Help me, Steel Balalaika. You're my only hope.

[FierceTomato]

:(

[gribelo]

Why should I feel bad about games? i can always drink some vodka and ♥♥♥♥ a girl for a change))

What do you mean by dead then? For me dead means "no signs of life" "loss of life". WRD maybe not at its peak form but far from dead as well.

What do you mean "The fact that 10v10 even exists illustrates that"? I play only 10vs10 games, im not interested in cheesy, ranked, cybersport, balanced, competitive RTS gameplay style. All my decks are strictly national, thematic and dont have prototypes. Im interested in doctrinated, realistic, assymetric. wargame gameplay style and 10vs10 is closer to this and basically only playable mode with my decks.

More modes = better. Everyone can have his own kind of game.

Naval gameplay is an abortion, yeah! )) Just adding landing crafts with some limited off-map missile\artillery support would do much better.

[Muad'Dib]

The problem with 10v10 is it badly fractures the playerbase, especially since Wargame relies on an antiquated lobby system. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should, when designing a game. 10v10 has it's crowd, but honestly even that crowd has to play with special rules like in tactical servers to make it remotely playable. IMO Eugen just does things that 'sound cool', but never cares about ever fleshing it out to actually be fun, which is why the only people actually playing 10v10 only do it in tacticals, which isn't even something Eugen came up with.

Relying on a lobby system, wonky game modes that encourage an already tiny player pool to be tugged around between ridiculous 10v10 servers at the expense of the rest of the modes, next to no effort at all on balance(And even selling blatantly OP DLC factions). Eugen games have mountains of problems and that's why the playerbase falls off a cliff a month or two after each launch. You might not like 'sweaty try hard multiplayer', but the vast majority of RTS players do. It's like being mad about fighting games being hard when you go to EVO. RTS just isn't very fun when you overly cater to people that don't like RTS games, which is why there are so many dead RTS games who all tried to capture that casual or nostalgia based market that just doesn't really exist. Wargame's multiplayer is shabby and slapped together because it's made by people that don't play RTS games.

[gribelo]

Yeah, so thats not really a problem of 10vs10 itself but rather a combination of other problems which looks like they are did not bother to fix in 8 years. So I maybe wrong, but it feels like WARNO will die before WRD ))

Broken Arrow is in a very good position now and they have all chances to take over the genre. If they will be able to balance multiplayer for different playstyles and levels of skill they will have jackpot. Wargamers, casuals, ranked cybersportsmen - everyone would be happy enough.

[gribelo]

引用自 Zebra Cakes：

You might not like 'sweaty try hard multiplayer', but the vast majority of RTS players do

Maybe you got me wrong.. I like simulators and wargames, sweatiest and hardest they are, better for me. I like to read 500 pages manuals and memorizing dozens of hotkeys just to be able to use F-18 ground searching radar and such.

This may sound strange but 10vs10 is the most realistic game mode in WRD where I can roleplay my thematic, realsitic decks, set goals to myself and do them. I dont care about my score, only about my goals. But always in TOP-3 of team with sucj approach anyway.

Not 1vs1 where you need to put russian plane, czech tank and GDR infantry in your deck, not the tacticals where you cant afford to buy even a platoon of tanks in a whole match cant suite my demands. So yeah, Im not a RTS man myself, im a wargamer. But if some RTS have enough wargame value for me I can go for it.

WRD have enough semi-realsim, modes and settings for me to buy for it and to play it. WARNO looks like an abortion right now, zero progress from WRD and further casualisation means there is no reason to pay for it. I really hope Broken Arrow is going to work for me. I really hope it will be an event and new cult thing for RTSers and wargamers. They have all chances now.

[Muad'Dib]

I think you've kind of illustrated exactly why people don't like 10v10 though. You can only get away with that playstyle because you're getting carried by others playing the game. It's the problem with any mode beyond 1v1, but 10v10 exacerbates the issue badly and forces a small portion of a team to be responsible for the overall victory and even just the basic fun level of the match as it's not entertaining to get curb stomped by people actually playing seriously while your team is dinking around roleplaying.

[gribelo]

Im not sure why you assigned me to into "bad player league" here, Im not dinking around with my roleplaying, I ALWAYS in that small portion of a team that contributes to victory, I always have positive kill ratio and contribute 15-30% of team success and my buddy who plays thematic airforce decks, does the same with his roleplaying. BTW all those "elite" ranked players always show terrible results in 10vs10 when they join randomly or try to team up to show off their skills, they are always terrible feeders. They rely on some "tricks" instead of tactics, but these tricks do not work in 10vs10 lol..

Reality I witness daily do not comfirm your theories.

Listen, bro.. I dont like this "my mode is better than your mode" argument. I really like a fact that game supports different playstyles and modes and unites genres under one roof. I think this idea can be expanded and we all can have our game of dream.

[павук]

引用自 Zebra Cakes：

引用自 gribelo：

I keep seeing this since 2016. Yet dozen of tactical games are running at every moment. Stable 10vs10 playerbase in Asia and Europe at peak times. It will not die untill someone is not going to kill it.

Buddy when you have to start mentioning 'peak times', the multiplayer is dead. Don't feel bad, there's plenty of RTS games I like with dead MP, like Men of War, but even Men of War, as ridiculously demanding as it is, tends to be much more alive than Red Dragon. I just don't think Wargame is fundamentally well designed. It's popularity is a mix of the deck system, and the total lack of competition in this niche(Well, up until recently now with BA and Regiments).

IMO Eugen just doesn't know how to do multiplayer. The fact that 10v10 even exists illustrates that. Eugen is the kind of dev that just throws junk into their game to have a bullet point on the steam store page, they don't care if it actually plays well or is actually fun.

Case in point: The naval gameplay introduced into Red Dragon. I mean, this is the same company that thought putting units behind a grind wall in the multiplayer of an RTS was a good idea in European Escalation.

There's no such thing as a dead game if there's at least one full lobby of people playing it. People throw their "dead game" right and left nowadays. But guess what? Even a hundred people is enough to keep the game "alive" because it's more than enough to fill 2 servers on most of the games.

Take Rising Storm 2 for example: it has 700 players on average. A child like you would start spitting nonsense about dead game and claim "liTerAlLy UnPlAybLe" but in fact you can log in at any time and find AT LEAST 3 servers, full of people.

The only time your argument about dead game would be valid is when there's literally no one to play with, so you have to scramble on forums just to get the game started again. For that matter, I've experienced this only once in my lifetime and it was when they killed off RUSE, by removing it from the steam store. There are some tiny communities, like OpenRA, which have 150 players at peak. And even they manage to stay active and you can find a game most of the time.

[gribelo]

I will add that WRD is not going to die unless substitute will arrive, there is simply no other game to replace it. Its a cult game like Skyrim or ARMA which do not ages and keeps attracting players.

WARNO sort of failed at this moment. Maybe Broken Arrow can do. Then maybe WRD will finally die.

[Heru Ra Ha]

But WARNO is just in EA do you guys not think they can make changes to the game that iron things out like the game being clunky and having certain problems like morale feeling odd? Balance is something that can be worked on too

[gribelo]

引用自 Heru Ra Ha：

But WARNO is just in EA do you guys not think they can make changes to the game that iron things out like the game being clunky and having certain problems like morale feeling odd? Balance is something that can be worked on too

They dont know themselves what they are doing. WARNO forum is full of nerf, buff, fix and change requests. Its a broken trash foundation and I dont belive it can be improved.

[Muad'Dib]

引用自 Triple：

There's no such thing as a dead game if there's at least one full lobby of people playing it. People throw their "dead game" right and left nowadays. But guess what? Even a hundred people is enough to keep the game "alive" because it's more than enough to fill 2 servers on most of the games.

Take Rising Storm 2 for example: it has 700 players on average. A child like you would start spitting nonsense about dead game and claim "liTerAlLy UnPlAybLe" but in fact you can log in at any time and find AT LEAST 3 servers, full of people.

The only time your argument about dead game would be valid is when there's literally no one to play with, so you have to scramble on forums just to get the game started again. For that matter, I've experienced this only once in my lifetime and it was when they killed off RUSE, by removing it from the steam store. There are some tiny communities, like OpenRA, which have 150 players at peak. And even they manage to stay active and you can find a game most of the time.

That's mighty defensive, lol. If it takes you 30+ minutes to get a match going, that's pretty dead bro. There's nothing wrong with saying that, your 'personal honor' isn't attached to the playability of obscure european real time tabletop wargame simulators.

Not everyone is a NEET with infinite time to sit around playing games all day, to the point where waiting,at the more extreme end for team games, up to nearly an hour for matches is 'no big deal'. Seems a lot more 'childish' to expect people to not have a constrained amount of time for playing video games of all things. If you make a multiplayer focused game(And let's face it, there's a singleplayer component, but that's not the portion getting mountains of DLC, is it?), how easy it is to hop on....ya know...play multiplayer, directly impacts the viability of turning the game on in the first place. Hence why a small community in an RTS is effectively the same thing as being 'dead' for a good swath of people that live like actual adults and have jobs and crap.