In Lol you click play and it'll find you 9 other guys to play with
And atleast one (all of them is also very likely) of them is bound to be either afk, a flamer, a troll, a douchebag or braindead. If you don't pawn in a game you will be flamed by your team, noone wants to admit his own shortcomming. Sure in NS2 this can also happen, but its not the standard like it is in LoL. Noone is bothered by green / bad playeres too much, because theres nothing to loose.
So I've mixed feelings about the upcoming matchmaking system. One the one hand there is no doubt there is a need for some sort of matchmaking, but then I also don't want to miss beeing able to join my favorite server and just have fun playing. Because its on those servers I feel it doesn't matter if I actually win or loose in the end but the way I got there.
I play it to get that "Good job" from the commander......then it dawns on me when the round ends? I was commanding so who commands the commanders :O
The players
Yesterday I was comm for a bunch of rookies (most of the time I felt like I talk to my self) but after the round, one of the rookies even thanked me
TL:DR
The key to player retention and enjoyment is to understand the psychology of gamers and to exploit reward pathways in the brain to make the player feel good thus improving the odds of them enjoying the game.
That's a double edged sword as well. Focus too much on the skinner boxes, and your playerbase will consist mainly of players who are only still in it for the "rewards" rather than the game itself. Best example are f2p games, which rely very heavily on skinner boxes, and also tend to bring out the worst in people.
I have to agree, looking at just the BF series this player progression model does increase player count, but more into a mass of drones farming rewards for a game they barely "play" but merely log on for points and skins and guns.
Anyone who played BF3 on PC should know about the 24/7 metro conquest 1000 ticket 64man servers that are basically two teams of 32 lobbing explosives at each other as it is the most efficient way to farm points. Eventually getting to the point where the number of players who actually play the game in a more engaging intelligent way is probably not that different from NS2.
In fact I was playing BF4 a bit for the first time last weekend and before even playing the game it was obvious which map was the new "metro" (or nuketown for COD players out there). Most of the servers with anyone on were 24/7 Operation Locker 64 man. Sure enough when trying one of them it was filled with 64 people crammed in one small space in absolute carnage.
A rating/matchmaking system would give it the right sort of long term investment as it encourages playing the game well. Points/Levels would probably make the game more profitable but I'm pretty sure it would also kill a lot of the things that make NS2 great and unique.
Now, what would be nice is a mode where you wait in a queue to find 11, 13, 15 other players to play a game. Those players must have a similare level in order to make a balanced game. At the end of the game, the players in the winner team earn points, the players in the looser team loose points and you make a ranking system according to thoses points (basic ELO system). With this kind of system, I think players will be more inclined to keep playing and invest more time to increase their level. Then, more player will play the game, which will make the community grow and make NS2 a real esport game.
I agree.
A kind of lobby to gather players before a game starts would be great. Players with roughly equal recorded skill (and optional stuff like of course ping, perhaps language, prefered race, map, a predefined pool of servers etc.) joins a lobby, and when enough players are "ready" (there's a timeout, so the player would need to click a ready button every minute or so) in the lobby, the game commences. Call the update Natural Selection 2: Readyroom Refurbished.
The only "major" game play change was 250. Every update after that have been little things that are easily adjusted to. We wouldn't be a very good competitive community if every little change completely through off our game.
._.
In Lol you click play and it'll find you 9 other guys to play with
And atleast one (all of them is also very likely) of them is bound to be either afk, a flamer, a troll, a douchebag or braindead. If you don't pawn in a game you will be flamed by your team, noone wants to admit his own shortcomming. Sure in NS2 this can also happen, but its not the standard like it is in LoL. Noone is bothered by green / bad playeres too much, because theres nothing to loose.
So I've mixed feelings about the upcoming matchmaking system. One the one hand there is no doubt there is a need for some sort of matchmaking, but then I also don't want to miss beeing able to join my favorite server and just have fun playing. Because its on those servers I feel it doesn't matter if I actually win or loose in the end but the way I got there.
Adding a matchmaking does not include erasing public server. Even more, I think having both is really important. Sometime you only want to play for fun, not to play with a strong focus, public server are here for this.
(It's weird that there is a lack of commander, this is the role i enjoy the most to play , maybe because I come from rts game, not fps)
I personally don't understand why everyone is bitching so much lately. Could NS2 use some tweaks? Of course. What game doesn't? That's why every game gets patches and updates to make the game better. I think NS2 is a great game and UWE does a pretty good job at making it better.
People that moan about changes....get over it. Its a video game. EVERY modern game gets patched with gameplay tweaks, balancing issues, etc. I think its fine. Keep up the good work UWE.
@NJNaoned, Nice read, thanks the input. Now win on the lottery and let's get UWE a larger dev team so we can get all of this for the next game they make.
TL:DR
The key to player retention and enjoyment is to understand the psychology of gamers and to exploit reward pathways in the brain to make the player feel good thus improving the odds of them enjoying the game.
That's a double edged sword as well. Focus too much on the skinner boxes, and your playerbase will consist mainly of players who are only still in it for the "rewards" rather than the game itself. Best example are f2p games, which rely very heavily on skinner boxes, and also tend to bring out the worst in people.
I have to agree, looking at just the BF series this player progression model does increase player count, but more into a mass of drones farming rewards for a game they barely "play" but merely log on for points and skins and guns.
Anyone who played BF3 on PC should know about the 24/7 metro conquest 1000 ticket 64man servers that are basically two teams of 32 lobbing explosives at each other as it is the most efficient way to farm points. Eventually getting to the point where the number of players who actually play the game in a more engaging intelligent way is probably not that different from NS2.
In fact I was playing BF4 a bit for the first time last weekend and before even playing the game it was obvious which map was the new "metro" (or nuketown for COD players out there). Most of the servers with anyone on were 24/7 Operation Locker 64 man. Sure enough when trying one of them it was filled with 64 people crammed in one small space in absolute carnage.
A rating/matchmaking system would give it the right sort of long term investment as it encourages playing the game well. Points/Levels would probably make the game more profitable but I'm pretty sure it would also kill a lot of the things that make NS2 great and unique.
I don't remember that being the case back when I used to play BF2, the first and last modern military shooter I ever spent time on. I do remember there were points with near constant nadespam but that generally happened as a result of people not being able to make a push and servers weren't heavily dedicated to those maps. Maybe I just didn't notice or maybe the culture has changed, it's not like those games are marketed to anything but idiot dudebros now.
I personally don't understand why everyone is bitching so much lately.
There is a simple answer to your question, sir. People are bitching, because there is a negligible chance you get a satisfactory gaming experience in public games. Each time you log in, the game is ruined by a combination of the following:
1) Commander without voice or clue what to do
2) No communication in teams
3) People running around, fragging, not caring about strategic goals announced by the commander
4) Unbalanced teams, games over in 3 minutes, yet it's necessary to wait 10 minutes for concede
5) Prevalent technical problems with the game - microstutter, rubber banding, various lags before certain actions (shotgun trigger)
6) Annoying features like badly designed AV, poor control customization, etc.
That is perhaps, why people are "bitching", as you put it in such an eloquent and friendly manner.
This game doesn't retain new players because new players join and realize that they need to have a ton of knowledge in advance (alien movement, structure functions, map awareness etc.) in order to play this game competently in first person and as commander. This requires them to invest far more time than the 5-10(?) hours it takes to lose their rookie badge just practicing these mechanics.
Feel free to allow players to check their own stats/rating at any time. Just don't make it easy to check other players' stats as this will just encourage solo play over team play.
Honestly I love the fact that stat tracking isn't available in-game for everyone to see. As soon as they make it so that you can look at other player's stats easily this game is going to stop being fun for me. I play SC2 and I'm in Master league (top 2%), but since all my stats are tracked I get extremely frustrated when I lose. Same goes for FPS. In Hawken I have a 5.00 k/d and every time I get less than that I feel bad. I eventually stopped playing because the pressure to perform at my peak every game was too much and it ceased being entertainment. It became a chore. If I want that stress that accompanies stat-tracking I can just play SC2. I don't need it from every FPS I play too.
Of course, I'm definitely in favor of matchmaking so we play people of our skill level and challenge ourselves in game. I just don't want douchebags like "nemo" (Shadow-tier supporter) checking stats during a game just to chew out rookies and or veterans who have 1.50 k/d instead of 2.00 k/d. Stupid bs like that. Not to mention there is a LOT more to being a good player than k/d and having stats integrated in-game just encourages players to worry about their personal stats rather than what's best for the team. I already feel like Hive is a bad move, but at least it's not accessible in-game.
Don't turn this game into CoD. The community is great so far but it could easily change. One "nemo" is enough.
@Kamamura I used the term "bitching" to express my attitude towards the majority of people who complain about problems or issues within the game without taking initiative to offer ideas, insights, or other possibilities with a certain issue. Most of the time, I read posts of individuals presenting a problem and just expressing their anger towards UWE, much like your previous post that pointlessly identifies known issues with the public games. So, yeah, forgive me if I offended you for using such an "eloquent and friendly term."
In regards to your list, I can think of just two words that would actually mediate most of these issues: Play pugs.
3) People running around, fragging, not caring about strategic goals announced by the commander
Try this in pugs and I doubt you will stay for very long as nobody will want you on their team. Pugs run just like competitive matches, which depend on 100% teamwork, so going Rambo will just cause more harm than good. Problem solved.
4) Unbalanced teams, games over in 3 minutes, yet it's necessary to wait 10 minutes for concede
Sometimes pugs can become unbalanced but not on a scale you see in public games. If anything else, find a different server that forces random teams. Also, some servers offer a "surrender" at any time. You just have to hit "M" > "Surrender" instead of "X" > "Concede." Problem solved.
5) Prevalent technical problems with the game - microstutter, rubber banding, various lags before certain actions (shotgun trigger)
Complaining about this just reinforces my point. I'll bet that most microstutter, rubber banding, and lag is either server related or PC related or both. Getting microstutter? Upgrade your PC or just run one GPU instead of two. Tweak the graphics options to where the microstutter no longer becomes problematic. Rubber banding and lag? Find a different server. Problem solved.
6) Annoying features like badly designed AV, poor control customization, etc.
Two words. Steam Workshop. Numerous mods exist, such as AV and custom HUD options, for you to enjoy. Problem solved.
As I seem to advocate playing pugs rather than public games, I still neglected to touch on the fact that the majority of players play in public lobbies. My answer to that is simple and you may or may not agree with it. You can't force someone to buy a microphone. You can't force somebody follow orders. People play games to have fun and if their way to have fun is to just keep to themselves and kill skulks, c'est la vie. Sometimes I would rather play without having 11 or 12 other voices assaulting my eardrums but I don't play without a mic because I understand that this game requires communication. However, I obviously cannot speak for everybody. So stop worrying and complaining about what other people do, instead focus on yourself and have fun.
Now the question is why are there such a low number of players ? - becouse they change the physics, the values, the structures, the damages and everything within the game every 2 week, no one can stay up to date or bothered relearning the new changes. if they only made tunnels and babblers then left the game alone while making as many optimization changes as possible more people could get used to the game, stick around and feel they was good on something. Not that they was good on version 215 or 249 or 268 or 395919351. The game is never the same, it has no concistancy and no content. black skin can amuse people that donate 75 dollars only for soooo long...every change they make drives me away from this game and i played on my friends acount in a combined total of 2000 hours. We need eclipse map, discovery map - heck even a kahara environment map, 5 or whatever maps they got now (becouse other are unplayable and unvotable) just makes you wanna go do something else than force to play same maps with new values on the lifeforms.
Am I reading correctly that you don't even own the game (or at the very least you and a buddy split the price)? And then you complain on the forums about lack of content?
Also, the black armor was for voluntary extra cash on preorder with beta access ($40 instead of $20), rather than the $75 shadow package which was basically a thank you to the devs...
32 disagrees on a post saying that UWE changes the game every 2 weeks? how ofthen are they changing the game then once per month? i lost the count honestly
I don't remember that being the case back when I used to play BF2, the first and last modern military shooter I ever spent time on. I do remember there were points with near constant nadespam but that generally happened as a result of people not being able to make a push and servers weren't heavily dedicated to those maps. Maybe I just didn't notice or maybe the culture has changed, it's not like those games are marketed to anything but idiot dudebros now.
No it wasnt a problem in BF2 as there wasnt a GREAT deal of things to unlock other than just ranking up. Also they didnt have maps like operation metro/locker, both maps being 5 cap points essentially on a line with at most 2 doorways to go through. Karkand had its standoffs but it was a more 2 dimensional map so when that happened it only took one intelligent squad to go around the standoff and start capping points for it to be eased up.
The culture of play in the BF games has definitely changed. I find it more difficult to find a decent BF game than I do an NS2 game and the player count for the former is significantly higher.
32 disagrees on a post saying that UWE changes the game every 2 weeks? how ofthen are they changing the game then once per month? i lost the count honestly
I do not have time to play that game super often right now, and yet I manage to adapt quite easily to the changes being made in the patches. Just have to point that out.
This game does need to stop mixing veterans with rookies. A bandaid solution could be that in addition to a rookie tag there would be a veteran tag. I know atleast I would stay on servers tagged as veteran and hopefully rookies would stay away from them. A veteran tag could be earned with something like a certain amount of playtime.
32 disagrees on a post saying that UWE changes the game every 2 weeks? how ofthen are they changing the game then once per month? i lost the count honestly
If by "changes" you mean multiple bug fixes and small tweaks to game variables to help improve the game, then yes they do release "changes" every two weeks. It's called supporting the game they designed. Something not many developers do.
This game does need to stop mixing veterans with rookies. A bandaid solution could be that in addition to a rookie tag there would be a veteran tag. I know atleast I would stay on servers tagged as veteran and hopefully rookies would stay away from them. A veteran tag could be earned with something like a certain amount of playtime.
There aren't enough skilled pub servers. I want to fight better players, but that leaves me bashing my head against the competitive wall, but if I go back to the public games I'll be stacking and ruining the new player's enjoyment of the game.
It also doesn't help that the rookie tag is overused. Over the last few weeks, every time I open my server browser and sort my population, 10/12 of the servers are green.
Comments
So I've mixed feelings about the upcoming matchmaking system. One the one hand there is no doubt there is a need for some sort of matchmaking, but then I also don't want to miss beeing able to join my favorite server and just have fun playing. Because its on those servers I feel it doesn't matter if I actually win or loose in the end but the way I got there.
Yesterday I was comm for a bunch of rookies (most of the time I felt like I talk to my self) but after the round, one of the rookies even thanked me
I have to agree, looking at just the BF series this player progression model does increase player count, but more into a mass of drones farming rewards for a game they barely "play" but merely log on for points and skins and guns.
Anyone who played BF3 on PC should know about the 24/7 metro conquest 1000 ticket 64man servers that are basically two teams of 32 lobbing explosives at each other as it is the most efficient way to farm points. Eventually getting to the point where the number of players who actually play the game in a more engaging intelligent way is probably not that different from NS2.
In fact I was playing BF4 a bit for the first time last weekend and before even playing the game it was obvious which map was the new "metro" (or nuketown for COD players out there). Most of the servers with anyone on were 24/7 Operation Locker 64 man. Sure enough when trying one of them it was filled with 64 people crammed in one small space in absolute carnage.
A rating/matchmaking system would give it the right sort of long term investment as it encourages playing the game well. Points/Levels would probably make the game more profitable but I'm pretty sure it would also kill a lot of the things that make NS2 great and unique.
A kind of lobby to gather players before a game starts would be great. Players with roughly equal recorded skill (and optional stuff like of course ping, perhaps language, prefered race, map, a predefined pool of servers etc.) joins a lobby, and when enough players are "ready" (there's a timeout, so the player would need to click a ready button every minute or so) in the lobby, the game commences. Call the update Natural Selection 2: Readyroom Refurbished.
._.
Adding a matchmaking does not include erasing public server. Even more, I think having both is really important. Sometime you only want to play for fun, not to play with a strong focus, public server are here for this.
(It's weird that there is a lack of commander, this is the role i enjoy the most to play
People that moan about changes....get over it. Its a video game. EVERY modern game gets patched with gameplay tweaks, balancing issues, etc. I think its fine. Keep up the good work UWE.
The lack is more around the game, the game itself is pretty good.
I don't remember that being the case back when I used to play BF2, the first and last modern military shooter I ever spent time on. I do remember there were points with near constant nadespam but that generally happened as a result of people not being able to make a push and servers weren't heavily dedicated to those maps. Maybe I just didn't notice or maybe the culture has changed, it's not like those games are marketed to anything but idiot dudebros now.
There is a simple answer to your question, sir. People are bitching, because there is a negligible chance you get a satisfactory gaming experience in public games. Each time you log in, the game is ruined by a combination of the following:
1) Commander without voice or clue what to do
2) No communication in teams
3) People running around, fragging, not caring about strategic goals announced by the commander
4) Unbalanced teams, games over in 3 minutes, yet it's necessary to wait 10 minutes for concede
5) Prevalent technical problems with the game - microstutter, rubber banding, various lags before certain actions (shotgun trigger)
6) Annoying features like badly designed AV, poor control customization, etc.
That is perhaps, why people are "bitching", as you put it in such an eloquent and friendly manner.
Honestly I love the fact that stat tracking isn't available in-game for everyone to see. As soon as they make it so that you can look at other player's stats easily this game is going to stop being fun for me. I play SC2 and I'm in Master league (top 2%), but since all my stats are tracked I get extremely frustrated when I lose. Same goes for FPS. In Hawken I have a 5.00 k/d and every time I get less than that I feel bad. I eventually stopped playing because the pressure to perform at my peak every game was too much and it ceased being entertainment. It became a chore. If I want that stress that accompanies stat-tracking I can just play SC2. I don't need it from every FPS I play too.
Of course, I'm definitely in favor of matchmaking so we play people of our skill level and challenge ourselves in game. I just don't want douchebags like "nemo" (Shadow-tier supporter) checking stats during a game just to chew out rookies and or veterans who have 1.50 k/d instead of 2.00 k/d. Stupid bs like that. Not to mention there is a LOT more to being a good player than k/d and having stats integrated in-game just encourages players to worry about their personal stats rather than what's best for the team. I already feel like Hive is a bad move, but at least it's not accessible in-game.
Don't turn this game into CoD. The community is great so far but it could easily change. One "nemo" is enough.
While I can understand your point completely, please refrain from turning this into a name&shame thread.
In regards to your list, I can think of just two words that would actually mediate most of these issues: Play pugs.
Most competitive players play in pugs on a daily basis. How many competitive commanders don't have microphone to communicate? None. Problem solved. Refer to above. Problem solved. Try this in pugs and I doubt you will stay for very long as nobody will want you on their team. Pugs run just like competitive matches, which depend on 100% teamwork, so going Rambo will just cause more harm than good. Problem solved. Sometimes pugs can become unbalanced but not on a scale you see in public games. If anything else, find a different server that forces random teams. Also, some servers offer a "surrender" at any time. You just have to hit "M" > "Surrender" instead of "X" > "Concede." Problem solved. Complaining about this just reinforces my point. I'll bet that most microstutter, rubber banding, and lag is either server related or PC related or both. Getting microstutter? Upgrade your PC or just run one GPU instead of two. Tweak the graphics options to where the microstutter no longer becomes problematic. Rubber banding and lag? Find a different server. Problem solved. Two words. Steam Workshop. Numerous mods exist, such as AV and custom HUD options, for you to enjoy. Problem solved.
As I seem to advocate playing pugs rather than public games, I still neglected to touch on the fact that the majority of players play in public lobbies. My answer to that is simple and you may or may not agree with it. You can't force someone to buy a microphone. You can't force somebody follow orders. People play games to have fun and if their way to have fun is to just keep to themselves and kill skulks, c'est la vie. Sometimes I would rather play without having 11 or 12 other voices assaulting my eardrums but I don't play without a mic because I understand that this game requires communication. However, I obviously cannot speak for everybody. So stop worrying and complaining about what other people do, instead focus on yourself and have fun.
Am I reading correctly that you don't even own the game (or at the very least you and a buddy split the price)? And then you complain on the forums about lack of content?
Also, the black armor was for voluntary extra cash on preorder with beta access ($40 instead of $20), rather than the $75 shadow package which was basically a thank you to the devs...
Then you should play more.
No it wasnt a problem in BF2 as there wasnt a GREAT deal of things to unlock other than just ranking up. Also they didnt have maps like operation metro/locker, both maps being 5 cap points essentially on a line with at most 2 doorways to go through. Karkand had its standoffs but it was a more 2 dimensional map so when that happened it only took one intelligent squad to go around the standoff and start capping points for it to be eased up.
The culture of play in the BF games has definitely changed. I find it more difficult to find a decent BF game than I do an NS2 game and the player count for the former is significantly higher.
Best 1st post I've seen on the forum for ages. Fresh blood and valuable opinions, thanxs for that
If by "changes" you mean multiple bug fixes and small tweaks to game variables to help improve the game, then yes they do release "changes" every two weeks. It's called supporting the game they designed. Something not many developers do.
There aren't enough skilled pub servers. I want to fight better players, but that leaves me bashing my head against the competitive wall, but if I go back to the public games I'll be stacking and ruining the new player's enjoyment of the game.