My 2 cents: I dont give a crap about statistics. When i want to play a game here in Europe, the popular servers are full all the time. The only reason that might cause low average playercounts is that the game can be very frustrating from time to time. The hitreg issues they are working on are a factor why I dont get to spend as many hours per ns2 session as I did in ns1.
<!--quoteo(post=2042303:date=Dec 9 2012, 02:39 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 9 2012, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not bad, this is the trend of pretty much every game release. Player population always drops in a <a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=200710q200510q201790q202990&from=1341126000000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">roughly logarithmic faction from release day</a>. NS2 wasn't likely to gain the huge 10,000+ launch day playercount because its a much more niche game than many FPS games.
I'd say NS2 is probably in the mid-to-high range for playercount for indie games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
problem is, why must we follow the trend of other game releases? it seems like you're resorting to conformity in order to justify the population drop / low population. there ARE fundamental problems with the game, be it performance or a steep learning curve or some problems other posters have brought up. but more importantly, why aim low when you have the potential to achieve something bigger?
<!--quoteo(post=2042308:date=Dec 9 2012, 02:55 PM:name=bERt0r)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bERt0r @ Dec 9 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My 2 cents: I dont give a crap about statistics. When i want to play a game here in Europe, the popular servers are full all the time. The only reason that might cause low average playercounts is that the game can be very frustrating from time to time. The hitreg issues they are working on are a factor why I dont get to spend as many hours per ns2 session as I did in ns1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'm very envious of you european players. you have a bustling competitive scene back in ns1 and also now in ns2. like it or not, it contributed to the game's popularity in your region. i wish i could say the same for mine.
Plenty of full australian servers, and a good community. But I guess that's always been the case, we love our ns in straya.
Having said that, personally I still have issues with performance and lack of variety. Less so with hitreg problems but they are still definitely noticeable.
<!--quoteo(post=2042253:date=Dec 8 2012, 07:43 PM:name=Flipper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flipper @ Dec 8 2012, 07:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042253"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People who are blaming the population woes on bad performance are living in a dream world. Yes the game has bad performance, its coded in lua for some dumb reason, making it a cpu chomper.
The game suffers from many more problems, like it or not the modern 14 year old gamer craves progression of some sort, of which ns2 offers none. There is not strategic variation, its very much like a flavour of the month situation in any mmo, the nerf something, and soon all you see is one strategy (early onos is a good example).
People who see the game as a e-sport are delusional as becoming a esport requires a massive fanbase to wwatch said game. Look at the big games, LoL, SC2, etc all have massive fanbases.
I would of liked to see a game in either source or a well established engine for good performance, and then more strategic options/variations. Currently everygame in pubs and competitive play have strategies that are cookie cutter and only change when a patch hits.
You can only play the same thing for so long until you get bored (unless your a brainded cs 1.6 player). And this simple fact dooms the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. The rest is PR. It doesnt matter how good a game really is, it does matter how good the PR machinery behind that is. If you look at DotA2 you have a huge Steam-campaign behind that (and a predecessor that was WAY more successful than NSI was), giving out free access to some lucky people only after some waiting and slowly integrating the free 2 play model initially planned - so that people would think its something special when they received it as a gift (the feeling that subsided at least with your 4th gift of DotA). That was a clever move. And DotA2 is categorizing players by skills.
Basically a game isnt fun if you feel bad. You will stop it very fast if you feel that too long. Other games integrate matchmaking systems and achievement systems to prevent this from happening.
This game is psychologically oldschool. Modern games have a very elaborated motivational psychology background nowadays. This game completely ignores that as games in the past always did. The result is that only core gamers stay but not the mainstream casual gamer. In addition to a inefficient PR - only a handful of game reviews on metacritic, less enough so that one bad will break in the average. Steam is the only viable PR method that works. UWE really should think about using that further (sales)
The mechanics of the RTS/FPS element for a retail game were not thought through. As someone above said they expected player knowledge, well uh-oh, you're expecting people of your own intellectual ability to drop in and play? Mistake.
In the short-term, for gameplay, a "combat mode" as the main focus of play competitively and casually would be a fix. In 12 months time, when you fix performance problems, bring back classic with a competitive tournament only to show it off. Then after that tournament, release it back in to the wild when people know more about the game, the playstyle and more importantly, the performance allows it to work.
It might not be your vision, or even mine, or what others want, but to keep the players, you might have to play your business like a game of chess.
<!--quoteo(post=2042355:date=Dec 9 2012, 12:53 PM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (glimmerman @ Dec 9 2012, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042355"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plenty of full australian servers, and a good community. But I guess that's always been the case, we love our ns in straya.
Having said that, personally I still have issues with performance and lack of variety. Less so with hitreg problems but they are still definitely noticeable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is MARINE DUDE still around? That is the only metric by which I measure the health/or lack thereof when it comes to the Australian NS scene.
I haven't seen much of a decline in players on my server (west coast USA). It's full 8-12 hours a day.
Edit: I will comment on one thing. It's hard to get players from our TF2 servers to play NS2. I imagine the problem is performance. TF2 isn't a demanding game, so I suspect lots of players have underpowered machines for NS2.
To see how it is done right look at Chivalry <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920q219640&from=1351724400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action...amp;to=End+Time</a> I find myself enjoying it more than ns2. Especially the melee combat is very satisfying. The NS2 one is not.
I blame that on the animation system, performance issues, the net code and missing attention to details (do we have bullet decals yet?). It just doesn't feel like I'm doing damage in ns2... it's not satisfying. The missing tutorial is probably an issue for other players which did not play NS1.
And the bad thing is that it does not make a lot of sense for UWE to invest in fixing those issues. Those fixes will not generate revenue and they have to live and think of the future as well. (maybe sell hats?)
Is it just me or NS2 had 2,500 players a week ago? Just a thousand more.
Played 3 games in a row on Refinery today. Decent players on both teams. Marines got crushed 3 times. Joined another game on Veil. 8 vs 6. 6 aliens. Aliens are down to 2 hives. Marines can't push through and slowly lose until the end.
Personally, I'm okay with that. I lost so many times for marines I don't even care anymore. NS2 isn't the only game out there.
And I think performance isn't the issue here. I play on 35 fps, drops to 20 sometimes. Still, I get to the top of the list. But you lose again and again for marines, no matter what.
Then I look at Flayra's Balance Mod. Changes planned for 233 (updated 11/21 5:11pm PST) - None at the moment. Enjoy the live build instead!
<!--quoteo(post=2042366:date=Dec 9 2012, 08:36 AM:name=runner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (runner @ Dec 9 2012, 08:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042366"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the short-term, for gameplay, a "combat mode" as the main focus of play competitively and casually would be a fix.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They tried this in NS1, it was a disaster. Classic play basically dried up. You could argue that this means combat mode is "better" but for fans and I think the devs of NS, the goal isn't to make a game that the most people want to play. It's to make the game they wanted to play and like. If that means fewer people, so be it. I think combat is popular because it taps into the "Call of Duty" demographic: It's run and gun without any strategy. It's very easy to quickly and consistently get into a game and get the toys that normally take you much longer to get, if you get them at all in classic mode. The solution isn't giving up on the core mechanics that makes your game unique, it's to find ways to make it better and more accessible.
The learning curve for NS isn't particularly bad. A good comparison is DOTA. That's a tremendously popular game, with a horrendous learning curve. Even more so than Natural Selection, you are dependent on your team mates doing their job. DOTA is far more hardcore than NS.
What I think DOTA games do very well is match making. While there is a learning curve, at least you're likely to be with similarly skilled players. A match making system for NS would also help alleviate one of its biggest problems: a single player, your commander, can easily ruin the game. Really, even if all the match making system did was to help commanders find games where they were needed it would be awesome. Instead of voting your commander out, you could vote to have the match making system find you a new one. Also, ping is less of a factor in match making for commanders, which would also help.
That said, match making done poorly can also ruin a game. I remember hoping that Counter Strike Global Offensive would be awesome due to the match making system, but it sucked. Maybe it is better now but you either got placed in a mostly empty server or on a server where you had a horrible ping. Those are the two things a system like that absolutely must avoid. It would be better to have higher skilled players playing with lower skilled players than to do that.
<!--quoteo(post=2042202:date=Dec 9 2012, 12:51 AM:name=dissection)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dissection @ Dec 9 2012, 12:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe the problem really is the extremely high demands on aiming capabilty. I`m okay with being bad in this game, but i can imagine many wont. The aliens are fast as hell and that makes it difficult for both sides. This isnt something you`ll learn in a few weeks and thats the problem. This game mostly appeals to those with years of first person shooter experience and a very high mouse accuracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would curious to try the game with the following changes, to see how it feels: Slow down everybody down, increase alien health and marines ammo accordingly.
Here is a graph: <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=12570&from=0" target="_blank">http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action...2570&from=0</a>
If you look really closely, you'll see why NS2 has let us down.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2042315:date=Dec 8 2012, 11:35 PM:name=cream)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cream @ Dec 8 2012, 11:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->problem is, why must we follow the trend of other game releases? it seems like you're resorting to conformity in order to justify the population drop / low population. there ARE fundamental problems with the game, be it performance or a steep learning curve or some problems other posters have brought up. but more importantly, why aim low when you have the potential to achieve something bigger?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't conformity to look at how a game performs with regards to its peers. To know if a roughly 5000 playcount drop from the release is good or bad, you need something to compare it to. In this case, many games that most people would consider successful have much higher drops in playercount than NS2. The biggest difference is that NS2 had a much smaller initial jump in playercount, which makes a bit of sense when you consider that NS2 is a niche game without an AAA-studio advertising budget.
<!--quoteo(post=2042396:date=Dec 9 2012, 06:04 AM:name=tobias3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tobias3 @ Dec 9 2012, 06:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042396"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To see how it is done right look at Chivalry <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920q219640&from=1351724400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action...amp;to=End+Time</a> I find myself enjoying it more than ns2. Especially the melee combat is very satisfying. The NS2 one is not.
I blame that on the animation system, performance issues, the net code and missing attention to details (do we have bullet decals yet?). It just doesn't feel like I'm doing damage in ns2... it's not satisfying. The missing tutorial is probably an issue for other players which did not play NS1.
And the bad thing is that it does not make a lot of sense for UWE to invest in fixing those issues. Those fixes will not generate revenue and they have to live and think of the future as well. (maybe sell hats?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you look at the playercount from the <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920q219640&from=1346482800000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">initial release of both games</a>, it actually looks like Chivalry had a worse release playercount than NS2 (peak of 4562 vs 7135 for NS2). However, it looks like Chivalry had either a free weekend or steam sale in late November, which temporarily goosed its numbers into the 8000+ range. NS2 can and will do something similar in the future, which is why the talk of it being "dead" or having "low playercount" is pretty silly.
Also, UWE has fully committed to fully patching the game for free for quite a while. We've already been through four patches from the release as UWE is both constantly improving performance, fixing bugs, tweaking balance, working on new features and maps.
The NS2 content patch that will get more players back into the game would most likely include:
- Gorge improvements: Can build unlimited number of structures, although only 8 per room. Allow Gorge to build Crag structures. Gorge gets babbler ability, which are small spider-like things the Gorge can release to attack/slow down marines (jetpackers too)
- Marines get Heavy Machine Gun back. High rate of fire, low accuracy, long reload time. Not effective vs. buildings, but excellent vs. aliens.
<!--quoteo(post=2042499:date=Dec 9 2012, 08:47 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 9 2012, 08:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, UWE has fully committed to fully patching the game for free for quite a while. We've already been through four patches from the release as UWE is both constantly improving performance, fixing bugs, tweaking balance, working on new features and maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We haven't seen a patch for three weeks. Balance on pubs is broken, aliens win constantly. Player count now is 1330. Players lose 1, 2, 3, 5 games and then just uninstall it.
<!--quoteo(post=2042499:date=Dec 9 2012, 10:47 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 9 2012, 10:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, UWE has fully committed to fully <b>patching the game for free</b> for quite a while. We've already been through four patches from the release as UWE is both constantly improving performance, fixing bugs, tweaking balance, working on new features and maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the thing is, the ###### they're having to patch out should've been taken care of way before release. The hitreg thing especially.
Bottom line though, you can't/shouldn't look at ns1 1.0 and ns2 1.0 the same way... ns1 1.0 was a free mod released for the HL1 engine. It was a pretty well known thing that mods were WIP's and unfinished. Ns2 1.0 is a released product being sold on steam. When you release a game for sale, it's supposed to be a finished game. Ns2 1.0 is not a free mod and doesn't/shouldn't get to hide behind the fact that ns1 took years to get finalized... you're dealing with two totally different things. If there is any version of NS1 that NS2 should be compared to at all, it should be 3.0
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2042566:date=Dec 9 2012, 12:32 PM:name=ritualsacrifice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ritualsacrifice @ Dec 9 2012, 12:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042566"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But the thing is, the ###### they're having to patch out should've been taken care of way before release. The hitreg thing especially.
Bottom line though, you can't/shouldn't look at ns1 1.0 and ns2 1.0 the same way... ns1 1.0 was a free mod released for the HL1 engine. It was a pretty well known thing that mods were WIP's and unfinished. Ns2 1.0 is a released product being sold on steam. When you release a game for sale, it's supposed to be a finished game. Ns2 1.0 is not a free mod and doesn't/shouldn't get to hide behind the fact that ns1 took years to get finalized... you're dealing with two totally different things. If there is any version of NS1 that NS2 should be compared to at all, it should be 3.0<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd agree, except online distribution and TF2 broke that style of game design quite a while ago. TF2 has had some substantial changes to quite a bit of its gameplay mechanics since I first played it five years ago, such that it is in many ways a different game. Steam has effectively made it so a game can actually evolve over the course of its lifetime. Sure, this means there is less pressure of solving every single bug before the release, but its a huge improvement over the previous way of game design which 1. Bugs/glitches that did make it through would never get fixed (think Nintendo/Sega cartridge days) 2. Allows the players to actually influence the direction of the game (as its being developed even after release)
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days where games we're simply dropped on players with little to no feedback or interaction until after the game was released and no longer able to be changed.
<!--quoteo(post=2042571:date=Dec 9 2012, 01:49 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 9 2012, 01:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd agree, except online distribution and TF2 broke that style of game design quite a while ago. TF2 has had some substantial changes to quite a bit of its gameplay mechanics since I first played it five years ago, such that it is in many ways a different game. Steam has effectively made it so a game can actually evolve over the course of its lifetime. Sure, this means there is less pressure of solving every single bug before the release, but its a huge improvement over the previous way of game design which 1. Bugs/glitches that did make it through would never get fixed (think Nintendo/Sega cartridge days) 2. Allows the players to actually influence the direction of the game (as its being developed even after release)
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days where games we're simply dropped on players with little to no feedback or interaction until after the game was released and no longer able to be changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your doing a poor job of justifying why UWE launched an unfinished game
<!--quoteo(post=2042586:date=Dec 9 2012, 02:22 PM:name=piratedave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (piratedave @ Dec 9 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your doing a poor job of justifying why UWE launched an unfinished game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for UWE in any way, but I'd assume it'd have to do with a money issue.
They're an indie developer, meaning they laid out a plan, found investors, located financing and developed a product for the investors to eventually make money on. The longer the development, the more their costs increase both for personnel and technical reasons.
Initially they probably said, internally "we'll plan our release date for Date XXX" but as the date approached and the product wasn't finished, they pushed it back. Which is a reasonable response at first.
On a long enough timeline though, the costs of production began to exceed projected sales, investors get antsy, the people helping the money flow get impatient and they see another Christmas season (Prime selling season) approaching without a product they can move.
They reach a point where the game is playable to the <b>casual</b> gamer, come to terms with releasing a 90% product rather than a 100% product and put it out with the goal of patching it.
That's how business works in a broad sense, it's why you have cars that get recalled, it's why video games get patches even from big developers. Deadlines and profits.
It's naive to think anyone who put this much time and effort into a game would release an incomplete product that needed to be patched, by choice. If their goal was spawned from love of game making, to love of money... and they had a choice.. We'd wait 5 years from every game developer for a release and every game would be a perfectly polished, tested, wrinkle-free game reaping the creators millions of dollars and the adoration of people who love their perfectly made game.
<!--quoteo(post=2042586:date=Dec 9 2012, 10:22 PM:name=piratedave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (piratedave @ Dec 9 2012, 10:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your doing a poor job of justifying why UWE launched an unfinished game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, he's not, but what remains to be seen is if UWE is actually capable of continuing the development. I'm guessing quite a lot of people have NS2. New shiny content (along with a kickass trailer), running ontop of an properly optimized game, will draw them back and hopefully keep them there.
I think the problem stems from UWE not realising NS2 v1.0 is unfinished. Of course they will never reply and admit the game was unfinished so this comment is pretty much null.
<!--quoteo(post=2041732:date=Dec 7 2012, 04:40 PM:name=mushookees)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mushookees @ Dec 7 2012, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2041732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most games fail due to the publishers pushing for the release of the game before its ready, yet the Irony is that UWE has done it to themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, this game could have really used some valve time.
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
Ive been tracking the total players and total servers since the 19th Nov: <a href="http://ns2hub.com/activity/" target="_blank">http://ns2hub.com/activity/</a>
I don't think the figures are signs of failure. NS2 is at best a niche game and 'polishing' the game with a tiny studio was always going to be a long-term process.
I realise we are all dissapointed NS2 isn't a mega success, but realistically I think the figures are ok. They are distinctly above the 200-300 concurrent players we had during the beta and did anyone seriously expect that to change drastically? We already had over 40,000 people with access.
I am sure as improvements are made and steam weekends/sales are used that the userbase will pick up slowly. NS2 has fantastic potential but it is going to be a marathon to reach it, not a sprint.
<!--quoteo(post=2042617:date=Dec 9 2012, 06:55 PM:name=runner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (runner @ Dec 9 2012, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042617"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the problem stems from UWE not realising NS2 v1.0 is unfinished.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think UWE are fully aware of the current problems that plague NS2.
People are just expecting too much when it comes to the playercounts. For some reason, RTS/FPS has always been a niche genre. That's not gonna change overnight.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
edited December 2012
Yeah tbh i have not played for several weeks, been busy with other games. But I'm not all that encouraged to play often anyway because when i load the server browser and see only 2 or 3 full servers (in australia) in primetime its pretty dissapointing. the game is great but it just goes to show that spending $$$ millions on advertising is what brings in the sales - whether or not the game is good, a huge advertising budget will bring in sales.
Hopefully once the new map comes out people will come back
EDIT
the other problem i think is that there has been no news on the front page about a new patch, or new content or at least any plans for the near future - nothing for anyway to be excited about.
and twitter has just been clogged with irrelevant things. Irrelevant to the general gamer - and again no news about what is going on with ns2.
Both from 18th November to present date.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the stats do not differ, they both start on ~4000ish and end ~1500. the ns2hub stats just measure all the time, where as the steam one seems to only poll during the US prime time. if you draw a line along the ns2hub primetime stats then the curve is more or less the same as the steam graph.
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
I get the stats in exactly the same way as steamgraph do. As has been pointed out (thanks schkorpio) the steamgraph stats seem to display each days peak, where as I currently poll every 5mins, but display every hour if I remember correctly. So the ns2hub graph shows each days ups and downs.
These numbers are really similar to what I wrote down for NS1 in 2004, when it was first added to Steam stats.
I think it's in a strong position to do better than the original, especially with its modding potential. Anybody else remember the first month after NS1 was released? The first week was a mess. (though still great fun!) The server performance was awful and balance was pretty bad. (my PC at the time ran it awful too) It wasn't until 1.04, released in late January, did it stabilize. I guess people weren't QUITE as upset then because they didn't have a baseline to compare to. Plus it was free. Heh.
Comments
I'd say NS2 is probably in the mid-to-high range for playercount for indie games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
problem is, why must we follow the trend of other game releases? it seems like you're resorting to conformity in order to justify the population drop / low population. there ARE fundamental problems with the game, be it performance or a steep learning curve or some problems other posters have brought up. but more importantly, why aim low when you have the potential to achieve something bigger?
<!--quoteo(post=2042308:date=Dec 9 2012, 02:55 PM:name=bERt0r)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bERt0r @ Dec 9 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042308"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My 2 cents: I dont give a crap about statistics. When i want to play a game here in Europe, the popular servers are full all the time. The only reason that might cause low average playercounts is that the game can be very frustrating from time to time. The hitreg issues they are working on are a factor why I dont get to spend as many hours per ns2 session as I did in ns1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i'm very envious of you european players. you have a bustling competitive scene back in ns1 and also now in ns2. like it or not, it contributed to the game's popularity in your region. i wish i could say the same for mine.
Having said that, personally I still have issues with performance and lack of variety. Less so with hitreg problems but they are still definitely noticeable.
The game suffers from many more problems, like it or not the modern 14 year old gamer craves progression of some sort, of which ns2 offers none. There is not strategic variation, its very much like a flavour of the month situation in any mmo, the nerf something, and soon all you see is one strategy (early onos is a good example).
People who see the game as a e-sport are delusional as becoming a esport requires a massive fanbase to wwatch said game. Look at the big games, LoL, SC2, etc all have massive fanbases.
I would of liked to see a game in either source or a well established engine for good performance, and then more strategic options/variations. Currently everygame in pubs and competitive play have strategies that are cookie cutter and only change when a patch hits.
You can only play the same thing for so long until you get bored (unless your a brainded cs 1.6 player). And this simple fact dooms the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. The rest is PR. It doesnt matter how good a game really is, it does matter how good the PR machinery behind that is. If you look at DotA2 you have a huge Steam-campaign behind that (and a predecessor that was WAY more successful than NSI was), giving out free access to some lucky people only after some waiting and slowly integrating the free 2 play model initially planned - so that people would think its something special when they received it as a gift (the feeling that subsided at least with your 4th gift of DotA). That was a clever move. And DotA2 is categorizing players by skills.
Basically a game isnt fun if you feel bad. You will stop it very fast if you feel that too long. Other games integrate matchmaking systems and achievement systems to prevent this from happening.
This game is psychologically oldschool. Modern games have a very elaborated motivational psychology background nowadays. This game completely ignores that as games in the past always did. The result is that only core gamers stay but not the mainstream casual gamer. In addition to a inefficient PR - only a handful of game reviews on metacritic, less enough so that one bad will break in the average. Steam is the only viable PR method that works. UWE really should think about using that further (sales)
In the short-term, for gameplay, a "combat mode" as the main focus of play competitively and casually would be a fix. In 12 months time, when you fix performance problems, bring back classic with a competitive tournament only to show it off. Then after that tournament, release it back in to the wild when people know more about the game, the playstyle and more importantly, the performance allows it to work.
It might not be your vision, or even mine, or what others want, but to keep the players, you might have to play your business like a game of chess.
Having said that, personally I still have issues with performance and lack of variety. Less so with hitreg problems but they are still definitely noticeable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is MARINE DUDE still around? That is the only metric by which I measure the health/or lack thereof when it comes to the Australian NS scene.
Edit: I will comment on one thing. It's hard to get players from our TF2 servers to play NS2. I imagine the problem is performance. TF2 isn't a demanding game, so I suspect lots of players have underpowered machines for NS2.
I find myself enjoying it more than ns2. Especially the melee combat is very satisfying. The NS2 one is not.
I blame that on the animation system, performance issues, the net code and missing attention to details (do we have bullet decals yet?). It just doesn't feel like I'm doing damage in ns2... it's not satisfying. The missing tutorial is probably an issue for other players which did not play NS1.
And the bad thing is that it does not make a lot of sense for UWE to invest in fixing those issues. Those fixes will not generate revenue and they have to live and think of the future as well. (maybe sell hats?)
Is it just me or NS2 had 2,500 players a week ago? Just a thousand more.
Played 3 games in a row on Refinery today. Decent players on both teams. Marines got crushed 3 times.
Joined another game on Veil. 8 vs 6. 6 aliens. Aliens are down to 2 hives. Marines can't push through and slowly lose until the end.
Personally, I'm okay with that. I lost so many times for marines I don't even care anymore. NS2 isn't the only game out there.
And I think performance isn't the issue here. I play on 35 fps, drops to 20 sometimes. Still, I get to the top of the list. But you lose again and again for marines, no matter what.
Then I look at Flayra's Balance Mod.
Changes planned for 233 (updated 11/21 5:11pm PST)
- None at the moment. Enjoy the live build instead!
No words are needed.
god i miss marine dude. i thought he is american??
They tried this in NS1, it was a disaster. Classic play basically dried up. You could argue that this means combat mode is "better" but for fans and I think the devs of NS, the goal isn't to make a game that the most people want to play. It's to make the game they wanted to play and like. If that means fewer people, so be it. I think combat is popular because it taps into the "Call of Duty" demographic: It's run and gun without any strategy. It's very easy to quickly and consistently get into a game and get the toys that normally take you much longer to get, if you get them at all in classic mode. The solution isn't giving up on the core mechanics that makes your game unique, it's to find ways to make it better and more accessible.
The learning curve for NS isn't particularly bad. A good comparison is DOTA. That's a tremendously popular game, with a horrendous learning curve. Even more so than Natural Selection, you are dependent on your team mates doing their job. DOTA is far more hardcore than NS.
What I think DOTA games do very well is match making. While there is a learning curve, at least you're likely to be with similarly skilled players. A match making system for NS would also help alleviate one of its biggest problems: a single player, your commander, can easily ruin the game. Really, even if all the match making system did was to help commanders find games where they were needed it would be awesome. Instead of voting your commander out, you could vote to have the match making system find you a new one. Also, ping is less of a factor in match making for commanders, which would also help.
That said, match making done poorly can also ruin a game. I remember hoping that Counter Strike Global Offensive would be awesome due to the match making system, but it sucked. Maybe it is better now but you either got placed in a mostly empty server or on a server where you had a horrible ping. Those are the two things a system like that absolutely must avoid. It would be better to have higher skilled players playing with lower skilled players than to do that.
I would curious to try the game with the following changes, to see how it feels: Slow down everybody down, increase alien health and marines ammo accordingly.
If you look really closely, you'll see why NS2 has let us down.
It isn't conformity to look at how a game performs with regards to its peers. To know if a roughly 5000 playcount drop from the release is good or bad, you need something to compare it to. In this case, many games that most people would consider successful have much higher drops in playercount than NS2. The biggest difference is that NS2 had a much smaller initial jump in playercount, which makes a bit of sense when you consider that NS2 is a niche game without an AAA-studio advertising budget.
<!--quoteo(post=2042396:date=Dec 9 2012, 06:04 AM:name=tobias3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tobias3 @ Dec 9 2012, 06:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2042396"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To see how it is done right look at Chivalry <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920q219640&from=1351724400000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action...amp;to=End+Time</a>
I find myself enjoying it more than ns2. Especially the melee combat is very satisfying. The NS2 one is not.
I blame that on the animation system, performance issues, the net code and missing attention to details (do we have bullet decals yet?). It just doesn't feel like I'm doing damage in ns2... it's not satisfying. The missing tutorial is probably an issue for other players which did not play NS1.
And the bad thing is that it does not make a lot of sense for UWE to invest in fixing those issues. Those fixes will not generate revenue and they have to live and think of the future as well. (maybe sell hats?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at the playercount from the <a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920q219640&from=1346482800000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">initial release of both games</a>, it actually looks like Chivalry had a worse release playercount than NS2 (peak of 4562 vs 7135 for NS2). However, it looks like Chivalry had either a free weekend or steam sale in late November, which temporarily goosed its numbers into the 8000+ range. NS2 can and will do something similar in the future, which is why the talk of it being "dead" or having "low playercount" is pretty silly.
Also, UWE has fully committed to fully patching the game for free for quite a while. We've already been through four patches from the release as UWE is both constantly improving performance, fixing bugs, tweaking balance, working on new features and maps.
- Gorge improvements: Can build unlimited number of structures, although only 8 per room. Allow Gorge to build Crag structures. Gorge gets babbler ability, which are small spider-like things the Gorge can release to attack/slow down marines (jetpackers too)
- Marines get Heavy Machine Gun back. High rate of fire, low accuracy, long reload time. Not effective vs. buildings, but excellent vs. aliens.
- Lurks get ranged spores.
- Res flows 3x faster to players.
We haven't seen a patch for three weeks. Balance on pubs is broken, aliens win constantly. Player count now is 1330. Players lose 1, 2, 3, 5 games and then just uninstall it.
But the thing is, the ###### they're having to patch out should've been taken care of way before release. The hitreg thing especially.
Bottom line though, you can't/shouldn't look at ns1 1.0 and ns2 1.0 the same way... ns1 1.0 was a free mod released for the HL1 engine. It was a pretty well known thing that mods were WIP's and unfinished. Ns2 1.0 is a released product being sold on steam. When you release a game for sale, it's supposed to be a finished game. Ns2 1.0 is not a free mod and doesn't/shouldn't get to hide behind the fact that ns1 took years to get finalized... you're dealing with two totally different things. If there is any version of NS1 that NS2 should be compared to at all, it should be 3.0
Bottom line though, you can't/shouldn't look at ns1 1.0 and ns2 1.0 the same way... ns1 1.0 was a free mod released for the HL1 engine. It was a pretty well known thing that mods were WIP's and unfinished. Ns2 1.0 is a released product being sold on steam. When you release a game for sale, it's supposed to be a finished game. Ns2 1.0 is not a free mod and doesn't/shouldn't get to hide behind the fact that ns1 took years to get finalized... you're dealing with two totally different things. If there is any version of NS1 that NS2 should be compared to at all, it should be 3.0<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd agree, except online distribution and TF2 broke that style of game design quite a while ago. TF2 has had some substantial changes to quite a bit of its gameplay mechanics since I first played it five years ago, such that it is in many ways a different game. Steam has effectively made it so a game can actually evolve over the course of its lifetime. Sure, this means there is less pressure of solving every single bug before the release, but its a huge improvement over the previous way of game design which
1. Bugs/glitches that did make it through would never get fixed (think Nintendo/Sega cartridge days)
2. Allows the players to actually influence the direction of the game (as its being developed even after release)
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days where games we're simply dropped on players with little to no feedback or interaction until after the game was released and no longer able to be changed.
1. Bugs/glitches that did make it through would never get fixed (think Nintendo/Sega cartridge days)
2. Allows the players to actually influence the direction of the game (as its being developed even after release)
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't want to go back to the days where games we're simply dropped on players with little to no feedback or interaction until after the game was released and no longer able to be changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your doing a poor job of justifying why UWE launched an unfinished game
I can't speak for UWE in any way, but I'd assume it'd have to do with a money issue.
They're an indie developer, meaning they laid out a plan, found investors, located financing and developed a product for the investors to eventually make money on. The longer the development, the more their costs increase both for personnel and technical reasons.
Initially they probably said, internally "we'll plan our release date for Date XXX" but as the date approached and the product wasn't finished, they pushed it back. Which is a reasonable response at first.
On a long enough timeline though, the costs of production began to exceed projected sales, investors get antsy, the people helping the money flow get impatient and they see another Christmas season (Prime selling season) approaching without a product they can move.
They reach a point where the game is playable to the <b>casual</b> gamer, come to terms with releasing a 90% product rather than a 100% product and put it out with the goal of patching it.
That's how business works in a broad sense, it's why you have cars that get recalled, it's why video games get patches even from big developers. Deadlines and profits.
It's naive to think anyone who put this much time and effort into a game would release an incomplete product that needed to be patched, by choice. If their goal was spawned from love of game making, to love of money... and they had a choice.. We'd wait 5 years from every game developer for a release and every game would be a perfectly polished, tested, wrinkle-free game reaping the creators millions of dollars and the adoration of people who love their perfectly made game.
No, he's not, but what remains to be seen is if UWE is actually capable of continuing the development. I'm guessing quite a lot of people have NS2. New shiny content (along with a kickass trailer), running ontop of an properly optimized game, will draw them back and hopefully keep them there.
Yeah, this game could have really used some valve time.
I don't think the figures are signs of failure. NS2 is at best a niche game and 'polishing' the game with a tiny studio was always going to be a long-term process.
I realise we are all dissapointed NS2 isn't a mega success, but realistically I think the figures are ok. They are distinctly above the 200-300 concurrent players we had during the beta and did anyone seriously expect that to change drastically? We already had over 40,000 people with access.
I am sure as improvements are made and steam weekends/sales are used that the userbase will pick up slowly. NS2 has fantastic potential but it is going to be a marathon to reach it, not a sprint.
I think UWE are fully aware of the current problems that plague NS2.
People are just expecting too much when it comes to the playercounts. For some reason, RTS/FPS has always been a niche genre. That's not gonna change overnight.
Steamgraph:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Z1b3H.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
NS2Hub:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/S7wgh.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Both from 18th November to present date.
Hopefully once the new map comes out people will come back
EDIT
the other problem i think is that there has been no news on the front page about a new patch, or new content or at least any plans for the near future - nothing for anyway to be excited about.
and twitter has just been clogged with irrelevant things. Irrelevant to the general gamer - and again no news about what is going on with ns2.
Steamgraph:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Z1b3H.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
NS2Hub:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/S7wgh.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Both from 18th November to present date.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the stats do not differ, they both start on ~4000ish and end ~1500. the ns2hub stats just measure all the time, where as the steam one seems to only poll during the US prime time. if you draw a line along the ns2hub primetime stats then the curve is more or less the same as the steam graph.
I think it's in a strong position to do better than the original, especially with its modding potential. Anybody else remember the first month after NS1 was released? The first week was a mess. (though still great fun!) The server performance was awful and balance was pretty bad. (my PC at the time ran it awful too) It wasn't until 1.04, released in late January, did it stabilize. I guess people weren't QUITE as upset then because they didn't have a baseline to compare to. Plus it was free. Heh.