Build 327 Balance Patch Notes - Natural Selection 2

1235»

Comments

  • AeglosAeglos Join Date: 2010-04-06 Member: 71189Members Posts: 618 Advanced user
    skav2 wrote: »
    Aeglos if you step back and look at bloated server sizes you will realize it makes a mockery of how the game plays.

    You misunderstand me. I'm saying that better gameplay does not immediately translate into a more active playerbase with more active servers. From start to end, I've been saying that seeding is the problem and that there is no solution for that yet. I'm not advocating for large servers, I just think that you are more likely than not to drive players away in the long run if you do not address that first.
  • 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: 4,736 Advanced user
    .trixX. wrote: »
    For years, the server ops could choose the player limit, in accordance with their hardware and preferences.

    I just dont understand the logic behind taking away the fun and freedom of half the playerbase.

    You remember the drama of ns2large? And the srv is still running and popular, despite the best efforts of UWE to kill it at the time.
    The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. Server operators, especially wooza, run large servers with lots of spectators at the expense of the game as a whole.
    .trixX. wrote: »
    The game was designed for 6on6, but half the playerbase LIKE to play on larger servers.

    if anything, they should've gone 6v6, since the game is balance around that player count.
    No it wasn't. It never was. This is an old assumption many players have had that was never based in reality. We have a lot of players who complain that UWE balances only with competitve players in mind, and I can't think of a single competitive player who thinks they balance for competitive. Comp mod exists because UWE wasn't balancing for competitive. UWE never prescribed a playercount early on and wanted to support a wide variety of player counts. This was a mistake.

    Aeglos wrote: »
    See, I think this is being too optimistic. You are basically asking for the best case scenario every time.
    I don't think you need the best case scenario to see positive results. That is why this 10v10 change is such a joke. It isn't enough to outweight the cost of lowering the playercount. UWE was too timid, was too chicken, and should have gone full 8v8. 10v10 is a compromise that benefits no one.
    Aeglos wrote: »
    Maybe my perspective is different from the average veteran, but

    Quality game > queuing for a quality game > doing something else > playing a boring game.
    I have a very similar mindset. My assumption that veteran player server preference is second to playing on a full server regardless of size comes from finding that this mindset is not all that common. I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to seed 8v8 servers despite the difficulty. I know a lot of people who say they strongly prefer 8v8. Almost every NS2 player I know, whether or not they prefer 8v8 or not, will not seed servers. Nearly all of them always choose to join a full server rather than seed a new server.
    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.
    SquishpokePOOPFACE
  • skav2skav2 Join Date: 2007-05-28 Member: 61037Members, Reinforced - Gold Posts: 190 Advanced user
    Aeglos wrote: »
    skav2 wrote: »
    Aeglos if you step back and look at bloated server sizes you will realize it makes a mockery of how the game plays.

    You misunderstand me. I'm saying that better gameplay does not immediately translate into a more active playerbase with more active servers. From start to end, I've been saying that seeding is the problem and that there is no solution for that yet. I'm not advocating for large servers, I just think that you are more likely than not to drive players away in the long run if you do not address that first.

    With queueing for matches possibly coming in the future I believe that would absolutely help that issue. Fix everything? Nah. Having fun stuff to do while seeding could help as well. That combat pregame idea that floats around here every so often sounds fun.

    There will still be the issue of no one wanting to command and because of our small player base, having a queue wont be a fix all. If we can manage to have a few hundred players on at a time it can work. More would be great but I dont see that happening.

    I believe the commander issue can be solved though by random selection after 30 seconds for anyone that has a Commander Badge + Not factoring the Commanders ELO into shuffling so the rest of the team is of similar skill could solve that. So many higher lvl players want to command such as myself but cant because that would tip the scales in the other teams favor unfortunately. This is also the same in the other direction. If a nub commander on my team hops in then that technically raises the HS of my team compared to a higher level player commanding the other team. That means my team will be more likely to win more engagements thusly. That also assume my nub commander knows how to get upgrades.

    A way to make commanding even a little bit easier would help a ton too



  • .trixX..trixX. Budapest Join Date: 2007-10-11 Member: 62605Members Posts: 852 Advanced user
    edited April 30
    Nordic wrote: »
    .trixX. wrote: »
    For years, the server ops could choose the player limit, in accordance with their hardware and preferences.

    I just dont understand the logic behind taking away the fun and freedom of half the playerbase.

    You remember the drama of ns2large? And the srv is still running and popular, despite the best efforts of UWE to kill it at the time.
    The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. Server operators, especially wooza, run large servers with lots of spectators at the expense of the game as a whole.

    I'm well aware of the expression, but I dont think it's a good analogue here. The only similarity is resource scarcity: players in ns2.
    But what is better? Losing most of those players who play on wooza, or let them enjoy their preferred mass-pub-brawl?
    A game that can be modded/tinkered by the community to suit their needs will have a longer lifespan.
    Also, from a business perspective, a company that doesnt realize the needs of it's customers will loose in the long run, and there clearly is a need for larger ns2 servers, whether UWE wants to cater for it or not...

    So, im still not convinced that the limitation of player count was a good idea.
    Limiting the spect slots is a good idea though.

    EDIT:
    And im saying all this even though i've only played ns2large once. I personally dont like it, but some players do.
    NO Cyril, when they're dead they're just hookers!
    Oliverphj
  • AeglosAeglos Join Date: 2010-04-06 Member: 71189Members Posts: 618 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    I don't think you need the best case scenario to see positive results. That is why this 10v10 change is such a joke. It isn't enough to outweight the cost of lowering the playercount. UWE was too timid, was too chicken, and should have gone full 8v8. 10v10 is a compromise that benefits no one.

    I think the margin of error is very thin and the consequences of failing, dire. You have to improve the seeding situation first or you won't get anywhere.
  • MephillesMephilles Germany Join Date: 2013-08-07 Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester Posts: 953 Advanced user
    Ghoul: Follow-up Balance set for build 327 is now live:
    • Undeployed ARC health changed to 3000/200 (from 3000/500)
    • Babblers:
    • New maximum lifeform shield values (total):
      1. Skulk: 21 (from 35)
      2. Gorge & Lerk: 21 (from 42)
      3. Fade: 40 (from 65)
      4. Onos: 85 (from 150)
      1. Spawn rate from 1.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds
    • GL: Change structural damage multiplier from 5x to 4x (450dmg->360) - player damage unchanged
    • Lerk spikes: Damage from 6->5
    • Phase Gates: Armor from 600->800 (revert of previous reduction)
    • Advanced Support: changed to 20 res (from 25), research time to 60 sec (from 90)
    • Marine weapons: Dropped weapons now refresh based on close proximity (no longer have to pick them up to refresh)
    • Cysts: Lower maximum cyst HP to 200. Cysts close to a hive (about to the alien naturals) can scale up to 350. De-cloaking shade-passive'd cysts should now feel a bit snappier and more reliable.
    • Lerk Adrenaline rate to 30% (from 60%)
    • Reduce Welder cost to 2 (from 3)

    These changes focus on toning down on some troublesome or unfun things that have cropped up since release, as well as a few additional QoL items for our marine friends. We are continuing to keep an eye on things!

    For those who didn't see the anouncement on discord
    return to zero
    Nordic.trixX.MouseOliverphj
  • AeglosAeglos Join Date: 2010-04-06 Member: 71189Members Posts: 618 Advanced user
    edited May 1
    Mephilles wrote: »
    Ghoul: Follow-up Balance set for build 327 is now live:

    Is this through the UWE mods? Didn't see an update.
  • OliverphjOliverphj Join Date: 2019-05-08 Member: 252793Members Posts: 1 Fully active user
    The best thing about NS2 that has kept me coming back to playing it over the years is how it provides the opportunity of players to take part regardless of what style of game play they enjoy. The ability of gorges to lay tunnels allow them to fundamentally effect the flow of the game. By removing this and adding it to the commander all you are doing is trying to balance two sides that are fundamentally enjoyable due to their different play styles. By giving tunnels to the commander you might as well remove them and just allow aliens to build phase gates as that would give you a perfectly balanced game play. What i am really saying is, please, keep the uniqueness and imaginative diversity that is present within this one of a kind game. Don't change and loose what is special just to satisfy people.
    MoFo1mAL1CE
  • SquishpokePOOPFACESquishpokePOOPFACE -21,248 posts (ignore below) Join Date: 2012-10-31 Member: 165262Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,618 Advanced user
    Because commanders aren't players either, just glorified upgrade upgrade dispensers
    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.
    VetinariKasharic
  • IronmanIronman Join Date: 2012-03-22 Member: 149184Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 99 Advanced user
    Nordic wrote: »
    We should have gone full 8v8

    Please don't ruin my game, go start your own 8v8 server lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.