dlc 1 speculation thread

[Gilmund]

Except Sword is mostly just about the best location of 10 players in the very beginning. Most times this map creates huge gaps cause you lack one or two players on one side then game is done. It's way worse. The size of the map does not prevent players to cluster.
I don't know what you call perfectly fine then, but you should just imagine some players like to play games more clustered and not 10 times a 1vs1 on a huge map. They precisely choose to play something else than 1vs1 where it's not just about killing their own direct opponent and where indeed they could have indirect fire from their sides when they push too far too quick, where they could have indirect fire from arty or planes.
Same thing with players doing 4vs4 on 2vs2 - 3vs3 maps.

You may consider it's a shitty way to play the game, it's your liberty, but do not call to delete it.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

The story of Wargame/SD: 'The Game Needs Better Players'

 

[Gilmund]

I'll tell you the real story about games : most players are casual and don't wanna get rekt by these whatever-not-even-polite-and-perfect-shortcuts-ranked-players, they just wanna have fun. All games die of elitism if they canno't give fun to casual players.
There is noone except you who does want your perfect gameplay. Steel Division is already a niche game.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I honestly feel that it doesn't do the game justice. Eugen doesn't make shit like COH or Blitzkrieg. They make games with larger maps and longer engagement ranges to try to give you a more realistic feel. When you condense the game and stack players on one another you're just turning it into an APM shit fest which is, funnily enough, something I've read casuals complain about.

Wargame was never an APM shit fest. It's a game about reconnaissance and orchestrating breakthroughs. The only way you get that with stacking 20 players on 8 player maps is to hamfist your way through. Utterly disappointing that Eugen has seemingly signed up to support this style of play.

 

[Gilmund]

I honestly feel that it doesn't do the game justice. Eugen doesn't make shit like COH or Blitzkrieg. They make games with larger maps and longer engagement ranges to try to give you a more realistic feel. When you condense the game and stack players on one another you're just turning it into an APM shit fest which is, funnily enough, something I've read casuals complain about.

Wargame was never an APM shit fest. It's a game about reconnaissance and orchestrating breakthroughs. The only way you get that with stacking 20 players on 8 player maps is to hamfist your way through. Utterly disappointing that Eugen has seemingly signed up to support this style of play.

You do make it sound like Eugen forced you to play 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps. You are not, precisely. You have all the possibilities to play the game the way you want, let's make it stay that way.
Just stop all say that 10vs10 splits the player base when a large bunch of players actually just connects to play 10vs10. It makes no sense at all. Actually i could give you name of players who played only 10vs10 and stopped. Sick of disconnections and sick of not being able to find... 10vs10's in less than 20 minutes.

 

[hagen_hase]

I would pay for good working mod support and steamworkshop. payed mod support would make me angry and i think if you want money for the workshop, you get kicked of steam.

 

[Dundradal]

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.

My introduction into multiplayer was that I actually spent years playing the Wargame series campaigns (mostly ALB and RD) before I ever jumped into a MP game last year. My first game was a 10v10 (tactical, I'm pretty sure) and it was an exhilarating blast! I actually called one of my buddy's up right after and said he had to get the game because it was so much to wage such large battles with people sneaking, flanking, and everything else. It was a great introduction to the differences between RD campaign camping defenses and multiplayer tactics. (I got my ass handed to me probably the first 25 games...with maybe a few wins in there) But, because I'd played so much campaign, I stuck it out and kept playing...and playing. My win ratio has moved up a bit (it's been a while since I logged into RD but I want to say it was around 40%? whereas my SD one is over 50%). I will say it was a bit before I jumped into 4v4 and smaller games. The reason was I was trying to learn how to best control my front and lots of the micro tricks (shutting off radar and the like) without failing the rest of my team by breaking and rupturing the lines.

Trying to get "noob" games going in RD, so that I could learn, regularly had some guy wanting to pad his stats by joining and acting stupid and then just rolling the field. I know it turned a lot of people off because the veteran player would then rub it in and just further a rather a toxic situation (Warchat didn't exactly lead to many friendships or even ability to form them with the constant flooding crap). Which is what it often feels like here and what roirraw was talking about. It's almost constant negative crap. Yeah, there's certainly plenty to vent about with how the SD lobbies are (I fully agree that some of those 10v10 servers should be removed...we don't need 15 of them that just have minor variations of settings).

I switch between 10v10 games and smaller games. Sometimes, there isn't really a choice because when it's late Pacific coast time in the US, there are usually between 100-200 players online and finding a game can take longer than playing one. But I do think that 10v10 is a good starting place for new players. Granted, it might take them a bit longer to get all the nuances because of the lower responsibility and lack of coordination (I think nothing is better than a game where a team has a strategy and then supports each other to achieve it...it's so much fun when the chat and field markers and blasting to show what everyone is thinking). But, and this might be the most important, it can be fun for them to play, even when you lose. I'll never forget how excited I was after that first 10v10 in RD...even though we lost, it was lots of fun. And I think that's what lots of newer players want.

 

[jammiebadger]

I quite enjoyed the only time i played a 10v10 on a 4v4 map, though my deck was mainly artillery, AA and supply trucks and fighters. It was fun watching those impossible to stop plane trains getting rekd by my AA and fighters while i happily spammed artillery and off map 203's and rinsed my team mates supplies

 

[I WUB PUGS]

If Steel Division was a K/D grindfest to get gucci gear, I'd be on 10v10 Colombelles with 352nd all day picking off nubs with 2 star Ju-87G baiting fighters over my wall of flak.

Actually, I probably wouldn't. The last time I even bothered with that type of game was COD:MW2.

I don't want to play your shitty grindfest.

 

[huda0816]

I think the problem with sword is that a lot of people who are used to play 10vs10 in 4vs4 maps do not adapt to the larger frontline they have to cover. Alse there are always players who want to play airforce or artillery support which is ok on 4vs4 maps.

Actually I like sword because it is about strategy. You have to convince your teammates that it is an easy win if they cover the whole front and push into the gaps of the enemy.

 

[Dundradal]

One of my favorite things about the large 10v10 maps is that gaps do sometimes form, and that's fine. It gives you more room to fight the battle without running into lots of unit clusters/walls that turn into a 200 meter grindfest. Instead, you can find and exploit gaps and push bridgeheads...and at the same time, if you're on defense, you can see when they start to stick their necks out a bit too far and try to cut it off at the base. It makes for a bit more back and forth on the battlefield instead of a constant 49-51 / 51-49 back and forth on smaller maps.

 

[roirraw]

Good, stick to your small games and leave the fun to the rest of us who aren't so elitist. Hope you enjoy playing the same 2 people and you can be number 1.

 

[Admiral_Awesome]

I don't want to play your shitty grindfest.

Delete it. It's a terrible spamfest that deserves death. I don't need to be tolerant of terrible gameplay. 10v10's were meant for 10v10 maps, not 4v4 maps.

I actually can't believe that I'm standing up for 10vs10 games, but this behaviour is just disgraceful.

You guys with your smug elitist attitude are worse than any 10vs10 game on what map size whatsoever could be. I hope someone at Eugen actually has an eye on this thread and realises, that if they want a friendlier community and a more fruitful community interaction all they have to do is try to get rid of you guys. All you can do is hate on everything that is not within your small filter buble of 1vs1 ranked gameplay. Within the playerbase you are the smallest minority, yet you behave like you spread the word of god, while most of you do is spreading toxicity all around. Like the SD community equivalent to third rate feminists these days...

 

[I WUB PUGS]

I have no problem with 10v10.

I just don't see the point in playing 10v10 on a 4v4 map where my frontage is 500m wide in a game where engagements over 1000m are not uncommon.

FFS, the god damn map is even labeled for 4v4, how are you people even able to say that 10v10 on a 4v4 map makes sense. They clearly did not design the game for this otherwise 4v4 maps would be 10v10 maps.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

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?

I don't deny that in relation to the reduced map size, but there is no reason why both aspects can't be catered for...if people want to play 10v10 as a valid competitive mode, it would benefit everyone if they could...I suspect that the clown car mode would fizzle out if there was a decent alternative to it.

I do appreciate where you are coming from, but the problem is that taking away a mode that people obviously enjoy playing is not going to see them flowing onto a mode they apparently don't. The severe player drop has shown that most players won't struggle on playing something that doesn't click with them. 12 hours ago, Australian evening time, we were down to 140 players...

 

[Rojan]

I actually can't believe that I'm standing up for 10vs10 games, but this behaviour is just disgraceful.

You guys with your smug elitist attitude are worse than any 10vs10 game on what map size whatsoever could be. I hope someone at Eugen actually has an eye on this thread and realises, that if they want a friendlier community and a more fruitful community interaction all they have to do is try to get rid of you guys. All you can do is hate on everything that is not within your small filter buble of 1vs1 ranked gameplay. Within the playerbase you are the smallest minority, yet you behave like you spread the word of god, while most of you do is spreading toxicity all around. Like the SD community equivalent to third rate feminists these days...

I am not a ranked 1v1 player. I am a person who cares about the balance of this game and the quality of the gameplay within the intended scope. I'm sorry I don't sugar coat my opinions so I don't hurt your fee fee's. I have said numerous times that there is nothing wrong with 10v10 matches. I have a problem with 20 player 4v4 matches. It breeds trash gameplay and trash players that then go on this very same forum to ask for ridiculous changes that would do nothing but harm the two things that I care about. If you consider that 'hating on everything that is not what I like' then you are hopelessly lost in this conversation.

I don't deny that in relation to the reduced map size, but there is no reason why both aspects can't be catered for...if people want to play 10v10 as a valid competitive mode, it would benefit everyone if they could...I suspect that the clown car mode would fizzle out if there was a decent alternative to it.

I do appreciate where you are coming from, but the problem is that taking away a mode that people obviously enjoy playing is not going to see them flowing onto a mode they apparently don't. The severe player drop has shown that most players won't struggle on playing something that doesn't click with them. 12 hours ago, Australian evening time, we were down to 140 players...

You're probably right on your first assumption. I am not sure on your second one though, in fact it is impossible to know either way. We can't reliably say that they will stay or go if the clown mode is gone. I would say they would move on to proper 10v10 matches but who really knows. I understand your apprehension to remove the mode.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

I don't have any apprehension at all...it would be an interesting exercise to see what would happen if 10v10 was removed now. Would make for some entertaining forum debate till the cricket chirping took over...

 

[roirraw]

You use some really particular language here Rojan.

" I am a person who cares about the balance of the game and quality of gameplay within the intended scope "

Basically, you call everyone but you, including the developers, stupid. The intended scope is the game you are playing at the very moment you are playing it.

Then preemptively calling whoever disagrees with you overly emotional.

Next up, "Trash Gameplay and Trash Players". This one speaks for itself.

And to finish it off, you act like this conversation is lost on those points you so care about - when the topic of the thread is "DLC 1 speculation thread".

I just want to see less threads where you and the rest of your kind try to take away what I enjoy about this game, what I actually paid to play - 10v10 on any map we chose.

 

[Rojan]

You use some really particular language here Rojan.

" I am a person who cares about the balance of the game and quality of gameplay within the intended scope "

Basically, you call everyone but you, including the developers, stupid. The intended scope is the game you are playing at the very moment you are playing it.

Then preemptively calling whoever disagrees with you overly emotional.

Next up, "Trash Gameplay and Trash Players". This one speaks for itself.

And to finish it off, you act like this conversation is lost on those points you so care about - when the topic of the thread is "DLC 1 speculation thread".

I just want to see less threads where you and the rest of your kind try to take away what I enjoy about this game, what I actually paid to play - 10v10 on any map we chose.

Wait is that your interpretation of my quote? If so I don't really understand how you draw the conclusion that I am calling people stupid from that.

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

How to play 10v10's on 4v4 maps:

1. Pick 352 Infantry if on Axis, pick 3rd Canadian or 15th Scots if on Allies
2. Don't actually pick a section of the frontline to fight on, no need to, everything is so condensed that your other 9 teammates can cover and no one will notice
3. Call in nothing but artillery, AA, Air, and a tiny bit of recon
4. Spend all game clicking a few buttons every once in a while and not actually doing any microing what so ever
5. Win or lose it doesn't matter as your individual contributions mean almost nothing in the grand scope of things