Apollo457
12-23-2008, 03:37 PM
I would just like to open by saying that End War is one of the greatest games I have ever played. I love the way that this game plays and I love just about every aspect of it. However, nothing is perfect and thus I want to offer my thoughts and suggestions for improvement to the End War community and the developers.
While it is to be expected that Ubi's lack of experience with this genre combined with such a revolutionary game idea such as End War would inevitably develop problems, this does not excuse Ubi from fixing these problems as quickly as possible. Over the past few months in particular, End War has developed several problems that could prove to be crippling to the game as a whole if they go untreated. This quote I found is rather humorous and I feel it sums up many of the problems facing the game:
Originally posted by mad_mordegan:
Drop your ***** and grab your socks. its a few days from christmas and this game is at an obvious boiling point. 3 days in a row same maps, unit killing rampant people online doing alot of complaining ,stats bug still there, units from batt mia still there, deep strike issue still, tow issues still there, the 3 minute thing doesnt work as i get wins alot when people quit right away, and sometimes loses.
Despite the plethora of problems to be fixed, I am convinced that many of the non-technical (not related to the software) problems can be solved quickly if a relatively simple ranking system is implemented in End War's ToW. Let me briefly describe what I am talking about:
1. Every commander would develop an overall rank based off of battles won/lost, total number of upgrades, and total number of credits earned
2. Every battle would begin with a search for commanders within a few ranks of each other with the hope of pairing commanders of relatively equal skill
3. Rank and battle history would be displayed in the pre-game lobby so each commander would be aware of what they are up against ahead of time, and tweak their strategy accordingly
4. Rank would also affect the impact that a particular battle has on the overall fate of the battlefield every turn. (higher ranking commanders would have a greater affect on the outcome than lower ranks/beginners)
5. (optional) Allow commanders to choose to play against higher ranking commanders with the intent of a challenge and benefit of having a greater affect on the battlefield's fate through beating a higher ranking commander
This is a very general outline of some of the things that this type of system would offer. I think that a few of these things are already being implemented, but they have not been put together in the fashion necessary to fix many of these problems. This list is welcome to critiques of the community, but I just want everyone to be on the same page as far as what I'm shooting for. Now onto the benefits that this type of system would provide:
1. The most notable benefit of this type of system is leveling the playing field. With the implementation of this type of system, beginners and casual players would no longer need to worry about playing against a commander that is way out of their league. Problems with the upgrade system would be resolved for the most part due to the fact that someone with, for example, a level 3 airstrike wouldn't have the ridiculous advantage that they presently have over everyone else. (Scroll down to read more about my thoughts and suggestions to the upgrade dilemma with particular reference to airstrikes) Overall, the system would allow the challenge of each battle to remain relatively consistent.
2. A benefit that goes hand in hand with the first is allowing more experienced players to have a greater affect on the battlefield's outcome per turn. I know there has been a lot of talk regarding the problem of beginners losing over and over and causing a particular battlefield to be lost even though the more experienced players consistently win. Allowing each battle to be weighted would reduce the affect beginners have on a particular battlefield.
3. Another benefit of this system is the reduction in cheating. Recently I have discovered a new type of cheating and the easiest way to explain it is to use an example (this is just the one I came across I am not making any statement about any particular faction): A player whose primary faction is the JSF creates a secondary Xbox Live account for the game and chooses the SGB faction. He then proceeds to join 4v4 matches with other SGB players and sabotages their game so that they cannot win. Implementing a ranking system would allow players like this to have less of an affect on the battlefields outcome, and it would allow the people he may be trying to sabotage to have the opportunity to look up his record and choose not to play with him.
4. Reduction in server strain. This benefit is perhaps a little more far fetched, but I think that technically it could work. If players were allowed to preview their matches and see what they were up against before they jump into a game, they would have less of a reason to quit 5 seconds into the game. The reduction in ˜false' games would in turn reduce the amount of strain placed on the servers and the amount of lag experienced.
Now I realize there are several other problems that this particular tweak would not resolve, but I think that it hits a lot of the important ones and is one that Ubi should focus its time and energy on. I am always open for critiques to my ideas, so feel free to leave your thoughts and suggestions. The more posts the greater the chances of a moderator reviewing it. Thank you.
That was the main part of my post, but if you are interested I would also like to talk briefly about several of my other ideas involving problems/fixes that could be implemented.
1. Upgrade Dilemma (in particular airstrikes):
Many people argue that the upgrade system is flawed and needs to be reworked. I have to disagree with this because I feel that the upgrade system is not the problem. The system in and of itself is very balanced on the whole. For example if you are constantly being airstriked, then you would want to invest in better defensive armor. In addition to that, if battles were set up based off of rank then you wouldn't have the problem of people with level 3 airstrikes playing against people with no armor upgrades.
However, I believe that the real problem with the airstrikes lies in its distribution in the sense that it's too often the case that battlefields are often one sided and airstrikes provide the one side with an overwhelming advantage. (JFK is a good example in my opinion) If airstrikes were allowed to be used by both aggressors in any given game, then the game would become more balanced and the advantage would be reduced. On the other hand, I don't think that airstrikes should be allowed on every map because that would limit a player's tactical options.
Another argument I can imagine people having is that by allowing each map to have equal off map support, it would have a detrimental effect on the importance of raid missions. This is not true because raid missions are unique style of play in and of themselves and people will still enjoy playing them because they present an interesting challenge to any commander.
Making each map equal with regard to off map support would also reduce the number of people sitting in one particular map because they know they can win due to their ridiculous advantage. This would in theory reduce server strain because match searches would no longer sit stagnant for long periods of time.
2. Deep strike Dilemma
I think this problem is in large part due to lag and general server strain and thus implementing some of my strategies may help the problem fix itself, but I may be wrong and it really could be a bug.
3. Repetitive Playing field Dilemma
I recently read a thread similar to this issue ( http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1111056417/m/2971092617 ). In it the author was discussing the problem of the attack from no where rule which I personally do not completely understand, but I think what he was really getting at is the need to open up ToW to allow battles to be fought throughout the map on multiple fronts. Opening up the map would make it so that you would never grow bored because there would be a huge diversity of maps to choose from. However, this could create problems by spreading End War's already limited player base to thin. Another option to solve this is creating a completely quick match system in which you chose your game type and the computer does the rest. However, this could also cause players to quit a map they don't like. What I'm getting at is that this problem is unsolvable in its current form and all we can do is provide ideas to the Ubi development team.
4. 3 min Rule Dilemma
I don't completely understand this rule so please correct me if I'm wrong, but basically I am under the assumption that this rule is designed to limit the cheating method which involves quitting a battle right after it begins so you can gain credits faster than by winning battle. I think the problem with this deterrent method is that this restriction spreads to all the players in the battle so that when anyone quits within the first three min, the game is not put on record and nobody gets any points. This to me seems like a fairly simply problem to correct, just simply make it so that if you quit, you don't get any points. Problem solved.
5. Unit Killing Dilemma
I am torn on this because on the one hand it would be nice if your units never died, but on the other hand this would change the game play. If you knew your units could never be killed, then I can see a pattern developing where commanders would send their units on suicide last resort missions that could deal potentially serious damage to the enemy but pose no real loss to the commander sending the units.
Another problem created by eliminating this rule is that it would destroy the long term commitment built up between you and your units. Sure, it would be great if some people would stop crying about their upgraded units dying, but look at the connection this game has created between it and its players. For example, imagine you are within inches of total victory in a battle that has lasted for well over 30min and your opponent EMP and WMDs your command vehicle, killing it instantly, and o ya, your command vehicle WAS a rank of legendary, had been completely upgraded, and had been with you since the beginning of the game...you can't find that type of pure hatred for the enemy anywhere else. I guarantee you the game would change drastically if you removed this unique bond between player and units...
6. Units disappearing
I have no idea what the deal is here, I assume it is a bug that needs fixing.
Please offer your opinions and suggestions to these ideas in a separate area than those in regards to the main topic. Thanks again.
APOLLO457 – SGB – Xbox360
While it is to be expected that Ubi's lack of experience with this genre combined with such a revolutionary game idea such as End War would inevitably develop problems, this does not excuse Ubi from fixing these problems as quickly as possible. Over the past few months in particular, End War has developed several problems that could prove to be crippling to the game as a whole if they go untreated. This quote I found is rather humorous and I feel it sums up many of the problems facing the game:
Originally posted by mad_mordegan:
Drop your ***** and grab your socks. its a few days from christmas and this game is at an obvious boiling point. 3 days in a row same maps, unit killing rampant people online doing alot of complaining ,stats bug still there, units from batt mia still there, deep strike issue still, tow issues still there, the 3 minute thing doesnt work as i get wins alot when people quit right away, and sometimes loses.
Despite the plethora of problems to be fixed, I am convinced that many of the non-technical (not related to the software) problems can be solved quickly if a relatively simple ranking system is implemented in End War's ToW. Let me briefly describe what I am talking about:
1. Every commander would develop an overall rank based off of battles won/lost, total number of upgrades, and total number of credits earned
2. Every battle would begin with a search for commanders within a few ranks of each other with the hope of pairing commanders of relatively equal skill
3. Rank and battle history would be displayed in the pre-game lobby so each commander would be aware of what they are up against ahead of time, and tweak their strategy accordingly
4. Rank would also affect the impact that a particular battle has on the overall fate of the battlefield every turn. (higher ranking commanders would have a greater affect on the outcome than lower ranks/beginners)
5. (optional) Allow commanders to choose to play against higher ranking commanders with the intent of a challenge and benefit of having a greater affect on the battlefield's fate through beating a higher ranking commander
This is a very general outline of some of the things that this type of system would offer. I think that a few of these things are already being implemented, but they have not been put together in the fashion necessary to fix many of these problems. This list is welcome to critiques of the community, but I just want everyone to be on the same page as far as what I'm shooting for. Now onto the benefits that this type of system would provide:
1. The most notable benefit of this type of system is leveling the playing field. With the implementation of this type of system, beginners and casual players would no longer need to worry about playing against a commander that is way out of their league. Problems with the upgrade system would be resolved for the most part due to the fact that someone with, for example, a level 3 airstrike wouldn't have the ridiculous advantage that they presently have over everyone else. (Scroll down to read more about my thoughts and suggestions to the upgrade dilemma with particular reference to airstrikes) Overall, the system would allow the challenge of each battle to remain relatively consistent.
2. A benefit that goes hand in hand with the first is allowing more experienced players to have a greater affect on the battlefield's outcome per turn. I know there has been a lot of talk regarding the problem of beginners losing over and over and causing a particular battlefield to be lost even though the more experienced players consistently win. Allowing each battle to be weighted would reduce the affect beginners have on a particular battlefield.
3. Another benefit of this system is the reduction in cheating. Recently I have discovered a new type of cheating and the easiest way to explain it is to use an example (this is just the one I came across I am not making any statement about any particular faction): A player whose primary faction is the JSF creates a secondary Xbox Live account for the game and chooses the SGB faction. He then proceeds to join 4v4 matches with other SGB players and sabotages their game so that they cannot win. Implementing a ranking system would allow players like this to have less of an affect on the battlefields outcome, and it would allow the people he may be trying to sabotage to have the opportunity to look up his record and choose not to play with him.
4. Reduction in server strain. This benefit is perhaps a little more far fetched, but I think that technically it could work. If players were allowed to preview their matches and see what they were up against before they jump into a game, they would have less of a reason to quit 5 seconds into the game. The reduction in ˜false' games would in turn reduce the amount of strain placed on the servers and the amount of lag experienced.
Now I realize there are several other problems that this particular tweak would not resolve, but I think that it hits a lot of the important ones and is one that Ubi should focus its time and energy on. I am always open for critiques to my ideas, so feel free to leave your thoughts and suggestions. The more posts the greater the chances of a moderator reviewing it. Thank you.
That was the main part of my post, but if you are interested I would also like to talk briefly about several of my other ideas involving problems/fixes that could be implemented.
1. Upgrade Dilemma (in particular airstrikes):
Many people argue that the upgrade system is flawed and needs to be reworked. I have to disagree with this because I feel that the upgrade system is not the problem. The system in and of itself is very balanced on the whole. For example if you are constantly being airstriked, then you would want to invest in better defensive armor. In addition to that, if battles were set up based off of rank then you wouldn't have the problem of people with level 3 airstrikes playing against people with no armor upgrades.
However, I believe that the real problem with the airstrikes lies in its distribution in the sense that it's too often the case that battlefields are often one sided and airstrikes provide the one side with an overwhelming advantage. (JFK is a good example in my opinion) If airstrikes were allowed to be used by both aggressors in any given game, then the game would become more balanced and the advantage would be reduced. On the other hand, I don't think that airstrikes should be allowed on every map because that would limit a player's tactical options.
Another argument I can imagine people having is that by allowing each map to have equal off map support, it would have a detrimental effect on the importance of raid missions. This is not true because raid missions are unique style of play in and of themselves and people will still enjoy playing them because they present an interesting challenge to any commander.
Making each map equal with regard to off map support would also reduce the number of people sitting in one particular map because they know they can win due to their ridiculous advantage. This would in theory reduce server strain because match searches would no longer sit stagnant for long periods of time.
2. Deep strike Dilemma
I think this problem is in large part due to lag and general server strain and thus implementing some of my strategies may help the problem fix itself, but I may be wrong and it really could be a bug.
3. Repetitive Playing field Dilemma
I recently read a thread similar to this issue ( http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1111056417/m/2971092617 ). In it the author was discussing the problem of the attack from no where rule which I personally do not completely understand, but I think what he was really getting at is the need to open up ToW to allow battles to be fought throughout the map on multiple fronts. Opening up the map would make it so that you would never grow bored because there would be a huge diversity of maps to choose from. However, this could create problems by spreading End War's already limited player base to thin. Another option to solve this is creating a completely quick match system in which you chose your game type and the computer does the rest. However, this could also cause players to quit a map they don't like. What I'm getting at is that this problem is unsolvable in its current form and all we can do is provide ideas to the Ubi development team.
4. 3 min Rule Dilemma
I don't completely understand this rule so please correct me if I'm wrong, but basically I am under the assumption that this rule is designed to limit the cheating method which involves quitting a battle right after it begins so you can gain credits faster than by winning battle. I think the problem with this deterrent method is that this restriction spreads to all the players in the battle so that when anyone quits within the first three min, the game is not put on record and nobody gets any points. This to me seems like a fairly simply problem to correct, just simply make it so that if you quit, you don't get any points. Problem solved.
5. Unit Killing Dilemma
I am torn on this because on the one hand it would be nice if your units never died, but on the other hand this would change the game play. If you knew your units could never be killed, then I can see a pattern developing where commanders would send their units on suicide last resort missions that could deal potentially serious damage to the enemy but pose no real loss to the commander sending the units.
Another problem created by eliminating this rule is that it would destroy the long term commitment built up between you and your units. Sure, it would be great if some people would stop crying about their upgraded units dying, but look at the connection this game has created between it and its players. For example, imagine you are within inches of total victory in a battle that has lasted for well over 30min and your opponent EMP and WMDs your command vehicle, killing it instantly, and o ya, your command vehicle WAS a rank of legendary, had been completely upgraded, and had been with you since the beginning of the game...you can't find that type of pure hatred for the enemy anywhere else. I guarantee you the game would change drastically if you removed this unique bond between player and units...
6. Units disappearing
I have no idea what the deal is here, I assume it is a bug that needs fixing.
Please offer your opinions and suggestions to these ideas in a separate area than those in regards to the main topic. Thanks again.
APOLLO457 – SGB – Xbox360