Seems like this hasn't been brought up in its own topic yet so I'm reposting this find from another thread which was locked earlier today for being non-constructive. Kudos goes to JacDoom. Personally I'm glad they're looking into game performance again. I'm experiencing a ton of server lag lately. Yesterday was one of these days on Cobalt where even 48vs48 battles were so laggy that it became basically unplayable as far as infantry combat is concerned. Other than that my game's still hitching a lot and for some reason my game started to crash every now and again which hasn't happened in quite a while for me on the 64bit client. Hoping to seeing better game performance soon!
For one? Yeah. I totally agree. As much as I love new stuff, it's better to make sure you're working with a clean table, you know? Adding more stuff with lag would just make things worse. On the flip side? I hope they don't pull a Watch Dogs on us, and just use this as a decoy to burn time. Best and worst case scenarios, you know? I doubt they will, though. Despite everyone's gripes, they're a solid team. In their defense, I think it's hilarious that we complain about 48 v 48 battles being laggy. Other games can only DREAM of hosting 48v48 matches, much less on a persistent thousand person server, without their engine crapping itself and going home to mommy.
Good point. The thing is, 48v48 already used to play out a lot smoother before so I know that it can be done better. I can live with 96v96 being laggy and I totally do. But when the lag starts creeping into all kinds of fights there's gotta be something done about it.
Oh I totally agree. What I'm saying is, despite all their faults and failures, they still have an awesome game, and there's still nothing like it on the market. While I support the community in trying to change the game for the better, I really despise it when people bash the game, you know? You want a game to bash, go on steam and find some bad games. But there's a reason so many people still play this game. You know?
Not bashing the game. I was just describing my personal experiences regarding the subject. If I wouldn't appreciate the game and the work behind it I wouldn't be playing it nor would I be hanging about on the forums, simple.
Battlefield 4 can get pretty close with its 32v32, and it looks better, has destructible terrain, has diverse weapon models, has much better animations, a load more utilities and gadgets available, and has a good aesthetic polish to it. Granted that game also has a **** ton of performance issues, which was to be expected from the rushed release. The problem with Planetside 2 is that the persistent world doesn't mean anything when there is no value in winning. Its almost as if each sector of the map is one bad Battlefield game, you win, you go join another battle, and continue farming, you don't give a crap whether you are RU, US, or CN. Each individual base used to mean something when there were three seperate resource pools, you won the base, +5 air resources per tick for your entire empire. Or nabbing that +2% territory just as the Indar alert was to come to a close, winning the entire continent for your empire. Now we don't have any of that, so there is very little distinguishing this game from one match of Battlefield 4, and because Battlefield offers the same farming simulator feel for better performance (at least for me), destructible terrain, better looks, better animations, better map design, better weapon models, and better design values, I cringe at the thought of returning to NC owned Esamir and TR owned Indar 24/7.
Looks like Smedley has been tweeting quite a bit about PS2 last day or two. Here's another one of interest to all: John Smedley @j_smedley · 10h 10 hours ago @RoyAwesome it's a fair criticism. However we are making other changes behind the scenes too. More coders will be added to the team.
Hm. Now if only they got on with the resource revamp i might actually feign some optimism for the games future.
Thats because most are FPS games arent made to handle that many players. The typical FPS mulitplayer mode is for ~24 players. PS2 on the other hand was made for these huge fights - and it cant handle them at the moment. The game is super laggy since the Christmas patch, even with low ping and in small battles: Its not my connection, i have 100mbit cable and other games run smooth. In the video you can also see that my ping is 52ms and lower and connection quality is "good".
THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE BEST OF PLANETSIDE 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMpjFjc3pvw&feature=youtu.be HAPPY NEW YEAR, YOUR WELCOME !!!!
if they make an game that supports 96 VS 96 than you sud be able to play it if they can't make an game that support this they sud not have made it in the first place and stayed at 32 VS 32 only to be another game in pond PS2 distinguish it self with big maps and fights and i believe if you can't fetch this you have not the right to distinguish yourself with it
I still think it could be a decoy possibly - to buy time for them to get their PS4 version out. They'll likely have to show some improvements on the PC side though - and they must want the performance issues not to translate over to the PS4 release - so it could very well come to fruition. So its a bit of both a decoy to buy time, but some problems should get fixed as well.
