There's nothing wrong with basing your opinion off what you've seen, everyone does that. You can agree with him or not, but telling him he shouldn't do it is going a bit far. And yes, quite enough nitpicking lol.
i'm sorry if that appeared to be my intention, but it's not. you must understand that my problem was never with his opinion (all for it actually), but how he made his opinion ("12v12 is more balanced, based on the above win rates") sound like a fact.
I didn't just make up these numbers but I based them on the info that can be found on ns2stats.org:
Competitive games for build 239 = 66.12% alien win rate - 6 vs 6 player size
Average for build 239 = 59.33% alien win rate (all servers with ns2stats enabled)
Only pub servers for build 239 = 57.28% alien win rate
KKG servers average for build 239 = 52.38% alien win rate - 12 vs 12 player size
Sure win rate doesn't show everything in regards to balance as has been discussed numerous times on these forums, but it is pretty obvious that in terms of the potential to win a game, it is a lot closer to 50/50 when you have more players on the server. Individual skill on the larger servers has less of an impact which has been mentioned previously.
Now take a random person who just buys the game - Given that he is of normal skill, which server do you think he would have the best experience on?
i never questioned game balance with your observations of win rate and i will not question ns2stats for the sake of this discussion. you've provided your proof and since you think ns2stats a valid source of information, i'm not going to pursue it any further.
as for your question, i have no idea. this is because i started back in ns1 and my opinions about servers with different player counts have been established back in that game and not in ns2. if i were to take a guess, with what most people tend to gravitate towards in terms of what they play and what they find enjoyable nowadays, they will go to servers with more people because, like what you said, their individual skill level will have a lesser impact on the game and there will be more room to learn at their own pace.
what they eventually go for and enjoy playing next (continue to play public games, play competitively, both or forget about ns2 altogether) then defines what their best experience will be. can't have a best if you've never tried other ways to play.
I don't think I can blame people for playing on spamfest servers, it's their business if they want to spent their freetime on a laggy Michael Bay movie.
However, I think it's cool if there's enough of guidance and good intuitive design so that players can actually figure out and possibly even appreciate some of the advantages the smaller games provide.
Now take a random person who just buys the game - Given that he is of normal skill, which server do you think he would have the best experience on?
He's going to enjoy the win rates on 24p until the balance is inevitably fixed. Since he hasn't been exposed to proper res awareness, predicting tech bursts, use of territory, knowing how to actually impact a game on his own or using his initiative to reinforce weak points or positions under attack by himself, hes going to have a bad time.
I don't think I can blame people for playing on spamfest servers, it's their business if they want to spent their freetime on a laggy Michael Bay movie.
However, I think it's cool if there's enough of guidance and good intuitive design so that players can actually figure out and possibly even appreciate some of the advantages the smaller games provide.
As I've said, I'd put the performance of my server against any smaller server, any day of the week.
Now take a random person who just buys the game - Given that he is of normal skill, which server do you think he would have the best experience on?
He's going to enjoy the win rates on 24p until the balance is inevitably fixed. Since he hasn't been exposed to proper res awareness, predicting tech bursts, use of territory, knowing how to actually impact a game on his own or using his initiative to reinforce weak points or positions under attack by himself, hes going to have a bad time.
You're still exposed to all of these on a 24 player server. And nobody has said that good players can't still impact games, all we've said is they can't run away with them and having a couple bad or new players can't ruin them.
Given the intangible complexity of how the meta-game changes in different server sizes, we're arguing from personal experience. The only numbers we have are win rates of pubs. Thanks to the law of averages, this data must be representative of something. It seems larger player games may have more balance based purely on team wins.
Regardless, you should play the servers that maximize your enjoyment of the game.
I will hands-down guarantee that a 12v12 competitive scrim would be locked down overwhelmingly on the Marine side.
Just how much is that guarantee worth?
Let's find out.
Let's arrange a 12v12 match between four comp teams. Six games. Rotate teams between all three pairing combinations, and each pairing plays both sides once. If, after six games, marines have won four or more games, then you win. If they've won three or fewer, I win. Winner gets to say I told you so. Loser buys four copies of NS2 and donates them to the generosity thread.
Practice beats theory. Money talks. Put up or shut up.
I agree with the guy saying marines would win pretty much every time though. Allowing good shooters to roam in pack is not good for the aliens. I have no doubt that marines would dominate the early game. Aliens would have to try holding on until they could get a lot of higher life forms before they would be able to do anything.
actually i think the marines win much more on 12v12, but that's on another server i play in where they have their own ELO ranking system (not ns2stats) and auto-random, plus players can never play the same team twice in a single map. pubstars are split evenly between two teams based on their ELO.
i played my first and only 2 hour game on that server because of the ELO ranking system. we ultimately lost as aliens due to lack of teamwork towards the end.
cream, which server do you play on? I'm very interested in servers that are implementing Elo-style ranking systems.
actually i think the marines win much more on 12v12, but that's on another server i play in where they have their own ELO ranking system (not ns2stats) and auto-random, plus players can never play the same team twice in a single map. pubstars are split evenly between two teams based on their ELO.
i played my first and only 2 hour game on that server because of the ELO ranking system. we ultimately lost as aliens due to lack of teamwork towards the end.
cream, which server do you play on? I'm very interested in servers that are implementing Elo-style ranking systems.
I would also like to see an ELO system that somehow works in NS2.
(ELO is not applicable to games like this, despite the forced usage in lieu of anything better)
Always willing to learn though
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I really don't see how you can argue that there is as much strategy in big games. You have enough people to send groups everywhere. In small games, you have to decide what is important and you will have many more instances of deciding that it isn't worth sending a couple players to defend something while your team is taking something else. You can't send groups to each tech point at the start with only 5 or 6 field players.
This isn't taking anything away from larger servers. People should play what they like. I'm sure we could find advantages and disadvantages with all server sizes.
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
So big servers have more strategy because individuals have less bearing on a game and therefore you rely on overcoming problems with sheer weight of numbers?
Sounds like ww1 trench warfare if you ask me. There's a reason this type of combat isn't copied into many video games. It's crap.
Individual skill should be rewarded. Time invested into a game should be rewarded. What's with this equal opportunity bullshit where everyone needs to be as bad as each other so nobody feels left out? Smaller servers can be prone to pub stack or skill stack but that's an issue for an admin to sort out or implement balancing mods to counteract this. To date, this problem exists in just about any game out there.
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
You can always sort by performance, which I believe is based off the server tickrate. If it says 100% that should mean it's running at a 30 tickrate, which is the max. Mine runs at that 99% of the time, you won't see any server lag ruining any games on it.
So big servers have more strategy because individuals have less bearing on a game and therefore you rely on overcoming problems with sheer weight of numbers?
Sounds like ww1 trench warfare if you ask me. There's a reason this type of combat isn't copied into many video games. It's crap.
Individual skill should be rewarded. Time invested into a game should be rewarded. What's with this equal opportunity bullshit where everyone needs to be as bad as each other so nobody feels left out? Smaller servers can be prone to pub stack or skill stack but that's an issue for an admin to sort out or implement balancing mods to counteract this. To date, this problem exists in just about any game out there.
hus you're completely misreading what everyone who plays on them are saying. We're not saying there's more teamwork, at least I'm not, and I know several others haven't. I would say there is most certainly just as much however. Honestly, you can keep debating from your suppositions without firsthand knowledge, which is abundantly clear, or you can just simply admit that just maybe those of us with experience on them do actually know what we're talking about. And again, I'm speaking from the experience of my own server, where I see massive teamwork as the norm.
I'm just going to say it, UWE states the game is supposed to be balanced for 8v8 pub game play.
What that means is somewhat open to interpretation, but in general it means the game is therefore imbalanced at any player count over 8v8. You can argue about how it's imbalanced, but there it is. You're arguing flavor, not content. You have gone a full 4 players per team above the recommended maximum. I'm going to go ahead and guess that Mavicks server isn't listed on NS2Stats. At least I don't see it there. I'm glad it isn't, it makes NS2Stats a little less of a joke.
I'm glad Mav runs a server. I've played on it a few times, and yes it is an orgy of nonsense. Sometimes good players work together, sometimes not, but it is always crazy. I think a lot of TF2 players would prefer the random, no teamwork required aspect of 12v12 and therein lies the fun.
Calling it 'balanced' is one of the most laughable things I've heard all year. Keep in mind it's only February, but seriously?
I respect the fact that you run a successful and popular server Mav, seriously. Kudos. Stop pretending to be anything other than the ball pit at Chucky Cheezes though. It's fun, but it isn't competitive so who cares about balance.
EDIT:
If anything it's a good place to practice your mechanical skills as a Marine, since it's a target rich environment you should get a lot of practice in very quickly.
You know, it's funny you say you've "played on it a few times", yet I don't ever remember seeing anyone named Tallahassee Red or SpaceJew on it. And I'm either on it, or watching it from web admin about 18 hours of the day. Not saying you haven't, or that you don't play under a different name. But I can absolutely promise you that anyone who's played more then "a few times" will completely disagree with it being "an orgy of nonsense" or the "ball pit at Chucky Cheezes". Are there some disorganized games on there sometimes where half or more of the team is running around directionless? Sure. Does that most likely happen on pretty much every other server from time to time? I'd almost garauntee it.
Stop talking trash about what you clearly know so little about, thanks.
I also was unaware you have photographic memory of every person that's played on your server a few times.
While you might not come out and say 'you haven't played on my server' you imply it heavily. I know for a fact I've played on it, because I searched it out after reading your posts months ago.
I don't know, try November or something.
Actually, if you aren't talking out of your arse in the first place, why don't you check your server logs right now since your server quite definitely will remember me.
I'm not trolling you man, your server is fun. It's just deathmatch NS2 style. The maps are frankly too small for 12v12. Honest to god, 12v12 on veil is unadulterated bulls#!t even while it's fun. Don't get yourself into a tizzy over my wording, read it twice. A server can be fun and broken at the same time, I think L4D taught everyone that lesson.
I'm glad Mav runs a server. I've played on it a few times, and yes it is an orgy of nonsense. Sometimes good players work together, sometimes not, but it is always crazy.
Sorry, disagree. I've played on Mavick's server (although not in the last month or so since it's always full) and most games have been pretty good.
Calling it 'balanced' is one of the most laughable things I've heard all year.
It really doesn't matter if you feel it isn't balanced, since the public have had their say. Seeing as his server is packed almost all the time, it would seem that the players feel it is more balanced than smaller servers. More importantly, they feel it is more fun.
How many full 6v6 pub servers do you see out there? Hmmm? None.
So please don't judge Mavick or anyone who runs a 24 player server. Frankly, the community owes him - and other large server OPs - a debt of gratitude. If they were running these servers, and if the largest was 8v8, I think the number of players playing would only be a fraction of what it is now.
It's server OPs like Mavick that are keeping NS2 alive. The public has spoken, and they have clearly said they enjoy large servers. Whining about it won't change that.
Read my posts Savant. I said his server is fun to play on despite the lack of 'balance'.
You don't want to play a super serious game every single time, and Mavicks provides a public service to that effect.
Maybe I shouldn't have made the ball pit joke, but that's how I see it. 12v12 is less about strategy and more about shooting. That's my opinion, but I think it's a valid one.
It's server OPs like Mavick that are keeping NS2 alive. .
^^ This.
I will admit there are times when there are no regular players or very little on and the teamwork/strategy isn't quite there, but those times are not that often. When there are at least some regular players there it is a joy to play on. Which pretty much goes on the extension that it's the players that make the game fun, no matter server size.
As for the argument that those servers should be marked as not dev balanced gameplay for new players is totally off base. New players would find them more fun than lower player count servers, so you should be encouraging new players to go there, not persuading them not to by marking the servers.
Just wish I could play on Mavick's server right now..... I get auto-kicked when I join :X
So please don't judge Mavick or anyone who runs a 24 player server. Frankly, the community owes him - and other large server OPs - a debt of gratitude.
I don't think the community should be thankful for just anyone who runs a 24 player server. I'm indifferent to 24 player servers that can actually keep a 30 tick rate.
The 24 player servers that regularly hit less than 15 ticks ? Get lost. They are not doing the community a favour. They are hurting the game if anything. I've been in them when people have complained about the lag many times. If a new player comes in and experiences that, do you think they will stick around? Unless someone explains to check Net_stats, look at the server rate, realise the server they are on is to blame and to join a better one, they will assume it's their PC that can't handle it, or worse, they will assume that this is a good as it gets. Then they will probably not come back to NS2. Hardly a good advertisement for the game.
This is why all servers over 16 should be classed as modded, along with a small warning message about performance possibly being inferior to 16 player servers.
I'm not sure about under-performing servers in other parts of the world, but I can tell you we have a couple of 24 and a whole swathe of ISP hosted under performing servers in Aus.
People have even requested the GON servers be shut down completely as their shoddy performance does more harm to the game than good. http://games.on.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=300&t=197883&p=2659621#p2659621
LOL. Sums up 24 player servers I have seen too. The only thing that ever is organised in a 24 player server is a everyone meet a x, we will rush y as a group/meat ball. Even then it always seems to take 10 times the yelling / typing to actually get all 11 people on your team to meet in one spot.
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
You can always sort by performance, which I believe is based off the server tickrate. If it says 100% that should mean it's running at a 30 tickrate, which is the max. Mine runs at that 99% of the time, you won't see any server lag ruining any games on it.
Too bad I can join 100% perf servers with 10 tickrate
First off, thanks to Mavick both for hosting a server and making well thught out arguments in this thread.
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
You can always sort by performance, which I believe is based off the server tickrate. If it says 100% that should mean it's running at a 30 tickrate, which is the max. Mine runs at that 99% of the time, you won't see any server lag ruining any games on it.
Too bad I can join 100% perf servers with 10 tickrate
How do you know they're running a 10 tickrate? I could be totally wrong on equating the percentage performance from the server browser to the actual tickrate, I just assumed that's what it was based off of. I know mine's pegged at 30 on both the web admin panel and the server tracker about 99% of the time at any rate.
I also was unaware you have photographic memory of every person that's played on your server a few times.
While you might not come out and say 'you haven't played on my server' you imply it heavily. I know for a fact I've played on it, because I searched it out after reading your posts months ago.
I don't know, try November or something.
Actually, if you aren't talking out of your arse in the first place, why don't you check your server logs right now since your server quite definitely will remember me.
I'm not trolling you man, your server is fun. It's just deathmatch NS2 style. The maps are frankly too small for 12v12. Honest to god, 12v12 on veil is unadulterated bulls#!t even while it's fun. Don't get yourself into a tizzy over my wording, read it twice. A server can be fun and broken at the same time, I think L4D taught everyone that lesson.
If you have to go all the way back to November, when the game was brand new and the server was maybe a couple weeks old to leverage your harsh opinion at it, that's about as inaccurate of an opinion you could possibly have about it.
Comments
i'm sorry if that appeared to be my intention, but it's not. you must understand that my problem was never with his opinion (all for it actually), but how he made his opinion ("12v12 is more balanced, based on the above win rates") sound like a fact.
i never questioned game balance with your observations of win rate and i will not question ns2stats for the sake of this discussion. you've provided your proof and since you think ns2stats a valid source of information, i'm not going to pursue it any further.
as for your question, i have no idea. this is because i started back in ns1 and my opinions about servers with different player counts have been established back in that game and not in ns2. if i were to take a guess, with what most people tend to gravitate towards in terms of what they play and what they find enjoyable nowadays, they will go to servers with more people because, like what you said, their individual skill level will have a lesser impact on the game and there will be more room to learn at their own pace.
what they eventually go for and enjoy playing next (continue to play public games, play competitively, both or forget about ns2 altogether) then defines what their best experience will be. can't have a best if you've never tried other ways to play.
However, I think it's cool if there's enough of guidance and good intuitive design so that players can actually figure out and possibly even appreciate some of the advantages the smaller games provide.
He's going to enjoy the win rates on 24p until the balance is inevitably fixed. Since he hasn't been exposed to proper res awareness, predicting tech bursts, use of territory, knowing how to actually impact a game on his own or using his initiative to reinforce weak points or positions under attack by himself, hes going to have a bad time.
As I've said, I'd put the performance of my server against any smaller server, any day of the week.
You're still exposed to all of these on a 24 player server. And nobody has said that good players can't still impact games, all we've said is they can't run away with them and having a couple bad or new players can't ruin them.
Regardless, you should play the servers that maximize your enjoyment of the game.
Just how much is that guarantee worth?
Let's find out.
Let's arrange a 12v12 match between four comp teams. Six games. Rotate teams between all three pairing combinations, and each pairing plays both sides once. If, after six games, marines have won four or more games, then you win. If they've won three or fewer, I win. Winner gets to say I told you so. Loser buys four copies of NS2 and donates them to the generosity thread.
Practice beats theory. Money talks. Put up or shut up.
I agree with the guy saying marines would win pretty much every time though. Allowing good shooters to roam in pack is not good for the aliens. I have no doubt that marines would dominate the early game. Aliens would have to try holding on until they could get a lot of higher life forms before they would be able to do anything.
cream, which server do you play on? I'm very interested in servers that are implementing Elo-style ranking systems.
I would also like to see an ELO system that somehow works in NS2.
(ELO is not applicable to games like this, despite the forced usage in lieu of anything better)
Always willing to learn though
I fint the attitude towards bigger servers from some players a bit off putting, as if there was a "correct" way to play the game and people enjoying the game in any other way is doing something wrong. I also find the idea that bigger servers being for new or inexperienced players ridiculous. It's simply a matter of taste. I play mainly 20-24 player servers, and look at my join date. Do you think I am new or inexperienced?
When I played CS competetively I prefered larger servers as well for public play, because to me it makes the games more interesting. I like the teamwork and strategy part of the game, and with more people those actually become more important, not less. The fewer the players, the more one persons individual skill will influence the results. The idea that there would be "less" strategy or tactics with more players is just plain false, it's just that the strategies change. What works in 6vs6 may not work in 12vs12 and vice versa.
To me, a 6vs6 game isn't interesting. I don't even really consider it a game, more like a warmup waiting for the game to start. This doesn't mean that I can't see the appeal, or that I don't think it is valid, just that it's not really my taste. If I had to pick a specific team size as "optimal" I would probably go with 10vs10, because I will admit that 12vs12 tends to skew the game a bit too much in favor of the marines and will also mean that it's hard to find any "unoccupied" areas of the map, making ninja phasegates, sneaky bilebombing and simmilar strategies a bit too hard.
It's about finding your "sweet spot", not about whether one particular game size is "the right one". And yes, I would think a 32 player server or bigger would be very interesting, but it would need new maps and some tweaks to the economy. With the current maps and economic model, games (in my mind) start to deteriorate somewhere around 20-22 players.
Oh, and server lag? That's just a hardware and connection issue. Just don't set up a big game if your hardware can't handle it.
This isn't taking anything away from larger servers. People should play what they like. I'm sure we could find advantages and disadvantages with all server sizes.
I would like to play on 24 slot servers, but I dont find it worthwhile if every time I join one, the server lagging ruins the game.
I would love to have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(computing)">Load Average</a> system in the server browser, showing the tickrate of the server or something.
Sounds like ww1 trench warfare if you ask me. There's a reason this type of combat isn't copied into many video games. It's crap.
Individual skill should be rewarded. Time invested into a game should be rewarded. What's with this equal opportunity bullshit where everyone needs to be as bad as each other so nobody feels left out? Smaller servers can be prone to pub stack or skill stack but that's an issue for an admin to sort out or implement balancing mods to counteract this. To date, this problem exists in just about any game out there.
You can always sort by performance, which I believe is based off the server tickrate. If it says 100% that should mean it's running at a 30 tickrate, which is the max. Mine runs at that 99% of the time, you won't see any server lag ruining any games on it.
hus you're completely misreading what everyone who plays on them are saying. We're not saying there's more teamwork, at least I'm not, and I know several others haven't. I would say there is most certainly just as much however. Honestly, you can keep debating from your suppositions without firsthand knowledge, which is abundantly clear, or you can just simply admit that just maybe those of us with experience on them do actually know what we're talking about. And again, I'm speaking from the experience of my own server, where I see massive teamwork as the norm.
What that means is somewhat open to interpretation, but in general it means the game is therefore imbalanced at any player count over 8v8. You can argue about how it's imbalanced, but there it is. You're arguing flavor, not content. You have gone a full 4 players per team above the recommended maximum. I'm going to go ahead and guess that Mavicks server isn't listed on NS2Stats. At least I don't see it there. I'm glad it isn't, it makes NS2Stats a little less of a joke.
I'm glad Mav runs a server. I've played on it a few times, and yes it is an orgy of nonsense. Sometimes good players work together, sometimes not, but it is always crazy. I think a lot of TF2 players would prefer the random, no teamwork required aspect of 12v12 and therein lies the fun.
Calling it 'balanced' is one of the most laughable things I've heard all year. Keep in mind it's only February, but seriously?
I respect the fact that you run a successful and popular server Mav, seriously. Kudos. Stop pretending to be anything other than the ball pit at Chucky Cheezes though. It's fun, but it isn't competitive so who cares about balance.
EDIT:
If anything it's a good place to practice your mechanical skills as a Marine, since it's a target rich environment you should get a lot of practice in very quickly.
[ citation needed ]
I'm sorry, I'm not your internet nanny Mr. 96 posts on the board. You're on their website right now to post, L2Search.
Stop talking trash about what you clearly know so little about, thanks.
That comment right there probably sums up enough about whether people should actually lend any credence to your posts, whatsoever.
I also was unaware you have photographic memory of every person that's played on your server a few times.
While you might not come out and say 'you haven't played on my server' you imply it heavily. I know for a fact I've played on it, because I searched it out after reading your posts months ago.
I don't know, try November or something.
Actually, if you aren't talking out of your arse in the first place, why don't you check your server logs right now since your server quite definitely will remember me.
I'm not trolling you man, your server is fun. It's just deathmatch NS2 style. The maps are frankly too small for 12v12. Honest to god, 12v12 on veil is unadulterated bulls#!t even while it's fun. Don't get yourself into a tizzy over my wording, read it twice. A server can be fun and broken at the same time, I think L4D taught everyone that lesson.
It really doesn't matter if you feel it isn't balanced, since the public have had their say. Seeing as his server is packed almost all the time, it would seem that the players feel it is more balanced than smaller servers. More importantly, they feel it is more fun.
How many full 6v6 pub servers do you see out there? Hmmm? None.
So please don't judge Mavick or anyone who runs a 24 player server. Frankly, the community owes him - and other large server OPs - a debt of gratitude. If they were running these servers, and if the largest was 8v8, I think the number of players playing would only be a fraction of what it is now.
It's server OPs like Mavick that are keeping NS2 alive. The public has spoken, and they have clearly said they enjoy large servers. Whining about it won't change that.
You don't want to play a super serious game every single time, and Mavicks provides a public service to that effect.
Maybe I shouldn't have made the ball pit joke, but that's how I see it. 12v12 is less about strategy and more about shooting. That's my opinion, but I think it's a valid one.
^^ This.
I will admit there are times when there are no regular players or very little on and the teamwork/strategy isn't quite there, but those times are not that often. When there are at least some regular players there it is a joy to play on. Which pretty much goes on the extension that it's the players that make the game fun, no matter server size.
As for the argument that those servers should be marked as not dev balanced gameplay for new players is totally off base. New players would find them more fun than lower player count servers, so you should be encouraging new players to go there, not persuading them not to by marking the servers.
Just wish I could play on Mavick's server right now..... I get auto-kicked when I join :X
I don't think the community should be thankful for just anyone who runs a 24 player server. I'm indifferent to 24 player servers that can actually keep a 30 tick rate.
The 24 player servers that regularly hit less than 15 ticks ? Get lost. They are not doing the community a favour. They are hurting the game if anything. I've been in them when people have complained about the lag many times. If a new player comes in and experiences that, do you think they will stick around? Unless someone explains to check Net_stats, look at the server rate, realise the server they are on is to blame and to join a better one, they will assume it's their PC that can't handle it, or worse, they will assume that this is a good as it gets. Then they will probably not come back to NS2. Hardly a good advertisement for the game.
This is why all servers over 16 should be classed as modded, along with a small warning message about performance possibly being inferior to 16 player servers.
I'm not sure about under-performing servers in other parts of the world, but I can tell you we have a couple of 24 and a whole swathe of ISP hosted under performing servers in Aus.
People have even requested the GON servers be shut down completely as their shoddy performance does more harm to the game than good.
http://games.on.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=300&t=197883&p=2659621#p2659621
LOL. Sums up 24 player servers I have seen too. The only thing that ever is organised in a 24 player server is a everyone meet a x, we will rush y as a group/meat ball. Even then it always seems to take 10 times the yelling / typing to actually get all 11 people on your team to meet in one spot.
How do you know they're running a 10 tickrate? I could be totally wrong on equating the percentage performance from the server browser to the actual tickrate, I just assumed that's what it was based off of. I know mine's pegged at 30 on both the web admin panel and the server tracker about 99% of the time at any rate.
If you have to go all the way back to November, when the game was brand new and the server was maybe a couple weeks old to leverage your harsh opinion at it, that's about as inaccurate of an opinion you could possibly have about it.