Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

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

Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 14 Mar 2018 04:10

Heard Eugen had some money trouble with strikes and all, so I am going to contribute productively by coming up with a solution.

Having played some total war arena (10 v 10 RTT), I realized Eugen already have a working 10 V 10 RTT game in RD. They just need to join wargaming alliance (creative assembly and wargaming), and hand the matchmaking and money making to the WOT people, who's basically rolling in beds of gold. This Kills two birds with one stone, first it eliminates the teamstacking / matchmaking issue persistent in WG series, and make a ton of money to pay their interns.

The setup can be the same as Arena. You join the game with a deck and the highest tier unit in the deck determines your MM Tier. Since Category already exist in WG, it could be turned into (approx) 5 year (tiers) with tier I at 1960 and tier X at 2100. Prototypes turns into premium units and there's your endless cashcow. You can even do limited time sales with ATACMS.

Of course some people are going to hate you for it, but people will hate you anyway :lol: .

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Fade2Gray » Wed 14 Mar 2018 05:37

*sips whiskey*
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Markenzwieback » Wed 14 Mar 2018 10:46

Sure, than we will have to grind two weeks for our Leopard 2A5 and see it frontally penned by a T-64A with premium ammo consumable. :roll:

Honestly though, the second Eugen would work together with Wargaming, I'd be out for good. No need to push the "free" to play genre into the Wargame series, it would just ruin the genre.
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Fade2Gray » Wed 14 Mar 2018 15:20

Markenzwieback wrote:Honestly though, the second Eugen would work together with Wargaming, I'd be out for good. No need to push the "free" to play genre into the Wargame series, it would just ruin the genre.

Are you honestly taking his shitposting seriously?
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 14 Mar 2018 15:42

Fade2Gray wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:Honestly though, the second Eugen would work together with Wargaming, I'd be out for good. No need to push the "free" to play genre into the Wargame series, it would just ruin the genre.

Are you honestly taking his shitposting seriously?


Are you honestly going to make an offtopic comment on every one of my post ? :lol:
Last edited by Nerdfish on Wed 14 Mar 2018 15:45, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 14 Mar 2018 15:44

Markenzwieback wrote:Sure, than we will have to grind two weeks for our Leopard 2A5 and see it frontally penned by a T-64A with premium ammo consumable. :roll:

Honestly though, the second Eugen would work together with Wargaming, I'd be out for good. No need to push the "free" to play genre into the Wargame series, it would just ruin the genre.


Random games are random, Even if you AFK chances are you will win 40% of the time. If someone want to pay Madmat a bucket of money for a few percent increase in winrate, Madmat will be very happy. :lol:

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby hansbroger » Wed 14 Mar 2018 17:45

Re OP: evaluating decks by unit tier can be problematic, there were times when an armored deck stacked with elite Leo 1A5s with decent air support could steamroll a deck relying on a couple super heavies, Wargame balance is unfortunately very complex, unit access is democratic, discretionary and unit ability is arguably non-hierachical, ie there are many cases where a 90-125 point tank does everything you need a 2A5 to do, so it doesn't lend itself easily to basic "score" based deck ranking.

My two cents:
While Wargaming has little to offer in the form of matchmaking and monetization, it does give a few examples of concepts that could be used to improve the Wargame experience that also play to Eugen's style and strengths.

Wargaming does seem to be a bit more experimental when it comes to trying out new multiplayer game modes which breathe life back into overplayed maps and in some cases rehabilitate maps that were previously considered unplayable or unbalanced in other modes. While more diverse in the past, Eugen has actually backtracked in this respect, reducing the number of gamemodes and balancing maps around the two leading gamemodes Conquest and Destruction.

To use the siege gamemode of EE/ALB as an example, this was a niche gamemode, which admittedly masochistic to play was nonetheless fun in a team sense, and incorporated many of the play elements that would later prop up in low point tactical games. However it was removed instead of being modified or refined, to a point where it was a popular alternative to the main two gamemodes.
http://wargame-series.wikia.com/wiki/Siege

This gamemode while unpopular in its base configuration had elements of particular promise if it had been modified to become something more akin to the Rush gamemode in the battlefield series where it would be an objective based gamemode with attackers and defenders.

The numerous community created gamemodes be they low point/no income tactical, era games and others were examples of the community being bored with the existing gamemode binary and changing the variables available to them to try and create new gamemodes. This is a great use of energy because it allows for players to use the existing fleet of nations and vehicles for entirely new goals, and forces people to build new decks for new and different criteria, making the game feel new without having to go through the trouble of new countries etc.

Wargaming appears to be better at integrating clans into its multiplayer structure (take this with a grain of salt as I've never been in a Wargame related clan), though this may or may not be that much of an issue, it was room for growth.

Given Eugen's record of incorporating interesting and immersive campaigns into their single player I am surprised they never came out with a clan wars type of team competition based around a campaign during a finite season. This could have injected a dose of strategy into team based competition and served as a stimulus for Wargame related team and competitive community development.

The awards structure for such campaigns would have to be different however. Eugen got it right with giving democratic access to units regardless of player wealth and ability, for better or worse.

Finally Wargaming is pretty good about getting maps out. There's nothing more revitalizing to a game than new, dynamic maps and in many cases maps can have the power to ressurrect previously overlooked and non-meta unit types thereby turning already published content into new interesting content. Eugen makes great maps and one of my persistent gripes coming from EE and ALB to RD was being unable to play on those maps I had previously loved playing on (there were apparently difficulties in translating them, though whether this was insurmountable or just the AoA death spiral sucking all resources who knows). If there's something Eugen should take from Wargaming it's the importance of mapmaking, and as recent experience shows, keeping old maps in service and face-lifting them if need be, because A: people grow to love them and B: it creates practically new content out of old, tried, tested, balanced content.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 14 Mar 2018 23:28

hansbroger wrote:While Wargaming has little to offer in the form of matchmaking and monetization,


While the rest of your post makes a lot of sense, I'd have to disagree with this little detail.
WG knows a lot about making a killing, wot is one of the most successful business models, to the extent it's being mimicked by armoured warfare, war thunder, and so on. The matchmaking service, while simple (random 10v10 / 15v15 with no MMR used), it goes hand in hand with the business model, if outcome of any match are more or less random despite individual effort, then Pay to win have minimal impact. People can pay all they want for 5% higher win rate, but chances are there would be another extreme tryhard on the other team to balance them out.

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

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby jhfts » Fri 16 Mar 2018 02:12

hansbroger wrote:
Given Eugen's record of incorporating interesting and immersive campaigns into their single player I am surprised they never came out with a clan wars type of team competition based around a campaign during a finite season. This could have injected a dose of strategy into team based competition and served as a stimulus for Wargame related team and competitive community development.


This would have been awesome if Eugen could have / would have pulled it off.

I think one of the big problems that Eugen continues to face, administratively, is a serious deficit in 'soft skills'. It seems like the studio was just never very interested in investing in the non-tech side of things – writing, artists, voice acting, community support and moderation, etc. I suspect that the mentality was something along the lines of 'We don't need professional story writers; we can just get one of our engineers to do it!'

The single-player campaigns in RD are a good example of what results from this kind of approach – photoshopped 2-D artwork, poorly edited and translated text, and an overall sub-par experience. This is to say nothing of AoA, which apparently fell flat on all accounts.

To do a sort of clans-wars type of experience, Eugen would have needed to draw on the non-technical side of things much more heavily, in terms of liaising with the community, producing promotional content, adding new storylines and voice work, and so on. I think that money is less a problem that the mindset of the studio heads; they just don't understand the value of the non-technical side of things.

hansbroger wrote:The awards structure for such campaigns would have to be different however. Eugen got it right with giving democratic access to units regardless of player wealth and ability, for better or worse.


One thing I did like about EE was the idea of persistent battlegroups. It made battlefield choices matter – you couldn't just throw endless waves of materiel at the enemy. If you lost half of your M1 squadron seizing an objective, you'd have to deal with that for the rest of the campaign. Every decision had an extra level of strategic complexity added to it. You had to think 'Can I afford to lose X here? Will I need it later?'

The advantage that EE had over the campaigns in ALB and RD was that you could (within limits) freely chose elements of your battlegroup, allowing you to develop a personalized force. ALB and RD simply stuck you with formations chosen by the devs, which were generally a lot less interesting to play.

I would agree that the 'unlock' system was wrong, and added unnecessary grinding to the experience. But I would have liked to have seen a campaign with something more consequential than the card / deck system – maybe an initial free selection of units, and periodic opportunities for reinforcement and replenishment as the campaign goes on.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Eugen Stand to make a great deal of money by teaming up with Wargaming

Postby hansbroger » Fri 16 Mar 2018 06:28

jhfts wrote:
hansbroger wrote:
Given Eugen's record of incorporating interesting and immersive campaigns into their single player I am surprised they never came out with a clan wars type of team competition based around a campaign during a finite season. This could have injected a dose of strategy into team based competition and served as a stimulus for Wargame related team and competitive community development.


This would have been awesome if Eugen could have / would have pulled it off.

I think one of the big problems that Eugen continues to face, administratively, is a serious deficit in 'soft skills'. It seems like the studio was just never very interested in investing in the non-tech side of things – writing, artists, voice acting, community support and moderation, etc. I suspect that the mentality was something along the lines of 'We don't need professional story writers; we can just get one of our engineers to do it!'

The single-player campaigns in RD are a good example of what results from this kind of approach – photoshopped 2-D artwork, poorly edited and translated text, and an overall sub-par experience. This is to say nothing of AoA, which apparently fell flat on all accounts.

To do a sort of clans-wars type of experience, Eugen would have needed to draw on the non-technical side of things much more heavily, in terms of liaising with the community, producing promotional content, adding new storylines and voice work, and so on. I think that money is less a problem that the mindset of the studio heads; they just don't understand the value of the non-technical side of things.
There was definitely room for growth on the non-technical side for sure but at least for clan wars type content there wasn't a huge need for things such as storylines at least. While voice work, storylines and fancy cutscenes do make for a more immersive and polished product I think at least as far as competitive play goes most players prioritize function and opportunities for dept of competitive play. I'd certainly welcome more storyline/cutscene content though if feasible.

I think the driving effect on community development that something like clanwars has wasn't fully considered. A campaign like contest such as that creates the need for networking and the creation of regular teams/associations of players, thus driving community development and a competitive team culture that could improve its standing as a competitive title.

hansbroger wrote:The awards structure for such campaigns would have to be different however. Eugen got it right with giving democratic access to units regardless of player wealth and ability, for better or worse.


One thing I did like about EE was the idea of persistent battlegroups. It made battlefield choices matter – you couldn't just throw endless waves of materiel at the enemy. If you lost half of your M1 squadron seizing an objective, you'd have to deal with that for the rest of the campaign. Every decision had an extra level of strategic complexity added to it. You had to think 'Can I afford to lose X here? Will I need it later?'
This was amazing and caused me no end of frustration as a newbie, I had to restart some campaigns for this exact reason. It was a great learning experience though.

The advantage that EE had over the campaigns in ALB and RD was that you could (within limits) freely chose elements of your battlegroup, allowing you to develop a personalized force. ALB and RD simply stuck you with formations chosen by the devs, which were generally a lot less interesting to play.
I was pretty mixed about this as well, I like the freedom to choose battlegroup elements but at the same time the preformed units do make the historical campaign a bit more immersive so long as they correspond with orbats that could be expected to be fighting then.

I would agree that the 'unlock' system was wrong, and added unnecessary grinding to the experience. But I would have liked to have seen a campaign with something more consequential than the card / deck system – maybe an initial free selection of units, and periodic opportunities for reinforcement and replenishment as the campaign goes on.
While slightly onerous I do have to admit that the unlock system forced me to do enough singleplayer that I finally learned the basic game mechanics through immersion. That being said, that function was largely replaced by the excellent community tutorials that people later made
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests