Planetside 2 - new players leaving

Which suggests they aren't sticking around - which is kinda the point of this thread.

The game may be able to attract new players - but can it retain them?

ok let me break it down to you

the title of the thread is :


Planetside 2 - new players leaving

Let me highlight something for you, just in case


Planetside 2 - new players leaving


This game is 7 years old.

I've played this game for 7 years. (on and off).

Now I'll say it again, when I look around in game, I don't see many old players, at all. I see only new players.


^^^^^^^

If you don't understand that last sentence I'll translate :

What this means is that new players are joining the game and old players are leaving.

IE: if there's more new players than old players in a 7 year old game, it's because there's more old players gone than new players come

The lack of old players suggests that the new players never stay with the game long enough to become old players.

We have a constant turn over of new players. New players join, they play the game for a bit, get fed up and leave whilst they are still new players - which is precisely what the thread is about (of course you would know this if you'd actually bothered to read the OP and not just jumped on my post based on your, frankly incorrect interpretation of the thread title).

*

Then the differences between what we have now and what you are proposing may as well not exist for all the effect it will have, and it still won't affect players using bots for reasons which I have already pointed out.

Apples and Oranges. Flak Projectiles exploding after a set distance != no projectile damage after XXX meters. Try again.

You, dear sir, are the one who brought real-world anything into the equation. Showing you why this doesn't work is not ad hominem, it's education.

Telling someone to learn to control their weapon in an FPS game is a legitimate statement on the order of telling the child trying out for the basketball team he needs to learn to dribble the damn ball. Stop trying to draw false equivalence between exploits and basic first person shooter mechanics.

I thought I addressed this already-

Oh yes, right here, in post two.
If you want to get cute, a 5.56 at 500m carries almost as much energy as a 9mm does leaving the muzzle, and the practical limit in the effective range of most bullets is whether or not you can hit what you're shooting at. In a first person shooter, we call this 'accuracy', which is a 'skill' developed through 'practice'.

Yes? I have never pretended that this game gives any more than the slightest nod to reality, and I am perfectly at peace with that fact. You, on the other hand, under the pretense of 'realism' would:
1. Saddle the game with unnecessary complexity (server now has a huge load just from individual ballistic calculations)
2. Create frustration for everyone (on top of compensating for gravity, you barely do any damage, so no reward for ranged accuracy). Leading to:
3. Further limit ranged combat options (snipers will truly be uncontested)
4. Leave any and all player who might be running bots completely unaffected as they continue to farm Biolabs and Tech Plants where all fights happen at < 30m or less.

*Literally all of the following skips over the fact that you are discussing the ridiculous position of spending time and resources balancing a game around cheaters instead of, oh I don't know, finding and banning them? But I digress...

Why don't you tell us how you think that will work.

Lots of good stuff in here...

I think most of you are missing a larger point. The game as it stands, does not have mass appeal. People play for a bit, say "wow that's fun" then leave.

I've heard players say it constantly, there is no point. Nothing that happens in the game is long lasting. If you fight it out to take a base, a few minutes later the other team can take it back.

There HAS to be a lasting effect. Alternatively, there has to be "rounds" with lasting rewards. No one cares about the current alert system, for the most part players ignore them. This game is fun, but in it's current state it's just a KDR farming game.

look, it's simple, I know I write it a lot, I'll keep it simple :

if a descent amount of "old" players didn't leave, you'd see them.

but you don't, well I don't.

yet the population, even if it is decreasing, is relatively stable which means that there are lots of new players joining, but once they are "old" (or cap the level or whatever) they leave.

Haven't you ever played a really old MMORPG? where like, everyone is max level? that's what normally happens. Here, most players aren't max level, in fact, a max level player is reallly rare

This is an open world war game with mixed units. There is ZERO way to keep new players in their own bucket until they "get gud".

The new recruits are thrown into the meat grinder just like a real war. It's too bad your friend didn't have fun but if getting killed is enough to make them quit then this wasn't the game for them in the first place.

I disagree - and since it's never been tried, that's simply your opinion.

I never stated zero projectile damage after a certain distance - I have already clarified this point, the fact that you are labouring it shows you don't really have a counter to what i'm proposing.

I used AA turrets as an example where an artificial hard cap has been introduced. They didn't used to have this at launch, but the weapon damage model was changed in a later update.

I didn't say "real world anything"......and besides we already have many real world analogues in the game. We have gravity, we have bullet drop, we have injury when falling from height, we have vehicle acceleration and deceleration etc. For a game that incorporates many real world analogues (even if modelled only approximately) you seem awfully resistant to introducing one more.

It is legitimate - but not as a counter to making improvements to clear deficiencies in the game engine. It is possible to do both you know. You used "people having learnt to control their weapon" being hurt as a reason not to change the damage model. I don't accept that as a legitimate counter argument.

Which proves what? Where did I state that different types of weapons or different ammo have to produce the same damage at the same range?

You have cited different calibre bullets fired from different weapons, of course they are going to carry different amounts of energy. My point is that for any given weapon/ammo type - the energy carried over distance changes - it doesn't plateau after a certain range.

Again - you are ridiculously over egging what I have suggested

1. I'm not talking about individual ballistic calculations (where the hell did you get that from). The game already uses a damage model whereby it calculates damage done for a given weapon based on the distance between the shooter and the target. All i'm suggesting is changing the shape of this damage 'curve', not replacing it with real world ballistic calculations. There is no reason this would have to place additional burden on the server. You are doing exactly the same calculations, only the final result is different.

2. I don't agree with this. I think many people are frustrated at being sniped at range by CQC weapons, so it may well balance out. Also, given all the issues in this game that cause frustration, I don't think that would be a big one - plus again, it's merely your opinion since it's never been tried.

3. Seriously - who the hell is routinely countering snipers at range using CQC weapons anyway?

4. That's not my experience. There have been plenty of fights over the years where I have been taken out at range by what should be a CQC weapon, where no amount of 'skillz' could explain it. Plus I never said it would be a fix all for bots, but it would be one step in the fight against them. No single change to the game mechanic would fix this issue across the board.

Again - I never suggested such a thing.

The damage model change proposal was merely one suggestion in a raft of suggestions I have made. Also, I listed dealing with cheaters as a side effect of the change (I even stated this explicitly in post #29). The primary goal (which I also explicitly stated) would be to make the damage falloff more logical.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You are trying to put words in my mount and are arguing against points I never even made in some instances.

Plus, this entire thread is a wish list that DBG are unlikely to listen to anyhow. Many of these things have been brought up countless times over the past 7 years and nothing has been done.

They still haven't even fixed the floating landmine bug - and that must be at least 2-3 years old by now. Then again, it could be an intentional 'non realistic' game mechanic - afterall, who says anti personnel mines should be influenced by gravity in a game that only makes the 'slightest nod' to reality - makes perfect sense really.

I've never tried adding vinegar to my milkshakes but that doesn't mean I can't tell it's not a good idea. Anyway, you said:

When I pointed out how ridiculous this would be given the typical engagement ranges in this game, you changed this to:

In the absence of any hard numbers from your end, visual (or render) range for infantry is ~300m. Assuming guns will stop doing damage at this distance suggests that the ranges where your proposed changes would have the most noticeable effect would be at the minimum damage ranges for most guns, where the require BTK is usually 10-15 and the TTK is at or over a full second. At this range it is already impractical to engage a target which is why games usually stop the damage falloff at this point.

You're right I have no idea why I thought that.

Yes, and it still is a poor example. The only weapons in this game with a hard cap are those whose projectiles literally explode.

You were

the one who

brought 'real world'

to the table.

You are reaching pretty hard here. The 'real world analogue' to bullet mechanics in this game already exists in what we currently have. It works fine within the scope of this game and its ~10 year old engine and I see no compelling argument from you that suggests a change is necessary.

I'm sorry, when did we jump ahead to this being anywhere near a proven statement? Again, unless there are aimbots that lead your target for you, in a projectile-based first person shooter the further you are away from an aimbot the less effective it becomes. Pushing combat closer together only serves to amplify the problem you claim to be addressing.

That's fine, I'm sure I'll survive.

I really don't know to be honest. You asking me to find a real-world gun that uses video game physics seemed pretty stupid to me, too. I figured I'd sidestep that whole mess and point out that it doesn't really matter since the bullet still kills you even if it's traveling a bit slower.

Yes. Because reality isn't a video game. Just like I can jump off a 3-story building in this game and instead of shattering my femurs I only lose hitpoints. Similarly, bullets do less damage at a distance, they just only fall off to a certain point instead of indefinitely which dovetails rather nicely with the fact that at that range it takes roughly 10 bullets to kill a person.

Bullets currently have 3 states: Max Damage, Min Damage, and the small transitional curve in between the two. What you are suggesting is a damage curve that starts immediately and falls off to zero at some arbitrary distance you haven't bothered to define. This means that instead of only having to calculate a player's damage within that small window between Max/Min damage every single bullet a player fires requires calculations to determine how much damage said bullet does. Maybe the servers can handle it and it wouldn't be a huge burden, but it certainly won't help. It certainly won't anything like a worthwhile investment of time and resources to implement.

Burden of proof is on you to prove any of this, otherwise:

Why are we suddenly only talking about CQC weapons? Last I checked you advocating increased damage dropoff for all weapons.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

It won't be a step in the right direction, it will actually be counterproductive for reasons I have brought up at least three times now and which you still have not addressed.

You have explicitly stated the goal of reducing the impact of aim-assist software through gameplay changes.

All you have done in this thread is to twist and squirm and engage in sophistry. If your goalpost shifting was any more on point they would be hiring you as a ref for the Superbowl.

I never stated a distance - you have assumed what I meant by that and ran with it.

Not really, it's still artificial and was put in for the sole reason of given aircraft a break.

Also, don't all weapons technically have a hard cap anyway caused by render range? Render range is an artificial side effect of the game engine and has no real world analogue.

I did, but I never stated "real world anything" which is what you claimed - and as I have already explained, the "real world" has clearly influenced some aspects of the game - hence why we have wheeled vehicles, gravity, fall damage, bullet drop etc. They might not be perfect replicas, but they are certainly reasonable approximations and certainly good enough that people can understand the game.

How is it reaching to point out where the real world observation/experience has already influenced the game mechanics. Again, you state your opinion that it works fine as is, my opinion is that there are improvements can be made.

As for it being a 10 year old game engine, I concede that would be perfectly valid argument if the game engine cannot do what I have proposed. Maybe somebody with dev knowledge can advise?

What, that there are deficiencies in the game engine? Are you seriously claiming there are no deficiencies in the game engine?

Erm I didn't ask you to find a real world gun that uses video game physics, it was actually you who did that when you asked me for a realistic precedent of something employing video game physics (see quote below) - and yes I agree, it's a pretty stupid question

" I would very much like to know what your "realistic" precedent is for damage models involving Energy Shields, Plasma and Gauss weaponry."

I simply flipped your stupid question around.

I never stated reality is a video game, I have merely suggested that we can learn and apply real world physical analogues in the game to make it more logical.

If there are genuine technical reasons why it can't be implemented, then that's fair enough, but I suspect you don't know whether there are actual technical limitations to implementing a different damage model and are just using that as an excuse to further argue against the suggestion.

Why? I was replying to an assertion you made about snipers being "uncontested". You didn't prove that assertion, so why hold my reply to a higher standard? Also, it was clear that what I wrote was an opinion, not a statement of fact (the phrase "I don't think it would be a problem") kinda gives it away.

I'm not - it was just one example.

Never said they were. My suggestions are based primarily on my experiences within the game, just like many of your counter arguments are based on yours. There is very little evidence from either side of the argument, so again, why hold my posts to a higher standard than yours.

'When did we jump ahead to this being anywhere near a proven statement'.......'burden of proof'.......or doesn't it work like that when you are posting?

For some of my suggestions perhaps - but for this one I explicitly stated it would be a side effect, and only did this in a follow up post (I even pointed you back to the post where I stated this). In the initial suggestion for that change, I didn't mention aim-assist at all.

Whatever dude. You argue against using or applying approximations of real world physics, then when I point out all the areas where real world analogues are already applied in the game (like gravity, fall damage, bullet drop etc) you accuse me of 'reaching'.

The simple fact is - you just wanted an argument.

You cannot make vague statements and then complain when someone doesn't interpret your thoughts accurately. I'm not a mind reader. Incidentally you still haven't expanded what your vision for this change would be.

This statement could be replaced with "no u" and it would add just as much to this discussion.

Yes, it is a video game. Don't worry we didn't forget.

*Sigh* What I said here:

was a statement of your actions, not a quote of your specific words. If I want to quote you literally I can do so with the forum software. Stop playing word games.

Almost like the damage system we currently have, which quite specifically does all of this already.

If you can't see the problems with using the existence of artificial gravity in a video game as a blank check to add whatever you please under the auspices of "real world influence" there is not point in explaining to you.

I'm contesting that your improvements do anything to address them.

Really, that's strange...

I wasn't aware that weapons could do kinetic damage out to infinite ranges outside of a video game, please share your black magic with us.

It really helps to have context. That statement is my response to this statement from you:

And in an environment containing energy shields and exotic weaponry, invoking the word 'realism' means as little as 'honest' does to a politician. Are you even reading this conversation?

And yet again, let me point out that what you are arguing to add already exists in the game. Billy Redshirt isn't going to be blown away by how "logical" it is that his Orion now does less damage at 100m than it does at 70m instead of plateauing.

Adding additional calculation load to a game already known for poor performance is not likely to improve the gaming experience, particularly when the best case scenario is that nobody notices your changes in the first place.

The burden of proof is on you to
1. Prove people (specifically "many" people) are annoyed at being sniped by CQC weapons to the point of it being a problem.
2. Prove that a community won't be annoyed by range reductions affecting their gameplay.
There is nothing wrong with having opinions, but stop acting as if they add significant weight to your argument.

As for snipers, I said this:

Would be the result of your proposed changes, you know, the ones where you said:

Being able to do damage > Not being able to do damage. But you're right, I should probably find better proof than your own bloody words if I want to convince you of something.

And a complete non-sequitur to the conversation that took place before it.

You will show evidence of me using personal experiences as a component of any of my arguments in this thread. Now.

I'm not. Use more than word games, supposition and flawed logic to support your position and we can have legitimate discussion.

Not while you still have not addressed the reasons I mentioned it doesn't. You still have not answered how your changes will reduce the effects of aim assist in a projectile based shooter where aim assist is only effective at relatively short ranges.

I have no problem with applying real-world physics and I have explicitly stated that the current model for damage over range already does this. I am arguing against over-complicating what we already have for no reason.

If your changes drop off to zero at a relatively short distance you will destroy ranged combat entirely since snipers (whose weapons you specifically left out, "longest range weapons", remember?) will have almost nothing to fear from other infantry. Players who knew how to squeeze that extra little distance out of their weapon through skillful weapon control just got the shaft, too.

If your changes don't drop off to zero until quite long ranges, it is likely that no one will notice them as at the ranges where the changes divert significantly from what we already have (min damage range) you aren't likely to see much combat anyways.

Your further stated goal of minimizing the effect of aim assist is a non-starter, since the result of reducing combat ranges will be to reduce the error integral to these programs by the nature of being unable to account for physical projectiles.

Behind all of this is the question of what the impact on server performance will be. We know it will be negative, since a damage calculation is now required for every distance for a projectile, the question is if it will be debilitating. While we admittedly don't know for certain, given the age of the game and large number of consecutive players I wouldn't bet against it.

This isn't an argument, this is whack-a-mole with extra steps.

The issue that I have notice is that new players head into a fight that is already happening; when they actually need to look at the map a find a place to attack that they can first establish a defense because... Well, that faction isn't defending that base.

All the moving around, is that; establishing a defense while in an attack. The "bigger" fights will come once everyone realizes that they need to actively defend.

Crouching is meant to lower your "hit box"... I don't know what movement aspect you are talking about; however, maybe if you(everyone) slowed down and did 'cover' and not run straight into a 'point' location, the game might be more enjoyable to you.

Also, everyone is about thier KDR; I know you don't like dying constantly... So, learn to work together with players of the same faction or stop yourself from playing the game once you reach the threshold of deaths you're willing to endure, regardless of how many kills you do get.

I'm a new player, been playing for a week now and I have 41.5 hours in the game.

My major criticism of the game is two things: the new player experience is terrible, and the community is likewise terrible. Obviously not an entire community can be terrible, but from my experience it seems as though the vast majority is quite toxic and unhelpful.

For instance, I bought the campaign because I thought I could get a few extra certs and a cool looking helmet, yet I quickly just ended up becoming very frustrated. Half of the **** I was told to do I had NO clue about (cortium and all of that ****), and simply all of it was not fun. I asked for some help on a PS2 Discord, but to no avail, so I ended up doing a frustrated rant about how terribly designed the campaign was and all I got was "The old campaign was worse" and people retyping what I type in some childish baby text, being called petty, etc.
Joining outfits also seem very difficult as a new player, and a lot of these campaign quests/events are impossible to do solo.

Other than that, there's a lot of grind involved, which I don't mind, but it seems as if you're forced into a support class (engineer/ combat medic) if you have any hope of getting stuff at a respectable pace, which for a new player simply doesn't seem worth the effort.

In conclusion, the nasty experiences I've gotten with the community within only playing 41 hours, the straight up boring campaign, new player gameplay, etc. just put me off of the game. It's a shame, as I really like the idea of playing with a group of people in large scale fights to capture and contest a huge map, but it genuinely seems like I'll be spending several hundred hours doing **** I simply don't enjoy, and that isn't worth it, so I've decided to uninstall it. These developers need to reconsider what fun in games really is.

New players are confused, don't know how to get into "the game" and once they do are obliterated.

Fix the bugs and make a !@#$$ manual.

Give up on making an ingame tutorial (DBG/RPG clearly sucks at it), and put together a comprehensive 100, 200, 300 level offline tutorial. Just recycle existing material, give it to some qualified Documentation professionals and be done with it.

As for getting dunked on by veterans? Is what it is. Game is hard, we all did the learning curve. Make it so new players at least know what to do (load up gear, find a squad, locate a fight, travel to it, learn to respawn, redeploy, vehicles etc..)