The population is dying

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by OneShadowWarrior, Sep 27, 2023.

  1. OneShadowWarrior

    So much work was put into Capture the Flag, Oshur, Bastion Carriers, Outfit Wars, Orbital Strikes, Constructions bases. The fact of the matter none of the veteran fanbase really wanted any of it. I felt initially that the Arsenal Update was a step in the right direction and then it floundered, unfinished like many projects.

    At this point with a game practically going on 11 years old. Trying to expect a new fresh player base is futile. Somewhere in all this they will have to figure out how to preserve what dwindling fanbase they have left, before it's all gone.
  2. Degenatron

    I can't help but notice your lack of an ALL ACCESS tag under your profile picture. What good is appealing to players who aren't going to support the game financially?
  3. BlackFox

    Keeping enough players in that act as content in form of teammates and enemies for the paying playerbase? Running around in empty bases surely isn't worth a membership purchase
    • Up x 3
  4. Effect

    Probably because you can be subbed without all access. And the game needs significant population to work as intended, so it kinda needs every single player it can get.
    • Up x 1
  5. Mechwolf

    I can't believe you're supporting the game financially when they never listen to their players and keep updating the game with weird stuff that never gets used (construction, CTF, Outfit Wars)
  6. AntDX316

    The battles still are difficult. People tryhard so trying to keep a KD above 1 can be a struggle even using vehicles, air, and Max Suits to keep it up.
  7. Degenatron

    Planetside 1 maintained its existence as a sub-only game. It didn't go F2P until after PS2 was released.

    I will maintain my sub no matter how many players are online, as long as the servers are on. I will be the last man standing.

    Pressing X for Doubt. There is no "Planetside Only" subscription option. Link it and prove me wrong.

    It needs PAYING players to exist. At this point, the F2P deadbeats are costing more than they are worth.

    I support the game because I enjoy playing it. It's a service that costs a lot of money to provide. My support is not out of hope, it's out of pragmatic appreciation of the game as it exists today.

    "Listening to the players" is probably the worst thing they could do. The players only make demands from a point of selfish greed.
    • Up x 1
  8. OldButGold

    There are posts deleted here day after day that are about this very topic. At least 90% of the players don't see it like you do. If you would come down from your high you would understand that more players would support the game if it wasn't let down like this. I would even bet that you are one of the few people who are happy with Oshur. It's just not about the few but about the many players. Personally, I would do it again. I have decided for myself not to support the game until it goes in the right direction. Maybe you can imagine that I still play until the last day but I think you hope to save the game alone.
  9. Amador

    As a PS1 Veteran, this comment requires confrontation.
    1. "Free-to-Play" - This business model was a flaw for PS2 since its inception by Sony. Every time players purchased a weapon (non-aesthetic) with real money that would later incur a change/nerf would obviously leave players angry. Think of how many players may've come to realize that most guns are "side-grades" and not "upgrades" - further angering them with a lack of satisfaction despite money spent.

    2. "Sunken Cost" - Every time a player directly purchased an item which was later changed/nerfed would be associated with the negative emotion that they had been cheated or swindled. The Free-to-Play business model is incredibly touchy, because if not implemented correctly the backlash from its customers would only worsen. It doesn't matter if the player was mistaken for purchasing the weapon with real money directly - Sony/Daybreak should've recognized the inherent risk to its customers.

    3. "Heavy Assault Mains" - For too many years the developers listened to the wrong players. Especially those with extreme "Infantry Only" bias that only desired to make vehicles obsolete - in a game that had always been about "combined arms". Heeding counsel from the cesspool known as reddit was the first mistake. Behold the rotten fruit it did grow...

    4. "Personal Contributions" - I myself had made a great deal of proposals. Many of them simple and common sense additions to the game to improve overall quality of life and variety. The only thing that had ever been addressed that I've actually witnessed are bug reports, yet even still, a number of those have not been confronted to this day. Even though I paid a subscription back in PlanetSide 1, however I refuse to do so for PlanetSide 2 as my desires remain unfulfilled.

    5. "Tone-Deaf Developers" - Additionally, as many people had already stated previously... When players commonly remark about how the "devs don't listen" it is completely true. And for the majority of times they had listened, they took counsel from the wrong people. Some might even say this took place for a period of "roughly seven years". Interesting indeed.

    6. "Happy Customers" - When considering the flaws above, throwing more money at Sony/Daybreak didn't fix the problem then and it surely won't now. From all the players I talk to, each time their interests were violated by Sony/Daybreak they pulled their membership subscription or boycotted. If players were happy, they would've kept their wallets open the whole time. You build a game for your players, your customers - not your sales department.
    I do hope your "financial advice" does not include terms like "Pre-Order" and "Season Pass" in your vocabulary...
  10. karlooo

    If that is true, the devs should have honestly shared this perspective and many more people would gladly be involved this way, as it makes sense, they would rather listen to the people who technically are all in.... But because most people that invest in the game with the intention of gaining some sort of profit in return, mainly care about themselves really. So, in essence the devs listened to narcissists you can say, majority. Tried to understand their views, who realistically don't care much about the game, the future, about fair play.
  11. Effect

    Because it's not a "planetside only" sub. I subbed through the game directly and am subbed for the next month. No all access badge. .
  12. Effect

    I wish the devs actually listened to infantry players. Shame this never actually happened.
  13. karlooo

    F2P is a must IMO.
    Planetside 2 was extremely ahead of its time with their ideas, the 3 factions and type of warfare, which even had a backstory for example to explain the silly videogame style of deploying and redeploying, respawning. It was all complete you can say...

    It took me some time to figure this out, but the type of warfare in game is purposefully designed the way it is, it isn't an error.
    It is trying to imply the future of warfare. Of how tanks will become obsolete (fantasy, sci fi), and it will all come down to infantry, super soldiers as tough as a nail. This game is all about winning infantry engagements and it's especially being highlighted with the map designs, which in addition adheres to the call of duty/battlefield player base standards, to bring in more interest.

    It's a great idea but the problem is that we never really got introduced to this fantasy environment (In general). Therefore, the people don't get it and this is one of the primary reasons as to why people experience confusion, the perspectives of imbalance...
    (Inaccurate example) Let's say a new player arrives to TR and gets their *** wooped in infantry combat and then I guess this is not my role. I choose to focus becoming a tank commander, because I like tanks, without understanding that the game revolves around infantry and tanks are just a side role for a certain situation and are unable to be effectively specialized in.

    This is a complex topic which I know how to add more to, in terms of the in-game introduction and tutorials, but I am too lazy right now because it's very complicated. I started and just couldn't complete it. It's a mess that would ultimately require the top outfits, their leadership to be instructed to somehow to educate and provide their own members with the correct mouse settings for First Person Shooters lol.
    Or a map redesign to allow all playstyles.
    Call of Duty and Battlefield are no longer popular as they used to be, and it's not necessary anymore to maintain their attributes, none of them really, and might as well change the PS2 standard map design. A change in the map, will as well change the entire warfare. A change in the map design can incorporate all roles into the objective and will provide a different picture as to how combat and rules may be changed.