Just make the game Free2Play already?

124»

Comments

  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Posts: 8,181 admin
    edited September 28
    Nordic wrote: »
    I didn't mean that as a burn, but as evidence that it isn't easy to do. I have not seen ironhorse put forward a solution to stabilize the early game, but he has been calling for it for years. There is also implementation issues too, but I don't think implementation is the problem. Convincing others is also hard. I am not trying to diminish ironhorses efforts.


    That's literally it.

    I have been calling for this for a long time, seemingly on my own for a while - but it's been interesting to watch others in the community come about to similar realizations recently, or often tip toe around it.
    Yet no one is willing to go along with the proposals, or at least no one can easily agree on how to accomplish the goal..
    Ramblings continued..


    To give some examples of ideas, since you brought that up:

    Many have proposed to remove marine sprinting. I personally don't think it'd have that big of an impact as some think, but am not wholly opposed to it.
    Personally, I am in favor of reducing W0 dmg to have W1 better compete with A1 and A2, as well as reduce the impact of the first 2 minutes of a round. If this has the desired outcome you could amplify this by shifting the Arms Lab upgrades entirely, to scale however you'd want.
    A similar approach can be made economically, as well, which extends the early game time frame as far as tech accrual is concerned.. and I don't think I am alone when I say that the early game is a very enjoyable time in the round.

    Yet, convincing others can be hard, because it's easy to see the downsides to almost any suggestion, and thus get lost in the minutia instead of keeping the bigger picture in mind and being willing to adjust. *shrug*

    At the cost of sounding horribly elitist and condescending: The fact that not even a large portion of the community has come to recognize some of these deep causes, makes me wary of making any change. Because it wouldn't be understood why it was done, even with a small blog explanation. People would just scream "why are you nerfing X?!" or equivalent, and think nothing more.

    Nuance is a sob, for sure. ;)
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    NordicNintendows
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,661 Advanced user
    Mouse wrote: »
    And important thing to clarify is what you actually mean by "stabilise". Do you want the outcome of the first 5 minutes to have no notable impact on the rest of the game?

    I don't think I made myself clear in that response to IronHorse. To unpack a word is to break down what it really means. I was asking IronHorse to say what he means by stabile and fragile in this context.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • SantaClawsSantaClaws Denmark Join Date: 2012-07-31 Member: 154491Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,078 Advanced user
    edited September 29
    I totally understand what you want to do and why. I'm just not sure it's actually possible. All games that I know of, have early game type snowball effects.

    And I think Mouse raised a good point:
    Mouse wrote: »
    And important thing to clarify is what you actually mean by "stabilise". Do you want the outcome of the first 5 minutes to have no notable impact on the rest of the game?
    The games that deal with it the best in my opinion, are games that are round based. Counter-strike as an obvious example. Sure you win the pistolround and you're gonna have a huge economic edge, but you can comeback from that for sure. Quake has even moved towards the round-based format, to combat the snowball effect. You can even invoke board games in this, like chess. Chess is very snowbally, but players usually play more than one game to determine the victor.

    This is obviously not a reasonable solution to NS2 without a complete overhaul of the ruleset. You can't expect players to commit to a BO3 15-20 minute rounds. That's just not feasible in my view.

    So what I have to wonder is, where is the precedence for a game that has solved this issue? Is it even possible?

    I don't want to appear discouraging. You can probably mediate the effect to some degree, and that is likely a worthwhile effort - but I'm afraid it's ultimately an inherent downside to any type of game that features any type of economy. And I think the simplest solution, although extremely dissatisfying, is the concede feature. Every RTS does it unfortunately. Starcraft, warcraft etc.
    NordicNintendowsHandschuh
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,661 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Many have proposed to remove marine sprinting. I personally don't think it'd have that big of an impact as some think, but am not wholly opposed to it.
    I have liked this idea since I first heard Wob propose it in balance channel. I want it to make it harder for marines to have continued pressure on alien back res early game, but I never really thought it would increase the length of the early game. I still think it is a good idea to implement.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Personally, I am in favor of reducing W0 dmg to have W1 better compete with A1 and A2, as well as reduce the impact of the first 2 minutes of a round. If this has the desired outcome you could amplify this by shifting the Arms Lab upgrades entirely, to scale however you'd want.
    Scaling damage down and health up slows would make engagements take longer. I have heard you talk about this in the past, but I have not really been convinced by it. I think it might be worth playtesting, but man would it be a mess to figure out how to scale the values and all the downstream effects. Difficult but possible. I don't think this would really slow down the early game though.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    A similar approach can be made economically, as well, which extends the early game time frame as far as tech accrual is concerned.. and I don't think I am alone when I say that the early game is a very enjoyable time in the round.
    I can get behind slowing down the economy early game. My map, trinity, was initially designed with 7 resource nodes to slow down the tech tree. I never have developed the skills to actually make that map, and I eventually increased it to 10 resource nodes.

    Slowing down the economy early game is kind of tricky, but maybe a way to achieve this. Slow down the economy and make each progressive tech more meaningful so that the game ends very quickly after a certain amount of tech has been achieved. Maybe? I don't know.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Nordic wrote: »
    I didn't mean that as a burn, but as evidence that it isn't easy to do. I have not seen ironhorse put forward a solution to stabilize the early game, but he has been calling for it for years. There is also implementation issues too, but I don't think implementation is the problem. Convincing others is also hard. I am not trying to diminish ironhorses efforts.
    That's literally it.
    Is it though? Even your suggestions you put forward seem pretty weak. That is why I agree with Santaclaws that I am not sure it is possible. I have always found it much more compelling when someone has a plan on how to get there.

    I have defined a problem. I have stated one possible solution for said problem. Now I need to convince people of doing that solution, or thinking of a better one for that problem. I don't think your goals of increasing the length of the early game are incompatible with my goals of making the game end quickly during the late game.
    IronHorse wrote: »
    I have been calling for this for a long time, seemingly on my own for a while - but it's been interesting to watch others in the community come about to similar realizations recently, or often tip toe around it.
    Yet no one is willing to go along with the proposals, or at least no one can easily agree on how to accomplish the goal..

    Yet, convincing others can be hard, because it's easy to see the downsides to almost any suggestion, and thus get lost in the minutia instead of keeping the bigger picture in mind and being willing to adjust. *shrug*

    At the cost of sounding horribly elitist and condescending: The fact that not even a large portion of the community has come to recognize some of these deep causes, makes me wary of making any change. Because it wouldn't be understood why it was done, even with a small blog explanation. People would just scream "why are you nerfing X?!" or equivalent, and think nothing more.

    Nuance is a sob, for sure. ;)

    We have such a fractured community with multiple "factions" for a lack of a better term. There are multiple divisions. One of them is the supposed pub vs comp divide. Another is large vs small servers. Some people want realism while others want something more arcady. The result is that building a consensus is impossible because what one "faction" wants is contradictory to what another "faction" wants. I have said it many times, but I think we would get a forum post from someone eventually complaining if stab was removed. You can't seem to change anything without upsetting what seems like a lot of people. This is part of the reason it sometimes feels like NS2 has no direction, or no vision. It is because there is no vision that unifies this community. It is also because there is no leader than inspires us follow their one vision. It is not a problem unique to NS2, but it is a problem we have.

    I am convinced that my suggestion would actually be fairly unpopular with the community at large. I described why here. @.trixX. has been quite vocal with his distaste for my suggestion. That doesn't mean I haven't found any support. Some people really do like what I am suggesting.
    Meaning that at the start of the game, advantages do play out, but at a smaller scale than they do now. It also means that in the end game, teams in pole position can play out their advantages easier and more effective because small advantages have bigger effects. It would force an end to a stalemate game much sooner than what we have now.
    @IronHorse To my understanding, you are calling for changes that make the advantages play out at a smaller scale in the early game than they do now. I am calling for changes to have much advantages play out to a much bigger scale in the late game than they do now so that it would force an end to a stalemate game much sooner than we have now. I am trying to communicate this problem in several different ways so that I am understood. It seems like we may be in quite a lot of agreement on the direction Ironhorse, but not the means.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
  • XaleXale Paris / France Join Date: 2003-12-26 Member: 24767Members Posts: 126 Advanced user
    TL:DR



    I just want to make an important point here : Tactical Intervention went F2P and disappeared. Even if you bought it you can't play it anymore. Why ? Because F2P needs server.


    And yeah of course TI isn't NS2 and Unknow World isn't OGPlanet.
    Old NS1.0 player (JP/HMG for the win)
    Mapper (de_mangashop for CS1.6 / CSS / CS:GO )
    Re-Worked ns_hera, taking ns2_hera by |-DMD-| Rusty as a base
    Released : https://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/155092/ns2-hera2018
    Stardog
  • NintendowsNintendows Join Date: 2016-11-07 Member: 223716Members, Squad Five Blue Posts: 315 Advanced user
    edited October 5
    Nordic wrote: »

    We have such a fractured community with multiple "factions" for a lack of a better term. There are multiple divisions. One of them is the supposed pub vs comp divide. Another is large vs small servers. Some people want realism while others want something more arcady.
    X8oZz98.jpg
    *edited* - We are not an imageboard. Wrap your images in spoilers -IH
    Post edited by IronHorse on
    Nordicskav2
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    NS2 do not need to be free to play but FUN to play (all the way long).
    What about looking at it from another angle ???


    People hate to be punched in the face in the early game.
    When the skill goes up the usual share during the first minutes is 70/30 % in favor of the Marines. Sometimes when the skill is at the top, it's kind of hard to keep the 2 naturals up. As an old timer i can accept that, but for beginners it feels like a sitting duck contest. They don't feel they build something.

    People hate to loose their shinny weapons.
    It's one of the most frustrating for beginners i think. They finally got it. That praised super duper shotgun. Brand new. "Ho yeah baby it's gonna be today i become a man", they said... Only to fall the next second under the scythe of a fade passing by. -> respawning... where's my SG guys? Anybody seen it? hello ?

    I think that keeping the weapon isn't bad. It won't require much tuning, it pleases the masses and it can turn out to be a 2 sided blade. You choose the wrong one.. you f..k.d.

    On the alien side it has to be a bigger respawn time for example. "You chose to be Onos and did some reckless stuff. You will respawn in a minute this time. Next time you'll think about it twice". I think it's a better incentive. Try again differently instead of loosing everything including the fun of it.

    Of course it needs a "diminishing mechanism" to be able to end this "game loop". There are plenty of options from buying again for a cheap price, spawn times, full alien upgrade after a delay, etc. The more they die the more it's "severe".


    The early game or the player interest to keep playing during that time is a problem but it'll be less of a problem as long as people have fun. Problem is the game is unforgiving. Especially on large servers. Any game loop importance becomes critical. Meaning if one player fails (at everything as a beginner), it starts to be annoying. You can't ask beginners to be pros.

    The middle game is the one moment you finally able to deliver a fight with upgrade, weapons and life forms. It's the moment in which your supposed to have the great fun of all times. I must admit that when the early game is finished i know most of the time who will win...

    I vote for a longer fight in the middle game (keeping weapon, etc) and a shorter fight on the late game. The late game is decided when the "diminishing mechanism" is finally making one team weak. Like in mortal combat -> "Finish him". Quick finish and people move on faster to another game.

    A typical average game would be like 7 minutes early games, 14 minutes middle, 3~4 minutes for the finish. It stays in the 25 minutes format.

    Don't get me wrong. I vote for a longer fight before a quick death. Absolutely not for a quick death alone.
    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
    SantaClawsHandschuhThe_Welsh_Wizard
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,661 Advanced user
    Nintendows wrote: »
    Nordic wrote: »

    We have such a fractured community with multiple "factions" for a lack of a better term. There are multiple divisions. One of them is the supposed pub vs comp divide. Another is large vs small servers. Some people want realism while others want something more arcady.

    X8oZz98.jpg

    That illustrates my point so well too. Both of those groups may agree that vanilla sucks, but what they want vanilla to be is practically at the expense of the other group.
    From my perspective UWE has been trying to both with what little resources they have given to the game. They don't have an AAA budget, let alone an indie game budget. They have the budget of a game that has been out 6 years. I want to say, don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing. I just don't think they have the resources to do it. Unlike many of the people on the forums, I guess I am just happy they are at least trying even though I may not like what they end up doing.
    NintendowsStardog
  • .trixX..trixX. Budapest Join Date: 2007-10-11 Member: 62605Members Posts: 794 Advanced user
    edited October 1
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Nordic wrote: »
    I didn't mean that as a burn, but as evidence that it isn't easy to do. I have not seen ironhorse put forward a solution to stabilize the early game, but he has been calling for it for years. There is also implementation issues too, but I don't think implementation is the problem. Convincing others is also hard. I am not trying to diminish ironhorses efforts.


    That's literally it.

    I have been calling for this for a long time, seemingly on my own for a while - but it's been interesting to watch others in the community come about to similar realizations recently, or often tip toe around it.
    Yet no one is willing to go along with the proposals, or at least no one can easily agree on how to accomplish the goal..
    Ramblings continued..


    To give some examples of ideas, since you brought that up:

    Many have proposed to remove marine sprinting. I personally don't think it'd have that big of an impact as some think, but am not wholly opposed to it.
    Personally, I am in favor of reducing W0 dmg to have W1 better compete with A1 and A2, as well as reduce the impact of the first 2 minutes of a round. If this has the desired outcome you could amplify this by shifting the Arms Lab upgrades entirely, to scale however you'd want.
    A similar approach can be made economically, as well, which extends the early game time frame as far as tech accrual is concerned.. and I don't think I am alone when I say that the early game is a very enjoyable time in the round.

    Yet, convincing others can be hard, because it's easy to see the downsides to almost any suggestion, and thus get lost in the minutia instead of keeping the bigger picture in mind and being willing to adjust. *shrug*

    At the cost of sounding horribly elitist and condescending: The fact that not even a large portion of the community has come to recognize some of these deep causes, makes me wary of making any change. Because it wouldn't be understood why it was done, even with a small blog explanation. People would just scream "why are you nerfing X?!" or equivalent, and think nothing more.

    Nuance is a sob, for sure. ;)

    I dont see how any of those changes would be addressing the issue at hand.
    All I can imagine is a dragged out early game, and no suppression of the snowballing effect.
    (dragging out early game with various methods is NOT fixing the accumulation of advantage)

    I totally understand what you'd like to achieve @IronHorse, and I also agree on most levels, but putting out misfitting (not bad) ideas will not gather support for it...
    I cant come up with anything effective either, it's like the end-game lameduck scenarios... we know it ought to be improved, but so far no good idea has surfaced :(
    NO Cyril, when they're dead they're just hookers!
  • .trixX..trixX. Budapest Join Date: 2007-10-11 Member: 62605Members Posts: 794 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    I am convinced that my suggestion would actually be fairly unpopular with the community at large. I described why here. @.trixX. has been quite vocal with his distaste for my suggestion. That doesn't mean I haven't found any support. Some people really do like what I am suggesting.

    Let me refine my position!:]

    I understand the problems you're trying to solve, but I'm against dumbing down the game in any form. The thing i particularly loathe is the introduction of HP bars.

    Also, I dont think lame-duck scenarios are an issue MOST of the times (the leading team could end it earlier more often than not, they just choose to get kills instead).
    BUT, there are also the instances when one team should've won, but somehow, it just gets dragged out, and at the end the paper form holds and players just wasted 10 minutes for nothing. THOSE should be eradicated if possible, but not at the expense of 40 minutes of engaging, balanced, back-and-forth plays. Those are rare but awesome experiences.
    This is where we disagree:]

    I also agree that most games get decided by the 5th minute mark, then it's just a slow boring creep to win. Unless the losing team pulls off a surprising strategy, but that's extremely rare.

    What I dont see is how any of the proposed ideas would fix these.
    The ones that might work for the late-game (victory points for eg.) feel like an afterthought and kills "immersion".
    The early-game ideas (what @IronHorse proposed) would only drag out the early game, but snowballing would still be present.

    But in any case, keep on brainstorming, and one day we(you guys) might come up with a good solution^^
    NO Cyril, when they're dead they're just hookers!
  • OldF_McRiotOldF_McRiot Join Date: 2018-10-04 Member: 243940Members Posts: 2 Fully active user
    It's been a very long time since I've joined in on the NS community. I was a big deal back in the NS1 days old folk might recall who I am but the memory is the first to go so perhaps not :). I showed my support for a long while with NS2 but admittedly it's been a very long time since.

    I just wanted to drop by and thank the NS community for all the action and drama over the many years playing and to immortalize my old clan/gaming community OldF better known as the Old Fogies. In memory of both communities I have resurrected the OldF Forums @ www.oldf.ca - Theirs no content to consume as the old site and database are gone possibly forever but the forums are fully functional and everyone is welcomed to drop by. If you were an OldF member or know someone who was feel free to share this site with them. It's currently just a tribute, memorial of some of Natural Selections greatest days.

    More will be added in the days/weeks to come.

    Big Player, Big Fan <3 NS<br>
    [OldF] McRiot
    IronHorseSquishpokePOOPFACE
  • SquishpokePOOPFACESquishpokePOOPFACE -21,248 posts (ignore below) Join Date: 2012-10-31 Member: 165262Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,576 Advanced user
    @OldF_McRiot

    Hell yea I remember you and your awesome server! Will y'all bring it back?
    To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to play Natural Selection 2. The gameplay is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of military strategy and advanced mathematics you won't even win a single game. Theres also the game's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into the game. The maps and artwork draw heavily from Riddley Scott's Alien franchise, for instance. The players understand this stuff, they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depth of the game, to realise that it's not just great, that it also says something about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Natural Selection 2 truly ARE idiots. of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the Marines' existential catchphrase "how do I get to be so good", which itself is a cryptic reference to the high degree of intelligence required to play the game as intended. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion when spectating a game. What fools... how I pity them. And, yes, by the way, i DO have a Fade tatoo. And no, you cannot see it. it's for the ladies' eyes only, and even then they have to demonstrate that they are within 50 hive skill points of my own (preferable lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid.
  • AeroplaneAeroplane Join Date: 2017-03-10 Member: 228821Members Posts: 2 Fully active user
    edited October 11
    Would NS2 have to be balanced for making matches end sooner if players had a real incentive to end them quickly?

    It seems that when a (casual) team is steam rolling in NS2, they tend to choose not to end it just to have fun "bullying" the other team with their fancy high-end tech. I know I've certainly felt that way. "Hey, we're doing great, we've got great stuff, this is fun!" This can end in the losing team (particularly more veteran players) having sour feelings and/or the server dying.

    In, for example, Overwatch you want to win AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Why? Because (for competitive, at least), your rank is at hand. You're not going to risk giving the enemy team a chance to come back. You want to end it as soon as possible and get that higher rank. That is the incentive to end it early.

    In NS2, you're playing to play, you're winning to win, which isn't a huge incentive for a lot of people. You've worked hard all game to dominate the map and get your upgrades, now you want to have fun and use them. That is more fun than just winning and starting a new match. If the enemy team comes back and wins because you got sloppy and just focused on kills with your fun tech, it stinks but you really don't care. Adding the player ranks was a step in the right direction, but it doesn't carry the same importance as your rank in other games.

    I realize a true competitive mode in NS2 just isn't possible right now given the small player base, but I still felt it was information worth putting out. If anything, player progression could lend to players feeling more pressure to end a match as soon as possible.

    I come to this with my experience playing the NS2 Newcomer Tournament in early 2017. We had the tournament / cool player badges on the line. Having that real sense of want in an NS2 game was the best gaming experience I've EVER had. Even my two friends, who never play NS2 anymore (because we can't reliably be on the same team), still talk about that experience as their favorite. In that instance, we definitely tried to end the matches as soon as possible. Would be fantastic to bring that sense of urgency to normal NS2.
    Post edited by Aeroplane on
  • Me9aMe9a Join Date: 2008-03-27 Member: 63981Members Posts: 98 Advanced user
    edited October 13
    Aeroplane wrote: »
    Would NS2 have to be balanced for making matches end sooner if players had a real incentive to end them quickly?

    It seems that when a (casual) team is steam rolling in NS2, they tend to choose not to end it just to have fun "bullying" the other team with their fancy high-end tech. I know I've certainly felt that way. "Hey, we're doing great, we've got great stuff, this is fun!" This can end in the losing team (particularly more veteran players) having sour feelings and/or the server dying.

    In, for example, Overwatch you want to win AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Why? Because (for competitive, at least), your rank is at hand. You're not going to risk giving the enemy team a chance to come back. You want to end it as soon as possible and get that higher rank. That is the incentive to end it early.

    In NS2, you're playing to play, you're winning to win, which isn't a huge incentive for a lot of people. You've worked hard all game to dominate the map and get your upgrades, now you want to have fun and use them. That is more fun than just winning and starting a new match. If the enemy team comes back and wins because you got sloppy and just focused on kills with your fun tech, it stinks but you really don't care. Adding the player ranks was a step in the right direction, but it doesn't carry the same importance as your rank in other games.

    I realize a true competitive mode in NS2 just isn't possible right now given the small player base, but I still felt it was information worth putting out. If anything, player progression could lend to players feeling more pressure to end a match as soon as possible.

    I come to this with my experience playing the NS2 Newcomer Tournament in early 2017. We had the tournament / cool player badges on the line. Having that real sense of want in an NS2 game was the best gaming experience I've EVER had. Even my two friends, who never play NS2 anymore (because we can't reliably be on the same team), still talk about that experience as their favorite. In that instance, we definitely tried to end the matches as soon as possible. Would be fantastic to bring that sense of urgency to normal NS2.

    @Aeroplane
    Im glad you enjoyed that newcomer tournament we are doing one this Saturday again 19 cest take part again ;)
    http://ensl.org/articles/1080




    How about: The longer you take the less elo your getting for the win.
    So there's even a motivation for the other team to not give up to save more elo right ? (not sure if that effect is wanted)

    just calculate it % wise like for example win in 1 minute get 100% then 2 minutes 99% etc etc.
    (numbers and times have to be tested maybe try 100% on 6 minutes and then 2% drops per minute)

    for people that join late into a team you can use the same percentage numbers after the whole elo calculation.


    just a idea.

    Post edited by Me9a on
  • MouseMouse The Lighter Side of Pessimism Join Date: 2002-03-02 Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 3,546 mod
    edited October 13
    Me9a wrote: »
    How about: The longer you take the less elo your getting for the win.
    So there's even a motivation for the other team to not give up to save more elo right ? (not sure if that effect is wanted)

    just calculate it % wise like for example win in 1 minute get 100% then 2 minutes 99% etc etc.
    (numbers and times have to be tested maybe try 100% on 6 minutes and then 2% drops per minute)

    for people that join late into a team you can use the same percentage numbers after the whole elo calculation.

    One way to do that could be to scale the elo based on how far the round length is from the typical round length. So an incredibly quick game (a rush or stomp) or an incredibly long game would both be penalised.
    -/AUS/- PS_Mouse
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    Me9a wrote: »
    @Aeroplane
    Im glad you enjoyed that newcomer tournament we are doing one this Saturday again 19 cest take part again ;)
    http://ensl.org/articles/1080




    How about: The longer you take the less elo your getting for the win.
    So there's even a motivation for the other team to not give up to save more elo right ? (not sure if that effect is wanted)

    just calculate it % wise like for example win in 1 minute get 100% then 2 minutes 99% etc etc.
    (numbers and times have to be tested maybe try 100% on 6 minutes and then 2% drops per minute)

    for people that join late into a team you can use the same percentage numbers after the whole elo calculation.


    just a idea.
    Mouse wrote: »
    One way to do that could be to scale the elo based on how far the round length is from the typical round length. So an incredibly quick game (a rush or stomp) or an incredibly long game would both be penalised.
    There is a good chance... well... in fact 100% chance that some people will try to end sooner the entire game. But not really for the fun of it... more like "gimme da loot".

    It's kind of ok in competitive scene. They use the most efficient tactics to get the most of any action. On the other hand the public servers will see the usual grinders crowd rip off the rookies more than it is today.

    Make the wallet the incentive will just upgrade the "wallet syndrome" to the level 10 directly. It will fracture skill factors in 2 distinct groups faster. Top and 0.

    As the balance between players isn't an easy thing to achieve (players sticking together/changing team, wrong Elo values etc), there will be more scenarios in which one team is clearly superior. This team will "box" the other team in its base during the first couple of minutes. I would not say it's fun or ok. It's gonna be brutal at least.

    If you look at it from a distance. I bet player retention would not be the one thing that benefit from it.

    I may be wrong, but well... I know the NS2 crowd and what it is capable of. Tempting those nasty people at heart won't be difficult. And you probably know one or two on your side of the world. There is always one at least. Sad but true.


    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.