<!--quoteo(post=2036534:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:40 PM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Nov 28 2012, 03:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even though the combat was not the most forgiving players always found something useful to do in ns1. Like building/welding bases or being a good gorge in the alien team<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It can get even more primitive than that. A skulk who makes sure to parasite marines instead of engaging them would be a tremendous help to his team. UWE went out of their way to ensure that parasite now has three counters. When I heard that this terrible design decision was done because competitive players would suicide to remove a parasite, I nearly headdesked myself into a coma. As I said earlier, UWE put all their eggs in the competition basket and decided that a healthy pub scene *isn't* the heart of a game. Well, I guess we see how that turned out.
The population trend thus far has not been particularly surprising. It had a good launch, and a lot of people who bought the game at launch only played it for a week or two, as is typical with all new games. There's lots of time in the future to bring in new players with big feature patches or Steam sales/free weekends, etc. And each time that happens the game will be in better shape to hopefully retain more of those players.
<!--quoteo(post=2036538:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:47 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 28 2012, 03:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036538"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's lots of time in the future to bring in new players with big feature patches or Steam sales/free weekends, etc. And each time that happens the game will be in better shape to hopefully retain more of those players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Surprisingly (I say that seriously because I only learned this from the steam graphs), a free weekend causes a huge surge in playercount, but has very little actual impact on players in the big picture. At most, you see on these games that have free weekends that there's only something like a 5-10% increase in playercounts that begins subsiding.
On a serious note, these statistics aren't that different from the numbers I wrote down for NS1 in 2004.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's lots of time in the future to bring in new players with big feature patches or Steam sales/free weekends, etc. And each time that happens the game will be in better shape to hopefully retain more of those players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This. I almost didn't post because this is a end-of-thread post right here. Certain games spikes at launch and then free fall as people move on. Other games, like NS2, have a long-tail, gathering a larger and larger core community as time goes on. With updates, mods, and sales, more people will try it and others will come back.
Personally, I haven't played anywhere near as much as I want to. I'm just so busy lately.
<!--quoteo(post=2036535:date=Nov 28 2012, 11:44 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 11:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can get even more primitive than that. A skulk who makes sure to parasite marines instead of engaging them would be a tremendous help to his team. UWE went out of their way to ensure that parasite now has three counters. When I heard that this terrible design decision was done because competitive players would suicide to remove a parasite, I nearly headdesked myself into a coma. As I said earlier, UWE put all their eggs in the competition basket and decided that a healthy pub scene *isn't* the heart of a game. Well, I guess we see how that turned out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The competitive basket is not that healthy either, but its in a better place atm. I doubt that this paraside change was made with competitive in mind because I know that many players are unhappy with it right now (like how unresponsive it is when trying to hit someone).
The game is not like this today because they listened to the competitive players, it would be more the other way around if they actually had done so during the beta. Many problems you see in the public game also exists in some way in competitive and I'm pretty sure the focus has actually been more on the public side. But the true problem simply lies in lack of gamelpay knowledge.
In the end both scenes are equally important and changes need to be made with both of them in mind.
Whats amusing is the parasite change was actually opposed by the competitve community, I suggest you get your facts straight before pinning us with blame for changes.
And saying that they put all the eggs in the competitve basket is a complete lie, NS2 is massively dumbed down from NS1, you couldnt be more incorrect by saying they favored the competitve side, the exact opposite is more truthful.
<!--quoteo(post=2036544:date=Nov 28 2012, 11:55 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 11:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Surprisingly (I say that seriously because I only learned this from the steam graphs), a free weekend causes a huge surge in playercount, but has very little actual impact on players in the big picture. At most, you see on these games that have free weekends that there's only something like a 5-10% increase in playercounts that begins subsiding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 10% increase in playerbase from a single promotion would be great. Not sure why you see that as insignificant, of course they're not all going to buy it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game is not like this today because they listened to the competitive players<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said they were listened to. Listening to competition doesn't change the fact that the overall design was done under an assumption that the given design would be best for competition, and that competition was therefore more important than pub play. Designing the game around 50/50 winrates, for example. Winrates only matter to competition.
Flayra has always had a thing for competition. Look at the NS1 veteran program. Give clans special treatment and special opportunities, because playtesting the game for clans was more important than playtesting it with a sample of the pub population. But even then, I heard the complaints that the playtesters weren't really listened to and they did their own thing anyway.
it's bad to say but it almost feels like they need to do something like :
Free DLC : Combat mode!
in order to get those who don't get the teamplay and rts side of the game to keep playing NS2 in the combat mode which is posibbly the only thing they were playing in ns1 anyway
while there are some "mods" that make a version of combat it won't take off like an official one would as not many even know about it yet and it has no "official" maps yet.
also combat is probably better at retaining players as whenedver you join a combat game you basically are guarenteed to get to play your favourite lifeform/weapon combo even if only by leeching nearby exp.
<!--quoteo(post=2036572:date=Nov 28 2012, 04:35 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Nov 28 2012, 04:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036572"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A 10% increase in playerbase from a single promotion would be great. Not sure why you see that as insignificant, of course they're not all going to buy it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been putting in games on the steamgraph that have free weekends and none of them show any appreciable increase in playercounts once the weekend ends.
Tropico 4 - free weekend in May. A small boost in popularity afterwards.
Saints Row 3 - free weekend in September. About a one-week boost in popularity. I'm curious as to what the other spikes in popularity are though. Sales? Front-page and popup deals? Either way, the free weekend had no more an impact than any of those events.
COD: MW3 - free weekend also in September. No increase in popularity. Again, weird spikes in the graph. Not sure what they are. Regardless, those spikes had zero impact afterwards.
L4D2 - free weekend at end of October. Within a week, playercounts rapidly diminished though at a higher level.
<!--quoteo(post=2036577:date=Nov 28 2012, 05:38 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036577"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Designing the game around 50/50 winrates, for example. Winrates only matter to competition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is so wrong, I don't even know how you came to this conclusion. Do you honestly think the average player likes to play a game where one side consistently wins more than the other?
<!--quoteo(post=2036587:date=Nov 28 2012, 04:50 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Nov 28 2012, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036587"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is so wrong, I don't even know how you came to this conclusion. Do you honestly think the average player likes to play a game where one side consistently wins more than the other?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People care about having fun more than they care about winning. People play video games to have fun more than they do to be an alpha male and show off how great they are, like some sort of high school football jock trapped inside a fat sweaty nerd's body.
Strike at Karkand. Camp Gibraltar. Operation Metro.
Do you know what these are? These are the three most played maps for BF2, BF2142, and BF3 respectively. Every single one of them has a win/loss rate of something around 90/10. That's right, if you're playing as the US on Karkand, the PAC on Camp Gib, or the RU on Metro, you will almost never win.
Yet, people play the hell out of these... because the fun of actually playing far, far outweighs a stupid message at the end of the round that says "YAY YOU WIN". If you would rather play a game you don't enjoy but do good at and win a lot versus a game you enjoy but perform poorly, there's something wrong with you.
The only time people care about winning and losing is when losing ends up not being fun. This is why people still stack marines even though marines lose more often - because losing as a marine doesn't really stop being fun, whereas losing as an alien completely sucks the fun and any desire to play out of you.
Its true that balance is only secondary to good gameplay mechanics. Even if balance is 40-60% it does not really matter if the game is fun, the same goes for competitive. Its another story if one team has almost no chance of winning.
Even starcraft 1 was never fully balance but was played competitive for years. It just had solid mechanics and gave enough freedom to players to win if they were good enough. Balance problems in quality games usually don't become apparent anyway til the highest level is reached.(while they are not gamebraking).
The obsession over balance in games today has actually been hurting them more than helping them. Many developers spend countless hours trying to figure out how to balance the game perfectly. That time would be better spent by simply making the game really good.
i think the main problem has been highlighted a few times in this thread:
for a shooter game to have a large number of players, you need to appease the 'pub' community which ranges from casual players through to the other end of the scale. experienced players still play pub from time to time, especially if they don't want to dedicate 4-5 evenings per week to play organized scrims/mixes.
to appease the pub community you need to provide an environment where every player feels like he can accomplish something. by this, i mean 'new' players being able to get kills and win rounds and also good players with a bad team should still be able to make their skills count for something.
in games like tf2 and counterstrike, you can still play the game - even if your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. in ns2, the strategy element really makes the skill divide insurmountable, you can boss your way down the right flank but your team fails on the left and it's all for nothing.
there isn't really any way to fix this problem without being intrusive and further segregating comp from pub. either be content with relatively small playerbase, or change up the game.
<!--quoteo(post=2036606:date=Nov 28 2012, 12:30 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 28 2012, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there isn't really any way to fix this problem without being intrusive and further segregating comp from pub. either be content with relatively small playerbase, or change up the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Public and competitive worked fairly well in ns1, it just took years of work. With minor improvements it even could have been more accessable. The fundamentals needed to do it can be found there, literly a treasure chest of knowlage and experience. And if thats not enough then there are other games that have already done it right that also have plenty of information to give. Its just a question to tap into these resources and using them. There are plenty of detailed documents around that tap into this resources in a very constuctive manners. There are even gamers that have much of the required gameplay knowlage needed to help make such a game. With all that knowledge around us it is possible to make it work, just need to study gameplay mechanics to its core and get a feeling what makes games truly enjoyable.
<!--quoteo(post=2036534:date=Nov 28 2012, 04:40 PM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Nov 28 2012, 04:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Few things that kept players in NS1 around was: *A lot of sandboxing, creativity was often fun and rewarding. Such as relocations or gorges making their own bases. The game had more than just the competition. This kept the game fresh for a long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THIS.
God, I can't even describe how disappointed I was the first time I played Gorge in the Beta. When I realized the my beloved Gorge now is a Medic who can build some small sentries and block small doors I just left the game and did not play it for some weeks :/
I wouldn't go too crazy with making comparisons to NS1 though. In one of these threads (hell if I can keep track of them), I was making an effort to dispel this stereotype that CoD attracts a 'bad crowd' and that the people who play those games are somehow outliers and can be ignored. NS1 was a long time ago, and things were a lot different and what we wanted out of our FPS games was different as well.
I'll also say that NS1 had a serious 'wow' factor for its time. RTS + FPS concepts, aliens vs. marines, all kinds of exciting dynamics, and it looked pretty good for Goldsrc too. FPS games have done a lot of growing up, and the initial appeal that brought a lot of people to NS1 - the most superficial features of the game (visuals, concept, low level gameplay) - they can't really compete with what FPS games offer these days.
<!--quoteo(post=2036522:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:20 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 03:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036522"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's two ways to sustain a playerbase.
1) A high skill ceiling which keeps a particular group of players interested for longer.
2) Content updates.
The former doesn't get you new sales and won't stop you from going out of business. The latter gets you new sales. The latter is why BF3 is still going as strong as it is. The quarterly DLCs have done much to retain player interest, as well as kicks more money in EA's direction. As the game goes on sale, the perceived value increases and odds are good that more new players will join.
BF3 has a low skill ceiling and a very low skill floor.
There's something of a third way too:
2.5) Have your game be interesting enough that people don't grow bored of it rapidly.
Like it or not, external features like stat tracking, ranking, achievements, and unlocks all do a considerable amount towards sustaining long-term interest. It makes people feel invested in the game, it provides long-term goals, and it helps to remove feelings of repetition.
The only aspect to that would be if your game strikes gold and becomes e-sports crazy-famous, but you cannot put your eggs in that basket because odds are good your game will not succeed. You can't try to force yourself into that so don't even bother.
Sustaining a long-lived community is only important if your community is large enough in the first place to keep generating interest simply because of its size alone. For example, everyone has a few people on their Steam friendslist that still plays TF2. Every time they play, it reminds you that TF2 is actually a thing, and that it's still alive and well, which may well encourage people to play it.
A dwindling community of hangers-on is irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we actually agree on a lot of things, Temphage, even though we seem to repeatedly quote and refute each other.
You can have 1), 2) and 2.5) all in the same game and I agree it makes things better. I view 1) as essential and 2) as a very good thing for developers to work on to extend interest in a game. 2.5) is somewhat related to 1) because it requires significant game depth and strategy options for a game to be kept fresh after repeated replays and these factors increase the skill ceiling.
However, unless you have 1), your game has zero chance of being an e-sport game.
Having a large community in the first place is a key aspect of success. The perfect case study is CS. Nearly everyone had Half-Life when it was released since it was such a major hit. Importantly, everyone with HL could run it at a reasonable FPS. There was no severe performance problems like NS2. Therefore, when CS was released it was massively popular and the skill ceiling was very high with a strong competitive aspect. I feel that NS2 has missed the boat by being released with poor performance optimisation so that the players who are interested in actually playing it can't play it because the frame rate they get is so poor. The ones that can play it get annoyed with the lack of depth and leave shortly thereafter.
You don't get "hangers-on" unless the game is interesting in the first place (2.5).
Its a small game with no advertising... it has a fairly rabid fan base. Its set up for success or failure doesn't hinge on steam stats less than a month after release. Chill bro.
<!--quoteo(post=2036589:date=Nov 28 2012, 05:53 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036589"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People care about having fun more than they care about winning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And still a 50/50 winrate is the only reasonable theoretical target for NS2, because the teams are meant the be equally strong. What's wrong with having fun <i>and</i> balance? I think NS1 was reasonably balanced (UWE seems to think it was a desaster) and it had way more 'fun' elements. A 50/50 winrate makes perfect sense, it's the way UWE tries to achieve it that's wrong, i.e. looking at stats and then tweaking some arbitrary number. Btw as a side note: based on my experience with other more casual focused games, people do care very much about winning.
<!--quoteo(post=2036646:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:02 PM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Nov 28 2012, 03:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036646"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And still a 50/50 winrate is the only reasonable theoretical target for NS2, because the teams are meant the be equally strong. What's wrong with having fun <i>and</i> balance? I think NS1 was reasonably balanced (UWE seems to think it was a desaster) and it had way more 'fun' elements. A 50/50 winrate makes perfect sense, it's the way UWE tries to achieve it that's wrong, i.e. looking at stats and then tweaking some arbitrary number. Btw as a side note: based on my experience with other more casual focused games, people do care very much about winning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problems with statistics is that they tend to only tell halft the story. Relying on stats alone is not a good idea :).
NS1 was pretty well balanced indeed, however aliens did have the advantage on highest level of play. Even so, marines always had plenty of chance of winning if they played well enough.
<!--quoteo(post=2036632:date=Nov 28 2012, 06:16 PM:name=Spetz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spetz @ Nov 28 2012, 06:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036632"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think we actually agree on a lot of things, Temphage, even though we seem to repeatedly quote and refute each other.
You can have 1), 2) and 2.5) all in the same game and I agree it makes things better. I view 1) as essential and 2) as a very good thing for developers to work on to extend interest in a game. 2.5) is somewhat related to 1) because it requires significant game depth and strategy options for a game to be kept fresh after repeated replays and these factors increase the skill ceiling.
However, unless you have 1), your game has zero chance of being an e-sport game.
Having a large community in the first place is a key aspect of success. The perfect case study is CS. Nearly everyone had Half-Life when it was released since it was such a major hit. Importantly, everyone with HL could run it at a reasonable FPS. There was no severe performance problems like NS2. Therefore, when CS was released it was massively popular and the skill ceiling was very high with a strong competitive aspect. I feel that NS2 has missed the boat by being released with poor performance optimisation so that the players who are interested in actually playing it can't play it because the frame rate they get is so poor. The ones that can play it get annoyed with the lack of depth and leave shortly thereafter.
You don't get "hangers-on" unless the game is interesting in the first place (2.5).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do want to clarify something. 2.5 was saying "make the game fun", which seems like a stupid thing to say, and while you can derive fun from other aspects (as you mentioned, some people find competition fun, some find mindless action fun), I intended it more in terms of how rich the game is, how much meat you can pick off its bones. I don't think minimalism in game design is something that you should err towards. Generally speaking, the most successful FPS games have always been the ones that offer the most things to play with. Counter-Strike offered tons of guns, even if most of them were never used. NS1 offered tons of strategy because of the innovative RTS / FPS hybrid, as well as lots of aliens and things to play with. BF3 offers a billion guns and vehicles. CoD offers a trillion guns and perks and unlocks. Too much of NS2 seems to be perpetuating an idea of minimalism. "We don't need the HMG because we have miniguns." "We don't need a 6th alien lifeform because we have 5 that fill most roles already." "We don't need heavy armor because we have exo." "We don't need hand grenades because we have a grenade launcher."
What I really meant by 2.5 is that people want things to play with. Yes, NS2 removed relocating the marine base into a vent. Yes, that never worked in NS1 and was really just a comedy option. Still, removing relocations took that little bit away from the game. Removing three alien evolutions took that little bit away from the game. Removing Gorge building took that little bit away from the game. It all adds up. People are simply going to remain entertained for longer in a game that offers them more. Seems obvious, but it's worth mentioning. The most balanced FPS game of all time would be two players in an empty fullbright box room, each armed with an instagib hitscan railgun. Doesn't mean it would be fun.
Just about every FPS game remains competitive by adding more and more. Every version of Unreal Tournament has evolved the franchise. We started off with Impact Hammers and Redeemers, ended up with hoverboards and tanks. Minimalism is something that's hard to pull off well, and unless you're Valve and developing Portal 3, I think it's best to fill your game up with things to play with rather than try to be a tightwad with features.
<!--quoteo(post=2036535:date=Nov 28 2012, 11:44 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 11:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It can get even more primitive than that. A skulk who makes sure to parasite marines instead of engaging them would be a tremendous help to his team. UWE went out of their way to ensure that parasite now has three counters. When I heard that this terrible design decision was done because competitive players would suicide to remove a parasite, I nearly headdesked myself into a coma. As I said earlier, UWE put all their eggs in the competition basket and decided that a healthy pub scene *isn't* the heart of a game. Well, I guess we see how that turned out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still parasite, old habits die hard.
I know it is now useless, but I cant come to terms with the fact that something so important has become so meaningless.
<!--quoteo(post=2036651:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:16 PM:name=WhiteDevil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteDevil @ Nov 28 2012, 03:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How small brain do a dude have to have to make a thread about this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Took me 7 reads to actually understand that
<!--quoteo(post=2036657:date=Nov 28 2012, 07:28 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036657"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do want to clarify something. 2.5 was saying "make the game fun", which seems like a stupid thing to say, and while you can derive fun from other aspects (as you mentioned, some people find competition fun, some find mindless action fun), I intended it more in terms of how rich the game is, how much meat you can pick off its bones. I don't think minimalism in game design is something that you should err towards. Generally speaking, the most successful FPS games have always been the ones that offer the most things to play with. Counter-Strike offered tons of guns, even if most of them were never used. NS1 offered tons of strategy because of the innovative RTS / FPS hybrid, as well as lots of aliens and things to play with. BF3 offers a billion guns and vehicles. CoD offers a trillion guns and perks and unlocks. Too much of NS2 seems to be perpetuating an idea of minimalism. "We don't need the HMG because we have miniguns." "We don't need a 6th alien lifeform because we have 5 that fill most roles already." "We don't need heavy armor because we have exo." "We don't need hand grenades because we have a grenade launcher."
What I really meant by 2.5 is that people want things to play with. Yes, NS2 removed relocating the marine base into a vent. Yes, that never worked in NS1 and was really just a comedy option. Still, removing relocations took that little bit away from the game. Removing three alien evolutions took that little bit away from the game. Removing Gorge building took that little bit away from the game. It all adds up. People are simply going to remain entertained for longer in a game that offers them more. Seems obvious, but it's worth mentioning. The most balanced FPS game of all time would be two players in an empty fullbright box room, each armed with an instagib hitscan railgun. Doesn't mean it would be fun.
Just about every FPS game remains competitive by adding more and more. Every version of Unreal Tournament has evolved the franchise. We started off with Impact Hammers and Redeemers, ended up with hoverboards and tanks. Minimalism is something that's hard to pull off well, and unless you're Valve and developing Portal 3, I think it's best to fill your game up with things to play with rather than try to be a tightwad with features.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understood what you meant. I'm glad we can agree.
<!--quoteo(post=2036606:date=Nov 28 2012, 12:30 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 28 2012, 12:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think the main problem has been highlighted a few times in this thread:
for a shooter game to have a large number of players, you need to appease the 'pub' community which ranges from casual players through to the other end of the scale. experienced players still play pub from time to time, especially if they don't want to dedicate 4-5 evenings per week to play organized scrims/mixes.
to appease the pub community you need to provide an environment where every player feels like he can accomplish something. by this, i mean 'new' players being able to get kills and win rounds and also good players with a bad team should still be able to make their skills count for something.
in games like tf2 and counterstrike, you can still play the game - even if your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. in ns2, the strategy element really makes the skill divide insurmountable, you can boss your way down the right flank but your team fails on the left and it's all for nothing.
there isn't really any way to fix this problem without being intrusive and further segregating comp from pub. either be content with relatively small playerbase, or change up the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, I really see this as the problem of trying to be a mainstream game, not fundamentally trying to appease the pub community. In NS2, the sad truth is I don't really want 100 players that play the game for 1 week if I can have 5 players that play the game for 1 year instead.
NS2 isn't going to be a mainstream game. UWE crossed that off as a possibility when they ultimately said "no, we're not going to do a single player campaign". Most people who come into NS2 are looking for a specific experience, something scary, something competitive, something deep. Of course you'll lose players because they can't just "PWN NEEBS", but for the most part it's not the type of player a game like NS can hope to retain in the first place. If you look at games like Dota and LoL, HIGHLY punishing and difficult games are not unmarketable, in fact they're the most popular games in the world.
Of course it can eff up your day in NS2, having a competitive player jump into the server and wrack up insane scores... however, while some larger segment of the players say "###### this, this isn't fun", there are still many who say "I want to be that guy next" and they start working harder. Those are the guys NS2 will primarily stick with. Those are the ones we need to cater to, not pub nubs that will drop the game after less than a month anyways because you can't upgrade your AR with a scope and Bayonnette.
[edit] Both TF2 and CounterStrike are also ABSURDLY frustrating if there's some player on the enemy team that can just rip face. That's more the nature of good competitive shooters, and I don't think we should be apologetic about that in the NS2 community.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2036649:date=Nov 28 2012, 11:08 AM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Nov 28 2012, 11:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036649"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problems with statistics is that they tend to only tell halft the story. Relying on stats alone is not a good idea :).
NS1 was pretty well balanced indeed, however aliens did have the advantage on highest level of play. Even so, marines always had plenty of chance of winning if they played well enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't anyone (let alone Charlie) only relies on the stats for balancing the game. However, stats are a very good way to confirm or refute your thoughts on game balance. If you thought that marines were op because of shotguns, but find that the win stats show an 60% alien rate and that more people get kills with rifles than shotguns, that's good evidence that should make you reconsider why you thought marines w/shotguns were op.
Comments
It can get even more primitive than that. A skulk who makes sure to parasite marines instead of engaging them would be a tremendous help to his team. UWE went out of their way to ensure that parasite now has three counters. When I heard that this terrible design decision was done because competitive players would suicide to remove a parasite, I nearly headdesked myself into a coma. As I said earlier, UWE put all their eggs in the competition basket and decided that a healthy pub scene *isn't* the heart of a game. Well, I guess we see how that turned out.
Surprisingly (I say that seriously because I only learned this from the steam graphs), a free weekend causes a huge surge in playercount, but has very little actual impact on players in the big picture. At most, you see on these games that have free weekends that there's only something like a 5-10% increase in playercounts that begins subsiding.
;)
On a serious note, these statistics aren't that different from the numbers I wrote down for NS1 in 2004.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's lots of time in the future to bring in new players with big feature patches or Steam sales/free weekends, etc. And each time that happens the game will be in better shape to hopefully retain more of those players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This. I almost didn't post because this is a end-of-thread post right here. Certain games spikes at launch and then free fall as people move on. Other games, like NS2, have a long-tail, gathering a larger and larger core community as time goes on. With updates, mods, and sales, more people will try it and others will come back.
Personally, I haven't played anywhere near as much as I want to. I'm just so busy lately.
The competitive basket is not that healthy either, but its in a better place atm. I doubt that this paraside change was made with competitive in mind because I know that many players are unhappy with it right now (like how unresponsive it is when trying to hit someone).
The game is not like this today because they listened to the competitive players, it would be more the other way around if they actually had done so during the beta. Many problems you see in the public game also exists in some way in competitive and I'm pretty sure the focus has actually been more on the public side. But the true problem simply lies in lack of gamelpay knowledge.
In the end both scenes are equally important and changes need to be made with both of them in mind.
And saying that they put all the eggs in the competitve basket is a complete lie, NS2 is massively dumbed down from NS1, you couldnt be more incorrect by saying they favored the competitve side, the exact opposite is more truthful.
A 10% increase in playerbase from a single promotion would be great. Not sure why you see that as insignificant, of course they're not all going to buy it.
I never said they were listened to. Listening to competition doesn't change the fact that the overall design was done under an assumption that the given design would be best for competition, and that competition was therefore more important than pub play. Designing the game around 50/50 winrates, for example. Winrates only matter to competition.
Flayra has always had a thing for competition. Look at the NS1 veteran program. Give clans special treatment and special opportunities, because playtesting the game for clans was more important than playtesting it with a sample of the pub population. But even then, I heard the complaints that the playtesters weren't really listened to and they did their own thing anyway.
Free DLC : Combat mode!
in order to get those who don't get the teamplay and rts side of the game to keep playing NS2 in the combat mode which is posibbly the only thing they were playing in ns1 anyway
while there are some "mods" that make a version of combat it won't take off like an official one would as not many even know about it yet and it has no "official" maps yet.
also combat is probably better at retaining players as whenedver you join a combat game you basically are guarenteed to get to play your favourite lifeform/weapon combo even if only by leeching nearby exp.
I've been putting in games on the steamgraph that have free weekends and none of them show any appreciable increase in playercounts once the weekend ends.
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=550q55230q42690q57690&from=0" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...7690&from=0</a>
Tropico 4 - free weekend in May. A small boost in popularity afterwards.
Saints Row 3 - free weekend in September. About a one-week boost in popularity. I'm curious as to what the other spikes in popularity are though. Sales? Front-page and popup deals? Either way, the free weekend had no more an impact than any of those events.
COD: MW3 - free weekend also in September. No increase in popularity. Again, weird spikes in the graph. Not sure what they are. Regardless, those spikes had zero impact afterwards.
L4D2 - free weekend at end of October. Within a week, playercounts rapidly diminished though at a higher level.
*shrug*
That is so wrong, I don't even know how you came to this conclusion.
Do you honestly think the average player likes to play a game where one side consistently wins more than the other?
Do you honestly think the average player likes to play a game where one side consistently wins more than the other?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People care about having fun more than they care about winning. People play video games to have fun more than they do to be an alpha male and show off how great they are, like some sort of high school football jock trapped inside a fat sweaty nerd's body.
Strike at Karkand.
Camp Gibraltar.
Operation Metro.
Do you know what these are? These are the three most played maps for BF2, BF2142, and BF3 respectively. Every single one of them has a win/loss rate of something around 90/10. That's right, if you're playing as the US on Karkand, the PAC on Camp Gib, or the RU on Metro, you will almost never win.
Yet, people play the hell out of these... because the fun of actually playing far, far outweighs a stupid message at the end of the round that says "YAY YOU WIN". If you would rather play a game you don't enjoy but do good at and win a lot versus a game you enjoy but perform poorly, there's something wrong with you.
The only time people care about winning and losing is when losing ends up not being fun. This is why people still stack marines even though marines lose more often - because losing as a marine doesn't really stop being fun, whereas losing as an alien completely sucks the fun and any desire to play out of you.
Even starcraft 1 was never fully balance but was played competitive for years. It just had solid mechanics and gave enough freedom to players to win if they were good enough. Balance problems in quality games usually don't become apparent anyway til the highest level is reached.(while they are not gamebraking).
The obsession over balance in games today has actually been hurting them more than helping them. Many developers spend countless hours trying to figure out how to balance the game perfectly. That time would be better spent by simply making the game really good.
for a shooter game to have a large number of players, you need to appease the 'pub' community which ranges from casual players through to the other end of the scale. experienced players still play pub from time to time, especially if they don't want to dedicate 4-5 evenings per week to play organized scrims/mixes.
to appease the pub community you need to provide an environment where every player feels like he can accomplish something. by this, i mean 'new' players being able to get kills and win rounds and also good players with a bad team should still be able to make their skills count for something.
in games like tf2 and counterstrike, you can still play the game - even if your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. in ns2, the strategy element really makes the skill divide insurmountable, you can boss your way down the right flank but your team fails on the left and it's all for nothing.
there isn't really any way to fix this problem without being intrusive and further segregating comp from pub. either be content with relatively small playerbase, or change up the game.
Public and competitive worked fairly well in ns1, it just took years of work. With minor improvements it even could have been more accessable. The fundamentals needed to do it can be found there, literly a treasure chest of knowlage and experience. And if thats not enough then there are other games that have already done it right that also have plenty of information to give. Its just a question to tap into these resources and using them.
There are plenty of detailed documents around that tap into this resources in a very constuctive manners. There are even gamers that have much of the required gameplay knowlage needed to help make such a game. With all that knowledge around us it is possible to make it work, just need to study gameplay mechanics to its core and get a feeling what makes games truly enjoyable.
*A lot of sandboxing, creativity was often fun and rewarding. Such as relocations or gorges making their own bases. The game had more than just the competition. This kept the game fresh for a long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THIS.
God, I can't even describe how disappointed I was the first time I played Gorge in the Beta. When I realized the my beloved Gorge now is a Medic who can build some small sentries and block small doors I just left the game and did not play it for some weeks :/
I'll also say that NS1 had a serious 'wow' factor for its time. RTS + FPS concepts, aliens vs. marines, all kinds of exciting dynamics, and it looked pretty good for Goldsrc too. FPS games have done a lot of growing up, and the initial appeal that brought a lot of people to NS1 - the most superficial features of the game (visuals, concept, low level gameplay) - they can't really compete with what FPS games offer these days.
1) A high skill ceiling which keeps a particular group of players interested for longer.
2) Content updates.
The former doesn't get you new sales and won't stop you from going out of business. The latter gets you new sales. The latter is why BF3 is still going as strong as it is. The quarterly DLCs have done much to retain player interest, as well as kicks more money in EA's direction. As the game goes on sale, the perceived value increases and odds are good that more new players will join.
BF3 has a low skill ceiling and a very low skill floor.
There's something of a third way too:
2.5) Have your game be interesting enough that people don't grow bored of it rapidly.
Like it or not, external features like stat tracking, ranking, achievements, and unlocks all do a considerable amount towards sustaining long-term interest. It makes people feel invested in the game, it provides long-term goals, and it helps to remove feelings of repetition.
The only aspect to that would be if your game strikes gold and becomes e-sports crazy-famous, but you cannot put your eggs in that basket because odds are good your game will not succeed. You can't try to force yourself into that so don't even bother.
Sustaining a long-lived community is only important if your community is large enough in the first place to keep generating interest simply because of its size alone. For example, everyone has a few people on their Steam friendslist that still plays TF2. Every time they play, it reminds you that TF2 is actually a thing, and that it's still alive and well, which may well encourage people to play it.
A dwindling community of hangers-on is irrelevant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we actually agree on a lot of things, Temphage, even though we seem to repeatedly quote and refute each other.
You can have 1), 2) and 2.5) all in the same game and I agree it makes things better. I view 1) as essential and 2) as a very good thing for developers to work on to extend interest in a game. 2.5) is somewhat related to 1) because it requires significant game depth and strategy options for a game to be kept fresh after repeated replays and these factors increase the skill ceiling.
However, unless you have 1), your game has zero chance of being an e-sport game.
Having a large community in the first place is a key aspect of success. The perfect case study is CS. Nearly everyone had Half-Life when it was released since it was such a major hit. Importantly, everyone with HL could run it at a reasonable FPS. There was no severe performance problems like NS2. Therefore, when CS was released it was massively popular and the skill ceiling was very high with a strong competitive aspect. I feel that NS2 has missed the boat by being released with poor performance optimisation so that the players who are interested in actually playing it can't play it because the frame rate they get is so poor. The ones that can play it get annoyed with the lack of depth and leave shortly thereafter.
You don't get "hangers-on" unless the game is interesting in the first place (2.5).
Its a small game with no advertising... it has a fairly rabid fan base. Its set up for success or failure doesn't hinge on steam stats less than a month after release. Chill bro.
And still a 50/50 winrate is the only reasonable theoretical target for NS2, because the teams are meant the be equally strong.
What's wrong with having fun <i>and</i> balance?
I think NS1 was reasonably balanced (UWE seems to think it was a desaster) and it had way more 'fun' elements.
A 50/50 winrate makes perfect sense, it's the way UWE tries to achieve it that's wrong, i.e. looking at stats and then tweaking some arbitrary number.
Btw as a side note: based on my experience with other more casual focused games, people do care very much about winning.
What's wrong with having fun <i>and</i> balance?
I think NS1 was reasonably balanced (UWE seems to think it was a desaster) and it had way more 'fun' elements.
A 50/50 winrate makes perfect sense, it's the way UWE tries to achieve it that's wrong, i.e. looking at stats and then tweaking some arbitrary number.
Btw as a side note: based on my experience with other more casual focused games, people do care very much about winning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problems with statistics is that they tend to only tell halft the story. Relying on stats alone is not a good idea :).
NS1 was pretty well balanced indeed, however aliens did have the advantage on highest level of play. Even so, marines always had plenty of chance of winning if they played well enough.
You can have 1), 2) and 2.5) all in the same game and I agree it makes things better. I view 1) as essential and 2) as a very good thing for developers to work on to extend interest in a game. 2.5) is somewhat related to 1) because it requires significant game depth and strategy options for a game to be kept fresh after repeated replays and these factors increase the skill ceiling.
However, unless you have 1), your game has zero chance of being an e-sport game.
Having a large community in the first place is a key aspect of success. The perfect case study is CS. Nearly everyone had Half-Life when it was released since it was such a major hit. Importantly, everyone with HL could run it at a reasonable FPS. There was no severe performance problems like NS2. Therefore, when CS was released it was massively popular and the skill ceiling was very high with a strong competitive aspect. I feel that NS2 has missed the boat by being released with poor performance optimisation so that the players who are interested in actually playing it can't play it because the frame rate they get is so poor. The ones that can play it get annoyed with the lack of depth and leave shortly thereafter.
You don't get "hangers-on" unless the game is interesting in the first place (2.5).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do want to clarify something. 2.5 was saying "make the game fun", which seems like a stupid thing to say, and while you can derive fun from other aspects (as you mentioned, some people find competition fun, some find mindless action fun), I intended it more in terms of how rich the game is, how much meat you can pick off its bones. I don't think minimalism in game design is something that you should err towards. Generally speaking, the most successful FPS games have always been the ones that offer the most things to play with. Counter-Strike offered tons of guns, even if most of them were never used. NS1 offered tons of strategy because of the innovative RTS / FPS hybrid, as well as lots of aliens and things to play with. BF3 offers a billion guns and vehicles. CoD offers a trillion guns and perks and unlocks. Too much of NS2 seems to be perpetuating an idea of minimalism. "We don't need the HMG because we have miniguns." "We don't need a 6th alien lifeform because we have 5 that fill most roles already." "We don't need heavy armor because we have exo." "We don't need hand grenades because we have a grenade launcher."
What I really meant by 2.5 is that people want things to play with. Yes, NS2 removed relocating the marine base into a vent. Yes, that never worked in NS1 and was really just a comedy option. Still, removing relocations took that little bit away from the game. Removing three alien evolutions took that little bit away from the game. Removing Gorge building took that little bit away from the game. It all adds up. People are simply going to remain entertained for longer in a game that offers them more. Seems obvious, but it's worth mentioning. The most balanced FPS game of all time would be two players in an empty fullbright box room, each armed with an instagib hitscan railgun. Doesn't mean it would be fun.
Just about every FPS game remains competitive by adding more and more. Every version of Unreal Tournament has evolved the franchise. We started off with Impact Hammers and Redeemers, ended up with hoverboards and tanks. Minimalism is something that's hard to pull off well, and unless you're Valve and developing Portal 3, I think it's best to fill your game up with things to play with rather than try to be a tightwad with features.
I still parasite, old habits die hard.
I know it is now useless, but I cant come to terms with the fact that something so important has become so meaningless.
Took me 7 reads to actually understand that
What I really meant by 2.5 is that people want things to play with. Yes, NS2 removed relocating the marine base into a vent. Yes, that never worked in NS1 and was really just a comedy option. Still, removing relocations took that little bit away from the game. Removing three alien evolutions took that little bit away from the game. Removing Gorge building took that little bit away from the game. It all adds up. People are simply going to remain entertained for longer in a game that offers them more. Seems obvious, but it's worth mentioning. The most balanced FPS game of all time would be two players in an empty fullbright box room, each armed with an instagib hitscan railgun. Doesn't mean it would be fun.
Just about every FPS game remains competitive by adding more and more. Every version of Unreal Tournament has evolved the franchise. We started off with Impact Hammers and Redeemers, ended up with hoverboards and tanks. Minimalism is something that's hard to pull off well, and unless you're Valve and developing Portal 3, I think it's best to fill your game up with things to play with rather than try to be a tightwad with features.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understood what you meant. I'm glad we can agree.
for a shooter game to have a large number of players, you need to appease the 'pub' community which ranges from casual players through to the other end of the scale. experienced players still play pub from time to time, especially if they don't want to dedicate 4-5 evenings per week to play organized scrims/mixes.
to appease the pub community you need to provide an environment where every player feels like he can accomplish something. by this, i mean 'new' players being able to get kills and win rounds and also good players with a bad team should still be able to make their skills count for something.
in games like tf2 and counterstrike, you can still play the game - even if your team is vastly inferior to the opposition. in ns2, the strategy element really makes the skill divide insurmountable, you can boss your way down the right flank but your team fails on the left and it's all for nothing.
there isn't really any way to fix this problem without being intrusive and further segregating comp from pub. either be content with relatively small playerbase, or change up the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, I really see this as the problem of trying to be a mainstream game, not fundamentally trying to appease the pub community. In NS2, the sad truth is I don't really want 100 players that play the game for 1 week if I can have 5 players that play the game for 1 year instead.
NS2 isn't going to be a mainstream game. UWE crossed that off as a possibility when they ultimately said "no, we're not going to do a single player campaign". Most people who come into NS2 are looking for a specific experience, something scary, something competitive, something deep. Of course you'll lose players because they can't just "PWN NEEBS", but for the most part it's not the type of player a game like NS can hope to retain in the first place. If you look at games like Dota and LoL, HIGHLY punishing and difficult games are not unmarketable, in fact they're the most popular games in the world.
Of course it can eff up your day in NS2, having a competitive player jump into the server and wrack up insane scores... however, while some larger segment of the players say "###### this, this isn't fun", there are still many who say "I want to be that guy next" and they start working harder. Those are the guys NS2 will primarily stick with. Those are the ones we need to cater to, not pub nubs that will drop the game after less than a month anyways because you can't upgrade your AR with a scope and Bayonnette.
[edit] Both TF2 and CounterStrike are also ABSURDLY frustrating if there's some player on the enemy team that can just rip face. That's more the nature of good competitive shooters, and I don't think we should be apologetic about that in the NS2 community.
NS1 was pretty well balanced indeed, however aliens did have the advantage on highest level of play. Even so, marines always had plenty of chance of winning if they played well enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't anyone (let alone Charlie) only relies on the stats for balancing the game. However, stats are a very good way to confirm or refute your thoughts on game balance. If you thought that marines were op because of shotguns, but find that the win stats show an 60% alien rate and that more people get kills with rifles than shotguns, that's good evidence that should make you reconsider why you thought marines w/shotguns were op.