-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I won't even go near the Destruction servers. They shouldn't even be in the game. War isn't won by destruction, it's won by conquest.
Honestly, the only way to get more people would be to sell more. Looking at the steam charts page, the player dropoff actually seems quite normal, at least for this kind of game (a reduction to around 10% of the initial peak). Dare I say it it might even pay off to go free-to-play at some point in the future, though that'd have to be handled very carefully.
Free-to-play is normally the worst thing ever imo. While you get some players you are forced all the time to get new ideas to take out the money of the players pockets to pay your bills. Leading to the most frustrating experiences I had. Also it seems to me that in most cases the devs start to focus only on this things and are not willing to develop stuff that isn´t buyable, for example new maps.
If you get the game for free with unlocked 1 division on each side and have to pay if you want to play the others or something like that it would be fine for me. But please no crappy system where you are forced to pay only to not have a frustrating experience because of endless grind or something like that.
If you get the game for free with unlocked 1 division on each side and have to pay if you want to play the others or something like that it would be fine for me. But please no crappy system where you are forced to pay only to not have a frustrating experience because of endless grind or something like that.
F2P is not the solution to everything. It is very difficult to implement F2P in a game that was not build around it. What do you suggest should they monetize? More Ace units? Nobody would buy that. Hello Kitty camo? That would just kill the game outright, same as units with actually different stats.
The only model I could imagine would be to split the game into a "base" and "premium" version, where the free base version includes only very few divisions and the rest + single player gets unlocked when upgrading to premium. However, this would not really work with the divisions we currently have. You would either have to give free players too little variety to get them hooked or too much content to make upgrading to premium worthwhile.
Also, games with a high learning curve generally have a hard time keeping free players around. Nobody is going to spend 50 hours to learn a game when they haven't invested anything but the time required to download the game.
Why? It is easy, the player base of Wargame was actually ignored by moving to WW2, capabilities were lost (helicopters, missiles, radars), less diversity (there aren't Scottish, Polish, French divisions but two sides, Axis and Allies and that is it), limited environment (Normandy) and they lost a niche where they didn't have any opposition.
For those who don't remember the discussion about a Wargame set in WW2, here it is the reaction of WG player base:
http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?f=204&t=57242
Top 10 reasons for which Cold War setting would have been better and wouldn't have alienated a big chunk of community/player base:
1. Much more diversity: with Normandy they lost Russian market and there are no perspective for Asian markets (China, India); with a Cold War scenario they could have thrown India v Pakistan later, Arab-Israeli conflicts etc. I don't buy the fear about forum wars on sensible themes, it was dealt pretty well with Ukraine conflict and a potential Yugo forum flame war considering what happened there not such a long time ago. Suez crisis? Yom-kippur war? Korea? Balkans? China vs Soviet Union reloaded? China vs India? Cuba vs South Africa? Plenty of scenarios to work with. Naval re-worked would have added a whole new dimension.
2. Limited capabilities of weaponry: no helos, ATGMs, radars, MANPADS, air support, IFVs, APCs for everybody, SEAD
3. Balance wouldn't have been a problem if all would have been capped to 1991-1992 without exceptions. No proto working before this date, not in the game, plain and simple.
4. Map variety: desert, woods, open fields, beaches, mountains, tundra...vs. bocages.
5. W:EE, W:ALB and W:RD only started to tap into the well of variety that the Cold War can offer on a spawn of more than 15 years (1975 - 1991) with possibility to go back even to 60s. WW2 was overdone and won't appeal to a community that already expressed doubts about going back in time.
6. Deck construction limitations/restrictions in division system. RD was closest we got to most national decks being a viable option.
7. No matchmaking to date...
8. Less mobile gameplay with an obvious focus on artillery and infantry and we all know how many complaints were against arty spam on WG...now we have off field arty
more like a 10 v 10 meta with arty spam which would result in static front with much less meeting engagements like in WG.
9. They chose to let go a niche where nobody else had a game. The WWII niche, on the other hand, is being targeted by several companies.
10. well, no time to look for 10th but I think is enough for today.
Don't get me wrong, I am WG player, I bought SD top release because I appreciate Eugen's work and chances to have a new Cold War game if SD is successful are bigger but I do prefer WG ...
For those who don't remember the discussion about a Wargame set in WW2, here it is the reaction of WG player base:
http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?f=204&t=57242
Top 10 reasons for which Cold War setting would have been better and wouldn't have alienated a big chunk of community/player base:
1. Much more diversity: with Normandy they lost Russian market and there are no perspective for Asian markets (China, India); with a Cold War scenario they could have thrown India v Pakistan later, Arab-Israeli conflicts etc. I don't buy the fear about forum wars on sensible themes, it was dealt pretty well with Ukraine conflict and a potential Yugo forum flame war considering what happened there not such a long time ago. Suez crisis? Yom-kippur war? Korea? Balkans? China vs Soviet Union reloaded? China vs India? Cuba vs South Africa? Plenty of scenarios to work with. Naval re-worked would have added a whole new dimension.
2. Limited capabilities of weaponry: no helos, ATGMs, radars, MANPADS, air support, IFVs, APCs for everybody, SEAD
3. Balance wouldn't have been a problem if all would have been capped to 1991-1992 without exceptions. No proto working before this date, not in the game, plain and simple.
4. Map variety: desert, woods, open fields, beaches, mountains, tundra...vs. bocages.
5. W:EE, W:ALB and W:RD only started to tap into the well of variety that the Cold War can offer on a spawn of more than 15 years (1975 - 1991) with possibility to go back even to 60s. WW2 was overdone and won't appeal to a community that already expressed doubts about going back in time.
6. Deck construction limitations/restrictions in division system. RD was closest we got to most national decks being a viable option.
7. No matchmaking to date...
8. Less mobile gameplay with an obvious focus on artillery and infantry and we all know how many complaints were against arty spam on WG...now we have off field arty
more like a 10 v 10 meta with arty spam which would result in static front with much less meeting engagements like in WG.9. They chose to let go a niche where nobody else had a game. The WWII niche, on the other hand, is being targeted by several companies.
10. well, no time to look for 10th but I think is enough for today.
Don't get me wrong, I am WG player, I bought SD top release because I appreciate Eugen's work and chances to have a new Cold War game if SD is successful are bigger but I do prefer WG ...
Last edited:
Cold war sucks imo because it was a "cold" war. WW2 was war and it´s a lot more interesting to play it than a fictive hot war scenario imo.
I believe the reasons are not the ww2 setting. A lot of ww2 games sell great and has a lot of customers.
And some of your points don´t even hit the WW2 setting, things like "Less mobile gameplay with an obvious focus on artillery and infantry" are general game decissions and would be probably the same in a cold war scenario from the same dev.
Also the point with no matchmaking is no real reason, beside the fact that a small playerbase is making a good matchmaking impossible, no matter in which setting.
I believe the reasons are not the ww2 setting. A lot of ww2 games sell great and has a lot of customers.
And some of your points don´t even hit the WW2 setting, things like "Less mobile gameplay with an obvious focus on artillery and infantry" are general game decissions and would be probably the same in a cold war scenario from the same dev.
Also the point with no matchmaking is no real reason, beside the fact that a small playerbase is making a good matchmaking impossible, no matter in which setting.
That's what you believe but big chunk of WG player base disagree with your idea about Cold War and this game was made, according with Eugen's statement, for this player base.
You obviously don't know Wargame so I don't see how you can compare it. It moves much faster than SD with a much older engine. I do agree this SD engine have some good new stuff but this is all, other than that, WW2 setting is just bland.
You obviously don't know Wargame so I don't see how you can compare it. It moves much faster than SD with a much older engine. I do agree this SD engine have some good new stuff but this is all, other than that, WW2 setting is just bland.
That´s why I wrote 2 times "in my opinion", it doesn´t attract me, but I don´t deny that it attract others.
I bought it but it didn´t hit me to be honest. I read some things about it in the time I started with SD and if I remember right it took a more or less long road to get a good game. I hope it´s the same for SD, only without the road being so long. ;-)
Edit: Btw., I have no problems with the engine but I have a good computer. I love the engine, it looks really amazing, especially on 3 x 27" screens.
I bought it but it didn´t hit me to be honest. I read some things about it in the time I started with SD and if I remember right it took a more or less long road to get a good game. I hope it´s the same for SD, only without the road being so long. ;-)
Edit: Btw., I have no problems with the engine but I have a good computer. I love the engine, it looks really amazing, especially on 3 x 27" screens.
Indeed, if unlocking all the divisions cost what it might cost to buy the game straight up, that seems sustainable - people who play the full game will be paying the full price, and people who actually have bought the game already simply get access to it all already. Otherwise, it gives an easier in to people who don't want to pay full price for a game they aren't sure about. I don't think there should be any "grind" mechanic or ingame unlockables - if you don't buy the game, you only get access to extremely limited content and you can pay to unlock the rest. Similar to a demo if you like.
Do understand I'm not necessarily saying they SHOULD do it, like I said it'd have to be handled very carefully, but I don't see many better ways of solving the player drought. The simple fact is that if you want more players in multiplayer, you need more players in the game. If your goal is to increase the availability of players and games then going free to play is the best bet for that, however distasteful one may find the concept. There is no barrier to entry at that point and it'll likely result in an increase in games. Just facts.
One issue i recognized with this game is the matchmaker. Why are there no rules which players are being matched against each other? Top players are being matches against people who literally play their first game which obviously results in lots of rather uninteresting games for both sides (and does a great job in scaring off new players ofcourse). I mean that's common sense, don't have a clue why it was implemented this way.
I think there are parameters but no one uses it because the population dropped so heavily and the only people left are a few 1v1 people and hordes of 10v10 destruction players.
Simple fix to current game Remove vehicle offmap Only 5 man infantry squads with carbines or SMGs range would be about 600M
Individual battles can perfectly well be won through attrition. So can whole wars, for that matter.
Whether Destruction is good for gameplay is another questions
.To each their own, but I love the 70-80's Cold War setting myself as the technology you get is so interesting. Tanks are still powerful machines of war, but helicopters and guided missiles in general are becoming advanced enough to be a force to be reckoned with, so you have lots of interesting tactcs like harrassing tank coloumns with jeep-mounted rocket launchers.
The Wargame devs also made an effort to create relatively plausible cold war scenarios, like the Chinese and British fighting over Hong Kong, a short series of skirmishes between East and West Germany, or a civil war in Soviet-occupied Poland. They required some suspension of disbelief, but they were much more believable than the all-out nuclear WW3 scenario we tend to get, usually with a ground invasion of the USA by the Soviet Union
.
Last edited:
Individual battles can perfectly well be won through attrition. So can whole wars, for that matter.
Whether Destruction is good for gameplay is another questions
Except in destruction mode you will actually LOSE through attrition. The ultimate goal of war is to secure or defend (i.e. occupy). Doing this in the most efficient manner is obviously commendable, but this is not the ultimate goal. If you take heavy losses in battle but secure victory through occupation then you will most likely save more lives in the long run. At least that is how the old story goes.
That´s why I wrote 2 times "in my opinion", it doesn´t attract me, but I don´t deny that it attract others.
I bought it but it didn´t hit me to be honest. I read some things about it in the time I started with SD and if I remember right it took a more or less long road to get a good game. I hope it´s the same for SD, only without the road being so long. ;-)
Edit: Btw., I have no problems with the engine but I have a good computer. I love the engine, it looks really amazing, especially on 3 x 27" screens.
Apologies, I didn't probably worded well. What I wanted to say is that your opinion/statement is not supported by any evidence or at least some arguments, you just state plainly that WW2 sells better and you didn't actually bring any argument in discussion against my post.
Let me resume it for you: a 3 yo Cold War game have more online players than SD. The player base of WG didn't made the move to SD from various reasons (and I think I listed some of them) which is causing issues because the player base of the new game is very low.
To this statement you come and say WW2 sells better and the game looks good. It is not quite relevant for the situation and I didn't deny any of your statements
Last edited:
I suspect it's partly down to the low population; it's kind of a convenience thing - why would I sit twiddling my thumbs for five minutes trying to find a game in MP when the AI can give a satisfying match without the wait. Beyond that it's simply a question of making the multiplayer more attractive - at the minute the only thing I can't do in an AI skirmish is 10 v 10, maybe add another mode or two that's only available in multiplayer?
Doubtful it'd go free to play, but I suspect a Steam free weekend with a 15 - 25% discount on the game might work wonders. Probably want to wait until the DLC launch though.
About DLC, I do think an eastern front pack would help a lot, I know like 3 people who say they'd be much more interested in it if it contained the eastern front (I do know quite a few commies though so take that with a pinch of salt).