This game is already dying and here is why

[Kampfkekskrieger]

tell you one thing that is getting on my damn nerves. I'm F*cking tired of being teamed up with pubs who don't play as a team and do their own damn thing. It's been 3 games in a row now today where I'm forced to go 2v1 against people either on comms or play all the time together. Teammates never help and no communication on our side is remotely present. It's getting really DAMN frustrating and I'm about to say F*ck it for the day.

I would like to copy one post from another thread, that seems to answer it quite well. The only mistake I see is that it soaks a lot of additional energy from you, and you as the stronger leader should not invest your nerves into following/repairing his weaker comprehensions, but instead you delegate YOUR plans and the other has to do the work, because YOU are the better of both.

My post from the other thread starts here:
(https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ue-with-the-game.1033202/page-5#post-23063558)

What would happen, if YOU would start to command the other players in your random team?
What would happen, if a new player joins your team and gets commanded into the right rails?

What would happen, if we remove remove social networks and replace them with matchmakers?

First thing, the more veteran players need to be stable with their own foot in the game. So you need to play 1v1 a lot to be equal, or lets say be at least toe on toe with the most common players.

If you have a plan, the others will follow and dont argue. if your plan does not cover a certain situation, the others need to bend your plan for their own success.

For the side of a few friends that want to play together, there is nothing better to play than together versus the public.
Its not that they play better 'on command'. If you play on the random team, the win is more rewarding, and the game gives you more advices, where you can improve.

There is a way of 'general' team play in strategy games. if some very easy common rules get attention, like supporting with aircraft, artillery, or a well placed and well timed AT gun, you have all the communication good friends need to share.

If I look to Red alert 2 multiplayer games, public people share a MCV with you if you lost yours.
With settlers 3, the team mates need to share important resources, others are cut off from,
and in wargame, you were not ready when you slice the map, and you play 5 1v1 games without cooperation.

If you widen yourself to the left and right, see, what you can judge by the playstyle of other players, you can soon 'read' on your own, how you can help them. with 20% help in a key situation, you get already even up with cooperating friends.

I have made absolutely different experience, also in C&C kanes wrath, that just a few common moves, that you play together, are usually enough, and if you just listen for some very easy 'common senses', you already get quite decent matches.

But of course, someone has to build that up! If only you would start to give some advices (not break your mind at those player), others will follow, when they see the success, and with 5 games a day, you get quite a good player coverage over time.
(I think I should highlight this in the current context)

Edit: Oh, to be honest, its exactly your point of sturdyness of some players made me play 1v1 a lot, because all the annoying side tasks break down and you have silence! Real cooperation games are often a loose-loose-situation for me, because I see all the drama, the others not and I dont know how I change that, you could bite into stone for that! But the solution (I believe) is, that you can put the load onto the other player without shame or guiltyness because of exploiting your veteran position.

But maybe, just this is what tests whether you are a good commander. So see it as a challenge

 

[John the Roman]

came back from work. 280 people online. waiting 30+ minutes in a lobby. Went up to 16-18 people and then emptied itself. 11h30-midnight eastern standard time. rip

You shall blame Californian people are too peace-like and don't like WAR.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I haven't really been able to get a game after work/dinner in EST for the last few weeks. I tried some 10v10 but even those dried up. The horrid 10v10 on 4v4 maps still occasionally go, but even there it's a 30 min wait. And honestly, I'd rather play vs the AI or not play at all that go back to those.

Not sure what can be done about it. There is truth to the old saying "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" and unfortunately, that first impression for a lot of people last month was decidedly negative.

 

[Kampfkekskrieger]

Not sure what can be done about it. There is truth to the old saying "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" and unfortunately, that first impression for a lot of people last month was decidedly negative.

This is pretty much the headline of our problem! But you can always finish your started 'driving test' that you did not finish yet.

If the reasons of those players were solid, I would recommend something else, but if its only wind, wind does change its direction all the time!
If we express our wish for more players, and 'pull them friendly by their ears' to have a least stability inside and teach them true things true, (literally with the leader wand and a strict and firm (but not unfriendly) grab and directing them into the other right direction with a careful push into that direction; thats the picture I want to give), we can collect them up one by one and over time. Of course you are friendly, but you can even go so far to ask them to bind themselves to the steel division community with a head-up cordial offer, also against some resistance.
You must be careful not to hurt those people by this step, thats not what I intend, but you can be very straight in a good way and the stability of your approach can empower them with the same stability that you need for this game.

Its not that we want to convince them if they dont volunteer, but if they drop because of a step they dont understand alone, when it needs a key information or one must be corrected, dont hesitate to repair what is obviously upside down.

Maybe the first impression has not ended yet, and is just paused, until they dare to approach the hill for another time. Some do.

(this answer is very difficult to put into the right words)

 

[Zinegata]

Well, this is as good a thread as any for a postmortem. But the data is in and quite frankly it's not just looking bad for Steel Division. It's looking very bad for Eugen. I wouldn't be too surprised if this ends up being Eugen's last game if there isn't a serious increase in sales, because there's very little chance of the game making back its development budget if it ends up with only 150K-200K sales by the end of the year.

And, regardless, I'm posting this because the data is really showing a completely different picture about what really caused problems for SD. It's pretty much not anything that has been discussed in this thread.

The key figure to understand here is Steam Spy's "related games" feature, which tells you what other games that SD players are also playing. And in terms of games that they've played regularly for the past two weeks, the answer will probably surprise most people. The most-played game at 20% of SD owners is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. HOI4, at 19%, was second and more in line with expectations. The next three however (at around 10% apiece) was ARMA, War Thunder, and Rising Sun 2.

In short, the majority of SD players were not Wargame players. They were not even tactical RTS players (HOI4 is the closest, but it's grand strategy). Rather the market that bought SD were primarily FPS and Third-Person Action game players who liked military themes. Notably, this segment sees very little if any representation in the forum or any of the online SD communities, and I would go as far to suggest that Paradox's marketing did a pretty good job that they were able to sell to such markets.

(For reference as well - only 4.9% of SD players also played Wargame in the past 2 weeks. They simply didn't move to WG. Indeed, a higher percentage - at 5.28% - play CoH2.)

The influx of "new non-RTS players" also neatly explains why 10 v 10 spam games have such an appeal. A lot of posters here and WG "community" people thought they were getting folks who were RTS players. Instead the game attracted people who likely only dabbled a bit in RTSs (possibly MOBAs also). They really weren't going to "get" how to do complicated 1v1 games without a lot of serious time and effort.

Moreover, what's important to realize is that the vast majority of "RTS" players in the present era are primarily into single-player RTSs. In terms of sales across accumulated titles it's the Total War series that really dominates the genre nowadays, and the most successful non-TW game is Age of Empires 2 HD which is an entirely nostalgia title. Indeed, the sixth most-played game after the Armas and War Thunder for SD owners was Total Warhammer.

So if we're to look as to why SD "failed"... I would say the single most important issue was actually the poor single-player campaign.

Yeah, everyone in the forums has an opinion over balance and how to make it easier to teach multiplayer games or how to do matchmaking. The problem is that it was all irrelevant. The majority of players were not familiar enough with RTSs and hence were likely not confident enough to jump into MP to begin. It was the single player campaign's job - as it was in COH2 and the original Age of Empires 2 release - to ease them into the system.

It's unfortunate, but it looks like Eugen's inability to make a compelling AI opponent to foster a good single player experience is what's killing the game; and likely the company as a whole.

 

[Kampfkekskrieger]

We have no right to rule about this area of life.

You have seen a couple of times now, that all this negativism does not fulfill.
You mirror information from the past into the future. But the future is not the past.
Hence it will develope differently. Even your grandmother would make better guesses than you.
So better let it yet open. As Yet!

 

[Crotou]

It's unfortunate, but it looks like Eugen's inability to make a compelling AI opponent to foster a good single player experience is what's killing the game; and likely the company as a whole.

SD's AI is by far the best AI in the entire Wargame series. The current normal AI plays better than half the community.

 

[morpher]

inability to make a compelling AI opponent to foster a good single player experience

SD's AI is by far the best AI in the entire Wargame series.

One does not exclude the other.

 

[Crotou]

You forgot my second sentence. Sad!

 

[morpher]

inability to make a compelling AI opponent to foster a good single player experience

SD's AI is by far the best AI in the entire Wargame series.

The current normal AI plays better than half the community.

None of the statements excludes the others.

 

[Protosszocker]

tell you one thing that is getting on my damn nerves. I'm F*cking tired of being teamed up with pubs who don't play as a team and do their own damn thing. It's been 3 games in a row now today where I'm forced to go 2v1 against people either on comms or play all the time together. Teammates never help and no communication on our side is remotely present. It's getting really DAMN frustrating and I'm about to say F*ck it for the day.

Get your self a group and search for group only or say no groups allowed to join. so simple. thats how I do it to avoid stomping.

Well, this is as good a thread as any for a postmortem. But the data is in and quite frankly it's not just looking bad for Steel Division. It's looking very bad for Eugen. I wouldn't be too surprised if this ends up being Eugen's last game if there isn't a serious increase in sales, because there's very little chance of the game making back its development budget if it ends up with only 150K-200K sales by the end of the year.

And, regardless, I'm posting this because the data is really showing a completely different picture about what really caused problems for SD. It's pretty much not anything that has been discussed in this thread.

The key figure to understand here is Steam Spy's "related games" feature, which tells you what other games that SD players are also playing. And in terms of games that they've played regularly for the past two weeks, the answer will probably surprise most people. The most-played game at 20% of SD owners is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. HOI4, at 19%, was second and more in line with expectations. The next three however (at around 10% apiece) was ARMA, War Thunder, and Rising Sun 2.

In short, the majority of SD players were not Wargame players. They were not even tactical RTS players (HOI4 is the closest, but it's grand strategy). Rather the market that bought SD were primarily FPS and Third-Person Action game players who liked military themes. Notably, this segment sees very little if any representation in the forum or any of the online SD communities, and I would go as far to suggest that Paradox's marketing did a pretty good job that they were able to sell to such markets.

(For reference as well - only 4.9% of SD players also played Wargame in the past 2 weeks. They simply didn't move to WG. Indeed, a higher percentage - at 5.28% - play CoH2.)

The influx of "new non-RTS players" also neatly explains why 10 v 10 spam games have such an appeal. A lot of posters here and WG "community" people thought they were getting folks who were RTS players. Instead the game attracted people who likely only dabbled a bit in RTSs (possibly MOBAs also). They really weren't going to "get" how to do complicated 1v1 games without a lot of serious time and effort.

Moreover, what's important to realize is that the vast majority of "RTS" players in the present era are primarily into single-player RTSs. In terms of sales across accumulated titles it's the Total War series that really dominates the genre nowadays, and the most successful non-TW game is Age of Empires 2 HD which is an entirely nostalgia title. Indeed, the sixth most-played game after the Armas and War Thunder for SD owners was Total Warhammer.

So if we're to look as to why SD "failed"... I would say the single most important issue was actually the poor single-player campaign.

Yeah, everyone in the forums has an opinion over balance and how to make it easier to teach multiplayer games or how to do matchmaking. The problem is that it was all irrelevant. The majority of players were not familiar enough with RTSs and hence were likely not confident enough to jump into MP to begin. It was the single player campaign's job - as it was in COH2 and the original Age of Empires 2 release - to ease them into the system.

It's unfortunate, but it looks like Eugen's inability to make a compelling AI opponent to foster a good single player experience is what's killing the game; and likely the company as a whole.

The Ai is pretty competent in my point of view. I just think the campaign was to short. Also the way from single player to multiplayer wasnt fluent enough with the interfaces so no one stayed for mp after playing a few skirmishes. Yeah I dont think all those comparisions with WG make a lot of sense at all but I think it wasnt the single player in general but the connection between single and multiplayer. Lobbies are nothing some one who is comming from PUBG, WT, Starcraft (I met a lot of sc2 players here) are used too and in games like arma they have much better filters and stuff. Still i think most of them tried to get a quick match first and were not able to find one so the left or they got into the game browser and just saw all those 10v10 servers (most of them empty) and got a totally confussing mp experience.

 

[Kampfkekskrieger]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to leave the game because of some missing filters!
You toss together some numbers and then you bake a cake out of it.

You dont just have an allergic reaction out of the nothing! I hope the game will heal up. Its a called up storm, but you cannot uphold a storm forever. (Storms cost a LOT of energy!)

 

[D Inqu]

Moreover, what's important to realize is that the vast majority of "RTS" players in the present era are primarily into single-player RTSs. In terms of sales across accumulated titles it's the Total War series that really dominates the genre nowadays, and the most successful non-TW game is Age of Empires 2 HD which is an entirely nostalgia title. Indeed, the sixth most-played game after the Armas and War Thunder for SD owners was Total Warhammer.

So if we're to look as to why SD "failed"... I would say the single most important issue was actually the poor single-player campaign..

^This.

I really don't understand why games keep trying to focus multiplayer at the expense of SP. Multiplayer focus only works if you make a game on the scale of starcraft which can sustain high player numbers. AB and RD had its semi-dynamic campaigns with some replay value, and had huge potential to be this "big sim" for all the post WW2 conflicts (the only real game in the setting is Graviteam's games, which are a little too "hardcore"). It's a real shame that there was never a mod support to create custom campaigns.

From a perspective of a SP-oriented person, Steel Division is a step back with only a handful of missions.

 

[Protosszocker]

^This.

I really don't understand why games keep trying to focus multiplayer at the expense of SP. Multiplayer focus only works if you make a game on the scale of starcraft which can sustain high player numbers. AB and RD had its semi-dynamic campaigns with some replay value, and had huge potential to be this "big sim" for all the post WW2 conflicts (the only real game in the setting is Graviteam's games, which are a little too "hardcore"). It's a real shame that there was never a mod support to create custom campaigns.

From a perspective of a SP-oriented person, Steel Division is a step back with only a handful of missions.

Lol SC also has one if the best campaigns ever in an rts. In lenght, replayability and epic story telling aspects its one of the best. But yeah SP should have been implemented much better. 3 campaigns is not enough or at least they are to short. And it missed scenario fights for SP. Like a hord mode or a timelimit push mode or anything.

 

[Destraex]

Game can die as much as it wants. I still come back to them and don't need a competitive scene.

 

[naizarak]

SD's AI is by far the best AI in the entire Wargame series. The current normal AI plays better than half the community.

true, too bad they decided to ditch the dynamic campaign when the AI finally came together. 1 step forward 2 steps back

 

[EUG_MadMat]

true, too bad they decided to ditch the dynamic campaign when the AI finally came together. 1 step forward 2 steps back

"Tactical" & "Strategical" AI are two different things, completely unrelated.

Regarding the "dynamic" vs "storyline" campaign, we have yet to do a game without half the community claiming the other type is better ...

 

[integ3r]

"Tactical" & "Strategical" AI are two different things, completely unrelated.

Regarding the "dynamic" vs "storyline" campaign, we have yet to do a game without half the community claiming the other type is better ...

BTW, do you have stats on this? I think EA had some stats which said only 10% of RTS players played multiplayer. That's over a decade ago though.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

"Tactical" & "Strategical" AI are two different things, completely unrelated.

Regarding the "dynamic" vs "storyline" campaign, we have yet to do a game without half the community claiming the other type is better ...

Yeah but you know the campaign maps are better though right? Pretty rare for people to replay a narrative campaign, but a diy campaign on a map is a lot more repeatable. Also gotta be easier to do the scenario part.

 

[EUG_MadMat]

Yeah but you know the campaign maps are better though right?

I was actually explaining that as many people will complain about one type than about the other in the next game.
Hence, no, clearly there isn't an obvious "better" one ...