-
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.
Unfortunately, it becomes a self-feeding problem. I'd still love to play, but when I log on the ONLY things available are those horrid 10v10 on 4v4 maps. I'm not going to torture myself with that crap so I just log off or play an AI game and call it a night.
I'm sure there are a lot of people in the same boat who, by now, have either given up or are close to giving up. I haven't logged on in a few weeks because each night was the same. And seeing the player counts that people are reporting, I don't see anything that would make me think that things have improved and I could actually get a real game.
I think Eugen did themselves a HUGE disservice by pushing out the 10v10 on 4v4 maps and then compounded the issue by releasing even more. The standard 10v10 on Sword at least has a passing resemblance to the regular gameplay. The overloaded maps are just spam-fests of arty and air. At the very least they should have cut starting points and income down for those maps.
At any rate, I've more or less given up on the game and it's a damned shame because mechanically and balance-wise, the game plays very well these days. I have never seen a MP game community be so poorly run, dating all the way back to the 'we know better' beta interactions. Follow it up with a continuous string of poor decisions and then throw in some technical server issues and boom, he were are.
I'm sure there are a lot of people in the same boat who, by now, have either given up or are close to giving up. I haven't logged on in a few weeks because each night was the same. And seeing the player counts that people are reporting, I don't see anything that would make me think that things have improved and I could actually get a real game.
I think Eugen did themselves a HUGE disservice by pushing out the 10v10 on 4v4 maps and then compounded the issue by releasing even more. The standard 10v10 on Sword at least has a passing resemblance to the regular gameplay. The overloaded maps are just spam-fests of arty and air. At the very least they should have cut starting points and income down for those maps.
At any rate, I've more or less given up on the game and it's a damned shame because mechanically and balance-wise, the game plays very well these days. I have never seen a MP game community be so poorly run, dating all the way back to the 'we know better' beta interactions. Follow it up with a continuous string of poor decisions and then throw in some technical server issues and boom, he were are.
Yes, thanks for the suggestions. They are basically reading and taking in consideration every suggestion, and have plans for the future of Steel Division: Normandy 44. I understand your concern, but for the moment, that's all I can say.
Giving up on a game is also a plan for the future... even if people tend to forget that option.
Nevertheless: Eugen has sold its copies and is probably already working on... don't know... probably a successor to a huge and innovative game... like... SteelDivision 2?
Second day in a row waiting in a Quick Match queue for over 5 minutes with no success. One up to two rooms open at a time. Yea. It's dead. I don't think that I'll ever buy another game from Eugen... the way that they managed the community and multiplayer mode in this game was simply pathetic. Actually most mobile games that I play on my way to work are managed in a better way. And are free. Such a shame that they've let this great game die so easily.
So much of it could have been solved with communication. Instead, they've left us with "there are plans" but the only thing they've given us so far is a handful of balance changes that should have been done in the beta, a couple existing maps that were rotated and some new unit thumbnail art.
Hearts of Iron 4 was a buggy, unbalanced mess at launch and Stellaris had a good amount of issues but those games have done well because the devs are there posting replies in threads and posting dev diaries. Players know exactly what the devs are working on, what the devs think the issues are, previews of new stuff coming even if it is a couple months away... it gives players confidence in the game and gets them excited for the new stuff.
For all we know Eugen's "plans" are to rotate the last 5 maps and call it done.
Hearts of Iron 4 was a buggy, unbalanced mess at launch and Stellaris had a good amount of issues but those games have done well because the devs are there posting replies in threads and posting dev diaries. Players know exactly what the devs are working on, what the devs think the issues are, previews of new stuff coming even if it is a couple months away... it gives players confidence in the game and gets them excited for the new stuff.
For all we know Eugen's "plans" are to rotate the last 5 maps and call it done.
Imo the game itself isnt the problem (its well designed and could attract a larger audience then it currently does), however the matchmaking system is:
1. It takes too long to get a game (sometimes 10+ mins for a quick match).
2. Matchups are often unfair (noobs against top players or stacked teams).
These issues cause players to drop the game, and as they do so these problems increase (a self feeding problem as someone already said).
Looking at the gamemodes available i feel like the amount of players was greatly overestimated, having an autoqueue and a lobby supporting 20players in a single match requires a much larger playerbase then the game currently has.
In order to reduce wait times and to generate more fair matchups i suggest the following:
Remove 10v10 "official servers" from the lobby, they occupy way too many players per match and tbh i don't see what they add gameplay wise, mostly they're even played on 4v4 maps. This should feed the majority of the players into the autoqueue (The lobby should basicly just be there for private games, tournaments etc.)
Create an algorithm for the autoqueue that matches equal opponents against each other, only match uneven opponents when waiting times increase. Dunno if this is already implemented however such a matchmaker needs a sufficient number of players to work, hence i suggest to feed as many players as possible into the queue.
Allow queueing with an allied and an axis deck to give the matchmaker more options.
1. It takes too long to get a game (sometimes 10+ mins for a quick match).
2. Matchups are often unfair (noobs against top players or stacked teams).
These issues cause players to drop the game, and as they do so these problems increase (a self feeding problem as someone already said).
Looking at the gamemodes available i feel like the amount of players was greatly overestimated, having an autoqueue and a lobby supporting 20players in a single match requires a much larger playerbase then the game currently has.
In order to reduce wait times and to generate more fair matchups i suggest the following:
Remove 10v10 "official servers" from the lobby, they occupy way too many players per match and tbh i don't see what they add gameplay wise, mostly they're even played on 4v4 maps. This should feed the majority of the players into the autoqueue (The lobby should basicly just be there for private games, tournaments etc.)
Create an algorithm for the autoqueue that matches equal opponents against each other, only match uneven opponents when waiting times increase. Dunno if this is already implemented however such a matchmaker needs a sufficient number of players to work, hence i suggest to feed as many players as possible into the queue.
Allow queueing with an allied and an axis deck to give the matchmaker more options.
Ah yes, the super-secret Act of Aggression Reboot strategy. I'm sure it'll work this time...
these thing have been sudgested repeatedly before release... and i really wish they added them.
i also really wish we could remove 10v10 but now it is a staple of the series the damage is done. it has its own little self contained community i dont think any real players actually play 10v10 and the clown 10 v 10 kids barely step out of there play pen also. removing it would do nothing but damage the game as much as i hate that mode i think its the truth.
the game is to difficult for the 10v10 noobs, so if we removed it 90% of them would just permantely quit. 10v10 is at least keeping some players in the game, mostly housing the paradox gamer crowd i think .
Remove 10v10 and you remove a big slab of the existing player base...last night, Australian time, there was 285+- online, with two 10v10 games running, and another waiting.
Perhaps if 1v1 was removed, those players would boost up the 10v10 numbers?
Perhaps if 1v1 was removed, those players would boost up the 10v10 numbers?
Although I try to play some games in 4v4 everyday because the game still attracts me, I have to join with most comments that suggest lot should be done, or should have been done by now (if by the release date) to give the game a good chance to survive, especially with its very specific MP nature.
The community is getting smaller and smaller everyday, and thoug I tend to meet more and more experienced player on the battlefield, I still often meet people that play poorly and/or ragequit in the middle of the game. We all met those game when in start of pahse C, you're basically playing a stupid match in 4vs1+3AIs.
This game had a lot of hype surrounding it in the beta and the twitch (though they were already showing some amateurism at the time) and if this beta phase could have run a bit longer, say 2 months, with carefully paced division releases, the game would still be alive by now. That rushed release in may was way to early and way to brutal. We got too much at once. If the beta has last longer, there would surely have been ways to adress all the problems around the MP and I'm not talking about the game balance (which is fine).
Eugen gave the impression it was very ambitious with Steel Division and it surely fouled many people like me into buying it. 40€ is probably way too expensive when you compare it to many other games on Steam. Now when I paid those 40€, I was under the impression there was still a big room for improvement, like in other Paradox games (see examples in posts above). However, since the recent server crisis (still not solved at the moment I'm writting) I do think Eugen is already done for developping this game. The rushed release and the partnership with Paradox Interactive lets me imagine Eugen, which must be a small studio fighting for its survival, was under financial pressure during the whole time. Release day must have been a deliverance for them, at least, that's how I felt it. While after the release they kept showing good attentions (od of the month, major patches announcements), it does seem they did not finance the borrowing of a bigger team or bigger studio (just like World of Tanks did in the early days)... Which is very sad from our perspective. But maybe, the money they earned at the release was just enough to save the Studio from dying. I know these specualtions ae what they are : long shots.
They bring me to my final point : Paradox moved to associate with Eugen. Don't they have something to say about what comes next ? Can't they push toward more developpment ? I dont know what Paradox role has been in this story, but they are our last hope. This game is NOT finished. We paid 40€ for a game that WOULD BE finished by the standards of the early 2000s.
What's more, I posted a negative review on steam a week after the rushed-release telling things almost the same way I tell them to you know. Eugen came and asked me to remove my comment because things (mostly matchmaking issue - still not solved today) were being dealt with. As they took me by the sentiments, I agreed to remove my review, telling myself they needed a chance. Now, that nothing has changed, I somehow feel I've been manipulated.
Anyways. I still enjoy the game when the fight begins, it could be a great game really, even by other game standards like starcraft, but it's all wasted.
I keep my fingers crossed though. I do think people at Eugen are very clever and crafty and I'm sure they could surprise us in the next months. If they haven't decided already that they're done for.
The community is getting smaller and smaller everyday, and thoug I tend to meet more and more experienced player on the battlefield, I still often meet people that play poorly and/or ragequit in the middle of the game. We all met those game when in start of pahse C, you're basically playing a stupid match in 4vs1+3AIs.
This game had a lot of hype surrounding it in the beta and the twitch (though they were already showing some amateurism at the time) and if this beta phase could have run a bit longer, say 2 months, with carefully paced division releases, the game would still be alive by now. That rushed release in may was way to early and way to brutal. We got too much at once. If the beta has last longer, there would surely have been ways to adress all the problems around the MP and I'm not talking about the game balance (which is fine).
Eugen gave the impression it was very ambitious with Steel Division and it surely fouled many people like me into buying it. 40€ is probably way too expensive when you compare it to many other games on Steam. Now when I paid those 40€, I was under the impression there was still a big room for improvement, like in other Paradox games (see examples in posts above). However, since the recent server crisis (still not solved at the moment I'm writting) I do think Eugen is already done for developping this game. The rushed release and the partnership with Paradox Interactive lets me imagine Eugen, which must be a small studio fighting for its survival, was under financial pressure during the whole time. Release day must have been a deliverance for them, at least, that's how I felt it. While after the release they kept showing good attentions (od of the month, major patches announcements), it does seem they did not finance the borrowing of a bigger team or bigger studio (just like World of Tanks did in the early days)... Which is very sad from our perspective. But maybe, the money they earned at the release was just enough to save the Studio from dying. I know these specualtions ae what they are : long shots.
They bring me to my final point : Paradox moved to associate with Eugen. Don't they have something to say about what comes next ? Can't they push toward more developpment ? I dont know what Paradox role has been in this story, but they are our last hope. This game is NOT finished. We paid 40€ for a game that WOULD BE finished by the standards of the early 2000s.
What's more, I posted a negative review on steam a week after the rushed-release telling things almost the same way I tell them to you know. Eugen came and asked me to remove my comment because things (mostly matchmaking issue - still not solved today) were being dealt with. As they took me by the sentiments, I agreed to remove my review, telling myself they needed a chance. Now, that nothing has changed, I somehow feel I've been manipulated.
Anyways. I still enjoy the game when the fight begins, it could be a great game really, even by other game standards like starcraft, but it's all wasted.
I keep my fingers crossed though. I do think people at Eugen are very clever and crafty and I'm sure they could surprise us in the next months. If they haven't decided already that they're done for.
Just pointing out the converse of the '10v10 is evil! Burn the witches!' attitude that prevails.
It's here to stay, whether people like it or not, and to a fair extent, it seems to be keeping this game alive at the moment. One does not take the gift horse and castrate it....
10v10 is an easy, no responsibility game mode, so of course casual players are going to gravitate towards it. But in the long run I think this game mode, as it currently stands, does nothing but hurt the longevity of this game (whatevers left of it).
I would hazard at a guess that people join these servers because
1. they are dedicated servers which aren't plagued by peer to peer connection problems,
2. the rules on the server are set in concrete and can't be manipulated to suit the host,
3. people entering multiplayer will often see 10 people already waiting in a 20 player server, so what are they going to do, start a peer-to-peer match, or join 10 other players already waiting in a lobby?
4. it's a low investment game mode (just spawn some units and hope for the best).
I would hazard at a guess that people join these servers because
1. they are dedicated servers which aren't plagued by peer to peer connection problems,
2. the rules on the server are set in concrete and can't be manipulated to suit the host,
3. people entering multiplayer will often see 10 people already waiting in a 20 player server, so what are they going to do, start a peer-to-peer match, or join 10 other players already waiting in a lobby?
4. it's a low investment game mode (just spawn some units and hope for the best).
No one wants to remove 10v10 man it's just we wish it wasn't implemented. We realize how important the number boost is at this point. It's just sad to see so much wasted potential going to playing 10v10's on 4v4 maps.... Like IS2 and iam said it's just a casual game mode that people never really move past.
Makes sense. I tend to play a lot of 3v3 and 4v4 for similar reasons. Each player is still responsible for a decent section of the map but there's usually enough to spare to help each other out a bit. In random 2v2s it can sometimes feel like two 1v1 games going on side by side.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I see the solution is to legitimise it, and make it an actual serious mode...which can't be done while there exists the 'one balance tweak fits all' approach that the devs take. I've said it on previous threads, and that is to separate 10v10 from 1v1 - 4v4, have it as a separate mode, with the decks tweaked down in air and off-board artillery and certain peak units which can dominate...where a peak unit will probably never see use in a 1v1, and is unlikely to be seen in 2v2 - 4v4, they will be seen in 10v10. Tweak those capabilities down, ditch the air heavy situation and heavy off-board artillery assets, and the 10v10 game will change dramatically. If people still want to play clown cluster****, allow them to do so, but provide an alternative to it.
My guess is if this approach was taken, that there'll be a flow on effect from players having a better introduction to the game through the 10v10 mode, then transitioning to 1v1 - 4v4, which doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.