-
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.
Not sure what you are trying to say...
Is there something about my post that you don't understand?
Clarification: I'm saying that the capture zone system in Wargame was beyond broken.
that there might be more to it, perhaps? Sharing riveting tales of Captain adventures is not the same thing as "explaining" a game
Last edited:
There was nothing more to it, IMO. I was terrible at the game, yet I won consistently against players both more skilled and more experienced than I because losing 80% of the map was without consequence as long as you won the silly CV hunt mini game. The rest of the game hardly mattered for determining the winner.
No one plays this shit.
Perhaps it might be time for the 200 players left to realize that their game could use a bit of 'casualising up'.
The answer is never 'hey watch these youtube videos' but this community seems more than willing to go that route to preserve, what it is, I don't even know. Some sort of false superiority compared to nothing. The entire point of WW2 being the next Wargame was to grossly expand the player-base, instead, they've made something so poorly conveyed to the average consumer that it will probably end up killing the company.
Helorushing is not just effective because of CVs. Main problems are the mechanics of helicopters.
I have a 100% w/r against the top 10 of the SD leaderboard by just spamming ersatztruppen everywhere. The opponent was unable to move the frontline because I had so many. eks dee ez game.
Some guys like @Drrty-D even found the circles ugly, because, yeah, all the distorded zones look really better).
Ye,i remember that convo,looked something like this -
What? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the choice of setting hurt their sales and preservation of players?
No, I'm saying they made a shitty game that didn't convey 'how to play' to the average consumer which giving them objectives on a map would be a step forward in that direction.
The decision to go to WW2 should have been a homerun because it has a wider player-base than pretty much anything else, but this thing utterly flopped and from what I've gathered for no reason other than 'it just isn't good/fun'.
I never said that was the only reason helo rushing was effective after around 3500+ hours and counting of wargame i've played enough to be fairly familiar with the games warts and wrinkles, however the need to cap spawns with CV's makes any sort of rush into a spawn with inadequate defences or point provision against whatever that threat may be a game loser for the recipient of said rush and lets face it for the apparent simplicity of the problem it still remains an irritant which hasn't completely gone away after years of patching, maybe that's not a bad thing but it doesn't add anything much to my enjoyment of Wargame.
the helirush problem is pretty much solved when SPAAGs are allowed to fire through LOS blocks like forests and smoke, much as they fire at planes
If you think the game is shitty that's fine but you are grasping at straws if you think that somehow objectives is a good design choice to help aid in the retention of an "average consumer" over a simple front line drawn across the center.
The flipside of your argument and i have no view on this, is that the average gamer who bought this game for whatever reason isn't bright enough to figure out that advancing and gaining ground gains you points despite the fact that it is obvious what is happening on the scoreboard, which in theory would make destruction more popular yet most of the hosted lobby games i've seen have been conquest games.
Honestly i feel that a lot of people don't enjoy the game for whatever reason is because there is something intangible about the way the game is balanced which makes them unhappy with it, in many ways this game is simpler than Wargame, fewer unit types, no radar AA, i haven't a cv in this zone but it is full of my troops so why isn't it showing blue/red but the additional balancing mechanics in Steel Division (frontline, divisions, phases, income, largely hidden impact of veterancy) make for something a lot more complex to wrap your brains around and in turn makes it difficult for people to make an informed decision on whether they like the game balance or not.
My feeling is that Steel Division could be the most perfectly balanced game Eugen has ever released but there are so many variables to consider that i can't do anything other than make a judgement based on gut feel from playing time as to whether i like the balance of the game or a certain division or not. When i first bought Wargame Red Dragon i was presented with a much simpler set of variables to consider when assessing whether or not i liked the games balance, which is not to say it didn't take me an awful long time to learn the game but in that respect it was easier to grasp which decks were good and which were bad.
In my opinion dumbing down game balance with the current in game parameters is not really possible, i'm not advocating a Reboot edition of the game either as that just didn't work for AOA which had similar complaints, ultimately the casual crowd still got bored and buggered off having played with it for a bit.
My feeling is that what Steel Division needs is a more holistic approach to game balance, matchmaking, gamer education and perhaps most importantly off all building a community which isn't full of people whining about minor or pointless issues being shouted down by people telling them to git gud, for me what has been sorely lacking is the ability of people outside of the cesspit that is reddit to find groups of like minded gamers to enjoy the game and learn together, the Wargame community is largely already established but most of these guys aren't interested in a WW2 game so there is no pre-established community for MP focused gamers to get join.
Something as simple as a dedicated section here at or before game release and in other steel division communities to match up solo gamers with like minded gamers would be a nice first step though it would really have worked better if the only posters who tried to spread the word about their clan or gaming group weren't saltily told to sod off by the same guys who aren't now interested in playing steel division and whose sole contribution to most threads is shitposting.
Apologies for the long ramble i think i might need to make my own thread to discuss my thoughts in a more detailed and coherent fashion.
People like being told what to do. They like simplified objectives. Call it dumbing down, or whatever, but there's a reason why sandbox games like ArmA have largely gone from completely freeform open world shooters that are up to the mission maker to design whatever he feels to becoming a vehicle for mods, game modes and games like Day Z, Wasteland and PUBG that have taken the expanse offered in ArmA and turned them into "collect shit, kill things", and god damn has it been much more popular than regular old ArmA. I mean, PUBG even goes further by killing you if you don't force yourself to move to a specific point to keep the pace up. You aren't even given the option to go on some lengthy exploration. Even Day Z did it by concentrating better loot in a handful of areas.
Some people like the sandbox. I like the sandbox. Between ArmA II and ArmA III I have probably close to 3000 hours in those games.....................most of it designing missions and full campaigns for the little clan I was in. The line across the middle of the map works for me just fine.
But considering I've got a lot of experience with people complaining if something is too unguided and my professional life is essentially "dumbing down" stuff for people, I think I've got enough data accumulated in my head to conclude that people like having some direction. Structure, if you will. It helps them focus their efforts.
From a design POV, the line across the map is certainly simpler to do, but really what is your problem with adding even cosmetic zones that are captured via pushing the frontline beyond their boundaries? Like what would be so wrong with labeling an important crossroads that changes color or something when the front pushes beyond it?
This is all going off the presumption that people purchasing a niche RTS filling a niche part of the market want some handheld experience. I don't accept this premise at all. Drawing some pseudo-parallel from SD to Arma 3 is ridiculous, Arma 3's demographic changed when DayZ became big. It was changed forever after that point and it was drawn to games like the ones you are describing. The other part of the community was all mil-sim. The people in this community do not want to be handheld, they want dynamic gameplay that does not constrict their options. They want to be battlegroup commanders that can do what they please, not what some artificial objective laid out tells them to do.
My issue with purely cosmetic points that are arbitrarily selected? That seems vastly different from your original proposition but I guess my reason against it would be that it is an utter waste of time to put that in this completed product of a game.
I've got to agree with Rojan on this one...the frontline system keeps the game dynamic, and helps alleviate the 'map orientated mechanical play' that we saw so much of in Wargame.
.png){kind=avatar}
The frontlines system is fantastic, and blows the zone system out of the water. By spreading out the area you need to control across the entire front and shifting back and forward as the battle lines move, it creates a much more dynamic, active game where there's constant opportunities to take the initiative. It's much less prone to coagulating into a game of sitzkrieg after the opening once control of the zones have been decided because everyone is dug in. It also is more resistant to being decided in the opening minutes by an all-in gambit to take a key location.
Additionally, the frontline system does a good job of showcasing the entire map, instead of just having 2-3 control zones with the same defensive positions that the controller will fortify every time. There's a lot more variety in where the fighting occurs, which makes each map feel more fresh and replayable.
I desperately hope that Wargame never goes back to the old system, and that other games take note of this awesome thing Steel Division has done and incorporate the concept.
Additionally, the frontline system does a good job of showcasing the entire map, instead of just having 2-3 control zones with the same defensive positions that the controller will fortify every time. There's a lot more variety in where the fighting occurs, which makes each map feel more fresh and replayable.
I desperately hope that Wargame never goes back to the old system, and that other games take note of this awesome thing Steel Division has done and incorporate the concept.
The point is that it actually does reward you; but being able to easily shift stuff left-right isn't easily conveyed especially when you can't even see the damn road behind the hedgegrow.