Why this game's playerbase has fallen off so much

[Ashleighs]

Good idea on a poll! I didnt vote because the option i wanted wasnt there: "You guys"

The community is the worst thing about this game by a long shot. There are reasonable people here and there will be much more playing. But omg the rest of you make so much noise! I dont understand.

If anyone out there is reading this and on the fence. Give it a go! You can always steam refund if you are below 2 hours and not happy so theres no risk in trying. Its an amazing game best rts iv played since vCoH!

 

[Partizaan]

All of the things you are complaining about are directly correlated to the high learning curve of the game. It is a profound thing to watch two bad players fight each other. It is just indirect fire and plane spam and they act like it is the entire purpose of the game. The only way these players will get better is by literally having a mentor. I would love to play some games with you if you want Nebel, I can help you out with your frustrations and such.

If your right and in a way you are, I would say it's bad game design. Watch this great Extra Credit episode about the "Noob-Tube" in COD and about balancing for skill

The argument is basically that your game will be dead or a refuge for a very small determinded community of veterans who will crush every noob who comes around if you neither give new players a technique which enables them at least from time to time to beat a veteran (the noob tube) or make it at least fun to learn the game. A game where you need a mentor to get past the cancer...well...
I dont see what the equivalent of a noob tube in SD could be but I think stuffing phase A with unicorns which are managable only when your a veteran and which are overall quite cancerous does not seem like a good idea.

I really appreciate your offer for mentoring, we had such a program for RD and I think it was quite successful but a game that needs that will have a very hard time getting players to the point to like the game so they then are ready to go for the learning curve. Thats the whole point: First the fun, then the learning. I am not going to put effort in a game which is not fun. I don's say: Ah, I just need to put 100 hrs into it, search a mentor and then I'm going to like it. There are poeple with that mindset, but not many. I think RD had it easier because even as a beginner you where not forced in situations where you ecountered challenges which you PERCEIVED as impossible to manage (Phase A unicorns, Firefly, off map whatever). You got smashed by units which you had at your disposal and the idea was: Ok, hes better at using them, I just use them need like he does, but at least I was able to hold position X for 5 min, next time it will be 6 min.

If Phase A would really be a Recon/light unit phase it would help new players because it reduces complexity and levels the playing field while the flavor and the real challenge would come in later in the game.

Edit: There was even a noob tube equivalent in RD: The helo rush

 

[Rojan]

If your right and in a way you are, I would say it's bad game design. Watch this great Extra Credit episode about the "Noob-Tube" in COD and about balancing for skill

The argument is basically that your game will be dead or a refuge for a very small determinded community of veterans who will crush every noob who comes around if you neither give new players a technique which enables them at least from time to time to beat a veteran (the noob tube) or make it at least fun to learn the game. A game where you need a mentor to get past the cancer...well...
I dont see what the equivalent of a noob tube in SD could be but I think stuffing phase A with unicorns which are managable only when your a veteran and which are overall quite cancerous does not seem like a good idea.

I really appreciate your offer for mentoring, we had such a program for RD and I think it was quite successful but a game that needs that will have a very hard time getting players to the point to like the game so they then are ready to go for the learning curve. Thats the whole point: First the fun, then the learning. I am not going to put effort in a game which is not fun. I don's say: Ah, I just need to put 100 hrs into it, search a mentor and then I'm going to like it. There are poeple with that mindset, but not many. I think RD had it easier because even as a beginner you where not forced in situations where you ecountered challenges which you PERCEIVED as impossible to manage (Phase A unicorns, Firefly, off map whatever). You got smashed by units which you had at your disposal and the idea was: Ok, hes better at using them, I just use them need like he does, but at least I was able to hold position X for 5 min, next time it will be 6 min.

If Phase A would really be a Recon/light unit phase it would help new players because it reduces complexity and levels the playing field while the flavor and the real challenge would come in later in the game.

Edit: There was even a noob tube equivalent in RD: The helo rush

if you restrict phase A to only recon and light unit usage you are going to cut out a third of the flavor of deck types in this game. There are some really strong phase A decks like Windhund and Blindee and if they got their toys taken away or pushed back a phase youd just be a mediocre armored deck. The 12. SS live and die off their captured tanks in phase A and the 6th AB have to use their snowflake AT to stay alive in open fields. The fact is Phase A units add flavor to the game and add a ton of variety that people don't seem to stop and ask why they are there. I have argued this position time and time again to the same people that want to see these units removed from phase A.

 

[Partizaan]

if you restrict phase A to only recon and light unit usage you are going to cut out a third of the flavor of deck types in this game. There are some really strong phase A decks like Windhund and Blindee and if they got their toys taken away or pushed back a phase youd just be a mediocre armored deck. The 12. SS live and die off their captured tanks in phase A and the 6th AB have to use their snowflake AT to stay alive in open fields. The fact is Phase A units add flavor to the game and add a ton of variety that people don't seem to stop and ask why they are there. I have argued this position time and time again to the same people that want to see these units removed from phase A.

I know and I really don't expect to convince you
And apart from that it is never going to happen, it's such a fundamental design choice it is basically an axiom, they are here to stay.
But what you are writing just makes my point, it is so complex, a lot of players perceive it as cancer/unfair/unbalanced.
They might be wrong, but it's not goin to change the fact that most of them will not come back.
Thats my point. Edit: Is the flavor worth the frustration?

 

[Rojan]

I know and I really don't expect to convince you
And apart from that it is never going to happen, it's such a fundamental design choice it is basically an axiom, they are here to stay.
But what you are writing just makes my point, it is so complex, a lot of players perceive it as cancer/unfair/unbalanced.
They might be wrong, but it's not goin to change the fact that most of them will not come back.
Thats my point. Edit: Is the flavor worth the frustration?

If this is truly the cause of an exodus of players (which I am unconvinced is a large percentage of players) then I don't know what to say other than maybe the game isn't for them. This game is so niche and there are games with my symmetrical balance and less flavor that will better suit their tastes. I don't mean to sound like an elitist prick but I don't want this game to be like those games. I can see this game's balance being geared toward top tier play in the 1v1 and 2v2 scene and I think that is probably the best way to balance.

I agree that this was an axiomatic design choice and I think deep down everyone knows it isn't going anywhere. People have differing opinions on this but at the end of the day it's wasted time arguing over it.

 

[nande]

I think it's this video that better covers SD's bad design.

 

[local-festival]

The balance is close to okay right now, and that happened much faster than in previous games. And offmap arty is tenfold less cancerous than helirushes or MLRS barrages on start. The git gud argument rarely applies, but it does here very well.

 

[Fussel]

The problems of this game are homemade and it is entirely Eugens fault for them to exist. A lot of people have warned them about implementing to many gamemodes, 1v1-10v10, to many customizable options etc.
In this noble effort to please everyone It actually created a surrounding where everyone is talking past each other. One problem might exist in 10v10 or maps that are way to narrow for the playercount, where on the other hand there is none in 1v1/2v2 play. They threw basicly every ingredient in the pot, stirred it up and now expect the outcome to taste delicious.
I like the game but with their vision and plans (or lack of) I can't see the playerbase being salvageable.
Any future project will suffer from the same agenda most likely.

 

[Partizaan]

I think this video better covers the poor design of SD.

RNG?

 

[Tank Hunter]

Your poll did not address my key issue. Speed of combat / general RTS-ness of the game (as opposed to something like Close Combat, a more realistic pace).

 

[Ashleighs]

The problems of this game are homemade and it is entirely Eugens fault for them to exist. A lot of people have warned them about implementing to many gamemodes, 1v1-10v10, to many customizable options etc.
In this noble effort to please everyone It actually created a surrounding where everyone is talking past each other. One problem might exist in 10v10 or maps that are way to narrow for the playercount, where on the other hand there is none in 1v1/2v2 play. They threw basicly every ingredient in the pot, stirred it up and now expect the outcome to taste delicious.
I like the game but with their vision and plans (or lack of) I can't see the playerbase being salvageable.
Any future project will suffer from the same agenda most likely.

While I'm not sure I agree with everything you say. I do agree that less gamemodes is usually a good idea early on just to funnel players. On paper 10v10 sounds amazing, and it is a really nice feature to have. But if 3v3 was the max i wouldn't be asking for 10v10. It's not something I'd play but then its aimed at a different audience maybe.

 

[iamthatiam]

The problems of this game are homemade and it is entirely Eugens fault for them to exist. A lot of people have warned them about implementing to many gamemodes, 1v1-10v10, to many customizable options etc.
In this noble effort to please everyone It actually created a surrounding where everyone is talking past each other. One problem might exist in 10v10 or maps that are way to narrow for the playercount, where on the other hand there is none in 1v1/2v2 play. They threw basicly every ingredient in the pot, stirred it up and now expect the outcome to taste delicious.
I like the game but with their vision and plans (or lack of) I can't see the playerbase being salvageable.
Any future project will suffer from the same agenda most likely.

You've hit the nail on the head. How many different ways are there to play Chess?

 

[iamthatiam]

I've played all the Wargames and in my honest opinion I think European Escalation is the best. More is better? I think not.

"Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler" - Einstein

 

[iamthatiam]

Just look at how many dedicated servers they have for 10v10 (all with different options). They even have Allied vs Allied and Axis vs Axis (is this really necessary? Has anyone even played a game on these servers?). When browsing the lobby how many of them do you see empty? Dedicated 5v5 servers would have been a much better option.

 

[Herr_Robert]

Personally I can find the air war very frustrating, and sometimes I just wish they would remove or drastically limit the availability of planes. Even when I'm winning the air war I consider it to be a pretty boring part of the game.

SD is still one of my favorite games, but after an air-heavy game I can feel really sick and tired of it.

Good idea on a poll! I didnt vote because the option i wanted wasnt there: "You guys"

The community is the worst thing about this game by a long shot. There are reasonable people here and there will be much more playing. But omg the rest of you make so much noise! I dont understand.

If anyone out there is reading this and on the fence. Give it a go! You can always steam refund if you are below 2 hours and not happy so theres no risk in trying. Its an amazing game best rts iv played since vCoH!

The forum members are not part of the game design. And how does people complaining on the forums -- and not in the actual game -- prevent you from enjoying the game anyways? Hell, I have only seen one forum member in the game (that I know of). The majority of players are not even active on the forums.

I would say that the SD community is good compared to other communities. Players are mostly polite and helpful and I relatively rarely see players being rude and insulting/blaming teammates when I'm playing.

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

My 2 cents on this (as stated before)

- Very unfriendly for new players. Anyone new to the game that joins a custom match or, even worse, gets paired in quick play against ranked players looking for a challenge, gets instantly stomped. If he joins a team game, he might even get insulted for it by his own teammates. The only more or less safe playground for new players are those 10vs10 games since they grant you some anonymity. But thanks to the imbalances inherent to 10vs10 games, these usually turn out into massive spam and cheese fests, which is also not really fun to play.

- Setting: No one gives a shit about the normandy. Seriously. I bet most people outside france have serious problems finding it on the map. Eugene limited themselves, for whatever reason, massivly. A wargame like approach with more different nations (air and infantry heavy japanese and americans, germans and russians centered around tank gameplay and so on) would have been much more succesfull and fun to play imho. As it is right now, the game is getting somewhat boring if you can play only the two factions. Most players don't care much about hardcore realism (take R.U.S.E. or CoH as an example) so it wouldn't be a big deal to have battles between russians and japenese troops on french soil. I seriously believe that a "new nation" dlc that would include new nations and divsions would visibly boost sales, although it is heretical to even think about this.

- Technical issues. At launch and even a considerable time after launch, the game was mosty not very enjoyable in 3vs3 / 4vs4 games (I have not tried 10vs10) due to connection issues.

- Balance. Too many unicorn and "specialised" units like arty / air / support. In W:RD for examply you had a much higher unit count, meaning that a burratino wasn't so much of a big deal as the nebelwefers is right now, because if that burratino is hitting your town, you had a lot of more troops to replenish losses. If you lost one high end tank in W:RD, it wasn't that much of a big deal either, since you usually get more than one (!) per card. The total ratio of "specialised" and unicorn units in relation to standard line infantry and tanks is off. We should be seeing a lot more line infantry like rifleman and shermans/ panzer IV, instead I only see panthers and tigers rolling around.

 

[Herr_Robert]

If your right and in a way you are, I would say it's bad game design. Watch this great Extra Credit episode about the "Noob-Tube" in COD and about balancing for skill

The argument is basically that your game will be dead or a refuge for a very small determinded community of veterans who will crush every noob who comes around if you neither give new players a technique which enables them at least from time to time to beat a veteran (the noob tube) or make it at least fun to learn the game. A game where you need a mentor to get past the cancer...well...
I dont see what the equivalent of a noob tube in SD could be but I think stuffing phase A with unicorns which are managable only when your a veteran and which are overall quite cancerous does not seem like a good idea.

I really appreciate your offer for mentoring, we had such a program for RD and I think it was quite successful but a game that needs that will have a very hard time getting players to the point to like the game so they then are ready to go for the learning curve. Thats the whole point: First the fun, then the learning. I am not going to put effort in a game which is not fun. I don's say: Ah, I just need to put 100 hrs into it, search a mentor and then I'm going to like it. There are poeple with that mindset, but not many. I think RD had it easier because even as a beginner you where not forced in situations where you ecountered challenges which you PERCEIVED as impossible to manage (Phase A unicorns, Firefly, off map whatever). You got smashed by units which you had at your disposal and the idea was: Ok, hes better at using them, I just use them need like he does, but at least I was able to hold position X for 5 min, next time it will be 6 min.

If Phase A would really be a Recon/light unit phase it would help new players because it reduces complexity and levels the playing field while the flavor and the real challenge would come in later in the game.

Edit: There was even a noob tube equivalent in RD: The helo rush

Excellent post. I liked SD immediately and knew the basics since I have played WG, but telling a new player to get better just to be able to enjoy it isn't a recipe for success. People really need to stop doing that. I will personally not even waste 2h on a game I don't find fun right away.

Now, I don't know how to make SD more beginner-friendly without ruining it. I mean, a big problem for new players is how armored warfare works and that you need to micromanage units to hit heavy tanks in the side/rear, instead of a simple HP system. I would also hate it if SD took the same route as Men of War and added prototype tanks to the Allies to make the balance more symmetrical.

 

[Schwarz-W-R]

Just look at how many dedicated servers they have for 10v10 (all with different options). They even have Allied vs Allied and Axis vs Axis (is this really necessary? Has anyone even played a game on these servers?). When browsing the lobby how many of them do you see empty? Dedicated 5v5 servers would have been a much better option.

Imo a lot of empty lobbys are not a big deal. You can filter to show only not empty lobbys and only uncheck it if you don´t find an actual filled game mode/map you want to play.

I played already a 10 v 10 Axis vs Axis with my uncle, but funnily we didn´t noticed it before. So at one point I said:"Wait, why do they have Panzerwerfer now???", but then something else happened and I forgot about it. Minutes later my uncle said:"They have a 88 in the woods.", I said only:"Whaaaat? Wait, we are in a fucking mirror match!" :-D
On the other hand it was a good experience because it showed me that the balance issues aren´t so big as I think often, every good unit can drive you mad if you don´t have a good counter against and it is played well by your opponent.

I love the game and I enjoy it a lot. I think a lot of people spend to much time in seeking problems in game mechanics and complaining about it in forums rather than trying to figure out how they can actually play better with what they have. It´s an old problem and in nearly every ww2 game the same.
For example I was frustrated a lot about allied air supperiority and the useless AA mechanic (it´s really useless because even if I bring my whole AA out they have only to send multiple times 5-6 bombers in a row and then my "shield" is nearly gone without any/nearly no losses for my opponent), then I started to insert 6-7 fighters in my deck and yesterday I killed with them for example in one game 16 enemy planes (how can somebody be so dumb to send another bomber straight in the 2 enemy fighters that killed the last one?). I spent to much time in thinking how bad the mechanic is rather than thinking what I can do better to solve this.
Same with arty, in one game the allies placed maybe 20 pieces of artillery against us and we wasn´t able to set up any AA because it got wrecked faster than we could bring in more. So I brought in my SK18´s first and managed to destroy 8 artillery units, we could bring out AA against the bombers (if 3 people place AA it´s kind of effective again..) and we won the game by a push against the cheap ground defense.
A good balanced deck with a lot of counter possibilities is the best thing to enjoy the game imo. If you want to bring out only tanks and keep doing it while they get bombed away it´s no surprise that you don´t enjoy the game. I start today with playing allies and I´m really curious how it is to fight on the other side. ;-)
Good balance is important but it shouldn´t be the first move to complain about a mechanic, first thing should be to understand it better and search for solutions.

 

[integ3r]

The airgame is kinda anti-fun. You simply must use fighters to take down enemy planes, which means, if you lose your fighters, there is pretty much nothing you can do to stop enemy air without investing an extreme amount of resources and lose the ground war, but there is another problem.

Air is the panic button of the game. Big attack being launched? Call in planes. Unprotected flank being probed? Call in planes. Don't know how to attack the next hedgerow? Call in planes. Planes are the "noob tube" of the game, which in itself is fine, it is that way in WG too, but they're also the necessary end-point. They're the optimal strategy, which is not fine. The only real counter to planes is planes. You can't punish it without going heavily into planes yourself. When your only counter to a heavy tank is a cannon which is easily 1-shotted by a plane you can't punish, playing the game can feel a bit frustrating. In wargame, for the longest time, ASF was not that essential and the safest way to play was to rely on ground based AA, now it's more balanced so that the payoff from using ASF is very high, but you can still make do with ground based AA if you lose the air fight. SD doesn't work like that.

Phases are also kind of anti-fun. I think the real problem here is that 10 minutes is too long for phase A. Number 1, matches drag on forever, even when the end result is clear-cut. Number 2, you have to wait quite a long time to play with most of your units. Number 3, you have to wait a long time to get appropriate counters, which means you have essentially situations of 10 minutes of frustration.

What if A was 5 minutes? Then phase B 10 minutes? And what if the game just ended the match when winning is impossible even at 100% map control for the rest of the match? It would certainly eliminate some of the drag and encourage you to "just get in a new match".

And then there's offmap, which has no warning, unlike napalm / clusters on the road in previous games. Out of nowhere, your 100pt cannon can get popped and now you have no counter to their tanks.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I sounded the drum of 'not fun' mechanics weeks ago, but at least for me, the most recent patches have gone fairly far into addressing the issues.

• Air has been toned down a bit (longer repair time, less accurate drops will suppressed)
• Mortars have taken a serious ammo reduction (they are still annoying, but at least there is an end to it for a while)
• Off-board has had the call-in range shortened (this one I don't really care for as it didn't really address the main issue while removing off-board as a viable option to counter-battery on-board artillery parks).

On 'normal' settings, the game no longer feels like as much of a grind-fest. Is it perfect? No, not hardly but they have taken a huge step forward in fixing the issue. There is still a ways to go.

For me, the 'problem' I run into now is that the player base is too low to get a decent game at the times I am available to play (typically post 9pm, EST). So, I try for a while, get stuck in some off-settings or horrid 10v10 on 4v4, play one game, and give up. It's a self-perpetuating problem.

And for the record, i'm firming in the 'there are way too many options' for the game. Yes, giving people a choice for how to play is all well and good but all of those settings take resources from Eugen to implement and balance and it does divide the player base. I think they should have settled on a standard and supported that and only that for the first 6 months of the game. Then, as resources and player-base allow, open up additional options for players who want to try different things.