TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Which is, again, practice. Which means approximately bupkis when it comes to game theory.
I'm accepting that, at present, 24-player servers play well.
I'm also offering the caveat that the REASON they currently play well, is both because large-pop servers provide a Marine advantage, and because the intended-balance point is skewed toward Kharaa at present.
I'm also saying (repeatedly), that will change as the game development progresses. Significantly.
Lol at the notion that you have that much more experience in 24 slot servers than Aussie players, most nights of the week it's a 24 player pile of crap or another game entirely. I've seen what happens in the 24 servers, pretty much the same thing over and over again. Meat balling for both teams.
When the game came out 24p servers had horrible tick rates, that has since improved to the point some average 25-30 up until 3-4 hive 1 CC hold outs, which is more than acceptable. I realise 24p seems a lot more spammy but it also just puts a lot more emphasis on 'squad' team work, you can no longer solo a res node and take out 2-3 aliens like on 16-18p if you're lucky, you definitely need 1-2 more people with you. Some people see this as an attack on their 'skill' level that they no longer look like a mad dog pub dominator going 15-2 and kills are more evenly distributed across 2-3 people, I have no problems with it, either buddy up and force objectives with people or go back to lower pop servers and try and solo or tag team stuff instead.
Only gripe against high pop servers is it's way too easy for 2-3 gorges to get entrenched in areas while still having 5-8 skulks out on the map, even if these skulks only win 1/5 fights they pick that's more than enough time to re-create fort knox somewhere on the map that can't be breached, typically in a tech area, so now marines are struggling to fight into a third or their second.
Aus specifically, a lot of players play on the higher pop servers because there's a lot better chance there's no clantards or try hards stacking the server for 2-3 hours in a row.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out, you play on monash/ON3 18/any of the AusNS community 16-18, you'll have 5-8 people in different clans always on the same team for hours in a row, go to chomp/GON20/UWE18/22/24 whatever it is, no clan tags (mostly), much much less stacking and while the skill level drops (sometimes dramatically) at least games are won or lost in the game, not in the warm up time before round starts.
You won't escape [] box clan being nooblords ruining servers nightly, you won't escape h00ls and his NS1 'gaylords' hacking clan from walling you with 2-3+ people, you won't escape our very own active in thread Hus/Duncor/other 2-3 bell ends he stacks servers with but on average the higher pops you certainly won't find 2-3 NOS 'A team' , 2-3 nova or 2-3 ex apex completely raping a server of any possible fun with pistol scripts and questionable prediction skills they can't replicate in scrims.
Not sure whats worse. Banging head against brick wall or arguing with someone who thinks Britney Spears is a great musician and that 12 v 12 won't benefit marines.
At least the brick wall makes sense I guess.
First off, I didn't say britney spears is a great musician....... which would be an opinion and I never gave my opinion about that.
Second of all, I and Mavick have more experience about how marines play in 24 player servers than you or talesin. It is why we keep talking about our experience, rather than your guy's theories.
It sounds like you have so much experience on Mavick's super mega awesome server that you haven't seen the other side of the coin or recognise the imbalances that occur when different numbers of players are on the field.
As with any server no matter the size, if you have lame players playing it makes for a terrible game. If you get a great group of people playing (not necessarily skilled, but fun to play with), then ANY size server is fun to play on. (mavick's 24player server is one of those).
Outside of your opening comment about reintroducing civility to thread, of which I admit I'm also at fault, nothing else you said really brings anything new or insightful to the discussion besides basically reiterating the same points brought up by a very few others who don't have firsthand experience playing on good 24 player servers.
Really, what I've mostly seen is you championing 24p servers (or your own, at least), and verbally browbeating anyone who has another opinion. Including all the way down to direct insults, which are a no-go.
Actually, to be accurate, I'm "verbally browbeating" people who lump every 24 player server into the same category and stating misinformation about 24 player servers, which is something I've yet to do with any of the smaller servers. Seems only fair, doesn't it. I use and mention my server frequently because, I know this is shocking, but it is actually a 24 player server that gives me, oh I don't know, some half-assed kind of insight as to how fun they actually are when you have admins that care about people having fun. And as far as the direct insults, I made one, in reference to someone bringing up windows 8 which is a major real-life annoyance to me atm, and I admitted my fault. Let's move on from that shall we.
Yes, because the point of Spark is to have fun. It's the same reason it's so intentionally moddable.
It's a bit like lego, really; you can buy a bag of bricks and just build whatever (Spark), you can buy a kit and build that (the 'dev-intended game-play' mentioned), or you can build the kit and change it up in a way that you think looks cooler or is more fun to play with (mods, higher player-count, lower player-count).
I'm fairly certain that the 24-cap is not a 'suggested limit', but the point at which any further would cause (a) significant problem(s) with the engine/performance.
16 is still the intended balance point to which the game is being tuned at the moment. Fewer players will swing the balance toward Kharaa. More players will swing the balance toward Marines. It's due to the difference between melee and ranged attacks; a ranged attacker can exert influence over a VERY wide area. A melee attacker is restricted to only what is IMMEDIATELY adjacent to them; even with a greater movement speed, it does not compare with the ability to instantly switch to a new target anywhere within the field of view. As a result of this, the more Marines are in a given area, the more collective damage they have the potential to inflict in a shorter time.
This is also why 1v1 combat tends to favor Kharaa. 2v2 is fairly equal, and 3v3 and higher is in favor of the Marines. A high-pop server DRASTICALLY increases the frequency of these large matchups; with the additional human resources, Marines move in larger groups and there is less requirement to send 'rambos' out to take care of a given task, as happens with some frequency on standard-pop and low-pop servers.
Your own earlier argument about how a high-pop server means less drudge work and more shooting stuff is a perfect example. As a Marine you are NOT meant to feel 'safe'. You're supposed to be worried (or terrified) that while you're building, a Skulk is going to sneak up behind you and chew you to pieces, losing the room you're in as a result. With a raised-pop server, 9/10 there's someone there to watch your back and keep that from happening.
There's quite a difference between intended balance point and intended play. I know the devs have their focus on balancing around 6v6 and 8v8, but I'm also sure they would like all the available player sizes to play out as balanced as can be. If they did not care or wanted to restrict players to a certain player count......they simply WOULD.
You appear to be misunderstanding the difference between 'massive mob' and 'teamwork'. With a mob, there IS significantly less teamwork and coordination required. You just follow the herd, and everyone shoots as soon as a target presents itself. On the Kharaa side this would be valid, as to overcome the ranged advantage (which still applies while in close-combat with a single Marine, as EVERYONE ELSE in the mob can also damage you) you absolutely must charge at once with good teamwork to spread the damage out over multiple targets.
Assuming only 7 bullets to kill a Skulk means that with perfect focused fire, each skulk goes down in the time-span it takes to fire two bullets. Even if almost half miss, that only raises it to three bullets per Marine; less than half the normal lifespan of a Skulk. Now carry it forward, and those four skulks have become a meat milkshake in short order.
This can happen on a 16-slot server. It just rarely does, as most of the time (unless performing a base push or rush) Marines are moving around in three groups; either three-three-two (comm/base def), or more commonly three-two-two-one. Ramping that up and tossing an extra four players in bumps that to four-four-three-one. Even against four marines, six Skulks tend to be the rough parity point. If you have a seven-four-one, there is very little in a vanilla-unit sense that will be able to match a Marine mass like that. Even if you had all twelve Skulks there, the seven Marines would make short work of them, leaving five Marines to pursue other goals.
Of course the values change as upgrades come into play (most especially the Lerk umbra/spores and Onos stomp, less-so with Fades). The problem is that the larger number of Marines leads to an exponential growth. Which, while an intended part of the game-play, goes entirely off the rails on high-pop servers. I will hands-down guarantee that a 12v12 competitive scrim would be locked down overwhelmingly on the Marine side. If nothing else, the only thing they would need to do a majority of the time is leave four to six Marines to guard the chair, while the remainder steamroll to (and through) the Hive.
And you seem to be completely overstating the difference it can make by adding just a few players on a team. Take a step back and think about it for a second. The difference in number of players per side on my server vs a 16 player is a whopping total of 4 people per side. So, in your logic you assume that adding 4 players to a side somehow turns everything into a "mob" and what I see as teamwork simply cannot be because we have too many players that "just follow the herd". That's pretty laughable really. The rest of your post, as someone else stated, was just your theoretical go at predicting what's always most likely to happen in different circumstances and I simply just don't have a comment about.
They are there because it comes up at the top of server lists. Humans by nature will just follow the crowd. If I was a new player and went to launch my first game I'd almost guarantee I'd be going to a 24 player server. It displays at the top, there's more chance of empty slots, I assume that more people is better gameplay and I just simply wouldn't know any better.
You're throwing the exact same mentality into your argument that got people there in the first place. BIGGER NUMBER BETTER. Britney Spears sold 45million albums, MUST BE GOOD MUSICIAN.
If comp play was 12 v 12, you'd be seeing a unanimous marine advantage. There is enough length driven corridors on each map where a high density of ranged units essentially denies or kills any number of melee units.
That's funny. I remember trying out different server sizes in Battlefield 2, from the 16 to 32 to 64 players, until I found my personal sweet spot at 24/32 range. But I guess it's unreasonable to assume other players might do that as well. Or that we should actually care that they don't or want to do things as they see fit, such as joining that server a the top of the list, having a good time and ending up becoming a regular. I don't know why I say that, but it might, just might, be because of the fact my server probably has, at this point, more regulars then it can actually hold in any one game.
But, you know, this must be such a horrible experience for new players, and must account for the fact that NS2 is a lower population game then other AAA titles. It can't have anything whatsoever to do with the massive difference in advertisement budgets or the fact that this is a much different breed of shooter then most are accustomed to in this age of shooters. It HAS to be the fact that 24 player servers show at the top of the list when sorted by players. HAS TO BE!
Not sure whats worse. Banging head against brick wall or arguing with someone who thinks Britney Spears is a great musician and that 12 v 12 won't benefit marines.
At least the brick wall makes sense I guess.
First off, I didn't say britney spears is a great musician....... which would be an opinion and I never gave my opinion about that.
Second of all, I and Mavick have more experience about how marines play in 24 player servers than you or talesin. It is why we keep talking about our experience, rather than your guy's theories.
It sounds like you have so much experience on Mavick's super mega awesome server that you haven't seen the other side of the coin or recognise the imbalances that occur when different numbers of players are on the field.
Actually, it's kind of funny. The game at a 24 player level still has many of the same disadvantages in balance as they do at a 16 player level. Some might be a big more exaggerated actually, such as aliens can ninja gorge/onos rush a power node down alot quicker with more players. Either team is severely punished by not playing aggressively or timing attacks correctly. The only advantage I give to marines on a server like mine versus a smaller server is that marines tend to hold out better once mid/late game comes around and fades/onos are regularly on the field. That's a bonus and nice equalizing factor in my mind. I have seen good fades absolutely end games on smaller games, and they still have the chance to have a huge impact on bigger servers as well, they just have to be that much smarter.
Overall, and I don't have the actual win/loss stats on my server either because I refuse to add mods to it, I'd still say the win/loss rate on my server is pretty much inline with the official word of 60/40 to aliens. Power node vulnerability is a huge issue with me right now, and probably the biggest reason for the disparity I've seen after months of playing/spectating games there.
Actually, to be accurate, I'm "verbally browbeating" people who lump every 24 player server into the same category and stating misinformation about 24 player servers, which is something I've yet to do with any of the smaller servers. Seems only fair, doesn't it. I use and mention my server frequently because, I know this is shocking, but it is actually a 24 player server that gives me, oh I don't know, some half-assed kind of insight as to how fun they actually are when you have admins that care about people having fun. And as far as the direct insults, I made one, in reference to someone bringing up windows 8 which is a major real-life annoyance to me atm, and I admitted my fault. Let's move on from that shall we.
Surely you have to see that what we're telling you, as people who have experienced plenty of OTHER 24p servers that aren't like yours, is that most 24p servers are not like yours. In my experience I have yet to find a single 24p server that was fun to play on. I have played on quite a few, and the result is, for me, always the same.
Now I accept that some 24p servers may be decent, and I accept that my ideas about fun and a good game do not have to align with other people's ideas. So please can you accept my view that the vast majority of 24p servers are not fun places to play, because that is my experience having tried many of them?
With all due respect, your view is more clouded by the fact that you run and enjoy your own server. When did you last go and try a whole bunch of random 24p servers? Because I assure you the last 100% of times that I have done this, they have been awful. So I'm actually speaking from experience based on a reasonably large dataset, not just theorycrafting.
The reason 24p servers go at the top of my list is because I sort by player count (easier to find a server size that I like with an appropriate number of slots free). I can't be the only one doing it that way. With a ping filter set, I find there's no value in sorting by ping. I do this in other games as well, and naturally sorting the server list this way (which to me seems logical, at least in NS2) leaves largest servers at the top.
It's fair to point out that my arguments against the larger servers regarding being general derp-fests also apply to smaller servers, and I certainly agree that there are plenty of derpaderps on 16-20p servers as well. I am however still going with my statistic, however limited, that I've yet to get a good game on a 24p server, but will frequently settle into a decent game with the whole team working together on smaller servers (while acknowledging this isn't a universal truth, just my experience).
I don't like playing on anything over 18. I only join bigger servers when they are the only option available. I agree with those who are saying the strategy just isn't there. There is so much better communication on the smaller servers and it is pretty easy to see that the game is balanced around the smaller games.
And lol @ the guy taking all big server critisism personally. People aren't attacking you. They are giving their opinions, based on their experience...
I don't like playing on anything over 18. I only join bigger servers when they are the only option available. I agree with those who are saying the strategy just isn't there. There is so much better communication on the smaller servers and it is pretty easy to see that the game is balanced around the smaller games.
And lol @ the guy taking all big server critisism personally. People aren't attacking you. They are giving their opinions, based on their experience...
Lol @ people who assume I'm taking this personally.
Try reading the thread. You are getting really defensive and arguing with everyone who doesn't like 24 player servers. You are arguing with opinions...
Actually, to be accurate, I'm "verbally browbeating" people who lump every 24 player server into the same category and stating misinformation about 24 player servers, which is something I've yet to do with any of the smaller servers. Seems only fair, doesn't it. I use and mention my server frequently because, I know this is shocking, but it is actually a 24 player server that gives me, oh I don't know, some half-assed kind of insight as to how fun they actually are when you have admins that care about people having fun. And as far as the direct insults, I made one, in reference to someone bringing up windows 8 which is a major real-life annoyance to me atm, and I admitted my fault. Let's move on from that shall we.
Surely you have to see that what we're telling you, as people who have experienced plenty of OTHER 24p servers that aren't like yours, is that most 24p servers are not like yours. In my experience I have yet to find a single 24p server that was fun to play on. I have played on quite a few, and the result is, for me, always the same.
Now I accept that some 24p servers may be decent, and I accept that my ideas about fun and a good game do not have to align with other people's ideas. So please can you accept my view that the vast majority of 24p servers are not fun places to play, because that is my experience having tried many of them?
With all due respect, your view is more clouded by the fact that you run and enjoy your own server. When did you last go and try a whole bunch of random 24p servers? Because I assure you the last 100% of times that I have done this, they have been awful. So I'm actually speaking from experience based on a reasonably large dataset, not just theorycrafting.
The reason 24p servers go at the top of my list is because I sort by player count (easier to find a server size that I like with an appropriate number of slots free). I can't be the only one doing it that way. With a ping filter set, I find there's no value in sorting by ping. I do this in other games as well, and naturally sorting the server list this way (which to me seems logical, at least in NS2) leaves largest servers at the top.
It's fair to point out that my arguments against the larger servers regarding being general derp-fests also apply to smaller servers, and I certainly agree that there are plenty of derpaderps on 16-20p servers as well. I am however still going with my statistic, however limited, that I've yet to get a good game on a 24p server, but will frequently settle into a decent game with the whole team working together on smaller servers (while acknowledging this isn't a universal truth, just my experience).
I'm not disagreeing with people like yourself who simply say "to me they're just not that fun". People are absolutely allowed to have that opinion about servers that just aren't for them, and clearly you've had the misfortune on playing on some not-so-great servers.
But my opinion is not clouded. I wouldn't continue forking out money for a server if it simply were not fun and try to go on some crusade to convince myself and others that it is, unless it truly was. I'm also completely aware of the fact there's plenty of others out there like myself that feel the same, as evidenced by my server's popularity, and also people who have either not played on one at all, or just a couple of times, had a bad experience, and assume they're all the same way. But yet, they'll completely overlook the fact that they could have just as bad of a game, just as bad performance, and play with just as bad team mates on any size server, but yet they'll still chalk these negatives up to the fact that "It's because it's a 24 player server". I can't do anything about other 24 player servers that are either poorly run, on bad hardware, or have a really bad player base, and I'm also not going to push any kind of theory that since mine lacks these negatives that all others do as well. My point is simply that since mine doesn't, they have this capability as well. Just as smaller servers have the capability to be terrible, as well.
Read the points I continue to hammer again Roo. Certainly YOU can see that I'm not having a go at people like you.
Try reading the thread. You are getting really defensive and arguing with everyone who doesn't like 24 player servers. You are arguing with opinions...
Try reading my posts. My main points have been about "dev intended gameplay", poor performance, and no teamwork. These are all arguable points, not opinions.
As good as your server sounds</s> you musn't attract a very high caliber of player. If presented with two teams who are both quite competent and marines who can actually aim there simply isn't any justification for how aliens would be winning 60/40 except for derp.
As good as your server sounds</s> you musn't attract a very high caliber of player. If presented with two teams who are both quite competent and marines who can actually aim there simply isn't any justification for how aliens would be winning 60/40 except for derp.
Concentrated ranged beats melee.
We understand that *you* don't like 24 player servers, but I have to completely disagree with your above statement. The few times I have played on Mavick's server I was quite amazed with the level of teamwork and communication that was going on. Seems to me like they have rather high caliber players there...
Now from what I have seen, yes marines do win more on these servers but with the current balance situation in NS2, it is actually quite fun and enjoyable for the most part. From what I have seen here is the breakdown on win percentages based on team sizes:
If anything, I would recommend new players to play 12vs12 not only because it is more balanced, but individual skill matters less, but they need to make sure to play on servers that can actually support 24 players (not the norm). Servers like KKG, TBG, and Mavicks can definitely support 24 slots or more and that is why they are so popular.
As good as your server sounds</s> you musn't attract a very high caliber of player. If presented with two teams who are both quite competent and marines who can actually aim there simply isn't any justification for how aliens would be winning 60/40 except for derp.
Concentrated ranged beats melee.
We understand that *you* don't like 24 player servers, but I have to completely disagree with your above statement. The few times I have played on Mavick's server I was quite amazed with the level of teamwork and communication that was going on. Seems to me like they have rather high caliber players there...
Now from what I have seen, yes marines do win more on these servers but with the current balance situation in NS2, it is actually quite fun and enjoyable for the most part. From what I have seen here is the breakdown on win percentages based on team sizes:
If anything, I would recommend new players to play 12vs12 not only because it is more balanced, but individual skill matters less, but they need to make sure to play on servers that can actually support 24 players (not the norm). Servers like KKG, TBG, and Mavicks can definitely support 24 slots or more and that is why they are so popular.
actually i think the marines win much more on 12v12, but that's on another server i play in where they have their own ELO ranking system (not ns2stats) and auto-random, plus players can never play the same team twice in a single map. pubstars are split evenly between two teams based on their ELO.
i played my first and only 2 hour game on that server because of the ELO ranking system. we ultimately lost as aliens due to lack of teamwork towards the end.
ps. you're going to draw a lot of fire with that claim of yours (12v12 is more balanced). i won't agree or disagree with you, but putting it out based on your own observations is a big no no. too subjective.
If you look at his signature cream, he's actually the guy who hosts the boxes all of the servers he mentioned run on, mine included. He's probably seen his fair share games played at 12v12.
I wouldn't continue forking out money for a server if it simply were not fun and try to go on some crusade to convince myself and others that it is, unless it truly was.
I really need to back Mavick up on this point, since there are some who just don't understand that it is all about fun. Server ops, like Mavick, would not spend their hard earned money on a server with a configuration that no one liked, and people wouldn't play on it. Yet 19 times out of 20 when I see his server in the list it's full. And his is not the only one. To the naysayers, next time you look at the server list UNcheck hide full servers. Take a look at all those red servers that are 20+ players and full.
Larger servers are more fun to the bulk of NS2 players.
If they weren't, people wouldn't play on them. It's that simple.
I like a war when I play... not war games with smaller groups
I think people should just play servers with player amounts they like. The server admins should be able to set the player amount for the types of games they want to take place. To anyone wanting smaller groups in game, simply sort by player count in the server listing window.
Hell, I'd even like to play larger scale maps with 32 players weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
You can play on 128 player servers for all I care. Nobody is trying to deny fun or to ban 24 player servers.
I'm just advocating that you can run your own little paradise that comes up as yellow and is declared as a modified or non standard environment.
The game isn't one that scales with numbers. Asymmetrical gameplay will always hinder that. With the map size the way they are and the game mechanics currently implemented, there is a tipping point where 'dev intended' becomes blurred into novelty mode. Call it arcade mode or action mode or something, I don't care. For me, I would prefer new players to see what the game is like on the scale it was designed for before they make a decision on if they prefer otherwise. Simply marking these other servers as yellow IMO is a simple and effective way of doing it.
You can play on 128 player servers for all I care. Nobody is trying to deny fun or to ban 24 player servers.
I'm just advocating that you can run your own little paradise that comes up as yellow and is declared as a modified or non standard environment.
The game isn't one that scales with numbers. Asymmetrical gameplay will always hinder that. With the map size the way they are and the game mechanics currently implemented, there is a tipping point where 'dev intended' becomes blurred into novelty mode. Call it arcade mode or action mode or something, I don't care. For me, I would prefer new players to see what the game is like on the scale it was designed for before they make a decision on if they prefer otherwise. Simply marking these other servers as yellow IMO is a simple and effective way of doing it.
UWE has limited the game to 24 slots so they are effectively saying that the game is *functional* in their eyes up to that point.
I don't think anything else needs to be done as people can very easily select their server preference in the provided server browser.
If you look at his signature cream, he's actually the guy who hosts the boxes all of the servers he mentioned run on, mine included. He's probably seen his fair share games played at 12v12.
not in asia, australia or europe, no. i don't think such observations makes for a certain fact. if many people come out with the same win lose ratio, then it's a consensus, but even then it still isn't a fact.
i can play 24p for an entire week and come up with a different win lose ratio for marines versus aliens, because then i might be playing in the few servers that i frequent, a lot of servers of a particular region or more servers that happen to be filled with new players, etc. even ns2stats isn't a good gauge of win lose ratio because not every server has it on and some co servers actually have it implemented. (this is the reason why some top players in ns2stats are purely co players).
in the end, what i'm trying to say is that win lose ratio is something you can never determine on your own accurately because it's an almost impossible task considering all the factors thrown into the mix. if there's anybody who knows what the win lose ratio is like, it's the devs, but sometimes i think that even they don't really have a very good picture of it themselves to begin with.
perhaps he should have stated that he's just giving his own opinion that 12v12 is "more balanced", based on his own observations of win lose ratio on 24p servers compared to other servers with lower player capacity, but even then, to base it on something as subjective as win lose ratio would be a mistake in the first place.
If you look at his signature cream, he's actually the guy who hosts the boxes all of the servers he mentioned run on, mine included. He's probably seen his fair share games played at 12v12.
not in asia, australia or europe, no. i don't think such observations makes for a certain fact. if many people come out with the same win lose ratio, then it's a consensus, but even then it still isn't a fact.
i can play 24p for an entire week and come up with a different win lose ratio for marines versus aliens, because then i might be playing in the few servers that i frequent, a lot of servers of a particular region or more servers that happen to be filled with new players, etc. even ns2stats isn't a good gauge of win lose ratio because not every server has it on and some co servers actually have it implemented. (this is the reason why some top players in ns2stats are purely co players).
in the end, what i'm trying to say is that win lose ratio is something you can never determine on your own accurately because it's an almost impossible task considering all the factors thrown into the mix. if there's anybody who knows what the win lose ratio is like, it's the devs, but sometimes i think that even they don't really have a very good picture of it themselves to begin with.
perhaps he should have stated that he's just giving his own opinion that 12v12 is "more balanced", based on his own observations of win lose ratio on 24p servers compared to other servers with lower player capacity, but even then, to base it on something as subjective as win lose ratio would be a mistake in the first place.
I don't think he's trying to pass it off as fact outside of his own experience cream. He clearly said "from what I have seen". Whether his amount of experience is enough to satisfy you is completely up to you, but I'd refrain from making more out of what he's saying than he actually is.
I don't think he's trying to pass it off as fact outside of his own experience cream. He clearly said "from what I have seen". Whether his amount of experience is enough to satisfy you is completely up to you, but I'd refrain from making more out of what he's saying than he actually is.
stating his own win lose rates from what he has seen is fair enough for me, since i know it's subjective. the problem solely lies in him claiming that 12v12 is more balanced based on that, which i don't think is right.
but yeah, enough nitpicking. this is not helping the thread in any way. i'll drop this now.
There's nothing wrong with basing your opinion off what you've seen, everyone does that. You can agree with him or not, but telling him he shouldn't do it is going a bit far. And yes, quite enough nitpicking lol.
I don't think he's trying to pass it off as fact outside of his own experience cream. He clearly said "from what I have seen". Whether his amount of experience is enough to satisfy you is completely up to you, but I'd refrain from making more out of what he's saying than he actually is.
stating his own win lose rates from what he has seen is fair enough for me, since i know it's subjective. the problem solely lies in him claiming that 12v12 is more balanced based on that, which i don't think is right.
but yeah, enough nitpicking. this is not helping the thread in any way. i'll drop this now.
I didn't just make up these numbers but I based them on the info that can be found on ns2stats.org:
Competitive games for build 239 = 66.12% alien win rate - 6 vs 6 player size
Average for build 239 = 59.33% alien win rate (all servers with ns2stats enabled)
Only pub servers for build 239 = 57.28% alien win rate
KKG servers average for build 239 = 52.38% alien win rate - 12 vs 12 player size
Sure win rate doesn't show everything in regards to balance as has been discussed numerous times on these forums, but it is pretty obvious that in terms of the potential to win a game, it is a lot closer to 50/50 when you have more players on the server. Individual skill on the larger servers has less of an impact which has been mentioned previously.
Now take a random person who just buys the game - Given that he is of normal skill, which server do you think he would have the best experience on?
Comments
I'm accepting that, at present, 24-player servers play well.
I'm also offering the caveat that the REASON they currently play well, is both because large-pop servers provide a Marine advantage, and because the intended-balance point is skewed toward Kharaa at present.
I'm also saying (repeatedly), that will change as the game development progresses. Significantly.
I really hope balance is achieved at 16 and then becomes f#©€4 for the 24 slotters.
Only gripe against high pop servers is it's way too easy for 2-3 gorges to get entrenched in areas while still having 5-8 skulks out on the map, even if these skulks only win 1/5 fights they pick that's more than enough time to re-create fort knox somewhere on the map that can't be breached, typically in a tech area, so now marines are struggling to fight into a third or their second.
Aus specifically, a lot of players play on the higher pop servers because there's a lot better chance there's no clantards or try hards stacking the server for 2-3 hours in a row.
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out, you play on monash/ON3 18/any of the AusNS community 16-18, you'll have 5-8 people in different clans always on the same team for hours in a row, go to chomp/GON20/UWE18/22/24 whatever it is, no clan tags (mostly), much much less stacking and while the skill level drops (sometimes dramatically) at least games are won or lost in the game, not in the warm up time before round starts.
You won't escape [] box clan being nooblords ruining servers nightly, you won't escape h00ls and his NS1 'gaylords' hacking clan from walling you with 2-3+ people, you won't escape our very own active in thread Hus/Duncor/other 2-3 bell ends he stacks servers with but on average the higher pops you certainly won't find 2-3 NOS 'A team' , 2-3 nova or 2-3 ex apex completely raping a server of any possible fun with pistol scripts and questionable prediction skills they can't replicate in scrims.
It sounds like you have so much experience on Mavick's super mega awesome server that you haven't seen the other side of the coin or recognise the imbalances that occur when different numbers of players are on the field.
What does this mean?
As with any server no matter the size, if you have lame players playing it makes for a terrible game. If you get a great group of people playing (not necessarily skilled, but fun to play with), then ANY size server is fun to play on. (mavick's 24player server is one of those).
Actually, to be accurate, I'm "verbally browbeating" people who lump every 24 player server into the same category and stating misinformation about 24 player servers, which is something I've yet to do with any of the smaller servers. Seems only fair, doesn't it. I use and mention my server frequently because, I know this is shocking, but it is actually a 24 player server that gives me, oh I don't know, some half-assed kind of insight as to how fun they actually are when you have admins that care about people having fun. And as far as the direct insults, I made one, in reference to someone bringing up windows 8 which is a major real-life annoyance to me atm, and I admitted my fault. Let's move on from that shall we.
There's quite a difference between intended balance point and intended play. I know the devs have their focus on balancing around 6v6 and 8v8, but I'm also sure they would like all the available player sizes to play out as balanced as can be. If they did not care or wanted to restrict players to a certain player count......they simply WOULD.
And you seem to be completely overstating the difference it can make by adding just a few players on a team. Take a step back and think about it for a second. The difference in number of players per side on my server vs a 16 player is a whopping total of 4 people per side. So, in your logic you assume that adding 4 players to a side somehow turns everything into a "mob" and what I see as teamwork simply cannot be because we have too many players that "just follow the herd". That's pretty laughable really. The rest of your post, as someone else stated, was just your theoretical go at predicting what's always most likely to happen in different circumstances and I simply just don't have a comment about.
That's funny. I remember trying out different server sizes in Battlefield 2, from the 16 to 32 to 64 players, until I found my personal sweet spot at 24/32 range. But I guess it's unreasonable to assume other players might do that as well. Or that we should actually care that they don't or want to do things as they see fit, such as joining that server a the top of the list, having a good time and ending up becoming a regular. I don't know why I say that, but it might, just might, be because of the fact my server probably has, at this point, more regulars then it can actually hold in any one game.
But, you know, this must be such a horrible experience for new players, and must account for the fact that NS2 is a lower population game then other AAA titles. It can't have anything whatsoever to do with the massive difference in advertisement budgets or the fact that this is a much different breed of shooter then most are accustomed to in this age of shooters. It HAS to be the fact that 24 player servers show at the top of the list when sorted by players. HAS TO BE!
Actually, it's kind of funny. The game at a 24 player level still has many of the same disadvantages in balance as they do at a 16 player level. Some might be a big more exaggerated actually, such as aliens can ninja gorge/onos rush a power node down alot quicker with more players. Either team is severely punished by not playing aggressively or timing attacks correctly. The only advantage I give to marines on a server like mine versus a smaller server is that marines tend to hold out better once mid/late game comes around and fades/onos are regularly on the field. That's a bonus and nice equalizing factor in my mind. I have seen good fades absolutely end games on smaller games, and they still have the chance to have a huge impact on bigger servers as well, they just have to be that much smarter.
Overall, and I don't have the actual win/loss stats on my server either because I refuse to add mods to it, I'd still say the win/loss rate on my server is pretty much inline with the official word of 60/40 to aliens. Power node vulnerability is a huge issue with me right now, and probably the biggest reason for the disparity I've seen after months of playing/spectating games there.
Surely you have to see that what we're telling you, as people who have experienced plenty of OTHER 24p servers that aren't like yours, is that most 24p servers are not like yours. In my experience I have yet to find a single 24p server that was fun to play on. I have played on quite a few, and the result is, for me, always the same.
Now I accept that some 24p servers may be decent, and I accept that my ideas about fun and a good game do not have to align with other people's ideas. So please can you accept my view that the vast majority of 24p servers are not fun places to play, because that is my experience having tried many of them?
With all due respect, your view is more clouded by the fact that you run and enjoy your own server. When did you last go and try a whole bunch of random 24p servers? Because I assure you the last 100% of times that I have done this, they have been awful. So I'm actually speaking from experience based on a reasonably large dataset, not just theorycrafting.
The reason 24p servers go at the top of my list is because I sort by player count (easier to find a server size that I like with an appropriate number of slots free). I can't be the only one doing it that way. With a ping filter set, I find there's no value in sorting by ping. I do this in other games as well, and naturally sorting the server list this way (which to me seems logical, at least in NS2) leaves largest servers at the top.
It's fair to point out that my arguments against the larger servers regarding being general derp-fests also apply to smaller servers, and I certainly agree that there are plenty of derpaderps on 16-20p servers as well. I am however still going with my statistic, however limited, that I've yet to get a good game on a 24p server, but will frequently settle into a decent game with the whole team working together on smaller servers (while acknowledging this isn't a universal truth, just my experience).
And lol @ the guy taking all big server critisism personally. People aren't attacking you. They are giving their opinions, based on their experience...
Lol @ people who assume I'm taking this personally.
I'm not disagreeing with people like yourself who simply say "to me they're just not that fun". People are absolutely allowed to have that opinion about servers that just aren't for them, and clearly you've had the misfortune on playing on some not-so-great servers.
But my opinion is not clouded. I wouldn't continue forking out money for a server if it simply were not fun and try to go on some crusade to convince myself and others that it is, unless it truly was. I'm also completely aware of the fact there's plenty of others out there like myself that feel the same, as evidenced by my server's popularity, and also people who have either not played on one at all, or just a couple of times, had a bad experience, and assume they're all the same way. But yet, they'll completely overlook the fact that they could have just as bad of a game, just as bad performance, and play with just as bad team mates on any size server, but yet they'll still chalk these negatives up to the fact that "It's because it's a 24 player server". I can't do anything about other 24 player servers that are either poorly run, on bad hardware, or have a really bad player base, and I'm also not going to push any kind of theory that since mine lacks these negatives that all others do as well. My point is simply that since mine doesn't, they have this capability as well. Just as smaller servers have the capability to be terrible, as well.
Read the points I continue to hammer again Roo. Certainly YOU can see that I'm not having a go at people like you.
Try reading my posts. My main points have been about "dev intended gameplay", poor performance, and no teamwork. These are all arguable points, not opinions.
Concentrated ranged beats melee.
We understand that *you* don't like 24 player servers, but I have to completely disagree with your above statement. The few times I have played on Mavick's server I was quite amazed with the level of teamwork and communication that was going on. Seems to me like they have rather high caliber players there...
Now from what I have seen, yes marines do win more on these servers but with the current balance situation in NS2, it is actually quite fun and enjoyable for the most part. From what I have seen here is the breakdown on win percentages based on team sizes:
6vs6 - Aliens win 70% +
8vs8 - Aliens win 65% +
10vs10 - Aliens win 60%+
12vs12 - Aliens win 55%+
If anything, I would recommend new players to play 12vs12 not only because it is more balanced, but individual skill matters less, but they need to make sure to play on servers that can actually support 24 players (not the norm). Servers like KKG, TBG, and Mavicks can definitely support 24 slots or more and that is why they are so popular.
actually i think the marines win much more on 12v12, but that's on another server i play in where they have their own ELO ranking system (not ns2stats) and auto-random, plus players can never play the same team twice in a single map. pubstars are split evenly between two teams based on their ELO.
i played my first and only 2 hour game on that server because of the ELO ranking system. we ultimately lost as aliens due to lack of teamwork towards the end.
ps. you're going to draw a lot of fire with that claim of yours (12v12 is more balanced). i won't agree or disagree with you, but putting it out based on your own observations is a big no no. too subjective.
Larger servers are more fun to the bulk of NS2 players.
If they weren't, people wouldn't play on them. It's that simple.
I think people should just play servers with player amounts they like. The server admins should be able to set the player amount for the types of games they want to take place. To anyone wanting smaller groups in game, simply sort by player count in the server listing window.
Hell, I'd even like to play larger scale maps with 32 players weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I'm just advocating that you can run your own little paradise that comes up as yellow and is declared as a modified or non standard environment.
The game isn't one that scales with numbers. Asymmetrical gameplay will always hinder that. With the map size the way they are and the game mechanics currently implemented, there is a tipping point where 'dev intended' becomes blurred into novelty mode. Call it arcade mode or action mode or something, I don't care. For me, I would prefer new players to see what the game is like on the scale it was designed for before they make a decision on if they prefer otherwise. Simply marking these other servers as yellow IMO is a simple and effective way of doing it.
UWE has limited the game to 24 slots so they are effectively saying that the game is *functional* in their eyes up to that point.
I don't think anything else needs to be done as people can very easily select their server preference in the provided server browser.
not in asia, australia or europe, no. i don't think such observations makes for a certain fact. if many people come out with the same win lose ratio, then it's a consensus, but even then it still isn't a fact.
i can play 24p for an entire week and come up with a different win lose ratio for marines versus aliens, because then i might be playing in the few servers that i frequent, a lot of servers of a particular region or more servers that happen to be filled with new players, etc. even ns2stats isn't a good gauge of win lose ratio because not every server has it on and some co servers actually have it implemented. (this is the reason why some top players in ns2stats are purely co players).
in the end, what i'm trying to say is that win lose ratio is something you can never determine on your own accurately because it's an almost impossible task considering all the factors thrown into the mix. if there's anybody who knows what the win lose ratio is like, it's the devs, but sometimes i think that even they don't really have a very good picture of it themselves to begin with.
perhaps he should have stated that he's just giving his own opinion that 12v12 is "more balanced", based on his own observations of win lose ratio on 24p servers compared to other servers with lower player capacity, but even then, to base it on something as subjective as win lose ratio would be a mistake in the first place.
I don't think he's trying to pass it off as fact outside of his own experience cream. He clearly said "from what I have seen". Whether his amount of experience is enough to satisfy you is completely up to you, but I'd refrain from making more out of what he's saying than he actually is.
stating his own win lose rates from what he has seen is fair enough for me, since i know it's subjective. the problem solely lies in him claiming that 12v12 is more balanced based on that, which i don't think is right.
but yeah, enough nitpicking. this is not helping the thread in any way. i'll drop this now.
I didn't just make up these numbers but I based them on the info that can be found on ns2stats.org:
Competitive games for build 239 = 66.12% alien win rate - 6 vs 6 player size
Average for build 239 = 59.33% alien win rate (all servers with ns2stats enabled)
Only pub servers for build 239 = 57.28% alien win rate
KKG servers average for build 239 = 52.38% alien win rate - 12 vs 12 player size
Sure win rate doesn't show everything in regards to balance as has been discussed numerous times on these forums, but it is pretty obvious that in terms of the potential to win a game, it is a lot closer to 50/50 when you have more players on the server. Individual skill on the larger servers has less of an impact which has been mentioned previously.
Now take a random person who just buys the game - Given that he is of normal skill, which server do you think he would have the best experience on?