Why ranked is such an extreme experience?

[=J13=Serenity]

I have a crazy amount of ranked experience - 40 games.
Never played ranked in any other wargame games.

Yet, the game consistently puts me against a top 100 players.
And that's well before 2 min timer.

Of course, I loose badly.
But then, the game always gives me players with literally zero ranked experience.
Often, they don't even buy units, or move them much.

Its almost impossible to lose those types of games, so I get 1-2 easy victories.
And, the game throws me into the top 100 lions pit again.

Why is it such an ALL OR NOTHING deal?
I though the tacked is supposed to find me an opponent of similar stats, not the extreme ends of the spectrum?

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by FREEZED:

playing against better players make you learn faster, just watch replay what happened and how enemy played so you can know better what you should do next time.

1v1 Ranked is SOOOOO different from all the general lobbies that essentially you can't learn from it. In other games you have a clear frontline. In 1v1 you do not have. In fact I gave up playing even in WG because it seemed be a total gambling and "watchfest". You have to watch the events on so many location in the making real micro decisions is simply impossible.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by 502 Heavy:

10v10 are unplayeble in my opinion and shall not be in the game at all, i can't even use a f*king plane in a proper manor beacouse AA is everywhere but hey how about to use them all at once? ok! 80% are shut down and never get back! But how about a tank? Nope, ATGMS evrywhere...Ok then infantery will do the job for me let's make a little push and then the all mighty arty is falling on me and i don't even wanna talk about leavers, even before the match starts. It's getting hard to digest all of this over time in 10v10, but then i finded 1v1 , 2v2 up to 5v5 and the game has sudenly becomed way more enjoyble and balanced. I don't getit why devs are focused on 10v10 and there are absorbed almost all the players instead of 1 up to max 5v5.

Just use the smoke with mortars. Within seconds you can block the ATGMs. From close range ATGM cannot have any chance.

[=J13=Serenity]

Another obstacle to learning the game are the tutorials and the manual
Even on Youtube, most of the "Guides" are very basic:
Left click to select, right to move, use WASD to move camera etc...
The ingame manual gives you a lot of misinformation
Like that the AP increases +1 per 350m, while its actually 175
HEAT damage is not explained well too, and so on and so on
In the end you end up having to do an infinite amount of testing alone or with a friend.

A better game manual would greatly improve the game and the ranked experience.

The matchmaking turns ranked into a "dark souls" experience.
Die a lot and "Get better"
Some people are fine with that
Most will drop the game entirely.
Single player is dull
10v10 is an unbalanced chaos with terrible FPS
1v1 is the most fun, that's what the game is designed to do.
But it's also the most "Toxic" part of the game, unless you are ready for the beating and humiliation.

That my very personal opinion, of course

[neochen']

Originally posted by 502 Heavy:

This game will die anyways when Broken Arrow comes out beacouse devs are preocupied to make fancy posts every week instead of something solid about the game itself.

If only broken arrow had a proper engine instead of unity.
In the last BETA controlling units felt like swimming in an ocean of ♥♥♥.

Originally posted by =J13=Serenity:

Another obstacle to learning the game are the tutorials and the manual
Even on Youtube, most of the "Guides" are very basic:
Left click to select, right to move, use WASD to move camera etc...
The ingame manual gives you a lot of misinformation
Like that the AP increases +1 per 350m, while its actually 175
HEAT damage is not explained well too, and so on and so on
In the end you end up having to do an infinite amount of testing alone or with a friend.

A better game manual would greatly improve the game and the ranked experience.

The matchmaking turns ranked into a "dark souls" experience.
Die a lot and "Get better"
Some people are fine with that
Most will drop the game entirely.
Single player is dull
10v10 is an unbalanced chaos with terrible FPS
1v1 is the most fun, that's what the game is designed to do.
But it's also the most "Toxic" part of the game, unless you are ready for the beating and humiliation.

That my very personal opinion, of course

Red Dragon had lots of in-depth guides, including ♥♥♥♥ like how recon works, best I could find for WARNO is a small table for spotting distance comparison.
Wonder why people don't care about WARNO in that way.

[b4ry]

Originally posted by neochen':

Originally posted by 502 Heavy:

This game will die anyways when Broken Arrow comes out beacouse devs are preocupied to make fancy posts every week instead of something solid about the game itself.

If only broken arrow had a proper engine instead of unity.
In the last BETA controlling units felt like swimming in an ocean of ♥♥♥.

First, wait for it to get released. it seems its constantly delayed. + somehow I have the bad feeling how "well" balanced this game going to be : )

[94660549]

I haven't quite had the same extreme experiences. I do think there is a certain plateu you need to reach before you are good enough to enjoy 1v1, and I dont think in that context, that 40 games is all that much. So in that sense I would not feel too bad about it.

The game would certainly benefit from an overhaul of the multiplayer gamemodes. 10v10 belongs in the trash. People clearly want a huge gamemode, but 5v5 is huge enough for all intents and purposes. A ranked team mode(4v4, 5v5, 6v6, take your pick) along with a ranked 1v1 mode, and maybe less of the sitting-around-in-lobbies-forever experience would be nice. That would also yield more game time and less lobby time, meaning more games.

Imagine a ranked team mode with 2 A divs, 2 B divs and 1 C div per team, and voice coms. That could actually be balanced, and would be a far superior experience to 10v10. Eugene should also do more to promote the multiplayer in general. Most people who buy these games play single player, meaning most of their money plays single player. That is in itself a loss since these games really shine in multiplayer and are some of the best if not the best MP RTS games on the market.

Part of the reason 1v1 is not that popular is that people dislike the pressure and the difficulty, the same reason they do not play Starcraft or other RTS games. I don't know what Eugene could do to change that and make the mode more appealing, but they should try. In the meantime I suppose I will keep playing 1v1. I am happy enough, but it seems like a waste that such a great base game does not come together in the right game modes

[502 Heavy]

Originally posted by 94660549:

I haven't quite had the same extreme experiences. I do think there is a certain plateu you need to reach before you are good enough to enjoy 1v1, and I dont think in that context, that 40 games is all that much. So in that sense I would not feel too bad about it.

The game would certainly benefit from an overhaul of the multiplayer gamemodes. 10v10 belongs in the trash. People clearly want a huge gamemode, but 5v5 is huge enough for all intents and purposes. A ranked team mode(4v4, 5v5, 6v6, take your pick) along with a ranked 1v1 mode, and maybe less of the sitting-around-in-lobbies-forever experience would be nice. That would also yield more game time and less lobby time, meaning more games.

Imagine a ranked team mode with 2 A divs, 2 B divs and 1 C div per team, and voice coms. That could actually be balanced, and would be a far superior experience to 10v10. Eugene should also do more to promote the multiplayer in general. Most people who buy these games play single player, meaning most of their money plays single player. That is in itself a loss since these games really shine in multiplayer and are some of the best if not the best MP RTS games on the market.

Part of the reason 1v1 is not that popular is that people dislike the pressure and the difficulty, the same reason they do not play Starcraft or other RTS games. I don't know what Eugene could do to change that and make the mode more appealing, but they should try. In the meantime I suppose I will keep playing 1v1. I am happy enough, but it seems like a waste that such a great base game does not come together in the right game modes

It's super simple what they can do about multiplayer. Trow away that 10v10 and put a matchmaking search engine for autobalancing teams and add matches 1v1 up to 6v6 let's say, put there a proper team vote for surrender and ad penalties to leavers and that's it. Company of heroes it's doing this like forever and it's working and it not have a much larger comunity than WARNO.

[b4ry]

You cannot add penalties for leavers when the game's netcode kicks out x% of ppl every game.
I never had any issues in any game before but to play Warno, I had to buy a new router.

[=J13=Serenity]

I would agree
Three of my friends tried to play Warno multiplayer
10v10 is way to many units and lag.
10v10 tactical - hit or miss due to stacking teams
1v1 - as I've said in my first post, is way to punishing and random
I kid you not, one of my friends was streaming on discord his first ever ranked battles
The first game was against another new player, so that was a fun and messy game.
He barely won.
Second game - his enemy war rank 254...
Third - rank 400
While his own rank was never above 1000 or so
None of my friends play Warno multiplayer anymore.

We also stopped playing Campaign, because its so tedious and repetitive.
And PvP campaign is also weird. Most of the battles are extremely one-sided.
It is justified by the setting, but gameplay wise it is simply not fun.

[Sneaky_Beaky]

Let us not forget that, 400,000 people that bought Wargame RD; refused to buy SD and haven't bought WARNO.

Trusting the DailyGamers and SD League -- has cost Eugen 400,000 customers.

Between 3x titles. So 1.2M copies, or like $50M.

But oh yeah............

According to this noobie echo chamber, 10v10 is the whole problem.........

DEFF LMAO............

[thugnightly]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

Let us not forget that, 400,000 people that bought Wargame RD; refused to buy SD and haven't bought WARNO.

Trusting the DailyGamers and SD League -- has cost Eugen 400,000 customers.

Between 3x titles. So 1.2M copies, or like $50M.

But oh yeah............

According to this noobie echo chamber, 10v10 is the whole problem.........

DEFF LMAO............

10v10 isn't the problem nor really is the game or it's mechanics. I think the primary problem is Eugens marketing skills as is relates to trailers, new content and overall game experience.

Not saying they're terrible, but the don't reflect the actual gameplay or style of the game at all.

Also, remember RD was basically one of a kind when it came out and now there is significantly more competition for eugen with their own titles and similar titles. (Ie. Regiments, BA, men of war etc). Not to mention when RD came out, RTS games were way more popular than they are now.

[=J13=Serenity]

This thread was initially focused on Ranked matchmaking
Just tried again today
I am rank 416
Two games ins a row I got same guy with 200 rating, And I only waited for like 30 sec. So 2 min timer rule does not work as I would expect.
Then I had a rank 600 guy and a rank 1500 guy (He had no ranked games at all).
So feels like there might as well be no match making at all here.
It just a random 1v1 pretty much.

[=J13=Serenity]

Well, here we go
This "HOLD THE LINE" guy definitely plays better then all of the rank 200 I've encountered
Yet, he is rank 600+ and barely has any games in his stats
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3359164268
What is the point of this?
To mess with the system and break matchmaking even more?

[FREEZED]

Originally posted by mndbsd:

Originally posted by FREEZED:

playing against better players make you learn faster, just watch replay what happened and how enemy played so you can know better what you should do next time.

better = comparison.

How much better? If the opponent is much much better, hundred of ranks above you, then there's nothing you can learn from it, plus people have ceilings.
Maybe lil` Johnny is at his skill cap at rank 600, is he not allowed to enjoy the game anymore?

"Sorry Johnny, it's not our fault you can't git gut, all that remains is for you to be the leaderboards punching bag. What's that you say? You want fair matchmaking, don't be silly, here's a bunch of new division for you to get ♥♥♥♥ on."

This argument is so bad it hurts, and it's brought up everywhere, even in rl sports.
Like being a rookie boxer and having Tyson as your constant opponent, very fun eh? You learn so much by being knocked out in 2 punches.

And OP is right, if there aren't enough players then don't fkning match me.

i am sure if Tyson teach you how to fight you learn faster than you bullying some nerd in school.

thing is no one is master when they start, fun starts when you learn all the tricks game has to offer and playing only against new players you will never find those tricks.

So learning how to be good at game is most important at start of playing, not winning.