-
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.
It is someway a border_line, no ? #just_joking
That said, I'm amazed how many players wanna just get rid of things : "delete the 10vs10, it'll fix everything" they say... Sure. Or make more people leave, you can't really be certain
I canno't begin to understand why such people may imagine deleting some way to play (which turns to be fun to some people) is some kind of solution to bring players and create games to play.
But i must be a mad man not being able to connect the dots.
With the dlc i'd be happy with new players if not anything
That said, I'm amazed how many players wanna just get rid of things : "delete the 10vs10, it'll fix everything" they say... Sure. Or make more people leave, you can't really be certain
I canno't begin to understand why such people may imagine deleting some way to play (which turns to be fun to some people) is some kind of solution to bring players and create games to play.
But i must be a mad man not being able to connect the dots.
With the dlc i'd be happy with new players if not anything
It is an unnecessary split in an already small player base. If it can't be deleted then it should really be restricted to weekends onlyIt is someway a border_line, no ? #just_joking
That said, I'm amazed how many players wanna just get rid of things : "delete the 10vs10, it'll fix everything" they say... Sure. Or make more people leave, you can't really be certain
I canno't begin to understand why such people may imagine deleting some way to play (which turns to be fun to some people) is some kind of solution to bring players and create games to play.
But i must be a mad man not being able to connect the dots.
With the dlc i'd be happy with new players if not anything
You suppose 10vs10 players will continue to play something else once you delete their favorite mode. Most of them will just play less than before or flee, obviously.
I'm amazed you don't consider 10vs10 actually brings players to the game more than it splits the player base. But, whatever, you all decided 10vs10 was the problem.
Btw, you have one or two 10vs10 games, sometimes three playing at the same time at the moment. If you delete them you get 20 to 60 players back max, if they all decide to come along. It is still only 60 players on a 350-400 peak. Nothing to say the least. It'll not fix anything.
Looking forward to Operation Market Garden DLC, aka Madmat's revenge for the French cameo in Dunkirk.
I'd be curious to see how many people use 10v10 as a introduction to the game rather than just only play 10v10 and never move on to the regular game modes.
Playing 10vs10 regularly, I've seen a lot of the same guys in these games, my guess is there are actually players mostly or just playing in that mode and pretty much enjoying it.
There are no "regular" and "unregular" game modes, it's all in your head cause you decided 10vs10 is something to bring down cause it's for noobs and as everyone know, 10vs10 is magically what cause the lack of players, which obviously isn't backed by any real argument whatsoever.
I guess the thing is you have players enjoying the game mostly that way. Cause as i've said before, it's fun for them. Why try to make them enjoy the game less when you want to have your own way of having fun ? There is something in this logic i'll never understand. I find it selfish to say the least.
As i said, bring down 10vs10 mode and you'll get back 60 players at most in 400 connected players, if they all decide to continue to play which i very much doubt. It'll not fix the lack of players.
The dlc has way more chance to bring old players back and fresh new ones, along with steam sales than delete the 10vs10 or make him happen only the week-ends (lol).
I propose you should play 2vs2 only on mondays, 3vs3 only on wednesdays and 4vs4 only on saturdays, then it'll give more players to 1vs1 all week. And one of two weeks, 1vs1 is entirely forbidden so we make everyone happy. Don't you love this crappy idea? Me neither.
The endless 10v10 bashing is pretty boring though. Legit every day it's non-stop. Do people actually think removing 10v10 will make this community just "fall in line" with how you want it to be played? There is no other RTS that can create the situation of total chaos and panic that can happen in these large games. There are at most 3 people out of the 15 that I know still playing that even consider a game smaller than 10v10, and only when it's late night Pacific time - when nobody is playing anyways.
Seems to work really well for Paradox though. Stellaris, HOI4 and the others all seem to have detailed dev diaries where the developers lay out there plans and react to feedback before DLCs and patches are released. Why is Eugen so special that everything needs to be secret? The only reason I can think of is that it cuts down on their community manager's workload.
Afaik, Eugen has 50 employees, Paradox Development Studio 80 employees, and Paradox Interactive in a whole brings more than 200 employees.
There are regular game modes which have been the focal point point of the Wargame series. Those game modes are 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. Wargame installed 10v10's about half way through the series. I don't think removing 10v10 will fix a playerbase problem and I don't think anyone believes that either. It is just annoying to see potential players being siphoned away from regular game modes. There is no retroactively removing the game mode but it should have never been put in. That or it should've been properly supported so we didn't end up with 50 servers of which 48 are running a 4v4 map so it turns into a shitfest.
If nobody believes that, why keep bringing it up then? This whole "everything 4v4 and below is superior" conversation reeks of unfounded elitism.
There is nothing wrong with 10v10 on 10v10 maps. The reason why people argue that 4v4 and below is "superior" is generally because there is more at stake and more involvement at the individual level. It's the age old realization that when there is more area of responsibility it is more engaging and more challenging. This isn't just from this game but from every team game and other competitive games. It is harder to play well when you don't have people to fall back on. Just recognize 10v10's for what they are, casual matches to dick around in and just have a good time, there is no need to get all defensive about that.
He's bringing it so that he can see me suggest removing 1v1, again, as I have every other time the 10v10 sledging begins. At the moment, 1v1 is draining potential players from 10v10. Tit for tat.
Simply raising it serves no purpose, other than generating a hate debate that ends up with bans being handed out...
In defence of 10v10, I have suggested previously that the mode should be worked on to make it valid and legitimate, providing the option for both the yippee shoot mode we currently have, as well as a serious competitive mode.
The only way you make the game mode not a shitfest is by removing 4v4 10v10 games. Those things are straight cancer and breed the worst players I have ever seen. There is absolutely no strategy other then picking certain people to just spam shit. 10v10 maps are fine but just not my cup of tea. As far as making 10v10 competitive, how would you propose doing that?
Seriously, the game is supposed to be fun in the first place, not to be competitive. Apparently 10vs10 games on 4vs4 (why that is, is beyond my understanding as well) maps seems to be entertaining to quite a lot of people, hence the popularity. Ranked mode (judged by the amount of players) is not very popular and never was in previous Eugene titles. I would not be suprised if future eugene titles are going to be primarely based around 10vs10 games instead of 1vs1.
If people want fun games, give them fun games. If the game manages to be fun to play and be competitive at the same time, that would be even better. PUBG is a good example for a game that can manages that, SD is not.
Edit: Typo
Wargame thankfully was never tailored for people that find mouthbreathing 20 player 4v4 matches """fun"""". It won't be in the future either. The only reason I spoke about competitiveness was in direct response to what I was quoting. I agree that not everything needs to be competitive.
It’s very untrue. 10vs10 could actually brings nice 1vs1 engagements if two average players are facing each other. But many times it doesn’t stay that way cause artillery/planes from different players come to spoil your work. All these things others would call teamplay and should occur more often in 2vs2 3vs3 or 4vs4 where everyone is mostly just sitting only on his side of the map. I did participate in 10vs10 where 4 or 5 players are helping a falling side, to win in the end. And it’s pretty much why i like so much this mode.
We are defensive about that cause you just once again proposed to delete 10vs10 to fill your own desires. Like you’re a serial 10vs10 delete man without even knowing it.
I don’t buy your explanation about regular and unregular modes. It’s pretty twisted if you ask me. In Steel Division 10vs10 always existed from the very beginning, what could be more regular than that i wonder. Why don’t you make your own game and leave 10vs10 players alone. Come on, Steel Division is not even e-sports.
Rojan is mostly talking about 10v10 on non-10v10 maps. He's been consistent about that.
The maps in SD don't even allow for proper lane play when you put that many people on that small of a map. You have frontages of like 500m, whereas in Red Dragon, there were several maps that were sized for 4v4 that could accommodate 20 players reasonably without getting spammy. The Steel Division 4v4 maps are simply too small for this and force players to cramp one another, which also exacerbates the air and artillery "problems".
10v10 on Sword is perfectly fine. The problem is that there isn't another 10v10 map so Sword went stale quickly and no one plays it anymore, at least compared to stuff like Colombelles and Pegasus Bridge, neither of which is at all large enough to fit 20 players.
The maps in SD don't even allow for proper lane play when you put that many people on that small of a map. You have frontages of like 500m, whereas in Red Dragon, there were several maps that were sized for 4v4 that could accommodate 20 players reasonably without getting spammy. The Steel Division 4v4 maps are simply too small for this and force players to cramp one another, which also exacerbates the air and artillery "problems".
10v10 on Sword is perfectly fine. The problem is that there isn't another 10v10 map so Sword went stale quickly and no one plays it anymore, at least compared to stuff like Colombelles and Pegasus Bridge, neither of which is at all large enough to fit 20 players.