Where Is Every one??

[Admiral_Awesome]

Why did Rojan get banned?

That seems awfully loaded

Regarding Rojan, IS-2 and a couple of other fellows here on this forum, I'd dare say everyone is better off without those people and their toxic attitude. By the way, its not unusual for the majority of the "ranked" gamers to be that toxic, check almost every other forum of somewhat competitive games (or the old ones like wargame and ruse) and you'll find those people. If the community is large enough, you can mostly avoid them, if its well moderated they get banned pretty fast, but in small communities they are extremly bad.

I really like the decades old 1d4chan definition for those people, stemming from the good old times where strategy was played solely on tabletop (even back then those people were annoying as hell):

In wargaming: powergamers are less likely to be referred to as such due to its association with level-scaling systems, and are typically referred to as "tourneyfags" or merely "competitive players" which are generally neutral terms. Powergamers are especially hated in the wargaming community as they typically exude a noxious odor, have no interest in fun besides their own and are the number one reason people new to the hobby ragequit immediately.

A somewhat milder term with a similar meaning is "optimiser", which generally lacks the negative connotations of powergamer, in that they won't typically suck the fun out of anything they touch.

Edit: For everyone interested in this, I highly reccomend reading the rest of the definition on 1d4chan since it more or less describes what has happened here (see the 10vs10 discussion as a reference) and why SD is struggling so hard with new players: Hint: History repeats itself

 

[Drrty-D]

its not unusual for the majority of the "ranked" gamers to be that toxic, check almost every other forum of somewhat competitive games (or the old ones like wargame and ruse) and you'll find those people.

Its not true that the majority of wargamer ranked players are toxic.The majority of them didnt have a forum account for long time,specially in W:EE and W:AB.The people that were toxic were guys that wanted their favorite nation to be the best in the game,why USA cant be best inf,look Rambo how good in movies,we almost won in Vietnam and shit.

I dont read other forums,but that toxic ranked behaviour was clearly visible on AoA forum just after few weeks,the same as here.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Why did Rojan get banned?

That seems awfully loaded

Whether it was my post, or any of the other posters he was cranking up on, I couldn't say...I bailed out on the thread because I could see that it wasn't going to end well, and checked back a few days later when I hoped things had calmed down. It was a fair bet that there would be bans handed out.

-Awsome is spot on correct, while the elitist 1v1 cabal were wrecking every 'non-them' thread, this board was toxic. Now we are seeing disagreements, but there are actually debates on the points being made, and not insta-reverting to the "That's what happens in 10v10 clown mode and that's why you will never play like a good ranked player" style of response.

Rojan may have been a good ranked player, but that certainly didn't carry over to the forums where it was pretty obvious that there were a few posters manoeuvring him and several of his kind towards posting something that would get him/them banned. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it's certainly a possible...it was only a matter of time they'd go too far, particularly seeing most of that group had received warnings fairly recently to the purge.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Its not true that the majority of wargamer ranked players are toxic.The majority of them didnt have a forum account for long time,specially in W:EE and W:AB.The people that were toxic were guys that wanted their favorite nation to be the best in the game,why USA cant be best inf,look Rambo how good in movies,we almost won in Vietnam and shit.

I dont read other forums,but that toxic ranked behaviour was clearly visible on AoA forum just after few weeks,the same as here.

Total War forums were full of it in the MP section, particularly after major releases, such as Shogun 2. In fact, the situation was made worse by the fact that CA had created several tiers of beta testers about 9 months out from release of Shoggie 2, to test the MP game...they ended up with it stacked by people from one particular clan, who basically used the opportunity to 'feather their own nest' to climb to the top of the table, knowing and having practiced with each meta balance post-release. A bit of digging turned up indications that there may have been a 'close intimate relationship' between one of the staffers involved and one of the clan's organisers...either way, the unethical behaviour near destroyed that clan, with a few of their senior people walking out, and the in-house beta test team CA put together fracturing. That's (possibly) a large part of why the following launch of Rome 2 was such an untested debacle of a game on release, there was no serious beta testing done, and they couldn't get their experienced community former testers to work with them again.

Re Vasily...yeh, not sure on why that happened. If I'd had any inkling beforehand I would have let Eugen know. I'm still not sure on the details, but it left a sour taste I can tell you.

 

[Harold Alexander]

Total War forums were full of it in the MP section, particularly after major releases, such as Shogun 2. In fact, the situation was made worse by the fact that CA had created several tiers of beta testers about 9 months out from release of Shoggie 2, to test the MP game...they ended up with it stacked by people from one particular clan, who basically used the opportunity to 'feather their own nest' to climb to the top of the table, knowing and having practiced with each meta balance post-release. A bit of digging turned up indications that there may have been a 'close intimate relationship' between one of the staffers involved and one of the clan's organisers...either way, the unethical behaviour near destroyed that clan, with a few of their senior people walking out, and the in-house beta test team CA put together fracturing. That's (possibly) a large part of why the following launch of Rome 2 was such an untested debacle of a game on release, there was no serious beta testing done, and they couldn't get their experienced community former testers to work with them again.

Re Vasily...yeh, not sure on why that happened. If I'd had any inkling beforehand I would have let Eugen know. I'm still not sure on the details, but it left a sour taste I can tell you.

thanks for sharing your mind

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Regarding Rojan, IS-2 and a couple of other fellows here on this forum, I'd dare say everyone is better off without those people and their toxic attitude. By the way, its not unusual for the majority of the "ranked" gamers to be that toxic, check almost every other forum of somewhat competitive games (or the old ones like wargame and ruse) and you'll find those people. If the community is large enough, you can mostly avoid them, if its well moderated they get banned pretty fast, but in small communities they are extremly bad.

I really like the decades old 1d4chan definition for those people, stemming from the good old times where strategy was played solely on tabletop (even back then those people were annoying as hell):

In wargaming: powergamers are less likely to be referred to as such due to its association with level-scaling systems, and are typically referred to as "tourneyfags" or merely "competitive players" which are generally neutral terms. Powergamers are especially hated in the wargaming community as they typically exude a noxious odor, have no interest in fun besides their own and are the number one reason people new to the hobby ragequit immediately.

A somewhat milder term with a similar meaning is "optimiser", which generally lacks the negative connotations of powergamer, in that they won't typically suck the fun out of anything they touch.

Edit: For everyone interested in this, I highly reccomend reading the rest of the definition on 1d4chan since it more or less describes what has happened here (see the 10vs10 discussion as a reference) and why SD is struggling so hard with new players: Hint: History repeats itself

I never thought of is2 or Rojan as being toxic

 

[Ktonos]

The game is tough. None wants to get beaten for like many games in the row. The players populating the servers are either vets with 1000 games or new guys who don't mind losing (well not that much).

I started recently but I have already seen several new guys log in for three-four days and then stop altogether - probably going back to skirmish. Vets don't help in that either, some will rant at new guys who lost the game for them. Other veterans will avoid to side with an unknown player (thus probably a noob) in a 3v3 or 4v4 and will choose the side with the most familiar nicknames. This results in uneven games of 4 veterans vs 4 noobs many times. This is very evident in 10v10 games: Its always like this: One side is quickly crowded with all the 15+ leveled players and the other with all the new guys. I don't mean that they make collusion or smthing. Just that when they enter a game, they will choose to go to the side with the best players, probably because they want to win.

The multiplayer part of the game needs two things: Matchmaking tools, (including the ability to see what level is your potential opponent) and a clan system.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

The game is tough. None wants to get beaten for like many games in the row. The players populating the servers are either vets with 1000 games or new guys who don't mind losing (well not that much).

I started recently but I have already seen several new guys log in for three-four days and then stop altogether - probably going back to skirmish. Vets don't help in that either, some will rant at new guys who lost the game for them. Other veterans will avoid to side with an unknown player (thus probably a noob) in a 3v3 or 4v4 and will choose the side with the most familiar nicknames. This results in uneven games of 4 veterans vs 4 noobs many times. This is very evident in 10v10 games: Its always like this: One side is quickly crowded with all the 15+ leveled players and the other with all the new guys. I don't mean that they make collusion or smthing. Just that when they enter a game, they will choose to go to the side with the best players, probably because they want to win.

The multiplayer part of the game needs two things: Matchmaking tools, (including the ability to see what level is your potential opponent) and a clan system.

That's part of the reason why I personally think we need a legitimate (and specifically balanced) 10v10 mode...both from the potential clan popularity, and the ability to 'carry' players.

 

[Karlburg]

That's part of the reason why I personally think we need a legitimate (and specifically balanced) 10v10 mode...both from the potential clan popularity, and the ability to 'carry' players.

Actually playing the 10v10 map would be a good start. The fact that everyone plays the 4v4 maps in 10v10 makes all of its problems so much worse, but people just want to snooze and go arty party. The 10 v 10 map actually has a good amount of space to work with.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Actually playing the 10v10 map would be a good start. The fact that everyone plays the 4v4 maps in 10v10 makes all of its problems so much worse, but people just want to snooze and go arty party. The 10 v 10 map actually has a good amount of space to work with.

Absolutely agree. It forces manoeuvre rather than bashing away.

 

[Gilmund]

The 10vs10 Sword map is hell as there are always huge gaps with no players and you loose games simply cause the start is wrong. Related to that, there is always in each Sword game 1 player struggling against 2 or 3 at the same time on a very wide front and being rolled over cause he canno't do anything, as good as the player can be. This map is not better to keep players at bay, frustrating as hell when you're on the wrong side of things. I often myself don't want to play this map cause you often not even have a chance to do something. It is less about skill than any other map involved.

 

[Karlburg]

The 10vs10 Sword map is hell as there are always huge gaps with no players and you loose games simply cause the start is wrong. Related to that, there is always in each Sword game 1 player struggling against 2 or 3 at the same time on a very wide front and being rolled over cause he canno't do anything, as good as the player can be. This map is not better to keep players at bay, frustrating as hell when you're on the wrong side of things. I often myself don't want to play this map cause you often not even have a chance to do something. It is less about skill than any other map involved.

So now all notion of tactical possibility has to be sacrificed at the altar of making things easier on people who don't want to handle much frontage.

 

[Gilmund]

So now all notion of tactical possibility has to be sacrificed at the altar of making things easier on people who don't want to handle much frontage.

This discussion is about saying 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps just makes people disappear. But i don't see very often 10vs10 Sword games being played, quite the opposite actually, people continue to play 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps cause they like it more.
My point is precisely to say it is almost never about tactical possibility when you play Sword cause you win or loose games way more because of the size of the map you've to handle than your skills. It is not 1vs1, nor 2vs2 3vs3 4vs4 when you've max 8 players able to fuck up. It is 20 players.
When you play a narrow part of a 4vs4 map in 10vs10, arty does obviously more damage, especially offmap, but you are not rolled over as easily (except if huge skill differences) and you've to focus on all your troops at the same time. It is way more skill involved in a way. I find it way more challenging.
Plus, a undefended gap can be managed, situations can change.

In 10vs10 everything is about the simultaneous starting positions of 20 players. 1 or 2 very bad players in one side just fuck up an entire match, especially in Sword. The opposite side doesn't have to be good, just push forward undisputed lands with jeeps get a +3 asap then hide and run. The time you do something about it it's just too late to change the course of the game, points go too fast. It is very much hard to like at times. I often don't.
There is no fun for me to have some teamplay on ten times a 1vs1 map cause you've twenty more chances to get players to fuck up. And they do indeed and results are worse.

 

[roirraw]

Some people just want a stable game that's hosted from dedicated servers. There were a few attempts to make dedicated servers for smaller than 10v10 games, but the problem seems to be with the UI as to why this hasn't been successful. The game seems to just count total players instead of making sure each team has an even amount of players. If you've hosted these servers before, there's an option for "DELTA_something..." that keeps players from filling up one team before the other, this makes it almost impossible for friends to join the same team. Personally, I just want a stable game server and some confidence in the players on my team. This is why I play with friends, or even people I don't know but invite to our teamspeak, or just friend them in game and try to play together.

This might be part of the 10v10 problem, since often we are the only group of people that will sit on a team and wait for the lobby to fill. Often ending up with rage quits a few minutes into the game and overall "Total Victory" in just about every game. It's not fun for anyone to get steam rolled, but at the same time, it's not fun waiting in a lobby for people to join/leave a game over the course of an hour, just to play one game. So we organized and often play Allies, since the people who aren't with a group often want to play Axis and have an "easier time". No amount of splitting up will fix this either, as even in my groups, unless you play with certain people that know what they're doing, the enthusiasm to play a potentially difficult match goes down hill fast. Part of what gets people to wait up to an hour for a lobby to fill is the very fact we are all on each others friends list and communicating while waiting. So it's a difficult situation when the population is low and people just want to play games.

Matchmaking needs to be a thing, it's the only way to keep people playing and not cherry picking their teammates or opponents. On top of that, keeping the names of the players hidden, like battlegroup names, until after the game would be a big help. Still allow people to que up with as many friends as they want for all the game modes that could be available - 5 total in que means all games 5v5 or greater within the map/game mode selections are potentially available. Something like this has to happen though, because I see it every night, people join and leave lobbies when they see an entire team full; complain when Axis is full about wehrboos, but don't want to play allies; complain about allies being full and leave directly after. The only way to fix this is by placing matchmaking as a priority, still allowing people to make custom games, but focus on promoting this matchmaking as the sole game mode. Keep stats from all fights in better detail and expand this game into the realm of how other RTS series keep their players active. In my opinion this should be priority above all other content that isn't maps at this point. Matchmaking and new maps are the main topics of those who I talk to. I also get that it's a holistic approach to fine tuning a game into a perfectly-imperfect playable game, but sorting out this constant player attrition should be at the top of the list. The roots of these problems can often be seen in the lobbies themselves, and that's why I say people should have a general chat to muster in and a matchmaking que.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

This discussion is about saying 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps just makes people disappear. But i don't see very often 10vs10 Sword games being played, quite the opposite actually, people continue to play 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps cause they like it more.
My point is precisely to say it is almost never about tactical possibility when you play Sword cause you win or loose games way more because of the size of the map you've to handle than your skills. It is not 1vs1, nor 2vs2 3vs3 4vs4 when you've max 8 players able to fuck up. It is 20 players.
When you play a narrow part of a 4vs4 map in 10vs10, arty does obviously more damage, especially offmap, but you are not rolled over as easily (except if huge skill differences) and you've to focus on all your troops at the same time. It is way more skill involved in a way. I find it way more challenging.
Plus, a undefended gap can be managed, situations can change.

In 10vs10 everything is about the simultaneous starting positions of 20 players. 1 or 2 very bad players in one side just fuck up an entire match, especially in Sword. The opposite side doesn't have to be good, just push forward undisputed lands with jeeps get a +3 asap then hide and run. The time you do something about it it's just too late to change the course of the game, points go too fast. It is very much hard to like at times. I often don't.
There is no fun for me to have some teamplay on ten times a 1vs1 map cause you've twenty more chances to get players to fuck up. And they do indeed and results are worse.

That's why 10v10 needs to be tweaked and balanced separately (as it currently stands) and the option provided for it to be a discrete and legitimate game mode in itself. What we have at the moment is a hybrid mode that has proven to be popular (very popular, in fact) but limited by mechanics and practical developer issues, and being widely criticised for the consequences of those. I think it needs to be focussed on as 'what it could be' rather than what it currently is...but, that would be something for future releases, not the current game.

 

[Adolith]

I dont see how 10v10 is always regarded as highly popular here.

Take this screenshot, taken at somewhat european primetime:

429 players online, 91 games running. Now if you count empty 10v10 / 4v4 maps as "running" that leaves you with about 70 running games in which people are actually playing. 2 of those games are 10v10 housing 30 players in total. Which means the 68 remaining running games, playing 1v1 to 4v4, have a vastly superior playercount. While online players also includes players not joined in any lobbies, there will be at least 68x2 = 136 players not playing 10v10 - probably way more.

10v10 on 4v4 maps reminds a bit of the Starcraft 1 map "Big game hunters" - a map with infinite resources. It had a somewhat huge following, but was not balanced. It was easy to play and generally a clusterf***, somewhat fun. But its a trap for new players. Its a easy way to start playing, but you are not playing the real game and wont learn the real game.

 

[Gilmund]

That's why 10v10 needs to be tweaked and balanced separately (as it currently stands) and the option provided for it to be a discrete and legitimate game mode in itself. What we have at the moment is a hybrid mode that has proven to be popular (very popular, in fact) but limited by mechanics and practical developer issues, and being widely criticised for the consequences of those. I think it needs to be focussed on as 'what it could be' rather than what it currently is...but, that would be something for future releases, not the current game.

I agree you have to tweak 10vs10 (or team) decks and 1vs1 decks separately, there is no other way imo. It's funny cause i just watched a bit of the new Lehr deck from Vulcan and find it awful to say the least, very different to mine : too much common späthrupp, not enough panthers and kingstigers (the very power of Lehr is its panzer strength, why use it in half and risk not to have enough), it turns lehr into some sort of middle armor deck with common infantry and middle support when it should really use its assets in phase C with 150 points each thick imo. Vulcan even takes 190 points jagdpanzers from phase C, a mystery to me, why would you do that when you may save points to get your Befehl Panther or kingstigers in 2 or 3 thicks asap with more AP and more armor ?!?
My only explanation is Vulcan being more in a 1vs1 idea of the deck with more units on the ground and panzers doing support when i see more Lehr with panzers as frontline units in very particular open fields in very few maps. When phase B is coming you get your first tiger or panther and you're the king of the field. It is always to have the best unit in your hands with Lehr and take the momentum cause you don't have a lot of units to play with.
There are a number of possibilities considering the maps i guess.

That said, you can tweak as much as you want, a big part of the problem is the will of new players to learn the game think and produce their own builds. As we speak and read people, they want some simplified game with open ground for their panzers, time to do everything (with the idea of coop), in fact just slowing the game. Cause the game is demanding and a lot of people just struggle with that.
When in fact the best thing to do is play and play and play, watch replays and see what work and what's not.

 

[Gilmund]

I dont see how 10v10 is always regarded as highly popular here.

Take this screenshot, taken at somewhat european primetime:

429 players online, 91 games running. Now if you count empty 10v10 / 4v4 maps as "running" that leaves you with about 70 running games in which people are actually playing. 2 of those games are 10v10 housing 30 players in total. Which means the 68 remaining running games, playing 1v1 to 4v4, have a vastly superior playercount. While online players also includes players not joined in any lobbies, there will be at least 68x2 = 136 players not playing 10v10 - probably way more.

10v10 on 4v4 maps reminds a bit of the Starcraft 1 map "Big game hunters" - a map with infinite resources. It had a somewhat huge following, but was not balanced. It was easy to play and generally a clusterf***, somewhat fun. But its a trap for new players. Its a easy way to start playing, but you are not playing the real game and wont learn the real game.

The very well known 10vs10 bashing real game/unreal game. Always funny to read. I still wonder what it really means to play the "real game" (except e-penis tendancies?)? Being rekt by infantry decks in 1vs1 ? Play ranked games where you just being disadvantaged by the map? Play team skirmishes with your friends when you roll over pickups? What is the real game and what is the unreal game, tell me ?
With the time needed to fill a 10vs10 nowadays, most people don't bother anymore and play something else. We reach something like 30min now to fill a lobby, which is a game. Sometimes we spend more time waiting in the lobby than playing the game. There is always around 400 players online and 200 players in chat evenings in european time. To get 10% of them who does want to wait 30min to get a game is not what i call unpopular.

 

[roirraw]

Without any proof, I'm going to say the online player count isn't accurate as one would believe it. That's just how many people have the game up with an active internet connection. If you want to get a total idea of who is playing the game, open up the chat window and it will tell you next to "Steel Division Chat". The number is about half the actual online count at all times, because I think it counts people doing skirmish or campaign. So, at best you take half the player population and remove them from the total, and you have the online player count that's either playing games or looking for games. When you factor it like that, the total population late night PST is about 110 people or so, a 10v10 takes up about 1/5th of the population. Pretty sure that's a popular game mode, considering the other options are 1v1,2v2,3v3,4v4 - looks evenly split on the surface. I'm sure the total numbers of people playing the different small games would skew to more 2v2s/3v3s over 1v1s/4v4s but that's my guess. Overall, about 20% to 40% of the population at any time is playing 10v10s or interested in them.

 

[roirraw]

I agree you have to tweak 10vs10 (or team) decks and 1vs1 decks separately, there is no other way imo. It's funny cause i just watched a bit of the new Lehr deck from Vulcan and find it awful to say the least, very different to mine : too much common späthrupp, not enough panthers and kingstigers (the very power of Lehr is its panzer strength, why use it in half and risk not to have enough), it turns lehr into some sort of middle armor deck with common infantry and middle support when it should really use its assets in phase C with 150 points each thick imo. Vulcan even takes 190 points jagdpanzers from phase C, a mystery to me, why would you do that when you may save points to get your Befehl Panther or kingstigers in 2 or 3 thicks asap with more AP and more armor ?!?
My only explanation is Vulcan being more in a 1vs1 idea of the deck with more units on the ground and panzers doing support when i see more Lehr with panzers as frontline units in very particular open fields in very few maps. When phase B is coming you get your first tiger or panther and you're the king of the field. It is always to have the best unit in your hands with Lehr and take the momentum cause you don't have a lot of units to play with.
There are a number of possibilities considering the maps i guess.

That said, you can tweak as much as you want, a big part of the problem is the will of new players to learn the game think and produce their own builds. As we speak and read people, they want some simplified game with open ground for their panzers, time to do everything (with the idea of coop), in fact just slowing the game. Cause the game is demanding and a lot of people just struggle with that.
When in fact the best thing to do is play and play and play, watch replays and see what work and what's not.

People aren't really building a few different options into their battlegroups from what I can tell. They will just focus on an arty, air or tank deck and however that looks or sounds good in their mind is how they try to play it out. Redundancy is key and having overlapping roles between units allows you to maintain the initiative. Without watching Vulcan, I'm guessing that's what he's done with the Lehr deck - making best use of the income available before C. That might require getting more infantry squads out of the recon tab and pushing forward with regular Lehr Infantry, and because of the point investment in these other options, you have to make up the difference with cheaper armored variants.

This is the algebra of Wargame and now Steel Division. Figuring out that perfect balance to fit your play style, your opponents army and play style and the terrain ahead of you. Being able to look at a battlegroup and see these options without even testing them is where players need to be at before they hit the lobbies and get destroyed by well thought out battle plans.

After that comes execution of your deck and the use of game mechanics. Fast moving down roads to assault into towns is something a lot of players are really unable to stop. Once their static defenses have revealed themselves, it's a push over, air spam comes in - might or might not have an affect, the engagement is decided and now a hole in the line exists. Having players learn when to keep things on hold fire to ambush, when the right moment to spring the attack and how to effectively fall back troops without them getting panicked, all take time to learn. This is why I reach out to just about everyone that I play with in this community that has grasped some form of these tactics, as if you have a few of the basics, the rest of the game comes easily. Figuring out the key to waking the new players up to these play styles is also the key to keeping players interested.