Originally posted by Thebigthrill

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.

No you didn't do much research did you? It's like me buying Warcraft and expecting to play Call of Duty.

This is a case of learn to play. Yes you take bases and then defend them but there is a lot more to it than that, Join a squad and use tactics. Great fun.

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

 

800/3 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. Occasionally you'll have the 3rd come in but other than that it's 1v1. Oh and I cannot forget about the 30-40 players sitting inside the warpgates per map, so that's about 120 people off the 800 as well.

When you break it down it's not better than a normal FPS it's just all on one server. The customization is VERY lack lusters. Even less than FPS's today. They have MUCH more customization than this game; there's no real reason to spend money on the cash shop. The bases you're fighting for a very dull and have very little strategic value what so ever.

They say they're pushing the bar, but nothing has changed. Nothing impressive is improved. There's massive server lag in long running battles for control of bases. To the point at which the player models are no longer showing until you're in their faces.

Where in any of my posts did I say it was better than any other shooter?  I only inferred it was much larger than any of the other pure shooters.  I said it was better than most other MMO''s at one aspect, maintaining a sense of a living world by the ebb and flow of control of territory and having a large, persistant world. 

As for customization, how many of those game allow you top end customization out of the gate?  You have to earn those upgrades, and PS2 only differs in that you can shortcut the process by purchasing it instead of earning it.  I said in another thread that the only thing that differentiates PS2 from BF and CoD, gameplay wise, is the persistant world. 

I never implied to you that you said PS2 was better than any other fps. I was just typing more things that I wanted to add to the convo. I would hardly consider PS2 a persistant world and I hate it when people use the word persistant. There's nothing persistant about it. The only thing changing in PS2 are the Control points, you can't build anything, and you can't destroy anything ( other than vehicles and generators). Their persistance is equal to going to a BF3 match that goes on indefinately. You log in and take 3-4 control point then leave and come back a few hours later those points are no longer yours. Heck Battle Field: Bad company 2 had more persistance to its game, and all you were able to do is knock buildings down, but at least the maps were never the same from start to finish.

This game equates to a large scale Halo Territories match and that's about it.

The green highlight is where you implied.  As for the game having a persistant world, it does.  If you had a never ending BF3 match, then it too would qualify for the term persistant.  Persistant does not equate dynamic.  It means ongoing.  The persistance comes from the fact that once you win a control point, you can lose it again.  There is no absolute victory (at least not until one faction completely dominates a server to the point no one tries to create an opposing character, at which point I would hope that SOE would step in) therefore the battle for control persists.  It is not a dynamic and living world. 

Even if you were to say there is no end to the match. Let go at this again from a different angle; for example the other FPS did end, so long as you DO NOT play on the server it will always persist without you. Persistant is a word that can be said about any online game. So long as you don't play it. The game will "change" you'll unlikely to play the same match or fight the same players. Which is why I dislike that word, it means nothing and is nothing more than a word to abuse to raise the hype bar for games that truely aren't a living world.

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 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.

I''ve seen much largerr clashes than 30 v 30.  But, you're not going to care nor listen.  You've made your decision on the games worth and ability.  Frankly, I've seen very large scale clashes (200+ per faction with all three faction vying for control) with both ground and air vehicles and my performance never noticably dipped.  As for the game being able to handle the entire server population being in one location, I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game that could handle 2400+ player characters at one ingame location, in a single instance, doing anything more than standing around.  So, with that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 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.

I''ve seen much largerr clashes than 30 v 30.  But, you're not going to care nor listen.  You've made your decision on the games worth and ability.  Frankly, I've seen very large scale clashes (200+ per faction with all three faction vying for control) with both ground and air vehicles and my performance never noticably dipped.  As for the game being able to handle the entire server population being in one location, I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game that could handle 2400+ player characters at one ingame location, in a single instance, doing anything more than standing around.  So, with that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

My performance doesn't dip at all in the form of my pc running well, but I play on Mattherson which is usually Very High/Full and the server has lag issues when larger scale battles last for long periods of time. I also see players skipping across the terrian in smaller scale battles. as for the 30v30 you should properly read my text. I said 66 per side which implies around 132-198 players depending on how many are actually fighting. I spent yesterday in a 4 hour battle where we won from both sides, but we never had more than 60 players fighting on each side at a time. As I said before Arma II can easily do 2000+ players in a game location, there are videos of the cpu tests on youtube. Go look it up. I will continue to play the game, it okay for now. However, it's by far not the best FPS to date and brings nothing new to the table that hasn't been done before.

I also highly doubt you've seen 200+ players per side fighting for control. first of all 800 is the correct amount for a server it's split 3 ways between each of the maps. In addition there are WAY more than 1-2 battles happening at a time lowering the amount of players in a single area. The only time I'd say a server would have a full 200 on their side, is when they are in the corner of their warpgate getting camped. Other than that I think you're just spewing out numbers to otherwise prove that I'm wrong.

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 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.

I''ve seen much largerr clashes than 30 v 30.  But, you're not going to care nor listen.  You've made your decision on the games worth and ability.  Frankly, I've seen very large scale clashes (200+ per faction with all three faction vying for control) with both ground and air vehicles and my performance never noticably dipped.  As for the game being able to handle the entire server population being in one location, I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game that could handle 2400+ player characters at one ingame location, in a single instance, doing anything more than standing around.  So, with that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

My performance doesn't dip at all in the form of my pc running well, but I play on Mattherson which is usually Very High/Full and the server has lag issues when larger scale battles last for long periods of time. I also see players skipping across the terrian in smaller scale battles. as for the 30v30 you should properly read my text. I said 66 per side which implies around 132-198 players depending on how many are actually fighting. I spent yesterday in a 4 hour battle where we won from both sides, but we never had more than 60 players fighting on each side at a time. As I said before Arma II can easily do 2000+ players in a game location, there are videos of the cpu tests on youtube. Go look it up. I will continue to play the game, it okay for now. However, it's by far not the best FPS to date and brings nothing new to the table that hasn't been done before.

I suggest you go back and look at those videos again.  Every video that I found (granted, not really an exhaustive search, just hot searched "Arma 2 2000 person" or youtube) that had 1500+ "players" on the server were with one real person and the rest on the server being AI.  Now, I'll be happy to look again if you can post me a link to a video that doens't have 1499+ NPC players...

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by Storman1977

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn
800/3 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.

I''ve seen much largerr clashes than 30 v 30.  But, you're not going to care nor listen.  You've made your decision on the games worth and ability.  Frankly, I've seen very large scale clashes (200+ per faction with all three faction vying for control) with both ground and air vehicles and my performance never noticably dipped.  As for the game being able to handle the entire server population being in one location, I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game that could handle 2400+ player characters at one ingame location, in a single instance, doing anything more than standing around.  So, with that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

My performance doesn't dip at all in the form of my pc running well, but I play on Mattherson which is usually Very High/Full and the server has lag issues when larger scale battles last for long periods of time. I also see players skipping across the terrian in smaller scale battles. as for the 30v30 you should properly read my text. I said 66 per side which implies around 132-198 players depending on how many are actually fighting. I spent yesterday in a 4 hour battle where we won from both sides, but we never had more than 60 players fighting on each side at a time. As I said before Arma II can easily do 2000+ players in a game location, there are videos of the cpu tests on youtube. Go look it up. I will continue to play the game, it okay for now. However, it's by far not the best FPS to date and brings nothing new to the table that hasn't been done before.

I suggest you go back and look at those videos again.  Every video that I found (granted, not really an exhaustive search, just hot searched "Arma 2 2000 person" or youtube) that had 1500+ "players" on the server were with one real person and the rest on the server being AI.  Now, I'll be happy to look again if you can post me a link to a video that doens't have 1499+ NPC players...

NPC or not, it can be done in ARMA II. Those videos show that it's possible to run smoothly under that amount of load. Also, lets not derail the thread. The whole point of the thread is just an expression of how players feel towards this subpar shooter. I'm holding my breath for when the hackers break their anti cheat and start ravaging the game. It's always happens to online shooters, and it's only a matter of time until the game becomes unbearable even more than it already is.

---

Originally posted by grounnn

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by grounnn 800/3 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.

---

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.

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by Varthander

---

at least its free... and not pay2win ;)

---

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.

---

Originally posted by Vannor

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by Varthander

---

at least its free... and not pay2win ;)

---

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.

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by grounnn 800/3 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.

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by grounnn 800/3 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?

Originally posted by muffins89

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by grounnn 800/3 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?

There are players fighting in PS2 for territories just like there are people who are fighting for territories in HALO BF3 COD MOH. so long as they're playing the game is persistant. Your ranks aren't reset, your guns aren't default, all that stuff is still there and players are able to progress whether you're there or not. However, dota 2 is one of those few online games that aren't persistant.

persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement,persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement,persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement,persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement,Originally posted by muffins89

Originally posted by grounnn

Originally posted by TeknoBug

 

---

Originally posted by grounnn

---

Originally posted by TeknoBug  

---

Originally posted by grounnn 800/3 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?

Persistant - Persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discourgament, etc.

That is the exact definition for persistant. If you are not there in any online game to obscure the course of the game it's persistant. With that being said, most online games can be considered persistant. Just because the game resets doesn't mean it isn't persistant. Just because you're not there doesn't mean it's not continueing without you. Because, in reality, It is.

Which leads me back to my original statement. Persistant is a word that is worthless when it comes to defining an online video game.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
read a bloody dictionary.

Most online games pvp is not persistent because it is a TIMED MATCH

What is it with all the bloody newspeak on here lately

The definition of persistant that I gave is from the dictionary. No where along the lines does persistant mean infinite, it just means it's ongoing; and if a game whether it has a timer or not, continues while you're not there it's persistant. That's the definition, I'm sorry I can't word it any other way.

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.

Originally posted by Vhaln

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.

Firefall reminds me of Tabula Rosa, I can't wait to try it out. It might be interesting. I just hope they don't dumb it down for casual players, I loved it when it was first released, it was like a warzone. But, then they changed it and took a lot of  the mobs spawns out and it became slow and boring.

Originally posted by grounnn

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.