Dear SOE...Population

Yeah but BF3 is really good.

My server is rocking and seems to be actually getting bigger.

Massive battles everywhere.

Is the OP one of those people who can't work out how to play and just wanders the deserted parts of the map?

Its amazing ho many new players I find complaining about no action when they are miles behind friendly lines and heading in the wrong direction.

Completely moronic post. Hates on BF but has never bought BF, admitted to this during post.

Kinda like saying "steak tastes bad but I've never eaten it!"


Gunplay in BF and CoD, far superior, optimization, far superior.

Size, well, this, is where PS2 is different, PS2 is significantly bigger than both, this is where it can make its game-play stand on a par with the two, it makes it necessary for PS2 to maintain high pops so that it's superior element can actually be used.

A big HELL no to only 2 EU servers. Are you crazy? That would mean massive queues... Woodman and Miller alone go High each night, you think you can push all those low-medium servers in there as well? =p

Try 3-4 EU depending on numbers, 3 US WEST 3 US EAST etc etc. That'll be good.

I am playing in Mallory and do not know the ghost biolabs and towns.

PlanetSide is not sessional game. In BF3 you connect to match. Why all players compare PS2 with BF3?

Don't forget the whole dying around corners thing and the insane amount of cheaters

I never said the game was flawless nor did I ever use the word pointless to describe anything so im not sure where you're coming from. I merely pointed out that threads seem to repeat themselves eventhough there were threads that covered the topic. Guess im the only one that cares about actual issues staying on page 1 on the forums instead of the 1000th thread filled with complaints and no constructive suggestions.

Thats because many of the new players as me, came rebounding from BF3 due to the fact thath PS2 is what we wanted instead BF3. Yes, maybe BF3 is superior in graphics, but PS2 has something that BF3 lost: teamplay. I've got more teamplay and fun in 1 month (being in an Outfit) than in 4 months playing BF3 with random players and some friends. And I can say the game is not dead, at least on Miller. I've left BF franchise, and will play PS2 from now. Its exactly what I like, and with a big potential. (except the zergs lol) I'll continue to support it.

Are you guys kidding? The game can't handle too many people in the same area.

Problem is always the same
If you want a Server with decent population even during morning hours, you will have large queues in the evening.

And that will be the case as long as you are tied to 1 server

I was waiting years for BF3, and buyed it: mistake. Dont know how SOE works, but personallly I'll give more time to them to fix the things and stabilize the game. Its way too soon to "kill" the game, only has been running for 1 month...

Is that about BF3 or PS2?

PS2 network lag significantly more, because of the scale, so dying around corners is very common, and cheaters, you have played PS2 right? It's riddled. it's F2P with poor anti cheat and made by SOE, the hackers were wetting themselves happy at the announcement.

Funny because I haven't encountered cheaters in either game, though I'd welcome the cheaters in PS2, please just want people to play with. I would try to switch server but you cannot and I've spent money on my chars now, I don't want to have to delete them so I can make a 4th.

People really need to know the difference between population issues, vs continent population ratio differences. Example, just because a server may have each faction owning 1 single continent, does not mean that server has population issues. It means that server has a lot of lazy Outfits that don't want to fight & die, they just want to cap empty bases for free points. This is not something that can be addressed by merging servers, because you could merge 3 servers together and STILL end up with the same exact continent ratio differences.

The devs have to fix continent ratio differences and people capping empty bases by implementing some sort of locking mechanism, and a gameplay feature that funnels players into the same places. This was an issue in Warhammer Online, and that game sold 850,000+ copies. Population was not the problem, it was a problem with the realm vs realm gameplay. People were swapping bases and avoiding each other not because there were not enough people on each side. People were doing so because capturing empty castles were more profitable and rewarding to characters than when fighting against heavily defended fortresses. This is a fundamental problem when you reward people for doing nothing, for having the ability to swap bases like they don't matter. If you lock objectives after they are taken, and have a downtime before someone else can start taking them again, then you will force people to defend/attack bases filled with players why? Because they would run out of bases to attack & defend.

Of course you never want to not have content for people to do so they need to add something on top of it, something else that makes people want to attack a realm's bases. DAOC and WAR both had endgame, DAOC's endgame were relics, and they worked much better than WAR's endgame which was a raid on opposing realm's city. If they did it the WAR way, it'd be like making the Warpgates attackable, which in the state it's in and the way it's designed, would not work well.

There are many ways they could implement locking and an endgame, a reason to take such many bases. Many realm vs realm MMO's have already been there done that, with DAOC being the more successful one, WAR failed hardcore due to a bad endgame. How Planetside 2 developers work this game, that's up to them. But you don't fix continent imbalance issues by merging servers, that won't solve anything.

There are low pop servers, not many but some low pop servers during prime time, those should get merged. But the rest of the servers just need a lil nudge from the dev's side by ways of mechanics to funnel players correctly.

The only things dead in Connery are the NC and VS bodies eeeerywhere.

Sever mergers this early after release = dead game

Well 2 weeks ago every cont was full and the server had a 600 person queue. Now there is no queue ever, the population only ever hits medium and the only time there are big battles is during a small window in the evening. Two weeks ago it was always packed and it was fun, the battles were so much bigger than even the largest ones now and I just want it to play like that, rather than the sad ghost town it is now.

All they have to do Is make one server per region, when the population fills one server then create another and let you switch between all the servers.

I've already said everything that I think about server merging and why... but there's a thing I just don't understand - why, oh why do people avoid fighting? WHY.

>teamplay
It all depends on the player. I play to match game how named "Tactical online shooter":
-Warface
-Ghost Recon online
-Battefield's
-Frontlines
And other.

I think about my team only in Frontlines when I am driving tank. Mini-cars with C4 normal can kill only troopers.

But only PS2 give a feel: you in war.

wow are YOU kidding. It's SUPPOSED to as the moto is "Massive battles on an EPIC scale." Word for word that is what it says when you go to planetside2.com.