The Slow Decline Has Started, Planetside 2 Is Dying, This Is What Will Save It

http://steamcharts.com/app/218230 1123 online on steam. The majority are on steam so when steam declines, this isn't good.

http://ps2.fisu.pw/online/ 1808 online at the time of this thread being made.

This game is in need of a major content update, changing the META isn't going to help since the game doesn't have the population for it. Adding more continents/more regions is only gonna divide the population so there won't be significant ongoing battles.

What they should focus on is having weekly map events, this will add variety to the game and ensure a stable population since new maps will entice many to keep playing. Every week for 2 or 3 days a week there will be a new huge map to play on, every single person on the server must take part on this single continent (except for the new players continent). There will be no lockdowns, to avoid an unbalanced outcome (1 faction outpopulates on the last day and over runs the rest) , the victor will be the side who has had the most kills and/or most regions captures during the entirety of the 3 days. It would be harder for the player to anticipate which faction will be the victor, this will add an interesting dynamic to the game, mysterious outcome. Of course they can start slow with 2-3 maps being released for the first content update.

Giant Desert tank battles, Urban Warefare are some of the maps they can go with. There could even be special vehicles with some of these maps.

What does everyone think? This is the only way this game will see significant population increases in my opinion.

How the hell would there be a new map to play on every week.
Or is it one specific 'huge' map that is available only for select periods.

You do realize how big the apparently small maps are right?
And how they'd run out of maps pretty quick at a weekly basis... let alone the issue of map problems.
Like ensuring the map(s) don't have massive exploit points, glitches, or be heavily favoring one side of the map against another etc.

Not to mention, each map at present is KM in size.
A map a week, would be murderous to keep up -- let alone properly do in a single week.

I like the idea of new battlefields \ maps to fight, in a more interesting rotation..
But a map a week? Let alone a 'huge' one, compared to the present? By the abyss, either the quality drops to hell, or they have a massive team, doing nothing but map-work & testing with only 7x24 hours (168 hours) to actually release it.
Of which time, they then have to do the same again... while another set let alone if the same people tally the previous map's victor.

Dooooooomed, we're all doooooomed (2013)

Is there any supporting evidence that forcing all players to do this for half of every week will have the claimed effect? OP seems very sure of this.

Ouch, that's way off base.
Changing the meta would be the best way to keep population and even gain population. Imagine if we actually gave base-building a good solid place in the meta, where base-building is as natural to build, defend and attack as it is to defend and attack the current existing bases? Imagine if there was more meaning behind capturing territory (without giving bonuses to the one with the most territory so that it doesn't get harder to beat the biggest team)? What if we changed how you fight an overpop so that it's always enjoyable even if you are outnumbered 10:1? (for example by giving the outnumbered people access to a Colossus tank).
They could also focus on new capture mechanics. There's several varieties of CTF that could be applied, attrition/deathmatch type gameplay could be added, assault modes where players need to destroy something and then repair it to gain control, the ability in some bases to pick up the point and walk around with it creating a VIP type gameplay while they capture/defend the base etc. Rotate these capture mechanics each continent lock and you have the variety you need to keep the game interesting each day you play.

Weekly map events takes a lot of time and effort. While I agree that they should do an event once in a while, like closing off all bases on Indar and putting up 1 HIVE for each faction near the Impact Site and asking everyone to destroy the opposing HIVE's, then simultaneously hosting a video contest where the most cinematic gameplay video send in will get a prize. This way they get free material to create in-engine advertisements to show off the game and the players get a chance to be part of a giant 3-way construction-brawl.

But weekly? Nope, that's going to take far too much effort and time from the devs.

Nope, nope, nope. Creating a map is already a gargantuan task, and PS2 has tons of surface area already available to it in the existing maps. By integrating base-building in normal gameplay rather than having it be this separate "build it as far away from battle as possible and earn points towards victory" you can make use of that territory and create large-scale, continuously adapting battlefields. Something that PS2 should always have been about.

The best way forwards isn't making some resource-intensive system of weekly brawls that cost tons of time and effort for the devs to maintain, the way forwards is by creating systems that the players themselves can play with and create their own scenario's and variety by accident or on purpose.

This will focus on cheap tactics. Ghost capping, allowing an enemy to capture your base to take it back immediately, only going for chokepoints and biolabs to mince enemies that try to cap it, spawncamping, farming infantry with MAX's and vehicles etc.

Not exactly the best way for the game to improve.

Indar

They had an urban trial map in the making, but it had a lot of lag issue's. That's why most bases don't have that much area.

Yes! Let's make a special vehicle for a single map, that's totally going to be worth all the time and effort to create and balance such a vehicle!

I think you are way off, sorry. The effort is appreciated though.

Where's the supporting evidence that 'the majority are on Steam?' I can't see it. I certainly don't use Steam.

In my opinion the only thing that can grant a better future to Planetside is an immediate and strong focus on teamplay.

We have to shift away from the e-sport meatgrinder mentality asap and make a much better usage of the unique features this game has. The game should not just be around farming kills, spamming and zerging, but still many features go in the exactly opposite direction (just think of the whole directives and xp system). This is what I believe is killing Planetside 2: they tried to make it as friendly as possible to the average fps player (which is a good thing) but they failed at introducing players to the game properly. New users struggle to understand the game, and in time they realize huge maps and big battles mean nothing: the game is just a sequence of base fights without any resemblance to an organized battle flow, and victory eventually belongs to zergfits and force multipliers spammers.

We need outfits, squads and groups to take back their central role in the game, organization must matter somehow. If the game succeeds at creating strong relations between players, they will be happy to stick to the game for a longer time.
Just think about it h how many unique outfit features have we seen over these years? Zero. Even the leadership revamp was unfinished.

But if they keep focusing on idiotic stuff like directives farming, implants farming, zerging alerts... Planetside 2 will keep losing players, because that stuff cannot entertain people for a long time.

I don't either, Steam installs to its app directory, which I have on a HDD. I run ps2 from a SSD because I hate any and all load times.

The stuff to make Planetside 2 greater are already there, it just has to be done.

• Integrate Construction more into the base game, maybe give it as an extra tool for defenders
• Better team-play, more in-depth team-play
• Less incentive to zerg, massive benefits for under-pop
• No more VR purgatory
• Make open-field combat more common and give non-infils more of a role in these fights, give vehicles more of a role in base fights
• Shaking up the meta

First improve the base game, then adding stuff to complement the base game. People might come back and be interested because of new changes, but they stay because of the gameplay. New maps and new vehicles should be used to draw in ppl while something else encourages them to stay, by themselves they'd just be a temporary pop boost, this game needs more regular players.

Since people that love to throw such doom&gloom BS threads around, coupled with their "prophetic" "solutions" here is some more numbers:

https://steamspy.com/app/218230

On Steam *alone* more than 100 000 unique accounts fired up the game in the last two weeks. Pretty "dead" interest in a pretty "dead" game if you ask me.

On the EU servers I often have to wait in a queue to get to the fight and I play all three factions - two on one server and the third on the other. And when I get to the fight it's pretty damn well crowded.

i say make ps2 more fast paced game. most of the time playing its sunderers driving/deploying/flying/repairing/going and things like that. need to add a direct way to the next facility in order to make things more action. this game have serious problem of nothingnes, between the 20% play time of pure action and fun. a gateway to next facilities or vehicle terminal that are close to the next facility is good answer. i thought about player-made bases could hurt from this patch, if there will be a vehicle terminal with teleport of the opposite team next to your player-made base. but the benefits are better. besides it would encourage defending your player-made base.

and buff the ******* phonix ffs. how would i destroy that vehicles from behind cover, with such slow fire rate.

People have been saying this game is dead/dying since 2013. And here we are. Sure, player count is slowly decreasing but it's still not close to dead.

Here you can see actual population stats http://ps2.fisu.pw/population/?world=0
Steam users are about half of population and that 1800 was during off-hours.
We just need updates that community wants, almost everyone didn't want CAI and it can be confirmed by population stats, usually after a major update there's an increase in player count but after CAI it increased for a day or 2 and then it was even lower than before because many vehicle players quit the game. Unlike construction for example which boosted player count a lot and those numbers actually stayed for a while.

PS2 has been in decline since release.

Devs said long ago that most players don't play through steam.

Asking devs to start spit out a new map every 3 weeks is up there with suggestions of changing game engine to CryEngine. Some of you people have no freaking clue what you're asking for. In case you havn't noticed it took 1.5 years to release an unfinished Hossin.

Warning: skip to TL;DR if you do not like to read too much...

As someone who started to play approx. 9 months ago:

The game is not bad. I would say that, despite all its problems and glitches, it is very good and unique in its category. There is the potential to have tens of thousands of players online engaged in giant battles, 6 classes to play with, many weapons, lots of vehicles. Everyone can find his/her spot in the big picture. So where is the problem?

Finding the problem is easy: compare the numbers of accounts (not the number of characters) in the database with the number of players online and you will understand: a lot of people starts, a minority stays.

Considering that the game is F2P (really F2P - because the default equipment is also good) if people leave it is because they do not like what they experience even if it is free. And I bet they leave quite early (that is, even before reaching BR15). Why?

In 1998 (bear with me, I am an old guy) Microprose released Falcon 4.0, an extremely complex Combat Flight Simulator, with a manual of several hundreds of pages emulating verbatim in many aspect the F-16 Falcon. Compared to the average flight simulator (stick up to go up, stick down to go down, landing gear to land, click fire to shoot a missile) there was an ocean of difference. Without reading the manual you could sit for hours on the tarmac because you wouldn't be able even to start the engine.

Did Falcon 4.0 had a steep learning curve? Yes.
Did Falcon 4.0 required a huge investment of time to learn to do something? Yes.

So it wasn't a casual game. You needed to really commit on it to become good. Time. Patience. Perseverance.

PS2 is in the same league, only without a manual of several hundreds of pages.

You need a lot to enjoy PS2. You need to learn how the lattice system works, how a base is captured, the geometry of each base, your weapons, the equipment of your weapons, the abilities and utilities, how to move, how to take cover, when to fire, how to burst fire , how to read the minimap, how to understand the battle flow and a zillions of other things which aren't described anywhere. And that only to play infantry, the bread and butter.

Without that knowledge/skills you are just a moving Figure 11 (*), waiting to be farmed over and over again by BR120 players with hundreds of days of game-play on their shoulders in all the possible ways, fair and [mostly] unfair: knifed by a stalker, shredded by a Max, sniped from far away, C-4'ed by a fairy, hit by an HESH, reduced in smithereens by LOLpods, head-shotted by a glowing HA in full overshield with his blazing LMG, rear-ended by an invisible Flash.

TL;DR:
PS2 is a game requiring a massive initial investment in time to be enjoyed later on, It is not a casual game. At the same time, DBG offers a casual approach to the game: 2 minutes in the training area and off you go to the farm --> it does not work.

So it is not a matter of weapons, vehicles, maps or UI. It is the game experience that sucks big, big time for beginners. DBG needs to invest a lot in that if they want to retain fresh players and make the player base grow over time.

(*) The standard NATO practice target, a charging enemy soldier

Anyone playing on PS 4 can check their trophies and see the issue. For instance I have one for obtaining 15 point control ribbons. I got it in I think the first month. It was easy. But it says it’s a Rare trophy and only 3.4% of players have been awarded it.

I might have been BR 20 or something when I got it. To me this says people start playing but then leave quickly. I really wish we had the actual stats to see how many new accounts are made each month, and how many are still playing come the next month.

you do know that you can just change it to install anywhere right?

Interesting idea.

I have a similar idea that is to have 1 continent that is always open and cant be locked during a month and have a world domination type event running on that continent. Also have new directive every month that lasts for the same duration and only progresses on that continent.

nothing will save it now in my eyes since they decided to ignore 6 months of warning and make their biggest mistake since adding faction queues...(removing defensive sunderer deployment at your own base)

now zergs are utterly unstoppable until they reach a biolab, biolabs are once again borderline uncappable
(unless the zerg is big enough)

until they revert their mistake then i consider this game on the decline.
you're stuck in VR and when you finally get out you have only 2 choices, zerg like a loser or get spawn camped.



tl:dr
HOW TO SAVE THE GAME:
revert idiotic changes...

remove the faction queue, you should NEVER prevent people from playing.

revert the defensive sunderer nerf.
it was the last tool that we had to repel zergs, and the only tool we had to assault biolabs.
(parking by jump pads and teleport rooms, mostly in no deploy zones.)

It wants a location for library to install, not an individual game. It's fine with the games personal launcher as is.

Wait so, you think that low pop at 1:30 AM on a weekday is indicative of the game dying?

By your own charts, there are currently 2869 players online and it's not even prime time for the american playerbase