Thunderforce

http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Exempl...n_Enhancements is a straight answer.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter the level of the IO, only the level of the power. If you can slot them at low level then buy the lowest ones possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two sentences are mutually contradictory, I think. Perhaps I do not understand you correctly?

I've been reading around this, and I'd like to check that I've got it straight. I'm wondering about slotting the various exceptional IOs with a view to exemplaring.

"Chance for" IOs: not affected by exemplar level, except inasmuch as the power they are in may not be available.

Performance Shifter: +Endurance: should almost certainly go in Stamina, or Quick Recovery if it was taken first (although if I've got QR and Stamina I probably don't need it).

The big three +Regen +Recovery: unaffected by exemplar level as long as the power is available, prefer to be in an always-on power selected at low level, which suggests Health if something like Fast Healing isn't available.

X +Stealth: should go in a power I actually plan to use while sneaking about, like Sprint. Not affected by exemplar level.

Continuous Globals like KB resistance and Steadfast +Def: _not_ affected by the power they are in being unavailable or unused [1], but _are_ affected by exemplar level, so purchase with Merits at the minimum level possible.

Am I right? Terminally confused?

[1] This last point is the one I (and the Wiki) seem most unclear on, but various US posters report the anti-KB IOs continue to work even when the powers they are in are exemplared away, providing the IO level itself is appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally given the current obsession with health and obesity, even if it was something the majority of players wanted, would NC necessarily think it a good idea to promote and / or glamourise it by including it as an addition to a computer game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked, redside characters make a regular practice of robbing banks, assassinations, revenge killings, gang turf wars... I really don't think eating a lot of pies would be a particularly contentious addition to that list.

I also think the game - although clearly rooted in the Western superhero aesthetic - has strived to go beyond it in places; I'd be delighted if (as a bare minimum amount of work) the body size sliders could be pushed as far as can be done without making the existing costume pieces look ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
How are other players using their second build on the likes of Scrappers and Tanks?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see a lot of point on a scrapper, although I don't doubt someone will find something.

On a tanker I think the standard solo/team split applies. Soloing as a tanker now, your defences are too strong, your attacks are too weak, and you probably have some teaming-only powers like Taunt taking up early power selections.

I'm planning to rework tankers around a tauntless build that cuts some defences - for instance I figure soloing you can go Resist Physical Damage not Temporary Invulnerability, and save a bit of blue into the bargain.

Then the team build can drop a few powers taken to ease soloing - particularly crash-powers like Rage.

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: If word of mouth and reviews of those games are good there will be an almighty exodus from here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure speculation. Other fantasy-cliche+grind games have had good reviews and word of mouth; where's the almighty exodus from World of Warcraft?

[ QUOTE ]
After all i14s name is mission architecht so, even if it offers other stuff, it doesnt take a genius to figure out where the thrust of that issue is coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... something that a fairly significant proportion of the playerbase has been absolutely crying out for. So why the doom?

[ QUOTE ]
it would be stretching it a little to have Hellions and Skulls able to damage a level 50 to the same extent as a level 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is already exactly what happens under the exemplar system (and if you're in a level 10 mission with a level 50 and you aren't doing something silly, you are exemplared); likewise, a sidekick can let that level 10 threaten Malta. Likewise there already exists a system to adjust drops for level-adjusted individuals.

If you were some number of security levels above the mission, you'd be unable to use late power selections, would have enhancement effectiveness trimmed, and lose XP (perhaps on a sliding scale based on the excess SLs) just as exemplared characters do.

The only subtle change I would make is if anyone levels _on the instance_, their combat level is +1 (let them enjoy the benefit) and if you are solo in your own mission, you get the benefits of levels gained since the mission was assigned (since I know some builds with weak soloing rely on strategic levelling to beat EBs).

It would mean a complete end to the problems one has in those TF/trial with a large level range (particularly the first respec, which people generally want at 24th if they have bad builds), an end to the way that mission difficulty is all over the place based on player levels, an end to the shuffling of SK and exemplars every time someone leaves, and...

... we all know the guy who won't take an SK because they _personally_ get more XP, never mind that they slow the whole team down and probably cause more work for the defenders and tankers. Those semi-leeches are a thing of the past with this scheme.

Oh, yeah, bridging's dead as yesterday's mutton, too.

Of course none of these things would happen if everyone in an instance had their combat level adjusted to the correct one for the instance. Not to keep plugging the same idea, or anything.

Try turning off the sound.

Having said all that, if I personally were implementing multibuilds, I'd have considered a system where any enhancement slotted in one build is available as a "ghost" in the other build - can only be slotted, not sold, stored, respec-sold, stuffed up your nose, or whatever.

Of course that would favour those whose second build contained trivial changes over those whose second build was radically different - but equally, the current system favours those ATs who can make do without a second build at all (hem-hem scrappers).

However, I think the real reason that wasn't done was to further promote an aspect of the IO system; that it redistributes influence from the vast piles accumulated by 50s who pre-IOs had quite static builds to the lowbies at the bottom.

Remember how it was pre-IOs? If you didn't have a highbie sugar daddy, you never slotted a TO, in order to afford that first precious set of DOs - and then in SO levels you were constantly running to catch up with the rotting SOs.

These days, that's all a thing of the past - even a tiny bit of attention to selling, and any toon will rapidly accumulate enough influence to be fully kitted up for PVE for their whole career.

Aspects of the system lead me to believe that's not an accident - primarily the way some IOs are better at low level than at high level. What better way to make rich 50s disburse vast quantities of cash into the pockets of lowbies?

Hence no enhancement sharing. If you're rich, you've now got an incentive to disburse twice as much cash - or more, as demand rises for the really good drops (but equally Merits will affect supply in a way I don't think anyone understands yet). If you're not, that means there's twice as much cash out looking for your lucky drops, making it easier still to become PVE-effective (since there's a vast salvage surplus overall and the game sells SOs and single-aspect IO recipes, the price of these does not double even if the demand does).

[ QUOTE ]
the only people that can utilise this typically badly thought out multi build system are going to be those that can afford to. In other words the hard core farmers basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really is unmitigated nonsense.

Anyone with a little patience will be able to get good use from multibuilds by Frankenslotting. With that patience, you can easily buy 2- and 3- aspect yellow recipes (at a level where their total performance far exceeds SOs) and the salvage to craft them for 20k per slot. Another 50k or so for crafting, and you're paying 70k a slot for 91 slots on a level 50 character (assuming every single slot can benefit from a 2/3/4 aspect IO, which is _not true_).

That's 6.4 million influence to completely kit out the second build on a level 50 with total bonuses from enhancements comparable to HOs. Met many level 50s without 6 million influence to hand?

Of course, if you don't have 6 million influence, you can complete the build with plain high-level IOs - which, beyond the obvious fact that the recipes and salvage drop frequently, costs pocket money if you wait until someone doing the crafting badges dumps a load on the market. A bid of 1,111 will fetch you pretty much any plain IO if you wait a few days. That's about 100k to kit out your level 50 with enhancement values considerably better than those possible with SOs. You're not exactly going to be crying in PVE.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, the whole point to a game like this is to advance your alt as far as the game will let you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is? If you ask me, the real meat of the game's from 14->30 or so. Once a character gets to 50 the point is to tie off a few loose ends and heed the seductive cry of the character creator. A new powerset, an at least fresh archetype, and a new team dynamic beckon.

[ QUOTE ]
The only real way you can progress with your alt and power up is to farm, farm farm. And they've just compounded the problem. Especially if you want to PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no, not especially if you want to PVP.

There are two reasons you might want to grind out purples indefinitely.

One is that you are a PVPer. Before multibuilds - you wanted one build full of purples. After multibuilds - you want one build full of purples, but now that build doesn't have to be compromised in any way to make it easier to level in PVE.

The other, frankly, is that you're some sort of refugee from WoW who likes grinding purples for its own sake. Now I think the decision to add a game element for people who look to endless grinding at the level cap as the epitome of MMO gameplay makes perfect commercial sense, unspeakably tedious as I would find it myself - but those people should not then complain about getting twice as much of what they enjoy.

Face it; no-one's making you use a second build, but if you _do_ use a second build you can get perfectly good PVE effectiveness on it for tiny amounts of influence. If you then look at that second build and want to fill it with sets and purples, you've no-one to blame but yourself; if you want to do it, _do it_, and don't complain about being "made" to do something you want to do; if you don't want to do it, _don't do it_, and enjoy your second build's perfectly good effectiveness for whatever you did want to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Beggars aren't that many compared to other games. I have been playing for almost 6 months and only encountered a couple

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you mention it, I can't think that it's ever happened, and I've been playing for a while. Come to think of it, I've only been a/s/l-ed once.

I reported it to Support (bit of a radical idea, I know, but this thread has really crystallised the idea that I have a definite problem). Done the "upgrade drivers" dance (having three sound devices helps here, because it demonstrates it's not just a broken sound device). They seem to be saying that they also believe that other players have the same problem and have forwarded it to QA. We shall see what happens.

I admit that wouldn't hurt, and might actually be more feasible. Obviously the salvage ingredient prices could be displayed at the same time.

My suggestion's pure wishlist stuff - but hey, if we don't ask we won't get it. I don't think the gain is that small - a greater chance of selling an apparently worthless recipe would be nice, and cheaper prices for crafted enhancements wouldn't hurt either - obviously they would be expected to get cheaper because the supply would have been increased.

I know markets automatically buying and selling items at vendor prices is a hardy perennial.

Here's a more radical idea with, for an additional plus, more development effort involved (oops). At the moment, a lot of orange recipes are basically worthless as they are. The enhancements sell for a fair bit, but often the wait time to sell them is considerable. And, fundamentally, the recipe and the enhancement are in a sense the same thing.

Suggest that if a recipe is for sale _and_ someone is bidding for the corresponding enhancement _and_ the market sell prices of the salvage plus the recipe plus the assembly cost are low enough - the market does the work; the relevant salvage is bought, the enhancement is created and sold to the bidder, and the recipe seller gets the leftover influence.

It would save a lot of "should I craft this?" tedium, and also make it easier to buy the enhancements (and unless you actually held the relevant salvage already, you wouldn't have to dither over whether or not to bid on enhancement or recipe).

Some other things that don't work:

Tweaking PCI latency to favour either the sound or video card.

Changing the AGP aperture size from 256MB to 512MB.

Disabling the AC97 in the BIOS altogether.

Disabling Avast antivirus (I normally run with it disabled when playing CoX).

Setting Windows Performance options to favour system cache not programs for memory use.

I don't have a vast raft of junk running in the background; my system tray is devoid of mess. Atitray is about it.

Obviously I'm happy to provide more information / try suggestions from the audience.

Department of trying totally random things: I moved the CoX install from the SCSI drive it was on to the IDE drive. No significant difference observed.

[ QUOTE ]
But there is nothing wrong with a bunch of new players doing something for the first time together, finding it hard and failing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding something hard and failing is all very well; I failed my first Sky Raider respec, and I've failed a few since (mostly the old hard version, I think). I play NetHack and Crawl; my favourite bit of GTA3 was the ambulance missions; I liked the old 8-bit platformers. I don't mind failing.

The problem is when you are left feeling (perhaps accurately) that something was impossibly hard; that there was no possibility of success, and so that you have no idea how to improve your play to come back and beat it.

I think Positron does that to people, and I think that's very discouraging - and, not to grind the axe, but I think Positron does it to people partly because your team leader can lose you the TF before you get started, with inept difficulty setting or recruiting a big group with a poor level split [1].

[1] but I would make all instanced missions level-agnostic by adjusting all toon's combat levels to the level of the mission, perhaps with an exception for people who level up during the mission or the owner of the mission if they have levelled up since getting it.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides as has been said, Posi is not so much about your skills but about very limited powers and enhancers combined with 2 annoying (way too debuffing/mezzing [CoT] and a very damaging group [Vahz]) villain groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, of course, that's down to doing it mob-handed - way more Circle bosses, way more Abominations to punish overly successful aggro grabbers, controllers miss, defenders who have to do anything on a per-ally basis get overstretched.

Missions like Atta and Frostfire ought to teach people that more is not necessarily better, but it rarely works that way.

More radically Positron could be given a _maximum_ team size.

Well, Posi already presents an insurmountable challenge to some groups. We tend to forget that, running through it autoexemplared with good builds, slotting, and tactics. And - you did seem to be calling to make it harder.

I think what I'm saying is that by all means make the later TFs that hard (but not gratuitously build-specific). Players should be capable by then and if they're not it's their lookout. But the first TF should cut people some slack.

[ QUOTE ]
I am lost on why a few people finding a couple of TFs annoying or boring, or 'apparently' impossible for newbie teams would warrant a fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard is one thing; hard is good; but perhaps difficulty should ramp up as people become more familiar with their toons and tactics (and have greater tactical flexibility with more powers available), and not be delivered in a vast chunk in the first CoT mezzer mission of Posi, which is a stiffer challenge that almost anything you will meet in later TFs. That sort of thing, where a misstep means a team wipe, would be all very well in Numina.

Also, tedious isn't the same as hard. The Posi TF is disproportionately long, and there's no skill in being able to allocate a four-hour stretch in case a TF overruns. (There may be some skill in picking team members who probably are adults and hence aren't going to be summoned by their parents.)

Also, impossible isn't the same as hard. I think the word has only been used by me, discussing a Synapse/Positron swap; the Clockwork King could literally be impossible to beat with the team available. An impossible challenge coming after two hours' preparation is not going to encourage players to try another TF.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love them all to be sodding hard and even more sodding rewarding for it personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think it would be appropriate to make TFs in general and the first TF in the game in particular the exclusive playground of very experienced players?

[ QUOTE ]
Confirmed this. Today, I fitted a CMI 8768+ based soundcard (Terratec Aureon 7.1), which is pretty cheap, but a big step up from the AC97 on the motherboard. When I was testing this before, I recorded a demo on a 6-man mission in Faultline to play back with different graphics and audio settings (so as to be viewing exactly the same piece of gameplay each time). Sound off, it's fine; sound on on the AC97, performance very poor; sound on on the new card, performance fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spoke too soon (and was confused by the pagefile issue below, and perhaps was engaging in a bit of new-hardware optimism); performance improved, but later in the demo it's still very bad, and on 8-man teams it's still rotten.

I'm keen to get to the bottom of this, especially since I was not expecting you to pop up and say "Oh, I use an AC97 and it's fine". What's really weird is that when I started playing City of X, although the graphics performance was much worse, this "choking sound" problem didn't manifest.

This demo (names of teamies have been changed; you may need to rightclick and Save As) is a good example of the problems I am having (as well as the transparent wall problem in Faultline).

There is a brief fight outside (30fps) and then we go through the door into the building. The framerate stays at 30-40 fps as I taunt a group down and we fight them. The framerates quoted here are from atitray's FRAPS-like facility, not guesses on my part.

As Samurai Costume and I are fighting at the base of the ramp, the Storm defender comes forward and drops an effect behind me - this is the first time you see her after going inside the building. As she does that, the framerate drops radically, to perhaps 5fps for a second or so.

Shortly afterwards I run up the ramp and attack a Force Field Generator. As I am doing so, a grenade is lobbed at me. _If and only if_ I have the pagefile enabled, the framerate then drops equally dramatically as it hits and I spin round and head back down the ramp.

Shortly after that Samurai Costume comes up to help me with the Generator. Regardless of the state of the pagefile, the framerate drops very badly as he makes his initial attacks on it.

If the sound volume is set to 0%, I get a steady 30-40fps throughout these sequences. Setting the sound to any other sub-100% value has no beneficial effect.

I use TweakCoH to ensure CoH and EUCOH registry settings match up - since demo playback seems to use the CoH settings.

I include as much information as possible in the hope some difference between my system and yours will become apparent.

All remotely pertinent registry settings:

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Cryptic\EUCOH]
"Installer Language Temp"="1033"
"Installation Directory"="I:\\games\\CoX"
"CurrentVersion"="17.20080821.9T4"
"Installer Language"="1033"
"DbServer"=""
"TransferRate"="108510"
"gamma"="0.740000"
"fxSoundVolume"="1.000000"
"musicSoundVolume"="0.490000"
"dontSaveName"="0"
"screenX"="1024"
"screenY"="768"
"refreshRate"="75"
"screenX_pos"="0"
"screenY_pos"="0"
"maximized"="0"
"fullScreen"="1"
"mipLevel"="0"
"characterMipLevel"="1"
"texLodBias"="2"
"texAniso"="8"
"worldDetailLevel"="1.000000"
"entityDetailLevel"="1.000000"
"shadowsOn"="0"
"ageiaOn"="0"
"physicsQuality"="1"
"showAdvanced"="1"
"graphicsQuality"="0.600000"
"maxParticles"="2889"

I have in the past run with this at 100. There is no appreciable difference.

"maxParticleFill"="1.000000"
"suppressFx"="0"
"suppressCloseFx"="1"
"suppressCloseFxDist"="3.000000"
"forceSoftwareAudio"="0"
"enableVBOs"="1"
"enable3DSound"="0"
"renderScaleX"="1.000000"
"renderScaleY"="1.000000"
"useRenderScale"="0"
"shaderDetail"="0"
"useWater"="0"
"useBloom"="0"
"useDesaturate"="1"
"bloomMagnitude"="1.000000"
"useDOF"="0"
"dofMagnitude"="1.000000"
"antiAliasing"="1"
"useShadowmaps"="0"
"useLightmaps"="0"
"useVSync"="1"
"fancyMouseCursor"="1"

---System information gathered by CoH Helper version 0.1.1.3---

DxDiag gathered at November 19, 2008 16:29 (+00:00)
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 1 (2600.xpsp1.020828-1920)
System Manufacturer: NVIDIA
System Model: AWRDACPI
BIOS: )Phoenix - Award WorkstationBIOS v6.00PG
Central Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+, ~1.8GHz
Memory: 3072MB
.Net Memory Report: 2572MB out of 3071MB available
Page File: 2572MB (343MB currently in use)

I am very suspicious about this. I have no pagefile, currently; and the figure of 2572 MB appears twice.

C Drive: (QUANTUM FIREBALLP AS20.5) 6888MB out of 6993MB (98%) free
D Drive: () 4912MB out of 13935MB (35%) free
E Drive: () 1437MB out of 8706MB (16%) free
F Drive: () 8056MB out of 17014MB (47%) free
G Drive: (QUANTUM FIREBALLP AS20.5) 3778MB out of 5918MB (63%) free
H Drive: (QUANTUM FIREBALLP AS20.5) 1952MB out of 6675MB (29%) free
I Drive: () 3549MB out of 17491MB (20%) free
K Drive: () 3386MB out of 17466MB (19%) free
Windows directory location: H:\WINDOWS
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DirectX Diag version: 5.03.0001.0904 (32-bit version)

Display Notes: No problems found.
Sound Notes: No problems found.

No problems found.
Input Notes: No problems found.

Monitor: Iiyama A201HT VisionMaster Pro 510
Monitor's Max Resolution: 2048,1536
Video Device Name: Radeon X1950 Pro
Manufacturer / Chip: ATI Technologies Inc. / ATI Radeon Graphics Processor AGP (0x7280)
Video Memory: 512.0 MB
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6844
Driver Date: 08/01/2008 04:32:35
Driver Language: English

Sound Device Description: Aureon 7.1 PCI
Driver File: cmuda3.sys
Driver Version: 5.12.0001.0047
Driver Date: 01/01/0001 00:00:00

Sound Device Description: Realtek AC97 Audio
Driver File: ALCXWDM.SYS
Driver Version: 5.10.0000.6300
Driver Date: 01/01/0001 00:00:00


WMI Information
Motherboard Manufacturer:
Motherboard Model: (empty)
Motherboard Product: nForce
Motherboard Version:
BIOS Manufacturer: Phoenix Technologies, LTD
BIOS Name: )Phoenix - Award WorkstationBIOS v6.00PG
BIOS Version: Nvidia - 42302e31
BIOS Release: 20060607******.******+***

[ QUOTE ]
But I agree, that is not the way how it should be done, nor is it any fun, especially when you are new to the game and Posi being your first introduction to TF's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that is the root of the problem. SSTF #1 is a bit of a pain, but at that stage, sometimes things are.

A proposal that sometimes gets mooted is to reverse the positions of the Synapse and Positron taskforces.

Downsides:

The lab set in Posi is no longer something new and curious (if you aren't autoexemplared in).

Posi's final mission only has an EB. They could easily become an AV, but might need some fluffed-up backstory to justify their archvillainosity. Arguably an earlier mission could be spiced up by having them appear as an EB and escape when defeated, like those annoying Faultline bosses.

Synapse sends you to Boomtown. A mission deep in Boomtown could be a nightmare to reach for those without travel powers, especially if they lack any vertical mobility. This could be solved by having Synapse's Boomtown missions appear only near the entrance. Of course, that would mean that no-one ever saw the rest of the Boomtown map...

Babbage would be very tricky for a 10-15 party to beat (of course GMs are level-agnostic, but slotting and powers are in short supply in that range).

You'd get Tesla Caged on Synapse until your ears turned blue.

Synapse does have an AV. At most, perhaps, the Clockwork King could use the non-TF "downgrade to Elite Boss" code. Even then, a small 10-15 group with botched difficulty might get him as an impossibly hard AV, and making it possible to run all through the lowest level TF and get a villain at the end you simply cannot beat would not really constitute an improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It certainly can be if you have someone with no temporary power and you have no Recall Friend. Bonus points if they are the leader.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true, but most people pick travel power at 14. It's not a hinderance for everyone like the debuffs/mez.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the mezzing is not a hindrance for everyone either; some scrapper sets have mez resistance by then, some defenders have antimez powers like Clear Mind, and all tanker primaries do - if your tanker manages aggro from the mezzers effectively or your defender is capable, you need never notice.

So, in fact, this is exactly like the lack of a travel power. It may or may not be an issue depending on the level when you attempt the TF and the power selections made up until that point.

[ QUOTE ]
You missed my point. This is basically our "unique" team challenge stuff, much like instances in WoW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss that point. What this is not is our unique _8-man_ team challenge stuff. Unlike instances in WoW, it is neither compulsory nor desirable to charge in mob-handed with as many warm bodies as you can round up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From that point of view, I think the best change would be if Positron emphasised that an 8-man team is not necessarily best; if the "start of TF" dialogue was specially adapted.

[/ QUOTE ]
But this doesnt really make sense does it? "You have a hard mission ahead of you heroes, you should have as few people with you as possible to be able to accomplish it."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the way the game _is_. Like NPC contacts who manage Reputation (you may remember the endless pain we suffered when it wasn't clear from them that Invincible was not just a nifty title), it's most important that the contact dialogue reflect what the game is actually like.

"If you charge in with a big group, you may find the villains will know you're coming and concentrate their forces. A smaller team might have a better chance of success".

and then, like Reputation contacts, in a different colour to emphasise this is the game talking not the contact:

"Like any mission, the number and difficulty of enemies you will face on this Task Force is determined by your team size. With a large team you will face many tough bosses, and you may find the Task Force easier with a smaller team."

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly and it's not like only melee suffers. Especially ToHit check needing debuffs will have a hard time, especially sets like kinetics (cant buff, cant heal, cant debuff if you dont hit). Also controllers are hit hard, they're just there to sit and missing with each and every one of their mezzes or being mezzed themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I found those to be a serious problem given discipline about drawing inappropriate aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question, because AC97 is very commonly used and we're not seeing any wide spread reports (my own machine uses AC97 and I've not seen this problem):
Did you search for newer AC97 drivers and install them if found?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, yes, as soon as I formed a suspicion about sound.

I know this may become a bit tinfoil-hatted, but I suspect some people are affected but simply don't ever think that soundcards could be the issue. Some US boards threads (alas, their aggressive archiving doesn't help) mention the perils of unaccelerated sound, for example:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat....rt=all&vc=1

[not a good example, because all the good ones have been archived.]

The symptom I experience, more specifically, is that CoX runs fine until you're in the thick of things in a big fight, and there is a sharp dropoff in framerate, not at all like the gradual degradation one expects for graphics performance problems, but as if a threshold has been crossed.

Now-archived US threads suggest this is because CoX has no limit on simultaneous sounds being played. I would be very interested to know if this is the case and, if so, if we can submit an RFE to have a limit and to have that limit be configurable.

I observe in passing that CoX could use a "effects test" facility that lets you simulate sitting in a room with 20 sets of Invulnerability or whatever to see exactly what effects choke your computer. Obviously this is a more radical proposal.