NS2 Satisfaction Survey V2
YMICrazy
Join Date: 2012-11-02 Member: 165986Members
Join Date: 2012-11-02 Member: 165986Members
Closed. Thanks for the input.
Results here:
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/131403/results-of-ns2-satisfaction-survey-v2#latest
Results here:
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/131403/results-of-ns2-satisfaction-survey-v2#latest
Comments
allow a user to add reason for choosing the size of server they play. Use a TEXTFIELD. I mainly play larger servers because at least for me they are the only low ping options AND because I suck so I don't cripple my team.
Well I numbered them but I think it's a bit too late to add more questions since it already got 70 responses.
I have tons of fun playing 6v6 and see no problem with it. What's broken about a 6v6?
I think it's fairly obvious that the original design was targeted at smaller range, and that andi's been pretty open to trying to smooth out the differences between small and very large games in the more recent builds - to a point. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that even having the combined team and personal resource system is a statement that the intent is to balance around a range of potential team sizes and not some fixed number.
Personally, I hate games over 18 players and try to never join them. It's just personal preference at this point, but the game feels very wrong when you've got teams of 10-12 players and it's possible for either team to cover almost any area on any map at any time.
Nice. You should post it on the NS2 subreddit as well.
How would I know? I went in without any expectations at all, ready to let the game present itself. I remembered from way back that there was a NS as mod for Half Life back in the days, even though I never played it. All I had in my mind when I bought it was "aliens, marines, resource points".
Did the game address all gameplay/balance issues from before 250?
Those points would need to be addressed separately in the first place. There were no real balance issues before 250, but there were gameplay issues. Those all got fixed, but that introduced new balance issues which now need to be fixed again in future patches.
Is the pacing, in which balance issues are addressed, fast enough?
If you play the Balance/Beta mod: yes, definitely. Otherwise: no.
And making balance changes would be much easier since having to cater for server counts that shouldn't exist in the first place while trying to balance for the other side is annoying. The large player count servers are what really keep me from playing public games, I open up ns2, view my server browser, and see tons of 24 slot yawn yawn spam fest servers and just close the game. It really is a great game, but just like counter-strike I'll never have any interest in public servers; I actually paid a monthly fee just to play 5v5 games consistently along with hundreds of thousands of other players in cs
I also can't fathom how people think large games are fun, you as an individual became less and less important as more and more players join, everything thing you do has less of an impact, games draw out longer, people can turtle endlessly, by the time you kill two guys two more have already spawned.. I mean it just doesn't work
Melee vs range with system that is based around skill guarantees horrible disparity in players. I play the game because of its assymetry so I accept that fact but still prefer "smoothing" of skill that larger player count can bring.
You can have a casual game at a lower player count, just depends on who you're playing with
Only thing higher player count does imo is turnoff a lot of people from even playing. Also the higher count won't really do much if someone is good enough they can determine the entire output of the match; does everything they do impact less? Yes, does it stop them from single-handed determining which side wins? no
Anyway back to my main point, I don't think this game should have ever exceeded 18 players /endresponding
1) It is easier to have a good casual experiance on a bigger server because as you say individual actions count less
2) Seems to me that people LOVE big servers, as they are the ones that actually fill up. Look at BF3, casual players love the 64p experiance there
3) Regardless of the game, mostly elitist players like small servers. Casual players like bigger games.
It's just a catch-22 problem here. People join big servers because there are still free slots available when the game has already filled up to a playable state. And those are players who are lacking to start up another server. Most people simply want to get right into the action, rather than tingling around in 1 vs 2 and the like while waiting for more players to join.
(I've had my fair share of "trying to fill up the server" experience and spent up to 45 minutes alone in some servers in an attempt to get a match going.)
There would be two ways to ease the problem:
- Provide AI players that take a few of the open slots (like the first 5-6 open slots in each team) until they are replaced by real players, so the game is also playable when there aren't many human players around to fill the server up.
The UT series had awesome bots that could match the capabilities of real human players, including advanced tactics like lift jumping, shield jumping and dodging up - you never really had a problem to get a match started there because the bots would keep you entertained. Heck, I probably spent hundreds of hours in offline play against bots before I even got into MP.
Getting good bots for NS2 is of course a much more difficult task, because they need to be reliable enough for the commanders to trust them getting the jobs done, as well as nailing advanced movement of aliens down. But it would definitely help with the issue mentioned here.
- Allow spectator-joining when the server is filled up already. That way people who want to play in 16p servers actually can flock up to them and wait for a slot to become free while spectating, rather than having to escape to 20+ servers.
Battlefield is a bad comparison because that game was designed for those player counts while NS2 wasn't. The map boundary sizes and number of objectives even adjusts dynamically depending on whether you are playing with 16, 32 or 64 players there.
That's quite a broad statement you got there.
^ This.
Also, most casual players don't come on the forums to voice their opinion on the subject, which is why you see a lot of people on here promoting 18 players or less.
Casual players account for the largest segment of almost every games playerbase as well.
more players mean:
-Longer turtles
-Degrade performance in both client (FPS) and server (rubberbanding, redplug)
-Decreased possible populated servers, IMO its better to have SIX 6v6 player servers than it is to have THREE 12v12 servers full
-Your actions have less impact
-Commander will most likely Ignore your requests for meds/ammo/pg placements as there are 10 other marines asking for the same thing
-Speaking of which trying to supply 10 different marines with meds/ammo can get QUITE expensive.
_Less map awareness, its very hard to keep track on whats happening everywhere in the map in a 12v12 game
-6v6 games are okay with 1 ip, 2 ip is recommended, where in 12v12 there should be atleast 2 ip's i have seen 3 ip's requested, this is again ANOTHER expense due to too many players on marines, noticing the balance issues come into play with increased players? i cannot imagine how many ip's are required for a 32 player slot server, or how expensive medding everyone can be
-Maps would need to be redesigned/bigger in order for a lerk to fly somewhat freely from room to room without having 5 marines or more instantly shooting at you
-killing 1 fade out of 11 is not going to have as big of an impact as killing 1 fade out of 6 (again your actions would have less impact)
-noobs have a harder time learning, as 12v12 they will spend more time being Dead then spend by walking around exploring the map -former noob, heard from other noobs
-Less strategy, in a 6v6 you can specifically say 2 go hub, 2 of you go to ET, and 1 guy go rapair room by calling out their individual names before the game starts, try doing that in a 12v12.
-its easier to have 6 people follow orders like "everyone attack their base" than have 12 people, if only 4 people attack their base in a 6v6 its still the majority, whereas 12v12 it will be a minority and will not have an as big of an impact
-6v6 organized chatter....... 12v12: WHERES WEAPONS 3?!?!? EXO?!?! JETS?!?! CAN I HAVEZ JETS? WHERES MY DUALSSS? oh we dont have a 2nd chair? why nottt? < from 5 different poeple
The only advantages a 12v12 game or more will get you are:
-Really skilled players will be less likely to shift the battle in his favour due to having less impact in the game
-More teamwork is required, honestly is this really an advantage? trying to get the majority of a 12v12 player game to do what you ask is very frustrating as a commander
....
really playing in a 20+ player server is extremely boring compared to playing a good 6v6-8v8, i really wish anything above 20 players were removed entirely from the game
In a 6v6 game, that's the majority of the team in one single place making it borderline impossible to accomplish anything. Leave your base with less than 4 and you get slaughtered, push with 4 or more and you leave your base completely open.
12v12 allows the marines to actually split into multiple effective teams. Meanwhile if the aliens want an opening to attack they have to MAKE an opening, which means teamwork and planning to get a coordinated hit going in multiple places. The advantages swing towards the marines bringing the win rate closer to 50/50 and still leaving plenty of room for coordinated play.
Have you ever seen a competitive game being played at 12vs12?
No, you haven't. So you don't know what that would look like.
whoosh... you missed the point entirely.
No, we don't know what that would look like. Neither do you. What I DO know is that comp games are going 76/24 aliens, so something is definitely broken.
My point is, it could well be 90-10 in 12vs12. You do not know, I do not know. It's silly to do what Res did, i.e. comparing a pub 12vs12 vs. a competitive 6vs6 and then claiming that the player count is what's defining balance, when the single most separating factor is that they're pub and comp, not that they're 12vs12 and 6vs6 respectively.
We have tried comp pugs of 7v7 and 8v8. They are horrible. It becomes a zergfest rather than a strategic competitive match.