Top cause of players leaving PS2 (2014) - Page 4

Calista · 2014-08-07, 09:23 AM

Are these numbers correct?

http://borderlinetactical.net/rsnc/w...&totalpop=true

ringring · 2014-08-07, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Calista

Are these numbers correct?

http://borderlinetactical.net/rsnc/w...&totalpop=true

as far as I know they can't be because there is no way to get the pop info from the API. What sites usually do is count the number of login's per hour, which you can get.

So it's an estimation. You can see people logging in but you can't see log outs.

Calista · 2014-08-07, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

as far as I know they can't be because there is no way to get the pop info from the API. What sites usually do is count the number of login's per hour, which you can get.

So it's an estimation. You can see people logging in but you can't see log outs.

Yeah SOE are the only one's who know the true populations I suppose but at the very least this does give a view into trends. I don't see much of one over a long period of time, maybe a little downward but not much. Maybe it seems less now because of the 4th continent. Any word on Searhus or whatever is coming next? I checked the roadmap and didn't really see anything about it.

ringring · 2014-08-07, 02:53 PM

I've seen nothing about release of Searhus nor the Battle Islands. I gather from the fact that the PS2 Work in Progress videos that they expect to produce new content but I've heard nothing solid about what/when.

Dougnifico · 2014-08-07, 02:04 PM

1. Gamer fatigue. I have to walk away every once in a while and play other games and do other things.

BlaxicanX · 2014-08-07, 05:42 PM

The complete silence on the Battle Islands is rather strange. Weren't they like... a step away from being totally complete almost a year ago? I remember outfits having skrims on them.

ringring · 2014-08-08, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

The complete silence on the Battle Islands is rather strange. Weren't they like... a step away from being totally complete almost a year ago? I remember outfits having skrims on them.

Yea it is strange.

(only one BI was nearly complete, Nexus)

BlaxicanX · 2014-08-10, 01:55 AM

What claim have I made that you want me to provide data for? Asking me for evidence without specifying what claim you want me to substantiate makes it look like you don't actually understand what those concepts mean.

My criteria for objective is "backed up with empirical evidence".

Frydac · 2014-08-10, 05:11 AM

Without surveying the players who left, and analysis of that data in a statistically justified way, we nor SOE can't come to any real conclusion whatsoever..

So we can't do more than have our guesses and hope for the best.

Mordelicius · 2014-08-12, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

What claim have I made that you want me to provide data for? Asking me for evidence without specifying what claim you want me to substantiate makes it look like you don't actually understand what those concepts mean.

My criteria for objective is "backed up with empirical evidence".

You had zero argument whatsoever from the start. I made a long argument/point with 5 examples. You came up with a nonargument to coax me to argue with myself, without you providing any counterargument or counterexample. This is a common trap, trickery and logical fallacy that's took me a couple seconds to see (there's even a term for this, but it escape me atm).

So I simply turned around these 'sources' and 'data' question of yours to show that these phantom 'source' or 'data' is no reason for rebuttal since that would mean I would be just debating myself.

I gave you these two easy outs and yet you still want to weasel out of it by accusing me of being not 'objective'. But I know that's another bluff since it would be impossible for you to list a criteria of being objective without proving me right or proving yourself wrong.

Do you really expect me to compare and contrast my points to these unrealistic, nonexistent 'sources' and 'data'? You've foisted up these psuedo-strawmen argument yourself in the first place, that's because you have no conterarguments or counterexamples at all.

Mordelicius · 2014-08-12, 11:32 PM

And yet another fresh example to show the pattern I've been arguing for:

6) Adversarial Alert replaces the old Free-For-All Alert - The old alert system was fine and stable since it was implemented last year. The current Adversarial alert - already calibrated to 51% trigger with 65% to win for the attacker and 50% for defenders - is just plain boring. It's like there's nothing is going on at all.

There is literally no push and pull action going on. There's no sense of urgency belying its own title: Alert!

Gone are the last minute pushes and resecures. Gone are the match-changing base linebreaks. Gone are the poking and parrying.

The old Alerts were the source of exciting gameplay amidst 3 factions. The new Adversarial alert is a source of yawns.

The old Alerts weren't broken. They 'fixed' it and now we got these senseless alerts that doesn't rise above the normal gameplay that it's supposed to enhance.

BlaxicanX · 2014-08-13, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

You had zero argument whatsoever from the start. I made a long argument/point with 5 examples. You came up with a nonargument to coax me to argue with myself, without you providing any counterargument or counterexample. This is a common trap, trickery and logical fallacy that's took me a couple seconds to see (there's even a term for this, but it escape me atm).

So I simply turned around these 'sources' and 'data' question of yours to show that these phantom 'source' or 'data' is no reason for rebuttal since that would mean I would be just debating myself.

I gave you these two easy outs and yet you still want to weasel out of it by accusing me of being not 'objective'. But I know that's another bluff since it would be impossible for you to list a criteria of being objective without proving me right or proving yourself wrong.

Do you really expect me to compare and contrast my points to these unrealistic, nonexistent 'sources' and 'data'? You've foisted up these psuedo-strawmen argument yourself in the first place, that's because you have no conterarguments or counterexamples at all.

So you admit that I proposed no argument, but ask me to provide evidence to support this non-existent argument anyway?

Basically, you tried to promote your thread as having objective merit rather than being merely your opinion on some balance mechanics, and now you're upset because by asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions, I've exposed how baseless your claims really are. Okay.

Trying to paint the situation as me having some kind of secret personal hard-on for you is flattering, but inaccurate. You're not nearly interesting enough of a person to warrant "trapping" into an argument, to be honest. There are more interesting, and seemingly more capable posters on this forum for me to engage in discussion, and in fact by this point I'm mostly just responding to you out of obligation- you've already conceded that your arguments are based on nothing more than personal sentiments, so there's no point left for me to make.

In short, calm your tits.

Originally Posted by Figment

You never over-simplify things, do you?

Instant death (coming from all directions) means there's no actual dueling time, at all.

Do you remember how much people enjoyed the Flail in PS1?

People expect a kill on them to take effort. Skill. If all it takes is you popping your head out for a second, then they don't perceive this as skill, but as the game doing the killing for you(r opponent). Thus it's boring.

There is no chance for tension to built up. No chance for adrenaline to start pumping. When I was in a firefight in PS1, my blood was pumping, I was using my brain to seek the best cover, the best timing. Every option to turn it into a win in those few seconds you got.

If you get no seconds, that entire process is just not there, you just sit there "oh". And people don't like to just sit somewhere going "oh" and having to run all the way to somewhere distant (say up a 240m cliff) again, just to be instantly killed, again. It's boring.

So what you need to do, is ensure people, even those new to the game get into firefights that last long enough for them to feel they've done something or had a chance to do something.

Who enters a lottery where you know you're probably going to lose?

I think we're on the same page, though for different reasons. Coming from a Call of Duty/Battlefield background, I don't mind the twitch/split-second mechanics of the game. As an avid Halo player I recognize the fun of dueling, but I don't know if raising the TTK to the point where that could be viable would work in this game- keep in mind that this game operates on a much larger scale than its predecessor. There are a lot more players on the field at one time, and having higher TTK could potentially make defensive play even harder.

But I do still support raising the overall TTK of the game, primarily because the current situation is proving to make it very difficult to balance weapons. The range between "low damage" and "high damage" is too small, which is why we're seeing the constant fluctuation of damage output from vehicles, with them being repeatedly buffed and nerfed.

I'm also of the opinion that NC have the worst guns in the game- or at the very least the most inconsistent- and I think that the game's low TTK threshold has a lot to do with that. NC's guns are supposed to be the hardest hitting in exchange for low clip sizes and shit accuracy, but because of how low the TTK is, they can only make them so strong without turning them into basically OSK guns. As a result the difference in damage between them and VS/TR guns isn't that drastic, so the NC's main advantage is mitigated. Raising the TTK would allow the devs to raise the amount of damage that NC guns do without making them overpowered.

That's a bit of a tangent, though. To focus back on sniper rifles, I support the idea of OSK head-shots because it's the only way for bolt action rifles to really be useful. Even if they still took away like 99% of a character's health per shot, meaning a guaranteed kill on already hurt players, that's still a role that a semi-auto rifle could perform better. The only notable advantage bolt-actions have over semi-autos is their ability to OSK. Being more accurate and having longer range is nice, but again without the ability to instantly kill a target those advantages are rather useless, because if an opponent is so far away that a semi-auto can't be used, chances are they'll also have full health, meaning you won't kill them with that one shot. Once they get hit, and survive, any player that isn't mentally impaired will easily be able to dart behind cover or zig-zag around in the time it takes you to re-chamber another shot, account for bullet drop and squeeze off another shot.

So in short, while I wouldn't mind seeing headshots be taken away from all the normal guns and even semi-auto rifles, I think that they're a necessary component for bolt-actions. As far as "skill", I'd posit that it takes a lot more skill to headshot someone from 200 meters away with a bolt-action rifle than it does to mow them down with an LMG at 20. That might not be the type of skill some players appreciate, but it's still skill. Being a sniper isn't as easy as their victims would assert.

Gatekeeper · 2014-08-13, 04:33 AM

Regarding sniper rifles and OSKs - in PS1 no sniper rifle was capable of a OSK, and the bolt-action rifles were still powerful and useful, it's just a matter of balancing them right.

PS1 sniping was less about getting a lot of kills, and more about suppression - you forced wounded enemies to fall back or dive for cover, and so reduced the opposing force's ability to fight back. That's not to say you didn't get kills through sniping, but it was more a matter of cat-and-mouse, or teamwork, to get kills and less of a lone-wolf multi-kill thing.

Honestly I'm all in favour of a longer TTK all around. I don't think it should be as slow as PS1, but I don't think less OSKs will hurt the game at all - and it'll certainly help to retain new players, which is good for everyone in the end.

Taramafor · 2014-08-15, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

PS1 sniping was less about getting a lot of kills, and more about suppression - you forced wounded enemies to fall back or dive for cover, and so reduced the opposing force's ability to fight back. That's not to say you didn't get kills through sniping, but it was more a matter of cat-and-mouse, or teamwork, to get kills and less of a lone-wolf multi-kill thing.

Honestly I'm all in favour of a longer TTK all around. I don't think it should be as slow as PS1, but I don't think less OSKs will hurt the game at all - and it'll certainly help to retain new players, which is good for everyone in the end.

PS1 was only slow because of character movement and towers that people creep from instead of using common sense to grab vehicles from bases. If cover and suppression is used more effectively in this game, I'd most likely love the fuck out of it and look over most of the games flaws. But for some reason the devs don't like defense, and therefore are unlikely to go down the route of using cover. And unfortunately, the lag that causes people to die a moment after actually getting killed doesn't help. It can easily make people think they're dying in cover when they actually got the killing hits outside of it. That'll need to be fixed first regardless of cover use I think.

Figment · 2014-08-19, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

Regarding sniper rifles and OSKs - in PS1 no sniper rifle was capable of a OSK, and the bolt-action rifles were still powerful and useful, it's just a matter of balancing them right.

There were two sniper rifles in PS1:

Boltdriver: Bolt-action, one shot at a time, which did IIRC 90 health damage and a lot of AP damage.

Heavy Scout rifle: Scout-Rifle, fast sniper, which did very little health damage, but shot quite rapidly and had a clip. But it did so little damage, it was to the point most players didn't use the HSR at all. It could have been balanced better by dealing half to double health damage per shot then what it did. I don't think anyone would have minded.

The current sniper rifles in PS2 that fire fast, seem to fire almost as fast as an uzi. At least that's how it feels when you empty the clip at short range. The refire rate has always felt insane to me at the damage they do and the accuracy they have. Granted, I'm not a terribly good shot, but I recognise it when someone who is could go haywire with it... I just fail to see the point of the bolt-type in comparison as it is a lot more forgiving, certainly at short range. I've seen many people use it as a shotgun and SMG for infils before they actually gave shotguns and SMGs out and be very effective with it. The only reason to use a bolt in PS2 right now is because it can one shot.

IMO, the speed-firing snipers should be slowed down a bit in rof, while the bolt should lose headshot capacity when silenced and not shown on radar.

I'm not a sniper player myself, as I'm more the melee type ambush player, but this is what seems fair to me and would make there be more of a choice between the playstyles and as I think Blaxican said, offer some balancing options between the empires.