Page 2 of 2 First First 12

Thread: Patch Notes - 4th April 2014 Update

Patch Notes - 4th April 2014 Update

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    619
    Why would they want as many people to play their game as possible? I dunno

    I really don't feel incentivized to play right now, it's just not fun. All the best players left and stopped playing and this game is supposed to be competitive.

    Competitive players don't give a about skins or new classes that just add more crap to the imbalance, they want to play with people at their skill level at the very least. They want rewards for being the best, not for just logging on each day or grinding XP and gold.

    Ugh I really cbf'd to repeat what I have said many times before

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    While you do make a semi-valid point, the problem is that the logic is only semi-valid. Would I like more competition? Yes. Are there issues that need to be balanced? Yes. Are there competitive features that need to be implemented? Absolutely. However, complaining that you're getting a skin is ridiculous.

    First, you're under the assumption that you can't be competitive AND want good aesthetics. This can actually happen. Second, you need players. Better looking games bring in more players. The look of a game can attract players easier than competition can, because the competitive players don't actually know how competitive the game is yet because they haven't played it. On top of that, a player who becomes competitive might not be looking for that when they join the game. Again, you're under the assumption that competition and aesthetics can't go together. And finally, the biggest flaw in all of that was the fact that you assume that the art team has much to do with game balance. Different people work on different aspects of the game. They can, believe it or not, work on both things at once.

    That being said, had you spent much time in the game recently, instead of complaining that there aren't any competitive players you would notice 3 things:

    1 - Competitive players do exist, and in fact there's more of them. There are quite a few beta players who can rival any of the better Alpha player.
    2 - This update is phenomenal. The two factions are extremely balanced and while certain issues may need tweaks, this update fixed almost all the game-breaking issues.
    3 - There are a few competitive groups that line up matches every day. You could be helping organize these, but instead you choose to come on the forums of a game you aren't playing, when instead you could be helping with the new abilities and offering real solutions, with details to help speed the process along. You "not playing" just makes your own problem worse.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    619
    The look of the game only attracts scrubs. Do people play chess because of the hi rez custom colour premium chess pieces? Do people still play quake and CS because of the super realistic polygons?

    I really don't see how you can make claims about the balance of a game when there are no regular skill matched games played. It's like I've always said, the metrics right now are worthless because there is no matchmaking forcing groups with similar skill levels together.

    A few competitive groups huh? Where are the league tables then? Who are they? How do they set up scrims without locked lobbies? Tribes Ascend had live streamed tournaments in ALPHA, we don't even have the ability to host a private game or have spectators yet.

  4. #29
    Well let's be honest, nobody wants to play low rez chess

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    Originally Posted by Oroibahazopi
    The look of the game only attracts scrubs. Do people play chess because of the hi rez custom colour premium chess pieces? Do people still play quake and CS because of the super realistic polygons?

    I really don't see how you can make claims about the balance of a game when there are no regular skill matched games played. It's like I've always said, the metrics right now are worthless because there is no matchmaking forcing groups with similar skill levels together.

    Competitive players do care about graphics. Would you have the system you have if all you wanted was 8-bit graphics on your shooters? No, you have high-end hardware for high-end games. Graphics are part of that. Will a competitive player play chess? Yes because it's a good game. But, how many of them would rather play "battle chess" on a PC because they have fun graphics that let them see the knight destroying the pawn, a good many, if not most. Graphics add additional input into the player's mind, thus giving more to process which gives a game staying power. No where did I say competition is bad. And nowhere did I say that we didn't need more competitive features. What I said was that these additional features aren't harming the game, as you suggested. Again, how does getting new skins (from the art team) have ANY impact on when private lobbies (gameplay/UI) will become available. Your complaint about not having them is valid. But, crying that it's because we're getting skins is just being pouty.


    And claims of balance can be made because we DO regularly play against skilled players. You haven't played regularly since the mid-end of Alpha, how would you know who is competitive or not? Sure, we have games that are complete stomps, but there are just as many close, competitive games, many of which ARE organized by the organized, similarly skilled teams. And once again, I bring up the fact that you not playing just makes your own problem more difficult. Instead of complaining on the forums about a game you aren't helping test you could be trying to organize matches and put those "worthless metrics" to a real test with more competition. If you're going to be overly critical of the design team, then why not offer real help and input instead of blatant criticism which no proposed idea details? You would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of energy.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    619
    Originally Posted by cmstache
    Competitive players do care about graphics. Would you have the system you have if all you wanted was 8-bit graphics on your shooters? No, you have high-end hardware for high-end games. Graphics are part of that. Will a competitive player play chess? Yes because it's a good game. But, how many of them would rather play "battle chess" on a PC because they have fun graphics that let them see the knight destroying the pawn, a good many, if not most. Graphics add additional input into the player's mind, thus giving more to process which gives a game staying power.
    wat, no srsly wat. Only consideration someone who plays competitive makes with regard to gfx is, is the frame rate optimal and is the image quality optimal. Many professional players or players with disposable income will have the best gear to get an edge, and that almost never means playing at max detail. People who are competitive set the system up to be most optimal which, for people with smaller amounts of cash to spend on gear, means playing at lower gfx settings.

    No where did I say competition is bad. And nowhere did I say that we didn't need more competitive features. What I said was that these additional features aren't harming the game, as you suggested. Again, how does getting new skins (from the art team) have ANY impact on when private lobbies (gameplay/UI) will become available. Your complaint about not having them is valid. But, crying that it's because we're getting skins is just being pouty.
    Quote where I said custom skins are bad. I never made any reference to how we get custom skins instead of the other stuff, I'm asking why we don't have the other stuff. Your point about how skins are nothing to do with the lobby development, say, only emphasises my question "where are they?". Can you stop making me look like an idiot because you can't read English.

    And claims of balance can be made because we DO regularly play against skilled players. You haven't played regularly since the mid-end of Alpha, how would you know who is competitive or not? Sure, we have games that are complete stomps, but there are just as many close, competitive games, many of which ARE organized by the organized, similarly skilled teams. And once again, I bring up the fact that you not playing just makes your own problem more difficult. Instead of complaining on the forums about a game you aren't helping test you could be trying to organize matches and put those "worthless metrics" to a real test with more competition. If you're going to be overly critical of the design team, then why not offer real help and input instead of blatant criticism which no proposed idea details? You would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of energy.
    YOU CANNOT ORGANISE MATCHES WITHOUT LOCKED LOBBIES. I flat refuse to cheat and waste time to get the matches I want, frankly I'm surprised you don't consider abusing the matchmaking system and preventing it from matching you in a normal manner an exploit considering your prior history on the subject.

    You've still to mention who these teams are also, because I may actually start playing again if what you say is actually true. And I am highly sceptical simply because of the kinds of balance and suggestion threads I see in the forums.

    Seriously can't you read? Every post I made had a solution in it, what part of "add spectators and locked lobbies" can you not understand? And what is the point in providing feedback if you cannot critique, the idea is to make a good game, not circle jerk with the developers.

    It takes no energy to type.

  7. #32
    "Fix for imbalanced teams being created (5v3, 6v2, etc.)" .. im still laughing at this part supposedly being fixed. 90% of matches that happen just get a full teamabandon at 1 side..

    because a 2v5 with 2 lvl 2s at one side and 4 lvl 30+ at the other... listen .. minecraft has better mm

  8. #33
    So .. you want another tribes ascend , yes ?

    A game who is allready going full-competitive (dont get me wrong , i like competition i realy do !) in alpha to beta and then, due to this fact, there´s no room for casual players anymore. After 6 month we almost lost 80% of our playerbase. Even the competitive scene died because they had not enough ppl to fill the teams for the tournaments !

    In a nutshell .. Competitive gaming : yes yes and yes ! But not at the cost of losing our up-and-coming-players, for the competitive scene needs them more than some super-competitive nerds. Diversity is the new meta.

    "Tribes : Ascend" is the best example to show how to do this completly wrong.

    Balance even more (it has to be an ongoing process), tweak up the animations and hitboxes and (for gods sake ..) give the players a reason to play / grind in form of a good progression-system.

    First you play for the looks, then you play for the feel of the game, then for the progression and at last for the competition.

    EDIT PS : And yes .. i intend to post to-the-point suggestions in the near future.
    EDIT PPS: As a software developer i can assure you that the oh-so-easy parts in development are (for some reason i wont be able to understand ..) the freaking hardest. Always.
    Last edited by Zuppzupp; 9th Apr 2014 at 23:22.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    Originally Posted by Oroibahazopi
    wat, no srsly wat. Only consideration someone who plays competitive makes with regard to gfx is, is the frame rate optimal and is the image quality optimal. Many professional players or players with disposable income will have the best gear to get an edge, and that almost never means playing at max detail. People who are competitive set the system up to be most optimal which, for people with smaller amounts of cash to spend on gear, means playing at lower gfx settings.

    While you have a point about people playing with optimal settings you ignore the fact that people still do buy better cards for better graphics. So yes, they still care. It's just budget limited, which is understandable. You make it sound as if they don't give a rip about settings, which just isn't true.


    Quote where I said custom skins are bad. I never made any reference to how we get custom skins instead of the other stuff, I'm asking why we don't have the other stuff. Your point about how skins are nothing to do with the lobby development, say, only emphasises my question "where are they?". Can you stop making me look like an idiot because you can't read English.

    Originally Posted by Oroibahazopi
    "Competitive players don't give a about skins or new classes that just add more crap to the imbalance, they want to play with people at their skill level at the very least."
    This statement implies that you don't want skins and the fact that those skins get in the way of other updates by comparing the two. Despite my personal feelings about your attitude I know you're not an idiot. This is why I went out of my way to call you out on this. You essentially said "I don't want this, so don't put it in the game." despite it not conflicting with ANYTHING else you've said. If you cared more about the success of the game, and including others you wouldn't have even brought it up. It's a purely selfish response. Honestly, it never should have even been mentioned. Skins have ZERO effect on balance issues. As for the other stuff, it is in development. As a moderator I can't make any other statements on this. The only things I can say about it are this that have already been said. These things don't just fall out of mid-air. They take time to develop. Why would they make locked lobbies when they are still trying to get normal lobbies to work correctly?


    YOU CANNOT ORGANISE MATCHES WITHOUT LOCKED LOBBIES. I flat refuse to cheat and waste time to get the matches I want, frankly I'm surprised you don't consider abusing the matchmaking system and preventing it from matching you in a normal manner an exploit considering your prior history on the subject.

    We do it, sure it's a pain sometimes but it's still worth it when the matches start. I would like for you to point out ANY time I have ever cheated, or even exploited an issue intentionally. If I don't do it in-game, why would I do it in the lobbies. Are they there? Yes. Do I use them? No. Do I report them as I stumble upon them to be fixed? Yes. There's nothing more you can honestly say I can do about that.

    You've still to mention who these teams are also, because I may actually start playing again if what you say is actually true. And I am highly sceptical simply because of the kinds of balance and suggestion threads I see in the forums.

    Originally Posted by Prime_Abstergo
    C'mon, Khalith you know there are no sense to implement closed lobbies while in CB stage. Personally I know only three premade groups atm: [immortal]*, _VRNB and "fellows from 200g" (but without any prefix so its a phantom menace ).
    So IMO I'd put it on low priority at this stage of development.

    ps. BTW does group chat works or not? And what about Deceiver - I think they will show him during PAX.
    They were previously mentioned, so I didn't name them. There are also NUMEROUS good players who regularly play with other players, although they aren't "organized teams" but are still more than noteworthy players:
    Saturn
    Cookiedude
    That'sNotMyPirate
    Omhz
    DFA
    Rufus Shinra
    BringerofHugs
    Bobo
    Furbz
    Wobbley
    Aquilius
    Deputy Potato
    RT
    Livin
    Victorian Rat
    TapxJames
    agile
    It's DooDoo baby!
    Omegamesh
    Prime
    About 4-5 QA guys (The others are meh)

    I can go on longer, but you get the point. Some of those names you'll recognize, some you won't. I wouldn't mind having ANY of the above listed players on my team in a match.


    Seriously can't you read? Every post I made had a solution in it, what part of "add spectators and locked lobbies" can you not understand? And what is the point in providing feedback if you cannot critique, the idea is to make a good game, not circle jerk with the developers.

    Saying "do this" and "Here's how I would like this done" are two very different things. Saying "Nerf the hunter, he's imbalanced!" doesn't do anything. Saying "The hunter needs a RoF nerf and here's why..." does. You want locked lobbies. Good. Now, how to you think the best way to go about that is? Should you just make them passworded? Will they be selectable in a list? Are they invite only? If so, how do you invite opposing players? All these things need to be dealt with, and saying "just do them" isn't really helpful. Critiquing is fine, but it does nothing if you don't follow it up with why, or any other advice.


    It takes no energy to type.

    Responses inline...
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    581
    Im only meh ? ='(

    (click image to enlarge)

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    I was referring to the QA guys there. And I didn't list them all, that was just a quick scan of my Friend's list. There's more than what's listed.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    619
    Originally Posted by Zuppzupp
    So .. you want another tribes ascend , yes ?

    A game who is allready going full-competitive (dont get me wrong , i like competition i realy do !) in alpha to beta and then, due to this fact, there´s no room for casual players anymore. After 6 month we almost lost 80% of our playerbase. Even the competitive scene died because they had not enough ppl to fill the teams for the tournaments !
    TA died specifically because the comp scene was ignored too long. It had nothing to do with casual players, if anything all the changes up to the end of development were designed for casual players.

  13. #38
    You mentioned TA had spectator mode allready in alpha as an argument for how competitive games should be developed, and now you´re saying that it wasnt competitive at all ?

    Yes the competitive scene got ignored too long, but not in the development rather then in terms of tournaments (which you need if you want to have competitive scene, since ppl need to make a living you know .. dats what competitive play is freaking about !). In short: They had no money, and a game which brought none in since .. *drum roll* .. it was too hard to learn / too competitive for casual players.

    Back to topic: I dont want to see Nosgoth to become the next TA, thats why i say .. looks > feels > progression > competition .. not because i like badass looks more then smooth / sweet feels and animations (i realy dont), but because the majority of players (its sad but it is as it is) gets drawn to a game because it has the awes0me lookz and not because it has a well established competitive scene.

    Last but not least .. If a game has a large enough playerbase the comp scene is emerging from it by itself .. League is the best example.

  14. #39
    Originally Posted by Zuppzupp
    looks > feels > progression > competition
    I agree with this, it's the best choice overall because you bring new players in with how the game looks and feels, progression/balancing is an ongoing thing and competition will happen naturally when players like the game enough to care.

    Game development is a weird thing though.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    619
    If you focus on looks you are destined to be deserted as soon as the next flashy game comes out. But then that is what most development cycles are built around these days.

  16. #41
    Originally Posted by Khalith
    There is nothing wrong with wanting to have teams in their own queue, if you want the intense premade vs premade then they should get their own queue. You're not being penalized, you're being forced to fight on fair terms against another team, putting them in the same queue as the solo queues is simply not fair to those that may not have a group of friends or a team yet. Forcing the teams to play against other teams is perfectly valid, if you think it's fair that teams of 3-4 are going against a full pug lobby then it's really hinting to me that you just want to stomp other teams without a challenge whereas if you truly are interested in intense games of team vs team then having teams in their own queue shouldn't cause any complaints.
    My issue is; when playing against a pre-made, I'm not really testing the game but more of my personally skill against players who are possible more experience.

    I not against users creating a clan or even a pre-made, I actually think it's a good sign that user are that commited to the game and wish to start end-game. I agree, there is just not enough player base to justify the implementation of 4v4 group mode. We can't tell clans to not form pre-made, infact we should be encourage player to create clans and pre-made. But are we really testing the game in this situation?

    I hope, that when the game transit into Open Beta that this issue is resolved though. Putting newbies against pre-made will not make the game enjoyable and just simply stop them from playing. Therefore, stopping the player-base growing and the game becoming popular.

    Something does need to be done, just not right now.

    Originally Posted by cmstache
    Competitive players do care about graphics.
    I'm sorry, i totally disagree. StarCraft 1 is probably the longest competitive game ever to run and the graphic have aged but that still didn't stop them. In my opinion, competitive player will care more about a game being balanced. You can play chess in 8-bit, because the game chess is balanced.

    Which bring me back to my original point. Are we really testing the balance of the game when we're putting PUGS vs Pre-made.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    I never said that competition isn't important. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say that I do wish they did more with it. It doesn't change the fact that there are competitive players who care about graphics. If I have two similar games, I'll take the one that looks more polished. Graphics don't make the game itself better, but they do make it more enjoyable. Again, it's an important note because the game's balance has little (if anything) to do with the graphical team. Do all competitive players care about graphics? Of course not. But to say that none of them do is a pretty huge statement, and rather narrow-minded. People respond to all different kinds of things. SC1 was a great game (still is), but I'm sure if it (hypothetically) received a minor graphical update people aren't going to complain about it, which just shows my point.

    I would like more competition, but I don't mind it coming as a process. I do have a problem with them neglecting the issue entirely, but as of now they haven't done so. Which, for now anyways, it's in the pipeline. That's all anyone can ask for at this point. To have competition you need players. Currently, many of those players are playing other games. We need something to attract them here. Catchy graphics do that well, as long as the game's mechanics work. And for the most part they do. There are things in progress and getting tweaks, but honestly most of the major issues don't really arise until higher levels of play. Until then you only think you know what's wrong, then you find out you were previously wrong.

    And I ask people again, why would they add pre-made lobbies when the normal matchmaking is still a bit buggy. Gotta have something to build on before you start adding stuff.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  18. #43
    Originally Posted by cmstache
    And I ask people again, why would they add pre-made lobbies when the normal matchmaking is still a bit buggy. Gotta have something to build on before you start adding stuff.

    In my opinion, a "Pre-Made-Lobby" just won't work, instead perhaps we should be asking for a "Private-Match-Lobby" where users throw out invites to similar users. This will give the option to thoses who really want to test their competitive side of gaming and maybe provide valuable data for the devs to work with.

    Yes, the match making is still abit buggy, but this could mainly be due to the size of the currently player base. Once the player base grows to a certain size, then the match maker may find it easiler to find similar level player to create more balance games. I have be thrown in a game where player are double the level of myself, but better to get in a game to test then to wait forever for users to log on. That is just the naturally inherited conditions of Closed Beta that we have to accept. Of course, I'm sure match making systems are an ongoing delevopment and will always need tweaking even after final release.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    I would have no problem with invite-only lobbies. Obviously, though, that still doesn't fix the issue that we don't need it right now and that it's coming. I do think a way to play with the developer with pre-made teams would be a nice testing function though.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  20. #45
    Originally Posted by Oroibahazopi
    If you focus on looks you are destined to be deserted as soon as the next flashy game comes out. But then that is what most development cycles are built around these days.
    The looks are good enough (i´d even say they are superb in terms of atmosphere) the feels are good too. The next step would be a nice progression system so ppl actually stay in beta. Wether this is a ranked-ladder or a leveling-system (chests ... meh ..) there has to be something to hold the beta-players until release, so nosgoth has a nice playerbase right from start.

    And yes .. then competition will happen naturally ..

  21. #46
    Originally Posted by Zuppzupp
    The looks are good enough (i´d even say they are superb in terms of atmosphere) the feels are good too. The next step would be a nice progression system so ppl actually stay in beta. Wether this is a ranked-ladder or a leveling-system (chests ... meh ..) there has to be something to hold the beta-players until release, so nosgoth has a nice playerbase right from start.

    And yes .. then competition will happen naturally ..
    I think it's pretty good now, but there definitely needs to be a leveling thing to make us keep playing.
    They also need to work on balancing and adding new classes and maps, and maybe even a new game mode or two.

    The game is good, but it just needs tweaking i think.

Page 2 of 2 First First 12