Our concerns made it to PCGamer.com - Page 5

Flycutter · 2013-01-03, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer.

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

Whose idea was it to remove the teleport from the spawn room of tech plants? I am just curious how this came out of the design meeting as a good idea.

I have always felt that if you know the reason something is done it might give you a different outlook and people might be more accepting of changes.

Wang · 2013-01-03, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by MuNrOe

Launch a game then take 2 weeks holiday and go silent you are correct. Poor timing.

I really hope that the devs take more out of this than just "K/D stats are ruining the game let me see how much my engineer heals derp".

The problem stems from the lack of defensible and fun infantry only bases , spawn rooms being located in stupid positions and lack of doors. As well as the vech being able to shell every inch of the map problem.

Vech job should be to fight in the open and to push the enemy inside the base. Not prevent them from spawning or moving to objectives to defend them.

Add that to the complete lack of meta game and staged whack a mole strategic fighting and you have the problem at it roots.

All that is true but the devs have already said they heard us they said that the game would launch with no meta but they are working on it so why is that everyone is blasting the game for not having it yet? Its only been weeks and those weeks were right n the middle of a national holiday(in america) but everyone is flaming and demanding. I know a little basic java coding and it is HELL. I can't imagine what it take to actually code and deploy to the game all the changes people want but it will take more than weeks. Am I missing something? If you put what works in the game next to what's broken its still a good game better than any fps ive played recently but if I say that I get flamed because everyone wants to just play reskinned ps1.

Also note that I completely agree with u on the bases. I hate random holes in the walls of military bases but any given base is better designed than most levels in normal fpses

Crator · 2013-01-03, 08:29 PM

Change rate in beta was way to slow imo. Only 3 months for beta, a "true" beta where player feedback (a lot of it, almost too much for just 3 months) was given and listened to.

Although a lot was listened to they just didn't have time to try everything.
I don't think devs could have kept up, technically, making so many changes in just 3 months. It was hard to get them to budge on the G-AMS ordeal too. That was the biggest one. Beta should have been much longer!

Drakkonan · 2013-01-03, 08:51 PM

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.

MrBloodworth · 2013-01-04, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by infinite loop

This is all well and good, and this fact kept me encouraged about the future of the game. That said, these changes you mention are mostly the low-hanging fruit and grossly ignore the significant problems with the game as highlighted in Buzz's thread. Most of the topics he covers have been at the top of the list of 'must-dos' since early in beta and nothing has been done to address any of them. Alot of us, myself included, are heavily invested in this franchise, both financially and emotionally and want to see it succeed. The lack of any progress towards resolving these core issues has left my hope dwindling and seen my playtime plummet. I fear the next big "update" will simply be more trivial/cosmetic and do nothing to save this sinking ship.

This.

CraazyCanuck · 2013-01-04, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Drakkonan

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.

This. Incentive for time spent defending an area or re/capturing a key high adjacency value hex. Improved team rewards. Adjusting the xp reward based on current regional population density of enemy would be a good move. Regional resource bonus based on length of time a region was held without interuption of possession? Simple xp missions that are based off the current resource supply and hex possession of your faction and the enemy factions?

Highstall · 2013-01-04, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Vashyo

http://steamgraph.net/index.php?acti...=1357250400000

Sadly if you've monitored steam statistics on player numbers at all, the peak player count has effectively halved since launch weeks. Most of my friends don't play anymore either, sigh...

So obviously majority of people don't feel like playing the game as much anymore, unless something happens soon.

Look, all the "OMG - people are LEEAAAVING" hysteria on the forums is completely misplaced. You are looking at the steamgraphs - so, do some comparisons. Here - I'll do some for you:
http://steamgraph.net/index.php?acti...=1357279200000

This thing you're seeing - where people pile in early and then dive out just as quick? That happens to every game, in even greater percentages than PS2 is seeing. People are actually responding really well to Planetside - and if they keep improving it over the months, you will start to see something like Torchlight 2 is experiencing - where the numbers actually start to creep back up as it increases the community over time.

Just because the passionate few in the forums rip their hair out and argue ceaselessly over game problems - that pretty much par for any forum these days. In fact, the louder the forums sound, the more people care. That's a good thing.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-04, 10:28 PM

Kind of a pathetic comparison if you ask me, especially considering planetside 2 is the only free to play game amongst the three shown, which makes it even worse, but thanks for sharing that.

Planetside can least afford to lose players compared to those other games. This game requires a healthy population as it is completely player-driven. Any negative churn is bad, really bad considering this game is completely free.

Highstall · 2013-01-04, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

Kind of a pathetic comparison if you ask me, especially considering planetside 2 is the only free to play game amongst the three shown, which makes it even worse, but thanks for sharing that.

Planetside can least afford to lose players compared to those other games. This game requires a healthy population as it is completely player-driven. Any negative churn is bad, really bad considering this game is completely free.

You're missing the point. It's not "negative churn" - it's just the way people try games. Every game spikes hard on release and then people wander away. There is no "grab everyone from release day and never let go." Building a lasting community is a slow process and will take time and a lot of good features rolled out every few months over years.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-04, 11:21 PM

I think you're missing the point. You should do some research on some FTP games. Comparing this game to paid ones and saying, "see" is really pathetic if you think about it.

artifice · 2013-01-04, 11:37 PM

One thing I know is that SOE listens to its player base. I also know that they aren't going to act on everything said because sometimes there's a very loud and vocal minority and it takes time to filter through it. There are also times that while something be a negative, the effect of it being the opposite or different will be worse. Not everything is black and white. Each system and design have positive and negative effects.

It also doesn't mean they are going to react right away as sometimes caution is better with major changes and giving it time to see how it works itself out is the better option instead of giving into a knee jerk reaction.

When they do listen and plan to change things accordingly, it doesn't mean the changes will happen immediately as it takes time to design the right solution and and develop the changes.

Beerbeer · 2013-01-05, 12:32 AM

I hate to say it, but I don't think "listening to fans" at this point will make a difference.

They should have listened before the game was released.

They are listening, but they're listening to the wrong people. I'm not sure who these select fans are, but these people just reinforce their bad game decisions. Placaters? Self-serving? Ensuring their playstyle is there, not realizing that they are in the minority when it comes to FPS games?

Good job I guess?

ringring · 2013-01-05, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Drakkonan

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.

Hmm, half right.

The xp for kills isn't important but if only the capture XP was proportional to the 'fight' it would be beneficial. And again if the was a XP award for the resecure of a base/outpost, again proportional to the 'fight' that had taken place.

However, these alone won't cut it. Many other things also need to change and the fundamental problem is that launch was with only 3 continents and no over-arching meta game.

The success or not of PS2 will depend on how quickly they can add that in otherwise people will continue to drift away and the consequent bad publicity will continue stop new people starting up.

What will the situation be in 1 years time I wonder?

Wahooo · 2013-01-05, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer.

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

A lot of those things were brought up by player feed back BEFORE beta even started... but we had to PROVE it during beta to be heard.

Same as the general lack of meta-game and non-defensible bases. Only now it isn't beta, and people aren't waiting for the next beta patch and playing anyway. Actual customers are simply leaving.

Highstall · 2013-01-05, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

I think you're missing the point. You should do some research on some FTP games. Comparing this game to paid ones and saying, "see" is really pathetic if you think about it.

Wow, so your opinion is clearly set regardless of any contradicting information. Why educate yourself when blustering negativity is so fulfilling?

For anyone else who cares to inform themselves a little: games always spike hard on release, and then drop way down. Check my last post and browse different games on steam (since specific player numbers aren't really made public elsewhere.). Planetside will have to build on its community over years with new features, promotions and polish.