Radimax is one of the most addicted NS2 players i know and i think his opinions are valid myself.
Yes it is great to update a game after release but to keep updating the game play well after a year has past since its release is just crazy.
Continue to fix bugs and optimise the game sure but continuously tweaking the game play is bound to piss the a few people of as it means the possibility of relearning the game over and over again which most people don't have the time for (thus adding to the many reasons why only 1% of the ns2 gaming population actually still play the game after buying).
Whilst there has been some great improvements over the past 10+ builds (proper reserved slots and cyst chains probably the only things i really appreciated), build 246/247 were my personal favorites.
The reason it's constantly being updated with balance changes is because they weren't done in beta when they should have been because they had to release the game early. I'd still rather it happen post release than never at all.
Why exactly is it crazy? If anything, seeing a developer update a game for over a year after release is surely worth praising, even if one could argue the game was released in a sub-par state. One might even say it can help prevent the game from becoming stale. Before I became PT, every time there was a new build coming out, I was eager to see what might have changed, and looking forward to try it out.
Also, the only build where there were some pretty significant changes that required you to relearn one or more aspects of the game was build 250, with the revamped walljump, fade movement change, and alien comm changes for instance. And those were tested extensively among the comp players during a long BT testing phase. All other builds have been mostly improvements, bugfixes, and obviously a bunch of small balance changes.
In any case, while there have been updates plenty, and sometimes significant ones, I'd hardly say you'd have to relearn the game every new build. In fact, I doubt most pub players would even notice most of the balance changes if you didn't tell them.
The reason it's constantly being updated with balance changes is because they weren't done in beta when they should have been because they had to release the game early. I'd still rather it happen post release than never at all.
I see.
I wasn't around when the game was released so i didn't know it was rushed out, explains A LOT, thanks.
Why exactly is it crazy? If anything, seeing a developer update a game for over a year after release is surely worth praising, even if one could argue the game was released in a sub-par state. One might even say it can help prevent the game from becoming stale.
That's what mods and custom maps is for.
Before I became PT, every time there was a new build coming out, I was eager to see what might have changed, and looking forward to try it out.
I personally started dreading it after the performance hits of build 247 onwards.
Also, the only build where there were some pretty significant changes that required you to relearn one or more aspects of the game was build 250, with the revamped walljump, fade movement change, and alien comm changes for instance. And those were tested extensively among the comp players during a long BT testing phase. All other builds have been mostly improvements, bugfixes, and obviously a bunch of small balance changes.
I agree and disagree with that statement, balance changes generally add up quite a bit over 3-5 patches, enough to change the gameplay to the point of having to relearn some techniques.
Yeh man, i really need to relearn the whole game after a patch comes out. My brain cannot handle it any longer.
It's.. OVERWHELMING and almost cost me my job, love and life
DAMN U UWE for doing your job instead of just cashing out after taking my money.
The reason it's constantly being updated with balance changes is because they weren't done in beta when they should have been because they had to release the game early. I'd still rather it happen post release than never at all.
I think it's more to do with large feature changes sending balance back to the drawing board. Personally I could have done without Gorgeous and Reinforced content and gone with just incremental tweaks instead of game sweeping changes.
I'd have been fine with the game stopping with major changes at 249 and only receiving bug fixes after that. However I can understand why things were changed like they were in BT and have gone along with it. As the game is now, I'd like to see some more balance changes but I hope there's not another overhaul of the entire game.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
problem is @sotanaht that path would have led to very broken and imbalanced games for many months - being entirely feature incomplete.
Like the requirement for having a decent foundation for a house - those core balance changes were most definitely needed. But when core balance changes are made - to any degree - it creates a ripple effect requiring many many changes elsewhere to accommodate.
Simply making one particular change to a feature that is interconnected and interdependent on so many other mechanics and systems would have created the worst gameplay you could have imagined. Since those core balance changes went in (our steady foundation).. we have in fact only had minor tweaks here and there each patch.
Doing it like it was done, was the best method.... my only thought on the matter is that this is what should have happened in Beta so people didn't get upset that their paid product was changed... i.e. updated for the better. But indie game, limited resources and schedules etc etc..
problem is @sotanaht that path would have led to very broken and imbalanced games for many months - being entirely feature incomplete.
Like the requirement for having a decent foundation for a house - those core balance changes were most definitely needed. But when core balance changes are made - to any degree - it creates a ripple effect requiring many many changes elsewhere to accommodate.
Simply making one particular change to a feature that is interconnected and interdependent on so many other mechanics and systems would have created the worst gameplay you could have imagined. Since those core balance changes went in (our steady foundation).. we have in fact only had minor tweaks here and there each patch.
Doing it like it was done, was the best method.... my only thought on the matter is that this is what should have happened in Beta so people didn't get upset that their paid product was changed... i.e. updated for the better. But indie game, limited resources and schedules etc etc..
Which is exactly why those balance changes need to be small and incremental. You find those ripples while they are still small and adjust things accordingly, or worst comes to worst revert the changes entirely. Overhauling the entire thing at once with a tactical nuclear strike like BT isn't going to give you a strong foundation, it's going to obliterate the foundation you spent years building up to that point. Worse, it takes months for the dust to settle before you can get an accurate picture of just how much damage you've caused.
A commander saying 'good job' or something to his team now and then really goes a long way in pub play.
Next to that we have that feeling of teaming up with random people and doing something coordinated and succesfull. Especially because they are random people that feeling is all the more special. Welcome to the community frenchie, hope you grow up to be a real snail (or something similar) some day.
I agree, I try to directly thank/say good job to people who I see biting res, respond to my calls or anything like that. i like to think it helps
The most uselessly redundant acronym in the history of redundant redundancy. I personally prefer the acronym that actually describes the game: *Snip* Clever... -Ironhorse
Edit: Hey! I used the proper description (although it should have been styleD according to sources) and specifically avoided using the terms or directly referencing them. Besides, The two sided fortress assault thing is pretty much the core description of the "genre". I also really don't appreciate you changing the meaning of what I say. And I don't appreciate you not following forum rules. I very rarely ever care about side stepping the language filter, but that's one word I never let go, as it's intrinsically hateful and shouldn't represent the ideals of these forums by being allowed. Use your obviously clever head to come up with an alternative. - Ironhorse
The reason it's constantly being updated with balance changes is because they weren't done in beta when they should have been because they had to release the game early. I'd still rather it happen post release than never at all.
releasing the game in summer 2009 was a mistake they shouldve waited till 2012 or something
i'm getting bored of myself saying this now - but the bounce rate is a massive problem.
never in my life have i played a game with a more frustrating 'server portal'. this week i've tried about 10 times, i fire up the game and attempt to join a server and got stuck in 'waiting for slot' for 10 minutes - then i mash the refresh button for a further 10 minutes to locate a free slot. with still nothing happening, i realise that waiting 20 minutes of my time to find a game which is probably going to be a boring stackaroo just isn't worth it. quit -> load up tf2 instead.
so yeah - i could have been an extra player on 10 occasions this week, but instead i just bounced and added to tf2 stats. i consider myself a patient person, and really want to try the changes from b260 and b261, but it's literally impossible to play unless i'm prepared to start a new server and waste time in a 2-a-side just hoping it fills up with players. i'm pushing 30-years-old and don't have the time for that anymore - my 'server starting' duty ended in ut99 or ut2004 back when i was in school with excess time to waste.
solution = SIMPLE:
1. allow queue for multiple servers
2. allow to queue for multiple severs WHILE ALREADY PLAYING IN A SERVER
3. allow to queue while looking at the server details (the pop up window which shows player details of selected server)
there is absolutely no excuse why these haven't been implemented already - they have been standard since steam was released in 2003(?). omitting these standard convenience features is like a conscious decision to make the game more frustrating to play.
my message to UWE - please wake up and adapt to a generation which does not have the iron will and patience to tolerate an inadequate game-finding process. providing an easy, convenient and fast server browser will breathe life into the game. that will snowball into creating a sustainable playerbase, rather than the current 'fart in the breeze' fuelled by the fibre-filled beans of steam sales.
Hmm, valid points regarding server searches. Unability to sit on queue at the same time as you play on anothe server is really unfortunate. Most of the times the only option you got is rookie servers or not play at all. I would like the option of killings time on another server while waiting for a spot somewhere else..
Hmm, valid points regarding server searches. Unability to sit on queue at the same time as you play on anothe server is really unfortunate. Most of the times the only option you got is rookie servers or not play at all. I would like the option of killings time on another server while waiting for a spot somewhere else..
Most of the time my only options are rookie servers regardless of queuing. Just looking for populated servers with low ping, the only things that regularly come up for me that aren't rookie are TBGclan and KKG.
Persistent ranking systems a la Battlefield are addictive.
However, you can be a rebel and point an oversized middle finger at all that and develop like it's 1995 - which is what this studio chose to do. Is it holding the game back? Maybe. Maybe not.
A rank system would be nice but I also know how rank system motivate cheaters, unfortunately. As a result, there would also need to be system to catch, verify, and ban cheaters more efficiently.
As far as the server browser goes, I typically shift-tab and set it to auto join 2 different servers that I have friends on... Then I join a combat server, since combat loads faster I can usually get a little warmed up before 1 of the 2 servers gets some room.., my suggestion, add people who are decent to you friends list...
The funny thing is, that people keep saying it is balanced around 6v6 or 7v7 but in a 10v10 at least 6-10 of the players might as well not be there... Hey we are all playing 7v7!! Some of us just like yelling at the guys building the rt before the power...
I tend to look at NS2's player numbers as experiencing the same phenomena as StarCraft2's player numbers. When you have an intensely competitive game, people can only handle so many hours of it, especially when they aren't extremely good. These are the types of games with lots of fans, and many people who say things like "I love the game, but I can only play so much of it". StarCraft2 also has a fairly low consistent player to purchaser ratio.
For me, I was getting 35 FPS dipping down to 8 FPS in heavy action. As a competitive player from the NS1 days, it wasn't fun to be crushed because my computer was shitting on me. I'm coming back when I have my new graphics card installed (I've heard there's been quite a few performance increases since I left as well, so I'm excited about that)
Comments
Radimax is one of the most addicted NS2 players i know and i think his opinions are valid myself.
Yes it is great to update a game after release but to keep updating the game play well after a year has past since its release is just crazy.
Continue to fix bugs and optimise the game sure but continuously tweaking the game play is bound to piss the a few people of as it means the possibility of relearning the game over and over again which most people don't have the time for (thus adding to the many reasons why only 1% of the ns2 gaming population actually still play the game after buying).
Whilst there has been some great improvements over the past 10+ builds (proper reserved slots and cyst chains probably the only things i really appreciated), build 246/247 were my personal favorites.
Why exactly is it crazy? If anything, seeing a developer update a game for over a year after release is surely worth praising, even if one could argue the game was released in a sub-par state. One might even say it can help prevent the game from becoming stale. Before I became PT, every time there was a new build coming out, I was eager to see what might have changed, and looking forward to try it out.
Also, the only build where there were some pretty significant changes that required you to relearn one or more aspects of the game was build 250, with the revamped walljump, fade movement change, and alien comm changes for instance. And those were tested extensively among the comp players during a long BT testing phase. All other builds have been mostly improvements, bugfixes, and obviously a bunch of small balance changes.
In any case, while there have been updates plenty, and sometimes significant ones, I'd hardly say you'd have to relearn the game every new build. In fact, I doubt most pub players would even notice most of the balance changes if you didn't tell them.
I wasn't around when the game was released so i didn't know it was rushed out, explains A LOT, thanks.
That's what mods and custom maps is for.
I personally started dreading it after the performance hits of build 247 onwards.
I agree and disagree with that statement, balance changes generally add up quite a bit over 3-5 patches, enough to change the gameplay to the point of having to relearn some techniques.
It's.. OVERWHELMING and almost cost me my job, love and life
DAMN U UWE for doing your job instead of just cashing out after taking my money.
I think it's more to do with large feature changes sending balance back to the drawing board. Personally I could have done without Gorgeous and Reinforced content and gone with just incremental tweaks instead of game sweeping changes.
Like the requirement for having a decent foundation for a house - those core balance changes were most definitely needed. But when core balance changes are made - to any degree - it creates a ripple effect requiring many many changes elsewhere to accommodate.
Simply making one particular change to a feature that is interconnected and interdependent on so many other mechanics and systems would have created the worst gameplay you could have imagined. Since those core balance changes went in (our steady foundation).. we have in fact only had minor tweaks here and there each patch.
Doing it like it was done, was the best method.... my only thought on the matter is that this is what should have happened in Beta so people didn't get upset that their paid product was changed... i.e. updated for the better. But indie game, limited resources and schedules etc etc..
Which is exactly why those balance changes need to be small and incremental. You find those ripples while they are still small and adjust things accordingly, or worst comes to worst revert the changes entirely. Overhauling the entire thing at once with a tactical nuclear strike like BT isn't going to give you a strong foundation, it's going to obliterate the foundation you spent years building up to that point. Worse, it takes months for the dust to settle before you can get an accurate picture of just how much damage you've caused.
I agree, I try to directly thank/say good job to people who I see biting res, respond to my calls or anything like that. i like to think it helps
I don't come around here much any more, but I found your post terrifyingly insightful. Thank you.
Dota 2, LoL, other games like that.
They update pretty frequently and have hardcore balance changes usually which respond to problems in the meta.
The most uselessly redundant acronym in the history of redundant redundancy. I personally prefer the acronym that actually describes the game: *Snip* Clever... -Ironhorse
Edit: Hey! I used the proper description (although it should have been styleD according to sources) and specifically avoided using the terms or directly referencing them. Besides, The two sided fortress assault thing is pretty much the core description of the "genre". I also really don't appreciate you changing the meaning of what I say.
And I don't appreciate you not following forum rules. I very rarely ever care about side stepping the language filter, but that's one word I never let go, as it's intrinsically hateful and shouldn't represent the ideals of these forums by being allowed. Use your obviously clever head to come up with an alternative.
releasing the game in summer 2009 was a mistake they shouldve waited till 2012 or something
I would take this name. easy to say and is a catchy name... "A S S" (no offense but I think that was too funny)
*snip*
never in my life have i played a game with a more frustrating 'server portal'. this week i've tried about 10 times, i fire up the game and attempt to join a server and got stuck in 'waiting for slot' for 10 minutes - then i mash the refresh button for a further 10 minutes to locate a free slot. with still nothing happening, i realise that waiting 20 minutes of my time to find a game which is probably going to be a boring stackaroo just isn't worth it. quit -> load up tf2 instead.
so yeah - i could have been an extra player on 10 occasions this week, but instead i just bounced and added to tf2 stats. i consider myself a patient person, and really want to try the changes from b260 and b261, but it's literally impossible to play unless i'm prepared to start a new server and waste time in a 2-a-side just hoping it fills up with players. i'm pushing 30-years-old and don't have the time for that anymore - my 'server starting' duty ended in ut99 or ut2004 back when i was in school with excess time to waste.
solution = SIMPLE:
1. allow queue for multiple servers
2. allow to queue for multiple severs WHILE ALREADY PLAYING IN A SERVER
3. allow to queue while looking at the server details (the pop up window which shows player details of selected server)
there is absolutely no excuse why these haven't been implemented already - they have been standard since steam was released in 2003(?). omitting these standard convenience features is like a conscious decision to make the game more frustrating to play.
my message to UWE - please wake up and adapt to a generation which does not have the iron will and patience to tolerate an inadequate game-finding process. providing an easy, convenient and fast server browser will breathe life into the game. that will snowball into creating a sustainable playerbase, rather than the current 'fart in the breeze' fuelled by the fibre-filled beans of steam sales.
and please fix this.
@Ghosthree3 it's called PixelVision.
Most of the time my only options are rookie servers regardless of queuing. Just looking for populated servers with low ping, the only things that regularly come up for me that aren't rookie are TBGclan and KKG.
However, you can be a rebel and point an oversized middle finger at all that and develop like it's 1995 - which is what this studio chose to do. Is it holding the game back? Maybe. Maybe not.
The funny thing is, that people keep saying it is balanced around 6v6 or 7v7 but in a 10v10 at least 6-10 of the players might as well not be there... Hey we are all playing 7v7!! Some of us just like yelling at the guys building the rt before the power...
For me, I was getting 35 FPS dipping down to 8 FPS in heavy action. As a competitive player from the NS1 days, it wasn't fun to be crushed because my computer was shitting on me. I'm coming back when I have my new graphics card installed (I've heard there's been quite a few performance increases since I left as well, so I'm excited about that)