Steel Division attracted quite a different group of players vs Wargame

[Valdus]

I was answering a question over on the SD subreddit and figured I'd post what I found over here too because it's rather interesting. I know there's been a few comments around this before but it looks like SD attracted a very different group of players when compared to the Wargame series and here's the SteamSpy data showing it.

When you look at a game on SteamSpy you can see what the most common other games players that own the game have. I'll list the top 5 also-owned games for both SD and RD as well as a couple other notable ones.

Steel Division
1. Civilization V (65.72%)
2. Company of Heroes 2 (63.48%)
3. Total War: Rome 2 (55.85%)
4. Empire: Total War (55.76%)
5. Total War: Shogun 2 (55.27%)
...
11. Wargame: Red Dragon (51.37%)
12. Hearts of Iron 4 (51.27%) - First Paradox game on the list

Wargame: Red Dragon
1. Wargame: Airland Battle (63.33%)
2. Wargame: EE (59.88%)
3. Civilization V (59.53%)
4. Left4Dead 2 (50.42%)
5. Counterstrike: GO (50.34%)
...
26. Cities: Skylines (34.49%) - First of any Paradox or Paradox published titles
67. Stellaris (24.56%) First Paradox first party title
100. Hearts of Iron 4 (20.9%)

Steel Division didn't show in the top 200 also owned games for Wargame: Red Dragon owners which would put it at less than 15% of the ~600k WG: RD owners. Going by the SD numbers that own WG: RD it seems like around 50k people own both games.

I'm rather curious as to why there's such a difference... I suspect based on the games WG: RD players mostly own that the WW2 setting wasn't as appealing as the more modern cold war era. Also, Paradox being the publisher seems to have exposed SD mostly to their playerbase. I don't remember seeing SD advertised anywhere other than the marketing emails and posts from Paradox official accounts.

 

[IS-2]

I was answering a question over on the SD subreddit and figured I'd post what I found over here too because it's rather interesting. I know there's been a few comments around this before but it looks like SD attracted a very different group of players when compared to the Wargame series and here's the SteamSpy data showing it.

When you look at a game on SteamSpy you can see what the most common other games players that own the game have. I'll list the top 5 also-owned games for both SD and RD as well as a couple other notable ones.

Steel Division
1. Civilization V (65.72%)
2. Company of Heroes 2 (63.48%)
3. Total War: Rome 2 (55.85%)
4. Empire: Total War (55.76%)
5. Total War: Shogun 2 (55.27%)
...
11. Wargame: Red Dragon (51.37%)
12. Hearts of Iron 4 (51.27%) - First Paradox game on the list

Wargame: Red Dragon
1. Wargame: Airland Battle (63.33%)
2. Wargame: EE (59.88%)
3. Civilization V (59.53%)
4. Left4Dead 2 (50.42%)
5. Counterstrike: GO (50.34%)
...
26. Cities: Skylines (34.49%) - First of any Paradox or Paradox published titles
67. Stellaris (24.56%) First Paradox first party title
100. Hearts of Iron 4 (20.9%)

Steel Division didn't show in the top 200 also owned games for Wargame: Red Dragon owners which would put it at less than 15% of the ~600k WG: RD owners. Going by the SD numbers that own WG: RD it seems like around 50k people own both games.

I'm rather curious as to why there's such a difference... I suspect based on the games WG: RD players mostly own that the WW2 setting wasn't as appealing as the more modern cold war era. Also, Paradox being the publisher seems to have exposed SD mostly to their playerbase. I don't remember seeing SD advertised anywhere other than the marketing emails and posts from Paradox official accounts.

i guarantee u 90% of the coh 2 players have quit by now game is too hard

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

The Wargame community largely rejected Steel Division because of some bitterness and some part on the game and devs taking a different route, I don't understand their particular mindset because as a player who has sunk hundreds of hours in all three Wargame's I enjoy Steel Division the most. The vast majority of our players came from other games, came up against the cliff of a skill curve, saw no help or matchmaker or decent campaign in sight that would facilitate their learning, and simply left, leaving us with the sub 400 player average were dealing with right now.

 

[LegioX]

The Wargame community largely rejected Steel Division because of some bitterness and some part on the game and devs taking a different route, I don't understand their particular mindset because as a player who has sunk hundreds of hours in all three Wargame's I enjoy Steel Division the most. The vast majority of our players came from other games, came up against the cliff of a skill curve, saw no help or matchmaker or decent campaign in sight that would facilitate their learning, and simply left, leaving us with the sub 400 player average were dealing with right now.

I was one of those players that hit a skill wall. I came close to quitting many time after going on 5-10 losing streaks. I stuck with it and after about 100 games in multiplayer I started getting better. just broke 50% win lose ration this month! People just got to stick with it.

 

[Valdus]

I was one of those players that hit a skill wall. I came close to quitting many time after going on 5-10 losing streaks. I stuck with it and after about 100 games in multiplayer I started getting better. just broke 50% win lose ration this month! People just got to stick with it.

That matches my experience too, I bottomed out around 20% win rate (mostly due to getting lucky with a really good teammate or 2) but after 130ish games played I'm up to around 50% again. It was a rough journey. The last game that took me this much time to get decent at was Rainbow Six Siege after not playing a competitive shooter for a decade. That was about 200 hours before I felt average...

 

[xXSunSlayerXx]

What I found really surprising:
Arma 3 - 39% for Wargame players vs 52% for Steel Division players.
Weird, most Wargame players I know didn't give Steel Division a chance because it didn't tickle their MilSim fetish.

 

[Person012345]

What I found really surprising:
Arma 3 - 39% for Wargame players vs 52% for Steel Division players.
Weird, most Wargame players I know didn't give Steel Division a chance because it didn't tickle their MilSim fetish.

Wat. SD is far more realism oriented than Wargame.

 

[xXSunSlayerXx]

Wat. SD is far more realism oriented than Wargame.

I guess I wasn't very clear. When I say MilSim, I mean the "oh look, it's the same equipment we used to have during my time in the Bundeswehr" type of people, not the "let's reenact historical battles with antiquated weaponry" kind of guys.

 

[Person012345]

I guess I wasn't very clear. When I say MilSim, I mean the "oh look, it's the same equipment we used to have during my time in the Bundeswehr" type of people, not the "let's reenact historical battles with antiquated weaponry" kind of guys.

Ah, fair enough.

 

[Tank Hunter]

It seems Eugen are stuck between two paradigms with this game. There are those who came to it via Close Combat, and similar (very old) WWII RTS games, and want a more realistic, slower paced game. And those who have the history with Eugen and Wargame franchise. They want a competitive game, more than anything. It is a tricky balancing act.

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

I was one of those players that hit a skill wall. I came close to quitting many time after going on 5-10 losing streaks. I stuck with it and after about 100 games in multiplayer I started getting better. just broke 50% win lose ration this month! People just got to stick with it.

And such was my experience in Wargame European Escalation, I loved the game and premise enough to stick through beating after beating from other players, unfortunately most players do not and game design has to ease that experience enough to retain players so that we aren't playing with just barely 200 players every night

 

[Fade2Gray]

The Wargame community largely rejected Steel Division because of some bitterness...

Ah yes, Wargamers are "bitter" now, are they?

 

[LegioX]

And such was my experience in Wargame European Escalation, I loved the game and premise enough to stick through beating after beating from other players, unfortunately most players do not and game design has to ease that experience enough to retain players so that we aren't playing with just barely 200 players every night

Yes I have to admit I tried all the early Wargames and it played out just like this one, where I was getting owned left and right and really didn't know what the hell I was doing. Sadly to say I did end up giving up on those games, mainly because modern warfare (in today's technology) really doesn't interest me. This game being set in WW2 really helped me push through that "skill wall"
The one thing I really like about these games is the "fog of war" aspect. You see some units ahead from your recon and really want to push the initiative, however you have that nagging feeling that if you do, you will hit a lot of units and get destroyed....but if what your gut is telling you is true...and light resistance ahead you can win the day.
Really puts perspective what real Generals went through throughout the history of warfare.

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

Ah yes, Wargamers are "bitter" now, are they?

Sure thing. Its the most convienent group to blame. Nevermind the other dozen or so possible explanations.

 

[Partizaan]

The one thing I really like about these games is the "fog of war" aspect. You see some units ahead from your recon and really want to push the initiative, however you have that nagging feeling that if you do, you will hit a lot of units and get destroyed....but if what your gut is telling you is true...and light resistance ahead you can win the day.
Really puts perspective what real Generals went through throughout the history of warfare.

That thought always blows my mind. What the pressure must be like when it's not about a game, but the future of your country and the lives of millions of men.
Deciding under uncertainty and then sticking to the decision and giving your subordinates the confidence that your decision is the best. It's really not about making the right decision but making a good enough decision without having all the facts. But if your wrong...

 

[Sleksa]

Steel Division didn't show in the top 200 also owned games for Wargame: Red Dragon owners which would put it at less than 15% of the ~600k WG: RD owners. Going by the SD numbers that own WG: RD it seems like around 50k people own both games.

I'm rather curious as to why there's such a difference... I suspect based on the games WG: RD players mostly own that the WW2 setting wasn't as appealing as the more modern cold war era. Also, Paradox being the publisher seems to have exposed SD mostly to their playerbase. I don't remember seeing SD advertised anywhere other than the marketing emails and posts from Paradox official accounts.

The Wargame community largely rejected Steel Division because of some bitterness and some part on the game and devs taking a different route, I don't understand their particular mindset because as a player who has sunk hundreds of hours in all three Wargame's I enjoy Steel Division the most. The vast majority of our players came from other games, came up against the cliff of a skill curve, saw no help or matchmaker or decent campaign in sight that would facilitate their learning, and simply left, leaving us with the sub 400 player average were dealing with right now.

The reason why I didn't get into SD despite a lot of time in all of the wargames is mostly due to the game taking several steps back in many different gameplay mechanics. The setting doesn't matter too much, but I do prefer post ww2 stuff because it adds up more mechanics into the game like missiles, helicopters and so on.

Where SD mostly failed for me are the following:

Replacing a perfectly functional damage table/health system with random number generation. This mechanic basically replaces skill based gameplay with luck on whether a expensive tank lives after it gets shot. As a further problem this also makes offensive play a lot riskier, as in wargame you could often try to save your tank by spotting missiles coming in, reversing to safety after taking a hit and so on. in SD this is all replaced with a chance to die instantly whenever the tank gets shot at. I cannot emphasize how retarded of a decision this was, as replacing player skill with luck based systems is never a good idea, unless you're trying to create a mobile game. This more or less completely killed any enthusiasm I had for the game.

Lowering the amount of units. The players generally control a quarter the amount of units compared to the wargame series due to large unit costs and very low availabilities. As a direct comparison to buy a cheapest possible tank in SD nearly always requires a whole minute's worth of income, while in wargame it's possible to buy anywhere between 4-10 of the cheapest tanks.

Maps. The maps in wargame were never that good, but SD's are a lot worse. It's nothing but flat maps with rows of treelines with the same imbalances that happened in WG (uneven road networks and one side having a better shot at capturing key cities). One might call this super duper realistic but I'll call it what it is,: bland, boring, repetitive and imbalanced.

Bad gameplay mechanics:
Infantry that can one-shot other infantry with no micro involved, flamers that can kill 20 times their worth of infantry, offmap artillery with no warning that it's coming and capable of wiping out entire cities while costing less per use than a squad of infantry.

Simplifying many different mechanics.
This goes for a massive number of things, such as removing the ke/heat mechanic, health system and so on.

Replacing rock paper scissors into a rock and scissors.
Forcing people to buy planes in order to kill planes was a bad idea.

 

[Drrty-D]

The reason why I didn't get into SD despite a lot of time in all of the wargames is mostly due to the game taking several steps back in many different gameplay mechanics. The setting doesn't matter too much, but I do prefer post ww2 stuff because it adds up more mechanics into the game like missiles, helicopters and so on.

Where SD mostly failed for me are the following:

Replacing a perfectly functional damage table/health system with random number generation. This mechanic basically replaces skill based gameplay with luck on whether a expensive tank lives after it gets shot. As a further problem this also makes offensive play a lot riskier, as in wargame you could often try to save your tank by spotting missiles coming in, reversing to safety after taking a hit and so on. in SD this is all replaced with a chance to die instantly whenever the tank gets shot at. I cannot emphasize how retarded of a decision this was, as replacing player skill with luck based systems is never a good idea, unless you're trying to create a mobile game. This more or less completely killed any enthusiasm I had for the game.

Lowering the amount of units. The players generally control a quarter the amount of units compared to the wargame series due to large unit costs and very low availabilities. As a direct comparison to buy a cheapest possible tank in SD nearly always requires a whole minute's worth of income, while in wargame it's possible to buy anywhere between 4-10 of the cheapest tanks.

Maps. The maps in wargame were never that good, but SD's are a lot worse. It's nothing but flat maps with rows of treelines with the same imbalances that happened in WG (uneven road networks and one side having a better shot at capturing key cities). One might call this super duper realistic but I'll call it what it is,: bland, boring, repetitive and imbalanced.

Bad gameplay mechanics:
Infantry that can one-shot other infantry with no micro involved, flamers that can kill 20 times their worth of infantry, offmap artillery with no warning that it's coming and capable of wiping out entire cities while costing less per use than a squad of infantry.

Simplifying many different mechanics.
This goes for a massive number of things, such as removing the ke/heat mechanic, health system and so on.

Replacing rock paper scissors into a rock and scissors.
Forcing people to buy planes in order to kill planes was a bad idea.

 

[Person012345]

Replacing a perfectly functional damage table/health system with random number generation. This mechanic basically replaces skill based gameplay with luck on whether a expensive tank lives after it gets shot. As a further problem this also makes offensive play a lot riskier, as in wargame you could often try to save your tank by spotting missiles coming in, reversing to safety after taking a hit and so on. in SD this is all replaced with a chance to die instantly whenever the tank gets shot at. I cannot emphasize how retarded of a decision this was, as replacing player skill with luck based systems is never a good idea, unless you're trying to create a mobile game. This more or less completely killed any enthusiasm I had for the game.

This is a stupid criticism. This is the real world. If you knew anything about the weapons involved, you'd know whether you could YOLO your tiger at that AT gun and have a good chance of beating it or not. Player skill wasn't replaced, again this is really just attributing "the game removed skill" when actually, you're just bad at it. There is a very good likely heirarchy of what will beat what. Tiger vs Sherman? Unless the German player has fucked up really badly, the tiger will win every time. Even if the sherman hits first (not likely), it'll just bounce. Tiger vs Sherman Firefly? Well now that's a much more equal fight. Both can potentially kill the other in one shot. The Tiger has an advantage, but that's not a gamble I personally would be willing to sink that many points into. That's all you have to keep in mind. There is no guaranteed outcome between evenly matched weapons. The situation is actually relatively similar to wargame in effect, it's just that there are far fewer heavy tanks that can take a good hit from a hgh end weapon. The main one is the King Tiger and to some extent the Panther. I actually also find it hilarious that you're citing "I can't pop a tank out to get hit by an AT weapon as I try to kill it and if I get hit, reverse my tank behind cover and magically repair and do it over and over" as a bad thing.

Maps. The maps in wargame were never that good, but SD's are a lot worse. It's nothing but flat maps with rows of treelines with the same imbalances that happened in WG (uneven road networks and one side having a better shot at capturing key cities). One might call this super duper realistic but I'll call it what it is,: bland, boring, repetitive and imbalanced.

Theyre not worse, they're just not to your taste. The constant LoS interruption is good, and once you've played enough it's not difficult to know the quirks of each map.

Bad gameplay mechanics:
Infantry that can one-shot other infantry with no micro involved, flamers that can kill 20 times their worth of infantry, offmap artillery with no warning that it's coming and capable of wiping out entire cities while costing less per use than a squad of infantry.

Which infantry is that? If you mean grenades, that sounds like improper micro from the other side, not "no micro" from the grenading side. Offmap artillery isn't that much of a problem if you dont turtle. It can be annoying for your defensive positions, but that's the point, it makes the game much less static. But perhaps that's not to your taste.

Simplifying many different mechanics.
This goes for a massive number of things, such as removing the ke/heat mechanic, health system and so on.

The health system was terrible and unrealistic. Casuals. Asfor the KE/HEAT differentiation, it's not longer needed since a proper penetration that doesn't get lodged in the gearbox destroys the tank, whether it's HEAT or KE.

Replacing rock paper scissors into a rock and scissors.
Forcing people to buy planes in order to kill planes was a bad idea.

No it wasn't. Again, it was realistic. Sorry if you want to plop down some AA and remove a game mechanic. The game forces you to contest the air. With minimal amounts of AA, you can reduce the amount of air force you need to contest it to be a negligable investment (compared to the enemy). But you still have to actually play the air game.

 

[morpher]

This is the real world.

No, it is a video game.

 

[Sleksa]

This is a stupid criticism. This is the real world.

This is a forum for a videogame where i gave my reasons for not playing the said vidyagame. Judging by the diminishing pool of players, I may not be the only one sharing these thoughts.

Edit: you also quoted the wrong guy (LegioX)