Commanders in NS2

[bonage]

Hi all,

I want to ask you guys some very simple and straightforward questions about commanders/ RTS elements in NS2. I'm interested in everyone's opinion (not just comp players), especially from people who play casually or pub only.

1. Do you like the idea of commanders in the game?
2. Do you enjoy playing both Marine commander and Alien commander? If so why? If not, why not?
3. Do you think that commanders are a limiting factor for pub/pug games starting and also for new competitive teams forming?
4. Why do you think there are so few players willing to command?

Please answer honestly - it doesn't matter if you like or hate commanders, I just want to hear why and particularly what elements you do and don't like, what you'd like to change etc.

[intrik]

1. Do you like the idea of commanders in the game? Yes
2. Do you enjoy playing both Marine commander and Alien commander? If so why? If not, why not? Yes I enjoy, it's great fun when commanding great players.
3. Do you think that commanders are a limiting factor for pub/pug games starting and also for new competitive teams forming? Yes, combat in NS1 fixed a lot of this, combat in NS2 fucked the show.
4. Why do you think there are so few players willing to command? Too many noob players rather than noob commanders.

[The Voices]

1, Yes, its part of what makes ns2 ns2, it removes the AI feeling, you know the one how in every game theres an AI giving orders and its always bad (at least in my experience)
2, I enjoy playing marine commander from time to time, but not alien, simply because I'm not a very good shot as a marine and comming allows me to still feel useful and I like playing lerk.
3, Yeah it is a limiting factor, but I still think its worth it.
4. Cause everyone wants to be the carry, get top kills and be top of the leaderboard. oh and it doesnt help that commander generally gets blamed for things turning to sh*t, the number of times someone's called for meds JUST before someone else calls for orders so you end up medding too late then the person in question whinges about 'no meds'.

Another thing I like about commanding is the feeling you get after winning a game, you were the person behind the scenes who still played a vital role in winning.

Least thats my opinion anyhow

[Slayar]

1. Do you like the idea of commanders in the game?
Yes

2. Do you enjoy playing both Marine commander and Alien commander? If so why? If not, why not?
Like marines, don't like aliens.
Marines you choose one of "many" tech paths and shape the game around that (this is especially in pub where crazy builds can work).
Aliens you have to play reactionary based on what lifeforms your team can play, and the "tech-tree" includes only three options which don't effect the commander side of things (which upgrade you go).

3. Do you think that commanders are a limiting factor for pub/pug games starting and also for new competitive teams forming?
Yep

4. Why do you think there are so few players willing to command?
People don't want to take on a high-stress role in the game to the most part. I think a better question would be what makes current commanders like to command and why don't many people share those motives. Common motives (including me, -
- two other competitive comm's, and pub comm's I've talked to):
- liking high pressure environments;
- liking the bigger-scale game/control over things;
- wanting to prove themselves (pug comm's - this is me assuming, not them telling me);
- out of frustration that the current commander isn't good enough; and
- people who are curious/always want to understand everything.

[WolfSabre]

1. Do you like the idea of commanders in the game?
   
   Yes
2. Do you enjoy playing both Marine commander and Alien commander? If so why? If not, why not?
   
   Yes, both of them. Both have tactical contrasts that are unique unto themselves.
3. Do you think that commanders are a limiting factor for pub/pug games starting and also for new competitive teams forming?
   
   Yes, although comming a noobish team gives me a feeling of defeat before the game even gets under way.
4. Why do you think there are so few players willing to command?
   
   Often because of the rage directed at them, but also knowing that commands given are often ignored. No discipline

[DJoy]

1. Yes (Its just a role for everyone to focus and listen to which never happens in pub)
2. Not Marine but Alien. MedRequest Spams. Alien just so u can see 1/4 of your team go gorge and belly slide away as they die and mayb echoing full PVE set into marine base at late game pub.
3. It is part of a limiting factor but not so much. A team usually form by 1-2 person which doesn't have a comm usually so the first thing would be getting 1-2 person to join then scouting for a comm. It is highly doubted to just get ALL field players and none of them just cant comm. Comm for pub?>4

4. Almost half of AUS community is part of the comp scene, generally most would think that comp > pub in terms of gameplay and teamwork. So most players would just start thinking to just pub stomp, get some killings out there etc. What this had made for pub players is a sort of a challenge and that is when everyone just want to get on the field and kill each other.
The rage is there when a commander screwed up but when a marine screwed up the commander doesn't in most water cases.
Once u taste a good teamwork from a team, why would you be a nice guy trying to help in a pub teamwork rather than practicing individual skill - positioning&tracking etc for your own team.

[Anema]

Do you like the idea of commanders in the game?


Yes, i think this game is built around them & it adds the RTS elements necessary. I did however play NS1 and have a large bias towards Marine No P-Res.


Do you enjoy playing both Marine commander and Alien commander? If so why? If not, why not?

I enjoy playing both, but i'd say that the Alien Commander is far less challenging (except from a strategic standpoint where i'd say its stale), but you can also adjust and carry more as an Alien Commander, as you should be able to get more field time. I generally prefer to Alien comm now, as ppl are less inclined to blame the comm for said failure, especially if he's topping the scoresheet...

Do you think that commanders are a limiting factor for pub/pug games starting and also for new competitive teams forming?

I find that in the Aus community, both PUB/PUG games are inherrently limited by the lack of comms, or the lack of everyone wanting to command.


Why do you think there are so few players willing to command?

Partly a skill curve requirement, its difficult to play the commander role, without some FPS background & some RTS background, ofc you can practise your arse off, but in our community we don't support Rookie Commanders at all, or provide any training/boots camps/advertising to teach people, its a general, total, reluctance to educate. Perhaps we need to make video material on how to do it, rather then expect it so much, to open the door up. The US does not suffer this syndrome, its an Aussie gaming community issue, generally shared in all our games.

Take Dota2 for example...

Regardless i play on US Servers even during AU Peak time, unless its a PUG, mostly as the games start fasterr & more people are generally enjoying themselves... so i don't have to play too hard just take part and enjoy.

[Jekt]

1. I like the idea of the marine commander.
2. I enjoy playing marine commander because if you're actually making calls and having marines be in locations you want the reward of good positioning with a pinch, bait, etc is extremely rewarding.
3. No.
4. Becuase they're shit at it and not willing to do it properly. There is always going to be a minority of players that want to command for a team, it's not a problem. You only need 1 in 6.


Importantly a distinction needs to be made between marine and alien commander. These questions trying to embody both doesn't make any sense. I hate the alien commander role with a passion and want it removed from the game.

[Scatter]

So many new commanders for upcoming seasons and tournaments given the positive view of commanders ^^

[Jekt]

What teams aren't forming because they can't find a commander? More people need to be willing to command in pugs sure. But so few people play pugs to begin with. And it's not because of the commander role ... This game is ANCIENT. People move on. Large amounts of people don't come back to games they've stopped playing, it doesn't happen.

If anything being forced into the alien commander role if you're willing to command marines is a bigger bottleneck. But still is hardly relevant and trying to imply any sort of correlation between player numbers and that aspect of the game is ridiculous.

[Scatter]

Don't be getting so mad jekt. I just said there were new potential commanders for upcoming seasons if any team should need a commander or current commanders no longer felt like commanding.

Edit

I don't even intend on playing this game comp ever again so I could literally count the number of fucks given on amputated hands.

[bonage]

This game is ANCIENT. People move on. Large amounts of people don't come back to games they've stopped playing, it doesn't happen.

A 2 year old game is not ancient. Let me put it in perspective for you - CS GO was release August 21, 2012. NS2 was released October 31, 2012. CS GO is older. IT'S ANCIENT.

Also consider that CS hasn't actually changed at all since 1999 except for a few balance quirks and paint jobs here and there.

[Jekt]

I don't think CSGO makes sense as a comparative. Sure it's older, but it's also never been a game played by a small community, even at its lowest point it has always maintained a sustainable amount of players, it's always been possible to easily find a game and there's nothing inherently complicated in the mechanics of the game either. Anyone can pick it up and enjoy. And it's developed by Valve. In the pure sense of age the comparision is fine, but nothing else about the 2 games is even remotely comparable.


NS2 has always been a niche game. It isn't simple to find a game since the few servers that are populated are full. The mechanics aren't simple. Players that have tried and come back to the game on top of needing to remind themselves of the mechanics that are unchanged also are required to learn the changes that have been frequently made since the games release. Then to mention it has never had the marketing or word of mouth advertising of a big IP like Counterstrike due to its small indie developer.


As an obscure multiplayer game with a small community, it's incredibly impressive NS2 has lasted this long. A game that requires the user to jump through hoops to even begin to play it and invest a hundred hours before they even know how to move as the base lifeform is already doomed to have a small playerbase to begin with. Games will small communities tend to have small lifespans, as in - it becomes more difficult to find people of the same skill level to play against. In this relative sense a game of this type ages quicker than something in the scope of Dota or CS. This really shouldn't come as a big surprise. The same diehard fans will keep playing, occasionally a few might return. However there is no room for growth. Why? Let me put this in perspective for you.


1. The potential playerbase is already low. That is the amount of people who might be interested in an asymetrical shooter like this have likely tried the game at some point, why?


2. NS2 has already been rehyped again, again and again by the 'big' patches that UWE themselves have advertised. Throughout its already long lifespan of a niche multiplayer shooter it has been on the front page of Steam several times, it has been on the front page of r/games several times, it has been featured in articles by some of the most prominent online PC specific news websites several times. I have a difficult time imagining someone who would be willing to try this type of game from an unknown developer that was released 2 years ago who hasn't at some point already caught wind and given it a go. So now we're trying to bring players back. Why can't we do that?


3. Again! Ns2 has already made these promises of an improved game in the past. The balance patch, Gorgeous patch, etc. These patches have come with the returning players expectation that the game is improved performance and gameplay wise. And yet again and again each time a mega patch has been released that surge of interest has been smaller. A game can only be rehyped so many times and receive a tangible increase in sales and players. It's clear that despite the improvements a substantial amount of returning players still have not been satisfied to continue playing and are of course less likely to be willing to try the game again the next time promises of improved performance and gameplay are made.


Still the CDT is again planning to try and rehype the game with the same improved performance and gameplay lines, but with some micro transactions thrown in. I don't think this will invoke growth, but just another spike and prompt plumment to the same current commited playerbase. Maybe that fall takes a few months, but that isn't growth - it's life support. It's squeezing the final pathetic drop of toothpaste out of the tube.


So I should probably mention that I am for the idea and hope they have some success and make some money for their efforts with the rerelease. I will enjoy playing with a few more people for a couple weeks if they do it.


Call me a skeptic, but I'm not delusional either.




Shit ... aren't we talking about commanders?

[Scatter]

Stop derailing threads Jekt!

[bonage]

I think you made your point already in mumble jekt - I don't see why you needed to post it here to derail the thread.

My comparison to CSGO wasn't a suggestion that a relaunch is going to suddenly make NS2 widely popular or increase the player base exponentially. It was merely to point out that they are basically the same age. I also wanted to point of that I don’t think the age of a game these days is much of a barrier for gamers anymore due to graphic technology plateauing and the popularity of digital distribution which allows for an extension of a products life cycle.

Regarding your the rest of your post, what you argue is your opinion – a lot of which is true and which I agree with. Your experience within NS2 and other online games helps form that opinion. Your opinion aside though, no one can predict what a relaunch would do for player numbers or retention figures over time. Even bringing the daily average up from 400 to 1000 or 2000 and sustaining that would be an amazing thing. That’s the kind of tangible growth I believe is possible.

You might call that kind of growth life support only, and I would agree with you – but is that such a bad thing? Is anyone actually expecting anything else? The prospect of having new people or old people coming back to play against excites me. The targets above are what I think we should yearn for as a core community. After all, that’s why we’re still here right? It’s why we’re even posting on these forums and having this discussion.

As for the CDT’s efforts, all they are trying to do is lay the groundwork for potential growth, give NS2 players a last send off and put out a version of the game that is essentially what it should have been 2 years ago when it launched. If that’s what you call “squeezing the final pathetic drop of toothpaste out of the tube”, then I think that’s a bit insulting to everyone who has put in their own free time and effort into making the game better for community members like yourself.