Steel Division sales...

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sun 18 Jun 2017 00:34

I don't disagree, it's only a matter of degree and timing though. In 10V10 conquest play from opposing players of a reasonable competency follows a pattern...Phase A the allies can push forward, Phase B it slows down a bit, but they still push forward, Phase C, the weather changes to nebels and top tier armour, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I suspect that the thing that balances out the ally/axis win ratios is purely player competence, which you could say is the whole idea of playing the game, but in actual fact that's a false gauge...hanging on with scraps while your on board force disintegrates over ten minutes isn't actually playing a game, it's merely an exhibition of loyalty to your team mates and sheer bloody mindedness in not wanting to be seen as a quitter.

I don't know what the answer is, I'm not a developer...but for a start I'd look at the availability of certain units in the phases; nerf down some of the off-board arty; and up-tweak veterancy in some allied divisions.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

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

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Grosnours » Sun 18 Jun 2017 10:48

Random wrote:Your last suggestion would mean it can be used to put moraledamage on an avenue of attack a lot more effective then now, making it stronger in defense while weaker in offense. It should be nerfed by price or aimtime if anything.

Aimtime would be the best IMHO.
This way you really underline the role of offmap in offense and make it extremely difficult to use in defense. If we (e.g.) doubled all the timers it would make no difference for mounting an attack but quite a big one to stop one.
Image

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3349
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby varis » Sun 18 Jun 2017 11:00

Random wrote:What is your problem if unittype A only gets countered by either unittype A or mix of unittype A+B(assuming it is priced in a way that is balanced)?

There are very few AA-units which are not multiroles I consider worth bringing. I think a lot of AA units need buffs, especially towed ones, but I do not see a problem with the mechanics in itself.


The bolded part may be badly worded, but you should see that you're talking of things like the infamous HTM (Heavy Tank Meta from exactly 5 years back) or the subsequent ATGM meta (although, that had a hard counter with spamrushes, and was WAY better as a consequence).

A few weeks into the HTM, things were pretty severe. Many players, me included, almost gave up WarGame:EE in frustration due to the very one-sided meta where literally 4 units out of all the possible decks dominated. Daily peak in players had dropped to 300 and it seemed there was not much hope for WarGame - it took Eugen a couple of months to make a balance patch which improved things with dramatic meta changes but it was still far from perfect. If Eugen and the community had just thrown in the towel and thought, that was it, we wouldn't be talking here any more.

With regards to the one-sided diet being supplemented by soft counters (generally a viable game design strategy too), I take players like Sleksa here could be irritated not just by the units not giving all your money's worth but also the thing that there is no good hard counter when the game design (reportedly) is more built around rock-paper-scissors hard counter model in general.
Image

R3d Sh4mbala
Sergeant Major
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu 12 May 2016 06:17
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby R3d Sh4mbala » Sun 18 Jun 2017 16:07

May I interject here?

Alot of games are kind of going the way of the movie sequels and reboots. And I know the arguments of graphics, game mechanics, etc. But the overall quality is going down, and besides the fact that the player base, much like the movie going base is "I have seen this before, and its worse!" Its a balance of new, but enough of the old to make the transition easy. If you kill off key characters, mechanics, completely disjoint story from a previous title, and alienate the fanbase. Well, you are going to get bit in the pocket book no?

COH -> COH2.
DoW->DoW2->DoW3.
CnC->RA -> RA2 -> RA3
->T.S./F.S->CnC3 -> CnC4
-> Generals -> CnC Generals [Generals II]
SC-> SC2
AoW->AoA
EE->ALB->RD

I mean think about it.
CoH was fresh, because not only was each faction unique in its upgrading and operation [heck even their veterancy was different.] But, we had control over the games flow via our choice of doctrine. Players like having a choice in a game, and they like having options. And the factions were reasonably balanced. CoH2 threw that under the bus, and some of the factions don't have really good gameplay or feel like they are missing tactical options. And the game punishes you for not playing, paying for DLC commanders, and if you chose the wrong commanders you are royally going to get eaten alive in a MP battle.

Same problem with DoW. DoW was fresh because it had unique close quarters action, base building, and each faction was unique in playstyle and consideration of those factions options. DoW2 restricted players options and commander choices [there are so called instant win combos in that game] and the Imperial Guard faction feels like it was never completely finished or balanced against the other factions. DoW3 looks like its trying to return to its roots, but the mechanics might be alienating players who were introduced in DoW2. So you have to carefully transition between choices or you can break the player base seriously.

CnC, ugh.
The Red Alert arch, seems to be okay up to Red Alert 2. Then Red Alert 3 just splattered series. Mostly it was story and art form, and the consistent insistence of EA to try to make their games compete with Star Craft in the pro electronic gaming circuit. There were some interesting ideas, but balance and story were broken, and alienated player investment due to cheesy extreme! There was also the issue of soft porn advertising with the female characters in game. Conversion from 2D to 3D isn't hard, but converting story and universe seems to be the killer issue.

Tiberium Universe. More of a hard core Sci-Fi story game. The first two installments Tiberium Dawn and Tib Sun and Firestorm were par the course for continuing the saga and environment was awesome. The problems begin to fall thick and fast with CnC3 and CnC3 Kanes Wrath, and then just guts the series with CnC4. From a story and art stand point. CnC3 actually was a good showing. Gameplay wise its a bit problematic, due to EA's consistent trying to make their games compete with Star Craft in the pro-electronic gaming circuit. But then EA completely shattered the series by deliberately changing the game mechanics. And worse those mechanics were stacked against the new player, you had to rank to unlock units. Player don't like having to have a profile to grind to unlock units that should be avail at start.

The Generals Universe. Is an interesting case study. Due to its completely different mechanics from other CnC titles. But it gameplay and ease of use. Made it a very user and player friendly. But, EA tried to make it like CnC4 and set it up as Free to Play Title in its second iteration, and they wanted to continue the dogged insistence of competing with Star Craft. By completely divorcing from the universe story, and destroying any potential success by free to play and changing mechanics this game killed another series. Even though it was different from the mechanics of other CnC titles, its story and gameplay did get it a strong loyal fan base.

StarCraft Universe.
Its interesting as a study of success and failure. Star Craft became a success due to it becoming popular in South Korea in their electronic gaming circuits. But, also SC is unique because their methodology of making sure that any player with low performance system could play it. [Something that is lacking from alot of video game companies, who keep pushing the limits of graphics; but never taking into consideration their player bases graphic support on their computers.] But, in SC2 there has been a lowering of quality. The Tiers have been compressed to .5 marks. SC is 1/2/3 tiers. SC2 is .5/1/1.5/2/2.5/3.0. Although it feels more like 2 Tiers most of the time. And SC2 has joined the pay to win crowd of game designers. So the game has tons of characters or mini-stories that you have to pay for in order to operate. It also has a massive variety of game modes, which can internally fracture a game player base further.

AoW vs. AoA.
Eugen systems almost practically threw the story, universe, factions everything under the bus. So players who have played AoW, though AoA was going to be a further continuance of the story of AoW. PSYCH! No Consortium, No Task Force Talon. U.S. Army stays around, because well U.S. Army; but it loses some of its gameplay and unit options to boot. The story campaign is a pain, because you have to swap between levels of campaign. The Resource mechanic with 3 materials to collect was a nightmare, also not factoring in factional balance due to said resource usage. The Reboot AoA just feels like a cop out, and unnecessary unit changes to justify a reboot isn't worth it. We also don't have the naval warfare function of AoW: High Treason. [What is up with Eugen and Naval additions? Oh and those were only allowed in MP.] It was like the game designers were saying. "We want to make another Act of War, but at the same time how can we make it not like Act of War? " As I said, game design in sequels is a careful balance of old things from the previous products, and new concepts and designs. Its like making a new meal out of a fairly hum-drum standard fare food item.

Wargame.
Well most of you should know the saga.
I think the old way of EE user interface should have been kept across the series. It gave a sense of universe depth.
I think ALB was the high water mark, because it had all of the multiplayer options, it felt "balanced" per se. Red Dragon feels like they tried to tack on too many things at once. And the gameplay suffers even more than ALB. And yes, lack of tutorials makes this game a hardcore strategy players home turf.

So what the original OP was saying holds true in many ways. A game designer can lose the support of a player base by trying to "experiment" or "change" game mechanics. Its a balance of old and new.

I have been following the SD experiment, and I think the concept of fixed units might be interesting if ported back into the War Game universe. Especially when coupled with historical formations. But then again ALB balanced that already with the selections per nation. And the map mechanic is interesting. Might be a very interesting combination with the game options of EE.

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

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Grosnours » Sun 18 Jun 2017 20:04

varis wrote:With regards to the one-sided diet being supplemented by soft counters (generally a viable game design strategy too), I take players like Sleksa here could be irritated not just by the units not giving all your money's worth but also the thing that there is no good hard counter when the game design (reportedly) is more built around rock-paper-scissors hard counter model in general.

IIRC the game design of SD is specifically trying to avoid rock/paper/scissors mechanisms according to Eugen's declarations.
See here : http://www.pcgamer.com/steel-division-n ... this-year/
Eugen’s desire is to skew towards historical accuracy over what they referred to as the contrived, 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of other RTSes
Image

nande
Lieutenant
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue 30 Sep 2014 02:31
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby nande » Sun 18 Jun 2017 21:34

what great success then, to have a "historically accurate" ground game alongside arcade artillery and air

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

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Markenzwieback » Sun 18 Jun 2017 21:54

nande wrote:what great success then, to have a "historically accurate" ground game alongside arcade artillery and air

I cannot second this enough. If you want to appeal to realism, air, artillery (on and off map) as well as the suppression mechanics need major adjustments.
Image

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Sleksa » Sun 18 Jun 2017 23:37

Grosnours wrote:
varis wrote:With regards to the one-sided diet being supplemented by soft counters (generally a viable game design strategy too), I take players like Sleksa here could be irritated not just by the units not giving all your money's worth but also the thing that there is no good hard counter when the game design (reportedly) is more built around rock-paper-scissors hard counter model in general.

IIRC the game design of SD is specifically trying to avoid rock/paper/scissors mechanisms according to Eugen's declarations.
See here : http://www.pcgamer.com/steel-division-n ... this-year/
Eugen’s desire is to skew towards historical accuracy over what they referred to as the contrived, 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of other RTSes


I can see that they maybe tried to go for the non-rps balancing with the addition of things like the morale meter and the subsequent things it comes with, but in the current state it simply does not work in nearly every field I can think of. The game is littered with hard counter units like 1-shotting sappers and flamers that can roast an entire division's worth of paratroopers as long as they have enough fuel to keep the party going. However in regards to air, the only real hard counter is to go air yourself.

I wouldn't really mind the situation with the planes either, and there's certainly a lot of things that SD massively improves on (map control mechanic for one is a great innovation). But when you add everything else I've said here on the list alongside replacing the more or less decent wargame damage model with a pair of dice, keeping the map imbalance, splintering the player community to 10v10 tactical destro ...players and actual human beings, it's just too much. For me it's just better to wait and see if there'll be another game after this one, and see if the eugen switches course with the design. However I feel like they've decided to stick with the destruction to the grave, and as long as it exists in the games they make, there's going to be problems.
Image

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sun 18 Jun 2017 23:45

What people are seeking isn't 'reality', it's the perception of reality, and in the general gaming population that will be close to what is read in less than well researched internet sources.

The fact is that there will be things that just can't be factored into the game that did have massive impacts on battlefield performance in Normandy, so the best that we can hope for is a decent game with some flavour, rather than a sim.

What I would like to see is some stats on what units are being used, when, and what numbers of them and more importantly, what unit selections aren't being used, and whether slots are not being emptied during games.

And Sleks is right...Destro is a game killer.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

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

Re: Steel Division sales...

Postby Grosnours » Mon 19 Jun 2017 10:45

Sleksa wrote:I can see that they maybe tried to go for the non-rps balancing with the addition of things like the morale meter and the subsequent things it comes with, but in the current state it simply does not work in nearly every field I can think of. The game is littered with hard counter units like 1-shotting sappers and flamers that can roast an entire division's worth of paratroopers as long as they have enough fuel to keep the party going. However in regards to air, the only real hard counter is to go air yourself.

I can't contradict you here. It seems to me that the design of the game sometimes suffers from a sever case of multiple (and conflicting) personalities. You see great ideas which are sabotaged quite willingly in their execution. Doctor Jeckyll and Mister Hyde become video game devs.

The phase system is an excellent innovation, allows a much better control of the flow of a game. But then we see a horde of units in this phase (Beute Firefly, Nebelwerfers,multiple planes, etc...) which are breaking the very principle on which phases are built.
The veterance system combined with leaders adding one point of veterance is a very good idea. But then you see divisions which are blinding you with the sheer amount of stars they sports, defeating the purposes and importance of leaders.
There's other examples, including in the UI who suffers from clunky lobby interface.

But then again, it's pretty much always the execution of the idea which is flaky, whereas the core idea is quite solid. Making it a marked improvement over the wargames.

Sleksa wrote: However I feel like they've decided to stick with the destruction to the grave, and as long as it exists in the games they make, there's going to be problems.

Destruction is actually not a problem in itself. Yes, I agree with you that the sole presence of the mode is bad for the game as it divides the community, gives bad habits and so forth.
But I would contend that the very core problem of multiplayer is matchmaking, and the root problem of matchmaking the lobbies. They tried now to hide them a bit (custom games) but they are still at the heart of the game. There can be no true matchmaking as long as the lobbies exists or if you prefer as long as each and every match doesn't influence some kind of comprehensive and unified ranking system.
Image

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests