Steel Division's Real Core Gameplay Issue - Anti-Climactic Pacing

[Uncle_Joe]

I played Starcraft from the very beginning (launch week) and I can tell you that those 'windows' of vulnerability and whatnot did not evolve 2 months into the game's life-cycle either. It took months and years of play to establish some of the strategies and the map variety meant that a rush that worked on 'x' map might not even be possible on 'y' map.

It's difficult at best to compare gameplay from a game released in the late 90s RTS environment and one released now. RTS itself was in it's infancy when Starcraft hit (not long after Age of Empires and Total Annihilation). For a while 'base-building' RTS games were on the outs as players wanted to concentrate on the troops and battles rather than the econ aspects of the game. SD sort of straddles the middle between econ/no econ but there is nothing the player can do to change the pace of the econ (for better or worse). There is no 'econ boom' strategy and thus no decision to 'rush' or 'boom'.

So IMO, while Starcraft and Steel Division are both RTS games, they don't really have enough of a common mechanic to allow direct comparison in the pacing. Starcraft's economic model creates significantly different decision points and thus will greatly change the pacing. SD concentrates much more on the battle aspects with the 'economy' playing a very distant second.

 

[morpher]

I played a battle in ALB recently I can share a replay, our income was close to even all game, but it was destruction on Gol

Destruction is a flawed mode exactly because it as a snowball problem.

Line infantry and Reserves could also get availability buffs,although you might see some 'spam' of them if this was the case.

If you are keep talking about wargame I can assure you that line infantry and reservists are core units of almost every deck.

the Conquest mode in RD actually helped comeback

Conquest mode is what I am talking about.

However was more unforgiving to taking losses than this would be. Resulting in maybe more careful play. Which nothing wrong with it, however it can make still harder to have more comebacks as both players will get reinforcements at roughly the same rate.

Conquest is not unforgiving, every unit counts. The key elements that allow comebacks are equal income and command vehicles.
The high cost and vulnerability of cv set the winning player back in terms of income. First he has to buy a cv, a big investment, second he has to protect the cv. This allow the losing player the catch up in term of fighting units. Then you have the cv vulnerability, you can lose a big investment in points easily.

People complained a lot about the cv mechanics in wargame and so eugen removed them. Do you know why they complained? Because many felt unfair that after having won the initial battles, the enemy could comeback.

 

[morpher]

but I also thought it was dumb in a lot of ways because there's literally no way to scout an opening in a way that gives you time to do anything about it.

This is what makes many strategies viable.

 

[Zinegata]

can climaxes be achieved without objectives/research/unit caps? Feel free to provide some examples if you think they can.

The game was clearly designed with a mechanic that was supposed to achieve this - in the form of the Phase system. The problem, as has been outlined, is that the Phases don't actually give enough variance to the two sides in order for it to have a really dramatic effect.

The only real way to test if the Phase system can achieve these climaxes is if the differences between the Phases of different Divisions are more dramatic. For instance currently they all transition to a new phase at the same time. Try having each Division start Phase B/C at different times. Having the 12th SS be able to deploy a Tiger E at the 8 minute mark when the Scots only get their 17 pounders 12 minutes in would in many ways give the 12th SS a real timing attack window for instance.

 

[roirraw]

The game was clearly designed with a mechanic that was supposed to achieve this - in the form of the Phase system. The problem, as has been outlined, is that the Phases don't actually give enough variance to the two sides in order for it to have a really dramatic effect.

The only real way to test if the Phase system can achieve these climaxes is if the differences between the Phases of different Divisions are more dramatic. For instance currently they all transition to a new phase at the same time. Try having each Division start Phase B/C at different times. Having the 12th SS be able to deploy a Tiger E at the 8 minute mark when the Scots only get their 17 pounders 12 minutes in would in many ways give the 12th SS a real timing attack window for instance.

I think this might be something interesting to explore. Pretty good idea if you ask me. Having different phase timers for each battle group could emphasize the play style intended for the deck.

 

[Zinegata]

I played Starcraft from the very beginning (launch week) and I can tell you that those 'windows' of vulnerability and whatnot did not evolve 2 months into the game's life-cycle either. It took months and years of play to establish some of the strategies and the map variety meant that a rush that worked on 'x' map might not even be possible on 'y' map.

The issue here however is that we are not living in the 1990s anymore either. We now have access to years to Starcraft replays and observations on what people actually find fun or not. That's again for instance why there's a phase system in Steel Division.

The point isn't to be unfair to SD. The point is to use tools that we now have to make the game better. By actually putting some thought and observation on the experiential side of the equation rather than the 17th rehash of how the veterancy mechanic is broken. Most owners of the game never even cared about purely mechanical issues like veterancy to begin with - they tried the game, didn't have fun, and stopped playing.

And really, most of the feedback has been objections to the approach seemingly based on a desire to continue rehashing the said mechanical issues. That's precisely why I avoided talking about some possible mechanical solutions only to realize it's pointless to avoid the topic because people would rather insist on how wonderful so-and-so mechanic is from SD or Wargame and that pointing out it could be unfun especially to new players is automatically taken as an affront to their player experience.

The myopic focus on mechanics rather than experience is a big reason why so much of the feedback is counter-productive. People here need to take a step back and observe why people stopped playing. Telling them they're unskilled noobs because they find it boring because the experience feels like a slog/stalemate doesn't actually address their problem with the game.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I think a number of us tried to make that point shortly after launch. Mechanically working or not, balanced or not, the gameplay was just not FUN. It was grueling and frustrating and didn't make people want to play again afterwards.

The user experience was very unsatisfying and no amount of Unit X +5 and Unit Y -10 was going to change that. They did make some headway with the 'meta-change' patches, but the game itself still feels largely the same. Part of it at this point is that the player base is so low that actually getting a game is an accomplishment and if that game is bad (for whatever reason), it doesn't seem to be worth the work to try and start another.

 

[Zinegata]

I can add from myself, that what I find unique and entertaining about SD is exactly it's pacing. I'm really bored with all those RTS games that are fast paced and are won mostly by APM. There are just to many of them on the market and all are the same when it comes to pace. I was bought by SD being slow - it really enables you to use your brain rather than muscle memory. This is unique. But this is only my personal preference.

To be clear - I do not believe that pacing and a high APM requirement are related.

Rather, the point of climactic pacing is that of a gradual escalation of the game's overall complexity and excitement level. You should end the match more excited than you were at the start, preferably at the peak of your excitement level. Needing to be more active at the end of the match is a component of this (because a sense of achievement tends to be tied with the effort a player exerts, and the more this effort is tied directly to the match-end the stronger the tie-in between the effort and the result), but it doesn't mean you should have SC-level APMing to do this.

 

[Zinegata]

I think a number of us tried to make that point shortly after launch. Mechanically working or not, balanced or not, the gameplay was just not FUN. It was grueling and frustrating and didn't make people want to play again afterwards.

Yes, which is why my point is to actually try and make the reasons for why it's unfun specific and quantifiable. That's why I was very specific with regards to the issue of pacing and how matches end up feeling unsatisfying from an experiential experience rather than a mechanical one.

Modern playtesting for instance (especially for board games) now involves more observation of whether the playgroups had fun or not based on their body language, and of particular key moments in a match experience where they experienced clear joy or frustration. That's why I tried to specify the moments in a match where I generally had fun and when I felt the game turned into a slog. I felt the matches were exciting in the beginning, but there were long periods of stalemate and build-up afterwards with the game spiraling into an unsatisfying conclusion rather than a climactic final battle. Some people at least are now looking at their own experiences in these terms.

My general frustration is with the attempts to justify game mechanics or to make it a "you just need to learn to play" issue. It is much, much more than just a mechanical issue. It is an experiential issue, and people need to look deeply at how players (especially new ones) experience the game rather than try to explain how the mechanics are justified.

 

[Dundradal]

I think a number of us tried to make that point shortly after launch. Mechanically working or not, balanced or not, the gameplay was just not FUN. It was grueling and frustrating and didn't make people want to play again afterwards.

The user experience was very unsatisfying and no amount of Unit X +5 and Unit Y -10 was going to change that. They did make some headway with the 'meta-change' patches, but the game itself still feels largely the same. Part of it at this point is that the player base is so low that actually getting a game is an accomplishment and if that game is bad (for whatever reason), it doesn't seem to be worth the work to try and start another.

I think this is why a lot of players drifted into 10v10 games. They can be fun, especially if large parts of the team actually work together. It seems like more chaos, excitement, and drama is unfolding across the map because so many people are controlling units.

On the Phase and comeback discussion, this is one thing that drives me a bit crazy. Lots of people like to quit in A or B because they lost their units and think the game is already over. Yet, I've played a lot of games where I'm getting my face smashed in in A and maybe into B, but by C, I've recovered, my teammates have helped, and we start pushing back across the map. I had a great game with roirraw where we went back and forth with the other team (they made huge gains in A and B, we started climbing back in B and C) and the game ended with us getting a minor defeat, but my god was it a great game.

People like to quit if the game doesn't go right from the second it starts. SD is a game that actually has a bit of forgiveness with this because you can claw your way back with the remaining phases.

 

[nande]

Phase system

tech tiers that have lost the entirety of their meaning. If offset, they'll do what you want, but will railroad the experience yet more.

gradual escalation of the game's overall complexity and excitement level.

Why are you treating this as a rule. Does PUBG, one of the most popular games at the moment, share in that structure? Complexity lowers as its matches head to their climax, as far as I'm aware.
What I'd like to say is that complexity does not necessarily equal excitement or tension. They can just as well come from the game forcing you to into new strategies using stuff that you already have. Wargame's clearly defined zones, timer and reinforcement times did a fine job at that already. SD severely limits the scope of those strategies all while having an amorphous objective.

It is an experiential issue, and people need to look deeply at how players (especially new ones) experience the game rather than try to explain how the mechanics are justified.

I don't believe that multiplayer with the masses is the desired and "welcoming" drop-off point for new players. Expansive SP content alongside coop and multiplayer campaigns like ALB's should be the ideal. Anything to make them want to progress.
None of those things involve adjustment to MP flow or mechanics.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

No idea why and still wondering here. Literally nobody I know is playing 10v10s anymore and it's not because they don't want to. The OP makes some good points and I would like to relate that to the 10v10 situation. He says that the initial rush and pacing is lost compared to other games, I say it's not and especially in 40 minute 10v10s. You can build for a counter attack over time that allows you to amass another 500+ point attacking group to check the line ahead of you, instead of just pulling out single units to fill in holes. Now we are restricted to just stemming the tide of the extremely aggressive A/B phases that never get to see the potential of half the units in the game now. I am frustrated with this change and everyone I play with is too. Make 10v10s great again.

You've hit the nail on the head. I saw one 10v10 for the entirety of last night in my time zone.

I just wonder if the players who have dropped 10v10 play have moved to 1v1, as certain 1v1 players would have had us believe with their calls to 'ban' it?

The irony about this patch, in terms of the Guards Armoured decks, is that the devs doubled the amount of Fireflies, but roughly halved the amount of time you can bring them on and use them in a 10v10 game...when I saw that I had a real WTF??? moment.

 

[Aeon221]

I don't play 10v10 often, but one of my more memorable games was a 10v10 destruction match with a buddy back near release. We were on the right side with two more players further right of us and had shoved forward hard.

They got smeared by three allied players, which all of a sudden left me as the right flank with three big armies coming at me as 12ss. There was a city between us that the enemy had started to occupy, so I quickly loaded up my dudes, shoved into it and got ready.

All three of those players started spamming every unit they could think of into that town while also shelling the bejesus out of it. Hordes of Shermans and rifleman and all kinds of shit. I'm not sure how I did it but somehow I survived and held that town long enough for the team to eke out a win.

Not exactly a competitive game, but very exciting and memorable. If Eugen could get rid of the 10v10 on 4v4 and keep making it a more balanced, enjoyable , you know, less likely to kill my computer experience, I'd probably dick around in there every now and again instead of playing warthunder or something for casual fun.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Aeon, spot on...the big problem with SD right from the start was that it didn't have a focus on the casual players, or not much of a focus. Until recently, you couldn't even have a decent discussion on the forums from a casual gamer perspective, without being slammed by the 'non-casual/non-10v10' crowd.

 

[Dundradal]

Aeon, spot on...the big problem with SD right from the start was that it didn't have a focus on the casual players, or not much of a focus. Until recently, you couldn't even have a decent discussion on the forums from a casual gamer perspective, without being slammed by the 'non-casual/non-10v10' crowd.

Funny you say that because I saw the SD Facebook page post this review earlier: https://explorminate.net/2017/08/28/monday-excursion-steel-division-normandy-44/

The second paragraph is as follows:

If you’re one of the many Wargame series fans you’ve almost certainly followed development and you’ve likely formed your opinion about Steel Division: Normandy ‘44, or SD:N44 for short. Wargame series veterans have strong (and valid) views about the title, and much of what is available to read and watch comes from these players. For any newcomers to Eugen’s style of play, I suggest you take a look at SD:N44 without all the veteran player baggage – you might just find you’ve been missing out on some wonderful gaming.

I prefer games on larger map sizes because you have more room to utilize. I'm a big fan of 3v3s on the 4v4 size maps. The games are more enjoyable. At least, they are to me.

 

[Gilmund]

I don't play 10v10 often, but one of my more memorable games was a 10v10 destruction match with a buddy back near release. We were on the right side with two more players further right of us and had shoved forward hard.

They got smeared by three allied players, which all of a sudden left me as the right flank with three big armies coming at me as 12ss. There was a city between us that the enemy had started to occupy, so I quickly loaded up my dudes, shoved into it and got ready.

All three of those players started spamming every unit they could think of into that town while also shelling the bejesus out of it. Hordes of Shermans and rifleman and all kinds of shit. I'm not sure how I did it but somehow I survived and held that town long enough for the team to eke out a win.

Not exactly a competitive game, but very exciting and memorable. If Eugen could get rid of the 10v10 on 4v4 and keep making it a more balanced, enjoyable , you know, less likely to kill my computer experience, I'd probably dick around in there every now and again instead of playing warthunder or something for casual fun.

You couldn't do it anymore as you canno't bring all these phase C units in 30 min. I also had good 10vs10 moments, i'll probably post replays as this time has been revoked.

You've hit the nail on the head. I saw one 10v10 for the entirety of last night in my time zone.

I just wonder if the players who have dropped 10v10 play have moved to 1v1, as certain 1v1 players would have had us believe with their calls to 'ban' it?

The irony about this patch, in terms of the Guards Armoured decks, is that the devs doubled the amount of Fireflies, but roughly halved the amount of time you can bring them on and use them in a 10v10 game...when I saw that I had a real WTF??? moment.

Do you think so ? I've stopped to play 10vs10 as i've no more pleasure in it and will not come back to it if 30min is made to stay. I play 1 teamplay now and then but the mojo isn't there anymore. It's like a part of the game i liked has disappeared. Whatever. As i said elsewhere, it's like the 10vs10 player is a subplayer who canno't enjoy a same phase C with the same amount of units as other players in every other game.

 

[Czeekaj]

And what I mean by that statement is this: Games are not just a collection of mechanics (e.g. veterancy, armor penetration, etc). Games, especially real-time ones, are experiences where you can in fact observe and track a player's engagement
Compare and contrast this to the middle of a Starcraft match, especially between experienced players. The rate of reinforcement at the mid-game doesn't remain a tiny trickle. Indeed, the reinforcement rate tends to accelerate mid-match as early game economy investments boom and produce a huge surplus of resources to allow the mass deployment of units.

Steel Division and RD by contrast frontloads all of the excitement at the start. You get a big battle immediately that often involves some super units that are hard to counter. It then all goes downhill as the match turns into turtling to build up or piecemeal deployment of units. Worse the matches are encouraged to "go the distance" even if one side or another is already clearly winning. This is the very opposite of the typical RTS model where a match ends on a climax.

tech tiers that have lost the entirety of their meaning. If offset, they'll do what you want, but will railroad the experience yet more.Why are you treating this as a rule. Does PUBG, one of the most popular games at the moment, share in that structure? Complexity lowers as its matches head to their climax, as far as I'm aware.
What I'd like to say is that complexity does not necessarily equal excitement or tension. They can just as well come from the game forcing you to into new strategies using stuff that you already have. Wargame's clearly defined zones, timer and reinforcement times did a fine job at that already. SD severely limits the scope of those strategies all while having an amorphous objective.

Well the objective in SD seems quite clear. Just to take more territory where and when maybe is more complex early because you have the whole map to play. As for complexity you might be right games near a climax it's more clear what a player should be doing. Although Rts can have variance in what a player is going from one moment to the next.
However it won't make the game any less technical, some fighting games use a rage mechanic and some complained it ruins the game but really it can just make the game easier to learn for new players and kinda forces you to understand whats going on. While not making the game any worse for long time players except when you get hit and K.O by rage it;s also nice comeback mechanic in someways. Just anouther thing to watch out for, but it does make the end of a round accelerated with more damaged players getting a rage.

 

[Max_Damage]

I dont understand this thread. You want more income? Thats wargame. The whole point of SD was to cure Wargame's problems including the overabundant income and spammy gameplay. Real time strategy should have a balance between speed and ability of players to control whatever they have on their hands at all times.

 

[Drrty-D]

IThe whole point of SD was to cure Wargame's problems including the overabundant income and spammy gameplay..

No one asked for it except noobs that cant micro more then 5 apm and we see how well its received by the wargamers,maybe 10% of us still play the game.

Just one example of complete boring games are 1vs1 youtube matches,For example i watched Firestarter,Tigga when they were still making videos and the games were sooo boring,with 10-20 units on the field ,no wonder no one makes videos anymore because ist just boring to watch.

 

[Hob_Gadling]

The whole point of SD was to cure Wargame's problems including the overabundant income and spammy gameplay.

I think Wargame wasn't "spammy" enough. It was too small scale and would have benefited vastly from upping the scale. The game engine is a vehicle engine that can handle huge maps. Creating a small scale close range infantry fight seems like the exact opposite of what's the smart thing to do. Incidentally, this is why 10v10 is popular: it's the engine doing what it's best at.

Of course RTS people seem to think that micromanaging a single tank = high skill good gameplay. I suppose SD is that so everyone should be happy?