this is something that is going to blow your mind. i'm really good at skulk and enjoy playing it the whole game, having a role (such as dropping a hive) actually makes me more useful and the game more fun for me. now i really have no choice but to go either lerk (which i like but don't always want to do) or fade (which i don't like much but i'm useful) otherwise i'm just sitting on res destroying the game for everyone else.
What ruined NS2 was not the alien commander. What ruined it was the insane focus on a competitive scene that exists in a bubble divorced from reality, the constant tinkering, and the sudden mega gameplay change with 250. I won't complain about the poor optimization (much improved since a month ago - game is overall faster now) or lack of maps because UWE is only a small studio with limited resources, but I strongly feel that they used what little resources they did have in an inefficient and misdirect manner.
ScatterJoin Date: 2012-09-02Member: 157341Members, Squad Five Blue
Yeah should have left the game as it was when released. UWE where are MY 6 minute RHINOS that I paid for and you changed to suit the dirty horrible people?
Yeah. Take off your pink NS1-glasses. The grief that was happening when some gorge built the wrong upgrade or nobody would bother to place RTs or the second hive was much more common than having a bad alien com now.
It's typical for humans to glorify the past.
Think about it. It's in the math. Now you have 1 role per team that can ruin the game for all. In NS1 at aliens, there were multiple gorges with the potential to ruin the game. And one was enough to ruin it.
Speaking here for a possible silent majority, I personally love playing as the Alien Commander. Compare and contrast to your heart's desire, but what we have is what we have, and I am more than happy with it.
6 minute onos was not a problem with release build. That started after a patch around December (that's when I got the quote for my signature). Anyway since 250, 6min onos has been replaced by 6min fade rush.
Change for change's sake is not a good policy for running anything, virtual or real. Change and improvement are not synonymous.
ScatterJoin Date: 2012-09-02Member: 157341Members, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2013
Do you actually think things were changed for the sake of it? I am sure UWE would rather spend their efforts elsewhere than intentionally making you sad.
What ruined NS2 was not the alien commander. What ruined it was the insane focus on a competitive scene that exists in a bubble divorced from reality, the constant tinkering, and the sudden mega gameplay change with 250. I won't complain about the poor optimization (much improved since a month ago - game is overall faster now) or lack of maps because UWE is only a small studio with limited resources, but I strongly feel that they used what little resources they did have in an inefficient and misdirect manner.
Because no game has ever before changed their gameplay post-release.
6 minute onos was not a problem with release build. That started after a patch around December (that's when I got the quote for my signature). Anyway since 250, 6min onos has been replaced by 6min fade rush.
Change for change's sake is not a good policy for running anything, virtual or real. Change and improvement are not synonymous.
I'm sorry to inform you but the 6 minute Onos started in BETA before RELEASE.
Just because it didn't start becoming popular in public matches doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just means no one in public games was intelligent enough to realize it existed and abuse it.
This wasn't change for change's sake. You either haven't looked at the changes with any depth or you're just bitching to bitch. You're so unaware of the reasoning for the changes and the intent that you even think the changes were only focused on competitive play. (Sewlek spent the majority of time working on it for public games, on public servers. LOL!)
Yeah. Take off your pink NS1-glasses. The grief that was happening when some gorge built the wrong upgrade or nobody would bother to place RTs or the second hive was much more common than having a bad alien com now.
The past is a couple of weeks ago. I still play NS. Nobody wanting to go comm and the server dying or outright terrible alien comms happens in maybe a third of games. That was the primary failure mode of games in NS1, and now both teams have it, multiplying the pain.
Think about it. It's in the math. Now you have 1 role per team that can ruin the game for all. In NS1 at aliens, there were multiple gorges with the potential to ruin the game. And one was enough to ruin it.
One was not enough to ruin the game, that's precisely the point. Dropping the "wrong" chamber annoyed people, but it wasn't the end of the world.
Do you actually think things were changed for the sake of it?
It's plainly evident that UWE started from NS1 and tried to solve the major issues with it. Those of scaling, autonomy and balance. They tried to implement features they wish they could have had in NS1 (e.g. fade blink that instantly teleported you ala NS 1.0x without getting you stuck in a grate).
Many of these things ended up getting reverted after a year or more of tinkering because the cure was worse than the disease. A few we are still suffering from and a few were improvements.
Yeah. Take off your pink NS1-glasses. The grief that was happening when some gorge built the wrong upgrade or nobody would bother to place RTs or the second hive was much more common than having a bad alien com now.
The past is a couple of weeks ago. .
Well there's your problem right there...
You won't find any "short bus people" as you say, playing ns1 right now.. You'd only find vets and the experienced playing that mod these days.
So of course Those games go well without a hitch.. If ns2 servers were filled with vets of 10 years, I'm sure your scenario of a useless kham wouldn't exist either?...
Not really. Terrible comms that don't have the slightest clue and don't communicate still happen. Nobody wanting to go comm still happens. Aliens don't have that problem, because they're less dependent on any one individual player.
NS2 doubles down on the main cause of NS1 games going off the rails.
Do you actually think things were changed for the sake of it? I am sure UWE would rather spend their efforts elsewhere than intentionally making you sad.
Yes, they absolutely were. How many times were tried and true mechanics from NS1 ditched in favor of something that ended up being replaced by said NS1 mechanic? UW's and other's responses to wasting time trying something new: "This is a new and different game. If you want more of the same, play NS1"
Which is quite the fallacious logic, desiring something that previously worked does not mean no changes are welcome.
@ironhorse
Trying something new to find out how broken it is- holding on as long as possible while ignoring the community that has seen the flaws and strengths of the original game definitely seems like change for the sake of it.
I hope you're able to see and understand how many times UW has done that with this game.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@wulf that's ignoring the 100+ patches since release.. Progress that has only made the game better, Imo. Progress that came mostly from listening to the feedback of said community.
Though I'm sure they exist, I'm hard pressed to find a released game that has been so molded and influenced by a community. So if the game isn't NS 4.0, as a result of that, I'm okay with that.
6 minute onos was not a problem with release build. That started after a patch around December (that's when I got the quote for my signature). Anyway since 250, 6min onos has been replaced by 6min fade rush.
Change for change's sake is not a good policy for running anything, virtual or real. Change and improvement are not synonymous.
I'm sorry to inform you but the 6 minute Onos started in BETA before RELEASE.
Just because it didn't start becoming popular in public matches doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just means no one in public games was intelligent enough to realize it existed and abuse it.
This wasn't change for change's sake. You either haven't looked at the changes with any depth or you're just bitching to bitch. You're so unaware of the reasoning for the changes and the intent that you even think the changes were only focused on competitive play. (Sewlek spent the majority of time working on it for public games, on public servers. LOL!)
Why is it that whenever someone goes against the never-ending-gameplay-changes orthodoxy, all these hostile posts come out to shout down those who have different opinions?
I don't care about what happened in beta. We aren't in beta now. 6-min onos became prevalent after the mid-December patch, replaced by the 6-min fade since 250.
Public play may have been the intention but the majority of balancemod testers and commenters were pros or people otherwise taking the game seriously. Most of the changes were gripes people were whining about on these forums, not the concerns of the ordinary people.
There is no causal relation between intelligence and being good at a video game.
The basic premise by the proponents of changing the game is that the changes are beneficial. I am saying that the only measure of success should be player counts, and those aren't going the right way. This is the cycle we have witnessed: 1. Gameplay Change 2. Steam Sale 3. Player count up 4. Player count down 5. Return to 1 and continue. What was it that Einstein said about repetition, outcomes and madness?
Do you actually think things were changed for the sake of it? I am sure UWE would rather spend their efforts elsewhere than intentionally making you sad.
Where did you get this from? Why would I be sad? This isn't my business, and I'm not the one who made a game with unrealized potential that is now on life support.
What ruined NS2 was not the alien commander. What ruined it was the insane focus on a competitive scene that exists in a bubble divorced from reality, the constant tinkering, and the sudden mega gameplay change with 250. I won't complain about the poor optimization (much improved since a month ago - game is overall faster now) or lack of maps because UWE is only a small studio with limited resources, but I strongly feel that they used what little resources they did have in an inefficient and misdirect manner.
Because no game has ever before changed their gameplay post-release.
Who said games have never been changed? The difference is those games have been changed for the better, and grown their user base. Neither applies with NS2's changes.
Scatter, Golden and Locklear all hit the nail on the head here.
Is b250 perfect? No.
Is b250 a step in the right direction? Absolutely.
Look, 4 people posting against 1 disagreement, with 7 likes too. Yay for drowning out all opposition. Repeat your propaganda long enough and even you'll start believing it.
But maybe you should consider that other people just don't care enough to write against your monotonous group think? Perhaps consider that despite my opinion being a minority view here on this forum, it actually is the majority view among all buyers of the game. They see the changes to the game, go to their steam library, and uninstall.
I write here because I care about this game, and want to see it succeed. Too bad so many take every criticism personally. A narrow minded focus on a tiny set of players is the major problem here. It's too late now.
Perhaps consider that despite my opinion being a minority view here on this forum, it actually is the majority view among all buyers of the game. They see the changes to the game, go to their steam library, and uninstall.
Perhaps consider that despite you feel like you know what the majority view is, you probably have no idea.
@wulf that's ignoring the 100+ patches since release.. Progress that has only made the game better, Imo. Progress that came mostly from listening to the feedback of said community.
From my perpective the game was gradually becoming worse and worse ever since late beta. Only in 250 did it become massively better, by repudiating many of the terrible changes.
I write here because I care about this game, and want to see it succeed. Too bad so many take every criticism personally. A narrow minded focus on a tiny set of players is the major problem here. It's too late now.
We all care about the game. It's too bad that our narrow minded opinion that the changes in b250 are largely for the good is at odds with your narrow minded opinion of the opposite. Who knows who shares the majority opinion. I certainly don't know that.
It seems also from your response that the only person taking things personally here is you...
@wulf that's ignoring the 100+ patches since release.. Progress that has only made the game better, Imo. Progress that came mostly from listening to the feedback of said community.
Though I'm sure they exist, I'm hard pressed to find a released game that has been so molded and influenced by a community. So if the game isn't NS 4.0, as a result of that, I'm okay with that.
Would Planetside 2 count? Though I suppose that's more of an example of the devs ignoring most of the input of the community during beta so they can push ahead with their own vision of the game. Then start backtracking months later as they realize their mistake and start implementing some of the things the community (mostly PS1 vets) begged them to put in the game. Huh I wonder if there's a parallel here?
all these hostile posts come out to shout down those who have different opinions?
Perhaps consider that despite my opinion being a minority view here on this forum, it actually is the majority view among all buyers of the game.
I don't think your posts were taken as "opinion" as much as factually incorrect information, and this could be why you were met with frustrated replies instead of friendly discourse.
And even what could be considered fact by some, may feel like anecdotal differences to you.
For instance, I know how important the 6 min onos issue was by september 30th, 2012 (according to my email records) we actually had 4 min onos in our play tests prior to that - and i personally experienced it countless times in public games from then on.. not just starting in december. Your experience could have varied, but stats and code don't lie.
So where you would say you have a different opinion, others might say you are just uninformed or inaccurate - albeit, they could say it with more tact than they have so far..
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
It must be maddening to develop this game, with pages of pros and cons on every change, or potential change made to the game. That's probably why I've seen alcohol in their fridge from the dev videos! 8-}
Perhaps consider that despite my opinion being a minority view here on this forum, it actually is the majority view among all buyers of the game. They see the changes to the game, go to their steam library, and uninstall.
Perhaps consider that despite you feel like you know what the majority view is, you probably have no idea.
Or you can see how player peaks went from 2,924 people to 1,477 people in 1 week following the last sale. That's a 49.5% loss. It's still dropping too.
The majority of players who try out this game end up quitting. The issue now isn't performance because that was fixed in 249. What else can it be? Sunspots?
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited July 2013
The basic premise by the proponents of changing the game is that the changes are beneficial. I am saying that the only measure of success should be player counts, and those aren't going the right way. This is the cycle we have witnessed: 1. Gameplay Change 2. Steam Sale 3. Player count up 4. Player count down 5. Return to 1 and continue. What was it that Einstein said about repetition, outcomes and madness?
This is how a successful video game business should operate. At the end of the day making enough money to maintain a profit and continue developing said game is the bottom line. If they don't make enough money to stay afloat, the company folds and that's it. That's real life. True, maybe half the players don't like the game like they thought they would and stop playing it, but that's bound to happen with ANY game. I have an entire steam library of games I've bought in good steam sales and never play more than a few hours just because I didn't find them interesting for whatever reason. How is NS2 any different?
The fact that the company puts so much passion in their game, right or wrong, speaks volumes.
Or you can see how player peaks went from 2,924 people to 1,477 people in 1 week following the last sale. That's a 49.5% loss. It's still dropping too.
The majority of players who try out this game end up quitting. The issue now isn't performance because that was fixed in 249. What else can it be? Sunspots?
I think some people buy the game because the trailers look cool, then play a few rounds on a random server and get utterly stomped, then quit playing. It's a harsh game for new comers, and always has been regardless of recent changes. Some things like rookie mode are helpful, but I see many new players just turn it off right away. NS2 is a great game (IMO) but its also a HARD game like its predecessor. I imagine that if I was a brand new player who didn't play a lot of FPS games, and got rolled within seconds of joining a server, I wouldn't want to play either.
The only way to potentially alleviate this is to make a number of official servers, that only allow people with <~30 hours of playtime with the game to join, and then directing the new player to join those "real" rookie servers. They could turn this off, but not without a warning indicating they may get stomped by more experience players. This isn't foolproof either, some a-hole would still find ways to play on these real rookie servers and own them for "lulz".
A better solution is to have a matchmaking system like starcraft II uses, which matches them with players of similar skill. This would be the better long term option.
Comments
It's typical for humans to glorify the past.
Think about it. It's in the math. Now you have 1 role per team that can ruin the game for all. In NS1 at aliens, there were multiple gorges with the potential to ruin the game. And one was enough to ruin it.
Change for change's sake is not a good policy for running anything, virtual or real. Change and improvement are not synonymous.
Because no game has ever before changed their gameplay post-release.
I'm sorry to inform you but the 6 minute Onos started in BETA before RELEASE.
Just because it didn't start becoming popular in public matches doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just means no one in public games was intelligent enough to realize it existed and abuse it.
This wasn't change for change's sake. You either haven't looked at the changes with any depth or you're just bitching to bitch. You're so unaware of the reasoning for the changes and the intent that you even think the changes were only focused on competitive play. (Sewlek spent the majority of time working on it for public games, on public servers. LOL!)
Is b250 perfect? No.
Is b250 a step in the right direction? Absolutely.
No way in hell.
The past is a couple of weeks ago. I still play NS. Nobody wanting to go comm and the server dying or outright terrible alien comms happens in maybe a third of games. That was the primary failure mode of games in NS1, and now both teams have it, multiplying the pain.
One was not enough to ruin the game, that's precisely the point. Dropping the "wrong" chamber annoyed people, but it wasn't the end of the world.
It's plainly evident that UWE started from NS1 and tried to solve the major issues with it. Those of scaling, autonomy and balance. They tried to implement features they wish they could have had in NS1 (e.g. fade blink that instantly teleported you ala NS 1.0x without getting you stuck in a grate).
Many of these things ended up getting reverted after a year or more of tinkering because the cure was worse than the disease. A few we are still suffering from and a few were improvements.
You won't find any "short bus people" as you say, playing ns1 right now.. You'd only find vets and the experienced playing that mod these days.
So of course Those games go well without a hitch.. If ns2 servers were filled with vets of 10 years, I'm sure your scenario of a useless kham wouldn't exist either?...
Not really. Terrible comms that don't have the slightest clue and don't communicate still happen. Nobody wanting to go comm still happens. Aliens don't have that problem, because they're less dependent on any one individual player.
NS2 doubles down on the main cause of NS1 games going off the rails.
Yes, they absolutely were. How many times were tried and true mechanics from NS1 ditched in favor of something that ended up being replaced by said NS1 mechanic? UW's and other's responses to wasting time trying something new: "This is a new and different game. If you want more of the same, play NS1"
Which is quite the fallacious logic, desiring something that previously worked does not mean no changes are welcome.
Trying something different still doesn't mean things were changed "for the sake of it" ...
There's a huge distinction there i hope you can see.
Trying something new to find out how broken it is- holding on as long as possible while ignoring the community that has seen the flaws and strengths of the original game definitely seems like change for the sake of it.
I hope you're able to see and understand how many times UW has done that with this game.
Though I'm sure they exist, I'm hard pressed to find a released game that has been so molded and influenced by a community. So if the game isn't NS 4.0, as a result of that, I'm okay with that.
Why is it that whenever someone goes against the never-ending-gameplay-changes orthodoxy, all these hostile posts come out to shout down those who have different opinions?
I don't care about what happened in beta. We aren't in beta now. 6-min onos became prevalent after the mid-December patch, replaced by the 6-min fade since 250.
Public play may have been the intention but the majority of balancemod testers and commenters were pros or people otherwise taking the game seriously. Most of the changes were gripes people were whining about on these forums, not the concerns of the ordinary people.
There is no causal relation between intelligence and being good at a video game.
The basic premise by the proponents of changing the game is that the changes are beneficial. I am saying that the only measure of success should be player counts, and those aren't going the right way. This is the cycle we have witnessed: 1. Gameplay Change 2. Steam Sale 3. Player count up 4. Player count down 5. Return to 1 and continue. What was it that Einstein said about repetition, outcomes and madness?
Where did you get this from? Why would I be sad? This isn't my business, and I'm not the one who made a game with unrealized potential that is now on life support.
Who said games have never been changed? The difference is those games have been changed for the better, and grown their user base. Neither applies with NS2's changes.
Look, 4 people posting against 1 disagreement, with 7 likes too. Yay for drowning out all opposition. Repeat your propaganda long enough and even you'll start believing it.
But maybe you should consider that other people just don't care enough to write against your monotonous group think? Perhaps consider that despite my opinion being a minority view here on this forum, it actually is the majority view among all buyers of the game. They see the changes to the game, go to their steam library, and uninstall.
I write here because I care about this game, and want to see it succeed. Too bad so many take every criticism personally. A narrow minded focus on a tiny set of players is the major problem here. It's too late now.
Perhaps consider that despite you feel like you know what the majority view is, you probably have no idea.
Nothing.
And the definition of practice is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different result.
What UWE has been doing is trying different things over and over and expecting different results.
From my perpective the game was gradually becoming worse and worse ever since late beta. Only in 250 did it become massively better, by repudiating many of the terrible changes.
We all care about the game. It's too bad that our narrow minded opinion that the changes in b250 are largely for the good is at odds with your narrow minded opinion of the opposite. Who knows who shares the majority opinion. I certainly don't know that.
It seems also from your response that the only person taking things personally here is you...
Would Planetside 2 count? Though I suppose that's more of an example of the devs ignoring most of the input of the community during beta so they can push ahead with their own vision of the game. Then start backtracking months later as they realize their mistake and start implementing some of the things the community (mostly PS1 vets) begged them to put in the game. Huh I wonder if there's a parallel here?
And even what could be considered fact by some, may feel like anecdotal differences to you.
For instance, I know how important the 6 min onos issue was by september 30th, 2012 (according to my email records) we actually had 4 min onos in our play tests prior to that - and i personally experienced it countless times in public games from then on.. not just starting in december. Your experience could have varied, but stats and code don't lie.
So where you would say you have a different opinion, others might say you are just uninformed or inaccurate - albeit, they could say it with more tact than they have so far..
Or you can see how player peaks went from 2,924 people to 1,477 people in 1 week following the last sale. That's a 49.5% loss. It's still dropping too.
The majority of players who try out this game end up quitting. The issue now isn't performance because that was fixed in 249. What else can it be? Sunspots?
Source: http://steamcharts.com/app/4920
it was never "fixed"
it has gone from terrible to less terrible
This is how a successful video game business should operate. At the end of the day making enough money to maintain a profit and continue developing said game is the bottom line. If they don't make enough money to stay afloat, the company folds and that's it. That's real life. True, maybe half the players don't like the game like they thought they would and stop playing it, but that's bound to happen with ANY game. I have an entire steam library of games I've bought in good steam sales and never play more than a few hours just because I didn't find them interesting for whatever reason. How is NS2 any different?
The fact that the company puts so much passion in their game, right or wrong, speaks volumes.
I think some people buy the game because the trailers look cool, then play a few rounds on a random server and get utterly stomped, then quit playing. It's a harsh game for new comers, and always has been regardless of recent changes. Some things like rookie mode are helpful, but I see many new players just turn it off right away. NS2 is a great game (IMO) but its also a HARD game like its predecessor. I imagine that if I was a brand new player who didn't play a lot of FPS games, and got rolled within seconds of joining a server, I wouldn't want to play either.
The only way to potentially alleviate this is to make a number of official servers, that only allow people with <~30 hours of playtime with the game to join, and then directing the new player to join those "real" rookie servers. They could turn this off, but not without a warning indicating they may get stomped by more experience players. This isn't foolproof either, some a-hole would still find ways to play on these real rookie servers and own them for "lulz".
A better solution is to have a matchmaking system like starcraft II uses, which matches them with players of similar skill. This would be the better long term option.