Record For Most Concurrent Players Today?
rmbrown09
Join Date: 2012-10-17 Member: 162592Members
Join Date: 2012-10-17 Member: 162592Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Steam Stats</div>It's still early in the day of the steam stats recorder. Already over about 5k players on now.
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/stats/</a>
Isn't the record like 7.1k? Either way it's on track.
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/stats/</a>
Isn't the record like 7.1k? Either way it's on track.
Comments
even after reading about it, i can't tell what the hell it is.. This is the direction games are going and it's driving me nuts.. its all cinematic and none of it explains any game play.
even after reading about it, i can't tell what the hell it is.. This is the direction games are going and it's driving me nuts.. its all cinematic and none of it explains any game play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
DotA is League of Legends.
More like LoL is DotA (LoL came after).
This is depressing. NS2 needs more players.
I like dota, but I think this is going a bit far. The game has its share of problems, like any game, and 'well designed' is a matter of preference and opinion at some point.
Certainly, it is one of the best games in terms of competitive play, and spectator entertainment. I would say it is a tie with StarCraft, but adds in the drama of being a team game.
even after reading about it, i can't tell what the hell it is.. This is the direction games are going and it's driving me nuts.. its all cinematic and none of it explains any game play.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dota == HON == LOL
Each fanboy group will say that the small nuances between them make their version "so different and superior." In reality it's the same game that looks different made by different companies.
** It's 5 v 5
** There is an enemy base and your base
** Towers extend out from each base towards the other
** Destroy parts of the enemy base gets you gold for items
** Waves of creatures controller by computer(5 or so at a time) constantly crash push out from each base towards the other
** Killing said creates will get you more gold, being around when they die gets you XP
XP gets you spells that do stuff, gold items that do other stuff
Win by killing those creatures the best // killing the other team for gold in clever ways and eliminating their base
quake 3 == UT == tribes
pretty much the same game right!?!?
derp derp....
Certainly, it is one of the best games in terms of competitive play, and spectator entertainment. I would say it is a tie with StarCraft, but adds in the drama of being a team game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't see why games like Dota and LoL are so insanely popular. And I've played both.
I don't know that much about the nuances in LoL, but what draws me to DotA is it's somewhat related to how little the original mod cares about the player compared to most modern games. Meanwhile the game directs its caring to little details and interesting interactions and gives players huge amounts of possibilities to do little things better and better. In many ways it's completely opposite of what most modern games (NS2 to some extend too) do.
It takes more and gives more than your average multiplayer game these days. It's a much wider spectrum of feelings that makes you want more and more.
Edit: Oh, and it also has good spectator and demo playback features that allow me to keep watching great players playing. Every time I watch a good game, it makes me want to go play the game and replicate their stuff (and miserably fail at it).
---
Ignore this -- off topic (about DOTA and Steam sale games)
---
Don't know what DOTA is? You must expand your gaming knowledge. Honestly I had never played the original, which was a big-time mod for Warcraft 3. I tried League of Legends first since it became so popular. I enjoy it, but after 400 games or so it really starts to wear on you since there is little variety in the end. Dota 2 isn't much different, but I think there are some things that make the gameplay stay a little more fresh/varied. I enjoy it for the most part, but I don't think I'll become a dedicated player as I can barely seem to find the time finish a match with bots for practice. Games like that take a long time to practice and knowledge of all the characters is crucial if you want to be a player who wins more than loses. In the end, it's a HUGE time sink like an MMO but with even less gaming rewards. You can kind of treat it like a fantasy sports game I guess with some strategy/tactics stuff on top. The only thing you get out of it in the end is having a good/great match where you beat the other team. All other times, it's just a loss that gives you a sour attitude...just like in sports.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know that much about the nuances in LoL, but what draws me to DotA is it's somewhat related to how little the original mod cares about the player compared to most modern games. Meanwhile the game directs its caring to little details and interesting interactions and gives players huge amounts of possibilities to do little things better and better. In many ways it's completely opposite of what most modern games (NS2 to some extend too) do.
It takes more and gives more than your average multiplayer game these days. It's a much wider spectrum of feelings that makes you want more and more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a really good description. I play LoL almost exclusively. The demo playback and spectator is superb as well. One think I like about LoL is that is runs on my laptop with integrated graphics (intel series 4 express) while DOTA2 likes to crash to a sweet blue screen -- so I can't play it unless I'm at my desktop at home. Bummer since TF2 and all the other Source stuff runs at 30fps (same as LoL) on this laptop. Things I do like about DOTA2 are tree/environment being affected, shops in lanes, courier. I do not like the camera distance though, I have to constantly pan the window in order to see whats happening with enemies. When many heroes can hit you out of camera range or just at its limit, it makes it a little irritating.
** I received a free beta key for Dota 2 since I applied. I would not pay the money to play it early. Just my opinion. **
I haven't seen much on the Steam sales worth buying since I already got Dishonored during the fall sale (fun game by the way, worth the $30). I also picked up the Warhammer 40K franchise (the first and second game with all expansions) for $10. I enjoyed playing the first base game from the THQ Humble Bundle, so I thought this was an awesome deal.
Grabbed Knights of the Old Republic II and Thief Gold and Thief II Metal Age (haven't played KotOR at all even though I have both...have both Thief somwhere on discs...but they were all cheap enough to rebuy on Steam for convenience).
One thing I almost bought was Hotline Miami. I read good things, but for some reason I just can't see it being that much for for more than a half-hour. I suppose there are a lot of arcadey games I always come back to, though. Some games are just pick up and play fun.
Click to move 1998 ###### game. Evolve into wasd already. Click to move for single player is like using keyboard to turn around
t: superior fps wasd player
t: superior fps wasd player<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're an idiot. I'm not even sure what more to say here...
NS2 isn't even relateable to Dota right now. Dota is lightyears ahead in terms of being a competitive game, and in terms of diversity. Yeah it's one map, but the map itself is more complex than anything NS2 has to offer. You can actually see the progression taking place in this game, whereas you have NS2(Marines get phasegates and attempt to win; aliens just stock up res until randomly a wild Onos flock appears to end your day). NS2 just seems too linear atm. You start the game, and within 10 minutes the game is either over or already decided, and then one team turtles for another 10-20 minutes. Again, they're completely different games. Team engagements in Dota mean everything; in NS2 they mean relatively nothing. I could go on and on, but there isn't much of a need.
NS2 could truly draw a lot of inspiration from Dota, and make one OUTSTANDING game. It's pretty good the way it is, but there isn't much telling which path the devs are taking, or where it'll lead. I can only urge them to take heed, and get a lot of ideas on how a game of Dota is "constructed," for lack of a better word. I use the word constructed because of how players can shape the game based on their decision making alone, and there are a lot of big and small decisions that are made throughout the game. This inherently adds an immense desire to play the game again, and again, as long as the same decisions aren't always being made.
Devs: A bit of helpful inspiration for you, one word; progression. Compare the two games, in terms of how progression works.
NS2 is kind of like DoTA, except actually fun. (Imagine how boring this game would have been if it was completely top-down, click-to-move, only one map, and weapon/powerup cooldowns...)
NS2 is kind of like DoTA, except actually fun. (Imagine how boring this game would have been if it was completely top-down, click-to-move, only one map, and weapon/powerup cooldowns...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except this game is fairly boring. It gets old quick when you end up doing the exact same things to win the game. There is very little individual players can do to counter an enemy individual, except just being better. By this, I mean the game doesn't really emphasize decision making, but rather, emphasizes that teams are practically pigeonholed into making the same decisions, or else. This in turn leads to the same scenarios being played out over and over, and it just gets old. There's very little complexity, and at a point there is nothing more to learn(this is quite the contrary in Dota). Commanding in this game is literally the most boring aspect because you are constantly making the same decisions over and over, and using the same counters. There is very little variety in terms of actually playing through a game.
Yeah, it's fun to jump in and stomp some kids every once in awhile, but what you want to do is give players a reason to keep coming back to stomp in YOUR game. I mean honestly, there has to be something to it. Dota has one map, a couple of different modes, and is still HUGE and complex.
Yeah, it's fun to jump in and stomp some kids every once in awhile, but what you want to do is give players a reason to keep coming back to stomp in YOUR game. I mean honestly, there has to be something to it. Dota has one map, a couple of different modes, and is still HUGE and complex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this is correct and it's quite sad to see people derailing in favor of bashing a superior game as far as tactics, strategy, gameplay, mechanics, and depth are concerned
this...is patently false
dota and the entire genre of moba games have a slew of huge design flaws, and are popular for a lot of reasons not directly relating to their gameplay.
dota and the entire genre of moba games have a slew of huge design flaws, and are popular for a lot of reasons not directly relating to their gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry for my exaggeration it's just very frustrating to see people talk down a game they have never tried while speaking from the standpoint of NS2 which struggles with basic fundamental concepts of gameplay
it's certainly one of the most competitively viable team-based non FPS games how's that
it's certainly one of the most competitively viable team-based non FPS games how's that<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah i can agree with that
it's hard to take people seriously bashing dota 2 and then praising ns2 in the same breath.
dota and the entire genre of moba games have a slew of huge design flaws, and are popular for a lot of reasons not directly relating to their gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good design is subjective. If we had some way of knowing what good design was, all games would be wonderful and amazing, and there would be a single design that was 'best.' A lot of the things DotA does are considered bad design, but the are intrinsic to the games popularity.
It has a steep learning curve.
Lot of hidden modifiers.
Lots of study / meta game.
No mechanisms to soften the effect of bad play. (bad play loses faster than good play wins)
Actively avoids instructing players on correct technique.
this is a list of things game designers are told not to do. The above is also a list of things I like about DotA.
What is a good and bad about a game's design comes down to what experience the game designer wants to create. If your design reinforces the game experience you are targeting, it is good design.
I agree. The sad part for me, though, is that NS2 could use Dota as a bit of inspiration. A few techniques used in Dota could be implemented flawlessly into the metagame of NS2, and it would definitely add to variety in all forms. I mean, I get that the team wants to use Starcraft as kind of a main selling point, but this game just doesn't have a lot in common with starcraft at all. Except the commander's point of view, lol. A few things that jump out to me is the set roles within teams. You have supports, res hunters, higher life forms/exos/jetpacks, etc. The thing is though that there isn't much progression that takes place within these roles, and sometimes the roles are neglected altogether. If you do this in Dota it is punished heavily, and usually results in a loss. However, in NS2 you have two scenarios: A) Marines egg lock a hive early and bring it down or B) Aliens hold one side of the map at all costs until Bile Bomb and multiple Onoses are on the field. These don't necessarily need roles to function, but any well-oiled team will have roles. I believe it is up to the Devs to make these roles set in stone, and then build upon that. It's just too linear right now.
<!--quoteo(post=2052534:date=Dec 28 2012, 03:37 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Dec 28 2012, 03:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2052534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good design is subjective. If we had some way of knowing what good design was, all games would be wonderful and amazing, and there would be a single design that was 'best.' A lot of the things DotA does are considered bad design, but the are intrinsic to the games popularity.
It has a steep learning curve.
Lot of hidden modifiers.
Lots of study / meta game.
No mechanisms to soften the effect of bad play. (bad play loses faster than good play wins)
Actively avoids instructing players on correct technique.
this is a list of things game designers are told not to do. The above is also a list of things I like about DotA.
What is a good and bad about a game's design comes down to what experience the game designer wants to create. If your design reinforces the game experience you are targeting, it is good design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely agree, but lets be realistic here. Dota has hundreds of thousands of players playing. What does NS2 have? 10k? That's being generous. Some of this has to do with the performance of the game, but people will GLADLY give a little on performance if they gain a substantial amount of good, fun gameplay. Just because this is partially an FPS game does not mean that it has to be such a linear experience.