10vs10 in general

M4jor
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2016 12:59
Contact:

10vs10 in general

Postby M4jor » Wed 15 Jun 2016 03:45

Finally, after so long time, RD gets a new 10vs10 map.
Why is that so special?

Because, from the lobby overview at least, 10vs10 seems to be the primary game mode of Wargame:RD for a long time now.
Introduced in ALB as a feature, it is now what is the main content, while 4vs4 to 1vs1 (alongside with the conquest thing) is merely a sideshow if anything.

How I get that idea?

1. Running games in games list
At almost any given time (no matter the time zone) there are a lot more 10vs10 games running than of any other mode combinged (10vs10 includes tactical 10vs10 too).
Even 1 of those 10vs10 matches has more players than all the other running games combined.

2. Wargame Forums is a misrepresantation of the communty
From my experience, 90% of the people often posting in the forums (and constituting the "forums communty") are not participating in the 10vs10 part of the game on a regular basis.
I play 10vs10 for 1 year now on a regular basis and fail to see any of the high ranking forum members play there at all.

3. Official numbers:
They do not exist, at least not to my knowledge. If official numbers say different, I will just shut up :-)
And I dont mean official numbers by EUGEN hosted 10vs10 servers, they are barely used.

What should happen with that?

10vs10 should get way more support:
- Balancing Nations/Coalitions arround 10vs10 (and also themed decks)
- Balancing the game in general more arround 10vs10
by fixing the flawed waypoint system
by adding formations to reduce the "blobbing" issue with planes, helos and other units
by fixing grouped unit issues and bugs (tanks moving sideways in formation is only the most annoying one
- Add more 10vs10 maps or make more maps playable in 10vs10 by adding more sectors (this should be quite easy to do)

When 10vs10 was first introduced I already knew this would be the future of wargame. And I still think it is. It has the highest potential of all modes in my eyes and should be given a fair chance.
Yes, 40k winning pts destruction with High income on asgard IS a clown mode and leads to clown games, but 10vs10 is way more than just that.

PzGren
Master Sergeant
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue 3 Jun 2014 18:41
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby PzGren » Wed 15 Jun 2016 03:55

100% agree. I play 10v10 and this is basically the defacto, definitive WRD game.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Mike » Wed 15 Jun 2016 03:59

Inb4 shitstorm.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Wed 15 Jun 2016 04:06

Hell no. 10v10 is a little slice of stupidity, it shouldn't be considered as serious and should not be balanced around.

My experience of 10v10's is a giant lag fest surrounded by teammates who may have some form of mental illness. Some of the worst play I've witnessed has came from 10v10's.
Image

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby another505 » Wed 15 Jun 2016 04:10

I agree, to balance 10v10, we need more smerch and atacms per card, 50 pts each, more F-14 and Mig-31m in elite. Supplies from the FOB should be infinite. To improve gameplay, the AI should take care of all the units except artillery, helo and planes.



The other half of 10v10 needs a good representation too. 10v10 total destruction low income tactical in a 2v2 mix map is definitely the play style for wargame. It requires a lot of skills for players to micro their 3 units , fire their mortars as effectively as possible, or using one super unit (nighthawk, longbow, smerch) for the whole game , and if you lose it, you lose, you have to rage quit like a gentlemen, then join the next 10v10 lobby.
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
CornProducts
Colonel
Posts: 2959
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 06:48
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby CornProducts » Wed 15 Jun 2016 04:16

another505 wrote:quit like a gentlemen, then join the next 10v10 lobby.

Its only polite. :lol:

Question: How would you specifically balance a unit for 10v10's? What is an example of a unit that you would change to fit your new idea?
Image

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby jhfts » Wed 15 Jun 2016 04:33

M4jor wrote:10vs10 should get way more support:
- Balancing Nations/Coalitions arround 10vs10 (and also themed decks)
- Balancing the game in general more arround 10vs10
by fixing the flawed waypoint system
by adding formations to reduce the "blobbing" issue with planes, helos and other units
by fixing grouped unit issues and bugs (tanks moving sideways in formation is only the most annoying one
- Add more 10vs10 maps or make more maps playable in 10vs10 by adding more sectors (this should be quite easy to do)


I like playing 10 v 10. If it weren't for this gamemode, I probably wouldn't play RD to nearly the extent that I do. I support the overall thrust of your argument.

However, I don't think that the specific suggestions that you have made are likely to be adopted. Changes to waypoints and formations would require a substantial overhaul the underlying game engine, and very likely to the underlying data structure associated with the maps in the game. Such massive-scale changes to an existing game are unlikely in any circumstance, and especially given Eugen's limited means.

However, I believe that there is some logic in the overall argument here. Certain elements of the game could have benefited from a 10 v 10 -centric perspective. For example, Naval gameplay could have been much improved had the developers considered how the mechanics that they implemented would play out on a larger scale (i.e blobs of ships, missile spam, etc.)

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:My experience of 10v10's is a giant lag fest surrounded by teammates who may have some form of mental illness. Some of the worst play I've witnessed has came from 10v10's.


My experience has been almost the exact opposite. While I've played my fair share of bad 10 v 10s, the absolute worst player behavior that I've run across has consistently been in 1 v 1 / 2 v 2. Pubstomping, vast disparities in player capability and the almost ubiquitous presence of odious or obnoxious personalities has been a running trend.

Additionally, while a team in 10 v 10 can still triumph with 2-3 poor players on their side, having a bad player in a smaller match is almost always the kiss of death. I've had a lot more frustration stemming from players in 2 v 2 / 3 v 3 who either have no idea what they are doing, or seemingly sit on their hands and don't contribute, than I've ever had in 10 v 10.

User avatar
Rabidnid
Lieutenant
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015 21:33
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Rabidnid » Wed 15 Jun 2016 05:42

Add a blue versus blue auto assign mode so the innate bias in most lobbies is fixed, and then see if anyone still plays 10v10.
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby chykka » Wed 15 Jun 2016 06:16

I really like most 10v10 too have Red vs Blue, But I do not play them much however I do feel they fill a niche and make for matches that are tougher too Carry solo or make an arranged team too try too stack them. So 10v10 are great if you just want to get in and play with lots more unpredictability.

How to balance units for 10v10? Maybe units with lots of ammo Tend too be good 10v10 weapons in those Situations where they overwhelm. However all units will preform exactly the same in a 10v10 as in a 1v1, main difference is the variety of units on field and the size of the field. 10v10 maps can have isolated spots making for some people pushing all the way around.

jhfts wrote:
My experience has been almost the exact opposite. While I've played my fair share of bad 10 v 10s, the absolute worst player behavior that I've run across has consistently been in 1 v 1 / 2 v 2. Pubstomping, vast disparities in player capability and the almost ubiquitous presence of odious or obnoxious personalities has been a running trend.

Additionally, while a team in 10 v 10 can still triumph with 2-3 poor players on their side, having a bad player in a smaller match is almost always the kiss of death. I've had a lot more frustration stemming from players in 2 v 2 / 3 v 3 who either have no idea what they are doing, or seemingly sit on their hands and don't contribute, than I've ever had in 10 v 10.


It's true one bad egg will not spoil a 10v10, but if he can coordinate the team maybe so. But you are correct it only takes one person too cheese in 1v1 to potentially make bad match. 10v10 does have some predictable elements too them, like you can always expect at some point on the map there will some opposition too what units you currently have fielded.

My absolute favorite part of 10v10 is the do away with the idea your deck needs too deal with every threat it encounters. Opening the door for many decks and play styles. ( and team work ) In 1v1 the need to have a broader range of units usually limits specializations you can get away with and pls don't say support are cancer decks because sometimes they can be quite gentlemen like, while in 10v10 you have a little more freedom to Specialize and not be punished as badly as you have the whole map to choose from and over 10 players units too try your luck with. The guys with the most kills usually are the ones killing planes and Cvs any way. So the Guy going support and making sure forces and zones are covered by Vetted AA cover, may not just be anouther Arty noob just going support for the fobs and indirect weapons. I will say I remember playing WiC (World in Conflict) and the guys with Highest scores was always support player. I think disbelievers in support decks should look at Land Jut, Soviet, Norad, and just a few more that can create a big imbalance not usually seen. But you do lose tanks and infantry options. But the edge lies Especially in form of Upvetted AA and more slots mean you can up Vett even more with less cost. Think how often you use AA without any Vett bonus, and does it preform well enough? At least Reserve infantry level up fast. Some 10v10 with lower points even more so making it really come down too focus on what your spec is, and making most use of the vet bonus. Otomatics don't need much else too support them besides recon and infantry, with Nm 45.
Image

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Razzmann » Wed 15 Jun 2016 10:36

M4jor wrote:1. Running games in games list
At almost any given time (no matter the time zone) there are a lot more 10vs10 games running than of any other mode combinged (10vs10 includes tactical 10vs10 too).
Even 1 of those 10vs10 matches has more players than all the other running games combined.

False, "Running games" exclusively shows 10v10 maps, hosted lobbies are not shown.

M4jor wrote:2. Wargame Forums is a misrepresantation of the communty
From my experience, 90% of the people often posting in the forums (and constituting the "forums communty") are not participating in the 10vs10 part of the game on a regular basis.
I play 10vs10 for 1 year now on a regular basis and fail to see any of the high ranking forum members play there at all.

This is false since point 1 is false.


I checked yesterday/ today at around 12am (Paris time) when about 820 players were online. And luckily you can see ALL the running and open 10v10 lobbies so you can easily just count how many players are in 10v10 games. You want to know how many? Around 220. So even if 300 players are just making decks, or are trolling in warchat (which probably too much since warchat was pretty quiet), you would have 300 players playing in non 10v10 lobbies, which is still more than those who play 10v10 at that time.
And I doubt that the percentages of game mode preference changes over the course of the day.

And on top of that, balancing around 10v10s is impossible.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 33 guests