Why this game's playerbase has fallen off so much

[Hidden Gunman]

Blaming 10v10 nowadays seems... counter productive.

A chunk of the player base plays pretty much nothing but 10v10s. There's a lot of newbies I tried to work with that would always feel overwhelmed by anything other than 10v10. No matter how much I or others would work with them, they simply couldn't handle it and went back to 10v10 and stayed there. If you remove that from the game, I think all you are going to do is shrink the player base even more. Granted, those who only rarely play 10v10 might not notice the difference, but I fear it would hurt the game more than help it.

The 'blaming' of 10v10 only comes from a very specific part of the community. The extreme version is the suggestion that 10v10 should be dropped entirely or closed for a period of time in the belief that will force the 10v10 players into ranked games, which is an 'interesting' understanding of human behaviour..."Oh, they've taken away the bit I like, so I guess I'll start to enjoy the bit I don't like"...yeh, no.

 

[Fade2Gray]

There's a lot of anger and disappointment, and people are looking to blame something. I can understand the desire to, but it isn't really all that good of an idea. All you are going to do is royally piss off the crowd that is comfortable with 10v10, and that isn't going to change much, if anything, for the rest of the player base.

I used to love 10v10s in WG as well. They are truly wild experiences, and loaded with all sorts of shenanigans, especially early on when the sides were often somewhat balanced. You could also get some truly epic screenshots from those games, I actually got a few people to try out WG:ALB thanks to some screenshots I posted to Facebook way back in the day.

Fixing the match maker certainly needs to happen, but removing things seems like just a bad idea. Even with how it seems like EUGEN built this game around conquest now, I hesitate to even suggest removing destruction. Maybe for their next Steel Division game, but I really don't know.

 

[Person012345]

So then, maybe the fact that 10 v 10 sucks in SD contributed? Not through any fault of Eugen's, but just by the nature of the game.

 

[Rojan]

ALB - Had no view profile button
- People drop like flies when the match starts
- Noobs join games they shouldn't, even if you put "no noobs" in the title
- People quit during match when they realize their teammates are noobs
- Good players end up playing bad players and not enjoying themselves.
- Bad players end up playing good players and not enjoying themselves.
- Teams could not be easily balanced even if you tried.
+ Can't easily dodge good players
+ Easier for noobs to get into a game

RD - HAD a view stats button
+ Good players looking for good players have a way of doing this.
+ Bad players looking for bad players have a way of doing this and have a warning before they get into an unbalanced match.
+ People playing with randoms have a way of assessing if the match will be fair
- Players can dodge / kick good players
- Harder for bad players to find matches (will get kicked)
- Easier for skilled players to find bad players and deliberately stomp them to infalte win ratios

Now in SD we are back to the ALB system.

There was a reason "view stats" was added to RD. People seem to have forgotten. People say it's sooo bad that people dodge or kick bad players. In truth, it allows people to self-matchmake, which was better than nothing, for better and worse. It really annoys me how people people just take a dump on the view profile system without considering all the data. If you ask me, it was worth the drawbacks. It's not perfect, but it was better than what we had. Yes, it was lobby simulator, but ALB was start a game, don't enjoy yourself, start another game, don't enjoy yourself simulator which was even worse. It was a goddamn nightmare if you were a good player looking for FAIR matches.

Why advocate for a less-shitty option when fixing the matchmaker is a far more optimal solution?

 

[Fade2Gray]

Why advocate for a less-shitty option when fixing the matchmaker is a far more optimal solution?

Probably because it can be implemented quickly and easily and will work with the current player base. Even if they completely revamp the match maker now and get it working perfectly, will there be a large enough player base to make it worthwhile?

 

[Rojan]

Probably because it can be implemented quickly and easily and will work with the current player base. Even if they completely revamp the match maker now and get it working perfectly, will there be a large enough player base to make it worthwhile?

I understand the practicality of using that as a temporary fix but at this position by I don't think any change is going to help.

 

[derkos80]

Why advocate for a less-shitty option when fixing the matchmaker is a far more optimal solution?

Because I do not like random maps, I want to search for Axis and Allies simultaniously and at the moment finding a game in the lobby is usually faster then with the matchmaker.
Nevertheless improving matchmaker is a good idea. As long as it is not mandatory for everybody.

 

[Rojan]

Because I do not like random maps, I want to search for Axis and Allies simultaniously and at the moment finding a game in the lobby is usually faster then with the matchmaker.
Nevertheless improving matchmaker is a good idea. As long as it is not mandatory for everybody.

I think there should be the ability for Axis and Allie queue in matchmaking. It is simply more efficient for finding a game. Why don't you like random maps? I know its just a person opinion but I am nonetheless curious.

 

[DoubleDan68]

I think that the fairest way to implement map voting is that instead of a veto, you can pick 3-4 preferred maps that will give you a higher rate. That way people who really really want to have a good map for their deck can have a chance, and prevents maps from never ever appearing that could happen in a veto system. Just a reminder that divisions in WW2 did not always have the best equipment or personal for the battle. Because things aren't equal, it is unrealistic to expect to always have an absolutely equal egagement on a asymmetrical map. Unless you want Lehr vs Lehr on a empty field...................... Not very fun I'll tell you that...................... Personally I don't want map choice to be anything more than: preferred terrain: forest, hegderow, city, plains, marine.......... But if you want it to be fair, half the time you get a good map, you need to get a bad map..................

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

I think there should be the ability for Axis and Allie queue in matchmaking. It is simply more efficient for finding a game. Why don't you like random maps? I know its just a person opinion but I am nonetheless curious.

I fin it really concerning that despite the game losing players and the community coming up with great ways to retain and grow the game, Eugen and paradox are both being very quiet and not doing anything to show the community how they are fixing things. There is nothing to gain with keeping it a secret. Eugen please be open and don't troll us, the player base. It's just rude..

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

I think that the fairest way to implement map voting is that instead of a veto, you can pick 3-4 preferred maps that will give you a higher rate. That way people who really really want to have a good map for their deck can have a chance, and prevents maps from never ever appearing that could happen in a veto system. Just a reminder that divisions in WW2 did not always have the best equipment or personal for the battle. Because things aren't equal, it is unrealistic to expect to always have an absolutely equal egagement on a asymmetrical map. Unless you want Lehr vs Lehr on a empty field...................... Not very fun I'll tell you that...................... Personally I don't want map choice to be anything more than: preferred terrain: forest, hegderow, city, plains, marine.......... But if you want it to be fair, half the time you get a good map, you need to get a bad map..................

I think map vetoing would work once we get at least 10-20 new maps. But your right. Not all divisions had the luxury of fighting in the perfect conditions..

 

[DoubleDan68]

I think map vetoing would work once we get at least 10-20 new maps. But your right. Not all divisions had the luxury of fighting in the perfect conditions..

Well I don't really want snowflakes picking to never fight on a particular map because of there deck not being the absolute best for fighting in an area of it... . And I don't want to play as USA on the Eastern front with dlc maps......

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Well I don't really want snowflakes picking to never fight on a particular map because of there deck not being the absolute best for fighting in an area of it... . And I don't want to play as USA on the Eastern front with dlc maps......

Oh no I wasn't talking about Eastern front maps but the other Western locations like the Ardennes. No I wouldn't want the British fighting at Kursk let alone the allies fighting with the Russians on any location but Berlin

 

[IS-2]

eesturn froont espansion pegkkkk...........................................

103 SS SCHWERER panzer abteilung.... .GIGIBIBIBIBIIB IS2..........

 

[iamthatiam]

There are some of us that only play the game for 10v10. I like being part of a large team. I come from the competitive FPS community where that's the standard (Quake has never had the following of Counter-Strike). I get a lot more satisfaction out of succeeding as part of a group than the satisfaction I get out of succeeding alone.

So 10v10 is a very rare feature for RTS's (I can only think of World in Conflict outside of Eugen games) that sold me on Wargame: AirLand Battle and 95% of my time in WG and SD has been spent playing it. Remove it from the game, and I wouldn't have bought SD or WG.

Fair point.

 

[Drrty-D]

ALB - Had no view profile button
- People drop like flies when the match starts
- Noobs join games they shouldn't, even if you put "no noobs" in the title
- People quit during match when they realize their teammates are noobs
- Good players end up playing bad players and not enjoying themselves.
- Bad players end up playing good players and not enjoying themselves.
- Teams could not be easily balanced even if you tried.
+ Can't easily dodge good players
+ Easier for noobs to get into a game

RD - HAD a view stats button
+ Good players looking for good players have a way of doing this.
+ Bad players looking for bad players have a way of doing this and have a warning before they get into an unbalanced match.
+ People playing with randoms have a way of assessing if the match will be fair
- Players can dodge / kick good players
- Harder for bad players to find matches (will get kicked)
- Easier for skilled players to find bad players and deliberately stomp them to infalte win ratios

Now in SD we are back to the ALB system.

There was a reason "view stats" was added to RD. People seem to have forgotten. People say it's sooo bad that people dodge or kick bad players. In truth, it allows people to self-matchmake, which was better than nothing, for better and worse. It really annoys me how people people just take a dump on the view profile system without considering all the data. If you ask me, it was worth the drawbacks. It's not perfect, but it was better than what we had. Yes, it was lobby simulator, but ALB was start a game, don't enjoy yourself, start another game, don't enjoy yourself simulator which was even worse. It was a goddamn nightmare if you were a good player looking for FAIR matches.

You forget W:EE

Best in game UI ever imo,only elo and levels are shown,i dont remember 100% but stats could be seen after the match.

Visibility of 1vs1-4vs4 ranked searching,clan system .
Altough the game was only 1 year old it had 1 big 4vs4 and 2 or 3 3vs3 tourneys/leagues if i remember correctly.

Matches could be found easy unless you have a high elo,the pubstompers would kick you but thats why you have friends who stoped the game and play on their accounts without elo .

I agree with you and as i wrote many times back on the forum i belive that RD system was "good" and our own matchmaker,but ye,what can you do about it when most people just wanna have easy afternoon games and used the system to pick opponents and pwn noobs mostly.

 

[Drrty-D]

There are some of us that only play the game for 10v10. I like being part of a large team. I come from the competitive FPS community where that's the standard (Quake has never had the following of Counter-Strike). I get a lot more satisfaction out of succeeding as part of a group than the satisfaction I get out of succeeding alone.

So 10v10 is a very rare feature for RTS's (I can only think of World in Conflict outside of Eugen games) that sold me on Wargame: AirLand Battle and 95% of my time in WG and SD has been spent playing it. Remove it from the game, and I wouldn't have bought SD or WG.

Fair point.

Ye,to be honest,the 10 vs 10 guys are the ones keeping W:RD alive,without it it would dwell at 100-200 players online.

I have been playing some W:RD and lurking the lobbies in the last 2,3 weeks and 90% of the people playin it are 10 vs 10 guys,6-10 servers are always in game and you can see here and there some 1vs1-4vs4 destro,conq games hosted and thats it.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I fin it really concerning that despite the game losing players and the community coming up with great ways to retain and grow the game, Eugen and paradox are both being very quiet and not doing anything to show the community how they are fixing things. There is nothing to gain with keeping it a secret. Eugen please be open and don't troll us, the player base. It's just rude..

All the hope surrounding Paradox possibly taking a lead on this game has completely evaporated.

It feels like a dead product. Not even talking about player-base. The developer and the publisher are both practically silent apart from announcements. Eugen barely responds on the forums and Paradox like doesn't at all.

The game is right at 2 months old and I feel like we've got the same level of interaction as Red Dragon has now. WTF?

 

[Dundradal]

All the hope surrounding Paradox possibly taking a lead on this game has completely evaporated.

It feels like a dead product. Not even talking about player-base. The developer and the publisher are both practically silent apart from announcements. Eugen barely responds on the forums and Paradox like doesn't at all.

The game is right at 2 months old and I feel like we've got the same level of interaction as Red Dragon has now. WTF?

It does feel awfully quiet on the Western front...it like they are pushing out blog posts because they have to. Even though, at this point, no one needs a divisional breakdown. People need to hear stuff is in motion, see progress on, well, anything. No need to give us the whole plan of operations, but at least let us know there is light ahead.

I'm also in one of the worst spots as a player: Pacific time zone, USA. Whenever I log in during the evening I'm lucky if there are 300 players. And even then I wonder where/what they are playing since 99% of the big servers are empty and there are hardly any user servers up.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

All the hope surrounding Paradox possibly taking a lead on this game has completely evaporated.

It feels like a dead product. Not even talking about player-base. The developer and the publisher are both practically silent apart from announcements. Eugen barely responds on the forums and Paradox like doesn't at all.

The game is right at 2 months old and I feel like we've got the same level of interaction as Red Dragon has now. WTF?

It does feel awfully quiet on the Western front...it like they are pushing out blog posts because they have to. Even though, at this point, no one needs a divisional breakdown. People need to hear stuff is in motion, see progress on, well, anything. No need to give us the whole plan of operations, but at least let us know there is light ahead.

I'm also in one of the worst spots as a player: Pacific time zone, USA. Whenever I log in during the evening I'm lucky if there are 300 players. And even then I wonder where/what they are playing since 99% of the big servers are empty and there are hardly any user servers up.

Better than new Zealand time