Yes. That is correct. But the point is, a $70 cpu OC'd from 3.2 to 4.2 can handle 20 players and all the other stuff (rts, cyst, etc) just fine. I'm sure (or I hope at least) that Most of the NS2 servers are running on better gear than the 2nd pc I own turned server is.
To say that a server is bad because your own PC can't handle a game is wrong. So to hide 20+ slot servers based off the idea that someone is running on bad/old hardware is also wrong.
I get what your saying, and its an idea. However my $3,000 PC shouldn't have to hide the 20+ server based off the idea that some other people can't handle showing that much info at once.
Maybe, for a lucky few with great computers, and maybe some servers can handle it okay... The vast majority will have a terrible time though. If it was the other way around (only a few experienced bad performance on such servers) it would only be a discussion about gameplay, but it isn't. So make servers disappear from the list when they go above 20* players. A simple yet effective solution, no?
*20 is an arbitrary number. Perhaps 18 is better, or 22... The devs could set it at 18 today and eventually increase it along with performance updates.
I run a 24 player server on an i5 4670k @ 4.6 GHz. It can handle the load even late in the game. Regarding client performance I think it's up to the players to decide what is acceptable. Let people decide for themselves instead of trying to force them into playing the game the "right way". Some enjoy servers with a high player count and some with a low.
@sebb I see you disliked my post. You might not like larger servers, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that there are 20+ servers that can handle the load, even late game.
Maybe, for a lucky few with great computers, and maybe some servers can handle it okay... The vast majority will have a terrible time though. If it was the other way around (only a few experienced bad performance on such servers) it would only be a discussion about gameplay, but it isn't. So make servers disappear from the list when they go above 20* players. A simple yet effective solution, no?
*20 is an arbitrary number. Perhaps 18 is better, or 22... The devs could set it at 18 today and eventually increase it along with performance updates.
I run a 24 player server on an i5 4670k @ 4.6 GHz. It can handle the load even late in the game. Regarding client performance I think it's up to the players to decide what is acceptable. Let people decide for themselves instead of trying to force them into playing the game the "right way". Some enjoy servers with a high player count and some with a low.
@sebb I see you disliked my post. You might not like larger servers, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that there are 20+ servers that can handle the load, even late game.
I run a client on an i5 4670K @4.5GHz with a GTX 780 superclocked. It cannot handle the load on a 24+ server in the late game.
Even if your server can 'handle' it, no-one seems to consider the client performance. On large servers, client performance late game is horrible. For people without such powerful gaming rigs, it's even worse and a very bad advert for our game.
I run a client on an i5 4670K @4.5GHz with a GTX 780 superclocked. It cannot handle the load on a 24+ server in the late game.
Even if your server can 'handle' it, no-one seems to consider the client performance. On large servers, client performance late game is horrible. For people without such powerful gaming rigs, it's even worse and a very bad advert for our game.
Server performance is my responsibility and I do everything I can to make sure no-one has a bad experience because of the server.
As I wrote about client performance I think it's up to the player to decide if it's acceptable or not. I am all for informing new players about the increased demands late game on a large server but let them decide for themselves if they want to play there or not.
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
I dare say that many people enjoy playing there because they don't know better (=never tried anything else in the first place).
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
I dare say that many people enjoy playing there because they don't know better (=never tried anything else in the first place).
Doesn't distract from the fact that it would do more harm than good. I prefer 16-20 players personally but I started out on 24player and most people do despite me being unable to function in the late game (30fps max). 24player can still be serious and fun, its not completely devoid of strategy but strategy and teamwork has less of an impact on an individual level.
I dare say that many people enjoy playing there because they don't know better (=never tried anything else in the first place).
Sure, that is probably true for some of them. But I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me when I say that some players enjoy playing on larger servers. Why would that be impossible?
About a month ago I asked a lot of regulars how many player slots they prefer and the responses I got varied a lot. Because of that I reconfigured my servers to have 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 player slots. The idea is to provide servers for all tastes and to get some regulars to try something different. But I'm still sure that some people just like the larger servers as well as some prefer the smaller ones.
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
But if you let them in, they kill the <24 slot server.
People can enjoy playing on these (because they use to do on other games) but only on low to average level (combined teamwork and player skill).
Once you get the overall skill up to average/high (or uber i don't want to hurt any feelings). It starts to be wrong all over the place. Especially on NS1 map port (Veil / Eclipse). You know what to expect depending on the start hive and / or the first 2 minutes. Except the game last longer than 2 minutes. "Expect" means : you know who wins. Kind of boring.
This game has been balanced from 6vs6 to 8vs8 in order to make sure you can't be everywhere at all time. Up to the opponent to exploit the breach or not. 24 slots is doubling the player count considering 6vs6 but don't allow breaches as in 6/8vs6/8.
The thing is some ppl can't play on server in which the skill is low at the moment as they can ruin the fun for everybody. Thanks to sales who brings so many rookies. But they cannot play either on 24 slots "high skill server", it doesn't make sense to play NS2 like that.
Getting the servers closer to 18 players would help the game.
People who wants to connect on "above 20 slot" are usually thinking NS2 is a shooter like COD, but in space... They usually want/prefer Combat not NS. The RTS side fixes limits for the game. Map aren't extensible (number of RTs). It's like a glass bottle you try to fill without considering the maximum capacity.
I dare say that many people enjoy playing there because they don't know better (=never tried anything else in the first place).
Sure, that is probably true for some of them. But I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me when I say that some players enjoy playing on larger servers. Why would that be impossible?
About a month ago I asked a lot of regulars how many player slots they prefer and the responses I got varied a lot. Because of that I reconfigured my servers to have 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 player slots. The idea is to provide servers for all tastes and to get some regulars to try something different. But I'm still sure that some people just like the larger servers as well as some prefer the smaller ones.
I don't disagree that people enjoy it, I disagree that removing them would be a huge mistake.
I don't disagree that people enjoy it, I disagree that removing them would be a huge mistake.
If you think it's good for NS2 to remove servers that people enjoy, then we just have to agree to disagree.
People enjoy wooza's, too.
I believe it's more a reflex than proper thinking. People do that because of instincts. More people on a server may appeal to them as guarantee of better games. So it acts like a magnet without providing IMO the proper user experience. Especially for rookies who just get stomped.
When new comer ask something like : I just installed the game... what... what... what...
The first thing i say is : You gonna get stomped all over the place. If you like the game you'll get stomped a little more before you can actually win. Try to play with your level, watch videos and stuff like that.
But i know they will join (forced or not) high capacity servers (slot > 18).
The goal isn't to fill the high capacity servers only but ALL NS2 server... ...right ?
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
The problem is:
People dont care or dont read (no matter if your a rookie or not)
You can setup a server named "Only Pros, Rookies get stomped here" but players with 5hrs of gametime would try to join.
Same in the opposite way.
I remember one situation from the balance test, where the balance test servers had a HUGE info in the readyroom that this server isnt vanilla and its for testing stuff.
After 20 min in the game someone asked: "Wait, is this server modded?"
I mean, wtf. Was he blind in the moment he joined? maybe
Same is with the perfomance rating within the browser. People dont care about it.
If people cant do simple things like "reading" how could they learn a game like NS2?
Thats only a rhetoric question btw.
Back to topic:
We have more rookie only servers this time, wich could help to bring some players to the game.
Removing 20 slots or higher from the server browser, is some of the dumbest shit I've read.
We're not exactly blessed with a large player base. Removing a significant portion of servers, that a significant portion of an already small player base enjoy playing on, is retarded.
The problem is:
People dont care or dont read (no matter if your a rookie or not)
You can setup a server named "Only Pros, Rookies get stomped here" but players with 5hrs of gametime would try to join.
Same in the opposite way.
I remember one situation from the balance test, where the balance test servers had a HUGE info in the readyroom that this server isnt vanilla and its for testing stuff.
After 20 min in the game someone asked: "Wait, is this server modded?"
I mean, wtf. Was he blind in the moment he joined? maybe
Same is with the perfomance rating within the browser. People dont care about it.
If people cant do simple things like "reading" how could they learn a game like NS2?
Thats only a rhetoric question btw.
Back to topic:
We have more rookie only servers this time, wich could help to bring some players to the game.
Yes, in a way yes.
But that's no reason to rape'em on high capacity server. In fact this is not even fun for really skilled player.
Removing 20 slots or higher from the server browser, is some of the dumbest shit I've read.
We're not exactly blessed with a large player base. Removing a significant portion of servers, that a significant portion of an already small player base enjoy playing on, is retarded.
SO basically you vote for what happened, happens, and will happen if nothing change on this area.
What happens ? :
-Player buy NS2 (reduced price with a sale) and install.
-First server is a >18 slot server.
-Get raped for a day (or less) on that kind of server.
-Forced to acknowledge it's not the simple shooter they thought, and it needs a strong PC.
-Get back to other games.
That's not a significant change and obviously won't increase player retention significantly. No one can say it's a proper introduction to the game. A proper user experience have more chances to get players involved and stay. Even if they decide to leave, at least they get the proper welcome. Right now is more rape than anything.
These servers are not significant, they just fill more because of old habits. There are many server other than these. Reduce slot capacity; and other servers will just fill the same way with better user experience for every new player.
But if you let them in, they kill the <24 slot server.
You are assuming that there is a fixed number of NS2 players every night but there is not. If you take away the 20+ servers some players will join smaller servers and others will play another game.
About player skill I think you are forgetting that most players aren't interested in putting in the effort to reach the higher skill levels. Most are casual players that just want to have fun. And if they keep coming back to a server then we can assume that they have fun playing there.
I believe it's more a reflex than proper thinking. People do that because of instincts. More people on a server may appeal to them as guarantee of better games. So it acts like a magnet without providing IMO the proper user experience.
...
The goal isn't to fill the high capacity servers only but ALL NS2 server... ...right ?
My goal is to show the new players how fun NS2 is and try to inform them as much as possible about the game. Then they can decide for themselves if and where they want to play. Filling this or that server isn't really a goal in itself.
Let's sum up some thoughts in this thread: people don't know better, people connecting to larger servers think NS2 is COD, people enjoy wooza's because of instinct/reflex rather than proper thinking, people can't be trusted to choose for themselves so let's force them to play the game the way we do.
That's a very elitist attitude. How about informing new (and old) players about how the game works, the pros and cons with small and large servers and the different ways to play NS2 and then let them decide for themselves where and how they want to play?
The thing is they don't see the other options. Nobody told them anything. No mod info on the main server browser page (you have to click), etc.
New comer will surely find the filters in the server browser as they would see lots of empty servers. So it ends up like "filter empty", sort by ping and they select the biggest available.
As DePAra stated : They don't really read.
I'm no elitist i just think new comers just can cope with that, and they should see the vanilla NS2 before joining that kind of modified servers. 24 slots server are usually modified in order to provide faster egg production and a second IP etc... That make no sense as bullet damage ans RT life aren't modified etc.
But new comers don't know that. right ?
I don't say they should be parked in some "blue byte server". Just make sure they avoid getting a really bad first experience. It's usually the case. The player retention tells that alone. It's simple things like raise the minimum hours needed to connect on theses 24 slot servers, etc. A 24 slots rookie friendly server is just a "fresh meat butterfly" honey pot. They come, get raped and go.
Server performance is my responsibility and I do everything I can to make sure no-one has a bad experience because of the server.
If you let too many people in on your server you're in effect not making sure no-one has a bad experience, because too many players on the server ruins client performance for most clients in NS2. Maxplayers is a server setting.
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
No, what I meant is that when a server reaches 20+ players it will disappear from the server browser. When it dips below 20 players it will show up again.
I dislike large performance servers. I do think the majority just go there because its on the top of the list and without thought because it is easier than seeding a server. I do like sorting down, not removing, poor performing servers with some sort of notification. If the players truly enjoyed playing there, a little notification won't mean anything. But to remove 20+ servers because of poor client performance??? That is a bit too far.
SO basically you vote for what happened, happens, and will happen if nothing change on this area.
What happens ? :
-Player buy NS2 (reduced price with a sale) and install.
-First server is a >18 slot server.
-Get raped for a day (or less) on that kind of server.
-Forced to acknowledge it's not the simple shooter they thought, and it needs a strong PC.
-Get back to other games.
That's not a significant change and obviously won't increase player retention significantly. No one can say it's a proper introduction to the game. A proper user experience have more chances to get players involved and stay. Even if they decide to leave, at least they get the proper welcome. Right now is more rape than anything.
You make it sound like stacking/pubstomping and performance issues only happen on larger servers.
That's a total fallacy, slot count isn't the cause for those issues, bad servers are. And bad servers exist in every size.
The worst servers I played on were the "UWE official" (or whatever they were called) they had poor performance and were frequented by people more interested in stomping rookies. And those servers were 16 slot.
A better solution to hiding larger servers would be to make "Perf" tab on the server browser actually useful.
You make it sound like stacking/pubstomping and performance issues only happen on larger servers.
That's a total fallacy, slot count isn't the cause for those issues, bad servers are. And bad servers exist in every size.
The worst servers I played on were the "UWE official" (or whatever they were called) they had poor performance and were frequented by people more interested in stomping rookies. And those servers were 16 slot.
A better solution to hiding larger servers would be to make "Perf" tab on the server browser actually useful.
Did not say that. I did not talk about performance issues except on client side. Servers are fine on that matter. Your opinion on UWE servers or whatever they were called (if it is UWE) is yours.
Perf tab is irrelevant as new comers need a proper welcome/first experience. I never seen one on large servers. It's not because a server is fast and powerful that the new comers will have a proper first experience playing NS2 as it has been designed for (6vs6 to 8). The opposite is more likely to happen isn't it ?
Loosing is okay for a new comers, getting raped all over the place without any hope of improvement isn't. It will happen more often on servers with more slot as they actually ARE magnetizing and dragging more people. The precise people category that just bought the game and get 'used' like a sex toy.
Why do you think stompers are in there ? The large servers ARE the best place to farm rookies. No stompers will seed an empty server isn't it ? Or they must be desperate to find something to grind on while their favorite server(s) are occupied by stronger than them. In which case they become the prey.
In fact if CDT could change the filter to provide something that can filter on server size (settings let to the user appreciation), I'd gladly welcome it. Even if I'm 16 hundred hours from being a new comer, I try as much as possible to avoid this kind of server. As I said I think these are more part of the problem than the solution. Maps won't change size (Number of RTs etc...) by increasing slot numbers.
You can play on this kind of large server knowing exactly what you're doing (modified server, eggs, 2nd IP, etc). But just don't drag the new comers that know nothing of this into something that isn't the original game, that is most likely to be filled with stompers, that is in the end; the only picture of NS2 they see and decide on : to stay or NOT.
Using them as fresh meat is just a chew toy you will spit out at some point. It's better to cook it, make it really good, then having great moments with it. It takes time. Let them grow and blossom even if it has to be on some other places than a 24 slot server.
Maybe, for a lucky few with great computers, and maybe some servers can handle it okay... The vast majority will have a terrible time though. If it was the other way around (only a few experienced bad performance on such servers) it would only be a discussion about gameplay, but it isn't. So make servers disappear from the list when they go above 20* players. A simple yet effective solution, no?
*20 is an arbitrary number. Perhaps 18 is better, or 22... The devs could set it at 18 today and eventually increase it along with performance updates.
I run a 24 player server on an i5 4670k @ 4.6 GHz. It can handle the load even late in the game. Regarding client performance I think it's up to the players to decide what is acceptable. Let people decide for themselves instead of trying to force them into playing the game the "right way". Some enjoy servers with a high player count and some with a low.
@sebb I see you disliked my post. You might not like larger servers, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that there are 20+ servers that can handle the load, even late game.
I run a client on an i5 4670K @4.5GHz with a GTX 780 superclocked. It cannot handle the load on a 24+ server in the late game.
Even if your server can 'handle' it, no-one seems to consider the client performance. On large servers, client performance late game is horrible. For people without such powerful gaming rigs, it's even worse and a very bad advert for our game.
What? I'm a bit confused here as my performance usually is fine in 24 slot servers and I'm using a laptop. (a great laptop, but 4 years old)
Did not say that. I did not talk about performance issues except on client side. Servers are fine on that matter. Your opinion on UWE servers or whatever they were called (if it is UWE) is yours.
OK, in that case that's even more stupid, hiding a perfectly stable larger slot server because there are people whose computer can't handle it, is moronic.
Perf tab is irrelevant as new comers need a proper welcome/first experience. I never seen one on large servers. It's not because a server is fast and powerful that the new comers will have a proper first experience playing NS2 as it has been designed for (6vs6 to 8). The opposite is more likely to happen isn't it ?
How is a functioning perf tab irrelevant, one of complaints against larger servers is poor performance (you may not have made it, but others have) at least if we had a functioning perf tab we could filter out shit servers, regardless of size.
The game may of been designed with 6v6 8v8, but it plays fine at 12v12, it can be a bit spammy, but for the most part it is still fun, which is the key issue.
The even larger servers, are more of an issue, but even then, it is wrong to hide those servers, clearly there are people who enjoy playing on them.
Best solution is to what other games do, such as tf2. Have a warning for rookies that these larger servers are not designed for the game. I think it may have been implemented already, but having it permanently shown on the loading screen would be better IMO.
Loosing is okay for a new comers, getting raped all over the place without any hope of improvement isn't. It will happen more often on servers with more slot as they actually ARE magnetizing and dragging more people. The precise people category that just bought the game and get 'used' like a sex toy.
Why do you think stompers are in there ? The large servers ARE the best place to farm rookies. No stompers will seed an empty server isn't it ? Or they must be desperate to find something to grind on while their favourite server(s) are occupied by stronger than them. In which case they become the prey.
Pub stomping and stacking has nothing to do with server size, i really don't understand how you make the connection.
Pub stompers will join whatever server has the weakest players currently playing, whether that server is 16 or 36 slot is irrelevant.
Stackers simply join whatever team has the strongest players, the amount of players is again irrelevant.
In fact if CDT could change the filter to provide something that can filter on server size (settings let to the user appreciation), I'd gladly welcome it. Even if I'm 16 hundred hours from being a new comer, I try as much as possible to avoid this kind of server. As I said I think these are more part of the problem than the solution. Maps won't change size (Number of RTs etc...) by increasing slot numbers.
Server size filters would be great, no argument there.
You can play on this kind of large server knowing exactly what you're doing (modified server, eggs, 2nd IP, etc). But just don't drag the new comers that know nothing of this into something that isn't the original game, that is most likely to be filled with stompers, that is in the end; the only picture of NS2 they see and decide on : to stay or NOT.
Game play modified servers are an entirely different issue.
If a server has modified gameplay I don't think it should show up on the server browser as default. There should be another tab (like there is for combat) for modified servers. or have them shown in the browser as a different colour to differentiate.
But saying that most servers, even large ones, are unmodified other than things like ns2+ or ns2stats and shine.
@SupaFred, everytime i play on your servers(or any other 20/+20 slot one), i eventually get really frustrated that i have to play such small maps that just simply put play horribly with so many people, rounds are decided by who has the least experiences players instead of actual teamplay. The vanilla game and more importantly lifeform/tech is balanced at 6v6 - 8v8 at the most, not at 10v10 and higher. You want to keep using such high slot sizes, please start using modifications that don't make the gameplay as gruesome for every veteran in the scene.
You and possibly others as well(i dont remember all the posts by heart now in this topic), are mistaking bad performance servers with, game balance effects. Most of the servers, in EU at least are run on good hardware, it runs as good as i can, of course they could run better with the smaller lot sizes, but really due to the fact we are not able to play with 0-10 ping, as we could in other games the problems we face are exponental as a result, and we can only really affect how the game plays out, and that is why huge slot sizes are 'bad'.
I'd rather have more lower slot sized servers, than a few with +20. Give the people more options to play on, as you can probaly understand that most of us don't really want to play on Russia servers as an example.
But as closing, it is the responsibility of server admins to provide good gaming experience, and as such i feel they should be pushing towards balanced gameplay rather than trying to please people who have no idea how the game works.
A. Make a 16 slot server. There you have more options.
B. With a 16 slot (and lower) server you'll nearly die when the end is near and 3 ppl just leave to a different server instead of wait 5 mins for the round to end. Then you'll have people who are tired of not being able to spawn on the other team leave that server for another so they can actually play the game instead of watch others play.
For myself, I like smaller games, 8v8 is good. However with a 10v10+ server you don't get hit by the people leaving all at once without enough time for others to join. If you watch, most people leave when the "round is over" (aka, one team starts winning). And more people will leave at the map change. A fair amount of people still load slowly (I timed someone take 7 mins yesterday to load on a map change). Those with SSDs or just load semi fast will leave if too many people are still loading after a min (I guess they think the others have left the server).
Having a bigger server means the chance of it dying out is less likely to happen than a smaller server has.
There are people who like to play the bigger 10v10+ games. There are those who like smaller. The idea of hiding servers based on their size not only hurts the server op (and there aren't "that" many), but also takes away from the player base who enjoy bigger games. And we all know there aren't enough players in this game that we (mainly you) should be taking a fair number of servers away (aka, hidden).
And bigger servers don't always equal bad server side performance. There are A LOT of smaller servers that play bad daily, each round. Yet people still play on those servers, after more than a year. Would you say those people do not know better still?
Who says that just because someone hasn't heard of Natural Selection 1/2, they must have a bad PC that can't handle playing on a higher slot server that runs well? NS Rookie = PC Rookie?
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ stuff like this, it doesn't help that the performance is really bad with certain effects on, and as it is with other games you have not been hindered by having everything at "full" as much as you have been with ns2. It takes a lot more effort to learn to play the game when you're instantly handicapped due to the specs of your computer. Effort that most casual gamers just won't do.
As another example, there's a huge difference between player "skill" as most people see it, with certain people playing the game simply cause their computers are ways behind of that of another. FPS makes a huge difference in shooter games.
Oh yeah, i forgot to add that i've noticed there's a pretty drastic trend of people playing with their laptops, and i don't think they really compare as well to most desktop, as far as i know at least, but i could be wrong since i've never really been interested in following the specs of high end laptops..
Maybe, for a lucky few with great computers, and maybe some servers can handle it okay... The vast majority will have a terrible time though. If it was the other way around (only a few experienced bad performance on such servers) it would only be a discussion about gameplay, but it isn't. So make servers disappear from the list when they go above 20* players. A simple yet effective solution, no?
*20 is an arbitrary number. Perhaps 18 is better, or 22... The devs could set it at 18 today and eventually increase it along with performance updates.
I run a 24 player server on an i5 4670k @ 4.6 GHz. It can handle the load even late in the game. Regarding client performance I think it's up to the players to decide what is acceptable. Let people decide for themselves instead of trying to force them into playing the game the "right way". Some enjoy servers with a high player count and some with a low.
@sebb I see you disliked my post. You might not like larger servers, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that there are 20+ servers that can handle the load, even late game.
I run a client on an i5 4670K @4.5GHz with a GTX 780 superclocked. It cannot handle the load on a 24+ server in the late game.
Even if your server can 'handle' it, no-one seems to consider the client performance. On large servers, client performance late game is horrible. For people without such powerful gaming rigs, it's even worse and a very bad advert for our game.
What? I'm a bit confused here as my performance usually is fine in 24 slot servers and I'm using a laptop. (a great laptop, but 4 years old)
What would you consider bad performance?
I think the real question here is: what do you consider acceptable performance?
Comments
To say that a server is bad because your own PC can't handle a game is wrong. So to hide 20+ slot servers based off the idea that someone is running on bad/old hardware is also wrong.
I get what your saying, and its an idea. However my $3,000 PC shouldn't have to hide the 20+ server based off the idea that some other people can't handle showing that much info at once.
Edit to fix the wording.
I run a 24 player server on an i5 4670k @ 4.6 GHz. It can handle the load even late in the game. Regarding client performance I think it's up to the players to decide what is acceptable. Let people decide for themselves instead of trying to force them into playing the game the "right way". Some enjoy servers with a high player count and some with a low.
@sebb I see you disliked my post. You might not like larger servers, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that there are 20+ servers that can handle the load, even late game.
I run a client on an i5 4670K @4.5GHz with a GTX 780 superclocked. It cannot handle the load on a 24+ server in the late game.
Even if your server can 'handle' it, no-one seems to consider the client performance. On large servers, client performance late game is horrible. For people without such powerful gaming rigs, it's even worse and a very bad advert for our game.
Server performance is my responsibility and I do everything I can to make sure no-one has a bad experience because of the server.
As I wrote about client performance I think it's up to the player to decide if it's acceptable or not. I am all for informing new players about the increased demands late game on a large server but let them decide for themselves if they want to play there or not.
Removing 20+ servers from the server browser would effectively kill all those servers and I think that would be a huge mistake since a lot of people enjoy playing on them.
I dare say that many people enjoy playing there because they don't know better (=never tried anything else in the first place).
Doesn't distract from the fact that it would do more harm than good. I prefer 16-20 players personally but I started out on 24player and most people do despite me being unable to function in the late game (30fps max). 24player can still be serious and fun, its not completely devoid of strategy but strategy and teamwork has less of an impact on an individual level.
Sure, that is probably true for some of them. But I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me when I say that some players enjoy playing on larger servers. Why would that be impossible?
About a month ago I asked a lot of regulars how many player slots they prefer and the responses I got varied a lot. Because of that I reconfigured my servers to have 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 player slots. The idea is to provide servers for all tastes and to get some regulars to try something different. But I'm still sure that some people just like the larger servers as well as some prefer the smaller ones.
But if you let them in, they kill the <24 slot server.
People can enjoy playing on these (because they use to do on other games) but only on low to average level (combined teamwork and player skill).
Once you get the overall skill up to average/high (or uber i don't want to hurt any feelings). It starts to be wrong all over the place. Especially on NS1 map port (Veil / Eclipse). You know what to expect depending on the start hive and / or the first 2 minutes. Except the game last longer than 2 minutes. "Expect" means : you know who wins. Kind of boring.
This game has been balanced from 6vs6 to 8vs8 in order to make sure you can't be everywhere at all time. Up to the opponent to exploit the breach or not. 24 slots is doubling the player count considering 6vs6 but don't allow breaches as in 6/8vs6/8.
The thing is some ppl can't play on server in which the skill is low at the moment as they can ruin the fun for everybody. Thanks to sales who brings so many rookies. But they cannot play either on 24 slots "high skill server", it doesn't make sense to play NS2 like that.
Getting the servers closer to 18 players would help the game.
People who wants to connect on "above 20 slot" are usually thinking NS2 is a shooter like COD, but in space... They usually want/prefer Combat not NS. The RTS side fixes limits for the game. Map aren't extensible (number of RTs). It's like a glass bottle you try to fill without considering the maximum capacity.
I don't disagree that people enjoy it, I disagree that removing them would be a huge mistake.
If you think it's good for NS2 to remove servers that people enjoy, then we just have to agree to disagree.
People enjoy wooza's, too.
I believe it's more a reflex than proper thinking. People do that because of instincts. More people on a server may appeal to them as guarantee of better games. So it acts like a magnet without providing IMO the proper user experience. Especially for rookies who just get stomped.
When new comer ask something like : I just installed the game... what... what... what...
The first thing i say is : You gonna get stomped all over the place. If you like the game you'll get stomped a little more before you can actually win. Try to play with your level, watch videos and stuff like that.
But i know they will join (forced or not) high capacity servers (slot > 18).
The goal isn't to fill the high capacity servers only but ALL NS2 server... ...right ?
People dont care or dont read (no matter if your a rookie or not)
You can setup a server named "Only Pros, Rookies get stomped here" but players with 5hrs of gametime would try to join.
Same in the opposite way.
I remember one situation from the balance test, where the balance test servers had a HUGE info in the readyroom that this server isnt vanilla and its for testing stuff.
After 20 min in the game someone asked: "Wait, is this server modded?"
I mean, wtf. Was he blind in the moment he joined? maybe
Same is with the perfomance rating within the browser. People dont care about it.
If people cant do simple things like "reading" how could they learn a game like NS2?
Thats only a rhetoric question btw.
Back to topic:
We have more rookie only servers this time, wich could help to bring some players to the game.
Removing 20 slots or higher from the server browser, is some of the dumbest shit I've read.
We're not exactly blessed with a large player base. Removing a significant portion of servers, that a significant portion of an already small player base enjoy playing on, is retarded.
Yes, in a way yes.
But that's no reason to rape'em on high capacity server. In fact this is not even fun for really skilled player.
SO basically you vote for what happened, happens, and will happen if nothing change on this area.
What happens ? :
-Player buy NS2 (reduced price with a sale) and install.
-First server is a >18 slot server.
-Get raped for a day (or less) on that kind of server.
-Forced to acknowledge it's not the simple shooter they thought, and it needs a strong PC.
-Get back to other games.
That's not a significant change and obviously won't increase player retention significantly. No one can say it's a proper introduction to the game. A proper user experience have more chances to get players involved and stay. Even if they decide to leave, at least they get the proper welcome. Right now is more rape than anything.
These servers are not significant, they just fill more because of old habits. There are many server other than these. Reduce slot capacity; and other servers will just fill the same way with better user experience for every new player.
You are assuming that there is a fixed number of NS2 players every night but there is not. If you take away the 20+ servers some players will join smaller servers and others will play another game.
About player skill I think you are forgetting that most players aren't interested in putting in the effort to reach the higher skill levels. Most are casual players that just want to have fun. And if they keep coming back to a server then we can assume that they have fun playing there.
I understand that you don't but others are obviously having fun playing there so why don't we just let them?
My goal is to show the new players how fun NS2 is and try to inform them as much as possible about the game. Then they can decide for themselves if and where they want to play. Filling this or that server isn't really a goal in itself.
Let's sum up some thoughts in this thread: people don't know better, people connecting to larger servers think NS2 is COD, people enjoy wooza's because of instinct/reflex rather than proper thinking, people can't be trusted to choose for themselves so let's force them to play the game the way we do.
That's a very elitist attitude. How about informing new (and old) players about how the game works, the pros and cons with small and large servers and the different ways to play NS2 and then let them decide for themselves where and how they want to play?
The thing is they don't see the other options. Nobody told them anything. No mod info on the main server browser page (you have to click), etc.
New comer will surely find the filters in the server browser as they would see lots of empty servers. So it ends up like "filter empty", sort by ping and they select the biggest available.
As DePAra stated : They don't really read.
I'm no elitist i just think new comers just can cope with that, and they should see the vanilla NS2 before joining that kind of modified servers. 24 slots server are usually modified in order to provide faster egg production and a second IP etc... That make no sense as bullet damage ans RT life aren't modified etc.
But new comers don't know that. right ?
I don't say they should be parked in some "blue byte server". Just make sure they avoid getting a really bad first experience. It's usually the case. The player retention tells that alone. It's simple things like raise the minimum hours needed to connect on theses 24 slot servers, etc. A 24 slots rookie friendly server is just a "fresh meat butterfly" honey pot. They come, get raped and go.
No, what I meant is that when a server reaches 20+ players it will disappear from the server browser. When it dips below 20 players it will show up again.
You make it sound like stacking/pubstomping and performance issues only happen on larger servers.
That's a total fallacy, slot count isn't the cause for those issues, bad servers are. And bad servers exist in every size.
The worst servers I played on were the "UWE official" (or whatever they were called) they had poor performance and were frequented by people more interested in stomping rookies. And those servers were 16 slot.
A better solution to hiding larger servers would be to make "Perf" tab on the server browser actually useful.
Did not say that. I did not talk about performance issues except on client side. Servers are fine on that matter. Your opinion on UWE servers or whatever they were called (if it is UWE) is yours.
Perf tab is irrelevant as new comers need a proper welcome/first experience. I never seen one on large servers. It's not because a server is fast and powerful that the new comers will have a proper first experience playing NS2 as it has been designed for (6vs6 to 8). The opposite is more likely to happen isn't it ?
Loosing is okay for a new comers, getting raped all over the place without any hope of improvement isn't. It will happen more often on servers with more slot as they actually ARE magnetizing and dragging more people. The precise people category that just bought the game and get 'used' like a sex toy.
Why do you think stompers are in there ? The large servers ARE the best place to farm rookies. No stompers will seed an empty server isn't it ? Or they must be desperate to find something to grind on while their favorite server(s) are occupied by stronger than them. In which case they become the prey.
In fact if CDT could change the filter to provide something that can filter on server size (settings let to the user appreciation), I'd gladly welcome it. Even if I'm 16 hundred hours from being a new comer, I try as much as possible to avoid this kind of server. As I said I think these are more part of the problem than the solution. Maps won't change size (Number of RTs etc...) by increasing slot numbers.
You can play on this kind of large server knowing exactly what you're doing (modified server, eggs, 2nd IP, etc). But just don't drag the new comers that know nothing of this into something that isn't the original game, that is most likely to be filled with stompers, that is in the end; the only picture of NS2 they see and decide on : to stay or NOT.
Using them as fresh meat is just a chew toy you will spit out at some point. It's better to cook it, make it really good, then having great moments with it. It takes time. Let them grow and blossom even if it has to be on some other places than a 24 slot server.
What? I'm a bit confused here as my performance usually is fine in 24 slot servers and I'm using a laptop. (a great laptop, but 4 years old)
What would you consider bad performance?
OK, in that case that's even more stupid, hiding a perfectly stable larger slot server because there are people whose computer can't handle it, is moronic.
How is a functioning perf tab irrelevant, one of complaints against larger servers is poor performance (you may not have made it, but others have) at least if we had a functioning perf tab we could filter out shit servers, regardless of size.
The game may of been designed with 6v6 8v8, but it plays fine at 12v12, it can be a bit spammy, but for the most part it is still fun, which is the key issue.
The even larger servers, are more of an issue, but even then, it is wrong to hide those servers, clearly there are people who enjoy playing on them.
Best solution is to what other games do, such as tf2. Have a warning for rookies that these larger servers are not designed for the game. I think it may have been implemented already, but having it permanently shown on the loading screen would be better IMO.
Pub stomping and stacking has nothing to do with server size, i really don't understand how you make the connection.
Pub stompers will join whatever server has the weakest players currently playing, whether that server is 16 or 36 slot is irrelevant.
Stackers simply join whatever team has the strongest players, the amount of players is again irrelevant.
Server size filters would be great, no argument there.
Game play modified servers are an entirely different issue.
If a server has modified gameplay I don't think it should show up on the server browser as default. There should be another tab (like there is for combat) for modified servers. or have them shown in the browser as a different colour to differentiate.
But saying that most servers, even large ones, are unmodified other than things like ns2+ or ns2stats and shine.
You and possibly others as well(i dont remember all the posts by heart now in this topic), are mistaking bad performance servers with, game balance effects. Most of the servers, in EU at least are run on good hardware, it runs as good as i can, of course they could run better with the smaller lot sizes, but really due to the fact we are not able to play with 0-10 ping, as we could in other games the problems we face are exponental as a result, and we can only really affect how the game plays out, and that is why huge slot sizes are 'bad'.
I'd rather have more lower slot sized servers, than a few with +20. Give the people more options to play on, as you can probaly understand that most of us don't really want to play on Russia servers as an example.
But as closing, it is the responsibility of server admins to provide good gaming experience, and as such i feel they should be pushing towards balanced gameplay rather than trying to please people who have no idea how the game works.
B. With a 16 slot (and lower) server you'll nearly die when the end is near and 3 ppl just leave to a different server instead of wait 5 mins for the round to end. Then you'll have people who are tired of not being able to spawn on the other team leave that server for another so they can actually play the game instead of watch others play.
For myself, I like smaller games, 8v8 is good. However with a 10v10+ server you don't get hit by the people leaving all at once without enough time for others to join. If you watch, most people leave when the "round is over" (aka, one team starts winning). And more people will leave at the map change. A fair amount of people still load slowly (I timed someone take 7 mins yesterday to load on a map change). Those with SSDs or just load semi fast will leave if too many people are still loading after a min (I guess they think the others have left the server).
Having a bigger server means the chance of it dying out is less likely to happen than a smaller server has.
There are people who like to play the bigger 10v10+ games. There are those who like smaller. The idea of hiding servers based on their size not only hurts the server op (and there aren't "that" many), but also takes away from the player base who enjoy bigger games. And we all know there aren't enough players in this game that we (mainly you) should be taking a fair number of servers away (aka, hidden).
And bigger servers don't always equal bad server side performance. There are A LOT of smaller servers that play bad daily, each round. Yet people still play on those servers, after more than a year. Would you say those people do not know better still?
Who says that just because someone hasn't heard of Natural Selection 1/2, they must have a bad PC that can't handle playing on a higher slot server that runs well? NS Rookie = PC Rookie?
As another example, there's a huge difference between player "skill" as most people see it, with certain people playing the game simply cause their computers are ways behind of that of another. FPS makes a huge difference in shooter games.
Oh yeah, i forgot to add that i've noticed there's a pretty drastic trend of people playing with their laptops, and i don't think they really compare as well to most desktop, as far as i know at least, but i could be wrong since i've never really been interested in following the specs of high end laptops..
I think the real question here is: what do you consider acceptable performance?