The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by grounnn800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions.
OMG stop, just stop.
If you have nothing constructive add to the conv. why speak? When you break down the game to the core you're not fighting much more than 60 people at time and the game CANNOT handle if all 3 factions went full out on eachother in one location.
That 800 players could very easily be ONE continent, when you look at each continent it shows the % population of each faction, last time I logged on Esamir had only 6% VS and the other 2 conts had 35-60%, and there were easily 100+ of us last night pushing the NC out of a base.
Back in Planetside 1 during beta I was in fights which consisted of 300+ players in a sinble base, it was chaotic.
BTW how do you know if it can't handle all at once? I was in beta and we had VERY high traffic on Indar a few times, network lag got flaky at times but it was still playable. However I'm on west coast and I play on Connery which is west coast and I recently rolled a new toon on Matherson which is east coast, and I feel the difference, there's less delay on Matherson than Connery. Briggs was experiencing lag and instability and they said it was bad hardware, so Connery could very well be suffering the same thing.
This IS a MMO, persistent world, players scattered all over the continents and can still communicate across the zone.
You can perfectly pay to win. advanced weapons for example. Still im playing it and i like it.
LOL not really, sure I can buy the highest powered rifle (Lasher or Solstice SC) but 3 hours later a free player can also get those same rifles without spending SC.
There is no way that a new player can grab something worth 1000 points in 3 hours without paying. No way on earth. Don't bother arguing it cos I'm trying to do it. I'm not a perfect player but I ain't bad, plus I'm using +50% experience boosts (so I'm actually paying). It is definately taking a LOT longer than that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
You can perfectly pay to win. advanced weapons for example. Still im playing it and i like it.
LOL not really, sure I can buy the highest powered rifle (Lasher or Solstice SC) but 3 hours later a free player can also get those same rifles without spending SC.
There is no way that a new player can grab something worth 1000 points in 3 hours without paying. No way on earth. Don't bother arguing it cos I'm trying to do it. I'm not a perfect player but I ain't bad, plus I'm using +50% experience boosts (so I'm actually paying). It is definately taking a LOT longer than that.
Well 3 hours is excessive, but I know a few players that was able to buy items that costs 1000 certs on the first day without using SC, if you play medic and engineer you'll get xp and SC much faster than sniping, flying an aircraft or randomly shooting at passing aircrafts with a burster MAX, I got 62 certs in less than half an hour last night which is my record highest so far and if kept that rate up then in 3 hours I'd have ~300.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by grounnn800/3 maps ~260 per map then you take those 260 and spread them across the map at about 3-4 objective points. Which leaves you with at most 66 players fighting at a time per side; which is usually just 1v1 factions.
OMG stop, just stop.
If you have nothing constructive add to the conv. why speak? When you break down the game to the core you're not fighting much more than 60 people at time and the game CANNOT handle if all 3 factions went full out on eachother in one location.
That 800 players could very easily be ONE continent, when you look at each continent it shows the % population of each faction, last time I logged on Esamir had only 6% VS and the other 2 conts had 35-60%, and there were easily 100+ of us last night pushing the NC out of a base.
Back in Planetside 1 during beta I was in fights which consisted of 300+ players in a sinble base, it was chaotic.
BTW how do you know if it can't handle all at once? I was in beta and we had VERY high traffic on Indar a few times, network lag got flaky at times but it was still playable. However I'm on west coast and I play on Connery which is west coast and I recently rolled a new toon on Matherson which is east coast, and I feel the difference, there's less delay on Matherson than Connery. Briggs was experiencing lag and instability and they said it was bad hardware, so Connery could very well be suffering the same thing.
This IS a MMO, persistent world, players scattered all over the continents and can still communicate across the zone.
Okay, so lets say there are 800 per continent, that means there are 2400 players per side on each server, meaning there are 7200 players per server. I know for a fact, that there is NO WAY that many players on each server because I play on Mattherson when it's full. You cannot have 7200 players playing on a server at once. As for stability. I was playing a 3 way fight for a control point for 4 hours and there were no where near 500 players in that area and the server was lagging. You couldn't see opposing players because the models weren't loading, and players with lower quality ISP's than me were skipping across the field. to say there are 800 players per side on a map is just rediculous. I think it's a rather funny joke to say that the servers have bad hardware already seeing that the game was just released, those things should be brand spanking new. As for the game being persistant, see my previous comments, any game and be persistant, so long as it's online. Persistant means absolutely nothing and is a worthless word when it comes to online gaming.
persistant means that people are fighting over territory as i write this. and when i log in the map will be different than when i last logged out. your trying to tell me Battlefield 3 is persistant because it's online?
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by ShakyMo See firefall doesn't interest me as it only has instanced tupperware pvp
I'm curious if that might change by the time they're ready to release the game, but even that aside, just as someone who's looking for a more complete game to play than just a bare framework for PvP, I have to go with Firefall. It's far from perfect, and I'd love to see a more integrated PvP system, since it seems a little lame to do an FPS that's so heavily PvE oriented.. but still, just seemed like a much more subtantial game to me, than PS2, largely because of the much greater emphasis on a developed MMO gameworld.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Okay, so lets say there are 800 per continent, that means there are 2400 players per side on each server, meaning there are 7200 players per server. I know for a fact, that there is NO WAY that many players on each server because I play on Mattherson when it's full. You cannot have 7200 players playing on a server at once. As for stability. I was playing a 3 way fight for a control point for 4 hours and there were no where near 500 players in that area and the server was lagging. You couldn't see opposing players because the models weren't loading, and players with lower quality ISP's than me were skipping across the field. to say there are 800 players per side on a map is just rediculous. I think it's a rather funny joke to say that the servers have bad hardware already seeing that the game was just released, those things should be brand spanking new. As for the game being persistant, see my previous comments, any game and be persistant, so long as it's online. Persistant means absolutely nothing and is a worthless word when it comes to online gaming.
You know for a fact, huh? How do you know? Any sources you can cite for this knowledge? Or are you talking out of your own personal experiences? Seems to me that I'm not the only one to have witnessed and participated in high population battles that outstrip your expectations/experiences within the game.
As for a game world being persistant, it is only so so long as there is a population playing it. If there are no people on the server, than that server is not persistant, regardless of the game. Many games have the ability to be persistant, but do not actually achieve persistance.
So basically to sum up PS2 its just flipping territory and thats it.
I played for about 3 hours and I'm really disapointed I was really hoping for a great game.
* Map is much much smaller than I expected. I expected it to be a world .
* No safe zones , I didnt do much research on this game but when I think mmorpg I think cities , safe zones and auction houses.
* Nothing player built.
This is the first time I support a FTP game, I dont like FTP but Im really glad I was able to try this game out before I wasted money on it.
Between SWTOR , Tera , WOW getting Lazy , Diablo 3 sucking and now this PS2 crapfest , in my opinion video games as a whole are really starting to suck lately.
Safe zones and auction houses? You MUST be joking.
the BIG problem with the game...teams are so unbalanced on some servers its just either a ton of open nothingness of a couple clusterf*ck fights. There is a reason shooters force even teams, it doesnt work when one side vastly outnumbers the other, my server had the purple team with at least 85% of the map (which meant tons of empty spaces with nothing going on or at this one gate like 100s of people with vehicles going off like crazy.
and whos genius idea was it to have team kills in a game with this many people...know F2P games dont bring the nicest players -_-
Originally posted by ShakyMo See firefall doesn't interest me as it only has instanced tupperware pvp
I'm curious if that might change by the time they're ready to release the game, but even that aside, just as someone who's looking for a more complete game to play than just a bare framework for PvP, I have to go with Firefall. It's far from perfect, and I'd love to see a more integrated PvP system, since it seems a little lame to do an FPS that's so heavily PvE oriented.. but still, just seemed like a much more subtantial game to me, than PS2, largely because of the much greater emphasis on a developed MMO gameworld.
yep.
from what i recall when watching a live feed with devs interacting with watchers....
they intend to introduce open world PVP at some point (they only have it in the form of duels right now). but i think they said it would be "after launch".
and yeah i'm aware that their usual PR says there never will be a "launch", but that it'll just slowly open up to more people over time.
*shrug*....FWIW
BTW, check out the "open world pvp" Defiance videos. THAT's what i want from FireFall too.
Comments
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Back in Planetside 1 during beta I was in fights which consisted of 300+ players in a sinble base, it was chaotic.
BTW how do you know if it can't handle all at once? I was in beta and we had VERY high traffic on Indar a few times, network lag got flaky at times but it was still playable. However I'm on west coast and I play on Connery which is west coast and I recently rolled a new toon on Matherson which is east coast, and I feel the difference, there's less delay on Matherson than Connery. Briggs was experiencing lag and instability and they said it was bad hardware, so Connery could very well be suffering the same thing.
This IS a MMO, persistent world, players scattered all over the continents and can still communicate across the zone.
There is no way that a new player can grab something worth 1000 points in 3 hours without paying. No way on earth. Don't bother arguing it cos I'm trying to do it. I'm not a perfect player but I ain't bad, plus I'm using +50% experience boosts (so I'm actually paying). It is definately taking a LOT longer than that.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Planetside 2 is persistent (like many mmos with pvp e.g. daoc, eve)
Things like battlegrounds in wow, cod matches, battlefield matches, dota are not.
persistant means that people are fighting over territory as i write this. and when i log in the map will be different than when i last logged out. your trying to tell me Battlefield 3 is persistant because it's online?
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Most online games pvp is not persistent because it is a TIMED MATCH
What is it with all the bloody newspeak on here lately
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I'm curious if that might change by the time they're ready to release the game, but even that aside, just as someone who's looking for a more complete game to play than just a bare framework for PvP, I have to go with Firefall. It's far from perfect, and I'd love to see a more integrated PvP system, since it seems a little lame to do an FPS that's so heavily PvE oriented.. but still, just seemed like a much more subtantial game to me, than PS2, largely because of the much greater emphasis on a developed MMO gameworld.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
You know for a fact, huh? How do you know? Any sources you can cite for this knowledge? Or are you talking out of your own personal experiences? Seems to me that I'm not the only one to have witnessed and participated in high population battles that outstrip your expectations/experiences within the game.
As for a game world being persistant, it is only so so long as there is a population playing it. If there are no people on the server, than that server is not persistant, regardless of the game. Many games have the ability to be persistant, but do not actually achieve persistance.
Safe zones and auction houses? You MUST be joking.
the BIG problem with the game...teams are so unbalanced on some servers its just either a ton of open nothingness of a couple clusterf*ck fights. There is a reason shooters force even teams, it doesnt work when one side vastly outnumbers the other, my server had the purple team with at least 85% of the map (which meant tons of empty spaces with nothing going on or at this one gate like 100s of people with vehicles going off like crazy.
and whos genius idea was it to have team kills in a game with this many people...know F2P games dont bring the nicest players -_-
yep.
from what i recall when watching a live feed with devs interacting with watchers....
they intend to introduce open world PVP at some point (they only have it in the form of duels right now). but i think they said it would be "after launch".
and yeah i'm aware that their usual PR says there never will be a "launch", but that it'll just slowly open up to more people over time.
*shrug*....FWIW
BTW, check out the "open world pvp" Defiance videos. THAT's what i want from FireFall too.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------