Why this game's playerbase has fallen off so much

[Dianno5741]

I concur. Off map on paper is a great idea for preventing stalemates but its over proliferated. I don't think we should have any above 200mm and further, my idea is only armor divisions should get them (mobility) but not as much on map. So you either get on map or off map not both.

I also don't like infantry meta as is. Typically its allies use flame infantry to take whatever in A. Axis use pios to take it in B. It's boring. There's no tension. Firefights in towns with non engineer infantry is super fun because you can react and counter react. My vote would be to have more Stostrupp esk infantry as assault forces. Or like 6 man RGR marauders assault teams. Less reliance on abundant flamethrower and satchels which are q move proz. 6th airborne paras are a great example of what I'd like to see more of across decks.

 

[LegioX]

This game is all about tactics. I was in a 3v3 on St Mere Eglise (sp?) I was playing the 716th and my teammates picked the sides, so I was forced to play against 3rd Canadian storm troopers in the town. I decided to not even play the town, but instead set up MG's and fire support on outside of town to "contain" him inside it. Of course the smoke spam came in town, which I knew right away he was rushing with stormtroopers. I hit the flanks with other teammates and we won the match. Anytime the 3rd Canadian guy try to push out he got caught with IGA's and MGs.
You are not forced to defend a town if you know your div cannot. Play to your div strength and u will be better for it.

 

[Baron_Mijail]

In my case i stopped playing SD because of the lack of game modes or at least "fun" gamemodes. I mean, the new conquest is nice, but after some time i found it boring, really missed some kind of objectives or ofensive-defensive scenarios.

 

[iamthatiam]

Imo a lot of empty lobbys are not a big deal. You can filter to show only not empty lobbys and only uncheck it if you don´t find an actual filled game mode/map you want to play.

I played already a 10 v 10 Axis vs Axis with my uncle, but funnily we didn´t noticed it before. So at one point I said:"Wait, why do they have Panzerwerfer now???", but then something else happened and I forgot about it. Minutes later my uncle said:"They have a 88 in the woods.", I said only:"Whaaaat? Wait, we are in a fucking mirror match!" :-D
On the other hand it was a good experience because it showed me that the balance issues aren´t so big as I think often, every good unit can drive you mad if you don´t have a good counter against and it is played well by your opponent.

I love the game and I enjoy it a lot. I think a lot of people spend to much time in seeking problems in game mechanics and complaining about it in forums rather than trying to figure out how they can actually play better with what they have. It´s an old problem and in nearly every ww2 game the same.
For example I was frustrated a lot about allied air supperiority and the useless AA mechanic (it´s really useless because even if I bring my whole AA out they have only to send multiple times 5-6 bombers in a row and then my "shield" is nearly gone without any/nearly no losses for my opponent), then I started to insert 6-7 fighters in my deck and yesterday I killed with them for example in one game 16 enemy planes (how can somebody be so dumb to send another bomber straight in the 2 enemy fighters that killed the last one?). I spent to much time in thinking how bad the mechanic is rather than thinking what I can do better to solve this.
Same with arty, in one game the allies placed maybe 20 pieces of artillery against us and we wasn´t able to set up any AA because it got wrecked faster than we could bring in more. So I brought in my SK18´s first and managed to destroy 8 artillery units, we could bring out AA against the bombers (if 3 people place AA it´s kind of effective again..) and we won the game by a push against the cheap ground defense.
A good balanced deck with a lot of counter possibilities is the best thing to enjoy the game imo. If you want to bring out only tanks and keep doing it while they get bombed away it´s no surprise that you don´t enjoy the game. I start today with playing allies and I´m really curious how it is to fight on the other side. ;-)
Good balance is important but it shouldn´t be the first move to complain about a mechanic, first thing should be to understand it better and search for solutions.

Did I say anything about balance issues?

 

[Nussor]

Saltiness certainly has nothing to do with falling player bases.

 

[Schwarz-W-R]

Did I say anything about balance issues?

No, my reply to you were only the first two sections of text. I got from your questions about mirror matches to balancing and to a possible reason why some people maybe quit the game.

Sorry, I will enter an additional space next time or make it better visible with something else.

 

[Randomletters]

Steel Division also happens to combine some of the worst mistakes from the Wargame titles, most of which were remedied by the following game.

It has ALB's flamer infantry domination and horrible plane spam/micro, EE's lopsided tank balance and weird as fuck infantry loadouts, and RD's unicorn units that can completely shift the tide in the hands of an experienced player but typically just die a pointless death when used by an inexperienced one.

 

[iamthatiam]

Steel Division also happens to combine some of the worst mistakes from the Wargame titles, most of which were remedied by the following game.

It has ALB's flamer infantry domination and horrible plane spam/micro, EE's lopsided tank balance and weird as fuck infantry loadouts, and RD's unicorn units that can completely shift the tide in the hands of an experienced player but typically just die a pointless death when used by an inexperienced one.

European Escalation is the best

 

[Hidden Gunman]

All of the things you are complaining about are directly correlated to the high learning curve of the game.

That's his point.

The vast majority of people who would likely play this game want fun, not grind.

Adding a 'forced matchmaker' or removing all other modes of play other than ranked for a time period (both of which have been suggested on the forums), will kill what is left of the player base.

 

[jammiebadger]

That's his point.

The vast majority of people who would likely play this game want fun, not grind.

You can win without grinding, winning is fun, grinding is when you're making the same mistakes over and over again without learning from them and therefore becoming disheartened. Most of these mistakes originate from somewhere between the user and the keyboard/mouse, the remainder originate from playing game types which are inherently unbalanced and therefore not enjoyable, thankfully there is a sensible way to avoid this.

 

[I WUB PUGS]

That's his point.

The vast majority of people who would likely play this game want fun, not grind.

The thing that bothers me the most about the counter argument for making the game more balanced towards noobs is that it doesn't mean the hardcore players won't be the best of the bunch.

It's like too many people want the game to be this tiny exclusive club of players so the "cry babies" can piss off unless they plead for help or a mentor. That shit isn't efficient. Just make the game more attractive to a wider audience and let the tryhards beat up on one another at the higher ranks of the matchmaker.

Of course, we would need a functioning matchmaker that slots equally skilled opponents against one another for that to happen.

 

[jammiebadger]

The thing that bothers me the most about the counter argument for making the game more balanced towards noobs is that it doesn't mean the hardcore players won't be the best of the bunch.

It's like too many people want the game to be this tiny exclusive club of players so the "cry babies" can piss off unless they plead for help or a mentor. That shit isn't efficient. Just make the game more attractive to a wider audience and let the tryhards beat up on one another at the higher ranks of the matchmaker.

Of course, we would need a functioning matchmaker that slots equally skilled opponents against one another for that to happen.

Aside from a matchmaker which works effectively AND is used by the playerbase which is arguably the biggest issue and some rational and sensible balance tweaks what exactly is it that the casual crowd want?

I'm not a pro player but i'm generally fairly content with game balance from 1v1 up to 4v4 I mean 10v10's should really come with a balance health warning in part because they shoehorn too many players and points into too small an area and in part because this game is much more enjoyable to play when you can cooperate to even a limited degree with the people you are playing with which normally isn't possible in a 10v10 due to player numbers and the wide distribution of player skill levels.

Hell i've tried in my own way to help grow the community by encouraging people to join my teamspeak server, regardless of their skill level and play some games with people who aren't total randoms and could generally be described as nice people to hang out with, but with 1 exception the people who expressed an interest in coming together to play the game have got bored of it and left for other games.

The main issue for me is the painfully long wait between balance patches and ignoring problems like the 2inch mortar carrier which for some inexplicable reason still costs 70 points, i don't even mind the matchmaker being shit as i've never actually had a problem getting a game since release unless i've used the matchmaker. Throw in some stability problems and i really can't be arsed to play much of this game at the moment, knee jerk reactions to planes and artillery isn't going to make me want to play this game any more than i do now, in fact i would probably just uninstall it if we were to get the same mentality applied to game balance as we did to hosting 10v10's on 4v4 maps.

 

[Rojan]

Aside from a matchmaker which works effectively AND is used by the playerbase which is arguably the biggest issue and some rational and sensible balance tweaks what exactly is it that the casual crowd want?

I'm not a pro player but i'm generally fairly content with game balance from 1v1 up to 4v4 I mean 10v10's should really come with a balance health warning in part because they shoehorn too many players and points into too small an area and in part because this game is much more enjoyable to play when you can cooperate to even a limited degree with the people you are playing with which normally isn't possible in a 10v10 due to player numbers and the wide distribution of player skill levels.

Hell i've tried in my own way to help grow the community by encouraging people to join my teamspeak server, regardless of their skill level and play some games with people who aren't total randoms and could generally be described as nice people to hang out with, but with 1 exception the people who expressed an interest in coming together to play the game have got bored of it and left for other games.

The main issue for me is the painfully long wait between balance patches and ignoring problems like the 2inch mortar carrier which for some inexplicable reason still costs 70 points, i don't even mind the matchmaker being shit as i've never actually had a problem getting a game since release unless i've used the matchmaker. Throw in some stability problems and i really can't be arsed to play much of this game at the moment, knee jerk reactions to planes and artillery isn't going to make me want to play this game any more than i do now, in fact i would probably just uninstall it if we were to get the same mentality applied to game balance as we did to hosting 10v10's on 4v4 maps.

The thing that bothers me the most about the counter argument for making the game more balanced towards noobs is that it doesn't mean the hardcore players won't be the best of the bunch.

It's like too many people want the game to be this tiny exclusive club of players so the "cry babies" can piss off unless they plead for help or a mentor. That shit isn't efficient. Just make the game more attractive to a wider audience and let the tryhards beat up on one another at the higher ranks of the matchmaker.

Of course, we would need a functioning matchmaker that slots equally skilled opponents against one another for that to happen.

You aren't going to impact one without impacting the other. Tailoring the game to a "wider audience" is not equivalent to noobs necessarily. I can tell you that handholding players along a tactical multiplayer RTS is not going to fix the health of the game.

Implementing a matchmaker to let noobs play noobs and better players play better players will have a hell of a lot more help.

If I had to tier list the most important issues I would make it as follows:
Stability and Desync
Matchmaker
New Content
Balance

There is nothing right now that is game breaking and over all the balance in the game is really good.

 

[DoubleDan68]

I used to play steel division all the time back when it was released. It was a real blast. The reason I don't play anymore is that it takes forever to get a game. Why wait 3 hours for a match against noobs that will quit the second their super unit dies when I could play a instant game of world of tanks biltz or rainbow six siege... If the devs want to fix the game. They MUST start by reducing the 50 thousand different game modes. 10v10 needs to be disabled. Destruction also needs to be removed. When the numbers get back up then they can turn the modes back on.

 

[Max_Damage]

At first i was excited to find out how the game works. but in the end, it turns out there s no reason to play anything but 101 ab, 15 scots, 3 canada, falls and luftlande. All other divisions are plain crap in comparison and there is no intertest in the game when you know as armored you always lose vs inf. There s no more surprise. And at a certain point the game suggests you stick to the meta or gtfo.

 

[DoubleDan68]

At first i was excited to find out how the game works. but in the end, it turns out there s no reason to play anything but 101 ab, 15 scots, 3 canada, falls and luftlande. All other divisions are plain crap in comparison and there is no intertest in the game when you know as armored you always lose vs inf. There s no more surprise. And at a certain point the game suggests you stick to the meta or gtfo.

That's kind of funny. Myself and my buddies found armoured decks to be the winner of battles. Lehr, 12ss, 2e France, pols. But what do I know, I only have a 97% win ratio...

 

[Drang]

Poles/win games.

topkek

 

[jammiebadger]

Poles/win games.

topkek

I think they work pretty well in 1v1's they just don't scale up as well in bigger games where unit composition tends to be a bit different and their lack of availability becomes an issue.

 

[Rojan]

Poles/win games.

topkek

They're a really good deck in small games.

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

That's kind of funny. Myself and my buddies found armoured decks to be the winner of battles. Lehr, 12ss, 2e France, pols. But what do I know, I only have a 97% win ratio...

97% win ratio is not an accomplishment in this game unless you solo queue, and since you mentioned friends we can obviously tell that you most likely set up team stack lobbies and pummel new players with bad decks.

The airborne divisions and 15th scots/3rd Canadians are factually the strongest decks