Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited April 2014
Hmm, forgot about this thread. I made a blog post early hours of this morning about this topic. I was writing a game design document and it cropped up in my thought processes...
Or let them have their goofy 20v20 servers but hide them in the browser by default with a toggle. Everyones happy.
That's... actually quite a clever solution. Add a filter: "Show no servers with more than 24 players max", or even hide it in the options. I doubt rookies are going to toggle that for a while (because they won't notice it).
It would be best if, like a few programs that I use do, make a small text pop-up when toggled. Stating that servers above the set limit will suffer from performance problems, and should not be used as an example of Natural Selection 2's gameplay and stability. Something along those lines.
What? A screenshot of the effect the server has on rookies?
You mean the selfie of that moment the rookie clicked on deinstall?
It was an rhetorical question showing how neither side has factual evidence (or a source) for the effect they claim the server and/or it's properties has on rookies. (Which I answered by myself, btw.)
Ironhorse said
I think there are lots of assumptions thrown around by both sides, with very little proof.
A screenshot of the server tick rate is the only argument I need.
which is, of course, evidence, but for the terrible state the server is in and not for it's effects, who are still assumed to be harmful to rookies (without evidence).
Obviously, Ironhorse can't provide a screenshot of a real life process (=the effect on rookies) that I ask for (rhetorically!) - it's physically impossible. This states how
a) There is no proof around to back anyone's statements
b) Acquiring such proof would be very difficult / (nigh) impossible.
Note that "neither side can" - I'm not talking about anyone in particular here.
This is what I wanted to say with that rhetorical question.
While faster evolving is fun, large servers also ruin half of the point of being an alien. Mostly because marines then always come in larger groups which means stalking, ambushing, cloaking and silence makes much less sense and can't be used 75% of the time, because you'll always end up being against 3+ marines. Sure your side also has the same "manpower" count but it's just not the same. In the end it all turns into a wave of one spiecis vs another one until one side wins by a lucky chance.
I like Joshhh's view on this. I would be happy having them hidden by default but still have the option to play. I would also ask that it be necessary for large servers to have MOTDs or notifications indicating that this server obviously will suffer performance issues and is not the norm.
Its useless anyway but i have some small insider infos for you Martigen:
- more megapixel didnt end in better pictures
- more watt didnt sound better automatic
- more lumen didnt make a better beamer picture
More players = more fun? What a joke
"This was said earlier by someone else: that's insulting to the intelligence of new players and gamers as a whole."
You mean the skulks running loud as possible into a corner to "hide" , getting killed and jelling "How did you know i was sitting there"?
This is pretty dumb tbh. There are many examples of why people would prefer larger teams, larger player pools and a greater amount of people to interact with but I'll just give a few.
I used to play WoW, pretty recently in fact and there are many examples of where entire servers completely turn into lagfests from the amount of players in a single zone. The most recent example is Oondasta from the 5.2 patch (google it). The basic premise was that this boss was a world boss meaning larger amount of players would coalesce to kill him, sometimes upwards of 200 (average raid usually is 25-40). The result? Lagfest 30 seconds of lag or greater, dying over and over, waiting minutes to respawn, unable to even do damage consistently, unable to heal or tank but just enough there keeping the bosses attention would kill him. The public response? Overwhelming positivity from the playerbase simply because it was epic and so different from the main meat of the game, it was mindless yet fun just to see something completely different. The gameplay was piss poor and shoddy but just by having more people, it made the experience worthwhile.
Another example. Starcraft 2 specifically 4v4s. 4v4 and the arcade are played a lot and I would attest that they are more played than 1v1. Hell a lot of SC2 pros or community members recommend 4v4 before 1v1 for new players but 4v4s are completely imbalanced, chaotic and quite laggy for the most part but people like to play them because they don't get stressed out over it compared to a 1v1.
SC2 ties into another point I will make and partly the reason why MOBAs are popular right now and why everyone blames their team. Having a team = less responsibility = less stress = less identity = less realisation that you might suck = why people will blame teams and never themselves, they don't recognise that they also suck (anyone who plays SC2 regularly in 1v1 knows this feeling because you are almost fully in control of your victory or defeat) and playing in a 42 player server completely absolves any indication that a player might suck.
I've mentioned in a previous post about BF3 Metro 64 player servers which were terrible but still fun if you went in with the right mindset. They were awful gameplay wise but chaotic enough and provided you with plenty of entertainment if you didn't expect anything more, doesn't apply to everyone but neither does having lower playercounts apply to everyone.
Now I'm not saying that having more players is always better because that would be silly but there are many examples in many games that are built around lower playercounts but have content that allows for more players than normal typically yields a good response from players.
Relating to the Oondasta anecdote, this is the only boss like this in WoW atm just how there is only one 40+ player server in NS2. Having a lot of them would be terrible but just having that single entity and providing an alternative experience is something that might not appeal to everyone but it clearly appeals to enough people to have value. Maybe from your narrow perception it might be irrelevant but that is why you have < 24 servers.
Your perspective is extremely narrow and only accounts for veteran players and community members, not what the general and average player thinks which is certainly not your mentality. But I've already mentioned before that trying to get any understanding from forum community members is like squeezing blood from a stone.
Cannon_FodderAUSBrisbane, AUJoin Date: 2013-06-23Member: 185664Members, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
@the_tick, played a few rounds on your server over the weekend 30+ players and the tick rate held at 30. Was great fun. Thanks for providing the server. Yes it was mindless action, but damn was it fun (because the server performance kept up).
Here's something that isn't an assumption but a fact.
The client performance tanks with FPS drops and large draw calls and extra rendering from the huge player count.
That's enough for me to steer clear.
I don't deny that, especially endgame is a bit of an issue in both tickrate and client fps drops, hence the concede vote ratio made a bit lower because those games are over most of the time but marines are turteling in their main base for like forever
NS2 is a game that requires a heavy duty pc, but that has been a known fact for ages...
@the_tick, played a few rounds on your server over the weekend 30+ players and the tick rate held at 30. Was great fun. Thanks for providing the server. Yes it was mindless action, but damn was it fun (because the server performance kept up).
Comments
http://wp.me/p2Dkuk-k
That's... actually quite a clever solution. Add a filter: "Show no servers with more than 24 players max", or even hide it in the options. I doubt rookies are going to toggle that for a while (because they won't notice it).
*checks back*
You actually did! I was busy defying paras... argumentation there.
...
I agree that it'd be the best solution.
Can you give me a screenshot of the effect the server has on rookies?
Of course you can't. Neither side can.
You mean the selfie of that moment the rookie cklicked on deinstall?
It was an rhetorical question showing how neither side has factual evidence (or a source) for the effect they claim the server and/or it's properties has on rookies. (Which I answered by myself, btw.)
Ironhorse said
which is, of course, evidence, but for the terrible state the server is in and not for it's effects, who are still assumed to be harmful to rookies (without evidence).
Obviously, Ironhorse can't provide a screenshot of a real life process (=the effect on rookies) that I ask for (rhetorically!) - it's physically impossible. This states how
a) There is no proof around to back anyone's statements
b) Acquiring such proof would be very difficult / (nigh) impossible.
Note that "neither side can" - I'm not talking about anyone in particular here.
This is what I wanted to say with that rhetorical question.
This is pretty dumb tbh. There are many examples of why people would prefer larger teams, larger player pools and a greater amount of people to interact with but I'll just give a few.
I used to play WoW, pretty recently in fact and there are many examples of where entire servers completely turn into lagfests from the amount of players in a single zone. The most recent example is Oondasta from the 5.2 patch (google it). The basic premise was that this boss was a world boss meaning larger amount of players would coalesce to kill him, sometimes upwards of 200 (average raid usually is 25-40). The result? Lagfest 30 seconds of lag or greater, dying over and over, waiting minutes to respawn, unable to even do damage consistently, unable to heal or tank but just enough there keeping the bosses attention would kill him. The public response? Overwhelming positivity from the playerbase simply because it was epic and so different from the main meat of the game, it was mindless yet fun just to see something completely different. The gameplay was piss poor and shoddy but just by having more people, it made the experience worthwhile.
Another example. Starcraft 2 specifically 4v4s. 4v4 and the arcade are played a lot and I would attest that they are more played than 1v1. Hell a lot of SC2 pros or community members recommend 4v4 before 1v1 for new players but 4v4s are completely imbalanced, chaotic and quite laggy for the most part but people like to play them because they don't get stressed out over it compared to a 1v1.
SC2 ties into another point I will make and partly the reason why MOBAs are popular right now and why everyone blames their team. Having a team = less responsibility = less stress = less identity = less realisation that you might suck = why people will blame teams and never themselves, they don't recognise that they also suck (anyone who plays SC2 regularly in 1v1 knows this feeling because you are almost fully in control of your victory or defeat) and playing in a 42 player server completely absolves any indication that a player might suck.
I've mentioned in a previous post about BF3 Metro 64 player servers which were terrible but still fun if you went in with the right mindset. They were awful gameplay wise but chaotic enough and provided you with plenty of entertainment if you didn't expect anything more, doesn't apply to everyone but neither does having lower playercounts apply to everyone.
Now I'm not saying that having more players is always better because that would be silly but there are many examples in many games that are built around lower playercounts but have content that allows for more players than normal typically yields a good response from players.
Relating to the Oondasta anecdote, this is the only boss like this in WoW atm just how there is only one 40+ player server in NS2. Having a lot of them would be terrible but just having that single entity and providing an alternative experience is something that might not appeal to everyone but it clearly appeals to enough people to have value. Maybe from your narrow perception it might be irrelevant but that is why you have < 24 servers.
Your perspective is extremely narrow and only accounts for veteran players and community members, not what the general and average player thinks which is certainly not your mentality. But I've already mentioned before that trying to get any understanding from forum community members is like squeezing blood from a stone.
The client performance tanks with FPS drops and large draw calls and extra rendering from the huge player count.
That's enough for me to steer clear.
I don't deny that, especially endgame is a bit of an issue in both tickrate and client fps drops, hence the concede vote ratio made a bit lower because those games are over most of the time but marines are turteling in their main base for like forever
NS2 is a game that requires a heavy duty pc, but that has been a known fact for ages...
Well thank you for the compliment