locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited December 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1695935:date=Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But I have to say that, from a marketing perspective, it isn't necessary to include those people in the target market for a game. But as you mentioned, it may be advantageous to do so from a business standpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "From a marketing perspective let's ignore the vast majority of our players." Sounds like a great business model. <!--quoteo(post=1695935:date=Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EDIT: The gamasutra article establishes "engagement and emotional and cognitive responses to content", not what gives them a feeling of satisfaction or enjoyment, let alone what they consider fun. There is no link between that article and a game's quality, because for instance, it would rate demonstratively low if a player was involved in a chess game. Chess is still one of the best games ever made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except people do have a high level of engagement when they're playing chess. Especially speed chess since that is what FPS's and RTS's are most like if you want to compare them to chess.
Your argument is that the vast majority of players want a game without any predictable outcome or way to consistently influence the game toward success?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1695955:date=Dec 12 2008, 01:01 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 12 2008, 01:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695955"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument is that the vast majority of players want a game without any predictable outcome or way to consistently influence the game toward success?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> unknown != random When two good clans play and you don't know who will win before hand is the outcome random? No, but it is unknown. Really if the outcome was known why would they even play?
On a big server people are looking for the unknown, new situations they haven't been in before. These situations are not random because they are created by the players and you can figure out what these players are trying to do and devise a counter. Reduced influence is a side effect, sometimes desired an sometimes not.
Maybe you could convince me that larger servers are not fun and make for a lousy experience, however:
A) Why do they still exist if nobody likes them (you'd think some would leave at that point, so those that stay must enjoy it)?
B) How can you be so sure nobody likes it? I've already heard from several which say they rather enjoy it.
C) What do you propose to do about it? Prevent larger games completely? Insist that natural selection 2 prevent servers from doing whatever the heck they want? It seems to me a rather egocentrical approach to fixing something you don't like about natural selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1695969:date=Dec 12 2008, 07:48 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Dec 12 2008, 07:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe you could convince me that larger servers are not fun and make for a lousy experience, however:
A) Why do they still exist if nobody likes them (you'd think some would leave at that point, so those that stay must enjoy it)?
B) How can you be so sure nobody likes it? I've already heard from several which say they rather enjoy it.
C) What do you propose to do about it? Prevent larger games completely? Insist that natural selection 2 prevent servers from doing whatever the heck they want? It seems to me a rather egocentrical approach to fixing something you don't like about natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure who this is directed at, but I will try to answer your questions anyway.
A) 32 Servers, as mentioned before, have less individual responsibility. It's less demanding and is a more casual experience that allows someone who is not looking for an intense game to enjoy NS1. They are not entirely bad. But there are more advantages to smaller servers than larger ones which is why I made this thread.
B) I can't argue that. There are people who like 32 person NS1.
C) This is actually a really hard issue to deal with. On consoles, the developers have a much purer control over the gameplay experience since they control all the variables and the players don't really expect to have access to then. On the PC, its very different because players are accustomed to being able to do whatever they want. Sometimes its for the better, sometimes its for the worse. Personally, I hate siege maps and hold a special place in my heart to hate whoever invented it. But hey, that's my opinion. You might love siege maps. However, design wise, siege maps are very flawed even though they have their audience. Unfortunately, to have all the points people have listed to be effective for NS2, the default player limit has to be 24 so the game can be optimized for it. There could always be the option of someone using LUA to expand the game to 32 persons, but that creates a huge bias for 24 person games.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1695935:date=Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Given that, I'll give you the point that <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><strike>some</strike><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FFFF00--><span style="color:#FFFF00"><!--/coloro--><i>many and even most</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> people do like to do idiotic things to relax, and as a result, it's reasonable to conclude that it might not be the best choice to force them into a competition of any form if all they're looking for is a hitbox orgy.
But I have to say that, from a marketing perspective, it isn't necessary to include those people in the target market for a game. But as you mentioned, it may be advantageous to do so from a business standpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As indicated, I see it slightly differently. It might seem idiotic from the point of view of more competitive or goal-oriented players, but many people are just not serious when playing games.
I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Serious-business gaming style is not what I'm referring to when I speak of competition. Whenever I see people lanning Halo 3 at my school they're all very interested in winning, cursing out the other team in good fun when they lose, etc.
That doesn't mean they're playing all serious (like we do), it just means they desire a reasonable degree of competition when playing a <b>game</b>.
EDIT: Whether or not they are capable of recognizing competitive merit in a game the way a serious player is, they still desire it. At a certain critical mass of chaos they will inevitably put the game down.
It just re-occurred to me that you should design for those who are interested in serious gaming because that will cover both bases' criteria for what constitutes a good game. Designing for chaos offends more players' enjoyment proclivities overall than it gains you.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1695985:date=Dec 12 2008, 01:40 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 12 2008, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695985"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just re-occurred to me that you should design for those who are interested in serious gaming because that will cover both bases' criteria for what constitutes a good game. Designing for chaos offends more players' enjoyment proclivities overall than it gains you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Since we're talking about big servers, we're not actually talking about chaos. It just appears that way to a single player because there are a lot of different player wills involved. So I agree with you that the devs shouldn't design in chaos, but that is not what this topic is about; it's about larger servers.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
I don't think any of us have explicitly called for game design intending for chaos. I know that at some point I said that some degree of chaotic game play is enjoyable for some people, while others enjoy different degrees of it. I'm just suggesting that those players who like chaotic game play should be allowed to enjoy it - i.e. I wouldn't want team sizes to be restricted to a minimum or maximum by the developers. Instead, having a variety of maps with different sizes, objectives, etc. would be better. This isn't really designing to favor or disfavor chaos, but allowing for more player choice.
The simple reality is that different people have different preferences. Some prefer tight teams and sparse action, others prefer a constant 32-man bloodbath. NS showed that people will eventually decide to play the game however they like regardless of what size you try to balance for. Personally I think we should aim for maybe 8v8, and provide some additional tweaks to keep it reasonable for different game sizes, i.e. res scaling. In huge games fine-tuned balance isn't even important, as long as it's in the ballpark it's good enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1695942:date=Dec 12 2008, 03:30 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 12 2008, 03:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695942"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think if NS2 was targeted to be for 9 vs 9 matches (8 players and 1 commander), be playable at 4 vs 4 (2 vs 2 is really unthinkable) and have it go well on 12 vs 12. The biggest advantage that was mentioned so far for 32 person server is they are most stable if they lose players.
To expand on Yautja_cetanu's idea, having a button for a "quick game" where it connects you to a low ping server that needs an extra player as a priority would be nice. Having multiple games hosted on a single server is probably possible, its a huge waste of resources compared to simply hosting a 12 vs 12 server. : /<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The concept of a much more scalable game for NS2 has been something I believe the devs have been working on for some time. Ideally it will scale nicely between 6v6 to 12v12, even with people joining and leaving. That kind of dynamic scaling may be hard to do, but scaling even based on starting team sizes would be pretty sweet. Either that or simply designing the mechanics to be suited for a larger range of team sizes would be good.
Similar to how RISK's or poker's gameplay scales evenly. Granted I'm comparing vastly different games, but scalability and not just targeting a particular team size would be very beneficial.
Choice shouldn't be suppressed, but expanded upon. Limiting players to smaller servers will not bode too well with a lot of people. Game size should be up to the server hosts, then we the gamers choose where to play. Personally, I am not very fond of large servers, but I respect people's choices on how they like or play their game.
Sometimes server hosts like to organise games, things that deviate away from the generic Natural Selection game play. Things like: Last Man Standing, Pac-Onos, or 1v100. These games are a lot more fun on a larger scale, and sometimes even involve small maps that wouldn't usually handle such large numbers.
<!--quoteo(post=1695818:date=Dec 10 2008, 11:02 PM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Dec 10 2008, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695818"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>1. Smaller Map Sizes</b> This may not seem like a good or bad thing, but only having a map designed for a certain number of people makes for better experiences. If you have a map designed for such a huge scope of players, the end result will be that small teams will feel lost and large teams will feel crammed. If you have a narrower scope, you can better design a map for that number of people.
<b>2. Less Objectives</b> An extension of smaller map sizes, the less objectives there are on the map (resource nodes, hives), the easier it is to navigate and coordinate as players. This also helps newer players from being overwhelmed with choice and running off to do something ill advisable.
<b>4. Easier Commanding</b> People often akin leading people to herding cats. The only way herding cats gets easier is when you have less cats to herd. Dumb analogy but having the commander having to take care less people makes it easier for him or her to learn the position if he's new. It also allows the players who are under the care of the commander to feel special more often.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL
I just want the opposite!! xD
We need larger/bigger and difficults maps to be a "rich"/enhanced game to play. With that, we will need more strategy to plain to reach our aims.
We need more Objective to more and more strategy. (Thinking is nothing more!! =P)
I guess, COMM must have difficulties on managing a team, because, at sometimes, he acts like a header/leader. And this will be a selective way to have a COMM to control the Marine game.
We need larger/bigger and difficults maps to be a "rich"/enhanced game to play. With that, we will need more strategy to plain to reach our aims.
We need more Objective to more and more strategy. (Thinking is nothing more!! =P)
I guess, COMM must have difficulties on managing a team, because, at sometimes, he acts like a header/leader. And this will be a selective way to have a COMM to control the Marine game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be very careful. You don't want to aim the target team size too high or else servers will have a ahrd time getting critical mass without bots. See Empires Mod. It targets 10v10+ games and has rich features like tanks, more powers for the comm, and a diverse tech tree, but there's very few servers active.
<!--quoteo(post=1696344:date=Dec 18 2008, 07:30 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Dec 18 2008, 07:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Be very careful. You don't want to aim the target team size too high or else servers will have a ahrd time getting critical mass without bots. See Empires Mod. It targets 10v10+ games and has rich features like tanks, more powers for the comm, and a diverse tech tree, but there's very few servers active.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't get your point... O.o *erm*
Isn't it possible to make some kind of dynamic map, that adds new areas to the game if the number of players increase ? I mean something like the Supreme Commander missions that your map is increasing after you finished your main objective.
Ofcourse it should only add litte extra routes, like a door opens and you have a new route to a hive room with some res points along the way, or a new vent system, all of it depending on the total number of players on the map. I think it's quite cool <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> but I don't know if it is possible to implement ...
<!--quoteo(post=1696359:date=Dec 19 2008, 09:27 AM:name=Kyoda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kyoda @ Dec 19 2008, 09:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696359"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't get your point... O.o *erm*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you aim for very large games, small games tend to become unbalanced and useless to play.
Empires aims for 10v10 games at least. This means, for a game to even happen, you require 20 people on a single server. Unfortunately, this requires 20 people to be on a server and not simply leaving and trying to get into another server that already has 20-30 players. Once the server gets past the 20 player critical mass, other players are more willing to join and play on that server.
Empires suffers from this problem. It's hard to keep s server active because the moment you lose critical mass of players on the server, it's hard to get it back. Plus, the higher the threshold, the harder it is to reach. Instead, people will line up and try to get into the almost full servers instead of trying to fill a new but empty server. This kills the player base because people can't find servers to play in. They all end up too full or too empty.
<!--quoteo(post=1696369:date=Dec 19 2008, 05:17 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(1mannARMEE @ Dec 19 2008, 05:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696369"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn't it possible to make some kind of dynamic map, that adds new areas to the game if the number of players increase ? I mean something like the Supreme Commander missions that your map is increasing after you finished your main objective.
Ofcourse it should only add litte extra routes, like a door opens and you have a new route to a hive room with some res points along the way, or a new vent system, all of it depending on the total number of players on the map. I think it's quite cool <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> but I don't know if it is possible to implement ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dynamic map sizing is going to add a lot of extra work to the map developers and from my knowledge, most of the maps for NS2 are going to be community created. It will increase the production time of individual maps and less maps would be made overall. Additionally, it'll make learning a map extremely difficult because it keeps changing depending on the number of players on the server. : /
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Noobs are like sheep<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> They die by the dozen - feed res to other team Stupid - don't know how to play / aim Stick in groups for safety - stick together for safety and to learn how to play. Herder - need people to tell them what to do
I have NEVER seen a noob on a small sever admit to having joined recently No one wants to learn to play on a bot server Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones
<!--quoteo(post=1696571:date=Dec 23 2008, 10:47 AM:name=ghost in the shell)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghost in the shell @ Dec 23 2008, 10:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Noobs are like sheep<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> They die by the dozen - feed res to other team Stupid - don't know how to play / aim Stick in groups for safety - stick together for safety and to learn how to play. Herder - need people to tell them what to do
I have NEVER seen a noob on a small sever admit to having joined recently No one wants to learn to play on a bot server Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the point you are trying to make? That "noobs" can only learn from 16v16 games? I believe quite the opposite; people behave like sheep in bigger games. In smaller games there is more emphasis on the players actions and contribution to the team. People learn much quicker when they aren't a fifth wheel. Also, not knowing how to play, or aim, does not make somebody stupid. :/
<!--quoteo(post=1696571:date=Dec 23 2008, 12:47 AM:name=ghost in the shell)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghost in the shell @ Dec 23 2008, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696571"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have NEVER seen a noob on a small sever admit to having joined recently No one wants to learn to play on a bot server Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I very nicely told people I was a noob, and people taught me. And I find many small servers with mic people. Usually they're just waiting for someone else to use a mic. I once entered a server, the game was quiet on voice chat, I said hello on my mic and suddenly 5 others responded.
<b>Make the teams too large and you risk:</b><ol type='1'><li>Not being able to control your team as a Commander (unless a reliable squads system is used, such as how Empires does it)</li><li>Watering down the gameplay so it just becomes a question of numbers and not decisions/reactions</li><li>Too much mic cross-chatter (solution to this would be having mics only communicate within a squad, which would actually be quite cool)</li><li>Going into direct competition with Battlefield, Enemy Territory and any similar forthcoming titles</li><li>Severely reducing the competitive scene and therefore hampering ongoing popularity for the title in the years after release</li><li>Reducing the value of an individual's input</li></ol> I'm fairly confident they are going to keep the supported (by design, not by player cap) team sizes fairly small, since they have already confirmed NS will take place inside. You can't really have large-scale numbers fighting in cramped interiors. How low they're going to cap the supported team size is another question. Personally I'd like to see the game scale from 2v2 up to 12v12, with 2v2/3v3 being 'playable and even' and with a sweet spot ranging from 6v6 to 8v8. Anything up to 12v12 would still work and the resource pools would scale accordingly, but there would be some reduced strategy, since sheer numbers would cover up any poor strategy and decison-making.
<!--quoteo(post=1696619:date=Dec 23 2008, 10:54 AM:name=Valunas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Valunas @ Dec 23 2008, 10:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1696619"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is the point you are trying to make? That "noobs" can only learn from 16v16 games? I believe quite the opposite; people behave like sheep in bigger games. In smaller games there is more emphasis on the players actions and contribution to the team. People learn much quicker when they aren't a fifth wheel. Also, not knowing how to play, or aim, does not make somebody stupid. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People learn faster/better on small teams but they're also more of a liability to their team. I think it's comforting for people who are new to be able to blend into the crowd while they're still figuring the game out.
The "chaos" you guys mentioned does seem to be the appeal of the 32 person server. Some of you see it as disorganized and pointless, thats not neccisarily the case.
There is a pretty typical group of people in any pub server. You have newbies, people who are just looking to rambo, those that want to command from outside the chair, campers, and then there are some people who are listening to the commander, and play as a squad. Out of 18 people on your team there is a good chance that you'll have 4-6 who are going to fall into that last category. I like being one of those people, people are running around getting into skirmishes all over the map while a few of us are taking the place over. If you look at it like that, what you have is your 4-6 person team doing all the stuff youd be doing on a small server, except that you are doing it in a war zone. And I really like the warzone flavor of it.
It can be fun to be one of the other typicals on a server too. Sometimes it's fun to go around and defend all the phase gates and resource nodes.(camping) For just about any mood I am in I can go play on a 32 person server. I can focus on the main effort, I can defend, I can run around and rambo, or if I'm feeling newbish I can glaze over and just follow the herd from objective to objective. I think that is the real appeal of 32 persons is you can just hop in and play however you feel like playing. For the most part whatever you do as long as your taking down enemies, taking down their structures, or keeping them from taking yours out you are helping your team while other people are taking stuff over.
That said, if you've got a group of people who are going to be dedicated to working as a team and you all communicate well, small servers can be a lot of fun. But outside of clan play that team can be really hard to find. Pick up groups that work (in my experience) are 1 in a million. I played in a TFC clan back in the day and it was a lot of fun being on a small team that worked well. Win or lose the game play was fun and we'd come up with stratagies and generally had a good time of it. On a pub server however finding people that worked that hard for the same objective was almost impossible. On a big server though chances are youll have thsoe 4-6 players that are going for the win while everyone else does their thing.
Good lord I didn't think the post was going to be this long, sorry about that.
BadMouthIt ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titlJoin Date: 2004-05-21Member: 28815Members
Going back to the original question, in my opinion, smaller teams are better. With a smaller team, there is more strategy involved and more teamwork involved, since everyone would have to pull their own weight. And teamwork is the core of NS in my opinion.
However, all that is my opinion. People like different types of gameplay, whether it be with a large team or smaller team. So, the obvious solution to that is to cater maps to both crowds. Let the servers decide on the size to suit the maps.
Back when I played Tribes 2, I liked to join as large servers as possible because in those you could do all sorts things not directly related to the main objectives and still be useful for the team. In smaller games you didn't carry your weight if you weren't doing something involving the flag, or at least that was the feeling I got. There's also that less responsibility with greater numbers and general battlefield feel, which apply to NS better, I think.
Yeah I hope there is maps catered for small and large games. I know I love playing both from time to time (I don't want to be Mr. Dependable every single game I play).
Comments
"From a marketing perspective let's ignore the vast majority of our players." Sounds like a great business model.
<!--quoteo(post=1695935:date=Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Dec 11 2008, 07:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1695935"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EDIT: The gamasutra article establishes "engagement and emotional and cognitive responses to content", not what gives them a feeling of satisfaction or enjoyment, let alone what they consider fun. There is no link between that article and a game's quality, because for instance, it would rate demonstratively low if a player was involved in a chess game. Chess is still one of the best games ever made.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except people do have a high level of engagement when they're playing chess. Especially speed chess since that is what FPS's and RTS's are most like if you want to compare them to chess.
unknown != random
When two good clans play and you don't know who will win before hand is the outcome random? No, but it is unknown. Really if the outcome was known why would they even play?
On a big server people are looking for the unknown, new situations they haven't been in before. These situations are not random because they are created by the players and you can figure out what these players are trying to do and devise a counter. Reduced influence is a side effect, sometimes desired an sometimes not.
A) Why do they still exist if nobody likes them (you'd think some would leave at that point, so those that stay must enjoy it)?
B) How can you be so sure nobody likes it? I've already heard from several which say they rather enjoy it.
C) What do you propose to do about it? Prevent larger games completely? Insist that natural selection 2 prevent servers from doing whatever the heck they want? It seems to me a rather egocentrical approach to fixing something you don't like about natural selection.
A) Why do they still exist if nobody likes them (you'd think some would leave at that point, so those that stay must enjoy it)?
B) How can you be so sure nobody likes it? I've already heard from several which say they rather enjoy it.
C) What do you propose to do about it? Prevent larger games completely? Insist that natural selection 2 prevent servers from doing whatever the heck they want? It seems to me a rather egocentrical approach to fixing something you don't like about natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure who this is directed at, but I will try to answer your questions anyway.
A) 32 Servers, as mentioned before, have less individual responsibility. It's less demanding and is a more casual experience that allows someone who is not looking for an intense game to enjoy NS1. They are not entirely bad. But there are more advantages to smaller servers than larger ones which is why I made this thread.
B) I can't argue that. There are people who like 32 person NS1.
C) This is actually a really hard issue to deal with. On consoles, the developers have a much purer control over the gameplay experience since they control all the variables and the players don't really expect to have access to then. On the PC, its very different because players are accustomed to being able to do whatever they want. Sometimes its for the better, sometimes its for the worse. Personally, I hate siege maps and hold a special place in my heart to hate whoever invented it. But hey, that's my opinion. You might love siege maps. However, design wise, siege maps are very flawed even though they have their audience.
Unfortunately, to have all the points people have listed to be effective for NS2, the default player limit has to be 24 so the game can be optimized for it. There could always be the option of someone using LUA to expand the game to 32 persons, but that creates a huge bias for 24 person games.
But I have to say that, from a marketing perspective, it isn't necessary to include those people in the target market for a game. But as you mentioned, it may be advantageous to do so from a business standpoint.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As indicated, I see it slightly differently. It might seem idiotic from the point of view of more competitive or goal-oriented players, but many people are just not serious when playing games.
That doesn't mean they're playing all serious (like we do), it just means they desire a reasonable degree of competition when playing a <b>game</b>.
EDIT: Whether or not they are capable of recognizing competitive merit in a game the way a serious player is, they still desire it. At a certain critical mass of chaos they will inevitably put the game down.
It just re-occurred to me that you should design for those who are interested in serious gaming because that will cover both bases' criteria for what constitutes a good game. Designing for chaos offends more players' enjoyment proclivities overall than it gains you.
Since we're talking about big servers, we're not actually talking about chaos. It just appears that way to a single player because there are a lot of different player wills involved. So I agree with you that the devs shouldn't design in chaos, but that is not what this topic is about; it's about larger servers.
To expand on Yautja_cetanu's idea, having a button for a "quick game" where it connects you to a low ping server that needs an extra player as a priority would be nice. Having multiple games hosted on a single server is probably possible, its a huge waste of resources compared to simply hosting a 12 vs 12 server. : /<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The concept of a much more scalable game for NS2 has been something I believe the devs have been working on for some time. Ideally it will scale nicely between 6v6 to 12v12, even with people joining and leaving. That kind of dynamic scaling may be hard to do, but scaling even based on starting team sizes would be pretty sweet. Either that or simply designing the mechanics to be suited for a larger range of team sizes would be good.
Similar to how RISK's or poker's gameplay scales evenly. Granted I'm comparing vastly different games, but scalability and not just targeting a particular team size would be very beneficial.
Personally, I am not very fond of large servers, but I respect people's choices on how they like or play their game.
Sometimes server hosts like to organise games, things that deviate away from the generic Natural Selection game play. Things like: Last Man Standing, Pac-Onos, or 1v100. These games are a lot more fun on a larger scale, and sometimes even involve small maps that wouldn't usually handle such large numbers.
This may not seem like a good or bad thing, but only having a map designed for a certain number of people makes for better experiences. If you have a map designed for such a huge scope of players, the end result will be that small teams will feel lost and large teams will feel crammed. If you have a narrower scope, you can better design a map for that number of people.
<b>2. Less Objectives</b>
An extension of smaller map sizes, the less objectives there are on the map (resource nodes, hives), the easier it is to navigate and coordinate as players. This also helps newer players from being overwhelmed with choice and running off to do something ill advisable.
<b>4. Easier Commanding</b>
People often akin leading people to herding cats. The only way herding cats gets easier is when you have less cats to herd. Dumb analogy but having the commander having to take care less people makes it easier for him or her to learn the position if he's new. It also allows the players who are under the care of the commander to feel special more often.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL
I just want the opposite!! xD
We need larger/bigger and difficults maps to be a "rich"/enhanced game to play. With that, we will need more strategy to plain to reach our aims.
We need more Objective to more and more strategy. (Thinking is nothing more!! =P)
I guess, COMM must have difficulties on managing a team, because, at sometimes, he acts like a header/leader. And this will be a selective way to have a COMM to control the Marine game.
I just want the opposite!! xD
We need larger/bigger and difficults maps to be a "rich"/enhanced game to play. With that, we will need more strategy to plain to reach our aims.
We need more Objective to more and more strategy. (Thinking is nothing more!! =P)
I guess, COMM must have difficulties on managing a team, because, at sometimes, he acts like a header/leader. And this will be a selective way to have a COMM to control the Marine game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be very careful. You don't want to aim the target team size too high or else servers will have a ahrd time getting critical mass without bots. See Empires Mod. It targets 10v10+ games and has rich features like tanks, more powers for the comm, and a diverse tech tree, but there's very few servers active.
I don't get your point... O.o *erm*
Ofcourse it should only add litte extra routes, like a door opens and you have a new route to a hive room with some res points along the way, or a new vent system, all of it depending on the total number of players on the map.
I think it's quite cool <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> but I don't know if it is possible to implement ...
Well, if you aim for very large games, small games tend to become unbalanced and useless to play.
Empires aims for 10v10 games at least. This means, for a game to even happen, you require 20 people on a single server. Unfortunately, this requires 20 people to be on a server and not simply leaving and trying to get into another server that already has 20-30 players. Once the server gets past the 20 player critical mass, other players are more willing to join and play on that server.
Empires suffers from this problem. It's hard to keep s server active because the moment you lose critical mass of players on the server, it's hard to get it back. Plus, the higher the threshold, the harder it is to reach. Instead, people will line up and try to get into the almost full servers instead of trying to fill a new but empty server. This kills the player base because people can't find servers to play in. They all end up too full or too empty.
Ofcourse it should only add litte extra routes, like a door opens and you have a new route to a hive room with some res points along the way, or a new vent system, all of it depending on the total number of players on the map.
I think it's quite cool <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> but I don't know if it is possible to implement ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggested <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=105091" target="_blank">here</a>
They die by the dozen - feed res to other team
Stupid - don't know how to play / aim
Stick in groups for safety - stick together for safety and to learn how to play.
Herder - need people to tell them what to do
I have NEVER seen a noob on a small sever admit to having joined recently
No one wants to learn to play on a bot server
Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones
They die by the dozen - feed res to other team
Stupid - don't know how to play / aim
Stick in groups for safety - stick together for safety and to learn how to play.
Herder - need people to tell them what to do
I have NEVER seen a noob on a small sever admit to having joined recently
No one wants to learn to play on a bot server
Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the point you are trying to make? That "noobs" can only learn from 16v16 games? I believe quite the opposite; people behave like sheep in bigger games. In smaller games there is more emphasis on the players actions and contribution to the team. People learn much quicker when they aren't a fifth wheel.
Also, not knowing how to play, or aim, does not make somebody stupid. :/
No one wants to learn to play on a bot server
Unless a casual player knows people (and has a microphones), Small 6v6 gets lonely - on 16v16 theres people with microphones<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I very nicely told people I was a noob, and people taught me. And I find many small servers with mic people. Usually they're just waiting for someone else to use a mic. I once entered a server, the game was quiet on voice chat, I said hello on my mic and suddenly 5 others responded.
I'm fairly confident they are going to keep the supported (by design, not by player cap) team sizes fairly small, since they have already confirmed NS will take place inside. You can't really have large-scale numbers fighting in cramped interiors. How low they're going to cap the supported team size is another question. Personally I'd like to see the game scale from 2v2 up to 12v12, with 2v2/3v3 being 'playable and even' and with a sweet spot ranging from 6v6 to 8v8. Anything up to 12v12 would still work and the resource pools would scale accordingly, but there would be some reduced strategy, since sheer numbers would cover up any poor strategy and decison-making.
Also, not knowing how to play, or aim, does not make somebody stupid. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People learn faster/better on small teams but they're also more of a liability to their team. I think it's comforting for people who are new to be able to blend into the crowd while they're still figuring the game out.
There is a pretty typical group of people in any pub server. You have newbies, people who are just looking to rambo, those that want to command from outside the chair, campers, and then there are some people who are listening to the commander, and play as a squad. Out of 18 people on your team there is a good chance that you'll have 4-6 who are going to fall into that last category. I like being one of those people, people are running around getting into skirmishes all over the map while a few of us are taking the place over. If you look at it like that, what you have is your 4-6 person team doing all the stuff youd be doing on a small server, except that you are doing it in a war zone. And I really like the warzone flavor of it.
It can be fun to be one of the other typicals on a server too. Sometimes it's fun to go around and defend all the phase gates and resource nodes.(camping) For just about any mood I am in I can go play on a 32 person server. I can focus on the main effort, I can defend, I can run around and rambo, or if I'm feeling newbish I can glaze over and just follow the herd from objective to objective. I think that is the real appeal of 32 persons is you can just hop in and play however you feel like playing. For the most part whatever you do as long as your taking down enemies, taking down their structures, or keeping them from taking yours out you are helping your team while other people are taking stuff over.
That said, if you've got a group of people who are going to be dedicated to working as a team and you all communicate well, small servers can be a lot of fun. But outside of clan play that team can be really hard to find. Pick up groups that work (in my experience) are 1 in a million. I played in a TFC clan back in the day and it was a lot of fun being on a small team that worked well. Win or lose the game play was fun and we'd come up with stratagies and generally had a good time of it. On a pub server however finding people that worked that hard for the same objective was almost impossible. On a big server though chances are youll have thsoe 4-6 players that are going for the win while everyone else does their thing.
Good lord I didn't think the post was going to be this long, sorry about that.
However, all that is my opinion. People like different types of gameplay, whether it be with a large team or smaller team. So, the obvious solution to that is to cater maps to both crowds. Let the servers decide on the size to suit the maps.