This game is already dying and here is why

[Sydalesis]

From 2500 players to 600 at best in prime is not normal.

Allied playerbase is gone

They used retail to fix what should have been fixed in beta but they would not release divisions.

They have been splitting the online community so much.

10v10 should be ranked... all online games should be ranked no matter what.

Stop splitting the community in ranked, 10v10, custom, etc. You have no players left

Here's a few things that remain problematic.

- 10v10 not ranked and slow to start, droppers, etc
- no voice chat
- no clan system
- Phase system and division balance
- No trench, No sandbags, no bunkers, no pillbox, no barbwire, no tank traps, no mines.
- Game modes are disappointing
- No real beach maps
- Planes repair but not ground units
- Meta and hedgerow microing will win games
- AA needs to kill once and for all

 

[Fade2Gray]

Lack of trenches, sandbags, mines, etc...

are causing this game to "die" you say?

 

[morpher]

10v10 should be ranked

It is time for 10vs10s to become the main mode of this game.

 

[Fade2Gray]

It is time for 10vs10s to become the main mode of this game.

Not just any old 10v10...

10v10 tactical.

 

[morpher]

Not just any old 10v10...

10v10 tactical.

One unit per player, the rest is AI controlled.

 

[LegioX]

My favorite decks are the 15th Scotts and 3rd Canadian Inf. So I will hold down the fort for the Allies!

 

[Sydalesis]

Lack of trenches, sandbags, mines, etc...

are causing this game to "die" you say?

Learn to read, it says problematic. The game is dead because there are no allies and they are splitting the community and they need to focus on 10v10 and voice chat

 

[Fade2Gray]

Well I'll be, this guy is serious about 10v10s. I mean, he's trying to get edgy over a total clown game mode.

 

[Herr_Robert]

- Game modes are disappointing

What's wrong with Conquest? And what type of game mode would be better? Some players have proposed adding an Attack/Defend gamemode, but personally I doubt that would become popular. When I was actively playing Men of War it was rarely played anyways.

 

[LegioX]

I really don't see how people enjoy 10v10. The game mode is a spam fest with no room for any sort of tactical maneuvering.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I really don't see how people enjoy 10v10. The game mode is a spam fest with no room for any sort of tactical maneuvering.

10v10 on the 4v4 maps? 100% agree. I played a few of them over the weekend (because there were no other games launching) and yep, spam, arty, air, and severe claustrophobia.

10v10 on Sword? That's actually a decent game. It's closer to 4v4 in feel since the players to your extreme flanks are rarely involved. And the 'spawn spam' from the internal spawn points from the 10v10s in RD are gone.

I don't see anything on the 10v10s on Sword which make it any more of a spam fest than the current 4v4 (and especially 3v3) maps.

 

[jammiebadger]

10v10's are generally a pretty lousy experience IMO

 

[Hidden Gunman]

A lot of people play 10v10 because they don't want to play ranked...the downside to that is that newer players to Eugen games find out that it's not that fun getting plane trained, tac nuked by peak offboard arty, or getting mauled by peak units in phase C. The 'ranked game' community might drop off due to the ranked/mm issues, but not the bulk of the people.

 

[Fussel]

I played one 10v10 in beta. My computer couldn't handle the awesomeness and it kicked me out.

 

[jammiebadger]

Coming to think off it the main thing which has probably driven people away is the terrible stability of the game at launch.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

I mean if they balanced around 10v10 and made it the sole game mode with a World in Conflict style multiplayer system it could actually be pretty cool and I'd buy that game.

This isn't that game though -- although this it probably should have been -- and that's not why it is dying.

I like my theory that the micro and complexity floor is too high for new players and the ceiling is too low for advanced ones better, as that really does a better job of capturing how new players describe their experiences and why high level players from WRD have been abandoning this game in droves leaving only the moderately skilled folks.

 

[LegioX]

I mean if they balanced around 10v10 and made it the sole game mode with a World in Conflict style multiplayer system it could actually be pretty cool and I'd buy that game.

This isn't that game though -- although this it probably should have been -- and that's not why it is dying.

I like my theory that the micro and complexity floor is too high for new players and the ceiling is too low for advanced ones better, as that really does a better job of capturing how new players describe their experiences and why high level players from WRD have been abandoning this game in droves leaving only the moderately skilled folks.

The problem is the players then. I came into this game having only played maybe 10 hours of Wargame. I was getting my butt rekt constantly, but I stuck with It and now can hold my own. People just don't want to take the time and learn the mechanics.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

The problem is the players then. I came into this game having only played maybe 10 hours of Wargame. I was getting my butt rekt constantly, but I stuck with It and now can hold my own. People just don't want to take the time and learn the mechanics.

Blaming the customer has historically been a poor method of growing a business.

 

[Fussel]

Yeah let the 10v10 crowd take over and run this thing finally of the cliff.

Quick reminder:

 

[Claremont Waltz]

10v10 as currently designed sucks hard and I agree that making it the centerpiece would be about as smart as lighting your hair on fire. But World in Conflict was actually very popular back in the day and had a well designed and well balanced large scale RTS mp scene with varied and complex roles for each role, so it can definitely be done.