This game runs so bad, I just cant justify spending any more $

I emailed support and they suggested to make a post on the forums since the devs read it and they have no information on upcoming optimizations. The support guy seemed friendly and wanted to help but said "While I understand your frustration as I have been through the same situation myself, unfortunately we do not have knowledge of what the development team is planning on so we can’t really answer your questions I’m afraid. Please post on our forums (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php) as our developers regularly read and write back to players on there."

I got into this game a couple months ago from the 25 dollar in game currency with my new nvidia card, but the game just ran bad with lots of people. I went out and upgraded my CPU solely for this game after a couple months, from a phenom II x4 OCed to 4.1ghz to an 8120 8 core that I have up to 4.0ghz and at best, its maybe a 5 fps improvement in a zerg after spending $150. I installed windows 8 solely for this game since apparently the new AMD chips run a bit better on 8. Not a single other game I have runs this badly or is so poorly threaded. At best maybe one of my cores goes up to 50% while the rest are barely used and yes I have them all unparked, I think they made a huge mistake by not making this game DX11 (better at threading) and not optimizing the game code from the start to support multiple cores.

When I am alone in part of the map I can get over 100fps, but as soon as I go to any place with over 50 people it drops down to sub 30 and this is with a custom config where everything set to low or off and it still says cpu is the bottleneck and looks ugly. How is this going to work on PS4 with 8 cores at low clock frequencies? Are they going to get a spiffy new engine that wasn't made in the 2000s for a free to play everquest?

The way that the game is going with lattice it's going to be a zergfest in any place where there is fighting and if it still gets just sub 20 fps I am just done. Is anything being done to drastically change the engine or is it just you are out of luck unless you have a high end intel cpu? I've spent so much cash on this game to be premium and to buy station cash hoping for an improvement eventually and its just slower and slower as new stuff is added.

It just seems like how that free to play flash based game Glitch decided to pull the plug because they realized they bet on the wrong horse when making the game in flash instead of HTML5 or silverlight. But instead of flash we have some awful unthreaded engine meant for an mmorpg being shoehorned into a shooter.

This isn't something a few coders can fix by looking for memory leaks or little tricks to save a half frame here or there, this is a massive investment to rebuild the game engine to take advantage of modern multicore cpus including ones not made by intel. And if that is not going to happen I would like the courtesy of them to say so instead of stringing along people by saying we are constantly working on optimization, this game will only get more bloated with more content it needs a fundamental rework not optimization.

PS. I got a friend to play with me and he already uninstalled it after getting sub 20 frames in a big fight with people popping in and out of view, his first statement was why does this run so bad when I can run battlefield 3 on highest? I know its all GPU for bf3, but that with 64 players runs faster and looks better than PS2 with 64 players in a large area with destruction and combined arms.

I agree

tbh the game runs pretty good on my i950 @ 4,0 , GTX-670 ... i ***** and moan regularly, because i know if they gave a **** about their titles it could run alot better. But the game is far from unplayable, even though im picky about fps i must admit this. What sucks about the whole thing is if you have slightly older hardware you basically HAVE to OC your cpu to get near decent framerate. One would almost expect SOE to advertise the game as "OC recommended title" or something. Its made to be compatible with older hardware (thats the argument they use), what happens is it holds back new hardware and runs like crap on the odler stuff it was supposedly tailored to run on. They have the first real mmofps on their hands and they keep on rolling with a rushed release, untested patches and next to no advertising (either that or i am severely blind).

The first real mmofps title, I atleast would think it should have been given the work it needed to be finished, released with a spectacular hype/pr machine complete with meta game and events to draw everyone in from the start. Action figures, collectors edition ...

How was the first real mmofps not given a more "dedicated" treatment?

Very few people seem to understand that the sdk for developing in dx11 provides automatic support for older dx API's so if you develop for dx11 in your title, it will automatically support dx10 and dx9 backwards compatibility with not as much effort as it is to solely create the game from scratch with dx9, then later implement dx10/11

also, dx10 has the same multithreaded rendering support that dx11 does.

the main problem these past years has been laziness/incompetence (or lack of money) to properly have a game built from the ground up with dx10/11 support, instead we have had many cases where devs take a game, create it in dx9, and then later slap on dx10/11 support. in this case you get almost NO benefit of the new API as the game is still running dated code in a single threaded method with another new branch of code coming to muddy the water

i understand the money purpose of why they refuse to develop from the ground up for dx10/11 support, as it requires getting guys sped up on how to properly learn and implement the new APIs (honestly they arent even considered new anymore)

but look what you get when you do properly code for dx10/11 support, its not like you can honestly say that BF3 is a complete failure since it runs like ****. And seriously, if so many played it and got around the same fps as we do here, there would be no way it woulda been as accepted as it is. (honestly the series will now be getting its playerbase and money from its past name and cod kids coming in to get a slightly less spam ridden gameplay)

i know we are dealing with 2 different beasts with one game supporting ****loads more players at a time, but they are both FPS games, and in FPS games, FPS (framerates) matter, and 30 fps or less in an 1st person shooter is nothing more than just pathetic, unless of course your on a console, in which case most people there still think a person cant compute/see more than 20-30 fps anyways

im sorry mate but seems this game really hate amd cpu . because at beta i could play this game on high . after in February on lowest . with gu9 and the gu10 at medium to high stable to 60 fps full huge battle or big zerg fps 60. i thought with gu10 everyone finally would say ''the magic fps fix is back''.
my pc is this one . I72600k at 3.8ghz , 8g memory at 1600 . gts 450 and board asrock extreme 4gen 3. it is not beast rig but it can run smoothly .

The game treats AMD and Intel CPU's pretty much equally.

The problem for AMD lies with how low single core performance they have compared to Intel. As long as the game barely utilize more than 2-3 cores effectively then it doesn't matter if AMD users have up to 8 cores. The problem occurs when there is a huge workload on a single core / thread, which is the case for Planetside.

In the end the 7 other cores will wait for 1 core to finish its job before the rest can proceed and feed the GPU. Thus any CPU with a low single core performance will suffer in this game regardless of brand.

Also to the OP, going from a Phenom II X4 to a FX-8120 is a downgrade in terms of single core performance and im surprised you see an improved fps result if they run at the same frequenzy. The FX-8300 / 6300 are about on par with the phenom II in terms of single core performance.

Best tip for any Planetside player, OC that thing! (and be aware of high temps).

Started playing this game in January on a 4GB Dell Slimline (lol) with a GeForce 210 1GB DDR3 upgrade (lol). It was playable with the graphics turned way down and a little help from Large Address Aware overriding the default 2GB allocation cap. Playable meaning things were ok until the action became intense, at which point my fps too low. Occasional crash or lag. In March I tossed the Dell and stepped up to a hand built gaming machine with several nice components including an Intel Quad Core i5-3570k, GeForce GTX 670, 16GB ram, SSD and Win 8. All settings Ultra and seamless play regardless of location, action, number of other players in proximity. FPS rarely below 40, averages 60-70 across the board. 120-140 standing around at warpgate.

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/342359277706547200

The question is, how many server can you fill with people who have high end rigs?
I know my pc is already getting a bit old (intel E8400) but i upgraded the RAM to 8 Gigs and use a gtx 660.
As long i can play all of my other games with good FPS, why should i invest into a new board and new CPU?

BTW i have the same problem. i can play OK with around 30 - 40 people in a base but if its a platoon vs platoon fight my FPS drop to under 20. Just yesterday i could not even kill a guy with the blackjack who had turned his back to me. Aiming is just not possible as enemies warp around and you die and dont even know where the bullets came from.

This was all not a big problem, as i just tried to stay away from big fights but with the implementation of lattice (and i like the new system) there are not to many areas left where i can fight.

So Im getting more and more frustrated every day. Im still playing, but i know the day will soon be here that I have no more motivation to log in just to provide certs to the enemy.

This is your Problem.

I have a GTX660TI + AMD FX 4100 (4x 3,8Ghz) and when i set everything on LOW it looks like **** and does not give any better FPS, if everything is set to the lowest possible my FPS get worse.

I run everything on Ultra now and only in the biggest fights i drop to low FPS, getting 30+ in figths of normal Size. (Normal = everything thats not one of the new alarms with everyone in one Hex ^^)

Meh, I remember battles that were just as big in beta and they didn't create nearly the performance issues I see now. This is back when I was playing on a 5770. This game was a playstation 4 beta paid for by the pc gaming community. The reason your game is running like **** is because all the optimization being done is for console not pc. They flipped the script on us.

Try turning your settings up. I run on your old processor; AMD 965 OC'd to 4GHZ. I also use a GTX 560ti, and 8gb ram. I used to run the game on the lowest possible settings, with everything off and it ran and looked awful. I now play on almost all medium settings with a few exceptions: render distance @ 1000m, high quality textures, shadows/flora/ambient occlusion are set to OFF. In a giant zerg I get 30-35FPS at the lowest.

Granted, it's not perfect and it's not 60FPS all the time, but it's better than anywhere from 20-30FPS in a large battle.

Dear OP, Forgelight is a brand new game engine, it is not a redress of something else. The game runs fine for me, the only thing I can think of which would make it better is when I finally save up enough money for my new MSI GTX 770 Lighting to replace my aging 560Ti DCU Top. Whereupon I shall be able to turn the settings to "Ultra" and retain my respectable FPS.

I'm afraid as others have said, your Achilles heel is your CPU. You need to overclock to provide enough grunt to handle the game. This will become less of an issue as the game ages and PC hardware becomes inevitably stronger, give it a year or so and you'll wonder why your PC ever struggled with it. But such is the way of Planetside game engines it seems, PS1 was no different, it too needed a fairly manly PC to run it at the start.

I tried to show my brother the game and he didnt get past the fact that it was stuttering and laggy right when he logged in. He's got some sort of custom rig, and is a bigger gamer than I. Planetside 2 made a bad first impression on him, and he will never find out why the game is so bad *** because he feels its not worth the trouble or time.

I'm getting tired of the constant updates that don't fix bugs, but add new game ruining features or cosmetic BS. I paid money for the game too, but I likely won't anymore.

The fact that the huge technical problems get totally ignored(the many threads about the 2D menu overheating peoples' GPU's) pisses me off enough.

The zerg-incentivizing lattice has made lag worse than ever, since everyone is at a few huge fights on the map now.

It also removed all strategy from the game, by putting a free-roam game on rails.

They haven't addressed the issues of alt accounts that are specifically made to TK with.

They haven't addressed the issue of people switching faction to the winning one for an alert, and they probably can't since you can have as many station names as you like.

It's like this isn't even a game in beta: it's just an experiment of a game that is being released as if it were a finished product.

To be honest I am actually quite surprised so many people have severe problems with game lag. I currently use a Mac (bad) and play Planetside 2 at low graphics (this is because medium and higher has a very bad glitch that causes much of the terrain to not spawn and fail miserably) on a Virtual Machine which is pretty much one of the worst ways to play ever. Still, it runs beautifully without much problems and I still love the game. Considering that Macs are considered the worst possible computer to play any game on especially a game like Planetside 2 with it being so taxing I am quite surprised so many have problems.

Erm, both my laptop and my desktop has no issue playing the game. Neither system drops a whole lot lower than 40fps in zergs. The desktop usually bounces between the mid 40's to high 50's.

Sounds like you just have a shyte system, or simply have no clue how to configure it.

I love people who try and say how great things run with their crap hardware. No it doesn't, just because it runs like crap and you don't notice it doesn't mean it runs ok. And btw second poster, quit exaggerating, your laptop does not get 40fps average with a minor drop in huge battles... maybe your desktop as mine never drops below 30fps, but quit trying to hype train away the fact there are issues right now with certain configurations.

thanks.

Exaggerating? Sorry, I guess my FPS counter is lying to me.

Last patch broke this game i am now getting activity i gave on commands 5 minutes ago. I have 100 meg firbre optic with 10 up and the only one playing on this line. Cant enter my own vehicles because of such lag and or even play the game. This game is loaded on SSD. I try to set up a turret it stays purple and never realizes. Game is getting worse and more frustrating. Not putting in any more cash but will continue to learn about the hardware that makes these types games run. Guess its back to the old reliable wot. It doesn't break a week after every update. Seems like a great concept but have the wrong technical people running it. Sometimes it's best to bring in new heads to either start over or rethink. Prime time and unplayable, pathetic.