the whole purpose behind Rookie Only servers are to give the players a sense of what NS2 is supposed to be.
Just pulling this out from Ironhorse's post among the others feeling the same here because I think this is the crux right now in the life of NS2.
Forget for a moment what we think NS2 should be, or was designed to be. Put aside personal feelings on whether you prefer large or small servers, and just look at the ecosystem we have now. This tells you all you need to know.
And what we have now is two kinds of NS2 playerbases -- those who prefer small servers, and those who prefer large servers. As Cyzed pointed out, depending on time of day, Wooza's two core servers host around 50% of the active playerbase. And whichever side of the camp you fall on, neither is wrong, neither is right -- this is simply what is.
Now in business the goal is to make money by delivering a product your consumers want. When consumers tastes change, a business adapts. One of a zillion examples: Coke. When consumers demanded a sugar-free option, Coca-cola Amatil could have said 'No STFU! This is how Coke is supposed to be'. Instead it listened to demand, and to this day sell a sugar-free version.
We in this community, or more specifically the CDT, aren't in the business of making money -- but we are in the business of wanting to grow the NS2 playerbase and we all want to see a long future for NS2. And what is being demonstrated in the NS2 consumer market is that there is demand for large-server gameplay.
So, while NS2 wasn't originally designed for more than 24 players, this is how it has evolved, and there is a demand for it. It would be crazy to ignore this opportunity -- because it is an opportunity -- to grow the community and retain people in NS2. From the perspective of the CDT directing the business of NS2, yes adding Coke Lite to the lineup is a smart move. We even have the product already out there! All that needs to be done is ensure it continues to flourish.
And the beauty of it all is this: we have two gameplay styles that players can switch between at ease. Play exclusively on small servers, or large servers, or play a bit on each like @Pelargir. Variety and choice is awesome, as it keeps things fresh and exciting -- key tenets for longevity.
[scaling]
No... sorry but it really does not.
Anyone familiar with NS2 can take the time to list the reasons.. they really are numerous, from the advantage that is given to marines, to structure HP not scaling with players etc. etc.
Yeah, about this. I don't know how many hours you've put into large servers, but I've got a good 700+. And I come from as you know NS1 PT days, NS1 clan, and all the way to NS2 etc etc blah blah so you could say I'm familiar. And after all this time I have to say, it does scale well. Very well in fact. There are some key gameplay differences that occur naturally between small games and large games -- and these come under the umbrella of the different gameplay styles -- but the large player count is a natural counter to most all of the things you think would be issues. Taking just the example of structure HP health, you might logically presume that a large group of marines hitting a hive without scaling its HP would mean insta-death. But have you tried killing a hive with five gorges healing while aliens defend? Good luck with that. This says nothing of how strategies change on large servers, or of the entirely new strategies arise as a result of more players.
And yes we've had people who have ideologically decided large servers are bad say 'I played on woozas once, and it sucked because X and Y and ponies!' and they're always from players who have done a handful of games on a large server, and decided they've seen everything. Play 50 hours on Woozas, and then you qualify for understanding how large games play, how the game scales, and the distinct differences between the two game styles. And like small servers you can have shit games and awesome games, quick games and long games, good teams and bad teams. It takes time to see it all.
I'm not suggesting this is you btw Ironhorse, it's a general comment for some of the posts I've seen from others. You're always methodical and thoughtful. It should go without saying (well, one would think) that in order to discuss these things meaningfully experience is required. I found @Pelargir's post good in that respect.
After all the issue with that large slot servers are "new player traps" will be solved soon by various things without having any direct impact on given servers.
Er, what does this mean?
EDIT: On the new posts by @Wooza and @Mendasp -- I don't know what's going on but lets keep cool heads and keep personal issues out of it. We all have the same goal here, in the end.
Mr @Wooza, I have never banned or edited a person's post on the NS2 forums unless they have insulted someone, used foul language or broken forum rules. You seem to have this image of me as an evil tyrant, but I assure you this is not the case. (@Mendasp would have said so a long time ago I'm sure). But as co-lead of CDT, it's my responsibility to deal with keeping NS2 going for the greater public and I am simply trying to do the best I can given our limited resources. I send out server admin emails to the google group thanking EVERY server admin for keeping their NS2 servers going. I don't omit anyone's, not even yours.
Now, onto your post.
ATF was perma-banned for something called 'ban evasion'. Where someone who is banned, tried to get around that ban by making other accounts, or using different IP addresses to mask their identity. He has so far, created the following accounts: @HellwireD, @week, @eightyef, @babblerbling and @Rifle-Star. Ban evasion is not something special just for him, perma-banning for ban evasion is the standard forum rule for everyone. His original ban was after he has 3 warnings about his attitude, naming and shaming on the forums, and derailing threads to suit his own purposes. As the leader of a community, you know if someone breaks the rules enough times, you deal with it in a way which is fair to all. His 3 warnings in a short space of time triggered a temp-ban, and his ban-evasion attempts triggered a perma-ban. I think this is fair.
I have no idea what makes you think we're scapegoating ATF. He's clearly done all this himself. He's not 'sacrificed himself' for your community, he's just made himself look a little foolish and our forum moderators have had to clean up his mess.
His work in passing @Matso some of your logs and details did indeed help us in optimizing NS2 for servers, and this has been most appreciated. However, we are not and have not ever specifically been working towards optimizing larger-than-designed servers such as yours, which artificially increase the max player count of the game we're trying to develop in our own free time. When CDT members have tried to do this, I have put a stop to it. Not because I don't think your community should not exist, but because there is a good chance our limited resources could be put to better use for helping make the game better for everyone.
I mentioned the upcoming patch, because I like to keep the community informed on what's going on. It's been months since the last patch and getting awareness out there that we're about to start patching again is important.
The Hive Whitelist was originally designed for vanilla servers, so people could know that they were safe to play on. Somehow over time, due to Lukas not having time to work on it, this changed, and a lot of modded servers got added to it. Yours and a number of others were removed - you were not singled out here. We're going to be rebuilding Hive from scratch in the future and we will no longer have this issue, but this is a long-term goal.
I don't want to destroy your community, I never have. I DO want you to make your servers better for our community at large, that is what I care most about. A good, stable, high-tick rate server makes all the difference in gameplay quality and currently, in order to maintain your 42 player server, you have to run it at 25 ticks, which dips lower than that at times.
When you compare to The Thirsty Onos server:
The quality experienced is night and day. I suspect if you lowered your player counts to even 28 players, you would see a much improved player experience and greater player retention.
CDT members have put in a lot of effort in optimizing NS2, especially in forthcoming patches, of which your server will be a beneficiary. By insulting them in your forum post, you make them less likely to be interested in helping you and your community in the future, which is a real shame. Despite our difference of opinion on server sizes, we do need all NS2 communities around right now to keep the player base alive. As for ATF 'strking me down' - I have no idea what that means, as it's hard to strike something when you're banned.
I appreciate the discussion though, and look forward to discussing things further.
Just in response to @Obraxis -- I can't speak for the technicalities, but the experience on woozas is fine now, no warping or other issues that were there a year ago. It does require beefier client hardware though, with more happening on screen. I've heard people say they stutter in an intense fire fight where my machine hasn't, but then I've got an overclocked i7 and SLI.
Also, on those graphs, for what it's worth those dips are all at map change.
And, if you read my previous post, I don't think woozas has a problem with player retention That's kinda what the detour into server sizes is all about.
Indeed @Martigen, people forget the more clients on a server, the more FPS will tank due to the workload it puts on clients to render and run the game.
If you read my post, I was not referring to the dips, I was referring to the fact that the server has to be run BELOW 30 ticks in order to remain playable compared to most other servers. When I mentioned player retention, I was meaning across the NS2 scene, my words were not clear enough. People need to have a good fun experience on all servers or they wont come back.
I think where you see adequate scaling is just because there is still enjoyable gameplay (to those that would frequent such servers) and random factors that assist in masking the issue, (slower rookies, less coordination) but not because the game magically balances out at those levels where it was not officially balanced for.
Take your example of a very large group of marines entering the room to melt a hive. 20 marines would melt that hive in 1.4 seconds.... and that's where your scenario falls apart :
When does the enemy team ever respond and move into position in a sizable response by 1.4 seconds?
I really do not think my opinion is formed from lack of experience in such servers.
I have played hours in multiple different large player servers and my impression is unfortunately always the same three things :
Very spammy gameplay (GLs and overcrowded hallways! )
Marines have the advantage (doesn't matter if the equal amount of melee enter the room as ranged - ranged players can spray and pray in the hallways and naturally hit more things per magazine than if it were 1 v 1)
Performance woes in one form or another (if not a lowered server rate, then network stutters, lost packets, or client FPS dips due to increased entity count)
So are there two games because UWE was kind enough to not prevent 24+ servers? Yes. (and they could have btw, the discussion occurred multiple times)
Is it smart providing a Rookie Only experience - where we want to train and prepare a rookie for what they'll encounter in the majority of servers - to have them play a completely different game? No.
I think such servers are just fine existing the way they are, (Coke and Coke lite are welcomed! ) and I think many will continue to enjoy them especially as performance woes continually get resolved.
I would love it if real work was done by the community on making these larger servers work better, such as quality maps that were adequately sized, or structure HP scaling or damage scalars etc.
But being as they are a different game as you said, I do not think they are adequate for preparing someone new to NS2. They do not prevent what rookies currently experience, getting stomped and lost in a typical server.
Thanks @mattji104 now I am wishing there was a "confused" button next to agree and disagree..
I think he is suggesting that cysts are a performance hog (are they still?).
For months now he has been claiming that cysts are the root of all things bad in ns2 gameplay and balance wise. This is an exaggeration, but I think it gets the point across.
Edit: @benson is correct. Powernodes are just as evil as cysts to mattj. It is more of a balance perspective than a performance one.
I'd just like to point out that I have no social life and if it wasn't for flayra and his fucking team of programmers and now the fucking Cdt I would probably have like over 3 friends right now. #downthecdt
Take your example of a very large group of marines entering the room to melt a hive. 20 marines would melt that hive in 1.4 seconds.... and that's where your scenario falls apart :
When does the enemy team ever respond and move into position in a sizable response by 1.4 seconds?
Well, it's not a scenario Ironhorse, it happens every day
And funnily enough, in many respects, more teamwork is required on larger servers and it is truly impressive when it comes together. Sometimes you will get that team moving together to push an advantage, and it's the better comms that can do this.
Other times, even with exceptional teamwork, the other team co-ordinates even better and you lose the advantage. Either way, fantastic games.
I didn't say it before but I'll be the first to say small server games require more skill, and there's a different sense of accomplishment from your actions. Large servers are without a doubt for more casual and relaxed gameplay -- very much pub -- but individuals are still important here. Many a game has been won by a marine getting a PG or a gorge a tunnel and turning a game around. That's often when you see teams coming together so well, too.
But I digress.
EDIT: I just realised I mis-read your line. You're asking how could aliens possibly stop a hive melt in 1.4 seconds? You make a lot of assumptions here -- firstly, that aliens won't see it coming. You have more players on the field, which means more scouting. Rarely will marines walk unchallenged into a hive. Secondly, even if the marines are making a co-ordinated assault with numbers you now have numbers on the alien team in defense. Multiple gorges healing a hive are damn hard to put down when you're dodging fades and lerks -- multiple of them too, remember. Even jetpackers unless they're top-tier players will get caught in the cross fire. And thirdly, you're presuming all marines are aiming at the hive. Yeah, you play pub games right? The most common command I'm giving when I'm marine comm hitting a hive is 'NOTHING BUT THE HIVE!' and sometimes they listen, and sometimes we do indeed get the hive -- but it's never that quick. And it can't be, because there's 20 players on the other team. What do you think they're doing? And this says nothing of counter-attack tactics, where aliens force marines to beacon as a means of defence.
This is partly what I mean by having extensive experience on a large server. You can't take the game mechanics and just multiply them and say this means X will happen because of Y, because that doesn't bear out in practice. You can only understand this if you experience the mechanics in motion on a large server over many many games so you can see all the permutations that arise.
I really do not think my opinion is formed from lack of experience in such servers.
I have played hours in multiple different large player servers and my impression is unfortunately always the same three things :
Sorry and with the greatest respect reading that list I really don't think you have. What you listed depends on maps and teams, and specifically addressing marine advantage this shows you haven't put the hours in. To demonstrate: any time marines are holding a hallway or room like that, two things happen: aliens use the map and vents to flank them, or if the marines are getting it together in numbers aliens will hit other parts of the map, especially res. This does two things: marines pull back to defend or, to prevent this, spread out to begin with meaning you don't get large concentrations in one spot. Small battles happen all over the map, and sometimes it's no different than on a small server with one player faced off against just one or two other players.
This is one aspect that makes larger games fun -- you have a mixture of small close combat battles and epic assaults when plans come together, and everything in between.
I invite you to play on woozas for a month, at the least. There are two server sizes, 42 and 32, so if you want to ease in go on the 32 player Hot Tub. This is also the 'rookie friendly' server when there are sales, and with less custom maps (more core vanilla rotation).
I would love it if real work was done by the community on making these larger servers work better, such as quality maps that were adequately sized, or structure HP scaling or damage scalars etc.
This actually demonstrates how well NS2 scales: if there were serious scaling issues with large servers -- like structure HP or similar -- that made the game not fun to play, people wouldn't be playing it. The servers wouldn't be packed every night. Again... throw away opinion, theories etc, just look at the numbers. They speak for themselves. It actually scales really well as I noted earlier. And this is great -- because if it did require a lot of changes, we'd have two codebases to maintain and we all know that's not going to happen.
But being as they are a different game as you said, I do not think they are adequate for preparing someone new to NS2. They do not prevent what rookies currently experience, getting stomped and lost in a typical server.
So, yes we got a bit sidetracked on the types of gameplay from small and large servers. On the above... Yes, that is the experience a rookie often gets, it's also the very experience that turns new people away from NS2: it's too hard, too complex, too soon. I think it'd be hard for you to argue however that large servers don't actually make this easier for them. My points on the previous page go over how they help ease the experience.
I'm not advocating wooza scale here btw, as per previous page I think 24 is a good number (especially if there are performance concerns for servers not running on beastly hardware). Once they are hooked... then they can go play on 6v6, or 21vs21, and find their preference. But lets get them hooked first, and give them plenty of other rookies to enjoy the ride with.
But all this is moot for now. If F2P happens, it's a long way off and so many other ducks need to be in line. We're putting cart before the horse etc etc blah blah
But with e.g. the next build we change the used compiler which could mean the given jump ends up somewhere totally different.
I think I missed this last night, bit tired.
This is a concern. I understand the current method for large servers is a 'hack' and you don't want to support it. For this reason I think it's time to put it on the table and request this feature is added.
As noted, roughly half of the entire current NS2 userbase is playing on >24 player servers at any one time. If the next build fries this in the ass, it will do tremendous damage to the already shrinking playerbase we have. It could be the nail in the coffin.
As I said in my post yesterday, the 'Coke Lite' NS2 is already on the market and wildly popular. CDT as directors of the NS2 business can listen to the customers, the userbase, and use this opportunity to help keep NS2 alive -- even if it's not the original full-sugar version, at least it's a gateway for those sugar-free hippies to get hooked on Coke before moving to the tough stuff As long as >24 slot servers are available, we will have players.
But with e.g. the next build we change the used compiler which could mean the given jump ends up somewhere totally different.
I think I missed this last night, bit tired.
This is a concern. I understand the current method for large servers is a 'hack' and you don't want to support it. For this reason I think it's time to put it on the table and request this feature is added.
As noted, roughly half of the entire current NS2 userbase is playing on >24 player servers at any one time. If the next build fries this in the ass, it will do tremendous damage to the already shrinking playerbase we have. It could be the nail in the coffin.
As I said in my post yesterday, the 'Coke Lite' NS2 is already on the market and wildly popular. CDT as directors of the NS2 business can listen to the customers, the userbase, and use this opportunity to help keep NS2 alive -- even if it's not the original full-sugar version, at least it's a gateway for those sugar-free hippies to get hooked on Coke before moving to the tough stuff As long as >24 slot servers are available, we will have players.
You have to understand that the CDT can't just do what we want. We have to follow UWE's presets in terms of NS2.
In fact there are ppl both in CDT and at UWE who wouldn't mind removing the lock while making clear that those servers won't be officially supported, but so there are ppl who don't want to remove the lock due to the issues i mentioned in my previous post.
So the overall compromise is and was to not actively do something about "removing the lock" but to keep the lock to prevent ppl who are not technically skilled enough from hosting such 24+ servers.
Also the lock is there to underline that those servers are neither supported by UWE nor the CDT.
With having the above in mind you should understand that the current situation won't change until most ppl at UWE and CDT change their minds.
In this matter the behavior of certain ppl connected with given 24+ slot server just made the situation worse in how willing UWE and CDT are to remove the lock.
Would you want to help someone who actively insults you almost daily at the forum? Would you want to work with someone who has caused tons of very in-polite private messages and emails.
Overall CDT never stopped working with any server in particular but CDT stopped working with certain ppl who caused more pain and work than the information they provided were worth.
Hopefully with these last word the off topic talk is ending.
You have to understand that the CDT can't just do what we want. We have to follow UWE's presets in terms of NS2.
In fact there are ppl both in CDT and at UWE who wouldn't mind removing the lock while making clear that those servers won't be officially supported, but so there are ppl who don't want to remove the lock due to the issue i mentioned in my previous post.
So the overall compromise is and was to not actively do something about "removing the lock" but to keep the lock to prevent ppl who are not technically skilled enough from hosting such 24+ servers.
Also the lock is there to underline that those servers are neither supported by UWE nor the CDT.
With having the above in mind you should understand that the current situation won't change until most ppl at UWE and CDT change their minds.
In this matter the behavior of certain ppl connected with given 24+ slot server just made the situation worse in how willing UWE and CDT are to remove the lock.
Would you want to help someone who actively insults you almost daily at the forum? Would you want to work with someone who has caused tons of very in-polite private messages and emails.
Overall CDT never stopped working with any server in particularly but CDT stopped working with certain ppl who caused more pain and work than the information they provided were worth.
Hopefully with these last word the off topic talk is ending.
Thanks for the reasoned reply Ghoul, and yes I can see perfectly where you're coming from. I also agree Wooz didn't exactly help things... and I told him as such.
With that I ask that members of the CDT (and server operators, too) put aside personal feelings, and preferences about small servers and large, and just do what's best for keeping NS2 active and played. We're all on the same page in that respect.
And thanks again for all your work, and the CDT as a whole. NS2 is at the moment the best it's ever been. Imagine if it was like this at release? We might have 100k players now... *dreams*
But all this is moot for now. If F2P happens, it's a long way off and so many other ducks need to be in line. We're putting cart before the horse etc etc blah blah
I cannot stress this enough. We can't just re-release the game, as is, now for a free to play audience. Most importantly, UWE still makes money from sales, but we would have to have those free-to-play customization options for players in the form of DLC or some sort of in-game economy to actually make up for those sales we would lose. This would require us to re-write how skinning works, and then produce a lot more content for that. We would have to significantly bolster our art output by creating a steady stream of new assets monthly (weekly?) and pull programmers off their current projects to better create this service. We won't ignore this possibility, because as was said prior: we want to grow NS2 and we damned well will, but it might not be in this way just yet.
ZavaroTucson, ArizonaJoin Date: 2005-02-14Member: 41174Members, Super Administrators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited July 2015
Approving them also takes work, and legal work at that. You have to make sure there is no plagiarism. Policing that is wildly difficult, as even Valve has failed in the past. They can afford such costs because they're a billion dollar company, and have compensated the real artists significantly following what happened. That said, the artists decided to contact Valve and settle it peacefully. I'm not a lawyer but I can imagine it could end much worse. Since we're working within the confines of UWE as unpaid volunteers we have to respect our bounds, I doubt we're ever going to put UWE in a position where they could be sued by anyone over stolen art assets.
I enjoyed the Coke metaphor alot (everyone knows that stuff sells itself and retention was never a problem)
Analysing all the data in this fine thread here's my idea for an F2P businessmodel:
-Free version: you are limited to play on max 20 ppl servers (problem of rookie-trap solved for ppl trying the game out).
-Silver version ($10): max 24 ppl servers
-Gold version (($25): access to Wooza's and other gangbangmonstrosities (maximum profit from the noobmasses).
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
That would support the idea that big is better, which is not the case.
Aside from the 'obvious' points of official slotsize, lets focus on performance. Both client and server.
You never want to link performance to prize.
That would support the idea that big is better, which is not the case.
You think you have to (and can) educate the market. This is an admirable but false assumption. Big is not better, just more popular. That is the point.
There are some issues that may hurt player retention:
- Insane loading times if you don't have a SSD . Is there any way for this to be fixed?
- High system requirements ... there are games with better graphics that don't need so many resources
- The lack of a ranking system . Now everyone plays for fun until they get bored ... there is no way to track your progress or give you the feeling you accomplished something
Are there any plans for 6vs6 matchmaking ? If you want people to start playing gathers and not on 42 players servers, that's what you need to do .
More game mods would also be nice, maybe integrated with the matchmaking system i mentioned above . There are lots in steam workshop ... i don't know if the creators still maintain them but they will bring additional content for those that get bored.
There are some issues that may hurt player retention:
- Insane loading times if you don't have a SSD . Is there any way for this to be fixed?
- High system requirements ... there are games with better graphics that don't need so many resources
- The lack of a ranking system . Now everyone plays for fun until they get bored ... there is no way to track your progress or give you the feeling you accomplished something
Are there any plans for 6vs6 matchmaking ? If you want people to start playing gathers and not on 42 players servers, that's what you need to do .
More game mods would also be nice, maybe integrated with the matchmaking system i mentioned above . There are lots in steam workshop ... i don't know if the creators still maintain them but they will bring additional content for those that get bored.
Yea, the system requirements are high. Fortunately, we've got a great group of volunteers who are continuing to provide optimizations to the game. There's only so much they can do, though. I imagine those games you're talking about are AAA titles that can afford to sink millions of dollars in optimizing the game to an insane degree. Unfortunately that's just not a luxury we have here.
I too would like a sort of ranking system in the game, or at least a fun system of achievements. ie "kill 20 lerks with a pistol". Steps would have to be taken to ensure this doesn't encourage rookie farming, though.
Unfortunately for matchmaking, it's just not possible without higher player numbers first. I mean... you'd join matchmaking and probably be the only one, sitting there for hours, only to be matched up with some insanely high-skill players at the last minute because they're all that's left to choose from the pool. It really sucks, but matchmaking just can't work properly without a larger playerbase.
There IS some juicy new stuff on the horizon, and I'm not just talking about skins... that's all I can say.
There are some issues that may hurt player retention:
- Insane loading times if you don't have a SSD . Is there any way for this to be fixed?
Yes, in 276 (patch after next) we'll be rolling out the new fast-load system @Matso has been working on for months. It should reduce map load times drastically.
- High system requirements ... there are games with better graphics that don't need so many resources
Yes, @ulmont has been working on reducing texture resolutions, (some are 4K+ which is not needed) @matso has been working on reducing CPU load on UI elements (which you'll see in 275) - as well as other CDT members have been working on other optimizations.
- The lack of a ranking system . Now everyone plays for fun until they get bored ... there is no way to track your progress or give you the feeling you accomplished something
Are there any plans for 6vs6 matchmaking ?
We're going to be rebuilding Hive from scratch which will include rankings. The problem with matchmaking, is it only works when you have a certain amount of players looking for a game at the same time. We currently dont have enough players in the community to support such a thing. However, we're going to be working on a matchmaking system in the coming months in case we're able to turn around the player numbers.
McGlaspiewww.team156.comJoin Date: 2010-07-26Member: 73044Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Gold, Subnautica Playtester
To follow up on @obraxis's comments about Hive and matchmaking. Our hope/plan is to be able to put in the logistics needed to have a full-blown ranking, and matchmaker into the Hive revamp. However, we wouldn't be enabling said system unless the *required* consistent player numbers rose to the levels they have to be for said system to work. We'll probably not spend a huge amount of time on this, because we need to spend time on things that give us a tangible gain. The CDT is thinking about and formulating plans for this though.
In Dota 2 and Counter-Strike Global Offensive players are the ones creating skins and they get 20 or 25 % of the sales . Valve just approves them .
If you implement a similar system, you won't have to worry about this part .
Because they have a truck load of players/modders to actually make that much content. That system won't be as effective in NS2 as it it's shown to be in dota and CS.
Comments
Forget for a moment what we think NS2 should be, or was designed to be. Put aside personal feelings on whether you prefer large or small servers, and just look at the ecosystem we have now. This tells you all you need to know.
And what we have now is two kinds of NS2 playerbases -- those who prefer small servers, and those who prefer large servers. As Cyzed pointed out, depending on time of day, Wooza's two core servers host around 50% of the active playerbase. And whichever side of the camp you fall on, neither is wrong, neither is right -- this is simply what is.
Now in business the goal is to make money by delivering a product your consumers want. When consumers tastes change, a business adapts. One of a zillion examples: Coke. When consumers demanded a sugar-free option, Coca-cola Amatil could have said 'No STFU! This is how Coke is supposed to be'. Instead it listened to demand, and to this day sell a sugar-free version.
We in this community, or more specifically the CDT, aren't in the business of making money -- but we are in the business of wanting to grow the NS2 playerbase and we all want to see a long future for NS2. And what is being demonstrated in the NS2 consumer market is that there is demand for large-server gameplay.
So, while NS2 wasn't originally designed for more than 24 players, this is how it has evolved, and there is a demand for it. It would be crazy to ignore this opportunity -- because it is an opportunity -- to grow the community and retain people in NS2. From the perspective of the CDT directing the business of NS2, yes adding Coke Lite to the lineup is a smart move. We even have the product already out there! All that needs to be done is ensure it continues to flourish.
And the beauty of it all is this: we have two gameplay styles that players can switch between at ease. Play exclusively on small servers, or large servers, or play a bit on each like @Pelargir. Variety and choice is awesome, as it keeps things fresh and exciting -- key tenets for longevity.
Yeah, about this. I don't know how many hours you've put into large servers, but I've got a good 700+. And I come from as you know NS1 PT days, NS1 clan, and all the way to NS2 etc etc blah blah so you could say I'm familiar. And after all this time I have to say, it does scale well. Very well in fact. There are some key gameplay differences that occur naturally between small games and large games -- and these come under the umbrella of the different gameplay styles -- but the large player count is a natural counter to most all of the things you think would be issues. Taking just the example of structure HP health, you might logically presume that a large group of marines hitting a hive without scaling its HP would mean insta-death. But have you tried killing a hive with five gorges healing while aliens defend? Good luck with that. This says nothing of how strategies change on large servers, or of the entirely new strategies arise as a result of more players.
And yes we've had people who have ideologically decided large servers are bad say 'I played on woozas once, and it sucked because X and Y and ponies!' and they're always from players who have done a handful of games on a large server, and decided they've seen everything. Play 50 hours on Woozas, and then you qualify for understanding how large games play, how the game scales, and the distinct differences between the two game styles. And like small servers you can have shit games and awesome games, quick games and long games, good teams and bad teams. It takes time to see it all.
I'm not suggesting this is you btw Ironhorse, it's a general comment for some of the posts I've seen from others. You're always methodical and thoughtful. It should go without saying (well, one would think) that in order to discuss these things meaningfully experience is required. I found @Pelargir's post good in that respect.
Er, what does this mean?
EDIT: On the new posts by @Wooza and @Mendasp -- I don't know what's going on but lets keep cool heads and keep personal issues out of it. We all have the same goal here, in the end.
Now, onto your post.
ATF was perma-banned for something called 'ban evasion'. Where someone who is banned, tried to get around that ban by making other accounts, or using different IP addresses to mask their identity. He has so far, created the following accounts: @HellwireD, @week, @eightyef, @babblerbling and @Rifle-Star. Ban evasion is not something special just for him, perma-banning for ban evasion is the standard forum rule for everyone. His original ban was after he has 3 warnings about his attitude, naming and shaming on the forums, and derailing threads to suit his own purposes. As the leader of a community, you know if someone breaks the rules enough times, you deal with it in a way which is fair to all. His 3 warnings in a short space of time triggered a temp-ban, and his ban-evasion attempts triggered a perma-ban. I think this is fair.
I have no idea what makes you think we're scapegoating ATF. He's clearly done all this himself. He's not 'sacrificed himself' for your community, he's just made himself look a little foolish and our forum moderators have had to clean up his mess.
His work in passing @Matso some of your logs and details did indeed help us in optimizing NS2 for servers, and this has been most appreciated. However, we are not and have not ever specifically been working towards optimizing larger-than-designed servers such as yours, which artificially increase the max player count of the game we're trying to develop in our own free time. When CDT members have tried to do this, I have put a stop to it. Not because I don't think your community should not exist, but because there is a good chance our limited resources could be put to better use for helping make the game better for everyone.
I mentioned the upcoming patch, because I like to keep the community informed on what's going on. It's been months since the last patch and getting awareness out there that we're about to start patching again is important.
The Hive Whitelist was originally designed for vanilla servers, so people could know that they were safe to play on. Somehow over time, due to Lukas not having time to work on it, this changed, and a lot of modded servers got added to it. Yours and a number of others were removed - you were not singled out here. We're going to be rebuilding Hive from scratch in the future and we will no longer have this issue, but this is a long-term goal.
I don't want to destroy your community, I never have. I DO want you to make your servers better for our community at large, that is what I care most about. A good, stable, high-tick rate server makes all the difference in gameplay quality and currently, in order to maintain your 42 player server, you have to run it at 25 ticks, which dips lower than that at times.
When you compare to The Thirsty Onos server:
The quality experienced is night and day. I suspect if you lowered your player counts to even 28 players, you would see a much improved player experience and greater player retention.
CDT members have put in a lot of effort in optimizing NS2, especially in forthcoming patches, of which your server will be a beneficiary. By insulting them in your forum post, you make them less likely to be interested in helping you and your community in the future, which is a real shame. Despite our difference of opinion on server sizes, we do need all NS2 communities around right now to keep the player base alive. As for ATF 'strking me down' - I have no idea what that means, as it's hard to strike something when you're banned.
I appreciate the discussion though, and look forward to discussing things further.
Just in response to @Obraxis -- I can't speak for the technicalities, but the experience on woozas is fine now, no warping or other issues that were there a year ago. It does require beefier client hardware though, with more happening on screen. I've heard people say they stutter in an intense fire fight where my machine hasn't, but then I've got an overclocked i7 and SLI.
Also, on those graphs, for what it's worth those dips are all at map change.
And, if you read my previous post, I don't think woozas has a problem with player retention
Looking forward to the next patch!
If you read my post, I was not referring to the dips, I was referring to the fact that the server has to be run BELOW 30 ticks in order to remain playable compared to most other servers. When I mentioned player retention, I was meaning across the NS2 scene, my words were not clear enough. People need to have a good fun experience on all servers or they wont come back.
I think where you see adequate scaling is just because there is still enjoyable gameplay (to those that would frequent such servers) and random factors that assist in masking the issue, (slower rookies, less coordination) but not because the game magically balances out at those levels where it was not officially balanced for.
Take your example of a very large group of marines entering the room to melt a hive. 20 marines would melt that hive in 1.4 seconds.... and that's where your scenario falls apart :
When does the enemy team ever respond and move into position in a sizable response by 1.4 seconds?
I really do not think my opinion is formed from lack of experience in such servers.
I have played hours in multiple different large player servers and my impression is unfortunately always the same three things :
So are there two games because UWE was kind enough to not prevent 24+ servers? Yes. (and they could have btw, the discussion occurred multiple times)
Is it smart providing a Rookie Only experience - where we want to train and prepare a rookie for what they'll encounter in the majority of servers - to have them play a completely different game? No.
I think such servers are just fine existing the way they are, (Coke and Coke lite are welcomed!
I would love it if real work was done by the community on making these larger servers work better, such as quality maps that were adequately sized, or structure HP scaling or damage scalars etc.
But being as they are a different game as you said, I do not think they are adequate for preparing someone new to NS2. They do not prevent what rookies currently experience, getting stomped and lost in a typical server.
I think he is suggesting that cysts are a performance hog (are they still?).
For months now he has been claiming that cysts are the root of all things bad in ns2 gameplay and balance wise. This is an exaggeration, but I think it gets the point across.
Edit: @benson is correct. Powernodes are just as evil as cysts to mattj. It is more of a balance perspective than a performance one.
Don't forget cysts and powernodes are equal evils, according to some
Levels 0-1: A stoner puffs too long on a shared blunt
Levels 2-4: Neighbor's dog shits right on the property line
Levels 5-6: Communications breakdown at work
Levels 7-8: the wife on a girls night out
Levels 9-10: high school volleyball girls
Level 11: NS2 forums
#whoiswooza
#biteTheHandThatFeedsUd
And funnily enough, in many respects, more teamwork is required on larger servers and it is truly impressive when it comes together. Sometimes you will get that team moving together to push an advantage, and it's the better comms that can do this.
Other times, even with exceptional teamwork, the other team co-ordinates even better and you lose the advantage. Either way, fantastic games.
I didn't say it before but I'll be the first to say small server games require more skill, and there's a different sense of accomplishment from your actions. Large servers are without a doubt for more casual and relaxed gameplay -- very much pub -- but individuals are still important here. Many a game has been won by a marine getting a PG or a gorge a tunnel and turning a game around. That's often when you see teams coming together so well, too.
But I digress.
EDIT: I just realised I mis-read your line. You're asking how could aliens possibly stop a hive melt in 1.4 seconds? You make a lot of assumptions here -- firstly, that aliens won't see it coming. You have more players on the field, which means more scouting. Rarely will marines walk unchallenged into a hive. Secondly, even if the marines are making a co-ordinated assault with numbers you now have numbers on the alien team in defense. Multiple gorges healing a hive are damn hard to put down when you're dodging fades and lerks -- multiple of them too, remember. Even jetpackers unless they're top-tier players will get caught in the cross fire. And thirdly, you're presuming all marines are aiming at the hive. Yeah, you play pub games right?
This is partly what I mean by having extensive experience on a large server. You can't take the game mechanics and just multiply them and say this means X will happen because of Y, because that doesn't bear out in practice. You can only understand this if you experience the mechanics in motion on a large server over many many games so you can see all the permutations that arise.
Sorry and with the greatest respect reading that list I really don't think you have. What you listed depends on maps and teams, and specifically addressing marine advantage this shows you haven't put the hours in. To demonstrate: any time marines are holding a hallway or room like that, two things happen: aliens use the map and vents to flank them, or if the marines are getting it together in numbers aliens will hit other parts of the map, especially res. This does two things: marines pull back to defend or, to prevent this, spread out to begin with meaning you don't get large concentrations in one spot. Small battles happen all over the map, and sometimes it's no different than on a small server with one player faced off against just one or two other players.
This is one aspect that makes larger games fun -- you have a mixture of small close combat battles and epic assaults when plans come together, and everything in between.
I invite you to play on woozas for a month, at the least. There are two server sizes, 42 and 32, so if you want to ease in go on the 32 player Hot Tub. This is also the 'rookie friendly' server when there are sales, and with less custom maps (more core vanilla rotation).
This actually demonstrates how well NS2 scales: if there were serious scaling issues with large servers -- like structure HP or similar -- that made the game not fun to play, people wouldn't be playing it. The servers wouldn't be packed every night. Again... throw away opinion, theories etc, just look at the numbers. They speak for themselves. It actually scales really well as I noted earlier. And this is great -- because if it did require a lot of changes, we'd have two codebases to maintain and we all know that's not going to happen.
So, yes we got a bit sidetracked on the types of gameplay from small and large servers. On the above... Yes, that is the experience a rookie often gets, it's also the very experience that turns new people away from NS2: it's too hard, too complex, too soon. I think it'd be hard for you to argue however that large servers don't actually make this easier for them. My points on the previous page go over how they help ease the experience.
I'm not advocating wooza scale here btw, as per previous page I think 24 is a good number (especially if there are performance concerns for servers not running on beastly hardware). Once they are hooked... then they can go play on 6v6, or 21vs21, and find their preference. But lets get them hooked first, and give them plenty of other rookies to enjoy the ride with.
But all this is moot for now. If F2P happens, it's a long way off and so many other ducks need to be in line. We're putting cart before the horse etc etc blah blah
This is a concern. I understand the current method for large servers is a 'hack' and you don't want to support it. For this reason I think it's time to put it on the table and request this feature is added.
As noted, roughly half of the entire current NS2 userbase is playing on >24 player servers at any one time. If the next build fries this in the ass, it will do tremendous damage to the already shrinking playerbase we have. It could be the nail in the coffin.
As I said in my post yesterday, the 'Coke Lite' NS2 is already on the market and wildly popular. CDT as directors of the NS2 business can listen to the customers, the userbase, and use this opportunity to help keep NS2 alive -- even if it's not the original full-sugar version, at least it's a gateway for those sugar-free hippies to get hooked on Coke before moving to the tough stuff
You have to understand that the CDT can't just do what we want. We have to follow UWE's presets in terms of NS2.
In fact there are ppl both in CDT and at UWE who wouldn't mind removing the lock while making clear that those servers won't be officially supported, but so there are ppl who don't want to remove the lock due to the issues i mentioned in my previous post.
So the overall compromise is and was to not actively do something about "removing the lock" but to keep the lock to prevent ppl who are not technically skilled enough from hosting such 24+ servers.
Also the lock is there to underline that those servers are neither supported by UWE nor the CDT.
With having the above in mind you should understand that the current situation won't change until most ppl at UWE and CDT change their minds.
In this matter the behavior of certain ppl connected with given 24+ slot server just made the situation worse in how willing UWE and CDT are to remove the lock.
Would you want to help someone who actively insults you almost daily at the forum? Would you want to work with someone who has caused tons of very in-polite private messages and emails.
Overall CDT never stopped working with any server in particular but CDT stopped working with certain ppl who caused more pain and work than the information they provided were worth.
Hopefully with these last word the off topic talk is ending.
With that I ask that members of the CDT (and server operators, too) put aside personal feelings, and preferences about small servers and large, and just do what's best for keeping NS2 active and played. We're all on the same page in that respect.
And thanks again for all your work, and the CDT as a whole. NS2 is at the moment the best it's ever been. Imagine if it was like this at release? We might have 100k players now... *dreams*
I cannot stress this enough. We can't just re-release the game, as is, now for a free to play audience. Most importantly, UWE still makes money from sales, but we would have to have those free-to-play customization options for players in the form of DLC or some sort of in-game economy to actually make up for those sales we would lose. This would require us to re-write how skinning works, and then produce a lot more content for that. We would have to significantly bolster our art output by creating a steady stream of new assets monthly (weekly?) and pull programmers off their current projects to better create this service. We won't ignore this possibility, because as was said prior: we want to grow NS2 and we damned well will, but it might not be in this way just yet.
If you implement a similar system, you won't have to worry about this part .
Analysing all the data in this fine thread here's my idea for an F2P businessmodel:
-Free version: you are limited to play on max 20 ppl servers (problem of rookie-trap solved for ppl trying the game out).
-Silver version ($10): max 24 ppl servers
-Gold version (($25): access to Wooza's and other gangbangmonstrosities (maximum profit from the noobmasses).
Aside from the 'obvious' points of official slotsize, lets focus on performance. Both client and server.
You never want to link performance to prize.
You think you have to (and can) educate the market. This is an admirable but false assumption. Big is not better, just more popular. That is the point.
- Insane loading times if you don't have a SSD . Is there any way for this to be fixed?
- High system requirements ... there are games with better graphics that don't need so many resources
- The lack of a ranking system . Now everyone plays for fun until they get bored ... there is no way to track your progress or give you the feeling you accomplished something
Are there any plans for 6vs6 matchmaking ? If you want people to start playing gathers and not on 42 players servers, that's what you need to do .
More game mods would also be nice, maybe integrated with the matchmaking system i mentioned above . There are lots in steam workshop ... i don't know if the creators still maintain them but they will bring additional content for those that get bored.
Yea, the system requirements are high. Fortunately, we've got a great group of volunteers who are continuing to provide optimizations to the game. There's only so much they can do, though. I imagine those games you're talking about are AAA titles that can afford to sink millions of dollars in optimizing the game to an insane degree. Unfortunately that's just not a luxury we have here.
I too would like a sort of ranking system in the game, or at least a fun system of achievements. ie "kill 20 lerks with a pistol". Steps would have to be taken to ensure this doesn't encourage rookie farming, though.
Unfortunately for matchmaking, it's just not possible without higher player numbers first. I mean... you'd join matchmaking and probably be the only one, sitting there for hours, only to be matched up with some insanely high-skill players at the last minute because they're all that's left to choose from the pool. It really sucks, but matchmaking just can't work properly without a larger playerbase.
There IS some juicy new stuff on the horizon, and I'm not just talking about skins... that's all I can say.
Yes, in 276 (patch after next) we'll be rolling out the new fast-load system @Matso has been working on for months. It should reduce map load times drastically.
Yes, @ulmont has been working on reducing texture resolutions, (some are 4K+ which is not needed) @matso has been working on reducing CPU load on UI elements (which you'll see in 275) - as well as other CDT members have been working on other optimizations.
We're going to be rebuilding Hive from scratch which will include rankings. The problem with matchmaking, is it only works when you have a certain amount of players looking for a game at the same time. We currently dont have enough players in the community to support such a thing. However, we're going to be working on a matchmaking system in the coming months in case we're able to turn around the player numbers.
Is it a real walking animation????
We'd need walking to be in the game first.
Because they have a truck load of players/modders to actually make that much content. That system won't be as effective in NS2 as it it's shown to be in dota and CS.