Will this game fail? - Page 3

Ryoji · 2012-09-03, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dartan

Yes, people have been saying that for optimal framerate you have to make the game look ugly even on high-end PCs.

Not the case with me, am assuming an optimal fps of 25-30 and the game looks pretty swish with an AMD 4-core phenom, Nvidia 550 in 1920x1080 on 24" screen? I love twilight fighting when the sun's just going down, looks awesome with all the tracer rounds and whatnot.

Dartan · 2012-09-03, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Ryoji

Not the case with me, am assuming an optimal fps of 25-30 and the game looks pretty swish with an AMD 4-core phenom, Nvidia 550 in 1920x1080 on 24" screen? I love twilight fighting when the sun's just going down, looks awesome with all the tracer rounds and whatnot.

What? no, no, no..

25-30 is pretty much the worst non-smooth experience, anything below 40 fps is.

I simply don't even play games in which I can't get on average 60 fps on highest settings.

I decided this a long time ago--> buttery smooth vs your brain starts to lag.

SpottyGekko · 2012-09-03, 08:32 AM

The game can only "fail" if it does not meet SOE's earnings expectations.

So either it needs a reasonable sized playerbase spending the equivalent of a monthly sub fee, or a huge playerbase spending smallish amounts frequently. I'd bet on the former.

The only concern I have is that the "core gameplay" from PS1 may not actually be able to scale up to the relatively massive population that is foreseen for PS2. With a large portion of F2P casuals in the game, the way it is played will not be the same as the relatively controlled play of PS1 sub-based population.

If you were a PS1 subscriber, you were committed to the game and the way it worked. You kind of "bought in" to the outfit-based gameplay, and probably would not pay a sub just to "mess around" for a bit every now and then. However with F2P, that player commitment is zero.

Thunderhawk · 2012-09-03, 08:52 AM

Probably not going to be read but here goes....

You cannot at any stretch of the imagination say the graphics are bad unless you are playing on the lowest settings possible.

Try judging the game with recommended system specs and having all graphics settings on High before saying the graphics are "outdated" (I cannot begin to fathom how the graphics are outdated)

And no I don't have a beast of a rig (i7 2600k @ 3.4Ghz, 16Gb Ram, GTX 580) - All settings on High except render at 0.85, Render distance at 1500, Shadows = low.

I have 100+FPS in VS Sanct and around 30-40 FPS in big zergy battles, more than enough to shoot people with.

Note: Not everything has to run at 60FPS or higher to be playable.

-------------

Will the game fail ? - Don't think so, it can't as its the only one of it's type out there.

-------------

My issues with the game currently are not major issues, still love playing it and no I am not comparing it to PS1, it needs to be judged on it's own merits (yes I am a vet and no I don't whine about how its different to PS1)

1. Back-hacking : We need some form of Lattice system to avoid 1-2 people being a pain in the *** all day, you get the odd player who just loves taking installations in middle of nowhere just to get people to go take them back.

Solution ?

Adjacency is a step forward, but let it work for everything, not just bases, if you want to take an installation, you need to have one that you own touching it's hex somehow. This will give the feeling of a frontline.

Give Infiltrators an ability to actually "hack" a console from anywhere behind enemy lines (for Spec ops squads), thus giving them another useful job other than sniping, that Infiltrator hack should take at least 5 mins to do, and should give warnings on the map that its being done. People can respond if its a squad of enemy doing it with an infiltrator and then it's a - defend the hack, or kill the infiltrator hacking - exercise for 2 squads of opposing players.

A lone infiltrator will be stopped if there's a 5 min warning (Let the hex flash or pulsate??) and will be taken out by anyone going to resecure. This stops lone wolf people disrupting the flow of an entire map of 1000-2000 players.

2. Scythe characteristics :There was a post - don't have time to find at work atm - that showed the differing characteristics of the Mosquito/Reaver/Scythe and no way were we anywhere the most manouverable aircraft out there, we get out turned by Reavers, Mosquitos are so much faster than us, and reavers have "more armour". I know you will say certs change this but the standard aircraft should differ according to faction styles and then certs can modify that according to users choices (my opinion anyway)

3. VS Weapons :Where do I start... It seems (to me) that VS damage needs some love, as playing on my TR alt, I found it so much easier to kill Vanu/NC compared to playing on my VS main. Maybe its psychological, maybe it isn't, but the feeling is that no recoil, able to drop people mid to long range using Heavy assault rifle is somewhat a bit uneven.

4. Infiltrators Sniper Rifle (VS) :My favourite spec (after Scythe Pilot - Engineer), is a bit of a joke, and this needs addressing.

My opinion again ? - Empire characteristics should not be a factor when dealing with Sniping, it's by definition a long range activity, so why do we VS suffer from damage degradation ? Why is our head shots from 10 meters not a 1 shot kill either ?

I think NC, TR and VS should be normalised when it comes to sniping, and the whole buying of newer weapons should be the same regarding faster reloading ones, less recoil ones, etc... but the starter rifles for all empires should do the same headshot damage (give VS bullet drop if you need to balance - laser drop if you will) but make them the same as at the moment its very frustrating playing a sniper that gets an unbelievable shot from 500 meters, only to find the shot did quarter of the shield first shot, whilst the NC shot took my entire shield off and half my HP then my second shot got him down to half shields (still full HP) then his second one kills me.

(yes I can move, and I do move about, but I have to hit him 6+ times to actually kill him, he only lands 2, and often 1 head shot is enough for me to kick the bucket)

----------

Just some frustrations, probably may be seen as a rant, but its just me speaking about some aspects of the game that frustrate.

TheMarz · 2012-09-03, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

3. VS Weapons :Where do I start... It seems (to me) that VS damage needs some love, as playing on my TR alt, I found it so much easier to kill Vanu/NC compared to playing on my VS main. Maybe its psychological, maybe it isn't, but the feeling is that no recoil, able to drop people mid to long range using Heavy assault rifle is somewhat a bit uneven.

There is a definitely a difference between VS and NC/TR weapons to the point where I stopped playing my vs main playing my nc alt more because of the damage difference between the VS vs the other factions. I have compete faith that they will fix this sooner or later.

Ryoji · 2012-09-03, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dartan

What? no, no, no..

25-30 is pretty much the worst non-smooth experience, anything below 40 fps is.

I simply don't even play games in which I can't get on average 60 fps on highest settings.

I decided this a long time ago--> buttery smooth vs your brain starts to lag.

Aw, I feel all outdated now.

Electrofreak · 2012-09-03, 12:15 PM

Given that the devs have basically put the game into the beta and asked us to help them define some of the core mechanics of the gameplay, I'm going to go with no, it isn't going to fail.

The people whining about the game lack the common sense to realize that this isn't a marketing beta and SOE isn't going to launch the game in 2 weeks with King of The Hill capture mechanics, glaring balance issues and half of the weapons broken.

Diehard · 2012-09-03, 12:20 PM

It still needs more marketing. GW2 and Diablo 3 market their games years before their releases. Thats why they managed to rack up lotsa sales on day 1.
At this point I still see it lacking in this department

Boone · 2012-09-03, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by OnexBigxHebrew

Wrong. Sure, beta is for testing. However, if you think that the core game at the heart of all this will change much before release, you're wrong. If people just aren't into the gameplay, they probably won't like it even when you can buy a new gun or two. Others, who worry about simple mechanics and systems or balance probably will like it once its finished more.

But let's not pretend like vehicle physics, the feeling of weapons and gunplay as a whole, and the super dated/goofy looking art and sound design are going to have a dramatic overhaul because you decided to report a few bugs.

And for the record, despite all of these things, I really like ps2. I also don't think that the beta tester portion of the player base will have anything to do with whether this game fails or not. That all depends on F2P junkies doing their part and buying shit

Do the graphics/weapons really need a dramatic overhaul? Haven't played, but you usually see graphics and these kind of things prettied up more and more the closer to release. Wouldn't really worry about that too much to be honest. I think the whole flow of the battles, etc is probably more important to get that right first.

The problem is most people playing think it's a marketing beta (that's what I call em) when in fact it looks to be a true/serious beta test (comparing to DUST just because been playing that). I bet only %5 are truely "testing" unfortunately. I'm not too worried.

I'm more worried about optimization but I hear that is going OK.

Originally Posted by Diehard

It still needs more marketing. GW2 and Diablo 3 market their games years before their releases. Thats why they managed to rack up lotsa sales on day 1.
At this point I still see it lacking in this department

They'll need to market a couple months a head of time..if the game even comes out this year. They definetely don't need to waste resources on CGI trailer and commercials though. Plenty of others ways to market these days.

Originally Posted by Diehard

It still needs more marketing. GW2 and Diablo 3 market their games years before their releases. Thats why they managed to rack up lotsa sales on day 1.
At this point I still see it lacking in this department

It's probably a good thing SOE isn't counting on box sales. What they are counting on is releasing the most polished game they can, because if they can't...nobody is going to stick around and buy anything...and they have to have that to survive.

I love F2P when done correctly and think it can be a good thing for the consumer instead of getting raped on games you can't ever get your money back for.

ps - VS looks like they could use some love in the dmg department. Saw a video of NC with some recoil stuff, basically had no recoil on an HA and on the hardest hitting faction. I dunno..

thegreekboy · 2012-09-03, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Diehard

It still needs more marketing. GW2 and Diablo 3 market their games years before their releases. Thats why they managed to rack up lotsa sales on day 1.
At this point I still see it lacking in this department

I agree.

The trailers could also be cooler

cellinaire · 2012-09-03, 09:00 PM

SOE lifted the NDA curtain early this time, so that's a good thing.

And no. This game will at least earn enough money for SOE's initial investment and us(so it means, continued development unlike PS1)

Diehard · 2012-09-03, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Boone

Do the graphics/weapons really need a dramatic overhaul? Haven't played, but you usually see graphics and these kind of things prettied up more and more the closer to release. Wouldn't really worry about that too much to be honest. I think the whole flow of the battles, etc is probably more important to get that right first.

The problem is most people playing think it's a marketing beta (that's what I call em) when in fact it looks to be a true/serious beta test (comparing to DUST just because been playing that). I bet only %5 are truely "testing" unfortunately. I'm not too worried.

I'm more worried about optimization but I hear that is going OK.

They'll need to market a couple months a head of time..if the game even comes out this year. They definetely don't need to waste resources on CGI trailer and commercials though. Plenty of others ways to market these days.

It's probably a good thing SOE isn't counting on box sales. What they are counting on is releasing the most polished game they can, because if they can't...nobody is going to stick around and buy anything...and they have to have that to survive.

I love F2P when done correctly and think it can be a good thing for the consumer instead of getting raped on games you can't ever get your money back for.

ps - VS looks like they could use some love in the dmg department. Saw a video of NC with some recoil stuff, basically had no recoil on an HA and on the hardest hitting faction. I dunno..

I wouldnt worry about marketing if its a single player. The fact that its MMO F2P that makes marketing even more essential than ever.

I also agree that focussing on making the game polished is very important as well, but whats the use if nobody seems to be interested or worse, knows that the game even existed. Remember, this game especially, relies on numbers of players to make it successful.

Tarconus · 2012-09-03, 11:22 PM

The only issue I have with the game right now is ttk on everything, there is just to many people shooting at you for ttk to be as low as it is.

Shinjorai · 2012-09-04, 02:37 AM

I dont see this game failing. Even with all the glaring unbalances and game breaking bugs and the teamkilling in the warpgate and random idiocy im still having more fun in this game than ive had in many many years. It may not be what people that played planetside 1 expected but i believe it will carve its own legacy and stand on its own. The only way I can see that it will fail is if they are unable to fully optimize it to run on older systems well. Because as somebody said theyre shooting for the free to play market and the majority of free 2 play players arent going to want to dish out thousands of dollars to upgrade their computer just to play a free game. So i think the key is in optimization and also somebody mentioned advertising. Id also agree with that as well. Keys to success= marketing & optimization of the client.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-09-04, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Diehard

It still needs more marketing. GW2 and Diablo 3 market their games years before their releases. Thats why they managed to rack up lotsa sales on day 1.
At this point I still see it lacking in this department

Actually, Diablo 3 had huge day 1 sales because it was the successor to one of the most revered and high selling games of all time. Diablo 3's marketing was terrible - years of delays, then a forced and sudden shotgun release with a then-featureless build and little advertising.

Planetside is the sequel to an under-the-radar game released before technology was ready, subject to mixed reviews and mediocre sales.

Marketing will be extra important, if you ask me, because when you ask most people about planetside 2, they don't know there's a planetside 1. This is one issue that intrigued me enough to make the planetside 2 current social media status thread.