Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Does anyone else think this game is beyond saving now?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 2266 Please link&sync your Paradox account to Steam Steel Division - Let's Plays and AARs!
Nebelwerfer 42

Nebelwerfer 42

Second Lieutenant
3 Badges
May 25, 2017
164
0
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 - Second Wave
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 - Back to Hell
The recent server debacle which couldn't have been handled worse has taken a big hit on an already tiny playerbase, I logged on a few hours ago (haven't played in over a week) and could not find a single match to play for almost an entire hour, we STILL don't have all multiplayer features back like friends list capability.

I cannot help but analyze the steam charts for Act of Aggression and this game and notice how eerily similar our course of player loss is going compared to the game that now averages player numbers in the teens. There was only 182 people playing this game an hour ago, the 24 hour peak saw only 449 players. Compare this to Wargame Red Dragon's 500 players playing 12 minutes ago and their 881 24 hour peak, a game which is over 3 years old and has no support from the dev team is more than double the size of our playerbase now.

Devs have been silent around every turn, the servers were down for over 48 hours and we basically only heard from them when they went back up, we have not had a single good, large patch since beta, divisional balance patch still hasn't come. Just more overhyped +5/-5 updates. Eugen said they had long term plans for Steel Division, but this is absolutely no comfort at all, this is the same manufactured response they gave for worried questions about the state of Act of Aggression.

And with all of this going on its laughable to see that this game is still being sold at the full value 40$ price tag, which is just ludicrous given the current situation. There should be steam sales on this game every two weeks with the kind of life support this playerbase is on right now.

I've lost enough confidence in this entire project to have decided to cease the purchase of any DLC's or paid content that comes out for this game.
 
Last edited:
The game is very well designed and done. Cant blame the game really.

The only thing that scares players is .... it is a tryhard strategy game where clutch matches are hard work. It throws superior odds, divisions and players against your ability. People will play FPS or MOBA instead to avoid this uncomfortable gameplay where they ve done everything they could and still lost. I have to stop and think before i press that queue button because i might be up for 40 minutes of hard work if i do.
 
Max_Damage said:
The game is very well designed and done. Cant blame the game really.

The only thing that scares players is .... it is a tryhard strategy game where clutch matches are hard work. It throws superior odds, divisions and players against your ability. People will play FPS or MOBA instead to avoid this uncomfortable gameplay where they ve done everything they could and still lost. I have to stop and think before i press that queue button because i might be up for 40 minutes of hard work if i do.
Click to expand...

That's probably as most elitist and ridicoulus statement as one can make up, when talking about the current state of the game. It defies practically every observable fact.
Hardcore games draw hardcore players. SteelDivision even failed to draw hardcore players in.

By your statement ArmA would have had the same fate against CoD... yet it isn't the case.
The HoI-games would have died out... Paradox would have died out.
There are far more games which are far more hardcore that have a thriving playerbase while SteelDivision and Eugen systems simply failed.

If you can't see that, than you are really in a state of delusion.

Ohh... and no: SteelDivision isn't hardcore. Neither was Wargame... ever.
Making it hardcore would have drawn a viable playerbase in... but it isn't so it didn't.
Eugen is still trying to be successfull on the mass-market, while they should finally understand that what they are trying to create is a niche-product.
 
Last edited:
Possibly. The game is in a much better state balance wise now but the matchmaking vs lobby player split is still a problem. Eugen needs to find a way to get people that stopped playing to give it another shot, but it needs to be something big. I don't think much short of vastly improved matchmaking, a free DLC of 1-2 divisions per side, a unique map or two (not a rotation) along with an email ad campaign to previous players and a hefty Steam sale to attract new players happening all at once would get people to come back. They need to re-hype the game not do some numbers balancing if they want to get people to give it another try. Oh, and get 10v10 games off the 4v4 sized maps because those are a disaster. Those crowded spamfests are not a good first impression for new players. Get some properly sized 10v10 maps and get rid of the overcrowded games.

I'm enjoying the game more than ever when I can play but in my timezone (pacific time) there's only 120-150 people online in the evenings. It's getting harder and harder to find a game.
 
Every time i play a game, there is always people who wanna get rid of things. You'll not fix anything by deleting 10 vs 10 on 4vs4 maps, you'll just make more people flee. Many like this kind of big battles in small places. Sometimes you raging cause your team is shit, so what it's life, leave the people play the way they play. You'll not get back the people on 10vs10 battles to play 1vs1 or 2vs2 by deleting their way to enjoy the game, it's a shitty way of thinking.

Most players didn't came to multiplayer from the solo in the first place. The others don't play for many reasons.
I still enjoy it very much but i guess many just wanna do something else. I thought myself i would play ghost recon wildlands much much more than i did...
Hom many copies of WRD were sold and how many players are left ?
 
I would add 1vs1 and 2vs2 give the same feelings than 10vs10, try to beat a 101st airborne with any german deck on a map full with forests, you'll have to be extra good an your enemy will have to make mistakes. If i had played and lost that 5 times in a row without the ability to play 10vs10 or other modes i would have left long ago.
 
Gilmund said:
Every time i play a game, there is always people who wanna get rid of things. You'll not fix anything by deleting 10 vs 10 on 4vs4 maps, you'll just make more people flee. Many like this kind of big battles in small places. Sometimes you raging cause your team is shit, so what it's life, leave the people play the way they play. You'll not get back the people on 10vs10 battles to play 1vs1 or 2vs2 by deleting their way to enjoy the game, it's a shitty way of thinking.

Most players didn't came to multiplayer from the solo in the first place. The others don't play for many reasons.
I still enjoy it very much but i guess many just wanna do something else. I thought myself i would play ghost recon wildlands much much more than i did...
Hom many copies of WRD were sold and how many players are left ?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying get rid of 10v10 entirely, but make them only on maps that are appropriately sized for 10 players per side. There can still be some that are a little smaller than others. Taking a map that is sized for 4 players wide then shoving an extra 6 players in there turns the game into an air, arty and heavy tank spamfest. Playing a giant meatgrinder isn't showcasing the game very well.
 
Just come back to RD already. We take you back with open arms and even greet and nurture any newbies. One condition though. Bring that balance patch with you!
 
Valdus said:
I'm not saying get rid of 10v10 entirely, but make them only on maps that are appropriately sized for 10 players per side. There can still be some that are a little smaller than others. Taking a map that is sized for 4 players wide then shoving an extra 6 players in there turns the game into an air, arty and heavy tank spamfest. Playing a giant meatgrinder isn't showcasing the game very well.
Click to expand...

I don't like the 10vs10 Sword, It doesn't prevent players to go to the same locations, often you got entire parts of the map left unprotected with 2 or 3 players sitting in the same town waiting for offmap. But there is always some skill to have in 10vs10 on 4vs4 colombelles/carpiquet/pegasus bridge, especially in conquest mode. Except you depend not only on you but of others in your side as you depend too on what's opposite side is doing. It's less 1vs1 combat 10 times in a map than in a Sword map. If three players decide carpet bombing your panthers together, you'll mostly loose them. There is less and less chance to see these things in 1vs1 to 4v4 and less chance to see it in 10vs10 huge maps like Sword.
Often in 10vs10 on 4v4, you just hold your ground cause you're alone against two players but that means there should have two of your players against one on your side in another part of the map. You have no choice to rely on them to do their jobs.
I've played 10vs10 conquest games against allies players keeping the ground with their fingers and winning at the end with huge losses and pyrhhic victory when german got armor decks playing like in destruction mode to keep safe their units not taking risks and not making ground at all.
Mostly what i see in 10vs10 games are players gettin' rekt cause they don't know their decks, they don't bring anything to count the ennemy strongest cards and don't bring anything to make ground on their ennemy weaknesses, they don't call for help and/or their allies don't bring them help when it's needed, they sit when they should push, they don't play correctly regarding the mode conquest or destruction, they chose a part of the map they are less suited for, they play too much support decks without infantry at all (you may do it in destruction, not in conquest).
In less words, they don't think their games.

This game is a meta game where some decks have clear advantages in phase A against others, in certains maps and inside them in certain parts of the map. It's the beauty of it, you canno't do everything correctly and you've to play with others. That's precisely why armor decks like lehr are nearly impossible to win with in 1vs1 against a decent infantry allied player, lehr has not the infantry availability to hold the ground in phase A and a good player will not let him build his forces. And that's why infantry decks canno't sit back and relax in team games letting armor decks build their forces in phases B and C.
I pretty much like it.
10vs10 games in 4vs4 maps are a blast. The player(s) always disconnecting in the other hand, often at the beginning of the game, are spoiling the fun.
 
Capion said:
Just come back to RD already. We take you back with open arms and even greet and nurture any newbies. One condition though. Bring that balance patch with you!
Click to expand...

Ugh, you may be right, but RD is dead too. Eugen is probably dead soon.
 
Max_Damage said:
The game is very well designed and done. Cant blame the game really.

The only thing that scares players is .... it is a tryhard strategy game where clutch matches are hard work. It throws superior odds, divisions and players against your ability. People will play FPS or MOBA instead to avoid this uncomfortable gameplay where they ve done everything they could and still lost. I have to stop and think before i press that queue button because i might be up for 40 minutes of hard work if i do.
Click to expand...

I think a big problem with the game is that it's too tryhard for the Allies. I used to like playing as the Allies, but having to micromanage everything perfectly every time just sucks the fun out of the game for me. And it's not very fun to just play as the Germans either. The game may be well-balanced for the top players, but in games with average players the Germans always have the advantage if the players are somewhat even in skill. There's a reason players stack on the German team in 90%+ of lobbies...

It seems like Eugen just take 1v1 games with top players into account when they balance the game, and completely ignore the experience of the remaining ~95% of players. Hell, they could at least reduce the fucking amount of KTs, so each 10v10 game wouldn't be a free win for the German team. Not like it would affect the balance of the smaller games.
 
Last edited:
Herr_Robert said:
I think a big problem with the game is that it's too tryhard for the Allies. I used to like playing as the Allies, but having to micromanage everything perfectly every time just sucks the fun out of the game for me. And it's not very fun to just play as the Germans either. The game may be well-balanced for the top players, but in games with average players the Germans always have the advantage if the players are somewhat even in skill. There's a reason players stack on the German team in 90%+ of lobbies...

It seems like Eugen just take 1v1 games with top players into account when they balance the game, and completely ignore the experience of the remaining ~95% of players. Hell, they could at least reduce the fucking amount of KTs, so each 10v10 game wouldn't be a free win for the German team. Not like it would affect the balance of the smaller games.
Click to expand...
lolno if you cheack top ranked players most of them have 70+% allied. Scots and canadians are top1-2 decks.
10v10 is irrelevant and should be deleted, it just breaks this game on so many levels its not worth going into detail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back