A question about performance, fps/laggs?

[Sta]

hello,
first of all, since its my first thread/post, I like to say that I'm extremely happy that such a game like ps exists!!
I've played a lot of pvp games but most of the time I became very early frustrated due to the fact that its almost always just about a single match without any meaning to it in the long run!

Ive seen now that the subtitle of ps2 on its hp is "massive combat on an epic scale" what is awesome to me and exactly what I want but what makes me worry at the same time because in the latest games it was exactly the "massive" factor why i've had to quit!
In swtor for example, there's this huge planet called ilum for end game world pvp content which seemed great but turned out to be a disaster frames per second/ lag wise...

A link to show you what Im talking about:
SWTOR Patch 1.1: Rise of the Ilum PvP Drama (and Rakghouls) - YouTube

Question now is, can older ps players confirm that ps was or will be able to handle massive numbers of players fighting in one area, shooting rockets, causing explosions et cetera??..

Or is the subtitle "massive combat on an epic scale" rather there to increase subs?

I know you can change much by buying new hardware but some games just cant handle it and thats why im asking!

sta

[NivexQ]

Question now is, can older ps players confirm that ps was or will be able to handle massive numbers of players fighting in one area, shooting rockets, causing explosions et cetera??..

Or is the subtitle "massive combat on an epic scale" rather there to increase subs?

I know you can change much by buying new hardware but some games just cant handle it and thats why im asking!

sta



I'll be honest. PlanetSide was one of the laggiest lagfest games during beta and at release. But, it also came out in 2003. PCs just couldn't handle it. I think Planetside 2 will run just fine. They designed the engine from the ground up; it damn well better be fine.

When it comes to them attempting to increase subs, no. Planetside has always been about massive warfare. Play the first game if you want to see for yourself. They aren't lying when they say massive.

If you don't mind posting them, what are your specs?

[IronMole]

Just have to wait and see. As of right now, it's just a guessing game I'm afraid.

[Scrima]

Choppy FPS would be due to your computer trying to play on higher settings than it can handle, and since we do not know the min system specs this is kinda up in the air. Lag has more to do with your connection and the connection of the people around you. 9 years ago (2003) widespread adoption of cable and DSL had just taken off, and speeds weren't very great compared to today. Of course we'll have more players in PS2 than PS1 so again we'll need to wait and see.

[Vancha]

The original PS could manage it, so I don't see why nearly a decade later this wouldn't be able to. :)

[Sta]

I'll be honest. PlanetSide was one of the laggiest lagfest games during beta and at release. But, it also came out in 2003. PCs just couldn't handle it. I think Planetside 2 will run just fine. They designed the engine from the ground up; it damn well better be fine.

Yeah, I hope so! Swtor's engine for example wasnt built by themselves but bought and what does that mean you can see in the vid I've posted here. I remember my all time favourite fps called joint operations where the max was 32 vs. 32 what was considered "massive" back in the days of 2004 and what worked out fine but since swtor's pvp is such a disappointment when talking bout massive player conentrations I feel to better double check than running into another frustrating experience...

When it comes to them attempting to increase subs, no. Planetside has always been about massive warfare. Play the first game if you want to see for yourself. They aren't lying when they say massive.

Sounds good enough to me! I'm pretty happy with soe in general when its about decent pvp since I've played pirates of the burning sea which is also about conquering for resources and massive battles!!

If you don't mind posting them, what are your specs?

The huge argument which is going on right now in the swtor forums is that the game probably has a badly coded graphics engine which makes huge scale battles impossible and that the devs probably just gone for it to increase subs than a serious pvp experience!
Like I said before just wanna make sure its going to be like it was promised...

Specs are:
[email protected]/ MSi GTX470/ 8 GB DDR3

If you check the recommended specs of BF3 a gtx570 is needed so I guess I've to go for it but the rest is okay...

[DayOne]

Specs are:
[email protected]/ MSi GTX470/ 8 GB DDR3

If you check the recommended specs of BF3 a gtx570 is needed so I guess I've to go for it but the rest is okay...

That will do you fine. From the screen shots PS2 wont be graphically superior to BF3. Although miles ahead in aesthetic and art style. If anything you will only have to scale back the graphics, I think they tried to design it so it is possible to run it on older machines.

[Sta]

That will do you fine. From the screen shots PS2 wont be graphically superior to BF3. Although miles ahead in aesthetic and art style. If anything you will only have to scale back the graphics, I think they tried to design it so it is possible to run it on older machines.

Yes, I can confirm that! I've just heard it in one of the vids I've seen :)

[Erendil]

h
Question now is, can older ps players confirm that ps was or will be able to handle massive numbers of players fighting in one area, shooting rockets, causing explosions et cetera??..

Or is the subtitle "massive combat on an epic scale" rather there to increase subs?

I know you can change much by buying new hardware but some games just cant handle it and thats why im asking!

sta



Well, about a year after PS1 came out (so, back in 2004), top-of-the-line rigs of the time could handle 500 player matches pretty well (166 vs 166 vs 166 - I recall still getting 30-40FPS in battles that size on my 1-step-down-from-top-of-the-line PC), and today's rigs of course have no problems with PS1 fights.

As for PS2, we've been told they were shooting for min PC specs to be computers that are about 5 years old, and that they plan on spending lots of time on optimizing the scaling of all the bells & whistles so the game still looks great on PC's that old. They recognize that PS1 had some performance issues when it was released in 2003 and they want to avoid that this time around.

[Sta]

Play the first game if you want to see for yourself.

Yes, ive tried it but launcher keeps telling me that I've to sub...
Did then a little research and figured out that ps1 is not f2p anymore due 2 hackers, right?

[Goku]

Back when I playing full time my 7900 GT SLI (considered high end at one point) still lagged during Red Alerts pretty badly and the game was only DX8 not 9. That was running at 1280x1024, which was the average screen res back then I think. When I upgraded to my 8800 GTS 512 G92 the lag was all gone and that was still on a S939 Athlon X2 4200+ (speed hacking anyone?).

I am hoping systems run better this time around, but I wouldn't be shocked to see higher end systems struggling at times to run this game.

@ Sta - PS was never F2P really besides the fodder side program that had a lot of restrictions in relation to BR and CR. The free 2 week trials were removed due to hackers though.

[Graywolves]

Does anyone else have trouble reading text on this forum when it's in different font and size?