Steel Division- What Went Wrong?

[darkfireslide]

I decided to revisit this game since I haven't played it much since launch and I did a lot of research here on the forums and otherwise and decided to make a video covering the reasons why I think Steel Division maybe isn't excelling as a game, especially in its competitive community, compared to Wargame. Watch it here on youtube: (Actual commentary is only 26 minutes long, the extra time is just letting the match finish since it was oddly a good one against the AI)

I realized after I made the video that I made many comparisons to Wargame, but I didn't do that because I think Wargame is perfect, which I don't, but rather to attempt to make comparisons that I think could help improve Steel Division as a game and maybe bring back disgruntled players as well as bring in new ones. I actually quite enjoy Steel Division, and in concept it should be fantastic, but I don't think we're quite there yet, but I hope someday we can be.

Hope you guys enjoy the video. Feel free to agree or disagree on here or in the comments section.

 

[DoubleDan68]

The problem was that many wargame players unfairly valued RD over SD because they liked their comfy couch 10v10 tacticool servers and then in steel they split the playerbase 50 thousand ways....... if they delete 10v10 mode and delete destruction, then the real game will shine out ... until then players want to bumble their 5000 point super unit around till the game hits the end of round timer..... then they look at stats and they pat themselves on back for killing 3 trucks and a jeep with their 26ap tiger...............

 

[Karlburg]

I don't think balance really has as much of an effect on a game's reception as people think. I don't think the balance has been perfect, but it's certainly not what made a bunch of people bounce off the game when it dropped.

 

[Crotou]

What went wrong ?
- The game breaking bugs at the launch staying here for weeks,
- The lack of matchmaking at launch,
- The late and poor implementation of matchmaking,
- The horrible UI with random buttons' placement (jesus, I wonder who was in charge but I suspect cocaine was in)
- The itchy problems of units' behaviour (pathfinding, inf squads popping out of building from random sides -most often in front of the enemy shooting at them-, inf squads retreating through fire, problems of line of sights with certain buildings were a squad can be targeted but cannot return fire),
- etc.

If balance really was the number one priority for the players in general, then Red Dragon would have died in 2 weeks, SC 2 in a month, etc.

It is very sad as the game proposes numerous improvements such as the AI, the game mode, the factions' overall philosophy, the three phases, the quality-of-life tools (line of sight, orders during the deployment phase), etc.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

What went wrong ?
- The game breaking bugs at the launch staying here for weeks,
- The lack of matchmaking at launch,
- The late and poor implementation of matchmaking,
- The horrible UI with random buttons' placement (jesus, I wonder who was in charge but I suspect cocaine was in)
- The itchy problems of units' behaviour (pathfinding, inf squads popping out of building from random sides -most often in front of the enemy shooting at them-, inf squads retreating through fire, problems of line of sights with certain buildings were a squad can be targeted but cannot return fire),
- etc.
If balance really was the number priority for the players in general, then Red Dragon would have died in 2 weeks, SC 2 in a month, etc.

It is very sad as the game proposes numerous improvements such as the AI, the game mode, the factions' overall philosophy, the three phases, the quality-of-life tools (line of sight, orders during the deployment phase), etc.

Wait! What?!? You mean that 10v10 isn't the root of all the game's evils?

Thank you, you're on my Christmas card list...

 

[Crotou]

I am blessed.

 

[Lomak]

A niche (strategy game) in a niche (focus on multiplayer instead of good shiny single player campaign) in a niche (hard core mechanic, no unit hitpoints)

But I like it for what it is and I'm thankfully for the job Eugen has done.

 

[Aeon221]

What went wrong? Eugen didn't ban video spam and self promotion from the forums.

Oh you mean the game.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Hindsight is 20/20 that being said the best thing Eugene could have done or should have done was to take the same approach that playerunknown's battlegrounds took they should have fully supported Twitch streamers and integrated it into the game as you can see with battlegrounds it was hugely successful and a Fusion was to either make another game or a DLC they should really consider taking the same approach and fully supporting streaming. I'd recommend with the next patch they hire some Twitch streamer personalities and have them really get into the game. I feel that the rewards greatly outweigh the risks and perhaps we'll see the golden numbers that playerunknown's has received if you look on Twitch it happens to be the most popular game on average which is amazing considering how new it is and that had to compete with League of Legends and Dota 2 and those other Comfort couch casual games

 

[Wulfburk]

A niche (strategy game) in a niche (focus on multiplayer instead of good shiny single player campaign) in a niche (hard core mechanic, no unit hitpoints)

But I like it for what it is and I'm thankfully for the job Eugen has done.

This. Best ww2 game ive played. (alongside hidden & dangerous 2 and forgotten hope 2 maybe)

 

[Chip Thaddeus]

The problem was that many wargame players unfairly valued RD over SD because they liked their comfy couch 10v10 tacticool servers and then in steel they split the playerbase 50 thousand ways....... if they delete 10v10 mode and delete destruction, then the real game will shine out ... until then players want to bumble their 5000 point super unit around till the game hits the end of round timer..... then they look at stats and they pat themselves on back for killing 3 trucks and a jeep with their 26ap tiger...............

I don't think that's accurate. You see some comments in that vein over at r/Wargame but that is a plurality of the community at best. A lot of players like the Cold War gone hot scenario and not many games offer that, and since the servers for World in Conflict are dead that makes one less. Personally I prefer RD's AP and accuracy system over SD's but that doesn't mean I don't like SD. I think in some areas, like UI and quality of life SD is a huge improvement, but I also think they stepped back in several ways, and I think that the game just didn't resonate with some of the players. That is what my friends tell me anyway.

 

[Vyllis]

The problem was that many wargame players unfairly valued RD over SD because they liked their comfy couch 10v10 tacticool servers

Not really true, I loved tacticool servers in RD and the closer i found in SD are 3v3/4v4 games (had the most fun in these).

The SD actual 10v10 trend seems to play 10v10 on 4v4 map with 0 manoeuvring and 100% stack.

 

[mitchverr]

For me, it would be a few thing.

Very annoying balance decisions that have been made that megate the playstyle i like.

Very arbitrary way that specific units have been put into specific areas in the army builder (ie support vehicles in recon, recon tanks in tanks, etc). In fact, some of this directly damages the whole dang reason I bought the game, I like light armour and playing with it, eugen said "phase A all about dat light armour and recon with it running into B" and what do we get, well, we didnt exactly get that done too well imo when units that would be ideal for it are locked away in phas B or even C at extreme limited numbers in some divisions but not others while we get serious firepower tanks in A lol.

The consistant and frankly, annoying way that every patch has been hyped out the butthole to be the "super big/important" and then we got pretty much what other games call "minor patches with a map" or "generic balance patch 1.154" and ofcourse, the significant time it takes to even get this driving many people away also.

I would say thats hurt the game too for some people like myself, I aint been on the forum for a while, but all the "hype" of a balance patch brought me back, but sadly it didnt change the stuff I was looking for changing and so away I go again lol.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

For me, it would be a few thing.

Very annoying balance decisions that have been made that megate the playstyle i like.

Very arbitrary way that specific units have been put into specific areas in the army builder (ie support vehicles in recon, recon tanks in tanks, etc). In fact, some of this directly damages the whole dang reason I bought the game, I like light armour and playing with it, eugen said "phase A all about dat light armour and recon with it running into B" and what do we get, well, we didnt exactly get that done too well imo when units that would be ideal for it are locked away in phas B or even C at extreme limited numbers in some divisions but not others while we get serious firepower tanks in A lol.

The consistant and frankly, annoying way that every patch has been hyped out the butthole to be the "super big/important" and then we got pretty much what other games call "minor patches with a map" or "generic balance patch 1.154" and ofcourse, the significant time it takes to even get this driving many people away also.

I would say thats hurt the game too for some people like myself, I aint been on the forum for a while, but all the "hype" of a balance patch brought me back, but sadly it didnt change the stuff I was looking for changing and so away I go again lol.

Yep...nothing like having to wait till phase C to get a marginally vetted Firefly to fight that well vetted Phase A model the germans get. Still waiting for GA to get an unvetted King Tiger Recce for phase A...it might come this patch.

 

[Clayroger_]

There ar many reasons why the player base syrface is dispointing, but see two major ones:

1 - Part of the Wargame comunity did not move to SDN44. This is because the WWII theme did not please. When you invest time in modern fighting, people are less interrested by other eras. Some of them tried, and then got back to RD. Many did not try at all.
Also part of the problem is that SD has major changes versus WG. So this coupled with the WWII theme may have discouraged Wargame players.

2 - The other point is that newcomers, interrested by the WWII theme or else, bumped because of the steep learning curve.
Although the training is quite good, it does not give a game experience. Also the game comes with zero documentation which is a bit hard for such a game.
Severly beaten by the AI or more experienced players, these were also quickly discouraged.

These are to me the reasons why there are less players now.

 

[urogard]

People didn't ditch wargame for SD because they were interested in staying in the Cold War timeframe, every poll run on the forums came to that conclusion. Opinions were split whether to shrink or expand the timeframe, but the majority preferred cold war/modern over WWII.

Of the more than half a dozen people who I know who bought and tried SD for a while, there's only one I see a few times per week to play SD, everyone else stopped playing it.

if they delete 10v10 mode and delete destruction, then the real game will shine out

All that will shine will be the empty servers that nobody will play on.

What you also seem not to get is that conquest isn't any better than destruction. And if you remove either, then a good chunk of the players who prefer that mode will simply stop playing, rather than play the other mode.
Having the game declare you a winner because you grabbed more territory but lost your entire army is as non-sensical as declaring you the winner because you killed twice as many units but are clinging your last sector and would be overrun if the time limit had been 10 minutes longer. (That's actually what happened in WWII. The Germans thought they were playing conquest so they stopped pushing when they reached 1k conquest points. USSR disagreed and was playing total destruction with no time limit, the rest is history)

The only sensible way of returning to a unified playerbase with a single mode would be to merge and assign 50% of the weight to conquest points and 50% of the weight to destruction points (and keeping the income based on sectors held, rather than equal income for both sides at all times) when determining the winner, then all you would set in the game options would be the time limit.

 

[axnone]

Although the training is quite good, it does not give a game experience. Also the game comes with zero documentation which is a bit hard for such a game.
Severly beaten by the AI or more experienced players, these were also quickly discouraged.

The tutorial we have now in-game is very decent already. It even includes a skirmish with medium AI. Seriously you can`t get "severly beaten" unless you choose hard or VH unless you`re completely new to RTS. As for experienced players, well that occurs in every multiplayer game doesn`t it

 

[Clayroger_]

Seriously you can`t get "severly beaten" unless you choose hard or VH unless you`re completely new to RTS. As for experienced players, well that occurs in every multiplayer game doesn`t it

I'm just talking about what I have been told by friends, who are experienced gamers, coming from the Close Combat series. It's not my opinion.
The point I did not mentionned though is related with the game speed in MP. It is overwhelming for many unexperienced players.

 

[bjorkrismacho]

I'm just talking about what I have been told by friends, who are experienced gamers, coming from the Close Combat series. It's not my opinion.
The point I did not mentionned though is related with the game speed in MP. It is overwhelming for many unexperienced players.

i can relate to it being overwelming as a unexperienced rts player, but it was a fun challenge one of my friends playing it enjoys it but finds hes extremely tired after a game or two, exhausted even. As för the modes i only just realizad that destruction give u more income the more territory you hold so its not only about kd ratio its about killing and taking ground to push the Income advantage whitout losing to many troops.