24 players on monash does not cause server ticks to drop below 30 or performance below 98%.
Due to complete lack of other options I joined a mate on Monash 24 player last night. I joined late game on veil, just as we (aliens) took pipe back of marines. Whilst on a normal server, I would usually expect single base marines with out nano to concede fairly quickly, but of course being a 24fustercluck they settled in for a monumental turtle. A mate questioned why his "fps" was dipping with a 3770k / GTX670. I brought up net_stats and sure enough during this turtle the tick rate dropped to less than 15 plenty of times. Usually when we would make a push for their base. This coincided with choppy player movement.
Whilst Monash is certainly the best 24p server in Aus for performance, it still gets bogged down in late game. To be fair it probably does not matter by then, you only need to hit the broad side of an onos with the lmg or spam nades at gorges.
I used to play on smaller servers, always avoiding the 24 slot ones. But then one night by chance connected to the dumbass brits server and had the most amazing round of NS2 ever. From that day I happily wait for 15 minutes until a slots becomes free.
Honestly I think many mechanics actually work better with 12v12. Take the Exo. It's shit in 6v6 (ask savant he wrote a PhD about it) but in 12v12 when there actually are enough people to welder-support a group of 5 exos they become these amazing killing machines that walz about the map and Aliens really have to step up the game to stop them.
While stupid Power Node rushes sometimes work in 12v12 they are far harder to pull off because there actually are enough marines to defend 3 bases.
Also saying no teamplay is reuqired is utter bullshit. If anything there is more teamplay required because in 12v12 there is hardly ever the situation where one or 2 guys can roflstomp an entire team. So even good players have to work with the team in order to win and it is actually possible to win against a stacked team with the help of teamplay. We all know how a stacked 6v6 is going to play out.
It might be a shock for you guys but this ridiculous high skill ceiling of NS2 makes it very unattractive to anyone who has not the time to practice 2 hrs a day. You can teamplay as much as you like but if youre a bad shot you are going to get stomped in 6v6. In 12v12 you actually can contribute alot by just teamplaying.
So plz guys just stop this moron elitism. If you'd close down all >16 player servers NS2 would be dead within 2 months.
No it wouldn't. For a start, most official boxes are 16 spots. 6 v 6 is purely a comp thing that doesn't extend past that.
People would just join the 16 slot server with spots in it because it comes up the top of the server list.
Instead, people see 24 at the top all the time and immediately associate bigger numbers with better things.
Windows8 is quite happy to prove this notion wrong.
I used to play on smaller servers, always avoiding the 24 slot ones. But then one night by chance connected to the dumbass brits server and had the most amazing round of NS2 ever. From that day I happily wait for 15 minutes until a slots becomes free.
Honestly I think many mechanics actually work better with 12v12. Take the Exo. It's shit in 6v6 (ask savant he wrote a PhD about it) but in 12v12 when there actually are enough people to welder-support a group of 5 exos they become these amazing killing machines that walz about the map and Aliens really have to step up the game to stop them.
While stupid Power Node rushes sometimes work in 12v12 they are far harder to pull off because there actually are enough marines to defend 3 bases.
Also saying no teamplay is reuqired is utter bullshit. If anything there is more teamplay required because in 12v12 there is hardly ever the situation where one or 2 guys can roflstomp an entire team. So even good players have to work with the team in order to win and it is actually possible to win against a stacked team with the help of teamplay. We all know how a stacked 6v6 is going to play out.
It might be a shock for you guys but this ridiculous high skill ceiling of NS2 makes it very unattractive to anyone who has not the time to practice 2 hrs a day. You can teamplay as much as you like but if youre a bad shot you are going to get stomped in 6v6. In 12v12 you actually can contribute alot by just teamplaying.
So plz guys just stop this moron elitism. If you'd close down all >16 player servers NS2 would be dead within 2 months.
Windows8 is quite happy to prove this notion wrong.
Best Windows in order.
Windows 2000 > Windows 98 > Windows 95 > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > Windows NT4.0 > Windows 3.1 > Windows 3.0 > Windows 2.1x > Windows 2.0 > Windows 1.0 > Windows Vista > Windows XP
Well I had a go earlier on HBZ's 24p server. Now I like HBZ normally - they have some decent players on, really good teamwork, decent communication and their mods are... okay. Apart from that 3D armoury one, god that's awful. But I digress. I decided, based on this thread, to re-attempt playing 12v12.
Oh my dear God.
Just no. It's a horrible, horrible mess.
I thankfully settled into a decent 18p server and had a lot of really, REALLY good games, with probably the perfect marine team rounding the night off.
My one worry with 24p servers is not that they will take over, or that people aren't enjoying the game 'right'. My worry is that new players who join them will uninstall NS2 for good, without ever experiencing a good game. I have yet to find ONE good game on a 24p server.
You're entitled to run them, of course you are, but oh dear God someone think of the children!!
i don't understand this thread. if a server has that high of a player limit then just don't join. if a server that does have that high of a player count but cannot handle that many people (low tickrate) then people will stop going and it'll be changed... or just don't join it.
i don't understand this thread. if a server has that high of a player limit then just don't join. if a server that does have that high of a player count but cannot handle that many people (low tickrate) then people will stop going and it'll be changed... or just don't join it.
remember kids, just say no
All fine until some greens head in and they've no idea that this ISN'T what you could be experiencing in a good server.
Now some people like 24p, and that's fine, we shouldn't take anything away from them. But if a new player who likes the same type of games that I do joins a 24p server, they're going to tell all their friends that NS2 is **** and they'll uninstall it.
So yeah I'd go for yellow for 24p, and preferably also 22p servers by default. It's not skin off the server operators' noses, but it might just save a few potential game reviewers joining some of the horrendous 24p games going on with no-one communicating and no chance in hell the commander can actually listen to even 5% of the requests coming his way... it's just a random run-around-and-shoot-stuff game mode that I thought was kind of the point of combat.
I used to play on smaller servers, always avoiding the 24 slot ones. But then one night by chance connected to the dumbass brits server and had the most amazing round of NS2 ever. From that day I happily wait for 15 minutes until a slots becomes free.
Honestly I think many mechanics actually work better with 12v12. Take the Exo. It's shit in 6v6 (ask savant he wrote a PhD about it) but in 12v12 when there actually are enough people to welder-support a group of 5 exos they become these amazing killing machines that walz about the map and Aliens really have to step up the game to stop them.
While stupid Power Node rushes sometimes work in 12v12 they are far harder to pull off because there actually are enough marines to defend 3 bases.
Also saying no teamplay is reuqired is utter bullshit. If anything there is more teamplay required because in 12v12 there is hardly ever the situation where one or 2 guys can roflstomp an entire team. So even good players have to work with the team in order to win and it is actually possible to win against a stacked team with the help of teamplay. We all know how a stacked 6v6 is going to play out.
It might be a shock for you guys but this ridiculous high skill ceiling of NS2 makes it very unattractive to anyone who has not the time to practice 2 hrs a day. You can teamplay as much as you like but if youre a bad shot you are going to get stomped in 6v6. In 12v12 you actually can contribute alot by just teamplaying.
So plz guys just stop this moron elitism. If you'd close down all >16 player servers NS2 would be dead within 2 months.
No it wouldn't. For a start, most official boxes are 16 spots. 6 v 6 is purely a comp thing that doesn't extend past that.
People would just join the 16 slot server with spots in it because it comes up the top of the server list.
Instead, people see 24 at the top all the time and immediately associate bigger numbers with better things.
Windows8 is quite happy to prove this notion wrong.
Did you seriously just use Windows 8 to back up your argument? As a certified and degree holding IT tech, I'm telling you: Be polite. -Talesin
24 players on monash does not cause server ticks to drop below 30 or performance below 98%.
Due to complete lack of other options I joined a mate on Monash 24 player last night. I joined late game on veil, just as we (aliens) took pipe back of marines. Whilst on a normal server, I would usually expect single base marines with out nano to concede fairly quickly, but of course being a 24fustercluck they settled in for a monumental turtle. A mate questioned why his "fps" was dipping with a 3770k / GTX670. I brought up net_stats and sure enough during this turtle the tick rate dropped to less than 15 plenty of times. Usually when we would make a push for their base. This coincided with choppy player movement.
Whilst Monash is certainly the best 24p server in Aus for performance, it still gets bogged down in late game. To be fair it probably does not matter by then, you only need to hit the broad side of an onos with the lmg or spam nades at gorges.
If you were playing on a marine team that, or you personally cared about, nano on veil, inside of the 15 minute mark, then that's your problem right there.
I don't know why this simple fact escapes so many marine teams on veil: even if aliens secure nano early, which they most likely will, marines start with topo and skylights early as well. Wow, what do ya know, both start out on equal terms in res.
And as far as the silly windows debate that has crept into this thread thanks to hus's asinine statement: Windows 7, to date, has been the best windows ever. I will actually be sad to not be able to work on windows 7 machines once microsoft pulls it's head out of it's ass and realizes that a pc is not a tablet or cellphone, and fixes this complete flustercluck they made with windows 8 in a few releases, when they realize the absolute shit demand and sells they get from windows 8 (ala windows vista) is not what the diehard consumer base wants.
Did you seriously just use Windows 8 to back up your argument? As a certified and degree holding IT tech, I'm telling you: Be polite. -Talesin
Did you seriously just try and bignote yourself about an IT degree?
It was an analogy into the hivemind mentality that bigger numbers or higher versions are better by default.
The IT industry in general, has shunned Windows8.
You can't prove or disprove that more players is a better (or not better) gaming experience. You can only prove it or disprove it for yourself on what you believe is more fun.
This holds true for NS2 as well.
As for me, I've played on a lot of different NS2 servers with a lot of different player counts and the funnest time I have is on Mavick's 24 player server. I've even played on a lot of other 24 player servers and none of them were as as fun as Mavick's, especially when you are playing with/against some of the regular players that frequent that server. (this is probably the reason why it can sometimes take a long time waiting for an open slot to pop up on the server.)
Also the fact that Mavick's server runs on great hardware and the performance is great even during late game.
Did you seriously just use Windows 8 to back up your argument? As a certified and degree holding IT tech, I'm telling you: you sir, are a moron.
Did you seriously just try and bignote yourself about an IT degree?
It was an analogy into the hivemind mentality that bigger numbers or higher versions are better by default.
The IT industry in general, has shunned Windows8.
Yeah, well my professionally experienced and common sense mind would like to re-introduce you to the abysmal failure of windows vista (who actually had a better reception rate then windows 8 at the same time span). And yes, I did bignote myself with those credentials *because it applies*.
Yeah, well my professionally experienced and common sense mind would like to re-introduce you to the abysmal failure of windows vista (who actually had a better reception rate then windows 8 at the same time span). And yes, I did bignote myself with those credentials *because it applies*.
You know, IT degrees are worth about as much as the piece of paper its printed on. I'd try to contain that ego around a workplace.
You're arguing irrelevant points to a simple analogy of bigger numbers isn't always better.
Now that that's out of the way, just yellow the 24 player servers. Thanks.
Except that, in most cases, bigger numbers are exactly what's indicative of the prevailing thought. And just to push your terrible analogy point even further, here's a good rundown of what most people with a mind about the backdrop of windows 8 would say about it:
"That Windows 8 is less bloated than Windows 7 is a good hypothesis, but I am afraid, that is not the reason. The reason Windows 8 is failing, and will continue to fail, can be summarized in one simple fact:
Windows 8 is a poorly-executed attempt at customer lock-in that is alienating all but the most naive/tolerant of Windows users.
If you examine the technical details of Windows 8, you will find that, unlike previous versions of Windows, it is rife with gimmicks that are meant to lock-in the customer. I believe, in the business world, you call this “customer stickiness”. Microsoft laid it on quite thick with Windows 8, and the strategy is backfiring immensely.
There is something called UEFI secure boot, which is a very beneficial thing in principle, as it creates a chain-of-guarantee from the very moment that the power switch is hit, to the moment that you see pretty colors on the screen, that no viruses have “got in and under” the OS while you were not looking. Microsoft insisted that, if OEM’s want to claim that their PC’s are “Windows 8 Ready”, it must support EUFI secure boot. Fine. But as it turns out, Microsoft went rogue with this feature and insisted that OEM’s implement it in a way that makes it problematic to use the brand new PC to boot Linux. Not very smart. Now you have hoards of techno-polyglots who use both Windows and Linux, very angry at Windows (Microsoft). And they tend to be more vocal in their discontent than average users.
Microsoft has the intent of generating revenue via cloud services, but rather than let the market dynamics play out, they are trying to force it. The idea is to get users used to the notion that Microsoft will “house” your data for you. Fine. Some consumers and business might like this. But, Microsoft was so worried that not enough users will buy in, they architecturally changed many of their applications to rely on the cloud *only*, so that customers have now no choice but to use cloud services. Not smart. Some people do not like the idea of their wife’s and babies pictures being forced onto Microsofts cloud.
Throughout the use of Windows 8, Microsoft presents “optional” agreements that are really not optional, if you want to play. Some of their “optional” agreements give them the right to analyze your personal data in while it sits in their cloud. Many users do not like these “optional”, non-optional agreements.
Microsoft is running a “de-branding” campaign to eliminate competition by calling your email applications simply “Mail”. Again, they are trying to destroy the decades-old perception that competition exists in the software space, and that there are different brands of mail applications, and the customer, not the OS, gets to decide which one to use, and how it will be presented to the user.
Microsoft tries to get you to sign up to a cloud account whether you want one or not. After the customer declines a few times, Microsoft repeatedly asks (harasses) the customer over and over until the customer acquiesces. Quite annoying from a user-perspective.
As we all know, Microsoft created a new UI, which they called “Metro”, that has tiles that look like they were designed by Fisher-Price. The name being used lately, I think, is “Modern UI.” Afraid that not enough customers will by into the “use-our-cloud” mandate, and simply revert to old branded applications found with “regular”, non “Modern UI” applications, Microsoft eliminated the START menu. “There, that’s better. Now our hoards of customers will be forced to use our tiles, and therefore, our cloud based services.” Not smart, and not working. Many of the users are older than 5, and they hate the new, restrictive, gimmicky interface. If you have a moment, Google “hate Windows 8″ to see the rage for yourself.
Thinking that users will now be forced into their cloud services, Microsoft lined up some cloud offerings, including video service and music. But then they thought, “Oh. What about those DVD things that people put into the DVD drives that come with every new computer….Hmmm…maybe if we eliminate the ability to play DVD’s on the computer, they will become desperate, and stampede their way to our music/video offerings. Yea, let’s do that!!!” Windows 8 will not play DVD’s, something every Windows user has come to expect as a not-even-up-for-discussion feature.
But Microsoft still had a problem: third-party software developers. Even with the formerly-known-as-Metro UI (Modern UI), the Windows 7 desktop is still lurking beneath the Surface (pun intended). Microsoft puts on thinking hat again: “Hmm…we have to force developers to stop writing desktop applications, as they only delay the adoption of Metro. How do we do that?…I got it!!! Let’s kill the API that they use to write desktop applications, and force them to write Metro applications!!! But…we cannot do it all at once. They will simply rebel. Let’s do it gradually, and be sneaky about it.” And so, this is what Microsoft is doing…gradually killing the API that software developers use to write applications that underly a $100 billion industry. [YES, THAT API.]
But, Microsoft still needs more ways to “monetize Windows 8. So they said, “What about Windows Phone 8? Is there something that we can do regarding Windows Phone 8 to induce upgrades to Windows 8? Yes!!! We can make it so that the software development tools that are now used to make Windows Phone 7 applications will be unable to make Windows Phone 8 applications, unless the tools run on Windows 8!!! Brilliant!” And so they did. Software developers around the world are all scratching their heads in unison, asking themselves the same question: “Why would Microsoft artificially restrict the development of Windows Phone 8 applications to machines running Windows 8? It takes less than an hours to make the tool run on Windows 7 too….”
But wait! Let’s not forget Google! Tech CEO’s around the world go to bed every night envying the meteoric rise of the likes of Google and Facebook. They want some of that action. So does Microsoft. So Microsoft decided to put advertisements in many of their Windows 8 “apps”, tailored to the user, of course, after snooping the user’s data. Nice. Now, when am about to give my PowerPoint presentation, I can expect a Viagra ad to pop up in my free weather widget that came with the computer whether I wanted it or not.
Microsoft is not the first company to pull a stunt like Windows 8. It won’t be the last. The problem is that the gimmicks are so egregious and so readily apparent that even novices are looking at it and saying, “Uh…no…nah..unh..unh…this ain’t happening".
And they are sticking to Windows 7.
If you are a business user thinking of upgrading to Windows 8, I would be very very careful. Find yourself a hard-core engineer, either in your company, or maybe a consultant, and ask not what is good about Windows 8, but what is bad. The last thing you want to do is find yourself locked into something that is very different from what you were expecting, based on previous versions of Windows."
Bear in mind, if you're not a PC savvy person that buys a PC that says "Windows 8 ready" with UEFI, good luck installing anything but Windows 8 on it, because Microsoft, like hus (to a lesser and slightly less annoying degree) would like to tell you they know better than you do.
Ah ok, I get it, so in other words you're advocating that people are too stupid to change their filters from players to something else like, say, performance (which mine will compete with any 16 player or more), or favorites (God forbid at this point people have been playing NS2 long enough to know what their favorite servers are). I mean, mine's a green tagged rookie server, STILL, and I think I've seen maybe 10 rookies in the last few weeks. But you'd like to see them treated as modded servers, even when they run completely mod free, because your favorite *version* of NS2 is superior, in your mind. Good luck with that bro.
A mate who I refused to join in there told me tick rate was under 15 unsurprisingly.
I want the 20+ slot servers classed as modified for performance reasons as much as game play.
Many of them do not run very well and it's a pretty bad introduction to a new player. They will probably blame their hardware and then rage about system requirements in here...
With the lowered egg regen and drastic increase of cost from shifts for eggs it effectivly killed the 32 slot servers, at least in my eyes. There used to be several 32 slot servers running then one day they just disappeared.
I'd put my server's performance against any 16 player, any day of the week, period. If other people host 24 player servers on bad hardware, not my problem. I know what to expect on mine, as well as the diehard regulars we have. If you haven't experienced it, don't knock it or dare to compare it to other half-rate servers.
No point arguing with an Be polite. -Talesin
I'd just like some minor changes put in so that new players can experience the intended game size and experience. As mentioned by someone else, it's quite easy for people to stumble into 24 player servers and leave with a foul taste or no desire to come back. Nobody is taking away your zerg mode but it would be nice for it to be known as something that is not default.
Except that, in most cases, bigger numbers are exactly what's indicative of the prevailing thought. And just to push your terrible analogy point even further, here's a good rundown of what most people with a mind about the backdrop of windows 8 would say about it:
"That Windows 8 is less bloated than Windows 7 is a good hypothesis, but I am afraid, that is not the reason. The reason Windows 8 is failing, and will continue to fail, can be summarized in one simple fact:
Windows 8 is a poorly-executed attempt at customer lock-in that is alienating all but the most naive/tolerant of Windows users.
If you examine the technical details of Windows 8, you will find that, unlike previous versions of Windows, it is rife with gimmicks that are meant to lock-in the customer. I believe, in the business world, you call this “customer stickiness”. Microsoft laid it on quite thick with Windows 8, and the strategy is backfiring immensely.
There is something called UEFI secure boot, which is a very beneficial thing in principle, as it creates a chain-of-guarantee from the very moment that the power switch is hit, to the moment that you see pretty colors on the screen, that no viruses have “got in and under” the OS while you were not looking. Microsoft insisted that, if OEM’s want to claim that their PC’s are “Windows 8 Ready”, it must support EUFI secure boot. Fine. But as it turns out, Microsoft went rogue with this feature and insisted that OEM’s implement it in a way that makes it problematic to use the brand new PC to boot Linux. Not very smart. Now you have hoards of techno-polyglots who use both Windows and Linux, very angry at Windows (Microsoft). And they tend to be more vocal in their discontent than average users.
Microsoft has the intent of generating revenue via cloud services, but rather than let the market dynamics play out, they are trying to force it. The idea is to get users used to the notion that Microsoft will “house” your data for you. Fine. Some consumers and business might like this. But, Microsoft was so worried that not enough users will buy in, they architecturally changed many of their applications to rely on the cloud *only*, so that customers have now no choice but to use cloud services. Not smart. Some people do not like the idea of their wife’s and babies pictures being forced onto Microsofts cloud.
Throughout the use of Windows 8, Microsoft presents “optional” agreements that are really not optional, if you want to play. Some of their “optional” agreements give them the right to analyze your personal data in while it sits in their cloud. Many users do not like these “optional”, non-optional agreements.
Microsoft is running a “de-branding” campaign to eliminate competition by calling your email applications simply “Mail”. Again, they are trying to destroy the decades-old perception that competition exists in the software space, and that there are different brands of mail applications, and the customer, not the OS, gets to decide which one to use, and how it will be presented to the user.
Microsoft tries to get you to sign up to a cloud account whether you want one or not. After the customer declines a few times, Microsoft repeatedly asks (harasses) the customer over and over until the customer acquiesces. Quite annoying from a user-perspective.
As we all know, Microsoft created a new UI, which they called “Metro”, that has tiles that look like they were designed by Fisher-Price. The name being used lately, I think, is “Modern UI.” Afraid that not enough customers will by into the “use-our-cloud” mandate, and simply revert to old branded applications found with “regular”, non “Modern UI” applications, Microsoft eliminated the START menu. “There, that’s better. Now our hoards of customers will be forced to use our tiles, and therefore, our cloud based services.” Not smart, and not working. Many of the users are older than 5, and they hate the new, restrictive, gimmicky interface. If you have a moment, Google “hate Windows 8″ to see the rage for yourself.
Thinking that users will now be forced into their cloud services, Microsoft lined up some cloud offerings, including video service and music. But then they thought, “Oh. What about those DVD things that people put into the DVD drives that come with every new computer….Hmmm…maybe if we eliminate the ability to play DVD’s on the computer, they will become desperate, and stampede their way to our music/video offerings. Yea, let’s do that!!!” Windows 8 will not play DVD’s, something every Windows user has come to expect as a not-even-up-for-discussion feature.
But Microsoft still had a problem: third-party software developers. Even with the formerly-known-as-Metro UI (Modern UI), the Windows 7 desktop is still lurking beneath the Surface (pun intended). Microsoft puts on thinking hat again: “Hmm…we have to force developers to stop writing desktop applications, as they only delay the adoption of Metro. How do we do that?…I got it!!! Let’s kill the API that they use to write desktop applications, and force them to write Metro applications!!! But…we cannot do it all at once. They will simply rebel. Let’s do it gradually, and be sneaky about it.” And so, this is what Microsoft is doing…gradually killing the API that software developers use to write applications that underly a $100 billion industry. [YES, THAT API.]
But, Microsoft still needs more ways to “monetize Windows 8. So they said, “What about Windows Phone 8? Is there something that we can do regarding Windows Phone 8 to induce upgrades to Windows 8? Yes!!! We can make it so that the software development tools that are now used to make Windows Phone 7 applications will be unable to make Windows Phone 8 applications, unless the tools run on Windows 8!!! Brilliant!” And so they did. Software developers around the world are all scratching their heads in unison, asking themselves the same question: “Why would Microsoft artificially restrict the development of Windows Phone 8 applications to machines running Windows 8? It takes less than an hours to make the tool run on Windows 7 too….”
But wait! Let’s not forget Google! Tech CEO’s around the world go to bed every night envying the meteoric rise of the likes of Google and Facebook. They want some of that action. So does Microsoft. So Microsoft decided to put advertisements in many of their Windows 8 “apps”, tailored to the user, of course, after snooping the user’s data. Nice. Now, when am about to give my PowerPoint presentation, I can expect a Viagra ad to pop up in my free weather widget that came with the computer whether I wanted it or not.
Microsoft is not the first company to pull a stunt like Windows 8. It won’t be the last. The problem is that the gimmicks are so egregious and so readily apparent that even novices are looking at it and saying, “Uh…no…nah..unh..unh…this ain’t happening".
And they are sticking to Windows 7.
If you are a business user thinking of upgrading to Windows 8, I would be very very careful. Find yourself a hard-core engineer, either in your company, or maybe a consultant, and ask not what is good about Windows 8, but what is bad. The last thing you want to do is find yourself locked into something that is very different from what you were expecting, based on previous versions of Windows."
Bear in mind, if you're not a PC savvy person that buys a PC that says "Windows 8 ready" with UEFI, good luck installing anything but Windows 8 on it, because Microsoft, like hus (to a lesser and slightly less annoying degree) would like to tell you they know better than you do.
One of the requirements of UEFI Secure Boot is the capability to easily turn it off in BIOS. Please quit spreading misinformation.
you cannot control where (or how) other people should play this game. people will play where they want to. whether it's the actual experience they should (or should not) be having, it varies based on what you really play the game for and what you feel is fun in it. it only starts getting out of hand when you accuse the other side of playing the game incorrectly.
the devs might not have known what they were doing when they set the maximum player cap to 24, but if it was really a problem for anybody, they would've adjusted it. they also set up a lot of 16p "official" servers for release, but i don't think they were popular.
players go where they feel is fun and the definition of fun differs from player to player. just leave each other alone and play whatever works for you.
Yeah, except when you enable legacy boot (which "easily disables" secure boot) in BIOS, it spazzes out when you're trying to get drivers to work for other OS's, even Windows 7. Trust me, it's pretty much exactly as this guy laid out. Microsoft is, more or less, doing their damndest to channel people into doing it "their way" for Windows 8, just like they did in Vista. Hell, it's not even as if Microsoft doesn't have a history with this kind of bullshit. And I'm not going to say it's impossible, because people have managed it after spending many more hours then feasible or practically economical have done it, but that's pretty much what it is.
A mate who I refused to join in there told me tick rate was under 15 unsurprisingly.
I want the 20+ slot servers classed as modified for performance reasons as much as game play.
Many of them do not run very well and it's a pretty bad introduction to a new player. They will probably blame their hardware and then rage about system requirements in here...
Larger servers are the best place for a new person to start. In anyone's first couple games they are likely to be worse than worthless, on a larger server that is more likely to go unnoticed. Smaller servers lead to rookies getting yelled at more, which is by far the worse experience for them.
The less skilled a player is, the larger the server they should generally favor. Not simply to be carried but so that they can rely on teamplay and or brute force over personal skill which they don't have.
Also I'd like to point out that the game is more balanced at higher playercounts. Marines benefit more strongly from having more players and therefor the win rates become more even.
On the topic of server performance, player count is actually a fairly minor concern. Most server issues basically stem from buildings one way or another, and while more players certainly doesn't help matters a good 80% of the "problem" is the same regardless.
No point arguing with an Be polite. -Talesin
I'd just like some minor changes put in so that new players can experience the intended game size and experience. As mentioned by someone else, it's quite easy for people to stumble into 24 player servers and leave with a foul taste or no desire to come back. Nobody is taking away your zerg mode but it would be nice for it to be known as something that is not default.
Be polite. -Talesin
It is your belief that 24 player servers are zerg fests and it is your belief that new players would have a foul taste after playing in one. You should change your posts to reflect that rather than trying to state it as fact. Many people certainly disagree with you.
Comments
Due to complete lack of other options I joined a mate on Monash 24 player last night. I joined late game on veil, just as we (aliens) took pipe back of marines. Whilst on a normal server, I would usually expect single base marines with out nano to concede fairly quickly, but of course being a 24fustercluck they settled in for a monumental turtle. A mate questioned why his "fps" was dipping with a 3770k / GTX670. I brought up net_stats and sure enough during this turtle the tick rate dropped to less than 15 plenty of times. Usually when we would make a push for their base. This coincided with choppy player movement.
Whilst Monash is certainly the best 24p server in Aus for performance, it still gets bogged down in late game. To be fair it probably does not matter by then, you only need to hit the broad side of an onos with the lmg or spam nades at gorges.
No it wouldn't. For a start, most official boxes are 16 spots. 6 v 6 is purely a comp thing that doesn't extend past that.
People would just join the 16 slot server with spots in it because it comes up the top of the server list.
Instead, people see 24 at the top all the time and immediately associate bigger numbers with better things.
Windows8 is quite happy to prove this notion wrong.
Windows 2000 > Windows 98 > Windows 95 > Windows 8 > Windows 7 > Windows NT4.0 > Windows 3.1 > Windows 3.0 > Windows 2.1x > Windows 2.0 > Windows 1.0 > Windows Vista > Windows XP
Personally I like Win7>XP>95 (I hated the rest).
Oh my dear God.
Just no. It's a horrible, horrible mess.
I thankfully settled into a decent 18p server and had a lot of really, REALLY good games, with probably the perfect marine team rounding the night off.
My one worry with 24p servers is not that they will take over, or that people aren't enjoying the game 'right'. My worry is that new players who join them will uninstall NS2 for good, without ever experiencing a good game. I have yet to find ONE good game on a 24p server.
You're entitled to run them, of course you are, but oh dear God someone think of the children!!
remember kids, just say no
You think XP is better than 2000... lol
Now some people like 24p, and that's fine, we shouldn't take anything away from them. But if a new player who likes the same type of games that I do joins a 24p server, they're going to tell all their friends that NS2 is **** and they'll uninstall it.
So yeah I'd go for yellow for 24p, and preferably also 22p servers by default. It's not skin off the server operators' noses, but it might just save a few potential game reviewers joining some of the horrendous 24p games going on with no-one communicating and no chance in hell the commander can actually listen to even 5% of the requests coming his way... it's just a random run-around-and-shoot-stuff game mode that I thought was kind of the point of combat.
Did you seriously just use Windows 8 to back up your argument? As a certified and degree holding IT tech, I'm telling you: Be polite. -Talesin
If you were playing on a marine team that, or you personally cared about, nano on veil, inside of the 15 minute mark, then that's your problem right there.
I don't know why this simple fact escapes so many marine teams on veil: even if aliens secure nano early, which they most likely will, marines start with topo and skylights early as well. Wow, what do ya know, both start out on equal terms in res.
Ma man.
Did you seriously just try and bignote yourself about an IT degree?
It was an analogy into the hivemind mentality that bigger numbers or higher versions are better by default.
The IT industry in general, has shunned Windows8.
This holds true for NS2 as well.
As for me, I've played on a lot of different NS2 servers with a lot of different player counts and the funnest time I have is on Mavick's 24 player server. I've even played on a lot of other 24 player servers and none of them were as as fun as Mavick's, especially when you are playing with/against some of the regular players that frequent that server. (this is probably the reason why it can sometimes take a long time waiting for an open slot to pop up on the server.)
Also the fact that Mavick's server runs on great hardware and the performance is great even during late game.
Yeah, well my professionally experienced and common sense mind would like to re-introduce you to the abysmal failure of windows vista (who actually had a better reception rate then windows 8 at the same time span). And yes, I did bignote myself with those credentials *because it applies*.
You know, IT degrees are worth about as much as the piece of paper its printed on. I'd try to contain that ego around a workplace.
You're arguing irrelevant points to a simple analogy of bigger numbers isn't always better.
Now that that's out of the way, just yellow the 24 player servers. Thanks.
"That Windows 8 is less bloated than Windows 7 is a good hypothesis, but I am afraid, that is not the reason. The reason Windows 8 is failing, and will continue to fail, can be summarized in one simple fact:
Windows 8 is a poorly-executed attempt at customer lock-in that is alienating all but the most naive/tolerant of Windows users.
If you examine the technical details of Windows 8, you will find that, unlike previous versions of Windows, it is rife with gimmicks that are meant to lock-in the customer. I believe, in the business world, you call this “customer stickiness”. Microsoft laid it on quite thick with Windows 8, and the strategy is backfiring immensely.
There is something called UEFI secure boot, which is a very beneficial thing in principle, as it creates a chain-of-guarantee from the very moment that the power switch is hit, to the moment that you see pretty colors on the screen, that no viruses have “got in and under” the OS while you were not looking. Microsoft insisted that, if OEM’s want to claim that their PC’s are “Windows 8 Ready”, it must support EUFI secure boot. Fine. But as it turns out, Microsoft went rogue with this feature and insisted that OEM’s implement it in a way that makes it problematic to use the brand new PC to boot Linux. Not very smart. Now you have hoards of techno-polyglots who use both Windows and Linux, very angry at Windows (Microsoft). And they tend to be more vocal in their discontent than average users.
Microsoft has the intent of generating revenue via cloud services, but rather than let the market dynamics play out, they are trying to force it. The idea is to get users used to the notion that Microsoft will “house” your data for you. Fine. Some consumers and business might like this. But, Microsoft was so worried that not enough users will buy in, they architecturally changed many of their applications to rely on the cloud *only*, so that customers have now no choice but to use cloud services. Not smart. Some people do not like the idea of their wife’s and babies pictures being forced onto Microsofts cloud.
Throughout the use of Windows 8, Microsoft presents “optional” agreements that are really not optional, if you want to play. Some of their “optional” agreements give them the right to analyze your personal data in while it sits in their cloud. Many users do not like these “optional”, non-optional agreements.
Microsoft is running a “de-branding” campaign to eliminate competition by calling your email applications simply “Mail”. Again, they are trying to destroy the decades-old perception that competition exists in the software space, and that there are different brands of mail applications, and the customer, not the OS, gets to decide which one to use, and how it will be presented to the user.
Microsoft tries to get you to sign up to a cloud account whether you want one or not. After the customer declines a few times, Microsoft repeatedly asks (harasses) the customer over and over until the customer acquiesces. Quite annoying from a user-perspective.
As we all know, Microsoft created a new UI, which they called “Metro”, that has tiles that look like they were designed by Fisher-Price. The name being used lately, I think, is “Modern UI.” Afraid that not enough customers will by into the “use-our-cloud” mandate, and simply revert to old branded applications found with “regular”, non “Modern UI” applications, Microsoft eliminated the START menu. “There, that’s better. Now our hoards of customers will be forced to use our tiles, and therefore, our cloud based services.” Not smart, and not working. Many of the users are older than 5, and they hate the new, restrictive, gimmicky interface. If you have a moment, Google “hate Windows 8″ to see the rage for yourself.
Thinking that users will now be forced into their cloud services, Microsoft lined up some cloud offerings, including video service and music. But then they thought, “Oh. What about those DVD things that people put into the DVD drives that come with every new computer….Hmmm…maybe if we eliminate the ability to play DVD’s on the computer, they will become desperate, and stampede their way to our music/video offerings. Yea, let’s do that!!!” Windows 8 will not play DVD’s, something every Windows user has come to expect as a not-even-up-for-discussion feature.
But Microsoft still had a problem: third-party software developers. Even with the formerly-known-as-Metro UI (Modern UI), the Windows 7 desktop is still lurking beneath the Surface (pun intended). Microsoft puts on thinking hat again: “Hmm…we have to force developers to stop writing desktop applications, as they only delay the adoption of Metro. How do we do that?…I got it!!! Let’s kill the API that they use to write desktop applications, and force them to write Metro applications!!! But…we cannot do it all at once. They will simply rebel. Let’s do it gradually, and be sneaky about it.” And so, this is what Microsoft is doing…gradually killing the API that software developers use to write applications that underly a $100 billion industry. [YES, THAT API.]
But, Microsoft still needs more ways to “monetize Windows 8. So they said, “What about Windows Phone 8? Is there something that we can do regarding Windows Phone 8 to induce upgrades to Windows 8? Yes!!! We can make it so that the software development tools that are now used to make Windows Phone 7 applications will be unable to make Windows Phone 8 applications, unless the tools run on Windows 8!!! Brilliant!” And so they did. Software developers around the world are all scratching their heads in unison, asking themselves the same question: “Why would Microsoft artificially restrict the development of Windows Phone 8 applications to machines running Windows 8? It takes less than an hours to make the tool run on Windows 7 too….”
But wait! Let’s not forget Google! Tech CEO’s around the world go to bed every night envying the meteoric rise of the likes of Google and Facebook. They want some of that action. So does Microsoft. So Microsoft decided to put advertisements in many of their Windows 8 “apps”, tailored to the user, of course, after snooping the user’s data. Nice. Now, when am about to give my PowerPoint presentation, I can expect a Viagra ad to pop up in my free weather widget that came with the computer whether I wanted it or not.
Microsoft is not the first company to pull a stunt like Windows 8. It won’t be the last. The problem is that the gimmicks are so egregious and so readily apparent that even novices are looking at it and saying, “Uh…no…nah..unh..unh…this ain’t happening".
And they are sticking to Windows 7.
If you are a business user thinking of upgrading to Windows 8, I would be very very careful. Find yourself a hard-core engineer, either in your company, or maybe a consultant, and ask not what is good about Windows 8, but what is bad. The last thing you want to do is find yourself locked into something that is very different from what you were expecting, based on previous versions of Windows."
Bear in mind, if you're not a PC savvy person that buys a PC that says "Windows 8 ready" with UEFI, good luck installing anything but Windows 8 on it, because Microsoft, like hus (to a lesser and slightly less annoying degree) would like to tell you they know better than you do.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/102940006/2013-02-17_00003.jpg
A mate who I refused to join in there told me tick rate was under 15 unsurprisingly.
I want the 20+ slot servers classed as modified for performance reasons as much as game play.
Many of them do not run very well and it's a pretty bad introduction to a new player. They will probably blame their hardware and then rage about system requirements in here...
http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/servers/52073/199.192.205.183:27015
I'd put my server's performance against any 16 player, any day of the week, period. If other people host 24 player servers on bad hardware, not my problem. I know what to expect on mine, as well as the diehard regulars we have. If you haven't experienced it, don't knock it or dare to compare it to other half-rate servers.
I'd just like some minor changes put in so that new players can experience the intended game size and experience. As mentioned by someone else, it's quite easy for people to stumble into 24 player servers and leave with a foul taste or no desire to come back. Nobody is taking away your zerg mode but it would be nice for it to be known as something that is not default.
Be polite. -Talesin
One of the requirements of UEFI Secure Boot is the capability to easily turn it off in BIOS. Please quit spreading misinformation.
you cannot control where (or how) other people should play this game. people will play where they want to. whether it's the actual experience they should (or should not) be having, it varies based on what you really play the game for and what you feel is fun in it. it only starts getting out of hand when you accuse the other side of playing the game incorrectly.
the devs might not have known what they were doing when they set the maximum player cap to 24, but if it was really a problem for anybody, they would've adjusted it. they also set up a lot of 16p "official" servers for release, but i don't think they were popular.
players go where they feel is fun and the definition of fun differs from player to player. just leave each other alone and play whatever works for you.
Larger servers are the best place for a new person to start. In anyone's first couple games they are likely to be worse than worthless, on a larger server that is more likely to go unnoticed. Smaller servers lead to rookies getting yelled at more, which is by far the worse experience for them.
The less skilled a player is, the larger the server they should generally favor. Not simply to be carried but so that they can rely on teamplay and or brute force over personal skill which they don't have.
Also I'd like to point out that the game is more balanced at higher playercounts. Marines benefit more strongly from having more players and therefor the win rates become more even.
On the topic of server performance, player count is actually a fairly minor concern. Most server issues basically stem from buildings one way or another, and while more players certainly doesn't help matters a good 80% of the "problem" is the same regardless.
It is your belief that 24 player servers are zerg fests and it is your belief that new players would have a foul taste after playing in one. You should change your posts to reflect that rather than trying to state it as fact. Many people certainly disagree with you.