As a kind of case-study, Tribes Ascend uses a "mostly enforced rookie segregation", where if you're under level 10 (= a few hours of game time), you only get put in level 1-10 servers (there were ways for a higher level player to join these, but I don't know if it's still possible).
While in theory the other servers could also be divided by level, it was pretty much only level 1-10 servers and 11+ servers.
From my experience, this is what happened:
When game first came out of closed beta, rookie servers were full and it was all good.
You got to learn the game (which is pretty damn hard to learn for the first time, I'd say harder than NS2) playing with others who were also learning (for the most part).
As you near level 10, you're doing pretty well and topping the scoreboard.
Then you hit level 11 and you're out of your little pond, into the ocean.
And you get destroyed.
Repeatedly.
Because a level 11 who's used to playing with other rookies who can't really aim, just isn't prepared to face the lv30-50 players who are in these non-rookie servers.
I stuck with it, trying to get better, and got to around level 25 before quitting (I could generally beat other players who were level <40, but still got destroyed by the higher level players).
Some months later, I decided to try it again.
I had lost my login details so I made a new account, and when I tried to find some servers...
I found 1 level 1-10 server with 2 people.
Granted, by this time the Tribes Ascend population in AusNZ was probably 1/4 what the current NS2 population is in AusNZ.
TL;DR
Rookie-only servers may help new players learn the game, but it only delays them experiencing the joy of getting destroyed by the more experienced players.
NS2 doesn't have the player population to support a proper ranked matchmaking system.
The only alternative I can see is in-game handicaps on rookie-servers, an idea I've suggested before, but players seem resistant to the idea.
Seems like you need help with reading comprehension as well... male_fatalities said he wasn't replying to just you but others on this thread, meaning he did read the thread... Though I agree the rookie status needs reworked I don't agree with segregating a large percentage of the population because they're too noob. And yes if you make the people with less than 100 hours green then that is a majority. They'll want to play on these rookie only servers leaving the rest of us in underpopulated servers. Thus ruining or at least crippling the game for the "experienced" players.
Go back and read what he tried to discuss, every point comes back to the topics I've brought up. Let me help you, since you're having trouble -
The simple answer is ns2 is a cliche game with a small playerbase. You may want rookie only servers, but the game population cannot support such segregation. You are playing an old-school FPS, its not designed for instant gratification.
Point I brought up in OP.
Those quotes you listed do not surprise me, I'm assuming they never grew up on Quake, UT, Wolfenstein, Brood War. They might be young or old, but their gaming experience would be from Battlefield / CoD4+ or something equally as bad.
Again, quotes I copied/pasted to the OP.
If you want rookie only servers, the game would die over night. The vets who made this game possible (aka pre-ordering for a game that by all accounts would actually never come out) would simply not be able to play anymore. You wouldn't even be able to fill a server with vets... there isn't enough left of them.
As a kind of case-study, Tribes Ascend uses a "mostly enforced rookie segregation", where if you're under level 10 (= a few hours of game time), you only get put in level 1-10 servers (there were ways for a higher level player to join these, but I don't know if it's still possible).
While in theory the other servers could also be divided by level, it was pretty much only level 1-10 servers and 11+ servers.
From my experience, this is what happened:
When game first came out of closed beta, rookie servers were full and it was all good.
You got to learn the game (which is pretty damn hard to learn for the first time, I'd say harder than NS2) playing with others who were also learning (for the most part).
As you near level 10, you're doing pretty well and topping the scoreboard.
Then you hit level 11 and you're out of your little pond, into the ocean.
And you get destroyed.
Repeatedly.
Because a level 11 who's used to playing with other rookies who can't really aim, just isn't prepared to face the lv30-50 players who are in these non-rookie servers.
I stuck with it, trying to get better, and got to around level 25 before quitting (I could generally beat other players who were level <40, but still got destroyed by the higher level players).
Some months later, I decided to try it again.
I had lost my login details so I made a new account, and when I tried to find some servers...
I found 1 level 1-10 server with 2 people.
Granted, by this time the Tribes Ascend population in AusNZ was probably 1/4 what the current NS2 population is in AusNZ.
TL;DR
Rookie-only servers may help new players learn the game, but it only delays them experiencing the joy of getting destroyed by the more experienced players.
NS2 doesn't have the player population to support a proper ranked matchmaking system.
The only alternative I can see is in-game handicaps on rookie-servers, an idea I've suggested before, but players seem resistant to the idea.
All I´m seeing, is that after level 10, they should have been another level tier 11 - 20(or a lesser range, idk how it translates into Tribes skill) and after that 21 - 30.
As a kind of case-study, Tribes Ascend uses a "mostly enforced rookie segregation", where if you're under level 10 (= a few hours of game time), you only get put in level 1-10 servers (there were ways for a higher level player to join these, but I don't know if it's still possible).
While in theory the other servers could also be divided by level, it was pretty much only level 1-10 servers and 11+ servers.
From my experience, this is what happened:
When game first came out of closed beta, rookie servers were full and it was all good.
You got to learn the game (which is pretty damn hard to learn for the first time, I'd say harder than NS2) playing with others who were also learning (for the most part).
As you near level 10, you're doing pretty well and topping the scoreboard.
Then you hit level 11 and you're out of your little pond, into the ocean.
And you get destroyed.
Repeatedly.
Because a level 11 who's used to playing with other rookies who can't really aim, just isn't prepared to face the lv30-50 players who are in these non-rookie servers.
I stuck with it, trying to get better, and got to around level 25 before quitting (I could generally beat other players who were level <40, but still got destroyed by the higher level players).
Some months later, I decided to try it again.
I had lost my login details so I made a new account, and when I tried to find some servers...
I found 1 level 1-10 server with 2 people.
Granted, by this time the Tribes Ascend population in AusNZ was probably 1/4 what the current NS2 population is in AusNZ.
TL;DR
Rookie-only servers may help new players learn the game, but it only delays them experiencing the joy of getting destroyed by the more experienced players.
NS2 doesn't have the player population to support a proper ranked matchmaking system.
The only alternative I can see is in-game handicaps on rookie-servers, an idea I've suggested before, but players seem resistant to the idea.
All I´m seeing, is that after level 10, they should have been another level tier 11 - 20(or a lesser range, idk how it translates into Tribes skill) and after that 21 - 30.
so at what point should those players who all progress together play against the actually decent players? Cos it needs to happen at some point, and you're just delaying the inevitable, while simultaneously breaking up the small population still further.
We just don't have the player base to do that.
My suggestion of colour-coding players based on time played up to say 100h at least gives everyone an idea of what their team is going to be like.
The problem that comp players face in random pubs (which becomes the random pubs' problem) is that they don't know whether mr random pubber has 3.1h game experience or 301h experience.
I assure you most of us would run a mile from a server full of 3-30h players, and everyone would be better off for it. This should happen BEFORE the comp player has even joined the server (see my previous suggestion for colouring the server name dynamically based on its current players' play time).
Once you've joined a server and started a round, there is quite an energy barrier to quitting, even if you're massively outplaying your opponents. This is human nature, but can be mitigated by avoiding the situation entirely as I suggested above.
Okay guys, best suggestion ever, you guys ready for this?
Here it goes:
Once you hit a 10:1 kd ratio above 20 kills, you're kicked out from the rookie friendly server, with a prompt that says, "Congratulations, you're no longer a noob! You're now ready to play on normal servers!"
Tell me, did I, or did I just solve all our problems?
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
No?
k/d is only a small percentage of what anyone needs in ns2.
The entire idea that its the thing to strife for, is insanity, and I detest that so much of the community is going that way lately.
Okay guys, best suggestion ever, you guys ready for this?
Here it goes:
Once you hit a 10:1 kd ratio above 20 kills, you're kicked out from the rookie friendly server, with a prompt that says, "Congratulations, you're no longer a noob! You're now ready to play on normal servers!"
Tell me, did I, or did I just solve all our problems?
No?
k/d is only a small percentage of what anyone needs in ns2.
The entire idea that its the thing to strife for, is insanity, and I detest that so much of the community is going that way lately.
honestly, it's not as if someone with a 20:2 isn't doing their job. it's not the point of the game, but don't act like it's also not generally indicative of domination in some form or other.
honestly, it's not as if someone with a 20:2 isn't doing their job. it's not the point of the game, but don't act like it's also not generally indicative of domination in some form or other.
As if getting out kdr'd by an insane margin isn't what this entire thread is about?
I'm not trolling. You'd know, though, what the heck is this:
god, I just played a game where I went lerk, and messed around. at the end one of the marines said that marines needed a buff. tried to have a discussion about the difficulty in making those kinds of blanket statements, he said that marines we're nerfed in the last patch, and we didn't even field any good fades, and he called me a trolland refused to tell me how he thought marines were nerfed. the next round, partly to gauge his skill, I decided to go decent skulk against his team, and managed to outkill my team and hold his to negative ratios for the most part. if he were a green player, aka, under 100 hours, I wouldn't have bothered engaging in the first place.
Why'd you play against him on the alien side? When he specifically said he thinks they're OP? "managed to outkill" like you achieved something? What the hell? Yay for trolling indeed.
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2013
We already have an global ranking called NS2Stats, maybe its time to advance the features.
If servers run NS2Stats, how about the average player-elo score shown in the servername or serverdetails?
Elo score players * server playercount / 100=serverscore
This would give players an idea, whats going on on the server.
Or you could use this score as an extra servertag based on an scale between 0 and 600. (The never possible score based on an 24 slot server full with elo 2500 players)
0-100:rookie
100-250: advanced
etc
To classify an server better you could use an score based on the last 3 days + a 2nd score for the current round.
I think there many variations possible.
Sample servername: "My awesome server - skilled:400"
@dePara doesn't solve this threads problem, but that's a really good idea. Everyone has been going on about skill brackets and how we don't have enough people for that, doing it the way you suggested would allow "skill brackets" but wouldn't limit playing where you wanted. I really like it.
Some months later, I decided to try it again.
I had lost my login details so I made a new account, and when I tried to find some servers...
I found 1 level 1-10 server with 2 people.
Granted, by this time the Tribes Ascend population in AusNZ was probably 1/4 what the current NS2 population is in AusNZ.
I suspect your case study is quite applicable to NS2.
IMO implementing some kind of segregation now is pointless because it's too late, the people who purchased during the various sales have either learnt to swim or sunk already. Maybe it still would be worthwhile in North America, in Aus, no point.
Captain hindsight says a couple of segregated player / server levels back at the xmas, gorgeous and summer sales would have been good. Something like 0-10 hour only servers, 11-40 hour servers followed by 41+ open slather. I wouldn't have prevented a green player from joining open servers, but would have prevent higher ranked players joining the lower ranked servers.
dePARAJoin Date: 2011-04-29Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
There multiple discussions about the same topic atm:
Large skill difference on a server wich end in horrible games.
There different ideas to solve this atm:
Matchmaking, Playerranking, Serverranking.
By increasing the time for the rookie-status you wont solve the skill difference on a server, you only had more funny colors for example.
In the end: The same horrible games
Inceasing the hrs to 10 and disabling the options entry would be ok, but didnt solve anything.
There different ideas to solve this atm:
Matchmaking, Playerranking, Serverranking.
I don't know what it's like in the other regions, but the player base simply isn't large enough to support matchmaking in the AusNZ region.
In peak times, you'll see maybe 3-4 servers full (ranging in size from 16-24 players), which might just barely be enough. But what about all the off-peak times?
Also before the Balance patch hit, it was more like 1-2 servers full during peak, which clearly isn't enough for matchmaking.
I can see something like this working in the interim, and will be substantially better than the current situation.
But really, with the player counts that are in the AusNZ region at least, the only long-term solutions I can think of have to do with in-server rebalances, i.e. handicaps of some sort, which could be in the form of buffs to weaker players, or a "higher ranking" player counting for more players, so that team has fewer players.
Seems like you need help with reading comprehension as well... male_fatalities said he wasn't replying to just you but others on this thread, meaning he did read the thread... Though I agree the rookie status needs reworked I don't agree with segregating a large percentage of the population because they're too noob. And yes if you make the people with less than 100 hours green then that is a majority. They'll want to play on these rookie only servers leaving the rest of us in underpopulated servers. Thus ruining or at least crippling the game for the "experienced" players.
Go back and read what he tried to discuss, every point comes back to the topics I've brought up. Let me help you, since you're having trouble -
The simple answer is ns2 is a cliche game with a small playerbase. You may want rookie only servers, but the game population cannot support such segregation. You are playing an old-school FPS, its not designed for instant gratification.
Point I brought up in OP.
Those quotes you listed do not surprise me, I'm assuming they never grew up on Quake, UT, Wolfenstein, Brood War. They might be young or old, but their gaming experience would be from Battlefield / CoD4+ or something equally as bad.
Again, quotes I copied/pasted to the OP.
If you want rookie only servers, the game would die over night. The vets who made this game possible (aka pre-ordering for a game that by all accounts would actually never come out) would simply not be able to play anymore. You wouldn't even be able to fill a server with vets... there isn't enough left of them.
Again, another suggestion I made in the OP.
Doesn't it make sense that everything you brought up in the OP would also be discussed in the entire thread? Isn't that the point of a thread, to discuss what was stated in the OP? So he was in fact replying to what was suggested by the thread, whether you agree with him or not is another issue. People will and are disagreeing with your OP but you shouldn't ignore them just because they're disagreeing with your OP.
Someone said segration will make people leave - vets specifically.People are already leaving(as it turns out.I have no idea if that is actually happening.I´m assuming that is at least a growing problem), which is why I´m asking that.
And if the vets are leaving, then that is the whole point right ? To keep experienced players away from rookies.Why do these people play a game they clearly master already ? Seriously ? They certainly aren´t "mentoring", more like farming noobs after coming home from work and letting off some steam.At some point you gotta stop them from abusing them.
Rookies should have a choice if they want to fight vets or other rookies or just decent players.
Vets shouldn´t.At least for the first X hours.
Someone said segration will make people leave - vets specifically.People are already leaving(as it turns out.I have no idea if that is actually happening.I´m assuming that is at least a growing problem), which is why I´m asking that.
And if the vets are leaving, then that is the whole point right ? To keep experienced players away from rookies.Why do these people play a game they clearly master already ? Seriously ? They certainly aren´t "mentoring", more like farming noobs after coming home from work and letting off some steam.At some point you gotta stop them from abusing them.
Rookies should have a choice if they want to fight vets or other rookies or just decent players.
Vets shouldn´t.At least for the first X hours.
why do people play any game they've already mastered? like basketball or soccer for example. for the competition and the fun. stomping isn't really fun for very long. and two vets killing each others teams with the game being decided by which side sucks less, isn't much fun either. skillwise, the mix im going for is I never want to be at the bottom of the scoreboard, but im very very comfortable not being at the top. and I find that happens most when I play pigs, and or organized games in some fashion. almost never with pubs.
Agree with everyone calling for rookie only servers and people with genuine [Mentor] tag. Implement some sort of system to get it to work. I've been asked many times by rookies about help and always try my best to explain, but some of them just get bashed so many times they don't want to bother to learn the game mechanics. (Like never leave base totally alone). I seriously hope we can resolve something soon, cause we're loosing players because of it.
If NS2 gave Ranks/XP based on won games on normal servers, you could simply disable this mechanic on rookie servers to give good players an incentive to stay away from them (no xp for bashing noobs). However if they want to mentor someone or introduce the game to some friends, they are not restricted from joining.
Could we at least agree, that it is no problem when highly skilled players play together with new ones, as long as both teams have overall an somewhat even skill?
Could we at least agree, that it is no problem when highly skilled players play together with new ones, as long as both teams have overall an somewhat even skill?
no, sometimes the very most that the rookies contribute is being meat Shields. just went 24:1 on a server, as gorge.
Could we at least agree, that it is no problem when highly skilled players play together with new ones, as long as both teams have overall an somewhat even skill?
While I hate to disagree, there will be plenty of players who won't care that the overall teams are even, and be angry that they themselves aren't able to do much.
Case in point, in one game a while back, I was on aliens and marines were winning.
Marines had 1 rookie though, and he had the misfortune of constantly going where I was (by coincidence), and being eaten alive (I would normally hold back against rookies, but like I said, marines were winning, so I felt I had to pull my weight).
After the third or fourth such death, he said in chat "ffs", and ragequit the server.
And, to be honest, I have far less fun when the other team has a really good player who just destroys me any time I am unlucky enough to encounter him, irrespective of whether my team is winning overall.
Though occasionally it can lead to some fun times...
Story time!
In this one game, shortly after a sale, I was on marines with mostly experienced players.
The aliens were all rookies, except 1 player who played competitively.
1 player can only do so much, so marines were winning, but this competitive player was completely wrecking us any time he showed up.
It came to the point where, if he showed up anywhere, voice chat would alight with "OMG, he's in XYZ", and the entire team would group up to take him down.
Even then, we lost some of those engagements, simply because we'd get in each others' way (blocking shots, movement, etc).
While it was kinda fun seeing that kind of spontaneous zerg form against this competitive player, I have to say, I still really disliked it when I was the unlucky one who encountered him alone.
TL;DR
Highly skilled players with low skilled ones, but split evenly on both teams so overall teams are even are better than a stacked game, but not entirely a "no problem" situation and is not as good as a game where all players are roughly evenly matched (whether by skill or some handicapping measure).
@amoral: But what is the alternative then? If you dismiss "good" because it isn't "perfect" you better have a perfect idea.
@sinkingmist: Sure, it isn't the perfect case. But we should stop dreaming. The perfect case will not happen. We would need way more players to be able to segregate them per skill. So lets keep it realistic. Evenly matched teams are better than stacked ones. And you will always have better and worse players on a team.
The simple solution is global stat-tracking and (as biz wrote) a "shuffle by skill" function. Don't start dreaming again. It won't be perfect either. But it is way way WAY better than the "randomize the ready room" we have now. (And this is voted nearly every time I play now, because people want fair games.)
It is also easy to implement. NS stats already does it in a mod. The devs said, they track all kind of data anyway with Sponitor. All we need is a simple mathematical formula implemented in the existing randomize function. Should be 4 hours for 1 dev to get it right. And it would be a blast to the game-quality.
A simple skill-index could be, for example: (hours played / 100) + (score per death over all games * 10) + (wins - losses)
You get a simple number out of this formula that is at least an indicator of the skill of that person. Now you simply distribute the sum of the skill-numbers of all players evenly on both teams when the "shuffle by skill" - vote has passed.
Again: It isn't perfect. It is optional by vote. But it will lead to much more exciting games.
As I said, "better than a stacked game, but not entirely a "no problem" situation"
I'm all for easy interim solutions UWE could (and should) implement ASAP (see this post), I just have a problem with calling something "no problem" when it is a problem, just less of one.
Doesn't it make sense that everything you brought up in the OP would also be discussed in the entire thread? Isn't that the point of a thread, to discuss what was stated in the OP? So he was in fact replying to what was suggested by the thread, whether you agree with him or not is another issue. People will and are disagreeing with your OP but you shouldn't ignore them just because they're disagreeing with your OP.
I've engaged conversations and given responses to people that disagreed with my opinion in this very thread. So to say I'm ignoring people is completely false and your just making things up at this point.
If you want rookie only servers, the game would die over night
, I tell them to read the thread over to fully understand the proposed suggestion I made. How could 2 optional servers with 16 slots, totaling 32 players kill the game overnight? It doesn't make any plausible sense when the game averages between 800-1000 players. Clearly something was misunderstood, not read, or you're both just not the sharpest tools in the shed.
I bought this game a week ago and have played it for 30+ hours. Although I doubt that developers read this kind of topics... I'll try to describe my impression on the "rookie friendly" tag from rookie's point of view - it's something any vet or dev can't have with the current state of the game
1. It's misleading, because you expect a pleasant start with other decent people and sometimes it's the opposite. It's better to promise nothing than promise something you can't guarantee. If you (developers) don't care so much (but I guess you do care) then be informed that some people may think "rookie's friendly" tag are bound with UWE (the green color in the server list).
2. The tag could be awarded/removed by developers (or community) to people who care about this game and have resources to provide really friendly servers.
3. "Number of hours played" restriction to join these servers would be nice, my guess is it shouldn't be less than 50. And even nicer would be additional restriction for commanders. They must start somewhere and they won't if the other team has 1000+ humanbot (what's the word? in the chair.
I was lucky to experience few fun games with only-noobs teammates but great and patient commanders explaining everything. Yes, we were smashed, but we still had much fun just trying, shooting around and playing our "story mode" when nobody was talking about "selling IP" or "victory" - there's more in this game than "victory". We'd have even more fun if the other team had less "several hundred hours" players, I guess.
If you are lucky you join the above server and if you are not (or rather you are unlucky), this is what happens... Few hours ago I was playing a "rookie friendly" server "Pew pew...". 4-5 ppl in team, one green, others probably like me, nobody dares to command. One is finally in the chair (is there a chair inside? , he's doing pretty well, with some experience, it's enough for us, we don't really need to win every game, there's always one to be defeated More people comes, we play, suddenly one guy (named Fading or something like this) starts his pretty aggressive moaning (we need this we need that), finally voting to eject commander. He seems to be well know by few other guys (maybe he is even admin of this rookie friendly server?). The guy tried to explain he's like 1-2 min in the chair, nothing can be done so quickly etc. He finally resigns and go out. The new commander decides to sell IPs soon... Imho, this is the worst scenario for NS, it's like this game is all about victory, nothing more to have fun. I'd welcome any way of disabling this possibility at "rookie friendly" server. Some green guys won't even know why they lost.
Next round, the guy still in the chair. We have much stronger team, quick game.
Next round, same scenario but this time guys with badges in the opposite team. We have 3 rookies and guys like me (I see scores from the previous round). Game won't start, because there's just nobody to command (literally). I'm asking them to look at the scoreboard and split "badges", they just don't care and want us to start, no matter what. I'm asking to join our team and command. This is the last word i wrote, because... I was kicked, just like that (probably because I was the only guy who cared to explain and ask for help?).
Surely, it was an extreme example, but it happens in milder ways too.
Changing availability of the "rookie friendly" tag would be really nice.
Comments
While in theory the other servers could also be divided by level, it was pretty much only level 1-10 servers and 11+ servers.
From my experience, this is what happened:
When game first came out of closed beta, rookie servers were full and it was all good.
You got to learn the game (which is pretty damn hard to learn for the first time, I'd say harder than NS2) playing with others who were also learning (for the most part).
As you near level 10, you're doing pretty well and topping the scoreboard.
Then you hit level 11 and you're out of your little pond, into the ocean.
And you get destroyed.
Repeatedly.
Because a level 11 who's used to playing with other rookies who can't really aim, just isn't prepared to face the lv30-50 players who are in these non-rookie servers.
I stuck with it, trying to get better, and got to around level 25 before quitting (I could generally beat other players who were level <40, but still got destroyed by the higher level players).
Some months later, I decided to try it again.
I had lost my login details so I made a new account, and when I tried to find some servers...
I found 1 level 1-10 server with 2 people.
Granted, by this time the Tribes Ascend population in AusNZ was probably 1/4 what the current NS2 population is in AusNZ.
TL;DR
Rookie-only servers may help new players learn the game, but it only delays them experiencing the joy of getting destroyed by the more experienced players.
NS2 doesn't have the player population to support a proper ranked matchmaking system.
The only alternative I can see is in-game handicaps on rookie-servers, an idea I've suggested before, but players seem resistant to the idea.
Go back and read what he tried to discuss, every point comes back to the topics I've brought up. Let me help you, since you're having trouble -
Point I brought up in OP.
Again, quotes I copied/pasted to the OP.
Again, another suggestion I made in the OP.
All I´m seeing, is that after level 10, they should have been another level tier 11 - 20(or a lesser range, idk how it translates into Tribes skill) and after that 21 - 30.
so at what point should those players who all progress together play against the actually decent players? Cos it needs to happen at some point, and you're just delaying the inevitable, while simultaneously breaking up the small population still further.
We just don't have the player base to do that.
My suggestion of colour-coding players based on time played up to say 100h at least gives everyone an idea of what their team is going to be like.
The problem that comp players face in random pubs (which becomes the random pubs' problem) is that they don't know whether mr random pubber has 3.1h game experience or 301h experience.
I assure you most of us would run a mile from a server full of 3-30h players, and everyone would be better off for it. This should happen BEFORE the comp player has even joined the server (see my previous suggestion for colouring the server name dynamically based on its current players' play time).
Once you've joined a server and started a round, there is quite an energy barrier to quitting, even if you're massively outplaying your opponents. This is human nature, but can be mitigated by avoiding the situation entirely as I suggested above.
Here it goes:
Once you hit a 10:1 kd ratio above 20 kills, you're kicked out from the rookie friendly server, with a prompt that says, "Congratulations, you're no longer a noob! You're now ready to play on normal servers!"
Tell me, did I, or did I just solve all our problems?
\:D/
k/d is only a small percentage of what anyone needs in ns2.
The entire idea that its the thing to strife for, is insanity, and I detest that so much of the community is going that way lately.
yay for trolling. don't be obtuse.
honestly, it's not as if someone with a 20:2 isn't doing their job. it's not the point of the game, but don't act like it's also not generally indicative of domination in some form or other.
As if getting out kdr'd by an insane margin isn't what this entire thread is about?
I'm not trolling. You'd know, though, what the heck is this:
Why'd you play against him on the alien side? When he specifically said he thinks they're OP? "managed to outkill" like you achieved something? What the hell? Yay for trolling indeed.
If servers run NS2Stats, how about the average player-elo score shown in the servername or serverdetails?
Elo score players * server playercount / 100=serverscore
This would give players an idea, whats going on on the server.
Or you could use this score as an extra servertag based on an scale between 0 and 600. (The never possible score based on an 24 slot server full with elo 2500 players)
0-100:rookie
100-250: advanced
etc
To classify an server better you could use an score based on the last 3 days + a 2nd score for the current round.
I think there many variations possible.
Sample servername: "My awesome server - skilled:400"
My little formular is just an example btw.
Now how the hell does ELO rank you lol. :P
I suspect your case study is quite applicable to NS2.
IMO implementing some kind of segregation now is pointless because it's too late, the people who purchased during the various sales have either learnt to swim or sunk already. Maybe it still would be worthwhile in North America, in Aus, no point.
Captain hindsight says a couple of segregated player / server levels back at the xmas, gorgeous and summer sales would have been good. Something like 0-10 hour only servers, 11-40 hour servers followed by 41+ open slather. I wouldn't have prevented a green player from joining open servers, but would have prevent higher ranked players joining the lower ranked servers.
Large skill difference on a server wich end in horrible games.
There different ideas to solve this atm:
Matchmaking, Playerranking, Serverranking.
By increasing the time for the rookie-status you wont solve the skill difference on a server, you only had more funny colors for example.
In the end: The same horrible games
Inceasing the hrs to 10 and disabling the options entry would be ok, but didnt solve anything.
I don't know what it's like in the other regions, but the player base simply isn't large enough to support matchmaking in the AusNZ region.
In peak times, you'll see maybe 3-4 servers full (ranging in size from 16-24 players), which might just barely be enough. But what about all the off-peak times?
Also before the Balance patch hit, it was more like 1-2 servers full during peak, which clearly isn't enough for matchmaking.
I can see something like this working in the interim, and will be substantially better than the current situation.
But really, with the player counts that are in the AusNZ region at least, the only long-term solutions I can think of have to do with in-server rebalances, i.e. handicaps of some sort, which could be in the form of buffs to weaker players, or a "higher ranking" player counting for more players, so that team has fewer players.
Doesn't it make sense that everything you brought up in the OP would also be discussed in the entire thread? Isn't that the point of a thread, to discuss what was stated in the OP? So he was in fact replying to what was suggested by the thread, whether you agree with him or not is another issue. People will and are disagreeing with your OP but you shouldn't ignore them just because they're disagreeing with your OP.
Thanks for contributing...
And if the vets are leaving, then that is the whole point right ? To keep experienced players away from rookies.Why do these people play a game they clearly master already ? Seriously ? They certainly aren´t "mentoring", more like farming noobs after coming home from work and letting off some steam.At some point you gotta stop them from abusing them.
Rookies should have a choice if they want to fight vets or other rookies or just decent players.
Vets shouldn´t.At least for the first X hours.
why do people play any game they've already mastered? like basketball or soccer for example. for the competition and the fun. stomping isn't really fun for very long. and two vets killing each others teams with the game being decided by which side sucks less, isn't much fun either. skillwise, the mix im going for is I never want to be at the bottom of the scoreboard, but im very very comfortable not being at the top. and I find that happens most when I play pigs, and or organized games in some fashion. almost never with pubs.
Arcticfoxx
no, sometimes the very most that the rookies contribute is being meat Shields. just went 24:1 on a server, as gorge.
While I hate to disagree, there will be plenty of players who won't care that the overall teams are even, and be angry that they themselves aren't able to do much.
Case in point, in one game a while back, I was on aliens and marines were winning.
Marines had 1 rookie though, and he had the misfortune of constantly going where I was (by coincidence), and being eaten alive (I would normally hold back against rookies, but like I said, marines were winning, so I felt I had to pull my weight).
After the third or fourth such death, he said in chat "ffs", and ragequit the server.
And, to be honest, I have far less fun when the other team has a really good player who just destroys me any time I am unlucky enough to encounter him, irrespective of whether my team is winning overall.
Though occasionally it can lead to some fun times...
Story time!
In this one game, shortly after a sale, I was on marines with mostly experienced players.
The aliens were all rookies, except 1 player who played competitively.
1 player can only do so much, so marines were winning, but this competitive player was completely wrecking us any time he showed up.
It came to the point where, if he showed up anywhere, voice chat would alight with "OMG, he's in XYZ", and the entire team would group up to take him down.
Even then, we lost some of those engagements, simply because we'd get in each others' way (blocking shots, movement, etc).
While it was kinda fun seeing that kind of spontaneous zerg form against this competitive player, I have to say, I still really disliked it when I was the unlucky one who encountered him alone.
TL;DR
Highly skilled players with low skilled ones, but split evenly on both teams so overall teams are even are better than a stacked game, but not entirely a "no problem" situation and is not as good as a game where all players are roughly evenly matched (whether by skill or some handicapping measure).
even a half-assed "shuffle by skill" will be better than status quo
@sinkingmist: Sure, it isn't the perfect case. But we should stop dreaming. The perfect case will not happen. We would need way more players to be able to segregate them per skill. So lets keep it realistic. Evenly matched teams are better than stacked ones. And you will always have better and worse players on a team.
The simple solution is global stat-tracking and (as biz wrote) a "shuffle by skill" function. Don't start dreaming again. It won't be perfect either. But it is way way WAY better than the "randomize the ready room" we have now. (And this is voted nearly every time I play now, because people want fair games.)
It is also easy to implement. NS stats already does it in a mod. The devs said, they track all kind of data anyway with Sponitor. All we need is a simple mathematical formula implemented in the existing randomize function. Should be 4 hours for 1 dev to get it right. And it would be a blast to the game-quality.
A simple skill-index could be, for example: (hours played / 100) + (score per death over all games * 10) + (wins - losses)
You get a simple number out of this formula that is at least an indicator of the skill of that person. Now you simply distribute the sum of the skill-numbers of all players evenly on both teams when the "shuffle by skill" - vote has passed.
Again: It isn't perfect. It is optional by vote. But it will lead to much more exciting games.
I'm all for easy interim solutions UWE could (and should) implement ASAP (see this post), I just have a problem with calling something "no problem" when it is a problem, just less of one.
I've engaged conversations and given responses to people that disagreed with my opinion in this very thread. So to say I'm ignoring people is completely false and your just making things up at this point.
When people say stupid things like:
, I tell them to read the thread over to fully understand the proposed suggestion I made. How could 2 optional servers with 16 slots, totaling 32 players kill the game overnight? It doesn't make any plausible sense when the game averages between 800-1000 players. Clearly something was misunderstood, not read, or you're both just not the sharpest tools in the shed.
1. It's misleading, because you expect a pleasant start with other decent people and sometimes it's the opposite. It's better to promise nothing than promise something you can't guarantee. If you (developers) don't care so much (but I guess you do care) then be informed that some people may think "rookie's friendly" tag are bound with UWE (the green color in the server list).
2. The tag could be awarded/removed by developers (or community) to people who care about this game and have resources to provide really friendly servers.
3. "Number of hours played" restriction to join these servers would be nice, my guess is it shouldn't be less than 50. And even nicer would be additional restriction for commanders. They must start somewhere and they won't if the other team has 1000+ humanbot (what's the word?
I was lucky to experience few fun games with only-noobs teammates but great and patient commanders explaining everything. Yes, we were smashed, but we still had much fun just trying, shooting around and playing our "story mode" when nobody was talking about "selling IP" or "victory" - there's more in this game than "victory". We'd have even more fun if the other team had less "several hundred hours" players, I guess.
If you are lucky you join the above server and if you are not (or rather you are unlucky), this is what happens... Few hours ago I was playing a "rookie friendly" server "Pew pew...". 4-5 ppl in team, one green, others probably like me, nobody dares to command. One is finally in the chair (is there a chair inside?
Next round, the guy still in the chair. We have much stronger team, quick game.
Next round, same scenario but this time guys with badges in the opposite team. We have 3 rookies and guys like me (I see scores from the previous round). Game won't start, because there's just nobody to command (literally). I'm asking them to look at the scoreboard and split "badges", they just don't care and want us to start, no matter what. I'm asking to join our team and command. This is the last word i wrote, because... I was kicked, just like that (probably because I was the only guy who cared to explain and ask for help?).
Surely, it was an extreme example, but it happens in milder ways too.
Changing availability of the "rookie friendly" tag would be really nice.