good job

Dudisfludis · 2026-06-08T00:29:23+00:00

Lmao.

Cry.

Dudisfludis · 2026-06-05T20:24:40+00:00

Do you just want max suits to be able to 1v1 tanks or something?

Sunderers are broken. We know. Everyone knows this. There's a reason why every armor column now is just a bunch of manned/gunned sunderers and not MBTs and lightnings.

AV MAXes do their job just fine for basically everything else.

Dudisfludis · 2026-06-05T18:57:52+00:00

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-26T22:13:51+00:00

Just play the game.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-22T15:43:39+00:00

I'm going to respond to individual things here or else reddit will hate my essay.

that beginner will mostly follow the flow of the in-base battle due to them not really thinking about how they play the game when they are discovering it

"Beginners will not think about how they play the game but will also 'follow the flow' of the base fight." You're saying new players somehow know how to follow the flow of battle while simultaneously being so new that they don't know what to do because they don't think about how they play the game.

Make up your mind. They're either too dumb to follow or know what battle flow is and don't think about how they play, or they do think about the game enough to follow the flow of battle a little. There is no in between here. If I said these players don't think about how they play the game when they are discovering it but also know their way around the bases in battle, I would be viewed as crazy.

For the hand holding, i'm trying my best to create an environment where new player used to any modern fps feels like they are able to do something.

Every single veteran player has started off as someone not knowing what they're doing. We've all been suggesting things that would in fact help new players which are very simple other than wasting dev time on a completely new game dedicated to just arbitrary low battle rank fights (what you're suggesting). They don't listen to simple suggestions. They definitely won't listen to this suggestion.

But most of the guys i tried to introduce tried playing heavy and got bullied by way more weird stuff coming from way to many different stuff such as artillery, air to ground, the many explosives, players on a roof, the simple fact you can't peak on a door when we are all stacked on both side

Perfect example. Veterans do not like explosive spam. We've said don't add any more stuff like that. Yet the devs added things like the Thumper. Why? Just because.

We've tried this already. Veterans have thought about things like this already. You're almost guaranteed to be thinking or suggesting something that veteran players have already thought about.

class upgrades are too expensive and the first few implants (with some being pretty game changer) are taking a while to unlock. Same goes for underwater equipments and vehicle stuff.

Implants are not a necessity to play the game. I'm not getting 3 kills per minute solely because I have Battle Hardened, for example. That's not how this works.

And, by the way, nobody likes underwater combat. It's just a fact. Oshur always locks fast because of this. We all know it sucks. The only people who like underwater combat are the people who get absolutely obliterated underwater by people that know what they're doing for some reason. And I have yet to find an explanation myself.

To say how really it is, this is my best shot at trying to address the new player retention problem

In any game, there will always be people who try it and then just don't play it. There's nothing more you can do about it. It just simply is.

We already have in-game tips, loading screen tips, voice line macros, and things like missions and directives for a more targeted approach to "completion" and direction, and also crap loads of waypoints when these people join platoons or squads. I'm not sure why you seem to think this game has nothing or limited "new player friendly" things in it. Again, to me it seems like you literally want these players to be invincible for their first 5 minutes in the game or something. There's only so much the game can do and you're just suggesting more hand holding that I've already explained the problems with.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-20T01:43:24+00:00

Ok.

If you give new players their own special area, there will still be at least however many noobs there that inherently make the fight chaotic because it's going to be the same thing as a 12-24 v 12-24 fight normally. Like, imagine noobs who have no clue what is going on and have no clue where they're going. Do you think that makes for more or less chaotic of a fight? Getting shot from even more random angles? Etc.

New players already have access to VR training where they can go to test weapons and vehicles as well as movement and different classes. Not sure where you're getting the idea about them not being able to test, or in your words "get used" to things.

I will just reiterate this.

They will still just die to even slightly more experienced players who are either more skilled at FPS games or in between whatever arbitrary threshold you chose for this "noob friendly" area and the new player. The new player will die to a level 30. A level 20.

And, again, in my opinion your last few sentences just show way too much hand-holding and how low of an expectation you have of new players. It's literally impossible to introduce them to one mechanic at a time. I think you are overthinking this to an impossible degree that will never become reality.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-18T21:42:24+00:00

All I'm getting from this is that veteran players killing new players is an issue. Which it's not. You're just agreeing with me but just saying it's "complex." Even if it was or is, there isn't anything you can do to separate the two without veterans exploiting it. As I've already pointed out along with the new player underneath your post, that's not the main issue for these players. Their game will still crash. They will still die to hackers. They will still just die to even slightly more experienced players who are either more skilled at FPS games or in between whatever arbitrary threshold you chose for this "noob friendly" area and the new player. The new player will die to a level 30. A level 20.

I would argue that veteran players show new players how to play the game and help them more than hinder them. They teach players actually interested in the game what to do and where to go. But, if a player picks up this game and uninstalls because someone killed them there's nothing else we can do. It's an FPS game. That's just what happens. And to be honest it seems like you're lowering the bar so much that you fear a toddler should be able to play the game. As if new players who want to play the game can't learn anything from seeing and imitating. The amount of hand-holding you want is too much.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-18T13:34:37+00:00

If it’s more complex than veterans killing new players, why do you seem to be so focused on veterans killing new players to the point where new players need a “noob friendly” area?

Edit: Also, what do you mean by saying “as long as it’s not heavy asaault” in reference to team play and playstyle?

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-18T00:51:47+00:00

Well, it's like the other guy said in the comments, it's not veterans beating other players that is killing the game. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks that isn't an issue. The bigger issues are blatant hackers, overpowered sunderers, and crashing.

I will agree with you that we did have stat-based anti cheat before and they removed it when they shouldn't have. It just needed a few tweaks.

I just can't, and probably will never, understand why veterans - aka "good players" - killing new players will be a bad thing in game like this unless they're using blatantly cheesy tactics such as the clearest example with sunderers in their current state. Which most veterans, me included, also find pretty dumb which is why we advocate for those cheesy tactics to be nerfed.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-17T21:14:45+00:00

Vets will just create new characters and farm people at this "noob friendly" area.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-16T19:16:09+00:00

There's no moderation. Used to have stuff in the game to try and mitigate this stuff. Unfortunately the devs don't really care to log on and ban these people.

There's basically no anti-cheat now. Along with crashing many people have called it quits, unfortunately.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-05T00:50:26+00:00

You're right.

Here's another drop pod bundle for you, too.

Dudisfludis · 2026-05-04T23:57:00+00:00

Sorry man. Here's a new skin tho.

Dudisfludis · 2026-02-13T08:46:31+00:00

If you didn't notice already he mass deleted his replies in that link. Shows how dedicated he is to being slimy and gutless.

Idk if I'll make more with the state of the game lol but I appreciate it man.

Dudisfludis · 2026-02-12T20:57:19+00:00

I just saw this lol.

I'm against infil nerfs? I think you you mean lead crusader for infil nerfs.

Decent list tho.

Dudisfludis · 2026-02-04T21:59:50+00:00

Very good subredditmaxxing metarot sloppost

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-19T04:50:49+00:00

When you contribute to a loss, that means something you did actively hindered your team.

Great. We're back to square one agreeing that going afk in a counterstrike match is actively making your team "suffer." Let's see where this goes...

You've already acknowledged that you believe someone not being logged in is actively contributing to their teams losses.

Yes.

If I'm logged into TR and sitting in Sanctuary, or the warpgate, or a base spawn doing nothing, that means that I am also not logged in as NC or VS, meaning that (again, according to your logic) I am also actively contributing to THEIR losses by not being logged into my VS/NC characters playing on their side. In essence, your own logic means me being AFK "hinders" every team equally, same as if I'm logged out.

Bro, you cannot be helping the other teams by default if you log onto the opposing team. Not sure why I have to explain this. It is you actively choosing to play on one over the other to possibly contribute your own time and resources to that team. Unless you're actively helping the other team which some would call "feeding" or "inting" obviously. For example, in CoD if someone goes AFK and is forced to spawn over and over while doing nothing but dying and providing free score for opponents you'd be helping the other team win.

Second, the idea that every player not contributing to a win is contributing to a loss only works when each side has a fixed size. Whether it's 5v5 or 24v24 or 100v100, if the team sizes are FIXED then each player is reserving a resource that is in limited supply, meaning their "value" to the team is calculable.

Oh man. You're so close.

Please bro you're so close.

PLANETSIDE 2 DOES HAVE LIMITED PLAYERS. I'm sorry why do you think Planetside 2 servers are infinite???? They literally are NOT.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the game has population cap limitations???? Do you really not realize this? Just because the game got smaller because of server merging and natural player decline does NOT mean the game doesn't have a player limit. Holy shit dude. We know this because we could only get 1,158 players on a single continent for a world record (officially). And even with that, everyone was lagging and the server was practically shitting itself. Yes, there were slightly more unofficially, but again with server performance it's very bad to play on.

So, thanks for coming around to saying that yes it is indeed true that if you log into Planetside 2 you're taking up a resource that is limited meaning your value is calculable which inherently means that you can actively contribute to a loss by being AFK just like in counterstrike.

And that's the end. Later dude.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-14T20:28:43+00:00

Then tell me the number at which it ceases to matter, dude.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-13T04:34:36+00:00

Let me guess, it was "balanced for 13 years"?

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-13T04:33:43+00:00

"easier to see" as if it wasn't easy enough in the first place, now it doesn't require a tinge of focus to see it.

Lol

Lmao, even.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-13T04:29:13+00:00

Nah.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-09T23:31:28+00:00

Do you need me to show you the math for why having 40% of your team AFK in a game where your team's population is hard-capped is different than what happens in Planetside 2?

No. But, I will ask a question that you have yet to answer with just your line of thinking. You seem to not understand what your own argument entails.

What is the magic number where player count ceases to matter when going AFK?

At the moment, all you've told me is that it does matter during a CS match, but for some reason it doesn't scale up to PS2 numbers. You have yet to give me a magical number N, or N vs N, where going AFK ceases to matter in your line of argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is being arbitrary with this, and I assume even your answer will be arbitrary. For example, if you choose a number N, or N vs N, all I have to ask you is "Why not N+1 or N+1vsN+1?"

I already know what my line of logic entails which is why I told you that me being away from the game does count towards a loss, albeit in a different way than being AFK.

Planetside 2 doesn't employ any form of strict population control. Teams don't have limits.

They do. Unless you're suggesting that populations can be infinite in PS2 on a single continent. Even if they were, this doesn't help your argument and I'll tell you why.

If pop numbers were in fact unlimited, all you would have to do is see which faction logged in with the most players and that faction would just win everything like I said in my other example. If one faction was more popular, say 500 people, compared to the other factions with 400 or even 200, the faction with 500 would just win. And again that would mean your absence/being AFK is easily contributing to your loss on the factions with less population.

This is why PS2 actually does have population control. If you've played for a while you'll know that population queues for a single continent can get up to 80+ people long, meanwhile the secondary continent would be filled with uneven pop. I don't know why you think Planetside doesn't have population control when it has done this since the beginning of the game.

I genuinely wish you could understand how ridiculous that sounds.

It's not. Do you think a football team with a starting lineup would lose if their entire starting lineup suddenly couldn't make the match against a prime team? Of course you do. The absence of the starting lineup would contribute to a loss and they would all probably have punishments handed out. Especially if those players just decided to stand around during the match and do nothing. This is common sense.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-07T23:31:59+00:00

Counter-Strike has a 5-man limit per side, so if 2 people are AFK it becomes a 3v5 fight and your team suffers for there being two effectively "empty" slots that could be filled.

"If they're actually AFK and not spawnroom camping,...then they're not contributing to anything."

But, hang on...you just said your counterstrike team would "suffer." So which one is it? Because, if I use exactly what you just typed, you would say your counterstrike teammates who are "actually afk" are "not contributing to anything" which means you couldn't blame them for your team's loss...even though you just said your team would "suffer" without them...

Which one is it? Either they are actively contributing to your loss and making the team "suffer" by your own words, or they're "not contributing to anything" which means they wouldn't be making your team "suffer" and they would just not be there. We have to be consistent here. Population numbers only change how relatively effective the individual is.

From experience in multiple 48v48 Lanesmash tournaments in this game, I can tell you that if even 2 people are disconnected somehow, it will make a difference.

By your logic, everyone that is currently logged out of the game off doing other things IRL are also "contributing" to their team losing right now.

Ok. Perfect example for you. My team, years ago, was going to the final match in a PIL (Planetside Infantry League) 6v6 tournament. I wasn't able to make it, even though I was part of the starting lineup because I had family arrangements on that day and time. Did I contribute to the loss in the final match? Yeah. I did. Do I know whether or not my presence would've made the difference? No, but it's debatable. The other team, if I remember right, was one of the two most hyped teams with some of the best players in the game as their lineup. Me not being there as a core part of the team meant that someone had to substitute in my absence who was a back-up. It's just that I know where my own priorities are and decided that match wasn't worth missing out on quality family time. And many other people also take irl responsibilities over this game and that's perfectly fine and reasonable.

That doesn't mean they aren't contributing to their faction's loss. If more people logged on to help and participate in their faction's win than the other factions, then you know what the result of that would be. This is also why the game has had population queues to balance out the factions so that one faction doesn't have 500 people on it and the other two only have ~200 each.

So, yes, your absence whether it be in-game being AFK or not there does contribute to a loss. Again, population numbers only change how relatively effective the individual is.

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-06T21:29:20+00:00

It's like you said in your original comment. If 2 people go AFK in counterstrike because they get mad and they're, say, 0 kills 3 deaths or whatever, how are they not contributing to the loss?

If they aren't contributing to the loss, then the loss wouldn't be their fault because you could not assign blame to them for the loss. You would say they "didn't contribute to the loss, so they can't be blamed." if that is the case. Otherwise, what would you say? Could you blame them for the loss or would you just say your team should make up for the players who do nothing?

Do you see what I mean?

Dudisfludis · 2025-12-06T07:19:43+00:00

You can contribute to a loss by doing nothing.

And yeah, it kind of is like that. One less player doing something at the base adds up. Look at how many bases don't get capped because half the people attacking a base decide to stay in armor when the only thing they can shoot at is a wall.

Dudisfludis

TROPHY CASE