Read my posts Savant. I said his server is fun to play on despite the lack of 'balance'.
So what you're saying is that no one cares about balance in the game? All those players playing on 24 player servers don't care about balance? I really find that hard to believe. Frankly I think the nature of marines makes the game more balanced on larger servers, and coupled with the fun factors makes them a superior place to play.
With respect, there's a reason those servers are full ALL the time, while low player count servers sit empty.
The users have spoken. It's about time people started to listen.
I don't think UWE ever stated an intended playercount for balanced play. However, they did suggest and operate a series of 16-player servers through Multiplay. That's about the limit for smooth server performance on the most common server hardware available.
It really doesn't matter if you feel it isn't balanced, since the public have had their say. Seeing as his server is packed almost all the time, it would seem that the players feel it is more balanced than smaller servers. More importantly, they feel it is more fun.
How many full 6v6 pub servers do you see out there? Hmmm? None.
So please don't judge Mavick or anyone who runs a 24 player server. Frankly, the community owes him - and other large server OPs - a debt of gratitude. If they were running these servers, and if the largest was 8v8, I think the number of players playing would only be a fraction of what it is now.
It's server OPs like Mavick that are keeping NS2 alive. The public has spoken, and they have clearly said they enjoy large servers. Whining about it won't change that.
Looking at the server list, I see quite a range of full populated servers from 16 to 24 players. If the public is saying anything, its that they enjoy a wide variety of playercount servers.
Also, the 6v6 number is largely only relevant to comp matches. It represents a compromise between having enough players for a balanced/fun match but not too many to make organizing scrims, tournies, and leagues a logistical nightmare.
QUOTE (Jonacrab @ May 8 2012, 03:50 AM) »... they would never pop up more than 1 fade at a time in a 6v6...
... The beauty of NS1 is that the game managed this balance perfectly, but without the whole system, balance is lost.
I mean no disrespect at all Jonacrab, you often advance great arguments. But I must interject here and ask the question, how well did NS1's perfect balance work in 8v8s? 10v10s? Anything but 6v6? The answer is that it did not, at all. NS1 was only balanced for 6v6, and that is unacceptable for NS2.
There you have it. UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for a range of game sizes. Golly, I guess searching IS my friend after all! Thanks, Mr Thinks Post Count Means Jack ####.
QUOTE (Jonacrab @ May 8 2012, 03:50 AM) »... they would never pop up more than 1 fade at a time in a 6v6...
... The beauty of NS1 is that the game managed this balance perfectly, but without the whole system, balance is lost.
I mean no disrespect at all Jonacrab, you often advance great arguments. But I must interject here and ask the question, how well did NS1's perfect balance work in 8v8s? 10v10s? Anything but 6v6? The answer is that it did not, at all. NS1 was only balanced for 6v6, and that is unacceptable for NS2.
There you have it. UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for a range of game sizes. Golly, I guess searching IS my friend after all! Thanks, Mr Thinks Post Count Means Jack ####.
Lol........wow. Now apparently all you have to do is get your post count up CrazyEddie, since apparently that's relevant for some asinine reason to some people!
Now apparently all you have to do is get your post count up CrazyEddie, since apparently that's relevant for some asinine reason to some people!
It is with great pride, tears in my eyes, and a heart filled with boundless joy that I hereby make my one hundredth post.
My first kiss, my wedding day, the birth of my children, even the day I played my very first online multiplayer shooter... such events pale in comparison to, nay, fade away into virtual nothingness in light of this, my hundredth post. For today, truly, honor and glory are mine. Today, I am a man.
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
You can always sort by performance, which I believe is based off the server tickrate. If it says 100% that should mean it's running at a 30 tickrate, which is the max. Mine runs at that 99% of the time, you won't see any server lag ruining any games on it.
Too bad I can join 100% perf servers with 10 tickrate
How do you know they're running a 10 tickrate? I could be totally wrong on equating the percentage performance from the server browser to the actual tickrate, I just assumed that's what it was based off of. I know mine's pegged at 30 on both the web admin panel and the server tracker about 99% of the time at any rate.
Find better performing 24 player servers then, if you're interested in the size but turned off just due to performance. Trust me, they're out there.
Also, I'm not convinced I was wrong about the performance on the server browser either. Server performance can be spikey, they might have been 100% when you joined, but gradually (or sporadically) decreased after you joined.
Find better performing 24 player servers then, if you're interested in the size but turned off just due to performance. Trust me, they're out there.
Also, I'm not convinced I was wrong about the performance on the server browser either. Server performance can be spikey, they might have been 100% when you joined, but gradually (or sporadically) decreased after you joined.
As far as I can tell, no 24 player server plays as smoothly as possible in NS2, but the smoothest ones are overclocked boxes hosted at a datacenter like what NS2Servers does. I typically find that late-game tickrate tends to drop into the mid 20s and choke-related rubberbanding becomes a somewhat frequent annoyance. For many public players, this probably isn't that big of a deal, but I do notice it as it can really mess up precision movement such as fade shadowstep + jump + double jump timing.
So what's the argument here? That 12v12 is balanced? If it's fun, more power to you, but continuing to argue that it's somehow intended to be balanced at that player count is a farce.
Oh, and I read your citation Eddie. It really isn't rocket science here, considering the fact that the competitive player count 'balance' is 6v6, with another 'balance' at 8v8 for public play. Are these player counts written in stone, or perfectly balanced as is? Of course not. It's a balance goal. If you think it's possible to balance a 50 person server with the same ruleset you use for a 6v6 in Natural Selection 2 you've got a very cold shower waiting for you in actual game play.
I'm not attacking you as a carebear or something for playing 12v12. It's fun. It's also so different from a 8v8 game that it might as well be a completely different game mode. Lets call that game mode 'twitch and shoot' and be done with it. If you want to sincerely believe that a 12v12 game is a ballet of point and counter point with some seriously in depth complexity in your strategy and build orders, great. I disagree, as most 12v12 games I've played in are really 6v6 or 8v8 with some random clueless soldiers thrown in for random chaff. You know the guys I'm talking about. The ones with a 0-20 KDR with a score of 10.
To say those guys are part of the 'plan' is just totally and abjectly false. The more people in a server, the more glaring the aliens scaling problem becomes. If you don't see it, that's cool. I'm glad you still have fun. I'd just rather not drink the kool-aide that says those problems don't exist. It is, bar none, the reason I don't play 12v12. Things like egg lock are not amorphous 'what ifs', but constant companions that must be planned around. If all you play is 12v12, you don't have a perspective on how other games play out. To you, shift first might be a necessity because crags simply don't spawn eggs. You take it as a given, and can't understand that it's only a given on your server, and that normally the game doesn't require you to spend 20 T.Res on eggs every five minutes through normal player attrition.
(Note: this is an example. You can argue the example if you feel that you're incapable to addressing the salient points.)
I'm done beating a dead horse. People will read into this whatever they'll read into it. If you can't be objective about things it's just a circle jerk troll fest.
To Mavick: Thanks for hosting your server. It is fun, whereas much of Natural Selection 2 is not. Even though your server is not balanced, it is fun. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Thank you once again.
Things like egg lock are not amorphous 'what ifs', but constant companions that must be planned around. If all you play is 12v12, you don't have a perspective on how other games play out. To you, shift first might be a necessity because crags simply don't spawn eggs. You take it as a given, and can't understand that it's only a given on your server, and that normally the game doesn't require you to spend 20 T.Res on eggs every five minutes through normal player attrition.
You make it sound like in every round on a 24player server they go shift first or should go shift first. Which is utterly false. Everytime I've seen the Alien comm go with crag first on Mavick's server, the Aliens won that round, with the exception of 1 time.
Every point you try to make to say that 6v6/8v8 has more strategy/complexity, I can come up with a counterpoint to every one on a 12v12 server. 12v12 has just as much in that terms as smaller servers.
If you can't be objective about things it's just a circle jerk troll fest.
I really don't know what you're arguing Res. Is your point that 12v12 is balanced?
(Note: this is an example. You can argue the example if you feel that you're incapable to addressing the salient points.)
I notice you zoomed right in on the example, while ignoring the vast majority of my post.
Kettle meet the pot.
I'm guessing you're the pot in your example?
Is there strategy in 12v12? Of course. Is it the same strategy you would use in 6v6 or 8v8? Of course not. Is it more, or less, in depth? Depends on your players, I suppose. Considering that the server most people are talking about is a green listed rookie server, I'd say there are other factors to consider in your 'balanced' argument. While I'm thinking about it, are there any 12v12 competitive games? Or serious 12v12 intermediate servers? If so, what are their names? If not, why not? Is it because competitive is balanced differently with the player size being half of a 24 player server? Does that mean that the more players you have on a server the more it's balanced for new players? Do those questions illustrate the issue any better for you people?
I guess it's not enough to admit that 12v12 is fun for different reasons than 6v6 or 8v8 are fun. I must agree that it is, in fact, an intended and balanced method of NS2 play with nuanced strategic depth. (I guess I'll ignore all the other threads complaining about balance at every player count. Maybe it's because they aren't playing 12v12 games, where stuff works as intended.)
Maybe it's just an admission than NS2 isn't fun at the level of players it was intended for. I'd say that's a fair assessment personally. I mean, if 24 players are balanced despite the fact it's outside the intended player count for balanced play, why not host a 34 person server? Or a 64 person? Is that still balanced, or is there in fact a level of players that break the game? Maybe that player count isn't 12v12, but it's awfully close. This is, of course, not even considering the hardware requirements for hosting a server in the first place.
I really don't know what you're arguing Res. Is your point that 12v12 is balanced?
I'm arguing the fact that you think 12v12 servers have less strategic depth than 6v6/8v8 servers.... i don't know how I could have made that clearer.
Also, the reason why comp play is 6v6 is due to needing less players to make a match and also due to people being used to only 6v6 in comp play from past games so the league creators just conform to other games.
Also... you seem to be contradicting yourself... here's 2 quotes.
If you want to sincerely believe that a 12v12 game is a ballet of point and counter point with some seriously in depth complexity in your strategy and build orders, great. I disagree.
I guess it's not enough to admit that 12v12 is fun for different reasons than 6v6 or 8v8 are fun. I must agree that it is, in fact, an intended and balanced method of NS2 play with nuanced strategic depth.
It's hard to figure out what you are saying when you contradict yourself.
12v12 on veil isn't strategy, it's death match. He who goes on the offensive first wins. How does adding even more players to a map that's barely balanced for 6v6 make sense to you? You can't walk two feet without running into three players on the other team. Mineshaft or Refinery might be somewhat doable, but frankly even the larger maps aren't well suited to player counts over 8v8. I'd respect 12v12 a lot more if it was it's own game mode, with it's own maps. Perhaps even with it's own rule set. Until then, it's simply too chaotic with that many players.
I also don't buy your excuse that 6v6 is 6v6 because other games do that. I think it was a deliberate choice, not something picked out of a hat because Quake did it or some other equally ludicrous assumption.
EDIT: Rippsy already nailed it on the first page I think. 12v12 is fun for the casual player. We can argue strategic depth all day long, but it's fun. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. If you want a different experience, you can always go 8v8 or 6v6. Balance and depth of strategy are both secondary to fun, I think everyone can agree on that.
@Res: I didn't contradict myself, you took me out of context. I'm sure you can see the difference.
I also don't buy your excuse that 6v6 is 6v6 because other games do that. I think it was a deliberate choice, not something picked out of a hat because Quake did it or some other equally ludicrous assumption.
6v6 became "mainstream" during counterstrike and ever since then FPS games have stuck with the 6v6 formula for comp games. Even if games would benefit from having more or less players.
I played TFC when it was 9v9 competitively. Then CS was released and the comp scene was 6v6... I was always like.. 6v6 so lame... because I was used to 9v9, then I watch in despair as every other team based FPS game since goes 6v6.......including NS2.
I keep looking over your previous post and just don't see how the context of it changes how you contradicted yourself. Perhaps that post needs rewording to better convey what you meant.
Maps being suited for certain amount of players is a matter of opinion. How chaotic or desolate a map is, is a matter of opinion as well.
You can't walk two feet without running into three players on the other team.
Find better performing 24 player servers then, if you're interested in the size but turned off just due to performance. Trust me, they're out there.
Also, I'm not convinced I was wrong about the performance on the server browser either. Server performance can be spikey, they might have been 100% when you joined, but gradually (or sporadically) decreased after you joined.
As far as I can tell, no 24 player server plays as smoothly as possible in NS2, but the smoothest ones are overclocked boxes hosted at a datacenter like what NS2Servers does. I typically find that late-game tickrate tends to drop into the mid 20s and choke-related rubberbanding becomes a somewhat frequent annoyance. For many public players, this probably isn't that big of a deal, but I do notice it as it can really mess up precision movement such as fade shadowstep + jump + double jump timing.
EVERY server, regardless of size, can do that Scardybob. You were on mine last night, you saw how well it handled that map on refinery where we had exos and macs running around and aliens on 3 hives. Didn't even blink. I think one time I counted (and mentioned on here) my server had 4 tickrate drops to around the 25 range over a 12 hour period. That's God-knows-how-many games played with no drops at all, early or mid-game.
I've actually been looking through other smaller servers on devicenull.org and the graphs on mine actually look better or just as good as every one that I've looked at. One thing I will acknowledge tho, client side lag can be different depending on your machine, and if you're running a poor to mediocre machine on a big server, then yes, your experience can probably be different then someone on a really good one. But at any rate, 24 player servers themselves CAN run as smoothly as possible.
To Mavick: Thanks for hosting your server. It is fun, whereas much of Natural Selection 2 is not. Even though your server is not balanced, it is fun. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Thank you once again.
You're welcome. But me and you still disagree on the balance point. I've read over your rebuttals and it's clearly just a difference of opinion. Mine is based off seeing good aliens teams vs good marines teams on a 24 player setting, and the good aliens teams still have the slight advantage (they might still lose, but then they might not, depending on if marines play everything out to a T or manage to surprise them), everytime I've seen the perfect storm happen.
I think what you're not seeing that I am is this lack of scaling you allude to for the aliens. My counter to that is the presence of more higher lifeforms for the alien teams allowed by the player count. If the majority of an alien team stays skulk for the majority, even decent ones I've seen get crushed doing this. But on the other hand, my server has some regulars that play scary good lerk and fade, and if they do decide to evolve at their first chance, I've seen them swing the balance of the game. If they don't, and it hits mid-game, then the marines are in for multiple onos. I've seen games where the alien teams have had up to 6 onos on the field at a time and others where they've had well more then that fielded totalled. That's a pretty good equalizing factor for them in terms of punishment dealt versus how quickly a marine team can burn through that much health.
Another big thing is the fact that if aliens make it to 2 hives, it's really anyone's ball game when bile bomb is researched. It's actually easier on a bigger server for aliens to get a power node down when you have that many more gorges or onos that can run into a base poorly guarded and get a power node down before a beacon can even finish. I've seen this happen so many times it would be hard to count.
I know the popular theory among some are that equally skilled ranged versus equally skilled melee, the ranged should win. Looking at skillsets in a vacuum, yes, you'd be right. Factoring in environmental variables such as where the fights take place and how many involved per side, no, it's not correct. Some alien players are just insanely good at ambushing, and closing to melee before the ranged even have a chance to fire at them. I've also seen squads of a few marines get absolutely bushwacked by twice as many skulks acting together as well.
Now is my server perfect, and every game is an example of balance masterpiece? Absolutely not. There's still some inherent flaws in the game that need wrinkled out and my server is just as susceptible to team stacking as any other. Some of the flaws on mine might be more exaggerated while others mitigated, but it doesn't radically skew off on it's own tangent based on player count alone, that's just an observed fact. I try to limit the team stacking when I'm actively adminning it and push my other admins to do it as well.
TL:DR - If your opinion is based off playing a few 12v12 games that didn't have the ingredients for a balanced game to start with based on either map (some are more balanced than others) or team skill, yes I can see this being your opinion. Doesn't make it native to the player count tho, and that's the point I'm driving at.
12v12 on veil isn't strategy, it's death match. He who goes on the offensive first wins. How does adding even more players to a map that's barely balanced for 6v6 make sense to you? You can't walk two feet without running into three players on the other team. Mineshaft or Refinery might be somewhat doable, but frankly even the larger maps aren't well suited to player counts over 8v8. I'd respect 12v12 a lot more if it was it's own game mode, with it's own maps. Perhaps even with it's own rule set. Until then, it's simply too chaotic with that many players.
I also don't buy your excuse that 6v6 is 6v6 because other games do that. I think it was a deliberate choice, not something picked out of a hat because Quake did it or some other equally ludicrous assumption.
EDIT: Rippsy already nailed it on the first page I think. 12v12 is fun for the casual player. We can argue strategic depth all day long, but it's fun. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. If you want a different experience, you can always go 8v8 or 6v6. Balance and depth of strategy are both secondary to fun, I think everyone can agree on that.
@Res: I didn't contradict myself, you took me out of context. I'm sure you can see the difference.
On this I'll just point out there might be some, in fact there might be many, where strategic depth and balance are actually what makes games fun for even casual players.
I keep looking over your previous post and just don't see how the context of it changes how you contradicted yourself. Perhaps that post needs rewording to better convey what you meant.
Turn off your sarcasm filter. It's blocking my content.
@Mavick: It is entirely a difference of opinion. I respect your position because you actually do run a quite successful 24 person server that I found fun. I don't agree, and I often disagree pretty loudly at first.
NS2 has a scaling problem with the Aliens. The problem is that Marines scale, while Aliens don't. I'd go in depth, but hell no one would read it and there are better topics on that very issue. I stopped finding it fun when I realized that Aliens have some disadvantages that only show themselves on large player count servers. They don't always rear their ugly heads, but when they do it ruins my evening. New players die a lot, when a lot of new players die a lot on Aliens they egg lock the team, and new players like to play on 12v12 servers. Result? More egg lock than you see in 6v6 or 8v8. Egg lock is not fun, ergo I do not play on 12v12 servers unless I'm in a mood to command new players.
Mainly this is so I personally am not egg locked, and I know full well how to 'fix' that problem as best you can in NS2 as alien commander. The 'Ball Pit' dig wasn't nice, but it's generally how I see new player servers. We were all there once, of course, but that doesn't mean we all want to stay there. Eventually we move on to the monkey bars.
This is not to say that egg lock is the only problem I have with 12v12, it is merely the first item on the pile.
My point with Veil is simple. Its. Too. Damn. Small. It's barely working in 8v8, as I said. It's a wild card map as is since it doesn't fit the mold, but it really suffers at high player counts.
Then there's also the fact that 11 guns trained on something means that something dies. Instantly. At range. So while yes, a group of Aliens can indeed swarm a Marines base it's even more profitable for Marines to swarm the Aliens. 11 guns on a hive is like, what, a clip per Marine? Less, actually. And that's with W0. This is a side effect of the scaling I mentioned a moment ago, and it's a serious force multiplier in the Marines favor that increases the higher the player count goes.
I finally got round to playing on ENSL last night: 6v6 games.
To those who, like me, don't get on with 24p servers, if you're not already trying out public gathers on www.ensl.org, you should be. Awesome, awesome games, by far and away the most fun I've had in NS2 and a real challenge (in a good way).
To those who don't seek more of this kind of challenge and/or those who do like the 24p experience, long may your high spec 24p servers continue to help keep the game alive. Keep it up and keep up your passion for NS2.
For me, I'm delighted to have found my place to game, and it's 6v6 with everyone using a mic and working together with real strategy. Some of the most tense and exciting gameplay I've had (up there with my competitive Kingpin and CS days). It's brought NS2 from 'the game of choice' to 'the only choice' out of my steam collection.
You did? Great! I'm so glad then that we can agree that you were wrong when you said "UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for 8v8 pub game play", because they've not only never said such a thing, but in fact have said that the game is supposed to be balanced for a range of player counts.
I mean, if 24 players are balanced despite the fact it's outside the intended player count for balanced play, why not host a 34 person server?
Ooops, I guess I spoke too soon.
Okay, I'll stop trying to be cute and sarcastic and all that, and just make my point plainly. You have said that:
UWE says that the game is supposed to be balanced for 8v8
There's a player count that UWE intends the game to be balanced for, and 24 players is outside of it
Leaving aside the question of whether it even matters what UWE's intent is (versus the gameplay that actually occurs regardless of their intent), it's clear that you're using this notion of UWE's intent as a rhetorical device to persuade your interlocutors of your view on the balance or lack thereof in 24-player games. I think that rhetorical device is a canard, on two points:
UWE has in fact never stated any such thing, thus depriving your argument of its weight of authority, and
UWE's intent, stated or unstated, does not in fact exclude large playercount servers from their desired range of balanced gameplay.
I freely admit that I've not been reading the game design discussions since the early days of NS2. But ever since I found about NS2, I've become something of a devoted fan (as best I can given my limited time for playing games), and my recollection of what the dev team has said about balance matches what I just said right there. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be thankful for the information and will happily eat whatever flavor of crow you'd like to serve.
Some people are forgetting that it isn't always the server lagging. Some client machines cannot keep up with the 24 player count and when it starts to crumble they type chat "SERVER LAAAAAAAAAG!" There are unfortunately tons of players trying to run this game on minimum or worse specs and they need to take ownership for that and stop blaming servers in these cases (these people know who they are).
Yes I will admit there are servers run on machines as well that are below specs for what this game needs, I am not denying that. Yes that will create a bad 24 player experience.
One thing I have noticed that impacts server performance is what map is playing and how many entities are out. Some maps play better than others on servers. My box in particular does a fine job of not maxing out and I have the game dedicated to two cores by itself with nothing else running so the cores are free just for NS2. Even on a full 24 player load CPU is around 75% usage and I still have 5 Gigs Ram unused for RAM.
I'd say 99% of the time the server performs top notch. I am very picky about server performance and I would not have the server up and running with 24 players if the game and hardware were not able to handle it... Simple as that. As a server admin I would not want to run a game that ran like crap for any reason because it would just make the server look bad and people would not bother playing it so it's a waste of my damn time.
Find servers that are well spec'd for the player limit. Make sure you are not too far geographically and have minimal hops etc and your gaming experience should be great. I have what coast in the USA my server is on in my server name so people from china don't join and go "WTF HIGH PINGS!!!! LAAAAAAG!" When people from that same coast as my server joins it plays like freakin butta mang!
I wouldn't be so sure about that! If they had any idea it was their machine at fault and not the server, I suspect that a good proportion of them would a) moan about it incessantly b) uninstall or c) upgrade.
I keep looking over your previous post and just don't see how the context of it changes how you contradicted yourself. Perhaps that post needs rewording to better convey what you meant.
Turn off your sarcasm filter. It's blocking my content.
@Mavick: It is entirely a difference of opinion. I respect your position because you actually do run a quite successful 24 person server that I found fun. I don't agree, and I often disagree pretty loudly at first.
NS2 has a scaling problem with the Aliens. The problem is that Marines scale, while Aliens don't. I'd go in depth, but hell no one would read it and there are better topics on that very issue. I stopped finding it fun when I realized that Aliens have some disadvantages that only show themselves on large player count servers. They don't always rear their ugly heads, but when they do it ruins my evening. New players die a lot, when a lot of new players die a lot on Aliens they egg lock the team, and new players like to play on 12v12 servers. Result? More egg lock than you see in 6v6 or 8v8. Egg lock is not fun, ergo I do not play on 12v12 servers unless I'm in a mood to command new players.
Mainly this is so I personally am not egg locked, and I know full well how to 'fix' that problem as best you can in NS2 as alien commander. The 'Ball Pit' dig wasn't nice, but it's generally how I see new player servers. We were all there once, of course, but that doesn't mean we all want to stay there. Eventually we move on to the monkey bars.
This is not to say that egg lock is the only problem I have with 12v12, it is merely the first item on the pile.
My point with Veil is simple. Its. Too. Damn. Small. It's barely working in 8v8, as I said. It's a wild card map as is since it doesn't fit the mold, but it really suffers at high player counts.
Then there's also the fact that 11 guns trained on something means that something dies. Instantly. At range. So while yes, a group of Aliens can indeed swarm a Marines base it's even more profitable for Marines to swarm the Aliens. 11 guns on a hive is like, what, a clip per Marine? Less, actually. And that's with W0. This is a side effect of the scaling I mentioned a moment ago, and it's a serious force multiplier in the Marines favor that increases the higher the player count goes.
Well, one thing we can certainly agree on is Veil. It's by far my least favorite map on my server, and I'm not even sure I'd like it on a smaller server either. I don't think it translated well to NS2. I'd pull it frankly, if I didn't feel starved for maps as is.
I wouldn't be so sure about that! If they had any idea it was their machine at fault and not the server, I suspect that a good proportion of them would a) moan about it incessantly b) uninstall or c) upgrade.
I work with three people who constantly buy games their PC's can't handle and then they say "the game sucks" or "runs like crap"... If you search these very forums you'll see people posting their specs and they are not adequate yet they are complaining about some sort of performance issue.
Some people either can't afford a new PC worthy of playing new games or just too plain old cheap and expect today's games to run on their POS pc that's three or more years old... some people have newer PC's not built for gaming at all and then say "WTF my PC is newer, why can't I run this game!!!"
I get the feeling there are a lot of people who want the game developers to compensate so the game will run on their junk box when they should just either accept their PC can't run it or go buy a new rig.
Regarding the server software... does it need to be better yes I agree it does need a little TLC. Does the server run like crap with 24 players... no it does not if it is on a machine that meets or exceeds what it needs (just like the client software).
I know there are memory issues at times and then there is the whole giving a lot of orders via comm makes the server chug a bit but it does that no matter if the server is 16 or 24 players in my experience.
I've been reading up on the egg spawn system as it currently stands. I'd suggest you do the same. It seems like there might have been a change that tried to add scaling to the alien spawn system, or there might not have been a change. If people aren't noticing that particular issue anymore, either it's gone or they just don't pay attention. I'm going to look into this further, as it was a big gripe of mine that the alien spawn system didn't scale with player counts.
I freely admit that I've not been reading the game design discussions since the early days of NS2. But ever since I found about NS2, I've become something of a devoted fan.
I'm going to assume you've been a fan for two months, which is the amount of time you've been on these forums. I could be wrong, you could be like me and lost your NS1 user ID years ago and had to make a new one. I'm just going to assume that's the case, however. It would be understandable that you haven't seen much in that space of time.
Yes, Veil is a 'filler' map in my view. A lot of people think that as it's too small with not enough tech points, among other pretty obvious reasons. Hopefully the new map(s) are awesome.
It was a great map in NS1, which was a very different game. Veil is utter trash when considering NS2 IMO.
Well I had a go earlier on HBZ's 24p server. Now I like HBZ normally
These HBZ servers, were great but the (new?) admin is very immature.
He kick you if you kill him, i have no clue which of the HBZ Member it was, because he was hidding behind his "ADMIN" nick.
But last time it was the guy called [HBZ]ChuckNorris (yeah, the nickname shows everything...he fells incredible and thats why he abuse admin rights...)
Sorry for the late response, I stumbled over your post yesterday and talked to our members about this today.
Your ingame nick was "%%%%#Price%%%%%%%%%%%%", right?
You were banned by Menion, because of repeatedly f4ing the moment before your death and caps lock insulting everyone after they told you to stop.
We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour on our server.
And no : I usually dont feel incredible and i think u were the first person i kicked so far in 3 months - that's the time i'm being admin on HBZ servers.
Comments
With respect, there's a reason those servers are full ALL the time, while low player count servers sit empty.
The users have spoken. It's about time people started to listen.
Looking at the server list, I see quite a range of full populated servers from 16 to 24 players. If the public is saying anything, its that they enjoy a wide variety of playercount servers.
Also, the 6v6 number is largely only relevant to comp matches. It represents a compromise between having enough players for a balanced/fun match but not too many to make organizing scrims, tournies, and leagues a logistical nightmare.
Thanks for that constructive suggestion!
There you have it. UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for a range of game sizes. Golly, I guess searching IS my friend after all! Thanks, Mr Thinks Post Count Means Jack ####.
Lol........wow. Now apparently all you have to do is get your post count up CrazyEddie, since apparently that's relevant for some asinine reason to some people!
It is with great pride, tears in my eyes, and a heart filled with boundless joy that I hereby make my one hundredth post.
My first kiss, my wedding day, the birth of my children, even the day I played my very first online multiplayer shooter... such events pale in comparison to, nay, fade away into virtual nothingness in light of this, my hundredth post. For today, truly, honor and glory are mine. Today, I am a man.
All hail the post count!
net_stats 1
Also, I'm not convinced I was wrong about the performance on the server browser either. Server performance can be spikey, they might have been 100% when you joined, but gradually (or sporadically) decreased after you joined.
Oh, and I read your citation Eddie. It really isn't rocket science here, considering the fact that the competitive player count 'balance' is 6v6, with another 'balance' at 8v8 for public play. Are these player counts written in stone, or perfectly balanced as is? Of course not. It's a balance goal. If you think it's possible to balance a 50 person server with the same ruleset you use for a 6v6 in Natural Selection 2 you've got a very cold shower waiting for you in actual game play.
I'm not attacking you as a carebear or something for playing 12v12. It's fun. It's also so different from a 8v8 game that it might as well be a completely different game mode. Lets call that game mode 'twitch and shoot' and be done with it. If you want to sincerely believe that a 12v12 game is a ballet of point and counter point with some seriously in depth complexity in your strategy and build orders, great. I disagree, as most 12v12 games I've played in are really 6v6 or 8v8 with some random clueless soldiers thrown in for random chaff. You know the guys I'm talking about. The ones with a 0-20 KDR with a score of 10.
To say those guys are part of the 'plan' is just totally and abjectly false. The more people in a server, the more glaring the aliens scaling problem becomes. If you don't see it, that's cool. I'm glad you still have fun. I'd just rather not drink the kool-aide that says those problems don't exist. It is, bar none, the reason I don't play 12v12. Things like egg lock are not amorphous 'what ifs', but constant companions that must be planned around. If all you play is 12v12, you don't have a perspective on how other games play out. To you, shift first might be a necessity because crags simply don't spawn eggs. You take it as a given, and can't understand that it's only a given on your server, and that normally the game doesn't require you to spend 20 T.Res on eggs every five minutes through normal player attrition.
(Note: this is an example. You can argue the example if you feel that you're incapable to addressing the salient points.)
I'm done beating a dead horse. People will read into this whatever they'll read into it. If you can't be objective about things it's just a circle jerk troll fest.
To Mavick: Thanks for hosting your server. It is fun, whereas much of Natural Selection 2 is not. Even though your server is not balanced, it is fun. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Thank you once again.
You make it sound like in every round on a 24player server they go shift first or should go shift first. Which is utterly false. Everytime I've seen the Alien comm go with crag first on Mavick's server, the Aliens won that round, with the exception of 1 time.
Every point you try to make to say that 6v6/8v8 has more strategy/complexity, I can come up with a counterpoint to every one on a 12v12 server. 12v12 has just as much in that terms as smaller servers.
Kettle meet the pot.
I notice you zoomed right in on the example, while ignoring the vast majority of my post.
I'm guessing you're the pot in your example?
Is there strategy in 12v12? Of course. Is it the same strategy you would use in 6v6 or 8v8? Of course not. Is it more, or less, in depth? Depends on your players, I suppose. Considering that the server most people are talking about is a green listed rookie server, I'd say there are other factors to consider in your 'balanced' argument. While I'm thinking about it, are there any 12v12 competitive games? Or serious 12v12 intermediate servers? If so, what are their names? If not, why not? Is it because competitive is balanced differently with the player size being half of a 24 player server? Does that mean that the more players you have on a server the more it's balanced for new players? Do those questions illustrate the issue any better for you people?
I guess it's not enough to admit that 12v12 is fun for different reasons than 6v6 or 8v8 are fun. I must agree that it is, in fact, an intended and balanced method of NS2 play with nuanced strategic depth. (I guess I'll ignore all the other threads complaining about balance at every player count. Maybe it's because they aren't playing 12v12 games, where stuff works as intended.)
Maybe it's just an admission than NS2 isn't fun at the level of players it was intended for. I'd say that's a fair assessment personally. I mean, if 24 players are balanced despite the fact it's outside the intended player count for balanced play, why not host a 34 person server? Or a 64 person? Is that still balanced, or is there in fact a level of players that break the game? Maybe that player count isn't 12v12, but it's awfully close. This is, of course, not even considering the hardware requirements for hosting a server in the first place.
I'm arguing the fact that you think 12v12 servers have less strategic depth than 6v6/8v8 servers.... i don't know how I could have made that clearer.
Also, the reason why comp play is 6v6 is due to needing less players to make a match and also due to people being used to only 6v6 in comp play from past games so the league creators just conform to other games.
Also... you seem to be contradicting yourself... here's 2 quotes.
It's hard to figure out what you are saying when you contradict yourself.
I also don't buy your excuse that 6v6 is 6v6 because other games do that. I think it was a deliberate choice, not something picked out of a hat because Quake did it or some other equally ludicrous assumption.
EDIT: Rippsy already nailed it on the first page I think. 12v12 is fun for the casual player. We can argue strategic depth all day long, but it's fun. That's all that really matters at the end of the day. If you want a different experience, you can always go 8v8 or 6v6. Balance and depth of strategy are both secondary to fun, I think everyone can agree on that.
@Res: I didn't contradict myself, you took me out of context. I'm sure you can see the difference.
6v6 became "mainstream" during counterstrike and ever since then FPS games have stuck with the 6v6 formula for comp games. Even if games would benefit from having more or less players.
I played TFC when it was 9v9 competitively. Then CS was released and the comp scene was 6v6... I was always like.. 6v6 so lame... because I was used to 9v9, then I watch in despair as every other team based FPS game since goes 6v6.......including NS2.
I keep looking over your previous post and just don't see how the context of it changes how you contradicted yourself. Perhaps that post needs rewording to better convey what you meant.
Maps being suited for certain amount of players is a matter of opinion. How chaotic or desolate a map is, is a matter of opinion as well.
This is a gross over exaggeration.
EVERY server, regardless of size, can do that Scardybob. You were on mine last night, you saw how well it handled that map on refinery where we had exos and macs running around and aliens on 3 hives. Didn't even blink. I think one time I counted (and mentioned on here) my server had 4 tickrate drops to around the 25 range over a 12 hour period. That's God-knows-how-many games played with no drops at all, early or mid-game.
I've actually been looking through other smaller servers on devicenull.org and the graphs on mine actually look better or just as good as every one that I've looked at. One thing I will acknowledge tho, client side lag can be different depending on your machine, and if you're running a poor to mediocre machine on a big server, then yes, your experience can probably be different then someone on a really good one. But at any rate, 24 player servers themselves CAN run as smoothly as possible.
You're welcome. But me and you still disagree on the balance point. I've read over your rebuttals and it's clearly just a difference of opinion. Mine is based off seeing good aliens teams vs good marines teams on a 24 player setting, and the good aliens teams still have the slight advantage (they might still lose, but then they might not, depending on if marines play everything out to a T or manage to surprise them), everytime I've seen the perfect storm happen.
I think what you're not seeing that I am is this lack of scaling you allude to for the aliens. My counter to that is the presence of more higher lifeforms for the alien teams allowed by the player count. If the majority of an alien team stays skulk for the majority, even decent ones I've seen get crushed doing this. But on the other hand, my server has some regulars that play scary good lerk and fade, and if they do decide to evolve at their first chance, I've seen them swing the balance of the game. If they don't, and it hits mid-game, then the marines are in for multiple onos. I've seen games where the alien teams have had up to 6 onos on the field at a time and others where they've had well more then that fielded totalled. That's a pretty good equalizing factor for them in terms of punishment dealt versus how quickly a marine team can burn through that much health.
Another big thing is the fact that if aliens make it to 2 hives, it's really anyone's ball game when bile bomb is researched. It's actually easier on a bigger server for aliens to get a power node down when you have that many more gorges or onos that can run into a base poorly guarded and get a power node down before a beacon can even finish. I've seen this happen so many times it would be hard to count.
I know the popular theory among some are that equally skilled ranged versus equally skilled melee, the ranged should win. Looking at skillsets in a vacuum, yes, you'd be right. Factoring in environmental variables such as where the fights take place and how many involved per side, no, it's not correct. Some alien players are just insanely good at ambushing, and closing to melee before the ranged even have a chance to fire at them. I've also seen squads of a few marines get absolutely bushwacked by twice as many skulks acting together as well.
Now is my server perfect, and every game is an example of balance masterpiece? Absolutely not. There's still some inherent flaws in the game that need wrinkled out and my server is just as susceptible to team stacking as any other. Some of the flaws on mine might be more exaggerated while others mitigated, but it doesn't radically skew off on it's own tangent based on player count alone, that's just an observed fact. I try to limit the team stacking when I'm actively adminning it and push my other admins to do it as well.
TL:DR - If your opinion is based off playing a few 12v12 games that didn't have the ingredients for a balanced game to start with based on either map (some are more balanced than others) or team skill, yes I can see this being your opinion. Doesn't make it native to the player count tho, and that's the point I'm driving at.
On this I'll just point out there might be some, in fact there might be many, where strategic depth and balance are actually what makes games fun for even casual players.
Turn off your sarcasm filter. It's blocking my content.
@Mavick: It is entirely a difference of opinion. I respect your position because you actually do run a quite successful 24 person server that I found fun. I don't agree, and I often disagree pretty loudly at first.
NS2 has a scaling problem with the Aliens. The problem is that Marines scale, while Aliens don't. I'd go in depth, but hell no one would read it and there are better topics on that very issue. I stopped finding it fun when I realized that Aliens have some disadvantages that only show themselves on large player count servers. They don't always rear their ugly heads, but when they do it ruins my evening. New players die a lot, when a lot of new players die a lot on Aliens they egg lock the team, and new players like to play on 12v12 servers. Result? More egg lock than you see in 6v6 or 8v8. Egg lock is not fun, ergo I do not play on 12v12 servers unless I'm in a mood to command new players.
Mainly this is so I personally am not egg locked, and I know full well how to 'fix' that problem as best you can in NS2 as alien commander. The 'Ball Pit' dig wasn't nice, but it's generally how I see new player servers. We were all there once, of course, but that doesn't mean we all want to stay there. Eventually we move on to the monkey bars.
This is not to say that egg lock is the only problem I have with 12v12, it is merely the first item on the pile.
My point with Veil is simple. Its. Too. Damn. Small. It's barely working in 8v8, as I said. It's a wild card map as is since it doesn't fit the mold, but it really suffers at high player counts.
Then there's also the fact that 11 guns trained on something means that something dies. Instantly. At range. So while yes, a group of Aliens can indeed swarm a Marines base it's even more profitable for Marines to swarm the Aliens. 11 guns on a hive is like, what, a clip per Marine? Less, actually. And that's with W0. This is a side effect of the scaling I mentioned a moment ago, and it's a serious force multiplier in the Marines favor that increases the higher the player count goes.
To those who, like me, don't get on with 24p servers, if you're not already trying out public gathers on www.ensl.org, you should be. Awesome, awesome games, by far and away the most fun I've had in NS2 and a real challenge (in a good way).
To those who don't seek more of this kind of challenge and/or those who do like the 24p experience, long may your high spec 24p servers continue to help keep the game alive. Keep it up and keep up your passion for NS2.
For me, I'm delighted to have found my place to game, and it's 6v6 with everyone using a mic and working together with real strategy. Some of the most tense and exciting gameplay I've had (up there with my competitive Kingpin and CS days). It's brought NS2 from 'the game of choice' to 'the only choice' out of my steam collection.
You did? Great! I'm so glad then that we can agree that you were wrong when you said "UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for 8v8 pub game play", because they've not only never said such a thing, but in fact have said that the game is supposed to be balanced for a range of player counts.
Ooops, I guess I spoke too soon.
Okay, I'll stop trying to be cute and sarcastic and all that, and just make my point plainly. You have said that:
Leaving aside the question of whether it even matters what UWE's intent is (versus the gameplay that actually occurs regardless of their intent), it's clear that you're using this notion of UWE's intent as a rhetorical device to persuade your interlocutors of your view on the balance or lack thereof in 24-player games. I think that rhetorical device is a canard, on two points:
I freely admit that I've not been reading the game design discussions since the early days of NS2. But ever since I found about NS2, I've become something of a devoted fan (as best I can given my limited time for playing games), and my recollection of what the dev team has said about balance matches what I just said right there. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be thankful for the information and will happily eat whatever flavor of crow you'd like to serve.
Yes I will admit there are servers run on machines as well that are below specs for what this game needs, I am not denying that. Yes that will create a bad 24 player experience.
One thing I have noticed that impacts server performance is what map is playing and how many entities are out. Some maps play better than others on servers. My box in particular does a fine job of not maxing out and I have the game dedicated to two cores by itself with nothing else running so the cores are free just for NS2. Even on a full 24 player load CPU is around 75% usage and I still have 5 Gigs Ram unused for RAM.
I'd say 99% of the time the server performs top notch. I am very picky about server performance and I would not have the server up and running with 24 players if the game and hardware were not able to handle it... Simple as that. As a server admin I would not want to run a game that ran like crap for any reason because it would just make the server look bad and people would not bother playing it so it's a waste of my damn time.
Find servers that are well spec'd for the player limit. Make sure you are not too far geographically and have minimal hops etc and your gaming experience should be great. I have what coast in the USA my server is on in my server name so people from china don't join and go "WTF HIGH PINGS!!!! LAAAAAAG!" When people from that same coast as my server joins it plays like freakin butta mang!
I wouldn't be so sure about that! If they had any idea it was their machine at fault and not the server, I suspect that a good proportion of them would a) moan about it incessantly b) uninstall or c) upgrade.
Well, one thing we can certainly agree on is Veil. It's by far my least favorite map on my server, and I'm not even sure I'd like it on a smaller server either. I don't think it translated well to NS2. I'd pull it frankly, if I didn't feel starved for maps as is.
I work with three people who constantly buy games their PC's can't handle and then they say "the game sucks" or "runs like crap"... If you search these very forums you'll see people posting their specs and they are not adequate yet they are complaining about some sort of performance issue.
Some people either can't afford a new PC worthy of playing new games or just too plain old cheap and expect today's games to run on their POS pc that's three or more years old... some people have newer PC's not built for gaming at all and then say "WTF my PC is newer, why can't I run this game!!!"
I get the feeling there are a lot of people who want the game developers to compensate so the game will run on their junk box when they should just either accept their PC can't run it or go buy a new rig.
Regarding the server software... does it need to be better yes I agree it does need a little TLC. Does the server run like crap with 24 players... no it does not if it is on a machine that meets or exceeds what it needs (just like the client software).
I know there are memory issues at times and then there is the whole giving a lot of orders via comm makes the server chug a bit but it does that no matter if the server is 16 or 24 players in my experience.
I've been reading up on the egg spawn system as it currently stands. I'd suggest you do the same. It seems like there might have been a change that tried to add scaling to the alien spawn system, or there might not have been a change. If people aren't noticing that particular issue anymore, either it's gone or they just don't pay attention. I'm going to look into this further, as it was a big gripe of mine that the alien spawn system didn't scale with player counts.
I'm going to assume you've been a fan for two months, which is the amount of time you've been on these forums. I could be wrong, you could be like me and lost your NS1 user ID years ago and had to make a new one. I'm just going to assume that's the case, however. It would be understandable that you haven't seen much in that space of time.
@Mavick:
Yes, Veil is a 'filler' map in my view. A lot of people think that as it's too small with not enough tech points, among other pretty obvious reasons. Hopefully the new map(s) are awesome.
It was a great map in NS1, which was a very different game. Veil is utter trash when considering NS2 IMO.
That assumption is not unreasonable, but it is also not correct.
Sorry for the late response, I stumbled over your post yesterday and talked to our members about this today.
Your ingame nick was "%%%%#Price%%%%%%%%%%%%", right?
You were banned by Menion, because of repeatedly f4ing the moment before your death and caps lock insulting everyone after they told you to stop.
We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour on our server.
Have a nice day.
And no : I usually dont feel incredible and i think u were the first person i kicked so far in 3 months - that's the time i'm being admin on HBZ servers.