"Promises"

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Mission "system" is a terrible way to introduce new players to the game. Same with gathering them up for Galaxy drops. Most of the time they result in utter failure because the people who organize them often don't even know where to go themselves. So many times I've seen completely clueless pilots take off with a Galaxy full of randoms, only to drop them in the middle of a vehicle zerg and see them slaughtered within seconds. Now why is this?

Maybe it's because the map doesn't show specific enough information about combat activity? How many times have you used instant action to a red explosion, only to find out that it's just 1 infiltrator busting generators?

Maybe it's because there is no command chat, no way to update everyone else about what you're seeing in the hex you're in?

Maybe if there was a way to know what kind of a fight is going on at each contested hex, all of these failures wouldn't happen.

I agree to a certain extent. You're right that a mission system won't make it crystal clear to new players what they are supposed to be doing and how to play the game. It's just a necessary part of organization which will help players, new and old, get to where they did to be, and get rewarded for helping out the faction more.

Of course it wont work on it's own.
There's the tutorial, when they make one that's deeper than the current one, which should give each player a basic understanding of how the features/mechanics work.

The instant action, which still doesn't work like you pointed out it still drops you in areas with no action, should accurately show players, especially new ones, where the action is. It drops you into areas where your faction doesn't actually have any troops even though the maps indicates this to be the case, or into bases/facilities that is already taken, as you pointed out above.

There is a command chat if you cert into it.

I agree. All the ingame organization features need to be working properly so they can complement each other. The map really does need to give out more information about the status of the bases and facilities.

[WNxThentar]

• Advance weapons for vehicles costing extra resource or special resources but stock vehicles free.
• PS1 vets getting some recognition at release.
• Infils having more cloaking options.
• Engineers being more then just the required class for vehicle drivers to fix their vehicles.
• A proper resource system instead of this dumbed down system we have.
• ESFs that are actually balanced against each other.
• Being able to warp from one cont to another in your vehicle.
• (tbd) a proper anti-cheat system.
• (tbd) the Android/iPad app
• (tbd) the api for accessing the datawall
• (tbd) xp for things like vehicle ammo rearm for sunderer drivers
• (tbd) a lasher that is actually not just stupid eye candy.

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by WNxThentar

• PS1 vets getting some recognition at release.
  
  

I`ll second this , was about to write the same Something they promised

[Dkamanus]

I just wanted them to keep the promise of actually making the game run in 5 years old PCs. I bought a new one last year, can run most games in FULL HD at 60 fps in high settings, and this one I can't. =[

[Sturmhardt]

Cross continental warfare is the biggest thing I miss. This constant 3on3 stalemate is boring after a few weeks.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by Marinealver

We do have plans for Navy warfare in Planetside........

That was a quote from an SOE PR guy talking about future developments with the original Planetside. We can all see on how they keep their promises.

dont think we are seeing future develpoment yet....thats...you know...in the future?

[Morsong]

Yeah such a shame the mission system isn't going to be implemented at launch. That would have been really good for new players. Anyone have any news on the PS2 app? Will it be released at launch?

[Crator]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Mission "system" is a terrible way to introduce new players to the game. Same with gathering them up for Galaxy drops. Most of the time they result in utter failure because the people who organize them often don't even know where to go themselves. So many times I've seen completely clueless pilots take off with a Galaxy full of randoms, only to drop them in the middle of a vehicle zerg and see them slaughtered within seconds. Now why is this?

Maybe it's because the map doesn't show specific enough information about combat activity? How many times have you used instant action to a red explosion, only to find out that it's just 1 infiltrator busting generators?

Maybe it's because there is no command chat, no way to update everyone else about what you're seeing in the hex you're in?

Maybe if there was a way to know what kind of a fight is going on at each contested hex, all of these failures wouldn't happen.

+1 Well said. I really don't see how the mission system will work unless battle flow is slowed down. The missions would expire too fast imo.

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

I just wanted them to keep the promise of actually making the game run in 5 years old PCs. I bought a new one last year, can run most games in FULL HD at 60 fps in high settings, and this one I can't. =[

Please tell me the name of the FPS game that has thousands of players on the map that you run " in FULL HD at 60 fps in high settings".

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Please tell me the name of the FPS game that has thousands of players on the map that you run " in FULL HD at 60 fps in high settings".

Don't bother, most people seem to firmly believe there's no difference between PS2's scale and Crysis 2/BF3's scale. They'll also toss the argument about how the system isn't using 100% of their card/CPU when in actuality that is a bad scenario to be found in. Things start to get hot under 100% load last I checked.

Also, I must be the only person here whom couldn't care less about being recognized as a "PS1 vet." Mostly because the only other people whom would care are other PS1 players, and I know most of them couldn't care less about other PS1 players unless those other players had already made a name for themselves, but these people won't need some form of icon or a custom skin to be IDed. It just seems petty to demand recognition for the most part.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by ringring

Ye, ifr ytou're going to have a mission system you really first need a strategy/command system, or are we going to see random unconnected missions strewn across the map or perhaps something with a little purpose behind it.

I agree that a command system is needed, but at first a mission system could work for new players, as there could be both player generated missions and some auto generated. With that system, a small mission chain could be automatically presented to fresh characters for them to run through a "boot camp" to get used to the game's controls, interfaces, different vehicles and their utilities, etc and at the end one to send them to a heavily populated area - not dropping them without a warning as it currently does, instead just pointing it out on the map and saying "there is a big fight here, use what you learned to find a way to go there now".

Of course that won't work very well if hot spots keep showing up where there is only 1 random guy taking empty bases, but that is something that really should be fixed too.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Things start to get hot under 100% load last I checked.
.

BF3 runs at 100% GPU usage at 80C while PS2 runs at 70% GPU usage at 78C.

Something is wrong on their end.

Originally Posted by Littleman

Also, I must be the only person here whom couldn't care less about being recognized as a "PS1 vet." Mostly because the only other people whom would care are other PS1 players, and I know most of them couldn't care less about other PS1 players unless those other players had already made a name for themselves, but these people won't need some form of icon or a custom skin to be IDed. It just seems petty to demand recognition for the most part.

Me neither. I wouldn't mind free stuff but I won't lose sleep. I got into the tech test so I'm happy with my beta access.

[Dkamanus]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Please tell me the name of the FPS game that has thousands of players on the map that you run " in FULL HD at 60 fps in high settings".

First of all, this is a dev promise. I wouldn't mind if they hadn't said ANYTHING at all, but they almost guaranteed the game would run in a 5 year old system, so having a system with the recommended spec should be able to run at high settings, maybe not 100 fps, but reach 60 FPS easily.

Second, there are options that the players don't have control in the in-game options, like Asiontropic and FXAA (which is turned on at 2 they say). Those options do take a power from the GPU which wouldnt be needed. For some people at least.

Thrird, it actually doesnt matter, for there will NEVER have thousands of players in one single battle in a server. In my whole experience at the beta, there wasn't a single battle that actually got more then 500 people playing at it, which, by itself, is already a HUGE battle. The normal "large" battles will top 200-300 people, which is a good number.

Since you aren't rendering ALL 2000 players in the continent at ANY given time (since 2000 per continent is the alleged max player pop a continent can hold), but we are having a terrain rendering which is mostly static, and therefore not overbearing the GPU AND the CPU, its hard to believe that one of the most cost effective x power CPUs in the market is actually becoming a clog in performance (i5 2500k, which is the recommended spec).

Lag isn't an issue (something SOE made VERY RIght, I'm from brazil, played in East server, and it was lag free for me, or so it seemed), and when people say "handle thousands of players" that's actually bullshit. This is a DX9 game (devs told that too), which is having difficulty in being played in i7 cores and nVidias 680 without SLI (which it doesnt support yet).

Considering some monsters we have here of PCs, and they are having some difficulty playing this at high (I guess theres also gonna have a ULTRA settings more ahead). As said, we cannot defend a game that, in its essence, is aimed to catter a larger audience which won't have the HUGE MONSTER PCs. Lights and shadows are THE MOST demanding processes a CPU and GPU can make.

Even in medium, which is a HUGE increase in FPS I can't reach 60 constantly. How is SOE going to capitalize in this game, if the greatest most amounts of players will have piss poor FPSes? Most players calculations are made by the servers, leaving much less stress for the CPU, and texture and 3d models for GPUs to calculate.

How can someone explain to me a battle a little distance make my FPS drop to 15 and when I near the battle, with MUCH more players in rendering range, explosions, more shadows and lights, all of that, make my FPS climb to 30? This game is still poorly optimized, and this needs to be improved. For ALL our sakes, since a good part of the playerbase will have average computers as well.

As soon as they see this game running at a very LOW FPS, while others, more GPU and CPU demanding games can get off on ULTRA Settings with 60 FPS, these players are gonna leave. The ammount of players isn't different by the ammount of buildings, foliage, explosions and everything else inside a Unreal Engine, CryEngine or FrostBite engine, since most calculations are made by the servers (WHICH must be huge powerhogs to be able to keep up with everything).

My brother has the minimum requirements for the game, and he can't play the game, due to HUGE fps drops (less the 10 FPS). Either they work more in the optimizations (which I guess they will, considering Everquest NEXT is coming) more, or this game will be dead in a year, due to low populations. Mark my words. And I don't want this to happen.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by elfailo

You're missing the point, which is that in order to create viable missions for these newbies, commanders need tactical info, which they currently aren't getting. Planetside players aren't the sharpest tools in the shed - do you really want these people to be in charge of guiding the newbies with little to no information?

This is different than command chat how? Just what we need, a way for people to demoralize new people over a channel they can't talk on.

Making a fight last more than a few minutes is a gripe you have, not one new players will have.

[Fafnir]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Making a fight last more than a few minutes is a gripe you have, not one new players will have.

But that's directly related to new player experience. I bet that at some point during beta the devs had to reconsider the whole idea of mission system, because fights are too short to let it function properly. Thus there are no missions and new players have hard time deciding where to go.

The devs started focusing on improving and expanding hotspots, rather than implementing missions Higby was talking about before the beta. It's a step forward, but hotspots also introduce their own problems, like decreasing usefullness of transport vehicles. We need something more to show players where to go.