*** Official Planetside 2 Thread ***

wolvers said:
I bet the minimums in heavy battles are still crap though.
Click to expand...

30 fps as an absolute minimum in very large battles... but thats as dips - usually 40-50 fps. 100+ and beyond in any other situation. Performance in PS2 is great tbh.

Also as a response to above, players being 'on screen' is not the same thing as them being rendered ... in PS2 if there are 500 people around you then 500 peoples positions/status etc are being sent to you for your computer to then have to deal with whether you're looking at them or not - not exactly much to compare against with the scale of BF3.
 
wolvers said:
They keep saying that their stats are showing that average fps is going up, but I suspect that's because only people with certain hardware are playing it now. There's no doubt that the player base has dwindled. That and the fact that everyone has lowered all their settings to get it running a little better.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Many people with weaker rigs aren't playing it anymore, but they're trying to make out it's due to their skills at optimization that FPS is increasing. Makes me laugh. lol
 
Spektor said:
30 fps as an absolute minimum in very large battles... but thats as dips - usually 40-50 fps. 100+ and beyond in any other situation. Performance in PS2 is great tbh.

Also as a response to above, players being 'on screen' is not the same thing as them being rendered ... in PS2 if there are 500 people around you then 500 peoples positions/status etc are being sent to you for your computer to then have to deal with whether you're looking at them or not - not exactly much to compare against with the scale of BF3.
Click to expand...

Good point but just look at the core usage compared to BF3.

Nearly everyone is badly CPU bound, which I wouldn't mind so much if the cores were being made use of but a lot of the time they're sitting around doing nothing, while the game performance is struggling.

BF3 doesn't have the number of players PS2 has but it does have building damage and better graphics to contend with.

I agree that PS2 is a much harder game to deal with due to it's scale but I still think they haven't optimized it very well.

Imo if the team behind BF3 had coded it, it'd be running much better than it does atm.
 
Spektor said:
30 fps as an absolute minimum in very large battles... but thats as dips - usually 40-50 fps. 100+ and beyond in any other situation. Performance in PS2 is great tbh.
Click to expand...

Posting your specs and game settings would be great. :) An Afterburner graph of a large battle would be even better. :)

I get high fps like your quoting there too, but what it drops to in heavy fighting just isn't good enough for me.

Spektor said:
Also as a response to above, players being 'on screen' is not the same thing as them being rendered ... in PS2 if there are 500 people around you then 500 peoples positions/status etc are being sent to you for your computer to then have to deal with whether you're looking at them or not - not exactly much to compare against with the scale of BF3.
Click to expand...

Well that would be a reasonable argument, if PS2 was putting an even greater load on CPUs than BF3 does and bottlenecking the GPU that way. But it's not, so can you explain that? No the devs can't, or won't, either. They just avoid these questions and just keep saying that they're working on it.

To be fair to them, they admit it's not good enough. They know that having just a few heavily OCd CPUs that can run it at a 'just about good enough level' isn't going to be any good for a game that relies so heavily on having the biggest player base possible. That doesn't mean they'll be able to actually fix it though.
 
whiteshadow said:
I agree that PS2 is a much harder game to deal with due to it's scale but I still think they haven't optimized it very well.

Imo if the team behind BF3 had coded it, it'd be running much better than it does atm.
Click to expand...

Having played this in beta it has improved a lot and is still improving. It isn't perfect and some people do have big performance issues but I can only speak for myself in that it has gotten a lot better.

I'd also suspect the BF3 team had a much bigger budget and more people given the importance of that title to EA vs CoD/Activision and the difference in scale between EA and SOE.
 
Qel said:
Having played this in beta it has improved a lot and is still improving. It isn't perfect and some people do have big performance issues but I can only speak for myself in that it has gotten a lot better.

I'd also suspect the BF3 team had a much bigger budget and more people given the importance of that title to EA vs CoD/Activision and the difference in scale between EA and SOE.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. They can throw pretty much as much money at it as they want.

If performance concerns weren't an issue for most players it'd be an amazing game. I'm sure it already is for a lot of people with good rigs but I can't justify upgrading my rig just for one game atm, especially when there's a chance the game might die due to it's performance issues driving players away.
 
If we had the BF3 team behind the game, it would be 2v2 maps... and the VS as a DLC pack :D

BF3 is played on tiny maps... half the time it feels like im in my garden with 1 wall and a flipping tank the otherside of it :p
 
Beta had one hell of a better draw distance than the current game.. I stopped playing when as a sniper pretty much everything i was shooting at began clipping out at 100m or so... Ive not played since Xmas... I just didnt get the feel for this one compared to the original PS.
 
mehuk said:
If we had the BF3 team behind the game, it would be 2v2 maps... and the VS as a DLC pack :D

BF3 is played on tiny maps... half the time it feels like im in my garden with 1 wall and a flipping tank the otherside of it :p
Click to expand...

BF3 maps are not that tiny and everything is "rendered" there while the maps in PS2 isn't that big if you think about the rendering distances. I would say that current section of the map we are all playing in are smaller then most FPS maps when you view it as rendered objects.

In a way, PS2 is just 20-30 maps all put together and the "map" moves with the player to make it seem like one endless map.

Anyway, whoever decided to go designing this game that only uses one core is an idiot.
 
Just had one of the best games in my Planetside 2 history.

It all started aruond Zurvan Amp Station where TR was making a stand up fight, not really trying to take the station. I sat back on one of the overlooking hills and deployed my Prowler and just fired down on the insides of the Amp Station, hitting tanks and forcing them to retreat and getting a few kills every so often. Had to make about 3 Ammo runs to the Crown all together.

When the fight there was pretty much over, I moved to the Crown and saw there was a big fight going on at TJ Alloys.

So moved my Prowler between two other tanks and started to fire down, when I ran out of ammo, I was looking to see if I could get a view over the spawn room, so got some more Ammo and moved to the far edge of the cliff with a decent view of the "ramp" to the large room at the back of Alloys.

Deployed and started to fire, was getting decent kills. Had to make a few more Ammo runs to the tower then just as I was about to get some more Ammo again. My Prowler got stuck between the building and the rock, for the life of me I couldn't move it. A mate got a Sundy and couldn't ram me out, so I told him, well you got a Ammo Sundy, deploy it there and I just sit here after I saw that I could still see most of the Alloys still.

Turned out, this mate was bringing me the Sundy just for me! My personal own Ammo supply! Awesome.

So deployed (had the "stuck" sound playing none-stop as the vehicle kept trying to escape the jam) while in turret mode, ignored it and just kept firing with a unlimited supply of Ammo with just HEAT.

It started with a few kills then I became death incarnate as everything just died as I kept firing and firing into the ramp area and into the building itself through the doors and every so often on the hill and in-front of the Alloys, but it was mosty through the door way, the rear back ramp and on top and at the side where I was getting my kills.

5 minutes later, I hit 105 kills (started with 30) by the time someone C4ed me somehow, I had a total of 192 kills.

My trigger figure was aching more then ever and my palm was frozen in place. xD

The BR 15 NC guy who C4ed me must had scored a crazy amount of XP from me.

Best moment in my life and I almost despawned my Prowler to get a new one.

So, I totally recommend the anchored mode, I got 520+ certs and aiming for the final level! Then am going to pump the rest in fast reload.

I totally understand why my ex outfit mate sweared by anchored mode over smoke.
 
Prowler will most likely only get a slight decrease to the anchored bonus, as it is the tanks are getting close to being balanced. The vanguard could do with a bit more AP velocity but other than that the tanks are great fun at the moment.

The SOE team have done an excellent job looking at all the data and sorting out some of the issues.
 
If anything I think they'll be changing AP, I hardly see anyone use it, sure it has benefits but apparently not enough to offset the lack of splash and I've never seen an AP prowler, mostly HE with some HEAT thrown in.
 
Server merges coming soon.

Server Merges. Next week we will be doing server merges to help even populations across all game servers. Right now we have a lot of disparity between populations on our servers, some are highly populated with active fights across all continents, some are not. This is a factor of which servers were most popular at launch, and players gravitating to one or two servers per locale. Now that the crush of new players from launch and the holidays has died down, and our server populations and incoming new players have stabilized we have a good idea of where each server stands in terms of player population, empire population and we can model merges to optimize the populations.

The following servers will be getting Merged:

US West:
Genudine and Helios -> Helios

US East:
Mattherson and SolTech -> Mattherson
Waterson and Jaeger -> Waterson

EU:
Cobalt and Lithcorp -> Cobalt
Ceres and Mallory -> Ceres

Connery, Woodman, Miller and Briggs will not be part of the merges.

You won’t have to do anything to participate, the entire server population will be moving, your friends, outfits & certs will all be coming with you. Those of you on servers that are being merged will just see that your character is on a different server the next time you log in after the merger is complete. The result of these merges will be a more consistent and full server population during off-peak hours, more players to support better utilization of all of the continents in the game and, generally a lot more massive in your massively-multiplayer. Shortly after the merges are complete we plan to begin offering server transfer tokens, so if you would prefer to go to a different server at that point you could.
Click to expand...
 
Qel said:
If anything I think they'll be changing AP, I hardly see anyone use it, sure it has benefits but apparently not enough to offset the lack of splash and I've never seen an AP prowler, mostly HE with some HEAT thrown in.
Click to expand...

I and my outfit uses it a lot, it's great for pure vehicle killing. I seem to have the bad habit of pulling one and find myself with only infantry targets. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom