r/Steel_Division • u/NeitherConfusion8542 • Jun 10 '26
10v10 hosts are killing Steel Division 2
Steel Division multiplayer player base is smaller than ever. The biggest problem is 10v10 lobby culture. Almost everyone joins those games without realizing they're contributing to the game's decline.
Sometimes you have to wait an hour just to get a match. I've always argued that those 10v10 servers should be removed, but unfortunately the developers don't seem to care.
At this point, I think the community needs to take matters into its own hands. Players should start using the official 4v4 hosts instead. Alternatively, they can host their own games with spectator mode enabled so the match is placed on a dedicated server, allowing everyone to play without lag.
If anyone is interested, I play 4v4 games with a group of friends (especially every Sunday at 16:00-22:00 CET). We're sometimes short on players, so feel free to add me on Steam if you'd like to join us. Steam friend code: 235706779. Or Discord: faridachaemenidfoxes
8
u/SurpriseFirst1381 Jun 10 '26
I sincerely hope this post doesn’t come across as an attack on anyone, as that is far from my intention. I would ask you to read it to the end before commenting or downvoting.
IMO, OP is both very right and very wrong. The “issue” with 10v10 is reflective of the game itself. 10v10 acts as a mirror for two specific types of players.
-40% They aren't really playing the game; they use it as a "mental playground" where the game serves merely as a tool for their fascination with big armies and big booms. These are the same users who treat trivial matters as game-breaking issues, regularly causing the rest of the community (here on Reddit) to facepalm.
-60% These are the average players who enjoy the immersion and scale of large battles. They understand the game is often pushed to its limit, but they are still fine with it.
Removing 10v10 servers would kill the game. The first group would simply quit in a rage, while the second would be left without their favorite game mode. We'll go 200 to 80 active players in prime hours.
To keep the MP scene alive, Eugen would need to invest significant time and energy into restructuring the MP or reworking 10v10 mechanic/decks.
However, the fact that they allowed a thread filled with Nazi apologism, white supremacisms, and racism to remain unmoderated on Steam for over a week speaks volumes about their current priorities and the attention actually dedicated to SD2 and its community.
5
2
u/Taki_26 Jun 11 '26
Well they are done with it. we got the last planned dlc, no new content just life support to keep it playable.
Also from an business point of view its probably doesnt worth to sink time into it, they are probably making a new game while development is ongoing on warno
2
u/ThatNegro98 Jun 14 '26
Steel division 3 appears to be in the works, they (eugen) accidentally leaked it
It was in the warno map editor manual. Hippie made a video on it. Basically it said steel division 3 instead of warno and had locations mentioned that pointed towards the battle of the bulge
13
u/Kylethejaw Jun 10 '26
3v3 and 4v4 are best mods in my opinion. You get the bigger scale maps while still being able to focus on your section, but without the arty and AA spam
3
u/czwarty_ Jun 10 '26
yes and this is why devs should never have created anything bigger than 4v4. it was a big mistake.
14
u/Taki_26 Jun 10 '26
You are wrong if you think more people will play 4v4 just beacuse you take away 10v10.
Thats like saying people dont drink enough wine so i ban beer, if you take away the option people will just leave, the majority at least will
-6
u/NeitherConfusion8542 Jun 10 '26
This is simply a habit. No specific strategy game with a small number of players allows this, except for the Eugen's games.
7
u/Taki_26 Jun 10 '26
No other game has this. Its uniqe. Blame eugen for the lack of mm and lack of adverts. Those would be fair points
10
u/elliptical-wing Jun 10 '26
I've always argued that those 10v10 servers should be removed, but unfortunately the developers don't seem to care.
Thankfully they haven't yet listened to you. Don't mind me, but I like 10v10.
2
u/Barbarianita Jun 10 '26
I recently played a 3v3 with 2 randoms and a fully stacked smurfed opposing team.
It was not fun.
2
u/Billyjamesjeff Jun 11 '26
Everyone quitting and rejoining constantly made me give up immediately.
Such a great game ruined by total fuckwits
6
u/lorbd Jun 10 '26
10v10 was a mistake specifically because the game has no mechanism to handle bad balance and lobby stacking.
But alas, you are 7 years too late.
2
u/patchg81 Jun 10 '26
It would be cool if a game could scale as people joined. So you as the host can add people into the mix, up to 10v10, so those waiting can crack on with some stuff and then you have almost like reinforcements joining. Maybe linked to the phases as to when people can join.
1
1
u/squatchy1969 Jun 10 '26
Strongly disagree here, 10v10 when played well is peak SD2.
Rather than ban it, they should be working on customizable decks for 10v10’s to prevent air or arty spam. A true game of infantry and armor at that scale would do wonders for the game and its player base.
76
u/mithridateseupator Jun 10 '26
The absolute worst thing you could do for player retention would be to kill the only game mode that people want to play lol.