New 10vs10 maps

[derkos80]

Recently discussed in this thread about the problems in 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps. To improve this, I think it would be great to have some 10vs10 maps, which are bigger than the 4vs4, but not so extrem as Sword. On the current 4vs4 we only have 1000m frontline per player. This favours axis heavy tanks and arty and kills balance in phase B and C.
On the other hand Sword is too large. Most people who play 10vs10 (including me) do not want to control 2500m frontline. Also on this map it is very hard to help your teammates because of the long distances and every struggling player will make a large gap in the frontline.

I propose to test something around 1300m - 1500m frontline per player. This is still smaller than in 3vs3 (which has the shortest frontline beside 10vs10). But I hope the additional space for flanking will already improve the situation.

Easiest way to test this could be to make a smaller version of sword or to make test servers for 7vs7 on 4vs4 maps. Of course it only makes sense, if people will give it a try and not ignore it like the current 15min test servers. So what do you think? And @Eugen will this be possible? Making an existing map a bit smaller sounds quite easy...

Of course there are many other solutions to improve 10vs10. Like removing asymetric balance, dedicated divisions, special game modes, ... But all of them are much more complicated to realize. So I hope you will give it a try.

 

[Vyllis]

Of course there are many other solutions to improve 10vs10. Like removing asymetric balance, dedicated divisions, special game modes

Reducing income to reasonable level? Was popular in WG, along with higher income spam servers.
Not the case in SD, 4v4 is really where the game is fun for me anyway.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Recently discussed in this thread about the problems in 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps. To improve this, I think it would be great to have some 10vs10 maps, which are bigger than the 4vs4, but not so extrem as Sword. On the current 4vs4 we only have 1000m frontline per player. This favours axis heavy tanks and arty and kills balance in phase B and C.
On the other hand Sword is too large. Most people who play 10vs10 (including me) do not want to control 2500m frontline. Also on this map it is very hard to help your teammates because of the long distances and every struggling player will make a large gap in the frontline.

I propose to test something around 1300m - 1500m frontline per player. This is still smaller than in 3vs3 (which has the shortest frontline beside 10vs10). But I hope the additional space for flanking will already improve the situation.

Easiest way to test this could be to make a smaller version of sword or to make test servers for 7vs7 on 4vs4 maps. Of course it only makes sense, if people will give it a try and not ignore it like the current 15min test servers. So what do you think? And @Eugen will this be possible? Making an existing map a bit smaller sounds quite easy...

Of course there are many other solutions to improve 10vs10. Like removing asymetric balance, dedicated divisions, special game modes, ... But all of them are much more complicated to realize. So I hope you will give it a try.

The game shouldn't focus on 10v10

 

[Gilmund]

The game shouldn't focus on 10v10

It is not the case. There is even no 10vs10 variant for each map and 10vs10 players have one 10vs10 map (Sword) and 3 4vs4 maps (Carpiquet, Pegasus Bridge and Colombelles) to play with.
They canno't play Saint-Mère-Eglise, Odon, Cheux, Merderet, Omaha, Colleville, Pointe du Hoc, Mont Ormel, Bois de Limors, Caumont l'Eventé nor Cote 112.
Hardly a focus. One honest man would even say they deserve a bit of love.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

The game shouldn't focus on 10v10

Way back when, 1v1 players used to call for 10v10 to be scrapped completely, under the misguided belief that the 10v10 players would transition to 1v1. For some time, 10v10 was the game mode that kept the game numbers up, ironically. In fact, up until a month or two ago, we wouldn't have been able to have this conversation without it degenerating into a mass trolling.

No one is suggesting focussing on 10v10 to the detriment of other modes, but it does need to be worked on to make it a legitimate game mode in its' own right, rather than a bucket into which players are poured for a game. Maps are a good start...in fact, maps and similar additions would be a good way for the devs to actually test the waters to judge the reception, and introduce mechanics changes in later games.

The problems that SD has is that it's not widely popular, and it has a very steep learning curve, and as such it's not new player friendly...which is why there needs to be a transitional mode from skirmish/solo into the MP game, where new players can learn the ropes, learn the differences between how the AI and human opponents act, and can develop their own mp skills at their own pace, as well as having a fun time that makes them either feel like they are contributing as part of a team, or are happy with their own performance. While the general 10v10 game won't appeal to the hardcore of ultra-competitive players, it will appeal to the average joes, and clans, in other words, those who play primarily for fun or primarily as a team work focus. SD is different to WG, so it requires something of a different development focus.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Way back when, 1v1 players used to call for 10v10 to be scrapped completely, under the misguided belief that the 10v10 players would transition to 1v1. For some time, 10v10 was the game mode that kept the game numbers up, ironically. In fact, up until a month or two ago, we wouldn't have been able to have this conversation without it degenerating into a mass trolling.

No one is suggesting focussing on 10v10 to the detriment of other modes, but it does need to be worked on to make it a legitimate game mode in its' own right, rather than a bucket into which players are poured for a game. Maps are a good start...in fact, maps and similar additions would be a good way for the devs to actually test the waters to judge the reception, and introduce mechanics changes in later games.

The problems that SD has is that it's not widely popular, and it has a very steep learning curve, and as such it's not new player friendly...which is why there needs to be a transitional mode from skirmish/solo into the MP game, where new players can learn the ropes, learn the differences between how the AI and human opponents act, and can develop their own mp skills at their own pace, as well as having a fun time that makes them either feel like they are contributing as part of a team, or are happy with their own performance. While the general 10v10 game won't appeal to the hardcore of ultra-competitive players, it will appeal to the average joes, and clans, in other words, those who play primarily for fun or primarily as a team work focus. SD is different to WG, so it requires something of a different development focus.

The problem is that 10v10 players never step out of their comfort zone. There may be a few but they won't touch 1v1,2v2... If your lucky they will play a 4v4 but having 2-4km to look after is too much for them.

 

[Gilmund]

The problem is that 10v10 players never step out of their comfort zone. There may be a few but they won't touch 1v1,2v2... If your lucky they will play a 4v4 but having 2-4km to look after is too much for them.

And ? Why should they play 1vs1/2vs2 if they don't like it ?

 

[Hidden Gunman]

The problem is that there is a 1v1 mode...without that, everyone would have to play 2v2-4v4 or 10v10...

Same old argument, different salad dressing.

The entire point of what we have been saying is that currently the low player count games are not new player friendly, the game is simply too demanding for most players to put the effort in, or simply isn't fun, which is why we think a focus needs to be put into the 10v10 game so that it can provide a transitional step for new or low skill players. Players can't be co-opted or forced into a mode they aren't ready for or don't want to play, so it is up to the developers to create a step-up option, which currently doesn't exist. It's one thing to have a tutorial mode, but that does not and cannot prepare inexperienced players for the multiplayer game, nor will the skirmish mode to any significant extent...it has to be a live-mp mode, and the only game mode which is showing that sort of promise is the 10v10 game.

 

[facmanpob]

Easiest way to test this could be to make a smaller version of sword or to make test servers for 7vs7 on 4vs4 maps.

I actually think this is one of the better suggestions I've heard in a while. For me, I won't play 10v10 on a 4v4 map (as Axis or Allies) as I don't find it fun, which limits me to Sword if I fancy a 10v10. Reducing the numbers down to 7v7 for the 4v4 maps may make them quicker to fill up, and slightly less crammed with units, and may encourage more people to transition down to 4v4, 3v3 etc. Got to be worth a try? No?

 

[Herr_Robert]

They hade made specific divisions for the new Breakthrough mode. I think it would be much more worthwhile to make specific 10v10 divisions. Few people actually play Breakthrough, while 10v10 has always been pretty popular. That way, they could reduce the amounts of heavy tanks per card for the panzer divisions and perhaps even give them a weaker economy than in normal games. Lehr has been breaking the balance in 10v10 since the beginning, and I can imagine it's close to unplayable for the Allies by now thanks to 16LW effectively preventing Allied use of planes (16LW is pure cancer in casual 3v3 and 4v4 games too).

 

[Gilmund]

They hade made specific divisions for the new Breakthrough mode. I think it would be much more worthwhile to make specific 10v10 divisions. Few people actually play Breakthrough, while 10v10 has always been pretty popular. That way, they could reduce the amounts of heavy tanks per card for the panzer divisions and perhaps even give them a weaker economy than in normal games. Lehr has been breaking the balance in 10v10 since the beginning, and I can imagine it's close to unplayable for the Allies by now thanks to 16LW effectively preventing Allied use of planes (16LW is pure cancer in casual 3v3 and 4v4 games too).

Lehr is pretty much balanced in 10vs10, the whole thing is to roll over him fast and quickly in A to make the lehr player pick things to survive he would never have picked otherwise, like panzer IV's.
It's most about the way people play the allies than anything else in that matter. They shouldn't stop to sit and build, allies always loose ground against germans in C, they have to make their ground before and roll over players like lehrs in A when they are in their weaker phase...
As i always said, there should exist indeed rebalanced 1vs1 only decks, it's sad 1vs1 players never pick the armor decks cause you can't win with them.
I feel 10vs10 is pretty fine overall with the actual decks, you may win with both sides now in conquest imo (the existence of 4AD is a good improvement in that matter). Maybe destruction decks would have to be made to reduce the strength of certain assets cause germans are too powerful in this mode, but it is limited to destruction.

 

[Herr_Robert]

Lehr is pretty much balanced in 10vs10, the whole thing is to roll over him fast and quickly in A to make the lehr player pick things to survive he would never have picked otherwise, like panzer IV's.
It's most about the way people play the allies than anything else in that matter. They shouldn't stop to sit and build, allies always loose ground against germans in C, they have to make their ground before and roll over players like lehrs in A when they are in their weaker phase...
As i always said, there should exist indeed rebalanced 1vs1 only decks, it's sad 1vs1 players never pick the armor decks cause you can't win with them.
I feel 10vs10 is pretty fine overall with the actual decks, you may win with both sides now in conquest imo (the existence of 4AD is a good improvement in that matter). Maybe destruction decks would have to be made to reduce the strength of certain assets cause germans are too powerful in this mode, but it is limited to destruction.

Are you joking? Have you even played 10v10 on say Colombelles? The Allies are not going to win unless they are stacked by good players.

 

[Gilmund]

Are you joking? Have you even played 10v10 on say Colombelles? The Allies are not going to win unless they are stacked by good players.

Yeah i've 333 games played, most of them are 10vs10. Allies have decks like 4AD, GA, Scots to do the work. And yes both sides are not going to win unless they are stacked by good players. But if you pick two average players facing each other, one playing GA the other one playing Lehr, the GA player should win his engagement and make ground in A with cromwells stuarts and cheap inf, then be in a bit of a predicament in early B facing tigers or koenigstigers and hold the best he can from that with planes and 17 pounders between two arty shells. It is just players do not push their advantage when they have it, they don't play the line enough and with allies it is deadly when you don't. You canno't stay within the middle line and expect to win. But you have all the assets to push as allies in A.

 

[Karlburg]

Yeah i've 333 games played, most of them are 10vs10. Allies have decks like 4AD, GA, Scots to do the work. And yes both sides are not going to win unless they are stacked by good players. But if you pick two average players facing each other, one playing GA the other one playing Lehr, the GA player should win his engagement and make ground in A with cromwells stuarts and cheap inf, then be in a bit of a predicament in early B facing tigers or koenigstigers and hold the best he can from that with planes and 17 pounders between two arty shells. It is just players do not push their advantage when they have it, they don't play the line enough and with allies it is deadly when you don't. You canno't stay within the middle line and expect to win. But you have all the assets to push as allies in A.

In most 10v10 games(played on 4v4 maps), the lehr player has so little territory to cover that most of their disadvantages are gone and the panzerwerfer becomes obscenely powerful.

 

[Gilmund]

In most 10v10 games(played on 4v4 maps), the lehr player has so little territory to cover that most of their disadvantages are gone and the panzerwerfer becomes obscenely powerful.

Sure but the panzerwerfer may be disabled one way or another, usually with planes. I play lehr a lot, as a lehr player i really struggle in A with combos like GA double HE cromwell killing my paks followed by stuarts and regular cromwells or the use of AVRE with scots inf. With a good use a smoke there is nothing much you can do except wait behind your treelines, wait for enemy recon and infantry to detect you and be killed by support. Until B where you may turn the tide.
Obviously as a lehr player, i perfectly know when someone is holding his push with the fear to loose a few units when i'm on my knees and he would break my line very easily.
Of course in 10vs10 you also depend from the players on your sides. But in perfect 1vs1 engagement, lehr is very weak in A against decks he has high chance to meet. Like GA.
It is not about saying lehr will not make ground against you in B and C, it's about the way you'll hold against him and prevent him to make too much ground to benefit from the points you've gained in the A phase.
Many allied players play too conservative with their units when they have to pick a fight and move.

 

[roirraw]

You know, it would be pretty rad if we could just have a lobby that would allow us to set these conditions.

Set the front line distance for each player at 1000m? Next game set it to 1700m?

Have an adjustable player count?

What about setting your own amount of victory or destruction points for the game?

Maybe even have some settings that would allow the change of phase times? Want a 5 minute A phase and 15 minute B phase?

 

[Gilmund]

You know, it would be pretty rad if we could just have a lobby that would allow us to set these conditions.

Set the front line distance for each player at 1000m? Next game set it to 1700m?

Have an adjustable player count?

What about setting your own amount of victory or destruction points for the game?

Maybe even have some settings that would allow the change of phase times? Want a 5 minute A phase and 15 minute B phase?

Even make different settings especially for Bob within the same game to reduce the number of his hellcats. The dream. I want a Bob mode!
That would necessitate to limit or force the player to use the decks accordingly though. The amount of units you could pick in a deck would depend of the timing you have decided for each phase, this sort of thing. Cause the actual choices allowing you to give mores points per tick in game create weird situations when you don't have any phase A units left within the deck to bring on the field until B if you were not careful to create "phase A" decks for this sort of mode.

 

[roirraw]

I kinda like the idea of having your overall phase time be some combination of the ratio of units in each phase of your built battlegroup. It's an interesting idea but could be a disaster for team games where people just camp for game time.

Bob plays the same battlegroups on the same maps in the same locations. He's reliable and consistent but rarely plays outside his comfort zone. We've played some smaller games where the map conditions don't favor his play style and he still comes out ahead. I give him shit all the time about this too. If you want to fuck him up, just bomb his Hellcats with Ju 88's.