Lower framerate decreases the chance of hit registration?

Needless to say, latest gen i7 will have double that fps.

Yeah but my AMD isn't claiming to be comparable to an i7. It's not even the top end of the AMD range. Fact is I'm getting a very good frame rate without having to sacrifice the graphics quality much. Which is what irritates me about anti AMD comments.

Yeah it's not technically as good but it does the job perfectly well & for a lot less money. I forget the post but I compared the cost of my CPU to the other guys i5 & I had saved £60 in going AMD. I don't think AMD deserves the hate it gets, it's a respectable choice.

Well amd was most definitely the better choice 3 years ago. If i were to buy a new CPU now though I would buy the latest gen i7 or perhaps even an intel extreme.

More/better hardware wouldn't necessarily fix the problems.

Think about this, as the number of characters increase in a small area, the number of server transactions increase exponentially. This is true for both client-side and server-side management schemes, except that exponent of the server-side scheme transactions is larger than the client-side. So if you want to design an open world game like PS2 where you expect a lot of players to interact in small areas, then choosing client-side registration allows for smoother game play for more clients. As we can see client-side registration has it's own set of limitations, but in the case of PS2 I believe that SOE made the right choice by choosing a client-side scheme. Had they used a server-side scheme I would imagine that each base would have had to be their own instance, with a cap on the number of clients allowed into each instance to make the game playable. So in the end it's more or less a design choice on how they wanted to design the game.

When brute force doesnt work, you're not using enough

So their server can actually support 2000 concurrent players.

It may be bad, but it's definitely better than server side hit detection for any game that doesn't have 500+ global servers and isn't based on 8 characters within a 300 square foot combat zone.

Yes since hit detection is client side, I notice a difference between my Intel and AMD systems when in heavy fights, I have no problems getting kills on the Intel system because I don't dip below 30-35fps but on my AMD system when it drops below 30fps it becomes difficult for the game's client to sync your actions with the game, sometimes it feels like I'm shooting nerf balls instead of bullets.

In older games (like Quake or Half Life), hit detection was mostly server side and even at 15fps on a 486SX/33 with 8MB ram I was still owning on Heat.net in Quake 2.

absolutely agree... It is. Which is precisely the reason the game needs to be properly optimised to run on AMD hardware.

Some testing needs to be done on this. In what situations is the loss of hit-detection most noticeable? Can it be adequately separated from the loss of accuracy associated with a lower framerate?

Which thanks to the ps4 is happening. Although quite how long we are waiting for that optimisation is anyone's guess. I wonder if it will come as part of the optimisations they are currently working on or separately.

I am pro AMD.

My complaint is at the performance of the game, it went downhill since release. This latest patch has really screwed up the game with less framerate at warpgate than before. If they optimized the game it certainly wasn't for my computer. Now I can't play the game because it won't stay above 30 with lowest resolution and settings. It's running at 25 fps or less in large battles, that is not what I'd call playable.

I have 5770 GPU and Phenom II x4 955 CPU. It should at least be able to play the game but nope.

Holy cow Heat.net hahahahh

Well, all things considered, even with me getting better and more skilled at all my weapons, tactics, etc, post GU11 all that doesn't matter.
I"m stuck at 1.0KDR or even lower now.
I"ve given up any serious gameplay in PS2, I simply cannot be competitive.
I just play it now when I'm bored, and log out when the blood pressure rises, (around 15-30 mins now)
Simply cannot to anything when its 15fps.

AMD 8120X8, 560Ti, Corsair GT SSD's, top Crucial RAM, Sabretooth mobo (top o' line a year ago) apparently isnt enough to run this grinder.

Nope, it is poor programming practices at work.
http://seanmiddleditch.com/journal/2011/04/multi-threaded-game-engines/
it is a bit of a dated read, but sadly it is still rather true...

the part titled 'how to do it wrong' is how i believe the current PS2 engine is built.
Higby even said it himself in an interview, the PS2 code just sucks when it comes to multi-threading.

sad thing is, Intel simply doesn't get enough hate for what they do...
gouge you on price per mark then risk burning out your Mobo because their chips run nearly twice as hot for nearly the same processing power.

After having a space-heater of a rig which still eventually fried a mobo solely because it was Intel/Nvidia set up, i went AMD and never looked back. not only are they more economical, but a lot less stressful on your rigs.

I had two of those w/ a i7 930 and my game chugged. Looking at completely swapping out mobo and cpu at the moment

AMD Fx6300 OCed to 4.5GHz and 560ti....get 40+ fps most times high graphics and rarely dips below 30 even in the worst amp or biofarms battles.

I'd like at least 10 more frames, (never dip below 40 or 45), run the game on ultra, and won't pretend I've got a competition level performance, but at least some AMD systems can run this game at least moderately well. To answer the OPs ?, think there is a pretty big effect on hit registration and frame rates--could be wrong though

I play NC with slower RoF weapons, and get about 15-20 fps in bag Amp Station/Tech plant battles. Its definitely noticeable. I think it even reloads/swaps weapons slower since its chugging along like a bulldozer in pudding.

Hopefully we will see a decent increase in framerate with the upcoming release on an 8 core 1.6 ghz AMD chip in the PS4. That still wont fix the inherent issues of client side hit detection, but it will help a bit.

People act like SOE did something no one else could do with Planetside 2, in creating a huge world with 2000 players per continent in seamless battles. But they didnt. I would wager that any large or even small developer could do it. They just know better. Client side hit detection is crap, but I guess its the only way large scale battles such as these can exist. Then you have the hardware requirements necessary to run this type of game acceptably - most PC gamers just dont have it. You have to have the latest gen of CPUs (and one particular brand) to run this close to the desired min of 60fps. While I can run any other title well over that on max settings, I just dont have the hardware to do it with PS2. And since I dont have issues with any other title, I dont feel that an upgrade is necessary. If it gets that bad Ill just quit playing PS2. As a long time console gamer, especially N64, I am used to lower framerates and can deal with 30. 20 and under can be frustrating though.

* and yes, I realize there is no other game like this - but Im still not upgrading for a F2P game

It's strange how some people are getting decent results while others aren't when it comes to AMD, I always thought it was the motherboard that matters such as a $90 vs a $200 one even with the same chipset say 990FX (although difference is the VRM strength for 125-140W CPU's and overclocking capacity) but not really.

Yeah it was my way of spending some nights with a medium pizza and a few cans of Coke back in the days, what fun. Of course I still went out on Sat nights, no way would I sit at home on such a night.

I have a Phenom II x4 OC'd to 4.06 ghz and it outperforms a i7 920 in the benchmarks that matter for PS2 - single threaded, SSE instructions, etc. I still get dogschit performance I kept looking at upgrades for a while, then realized: I dont have trouble rrunning anything else, at all. In fact, I can max every other game I have out and run it at 60+ fps flawlessly. So Im not upgrading. And I could do it fairly cheap as Id just need the mobo and CPU.

Edit: I might add though, despite my overclocking (which is pretty extreme given it is a B55, which is a dual core @ 3.2ghz unlocked to a quad) I am running a A880G mobo which dates back to 2006. Its a 95W TDP board running a max TDP of 160w according to CPU-Z. I could probably gain some frames with just a mobo upgrade.