What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Sleksa » Sat 9 Sep 2017 21:29

Saavedra wrote:
Razzmann wrote:
Aikmofobi wrote:[*]The phase system.
For example, look at every other RTS ever.

In other RTS the player decides when they want to get into the next tech level, not the game.


At which point the game stops being about tactics and becomes all about who can choose the correct army composition to win against the enemy first.


Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.
Image

User avatar
Saavedra
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Saavedra » Mon 11 Sep 2017 12:01

Sleksa wrote:Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.


That is a bit of an exaggeration. What I mean is that when an RTS presents a technological curve together with an economic system, moving your units around and executing combined arms properly becomes a secondary concern, the first now being teching up faster than your enemy into the most meta-approved combination of units.

Steel Division does away with the technology curve and economic system. The technology curve works almost exactly the same for all divisions, and the economic system depends on tactical movements. Granted, divisions get paid differently in each phase, but if you are just better than your enemy at tactics, you are very likely to win, whereas in other RTS, being good at tactics is secondary. Of course, there are other things that help Steel Division follow that paradigm, like there being no health bars for vehicles...

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2245
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Sleksa » Mon 11 Sep 2017 13:36

Saavedra wrote:
Sleksa wrote:Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.


That is a bit of an exaggeration. What I mean is that when an RTS presents a technological curve together with an economic system, moving your units around and executing combined arms properly becomes a secondary concern, the first now being teching up faster than your enemy into the most meta-approved combination of units.


I originally wrote that this makes me want to question if you've ever even played rts games, but on further thought this is such a wrong statement that it warrants a bit better reply. First of all what you're saying is that micromanagement and "executing combined arms properly" -of which the latter i'm unsure of what on earth you're even talking about (but i presume using a mix of different units or types of units) but also generally comes from the mouths of people who have very little clue about how the gameplay works, becomes obsolete as long as you can tech up faster than your enemy. And this whole package is offered without any kind of backup or sourcing to the argument whatsoever, but i can offer a few examples that run against that argument:

In starcraft it's possible to have every kind of tech building possible but still ending up buying a mix of low tech units together with the higher ones even at the later/end stages of the game, examples include zealots to frontline for dragoons, buying marines even when there's tanks or battlecruisers available, or buying zerglings despite having access to mutas/lurkers/ultras. Some of the greatest gaming moments in history even include such moments of dismantling higher tech units with the use of micromanagement, low tech units or both.



In age of empires it's also possible to counter higher tech units with micro / unit compositions including lower tech units, such as buying basic light cavalry to soak up conversions and damage against monks and crossbows/gunpowder units or mixing pikemen into your composition or against catapults



In red alert it's possible to spend the entire game pumping out riflemen and rocket soldiers as well as apcs despite having access to superunits like tesla troopers/tanks, mammoths, artillery and so on, while keeping their micromanagement relevant



In total annihilation the game basically revolves around mixing up units and creating certain compositions that work even if your enemy has teched up.

http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33452


Even in games that don't really follow the classical rts genre it's possible to see the same lowtech unit usage and micro trumping against high tech things, in company of heroes it's also basically mandatory in certain matchups



With a direct wargame comparison This is would be more less equally translateable to saying that you don't need to micro or buy anything smaller than a superheavy in wargame as long as you have your superheavy tanks out in the field, or that heavy ifv transports turn cheaper transports useless, which is something I'd expect out of a 10v10 player's mouth, but I don't really see them as people so their opinion is discarded. On the other hand hearing things like the quote below makes me believe you belong in the same pile

Granted, divisions get paid differently in each phase, but if you are just better than your enemy at tactics, you are very likely to win, whereas in other RTS, being good at tactics is secondary.
Image

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby jhfts » Tue 10 Oct 2017 08:19

Pinhook wrote:What didn't work:
...
[*]The phase system. I think it made battles too formulaic, but I doubt it had the same impact on sales as my first point.


This is a big reason why I just can't get into this game. It's made deck build boring.

I spent tens of hours in W:RD in the armory / deck-builder alone, trying to find novel unit combinations. It was a lot of fun looking for ways to make obscure units or nations workable.

Steel Divisions has made deck creation into a largely brainless exercise. Instead of choosing an individualized deck from a wide selection of units, deck creation has simply become "Would you like 5 of tank A or 2 of tank B?" - the choices for each phase are literally only between two or three units for each category. Personalization has gone out the window.

KillaJules
Warrant Officer
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat 5 Nov 2011 03:20
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby KillaJules » Tue 10 Oct 2017 10:44

jhfts wrote:Steel Divisions has made deck creation into a largely brainless exercise. Instead of choosing an individualized deck from a wide selection of units,

That is exactly how it is in SD . . .


jhfts wrote:the choices for each phase are literally only between two or three units for each category. Personalization has gone out the window.


I can see where you are coming from but your point is misguided. You can't "personalise" decks very much and make them any way you want because decks are already personalised by being limited to specific divisions. You can't choose any play style you like after picking your deck because picking a division IS making a choice about your personal playstyle. This is exactly how the game should be. Wargame gradually trended away from generalised decks which gave players lots of freedom to "personalise" because it led to people cherry-picking the best choices in every category and ignoring units that weren't "meta". It made multiplayer repetitive and toxic. At its worst in WALB, it was always mixed NATO vs Soviet and unit choices hardly differed.

In the Wargame series, you would never ever see a matchup where the player's decks are as different from each other as e.g. Eichenlaub vs 3rd AD or 3rd FJ vs 15th Scotts. SDs much greater variety in play styles is only possible because it restricts players.

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby jhfts » Sat 14 Oct 2017 11:17

KillaJules wrote: You can't choose any play style you like after picking your deck because picking a division IS making a choice about your personal playstyle. This is exactly how the game should be. Wargame gradually trended away from generalised decks which gave players lots of freedom to "personalise" because it led to people cherry-picking the best choices in every category and ignoring units that weren't "meta". It made multiplayer repetitive and toxic. At its worst in WALB, it was always mixed NATO vs Soviet and unit choices hardly differed.


I fundamentally disagree for a number of reasons. To a large extent, what you speak of is basically Eugen's fault, as the devs never bothered to update or rebalance scores of low-tier units. There were all sorts of low-tier units that could have been given relevance, but were entirely ignored by the devs. In the few occasions that pleas from community members were actually heard and acted upon, such as with the poor BMP-1, it often lead to previously worthless picks becoming relevant once again.

With respect to issues in ALB, it was often the fault of the devs, who refused to correct obviously over-performing units. The F-14 / MiG-31 fighters were never dealt with (until RD), despite overwhelming evidence that they were stifling the use of all other air-superiority fighters. Unfortunately, Eugen was largely content to allow for a few 'super-units' to exist, rather than create more broadly-based unit balancing.

In addition, many of the problems came from the outcry of very small, but very vocal ranked community, who exclusively played in the Conquest gamemode. Conquest, with it's high income rate and lack of penalty for losses vis-à-vis Destruction, largely obviated many of the cost-effectiveness concerns that justified lower-tier units. Because fewer points were available in Destruction, and losses contributed to the enemy's score, it was not always possible or optimal to deploy the most expensive units. Conquest generally eliminated these economic concerns, promoting simplistic 'unit spam' gameplay that encouraged use of nothing but high-tier units.

Finally, while the minority of players that played ranked matches demonstrated a slavish adherence to the 'meta', this was by no means the case with more casual players. I, for one, spent a great deal of time purposefully selecting units that were not 'meta', and trying to find ways to make them work; often, I'd lose, but sometimes I'd find something that would work, or that was just plain fun to use. Attempting to enforce a 'meta' on players, without permitting such experimentation, helps to make a game repetitive and stagnant.

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Tiera » Mon 16 Oct 2017 12:54

jhfts wrote:In addition, many of the problems came from the outcry of very small, but very vocal ranked community, who exclusively played in the Conquest gamemode. Conquest, with it's high income rate and lack of penalty for losses vis-à-vis Destruction, largely obviated many of the cost-effectiveness concerns that justified lower-tier units. Because fewer points were available in Destruction, and losses contributed to the enemy's score, it was not always possible or optimal to deploy the most expensive units. Conquest generally eliminated these economic concerns, promoting simplistic 'unit spam' gameplay that encouraged use of nothing but high-tier units.
How many hours did you put to 4v4 team games in Conquest to speak with such certainty? Honestly, why is it always the very same "Conquest=spam"-claim without any basis repeated ad nauseam?


jhfts wrote:Finally, while the minority of players that played ranked matches demonstrated a slavish adherence to the 'meta', this was by no means the case with more casual players. I, for one, spent a great deal of time purposefully selecting units that were not 'meta', and trying to find ways to make them work; often, I'd lose, but sometimes I'd find something that would work, or that was just plain fun to use. Attempting to enforce a 'meta' on players, without permitting such experimentation, helps to make a game repetitive and stagnant.
The meta evolved, it wasn't enforced. People dug out hidden stats, did a few Exels, draw their conclusions and built their decks accordingly.
Image

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4364
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Shrike » Mon 30 Oct 2017 05:02

Tiera wrote:Setting: Normandy and WW2 Western Front are understandable from a marketing point of view. Personally I prefer Cold War, but here we are.

Probably the biggest let down for me so far is how the game focuses on Normandy instead the early and middle stages and various theaters of the war. I would have loved to bring an Italian division to the eastern front or have soviets fighting on Iwo Jima. Such maddness could probably be avoided with a toggable option to limit countries to certain theaters of war to which the map belongs.

However I still have a small spark of hope for expansion packs.

vietnamabc
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri 20 May 2016 06:54
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby vietnamabc » Tue 7 Nov 2017 17:37

Just my two cents here but air battle in Steel Division is much more consistent than RNG fest of Wargame, especially since there is no 1-hit sniper kill ATG planes here and AAA works as a deterrent here, much less mic-fest than Wargame is a bonus too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests