Doesn't matter what gets nerfed, buffed or added to the game.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BiggggBRIM, Aug 25, 2014.

  1. DorianOmega


    Well I'm also using a 30 inch screen with a native 2560x1600 resolution, I doubt your average user runs that :p
  2. SacredRay


    Oh right, that makes sense. My i5 is a Haswell bridge and is non-OC at 3.4 Ghz. I've done minimal tweaking to my ini files in order to get this amazing performance. And I say amazing because for the first 6 or so months, I played with a laptop (AMD, go figure) maxing out at 20 FPS in battles that mattered. Compare that now to the god like performance of 60FPS in even the most spammiest of Biolab battles ******
  3. NC supporter

    PS2 is F2P which means its content and performance will never be as good as paid games which try to make sure people get the best experience for their cash.
  4. Aaren


    Why?
  5. Hicksimus

    1) PS2 doesn't
    2) Frequently it doesn't even render all of the people in the same room
    • Up x 2
  6. Nexus545

    He posting about getting <30 fps He needs to post specs and what his settings are. Nobody has the right to complain if they are playing above their paygrade or have a plain, flat out, terrible rig.

    I'm playing on 3-4 y/o hardware and never dip below 30.
  7. Gambitual

    I get an absolute max of 40FPS. As soon as I start moving under those circumstances, I'll dip down to around 30. Smaller fights I can get anywhere from 15-20. Larger fights I stabilize around 10 with a hitches every so often.

    I guess I am just used to it because 10FPS doesn't feel that bad. I mean it is and I know I have bad frame rate, but it still feels okay.

    My FPS has not changed since I joined in February. I have very rarely experienced the bugs and glitches everyone raves about and, as said before, the performance degradation over time has not affected me either.

    I guess I'm special. :rolleyes:
  8. nubery

    This game is heavily limited by CPU. Video settings aren't a massive deal if your CPU is ****.
  9. NC supporter

    Theres a bigger budget in paid games so that means usually from big companies, more optimal products.
  10. Aaren


    .....er..

    Battlefeild 3/4? Medal of Honor Warfighter? Aliens: Colonial Marines? Elder Scrolls Online? Defiance? ARMA3?

    I mean...being the product of a nice big AAA studio, or publisher sure increases your chances of getting a quality product. But if the last five years or so has taught us anything - it's that it in no way guarantee's it. Even if that is what is marketed.
  11. Bankrotas

    I think you haven't heard of Ubisoft, EA or Activision... Honestly most of the games these days are riddled with bugs, day 1 patches and issues, that take long to fix, or fixed non at all.
  12. NC supporter

    Yet still their games make millions of dollars.
  13. Taemien


    Want to hear something disgusting?

    I get 2-3x your framerate yet my video card is two generations behind (AT Radeon HD 5870), and my CPU is only marginally better (Phenom II 970 X4 @ 3.5ghz)

    So yeah.. its not how powerful the hardware or how new it is. But what exactly it is. Meaning there's an issue in software. Better hardware should get better results. Not specific hardware that isn't made anymore.
    • Up x 1
  14. Saltydbs

    Buying an $800-$1000 computer system every 5-8 years will keep up with most sofware, don't blame software companies for developing for systems more recent than older than 10 years+ or just a flat **** systems. Step up to the plate or get the **** out imo.

    Edit: i7 950 3.07ghz Quad
    16 gigs of ram
    Radeon HD 7800

    All games I play, all new, run fine, yet my processor is 5 years old. Also this system ran me about $1200 in total. In about 3-4 years I will upgrade the processor and also probably the video card. Again, keep up with software or ****.
  15. jiggu

    My fps is great in the warpgates, why can't we fight there instead?
    • Up x 1
  16. BiggggBRIM


    Here's the specs of your average PC gamer.
    http://www.cinemablend.com/games/St...-Have-Weaker-PCs-Than-PS4-Xbox-One-58833.html

    You can't reasonably expect people to spend even $800 minimum on a gaming PC as the average person does not have that kind of disposable income. If people playing Planetside 1 ten years ago could get by with a Pentium 3 then why is it so horrible for people even with quad-core cpus?
  17. Saltydbs

    It's not horrible with a decen quad core cpu, a **** one is a **** one.

    If people can't afford $800ish dollars every 5-8 years, maybe they shouldn't be setting on a video game?
  18. BiggggBRIM


    Define a bad quad-core then. I see people struggle on an AMD Phenom II X4 965. I think that's a pretty decent CPU.

    And who the **** are you to tell people they can't afford to play this game? What real life job do you have that allows you to be so condescending towards those not as fortunate as yourself? I know you're not in marketing for a PC gaming company because the guy that suggests "Must have $1,000 PC or ****" as a product tagline would be FIRED.
  19. Peg

    SOE was never very good as programmingo r optomising games. PS1 was very poor for this but it did get a little better.

    I'm running an AMD Phenom X4 II 965 Black OC'd to 4.1Ghz
    8Gb DDR3 1333Mhz Ram
    ATi Radion HD 6790 1Gb OC'd to 950Mhz (from 800Mhz)

    I get about 55 fps in most places on Mid/High graphics in battles dropping to 40 in 48+'s I never notice or have framerate issues but my hardware is pushed to the very edge of its capabilities. I get GPU limit more offen than CPU.
  20. BigPoof

    Don't know what you're talking about, OP, PS2 runs fine on my Pentium 3 550, with 256mb Ram, 16mb Voodoo 3 GFX, and 56k dial-up modem.

    In all seriousness, my biggest gripe is the fog. On low settings the fog is non-existent, but as you increase the settings the fog gets worse. Is this meant to be a trade off for higher settings being able to see stealthed cloakers?
    • Up x 1