There is a link between the rise of "infantryside" and the downfall of the games popularity

Show me some research, and I might agree.

Let me call on someone whos been doing research for quite some time........

He literally have said nothing other than what he wants Planetside 2 to be. Nothing, not single paragraph to back it up that it somehow would be "better".

I've been around the game for some time. I've noticed that the more posts Scr1n gets, the less population! There must be a high correlation. That means causation, so one affects the other! So clear proof that with each post of Scr1n and a higher post count, there are less people in the game!

Or everything is bull. You imply correlation between infantryside and losing people. Correlation merely suggest causation, and not even in which direction. Even if you could proof that infantryside and population decline are correlated, it might suggest that the population decline increases infantryside! If you knew anything about statistics, you wouldn't call these things.

Another example? The global warming has a 0.8 correlation with the decline of pirates. There is the suggestion of causality, but does it suggest that warmer climates reduce pirates or that the decline of pirates increase the heat of the planet?
You then immediately forget it can be a 3rd, 4th or maybe 10th reason for it, completely negating other correlation.

I propose this: it is a simple bell cur following the rules of temporary products. Early adopters go to the game, starting a slow upwards curve in players. It gains popularity, further increasing the curve until it reaches an equilibrium, more or less leveling out. Then it starts a slow decline. First increasing the decline abd later leveling out, giving the familiar bell shape. Although things like updates and merges do influence the population, there is little to be done to change the bell curve. Basically only reinventing, rebranding, innovating or lucking out can truly initiate another bell curve connected to the other.

If I pit your idea against proven market and time mechanics, Occams Razor tells us that I am right. Now sell "infantryside" crap elsewhere or bring CONSTRUCTIVE ideas to the table to prolong the life of PS2

So are you afraid to do some digging or are you just trying to brush it off?

10/10

Clearly you are upset, which is quite a shame.

I've heard you refer to others who disagree with your suggested changes as Social Justice Warriors in a few other threads. (Air Justice Warriors for example)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you as far as Planetside suggestions, but I just needed to point out that the SJWs are the ones who seek change. Not the ones who reject your calls to change. The ones who make calls for change are the SJWs.

For example society generally says fat bodies are unhealthy. SJWs say we need to change the way we look at overweight people to be more accepting, and are hostile toward the general populace who still view morbid obesity as a health problem and not a body image problem, using tactics like calling people "fat shamers" or "heartless" in an effort to marginalize them.

Planetside 2 has a current version, some say we need to change ESFs because they are unbalanced, and are hostile toward people who generally view ESFs as fine. Using tactics like calling those who disagree "Skyknights" or "pilots protecting their ESF" in an effort to marginalize them.

Just to be clear, there is a standard in society, that then SJWs in the real world seek to change.

You are the one seeking to change something in regards to the Planetside standard.

You are the SJW.

Again, not agreeing or disagreeing with your position on changes, just pointing out it seems kind of silly for you to call people rejecting your suggested changes SJWs as that's exactly backwards in regards to how the term SJW is used in common speech.

personally i like more infantry...
















GOING UNDER MY FLASH

I am not going to waste my time proving your theory, which I think is wrong. That isn't how debates work, I guess you would know this, you seem to know fallacies well enough.

For the same reason weight and space aren't considerations for Ammo.

This isn't America's Army, Arma, or BattleTech. We have vehicles that spawn out of midair. Ammo that comes from a small little pack infinitely. Teleporters, redeploys, and so forth. The reason for all of this is its a MMOFPS. Complex logistics aren't everyone's forte.

Many of you would love to have full logistics in the game. Respawn at the warpgate. Trucks delivering ammo. Tank rounds doing thousands of damage to infantry in a 20m radius, and so forth. And even I have to admit that the idea is intriguing. But I also know that is not the game that PS2 was originally designed to be. There is a reason why MechWarrior Online is called the thinking man's shooter and PS2 is not.

No, PS2's damage model exists because everyone can pull anything at anytime. That has to remain because it makes no sense for me not to be able to pull my MBT that I spent $20 bucks on in cosmetics whenever the f- I want. And because I can do that. We need abstract damage values to ensure that when my 47 buddies in my platoon also pull MBT's we don't simply roll over the continent in a few minutes.

Realistically speaking that should be possible though. Why not? 48 Tanks is Overkill in even RL terms. Yeah realistically the faction that pulls their tanks and rolls over the map first should win. How much fun is that? A tank race?

No the damage profile isn't really a problem. Its only a problem if it can't be measured, tracked, and understood. We all understand that tanks take explosive and heavy round damage in varying degrees, and small arms doesn;t. It makes sense on an intuitive level. Much like Mario jumping on a goomba works, but a spiny turtle doesn't in a Mario game.

Sure the idea of a .50 cal Kobalt not oneshotting people that the round passes near, much less hits would be realistic. But 5 body hits to kill means one person (who equals one person) doesn't simply mow down a platoon with it. It makes sense in real life that it would. But in game it would be terribly frustrating.

To keep that .44 mag commie in relevance, it needs to have the 450 damage profile. Even if its more than twice that of a .50 cal round from a cobalt or a 20mm cannon. This has to do with scale. A kobalt is automatic, stable, and no recoil. Its also fired from a platform we're you're invulnerable to small arms in return. Commissioners are side arms used in close range for whatever reason. If it was lowered, it would be pointless to use in such a situation. All small arms would be.

Then you have armor and resistance. Armor lowers damage altogether by a percentage. This effectively raises the vehicles HP beyond its listed value. As well as gives it more or less protection from different angles. Resistances make sure that some weaponms that do 200 to infantry are doing nothing (if small arms) or smaller amounts then they would to infantry. So against tanks, a Basilisk does infinitely more damage to a tank than a Commissioner. The opposite isn't true, but it can't be true because the scale of the game.

The scale of the game isn't realistic. In real war, 10-20% of the fighting force is infantry. The other 80-90% is support elements. That's including medical, finance, law, administration, supply, communications, and so forth. Tanks and aircraft are also present to support.

In PS2 most of the above is omitted. In addition everyone equals a player. Vehicles are meant to be mobile consumbles that provide a slight multiplier based on their nanites spent and of course how they are used.

Now the problem with what I just said is the applications aren't available. Or heavily mitigated. We both said this earlier it is due to base design. Base design can be the one thing that pretty much fixes everything for vehicles. And in a way the construction system helped with that. Though I think that is getting hampered with the decision to make walls invulnerable with a repair model nearby. That's a bad decision.

I don't mind there being indestructible outposts and bases. But they should be limited in how much protection they offer to encourage a combined arms approach to both defense and offense. I don't believe defense should be exempt from pulling vehicles. Every limitation put on attackers should be put on defenders. In fact I'd like for defense to not really be a thing other than digging in with emplacements to set a trap or ambush.

This isn't Ancient Greece. Castles and Forts are not a thing. Nor should they be. But I'm not totally against throwing infantry an occassional bone. I do like the idea of biolabs and one other base type allowing for ground forces to go in and do their thing. But everywhere else.. it should be a combined effort. And there should be some places were infantry do NOT have equal footing to vehicles. Every asset should have a place where they are weak and one where they are strong.

This includes air. I am totally behind returning Scarred Mesa Skydock to its original form. As well as adding other bases like it. Requiring air drops to even be in. Of course.. I'd require that defenders likewise have to do the same. Spawnroomless bases should be a thing.

10/10 making it a personal argument to shame while ignoring the topic.

I said stuff like your comment would happen in my OP, and its happening.

Yeah, congratulations you can predict peoples responds, that doesn't make you right or prove anything. Now last chance, either come with something substantial, or I will leave you to waste other peoples time and declare myself right and you wrong.

Word has already spread about the topic........people are questioning & talking about it.


You can't go back to your safe space anymore.

The piece I quoted from you was literally you making a personal argument and ignoring the topic, and I pointed out that it's silly. Your response when I point this out is to accuse me of doing the same thing.

I can't tell if you're a good troll or just completely oblivious.

Urgh... I will create a damn safe space with the new base design and have my OP Prowler protect it!

Now, I am right and you are wrong. Good day, sir!

I think the three of you are using personal attacks against each other to avoid debating my point.

In a typical forumside manner.

I agree with what you have said so far, if that is any consolation.

You focused on me, so you could hide from the topic!!!!!!

Well if you want to examine the relationship between the HE nerf and population, that's pretty easy to do.

The HE nerf happened on August 5, 2014. First, there is no positive population change. People did not log on suddenly because HE had been nerfed. And yes, this does happen with positive changes, such as the Construction update which resulted in a 40-50% population improvement overnight.

Second, there was a steady decline in population following the HE nerf, whereas it can be said that there was a stable population prior to the HE nerf.

1 month prior to nerf- 67,565 players
1 day prior to the nerf- 68,358 players
1 day after the nerf- 63,496 players
1 month after the nerf- 65,227 players

Now there's going to be day-to-day fluctuations so I would only use these numbers for illustrative purposes. Nonetheless, on average the player count would decline until mid-November 2014.

It is true that correlation is not causation, but it can be shown that there was no joyous activity on the part of infantry after the nerf and that there was most certainly a population decline. That by itself should raise questions about the need for a HE nerf.

That and the Devs themselves said that HE wasn't overperforming, but that the HE nerf was part of an overall nerf to everything. Infantry AV still needs to be nerfed though.