Can this game render hundreds against hundreds ??

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

this game just can't handle more focused battles.

And that my friend, is a damn shame. The essence of planetside taken out. The original had bigger fights as was mentioned earlier.

I would welcome a dip in graphic quality so we could have bigger fights (and before someone shoots me down, im not a pc technical geek)

[Ironside]

i've lost all hope for the game i only hang around because there's nothing else to play at the moment, i lost alot before beta even hit listing to higby and smedley waxing lyrical about bf3 and very little about ps1, they wanted a mass market fps and failed, pop is continually dropping and we're expected to pay for the pleasure of transferring instead on merging servers.

Game's a mess, lag, low fps, bugs everywhere, some that have been around a long time, every time a new patch gets released it creates more problems, get a fucking test server and test these things properly, render issue is also a big thing for me.

Conts are to big, to many installations/bases/towers, we know why they created it this way, because they knew all along they game couldnt support a lot of players in a small area, game should of been released with more conts and lower pops for a better game experience, enemies coming into view 20-30 metres away isn't how it should be.

I truly believe this dev team is incompetent, perhaps thats unfair to tar them all but higby and smedley are certainly incompetent, they rushed to release a weak product with a weak foundation, applying patches and plasters won't change the weak foundation, if a house is built on shit it sinks eventually..

Eye candy counts for nothing, solid gameplay and mechanics is everything in my book, i might get criticised for my view and people will probably defend the game and the devs and that's fine it's all about opinions but i think they've failed and released a game so far below what it could have been

[Dougnifico]

Originally Posted by Ironside

i've lost all hope for the game i only hang around because there's nothing else to play at the moment, i lost alot before beta even hit listing to higby and smedley waxing lyrical about bf3 and very little about ps1, they wanted a mass market fps and failed, pop is continually dropping and we're expected to pay for the pleasure of transferring instead on merging servers.

Game's a mess, lag, low fps, bugs everywhere, some that have been around a long time, every time a new patch gets released it creates more problems, get a fucking test server and test these things properly, render issue is also a big thing for me.

Conts are to big, to many installations/bases/towers, we know why they created it this way, because they knew all along they game couldnt support a lot of players in a small area, game should of been released with more conts and lower pops for a better game experience, enemies coming into view 20-30 metres away isn't how it should be.

I truly believe this dev team is incompetent, perhaps thats unfair to tar them all but higby and smedley are certainly incompetent, they rushed to release a weak product with a weak foundation, applying patches and plasters won't change the weak foundation, if a house is built on shit it sinks eventually..

Eye candy counts for nothing, solid gameplay and mechanics is everything in my book, i might get criticised for my view and people will probably defend the game and the devs and that's fine it's all about opinions but i think they've failed and released a game so far below what it could have been

Those bastards. Curse them for for attempting something innovative in an industry that obviously doesn't need innovation and totally hasn't stagnated. Pushing the envelope is just a stupid thing to do that never benefited anyone!

*sarcasm

[superseohyun]

Originally Posted by Ironside

i've lost all hope for the game i only hang around because there's nothing else to play at the moment, i lost alot before beta even hit listing to higby and smedley waxing lyrical about bf3 and very little about ps1, they wanted a mass market fps and failed, pop is continually dropping and we're expected to pay for the pleasure of transferring instead on merging servers.

Game's a mess, lag, low fps, bugs everywhere, some that have been around a long time, every time a new patch gets released it creates more problems, get a fucking test server and test these things properly, render issue is also a big thing for me.

Conts are to big, to many installations/bases/towers, we know why they created it this way, because they knew all along they game couldnt support a lot of players in a small area, game should of been released with more conts and lower pops for a better game experience, enemies coming into view 20-30 metres away isn't how it should be.

I truly believe this dev team is incompetent, perhaps thats unfair to tar them all but higby and smedley are certainly incompetent, they rushed to release a weak product with a weak foundation, applying patches and plasters won't change the weak foundation, if a house is built on shit it sinks eventually..

Eye candy counts for nothing, solid gameplay and mechanics is everything in my book, i might get criticised for my view and people will probably defend the game and the devs and that's fine it's all about opinions but i think they've failed and released a game so far below what it could have been

is the population really dropping constantly?
i stopped playing for a month and after i logged back in last week, i didnt notice much difference, if at all.

[Figment]

Just for the record, similar fps issues occured in PS1 alongside memory leaks (white texture bug anyone?) and rendering of players was frequently cause of concern for the lower end rigs.

What PS1 does is more quickly letting backpacks disappear if a lot of fighting occurs. That made scavenging much harder during a zergfight, but it ensured render stress was reduced. PS2 already made a lot of such concessions: no holstered weapons, no backpacks, at all. It is possible they can have a few more dynamic render options, such as the amount of bulletholes and explosive impact marks after explosions occured disappearing faster.

It is a pretty big concession as it greatly impacts gameplay (no inventory), survival chances, fun (use enemy weapons against themselves) and awareness. Holstered weapons alone cost 25% of the amount of players according to Higby in beta. That is also why it surprised me they opted for solo tanks, which surely increases the amount of rendering and hitboxes.

It's a shame, but a consequence of the graphical quality demands of a lot of gamers. Some gamers afterall look at graphics and judge the game by its cover. Especially with this many players as ambition and the differences in rig quality between players.

[Miir]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

It's the biggest reason why we will never see a lattice system, this game just can't handle more focused battles.

Probably the same reason we've never seen defensible bases.

[Strategy]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

If soe can not fix the render issues and allow us to have battles of hundreds versus hundreds then this game will fail. It will fail because it was built with the promise of massive battles. It was built with these great big islands that you can put 2000 people on and if they cant fight each other then this entire exercise was for nothing. Sony has to fix this or I and most of the other customers that want this game to work will quit. Fix this first soe.

Agreed. This should be their main concern right now. I've been playing BF3 a lot lately instead of PS2, simply because what PS2 is now is a shooter with mediocre shooting mechanics/ poor base design/ rendering issues. It's simply not fun for me. I'd rather play a more polished, smooth shooter.

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

Those bastards. Curse them for for attempting something innovative in an industry that obviously doesn't need innovation and totally hasn't stagnated. Pushing the envelope is just a stupid thing to do that never benefited anyone!

*sarcasm

innovation? they've made a piss poor game, if you're happy with it great you must have low standards

[Thunderhawk]

I wonder if they could try a system similar to the below, obviously modify the distances according to what the game can handle, but generally do tit this way:-

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

I wonder if they could try a system similar to the below, obviously modify the distances according to what the game can handle, but generally do tit this way:-

Whats the point in rendering Infiltrators at 500m if they can't themselves see the other infantry targets?

[ShadetheDruid]

Originally Posted by Ironside

innovation? they've made a piss poor game, if you're happy with it great you must have low standards

If you're so offended by people enjoying different things than you, why are you on the internet?

[Thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by Mietz

Whats the point in rendering Infiltrators at 500m if they can't themselves see the other infantry targets?

Point taken, they will only be able to shoot each other....

OK they can do some dynamic Infiltrator only special case rendering, like Infantry can see and infiltrators can see them up to 500m...

I mean come on, thats the basis of a more detailed ruleset for rendering

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

If you're so offended by people enjoying different things than you, why are you on the internet?

offended? i aint offended

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

It's technically possible to render a battle between 3000 units in a game at the same spot actually. Last week's major spontaneous meat grinder in Eve Online proved this:
Pretty Lights: The Battle of Asakai in (sorta) Real Time [EVE Online] - YouTube
Eve uses some local time slow-down system (1 sec = 10 sec) to pull it off.

If this could work any time soon for an fps is a whole different question of course..

Asymmetric game play is not the same as Symmetric. Also, all objects in the scene are not fully rendered, as eve using icons at a certain distance. Models are not used beyond a certain point.

People need to stop using this comparison.

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

And that my friend, is a damn shame. The essence of planetside taken out.

Well, Indar having the most bases (= less focused) but being by far the most popular continent might suggest the players don't mind uber insane battles that much as you might think. I for once don't mind it all, I'm still getting way bigger and more epic battles than I have ever seen in a game and I guess that goes for most players (who are not PS1 vets) as well.
With Amerish, they tried to achieve more of a focus/natural lattice system with the terrain and guess what, it's the least popular continent. I guess people don't like it to be restricted in their movement.

Does that mean the current audience has lower standards compared to PS1 vets who have been "spoiled" with maybe a bigger scale and a richer game? Don't think so, priorities are just a bit different. The scale is already epic to many so I guess people want foremost a great gun game that runs at least as smooth as BF3 without any bugs and rendering issues. After that a proper meta game will probably be highest on the list, but even more scale? I don't know, for me it's currently a nice-to-have, not a must-have. What shoots needs to be rendered properly but other than that, I don't mind waiting my time until technology catches up.