Let me get this straight. You are arguing that people who say the devs designed the game for a certain number of players are wrong because the devs have said that they want to support more players.
No, I'm arguing that the people who say the devs designed the game for a certain number of players are wrong because:
The devs have never said that they designed the game for a certain number of players, and
The devs have said that they did not design the game for a certain number of players.
You admit that the game in its present state breaks down at larger player counts and that the devs have not actually implemented any methods to actually make the game playable at larger player counts.
You're right Eddie, UWE wants NS2 to scale up for larger playercounts, and it seems they're still working on that. But, even though you could claim UWE has intended to design the game to scale up to 32p servers, that doesn't mean it actually does scale up well to 32p servers at this moment. So when I said NS2 is "designed" for 12-16 player servers I merely meant to say it's simply the most ideal server size for NS2 in it's current form, as illustrated by the issues larger servers are suffering from.
And it isn't even the egglock or performance problems, it's mostly a mapsize issue. You can't design a map and expect it to play well for 6v6 AND 16vs16 servers. This is the crux of the issue imo, the maps don't scale up or down.
I don't think mapsize is an issue, that's just your opinion really. The only map I have a problem with on my 24 player is Veil, but I'd probably have a problem with that on a small server too because it's mostly just straight boring corridors with some vents thrown in.
And let's not bring up 32 player either, nobody else has in their argument. All we're saying is the statement that "UWE says NS2 is balanced for x" is bullshit, and it is.
I don't think mapsize is an issue, that's just your opinion really. The only map I have a problem with on my 24 player is Veil, but I'd probably have a problem with that on a small server too because it's mostly just straight boring corridors with some vents thrown in.
And let's not bring up 32 player either, nobody else has in their argument. All we're saying is the statement that "UWE says NS2 is balanced for x" is bullshit, and it is.
actually crazy Eddie mentioned them saying 16 players per side.
I don't think mapsize is an issue, that's just your opinion really. The only map I have a problem with on my 24 player is Veil, but I'd probably have a problem with that on a small server too because it's mostly just straight boring corridors with some vents thrown in.
And let's not bring up 32 player either, nobody else has in their argument. All we're saying is the statement that "UWE says NS2 is balanced for x" is bullshit, and it is.
I know you like your 24p server, I understand, and I'm not saying you shouldn't play on it. But it's no matter of opinion that mapsize does makes a difference in gameplay and balance. I brought up 32p because CrazyEddie was referring to a old mapping guideline in which Flayra mentioned 16players/team.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
It's not just an issue of spawn queues, the maps are simply too small for anything beyond a certain number (I'd say that number lies around 18 players). The game changes so much when the playercount changes from 12p to 16p, and going beyond 18p it gets very chaotic. NS(2) isn't the only game that has this issue, most games get chaotic when more players are on a server. NS is just a lot more sensitive to changes in player count where balance and map design is concerned...
Hate to point this out to you, but Savant is not a dev. Those are his opinions, not necessarily 'what the devs say.'
So instead of regurgitating something you read as fact, perhaps you should just reference the thing you read so people can see the source and decide for themselves how reliable it is?
The argument that every single official server was 16 players is pretty good imo, mebe you just dont want to be convinced?
Frankly it depends mostly on the map imo, on something like descent even up to 24 players can be fun. But on summit it turns into a clusterfuck.
Game does not turn to chaotic at +18 players, it becomes boring -18 players. Game doesn't become messy with big players numbers, It becomes a multiplayer game. Maps are not too small for big player numbers, they are too big for small player numbers. In my opinion. Some ppl may be have trouble with a lot of stuff going on at the same time but me and most of the players do not have that trouble.
Well THAT'S very opinion based, the game is so much more involving (to me, and many) with 18- players, once you hit 20+ it's more about personal glory and killing whatever you can than coordinated strategy.
I don't think mapsize is an issue, that's just your opinion really. The only map I have a problem with on my 24 player is Veil, but I'd probably have a problem with that on a small server too because it's mostly just straight boring corridors with some vents thrown in.
And let's not bring up 32 player either, nobody else has in their argument. All we're saying is the statement that "UWE says NS2 is balanced for x" is bullshit, and it is.
I know you like your 24p server, I understand, and I'm not saying you shouldn't play on it. But it's no matter of opinion that mapsize does makes a difference in gameplay and balance. I brought up 32p because CrazyEddie was referring to a old mapping guideline in which Flayra mentioned 16players/team.
If it were actually an issue then I wouldn't be seeing the very balanced win/loss ratios that I'm currently seeing on my server. Again, it's an opinion.
Well THAT'S very opinion based, the game is so much more involving (to me, and many) with 18- players, once you hit 20+ it's more about personal glory and killing whatever you can than coordinated strategy.
It is indeed opinion based. the game is so much more involving (to me, and many) with 20+ players, once you hit 20+ it's more about large strategic manouvers and less about invidual player skill, In 6v6 1 very good player can pretty easily dominate the entire enemy team, that's not the case in larger games where u cant kill 66% of enemy team without a reload in start of the game.
If they designed the game for 20+ players they failed. Between performance issues, spawn rate issues and other minor balance things those servers don't run ideally. Instead they designed it such that 12-18 players is the "sweet spot" for the mechanics and technology.
Did they intend for it have more? Certainly. Do they intend to update the design to support that? I believe so and good on them (I'll still be playing 18 max personally).
I know English is an awful language but when used correctly you can communicate key concepts. Such as future and past tenses IE:
This game was not designed for 24 players but the developers are designing it so that it will support them in the future.
Can you stop arguing apples and nonsense. Fact, it was designed a certain way, what the developers want and your opinions on whether you agree does not factor into the final product. Unless you're saying the developers designed the game so that large alien teams have to go shift or get egg locked (in which case I would argue they are bad devs, which I do not believe is a true premise).
It seems to me that most people that dislike 20+ player servers dislike them simply because of performance issues. As I don't have any performance issues, I find myself greatly enjoying all player counts from 16-24.
I know English is an awful language but when used correctly you can communicate key concepts. Such as future and past tenses IE:
This game was not designed for 24 players but the developers are designing it so that it will support them in the future.
.
I know what u are trying to say, but this sentence is untrue. It was designed up to 16v16 and it is currently(as of now, not in past, not in future, now as we speak) supporting it as u can see in the server list http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/index.php
Balancing the game and enhancing the performance is an ongoing process. UWE just had to release NS2 while still in beta(where some could argue it still is). The fact that the best balance atm is 12p-20p is just a convenience because u need to prioritize where u balance first, and when the game got released servers could barely run even 16p servers(as stated somewhere earlier) which is also the reason UWE made only 16p servers available. A matter of performance, nothing to do with what the game was designed or not.
UWE has certainly designed the game to work in the 12-16 player range.
There is a certain ambiguity as to whether they mean:
UWE's goal was to make the game work in the 12-16 player range, OR
The result of UWE's effort is that the game works in the 12-16 player range
Both are reasonable interpretations of (for example) bongofish's statement, given the flexibility of English and the laxity with which most people use language in informal settings such as forums. And as I said earlier:
to the degree that "designed for 8v8" means "the game's design as realized in the current implementation happens to be best at 8v8" ... well, I don't dispute that.
HOWEVER!
I am quite convinced that MOST people who make such statements in MOST of these forum threads intend the the FIRST meaning, not the second. Why? Well, first of all, because very often they are sufficiently clear and explicit such that they are OBVIOUSLY using the first meaning:
Also, the game is balanced for 6-10 players a side, any imbalance that arises after that should not asked of the devs to fix. Server/community mods could create the balance themselves on their own 24 player servers, It would seem highly unfair to make changes to the game based on 24 players servers when the game was designed around 6-10.
NS2 is balanced for 8 player teams +/- 2 players. While 6v6 is supported, the game isn't specifically balanced for 6v6 any more than it is balanced for 10v10. By balancing for 8v8 they can safely assure that the game will be relatively balanced for games +/- 2 players outside the balance point of 8 players a side.
The devs have said that the game was designed around 8v8 +/- 2. So anything from 6v6 to 10v10.
Secondly, these statements are usually made in the context of big-games-bad small-games-good arguments, and when read IN CONTEXT it's even more obvious that the commenter's intent behind the statement is to score points by appealing to authority, adding legitimacy to their viewpoint and denigrating that of the other side. They make these statements not to assert that large games are unbalanced but rather to CUT OFF DISCUSSION of how and whether large games might be unbalanced by asserting, falsely, that (in essence) "UWE says you're playing it wrong."
That really gets on my nerves.
So, yes. It COULD be the case that "designed for =/= intended for". English is an imperfect communication tool. But in the actual context of the actual discussions in which people are actually making these kinds of statements, it's not the case. People are simply claiming things that aren't true because they want to believe that UWE is on their side in pointless arguments about game preferences.
It's amazing how the OP's original comment simply asked if anyone shared the same feeling (which a lot do) and now it has become a huge two sided debate on what was "intended" or "planned" for future growth. None of which anyone can even comment on unless they have been in a developer meeting. All we have to go on is vanilla maps and mapping guidelines which have been explicitly written (I still do not understand how this is being argued).
But really why should the game ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY grow beyond the current map and player size? That is totally in the decision of UWE. If they plan for NS2 to be 8v8 forever for best performance so be it. Every FPS doesn't have to evolve into a Planetside 2 clone. I wouldn't even want to play with anything beyond the current set up unless it was just for shits and giggles (but that is my own personal opinion). Everyone is just argueing over what they THINK NS2 should be or become and not what it IS.
But I guess that is the fate of a thread that starts out with a question based on opinion. So steamroll on thread readers.
Thread started with: "I don't like 20+ man servers because I feel they are too hectic"
Thread now: English lessons, semantics, how to make valid arguments... etc.
I love NS2. Can't we all be friends?
P.S. I agree with OP but it really comes down to personal preference.
If they designed the game for 20+ players they failed. Between performance issues, spawn rate issues and other minor balance things those servers don't run ideally. Instead they designed it such that 12-18 players is the "sweet spot" for the mechanics and technology.
Did they intend for it have more? Certainly. Do they intend to update the design to support that? I believe so and good on them (I'll still be playing 18 max personally).
I know English is an awful language but when used correctly you can communicate key concepts. Such as future and past tenses IE:
This game was not designed for 24 players but the developers are designing it so that it will support them in the future.
Can you stop arguing apples and nonsense. Fact, it was designed a certain way, what the developers want and your opinions on whether you agree does not factor into the final product. Unless you're saying the developers designed the game so that large alien teams have to go shift or get egg locked (in which case I would argue they are bad devs, which I do not believe is a true premise).
Just because you don't *think* the game was designed for that doesn't make it written law that UWE simply plans to "support them in the future". The fact is they're supporting them now, or they simply could have made the max cap even lower to start with until they did. 10 people posting on a thread every once in awhile that "omg it's not balanced at 24" is NOT indicative of a major balance issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It more likely means said people probably tried to play on one (if they've even set foot on a larger server at all), found things they personally didn't like about it, and as a result claim any and everything is broken about them. It's really not hard to figure out how people work, honestly. I've personally seen this same exact kind of thing on differing scales for every game out there I've played.
So no, sadly, we can't stop arguing nonsense so long as people continue to tell us what UWE has done in reference to the game as if they were actually UWE themselves. As long as people are still out there to push off their misrepresentation of 24 player servers as facts, it more or less forces people like me to dispute what is actually their opinions. Now, if everyone was simply capable of saying "I just don't prefer them for x reason" without bringing "UWE says this" when in fact UWE has not said that into the conversation, or saying they perform horribly, when mine, barring problems in the game itself that has cropped up in patches, performs just as well as every major smaller server (and I have checked this for fact), then we can actually have a sensible conversation.
truthfully it's a problem if I can't be aggressive as I need to be, because my team can't afford to egglock itself. when it's balanced teams shift hive is almost always necessary.
Comments
- The devs have never said that they designed the game for a certain number of players, and
- The devs have said that they did not design the game for a certain number of players.
No, I do not admit that.However, I also do not dispute that.
In point of fact, I have no opinion on that.
I don't care about that.
You're right Eddie, UWE wants NS2 to scale up for larger playercounts, and it seems they're still working on that. But, even though you could claim UWE has intended to design the game to scale up to 32p servers, that doesn't mean it actually does scale up well to 32p servers at this moment. So when I said NS2 is "designed" for 12-16 player servers I merely meant to say it's simply the most ideal server size for NS2 in it's current form, as illustrated by the issues larger servers are suffering from.
And it isn't even the egglock or performance problems, it's mostly a mapsize issue. You can't design a map and expect it to play well for 6v6 AND 16vs16 servers. This is the crux of the issue imo, the maps don't scale up or down.
And let's not bring up 32 player either, nobody else has in their argument. All we're saying is the statement that "UWE says NS2 is balanced for x" is bullshit, and it is.
actually crazy Eddie mentioned them saying 16 players per side.
and veil is crazy gpod for.marines
I know you like your 24p server, I understand, and I'm not saying you shouldn't play on it. But it's no matter of opinion that mapsize does makes a difference in gameplay and balance. I brought up 32p because CrazyEddie was referring to a old mapping guideline in which Flayra mentioned 16players/team.
If there is ever any hope of 32 player servers, then the NS2 software needs to stop crashing and burning servers at 24 players.
The argument that every single official server was 16 players is pretty good imo, mebe you just dont want to be convinced?
Frankly it depends mostly on the map imo, on something like descent even up to 24 players can be fun. But on summit it turns into a clusterfuck.
If it were actually an issue then I wouldn't be seeing the very balanced win/loss ratios that I'm currently seeing on my server. Again, it's an opinion.
It is indeed opinion based. the game is so much more involving (to me, and many) with 20+ players, once you hit 20+ it's more about large strategic manouvers and less about invidual player skill, In 6v6 1 very good player can pretty easily dominate the entire enemy team, that's not the case in larger games where u cant kill 66% of enemy team without a reload in start of the game.
If they designed the game for 20+ players they failed. Between performance issues, spawn rate issues and other minor balance things those servers don't run ideally. Instead they designed it such that 12-18 players is the "sweet spot" for the mechanics and technology.
Did they intend for it have more? Certainly. Do they intend to update the design to support that? I believe so and good on them (I'll still be playing 18 max personally).
I know English is an awful language but when used correctly you can communicate key concepts. Such as future and past tenses IE:
This game was not designed for 24 players but the developers are designing it so that it will support them in the future.
Can you stop arguing apples and nonsense. Fact, it was designed a certain way, what the developers want and your opinions on whether you agree does not factor into the final product. Unless you're saying the developers designed the game so that large alien teams have to go shift or get egg locked (in which case I would argue they are bad devs, which I do not believe is a true premise).
I know what u are trying to say, but this sentence is untrue. It was designed up to 16v16 and it is currently(as of now, not in past, not in future, now as we speak) supporting it as u can see in the server list http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/index.php
Balancing the game and enhancing the performance is an ongoing process. UWE just had to release NS2 while still in beta(where some could argue it still is). The fact that the best balance atm is 12p-20p is just a convenience because u need to prioritize where u balance first, and when the game got released servers could barely run even 16p servers(as stated somewhere earlier) which is also the reason UWE made only 16p servers available. A matter of performance, nothing to do with what the game was designed or not.
There is a certain ambiguity as to whether they mean:
- UWE's goal was to make the game work in the 12-16 player range, OR
- The result of UWE's effort is that the game works in the 12-16 player range
Both are reasonable interpretations of (for example) bongofish's statement, given the flexibility of English and the laxity with which most people use language in informal settings such as forums. And as I said earlier:HOWEVER!
I am quite convinced that MOST people who make such statements in MOST of these forum threads intend the the FIRST meaning, not the second. Why? Well, first of all, because very often they are sufficiently clear and explicit such that they are OBVIOUSLY using the first meaning:
Secondly, these statements are usually made in the context of big-games-bad small-games-good arguments, and when read IN CONTEXT it's even more obvious that the commenter's intent behind the statement is to score points by appealing to authority, adding legitimacy to their viewpoint and denigrating that of the other side. They make these statements not to assert that large games are unbalanced but rather to CUT OFF DISCUSSION of how and whether large games might be unbalanced by asserting, falsely, that (in essence) "UWE says you're playing it wrong."
That really gets on my nerves.
So, yes. It COULD be the case that "designed for =/= intended for". English is an imperfect communication tool. But in the actual context of the actual discussions in which people are actually making these kinds of statements, it's not the case. People are simply claiming things that aren't true because they want to believe that UWE is on their side in pointless arguments about game preferences.
But really why should the game ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY grow beyond the current map and player size? That is totally in the decision of UWE. If they plan for NS2 to be 8v8 forever for best performance so be it. Every FPS doesn't have to evolve into a Planetside 2 clone. I wouldn't even want to play with anything beyond the current set up unless it was just for shits and giggles (but that is my own personal opinion). Everyone is just argueing over what they THINK NS2 should be or become and not what it IS.
But I guess that is the fate of a thread that starts out with a question based on opinion. So steamroll on thread readers.
Thread now: English lessons, semantics, how to make valid arguments... etc.
I love NS2. Can't we all be friends?
P.S. I agree with OP but it really comes down to personal preference.
Just because you don't *think* the game was designed for that doesn't make it written law that UWE simply plans to "support them in the future". The fact is they're supporting them now, or they simply could have made the max cap even lower to start with until they did. 10 people posting on a thread every once in awhile that "omg it's not balanced at 24" is NOT indicative of a major balance issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It more likely means said people probably tried to play on one (if they've even set foot on a larger server at all), found things they personally didn't like about it, and as a result claim any and everything is broken about them. It's really not hard to figure out how people work, honestly. I've personally seen this same exact kind of thing on differing scales for every game out there I've played.
So no, sadly, we can't stop arguing nonsense so long as people continue to tell us what UWE has done in reference to the game as if they were actually UWE themselves. As long as people are still out there to push off their misrepresentation of 24 player servers as facts, it more or less forces people like me to dispute what is actually their opinions. Now, if everyone was simply capable of saying "I just don't prefer them for x reason" without bringing "UWE says this" when in fact UWE has not said that into the conversation, or saying they perform horribly, when mine, barring problems in the game itself that has cropped up in patches, performs just as well as every major smaller server (and I have checked this for fact), then we can actually have a sensible conversation.