pleased neither side.
Release new ops for raiders.
Leave the old ones for pugs' fun
How hard is it?
Ops are expensive to develop, I suspect the ROI for them is rather poor when looked at directly, which is why we have gotten only 2 new ops in years.
Oct 2013 is the last time before Rav/ToS came out that we got new ops, and that would be DF/DP. It is now March 2016, or 2.5 years later. Rav/ToS came out in 2014, so we went all of 2015 without a new operation, and it looks like we may well go all of 2016 without one too.
It is clearly not important to Bioware to make new ops.
-
Would unsubscribing affect the ability to do what you do currently in the game now or are you only subbed for the credit limit?
Point being if you have to buy unlocks once unsubbed to play as you want to play ( or currently play ) someone has had to spend real money on those unlocks for you to spend credits on them.
Have you considered that those unlocks can be purchased with CC obtained via the referral links?
Some people have a LOT of CC from those.
-
What I'm saying is subscribers would buy a'lot more cartel market items and then resell on the GTN to non subscribers. I want to lower the price of things on the GTN not raise.
Sure, but I don't think the prices will drop. Rather your idea will raise prices.
If all the F2P players suddenly had access to all their credits, holy crap would prices go up. All those trillions and trillions of escrowed credits would go on a buying frenzy.
What WOULD be interesting would be to have a weekend promotion, make everyone a "sub" for the weekend. Would be amazing to watch the GTN and see what happens.
-
Tell me, if such way is good, why is people keep complaining, especially for new ops still?
I don't see a lot of people complaining anymore about a lack of new ops actually. I think the raiders largely got the message and left.
We aren't getting new ops. If you didn't get the message, fair enough, now you have.
-- I'm the guy with the AMD Phenom II X4 925 2.8GHz; upgraded from a 9800 GTX+. 512Mb to a GTX 960 2GB last February, and just put a 1TB Samsung SSD in a few weeks ago.
Minimum requirements to play with ultra settings?
in General Discussion
Posted
The in-game FPS meter hasn't been accurate for awhile now. I think it used to be, but it claims it wants more GPU power on my machine and my 980 TI is running at about 55% usage even in warzones (and that is on three 1600p screens running 12 million pixels).
On the other hand, when I overclocked my i7-4770k from 3.5GHz base to a fixed 4.2GHz speed, I did notice warzones smooth out a bit. It was enough of a difference to make it worth leaving there.
Side note, if you look at task manager, 100% CPU usage is all 4 cores being used. SWTOR will never use all 4 cores. At best, you might see 50% usage, but more likely something like 30-35% usage as it pegs one core and uses a bit of another.
Your CPU is also starting to get long in the tooth. It was fine two years ago for SWTOR, but each major release has clearly demanded more. My son had a i5-2310 (which is similar to yours) and he played on it for a year with a GTX 960 on three screens, and it was fine, but the upgrade to a i7-4790k made a world of difference in performance, warzones smoothed right out.