And now I know why the game limits group sizes so small

[MercArcher]

Haha, I can imagine it's a lot more fun. How are you handling it? Are you doing what most people do and telling melee to go away until the game ... runs smoother? Our current Marauder complains so much that he can't chain abilities because his character is doing magic tricks at the end of GCDs.

 

I'm a shadow dps and I wasn't having too many problems, but I have that hax sprint. It defiantly is not a melee friendly encounter.

[Vialator]

Why would anyone need 12 gigs of RAM?

 

2x6 gig sticks perhaps- some people think the more they have the better- only reason for so much memory is if your into actual manipulating pixels in design.

[Soonerjohn]

The game, outside of good single player experience, just isn't good.

[MercArcher]

The game, outside of good single player experience, just isn't good.

 

Raids, while buggy, are extremely enjoyable and lead me to believe SWTOR has great raiding potential.

[Kromzor]

Get a 120 fps monitor and come back and say this...

 

People just talk crap, when they dont know ****

 

People like to think they can just spend money to make themselves better than other people, sorry to bust your bubble but... its just not true.

 

Unless you're playing on a 50+" monitor, in which case you need the higher FPS, not because you can "see the difference" (people dont see in terms of FPS anyway) but simply because the screen you are looking at is so huge that it needs the extra processing power to make things look normal and not give you a headache.

 

Theres nothing special about you at all, you don't see things differently than any other human on the planet. You do not have the eyes of a hawk.

 

So if you shelled out the cash for 120FPS monitor and its less than 50" than i'm sorry but you're just another schmuck that saw a sticker with big numbers and was easily ripped off by some kid working at Best Buy.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Kromzor

[Remag_Div]

I have an i5 2500K OC'd to 4.0GHz, SLI 580's, and 16 gigs of RAM and there are times I dip to 20 FPS on the fleet in crowded areas. Maybe this game isn't SLI friendly, but that's crazy.

 

And you can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS.

[Bdrewsy]

The eye is complicated but fast moving objects, at anything under 60 (for most people) frames per second results in a noticeable difference. The faster an object moves or the larger the amount of objects moving there is the better it is to have high framerates.

 

That isn't to say anything under 60FPS is horrible. Steady framerates of 20-40 can make it hard to notice any differences visually but as the person before me has stated the "feel" of if is noticeable.

 

As for the topic at hand, WoW to this day has poor optimization for some things (especially shadows) so this is just something you'll have to give Bioware time to fix and it's probably something that won't ever be completely fixed.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Bdrewsy

[infinitje]

This whole 40v40 crashing concerns me. I bought this game hoping for some fun end game PVP matches with hundreds in an open PVP world. I know it's not the greatest, but Aion had daily battles with upwards of 100v100 that never crashed the servers. Yes, of course, it would slow down but the battles were epic. If this game can't handle that then I think we're going to see some very unhappy people.

[Korsbror]

Pls remind me what is so epic about zerging around with immense lag, spamming your two best aoe abilities for maximum effect reducing your char to spambot ignoring 90% of your abilities?

 

Epic indeed. If anything I hope this game will never be able to handle that kind of playstyle.

[Ezio-Auditore]

Pls remind me what is so epic about zerging around with immense lag, spamming your two best aoe abilities for maximum effect reducing your char to spambot ignoring 90% of your abilities?

 

Epic indeed. If anything I hope this game will never be able to handle that kind of playstyle.

 

Mass pvp is crazy fun when the servers can handle it. Sure a lot of people would just spam aoe but people do that in warzones as well. You would he better off stacking heals and pulling/bursting their healers a few at a time. Guard and taunt mechanics would make it interesting as well

 

Im really just hoping gw2 is all its cracked up to be as far as in depth pvp goes

[Ryotknife]

Not to be all pro WoW and stuff but...

 

I was in a 100+ vs 100+ wintergrasp match in WoW before they put size caps on the teams and I was able to play fine with my fps not dropping below 20. This was on a low end two year old gaming PC with me playing from Australia. I should also point out that WoW has had a 40 vs 40 battleground since it first launched that most people can play fine. Large scale battles in mmos can be done.

 

meh, ive had fights in wintergrasp on (at the time) a brand new computer where i can cast one ability every 10 seconds or so. and keep in mind that by the second expansion, wow had already aged....what...4-5 years? so its graphic engine was behind.

 

ive had 25 mans where my (now old, but back then new) rig would usually get 60-70 fps and had it drop down to below 1 fps due to 25 people spamming the graphic equivalent of fireworks.

[JayGunny]

Are you trying to say his pc is good? Because alienwares are terrible.

 

whoa. negative

[Thaderin]

So basically this game has exactly the same problem as Warhammer Online does? Brilliant...

[Brakoo]

100 vs 100 pfft try EVE has playable, nearly lag free, PVP up to 800 vs 800 and I have even been in the server crashing 2400+ person fights.

 

Different Games, Different Engines. You can compare stuff all you want, but for being brand new in the MMO space Bioware has imo done a good job of fixing the bugs and issues since launch. They still have a long way to go, but what game doesn't?

[Mackuss]

The optimization in this game makes me cry.

 

haha that's what I've been saying for days now! Totally.

 

It's seriously so incredibly bad. Like, this is coming from a fanboi - but my God, it's like they've never made a game before.

[Malice_Nihilim]

"Originally Posted by KrelosDarksky

I see this complaint on EVERY mmo game forum that has some PvP in it.

 

Someone tell me ... what MMO game can take 40vs40 PvP and NOT drop the FPS to single digits?

 

Seriously .. WTH do you people expect?"

 

Actually.. WoW can.

 

No, WoW can't. Well couldn't...for many years WoW did not react well to lots of players gathered together. More AQ events crashed servers then anything else. 100 people in visual range was ragged for years. Don't compare many years of optimization to a fresh launched game, compare apples to apples and remember whole servers coming down from AQ events alone, and slide shows when a raid would slam into a city to go after a king.

 

 

The only game that i can think of that pretty quickly could do 40v40 without to much stress, was DAoC. DAoC's problem is they would get 200+ people out in a fight and cause crashes.

[Miffy]

I have a 6970 crossfire and my FPS is always at like 40 and drops even lower in the main station.

[Tallian]

Streaming needs ram

Fraps needs ram

 

Always better to have more.

 

Lets not forget that your vidcard eats ram, in the amount that it has. If you have 4 gig, and a 2 gig vid card, that only leaves 2 gig for everything else. Windows eats about half a gig, your AV another significant fraction... So yeah, my 16gig makes a huge difference from the 4 I had before, in every game...

 

Oh, and alot of the odd bugs people have seem to be RAM related, based on experience between me(16gig) and my roommate(2 gig). I didn't believe alot of them til I saw him play.

[Korsbror]

Lets not forget that your vidcard eats ram, in the amount that it has. If you have 4 gig, and a 2 gig vid card, that only leaves 2 gig for everything else. Windows eats about half a gig, your AV another significant fraction... So yeah, my 16gig makes a huge difference from the 4 I had before, in every game...

 

Oh, and alot of the odd bugs people have seem to be RAM related, based on experience between me(16gig) and my roommate(2 gig). I didn't believe alot of them til I saw him play.

lol

 

Your gfx does not "eat" ram.

 

32 bit win can only allocate ~4 gigs of ram total, and of this your gfx needs as much space allocated as it has onboard. Hence if you run 4gig+ of ram on your 32 bit win OS, it will only be able to utilize 4gig - gfx onboard amount. It does not help to have 8 - 16 or 32 gigs under 32 bit win.

 

Under 64 bit win os you can utilize a lot more, and under this circumstance your gfx does not "eat" allocated space from your ram. I.E you will be able to utilize all your 4 gigs of ram. (You still won't need more than 4 gigs of ram for most situations unless you do heavy rendering.)

 

/nerd

[Tallian]

lol

 

Your gfx does not "eat" ram.

 

32 bit win can only allocate ~4 gigs of ram total, and of this your gfx needs as much space allocated as it has onboard. Hence if you run 4gig+ of ram on your 32 bit win OS, it will only be able to utilize 4gig - gfx onboard amount. It does not help to have 8 - 16 or 32 gigs under 32 bit win.

 

Under 64 bit win os you can utilize a lot more, and under this circumstance your gfx does not "eat" allocated space from your ram. I.E you will be able to utilize all your 4 gigs of ram. (You still won't need more than 4 gigs of ram for most situations unless you do heavy rendering.)

 

/nerd

 

You are incorrect, sir. Your vid card DOES eat that ram, because the memory space has to be re-allocated to the vid card.

 

Also, please tell me that people still using a 32 bit OS in this day and age are rare, and not trying to play video games >.>

 

Edit: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610

 

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of on-board memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Tallian

[Haeso]

I see this complaint on EVERY mmo game forum that has some PvP in it.

 

Someone tell me ... what MMO game can take 40vs40 PvP and NOT drop the FPS to single digits?

 

Seriously .. WTH do you people expect?

 

 

WoW, Lineage 1/2, DAoC, AoC (When not inside keeps, sieges murdered frame stability worse than the open zones), Planetside, FoM, I could probably go list another dozen more - Hell lets go ahead and say "Ultima Online" too, you know, that game that came out a decade and a half ago?

[Korsbror]

You are incorrect, sir. Your vid card DOES eat that ram, because the memory space has to be re-allocated to the vid card.

 

Also, please tell me that people still using a 32 bit OS in this day and age are rare, and not trying to play video games >.>

 

Edit: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978610

Reading comprehension my friend...

 

If you have 4 gigs of ram you benefit from swapping to 64 bit os, you will benefit nothing from 16 gigs of ram under 32 bit os. Because of physical adressing, as I said. It does not help to link a hastily googled explanation when you do not understand what it explains.

[Shortcake]

pvp in ilum ? good joke

[Tallian]

Reading comprehension my friend...

 

If you have 4 gigs of ram you benefit from swapping to 64 bit os, you will benefit nothing from 16 gigs of ram under 32 bit os. Because of physical adressing, as I said. It does not help to link a hastily googled explanation when you do not understand what it explains.

 

/sigh, the portion I quoted clearly explains. Since the vidram is reallocated at the beginning of your address space, it eats ram. The increased address space in 64 bit OSes doesn't help, because its not overwriting addresses at the end.

 

And this is all happening in the BIOS. I actually watch my BIOS recount my RAM differently when I do a full length POST, the the tune of 1gig(the ram being taken over by my vid card). I have dealt with this on countless customer computers over the years, and seen vid card drivers try and handle it in various wonky ways to keep you from seeing it happen(my favorite was the one that reported normal RAM and Vidram combined to windows, with an nvidia card).

 

I have spent hours arguing with actual developers about this before it was proved to me, because as you believe, it is counter-intuitive.

 

To explain a little of the basic engineering, all system reserved addresses are mapped to the beginning of your memory space to make sure the space actually exists. That memory space starts at 0, is first allocated to RAM(because thats what it is) and then RE-allocated to the system resources that need it. This means every piece of hardware you have in your system eat a bit of ram, but you would never notice it if it weren't for vidcards and their large amounts of special ram.

 

I hope you can understand this, and that I speak from experience, and education.

 

And if you can't take my word for it, try using a 2 gig card in a 1 gig computer with a 64 bit OS

 

edit: and I am using win7 64bit ultimate.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Tallian

[Thaldor]

/sigh, the portion I quoted clearly explains. Since the vidram is reallocated at the beginning of your address space, it eats ram. The increased address space in 64 bit OSes doesn't help, because its not overwriting addresses at the end.

 

And this is all happening in the BIOS. I actually watch my BIOS recount my RAM differently when I do a full length POST, the the tune of 1gig(the ram being taken over by my vid card). I have dealt with this on countless customer computers over the years, and seen vid card drivers try and handle it in various wonky ways to keep you from seeing it happen(my favorite was the one that reported normal RAM and Vidram combined to windows, with an nvidia card).

 

This ist just WRONG. You would think developers and engineers are stupid if it really worked like this. Here is how Microsoft explains this:

 

How graphics cards and other devices affect memory limits

 

Devices have to map their memory below 4 GB for compatibility with non-PAE-aware Windows releases. Therefore, if the system has 4GB of RAM, some of it is either disabled or is remapped above 4GB by the BIOS. If the memory is remapped, X64 Windows can use this memory. X86 client versions of Windows don’t support physical memory above the 4GB mark, so they can’t access these remapped regions. Any X64 Windows or X86 Server release can.

 

X86 client versions with PAE enabled do have a usable 37-bit (128 GB) physical address space. The limit that these versions impose is the highest permitted physical RAM address, not the size of the IO space. That means PAE-aware drivers can actually use physical space above 4 GB if they want. For example, drivers could map the "lost" memory regions located above 4 GB and expose this memory as a RAM disk.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

 

To put it in simple words: devices use address space where real RAM sits. To make sure this RAM is still usable, the BIOS maps it to higher addresses. Nothing is lost, eaten, or anything else. It is only lost if you have more RAM than your 32 bit system can use.