There also a problem. Too many server are rookie friendly . Not that i despite rookies but : Too many ppl (also admins which is ridiculous BTW) fail to understand that.
There is :
-Rookie friendly (default config); mean OPENED for everyone.
-No rookie allowed.
There should be tons of levels on that matter. What is more important right now is rookie only. So another lack concerning that game.
Then there is a debate on the "License to NS" but right now this thread need more cow bell !
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
I remember when I first played there were good rounds all of the time. Now a good round is about 1/6 of the time.
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
I remember when I first played there were good rounds all of the time. Now a good round is about 1/6 of the time.
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
No offense, but I am getting pretty sick of reading about how people don't play this game because of better players. I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They played a ton of the open beta of Battlefield 4 and now that the game launched a week ago, they convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc in multiplayer games. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
And you know what I definitely haven't done: made a post on the Battlefield 4 forums saying its unfair I am playing with people who have played BF3, the open beta, etc, that they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team together even though they've all know each other for years, and that I am quitting until its fixed. Just my $.02.
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
No offense, but I am getting pretty sick of reading about how people don't play this game because of better players. I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They played a ton of the open beta of Battlefield 4 and now that the game launched a week ago, they convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc in multiplayer games. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
And you know what I definitely haven't done: made a post on the Battlefield 4 forums saying its unfair I am playing with people who have played BF3, the open beta, etc, that they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team together even though they've all know each other for years, and that I am quitting until its fixed. Just my $.02.
That's some true stuff, although in NS2 it's much easier to project those feelings on the game ("Aliens OP!!").
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
No offense, but I am getting pretty sick of reading about how people don't play this game because of better players. I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They played a ton of the open beta of Battlefield 4 and now that the game launched a week ago, they convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc in multiplayer games. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
And you know what I definitely haven't done: made a post on the Battlefield 4 forums saying its unfair I am playing with people who have played BF3, the open beta, etc, that they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team together even though they've all know each other for years, and that I am quitting until its fixed. Just my $.02.
Wow, way to strawman?
He's not talking about better players. He's talking about stacking.
If your friends consistently go 35-2 then they're petty and easily amused, and oughta find better people to play against. But that's just my personal opinion - some people like stomping ants, too.
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team. EVERYBODY is saying there should be a system that allows them to do that, while having a challenging, fair game.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@palagi
Hhuuuuuuuuuggeeee differences between those two games in regards to their skill ceilings and the impact a singular individual has on other player's ability to enjoy the round.
"Just lost my 50 pres lifeform in 15 sec to one player?? FML "
As opposed to
"Damn I didn't even see him.." *waits 5 seconds then respawns in same location with same weapons and gear, equally capable of turning around the match*
There is also a fundamental difference in personality at work in most of these cases. Some people enjoy being thrown to the wolves and clawing their way to the top via trial by fire. These are the sort of folks who tend to gravitate towards competitive play, or set their single player games on higher difficulties.
Not everyone is built this way. In fact, most people are not, and need a more gradual ramp to start with or they get turned off and walk away. I've seen the same argument brought up many times on these boards, that the gol-durned whippersnappers should take their beatings and be thankful for them, because back in my day I climbed the hill wearing nothing but a jockstrap made of razor blades etc.
TLDR: Just because that works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone, even if you think it should.
@palagi
Hhuuuuuuuuuggeeee differences between those two games in regards to their skill ceilings and the impact a singular individual has on other player's ability to enjoy the round.
"Just lost my 50 pres lifeform in 15 sec to one player?? FML "
As opposed to
"Damn I didn't even see him.." *waits 5 seconds then respawns in same location with same weapons and gear, equally capable of turning around the match*
Agreed, the BF series is way more forgiving that NS... the owners of the series are not though lol
@palagi
Hhuuuuuuuuuggeeee differences between those two games in regards to their skill ceilings and the impact a singular individual has on other player's ability to enjoy the round.
"Just lost my 50 pres lifeform in 15 sec to one player?? FML "
As opposed to
"Damn I didn't even see him.." *waits 5 seconds then respawns in same location with same weapons and gear, equally capable of turning around the match*
Not entirely true, while losing a high life-form in ns2 impacts the round much more then a few kills on bf does. A coordinated squad can easily make a 24p rush server a spawn camp fest. There's a few rush maps on bf3 where you actually get shot at the moment you spawn...
A good squad cuts through the enemy like butter. Having people actually revive you and guard your back goes a long way in a game that has absolutely no team-work if played with randoms.
This is a game where people use jets for transport and jack your tank while you're fixing it.
Battlefield is easily on par of annoyance with NS2, the bad rounds just don't happen as frequent which is the key factor here. But you are powerless just the same.
Singular individuals are usually not the problem in ns2 from my experience. It's when those individuals join the same team that any balance goes straight outta the window. I personally don't mind playing against a friend but playing with a friend is simply more fun as friends excel in team-work games.
Playing with people you know makes any game easy against randoms unless the randoms far exceed your skill.
Only way you're going to have balanced games is if you know the players and balance things manually. That or form a clan and scrim against a clan of similar prowess.
Not entirely true, while losing a high life-form in ns2 impacts the round much more then a few kills on bf does. A coordinated squad can easily make a 24p rush server a spawn camp fest.
@palagi
in regards to their skill ceilings and the impact a singular individual has on other player's ability to enjoy the round.
I was not speaking about impact on the round or the team.
I was speaking purely about how much easier it is to negatively impact the personal enjoyment of another player.
Imagine if when you got killed in BF3, you lost all your rank, and all your unlocks.
I'm not sure anyone would find that fair, due to there being a persistent system, but you get the point :
NS2 is not nearly as forgiving as other games in that once you lose something you have earned, its lost. You do not spawn quickly with your friends and with what you earned thus far. You reset to zero.
This makes it far less forgiving, and this is why player reaction and morale in BF3 do not resemble player reactions that you would find in NS2.
I've never waited a frustrating 10 minutes to purchase a one time weapon that i lose in less than 10 seconds to one sharpshooter in BF3...
NS2 is indeed far more unforgiving then BF. Losing a high tier life-form you spend half the game saving up for can be quite frustrating. I usually blame this on myself though or in very unlucky cases, stoopid team mates blocking my retreat.
NS2 is quite hard to get into for rookies with its steep learning curve, it's quite off putting when you die repeatedly due to its high skill nature compared to more casual games.
That being said. While one life-form can make or break a game, NS2 really isn't that bad regarding player frustration levels. It has team player count balance in place, losing team can surrender or when lacking a few votes, simply f4 and have the game end due to team unbalance.
You'd be surprised how many games lack such basic features.
Is it annoying to get your shit kicked in or have a match that never ends cause neither teams are competent enough? Or do you get fed up with nearby skulks watching your drifter get shot to bits as you're moving it about hoping they get the idea of "Marine distracted, chew chew time"?
I sure do, but I can't blame NS2 for it. The biggest problem I got with NS2 is the lack of team-work that's sometimes present but this is not a game flaw.
NS2 has some flaws here and there without a doubt but when it really comes down, it does a lot of things quite well. Player frustration is already minimized as much as possible by the game itself.
I might have gotten a little side tracked here but I think it deserves a foot note to how much effort UWE has already put into NS2 to make the player experience as enjoyable as possible for all concerned.
You'll always have snobby players so best get used to em, but true team-work games are a dying breed. Best to just ignore those snobby ground lerks and enjoy NS2 while you can.
NS2 really isn't that bad regarding player frustration levels. It has team player count balance in place, losing team can surrender or when lacking a few votes, simply f4 and have the game end due to team unbalance.
You'd be surprised how many games lack such basic features.
The frequency of said concede feature usage clearly demonstrates gameplay where players are not enjoying what is occurring.
Other games lack the feature, i feel, because its not as painful, thus its not as necessary.
Can you name a game where it can take 20 minutes to end a round that's already technically ended, if you do not get the whole team to vote concede?
Even in CS you'd wait maybe 60 seconds or so before spawning with nearly the same equipment and a brand new chance to do it all over again.
I do blame the game design for this oversight - mixing FPS with RTS would of course have it's downsides (slippery slope elements etc) but i feel this part could have used a bit more care.
I'm pretty sure if we brainstorm on it, we could come up with a way that creates a more forgiving game design that retains players better - and yet still maintains RTS elements like progression and tech advantage through map control.
@Ironhorse I know some people say when UWE made combat an official game mode in NS1, it was the start of the downfall of the game. I personally loved combat purely for the quick fun it provides and the ability to practice aim and life form mechanics outside of the RTS hybrid experience. I wish the Combat mod was more popular for NS2 purely because I think we would retain players better since rookies wouldn't be so overwhelmed. In my opinion the Combat mod teaches you 75% of what you need to be effective in a real game, albeit in a much more forgiving way.
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
I remember when I first played there were good rounds all of the time. Now a good round is about 1/6 of the time.
Oh come on. That does sound a lot like nostalgia.
Maybe it does. I started playing in December. For the first few weeks I don't remember imbalanced rounds occurring anywhere near as often as they do now.. It's probably because there were so many new players that we all evened each other out.
Absolutely agree with palagi on Combat. I would love to see UWE take Combat under their wing and make it more of an "official" thing... It could really allow rookies an easier and much more forgiving way to learn how things work in a setting that is more forgiving.
Obviously it doesn't recreate the true flow of an NS2 match, but the simple fact that it allows you to play with a Fade without having to lose it if you die makes it a perfect entry-level game mode for rookies who are trying to learn how the game works. It can be extremely frustrating trying to learn advanced lifeforms when you lose them after dying once with them.
@Ironhorse I know some people say when UWE made combat an official game mode in NS1, it was the start of the downfall of the game. I personally loved combat purely for the quick fun it provides and the ability to practice aim and life form mechanics outside of the RTS hybrid experience. I wish the Combat mod was more popular for NS2 purely because I think we would retain players better since rookies wouldn't be so overwhelmed. In my opinion the Combat mod teaches you 75% of what you need to be effective in a real game, albeit in a much more forgiving way.
Yes, I have to agree. Combat is just great for some quick, less punishing aim/lifeform practice in general, which makes it somewhat ideal for newcomers to mess around in.
Just went back and played a few rounds after a bit of a break and good God, the stacking is horrible. Virtually every server you go to has a bunch of players with badges stacking the same team and going 35-3... No wonder this game has a retention problem. If I were a new player getting stomped like that I'd probably just quit.
I don't even really understand the appeal. If you are a good player doesn't it feel better to play an even game and lead your team to victory? I don't see what is to be gained by racking up kills against people who have played like 3 hours of the game.
No offense, but I am getting pretty sick of reading about how people don't play this game because of better players. I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They played a ton of the open beta of Battlefield 4 and now that the game launched a week ago, they convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc in multiplayer games. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
And you know what I definitely haven't done: made a post on the Battlefield 4 forums saying its unfair I am playing with people who have played BF3, the open beta, etc, that they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team together even though they've all know each other for years, and that I am quitting until its fixed. Just my $.02.
I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3
mystery solved
You know i played this game called eve online .... i quit within 2 months of first buying it. Then about 2 years later i found out one of my IRL friends were playing it .... then i got back into the game and played it for about 5 years.
for the quick fun it provides and the ability to practice aim and life form mechanics outside of the RTS hybrid experience.
See, i feel with minimal amount of planning and designing you can keep that RTS experience and therefore the classic NS experience with it - all without the unnecessary unforgiving gameplay.
Meaning, yeah, combat is amazing for practicing the meta of aiming, but i don't think we are forced to abandon RTS mechanics in order to have a forgiving NS.
I've lerked(no shame) around this topic and having read all the replies and I wanted to throw my 2 cents in:
The opposing sides on this topic both have the same goal:
Quality Matches.
I also think that both sides agree that the quality of the match is determined by the quality of teamwork present on a marine or alien team. A player, new or veteran,has an equal responsibility to facilitate this teamwork and promote high match quality. A new player does so by learning and practicing; a veteran player does so by teaching and providing competition. The issue arises when players perceive a slight by the other party.
This slight is not limited to a few veterans or a few new players and, as a result, is not personal in nature. It is the result of a highly complex but rewarding game, combining several interesting layers from different gaming types into something novel and addicting.
Now, we have two sides in need of an intermediary; this would be the role two citizens would nominally assign to government. The role of this intermediary needs to be played by ns2stats.com in the realm of NS2. The data collected could/should be used to calculate the most optimal metric for team balance. This maybe already be EOL, but the metric(called PR for the purposes of this post) should consist of the following:
Time Played = highest weighted
K:D ratio + avg. life length = second highest weighting
Wins+ wins as commander+accuracy = third highest weighting
Any metric that combines these six data points will present the most accurate picture of how good/bad a player is.
Balancing Teams based on PR will promote the best team balance, most teamwork, and highest match quality. The server skill meter could be used to depict the average PR of the players on the server. This will allow players to make informed decisions about what servers to join. Additional options could include the ability to place upper limits on PR for servers like the NOOBS only server or a lower limit on PR for the Diamond Clan server, etc.
I do not think that PR should be required for all servers, but I strongly believe servers that do employ the metric and balance based off of it will have a significantly higher level of balance and, as the system improves, teamwork as well.
Potential objections:
Objection 1: I want to play with friends, because I know the teamwork will be high.
Wolfy's response: Is the issue that you want to play with friends or you want a certain level of teamwork? If you want to play with your friends, you will have that option on servers that do not use the TR or ns2stats metrics to balance. If you really just want a certain level of teamwork, TR or ns2stats will be the best way to ensure it fairly.
Objection 2: Wolfy, what about players with high play time that still munch on the armory instead of the phase gate?
Wolfy's response: I think you are over-estimating their play time. This simply goes against the way in which humans learn and improve in any skill (repetition). I've never seen an actual example. Even so this would be the exception not the rule and statistically irrelevant.
Objection 3: Wolfy, people need to learn to play. I shouldn't have to handicap my play-style or play against/not with my friends. I want to enjoy the game too.
Wolfy's response: You're 100% correct! You shouldn't have to do any of that and you won't have to. You can play on servers not using TR or ns2stats. You can host your own server. You can start competitive play with your friends. We can consider those as your rights. But it is in the games best interest to have the collective rights of all players balanced by an intermediary. That intermediary is the system I am now championing.
I believe this system or a system like it provides the best chance for enjoyable games moving forward. It will promote quality matches by promoting quality teamwork, which will improve the overall player-base. It provides recourse(see above) for people who do not want to play balanced matches as well. It is the perfect intermediary and something NS2 definitely needs in order to grow a player base.
Can you name a game where it can take 20 minutes to end a round that's already technically ended, if you do not get the whole team to vote concede?
Battlefield 4 has plenty rounds like this on rush. Even battlefield 3 has had similar problems. You're practically stuck in your base repeatedly dying for the next 10-20 minutes if you're facing a team of greater skill along with the poor map balance on some rush maps.
Maybe battlefield is a bit of an odd ball here as the balance on some maps is obscenely bad. Mostly due to EA using the same maps from conquest for rush with minimal editing.
Simple map flaw here though, NS2 is a far more complex problem all together.
I do blame the game design for this oversight - mixing FPS with RTS would of course have it's downsides (slippery slope elements etc) but i feel this part could have used a bit more care.
I'm pretty sure if we brainstorm on it, we could come up with a way that creates a more forgiving game design that retains players better - and yet still maintains RTS elements like progression and tech advantage through map control.
I think the gameplay is mostly in the right place but the rounds need to end much faster when it's already been decided. I don't mind losing so much if it's quick. Those 20 minutes of camping in the base are the biggest problem for me. The question here being, is this a problem with the game or the people playing it? Usually breaking through enemy defenses is not that hard once you get a good team rush.
More drastic upgrades when your team owns all tech points but the last might not be a bad idea. As cheesy as super weapons might be, if implemented well it could greatly speed things along when the game is already over. Come backs when the enemy owns all the tech points but 1 are rare. If you give the enemy a heads up that they are gonna get nuked in 60 seconds unless they get a tech point back might just be the rallying cry people need to get out of the base and FIGHT. There's a reason all RTS games got super weapons.
Arguably this is more of a band aid then a fix to the core problem and it doesn't help speed up the early/mid game when you've already lost but your team doesn't want to admit it, but it would fix those everlasting games for most part.
More forgiving gameplay in a RTS/FPS hybrid sounds like a tricky mess. RTS games resolve this by having hard counters or in the very least, allow for units that excel over the enemy units in some way. e.g Bombers counter tanks. NS2 doesn't really have this in the same scale which is why come-backs are so hard to pull of. In RTS, lower res can beat higher res player by playing it smart and countering his units or simply throwing it all on a single super unit. Economy also tends to be more expensive to expand in RTS games. A more important role between expanding economy or get more units/upgrades is also present.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
@nedstar
Ah, but see you can spawn next to your friends with the upgraded gear you just had - exponentially increasing the odds of a comeback compared to NS2.
I think that while people like you and me do not mind losing.. a think a great deal of the typical modern day gamer does. Especially so given the types of forgiving games that are produced these days.
I don't think it would be a mess.. i just think you'd have to do away with an aggregate resource system. You could also do TF2 style classes. But neither of which would include hard counters.
Comments
There is :
-Rookie friendly (default config); mean OPENED for everyone.
-No rookie allowed.
There should be tons of levels on that matter. What is more important right now is rookie only. So another lack concerning that game.
Then there is a debate on the "License to NS" but right now this thread need more cow bell !
I remember when I first played there were good rounds all of the time. Now a good round is about 1/6 of the time.
Oh come on. That does sound a lot like nostalgia.
No offense, but I am getting pretty sick of reading about how people don't play this game because of better players. I have some friends that played a ton of Battlefield 3. They played a ton of the open beta of Battlefield 4 and now that the game launched a week ago, they convinced me to buy it and play with them. They consistently go 35-2 etc in multiplayer games. Alot of times I will join their server and it will put me on opposite team of them. I am lucky if I get a 1:1 ratio again noobs. Against a few good players squaded up, it is even harder.
I have never once ragequit because they are better than me and our team is losing bad. If I get a kill on one of them, I get pretty excited (and talk some shit all in good fun) and it only makes me want to get better. I don't expect them to go easy on me or the server for that matter (just because they are veterans and I have only played a few days). I have been asking questions and learning the different guns, recoil, camping spots, etc when I play.
And you know what I definitely haven't done: made a post on the Battlefield 4 forums saying its unfair I am playing with people who have played BF3, the open beta, etc, that they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team together even though they've all know each other for years, and that I am quitting until its fixed. Just my $.02.
That's some true stuff, although in NS2 it's much easier to project those feelings on the game ("Aliens OP!!").
Wow, way to strawman?
He's not talking about better players. He's talking about stacking.
If your friends consistently go 35-2 then they're petty and easily amused, and oughta find better people to play against. But that's just my personal opinion - some people like stomping ants, too.
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same team. EVERYBODY is saying there should be a system that allows them to do that, while having a challenging, fair game.
Hhuuuuuuuuuggeeee differences between those two games in regards to their skill ceilings and the impact a singular individual has on other player's ability to enjoy the round.
"Just lost my 50 pres lifeform in 15 sec to one player?? FML "
As opposed to
"Damn I didn't even see him.." *waits 5 seconds then respawns in same location with same weapons and gear, equally capable of turning around the match*
There is also a fundamental difference in personality at work in most of these cases. Some people enjoy being thrown to the wolves and clawing their way to the top via trial by fire. These are the sort of folks who tend to gravitate towards competitive play, or set their single player games on higher difficulties.
Not everyone is built this way. In fact, most people are not, and need a more gradual ramp to start with or they get turned off and walk away. I've seen the same argument brought up many times on these boards, that the gol-durned whippersnappers should take their beatings and be thankful for them, because back in my day I climbed the hill wearing nothing but a jockstrap made of razor blades etc.
TLDR: Just because that works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone, even if you think it should.
Not entirely true, while losing a high life-form in ns2 impacts the round much more then a few kills on bf does. A coordinated squad can easily make a 24p rush server a spawn camp fest. There's a few rush maps on bf3 where you actually get shot at the moment you spawn...
A good squad cuts through the enemy like butter. Having people actually revive you and guard your back goes a long way in a game that has absolutely no team-work if played with randoms.
This is a game where people use jets for transport and jack your tank while you're fixing it.
Battlefield is easily on par of annoyance with NS2, the bad rounds just don't happen as frequent which is the key factor here. But you are powerless just the same.
Singular individuals are usually not the problem in ns2 from my experience. It's when those individuals join the same team that any balance goes straight outta the window. I personally don't mind playing against a friend but playing with a friend is simply more fun as friends excel in team-work games.
Playing with people you know makes any game easy against randoms unless the randoms far exceed your skill.
Only way you're going to have balanced games is if you know the players and balance things manually. That or form a clan and scrim against a clan of similar prowess.
I was not speaking about impact on the round or the team.
I was speaking purely about how much easier it is to negatively impact the personal enjoyment of another player.
Imagine if when you got killed in BF3, you lost all your rank, and all your unlocks.
I'm not sure anyone would find that fair, due to there being a persistent system, but you get the point :
NS2 is not nearly as forgiving as other games in that once you lose something you have earned, its lost. You do not spawn quickly with your friends and with what you earned thus far. You reset to zero.
This makes it far less forgiving, and this is why player reaction and morale in BF3 do not resemble player reactions that you would find in NS2.
I've never waited a frustrating 10 minutes to purchase a one time weapon that i lose in less than 10 seconds to one sharpshooter in BF3...
NS2 is quite hard to get into for rookies with its steep learning curve, it's quite off putting when you die repeatedly due to its high skill nature compared to more casual games.
That being said. While one life-form can make or break a game, NS2 really isn't that bad regarding player frustration levels. It has team player count balance in place, losing team can surrender or when lacking a few votes, simply f4 and have the game end due to team unbalance.
You'd be surprised how many games lack such basic features.
Is it annoying to get your shit kicked in or have a match that never ends cause neither teams are competent enough? Or do you get fed up with nearby skulks watching your drifter get shot to bits as you're moving it about hoping they get the idea of "Marine distracted, chew chew time"?
I sure do, but I can't blame NS2 for it. The biggest problem I got with NS2 is the lack of team-work that's sometimes present but this is not a game flaw.
NS2 has some flaws here and there without a doubt but when it really comes down, it does a lot of things quite well. Player frustration is already minimized as much as possible by the game itself.
I might have gotten a little side tracked here but I think it deserves a foot note to how much effort UWE has already put into NS2 to make the player experience as enjoyable as possible for all concerned.
You'll always have snobby players so best get used to em, but true team-work games are a dying breed. Best to just ignore those snobby ground lerks and enjoy NS2 while you can.
tl/dr. Gorge goes weeeeeee.
Other games lack the feature, i feel, because its not as painful, thus its not as necessary.
Can you name a game where it can take 20 minutes to end a round that's already technically ended, if you do not get the whole team to vote concede?
Even in CS you'd wait maybe 60 seconds or so before spawning with nearly the same equipment and a brand new chance to do it all over again.
I do blame the game design for this oversight - mixing FPS with RTS would of course have it's downsides (slippery slope elements etc) but i feel this part could have used a bit more care.
I'm pretty sure if we brainstorm on it, we could come up with a way that creates a more forgiving game design that retains players better - and yet still maintains RTS elements like progression and tech advantage through map control.
Maybe it does. I started playing in December. For the first few weeks I don't remember imbalanced rounds occurring anywhere near as often as they do now.. It's probably because there were so many new players that we all evened each other out.
Sound logical or "nostalgic"?
Obviously it doesn't recreate the true flow of an NS2 match, but the simple fact that it allows you to play with a Fade without having to lose it if you die makes it a perfect entry-level game mode for rookies who are trying to learn how the game works. It can be extremely frustrating trying to learn advanced lifeforms when you lose them after dying once with them.
Yes, I have to agree. Combat is just great for some quick, less punishing aim/lifeform practice in general, which makes it somewhat ideal for newcomers to mess around in.
mystery solved
You know i played this game called eve online .... i quit within 2 months of first buying it. Then about 2 years later i found out one of my IRL friends were playing it .... then i got back into the game and played it for about 5 years.
Weird huh ?
Meaning, yeah, combat is amazing for practicing the meta of aiming, but i don't think we are forced to abandon RTS mechanics in order to have a forgiving NS.
Hey all,
I've lerked(no shame) around this topic and having read all the replies and I wanted to throw my 2 cents in:
The opposing sides on this topic both have the same goal:
Quality Matches.
I also think that both sides agree that the quality of the match is determined by the quality of teamwork present on a marine or alien team. A player, new or veteran,has an equal responsibility to facilitate this teamwork and promote high match quality. A new player does so by learning and practicing; a veteran player does so by teaching and providing competition. The issue arises when players perceive a slight by the other party.
This slight is not limited to a few veterans or a few new players and, as a result, is not personal in nature. It is the result of a highly complex but rewarding game, combining several interesting layers from different gaming types into something novel and addicting.
Now, we have two sides in need of an intermediary; this would be the role two citizens would nominally assign to government. The role of this intermediary needs to be played by ns2stats.com in the realm of NS2. The data collected could/should be used to calculate the most optimal metric for team balance. This maybe already be EOL, but the metric(called PR for the purposes of this post) should consist of the following:
Time Played = highest weighted
K:D ratio + avg. life length = second highest weighting
Wins+ wins as commander+accuracy = third highest weighting
Any metric that combines these six data points will present the most accurate picture of how good/bad a player is.
Balancing Teams based on PR will promote the best team balance, most teamwork, and highest match quality. The server skill meter could be used to depict the average PR of the players on the server. This will allow players to make informed decisions about what servers to join. Additional options could include the ability to place upper limits on PR for servers like the NOOBS only server or a lower limit on PR for the Diamond Clan server, etc.
I do not think that PR should be required for all servers, but I strongly believe servers that do employ the metric and balance based off of it will have a significantly higher level of balance and, as the system improves, teamwork as well.
Potential objections:
Objection 1: I want to play with friends, because I know the teamwork will be high.
Wolfy's response: Is the issue that you want to play with friends or you want a certain level of teamwork? If you want to play with your friends, you will have that option on servers that do not use the TR or ns2stats metrics to balance. If you really just want a certain level of teamwork, TR or ns2stats will be the best way to ensure it fairly.
Objection 2: Wolfy, what about players with high play time that still munch on the armory instead of the phase gate?
Wolfy's response: I think you are over-estimating their play time. This simply goes against the way in which humans learn and improve in any skill (repetition). I've never seen an actual example. Even so this would be the exception not the rule and statistically irrelevant.
Objection 3: Wolfy, people need to learn to play. I shouldn't have to handicap my play-style or play against/not with my friends. I want to enjoy the game too.
Wolfy's response: You're 100% correct! You shouldn't have to do any of that and you won't have to. You can play on servers not using TR or ns2stats. You can host your own server. You can start competitive play with your friends. We can consider those as your rights. But it is in the games best interest to have the collective rights of all players balanced by an intermediary. That intermediary is the system I am now championing.
I believe this system or a system like it provides the best chance for enjoyable games moving forward. It will promote quality matches by promoting quality teamwork, which will improve the overall player-base. It provides recourse(see above) for people who do not want to play balanced matches as well. It is the perfect intermediary and something NS2 definitely needs in order to grow a player base.
TL;DR: I wrote it. Please read it, it's worth it!
Thanks,
Wolfy
My Apologies if cross posting is illegal!
Battlefield 4 has plenty rounds like this on rush. Even battlefield 3 has had similar problems. You're practically stuck in your base repeatedly dying for the next 10-20 minutes if you're facing a team of greater skill along with the poor map balance on some rush maps.
Maybe battlefield is a bit of an odd ball here as the balance on some maps is obscenely bad. Mostly due to EA using the same maps from conquest for rush with minimal editing.
Simple map flaw here though, NS2 is a far more complex problem all together.
I think the gameplay is mostly in the right place but the rounds need to end much faster when it's already been decided. I don't mind losing so much if it's quick. Those 20 minutes of camping in the base are the biggest problem for me. The question here being, is this a problem with the game or the people playing it? Usually breaking through enemy defenses is not that hard once you get a good team rush.
More drastic upgrades when your team owns all tech points but the last might not be a bad idea. As cheesy as super weapons might be, if implemented well it could greatly speed things along when the game is already over. Come backs when the enemy owns all the tech points but 1 are rare. If you give the enemy a heads up that they are gonna get nuked in 60 seconds unless they get a tech point back might just be the rallying cry people need to get out of the base and FIGHT. There's a reason all RTS games got super weapons.
Arguably this is more of a band aid then a fix to the core problem and it doesn't help speed up the early/mid game when you've already lost but your team doesn't want to admit it, but it would fix those everlasting games for most part.
More forgiving gameplay in a RTS/FPS hybrid sounds like a tricky mess. RTS games resolve this by having hard counters or in the very least, allow for units that excel over the enemy units in some way. e.g Bombers counter tanks. NS2 doesn't really have this in the same scale which is why come-backs are so hard to pull of. In RTS, lower res can beat higher res player by playing it smart and countering his units or simply throwing it all on a single super unit. Economy also tends to be more expensive to expand in RTS games. A more important role between expanding economy or get more units/upgrades is also present.
Ah, but see you can spawn next to your friends with the upgraded gear you just had - exponentially increasing the odds of a comeback compared to NS2.
I think that while people like you and me do not mind losing.. a think a great deal of the typical modern day gamer does. Especially so given the types of forgiving games that are produced these days.
I don't think it would be a mess.. i just think you'd have to do away with an aggregate resource system. You could also do TF2 style classes. But neither of which would include hard counters.