Consider this:

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Gramps, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. An AGM-114 Hellfire has a maximum operational range of 8KM.

    That's the entirety of one of PlanetSide 2's continents.

    Infantry, vehicles, and wall turrets don't render unless you're within 400-500KM of them.

    A modern day military force could absolutely crush any PlanetSide 2 faction based off of these parameters.

    :eek:
  2. Not necesarrily; you're forgetting that this is....THAAA FUUUUTUUUUUREEEE! Perhaps modern weapons lack the power to punch through personal shields and armor. Heck, maybe that's why our rockets don't go so far! They're weighted down with so much super dense explosives they can't travel far!
  3. This games futuristic qualities end at it's style lol
  4. I've considered that, yeah. However, I'm assuming the force of the Hellfire just hitting a vehicle would be enough to cause crew death from shock. HOWEVER, the fact that you can literally drive up/down mountain crags in a Prowler without dying I'm assuming they've figured out how to absorb shock.
  5. So are you saying you'd think future sniper rifles with 15 km range would be A: plausible B: fun to play with and against?
    • Up x 1
  6. Realistic? Ok, I'm all up for a game where as soon as two forces make contact they call in artillery or bomber strikes on each other. It'd be all about who does it first! woot!
  7. Well since IRL the furthest recorded sniper kill was 2,815m and IG you currently can't see a target beyond 300m because the game doesn't render them I'm going to have to say this isn't even a plausible question.
  8. That's not the point of the parody question in relation to your original post.

    But let's humour you: first off, ever heard of curvature of the earth? a 15km distance sniper shot shouldn't be possible. Ever. Unless the planet we'd be on would have such a large curvature (and low density of mass so humans can still move) that something would be in sight at 15km distance. So it wasn't a serious, but a rhetoric question. I did not expect a 'serious' answer, I expected you to comprehend that realistic ranges possible in reality being extrapolated to a future situation set in a game and expecting a linear progression is ultimately silly and pointless.

    Unfortunately, you didn't recognise that, nor did you comprehend the intention.



    The question you should ask yourself is if it is fun to be engaged by targets at ranges you can barely see them at, thus can barely do anything about. That includes A2A lock on missiles. The answer is no. So one should not do that. Certainly not in a game with thousands of players that might try and have to be rendered by sub-par PC's (something else you don't seem to consider is that computing power of today is not ready for your sense of realism in the context of this game).

    Please realise that the most fun people have is when you have to maneuvre and dodge at close range and engage in direct competition with someone else on an equalish, competitive level. A FPS game and semi-vehicle-simgame after all, is like sports: competitive. It's not clay pidgeon shooting. With vehicles, aircraft and infantry alike. Why? Because dogfighting is the most dynamic and skill requiring of combat and it's up close and personal, which makes everything more intense, gets more adrenaline pumping and is more satisfying if pulled off than seeing a blib on radar disappear and getting a +1.

    If you're more concerned with realistic range than with fun as a game designer, you're doing something horribly wrong.
  9. The fact of the matter is World War II: Online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII_Online) is a game that came out in 2001.

    It has, and I quote, "WWIIOL online uses a ½ scale map of Western Europe with 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) of accurate terrain". In WWIIOL the render rate of planes, vehicles and infantry is far beyond what is currently in PlanetSide 2, a 2012 release.

    You're concerned with being engaged by enemies at ranges "you can barely see them at", I don't see how this is even a concern when you can see them and, oh, I don't know, engage them back?

    Don't defend a poorly designed game, instead complain about it until it's improved.
  10. nope,everthing is fine.

    see alot fo people complaining the game is dull, thats their no story, or PVE. I dont get it, its a MMOFPS, not a MMOFPSRPG.

    Did you come to PS2 to see dungeons and a epic story line and spend your time killing 10x "Diseased Archanids" to get 5x "Vile serum" to coat your lvl 50 "Archanid Chest plate armor"??? This is a FPS, like BF3, like COD, just bigger and more epic. Is there a point to COD/BF3 other then getting the best score and ranked on the leaderboards? No, atleast in PS2 compared to other FPS their is a point to the game other then stroking your own ego on a leaderboard. Why complain, this isnt WoW or EQ2, no story to follow, no PVE. Now grab a rifle soldier and get in the war!

    P.S. Sorry just seen people constantly saying their is no story or content or the game is dull, and im wondering what AD or friend told them something other then epic battles, base capturing and continent conquering.

    credit to
    ShakareeNC

    @op me and the true planetside players that know this game can only be 1 way,will always fight with you with threads like these,we will be here a long time.”
  11. Look for a shimmering pixel, it's an EI, shoot the shimmering pixel, profit.
    • Up x 1
  12. Hey I only get offended when people edit my quotes.

    Which is now. Don't put words in my mouth.


    Fact of the matter is you have no idea why this is good for a game and your suggestion isn't because you're in tunnelvision mode.
  13. Nothing I said was putting words in your mouth. You're defending a system where enemies will appear (and sometimes, depending on player count disappear) when you get within 200m and exclaiming that it's for the "GOOD OF THE GAME" when in reality nothing about that is conducive to -GOOD- gameplay.

    I'm not saying that PlanetSide 2 is entirely bad, but it IS bad. So please stop defending a bad product, people that defend bad products directly contribute to more bad products being released. PlanetSide 2 can, and will improve but right now it's obvious very early beta at best. When a game's SEQUEL has less features then the original there's a problem.
  14. By your definition or by the defnition of people that prefer short range engagements over "pixel shooting"?

    I did not say anything about people being rendered at ranges. I've only remarked about your rambling about 8km distance being piss-easy with modern day long range automated, preprogrammed missiles.

    I did not say a WORD. Not a WORD about render distances. The only thing I DID comment on was that too much rendering is not possible on old rigs.


    Btw, if you find the .ini file on rendering, render distance in beta was set to unlimited and for better performance was set to 1500 or 1000 by players themselves. I believe those were meters yes. You do realise that max altitude for air is 1000m right now? And that those are in fact rendered on screen?

    That it's not a good game yet and that the sequel is less contentwise than PS1 I most definitely agree with, but that has little to do with render range.

    Most of PS1's weapons kinda stopped working at 200m, btw. With 250m pretty much being the longest viable distance for snipers. So if you're complaining about 400-500m (I presume the KM was a typo ;)) render distance, then meh.

    Aside from the Flail of course. Which as we all know was so incredibly loved by the playerbase... ;p Long range play good for the game by sheer definition? No. Long range has its place, but as I noted before, your starter post starting with 8km is ridiculous.

Share This Page