Anyne else worried about player population?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Meowcenary, Apr 18, 2016.

  1. Alkasirn

    I think it's important to watch what's going to happen with the construction system. It has a chance to really turn this game's population around and extend this game's life by a few years. If it doesn't, that'll be the beginning of the end. It'll probably be too late to implement any other big changes that could turn it around.

    Maybe DBG came to the same conclusion? Think about it: when we look at the history of PS2, a lot of updates only seemed to be partially thought out. Like the developers got a nice idea but then went and implemented it ASAP after the idea was only halfway thought through. Example: the creation and nerf of ZOE, partial rebalances that caused certain weapons to become way too good/bad (like how the sticky grenade was basically a nuke in comparison to everything else after splash damage was reduced), the fact that only about half of Hossin's bases were completed on release and the other half had a cookie cutter design, etc.

    And, if I remember correctly, DBG was going to do that with the construction system, too! I think the original plan was just that they were going to let you spawn turrets and that was it? If history's anything to go by, if they just did that we'd be able to place down AA turrets everywhere and that'd be it for well over a year.

    But now, the current work on the construction system doesn't fit that pattern. They're working on all sorts of features and are taking care to add rules and conditions to try and make sure the features can't be abused. They seem to be making an attempt to see how the construction system will interact with the rest of the game, how to make it fun, and how to prevent abuse. I wouldn't be surprised if PS2 hasn't seen so much thought and effort be put into an idea since back when it was pitched!

    The moment the construction system is released on the live servers, there will suddenly be a huge change for every aspect of the game. It better be a good one.
  2. oberchingus

    Not worried about player pop. The server pop overall has seen a steady decline over time, but I don't think player population will cease until a similar game comes out to compete with PS2. I don't personally believe in construction, but I can see it as a gimmick or novelty for players to stay interested who aren't particularly adept at the combat aspects of the game. I'm all for new content, but I believe there should be a steady rate of maintenance work done as well. There are tons of bugs and balance issues and glitches that have been here since I started playing in April 2013. And as a vehicle player, I firmly believe that vehicle players get the short end of the stick when it comes to anything affecting them. Both directly and indirectly, like the spawning mechanics for instance, in that you have to redeploy 2 or 3 times, or more, to get to the base you want to pull your tank from just so you can play in the hex next door where the fight is. I don't like the lattice system obviously. A lot of amazing strategies stopped being viable by the broken spawn mechanics designed to improve populations in fights.

    When a game breaking or player enjoyment issue exists in the vehicle world, it can be a year before it gets looked at (ejection seat on exit) or broken flight controls which break flying and magrider operations and also affect turret movement....versus say infantry issues that get addressed soon after it is reported & received.

    I think SOE/DBG have been very lucky to have a game with deep content, and lots to keep players entertained that is also stunning and genuinely fun in so many ways in order to keep us all involved in some way. I think it's only a matter of time before something else comes along and takes our breath away. And when that day comes, DBG will no longer have a monopoly on this genre and they may choose to change their approach once the incentive to keep PS2 going becomes a requirement. Till then, the status quo is all there is.

    Personally, I'd like to see a late night server merge, where everyone gets funneled into a latenight game across the world where all the players can come together in one server and keep the rhythm going. I can't speak for other servers, but on Emerald, when the active continent locks at midnight or 1am, it feels like 80% of the playerbase logs off and Emerald dies. I'd like to see Emerald get merged with Connery when that happens. Imagine DonAlfrago and his lockon squad versus Emerald's air bushido colliding.
  3. Grumpus

    The time for worry is past. The time has come for acceptance.

    The game can only be played in any fashion close to its intent during a few hours in the evening for a given server. Trying to play it at other times leaves you with little to choose from, and at far off-peak hours there is nothing to do but ghost cap.

    On Briggs the population only tops 500 for a few hours a day, and in the early mornings it's empty.

    Like some have pointed out, you have to keep in mind the divisions going on in these numbers, too. The entire game, worldwide, MAXES OUT (no pun intended) at about 3500 people for PC. Divide that by 5 servers, then divide that by three factions and two continents and it's easy to see the numbers add up to what we experience - a dead game.

    There's a lot of denial going on, as there has been since 60% of the players left the first month and then another 40% of that the next month and then a steady decline to nothing. Some people will swear it's not dead as long as some server somewhere in the world is hosting the game, like PS1 is now. And MMOs have a tendency to stay technically alive forever. Some of them are still around from 1990ish. They have like 50 people playing, with one guy hosting it at his house, but technically they're not dead.
  4. ColonelChingles

    Exactly this. Consider the following demographics and their fates:

    PS1 Veterans- The game was originally catering to them. I recall the Youtube videos of PS1 players reliving their fondest memories of battles. Bridge battles that lasted for hours. Massive tank columns and air strikes. PS2 was supposed to be PS1 but with better graphics. Sadly because of the F2P model and poor management decisions, the PS1 crowd was largely lost out. Maybe SOE thought that nostalgia alone would keep the PS1 players around, but it turns out that you need more than just cosmetic similarities. These players would have been a very reliable source of income, in general being older (and wealthier) as well as having a devotion to the franchise.

    Combined Arms Players- A relatively wide group of players, including ARMA aficionados, players who normally play tank or airplane games, or even RTS players who are looking for a complex and in-depth FPS. Remember those early videos with "real voices" of players planning out strategy and executing plans? That was geared towards the "sim" group. People who generally were tired of twitch shooters and were looking for a game that was an approximation of war. Depth. Strategy. Tactics. But PS2's emphasis on infantry combat as well as Redeployside meant that there was more depth to be found in a rain puddle.

    Twitch Shooters- These players enjoy running and gunning, and to them the words "gunplay" emphasize the "play" portion much more than the "gun" part of the deal. Generally the industry mostly focuses on these individuals, for whom instant rewards and uninterrupted play means the most. Say what you want about Wrel, but he certainly isn't a PS1 vet or is particularly good at in-depth strategy. Wrel is representative of this current generation of twitch shooters. Supposedly it makes sense to shape PS2 towards these players... after all the other major developers of Battlefield and Call of Duty can do perfectly well tossing out the same game over and over again.

    But the problem with going to the twitch shooter crowd over the previous two is that this new focus group is incredibly transient and fickle, as the population declines show. They have no attachment to the brand name, unlike PS1 vets. And they have far too many choices to choose from, unlike Combined Arms players. This leads to a very short-term investment of time for most of the FPS players, because there's always going to be a new BF or CoD game that will be shiner and newer than PS2.
    • Up x 1
  5. Ryme_Intrinseca

    So you starting off saying the game had 1.5k pop across PC and PS4, the same as MAG and Dust before they died. When I pointed out it's actually 3-5k on PC alone you change it so MAG and Dust 514 had that kind of pop before they died. NOPE, you were right first time, Dust was around 1,500 when they announced the closure in Feb:

    And no, 1,500 in an entire game (Dust) is not the same as 3-5k split between several servers. From a business perspective a customer is a customer, doesn't matter which server they're on. An FPS with 3-5k online concurrently is in a much, much better place than one with 1,500 online.

    Seems like you're personally invested in this being a dead/dying game. Unfortunately the population numbers say otherwise. Accept it and move on.
  6. Pelojian

    I think the only reason why games like call of duty are successful as they are because the games are reboots with new things to keep people interested without having to rebalance like they do in PS2 since essentially they are rebalancing with a new game development budget rather then a possibly more restricted budget of an older game.

    in MMOs you have to cultivate loyalty by being consistent and serving your loyal customers, MMOs are a long term thing, you want players that won't abandon it for the hype train of 'new game 20XX' which is similar with a unique twist.

    your game might end up being niche and not have boatloads of players, but isn't a good game that is making money better then one that chases the latest demographic that they can hold just as well as sand in their hand while they squeeze said hand into a fist?

    WoW is popular because they built up their loyalty base with successful games so when they made their MMO it was popular and well made enough to retain a good chunk of players and grow from there both by word of mouth and advertising.
    • Up x 1
  7. Bassmeant1

    Cling to it all you want. How many of those customers are paying? Because if they aren't paying they aren't customers. And the majority aren't paying that's pretty obvious. The numbers are estimates but are exactly where I said they are.mits endgame. The difference is that mag actually had real numbers much higher then ps2 at one point but the devs dropped the ball and the game died. Same thing here, minus the income from sales.
  8. Curved

    Nothing to worry about. DBG wants to make the game profitable before large. Large and profitable is fine, but small and profitable is better than large and unprofitable.
  9. ArcKnight

    lets stop talking about server mergers and their location and effects on populations and ping

    we need to come up with ways to bring in players and most importantly retain them, and server mergers only put a band-aid on the leaking pipe but its not gonna seal the leak for good

    we need to come up with incentives for people to want to log back in and play the game even if its a 20-30min session
    in a mmo like PS2 where the only thing to do is shoot or help other players....... players interaction with each other is the only real content, so having enough players around is paramount
  10. ColonelChingles

    To be fair, although they might not pay they're also not worthless.

    Non-paying players, not realizing it, are actually commodities themselves. They serve to populate the servers so that paying players have someone to shoot at.

    It's kind of like when you use Google/Gmail/Drive for free. You're definitely not the customer because you aren't paying... you're the product.
    • Up x 1
  11. Bassmeant1

    that's a bit of a stretch. i could throw a couple reverse analogs out that would counter that, but im just gonna say that those guys may serve to be targets for paying gamers, but they are really just overhead for the devs, non profitable overhead.

    gmail/drive has google behind it which makes those options possible, they can try out new angles without losing the farm.
    but i think we can all agree based on a couple different factors that dbg doesn't have that kind of bread to play with.

    and if you think of the non paying customer as part of the product... well the product has been running around teamkilling and derping so consistently that the product needs a punch in the ****.
  12. ArcKnight

    removing passive cert gains was a bad idea, when it was around getting membership meant you can now earn more certs passively it felt like an improvement especially for people who didn't have enough time to play for long session and were willing to pay because the free passive cert gain wasn't high enough
    taking it away and making it a premium only thing............. well it just feels like a naked cash grab
  13. Abraham with Cheese

    I do worry sometimes, but then again, I am patient enough to see what the future holds.

    If people come back to this game because of the newer updates, then I'll be happy.

    If the game continues to spiral towards inevitable death, then so be it.

    I'll still be there, playing when I can.
  14. Believesps4

    I think you are correct they do want more money and a bigger community but a lot of people dont like game because of massive fights and new players get farmed i love this game but most dont like it so much death for new players
  15. Believesps4

    On Ps4 we Face the problem of People using Mouse and keyboard against controller users and that also causes people to quit game but they do allow you to use it but you receive hate if people find out
  16. leo4444

    I put a lot of hours into this game and I left. I left because nothing that was promised occurred. I was premium and spent a lot of money in the game. Too many nerfs turned me off, the lack of a meta game, and logging in having trouble finding large battles. Large battles was one the primary reasons I played this game. It's rare to re create now the amazing events we had in the past, like hundreds gathering at the warpgate for a massive assault. With the Meta Game how hard would it have been to add at least a weekly score for a war. The resource revamp and the login rewards being taken away for f2f players was just a bad idea. I liked attacking a specific region for a specific resource. It added a sort of a meta game because we can lower their air force and or tank force. The optimization patches made the game look worse and it now it performs the same way it did before the patch. I really wanted this game to succeed but to many development flaws, too many patches fixing the wrong this, too many money grab techniques, and too many bugs. A lot of players left for some of the reasons I posted above and that relationship is now damaged.
    So in short why I left..
    -Resource Revamp
    -Passive Cert Gain Removal
    -Performance and Visuals got worse
    -No exciting updates