Anyone else worried that the very low rendering distance for infantry wasn't fixed?

WilliamB · 2012-11-17, 02:47 PM

And hasn't been brought up by dev at all?

Rivenshield · 2012-11-17, 02:56 PM

No.

I'm worried about the *game.* I have a horrible vision that won't go away:

PS2 will do okay for six months, and then begin a long slow decline. In the end the only die-hard fans will be PS1 vets and the few who stuck around long enough to learn how everything works with no tutorial, no manual -- I'm a technical writer, so that appalls me -- and no virtual battlefield to try things out on. Also no sanc to gather and ask questions in, no little pointers over new equipment to give you free XP for learning what they are (remember those?), and no yellow/orange/red alert system.

They threw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to create an ALL! NEW! GAME! and now are rushing it out the door six months before they should. Kind of like SWG, where we all pretended for frigging *years* to be in Star Wars with no vehicles or spaceships....

That's what I'm worried about. Pettyfogging technical issues be damned.

I hope I'm just being silly. But I can't shake it.

Piper · 2012-11-17, 03:07 PM

It has been brought up by the dev's, well Smed'. He twatted about it a couple of times, and couple of days before the end of beta he posted about it.

The trouble is, he kept talking about "improving it". Which I still find odd, as it wasn't (as far as I know) a bug to be fixed but rather a decision they took to cause it to happen in the first place. As such they could just turn it back off at anytime I would have thought.

A client side option is/was the solution I believe. Set a fixed and default and equal range between units that is fairly generous, perhaps what it was before it started being a problem and then people on lower end machines after they have exhausted all the options available to them then they get to turn down their render range.

That way people on mid range machines don't get the farcical FPS combat we have been getting since the "feature" was enabled, nor can those on ubah machines turn it up beyond the max setting to gain advantage.

I don't believe its a petty issue either, it will make a lot of folks coming to the game do a double take and consider up and leaving from it. The game will need $'s to stand a chance to survive long enough to implement the features we'd like to see happen, the more RTS like elements that are missing from Ps1.

Buggsy · 2012-11-17, 03:35 PM

Area of sphere:

All things being equal, whenever the render radius is increased by X amount, the amount of players being rendered is by X*X*X amount or X to the third power.

wwiionline did this too, the best way they could increase frame rate was to decrease render distance for infantry, anti-tank anti-aircraft guns.

Sifer2 · 2012-11-17, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

No.

I'm worried about the *game.* I have a horrible vision that won't go away:

PS2 will do okay for six months, and then begin a long slow decline. In the end the only die-hard fans will be PS1 vets and the few who stuck around long enough to learn how everything works with no tutorial, no manual -- I'm a technical writer, so that appalls me -- and no virtual battlefield to try things out on. Also no sanc to gather and ask questions in, no little pointers over new equipment to give you free XP for learning what they are (remember those?), and no yellow/orange/red alert system.

They threw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to create an ALL! NEW! GAME! and now are rushing it out the door six months before they should. Kind of like SWG, where we all pretended for frigging *years* to be in Star Wars with no vehicles or spaceships....

That's what I'm worried about. Pettyfogging technical issues be damned.

I hope I'm just being silly. But I can't shake it.

It didn't take years for them to add vehicles/spaceships to SWG. At least I don't remember it taking so long. The regular speeder bike was added after a few months I think. Can't remember if JTLS came out a year later or two years though.

Anyway the game launched too soon I agree. But I think SOE's choices may have been limited. Been a while since they have had a hit game hasn't it? They may be desperate for money. Planetside 2 to me looks like one of those all or broke style projects. Real ambitious but they don't have the cash to work on it forever so it's got be launched now, and developed as they go. This is probably why they sold publishing rights to Prosieben, and the9 as well.

Buggsy · 2012-11-17, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

It didn't take years for them to add vehicles/spaceships to SWG. At least I don't remember it taking so long. The regular speeder bike was added after a few months I think. Can't remember if JTLS came out a year later or two years though.

Anyway the game launched too soon I agree. But I think SOE's choices may have been limited. Been a while since they have had a hit game hasn't it? They may be desperate for money. Planetside 2 to me looks like one of those all or broke style projects. Real ambitious but they don't have the cash to work on it forever so it's got be launched now, and developed as they go. This is probably why they sold publishing rights to Prosieben, and the9 as well.

SWG subscriptions started dropping like a rock as soon as the JEDI holocron grind started, it's also when I quit.

WilliamB · 2012-11-17, 04:35 PM

Well Smed tweeted about it yeah , but his tweet was about it being already fixed. which it wasnt, at least for me in big fight like at the crown ...

Ghoest9 · 2012-11-17, 04:47 PM

The short view range is the only thing saving this game unfortunately.

If they let Liberators have a a longer view range infantry will quickly become a joke.

I would be nice if infantry could see each other farther away, but if aircraft can start seeing and spotting at long range it will just become a crazy carnage ensurese all new players leave quickly.

xenoneo · 2012-11-17, 05:34 PM

The spotting from a long distance would be one issue that could be a problem.
I think though that the limited infantry view is only a problem in 2 cases.
One is for a sniper, who can't see anyone beyond a certain distance, but would you really like to be sniped from the far side of the base next door?
The other was/is the burster MAX from an aircraft's perspective.
Getting shot down and not being able to see what's hitting you could be a problem.
I think they nerfed the far distance accuracy on the max and it's damage, but all that needed to be done here imo is to make MAXs render at the same distance as vehicles.
It does take resources and a timer to spawn a MAX and you can't OHK head shot a MAX as well.

Overall though I think a limited render distance is only helping infantry on the ground have a fighting chance.
As the 10x and 12x scopes on a infiltrator are pretty much useless considering nothing shows at that distance, a gain of just a little more visible distance wouldn't be terrible though.

Helwyr · 2012-11-17, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

The short view range is the only thing saving this game unfortunately.

If they let Liberators have a a longer view range infantry will quickly become a joke.

I would be nice if infantry could see each other farther away, but if aircraft can start seeing and spotting at long range it will just become a crazy carnage ensurese all new players leave quickly.

Yes, exactly. People need to be clear what it is they want in terms of changes in render distance. Asking for longer or at least more consistent render distances for Infantry vs Infantry is reasonable. However, increasing Infantry render distance to Vehicles, and especially Air Vehicles would be game breaking.

TurngleHat · 2012-11-17, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Yes, exactly. People need to be clear what it is they want in terms of changes in render distance. Asking for longer or at least more consistent render distances for Infantry vs Infantry is reasonable. However, increasing Infantry render distance to Vehicles, and especially Air Vehicles would be game breaking.

Not if they made AA worth anyone's time. Flares and ship maneuverability make lock-on missiles are a joke, and flak cannons are frustratingly weak.

Helwyr · 2012-11-17, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by TurngleHat

Not if they made AA worth anyone's time. Flares and ship maneuverability make lock-on missiles are a joke, and flak cannons are frustratingly weak.

Viable AA still wouldn't change my mind on this. PS1 had more viable AA than PS2, but unless there was lots of it Air ruined outdoor Infantry fights all the same.

Just having Infantry not render unless very close to vehicles is just such a better way of balancing the game. They should remove Infantry detecting Radar from vehicles as well.

Timealude · 2012-11-17, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Viable AA still wouldn't change my mind on this. PS1 had more viable AA than PS2, but unless there was lots of it Air ruined outdoor Infantry fights all the same.

Just having Infantry not render unless very close to vehicles is just such a better way of balancing the game. They should remove Infantry detecting Radar from vehicles as well.

i think that having the radar on the tanks and plans just kinda encourages tank spam or rocket spam. It was fine for the flash just because it actually made it some what useful then just a quick ground transport.