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

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.

whoa. negative

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

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?

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.

"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?"

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.

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

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

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