Players per hex

[Figment]

In principle the edge skirmishes should draw people away from the fight. If continent design funnels players in different directions too, it shouldn't be that bad.

You should expect around 1200-1500 people in one battle on a regular basis though: When three zergs meet somewhere (one zerg held of other zerg, third zerg is left free and arrives at stalemate situation eventually).

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Miir

What happens if the game can only handle 500 players per hex before it hurts performance. How do they stop the other 1500 people from coming into the hex in an open world MMO?

This could indeed be a flaw of using continents this small. I know 8km X 8km is vast compared to a BF map but it's not vast compared to 2000 players.

[Mastachief]

Originally Posted by MCYRook

They shouldn't. If anything, players will voluntarily avoid the superbig slugfests if performance there is really that bad - in fact, that's pretty much what happened in PS1. But they shouldn't limit the freedom of movement in an open-world game just because framerate drops when people all clump up, and I highly doubt they will.

Maximum player count per continent will certainly be adjusted with general performance in mind, but as Higby said, having them on the same cont is one thing, having them on one screen is another.

This ^

Any artificial limitation would be against the very idea of the game.

[Sabot]

You can still go cap hexes that aren't directly next to the one the zerg is at. If there's over 1000 players in that big battle, you'd be better off trying to cap other hexes anyway (unless it's the last one on the cont or sometihng). Not only would it help your faction, it draws enemies away from the larger battle and helps with performance that way. IMO, zering a cont hex by hex wont be doable, if there are equal numbers, and the enemy faction knows what they're doing. your faction will be concentrated on one thing and you'll lose resources for it, and eventually start losing battles because of that.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

This could indeed be a flaw of using continents this small. I know 8km X 8km is vast compared to a BF map but it's not vast compared to 2000 players.

An additional problem with a small map is the ease with which those players transfer to a nearby "separate" battlefield on the same continent.


The hexes should provide a bit more incentive to using the entirety of the map in comparison to PS1. That is to say, at least the entire front is an option. With PS1, fights were funneled into chokepoints (specific bases) and people were generally not imaginative enough or too lazy to create other routes than the straightforward one or even if attacking the straightforward one, by their own (longer) routes.

Basically, PS1 maps were fine as in created for players who created their own routes, but the players were lazier than PS1 devs expected. Meaning the PS1 map design did not quite match the player psychology: the game itself did not entice them to use alternate routes with small, clearly visible rewards if they take the route. A lot of the rewards you got in PS1 for taking those routes were non-visible for those who did not have the wish or need to see it: a potential strategic advantage.

The problem with PS2 map design is that the sanctuaries may undo a lot of those advantages.

[Stardouser]

I just think that a larger map, continent in this case, with more space between bases is best. The travel time helps spread people out as well, in other words. This would mean, for example, literally taking the current continent and pulling them outward by the corners, stretching them until they are more like 12km X 12km, and use that for 2000 people. Same number of bases, but further apart. This would create a meaningful travel time(still kinda short though), but which is offset by deployed galaxies and squad respawning, which basically mean that yea, you may have a full 5 minute journey from whatever base you started from but you set up your forward bases and then it's not so long on the respawn.

Unfortunately, I don't know if we will ever escape that cleanly from the meatgrind of BF3 and CoD.

[Hyiero]

I'm pretty sure nearly 40miles of land space is more than enough to house and spread out a 2,000 man population. The hex system really imo prevents a 2,000 man battle, with so many places to cap the battle isn't needed to play out all at one base. As someone already stated, you will probably see 500-1,000 man battles over a bigger facility but I couldn't see anything higher than that number. But I definitely think it is something that we need to organize as soon as beta starts. Not to hard to make everyone get into a 1 or 2 hex area during prime time if something is setup in advance.

[kaffis]

If I see actual play shake out so we see 300-400 people (distributed amongst 2 or 3 sides, whatever) at a very hotly contested base (which, if we recall, occupy/govern multiple hexes, frequently around 6-7), I think Planetside 2 will have fulfilled its promises of scale. That's basically the entire continent population of Planetside 1 at one fight -- you can't deny that Planetside 1's scale was exciting and felt good. The bonus is... here, that's just one of 5 or more! The 200-man fight could be the *diversion*!

[Miir]

Originally Posted by MCYRook

They shouldn't. If anything, players will voluntarily avoid the superbig slugfests if performance there is really that bad - in fact, that's pretty much what happened in PS1.

That is pretty much what I did in PS1... but I always considered that a bit of a design flaw and one I kind of hoped that they would resolve in PS2.

One thing to remember this time around is there are permanent footholds.

In the unlikely event an empire gets pushed back to their foothold you would potentially see a huge increase of players per hex. This increase would be harder to avoid and if there is a performance issue (unknown at this time) this could likely result in the attacking players giving up and moving on to some other area of the map that is less dense.

I never liked having to avoid the larger battles just to have better performance.

It would be cool if they could come up with a way to regulate the population. That gives the players the "illusion of free choice" but really keeps the game running at peak performance. That sounds like what they are trying to accomplish with the mission system. Except you still have the option to ignore it. Which I imagine a lot of large outfits will do if it conflicts with their battle plans.

[IMMentat]

The very idea of hexes encourages a spread out battle, a stalemate between 2 large forces will just encourage the third to fragment and go on a land-grab (mentioned earlier).
The trinity is the least stable political shape, always one person looking to find a back to stab.

Thankfully bases can be effectively fought over by 3 empires now, we have seen 3-6 nodes per base as opposed to a single CC to defend.

Even still, teritory advantages and UI warnings of back-hacks (Will require a fly over I hope) will determine if a #Y# shaped frontline will wind its way across the map, or if pushes into core teritory will be a popular tactic, resulting in more random continent ownseship. Maybe 25% to 33% of each map in active use at any time with a #Y# shaped battle line, 50% or more with easy back-hacks. Its down to developer choice and contition tuning.

Base numbers, capturability, placement and benefits will determine the position of the fights.

[Anderz]

I have a feeling that 2,000 players is a maximum I don't think I'll ever see reached. Probably half that would be more realistic, especially if there are any servers where I'm from (Australia).
Even then, I'm sure the battles will be suitably epic. Heck, I've never played a game with more than 64 players in a server -- that's right, I've never played an MMO! -- so a 20% full server would still blow my mind.

[Xyntech]

obviously they intend to spread those 2000 players out a bit, but there is a big difference between spreading it out into 5 battles with 400 players (remember that 400 players is ps1's current continent limit) vs spreading it out over 50 battles with 40 players each.

also let's keep in mind that each hex zone will usually be created out of several hexagons of varying numbers, so there may not even be that huge a number of zones on the map, and I highly doubt that every zone will constantly have an even distribution of players.

the first game had a former limit of 500 players per map, and it was pretty rare to have all of those people fighting over the same area, much less having them all on screen at once. as long as ps2 has at least 300 people or more in the larger battles, it will be as grand or better than the first game.

stress testing the game will certainly be interesting

[Serpent]

Things would look rough if 3000 people were in the same hex, I'd imagine.

But, Zerging around is always something the devs will consider, because that's just how the game will work in some cases. (Actually, most likely in quite a few cases).