I doubt it's something big; I think development has just slowed down to a more "regular" pace from the pre-release rush.
I expect some minor fixes, and mostly I'm excited about the flinching harvesters hitbox fix. Some (probably minor) performance improvements might also be sweet. I can only dream.
Oh yeah, I'm still hoping that the shadowstep vertical vector makes a comeback too.
Most performance issues come from the way the game is coded, and in particular from LUA from what I've gathered (LUA presentation during dev Q&A two weeks ago).
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.
<!--quoteo(post=2039766:date=Dec 4 2012, 03:32 AM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Dec 4 2012, 03:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most performance issues come from the way the game is coded, and in particular from LUA from what I've gathered (LUA presentation during dev Q&A two weeks ago).
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's unfortunate too. FPS slow downs in shooter is pretty terrible. I'll take a 10 year old game with terrible graphics with zero slowdowns than one with sleek new graphics but slowdowns at various points during gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=2039766:date=Dec 4 2012, 07:32 AM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Dec 4 2012, 07:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039766"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most performance issues come from the way the game is coded, and in particular from LUA from what I've gathered (LUA presentation during dev Q&A two weeks ago).
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's true then I think they've made a huge mistake. I've got a fairly decent PC with 4.7ghz CPU and a 560TI and get 30fps late on in games so I have to play at a lower res so its not choppy. I hate to imagine how others play with worse computers.
<!--quoteo(post=2039775:date=Dec 4 2012, 12:43 PM:name=Robbeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Robbeh @ Dec 4 2012, 12:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well if that's true then I think they've made a huge mistake. I've got a fairly decent PC with 4.7ghz CPU and a 560TI and get 30fps late on in games so I have to play at a lower res so its not choppy. I hate to imagine how others play with worse computers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me tell you: it really kills the fun to know that with any other game you have nice graphics AND nice Framerates. As soon as I see an encounter coming with >3 people coming, I am going like "Crap I am totally useless now". :(
<!--quoteo(post=2039775:date=Dec 4 2012, 01:43 PM:name=Robbeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Robbeh @ Dec 4 2012, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well if that's true then I think they've made a huge mistake. I've got a fairly decent PC with 4.7ghz CPU and a 560TI and get 30fps late on in games so I have to play at a lower res so its not choppy. I hate to imagine how others play with worse computers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait wait wait. At first you need to know if it is your graphics card or your cpu that is the bottleneck. Type r_stats in console. Beside the fps, it shows a value in "ms" for how long your cpu waits for your graphics card. If this value does not get over 2 or 3 even in high action situations, your gpu is not the bottleneck. Reducing graphic options will not give you more performance. But a cpu with 4.7ghz should be more than enough to get around with 60fps in the late game.
The next failure most people make, is playing on servers that can't handle the player-count. NS2 game logic is much bigger than that of a simple fps game. Most servers can't hold a steady 30 tick rate in late game when many buildings / cysts are placed in the map. Typing net_stats in console will show you the tick rate at which the server is running. If the server can't hold the 30 ticks, you need to find a better one. (Maybe with lesser player numbers.)
<!--quoteo(post=2039743:date=Dec 4 2012, 12:03 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Dec 4 2012, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039743"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I doubt it's something big; I think development has just slowed down to a more "regular" pace from the pre-release rush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly a mistake that many developers tend to make. Once the game is out, you can finally relax a bit. In reality there is still some crunching to do after release to clean up things especially when the player counts are at their peak, otherwise you can lose people (and word of mouth) in the long run.
UberEnt did the same mistake with SMNC. Released the game on Steam, made a cross-promotion with TF2, got thousands of players in. And then brought disappointing updates that didn't really help the new player experience at all or didn't solve the problems that mattered but rather some stuff no player would have even mentioned. The game went from 5000~6000 concurrent players at launch to about 250 now because it never addressed problems in a timely manner. It actually had several chances to do so. They always had moments where they brought new players in, for instance the WTF by TotalBiscuit or cross-promotions with Destructoid and Giant Bomb and recently the integration in Kongreate. But the problems of player retention were never fixed.
(I also hope they are not serious about not doing frequent balance changes anymore to not scare off new players. Frequent updates are a sign that a game still gets supported and that the developers actually care to fix things quickly. Constant (reasonable) adjustments also keep things interesting for many players because it gives them the opportunity to adjust their strategies to the changes every now and then and ultimately allow devs to fine-tune things more easily than just throwing a bulk of changes out at once and then have everything backfire.)
Post-release, I think less frequent but bigger updates are better. It's no longer in beta so you have to be more careful with what you release. That requires more time for playtesting and bugfixing. Also, it's easier to get some free publicity when you do large updates (with some new content), rather than doing a series of minor patches.
I like frequent updates, lets people know that anything broken or off won't be around too terribly long. Say right now people are complaining about fades, but I doubt they will be fixed in the next patch, so if they aren't, that means waiting to see if they are changed in the patch after that... That's a long time. Maybe fades will never be changed but it helps thinking it's not a long wait to see if they are changed. Same with hit reg and FPS problems.
I would assume the only reason to wait awhile on patches is because NS2 doesn't have big teams to take care of things like other games. It's harder to risk putting out a terrible patch because it might be harder for them to fix it quickly.
It probably will. Part of the drop I'm guessing is due to performance issues, but there are many many reasons why people leave a game. The drop above happens to every game released in the last 5 years.
With the current market saturation, it's almost impossible for a game to be released and become the new "standard" like in the 90's. Every game experiences a player drop as people move on to the next thing for different reasons.
The devs already explained they have to be extra careful with post-release patches, and 2 weeks without a patch isn't different from how it was in alpha/beta, so I think we can expect to wait at least another week.
Comments
"A patch is never late, nor is it early, it arrives precisely when it means to."
I thought they were adding Onos Bucks and an Online Shop for cosmetic items
I expect some minor fixes, and mostly I'm excited about the flinching harvesters hitbox fix. Some (probably minor) performance improvements might also be sweet. I can only dream.
Oh yeah, I'm still hoping that the shadowstep vertical vector makes a comeback too.
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's unfortunate too. FPS slow downs in shooter is pretty terrible. I'll take a 10 year old game with terrible graphics with zero slowdowns than one with sleek new graphics but slowdowns at various points during gameplay.
Unless they entirely switch away from LUA or recode the entire game logic some other way, I doubt there's going to be any dramatic changes soon. I'd love for them to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if that's true then I think they've made a huge mistake. I've got a fairly decent PC with 4.7ghz CPU and a 560TI and get 30fps late on in games so I have to play at a lower res so its not choppy. I hate to imagine how others play with worse computers.
It might be interesting to see the art around it, but the gameplay will probably be the same :-) .
Let me tell you: it really kills the fun to know that with any other game you have nice graphics AND nice Framerates. As soon as I see an encounter coming with >3 people coming, I am going like "Crap I am totally useless now".
:(
Wait wait wait. At first you need to know if it is your graphics card or your cpu that is the bottleneck. Type r_stats in console. Beside the fps, it shows a value in "ms" for how long your cpu waits for your graphics card. If this value does not get over 2 or 3 even in high action situations, your gpu is not the bottleneck. Reducing graphic options will not give you more performance. But a cpu with 4.7ghz should be more than enough to get around with 60fps in the late game.
The next failure most people make, is playing on servers that can't handle the player-count. NS2 game logic is much bigger than that of a simple fps game. Most servers can't hold a steady 30 tick rate in late game when many buildings / cysts are placed in the map. Typing net_stats in console will show you the tick rate at which the server is running. If the server can't hold the 30 ticks, you need to find a better one. (Maybe with lesser player numbers.)
<img src="http://www.ghostwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/soon8.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Space cows?
Nanite infused space cows.
Honestly a mistake that many developers tend to make. Once the game is out, you can finally relax a bit.
In reality there is still some crunching to do after release to clean up things especially when the player counts are at their peak, otherwise you can lose people (and word of mouth) in the long run.
UberEnt did the same mistake with SMNC. Released the game on Steam, made a cross-promotion with TF2, got thousands of players in.
And then brought disappointing updates that didn't really help the new player experience at all or didn't solve the problems that mattered but rather some stuff no player would have even mentioned. The game went from 5000~6000 concurrent players at launch to about 250 now because it never addressed problems in a timely manner.
It actually had several chances to do so. They always had moments where they brought new players in, for instance the WTF by TotalBiscuit or cross-promotions with Destructoid and Giant Bomb and recently the integration in Kongreate. But the problems of player retention were never fixed.
I really hope NS2 doesn't go the same way…
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=104700q4920&from=1333231200000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...amp;to=End+Time</a>
(I also hope they are not serious about not doing frequent balance changes anymore to not scare off new players. Frequent updates are a sign that a game still gets supported and that the developers actually care to fix things quickly. Constant (reasonable) adjustments also keep things interesting for many players because it gives them the opportunity to adjust their strategies to the changes every now and then and ultimately allow devs to fine-tune things more easily than just throwing a bulk of changes out at once and then have everything backfire.)
I would assume the only reason to wait awhile on patches is because NS2 doesn't have big teams to take care of things like other games. It's harder to risk putting out a terrible patch because it might be harder for them to fix it quickly.
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=104700q4920&from=1333231200000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...amp;to=End+Time</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It probably will. Part of the drop I'm guessing is due to performance issues, but there are many many reasons why people leave a game. The drop above happens to every game released in the last 5 years.
With the current market saturation, it's almost impossible for a game to be released and become the new "standard" like in the 90's. Every game experiences a player drop as people move on to the next thing for different reasons.
either that or its the BUS (big unannoucned system)
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=104700q4920&from=1333231200000&to=End+Time" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...amp;to=End+Time</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn interesting site.
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=104700q4920q10&from=0" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...0q10&from=0</a>
But looking at Counterstrike says that a variance of +/- 30000 players seems normal XD
*edit*
Call of Duty is dying faster hrhrhr (somehow i came to hate this game as symbolized mainstream)
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=4920q202970&from=1352035813" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...from=1352035813</a>
oops
no. multiplayer is separate
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=4920q202970q202990&from=1352036037" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...from=1352036037</a>
(i love to browse this site)