Developers: Ever going to revamp rank play?

[Protosszocker]

Get both A phase 107mm mortars and wait to deploy them until after you see where the 88's deployed. Use the M7 DD to direct fire on the ground to panic the 88. Save points in A phase for the B phase P47 bomber to swarm him before his new B phase 88's or other AA can get setup at the front. Really all you have to do is kill both of those 88s in 10 minutes and the rest of the map should be a push over.

Also, you should be "hold fire" with your mortars or 105mm artillery until every gun is aimed and ready to fire. Releasing "hold fire" will have the artillery firing at the same time so the HE is calculated at the same time and the enemy will have less time to react. Do this and you will delete the crew weapons before he can retreat.


You should be using the same tactic with your AA as well. If you let your AA auto target and fire, it will do so at max range and often send the enemy home without a kill. If you wait for them to close the distance another 2 seconds, then release hold fire, you will drop planes from the sky. Works well with M15 AA halftrack.

you easily can kill them with m7dd just shoot 5 m in fornt of them.. and you should have enough 0.50 cal to hold the bf 109 down (I mean bantams, hellcats and co.) sure its a bit of mircro and not just q click but still cou can esaily deal with flak 36. Inf fights are much more of a problem. 16 Lw has so many cheap pios and spam inf.

 

[steve1]

Last night i had a rank game playing as 2ID, against the 16.Luft on Carpiquet. How in the world am i suppose to have a fighting chance against that division on that map? Game was over before it began. We need some sort of "balance" in map picking

I really don't know what you are whinging about. You have a good win rate. The map is the unexpected element that makes the game more interesting.

If anything ranked play needs to be changed because I don't want to be playing the likes of you, zhuko or others high up the ranks. In fact most of the time I play its just against the top players and I get my ass whipped. It's boring. I'm thinking of giving up on it. Sort out ranked play so I can play people my level and not just be stat fodder for certain players.

 

[roirraw]

Just make all small games ranked? Problem solved?

 

[steve1]

Just make all small games ranked? Problem solved?

How? The issue is that with people being turned away from the game that those who do dip their toes in will be fodder for the top players.

As for 4k+ players in the leader boards - that'a joke.

 

[Herr_Robert]

I really don't know what you are whinging about. You have a good win rate. The map is the unexpected element that makes the game more interesting.

If anything ranked play needs to be changed because I don't want to be playing the likes of you, zhuko or others high up the ranks. In fact most of the time I play its just against the top players and I get my ass whipped. It's boring. I'm thinking of giving up on it. Sort out ranked play so I can play people my level and not just be stat fodder for certain players.

Yeah, they should give players the option to search for players within a specific Elo range. I think it's best that anyone can end up fighting anyone as the default because of the low player count in ranked, but players shouldn't be forced into uneven match-ups.

 

[LegioX]

Yeah, they should give players the option to search for players within a specific Elo range. I think it's best that anyone can end up fighting anyone as the default because of the low player count in ranked, but players shouldn't be forced into uneven match-ups.

Yes being paired up against the #1 player on the leaderboards this week was harsh. I knew the game was over before it even began. I even told him that...lol Only good thing that came out of that game was watching the replay and seeing how he plays.

 

[steve1]

Yes being paired up against the #1 player on the leaderboards this week was harsh. I knew the game was over before it even began. I even told him that...lol Only good thing that came out of that game was watching the replay and seeing how he plays.

What I saw was impressive to a point. It only reinforced my negative view that the game is just a big rush at the beginning. His units were all aligned perfectly on the road prior to start. Then they raced off in their different directions and at no point did any of them got lost.

Mine often go on their own journey to somewhere, sometimes following orders given to a another unit. Then they are in the wrong places and get shot to pieces. In this way I can tell I've lost in a big way just 30 seconds in and can't be recovered.

 

[steve1]

Whatever is decided, Eugen need to think of how the game can be made sustainable for multi.

I think it's a great game and I'll take a defeat but at a 20% win rate it's getting boring now. Even I have handed out beltings so these players are not going to hang around much if they can't even beat me.

Yeah, yeah the elite ego self soothers may laugh and say get better but in that case you can stay with a game that dies a slow death, content knowing you hit the the heights.

Come on Eugen. More maps and units won't keep people playing (and paying for more content). It's competitive challenge.

 

[Gilmund]

Whatever is decided, Eugen need to think of how the game can be made sustainable for multi.

I think it's a great game and I'll take a defeat but at a 20% win rate it's getting boring now. Even I have handed out beltings so these players are not going to hang around much if they can't even beat me.

Yeah, yeah the elite ego self soothers may laugh and say get better but in that case you can stay with a game that dies a slow death, content knowing you hit the the heights.

Come on Eugen. More maps and units won't keep people playing (and paying for more content). It's competitive challenge.

Actually 20% winrate is way too low. With average play you should at least be at 40%-50%. There is clearly something missing in the way you play.
It's not about ego, you salty cause you feel bad to be beaten everytime. We canno't say everything else than "improve your game". We may give advices though if you have questions.

 

[steve1]

That's an erroneous, elitist view, summed up by 'just get better'.

With average play in a population of players with ability distributed across a normal distribution curve then of course it might be expected that the win rate would be 50%.

As you clearly know, this is not the situation. The population of players is skewed far to the right of the graph.

There is no time to try new things out because you are under immediate pressure from these players. And as I've said somewhere, there's a distinct impression that these players have very little to do in the rest of their lives if I get time to actually watch a replay. They've obviously spent time timing how quickly things get from location a to b in order to perfectly position from the start. Do all infantry trucks go at the same speed? I have no idea. How do they position things so they don't off course in the rush? I've no idea.

So, it's not just get better - the blind, nothing wrong with the multi-player mechanics view from above the clouds. In the real world, time to 'invest' in a game for a lot of people is not available. Remember the distribution curve. There are far more who occupy the left and just don't bother because there are such mismatches. I don't think I've come across people I've beaten again. You wait minutes for a game and see within the first few minutes it won't be competitive. There's no point. No saltiness for losing, it's saltiness for being in a complete mismatch.

By the way I've had some good games against higher ranked players. Very close and the outcome was unknown to the very end. I've no problem playing these players and I had time to learn too - win, lose or draw, usually lose, it didn't matter - something was gained and we were both challenged.

Others are so well drilled or such cheesy spammers that it's not worth playing them.

 

[Gilmund]

That's an erroneous, elitist view, summed up by 'just get better'.

With average play in a population of players with ability distributed across a normal distribution curve then of course it might be expected that the win rate would be 50%.

As you clearly know, this is not the situation. The population of players is skewed far to the right of the graph.

There is no time to try new things out because you are under immediate pressure from these players. And as I've said somewhere, there's a distinct impression that these players have very little to do in the rest of their lives if I get time to actually watch a replay. They've obviously spent time timing how quickly things get from location a to b in order to perfectly position from the start. Do all infantry trucks go at the same speed? I have no idea. How do they position things so they don't off course in the rush? I've no idea.

So, it's not just get better - the blind, nothing wrong with the multi-player mechanics view from above the clouds. In the real world, time to 'invest' in a game for a lot of people is not available. Remember the distribution curve. There are far more who occupy the left and just don't bother because there are such mismatches. I don't think I've come across people I've beaten again. You wait minutes for a game and see within the first few minutes it won't be competitive. There's no point. No saltiness for losing, it's saltiness for being in a complete mismatch.

By the way I've had some good games against higher ranked players. Very close and the outcome was unknown to the very end. I've no problem playing these players and I had time to learn too - win, lose or draw, usually lose, it didn't matter - something was gained and we were both challenged.

Others are so well drilled or such cheesy spammers that it's not worth playing them.

Your message is full of saltiness about "players" having "little to do in the rest of their lives". Call it whatever you want. But even very casual players would have improved since the game is now out since april 2017 if i recall correctly.
In every multiplayer game you'll face better players than you and they will kill you cause they know the game better than you. Yes some of them will play every night after work when you will only play on weekends, some of them could even on some games make a living of it. It is expected for them to become better than you cause they practice more.

Plus i disagree most players have around 40-50% winrates and many new players are around 20-30% lately with very different time to give to the game. It should give you plenty of chances to improve slowly. First thing to improve is to improve your knowledge of the basic mechanics of the game. How the AP/HE system works, the ranges of each unit and their effectiveness in their ranges, the units and their counters.
I think you'll face more veterans in ranked cause they play it searching competition. I don't think newcomers populate ranked games. You may and should play regular lobbies to avoid ranked matchmaking imo.

You never asked questions before. So by the way you don't go off road with your units if you tell them to move or disembark on distant far roads, you should never tell them to disembark in the middle of nowhere cause there is a pathfinding system to keep you on roads. And yes units have their own speeds on and off roads you may see on the bottom right when you click on each one of them. It is very important for tanks and some are definitely slower than others.

 

[steve1]

I don't think that any of what you wrote argues against better ranked play. In fact if anything, it suggests that there should be better ranked play exactly due to the play patterns you mention. "Getting better" at a quick enough rate to play against those typically in multi isn't viable due to this and I still insist that people don't play multi because of lack of proper ranked play that allows them to improve, learn and enjoy whilst not having to immediately try to stop a rout. 4300+ in the leaderboard, but you meet the same old names.

My weaknesses are not from the things you mention but use of arty and getting units in place for the rush. Sometimes I under exploit an area of map or forget to bring along a unit but I recognise this.

Anyway, here is a question, if you select quick play, do you come against the players searching ranked, except that for you it's not ranked?

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

Another option would be to get rid of ranked completly. Ranked gameplay and some, not all, of its supporters have created so much toxicity amongst the community that, given the user numbers derived from wargame (SD does not, as far as I know, show how many people are playing ranked) its propably not worth the struggle. Sure, you might loose some players but you'll propably retain more overall, if you take into account that new players don't get annihalted and frustrated in an instant when quick match pairs them with min/maxed ranked.

 

[facmanpob]

And as I've said somewhere, there's a distinct impression that these players have very little to do in the rest of their lives if I get time to actually watch a replay. They've obviously spent time timing how quickly things get from location a to b in order to perfectly position from the start. Do all infantry trucks go at the same speed? I have no idea.

Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. I have a full time job, two kids under the age of 10, sing in a choir and coach rugby amongst many other things. I have never got out a stopwatch and timed how long it takes to drive from one point in a map to another, but I do know the speed of infantry trucks (because I read the unit info panels as I make my battlegroups!), and I do make time to watch replays occasionally. My win rate is above 50% (about 56% I think) and I consider myself a decent player, but certainly not great by any stretch of the imagination. How did I get to that stage? By learning from my mistakes.

If you have a 20% win rate, then there is probably something you are doing wrong during the first 5 minutes of the game. Instead of spending 40 minutes in a multiplayer game getting frustrated one evening, why not spend that same 40 minutes watching the first 10 minutes of play of 4 of VulcanHDGaming's videos (and listen to what he is saying in his commentary). I guarantee you will learn something that you can put into practice the next time you play a multiplayer game.

And before you say that I am just repeating the "git gud" argument, what I am actually saying is that unless you are genuinely committed to trying to learn from your mistakes, you will continue to keep making the same mistakes over again. Every player makes mistakes, even the best, the difference is that the best players learn from them quickly and don't make the same ones twice.

 

[Gilmund]

Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. I have a full time job, two kids under the age of 10, sing in a choir and coach rugby amongst many other things. I have never got out a stopwatch and timed how long it takes to drive from one point in a map to another, but I do know the speed of infantry trucks (because I read the unit info panels as I make my battlegroups!), and I do make time to watch replays occasionally. My win rate is above 50% (about 56% I think) and I consider myself a decent player, but certainly not great by any stretch of the imagination. How did I get to that stage? By learning from my mistakes.

If you have a 20% win rate, then there is probably something you are doing wrong during the first 5 minutes of the game. Instead of spending 40 minutes in a multiplayer game getting frustrated one evening, why not spend that same 40 minutes watching the first 10 minutes of play of 4 of VulcanHDGaming's videos (and listen to what he is saying in his commentary). I guarantee you will learn something that you can put into practice the next time you play a multiplayer game.

And before you say that I am just repeating the "git gud" argument, what I am actually saying is that unless you are genuinely committed to trying to learn from your mistakes, you will continue to keep making the same mistakes over again. Every player makes mistakes, even the best, the difference is that the best players learn from them quickly and don't make the same ones twice.

True that. I have watched all my 150 first games to learn from my mistakes instead of launching another game. Watching is as enjoyable as playing yourself. And there is some point to watch what your opponent is doing when he beats you.
With that watch you start to say "what if", what if i had put that arty into my deck, what if i did put this unit there.

Another option would be to get rid of ranked completly. Ranked gameplay and some, not all, of its supporters have created so much toxicity amongst the community that, given the user numbers derived from wargame (SD does not, as far as I know, show how many people are playing ranked) its propably not worth the struggle. Sure, you might loose some players but you'll propably retain more overall, if you take into account that new players don't get annihalted and frustrated in an instant when quick match pairs them with min/maxed ranked.

Less than 5000 have played a ranked game once, 1500 have played more than 5-10 games. Many less are ranked active.
I would not ask to get rid of ranked play, but ranked is sure not the way people prefer to play this game since the beginning.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

It's not ranked play per se, but some of the attitudes of some of the players that create the toxicity.

This game has a funny appeal dynamic, it appeals to the historical wargame buff, it appeals to the popular history buff (at least for a time), but it is not a game that's easy to pick up nor master...player trend wise though, it seems the most interest is in the 'fun' play, or casual modes (for want of a better term). It's almost as if the game was designed for a different player base to the one it got, and in some ways it seems as if the devs are fighting against that...rather than fully embracing the larger player number games, they are still focussing on the ranked game.

Maybe as an experiment, go out on a limb and give us 6v6 on 10v10 maps (plural), as ranked games.

 

[-HP-]

It's not ranked play per se, but some of the attitudes of some of the players that create the toxicity.

This game has a funny appeal dynamic, it appeals to the historical wargame buff, it appeals to the popular history buff (at least for a time), but it is not a game that's easy to pick up nor master...player trend wise though, it seems the most interest is in the 'fun' play, or casual modes (for want of a better term). It's almost as if the game was designed for a different player base to the one it got, and in some ways it seems as if the devs are fighting against that...rather than fully embracing the larger player number games, they are still focussing on the ranked game.

Maybe as an experiment, go out on a limb and give us 6v6 on 10v10 maps (plural), as ranked games.

Eugen tries to be everything to everyone and ends up pleasing very few people as a result. Destruction should have been gone before Red Dragon saw the light of day, they should have removed 10v10 or went all out and made the same number of maps for it as the smaller gametypes, if they wanted a queue system they should have replaced public lobbies with quick play entirely, etc. I don't think they really know what they want to do, that or they just like to dabble.

 

[steve1]

Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. I have a full time job, two kids under the age of 10, sing in a choir and coach rugby amongst many other things. I have never got out a stopwatch and timed how long it takes to drive from one point in a map to another, but I do know the speed of infantry trucks (because I read the unit info panels as I make my battlegroups!), and I do make time to watch replays occasionally. My win rate is above 50% (about 56% I think) and I consider myself a decent player, but certainly not great by any stretch of the imagination. How did I get to that stage? By learning from my mistakes.

If you have a 20% win rate, then there is probably something you are doing wrong during the first 5 minutes of the game. Instead of spending 40 minutes in a multiplayer game getting frustrated one evening, why not spend that same 40 minutes watching the first 10 minutes of play of 4 of VulcanHDGaming's videos (and listen to what he is saying in his commentary). I guarantee you will learn something that you can put into practice the next time you play a multiplayer game.

And before you say that I am just repeating the "git gud" argument, what I am actually saying is that unless you are genuinely committed to trying to learn from your mistakes, you will continue to keep making the same mistakes over again. Every player makes mistakes, even the best, the difference is that the best players learn from them quickly and don't make the same ones twice.

To be "committed" as you say sounds a little serious. Casual fun is what some prefer, still learning, but at a slower pace. I've had to abandon about a sixth of my games to attend to a crying baby at night. Never knowing when he might wake pushes me to play over watching replays or other players, though of course what you say has merit.

Anyway, Eugen only have time for so much and if numbers dictate they head down one direction then so be it.

Last night with my good ability to lose I gave someone an absolute beating. It shows the massive range in skill and the recipient had played 13, lost 13. I hope he doesn't get disheartened. Going by the ability I normally come across its going to be sometime before he wins.

Part of the game is choosing a division that matches your style and then playing with it regularly to master it. People I come across usually play with the same division. Takes a little bit of the fun away but again so be it. It's still a fun game and deck adjustment is a good feature.

 

[Gilmund]

Part of the game is choosing a division that matches your style and then playing with it regularly to master it. People I come across usually play with the same division. Takes a little bit of the fun away but again so be it. It's still a fun game and deck adjustment is a good feature.

It's true, if you have less time, playing a deck in 20-30 games in a row is a good way to go.

 

[storm__]

Part of the game is choosing a division that matches your style and then playing with it regularly to master it. People I come across usually play with the same division. Takes a little bit of the fun away but again so be it. It's still a fun game and deck adjustment is a good feature.

Actually, as I learned recently choosing a division that matches your style ist probably the most important part: In the beginning I tried different divisons, and liked the 15th Scottish Infantry best . By now I have a win ratio of 70% with it. A few weeks ago I decided to try different divions. As I lost on a regular basis against 16th Luftwaffe I tried it for some time. I just couldn't get used to it. I also tried Panzergrenadiere, Pegasus and 4th Armored.

I think I lost 90% (!) of the games with any division other than the 15th Scottish Infantry. Excellent players are probably capable to adjust their strategy to any division, but not me. I have to see my Avre rolling over enemy defences to enjoy the game.