<!--quoteo(post=2039605:date=Dec 4 2012, 05:27 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 4 2012, 05:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039605"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The quality of an activity is not qualified by how enjoyable it is to its participants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Are you sure you haven't lost your mind in all this comp games? And you remember that we are playing a GAME here? Because actually, the quality of a game is determined by how enjoyable it is to its participants.
Are you really lost this hard in your pro-gamer world, that you have forgotten that we are talking about a game here? A game! They are made to be fun. Let people have their fun. Your arrogant behavior, that you draw from your skill in a thing that is so insignificant, (because it is a game!) denies you the possibility of bringing up your justified claims, that servers that can't hold the tick rate are bad. This is very sad.
You are way to proud about something that helps nobody beside your ego.
<!--quoteo(post=2039721:date=Dec 4 2012, 04:52 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Dec 4 2012, 04:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039721"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? Are you sure you haven't lost your mind in all this comp games? And you remember that we are playing a GAME here? Because actually, the quality of a game is determined by how enjoyable it is to its participants.
Are you really lost this hard in your pro-gamer world, that you have forgotten that we are talking about a game here? A game! They are made to be fun. Let people have their fun. Your arrogant behavior, that you draw from your skill in a thing that is so insignificant, (because it is a game!) denies you the possibility of bringing up your justified claims, that servers that can't hold the tick rate are bad. This is very sad.
You are way to proud about something that helps nobody beside your ego.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're loosely correct, but there are a lot of ways to trade of one type of "enjoyable" for another. Many things that are novel are enjoyable once or twice, but quickly lose their staying power. Similarly, it can be very fun to crush an opponent with some overpowered weapon, however, while that's more enjoyable for you, it's less enjoyable for your opponent, and it's hard to argue in games that one player's bliss can out value another players misery. At the same time, losing can be enjoyable as well, if it was fair.
More or less, fana's complaint is that too many of these types of design sacrifices are exposed when the player numbers get larger and larger. There definitely is a degree of logic behind it, because the fundamental design of a ranged vs melee game should dictate that the ranged class is stronger as actors on the field grow. If we take the starcraft for example. 9 zerglings very very easily kill 3 marines. However, 100 marines have very little trouble with 300 zerglings, because with 100 marines, the first row of zerglings is dead before the second row of zerglings has even gotten within range. The 3 to 1 ratio can't always dictate victory for the melee class, because as ranged numbers grow, a higher number of zerglings die before the zerglings can even begin doing damage.
Currently, however, I feel like in 24 player servers this is really just offsetting the terrible alien bias in the balance of the game to some degree, as opposed to the popular claim that it "ruins" the game somehow.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we take the starcraft for example. 9 zerglings very very easily kill 3 marines. However, 100 marines have very little trouble with 300 zerglings, because with 100 marines, the first row of zerglings is dead before the second row of zerglings has even gotten within range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said two posts above this doesn't fully apply in ns2 because of the collisions. This work in starcraft because the marine can shoot from the center of disk, thus dealing damage like the radius squared while zerglings can only deal damage on the perimeter that scales like the radius. This doesn't happen in NS2 because the marines can't shoot from the center of a disk, and skulks can attack the center of the disk as NS2 is played in three spatial dimensions, unlike starcraft.
<!--quoteo(post=2039735:date=Dec 4 2012, 05:38 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Dec 4 2012, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039735"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said two posts above this doesn't fully apply in ns2 because of the collisions. This work in starcraft because the marine can shoot from the center of disk, thus dealing damage like the radius squared while zerglings can only deal damage on the perimeter that scales like the radius. This doesn't happen in NS2 because the marines can't shoot from the center of a disk, and skulks can attack the center of the disk as NS2 is played in three spatial dimensions, unlike starcraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but the relative vulnerability of lifeforms that take even longer to replace at high player counts than low player counts paired with simply encountering a much higher number of guns at a moments notice does serve to offset the balance towards marines more so in NS2 than our starcraft zergling scenario.
You're also assuming a "disk" of marines, a ball effectively. I made no such assumption. A battle line would be more effective in most cases. It's really AI limitations that result in unit balls being so common in starcraft 2, it's not because they're actually an advantageous formation.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2012
<!--quoteo(post=2039721:date=Dec 4 2012, 10:52 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Dec 4 2012, 10:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039721"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because actually, the quality of a game is determined by how enjoyable it is to its participants.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, <i>actually</i>, it isn't. Jersey Shore isn't qualitatively good (of course one can have debates about how to define "qualitatively good"; but that's hardly meaningful in this context) just because a lot of people find it enjoyable. The same is true for 24p+ NS2.
I know I said I would leave this thread alone, but what can I say, I am a chump.
A game's not a TV show... but the thing is, people have "fun" for different reasons in NS2. Sometimes what is "fun" in a game is extremely annoying to another person in the game.
Mix in natural human competitiveness, and the definition of "fun" becomes sort of convoluted. You have to agree that playing for "fun" in pvp FPS games isn't quite the same as playing minigolf for "fun" on a date. People play pvp FPS games to prove something, maybe that they're decent at FPS games; and people play to win, whether it be in 1v1 encounters, shooting a lerk or a fade down, or to win the overall game. In pubs, it's usually more sane to play to win individually, because you never know the quality of the team you end up in, and to play to win as a team is usually kind of disappointing, and ultimately means nothing anyway, because ~75% of the pub games are stacked in my observation. Some more heavily than others, but the balanced games are rare. I'm not talking about long games; long games are often the result of failure on both teams' sides. I'm talking about balanced games with aggression and constant trading of structures.
Even if you say you're not playing for the win and that playing FPS games to win is childish, etc. etc., you know deep down you're lying to yourself. People play even pure/almost pure chance games like monopoly and settlers of catan to win, nevermind a game where there is much less chance like NS2.
... but anyway, also wanted to add something actually on topic: people don't understand what the tickrate is or how to type net_stats into console, or don't want to wait for ~1 min loading time to change servers. That's why they play on low tickrate servers.
As far as 24 player servers, in my opinion they're suboptimal as far as enjoyment from gameplay, but I am guilty of playing on them too. I prefer 18-20.
<!--quoteo(post=2039741:date=Dec 4 2012, 11:58 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Dec 4 2012, 11:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're also assuming a "disk" of marines, a ball effectively. I made no such assumption. A battle line would be more effective in most cases. It's really AI limitations that result in unit balls being so common in starcraft 2, it's not because they're actually an advantageous formation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A line doesn't provide any scaling advantage for the marines, it plays the same irrespective of the number of units involved. The disk is the formation that change the most with the number of units involved, because it has the biggest area to perimeter ratio.
This could change a bit of the ranged units use optimal targeting, but then the melee units can also micro back. Anyway nobody is doing optimal targeting in NS2 as far as I know.
<!--quoteo(post=2039746:date=Dec 4 2012, 01:08 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 4 2012, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, <i>actually</i>, it isn't. Jersey Shore isn't qualitatively good (of course one can have debates about how to define "qualitatively good"; but that's hardly meaningful in this context) just because a lot of people find it enjoyable. The same is true for 24p+ NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry do we really need to get down to definitions? What is the purpose of a game? The goal why it is made? The answer: To bring people fun. What is a qualitative valuable thing? What makes something of high quality? The answer: How good it can fulfill its purpose.
This are simple rules. Just because you don't like something, doesn't change it's quality. And just because Jersey Shore is for brainless TV-junkies doesn't change, that it is a high quality entertainment show. The purpose of entertainment is to get people watching it. The more people watching it, the more successful it is in fulfilling its purpose. If it wouldn't bring money, they would not send it.
<!--quoteo(post=2039741:date=Dec 4 2012, 12:58 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Dec 4 2012, 12:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're loosely correct, but there are a lot of ways to trade of one type of "enjoyable" for another.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. But you can accumulate this to an overall value. "How many people play on this kind of servers?" It won't be that popular, if it were only fun for one side.
<!--quoteo(post=2039746:date=Dec 4 2012, 04:08 AM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Dec 4 2012, 04:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, <i>actually</i>, it isn't. Jersey Shore isn't qualitatively good (of course one can have debates about how to define "qualitatively good"; but that's hardly meaningful in this context) just because a lot of people find it enjoyable. The same is true for 24p+ NS2.
I know I said I would leave this thread alone, but what can I say, I am a chump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're trying to make something subjective objective. The value of anything is subjective to those judging it. What you're trying to do here is make your own opinion the only valid opinion. If people playing in 24 player server are having a good time, you do not magically get to decide they really aren't having a good time. To them, the game is fun at that point. To you, it is not. That is the nature of it being subjective.
<!--quoteo(post=2039797:date=Dec 4 2012, 07:41 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Dec 4 2012, 07:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039797"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A line doesn't provide any scaling advantage for the marines, it plays the same irrespective of the number of units involved. The disk is the formation that change the most with the number of units involved, because it has the biggest area to perimeter ratio.
This could change a bit of the ranged units use optimal targeting, but then the melee units can also micro back. Anyway nobody is doing optimal targeting in NS2 as far as I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This isn't true. In NS2 people don't use "optimal" targeting. But we generally know to target lifeforms first. Onos, fades, lerks are higher targets than skulks generally. The more bullets that can potentially land, the more lifeforms will be dead before they are in melee range, and therefore the less damage all the lifeforms can do as a whole.
The ideal formation for units in starcraft 2, is any formation that allows all the units to fire at the same time. A disk generally does not do that. Half the units must wait for the units on the outside of the disk to be dead before they can begin firing. The ideal formation surrounds the opponent, a semicircle. A battle line (a line parallel to the opponent's position) makes a pretty good approximate to a surround until the unit numbers become massive.
Optimal targeting improves the situation, but isn't strictly necessary. As long as targeting isn't intentionally super sub optimal.
Consider onos doing suicide rushes. 1 onos vs 2 AR marines is and easy win for the onos. 6 onos vs 12 AR marines can go either way. The first 3 onos at least are likely to be dead before they have even done damage. At that point it's down to weather 12 marines can reload and dodge 3 more onos fast enough to kill the rest, and this is difficult, but a very real possibility. At the figure of 1 onos, there was no real threat of him dying at all, at the figure of 6 onos the result is unsure, and at very least you have lost significant investment.
NS2 is a messy game at player numbers so high, you don't usually get pristine scenarios. It's often that your onos rushes into the room after most of the team has wasted all their ammo trying to shoot a fade that blunked all over the ceiling with the express purpose of wasting ammo. There are many things we begin to do more to improve the tactical position of the melee class, like, as a skulk, run through the pack and try to attack the back most marines, so every other marine has turned around to shoot at you, and your allies can move in without being shot at on the way over. And ultimately, you very rarely have to compare the absolute extremes, where you're legitimately fighting 12 players immediately as soon as you enter the room. There's usually 2 guys off trying to kill your upgrades, one guy building nodes on the other side of the map, 2 newbs waiting for turrets in marine start, and a couple guys in the room in some absolutely terrible position that won't allow them to attack until many of their allies have already taken damage. We're really only speaking about twice as many active players as we have in 6v6. The really blown out scaling scenarios don't apply. Marines don't have a power buff of, say 200%, it's maybe 30% if all the marines are really good at exploiting the extra advantage.
I don't agree with those who say "24 players is unplayable, it breaks the game so much" (aside from egg spawn rates, which really should be fixed) I have a lot of fun in 24 player servers. However, there are very real reasons why they do negatively effect the balance of the game. I just really don't think it's bad enough that anyone should feel guilty about enjoying the experience of more chaos and more destruction.
<!--quoteo(post=2039809:date=Dec 4 2012, 10:04 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Dec 4 2012, 10:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry do we really need to get down to definitions? What is the purpose of a game? The goal why it is made? The answer: To bring people fun. What is a qualitative valuable thing? What makes something of high quality? The answer: How good it can fulfill its purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->And this is it in a nutshell here. For all those whiners griping about large servers they seem to forget it is the PLAYERS that determine what is fun, not the whiners.
We're in this to sell copies of the game, and if people don't want to play 6v6 they're not gonna play 6v6. Forcing them only diminishes the QUALITY of the game. (yes, it does)
It's been this way from the very beginning, and I would think people would get it by now. Give the people what they want. If they want large servers then by God give them large servers. If that sells copies and builds this community, then that's what we should be doing.
<!--quoteo(post=2039715:date=Dec 4 2012, 04:33 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Dec 4 2012, 04:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039715"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a bit of a fail example, you can't really have better scaling than that. In RTS games the melee vs ranged scaling is dominated by perimeter vs area effects (e.g. marines versus zerglings) that don't really happen in NS2 because of the collisions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Collisions in NS2 still cause ranged weapons to outscale melee weapons with larger player counts. Just because it isn't scaled to the extent of an RTS like starcraft (I never claimed this) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in NS2. There are still collisions and it is still harder for large amounts of skulks to put damage on a marine than it is for a large amount of marines to put damage on a skulk. This is one of the main principles behind the "stick together" tactic that marines rely on.
Well in the ideal case the scaling is perfect. You got N marine and N skulk, each marine attack one skulk and each skulk attack one marine; the outcome is independent of N.
Anyway, these theoretical considerations are a bit useless because, like we see in this discussion, there's a lot a other effects that affect scaling (map geometry, targeting, "micro", ...) and it's a bit hard to take all of them into account. In the end I think one should still do proper play tests to say anything about scaling.
24 players isn't really outrageous or anything. I would understand the butt hurt if people were trying to play with, say, 64 players. If you play in a good enough server (KKG) it runs better than most 16 players servers.
Some people wont be reasoned with. People are playing here because they are fun servers. I play on HBZ servers sometimes because they are fun. I tend to play on servers where the comms dont go GG and reccyle things - they let people have fun winning if necessary. I play on servers that dont whine about comms who dont place the optimal stuff down instantly or comms who put sentries down. I play on servers that have decent people on there who have a good time. Perhaps the community > instant issues? I used to play on 187combat NS servers due to the community (I had a relatively bad ping to them in comparison).
IMHO 10 marines vs 10 skulks in a corridor = lots of friendly fire TBH. The scales would move to the aliens in some cases. If it was a wider open area then I wouldnt rush.
20+ player servers provide a relaxing experience for when the normal 8v8 grind become a bit too tedious. It also helps that I know I'm going to experience horrid fps and hitreg issues due to poor server performance. Granted I already suffer from poor framerates on 16p servers, but at least I'm not trying to play the game with any modicum of seriousness whatsoever.
Whether it be 20+ or 16p, <30fps isn't a pleasant experience for a rather fast-paced game like NS2. Let's just say that the crappy tickrate is icing on an already inedible cake.
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
Nice discussion so far but you forget another aspect: Why should an server admin spend time and lots of money for an good server if people prefer servers like this?
I think if the tickrate is displayed more prominently (maybe on the tab menu as a "performance %") people would actually pay attention to it?
Very few people know to type net_stats 1, what to look at in the numbers, and what to look for.
I'm sure people assume it's just the game running badly on their PC, considering the performance on non-OCd CPUs is just so bad on higher player count servers.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Because people sort and choose servers purely based on playercount. Not sure how to solve this without some sort of matchmaking with server choosing system (think L4D1/2).
Comments
What? Are you sure you haven't lost your mind in all this comp games? And you remember that we are playing a GAME here? Because actually, the quality of a game is determined by how enjoyable it is to its participants.
Are you really lost this hard in your pro-gamer world, that you have forgotten that we are talking about a game here? A game! They are made to be fun. Let people have their fun. Your arrogant behavior, that you draw from your skill in a thing that is so insignificant, (because it is a game!) denies you the possibility of bringing up your justified claims, that servers that can't hold the tick rate are bad. This is very sad.
You are way to proud about something that helps nobody beside your ego.
Are you really lost this hard in your pro-gamer world, that you have forgotten that we are talking about a game here? A game! They are made to be fun. Let people have their fun. Your arrogant behavior, that you draw from your skill in a thing that is so insignificant, (because it is a game!) denies you the possibility of bringing up your justified claims, that servers that can't hold the tick rate are bad. This is very sad.
You are way to proud about something that helps nobody beside your ego.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're loosely correct, but there are a lot of ways to trade of one type of "enjoyable" for another. Many things that are novel are enjoyable once or twice, but quickly lose their staying power. Similarly, it can be very fun to crush an opponent with some overpowered weapon, however, while that's more enjoyable for you, it's less enjoyable for your opponent, and it's hard to argue in games that one player's bliss can out value another players misery. At the same time, losing can be enjoyable as well, if it was fair.
More or less, fana's complaint is that too many of these types of design sacrifices are exposed when the player numbers get larger and larger. There definitely is a degree of logic behind it, because the fundamental design of a ranged vs melee game should dictate that the ranged class is stronger as actors on the field grow. If we take the starcraft for example. 9 zerglings very very easily kill 3 marines. However, 100 marines have very little trouble with 300 zerglings, because with 100 marines, the first row of zerglings is dead before the second row of zerglings has even gotten within range. The 3 to 1 ratio can't always dictate victory for the melee class, because as ranged numbers grow, a higher number of zerglings die before the zerglings can even begin doing damage.
Currently, however, I feel like in 24 player servers this is really just offsetting the terrible alien bias in the balance of the game to some degree, as opposed to the popular claim that it "ruins" the game somehow.
Like I said two posts above this doesn't fully apply in ns2 because of the collisions. This work in starcraft because the marine can shoot from the center of disk, thus dealing damage like the radius squared while zerglings can only deal damage on the perimeter that scales like the radius. This doesn't happen in NS2 because the marines can't shoot from the center of a disk, and skulks can attack the center of the disk as NS2 is played in three spatial dimensions, unlike starcraft.
Yes, but the relative vulnerability of lifeforms that take even longer to replace at high player counts than low player counts paired with simply encountering a much higher number of guns at a moments notice does serve to offset the balance towards marines more so in NS2 than our starcraft zergling scenario.
You're also assuming a "disk" of marines, a ball effectively. I made no such assumption. A battle line would be more effective in most cases. It's really AI limitations that result in unit balls being so common in starcraft 2, it's not because they're actually an advantageous formation.
No, <i>actually</i>, it isn't. Jersey Shore isn't qualitatively good (of course one can have debates about how to define "qualitatively good"; but that's hardly meaningful in this context) just because a lot of people find it enjoyable. The same is true for 24p+ NS2.
I know I said I would leave this thread alone, but what can I say, I am a chump.
Mix in natural human competitiveness, and the definition of "fun" becomes sort of convoluted. You have to agree that playing for "fun" in pvp FPS games isn't quite the same as playing minigolf for "fun" on a date. People play pvp FPS games to prove something, maybe that they're decent at FPS games; and people play to win, whether it be in 1v1 encounters, shooting a lerk or a fade down, or to win the overall game. In pubs, it's usually more sane to play to win individually, because you never know the quality of the team you end up in, and to play to win as a team is usually kind of disappointing, and ultimately means nothing anyway, because ~75% of the pub games are stacked in my observation. Some more heavily than others, but the balanced games are rare. I'm not talking about long games; long games are often the result of failure on both teams' sides. I'm talking about balanced games with aggression and constant trading of structures.
Even if you say you're not playing for the win and that playing FPS games to win is childish, etc. etc., you know deep down you're lying to yourself. People play even pure/almost pure chance games like monopoly and settlers of catan to win, nevermind a game where there is much less chance like NS2.
... but anyway, also wanted to add something actually on topic: people don't understand what the tickrate is or how to type net_stats into console, or don't want to wait for ~1 min loading time to change servers. That's why they play on low tickrate servers.
As far as 24 player servers, in my opinion they're suboptimal as far as enjoyment from gameplay, but I am guilty of playing on them too. I prefer 18-20.
A line doesn't provide any scaling advantage for the marines, it plays the same irrespective of the number of units involved. The disk is the formation that change the most with the number of units involved, because it has the biggest area to perimeter ratio.
This could change a bit of the ranged units use optimal targeting, but then the melee units can also micro back. Anyway nobody is doing optimal targeting in NS2 as far as I know.
Sorry do we really need to get down to definitions?
What is the purpose of a game? The goal why it is made? The answer: To bring people fun.
What is a qualitative valuable thing? What makes something of high quality? The answer: How good it can fulfill its purpose.
This are simple rules. Just because you don't like something, doesn't change it's quality. And just because Jersey Shore is for brainless TV-junkies doesn't change, that it is a high quality entertainment show. The purpose of entertainment is to get people watching it. The more people watching it, the more successful it is in fulfilling its purpose. If it wouldn't bring money, they would not send it.
<!--quoteo(post=2039741:date=Dec 4 2012, 12:58 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Dec 4 2012, 12:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're loosely correct, but there are a lot of ways to trade of one type of "enjoyable" for another.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. But you can accumulate this to an overall value. "How many people play on this kind of servers?" It won't be that popular, if it were only fun for one side.
I know I said I would leave this thread alone, but what can I say, I am a chump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're trying to make something subjective objective. The value of anything is subjective to those judging it. What you're trying to do here is make your own opinion the only valid opinion. If people playing in 24 player server are having a good time, you do not magically get to decide they really aren't having a good time. To them, the game is fun at that point. To you, it is not. That is the nature of it being subjective.
This could change a bit of the ranged units use optimal targeting, but then the melee units can also micro back. Anyway nobody is doing optimal targeting in NS2 as far as I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't true. In NS2 people don't use "optimal" targeting. But we generally know to target lifeforms first. Onos, fades, lerks are higher targets than skulks generally. The more bullets that can potentially land, the more lifeforms will be dead before they are in melee range, and therefore the less damage all the lifeforms can do as a whole.
The ideal formation for units in starcraft 2, is any formation that allows all the units to fire at the same time. A disk generally does not do that. Half the units must wait for the units on the outside of the disk to be dead before they can begin firing. The ideal formation surrounds the opponent, a semicircle. A battle line (a line parallel to the opponent's position) makes a pretty good approximate to a surround until the unit numbers become massive.
Optimal targeting improves the situation, but isn't strictly necessary. As long as targeting isn't intentionally super sub optimal.
Consider onos doing suicide rushes. 1 onos vs 2 AR marines is and easy win for the onos. 6 onos vs 12 AR marines can go either way. The first 3 onos at least are likely to be dead before they have even done damage. At that point it's down to weather 12 marines can reload and dodge 3 more onos fast enough to kill the rest, and this is difficult, but a very real possibility. At the figure of 1 onos, there was no real threat of him dying at all, at the figure of 6 onos the result is unsure, and at very least you have lost significant investment.
NS2 is a messy game at player numbers so high, you don't usually get pristine scenarios. It's often that your onos rushes into the room after most of the team has wasted all their ammo trying to shoot a fade that blunked all over the ceiling with the express purpose of wasting ammo. There are many things we begin to do more to improve the tactical position of the melee class, like, as a skulk, run through the pack and try to attack the back most marines, so every other marine has turned around to shoot at you, and your allies can move in without being shot at on the way over. And ultimately, you very rarely have to compare the absolute extremes, where you're legitimately fighting 12 players immediately as soon as you enter the room. There's usually 2 guys off trying to kill your upgrades, one guy building nodes on the other side of the map, 2 newbs waiting for turrets in marine start, and a couple guys in the room in some absolutely terrible position that won't allow them to attack until many of their allies have already taken damage. We're really only speaking about twice as many active players as we have in 6v6. The really blown out scaling scenarios don't apply. Marines don't have a power buff of, say 200%, it's maybe 30% if all the marines are really good at exploiting the extra advantage.
I don't agree with those who say "24 players is unplayable, it breaks the game so much" (aside from egg spawn rates, which really should be fixed) I have a lot of fun in 24 player servers. However, there are very real reasons why they do negatively effect the balance of the game. I just really don't think it's bad enough that anyone should feel guilty about enjoying the experience of more chaos and more destruction.
What is the purpose of a game? The goal why it is made? The answer: To bring people fun.
What is a qualitative valuable thing? What makes something of high quality? The answer: How good it can fulfill its purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->And this is it in a nutshell here. For all those whiners griping about large servers they seem to forget it is the PLAYERS that determine what is fun, not the whiners.
We're in this to sell copies of the game, and if people don't want to play 6v6 they're not gonna play 6v6. Forcing them only diminishes the QUALITY of the game. (yes, it does)
It's been this way from the very beginning, and I would think people would get it by now. Give the people what they want. If they want large servers then by God give them large servers. If that sells copies and builds this community, then that's what we should be doing.
Collisions in NS2 still cause ranged weapons to outscale melee weapons with larger player counts. Just because it isn't scaled to the extent of an RTS like starcraft (I never claimed this) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in NS2. There are still collisions and it is still harder for large amounts of skulks to put damage on a marine than it is for a large amount of marines to put damage on a skulk. This is one of the main principles behind the "stick together" tactic that marines rely on.
Anyway, these theoretical considerations are a bit useless because, like we see in this discussion, there's a lot a other effects that affect scaling (map geometry, targeting, "micro", ...) and it's a bit hard to take all of them into account. In the end I think one should still do proper play tests to say anything about scaling.
IMHO 10 marines vs 10 skulks in a corridor = lots of friendly fire TBH. The scales would move to the aliens in some cases. If it was a wider open area then I wouldnt rush.
Whether it be 20+ or 16p, <30fps isn't a pleasant experience for a rather fast-paced game like NS2. Let's just say that the crappy tickrate is icing on an already inedible cake.
Why should an server admin spend time and lots of money for an good server if people prefer servers like this?
<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52045821/s1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52045821/s2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Very few people know to type net_stats 1, what to look at in the numbers, and what to look for.
I'm sure people assume it's just the game running badly on their PC, considering the performance on non-OCd CPUs is just so bad on higher player count servers.