CS was the most popular on-line FPS of the time, if it got released today it would be on the same standings as COD and BF3.
The great thing about these sort of games is that you can jump on a server and play casual or competitively. Whilst team is important, in CS you could jump on a server and mess around, but another player on your team could be really trying to play a high level and clear up the mess you made.
Best of all, each round ends after a short period of time.
NS2 is just a really difficult game to balance for. Pro/Casual players alike will jump on a server and mess around occasionally, or just not push as hard as usual. Unfortunately this makes a massive difference in a game like this.
Current - Peak Today - Game 114,425 - 153,770 - Dota 2 55,697 - 60,026 - Football Manager 2013 36,721 - 52,854 - Counter-Strike
Yes, that's right, a year-old shooter that has had tons of problems and is universally agreed to be an unworthy successor to BF2 and is on Origin is not only still more popular than most of the most popular games on Steam, but it's still making EA a ton of money.
Plus, as far as I'm aware, there's hardly even a competitive scene for BF3. So I guess there goes that theory of successful games requiring a huge skill ceiling, a bunch of ***holes with clan tags being b****es to each other, and bunnyhopping.
PS: A week or two ago, the BF3 playercount on a weeknight was something around 22,000. I don't have any long-term stats, just immediate stats, but the new DLC released so if after a year people are still buying the DLCs and it's able to keep bringing back as many players as it does, then yes, BF3 is an outrageously successful game.
<!--quoteo(post=2040507:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:27 PM:name=Champlo0)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Champlo0 @ Dec 5 2012, 08:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040507"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not people that don't find hard games fun anymore. The same people still think hard games are fun. The gaming market has expanded into a casual gaming market where people just would rather have fun, that overcome a challenge. It's much better for a business to develop a fun game that can be easily picked up and played at least a moderately good level upon 5-20 hours of investment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People still like overcoming challenges, but people want to have fun while doing it. NS2, as far as actual game <b>substance</b> is concerned, is remarkably void of fun. The aliens are underinspired, the evolution system is pathetic and the process of getting (and losing) a lifeform is so punishing it's no fun since you literally spend half your time running away and praying, the upgrades are pathetic passive bonuses... if I had to describe the coolest parts of NS2, what am I going to talk about? When you spend 2 minutes chewing through a tank-like power node it goes black for 15 seconds? That you get only two combat-effective guns as a marine, one of which you spawn with? Nobody's going to buy a game like that, especially in today's day and age where games are competing with each other for players and thus are increasing production values and content to draw in players.
<!--quoteo(post=2040496:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:06 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040496"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no casual RTS games have been successful and for a good reason<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your blanket lies are starting to get boring. Please name some casual RTS games that have 'failed', and tell me where every RTS game Relic has ever made fits into that. Because Relic makes RTS games that I consider to be great fun for even casual players, most of them are geared towards being enjoyable without ever going online, and they not only are one of the most successful and long-lived developers, they're also the one studio whose revenue income has been keeping THQ afloat for a few years now.
<!--quoteo(post=2040513:date=Dec 5 2012, 12:46 PM:name=l3lessed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (l3lessed @ Dec 5 2012, 12:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is my take on bhopping. Skill is a subjective term to a degree, and there is more ways players can be skilled than repeatedly smashing space bar. On top of that, it isn't even the type of skill system which rewards increase in ability. Either you can bhop and roll nubs or you can't; there is very little degree of seperation, making it an extremely frustrating "skill" mechanics for the majority of players. Lastly, it requires very little critical thought, which in to me is what skill is actually based on, not the ability to repeat some action over and over to gain a ridiculous advantage. I'm tired of "hard-core" players pooping on any idea that doesn't involve reverting back to 90's game theory and design.
I think the current wall hopping system is a beautiful way of handling skill based movement. It does need some tweaking, smoothing over, and a clearer notification of it being executed, but it allows for degrees of seperation in skill and reward and requires critical thought to know when best to use it in order to engage a marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121930&hl=" target="_blank">no proper implementation of bunnyhop through pogostick requires "mashing the spacebar"</a>, I'm sick of people repeating this argument over and over again like it's some kind of fact. moreover, it actually applies to walljumping in its <i>current</i> state, as using a macro is still superior to manual execution. 2) there is a massive difference between the good and the great, that's one thing that bunnyhopping has always excelled at, and it's why it's proven itself to be probably the greatest system for skill movement. 3) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123491" target="_blank">wall jumping has no degrees of separation in skill. a good walljumper is the same as a great one.</a>
there's no need to turn this discussion into <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=125259&hl=" target="_blank">another bunnyhopping thread</a>, so please stop repeating this nonsense when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. it just undermines the entire discussion.
--
I'm not familiar with this Extra Credit series but it looks quite interesting!
as far as balancing for skill, that's obviously the correct decision, otherwise you end up with silly decisions based on posts such as these: <!--quoteo(post=2039116:date=Dec 2 2012, 11:38 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 2 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039116"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, EXOs are just a joke right now. Give me a 0 res skulk and I can kill an EXO with ease. I often kill them in pairs and dance away as I'm pitying the poor marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--
NS2 has a bunch of low skill to high power mechanics already, but the execution is rather poor so they might as well not exist. for example: Camouflage - (needs a rework due to interpolation and hit registry) this is a fine because it will allow low skill games to be essentially <i>won</i> in the early game, but skilled marines will be able to take advantage of Camouflage's by locking down a second hive. once new players stop winning with this strategy they can either improve their play to transition out of it, or adopt a new one entirely. Shotgun - (needs a rework due to randomness) Exosuit / Jetpack have a decent relationship in pubs despite exos being mildly underused in competitive play.
as well as having plenty of high skill - > greater power mechanics that still need plenty of ironing out: Regeneration - is in a decent spot when you look at the decisions you have to make when upgrading this vs. Carapace Celerity - (needs rework due to being deactivated in combat) Fade and Lerk - (survivability reworks against weapons 3) Leap - (weak / slow / low) Walljump - (doesn't scale with skill at all)
Dota's examples would be in hero combinations such as Sven + Lina, and they have the bonus of being used in high level play as well because skill directly scales with effectiveness.
nice video, I will definitely be checking out the rest of this series.
<!--quoteo(post=2040514:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:48 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Dec 5 2012, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040514"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CS was the most popular on-line FPS of the time, if it got released today it would be on the same standings as COD and BF3.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I *seriously* doubt that. CS's initial success was because it was an HL1 mod, back when modding was not only a big thing, but the entire multiplayer FPS scene was just starting to grow. Literally the only other game you had to play at that point was HLDM, so suddenly these games like Team Fortress and Counter Strike come out, get tons of attention, and hell, they're free for a game everyone has. You mean you can BUY GUNS? AMAZING! HOLY ######! Everyone had HL1, everyone could download CS, and there wasn't much else to play. CS, like Starcraft, had the fortune of coming to the party early. I don't even think Starcraft, if it were released today (as, say, Starcraft 2), would have as much market penetration. Starcraft 2 basically only succeeded because it was Starcraft 2. Rename it, reskin in, and give it to a different developer - do you REALLY think it'd have unseated Starcraft then?
CS:GO just came out and its peak playercount didn't even hit what BF3's playercounts on PC alone are doing a year after it came out.
<!--quoteo(post=2040405:date=Dec 5 2012, 09:10 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 09:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040405"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no bhop = no skill required. NS2 is very much a complete failure for skulks for not balancing skill to lifeforms other than the lerk and almost the fade. Skulk, the most important alien lifeform, has no depth to it so there is 0 difference from a new player and a experienced player as long as the new player is smart enough to know to run on walls instead of the floor. Definite proof of a developer that doesn't know what he needs to achieve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bhop was an unintentional bug and counter-intuitive as a game-play mechanic. Wall-jumping is the spiritual successor and requires players learn a new set of skills and map knowledge to use it effectively.
<!--quoteo(post=2040547:date=Dec 5 2012, 05:45 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040547"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your blanket lies are starting to get boring. Please name some casual RTS games that have 'failed', and tell me where every RTS game Relic has ever made fits into that. Because Relic makes RTS games that I consider to be great fun for even casual players, most of them are geared towards being enjoyable without ever going online, and they not only are one of the most successful and long-lived developers, they're also the one studio whose revenue income has been keeping THQ afloat for a few years now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other than CoH THQ has not made a successful casual RTS game. I would like to say the Homeworld series since it's my favourite RTS of all time other than Total Annihilation but neither of those have been successful in multiplayer. TA was sorta, but not completely. If you want examples I have 2 perfect ones. Age of Empires and C&C. C&C 4 was terrible because they tried to casualize their game where C&C 3 was already stretching it. The Age of Empires series is the best example as Age of Empires 2 is such an amazing game that even today it has a decent community and metagame shifts, it is one of the best RTS games ever made. And then they started releasing the garbage that is the sequels of it, up to Age of Empires Online <b>*shudder*</b> which is an abomination.
<!--quoteo(post=2040574:date=Dec 5 2012, 11:53 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 11:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->C&C 4 was terrible because they tried to casualize their game where C&C 3 was already stretching it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, they managed to make it even more horrid than C&C3?
C&C3 felt already horrid both by the mechanics and even more so by the mission design. I'm having hard time seeing anyone make a game more disappointing than that.
<!--quoteo(post=2040547:date=Dec 5 2012, 02:45 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040547"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your blanket lies are starting to get boring. Please name some casual RTS games that have 'failed', and tell me where every RTS game Relic has ever made fits into that. Because Relic makes RTS games that I consider to be great fun for even casual players, most of them are geared towards being enjoyable without ever going online, and they not only are one of the most successful and long-lived developers, they're also the one studio whose revenue income has been keeping THQ afloat for a few years now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Relic designs good RTS. A side effect of this is that it's really fun for everyone. If anything Relic is one of the friendliest game companies toward competitive play. Their expansions don't split up the community. They support their games for 3+ years. They interact with the community to some degree. Their games promote very cut throat play with a huge focus on unit preservation. They are also obscenely complex. In DoW2 they even managed the impressive feat of making super units relevant yet not breaking the game. The only mark against them is probably using an accuracy model which introduces an element of luck similar to critical hits.
Casual RTS doesn't work because the genre THRIVES on complexity. Even balance gets better the more complex you make it because it gives the developers more options to buff/nerf (Armor systems are a great example).
<!--quoteo(post=2040574:date=Dec 5 2012, 10:53 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Other than CoH THQ has not made a successful casual RTS game. I would like to say the Homeworld series since it's my favourite RTS of all time other than Total Annihilation but neither of those have been successful in multiplayer. TA was sorta, but not completely. If you want examples I have 2 perfect ones. Age of Empires and C&C. C&C 4 was terrible because they tried to casualize their game where C&C 3 was already stretching it. The Age of Empires series is the best example as Age of Empires 2 is such an amazing game that even today it has a decent community and metagame shifts, it is one of the best RTS games ever made. And then they started releasing the garbage that is the sequels of it, up to Age of Empires Online <b>*shudder*</b> which is an abomination.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So in your mind, any game that failed failed because it was CASUAL, not because it was - I don't know - a ****ty game?
So what about all those competitive games that failed? I already gave you a huge list of them.
Relic's RTS games are void of reliance on APM and other "skill" measurements which makes them highly accessible to players on all levels and they're so creative and fun that anyone, even players who never go online, can enjoy them. That sounds pretty casual to me. Quit acting like 'casual' is some sort of dirty label you just slap on any game that automatically equates it with ######.
The point is, Relic knows it'll never break into e-sports, and it'll never steal from the Starcraft crowd, so they don't waste time making games that work towards that end. As far as I can tell their games are designed to be fun for a short while until they cook up their next great game. Does that make the games in question garbage, because they're not full of scrawny nerds with massive ego problems who would rather play a game they don't enjoy but can win at than a game they enjoy but lose?
At least humor me and define what a 'casual RTS' is. Or tell me why it's so gloriously important that people be playing a game six years down the line.
<!--quoteo(post=2040582:date=Dec 5 2012, 04:12 PM:name=liquiddeath)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (liquiddeath @ Dec 5 2012, 04:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040582"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Relic designs good RTS. A side effect of this is that it's really fun for everyone. If anything Relic is one of the friendliest game companies toward competitive play. Their expansions don't split up the community. They support their games for 3+ years. They interact with the community to some degree. Their games promote very cut throat play with a huge focus on unit preservation. They are also obscenely complex. In DoW2 they even managed the impressive feat of making super units relevant yet not breaking the game. The only mark against them is probably using an accuracy model which introduces an element of luck similar to critical hits.
Casual RTS doesn't work because the genre THRIVES on complexity. Even balance gets better the more complex you make it because it gives the developers more options to buff/nerf (Armor systems are a great example).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to nit pick here, but.....
Most of their expansions split up the community. Look at the first DoW series, every expansion split the community. Dow II was also semi split. Retribution Was released in March 2011, only lasted till April 2012 before all of DoW 2 stop being supported. Dow 2 in general got 3 years service.
That being said, Relic is by far the best company I ever had the pleasure with working with (I worked with them for many years developing communities, tournaments, contests). I had a few key designers in easy contact (Msn messager), and they are very very good at what they do. They are really able to take risks (like removing base building in a RTS) and make it work. I have no doubt that they will do well with CoH2 (unless THQ brings them down with them).
Too bad THQ doesn't have enough capital to buy the Homeworld franchise from whatever useless ###### currently owns it and give it back to Relic where it belongs.
Have you read anything in this thread? Casualization ruining playerbases hello? Casual = Nothing to really learn outside of easy or basic mechanics, no high level play. Sure without a high skill ceiling in RTS you won't get the high level play which almost all RTS player strive for, but it doesn't mean it's a bad thing all the time. If you take a really good non-casual RTS that people would play for years like AoE 2 and make a sequel to it that takes most of what made it interesting away, the competitive and skill-based nature, you will be left with a fresh game with almost no playerbase from the previous games. 99% of the time, this is not what developers should want to happen, but they still do it, even though their games fail compared to the original. Like NS2...
<!--quoteo(post=2040612:date=Dec 5 2012, 04:48 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 04:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040612"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Too bad THQ doesn't have enough capital to buy the Homeworld franchise from whatever useless ###### currently owns it and give it back to Relic where it belongs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its funny because THQ owns Relic, and Relic owns the IP for Homeworld, so.......
Most of their expansions split up the community. Look at the first DoW series, every expansion split the community. Dow II was also semi split. Retribution Was released in March 2011, only lasted till April 2012 before all of DoW 2 stop being supported. Dow 2 in general got 3 years service.
That being said, Relic is by far the best company I ever had the pleasure with working with (I worked with them for many years developing communities, tournaments, contests). I had a few key designers in easy contact (Msn messager), and they are very very good at what they do. They are really able to take risks (like removing base building in a RTS) and make it work. I have no doubt that they will do well with CoH2 (unless THQ brings them down with them).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I got into Relic around DoW2, so I'm unfamiliar with how Dow1 split expansions. It was the same as Dow2 where you could play as the vanilla races and by buying the expansion you could play as the new ones right? For an RTS that pretty much counts as not splitting the community. Retribution was a bit weird because they ditched GFWL for steamworks so that acted more like a traditional RTS expansion. I kind of ignored the release of expansions as I've seen companies forced to stop supporting their game despite the release of an expansion (*cough* EA Kane's Wrath *cough*).
As for the topic at hand, I do kind of wish there was a bunny hopping analogue in NS2. Having missed the heyday of arcade shooters, I'm also kind of ambivalent of bunny hopping. I'd rather see skills that are a natural(ish) extension to actions players are expected to do/basic play.
I'm pretty sure this Extra Credits nutjob has another YouTube channel where he makes very similar "soapbox" style New-Age videos, where he claims babies born with diseases and women who are victims of rape deserve what they get because they couldn't find balance in their lives or something equally ridiculous. It completely reformed my opinions on the man and nothing else he says could possibly hold any value or weight in my eyes.
<!--quoteo(post=2040682:date=Dec 6 2012, 02:15 AM:name=m0rd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (m0rd @ Dec 6 2012, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040682"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm pretty sure this Extra Credits nutjob has another YouTube channel where he makes very similar "soapbox" style New-Age videos, where he claims babies born with diseases and women who are victims of rape deserve what they get because they couldn't find balance in their lives or something equally ridiculous. It completely reformed my opinions on the man and nothing else he says could possibly hold any value or weight in my eyes.
That Spirit Science thing is made by a guy named Jordan Duchnycz.
Extra Credits is written by James Portnow and narrated by Daniel Floyd. It's also not hard to hear that the voices sound differently. Get your stuff together.
<!--quoteo(post=2040618:date=Dec 5 2012, 11:55 PM:name=g0dAr1es)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (g0dAr1es @ Dec 5 2012, 11:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040618"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its funny because THQ owns Relic, and Relic owns the IP for Homeworld, so.......
Get your facts please.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seeing as how 99.9% of the time, the PUBLISHER owns the IP, and Homeworld was published under Sierra, GOD HOW COULD I POSSIBLY MAKE THAT MISTAKE?
<!--quoteo(post=2040613:date=Dec 5 2012, 11:49 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 11:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040613"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Have you read anything in this thread? Casualization ruining playerbases hello?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can say the sun is actually orbiting the earth just a few miles beyond the moon and point out the fact that it's the same size and goes around us, that doesn't make a few ridiculous observations actually TRUE.
Your entire argument operates from the premise that 'CASUAL = BAD' (I'd ask you to describe on the exact difference between CASUAL and... well NOT-CAUSAL, but you would completely miss my point that people who think in absolutes have already lost the argument), and then you string together and bunch of words thinking that pointing out ****ty old games from the 90s somehow proves your point.
Glenn Beck makes more concrete cases for a secret Zionist agenda than you do for "EVERY GAME IS GARBAGE IF IT DIDN'T HAVE TOURNAMETS WITH AT LEAST $30,000 PRIZES AND BUNNYHOPPING, BECAUSE I SAY SO."
Your tenuous case rests on no more than half a dozen or so games in a sea of tens of thousands of the damn things, selectively pointing at one or two examples and declaring it some sort of god damn proof, no matter how badly the rest of your argument falls apart in the process.
Okay, I get it. You personally only care about winning, and ladders, and hanging out with a bunch of 'sperging nerds with the same clan tag, having mechanics to abuse that allow you to monopolize and leverage a hideous advantage over other players because you're "pro", and you want to be able to tell people about how you're a better human being because you played in CAL. Whatever - more power to you. I'm not here to tell you that you shouldn't have fun with that.
I am here to tell you that your argument is, from where I stand, completely centered around "Everyone should find this fun, and if you don't you're a casual lout and we all look down on you", especially given how dirty a word 'causal' is. Might as well call us peasants. Yes, us, because I don't want you getting your prepubescent I-have-something-to-prove competition in the way of a fun game. And everything I've said to this point is that games can be fun, can be highly successful, and be played for a very long time, without anything that you continue to describe as being "VITAL" for a game's success.
Seriously, go tell the 50,000+ people still playing BF3 over a year later that they're all casuals and BF3 is dead and failed because it has no competition and a low skill ceiling. I've given you examples of games that had very high skill ceilings, good quality, and were really good games, but failed whatsoever to attract any interest. I've given you examples of games with low skill ceilings, low barriers to entry that can be enjoyed by damn-near everyone, and don't really have much of a competitive high-level scene, and have done excellent.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that competition is truly important. And no, saying "It didn't beat Counter Strike!" is not proof.
NS2 failed because it's impenetrable, it's uninspired, and it runs poorly. People were quitting the game long before the pub scene got their ###### together enough to form a competitive scene, unless - what - you thought that kind of thing would spring out of the ground in the first week?
<!--quoteo(post=2040731:date=Dec 5 2012, 07:31 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 07:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040731"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 failed because it's impenetrable, it's uninspired, and it runs poorly. People were quitting the game long before the pub scene got their ###### together enough to form a competitive scene, unless - what - you thought that kind of thing would spring out of the ground in the first week?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> why not both? I agree, with performance probably being the number one reason.
Ironically, people accuse me of 'hating every game', and yet on these forums I've found myself defending countless titles, including Call of Duty which I neither play nor respect, but I did just because there's so much bull**** being said it's making my head spin. It's like there's some hidden arrangement where we all agree to stereotype and pick on a certain game and say what we want because we know nobody will defend it, and that somehow makes the things you're saying true.
<!--quoteo(post=2040591:date=Dec 5 2012, 03:26 PM:name=Chickenbomb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chickenbomb @ Dec 5 2012, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040591"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The first thing I thought of when watching that video was NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of their recent videos have had me going "I sure hope the NS2 community are watching these"
<!--quoteo(post=2040737:date=Dec 5 2012, 11:39 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Dec 5 2012, 11:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040737"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most of their recent videos have had me going "I sure hope the NS2 community are watching these"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All of their videos have me going, "I can't believe people watch this garbage."
all of these games aside from skyrim and Civ 5 have competitive communities and all have been made with a competitive community in mind. Now you may say that having comp play is different from having a lasting game, but I disagree as in an FPS the main thing that makes people stick around is the skill required to play them, as is true in all of the shooters in the top steam stats rankings. NS1 was one of the top half-life mods played competitively and NS2 does not come close. Need I say more?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we have 2 different definitions of competitive.
Any multi-player game that has 2 teams with opposing goals is competitive, I meant more as in a game that teams regularly compete for cash prizes that are of sufficient quantity to live off of. Of the 6 fps games listed on your screenshot, how many have sufficient support for tournaments and a prize pools worthy of being called "competitive" in the context I am referring to?
In my first definition, the "competitive scene" is any public server since they are competing against each other, so are you inferring that they should balance around that "competitive scene"? I think you are not, which leads me to say there is no "competitive scene" for this game, and thus UWE should worry about balancing to help the game generate more revenue. I don't like making it easier on the new players either, but short of that, I fear it will go back to the beta times, where the same few hundred players always ran into each other on the servers that it got to the point where they all knew "each" other. I know each week it gets easier and easier to scroll through the server list of populated servers, and that's not good for continued support. Most of my friends who played this when it went "live" have moved onto other games, and the biggest reason is they don't like the game balance.
The video ignores the human element of the player base. Some players will adopt more powerful strategies just because they will. Others will not learn the more powerful strategies no matter how long they play. People are not machines that uniformly operate by simple stimulus-response.
A simple run through a few different CS servers a few years ago would reveal this basic truth, seeing veterans of ten years doing the same basic play they adopted at the beginning despite the fact it doesn't work and never changing and one year newcomers having entered higher level clan play.
This is even more relevant given different games draw different types of people with different basic responses to these issues.
In short: this video simplifies the equation and treats people with a certain puerility.
<!--quoteo(post=2040725:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:14 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Dec 5 2012, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seeing as how 99.9% of the time, the PUBLISHER owns the IP, and Homeworld was published under Sierra, GOD HOW COULD I POSSIBLY MAKE THAT MISTAKE?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My first statement was incorrect. Since THQ owns Relic, THQ has the IP for homeworld. So technically Relic doesnt have the IP. However you are wrong to say that Sierra owns the rights. If you would just do a simple internet search..... Caps makes everything better, especially more when you are wrong.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 failed because it's impenetrable, it's uninspired, and it runs poorly. People were quitting the game long before the pub scene got their ###### together enough to form a competitive scene, unless - what - you thought that kind of thing would spring out of the ground in the first week?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to admit, I totally agree with you here Temp. It was totally acceptable for NS1 to have those issues since it was, at heart, a free mod for another game. A very in depth mod, obviously, but a mod none-the-less. Not having tutorials, or obvious game mechanics, was something you could work through because it was a great mod at the end of the day that gave a great humans vs. aliens type of game play that few, if any, games had at the time. (And it was, again, <i>free</i> ) NS2, however, is a stand alone title people paid actual money for and as such expectations are different. Namely, people have paid money for NS2 and all of us have different expectations. The 'release' build of NS2 was pretty good, I had a lot of fun with it in spite of some pretty obvious issues (Early Onos and buggy alien structures among various performance issues).
Saying all will be well eventually may or may not be true, but the current patches since launch have actually removed content and viable strategies for one team that was already too linear and ultimately under powered within the games intermediate to expert community while being unbalanced in the other direction for newer players. The developers also may or may not realize what they've done, but saying 'Marines are fine, nerf aliens' is blatantly untrue to those that play with other intermediate to expert players.
I'm keeping up with the forums, and checking patch notes, but the current version is simply not fun for me. It's great it's fun for some other people, but if it continues the way it has the Extra Credits episode will be right about a small veteran community of tight-knit ladders being all that's left. NS2 is <i>horrendously</i> unfriendly to new players. Considering that this is exactly what happened to NS1, it should be fairly obvious to everyone that NS2 is tempting the same result.
Comments
The great thing about these sort of games is that you can jump on a server and play casual or competitively. Whilst team is important, in CS you could jump on a server and mess around, but another player on your team could be really trying to play a high level and clear up the mess you made.
Best of all, each round ends after a short period of time.
NS2 is just a really difficult game to balance for. Pro/Casual players alike will jump on a server and mess around occasionally, or just not push as hard as usual. Unfortunately this makes a massive difference in a game like this.
I wouldn't like to be Charlie.
You know what's funny about that?
Current BF3 playercount:
PC online - 56 345
PS3 online - 53 668
360 online - 50 682
Steam top games right now:
Current - Peak Today - Game
114,425 - 153,770 - Dota 2
55,697 - 60,026 - Football Manager 2013
36,721 - 52,854 - Counter-Strike
Yes, that's right, a year-old shooter that has had tons of problems and is universally agreed to be an unworthy successor to BF2 and is on Origin is not only still more popular than most of the most popular games on Steam, but it's still making EA a ton of money.
Plus, as far as I'm aware, there's hardly even a competitive scene for BF3. So I guess there goes that theory of successful games requiring a huge skill ceiling, a bunch of ***holes with clan tags being b****es to each other, and bunnyhopping.
PS: A week or two ago, the BF3 playercount on a weeknight was something around 22,000. I don't have any long-term stats, just immediate stats, but the new DLC released so if after a year people are still buying the DLCs and it's able to keep bringing back as many players as it does, then yes, BF3 is an outrageously successful game.
People still like overcoming challenges, but people want to have fun while doing it. NS2, as far as actual game <b>substance</b> is concerned, is remarkably void of fun. The aliens are underinspired, the evolution system is pathetic and the process of getting (and losing) a lifeform is so punishing it's no fun since you literally spend half your time running away and praying, the upgrades are pathetic passive bonuses... if I had to describe the coolest parts of NS2, what am I going to talk about? When you spend 2 minutes chewing through a tank-like power node it goes black for 15 seconds? That you get only two combat-effective guns as a marine, one of which you spawn with? Nobody's going to buy a game like that, especially in today's day and age where games are competing with each other for players and thus are increasing production values and content to draw in players.
<!--quoteo(post=2040496:date=Dec 5 2012, 08:06 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 5 2012, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2040496"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no casual RTS games have been successful and for a good reason<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your blanket lies are starting to get boring. Please name some casual RTS games that have 'failed', and tell me where every RTS game Relic has ever made fits into that. Because Relic makes RTS games that I consider to be great fun for even casual players, most of them are geared towards being enjoyable without ever going online, and they not only are one of the most successful and long-lived developers, they're also the one studio whose revenue income has been keeping THQ afloat for a few years now.
I think the current wall hopping system is a beautiful way of handling skill based movement. It does need some tweaking, smoothing over, and a clearer notification of it being executed, but it allows for degrees of seperation in skill and reward and requires critical thought to know when best to use it in order to engage a marine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121930&hl=" target="_blank">no proper implementation of bunnyhop through pogostick requires "mashing the spacebar"</a>, I'm sick of people repeating this argument over and over again like it's some kind of fact. moreover, it actually applies to walljumping in its <i>current</i> state, as using a macro is still superior to manual execution.
2) there is a massive difference between the good and the great, that's one thing that bunnyhopping has always excelled at, and it's why it's proven itself to be probably the greatest system for skill movement.
3) <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123491" target="_blank">wall jumping has no degrees of separation in skill. a good walljumper is the same as a great one.</a>
there's no need to turn this discussion into <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=125259&hl=" target="_blank">another bunnyhopping thread</a>, so please stop repeating this nonsense when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. it just undermines the entire discussion.
--
I'm not familiar with this Extra Credit series but it looks quite interesting!
as far as balancing for skill, that's obviously the correct decision, otherwise you end up with silly decisions based on posts such as these:
<!--quoteo(post=2039116:date=Dec 2 2012, 11:38 PM:name=Savant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Savant @ Dec 2 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2039116"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, EXOs are just a joke right now. Give me a 0 res skulk and I can kill an EXO with ease. I often kill them in pairs and dance away as I'm pitying the poor marines.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--
NS2 has a bunch of low skill to high power mechanics already, but the execution is rather poor so they might as well not exist. for example:
Camouflage - (needs a rework due to interpolation and hit registry)
this is a fine because it will allow low skill games to be essentially <i>won</i> in the early game, but skilled marines will be able to take advantage of Camouflage's by locking down a second hive. once new players stop winning with this strategy they can either improve their play to transition out of it, or adopt a new one entirely.
Shotgun - (needs a rework due to randomness)
Exosuit / Jetpack have a decent relationship in pubs despite exos being mildly underused in competitive play.
as well as having plenty of high skill - > greater power mechanics that still need plenty of ironing out:
Regeneration - is in a decent spot when you look at the decisions you have to make when upgrading this vs. Carapace
Celerity - (needs rework due to being deactivated in combat)
Fade and Lerk - (survivability reworks against weapons 3)
Leap - (weak / slow / low)
Walljump - (doesn't scale with skill at all)
Dota's examples would be in hero combinations such as Sven + Lina, and they have the bonus of being used in high level play as well because skill directly scales with effectiveness.
nice video, I will definitely be checking out the rest of this series.
I *seriously* doubt that. CS's initial success was because it was an HL1 mod, back when modding was not only a big thing, but the entire multiplayer FPS scene was just starting to grow. Literally the only other game you had to play at that point was HLDM, so suddenly these games like Team Fortress and Counter Strike come out, get tons of attention, and hell, they're free for a game everyone has. You mean you can BUY GUNS? AMAZING! HOLY ######! Everyone had HL1, everyone could download CS, and there wasn't much else to play. CS, like Starcraft, had the fortune of coming to the party early. I don't even think Starcraft, if it were released today (as, say, Starcraft 2), would have as much market penetration. Starcraft 2 basically only succeeded because it was Starcraft 2. Rename it, reskin in, and give it to a different developer - do you REALLY think it'd have unseated Starcraft then?
CS:GO just came out and its peak playercount didn't even hit what BF3's playercounts on PC alone are doing a year after it came out.
Bhop was an unintentional bug and counter-intuitive as a game-play mechanic. Wall-jumping is the spiritual successor and requires players learn a new set of skills and map knowledge to use it effectively.
Other than CoH THQ has not made a successful casual RTS game. I would like to say the Homeworld series since it's my favourite RTS of all time other than Total Annihilation but neither of those have been successful in multiplayer. TA was sorta, but not completely.
If you want examples I have 2 perfect ones. Age of Empires and C&C. C&C 4 was terrible because they tried to casualize their game where C&C 3 was already stretching it. The Age of Empires series is the best example as Age of Empires 2 is such an amazing game that even today it has a decent community and metagame shifts, it is one of the best RTS games ever made. And then they started releasing the garbage that is the sequels of it, up to Age of Empires Online <b>*shudder*</b> which is an abomination.
Wait, they managed to make it even more horrid than C&C3?
C&C3 felt already horrid both by the mechanics and even more so by the mission design. I'm having hard time seeing anyone make a game more disappointing than that.
Relic designs good RTS. A side effect of this is that it's really fun for everyone. If anything Relic is one of the friendliest game companies toward competitive play. Their expansions don't split up the community. They support their games for 3+ years. They interact with the community to some degree. Their games promote very cut throat play with a huge focus on unit preservation. They are also obscenely complex. In DoW2 they even managed the impressive feat of making super units relevant yet not breaking the game. The only mark against them is probably using an accuracy model which introduces an element of luck similar to critical hits.
Casual RTS doesn't work because the genre THRIVES on complexity. Even balance gets better the more complex you make it because it gives the developers more options to buff/nerf (Armor systems are a great example).
If you want examples I have 2 perfect ones. Age of Empires and C&C. C&C 4 was terrible because they tried to casualize their game where C&C 3 was already stretching it. The Age of Empires series is the best example as Age of Empires 2 is such an amazing game that even today it has a decent community and metagame shifts, it is one of the best RTS games ever made. And then they started releasing the garbage that is the sequels of it, up to Age of Empires Online <b>*shudder*</b> which is an abomination.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in your mind, any game that failed failed because it was CASUAL, not because it was - I don't know - a ****ty game?
So what about all those competitive games that failed? I already gave you a huge list of them.
Relic's RTS games are void of reliance on APM and other "skill" measurements which makes them highly accessible to players on all levels and they're so creative and fun that anyone, even players who never go online, can enjoy them. That sounds pretty casual to me. Quit acting like 'casual' is some sort of dirty label you just slap on any game that automatically equates it with ######.
The point is, Relic knows it'll never break into e-sports, and it'll never steal from the Starcraft crowd, so they don't waste time making games that work towards that end. As far as I can tell their games are designed to be fun for a short while until they cook up their next great game. Does that make the games in question garbage, because they're not full of scrawny nerds with massive ego problems who would rather play a game they don't enjoy but can win at than a game they enjoy but lose?
At least humor me and define what a 'casual RTS' is. Or tell me why it's so gloriously important that people be playing a game six years down the line.
Casual RTS doesn't work because the genre THRIVES on complexity. Even balance gets better the more complex you make it because it gives the developers more options to buff/nerf (Armor systems are a great example).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to nit pick here, but.....
Most of their expansions split up the community. Look at the first DoW series, every expansion split the community. Dow II was also semi split. Retribution Was released in March 2011, only lasted till April 2012 before all of DoW 2 stop being supported. Dow 2 in general got 3 years service.
That being said,
Relic is by far the best company I ever had the pleasure with working with (I worked with them for many years developing communities, tournaments, contests). I had a few key designers in easy contact (Msn messager), and they are very very good at what they do. They are really able to take risks (like removing base building in a RTS) and make it work. I have no doubt that they will do well with CoH2 (unless THQ brings them down with them).
Its funny because THQ owns Relic, and Relic owns the IP for Homeworld, so.......
Get your facts please.
Most of their expansions split up the community. Look at the first DoW series, every expansion split the community. Dow II was also semi split. Retribution Was released in March 2011, only lasted till April 2012 before all of DoW 2 stop being supported. Dow 2 in general got 3 years service.
That being said,
Relic is by far the best company I ever had the pleasure with working with (I worked with them for many years developing communities, tournaments, contests). I had a few key designers in easy contact (Msn messager), and they are very very good at what they do. They are really able to take risks (like removing base building in a RTS) and make it work. I have no doubt that they will do well with CoH2 (unless THQ brings them down with them).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I got into Relic around DoW2, so I'm unfamiliar with how Dow1 split expansions. It was the same as Dow2 where you could play as the vanilla races and by buying the expansion you could play as the new ones right? For an RTS that pretty much counts as not splitting the community. Retribution was a bit weird because they ditched GFWL for steamworks so that acted more like a traditional RTS expansion. I kind of ignored the release of expansions as I've seen companies forced to stop supporting their game despite the release of an expansion (*cough* EA Kane's Wrath *cough*).
As for the topic at hand, I do kind of wish there was a bunny hopping analogue in NS2. Having missed the heyday of arcade shooters, I'm also kind of ambivalent of bunny hopping. I'd rather see skills that are a natural(ish) extension to actions players are expected to do/basic play.
ED:
Found it. View at your own mental risk.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-mBrx3LOFc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-mBrx3LOFc</a>
ED:
Found it. View at your own mental risk.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-mBrx3LOFc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-mBrx3LOFc</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That Spirit Science thing is made by a guy named Jordan Duchnycz.
Extra Credits is written by James Portnow and narrated by Daniel Floyd. It's also not hard to hear that the voices sound differently. Get your stuff together.
Get your facts please.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeing as how 99.9% of the time, the PUBLISHER owns the IP, and Homeworld was published under Sierra, GOD HOW COULD I POSSIBLY MAKE THAT MISTAKE?
I can say the sun is actually orbiting the earth just a few miles beyond the moon and point out the fact that it's the same size and goes around us, that doesn't make a few ridiculous observations actually TRUE.
Your entire argument operates from the premise that 'CASUAL = BAD' (I'd ask you to describe on the exact difference between CASUAL and... well NOT-CAUSAL, but you would completely miss my point that people who think in absolutes have already lost the argument), and then you string together and bunch of words thinking that pointing out ****ty old games from the 90s somehow proves your point.
Glenn Beck makes more concrete cases for a secret Zionist agenda than you do for "EVERY GAME IS GARBAGE IF IT DIDN'T HAVE TOURNAMETS WITH AT LEAST $30,000 PRIZES AND BUNNYHOPPING, BECAUSE I SAY SO."
Your tenuous case rests on no more than half a dozen or so games in a sea of tens of thousands of the damn things, selectively pointing at one or two examples and declaring it some sort of god damn proof, no matter how badly the rest of your argument falls apart in the process.
Okay, I get it. You personally only care about winning, and ladders, and hanging out with a bunch of 'sperging nerds with the same clan tag, having mechanics to abuse that allow you to monopolize and leverage a hideous advantage over other players because you're "pro", and you want to be able to tell people about how you're a better human being because you played in CAL. Whatever - more power to you. I'm not here to tell you that you shouldn't have fun with that.
I am here to tell you that your argument is, from where I stand, completely centered around "Everyone should find this fun, and if you don't you're a casual lout and we all look down on you", especially given how dirty a word 'causal' is. Might as well call us peasants. Yes, us, because I don't want you getting your prepubescent I-have-something-to-prove competition in the way of a fun game. And everything I've said to this point is that games can be fun, can be highly successful, and be played for a very long time, without anything that you continue to describe as being "VITAL" for a game's success.
Seriously, go tell the 50,000+ people still playing BF3 over a year later that they're all casuals and BF3 is dead and failed because it has no competition and a low skill ceiling. I've given you examples of games that had very high skill ceilings, good quality, and were really good games, but failed whatsoever to attract any interest. I've given you examples of games with low skill ceilings, low barriers to entry that can be enjoyed by damn-near everyone, and don't really have much of a competitive high-level scene, and have done excellent.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that competition is truly important. And no, saying "It didn't beat Counter Strike!" is not proof.
NS2 failed because it's impenetrable, it's uninspired, and it runs poorly. People were quitting the game long before the pub scene got their ###### together enough to form a competitive scene, unless - what - you thought that kind of thing would spring out of the ground in the first week?
why not both? I agree, with performance probably being the number one reason.
Most of their recent videos have had me going "I sure hope the NS2 community are watching these"
All of their videos have me going, "I can't believe people watch this garbage."
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/tg1NK.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
all of these games aside from skyrim and Civ 5 have competitive communities and all have been made with a competitive community in mind. Now you may say that having comp play is different from having a lasting game, but I disagree as in an FPS the main thing that makes people stick around is the skill required to play them, as is true in all of the shooters in the top steam stats rankings. NS1 was one of the top half-life mods played competitively and NS2 does not come close. Need I say more?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we have 2 different definitions of competitive.
Any multi-player game that has 2 teams with opposing goals is competitive, I meant more as in a game that teams regularly compete for cash prizes that are of sufficient quantity to live off of. Of the 6 fps games listed on your screenshot, how many have sufficient support for tournaments and a prize pools worthy of being called "competitive" in the context I am referring to?
In my first definition, the "competitive scene" is any public server since they are competing against each other, so are you inferring that they should balance around that "competitive scene"? I think you are not, which leads me to say there is no "competitive scene" for this game, and thus UWE should worry about balancing to help the game generate more revenue. I don't like making it easier on the new players either, but short of that, I fear it will go back to the beta times, where the same few hundred players always ran into each other on the servers that it got to the point where they all knew "each" other. I know each week it gets easier and easier to scroll through the server list of populated servers, and that's not good for continued support. Most of my friends who played this when it went "live" have moved onto other games, and the biggest reason is they don't like the game balance.
A simple run through a few different CS servers a few years ago would reveal this basic truth, seeing veterans of ten years doing the same basic play they adopted at the beginning despite the fact it doesn't work and never changing and one year newcomers having entered higher level clan play.
This is even more relevant given different games draw different types of people with different basic responses to these issues.
In short: this video simplifies the equation and treats people with a certain puerility.
My first statement was incorrect. Since THQ owns Relic, THQ has the IP for homeworld. So technically Relic doesnt have the IP. However you are wrong to say that Sierra owns the rights. If you would just do a simple internet search..... Caps makes everything better, especially more when you are wrong.
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/11/thq-confirms-ownership-of-the-homeworld-brand/" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/11/thq-...omeworld-brand/</a>
<a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/thq-does-own-homeworld" target="_blank">http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/thq-does-own-homeworld</a>
<a href="http://kotaku.com/318681/thq-picks-up-homeworld-rights" target="_blank">http://kotaku.com/318681/thq-picks-up-homeworld-rights</a>
<a href="http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?169611-THQ-DO-indeed-now-own-Homeworld" target="_blank">http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php...w-own-Homeworld</a>
I have to admit, I totally agree with you here Temp. It was totally acceptable for NS1 to have those issues since it was, at heart, a free mod for another game. A very in depth mod, obviously, but a mod none-the-less. Not having tutorials, or obvious game mechanics, was something you could work through because it was a great mod at the end of the day that gave a great humans vs. aliens type of game play that few, if any, games had at the time. (And it was, again, <i>free</i> ) NS2, however, is a stand alone title people paid actual money for and as such expectations are different. Namely, people have paid money for NS2 and all of us have different expectations. The 'release' build of NS2 was pretty good, I had a lot of fun with it in spite of some pretty obvious issues (Early Onos and buggy alien structures among various performance issues).
Saying all will be well eventually may or may not be true, but the current patches since launch have actually removed content and viable strategies for one team that was already too linear and ultimately under powered within the games intermediate to expert community while being unbalanced in the other direction for newer players. The developers also may or may not realize what they've done, but saying 'Marines are fine, nerf aliens' is blatantly untrue to those that play with other intermediate to expert players.
I'm keeping up with the forums, and checking patch notes, but the current version is simply not fun for me. It's great it's fun for some other people, but if it continues the way it has the Extra Credits episode will be right about a small veteran community of tight-knit ladders being all that's left. NS2 is <i>horrendously</i> unfriendly to new players. Considering that this is exactly what happened to NS1, it should be fairly obvious to everyone that NS2 is tempting the same result.