10vs10 in general

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby M4jor » Wed 15 Jun 2016 15:39

molnibalage wrote:
M4jor wrote:As long as we asume that the numbers displayed there (players connected, running games) are actually correct numbers, what I highly doubt.


Prove it pal...


All I do here is asuming. And my asumption is as valid as yours, since you cannot prove the opposite.

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 15:41

M4jor wrote:
molnibalage wrote:
M4jor wrote:As long as we asume that the numbers displayed there (players connected, running games) are actually correct numbers, what I highly doubt.


Prove it pal...


All I do here is asuming. And my asumption is as valid as yours, since you cannot prove the opposite.

You can, like Orcbuster demonstrated.

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Oktoberfest » Wed 15 Jun 2016 16:04

M4jor wrote: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.


I totally agree with you on that. I also happen to find that 10v10 are generally more balanced than games with less players.
Why ?
- The talents are diluted, except organised stompings like the RKT style. But the stomping in 10v10 is more rare than in 2v2-4v4 games.
- One player quitting does not disorganize the whole game. It's not a damnation for the rest of the team.
- It balances the negative effects of min-maxed decks.
- It's tactically more close to what a real WWIII encounter would do, where division sized forces clashes each other.
- 5 points difference between units have exactly 0 impact on the game, and you cannot say "Oh ! I lost because the Leclerc is 5 points to cheap PLZ NERF!"

I also agree with you regarding the forum members spending hundreds of hours min-maxing their decks and bashing everything that isn't their playstyle is negetive to the development of the game.

The only thing I would like to see is the ability for new players to enter a running game.

Adolith
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat 17 Mar 2012 22:20
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Adolith » Wed 15 Jun 2016 16:09

The initial asumtion of the thread is all wrong.

Take the number of players online and divide by the number of games (both numbers are available on top of the lobby browser). Which gives you about 4-6 players per game, depending on the day and time. Even with leavers etc. the number would have to be way higher for 10v10 to be the most played game mode.

Also Eugen has all the exact statistics, but they do not share them usually.

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby M4jor » Wed 15 Jun 2016 16:31


Also Eugen has all the exact statistics, but they do not share them usually.


Would at least be nice to see what the official numbers say about 10vs10. Not exact numbers, just if it really is a bigger part of the played games or not.

Do not get me wrong. I do not want 10vs10 to replace anything, I just think it is far more than that "clown games" thing most ppl in this forum think it is. By doing so and by ignoring 10vs10 because the "pros" here do it, woulb be a very bad decision in my eyes, dont you think? Its a fair part of the game at least.

User avatar
raventhefuhrer
Colonel
Posts: 2949
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:47
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby raventhefuhrer » Wed 15 Jun 2016 16:32

To be honest guys, the battle is already lost. Eugen's making a new 10v10 map - they know where their bread is buttered and it's with the casual junkfood-gameplay crowd that haunts the 10v10's to avoid being pubstomped. So much is borked about the game right now I don't even know where to start trying to fix it.
My YouTube Channel is Raven Wargaming. Message me to request videos on certain topics.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby molnibalage » Wed 15 Jun 2016 16:39

raventhefuhrer wrote:To be honest guys, the battle is already lost. Eugen's making a new 10v10 map - they know where their bread is buttered and it's with the casual junkfood-gameplay crowd that haunts the 10v10's to avoid being pubstomped. So much is borked about the game right now I don't even know where to start trying to fix it.

After they have made lots of new general maps. This is just a small addition. I hope they fix Gjöll to give it more entering zone in the middle of maps as well as sides.

User avatar
F-22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 03:13
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby F-22 » Wed 15 Jun 2016 17:34

I've made a concerted effort to play 50 10v10's alone in wargame and had an anurism from the gameplay. Your team will lose you the game unless you bring 5-10 other buddies to pubstomp people, or join the stacked side in lobbies so you literally just extend the pubstomp to 10v10's. Que ATCAMs, B-5, Smerch, helo rush, Cluster artillery spam for 45 minutes- an hour until the enemy team quits after they've been utterly crushed.

almost all 10v10's I attempted to play were blatantly stacked on one side (Blue and red) and in the games I played that were stacked, my team got utterly destroyed. 10v10's don't dillute or stop pubstomping at all and isn't a solution, it's actually part of the problem. There's no tension in 10v10's, my team has never come back to win the game because when you play with randoms they cannot be relied on to coordinate or rally forces, the only thing you pray is that they're not feeding which all too often enough they are.

I find there's little fun in 10v10's for a person just looking for a game, mostly frustration. The games can almost never be carried even if you get a 5-1 kill ratio "xXx_WarGam3RpRo_xXx" will still feed a unit for every unit you kill and continue to do so. It's just an exercise in futility.

Look at me, i've become a Salt mine from my experiences playing these 10v10's.

User avatar
StalkerDellaNote
Lieutenant
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue 12 Nov 2013 12:23
Location: Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby StalkerDellaNote » Wed 15 Jun 2016 17:46

I play 10v10 more-so than anything because I'm a filthy casual, but I think it's all fine and dandy where it's at..
I'd argue for less arty, but hey.. you learn to deal with it.. you learn to deal with 26 F-14's zooming around.. it's an absolute shit show, but it's my kind of shit show.. I'm a scrub worthy casual that doesn't wanna play hella serious 90% of the time..

Plus, I love 10v10 because I kinda like all the work I have to do when 6% WL scrubs rage quit and I have to work two fronts.. excites me, makes me feel busy
Image
"Re: Winter maps?" wrote:Maybe if they ever set Wargame in Scandinavia.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Random » Wed 15 Jun 2016 18:22

M4jor wrote:
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.

It is not the primary gamemode. Right now I counted players (which is possible since you can see running 10v10 games). There were 212 people in 10v10 games, or 24.1% of people online were playing 10v10.

M4jor wrote: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.


You do realise you only see servergames and 10v10s as running, right?

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.

Idk what a "high ranking forum member" is supposed to be, but if you are talking about people with many posts, they tend to be more hardcore players, whereas people who play 10v10 are on average newer players, which results in them being less represented in something like this.


M4jor wrote: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.


They do not exist, but you can easily figure out how many people are playing 10v10 at any time, since you see total amount of players online and amount of players in 10v10 games, even running ones.

M4jor wrote:What should happen with that?

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

7.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.


I do not want to dismiss the idea to balance for 10v10 as a whole(because it is not an either or, games can be balanced for both 1v1 and 10v10 at the same time), but many "balance problems" just result from people not knowing counters to things and not being organised enough to deal with it.

1. Such as changing what?
2. With what changes?
3. What is flawed about it?
4. I do not see the problem with planes, and all other units you can force to kind of use a formation/ spread out but keeping your mouse-button pressed and moving it after giving a move order.
5. Never heard of anything like this or seen it, mind attaching a replay of it next time?
6. Adding more sectors is not as easy as people think , I have been told, though I do not understand why either.
7. 10v10 leads to almost no teamplay and only a minority of people play it, and they tend to be newer players, therefor I do not think it will be the future of wargame, though it has a place in the game and people enjoy it.


Hard to respond to suggestions when you suggest nothing concrete.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 27 guests