Why are all the Eugen 10v10 servers 4v4 maps?

[paulkingtiger]

Having the small maps makes it really hard to get flank shots on armor, which is massively important when you're up against the German big cats and need to flank to get the kill. The allies usually end up against a wall of tigers and panthers which they can't kill because there isn't room to maneuver.

Back at launch we had 10v10 maps and they looked impressive and played well.

I'm assuming this is a deliberate decision by Eugen, what is the thinking behind it and are they aware that the crowded map favors German heavy armor, which is probably why a half full 10v10 game is full of German players and no Allied ones.

 

[Karlburg]

People really want individual players not to be able to lose a map, so unfortunately 10v10s are played on shoeboxes so that skill doesn't matter much.

 

[paulkingtiger]

People really want individual players not to be able to lose a map, so unfortunately 10v10s are played on shoeboxes so that skill doesn't matter much.

Draws are rare so half the people are loosing each map, in my experience it's usually the allied player on those crowded 10v10s on 4v4 maps.
Eugen have data on all of this, which side most often wins those overcrowded maps, how the games fill up. It wasn't always like this, so they changed it for a reason.

 

[Gilmund]

It wasn't always like this, so they changed it for a reason.

Maybe people playing and enjoying, everyone is not you. The big 10vs10 map Sword is never chosen by people.

 

[facmanpob]

Maybe people playing and enjoying, everyone is not you. The big 10vs10 map Sword is never chosen by people.

Sword was chosen during the beta, when the only options for 10v10 were Colombelles and Sword. Since then, however, two more 4v4 maps have been added as 10v10 servers, and with a smaller player base the chances of getting a 10v10 actually happening on a 10v10 map are very slim. What I see is lots of people sitting in the 4v4 maps on the German side (usually as either Lehr or 21 Pz) waiting for Allied players to turn up.

 

[Gilmund]

Sword was chosen during the beta, when the only options for 10v10 were Colombelles and Sword. Since then, however, two more 4v4 maps have been added as 10v10 servers, and with a smaller player base the chances of getting a 10v10 actually happening on a 10v10 map are very slim. What I see is lots of people sitting in the 4v4 maps on the German side (usually as either Lehr or 21 Pz) waiting for Allied players to turn up.

Nah i play with other guys and we switching teams. Fact we play allies most of the time, i was 100% german around 2-3 months ago and my ratio of german games is still decreasing. I'm around 72% german games now and it continues to decrease.
People still think gerrmans are op but they just too bad to play Allies.
And people could populate Sword lobbies but they don't cause they don't like it. Obviously 10vs10 beta players are not the actual ones, they had access to beta via WGRD i guess and were not liking 10vs10 on 4vs4 maps.

Sorry for last night.

 

[roirraw]

Pretty sure there was another 10v10 map in the closed beta that wasn't Colombelles, like Omaha or something.

Anyways, there is another issue with map sizes that isn't really being discussed. Player deck/battlegroup creation. I've had the good fortune to play with a few individuals in small games who literally created an unfinished deck that had nothing but aircraft in it, only to leave the game directly after start. Not sure if it was intentional, or if after the game started they realized there were no units to call in. The problem is still there though. People either do not know how to create decks or don't balance them to play with a group. You will end up getting something where people avoid buying any sort of infantry or units they're uncomfortable with. Playing on Sword will amplify this, with 2500m of front for each player, holes quickly form and quits follow directly after. Maybe a map that is deeper and slightly smaller in width could fix this problem, as total map size could be the same but total frontage would go down. In theory this should allow for people to cut-off units still. Showing people how to create battle groups and where the strengths are with the units they have is important.

The whole Axis/Allies thing is a bit funny too. It really depends on what time of day and who is online that determines which team is full.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Pretty sure there was another 10v10 map in the closed beta that wasn't Colombelles, like Omaha or something.

Anyways, there is another issue with map sizes that isn't really being discussed. Player deck/battlegroup creation. I've had the good fortune to play with a few individuals in small games who literally created an unfinished deck that had nothing but aircraft in it, only to leave the game directly after start. Not sure if it was intentional, or if after the game started they realized there were no units to call in. The problem is still there though. People either do not know how to create decks or don't balance them to play with a group. You will end up getting something where people avoid buying any sort of infantry or units they're uncomfortable with. Playing on Sword will amplify this, with 2500m of front for each player, holes quickly form and quits follow directly after. Maybe a map that is deeper and slightly smaller in width could fix this problem, as total map size could be the same but total frontage would go down. In theory this should allow for people to cut-off units still. Showing people how to create battle groups and where the strengths are with the units they have is important.

The whole Axis/Allies thing is a bit funny too. It really depends on what time of day and who is online that determines which team is full.

Sounds like a bit of a hangback to the 'support player' decks from WG...players who pulled that stunt were a curse on the game.

 

[Random043]

I'm assuming this is a deliberate decision by Eugen, what is the thinking behind it and are they aware that the crowded map favors German heavy armor, which is probably why a half full 10v10 game is full of German players and no Allied ones.

Eugen is hosting many different maps for 10v10. Why would it be their fault that noone wants to play 10v10 on an actual 10v10 map?

 

[facmanpob]

Sorry for last night.

Hey, no worries, I ended up as the Allied player with the highest kill count and the best K/D ratio, so it wasn't a bad game for me personally, and I actually enjoyed the defensive battle I fought (although I knew we were going to lose as soon as the game started and I realised there were no players covering the centre of the airfield!). When I joined the lobby though (bearing in mind this is the first 10v10 on a 4v4 map I've done in months) there were 0 Allied and about 7 German players, 4 of whom had selected Lehr, so it was fairly clear what we were in store for.

Eugen is hosting many different maps for 10v10. Why would it be their fault that noone wants to play 10v10 on an actual 10v10 map?

Eugen is hosting 4 different maps in 10v10 (over 3 different game modes), only 1 of the 4 is a 10v10 map, the other are 4v4 maps - there's an imbalance there. I don't recall there being such a map imbalance back when I was playing Red Dragon multiplayer. All I would like to see is a redress of that balance to reduce the number of 4v4 maps and increase the number of 10v10 maps... or, as I posted in another thread a couple of weeks ago, reduce the numbers on the 4v4 maps to 7v7, so that it is less crowded and there is more opportunity for manoeuvre.

 

[Random043]

Eugen is hosting 4 different maps in 10v10 (over 3 different game modes), only 1 of the 4 is a 10v10 map, the other are 4v4 maps - there's an imbalance there. I don't recall there being such a map imbalance back when I was playing Red Dragon multiplayer. All I would like to see is a redress of that balance to reduce the number of 4v4 maps and increase the number of 10v10 maps... or, as I posted in another thread a couple of weeks ago, reduce the numbers on the 4v4 maps to 7v7, so that it is less crowded and there is more opportunity for manoeuvre.

Well there is only 1 10v10 sized map in SD, so what would you change?

 

[roirraw]

Reduce map width by 1/4 and increase the depth by the reduced width amount. This would allow for some more dynamic battles as the time for reinforcements would be longer, planes would take longer to help and mechanized/airborne units could fill their roles a bit more. Encircled paratroopers fighting quick moving forces.

 

[Gilmund]

Eugen is hosting 4 different maps in 10v10 (over 3 different game modes), only 1 of the 4 is a 10v10 map, the other are 4v4 maps - there's an imbalance there. I don't recall there being such a map imbalance back when I was playing Red Dragon multiplayer. All I would like to see is a redress of that balance to reduce the number of 4v4 maps and increase the number of 10v10 maps... or, as I posted in another thread a couple of weeks ago, reduce the numbers on the 4v4 maps to 7v7, so that it is less crowded and there is more opportunity for manoeuvre.

Don't expect more maps like Sword as this map is really not played often.

 

[-HP-]

A lot of players prefer the narrow front; it allows them to use plane/arty/halftrack spam without the risk of leaving a gap in the front.

 

[Herr_Robert]

There is Sword, but it has never been popular. Hosting more Sword servers won't make more people play it. Why don't you start to play smaller games instead? It's much more fun to play when the Allies can actually put up a fight without a stacked team.

 

[Vyllis]

10v10 full eco on 4v4 just make the players bad, they only learn to spam then when they go to 4v4 they just die like lemmings.
Played some 10v10 to chill out during the end of this week, since there was no Sword played i did join those 10v10 on 4v4 maps servers.
What a regretful decision!

So my opponents throw waves of rifles (no AT) versus a Stug,
send to suicide as many planes train as possible to kill a single IG18,
spam 8 Sexton and 2 155mm artillery to kill a single moving pak40 (only after wasting like 15-30 shells around it),
buy as much as 7 M15/M16 AA pieces because i strafed a reconnaissance car with 1 fighter plane,
arty spam with 6-10 pieces everything that move including lone "25pts bait jeeps" i sent to make them waste ammo,
and many more...

I reckon that their tactics are surely very efficient versus casual players/newbies 10v10 on 4v4 maps.
... but how are they supposed to survive a any 4v4 or less and play what Steel Division gameplay is about?
Even on Sword if they do not play air spam or "throw 4 players into this small town" they end up completely lost not knowing how to play the game.

 

[Gilmund]

10v10 full eco on 4v4 just make the players bad, they only learn to spam then when they go to 4v4 they just die like lemmings.
Played some 10v10 to chill out during the end of this week, since there was no Sword played i did join those 10v10 on 4v4 maps servers.
What a regretful decision!

So my opponents throw waves of rifles (no AT) versus a Stug,
send to suicide as many planes train as possible to kill a single IG18,
spam 8 Sexton and 2 155mm artillery to kill a single moving pak40 (only after wasting like 15-30 shells around it),
buy as much as 7 M15/M16 AA pieces because i strafed a reconnaissance car with 1 fighter plane,
arty spam with 6-10 pieces everything that move including lone "25pts bait jeeps" i sent to make them waste ammo,
and many more...

I reckon that their tactics are surely very efficient versus casual players/newbies 10v10 on 4v4 maps.
... but how are they supposed to survive a any 4v4 or less and play what Steel Division gameplay is about?
Even on Sword if they do not play air spam or "throw 4 players into this small town" they end up completely lost not knowing how to play the game.

Obviously you've not played the best 10vs10 players

 

[Karlburg]

Obviously you've not played the best 10vs10 players

Lol 'good' 10v10 players.

 

[Gilmund]

Lol 'good' 10v10 players.

Another guy with a 1vs1 e-penis. Jesus, it's spreading.