Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

"The Division Bell" update is now available!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 2266 Please link&sync your Paradox account to Steam Steel Division - Let's Plays and AARs!
Uncle_Joe said:
When you say 10v10, are you talking about the Sword map or the 4v4 maps? The latter I could see being subject to arty/offboard spam but to me, that goes with the choice to play under those conditions (ie, way too many points/players per frontage).
Click to expand...

It's the same for both. Same amount of off map in a shorter amount of time. When your units are retreating for at least 4 minutes or so, it's pretty frustrating. Off map should be in the game and it's role is needed, but reducing the time for these games has made it's use way more devastating. Changing off map isn't what anyone is asking for, just give us more time to eat the damage and re-organize ( that means go back to 40 minute games ).
 
Cant wait to try the new patch! I think the changes will be interesting to try out, specially the axis infantry decks. Im amaze to see a lot of whine and devbashing in here, quite toxic coments, loser frustration perhaps? I enjoy the game since release and theres always a counter to everything and if it didnt work out this one or two games u have it mind för the next ones, but just having a steaming rage for a game? Come on just enjoy it or play something else.

Ty for the game Keep up the good work.
 
Stop trying to ruin the game by making bad changes. Change 10v10s back the way they were. We can't even use phase C shit now half the time. Fire whoever is in charge of ideas for patches, and replace them with someone smarter.
 
"The Division Bell", hm?

ACPPR48134.jpg
 
Dianno5741 said:
.
Further point: stop arguing for true historical accuracy. Game balance takes priority. 76mm Sherman gets to be 1200m. Why? Balance. Sure we can make the stug IV and JPIV the same 1200m. Realism right? Cool. No airforce tab for Axis. Tiger tanks have a 20% chance of breakdowns. Allies get immediate numbers advantage and artillery advantage, overwhelmingly so. Realistic enough? Having fun yet?
Click to expand...

THEY tell the world their game is REALISTIC.
Which is a blatant lie.
If they make decisions based on balance... fine, but then they should say their game is realistic.
Simple as that.

But it seems the Eugen Hype Train is still running strong in you.
 
Thonar said:
THEY tell the world their game is REALISTIC.
Click to expand...

Many does, there try to be as "realistic" as possible given what they have to work with.
There are few very realistic games (and none truly realistic, just join the army...).

I am sure you are growth and smart enough to understand that you have high expectations and then you wont label this game as realistic for yourself.
However, you know very well this game is more realistic and can be labelled as, than the majority found on the base common market.
But still you force yourself to not admit it and act like an annoying child.

Thonar said:
But it seems the Eugen Hype Train is still running strong in you.
Click to expand...

Great answer to someone post. Very necessary.
Do not even bother answer to me, i do not need your 4chan behaviour.

PS: i am sure off topic, my apologies.
Mod delete my post if you feels it.
 
Thonar you've been butt hurt about your wehrabooing PIV since day 1.

CoH claims it's realistic. I guess rifle ranges were only tens of feet right???

You forgot that I would agree to your realism. As soon as you embrace that Axis would have no airforce and their tanks would suffer atrocious break downs and other maintenance issues. Axis artillery aim time is increased. They never had effective ToT for tactical engagements. Railway offmap?? Lol like maybe one shell lands. Also allies get an immediate plus 100 phase A income increase. REALISM.

Or you can have all of that back at the cost of 200m. On a tank you probably don't use.
 
Dianno5741 said:
Thonar you've been butt hurt about your wehrabooing PIV since day 1.

CoH claims it's realistic. I guess rifle ranges were only tens of feet right???

You forgot that I would agree to your realism. As soon as you embrace that Axis would have no airforce and their tanks would suffer atrocious break downs and other maintenance issues. Axis artillery aim time is increased. They never had effective ToT for tactical engagements. Railway offmap?? Lol like maybe one shell lands. Also allies get an immediate plus 100 phase A income increase. REALISM.

Or you can have all of that back at the cost of 200m. On a tank you probably don't use.
Click to expand...

It's true Thonar, I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of the Operation Overlord airdrop blotting out the goddamn sun, but when the Allied forces launched the largest marine/airborne invasion in all of human history to date they did not come to play, they came to kill Nazis, and to that end they brought better men and more of them. Do you wanna play that game? We could call it "Ken Burns' Wehraboo Crybaby Utah Beach." It's a documentary, where you just watch the nation and people of Germany mercilessly and justly ass-hammered into a century of whimpering gimphood on the world stage. You play that game, I'll play this one, about buckets of toy Army guys from my childhood, that actually move and shoot like goddamn magic.
 
Ohh look, all those historians that can't differentiate between what is shown ingame and the broader picture.
Yes, regarding assets as Airforce and Artillery you're correct.... and that's what could be shown ingame actually.
Regarding numbers? Not really. As this isn't part of the ingame level of operations.


What grinds my gears is that they say their game is "realistic" but don't have a certain ruleset how to calculate stats/ availabilities so that the way the ingame weapons relate to eachother ingame is despite the necessary simplification in a correct relation.
That is not the case.
Instead we got fantasy stats marketed as "realism".... while again unicorns found their way into the game.

This is what grinds my gears.
And I'm not even going in to the arcadey air-game compared to the ground-warfare.

It's not like they did the same shit in WG:RD...
 
Uncle_Joe said:
When you say 10v10, are you talking about the Sword map or the 4v4 maps? The latter I could see being subject to arty/offboard spam but to me, that goes with the choice to play under those conditions (ie, way too many points/players per frontage).
Click to expand...

Both. Obviously 4vs4 maps are worse in this regard but it's not my point. I'm used to this arty/offmap spam in 10vs10 but i'm not used to not be able to do shit in phase C nowadays with it. It makes stronger the effect of every offmap, you're stuck with units dying or being stunned in your entire phase C. This game and the decks in it are not build around 30 minutes of play but 40 minutes. 40 minutes is way more fun cause you may bring your expensive units the game gives you in phase C and have a go even after offmap got their fair share of your troops.

But whatever, i hope we'll not loose to many 10vs10 players. As i said, it's not as fun as before, when you've tried them both (40min -30 min) you see a huge difference.
 
Thanks Devs for the update to what is seriously one of the best tactical game ive played in years

The balance changes looks fair and interesting, for a game of this complexity ,featuring two A symetrical sides tweaking balance will be ongoing mission im sure.

But one humble request....

Please reconsider the time limit changes to 10v10 games.

30 minutes is far to short imvho. Time spent waiting to get a 10v10 going often is longer than that. I was hoping for longer time limit not shorter.

Captures the epic allies rush and axis counter offence. ( and yes i do play allies and enjoy the phase C challenge)

Thanks again and i hope this input is useful.
 
Dianno5741 said:
No wonder Eugen doesn't talk much. The patch has been out for 9 hours and everyone is an expert. I see a ton of whining about why the patch isn't how you or others suggested it.
Click to expand...

Yes,its sad to see that no matter how hard they try to open up and connect to the players it always ends up in some mess :(..But this 4 pages is nothing compared to W:AB, W:RD patches,if it wasnt 10 pages of WTF? EUGEN,nerf this,why buff that topics after 2,3 hours it wasnt a a "good" patch.
 
Gilmund said:
Both. Obviously 4vs4 maps are worse in this regard but it's not my point. I'm used to this arty/offmap spam in 10vs10 but i'm not used to not be able to do shit in phase C nowadays with it. It makes stronger the effect of every offmap, you're stuck with units dying or being stunned in your entire phase C. This game and the decks in it are not build around 30 minutes of play but 40 minutes. 40 minutes is way more fun cause you may bring your expensive units the game gives you in phase C and have a go even after offmap got their fair share of your troops.

But whatever, i hope we'll not loose to many 10vs10 players. As i said, it's not as fun as before, when you've tried them both (40min -30 min) you see a huge difference.
Click to expand...
2 hrs after patch release, I couldn't get a 10v10 game in Australia evening time.

I'm of the view that 'next game', there has to be a dedicated 10v10 mode, with its' own balancing and choice of maps...make it legitimate as a game mode.
 
morpher said:
Oh yes, they try so hard.
Click to expand...

What else is there to say,i cant help the fact that you have something deeply against U'GEN ,is the because you got permabanned because of your even more hatred towards JUGOSLAVIJA in W:RD forum?

Do you expect me to give you examples how (hard) they tried it since W:EE until now ?
I will do it if you say Jugo is OP nerf naow or i uninstall the game and record it over TS
 
@EUG_MadMat @EUG_FLX Why do you guys not have Paradox's mods enforce the same very lax rules that exist in every other forum on this site?

I don't agree with many of the decisions your team has made with balance, but I also think the level of disrespect and hostility in here is deeply unhelpful for all sides of the discussion and especially unlikely to bring about the sort of developer engagement that the community has been asking for since day one. We don't need toxic shit flinging by people who are cranky that this or that change wasn't made. Even if I agree with their opinion, the methods used to express it are wildly inappropriate.

Please do your community a favor and have some ground rules for participation in this portion of it. Disagreement is fine, poor behavior really shouldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back