2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby PzAz04Maus » Wed 25 May 2016 07:15

The idea that the maps are correctly sized for the number of players, and that a 1,000 point conquest game is the definitive game form, are not views held by pretty much the whole community.


If the game only is wonderful in exactly one situation, that is a big design flaw.

Trimen
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed 5 Jun 2013 02:30
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Trimen » Wed 25 May 2016 07:19

Why the elitist hate of 10v10.

I like to play US only, not NORAD.

Can I play a US only Motorized Deck in a 2v2 and not be an impediment to my teammate?
How competitive would my US Airborne Deck be in a 3v3?

Small games favor Mix decks. I abhor them since I like the concept of thematic decks.

10v10 lets me play that US Motorized deck in the way it was intended, as a Recon Specialist and I do not hold back my team for doing it.

The OP said the game was not balanced for 10v10 yet in all the games I played, very rarely have I seen the matches drastically favoring one side or the other with regularity. Then again I do avoid the matches where 3-4 people have 70+ win rates either on my side or the other. My 57% win ratio is a testament to my anti pubstomp stance.

Curious. If the lion share of the paying customers favor one play style over the others. Why is the game not being optimized for the more lucrative play style?

If I were managing a cash driven organization that just adopted a paid DLC model. I am going to look at ways to capitalize on the desires of my largest consumer base. $6 US from a casual is worth as much as $6 from a pro. But hey, what's that old saying, Pros before H##s

Eugene I have another $6 for a 10v10 map pack. Please make it happen. :D

Grosnours
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2091
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Grosnours » Wed 25 May 2016 07:36

Dear OP,

Yes you're right. 10v10 can be a plague, too many options too, and so are the stats.
But all the people in this thread contradicting you on those points are also right. 10v10 can be a lifesaver, it's super awesome to have a game fine-tuned to what I want and stats allow people to avoid pubstomb.

How can all that be true at the same time?
Simply because we're all different players with different aspirations, doing and wanting different things at different times. Which by the way also means we're almost naturally end up being the asshat of someone else at one moment down the line.

The most interesting question is why this happens. How come we're living in this kind of anarchic self-contradicting kingdom.
Which you mention here :
raventhefuhrer wrote:I mean, it feels nice and righteous to say that, but it's not a very thoughtful position.

So because people play the games they want to play, does that mean that anything goes? What if people want to play games with 100 starting points per player? What if they want to play games with 10,000 starting points per player? This position is problematic because how is a new player supposed to know what optimal, sane settings are for lobbies? New players will join matches with sub-optimal settings and conclude 'Well this game is retarded, why should I waste my time with this?'

Furthermore, what's the point of Eugen trying to balance the game if it's just going to be anything goes? Adjusting the cost of tanks is meaningless if everyone is hosting 'very high income' games with tons of extra starting points. How can you balance availability if everyone is playing 10v10s, where of course people leave all the time and thereby give availability buffs to their allies?

The fact of the matter is you cannot have this current state of anarchy, where game settings amount to 'if it feels good, do it'. Because this state makes it nearly impossible to have a cogent, consistent balance for a competitive multiplayer game. It's just not good for long-term health of the game.


Yes, sadly right now almost anything goes. And that is VERY VERY VERY bad.
And god knows I love liberty and experimentation, back then when we at CPC launched the tactical fashion (I hate this name, my original title of "low points" was much better but I digress) I was raving about the freedom the game offered us thanks to the private servers. It's cool to test new stuff after all and the game core an be so polymorphic and adaptable, it's fascinating.

But the cold hard truth is that you allow people the room to be asshat, then at one moment or another they will definitely become asshats.
How come is the game so permissive, you'll say ?

I think it's because it all started out with a nice pumped-up bicycle (WEE) which was along the wat so outrageously pimped and beefed up that it evolved into a full blown semi truck. Sadly the truck is still a bicycle at heart.

Issues are omnipresent, they plague the games at all stages. The lobby is awful, the interface is antiquated, the in-game GUI is repulsively laconic and rigid, the deck system with three level of nationality (nation, factions, mixed) is an aberration, the three (fun fact, did you know economy even existed ?) rules system are deeply flawed, the CVs moronic, the maps by and large dreadful (another fun fact, the very good ones are direct port of WEE ones), unicorns abound, planes and arty are half-baked mechanism at best, mortars a joke, helirush still a possibility, so forth and so forth.

This game that will all love so much (otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place) is rife with issue, in all possible places.
Blaming the player is easy and fashionable, but I personally prefer to blame the dreadfully lax laws that allowed a crime to be committed rather than the criminals themselves. I find it a much more constructive attitude in the long run.

For the exact same reasons I have described before it's unlikely we'll all agree on how to fix things, but that's ok. It's Eugen's job after all not ours. It's time for them to finally begin to fix what has been a sinking rudderless ship for way too long and give a firm direction.

Sadly I -and many others- can't see that happening any time soon. We still love this game very much but are awfully jaded now. In that note, paid units DLC are nice to keep Eugen and the game afloat, but they do nothing at all to improve the general situation.
Image

AlmHurricane
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed 14 Mar 2012 04:05
Location: Munich, Germany
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby AlmHurricane » Wed 25 May 2016 11:34

Srsly... Diffrent players play the game in diffrent ways.
I think more than 750 starting points per player is pain in the ass because it encourages spams and you dont have to think about what you realy want anymore...
But yeah, that is my opinion.
But restricting lobbys or forcing players to play matchmaking in a way they dont want to will only lead to less players playing the game after all. And sacrificing players just to make some happy is a realy bad idea.

Eugene should rework the interface for the lobbys and give searching players more informations about the game they want to join like average winrate per team, more information about victory conditions and so on...
On the other Hand a host should be able to restrict his lobby for certrain players. EG I have a Winrate of 95%, restricting my Lobby so only players with more than 70% can join or even see the game. That would help everyone finding better games and finding them faster...

Also to help new players hosting a lobby Eugene can implement "presets" for games... Like "tactical" (less starting points, you need to think more), "balanced" (maybe 1000 starting points, cool for some fun), "fun" (maybe 2000 starting points, just throw in your stuff, fast game). And maybe offer them a tutorial for hosting MP games...
"You can shoot down every MiG the Soviets employ, but if you return to base and the lead Soviet tank commander is eating breakfast in your snack bar, Jack, you've lost the war"
Image

thenosh
Lieutenant
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 11 Sep 2013 19:32
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby thenosh » Wed 25 May 2016 11:54

Elitist vs. 10v10... So it begins.

I always said to finally consider 10v10 a reasonable argument for balancing, yet got laughed at. Numbers speak a different POV though and maybe now, you could consider giving a deeper look into it. Honestly, the most fun games I had at wargame is 10v10 on a 10v10 map with 150 starting points.
"Where is my T-80UK CV with top mounted BUK-M1?"

-Wargame global chat, somewhen somewhere-

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Hob_Gadling » Wed 25 May 2016 14:31

raventhefuhrer wrote:So because people play the games they want to play, does that mean that anything goes?


Sure. Optimally the "game" part of Wargame would be de-emphasized and "toy/sandbox/simulator" part would be emphasized even more. Winning and losing are only meaningful in a competitive experience, and Wargame shouldn't be a competitive game in the first place. It can be played with competitive settings and rules, but it's not any more competitive than a deck of cards is by itself. And that's the secret to making a game that gets played 20 years from now.

Unfortunately it would appear the people at Eugen want to make Wargame a RTS game. I think that is a huge mistake and possibly the worst waste of potential I've seen in computer gaming history, but eh.

PzAz04Maus wrote:That said, Wargame is a unique and unconventional RTS. It's still exploring virgin territory in gaming, and for that it is a wonderful game.


While I agree Wargame is a wonderful game, it's not exactly virgin territory. It's a direct continuum of a long line of games, starting from Kampfgruppe in 1985, brought up to a modern standard. For the life of me I don't understand why this heritage is not used more; all the parts which elicit the most enthusiastic response come from grognardy realism-seeking strategy games, not RTS.

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Oktoberfest » Wed 25 May 2016 14:44

raventhefuhrer wrote:
Rabidnid wrote:People play the games they want to play. If you don't want to play their games host your own.


I mean, it feels nice and righteous to say that, but it's not a very thoughtful position.

So because people play the games they want to play, does that mean that anything goes? What if people want to play games with 100 starting points per player? What if they want to play games with 10,000 starting points per player? This position is problematic because how is a new player supposed to know what optimal, sane settings are for lobbies? New players will join matches with sub-optimal settings and conclude 'Well this game is retarded, why should I waste my time with this?'

Furthermore, what's the point of Eugen trying to balance the game if it's just going to be anything goes? Adjusting the cost of tanks is meaningless if everyone is hosting 'very high income' games with tons of extra starting points. How can you balance availability if everyone is playing 10v10s, where of course people leave all the time and thereby give availability buffs to their allies?

The fact of the matter is you cannot have this current state of anarchy, where game settings amount to 'if it feels good, do it'. Because this state makes it nearly impossible to have a cogent, consistent balance for a competitive multiplayer game. It's just not good for long-term health of the game.


It's perfectly fine for multiplayer games. You get your "balance" and argue endlessly for your 1v1 min-max ranked things where apparently 5 points difference for a super heavy matters, and you let the other have fun.

Balance should have been done for 10v10 game, then we wouldn't have stupidities like 30 x30 point tanks = 2x170 point tanks.

And let the players play the game they want, not what you think is right.

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Frencho » Wed 25 May 2016 15:12

Well are 70% of the people here retarded or dyslexic?!

The Ranked auto-matcher needs to be expanded and improved, that goes without saying.
And yes, the custom lobbies should stay.
So the number of active players would only go up, not down it's a win-win scenario.

Any successful game with a competitive multiplayer gives priority to a robust ranked auto-matcher and the option of custom lobbies for training, trolling or to be the prima donna's kindergarten.
Moreover a ranked auto-matcher has strict settings and rules that give consistency on what the game is balanced around, it works as reference for the players.

So stop bitching about auto-match some people here have jobs and university to attend, we don't have 30 mins to 1H to find a decent match. No one is preaching the removal of custom lobbies and they are working just fine as is, but the current Red Dragon auto-matcher, sucks.
Thus priority number 1 must be the auto-match.

karsayor
Sergeant Major
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed 26 Jun 2013 00:11
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby karsayor » Wed 25 May 2016 16:51

Eugen decied what the "default" settings of a game are -> ranked settings.

All other settings are just a way to split the community in many groups (the high income lovers, low income lovers, destruction lovers, conquest lovers, .............)

Teams should play only the ranked way, and randoms could join lobbies with custom settings that are balanced by the game automatically at start. When balanced, players choose their decks for the side they have been assigned to with a countdown.

No more chance to stomp, cherrypickers, stats meaningful, possibility to have custom games but not in team, only drawback.
Last edited by karsayor on Wed 25 May 2016 17:12, edited 1 time in total.

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: 2,000+ people online and I can't find a game - the State of Wargame: Red Lobbysim

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 25 May 2016 17:03

Where are all the Conquest games?

Dead for good reasons ?
Conquest doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense. Conquests do not occur at the scale of the forces present in WG. If you look at the price of land around the Korea DMZ, it's less than $10,000 per acre according to this news article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world ... .html?_r=0
The unit cost of an F16 is about 50 million dollars. which means for that cost you can buy 5000 Acres, or around 20 square km (4 by 5km). This is larger than most command zones. If you lost one F16, you already lost more money than the commercial value of the derpy neutral zone on conquest maps. :lol: So why do we have regiments fighting over cookie crumbs with all their might ? At least it's easy to understand why you want to destroy the other guy's T80s and Abrams.

On the original topic, 10 v 10 is perhaps the most realistic game mode. It's one situation where you cannot control everything or assume everyone on your side is remotely as completent as you. In this regard, it's about as realistic as it gets in a game.

And let the players play the game they want, not what you think is right.

I agree with this, and this is a reason why automatch will be incredibly important. It allow everyone to find games they want to play. This would remove a large amount of tedius work currently performed by the player.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests