Player numbers dropping fast

[mintieman]

And you can see this in the lack of search results in the join game screen which seems pretty empty now.
Starfield release will defo not help this situation.
Despite what some people say i think that MP in this game should provide 100's of hours of game play but just doesn't seem to like R1 did and still does for me and a lot of other players.
One word seem to be used a lot and that is fun, people who are quitting the game seem to say that it is no fun.
Why is this game no fun? i know why it isn't for me but curious on others opinions.
Thanks

[i2um1]

Kappa a écrit :

However, if you mean getting the achievement... well... a lot of players would disagree with it ( as they are not currently able to hit some of them cause bugs ).

I know about the bugs. It's a rough estimate when you don't have bugs.

Usually, a game has a couple of extreme hard achievements. Remnant 2 has simple achievements.

[Plasma Wizard]

Kappa a écrit :

Well, lower difficulties ( survivor/vet ) are ( were ) already not hard.

The only opinion on survivor difficulty that should really count is the opinion of players who need to stay there. Because (for whatever reason) they can't go any higher, but they can't go any lower either.

Unfortunately, the developers have chosen to balance in a way where everyone has to worry about being affected by the changes no matter the difficulty

[Atma]

Knurrfaucher a écrit :

Kappa a écrit :

Well, lower difficulties ( survivor/vet ) are ( were ) already not hard.

The only opinion on survivor difficulty that should really count is the opinion of players who need to stay there. Because (for whatever reason) they can't go any higher, but they can't go any lower either.

Unfortunately, the developers have chosen to balance in a way where everyone has to worry about being affected by the changes no matter the difficulty

They don't HAVE to. But I think they are pretty happy w/ the difficulty level of Survivor currently.

Gunfire Games hasn't struck me as a team that "caters to casuals" or makes changes to a game based on feedback if they don't agree w/ the sentiment (see Trait cap, etc).

Not sure why people would suddenly feel like they rebalancing the enemy modifiers is because of some kind of public outcry and not because they looked at it and agreed that they may be a bit much.

[Kappa]

Knurrfaucher a écrit :

Kappa a écrit :

Well, lower difficulties ( survivor/vet ) are ( were ) already not hard.

The only opinion on survivor difficulty that should really count is the opinion of players who need to stay there. Because (for whatever reason) they can't go any higher, but they can't go any lower either.

Unfortunately, the developers have chosen to balance in a way where everyone has to worry about being affected by the changes no matter the difficulty

Let's consider that even since the 3 days pre release survivor was faceroll, even with the old afflixes, MP scaling, and bosses.

Moving from this, bosses have a defined% of health depending the difficulty, and afflixes are just additive percentages.

So, if a boss deals 100% damage, a vicious one would have dealt 135% ( iirc), and now the same boss would deal 115%.

But still nothing changed in terms of difficulty, though they might have kept every difficulty apart from the others ( but considering the game was ok since release, they could have left everything as it was).

[Grimzy]

"Fun" is very subjective and differs per person. Some beat the game multiple times but still have fun and and joy playing it others leave after beating it and move to the next game.
For a single player game like this its normal, and nothing to be concerned about.

I dont understand why people think player numbers are is-all / be-all when it comes to games. If you base your desire to play a game based on player numbers you will run out of games to play as time goes on.

[i2um1]

Grimzy a écrit :

I dont understand why people think player numbers are is-all / be-all when it comes to games. If you base your desire to play a game based on player numbers you will run out of games to play as time goes on.

There are several issues:
1. You don't have time to play video games unless you are a student.
2. You don't want to spend money on bad games. Btw, the game does not have regional prices.
3. You have several games that you bought but didn't run.
4. Each 2-4 months you have a new big title.

100-200 hours is enough to wait for the next game. It's impossible to run out of games since some of them require 1000+ hours. I'm talking about single player games of course.

Grimzy a écrit :

Some beat the game multiple times

A campaign in Remnant 2 is about 15 hours. Do not overestimate the game if you can do repetitive things.

[DaxiraxJr]

What point are you trying to make? People move on to different games once they've played the previous one enough? People will move from whatever game you're excited about. Do we point that out when it happens too?

[Xaelon]

Another one of these threads?

I've had to explain why Remnant 2's concurrent player count doesn't matter so many times at this point I'm probably going to start reusing previous replies.

The player count is going down because people have beaten the game or quit playing. That's what happens. Once people are finished with a game they move on. Not every game is designed to be played for 1000 hours.

The concurrent player count means literally nothing because the quality of the game experience doesn't depend on having other people to play with. While multiplayer might make the game more fun for you that doesn't change the fact that the game is 100% playable and beatable solo. I spent probably 90% of my playtime solo and I had a great time.

Additionally the game isn't a live service and doesn't have microtransactions to sell. It doesn't NEED players to continue to login after they've finished the game because Remnant 2 makes all it's money from selling the actual game. The player count will also go right back up as soon as the game gets a major update of some kind.

[mintieman]

I guess the point is that R1 provided way more MP content for me personally and i think a lot of other players too.
The decisions the devs took have led to a drastic decline in player numbers and with all the negative buzz about bugs and unplayable games it will impact future sales.
With less player numbers the bug fixes that some players need to just play the game are less urgent (less people shouting i guess as they have given up and moved on)
This game is not marketed as a 15 hour play once and move on game despite what some players believe.
I mentioned the fun thing because it appears to be a word used a lot in the reason why players are moving on, myself included.
The MP search results are producing way fewer results, i guarantee you the devs are wondering why player numbers have dropped so fast and they need to look at the feedback on these forums to find out why.

[Atma]

mintieman a écrit :

I guess the point is that R1 provided way more MP content for me personally and i think a lot of other players too.
The decisions the devs took have led to a drastic decline in player numbers and with all the negative buzz about bugs and unplayable games it will impact future sales.
With less player numbers the bug fixes that some players need to just play the game are less urgent (less people shouting i guess as they have given up and moved on)
This game is not marketed as a 15 hour play once and move on game despite what some players believe.
I mentioned the fun thing because it appears to be a word used a lot in the reason why players are moving on, myself included.
The MP search results are producing way fewer results, i guarantee you the devs are wondering why player numbers have dropped so fast and they need to look at the feedback on these forums to find out why.

Game's been out for over a month at a time when other great games are dropping.

You're talking about a 15 hour playthrough, but that's plenty of time for even people who really like this game to rack up hundreds of hours.

I think I have like 150+ hours at this point. If I put it down to play some Armored Core or something, that doesn't mean that I liked this game any less or that I felt that it was bad.

[Ottomic]

mintieman a écrit :

Trait cap

Install the mod. Or don't. Nobody cares if you play the game.

[Dark-Buddha]

I just want in-game chat or text. Please. Or lobby lists. They made so much money on release it feels like a slap in the face they won't even announce PLANS to add ANYTHING for multiplayer quality of life. I tried discord, the people there are rude and pretentious, or are just selling hacks or carries. I just want someone to play with normally, casually, without having to search through piles of discord posts from the same handful of people who don't even play anymore.

[Mr Chicken]

Lack of text chat, voice chat, a proper lobby list and the ability to see server ping will kill a game since public lobbies just don't work.

[ZenienSight]

I hate this, because I love the... (what could describe this feeling..) idea(?), feeling(?) of Remnant 2.

But it boils down to: It's actually not infinitely replayable- there just isn't enough content and the content being RNG really just makes you replay the same levels over and over hoping for a x% chance of item/event (and that you actually see it and trigger it properly) is not what many would consider 'fun'.

The RNG in the first game really grinded my gears, but the RNG in this one, really reminded me of Diablo 4 because both games came out so close together; both making you play for more hours and not so much for fun.

Both D4 and R2 were fun at first, but became laborious (for me) soon after I realized there was a cap on power (trait limit cap), fairly uncreative mods (same mods from R1 but less powerful or "balanced"), restrictive weapon choices (all elemental guns are handguns and are flamethrowers of sorts), reliance on secrets (which isn't "bad" but all the wow factors vanish very quickly if secrets are so obscure you're playing the game with the wiki on a second monitor), poor Boss/unique weapons (sure DPS may be "more" but are they more well-rounded and "better" than the starter weapons you can buy right off the get go?), and I'm sure I'm missing other nit-picks that made me sour at this game after initially loving it.

I still like this game, but the honeymoon phase has passed and R2 is good looking, but now I see its flaws more so than ever and I'm out of love for it.

Also, if they removed the RNG and made it like Dark Souls, this game would lose nothing (I'm pretty sure). But since that's a staple of this series now, it's not going away, so the thing that could make players play more (stay longer) would've been to uncap the trait cap or some sort of paragon infinite leveling system.

I think one of the most important things devs can do for actual infinite play-ability, is really allow player expression. Be it PC mods, gear complexity, and fashion (for this game), things this game REALLY lacks. Plus, the gameplay itself is pretty one-note (guns-ablazing is the most optimal way to play), it's not bad by any means, it's just really, basic.

Just my 2 cents.

[bladeddragonknight]

You people would get more replay value if you played on hardcore...game turns into a roguelite.