Most annoying pub issue personally is close starts. One side has guns, the other mobility. But now we are close together, mobility advantage gone ... its going to side one way more often methinks.
The only way you could properly analysis it is to crunch the numbers with statistics. There's no way of getting a data dump from steam graph unfortunately (as far as I can tell), but I have improvised using various data points to get numbers which vaguely get a curve similar to the one Steamgraph is showing. I've attached a graph.
[attachment=36174:CoDMW3vsBF2BC.png]
We can consider the retention of players as a rate of change between the number of players in a game over the change in time. In effect we're looking for the gradient of the linear equations for the trend line of these games. Using my quickly improvised dataset, I get these numbers
m(CoD:MW3) = -1088.9 m(BF2:BC) = -591.32
So how to interpret it? Well, according to the data, since release, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has lost just over 1000 players per day. Battlefield 2: Bad Combat has lost just under 600 players per day. This suggest that whilst Call of Duty can get a large initial purchase, it struggles to be able to retain players as compared to Battlefield 2.
Incidentally, Natural Selection 2 is losing just over 400 players per day so it's actually doing better than these two major franchises.
<!--quoteo(post=2036333:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:14 PM:name=Glockmeister)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glockmeister @ Nov 28 2012, 03:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036333"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So how to interpret it? Well, according to the data, since release, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has lost just over 1000 players per day. Battlefield 2: Bad Combat has lost just under 600 players per day. This suggest that whilst Call of Duty can get a large initial purchase, it struggles to be able to retain players as compared to Battlefield 2.
Incidentally, Natural Selection 2 is losing just over 400 players per day so it's actually doing better than these two major franchises.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now instead of saying loosing x amount of players per day, change that to % of total players per day and you'll see why everyone is worried.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->I'm confident many people will return once more features, balance changes, bug fixes and optimizations arrive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=2036344:date=Nov 27 2012, 09:37 PM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Nov 27 2012, 09:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->I'm confident many people will return once more features, balance changes, bug fixes and optimizations arrive.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More people will return when they find out the Jarl of Whiterun plays.
<!--quoteo(post=2036333:date=Nov 28 2012, 05:14 AM:name=Glockmeister)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Glockmeister @ Nov 28 2012, 05:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036333"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So how to interpret it? Well, according to the data, since release, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has lost just over 1000 players per day. Battlefield 2: Bad Combat has lost just under 600 players per day. This suggest that whilst Call of Duty can get a large initial purchase, it struggles to be able to retain players as compared to Battlefield 2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As was mentioned, the raw number is irrelevant. More players means more loss. It's the percentage of loss that's important.
Additionally, there's a bigger picture that you could keep in mind here - we all know that Call of Duty is basically the same game released every year. The gameplay is the same, it's always the same features with more added on top. An argument could be made that we shouldn't be looking at Call of Duty sales on a per-game, but on a per-franchise basis. Whereas mods and other games may release DLCs that inject content to the game, Activision releases a whole new game. And don't think that the long-time fans are so dumb that they aren't aware that they're just basically buying full-priced expansion packs. Given how many players jump into the new games when they release, I'd say it's specifically *because* of the annual update schedule that they remain interested for so long.
In that light, we see that the CoD franchise is one of the strongest out there. Not only does it retain a playerbase in its older games for quite a long time, but every iteration of the franchise is enough to get players who quit to buy the next game and begin playing again. And not just for a few weeks, but for a few months.
Either way you cut it, the accusation that the CoD games burn out their multiplayer quickly, or that people who play CoD games are useless game-hoppers, are both proven false. There's no data to support any of the complaints about how what we called "dumbed-down games" are populated by ADD teenangsters.
I really wish we had BF3 stats, that would give us more perspective on this.
I get surprised when people ask me to "link" them mods I'm using when there's a FULL FLEDGED STEAM WORKSHOP FOR THIS GAME.
The new mods that keep popping up makes every round feel like a new game.
With the source files released on the models/animations, I can't wait to see what's possible.
It's hard to get bored at something if there's potential at getting better. I've yet to reach a certain stage of competence and skill where I'm skilled enough to be bored by it.
JektJoin Date: 2012-02-05Member: 143714Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
edited November 2012
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Overall I'm looking forward to the modding scene and what can be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gamemode modding scene is difficult to push when so few hosts that allow server control (ftp / command line) have the required amount of horses in their hardware.
And yes, I get very bored very quickly whenever I pick it up. Also pretty depressing that I don't expect any radical changes to the vanilla experience to happen at this point.
I'm going to finalize my arguments against the whole 'dumbing down kills games' / 'CoD players are ADD idiots who just jump games' with this: <a href="http://www.gamestat.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.gamestat.co.uk/</a>
A year on and it's still, remarkably, one of the strongest PC FPS games. Pretty good for a game with no competition, no skill-based movement, and that is packed with unlocks, stat grinding, and is remarkably dumbed-down from previous titles. You know, everything everyone says will "kill" a game if it doesn't exist :D
PS: I'm willing to bet that BF3's success is entirely due to the staged content injections. They keep the game fresh and keep players' interest, and bring back old players. Additionally, their content packs vary by themes which work to attract players of all kinds back to the game. If you like ridiculous in-your-face action, they released Close Quarters. If you like big open vehicle warfare, they released Armored Kill. The result is impressive. Honestly I didn't think it was that successful on PC.
<!--quoteo(post=2036341:date=Nov 28 2012, 04:32 PM:name=male_fatalities)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (male_fatalities @ Nov 28 2012, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036341"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now instead of saying loosing x amount of players per day, change that to % of total players per day and you'll see why everyone is worried.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Total players of what?
To answer both you and Temphage's question, the numbers are effectively % loss. Percentage loss are effectively rates of change. They describe the amount of 'bleed' each game has over a period of time.
No, the reason why you would be worried is that NS2 doesn't have many players to start off with, certainly compared to something like CoD so that it can't afford to bleed. That's true, but it's completely trivial (for our purposes anyway). We knew that NS2 was never going to have the amount of players like CoD, because it doesn't have the marketing budget that CoD has. It certainly doesn't support many people here who are simply posting out-of-context graphs which they are badly misinterpreting to suggest that somehow, the loss of people playing the game is somehow more remarkable than any other game.
<!--quoteo(post=2036394:date=Nov 28 2012, 07:37 AM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 28 2012, 07:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036394"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wut? Temphage, i thought we already covered how BF3 is more than half-populated by mature gamers. How is it relevant...?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We didn't cover anything of the sort. Someone, possibly you, just stated words to that effect, as if saying it makes it true. I'm curious as to why you would assume a game that would quite obviously appeal to the "CoD crowd" wouldn't, in fact, be populated by the "CoD crowd". There is very little in BF3 that would appeal to fans of BF2 / BF2142. In fact, most of the harshest criticism comes from those crowds based around very serious, fundamental issues, like the lack of a commander, the meaningless squads, the poor class balance, the lack of PC VOIP, etc.
The point I've been making is that this ridiculous assumption that there's two kinds of gamers: "CoD Kiddies" and "mature gamers" is totally made up. They're the same kind of people. People are playing these games because they're *FUN*, not because they're mentally inferior. Not because they have l33t levels of competition and all kinds of skill-based movement h4x, and twitch aim, and other things people seem to think is necessary for a game to succeed.
Oh yes, because overwhelmingly accepted stereotypes aren't usually accurate or anything 8) You may be right about the BF3 criticism, however that doesn't mean the population from previous releases didn't carry over. I bet you'd struggle to find any servers even running for previous releases, which usually ends up in the user base moving on to the more recent release, whether they LIKE it or not.
<!--quoteo(post=2036316:date=Nov 28 2012, 02:48 PM:name=Hivelord)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hivelord @ Nov 28 2012, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm struggling to make sense of why this game is the way it is. First you have powernodes, something that severely limits where marines can place structures on the map and at the same time providing a single point of weakness for the marines. If your main power node goes down you might as well F4 because your upgrades, spawning, visibility and phase gates are gone. Not only are powernodes severely limiting for the marines, they take a long ass time to build. Why should I waste my time every game building and rebuilding powernodes all over the map, followed by building RT's and whatever other structures that need to be built. Repetitive and dull mechanics. I seem to remember early on that they wanted to reduce base building in games but it seems like they've gone the opposite direction. There's also another problem, you cannot build on alien infestation. First marines are limited by powernodes and now they cannot build on infestation. I've had many games as commander where there is just infestation covered through a room and it takes just that extra time longer to setup base. By that time infestation is already spreading on other parts of the map due to the alien commander, infestation that would need to be removed by marines, again a time consuming and dull process. You also can't have ninja marines build phases into hives or setup secret seige due to infestation, exciting stuff in NS1 but impossible in NS2. This is only one example...
Overall I'm looking forward to the modding scene and what can be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you know you can build IPs at another tech point? Arms labs are quickly built and all tech is instantly available? Or that welders rebuild damaged nodes faster than just pressing e? Aliens also cant build unless on infestation so seems balanced that marines cant. You definately can ninja PG's....easy to take out 1 cyst and the fact that powering up wont change the visual dynamic (unless you have already lost the area) they are especially viable on aliens first hives.
<!--quoteo(post=2036084:date=Nov 28 2012, 12:45 AM:name=fiveseven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fiveseven @ Nov 28 2012, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dont get me wrong - i love the atmosphere of feed hive on ns_bast, or the gentle hum of blue electricity running through triad, but it was simply an extra appeal to what was essentially strategy and reflex. All this loss of asymmetry and the adoption of simplified or controlled mechanics/physics makes for a more modern and polished title, which is exactly what ruins the emergent dynamics of the system. I dont want convexities, i want true chaos theory at work!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what convexities is, but chaos is pretty cool indeed: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ</a>
<i> I logged 1200 hours in a couple of months ( meaning several hours a day ) and I'm getting bored </i> srly ?
Also you really believed that NS 2 an indie game with very limited advertisement ( other than frontpage of Steam and couple of reviews ) would start off with 80k players ?!? NS 2 is a rich and demanding FPS meaning very hard to retain casual FPS players ( unlike BF3/COD would do ). So you had to be very naive to believe that the game would keep 8k players on per day for a whole year after release.
3.5k is still quite amazing considering November period which is the most "releases" crazy time of the year ( like 100+ games released ).
It's way too early to talk about the player basde which is still very strong. Throw in some optimizations, new maps, couple of gameplay changes and a 25% discount on Steam and here you go back to 10K again. Rince and repeat every 6 months.
<!--quoteo(post=2035548:date=Nov 26 2012, 11:08 PM:name=Kallistrate)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kallistrate @ Nov 26 2012, 11:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2035548"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->Over 400 hours clocked in NS2 here. I am getting rather tired of the pub players. Think we all are. May be that the steep learning curve is the reason we lost patience with them?
I have been playing BF3 again also, despite how much of a ripoff it is (compared to the $25 for NS2). This is mainly due to my friend having technical issues and being unable to play NS2.
My 2c.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the fact that bf3 is a total disappointment and a slap in the face to players of bf2 and bfbc2
but yea, bored of ns2. combat is ok but its still wonky because its sitting on ns2.
<!--quoteo(post=2036480:date=Nov 28 2012, 02:22 PM:name=Syknik)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Syknik @ Nov 28 2012, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036480"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm bored of pub play, but I absolutely still enjoy playing scrims and now ENSL, especially when its against a similar level team.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats what I am looking forward to:)
Oh, bytw: How do I get the steamID within NS2's console?! "Status" does not show anything...
I'm sort of bored of NS2 but not because its a boring game. I'm bored of NS2 because I'm tired of playing PUB games.
NS2 needs an in-game match-matching system. The gameplay of NS2 at its core is astonishingly amazing and deep BUT in general the game needs more bells and whistles. More graphics options. An in-game Profile Page that keeps track of wins, losses and other stats. An in-game demo recorder and replay viewer. Ranking systems, that do not affect gameplay by giving buffs to players for time/money spent on the game. Better performance and more fluid animations. More maps. All of these things, while they don't directly affect gameplay, are part of what makes a polished game....polished and keeps people more engaged.
I also blame the lack of well-integrated guides. We need more guide videos, coherent toolt tips and possibly a single-player walkthrough/tutorial map.
This would inform the pub players. NS2 has a huge learning curve. And anybody who doesn't know what they are doing are usually scolded or ruin the game. Combined with performance issues, this causes many new players to not stick with the game. That and many new titles are constantly coming out, after the autumn steam sales, I'm not surprised that people are playing less NS2.
All of these factors combined equals.... Terrible, horrible, horrible PUB games of noobs running around like headless chickens until somebody takes charge.
<!--quoteo(post=2036529:date=Nov 28 2012, 03:35 PM:name=Ohnojojo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ohnojojo @ Nov 28 2012, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036529"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An in-game Profile Page that keeps track of wins, losses and other stats. Ranking systems, that do not affect gameplay by giving buffs to players for time/money spent on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand that stat tracking adds to player interest, but it's really the only metagame feature that I don't like the most, because stat tracking has a huge effect on how people treat the game and how they play. Knowing that their stats will always be there, judging them, can have a very subtle effect on almost everyone, even if they claim otherwise.
Regarding the ranking system, this seems easy enough. Not only would ranks make it quite obvious to see who has experience with the game and who doesn't, but you can reward visual decorative unlocks. And don't jump on the TF2 hats bandwagon extreme.
Stat tracking arguably kills team play. Too many stat-######s start worrying about their long term KDR and not about the next 10 minutes. People switch teams to preserve their W/L ratios...
The US competitive scene is laughable and the EU scene is pretty dire too. How can we view NS2 as anything but a failure competitively? This is especially bad considering most of the complaints regarding the game are to do with how boring and annoying public play is.
Comments
The only way you could properly analysis it is to crunch the numbers with statistics. There's no way of getting a data dump from steam graph unfortunately (as far as I can tell), but I have improvised using various data points to get numbers which vaguely get a curve similar to the one Steamgraph is showing. I've attached a graph.
[attachment=36174:CoDMW3vsBF2BC.png]
We can consider the retention of players as a rate of change between the number of players in a game over the change in time. In effect we're looking for the gradient of the linear equations for the trend line of these games. Using my quickly improvised dataset, I get these numbers
m(CoD:MW3) = -1088.9
m(BF2:BC) = -591.32
So how to interpret it? Well, according to the data, since release, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has lost just over 1000 players per day. Battlefield 2: Bad Combat has lost just under 600 players per day. This suggest that whilst Call of Duty can get a large initial purchase, it struggles to be able to retain players as compared to Battlefield 2.
Incidentally, Natural Selection 2 is losing just over 400 players per day so it's actually doing better than these two major franchises.
Incidentally, Natural Selection 2 is losing just over 400 players per day so it's actually doing better than these two major franchises.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now instead of saying loosing x amount of players per day, change that to % of total players per day and you'll see why everyone is worried.
More people will return when they find out the Jarl of Whiterun plays.
As was mentioned, the raw number is irrelevant. More players means more loss. It's the percentage of loss that's important.
Additionally, there's a bigger picture that you could keep in mind here - we all know that Call of Duty is basically the same game released every year. The gameplay is the same, it's always the same features with more added on top. An argument could be made that we shouldn't be looking at Call of Duty sales on a per-game, but on a per-franchise basis. Whereas mods and other games may release DLCs that inject content to the game, Activision releases a whole new game. And don't think that the long-time fans are so dumb that they aren't aware that they're just basically buying full-priced expansion packs. Given how many players jump into the new games when they release, I'd say it's specifically *because* of the annual update schedule that they remain interested for so long.
In that light, we see that the CoD franchise is one of the strongest out there. Not only does it retain a playerbase in its older games for quite a long time, but every iteration of the franchise is enough to get players who quit to buy the next game and begin playing again. And not just for a few weeks, but for a few months.
Either way you cut it, the accusation that the CoD games burn out their multiplayer quickly, or that people who play CoD games are useless game-hoppers, are both proven false. There's no data to support any of the complaints about how what we called "dumbed-down games" are populated by ADD teenangsters.
I really wish we had BF3 stats, that would give us more perspective on this.
No.
That is all.
The new mods that keep popping up makes every round feel like a new game.
With the source files released on the models/animations, I can't wait to see what's possible.
It's hard to get bored at something if there's potential at getting better. I've yet to reach a certain stage of competence and skill where I'm skilled enough to be bored by it.
Gamemode modding scene is difficult to push when so few hosts that allow server control (ftp / command line) have the required amount of horses in their hardware.
And yes, I get very bored very quickly whenever I pick it up. Also pretty depressing that I don't expect any radical changes to the vanilla experience to happen at this point.
A year on and it's still, remarkably, one of the strongest PC FPS games. Pretty good for a game with no competition, no skill-based movement, and that is packed with unlocks, stat grinding, and is remarkably dumbed-down from previous titles. You know, everything everyone says will "kill" a game if it doesn't exist :D
PS: I'm willing to bet that BF3's success is entirely due to the staged content injections. They keep the game fresh and keep players' interest, and bring back old players. Additionally, their content packs vary by themes which work to attract players of all kinds back to the game. If you like ridiculous in-your-face action, they released Close Quarters. If you like big open vehicle warfare, they released Armored Kill. The result is impressive. Honestly I didn't think it was that successful on PC.
Total players of what?
To answer both you and Temphage's question, the numbers are effectively % loss. Percentage loss are effectively rates of change. They describe the amount of 'bleed' each game has over a period of time.
No, the reason why you would be worried is that NS2 doesn't have many players to start off with, certainly compared to something like CoD so that it can't afford to bleed. That's true, but it's completely trivial (for our purposes anyway). We knew that NS2 was never going to have the amount of players like CoD, because it doesn't have the marketing budget that CoD has. It certainly doesn't support many people here who are simply posting out-of-context graphs which they are badly misinterpreting to suggest that somehow, the loss of people playing the game is somehow more remarkable than any other game.
How is it relevant...?
How is it relevant...?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We didn't cover anything of the sort. Someone, possibly you, just stated words to that effect, as if saying it makes it true. I'm curious as to why you would assume a game that would quite obviously appeal to the "CoD crowd" wouldn't, in fact, be populated by the "CoD crowd". There is very little in BF3 that would appeal to fans of BF2 / BF2142. In fact, most of the harshest criticism comes from those crowds based around very serious, fundamental issues, like the lack of a commander, the meaningless squads, the poor class balance, the lack of PC VOIP, etc.
The point I've been making is that this ridiculous assumption that there's two kinds of gamers: "CoD Kiddies" and "mature gamers" is totally made up. They're the same kind of people. People are playing these games because they're *FUN*, not because they're mentally inferior. Not because they have l33t levels of competition and all kinds of skill-based movement h4x, and twitch aim, and other things people seem to think is necessary for a game to succeed.
You may be right about the BF3 criticism, however that doesn't mean the population from previous releases didn't carry over. I bet you'd struggle to find any servers even running for previous releases, which usually ends up in the user base moving on to the more recent release, whether they LIKE it or not.
Bit like this NS2 scene.
Overall I'm looking forward to the modding scene and what can be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know you can build IPs at another tech point?
Arms labs are quickly built and all tech is instantly available?
Or that welders rebuild damaged nodes faster than just pressing e?
Aliens also cant build unless on infestation so seems balanced that marines cant.
You definately can ninja PG's....easy to take out 1 cyst and the fact that powering up wont change the visual dynamic (unless you have already lost the area) they are especially viable on aliens first hives.
I don't know what convexities is, but chaos is pretty cool indeed: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ</a>
srly ?
Also you really believed that NS 2 an indie game with very limited advertisement ( other than frontpage of Steam and couple of reviews ) would start off with 80k players ?!?
NS 2 is a rich and demanding FPS meaning very hard to retain casual FPS players ( unlike BF3/COD would do ). So you had to be very naive to believe that the game would keep 8k players on per day for a whole year after release.
3.5k is still quite amazing considering November period which is the most "releases" crazy time of the year ( like 100+ games released ).
It's way too early to talk about the player basde which is still very strong. Throw in some optimizations, new maps, couple of gameplay changes and a 25% discount on Steam and here you go back to 10K again.
Rince and repeat every 6 months.
I have been playing BF3 again also, despite how much of a ripoff it is (compared to the $25 for NS2). This is mainly due to my friend having technical issues and being unable to play NS2.
My 2c.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the fact that bf3 is a total disappointment and a slap in the face to players of bf2 and bfbc2
but yea, bored of ns2. combat is ok but its still wonky because its sitting on ns2.
Thats what I am looking forward to:)
Oh, bytw: How do I get the steamID within NS2's console?! "Status" does not show anything...
I'm bored of NS2 because I'm tired of playing PUB games.
NS2 needs an in-game match-matching system.
The gameplay of NS2 at its core is astonishingly amazing and deep BUT in general the game needs more bells and whistles.
More graphics options.
An in-game Profile Page that keeps track of wins, losses and other stats.
An in-game demo recorder and replay viewer.
Ranking systems, that do not affect gameplay by giving buffs to players for time/money spent on the game.
Better performance and more fluid animations.
More maps.
All of these things, while they don't directly affect gameplay, are part of what makes a polished game....polished and keeps people more engaged.
I also blame the lack of well-integrated guides.
We need more guide videos, coherent toolt tips and possibly a single-player walkthrough/tutorial map.
This would inform the pub players. NS2 has a huge learning curve.
And anybody who doesn't know what they are doing are usually scolded or ruin the game.
Combined with performance issues, this causes many new players to not stick with the game.
That and many new titles are constantly coming out, after the autumn steam sales, I'm not surprised that people are playing less NS2.
All of these factors combined equals....
Terrible, horrible, horrible PUB games of noobs running around like headless chickens until somebody takes charge.
Ranking systems, that do not affect gameplay by giving buffs to players for time/money spent on the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that stat tracking adds to player interest, but it's really the only metagame feature that I don't like the most, because stat tracking has a huge effect on how people treat the game and how they play. Knowing that their stats will always be there, judging them, can have a very subtle effect on almost everyone, even if they claim otherwise.
Regarding the ranking system, this seems easy enough. Not only would ranks make it quite obvious to see who has experience with the game and who doesn't, but you can reward visual decorative unlocks. And don't jump on the TF2 hats bandwagon extreme.
bleh.