Planetside 2..Free to play..and looking awesome so far!

[SunnyD]

Got some quick questions for you guys.

1) Just built a new PC but I'm not sure if it will handle this game, and after playing the first one on a Dell Dimension 2100 I know how bad that can be with this game in big battles. Here are my basics:
i5 3570
8gb
120gb SSD
gt640

2) Are any of those codes above still good?

3) When is this game going to release?

I loved the first one whenever I could get it to not stutter on my crappy old PC so I expect this should be a good game as well.

The GT640 is going to be a bit lacking - it's a low end card. Gotta remember, you're looking at upwards of 200 or so people with bullets, tracers, explosions, etc EVERYWHERE going on all at once along with a huge-ass world around you.

I played what I felt was adequately on a Radeon 6870. I sort of side/upgraded to a GTX570, and it runs pretty decent. I'm not complaining.

The rest of your machine will be pretty good though.

On #2... I dunno.

On #3, release date is November 20th.

 

[Red Storm]

I'd say CPU is going to be a bigger factor in PS2 than other games. I can run the game on a 5770 at medium detail with perfectly smooth frames with an i7 and an SSD.

 

[Sentrosi2121]

I know over on the official forums there is a guide for determining which piece of your system is lacking in the game; CPU or GPU. But I can't remember where it was posted. I think I remember getting the guide from the tech forum over on the OF. From what I remember it's deleting a certain file in the client, then setting graphics to medium and taking note of your FPS (ALT-F). If they drop it's due to the CPU. If they stay the same then raise the graphics to high and run it. If it gives you an FPS increase then your system is good to run the game. If the FPS drops then it's your GPU.

Like I said though, don't take the above for gospel. Might be easier to search for the thread over on Planetside-universe.com.

 

[JTsyo]

I know over on the official forums there is a guide for determining which piece of your system is lacking in the game; CPU or GPU. But I can't remember where it was posted. I think I remember getting the guide from the tech forum over on the OF. From what I remember it's deleting a certain file in the client, then setting graphics to medium and taking note of your FPS (ALT-F). If they drop it's due to the CPU. If they stay the same then raise the graphics to high and run it. If it gives you an FPS increase then your system is good to run the game. If the FPS drops then it's your GPU.

Like I said though, don't take the above for gospel. Might be easier to search for the thread over on Planetside-universe.com.

When you run the game and hit Alt-F, it tells you what the limiting factor is. I have a i7-920 at stock and a GTX660 and the 920 is is the bottleneck. During large tank battles, FPS drop on low teens. Looking at the resource monitor, all the cores don't get maxed, they run around 50% so i don't know what's going on.

 

[crownjules]

When you run the game and hit Alt-F, it tells you what the limiting factor is. I have a i7-920 at stock and a GTX660 and the 920 is is the bottleneck. During large tank battles, FPS drop on low teens. Looking at the resource monitor, all the cores don't get maxed, they run around 50% so i don't know what's going on.

The game has terrible optimization for multi-threads.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Thanks for the info. I may have to go upgrade this 640 then.

 

[SunnyD]

Thanks for the info. I may have to go upgrade this 640 then.

Not sure what your budget is or what you have access to, but a GTX660 or a Radeon 7850/7870 would be probably the best bang-for-buck starting point.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Not sure what your budget is or what you have access to, but a GTX660 or a Radeon 7850/7870 would be probably the best bang-for-buck starting point.

I'll stick with NVidia for sure, what should I expect to spend on a gtx660?

 

[SunnyD]

I'll stick with NVidia for sure, what should I expect to spend on a gtx660?

There was one on Newegg the other day for about $185 after everything was said and done. Not sure if that deal is still good or not, but that'd be my price point.

 

[Zargon]

yay got a beta key finally

 

[Red Storm]

yay got a beta key finally

Beta ends in two days, just FYI...

 

[JTsyo]

Will we have to download a new client for the release or will the beta one work? It's available on Steam, so I'm debating if it's worthwhile to download again.

 

[SunnyD]

Will we have to download a new client for the release or will the beta one work? It's available on Steam, so I'm debating if it's worthwhile to download again.

If you download the steam one, you'll have to download a new client.

Otherwise you will likely just have to patch from the beta client to the release client. But be forewarned, that MIGHT mean a full download of assets. Who knows.

 

[WelshBloke]

Oh crap, if they release it on steam the queues to get on will be huge!

I hope that their server stress tests were strict enough.

 

[Arsinek]

Well, this game turned out to be a big disappointment. The combat is good, graphics are nice but the game has sort of a pointless feeling to it. Its funny I read through some of my old posts on this tread and exactly what I worried about came true, the capture points seem rather trivial. The game strikes me as BF3 with a persistent map. I was hoping for more of an MMO-ish game, PS2 is definitely more on the FPS side of an FPSMMO.

But if BF3 with a never changing map is your cup of tea give it a try.

 

[SunnyD]

Well, this game turned out to be a big disappointment. The combat is good, graphics are nice but the game has sort of a pointless feeling to it. Its funny I read through some of my old posts on this tread and exactly what I worried about came true, the capture points seem rather trivial. The game strikes me as BF3 with a persistent. I was hoping for more of an MMO-ish game, PS2 is definitely more on the FPS side of an FPSMMO.

But if BF3 with a never changing map is your cup of tea give it a try.

Sounds pretty much exactly like what was promised to me. :thumbsup:

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Well, this game turned out to be a big disappointment. The combat is good, graphics are nice but the game has sort of a pointless feeling to it. Its funny I read through some of my old posts on this tread and exactly what I worried about came true, the capture points seem rather trivial. The game strikes me as BF3 with a persistent. I was hoping for more of an MMO-ish game, PS2 is definitely more on the FPS side of an FPSMMO.

But if BF3 with a never changing map is your cup of tea give it a try.

Well, its much MUCH better than BF3, so I'll have to settle for it.

 

[Red Storm]

Well, this game turned out to be a big disappointment. The combat is good, graphics are nice but the game has sort of a pointless feeling to it. Its funny I read through some of my old posts on this tread and exactly what I worried about came true, the capture points seem rather trivial. The game strikes me as BF3 with a persistent. I was hoping for more of an MMO-ish game, PS2 is definitely more on the FPS side of an FPSMMO.

But if BF3 with a never changing map is your cup of tea give it a try.

More of an MMO? That would make it even more "pointless" as true MMOs are nothing but a constant grind IMHO. It is very much an FPS first, with a touch of MMO.

I personally enjoy the large battles and fighting to push the other factions to their warpgates. Winning isn't dependent on stuff like KDR or achieved by lone wolfing, and that's what makes it fantastic. If the game feels pointless to you then I have to ask, what exactly do you play multi player shooters for? Is it the "destination" aka being declared a winner? Or the "journey" aka the battles that get you there? Your typical COD game gives you set pieces of 15-20 minute "journeys" before declaring one side a winner then it resets. In PS2 that journey goes on for hours, even days at times. I think it's way, way more enjoyable than playing in a vaccum (COD/BF3) where everything resets after a round. Rounds? Maybe if this was a sporting event, but it's not, it's a game about war.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I don't know about the guy complaining but this game is certainly climbing my list of games I need to try out. Now I just need to get MC to give me a good deal on one of their gtx660's and I am golden... 😛

 

[Arsinek]

Sounds pretty much exactly like what was promised to me. :thumbsup:

Well I believed they promised the battles were going to have meaning because you were going to fight over "valuable" resources. Ive found the resources to be at best sort of valuable so I find myself not really caring about capping zones. Capping zones doesnt really mean much. So youre left with TDM.

Well, its much MUCH better than BF3, so I'll have to settle for it.

Im curious, what makes this game much much better?

More of an MMO? That would make it even more "pointless" as true MMOs are nothing but a constant grind IMHO.

Please continue. Im very interested in how youre going to make an argument for PS2 having more of a point than say Warhammer.

 

[Red Storm]

Please continue. Im very interested in how youre going to make an argument for PS2 having more of a point than say Warhammer.

The point of PS2 is participating in massive battles across a vast continent. That is the aim, that is the fun.

Objective achieved.

 

[SunnyD]

Well I believed they promised the battles were going to have meaning because you were going to fight over "valuable" resources. Ive found the resources to be at best sort of valuable so I find myself not really caring about capping zones. Capping zones doesnt really mean much. So youre left with TDM.

It's mostly about territory control... which is mostly for bragging rights. It's a war. That's all it is. Yes, it's a giants freakin' TDM. The point of it is to kill people in cool ways.

 

[2is]

The game has terrible optimization for multi-threads.

If true, that doesn't bode well for AMD users, Bulldozer in particular.

 

[Arsinek]

The point of PS2 is participating in massive battles across a vast continent. That is the aim, that is the fun.

Objective achieved.

It's mostly about territory control... which is mostly for bragging rights. It's a war. That's all it is. Yes, it's a giants freakin' TDM. The point of it is to kill people in cool ways.

Meh. I was hoping for more. I want the battles to actually effect something in the game. Like one faction taking over a whole continent just until recently did absolutely nothing. People complained about this so they added a buff. But come on a buff? Really? Thats the big reward for taking a whole continent?

Also the number of vehicles is very disappointing. EVE has like 245 ships, PS2 has like 10 vehicles total. And they implemented a class system and weapons are class specific, so youre constricted to a small number of weapons per class.

Basically I think anyone who was hoping for an "MMO" experience from this game is going to be disappointed. If you were hoping for BF3 with a never changing map you might like it.

 

[Red Storm]

Meh. I was hoping for more. I want the battles to actually effect something in the game. Like one faction taking over a whole continent just until recently did absolutely nothing. People complained about this so they added a buff. But come on a buff? Really? Thats the big reward for taking a whole continent?

What's the big reward in a typical shooter? *Victory!* RESET

What's the big reward in an MMO? *Level Up!* LOOT

It's never about the end, it's about the fun you have on the way to it. In PS2, that fun is technically never ending. If the massive battles aren't fun for you then the game simply isn't for you.