<!--quoteo(post=2038661:date=Dec 2 2012, 05:38 AM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Dec 2 2012, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->played for 5 minutes. didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs. /shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While a new players experience is woefully lacking, I've also never understand the idea that you can play for 5 minutes and understand enough about a game to decide whether it's fun or not and thus worth your time.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2038753:date=Dec 2 2012, 09:17 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 2 2012, 09:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038753"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While a new players experience is woefully lacking, I've also never understand the idea that you can play for 5 minutes and understand enough about a game to decide whether it's fun or not and thus worth your time.
SUVs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem is that the new player experience is so terrible that the first 5 mins are the reverse of fun, they make you go "why the hell am I wasting my time on this?", and we have enough choices in life for games that there really is no reason to 'give it a try', as most likely it will result in 30 mins of the same, which is a fairly big time investment for some of us, 30 mins I could have spent playing a game that made me happy, instead of frustrated.
There is no claim that you know the game well enough, just a claim that we know the first 5 mins well enough to expect we know the next 30 mins.
That said, I keep going back and banging my head against the game, probably because I love the idea of PS so damn much...
<!--quoteo(post=2038772:date=Dec 2 2012, 01:53 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Dec 2 2012, 01:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that the new player experience is so terrible that the first 5 mins are the reverse of fun, they make you go "why the hell am I wasting my time on this?", and we have enough choices in life for games that there really is no reason to 'give it a try', as most likely it will result in 30 mins of the same, which is a fairly big time investment for some of us, 30 mins I could have spent playing a game that made me happy, instead of frustrated.
There is no claim that you know the game well enough, just a claim that we know the first 5 mins well enough to expect we know the next 30 mins.
That said, I keep going back and banging my head against the game, probably because I love the idea of PS so damn much...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But that reasoning is entirely illogical. You can't predict how you'll like the game in 30 minutes time from 5 minutes. 5 minutes just shows a complete lack of patience. I'm not disputing there needs to be a proper introduction to the game, not hotdropped into an active fight without first knowing UI or being in a squad, just people's reaction to it. A proper introduction could well make the same game worth playing, so all that it means if you haven't given it a chance.
<!--quoteo(post=2038798:date=Dec 2 2012, 10:43 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 2 2012, 10:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038798"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But that reasoning is entirely illogical. You can't predict how you'll like the game in 30 minutes time from 5 minutes. 5 minutes just shows a complete lack of patience. I'm not disputing there needs to be a proper introduction to the game, not hotdropped into an active fight without first knowing UI or being in a squad, just people's reaction to it. A proper introduction could well make the same game worth playing, so all that it means if you haven't given it a chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> no. his point is correct. when there is a lot of choices out there, there is no need to try out a game for 5 minutes more than 5 minutes and its free. and if 5 minutes is not enough, 30 minutes? 60 minutes? 3 months? 6 years? u made me remind of my boss asking me overtime.
check out economic theory of sunken cost and risk aversion.
<!--quoteo(post=2038656:date=Dec 2 2012, 06:06 AM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeonSpyder @ Dec 2 2012, 06:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What graphics cards are you guys using, and what performance are you getting?
I'm rolling with a 560 TI with latest drivers and I get lousy FPS even with all low settings and BSODs sometimes right after I quit the game (some kind of graphics driver BSOD ID apparently, and PS2 is only thing that does it.)
Very irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 1.28GB 570GT marred to a i7 950 at 3.2GHz. Performance ranges from 25-90fps (realistically, 30-40 in combat). If you press alt+f (I think) it shows you your frame-rate and also says "CPU" or "GPU" next to it- I'm assuming it's showing which one is the bottleneck which, for me, is a 50-50 split.
<!--quoteo(post=2038831:date=Dec 2 2012, 04:57 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Dec 2 2012, 04:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038831"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no. his point is correct. when there is a lot of choices out there, there is no need to try out a game for 5 minutes more than 5 minutes and its free. and if 5 minutes is not enough, 30 minutes? 60 minutes? 3 months? 6 years? u made me remind of my boss asking me overtime.
check out economic theory of sunken cost and risk aversion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But his point isn't correct. Having plenty of choice doesn't mean that a game is not worth your time based on 5 minutes. Any decision made of 5 minutes study isn't really a decision at all, and I simply don't understand the reasoning behind it :( There's a reason why games journalists play the majority or finish a game they are reviewing, because the first 5 minutes is not the entire game, and the entire game cannot be judged on those 5 minutes alone.
5 minutes: "This game is no good" - unqualified opinion. 5 minutes: "This game is complicated and confusing and I don't have the time and/or will to learn it" - valid.
For better or worse, Planetside 2 takes some time to get used to. In all likelihood your first thirty seconds in the game consist of zooming towards the ground in a drop pod, getting killed almost instantly upon landing, then being presented with a confusing respawn screen. Heck, I'm a Planetside 1 veteran, and the game was confusing to <i>me.</i> I am <i>still</i> learning new things. It doesn't have anywhere near the learning cliff of Eve Online, but it takes some time and effort to get used to the game. It's perfectly understandable if that turns some people off.
It's not just that Planetside 2 is hard to learn - it's that for a brand new player, the learning process is kind of boring (at least from the ~1 hour I played). Natural Selection 2 is a very complicated game and just because you don't like the first 5 minutes doesn't mean the game is bad, but at least in those first 5 minutes you're getting killed by marines or aliens while trying to fight back. A new player in Planetside 2 might spend the first 5 minutes doing literally nothing, then dropping into an empty territory and walking around and doing nothing, then getting killed and respawning 10 minutes from the fight. If a game is fun to learn while you figure out the basics, then that's one thing, but if it's a lot of confusing menus and no action then that can really turn people off who don't have the free time to figure out how to actually get into a battle, and then how to stay in the battle instead of dying and respawning 20 minutes away.
<!--quoteo(post=2038661:date=Dec 2 2012, 01:38 AM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Dec 2 2012, 01:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->played for 5 minutes. didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs. /shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=2039036:date=Dec 2 2012, 09:36 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Dec 2 2012, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not just that Planetside 2 is hard to learn - it's that for a brand new player, the learning process is kind of boring (at least from the ~1 hour I played). Natural Selection 2 is a very complicated game and just because you don't like the first 5 minutes doesn't mean the game is bad, but at least in those first 5 minutes you're getting killed by marines or aliens while trying to fight back. A new player in Planetside 2 might spend the first 5 minutes doing literally nothing, then dropping into an empty territory and walking around and doing nothing, then getting killed and respawning 10 minutes from the fight. If a game is fun to learn while you figure out the basics, then that's one thing, but if it's a lot of confusing menus and no action then that can really turn people off who don't have the free time to figure out how to actually get into a battle, and then how to stay in the battle instead of dying and respawning 20 minutes away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First thing I noticed when playing the game for the first time was the "Deploy" button on the map. The next thing I did was hit the deploy button.
10 seconds later I was in a drop pod plummeting from the sky into a heated battlefield of probably a hundred people with assorted ground and air vehicles whirring all around me. I shot at a guy and then I blew up. It was very exciting.
If you had a different experience you are doing it wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=2039061:date=Dec 3 2012, 02:45 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeonSpyder @ Dec 3 2012, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First thing I noticed when playing the game for the first time was the "Deploy" button on the map. The next thing I did was hit the deploy button.
10 seconds later I was in a drop pod plummeting from the sky into a heated battlefield of probably a hundred people with assorted ground and air vehicles whirring all around me. I shot at a guy and then I blew up. It was very exciting.
If you had a different experience you are doing it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ^ This
<!--quoteo(post=2039067:date=Dec 2 2012, 11:05 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Dec 2 2012, 11:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hit the "deploy" button and ended up at a mostly empty base until I found a way to kill myself and spawn somewhere else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ^ This
Its better than the intro to the game that I got where myself and a few others where crushed by our own galaxy crashing into the landing pad at the warp gate...
<!--quoteo(post=2038656:date=Dec 1 2012, 10:06 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeonSpyder @ Dec 1 2012, 10:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What graphics cards are you guys using, and what performance are you getting?
I'm rolling with a 560 TI with latest drivers and I get lousy FPS even with all low settings and BSODs sometimes right after I quit the game (some kind of graphics driver BSOD ID apparently, and PS2 is only thing that does it.)
Very irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have the same card (560Ti EVGA), an AMD Phenom XII 6 core and 16 gigs of DDR3 1866. Maximum settings on everything but shadows and I'm getting around 50-70 FPS (120Hz monitor). Lowest it gets is around 40 in big fights, and I'm on a high population server Connery so don't know why you have such bad performance.
<!--quoteo(post=2038661:date=Dec 1 2012, 10:38 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Dec 1 2012, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->played for 5 minutes. didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs. /shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundies are weak as hell now. Seems like you need to play more and not give a game 5 minute judging.
<!--quoteo(post=2038774:date=Dec 2 2012, 07:00 AM:name=-Drake-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (-Drake- @ Dec 2 2012, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038774"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think he means Sunderers, there seem to be a lot more of them than I remember in PS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There wasn't any Sunderers in Planetside 1. Just a bunch of different vehicles that looked similar for each faction but had different weapons. They had 3-6 gunners and could drive through shields. My favorite was the Juggernaut, soo good :D
Planetside 1 had the Sunderer. I can't speak for what happened later, but as of mid-2006 it was a ground transport vehicle that seated slightly less than a Galaxy and had two 75-mm turrets on top that often couldn't depress far enough to hit anything. It was never used.
Fast-forward to Planetside 2, and combining the Sunderer with the AMS was a stroke of genius. Now you can stuff an entire outfit squad in a Sunderer, drive to an objective and start assaulting it. And if you die during the fight you simply respawn at the AMS again.
Sunderer is still there but no one uses it since the Empire specific versions came out with shield breaching ability and an EMP blast years ago. Deliverer ended up in the same situation as the Empire specific versions are so much better than default.
<!--quoteo(post=2039681:date=Dec 4 2012, 07:38 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Dec 4 2012, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039681"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fast-forward to Planetside 2, and combining the Sunderer with the AMS was a stroke of genius. Now you can stuff an entire outfit squad in a Sunderer, drive to an objective and start assaulting it. And if you die during the fight you simply respawn at the AMS again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It felt so pointless fighting over areas like that. It became a simple matter of "who can outspawn who and pop most soldiers into the field before the attackers grow tired and droppod somewhere else" meatgrinder that can take over 30min of spawn, shoot someone, die. It would have been much better if the defense actually had superior advantage over attackers and once the defense is breached it should be taken over fairly quickly. Now I mostly see light assaults flying in everywhere, people leaking over the sides everywhere and just general confusion of where the actual battle is. The capture points around the actual base are often only guarded by one or two people who decided they were tired of running into a base and die for few measly potshot kills when the capture can be done just by being in the general area (or so I understand the cap mechanics).
Compare that to a tech base, which if the attacking team have no platoons working together are so ridiciously hard to take as there's only one entrance for the zerg to, well, zerg through meaning you know precisely where the fight will be, and how soul destroying it is taking them.
You have to be near the point you're capping, usually a few metres.
The TR Deliverer variant was actually worse than the regular Deliverer. It added two extra guns, but downgraded the guns from 20mm to 15mm. This meant that it had greater firepower per vehicle, but lower firepower per gunner. Since the limited resource wasn't vehicles but gunners, this made it a poor choice compared to the regular Deliverer. The NC one was good though.
Played a bit more yesterday and found it more enjoyable, though I've still yet to see the game not lagging (teleporting) and I was a bit unhappy that I bought a sniper rifle for 500 sony points (or whatever they're called), the game took the 500 points but didn't give me the rifle. Meanies!
<!--quoteo(post=2039862:date=Dec 4 2012, 03:11 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Dec 4 2012, 03:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The TR Deliverer variant was actually worse than the regular Deliverer. It added two extra guns, but downgraded the guns from 20mm to 15mm. This meant that it had greater firepower per vehicle, but lower firepower per gunner. Since the limited resource wasn't vehicles but gunners, this made it a poor choice compared to the regular Deliverer. The NC one was good though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Worse if not in a decent squad or outfit. Still saw plenty of fully loaded TR variants however.
No, the TR Deliverer (Raider?) was just worse, period. Five people could man one Raider. Six people could man TWO Deliverers with more firepower and twice as much health.
<!--quoteo(post=2040489:date=Dec 5 2012, 07:57 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Dec 5 2012, 07:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, the TR Deliverer (Raider?) was just worse, period. Five people could man one Raider. Six people could man TWO Deliverers with more firepower and twice as much health.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, no. Not only is it easier to focus damage with a Raider, but it does good damage vs all targets. Deliverer only does good damage against armoured. There's a reason you never saw Deliverers anymore after the ES versions came out.
<!--quoteo(post=2039681:date=Dec 3 2012, 11:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Dec 3 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039681"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Planetside 1 had the Sunderer. I can't speak for what happened later, but as of mid-2006 it was a ground transport vehicle that seated slightly less than a Galaxy and had two 75-mm turrets on top that often couldn't depress far enough to hit anything. It was never used.
Fast-forward to Planetside 2, and combining the Sunderer with the AMS was a stroke of genius. Now you can stuff an entire outfit squad in a Sunderer, drive to an objective and start assaulting it. And if you die during the fight you simply respawn at the AMS again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I probably don't remember it because it was never used and I only Juggernauted then.
<!--quoteo(post=2039808:date=Dec 4 2012, 06:02 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 4 2012, 06:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sunderer is still there but no one uses it since the Empire specific versions came out with shield breaching ability and an EMP blast years ago. Deliverer ended up in the same situation as the Empire specific versions are so much better than default.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posted <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/constant-lag-video-included.60456/" target="_blank">this</a> in tech support, if anyone can help would be appreciated.
Can someone confirm the cap mechanics for me? For example, let's say a base has 3 cap points -- A, B, and C.
Once you notice the little color/influence bar on the lower left you start capping the territory -- whether you're at one of the A/B/C points or not. Correct?
So is it possible to cap a territory without having captured A, B, and C? If so, what's the point of the smaller capture points?
If you must have A, B, or C, do you need all 3 points to capture?
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=2040641:date=Dec 5 2012, 05:29 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Dec 5 2012, 05:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Posted <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/constant-lag-video-included.60456/" target="_blank">this</a> in tech support, if anyone can help would be appreciated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I know of the internets. It's possible that you just have a bad route to their servers because either your ISP, or someone they lease connections from, or someone that second party leases connections from, etc, has hit a bottleneck between you and and the PS2 servers. It wouldn't necessarily show up on a ping, as it could be that the choke is throughput from all similar PS2 players that fit into your same routing bucket.
I could be entirely wrong about that, but it's my theory. Back on a crappier ISP I noticed that sometimes playing counter-strike that my traffic would get routed a couple thousand miles to connect to a server that was only 30 miles or so away. It's not the general case, but it can happen. The internet is wacky like that.
<!--quoteo(post=2040724:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:12 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 5 2012, 08:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040724"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can someone confirm the cap mechanics for me? For example, let's say a base has 3 cap points -- A, B, and C.
Once you notice the little color/influence bar on the lower left you start capping the territory -- whether you're at one of the A/B/C points or not. Correct?
So is it possible to cap a territory without having captured A, B, and C? If so, what's the point of the smaller capture points?
If you must have A, B, or C, do you need all 3 points to capture?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I understand, cap progress goes to the total number of people across all cap points. And since each point has a limited number of people that can cap it, sometimes you can get a situation where 30 dudes are at A, and 6 enemy dudes are at B, and you're stalemated if A and B have the same player capacity.
Similarly, you can have the same 30 dudes at A, and 1 enemy dude at B, and another enemy dude at C, and still be stalemated if A has a limit of 2 dudes.
I could be wrong about that. But it's what I think is going on.
Comments
didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs.
/shutdown
didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs.
/shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While a new players experience is woefully lacking, I've also never understand the idea that you can play for 5 minutes and understand enough about a game to decide whether it's fun or not and thus worth your time.
SUVs?
SUVs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that the new player experience is so terrible that the first 5 mins are the reverse of fun, they make you go "why the hell am I wasting my time on this?", and we have enough choices in life for games that there really is no reason to 'give it a try', as most likely it will result in 30 mins of the same, which is a fairly big time investment for some of us, 30 mins I could have spent playing a game that made me happy, instead of frustrated.
There is no claim that you know the game well enough, just a claim that we know the first 5 mins well enough to expect we know the next 30 mins.
That said, I keep going back and banging my head against the game, probably because I love the idea of PS so damn much...
I think he means Sunderers, there seem to be a lot more of them than I remember in PS1.
There is no claim that you know the game well enough, just a claim that we know the first 5 mins well enough to expect we know the next 30 mins.
That said, I keep going back and banging my head against the game, probably because I love the idea of PS so damn much...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that reasoning is entirely illogical. You can't predict how you'll like the game in 30 minutes time from 5 minutes. 5 minutes just shows a complete lack of patience. I'm not disputing there needs to be a proper introduction to the game, not hotdropped into an active fight without first knowing UI or being in a squad, just people's reaction to it. A proper introduction could well make the same game worth playing, so all that it means if you haven't given it a chance.
no. his point is correct. when there is a lot of choices out there, there is no need to try out a game for 5 minutes more than 5 minutes and its free. and if 5 minutes is not enough, 30 minutes? 60 minutes? 3 months? 6 years? u made me remind of my boss asking me overtime.
check out economic theory of sunken cost and risk aversion.
I'm rolling with a 560 TI with latest drivers and I get lousy FPS even with all low settings and BSODs sometimes right after I quit the game (some kind of graphics driver BSOD ID apparently, and PS2 is only thing that does it.)
Very irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 1.28GB 570GT marred to a i7 950 at 3.2GHz. Performance ranges from 25-90fps (realistically, 30-40 in combat). If you press alt+f (I think) it shows you your frame-rate and also says "CPU" or "GPU" next to it- I'm assuming it's showing which one is the bottleneck which, for me, is a 50-50 split.
check out economic theory of sunken cost and risk aversion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But his point isn't correct. Having plenty of choice doesn't mean that a game is not worth your time based on 5 minutes. Any decision made of 5 minutes study isn't really a decision at all, and I simply don't understand the reasoning behind it :( There's a reason why games journalists play the majority or finish a game they are reviewing, because the first 5 minutes is not the entire game, and the entire game cannot be judged on those 5 minutes alone.
5 minutes: "This game is complicated and confusing and I don't have the time and/or will to learn it" - valid.
For better or worse, Planetside 2 takes some time to get used to. In all likelihood your first thirty seconds in the game consist of zooming towards the ground in a drop pod, getting killed almost instantly upon landing, then being presented with a confusing respawn screen. Heck, I'm a Planetside 1 veteran, and the game was confusing to <i>me.</i> I am <i>still</i> learning new things. It doesn't have anywhere near the learning cliff of Eve Online, but it takes some time and effort to get used to the game. It's perfectly understandable if that turns some people off.
didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs.
/shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Casual gamer detected.
First thing I noticed when playing the game for the first time was the "Deploy" button on the map. The next thing I did was hit the deploy button.
10 seconds later I was in a drop pod plummeting from the sky into a heated battlefield of probably a hundred people with assorted ground and air vehicles whirring all around me. I shot at a guy and then I blew up. It was very exciting.
If you had a different experience you are doing it wrong.
10 seconds later I was in a drop pod plummeting from the sky into a heated battlefield of probably a hundred people with assorted ground and air vehicles whirring all around me. I shot at a guy and then I blew up. It was very exciting.
If you had a different experience you are doing it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ This
^ This
I'm rolling with a 560 TI with latest drivers and I get lousy FPS even with all low settings and BSODs sometimes right after I quit the game (some kind of graphics driver BSOD ID apparently, and PS2 is only thing that does it.)
Very irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have the same card (560Ti EVGA), an AMD Phenom XII 6 core and 16 gigs of DDR3 1866. Maximum settings on everything but shadows and I'm getting around 50-70 FPS (120Hz monitor). Lowest it gets is around 40 in big fights, and I'm on a high population server Connery so don't know why you have such bad performance.
<!--quoteo(post=2038661:date=Dec 1 2012, 10:38 PM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lofung @ Dec 1 2012, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->played for 5 minutes.
didnt know whats going on but constantly shot down by players on SUVs.
/shutdown<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundies are weak as hell now. Seems like you need to play more and not give a game 5 minute judging.
<!--quoteo(post=2038774:date=Dec 2 2012, 07:00 AM:name=-Drake-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (-Drake- @ Dec 2 2012, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2038774"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think he means Sunderers, there seem to be a lot more of them than I remember in PS1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There wasn't any Sunderers in Planetside 1. Just a bunch of different vehicles that looked similar for each faction but had different weapons. They had 3-6 gunners and could drive through shields. My favorite was the Juggernaut, soo good :D
Fast-forward to Planetside 2, and combining the Sunderer with the AMS was a stroke of genius. Now you can stuff an entire outfit squad in a Sunderer, drive to an objective and start assaulting it. And if you die during the fight you simply respawn at the AMS again.
It felt so pointless fighting over areas like that. It became a simple matter of "who can outspawn who and pop most soldiers into the field before the attackers grow tired and droppod somewhere else" meatgrinder that can take over 30min of spawn, shoot someone, die. It would have been much better if the defense actually had superior advantage over attackers and once the defense is breached it should be taken over fairly quickly. Now I mostly see light assaults flying in everywhere, people leaking over the sides everywhere and just general confusion of where the actual battle is. The capture points around the actual base are often only guarded by one or two people who decided they were tired of running into a base and die for few measly potshot kills when the capture can be done just by being in the general area (or so I understand the cap mechanics).
You have to be near the point you're capping, usually a few metres.
Worse if not in a decent squad or outfit. Still saw plenty of fully loaded TR variants however.
Yeah, no. Not only is it easier to focus damage with a Raider, but it does good damage vs all targets. Deliverer only does good damage against armoured. There's a reason you never saw Deliverers anymore after the ES versions came out.
Fast-forward to Planetside 2, and combining the Sunderer with the AMS was a stroke of genius. Now you can stuff an entire outfit squad in a Sunderer, drive to an objective and start assaulting it. And if you die during the fight you simply respawn at the AMS again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I probably don't remember it because it was never used and I only Juggernauted then.
<!--quoteo(post=2039808:date=Dec 4 2012, 06:02 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Dec 4 2012, 06:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sunderer is still there but no one uses it since the Empire specific versions came out with shield breaching ability and an EMP blast years ago. Deliverer ended up in the same situation as the Empire specific versions are so much better than default.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Juggernaut for life.
Once you notice the little color/influence bar on the lower left you start capping the territory -- whether you're at one of the A/B/C points or not. Correct?
So is it possible to cap a territory without having captured A, B, and C? If so, what's the point of the smaller capture points?
If you must have A, B, or C, do you need all 3 points to capture?
From what I know of the internets. It's possible that you just have a bad route to their servers because either your ISP, or someone they lease connections from, or someone that second party leases connections from, etc, has hit a bottleneck between you and and the PS2 servers. It wouldn't necessarily show up on a ping, as it could be that the choke is throughput from all similar PS2 players that fit into your same routing bucket.
I could be entirely wrong about that, but it's my theory. Back on a crappier ISP I noticed that sometimes playing counter-strike that my traffic would get routed a couple thousand miles to connect to a server that was only 30 miles or so away. It's not the general case, but it can happen. The internet is wacky like that.
<!--quoteo(post=2040724:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:12 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Dec 5 2012, 08:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040724"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can someone confirm the cap mechanics for me? For example, let's say a base has 3 cap points -- A, B, and C.
Once you notice the little color/influence bar on the lower left you start capping the territory -- whether you're at one of the A/B/C points or not. Correct?
So is it possible to cap a territory without having captured A, B, and C? If so, what's the point of the smaller capture points?
If you must have A, B, or C, do you need all 3 points to capture?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what I understand, cap progress goes to the total number of people across all cap points. And since each point has a limited number of people that can cap it, sometimes you can get a situation where 30 dudes are at A, and 6 enemy dudes are at B, and you're stalemated if A and B have the same player capacity.
Similarly, you can have the same 30 dudes at A, and 1 enemy dude at B, and another enemy dude at C, and still be stalemated if A has a limit of 2 dudes.
I could be wrong about that. But it's what I think is going on.