Why are people playing on servers like this?
dePARA
Join Date: 2011-04-29 Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
Join Date: 2011-04-29 Member: 96321Members, Squad Five Blue
Can someone explain me, why servers like this are nearly always full? (i delete the name, its only an example)
<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52045821/server.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
1st: 24 slots are an horrible game experience. The game lose the strategic element with this ammount of players.
2nd: You can see this server drops down to 6 ticks wich is also horrible cause all players have constant rubberbanding and lags.
Its a sad thing that servers like above are nearly always full while so many good servers are empty most of the time.
This phenomen didnt affect the HBZ servers only, many other good servers have the same problems.
<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52045821/server.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
1st: 24 slots are an horrible game experience. The game lose the strategic element with this ammount of players.
2nd: You can see this server drops down to 6 ticks wich is also horrible cause all players have constant rubberbanding and lags.
Its a sad thing that servers like above are nearly always full while so many good servers are empty most of the time.
This phenomen didnt affect the HBZ servers only, many other good servers have the same problems.
Comments
And does it matter why people play in them? do you play in them? who are you to dictate how users should play a game they payed for?
If for you a server like that is an unpleasant experience, then dont join. im sure those who join enjoy playing there, live and let live.
my guess is the green line is amount of players and orange is tickrate?
my guess is the green line is amount of players and orange is tickrate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Graph is from <a href="http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/" target="_blank">devicenull's site</a>. Green line is tickrate (top gray line is 30 tickrate, 2nd gray line is 20, and bottom gray line is 10) and orange line is playercount.
<img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52045821/server2.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
And this is not my server as DamDSx mentioned before.
Sure, everyone can play where he want and I didnt say: DONT play there.
I always thought people want to have fun and a 6 tick server isnt funny, its horrible lag.
And does it matter why people play in them? do you play in them? who are you to dictate how users should play a game they payed for?
If for you a server like that is an unpleasant experience, then dont join. im sure those who join enjoy playing there, live and let live.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ya man, obviously the ppl playing there are making a conscious decision of playing on a ###### server, its totally not due to the fact that theyre unaware that the game is running like ###### because of low server perf.
Any attempt to proactively educate them about how to measure the performance of a server and how to select a good server, would go against their rights to be ignorant.
Too mny servers try to run 24 slots but cant hold 30 ticks at all, yet they fill up while other good 24 slots will stay empty.
Also, I agree that 12 on 12 is bad strategy wise and balance wise, but with the amount of afks and rage quits, youll have a hard time staying above 6v6 on a 18 slots.
It's good for meaningless, laggy deathmatch though.
<a href="http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/servers/52074/199.192.205.182:27016/?date=12%2F02%2F2012" target="_blank">http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/servers/5...=12%2F02%2F2012</a>
<a href="http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/servers/52401/24.86.96.240:27016/?date=12%2F03%2F2012" target="_blank">http://ns2servers.devicenull.org/servers/5...=12%2F03%2F2012</a>
connect van.tbgclan.com
connect chi.tbgclan.com
But yeah - those kind of servers should really lower the player count.
I suggest to remove servers that drop below 80% perf reguarily from quick connect and put the default at 80% perf in server list. I think that can help to address the problem.
Don't see a problem with people joining laggy servers? Well, what if those people start complaining about how laggy the game is and don't relate it ot the server and the game itself, and just quit playing (and won't recommend it to friends either).
As for 12 or 16 or 18 or 20 or 24 or whatever players, I think that is up to individual choice, but in any case, laggy servers are a no-go.
It's good for meaningless, laggy deathmatch though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The KKG servers tend to be better than most of the 16 player servers out there. I'm pretty sure cyst network is the most expensive aspect of the entity count.
As long as idiot admins put up 20+ slot servers, idiot players will play on them. It was like this in NS1 (only worse, with 32 slots being somewhat common) and it will continue to be like this in NS2.
I believe what people are actually complaining about is the head-to-head nature of playing with so many people at once.
By 'garbage' they mean 'its too confrontational.' By 'idiots' they mean 'people I can't beat by playing the normal way I play.' By 'max' they mean the point in which the game's flavour isn't what I am used to or think I enjoy.
Really, this all sounds like a bunch of adolescent whining.
2. packed actions. after all this is what you care in an fps game. consider ns2 is all about capturing and defending rts for the first 10 minutes, playing the game optimally is boring
3. more chance having chats, making friends.
on top of ns, i played boardgames for 12 years, started exactly at the boom of Puerto Rico. there are many boardgames in the world, namely classic ones, i consider them pretty ######, yet there are a lot of people playing it just because it is fun to them. probably you play with your friends, kids or family sometime. i dun call people out publicily. they do not pose a single threat to me and i could pwn them in the game whenever i wish or i have to. guess you just should not stop people from enjoying what they have been enjoying.
It just means you may have to alter yourplay style a little bit depending on the player count. Just an added challenge. If I had to pick though I would probably say I like 20 player servers.
Edit: Meh 24 player servers are fine too.
I believe what people are actually complaining about is the head-to-head nature of playing with so many people at once.
By 'garbage' they mean 'its too confrontational.' By 'idiots' they mean 'people I can't beat by playing the normal way I play.' By 'max' they mean the point in which the game's flavour isn't what I am used to or think I enjoy.
Really, this all sounds like a bunch of adolescent whining.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good job completely not understanding NS2 and how it scales with player counts.
Think about this: 3 marines in a hallway vs 3 skulks in a hallway and then scale that up to 10 marines in a hallway and 10 skulks in a hallway. Now consider the ranged vs melee aspect of the game. Now consider that aliens are far more dependent on their higher lifeforms (and losing them is far more detrimental) than marines are with their guns. Alien's are overwhelmingly melee and their health pools do not scale with player count. So a fade dies in about 0.1 seconds when he turns the corner into 10 marines spraying down a hallway. Now let's add some GLs into the mix.
How much strategy is involved in 10 marines coating the doorway with a thick spam of GL?
How much strategy is involved in 10 marines chain rushing close spawns (fight -> sub, warehouse -> server, etc), trading evenly with the skulks, and then winning because egg mechanics break at high player counts?
By 'garbage' they mean that it's terrible game play and causes the server to chug causing hitreg issues, lag, and stuttering. You're welcome to play whatever game you'd like. Calling 24+ player servers anything other than a spammy a->b deathmatch is dead wrong.
I believe what people are actually complaining about is the head-to-head nature of playing with so many people at once.
By 'garbage' they mean 'its too confrontational.' By 'idiots' they mean 'people I can't beat by playing the normal way I play.' By 'max' they mean the point in which the game's flavour isn't what I am used to or think I enjoy.
Really, this all sounds like a bunch of adolescent whining.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to agree. There were plenty of strategy and stuff all the time I've played NS1 (I played on G4B2S, etc).
All you need a com with a mic, regulars, and people following orders of com. On the alien side, there were plenty of strategy and stuff too. This also includes combat too. Combat does have strategy too, even in high player count servers.
Again, all it takes are regulars on a good server (I had good experiences in G4B2S, BAD, etc) and people with mics that communicate with each other. It wasn't just a death match.
Rant:
I really hate playing team games in general when people "try hard". If you want to try hard, just play a 1v1 game like BW or SC2 (or 1v1 Quake or something for FPS games) where your own skills really matter (oh wait, people are too scared of playing 1v1s! That's why they all swarm to team games where they can hide their own lack of skill by blaming team mates or whatever).
/rant off
Not specific to anyone or anything but I really hate that aspect of team games in general.
Also while I do basically attack team games, I'm not attacking team games because they're team games. I'm attacking people putting others down (which is more common in team games for obvious reasons). This reminds me of people on TL hating on casuals (leaving SC2 for more casual games)... but unless you're a pro, you're playing SC2 for no reason (it's not like playing SC2 will contribute to useful things in life (unless you're a pro making money)... I guess you'll be good at a computer game (but not good enough to make money off of it) and that's it).
____________________________________
<b>On to the argument of higher servers = laggy = giving people the impression the game is buggy or not great, etc. That's definitely valid of course but outside of that, "if" (especially in the future) the game can work at higher numbers, let people play it at higher numbers. NS1 worked on higher numbers (though I seen people hating on them in the NS forums back in the day). When NS2 gets bigger maps (maybe more for higher player count) and is better optimized, higher player servers would be valid.
</b>
Finally not to say that wanting to play more organized team play is bad or anything (yes, some people have fun playing in a more organized way like 6v6s rather than just random 16v16s on some pub server). Again, this is just in response to people hating on casuals or people playing on higher number servers.
2. packed actions. after all this is what you care in an fps game. consider ns2 is all about capturing and defending rts for the first 10 minutes, playing the game optimally is boring
3. more chance having chats, making friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I applaud you for not acting butthurt, unlike some other people in this thread.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As long as idiot admins put up 20+ slot servers, idiot players will play on them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Calling people idiots because they play the game they how THEY want to play it just highlights your ignorance. If you don't like the large servers, that's fine. Don't play on them. However, tossing around childish insults of those people who host or play on large servers makes you look like the idiot, not them.
My "win rate" is no different on 16p servers or 24p servers. The only difference is that my k/d becomes even more ridiculous on 24p servers, because they teach people to play like mindless lemmings (and whining when they get repeatedly destroyed by good players because of it).
<!--quoteo(post=2039600:date=Dec 4 2012, 04:11 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 4 2012, 04:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bla bla bla.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll refrain from commenting on most of your post, because as usual it's just a lot of words for nothing, but I'll simply say this: The quality of an activity is not qualified by how enjoyable it is to its participants.
I'm happy to see that my post has riled up all the morons, though. Mission accomplished.
I can't have every game be super-serious all the time always, I just burn out.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll refrain from commenting on most of your post, because as usual it's just a lot of words for nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You won't comment because you have no way to refute my remarks. You were rude and out of line. It's your kind of egotistical arrogance on the servers that is driving away players. If that is what your objective is, then you're doing a fine job.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm happy to see that my post has riled up all the morons<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The only person who seems riled up here is you. I wonder what that makes you?
I say that 24p servers teach people to play poorly (implicitly because they don't properly reward/punish players for their actions). You reply:
<!--quoteo(post=2039619:date=Dec 4 2012, 04:47 AM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 4 2012, 04:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039619"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No one 'teaches' anyone. There is no tutorial in this game, people learn on their own.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the end I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Usually pick the first, but sad for you none the less.
I'm going to leave this thread alone now, as I've already said what I wanted to say. It certainly won't change anything: people will continue to play on 24p+ servers just the same.
I believe what people are actually complaining about is the head-to-head nature of playing with so many people at once.
By 'garbage' they mean 'its too confrontational.' By 'idiots' they mean 'people I can't beat by playing the normal way I play.' By 'max' they mean the point in which the game's flavour isn't what I am used to or think I enjoy.
Really, this all sounds like a bunch of adolescent whining.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If running into people too often is a problem, make (a) map(s) that bigger than normal for special large team play.
But the amount of entities will be an issue until performance is fixed though.
I say that 24p servers teach people to play poorly (implicitly because they don't properly reward/punish players for their actions). You reply:
In the end I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Usually pick the first, but sad for you none the less.
I'm going to leave this thread alone now, as I've already said what I wanted to say. It certainly won't change anything: people will continue to play on 24p+ servers just the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why Mike hasn't done what you asked him to.
You should be nicer about it. He'll reduce the player count tomorrow.
That's a bit of a fail example, you can't really have better scaling than that. In RTS games the melee vs ranged scaling is dominated by perimeter vs area effects (e.g. marines versus zerglings) that don't really happen in NS2 because of the collisions.
On the servers I don't understand why people like low tickrate servers, during the beta I would often join a server and say to everybody to move to another servers because the tickrate was 2, but people do not seem to care much.