Those at PSU on the issues with the game.
It focuses on the metagame, which I think is -the- most important thing SOE need to address. Balance issues, capping issues and all that work themselves out after a while, but they will only work themselves out if there's a larger picture that is guiding the design.
With such a lack of metagame, and the problems with what metagame exists, there seems to be little larger picture against which to set changes...
The issue being that nothing about PS2 provides very much impetus for a metgame to develop; it desperately needs work on the empire-level gameplay.
Or have I got the wrong metagaming?
Maybe I'm just too twitchy about it after the official forums, but most people seem to think of "metagame" as some kind of overarching goal or objective. You'll see posts like "PS2 needs a metagame".
Every online game has a metagame, it's not something you make or unmake, it's not even something you can affect directly. It's a reaction of players to rules presented in the game.
Today's metagame is anti infantry vehicle cannons!
I don't quite understand why someone is complaining for many paragraphs about how it's not efficient to do this and how the game just encourages (bluegh) "farming" and then goes on to explain his own detailed system for farming kills.
Here's a crazy idea: STOP DOING THAT. You are responsible for your own behaviour. If you don't like farming kills, don't do it. It's not like you need to do it to stay competitive - player levels are meaningless, and aside from a handful of items, most unlocks are unnecessary.
I do agree that there are too many vehicles, though.
State of the game in a graph:
Pretty common trend for F2P though. Not having a tutorial at all is probably not helping.
Having 1/3 of the active players this long after release for a F2P game looks good.
I imagine we'll get some server merges soon enough. Which would be fine.
We're still getting enough people in-game for there to be continent queues on Miller. That's all that's needed.
Question is, how many stopped using steam, just to play without it, since there are absolutely no benefits of having it on steam apart from having it in one big messy library to brag.
I don't play via steam, and never do if I can help it, but I doubt that's a significant factor as far as that chart is concerned. Sure, more people will be playing than the graph shows, but I very much doubt it affects the proportion of players who have dropped off.
dont forget: steam only reflects the people that played in beta, and north american users. The ProSieben client is not available through steam.
PS2, CODBLOPS and CS:Go you'll find a similar graph for each one of them with a huge spike at the start and a decline afterwards.
But this comparison is lacking as well, because they're not F2P games. Chivalry and CS:Go got quite some players when they went on sale, which isn't really possible for PS2 (although they could think of some kind of Starter-Pack... I think there are some MMOs on Steam that do that).
I have no idea, how many people are playing and if the decline is dramatic. I have no idea, how many players use Steam for PS2 (I don't). But ingame I'm still seeing enough guys shooting each other and I just find that showing off those graphs as some kind of proof is pretty pointless.
Imagine the increase in satisfaction in taking a base if it was much harder to immediately take back as soon as the mass off players runs off to the next one!
Seems more like spike and stabilization for BLOPS and CS:Go and steady decline for PS2 to me...Quote:
If you look e.g. at a comparison between PS2, CODBLOPS and CS:Go you'll find a similar graph for each one of them with a huge spike at the start and a decline afterwards.
That's probably because PS2 is an F2P game, which always see a massive number on launch which decays pretty fast, until you have a solid user base that has invested time and money in the game. PS2 is doing totally fine.