What would really help the community more than lower player slots is adding server side demo recording so that it is easier to administer a server. With server side demo recording it would be possible to go back and see exactly what a player accused of cheating, trolling or messing up the game for other payers was doing/saying.
I am so glad paid reserved slots are going away. NS2 is one of the last games I know of where it seems rampant
Well, it's all a matter of demand.
UWE advocates for 6on6, since that is what the balance is built around, but 90% of the player base enjoys 10on10 (or even larger) fights. (We want the competitive nature of the game, but without any personal responsibility
So they took the tools and created the servers UWE is unwilling to operate.
For which they need money, and reserved slots are the best way to get more donations.
Also, these servers act as community hubs in the oldschool sense. I dont play on my favourite server because of the list of mods, but because of the players who are regular there.
It's easier to function that way the more players can join. If you fragment the playerbase between servers, it just kills the fun.
UWE should either go for a strict 6on6 policy, so they can concentrate on the balance they want to achieve, or let the communities operate the servers the way they want, since they are the ones playing the game.
Some compromises are not worth taking, limiting to 9on9 will only achieve the worst of either options: UWE still wont get their wish of balanced 6on6 pub matches, and community servers will suffer from those missing 4 players.
Just gonna stop you right there and say that I have never seen this. Everything I have seen has shown that UWE wants to support a range of player counts, including a number of functions and features that scale with player counts.
Then I dont understand the push for smaller servers at all.
I've read the changelog, but no mention about this, so im only reasoning based on rumors and other comments...
They will cap the player count at 18, right?
If so, i'd imagine an increase in ns2large, unranked servers.
Then I dont understand the push for smaller servers at all.
I've read the changelog, but no mention about this, so im only reasoning based on rumors and other comments...
They will cap the player count at 18, right?
If so, i'd imagine an increase in ns2large, unranked servers.
As stated in a few places, members of UWE have stated that smaller max player count servers mean better perf. I have heard other reasons too like it being more fun.
As stated in a few places, members of UWE have stated that smaller max player count servers mean better perf.
That's a fair point, Gorge Selection (22+2 slot) recently had to switch hosts, the new one is around 40€/mo, which is not a small amount... but since then, there was no apparent issue with perf.
I have heard other reasons too like it being more fun.
One man's treat is another's poison ns2large is way too crowded for me, and 6on6 feels empty. Personally, i prefer 11on11 rounds, because having 10 players running around the map feels more "dynamic".
If there's no conscious effort to push pub players into a more balanced version of the game, i think decreasing player limit is uncalled for.
KasharicHull, EnglandJoin Date: 2013-03-27Member: 184473Members, Forum Admins, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, NS2 Community Developer
I think a large portion of the playerbase would agree that lower playercounts = better rounds... but seeding and getting comms is way more difficult.
Its simple math...
in 12 vs 12, 2 commanders = 8.3% of the players need to command.
in 10 vs 10, 2 commanders = 10% of the players need to command.
in 8 vs 8, 2 commanders = 12.5% of the players need to command.
in 6 vs 6, 2 commanders = 16.6% of the players need to command.
When commanding is as difficult to learn as it is now and the playerbase are so against rookie commanders, and so quick to blame commanders for the wrong tech route or not getting a second CC/not beaconing soon enough etc... getting people to command is difficult. so the less commanders you need, the more likely you are to maintain numbers on a server... it is my belief that this is one of the pulls that Wooza and the other Large servers offers.
in 21 vs 21, 2 commanders = 4.7% of the players need to command.
This results in faster round starts, which means less downtime... in todays gaming climate, people don't want to wait around to play... people want to start immediately, so when they see 23/24 on the server browser, they instantly join because its almost certain that you will get to play faster than if the server says 11/12.
There are huge differences between 6v6, 8v8, 10v10, and 12v12. Massive differences. Believe me when I say that 10v10 should be the absolute max, with 8v8 being the perfect middle ground.
6v6 : ultra competitive with 3-2, or 2-2-1 lane splits.
8v8 : skill intensive with a bit of leeway. 4-3 or 2-2-3 lane splits, perfectly sized engagements. 8v8 is the reason that TGNS was so good.
9v9 : similar to 8v8 but with more "boring" even lane splits. 2-2-2-2, 4-4, 4-2-2, etc.
10v10 : slightly too many players. 5-4, 4-3-2, 2-2-2-3 lane splits. Engagements start becoming too crowded and generally unfun. I think UWE chose this one because it is statistically likely to have one or two members of each lane having no impact in engagements until they earn more skill and experience.
12v12 : just why even play? 5-4-2, 3-2-4-2, 3-2-2-2-2, 6-3-2, and various ungodly variations thereof. Newbies just mass up in zerg balls and die in waves with no chance to do anything useful all game. There is no viable skill progression, and build metas devolve into a mess of phase gates and tunnel cheeses. Maps are just too small to provide a good experience unless players specifically want a mindless grind (which is perfect for Arcade). 12v12 also degrades performance, furthering the game's reputation as a "mess." I suspect that almost every bad review on Steam stems from the fact that these players played on 12v12 (or higher) servers. All these years 12v12 has bred balance complaints, performance complaints, and toxic behavior due to pointless long slogs of games where proper team cohesion does not happen.
In addition, going the players from six 24p servers would evenly fill nine 16p servers. That is 50% more active servers, which would increase skill differentiation among servers increasing gameplay quality.
Going to 20p servers barely increases the amount of active servers. UWE was too timid this patch.
I can see it now. IronHorse will eventually comment that because there is no consensus there is no right answer and UWE was not too bold or too timid. Too IronHorse, consensus is the only truth.
This update makes it look like they're only listening to high skill players who only play marine.
Tier 6 and 7 marine players will commonly dominate an entire server of average players by doing what? Rushing to the alien hive and egg locking them.
This update makes it infinitely easier for them to accomplish this and the other team now has nothing at all with which to counter.
Can't get a tunnel out for aliens to escape and bite res/claim the rest of the map because tunnels need infestation and the cysts need to grow in order (so now it's even easier for high skill player to keep the cyst chain cut and keep aliens trapped in their base)
Forget about rush tunnels, this completely castrates alien mobility in general.
Tier 6 and 7 players are going to win marine games mind numbingly easy. I'm complete trash at marine and even I have been able to successfully cut alien expansion completely by myself in a 327 beta server just by killing a tunnel and some cysts.
Have to agree with zero also that the player count drop will only hurt server population. An 18 player server will die much easier and faster than a 22 player server.
Especially when a single tier 6/7 is destroying balance and making people leave, and this update makes it even easier for them, which ends up making it even more unbalanced.
This update makes it look like they're only listening to high skill players who only play marine.
Tier 6 and 7 marine players will commonly dominate an entire server of average players by doing what? Rushing to the alien hive and egg locking them.
This update makes it infinitely easier for them to accomplish this and the other team now has nothing at all with which to counter.
Can't get a tunnel out for aliens to escape and bite res/claim the rest of the map because tunnels need infestation and the cysts need to grow in order (so now it's even easier for high skill player to keep the cyst chain cut and keep aliens trapped in their base)
Forget about rush tunnels, this completely castrates alien mobility in general.
Tier 6 and 7 players are going to win marine games mind numbingly easy. I'm complete trash at marine and even I have been able to successfully cut alien expansion completely by myself in a 327 beta server just by killing a tunnel and some cysts.
Have to agree with zero also that the player count drop will only hurt server population. An 18 player server will die much easier and faster than a 22 player server.
Especially when a single tier 6/7 is destroying balance and making people leave, and this update makes it even easier for them, which ends up making it even more unbalanced.
Another person that hasn't tried the changes, aliens are actually pretty damn strong early game and the changes have been tested for the past few months on multiple servers open to the public... people are actually a little worried that aliens may be too strong.
In addition, going the players from six 24p servers would evenly fill nine 16p servers. That is 50% more active servers, which would increase skill differentiation among servers increasing gameplay quality.
Going to 20p servers barely increases the amount of active servers. UWE was too timid this patch.
This is incredibly optimistic to the point of being dishonest. The reality would be barely another full server and an even greater amount of people queuing the full servers or deciding to do something else. Seeding is difficult. Nothing will change until this is solved. This is very evident from the success of the spectator slots. People would rather sit in a full server and get a chance in half an hour than seed an empty one and wait three hours for nothing. They should be able to start a new server with the amount of people queuing but should is not would and they amount of people likely to chance it on a could falls after every failure.
I don't like large servers any more than you do, but I think that this will kill servers after long games more frequently.
This update makes it look like they're only listening to high skill players who only play marine.
Tier 6 and 7 marine players will commonly dominate an entire server of average players by doing what? Rushing to the alien hive and egg locking them.
This update makes it infinitely easier for them to accomplish this and the other team now has nothing at all with which to counter.
Can't get a tunnel out for aliens to escape and bite res/claim the rest of the map because tunnels need infestation and the cysts need to grow in order (so now it's even easier for high skill player to keep the cyst chain cut and keep aliens trapped in their base)
Forget about rush tunnels, this completely castrates alien mobility in general.
Tier 6 and 7 players are going to win marine games mind numbingly easy. I'm complete trash at marine and even I have been able to successfully cut alien expansion completely by myself in a 327 beta server just by killing a tunnel and some cysts.
Have to agree with zero also that the player count drop will only hurt server population. An 18 player server will die much easier and faster than a 22 player server.
Especially when a single tier 6/7 is destroying balance and making people leave, and this update makes it even easier for them, which ends up making it even more unbalanced.
Another person that hasn't tried the changes, aliens are actually pretty damn strong early game and the changes have been tested for the past few months on multiple servers open to the public... people are actually a little worried that aliens may be too strong.
Actually as I clearly stated I did try the changes (Did you even read my post?)
Believe it or not there are several changes I like very much.
And yes aliens are a little stronger, but that doesn't really change how much easier it is for high skill players to completely block alien expansion in pub games now.
I dont think lowering player count will alleviate the skill gaps. It comes back to the regulars: they LIKE playing with specific others, and those others include tier 6-7 players aswell.
You guys are saying that MOST players enjoy 8on8, but if you look at the top-played servers, they are all 20-24 slot servers.
So i dont think that MOST players enjoy 8on8.
Yes, 11on11 is vastly different than 6on6 considering gameplay dynamics. It's much-much easier to rush a tech-point either as aliens or marines. You simply have more DPS.
For eg. on 11 player teams, we can pull off a catpack rush on veil subsector, but that would never work with 6on6.
Lowering the playercount improves game performance, has more consistent balance, and is more fun.
There's no NEED to lower player-count for performance, you can pay enough quids to rent one that can run a 24 slot server. Gorge Selection is a living example, just check out it's ratings page.
You guys are saying that MOST players enjoy 8on8, but if you look at the top-played servers, they are all 20-24 slot servers.
So i dont think that MOST players enjoy 8on8.
There's no NEED to lower player-count for performance, you can pay enough quids to rent one that can run a 24 slot server. Gorge Selection is a living example, just check out it's ratings page.
Again, seeding is hard. Large servers survive better so people tend to congregate there. It says nothing of enjoying the game play.
Server performance is one thing. Client performance is another. I don't know about you or the average player, but there is a significant difference for me. More players and more entities means less FPS.
On player slots:Let the server owner decide:it really is that simple. If you get players and people enjoy everyting is fine. Some arguments sound more morally induced (you get a better game i f u play it like i like it) than experience-based or based on the fact that people have different taste. Let players and server owners decide:what works works.
On player slots:Let the server owner decide:it really is that simple. If you get players and people enjoy everyting is fine. Some arguments sound more morally induced (you get a better game i f u play it like i like it) than experience-based or based on the fact that people have different taste. Let players and server owners decide:what works works.
Its funny, the 12 vs 12 servers won't be impossible to achieve any more than the 21 vs 21 servers are now... the only difference is that these servers won't be able to be seeded via the play now button.
Officially supporting any playercount at all would result in literally nothing being balanced in any way shape or form... its already an insane task to balance player skill and variable player counts from 6 vs 6 to 12 vs 12... if UWE were to put their foot down and say "X vs X is the OFFICIAL playercount" I would 100% back them regardless of what playercount it is... what they are doing now is bringing it 1 step closer to that.
Some think its a weak move to "only" reduce to 10 vs 10, but until UWE have their own servers being ran instead of relying on community servers, it will be very difficult to convince everyone that one route is the best route forward for ns2... because everyone has different opinions on what is best for ns2.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I'm a bit worried about the 10v10 change. I think a likely outcome is that we'll have the same number of active games, but with fewer players in them, and so a lower active player count overall.
I'm a bit worried about the 10v10 change. I think a likely outcome is that we'll have the same number of active games, but with fewer players in them, and so a lower active player count overall.
It might make it easier for groups outside of the existing NS2 communities to start up their own servers though, since they can compete with the likes of TA while paying substantially less for hardware costs.
That being said, I have to admit that you're probably right.
Officially supporting any playercount at all would result in literally nothing being balanced in any way shape or form...
That is not really what anyone said.
Seemed to me like you were saying server ops should be able to have any playercount they want.
We already have servers with 21 vs 21... because the server owner decided to make them... quick join doesn't put people on those servers.
With 327, people can have 12 vs 12 servers if they want... but just like with 21 vs 21, quick join will not put people on those servers.
Server ops can do what ever they want with their servers, but only certain ones will be in quick play and have hive active, because we need something "official" to understand what the game is really supposed to play like.
2 - 3 years ago, there were more 10 vs 10 servers than 12 vs 12, for some reason 12 vs 12 became more and more popular and phased out 10 vs 10 even though 10 vs 10 is more balanced... the devs are now making it so that 12 vs 12 is allowed, but not officially supported, the same as 21 vs 21. There will still be the possibility of having 12 vs 12 servers, so what is the problem?
2 - 3 years ago, there were more 10 vs 10 servers than 12 vs 12, for some reason 12 vs 12 became more and more popular and phased out 10 vs 10 even though 10 vs 10 is more balanced...
In regards to this, the reason why 10v10 servers were slowly phased out has already been said multiple times in this thread.
10v10 is harder to keep alive when people leave after a game.
A 12v12 server could stay alive if 10-12 people left after a game, a 10v10 server would basically "die" and be left in the seeding phase again.
Also in regards to the hiveskill part of your comment.
Why couldn't hive be separated between "ranked" (10v10 or less) and "unranked" (11v11 or more)
In a server that's "official" it shows/uses your "ranked" hiveskill, in an "unofficial" one it shows/uses your "unranked" hiveskill.
Jusy what do the 21v21 servers do for skill balancing anyway if hiveskill isn't active on them?
Comments
Well, it's all a matter of demand.
UWE advocates for 6on6, since that is what the balance is built around, but 90% of the player base enjoys 10on10 (or even larger) fights. (We want the competitive nature of the game, but without any personal responsibility
So they took the tools and created the servers UWE is unwilling to operate.
For which they need money, and reserved slots are the best way to get more donations.
Also, these servers act as community hubs in the oldschool sense. I dont play on my favourite server because of the list of mods, but because of the players who are regular there.
It's easier to function that way the more players can join. If you fragment the playerbase between servers, it just kills the fun.
UWE should either go for a strict 6on6 policy, so they can concentrate on the balance they want to achieve, or let the communities operate the servers the way they want, since they are the ones playing the game.
Some compromises are not worth taking, limiting to 9on9 will only achieve the worst of either options: UWE still wont get their wish of balanced 6on6 pub matches, and community servers will suffer from those missing 4 players.
Just gonna stop you right there and say that I have never seen this. Everything I have seen has shown that UWE wants to support a range of player counts, including a number of functions and features that scale with player counts.
I've read the changelog, but no mention about this, so im only reasoning based on rumors and other comments...
They will cap the player count at 18, right?
If so, i'd imagine an increase in ns2large, unranked servers.
As stated in a few places, members of UWE have stated that smaller max player count servers mean better perf. I have heard other reasons too like it being more fun.
One man's treat is another's poison
If there's no conscious effort to push pub players into a more balanced version of the game, i think decreasing player limit is uncalled for.
Lowering the playercount improves game performance, has more consistent balance, and is more fun.
I also think UWE chickened out and should have gone down to 8v8 max.
Its simple math...
in 12 vs 12, 2 commanders = 8.3% of the players need to command.
in 10 vs 10, 2 commanders = 10% of the players need to command.
in 8 vs 8, 2 commanders = 12.5% of the players need to command.
in 6 vs 6, 2 commanders = 16.6% of the players need to command.
When commanding is as difficult to learn as it is now and the playerbase are so against rookie commanders, and so quick to blame commanders for the wrong tech route or not getting a second CC/not beaconing soon enough etc... getting people to command is difficult. so the less commanders you need, the more likely you are to maintain numbers on a server... it is my belief that this is one of the pulls that Wooza and the other Large servers offers.
in 21 vs 21, 2 commanders = 4.7% of the players need to command.
This results in faster round starts, which means less downtime... in todays gaming climate, people don't want to wait around to play... people want to start immediately, so when they see 23/24 on the server browser, they instantly join because its almost certain that you will get to play faster than if the server says 11/12.
6v6 : ultra competitive with 3-2, or 2-2-1 lane splits.
8v8 : skill intensive with a bit of leeway. 4-3 or 2-2-3 lane splits, perfectly sized engagements. 8v8 is the reason that TGNS was so good.
9v9 : similar to 8v8 but with more "boring" even lane splits. 2-2-2-2, 4-4, 4-2-2, etc.
10v10 : slightly too many players. 5-4, 4-3-2, 2-2-2-3 lane splits. Engagements start becoming too crowded and generally unfun. I think UWE chose this one because it is statistically likely to have one or two members of each lane having no impact in engagements until they earn more skill and experience.
12v12 : just why even play? 5-4-2, 3-2-4-2, 3-2-2-2-2, 6-3-2, and various ungodly variations thereof. Newbies just mass up in zerg balls and die in waves with no chance to do anything useful all game. There is no viable skill progression, and build metas devolve into a mess of phase gates and tunnel cheeses. Maps are just too small to provide a good experience unless players specifically want a mindless grind (which is perfect for Arcade). 12v12 also degrades performance, furthering the game's reputation as a "mess." I suspect that almost every bad review on Steam stems from the fact that these players played on 12v12 (or higher) servers. All these years 12v12 has bred balance complaints, performance complaints, and toxic behavior due to pointless long slogs of games where proper team cohesion does not happen.
Going to 20p servers barely increases the amount of active servers. UWE was too timid this patch.
Get woke
Tier 6 and 7 marine players will commonly dominate an entire server of average players by doing what? Rushing to the alien hive and egg locking them.
This update makes it infinitely easier for them to accomplish this and the other team now has nothing at all with which to counter.
Can't get a tunnel out for aliens to escape and bite res/claim the rest of the map because tunnels need infestation and the cysts need to grow in order (so now it's even easier for high skill player to keep the cyst chain cut and keep aliens trapped in their base)
Forget about rush tunnels, this completely castrates alien mobility in general.
Tier 6 and 7 players are going to win marine games mind numbingly easy. I'm complete trash at marine and even I have been able to successfully cut alien expansion completely by myself in a 327 beta server just by killing a tunnel and some cysts.
Have to agree with zero also that the player count drop will only hurt server population. An 18 player server will die much easier and faster than a 22 player server.
Especially when a single tier 6/7 is destroying balance and making people leave, and this update makes it even easier for them, which ends up making it even more unbalanced.
Another person that hasn't tried the changes, aliens are actually pretty damn strong early game and the changes have been tested for the past few months on multiple servers open to the public... people are actually a little worried that aliens may be too strong.
This is incredibly optimistic to the point of being dishonest. The reality would be barely another full server and an even greater amount of people queuing the full servers or deciding to do something else. Seeding is difficult. Nothing will change until this is solved. This is very evident from the success of the spectator slots. People would rather sit in a full server and get a chance in half an hour than seed an empty one and wait three hours for nothing. They should be able to start a new server with the amount of people queuing but should is not would and they amount of people likely to chance it on a could falls after every failure.
I don't like large servers any more than you do, but I think that this will kill servers after long games more frequently.
Actually as I clearly stated I did try the changes (Did you even read my post?)
Believe it or not there are several changes I like very much.
And yes aliens are a little stronger, but that doesn't really change how much easier it is for high skill players to completely block alien expansion in pub games now.
You guys are saying that MOST players enjoy 8on8, but if you look at the top-played servers, they are all 20-24 slot servers.
So i dont think that MOST players enjoy 8on8.
Yes, 11on11 is vastly different than 6on6 considering gameplay dynamics. It's much-much easier to rush a tech-point either as aliens or marines. You simply have more DPS.
For eg. on 11 player teams, we can pull off a catpack rush on veil subsector, but that would never work with 6on6.
There's no NEED to lower player-count for performance, you can pay enough quids to rent one that can run a 24 slot server. Gorge Selection is a living example, just check out it's ratings page.
Agreed. Either don't touch the playercount, or limit it to the balanced count.
Having it between makes no sense at all.
Again, seeding is hard. Large servers survive better so people tend to congregate there. It says nothing of enjoying the game play.
Server performance is one thing. Client performance is another. I don't know about you or the average player, but there is a significant difference for me. More players and more entities means less FPS.
Its funny, the 12 vs 12 servers won't be impossible to achieve any more than the 21 vs 21 servers are now... the only difference is that these servers won't be able to be seeded via the play now button.
Officially supporting any playercount at all would result in literally nothing being balanced in any way shape or form... its already an insane task to balance player skill and variable player counts from 6 vs 6 to 12 vs 12... if UWE were to put their foot down and say "X vs X is the OFFICIAL playercount" I would 100% back them regardless of what playercount it is... what they are doing now is bringing it 1 step closer to that.
Some think its a weak move to "only" reduce to 10 vs 10, but until UWE have their own servers being ran instead of relying on community servers, it will be very difficult to convince everyone that one route is the best route forward for ns2... because everyone has different opinions on what is best for ns2.
?
Hours spent seeding a server > it finally fills up for a single game > 4-6 people leave and you're back to seeding
It is super common to see 2-3+ players leaving after a round. (If not during the round)
It might make it easier for groups outside of the existing NS2 communities to start up their own servers though, since they can compete with the likes of TA while paying substantially less for hardware costs.
That being said, I have to admit that you're probably right.
Seemed to me like you were saying server ops should be able to have any playercount they want.
We already have servers with 21 vs 21... because the server owner decided to make them... quick join doesn't put people on those servers.
With 327, people can have 12 vs 12 servers if they want... but just like with 21 vs 21, quick join will not put people on those servers.
Server ops can do what ever they want with their servers, but only certain ones will be in quick play and have hive active, because we need something "official" to understand what the game is really supposed to play like.
2 - 3 years ago, there were more 10 vs 10 servers than 12 vs 12, for some reason 12 vs 12 became more and more popular and phased out 10 vs 10 even though 10 vs 10 is more balanced... the devs are now making it so that 12 vs 12 is allowed, but not officially supported, the same as 21 vs 21. There will still be the possibility of having 12 vs 12 servers, so what is the problem?
In regards to this, the reason why 10v10 servers were slowly phased out has already been said multiple times in this thread.
10v10 is harder to keep alive when people leave after a game.
A 12v12 server could stay alive if 10-12 people left after a game, a 10v10 server would basically "die" and be left in the seeding phase again.
Also in regards to the hiveskill part of your comment.
Why couldn't hive be separated between "ranked" (10v10 or less) and "unranked" (11v11 or more)
In a server that's "official" it shows/uses your "ranked" hiveskill, in an "unofficial" one it shows/uses your "unranked" hiveskill.
Jusy what do the 21v21 servers do for skill balancing anyway if hiveskill isn't active on them?