Want to fix the Theater of War? Make suggestions here [Archive]

atacms

01-07-2009, 06:31 PM

Ok guys, there have been several threads on making improvements or changes to the Theater of War. There is a lot of frustration with the game's online campaign. I won't pretend to be the expert on why things work the way they do when talking about "Primary frontlines" or the logic of when a raid can be conducted.

The point of this thread is that too many of them degenerate into insults, or recommendations to play the game noob til you're better. Or your faction sucks, that's why you don't understand the TOW or the game.

I think the devs have done great things with Endwar and deserve praise, however I do think there have been some big missteps and it has caused some to sadly leave out of frustration with the game.

I'd ask that all who post in this thread would make in one single post all the recommendations or tweaks they think should be made to the Theater of War or what they think is needed to improve online gameplay.

Also I'd ask that people respect each others' arguments and don't bash each other so if you disagree, make an articulate counter-argument as to why it doesn't seem to make sense.

Ok, I'll go first:

Some changes to improve online gameplay.

1. Institute AI into the TOW. In other words, if we don't want to wait 15 minutes for a human opponent, or we prefer the AI, let us play against the AI. If Ubi or others are concerned that it's easier to score wins, then give less credits for those battles.

2. Make the TOW like a real war. Base it somewhat more on reality. If it's 2020, and these factions have the ability to mass armies across continents then WHY is it that RAIDS can only be conducted at certain times. Certain maps are where there are army bases, logistical depots or air bases. THOSE should be the maps where we can conduct RAIDS at any time, at OUR choosing. So the TOW would open up and you're given the option to jump in on any battle as it is now, however you have a separate option to go into RAID mode that allows you to pick the map that has an airbase you want to strike.

I've made a more specific request that they change the setup raid before in a different format and won't repeat it as the devs know I think how they can change it.

Anyway, let's hear your thoughts. And guys, I chatted with Raide about this so he WILL be taking a close look at this and reporting back to the dev team.

please remember be polite, make articulate arguments and let's bring the community back to Endwar!

EDITED 1/8/09 NEW addition:

3. Remove the rule of PF where if you lose one territory, you also lose the one next to it. It doesn't make sense.

After reading some other suggestions, I agree also with the point system and giving more points to higher ranked players depending on the rank their opponents are and lower ranked get less points if similarly matched but more points if they defeat a higher ranked player.

4. Rank based matchmaking system. Too many players have left out of frustration when going up against the uber players.

atacms

01-07-2009, 06:31 PM

LG_Scott

01-07-2009, 06:32 PM

Theater of War forum

that way

---------------------->

Pal87

01-07-2009, 06:38 PM

moar. cities. heck, i'll settle for a village.

i'm not sure if this would help any, but force recon troops rushing to uplinks at start of battle like in single player. regular army troops to make the special forces seem...well, special.

aznpwnerp

01-07-2009, 06:46 PM

Hate to point out the obvious Nick, but this belongs in the ToW forum. Moved.

b_4721

01-07-2009, 06:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pal87:
moar. cities. heck, i'll settle for a village.

i'm not sure if this would help any, but force recon troops rushing to uplinks at start of battle like in single player. regular army troops to make the special forces seem...well, special. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea I really wish their were more army troop involvement in the game, even if it's just the lines of riflemen killing each other at the center. Especially on raids there should be infantry stationed in towers or at roadblocks, what army base is defended solely by a couple robotic guns?

Templar11709

01-07-2009, 06:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Institute AI into the TOW. In other words, if we don't want to wait 15 minutes for a human opponent, or we prefer the AI, let us play against the AI. If Ubi or others are concerned that it's easier to score wins, then give less credits for those battles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'll probably be flamed for this but i would suggest that the AI isn't used on Capitals, if your capital is lost it should be because the enemy beat you, not an AI. Also should consider it for bases. There shouldn't be any need for this but it just relax my worry of the JSF all going into one battlefield and swarming the human players so they can face AI.

Also i would suggest that a limit is put on how much AI fights can affect a territory, it wouldn't be nice to have a faction win the majority of the human battles but they lost the territory because the enemy was able to play more. So maybe AI battles could only account for 25% of the wins that count towards victory.

Make is so all possible territory's are all open. However to prevent losing territory because of you being spread out make it so there's a minimum number of human on human battles fought for the territory to be taken (maybe up the difficulty depending how deep in enemy territory they are),to prevent factions just avoiding battles so they don't lose territory i would say 4 AI battles counts for 1 Human. Would also suggest that (if they can code it in) that if a battle didn't end on the first turn that the battles carry on to the next day.

Edit - Just in case this last point doesn't make much sense to you I'm suggesting that there has to be a minimum number of battles and once that numbers is hit it acts like normal.

FenrisWolf228

01-07-2009, 06:58 PM

a billion of these have started. They've already done the most they will do regaurding this thread: moving it to the right forum.

Pal87

01-07-2009, 07:15 PM

make AI battles count for promotions, credits and exp, but not count against the TOW

Chickenbutt18

01-07-2009, 09:39 PM

I like the idea of AI. Chromehounds had it and it worked fine (at least I thought). I have also made a suggestion before about using a points system instead of a win-loss system. This would also involve a matchmaking system. I think someone else said this before but here is an example: Beating a rank 10 = 10 points whereas beating a rank 1 = 1 point. The issue here is that some players might intentionally lower their rank so that if they lose, they cannot hurt their faction. The best way to counter this i think would be to base rank primarily on upgrades and use unit levels as a secondary basis. This way no one can cheat by having all legendaries with no upgrades to remain level 1. The bar on each map stating who is winning could be used to determine the team with the most points. Since the bar can then change more rapidly the game keeps it competitiveness and people won't be as discouraged. If people are discouraged by the bar, perhaps add a numeric image to the bar so that people can see the current points. I also suggested that losing a match lost points for your faction, however not equivalent to a win. This means that if you are rank 10 and lose to a rank 1, your faction loses 4-5 points. The AI can be set to normal or expert difficulty so that it remains competitive. Beating an AI can be the equivalent of beating a rank 2-4 player.

As for the PF Rule that has been oh so dreaded. The PF rule can remain if factions are able to see how many points each has. This way a faction can be better able to tell which map is the PF. Let's say Springfield, Okefenokee, and JFK are being fought on and attacked by the JSF. Springfield has 1298 points for JSF, Okefenokee has 932 points, and JFK has 1112 points by the end of the turn. Springfield would therefore be the PF. By placing a numerical image of how many points a faction had in a map (like chromehounds) factions will visibly say to themselves: oh damn, Springfield is our PF, we need to reinforce it. This method is not perfect by any means, but it would allow the players to have more control over the ToW.

I feel that if AI is created, the biggest issue would be how long before a player actually gets to play an AI? Perhaps add an option to just play AI? It is possible but the issue would be to lessen the amount of points per win.

Pal87

01-08-2009, 03:15 AM

this might just be me. it might be silly. but i must say it.

i want those news clips back. yes, i miss those short lame news broadcasts. it was a small way to help emerse a player into the Endwar universe. make a 1000 of them for each faction, that should be enough to cover all possible scenarios. and make them less lame.

barbarism2008

01-08-2009, 11:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chickenbutt18:
The issue here is that some players might intentionally lower their rank so that if they lose, they cannot hurt their faction. The best way to counter this i think would be to base rank primarily on upgrades and use unit levels as a secondary basis. This way no one can cheat by having all legendaries with no upgrades to remain level 1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe that cheating is an issue there. Once you purchase all of the upgrades, the lowest rank possible is rank 10; that is all upgrades + all recruits. As soon as you get a handful of hardened units you're back to rank 11. So, theoretically, a 12 could constantly work to have all low ranking troops to stay at 10/11 but, its such a small difference in points, plus it will affect their ability to win matches against equally skilled players with the upgrades.

aznpwnerp

01-08-2009, 01:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:

4. Rank based matchmaking system. Too many players have left out of frustration when going up against the uber players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. It's blocking out new players without one.

Liberator

01-08-2009, 03:13 PM

I can't beleive I was remembered haha. First time posting here in a while.

Anyways, I also agree with rank based matchmaking. The only issue with this though is it may take even longer to find an opponent.

When it comes to the TOW in general, I'll say it's dull. Better visuals or maybe some CGI video. It should be more appealing to the user.

There is my two cents. If I come up with something better, I'll be back of course.

aznpwnerp

01-08-2009, 03:16 PM

Northern_Sun

01-08-2009, 03:56 PM

-Replace Arrabida with Rota naval base
-Replace Bedford with Devon Beach
-Replace Carpathia with Firebase Kirsk
-Replace Pamlico with Dorsey Knob
-Make the maps automatically available in a patch for everyone.

All the ones being replaced are clone maps in favor of unique maps, so it would help. Some would have to be reworked some for other modes, but it still helps.

As a side question, why is Thessaly, Greece west of Vlore, Albania? Albania is west of Greece(unless I'm reading the map wrong) and it should be as such in ToW.

If being able to fight the AI on the theater of war is to be made an option, it should have some conditions:
1. You can't choose to fight AI, you only get an AI opponent after a certain amount of time waiting.
2. the AI should be set to Hardcore or some new difficultly level between Expert and Hardcore. Normal and expert are just too easy to have them count for a full victory, and I think it would be easier to make the AI level legit rather than making it count for .5 wins or something.
3. No AI allies. Having a computer do its own thing will almost certainly cost a person the game. If a human ally leaves, give the remaining player(s) control of his units instead of having the AI take over them.

Another theater of war suggestion would be an "Active" list in order to give a better picture of the faction percentages. I have a strong suspicion that the 43% the JSF has isn't reflective of the number of players actually playing. Rather, a lot of them are people who got this game thinking it was a shooter, chose JSF for probably patriotic reasons, got butchered their first match when they went all gunships, and traded the game in in disgust.
My suggestion would be an active list. If a person hasn't played a game in a certain amount of time(say 20 days), they are no longer counted in the faction totals. The percentages would change to say: "X% of active players" rather than just players, and have the enlistment bonus based on that.

A minor one would be to change what the default off-map support is depending on faction. Europe, specializing in electronic warfare, could get EW1 as their starting off-map. America, supposedly having the best air power, would get air strike 1, and Russia, with its historical record of throwing grunts at machine gun nests, could get Force recon 1.

My next few for now are a gameplay improvements ideas rather than ToW ones, but here they are anyway:

More faction specialization. It says in the faction descriptions in the loading screens that Europe is "calm, professional" and "specializes in urban warfare and electronic warfare". This doesn't have any relevance in game. The only hint they are good at urban warfare is the "Urban Warfare" accuracy upgrade for riflemen(which the JSF get an equivalent of) and their camouflage options. They need to get some sort of combat bonus for fighting in city maps. Their electronic warfare should also be more powerful and/or last longer than the others.

America is supposed to have the best air power, stealth tech, and drones. So their gunships and fighters should be better than the others. Their stealth should be better, by making it much more effective than the other faction's and/or give other units stealth(stealth engineers anyone?). Rottweilers and UAV's should also be better than archers or bodyguards, if they aren't already.

A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well.

Inquisitor_Zeal

01-08-2009, 06:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liberator:
I can't beleive I was remembered haha. First time posting here in a while.

Anyways, I also agree with rank based matchmaking. The only issue with this though is it may take even longer to find an opponent.

When it comes to the TOW in general, I'll say it's dull. Better visuals or maybe some CGI video. It should be more appealing to the user.

There is my two cents. If I come up with something better, I'll be back of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you were remembered liberator, your still one of the vets. even though you dont post much anymore!

On topic though, i agree with a lot of peoples points so far.

1) Better Match making

I like the idea that some of you were throwing around, of it being more based on Rank. It is really annoying for me, as i havent played ToW much for various reasons which i wont go into, but when i do play, it really sucks having few upgrades and having to play against people who have most if not all of theres... So i like the idea of the game matching you up with someone closer to your skill level, but i think it should also consider upgrades, as from reading a couple posts it sounds like some people are cheating their ranks.

But what i think could be more beneficial, yet a lot harder to implement now that i have actually started to write this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif would be to do something like Call of duty has, where once you pick a map, it should ask you whether or not you wish to play against anyone or if you wish to do a 'boot camp' type game. Now this boot camp match making list, would only be for people up to a certain rank and they could have no more then half the upgrades maybe. Just so its not unfair. If your past the limit for either of the areas, that playlist is locked so it makes it more fair for those trying to learn how to play. And the other playlist would be for everyone.

I also like the idea of people gaining more/ less experience based on what rank they are, and what the rank of there opponents are.

2) AI

I think AI would be good to add, as from my experience playing the full game and from the beta, finding a game was a ***** and a half. I have waited more then half an hour a couple times trying to find games... (Remember that Azn, from the beta... i think i was playing with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif) and i have even had to resort to playing 2v2 in the full game because i could not find a match (im not to fond of playing with other people unless i know them, as it makes it so much easier to plan things out and you can rely on them) I think adding in the ability of playing against AI in certain maps/ gametypes would be benifical. Like chickenbutt was saying, adding AI to the game chromehounds made it better, and it didnt take away really from the global campaign they had. But i also agree with the fact that playing against AI in certain modes like Siege or when you are trying to take a capital should is unfair.

And if they were to add AI it should be somewhat difficult (like Hardcore or Expert) to make it more like you are facing a human opponent as normal is a joke.

Northern just to 'counter' what you said about having no AI teammates, i dont think that would be much of a problem. (I dont know if things have changed from the beta in this area, as i havent had a team mate leave on me yet) but when teammates would drop out of the game due to the faulty serves, the AI was really good. And there were a few times when i didnt even know they had left the game. (I believe that happened to me once or twice playing with you nick)So i wouldnt be to concerned about that. But it does make it much harder to call in help from them., such as airstrikes if you need one...

Now onto my less ToW related ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif, i feel the need to say at least a couple of them as they are pretty major in my opinion.(Nick let me know if you want me to remove this part as it doesnt specifically have to do with ToW)

3) Upgrades/ Originallity

The upgrades are a huge problem in my opinion. As they dont add enough uniqueness to each faction like they should/ we were told they would. Every faction basically has the same ones, with a few minor differences besides what the look like and are called. The upgrades really should be what separates the different factions apart and they really dont... My suggestion if you dont want to completely redue them all (As i doubt that would happen) would be in future DLC make the upgrades very unique and based on what each factions specialty is. ALSO CHANGE THE STORM BUILDING ANIMATION ALREADY!!! OR AT LEAST CALL IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!! - This is the most frustrating thing for me in terms of upgrades... as they dont STORM the building! They stand outside and throw a couple grenades in a shot up at the defenders! The defenders should rape(not literally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif) the attackers in that situation as they arent in any sort of cover. Just add them entering the building and have a cool animation of them fighting it out!

I really want to talk about making the game much less arcardy but that might get a little long and it would slightly off topic/ the devs didnt listen to us at all about that it seems before the game came out... so i wont.

Templar11709

01-08-2009, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could alternatively give the Bodyguards SA-18s (2 out of 5 carrying them seems about right) , it's 20 or so years old but it's the latest Russian MANPADS i could find.

Northern_Sun

01-08-2009, 07:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Templar11709:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could alternatively give the Bodyguards SA-18s (2 out of 5 carrying them seems about right) , it's 20 or so years old but it's the latest Russian MANPADS i could find. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The CV attack upgrade supposedly gives the Bodyguards anti-armor weapons(according to the description) but this doesn't appear on them. This also gets me thinking, why don't the bodyguards use you selected camo? The other drones do.

Another idea would be custom battalions. I know it's been said before, but it was something promised from very early on and having the personal connection to something we created would certainly help me get more involved in ToW(getting out of my losing slump would probably help to), and of course, I don't like it when I don't get something promised.

So, for completions sake, I'll go over what exactly to customize.
1. Name. I think the name should have to be unique. If another name is exactly like it they should have to change it.

2. Motto

3. Symbol. Let us choose a foreground and background symbol like in Halo(and that will be the only time I'll ever say something should be like Halo).

4. Unit distribution(1 CV, the other 24 to fill as we please, 1 minimum and 6 max like now).
5. Bonus. Choose unit then things like Damage +10%, -5%HP, etc.

6. Let us pick from all the faction's camos.

7. Back story, those little paragraphs on the right side explaining the battalion's origins and duties.

8. A way to view the battalions online, like how you can go to Bungie.net and view a whole bunch of your stats, have people be able to view all the information as well as display information like record, number of hostiles defeated, and a whole bunch of other stats that are probably recorded but not shown.

9. Terrain Specialization? This was something I just came up with when typing. You could choose what terrain your battalion is good in(urban, arctic, woodland, etc.) and whenever they were in such an environment, your units would get combat bonuses.

Something very minor to add to my "Active" list suggestion in my previous post is if an inactive player logs on to the Strategic view, the general will have some particularly harsh words for them, like even more harsh than they do now.

Templar11709

01-08-2009, 10:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The CV attack upgrade supposedly gives the Bodyguards anti-armor weapons(according to the description) but this doesn't appear on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't use the CV so much (yes i know i was one of the supporters during all that crap during the Demo but i sort of stopped using it because of the need to get it to Hardened before i could get my UAV) so i have no clue if they do or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This also gets me thinking, why don't the bodyguards use you selected camo? The other drones do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bodyguards are a different branch of the Russian military that have been lent to the Spetsnaz and they have their own uniforms while the drones of the JSF and EFEC are pieces of equipment issued to your battalion thus wearing your Camo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Something very minor to add to my "Active" list suggestion in my previous post is if an inactive player logs on to the Strategic view, the general will have some particularly harsh words for them, like even more harsh than they do now.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For us Russians that means we'll be sent to Siberia lol, seeing as i haven't been on in a while i really don't want that included.

Inquisitor_Zeal

01-10-2009, 04:40 PM

Can this get stickied? If the devs are going to look at this, shouldn't it always be near the top of the page so everyone has a chance to look at it?

Also i think what Northern brought up about Customization is a great idea, and it is what it sounded like was promised to us at the beginning...

Chickenbutt18

01-10-2009, 07:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
Can this get stickied? If the devs are going to look at this, shouldn't it always be near the top of the page so everyone has a chance to look at it?

Also i think what Northern brought up about Customization is a great idea, and it is what it sounded like was promised to us at the beginning... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The main issue isn't options or features, but function. Customization options and stuff should wait until after the game's main issues are solved. Matchmaking, dashboarding, etc...

Victorc232

01-11-2009, 05:23 AM

yea, NO AI in TOW please, that would all but remove any need to play players for those who really really really want to win TOW so they would either always play AI and deal with the lower point values and just play more games, or those who want to lose the war would just keep losing to AI (again the dont seem to care about how much time it takes so the lower value wouldnt matter to them) AI is often what ruins multiplayer components like this

Pal87

01-11-2009, 05:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Victorc232:
yea, NO AI in TOW please, that would all but remove any need to play players for those who really really really want to win TOW so they would either always play AI and deal with the lower point values and just play more games, or those who want to lose the war would just keep losing to AI (again the dont seem to care about how much time it takes so the lower value wouldnt matter to them) AI is often what ruins multiplayer components like this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>make AI count for exp and credits only.

oDIEZELo

01-12-2009, 12:10 AM

I agree %100 with the AI and new matchmaking setups. However another topic comes up with the unit killing. This seems to be a BIG upset to newer players trying hard to get units ranked up but in the mean time higher ranked players are destroying what others have worked for & leave the game. I've had this done to myself many times by people who thinks it bennifts them. Honestly you kill my unit, ill kill 5 of yours. Simple.

I've chatted with a lot of players and A LOT seem to agree with me that insted of the unit being completly destroyed and starting back at recruit, why not set it up so that if some "idiot" does kill your unit it just drops the killed unit a rank insted of back to the start.

For instance: If my Legendary unit gets "unit killed" in a match it will now be an Elite. Or if my Hardend unit dies then it is now a Regular.

Think about it, Upgrades come with rank.

One more NOTE: PLEASE fix this "dashboarding" issue. I was in a game earlier where the opposing team "dashboarded" to get out and while I go back to my barraks, SOMEHOW i went from a Rank 11 to a Rank 10 & 3 of my Rifleman units went from Elite to Recruit (Eventhough i didn't even use them that round for the Victory) VERY VERY annoying.

Great game but A LOT of issues. I have not seen a UBI game with this many unresolved issues and bugs that have taken over 1 month to fix. If UBI fixes these problems that all of these gamers are posting at this moment then players who left will come back. NO ONE cares about DL Content at this point, we just want it fixed and resolved.

dynas2001

01-12-2009, 08:24 AM

YEP_UrDeAd1

01-12-2009, 09:41 AM

I think the AI is my largest complaint, To get a game when there are 4 EFEC boards at the same time as a Russian player is hard (PS3) so the AI factor is a must or better player matching .Imagine 100 Russian players trying to get games this weekend and you sit around waiting for a game 20-30 minutes I fall asleep waiting on a game literally, you would get upset. Can you guess what I deployed with? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

dislyxec

01-12-2009, 07:05 PM

Here's how I'd allow AI in ToW:
-after waiting 5 min, you get the option to play AI. Amount of time is tweakable.
-always have hardcore AI. This'll encourage people to actually get decent at the game before playing ToW, and thus reduce the idiot noobs.
-rank of AI units is similar to that of the player (similar to how it's done in single player)
-game against AI counts the same as a game against a human opponent
-put a cap of 10 against-AI games per player per territory per day that count towards ToW. Any further against-AI games give unit promotions and CR, but no credit towards overall war. Cap limit is tweakable.
-no player can end the day net-negative against-AI. For instance, if I go 2-4 against the AI, none of the games count towards ToW. This is to prevent people from losing to AI on purpose. However, if I go 4-2 against AI, then I helped my faction +2 on that territory.

moragPS3

01-13-2009, 07:03 AM

i just thought of a briliant way to curb unit killing, if you opponent quits the battle all the units that you had perma-death do not count but you keep all promotions this way people who decide to unit kill then quit right before there units die will be forced to choose whose units they value more.

UBI i dont care about wait times or anything else really just impliment this one rule and it will make a lot of people happy i am tired of people WMDing me to kill some of my units then quiting so i dont do the same to theres its unfair, cheap, and cowardly. if you try to kill my units i have the right to turn around and blast your battalion back into the dark ages...

DASQUARED

01-13-2009, 08:51 AM

Look - the easiest solution to unit killing is this - another server. Set one up for a war where unit killing is accepted (not required, but an acceptable option), and another where it is not. Separate stats, and I would think that accomplishments and such would be lesser on the non-Unit killing, but it really wouldn't matter because there would be no direct comparison.

To expand a little, the non-unit killing server would simply only take a unit down to evac levels. The unit-killing server would remain exactly as is. And you could set up the skirmish portion with a simple setting clarification - Unit killing - Yes or No? Done.

And if anyone got on a killing server and then complained about it, ban them forever and a day...LOL

moragPS3

01-13-2009, 01:52 PM

you missed the point, i am not opposed to unit killing i am opposed to people who try to kill my units and then run away when i am about to kill theirs

LacisGhost

01-14-2009, 08:35 AM

The problem with another server would be the wait times. The wait times are bad enough for EFEC already. 4v4s can become impossible to rind after 11pm EST most nights.

playaplayer.

01-14-2009, 11:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moragPS3:
you missed the point, i am not opposed to unit killing i am opposed to people who try to kill my units and then run away when i am about to kill theirs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just hit 4 of there highest rank units with the MIA bug and they'll certainly stop quitting.

Artacool

01-14-2009, 02:51 PM

What would make TOW A LOT more fun would be to open up battles along the borders.

I played EFEC most of the war and got bored playing Arribida/Oke and Reagan. All I wanted were some battles between Russia and Europe (the contentents not EFEC and SPZ) but that didn't happen.

So I switched to JSF because it would be fun to retake USA. Now that we've won the north we're not even fighting in the US anymore. We're are fighting in russian soil now??? Let us take back the US!

Artacool

01-14-2009, 03:04 PM

Also another suggestion Fix this this whole attack defend thing. A faction shouldn't get a territory across the ocean, because they successfully defended their a territory on their side. Infact they shouldn't get a territory at all for it.

Possible solution(s)

1) In a place where a faction is attacking and lose, they are now defending the territory they attacked from. So since they lost the offensive they are now on the defense.

2) If it's kept the same. A base shouldn't be giving to a faction because they defending something. Ex Grissom and Rondane. SPZ should not get Grissom for defending Rondane!!!!!!!!!!! or any base for that matter. It didn't even happen on the 360 but I'm mad that it can happen

3) Get rid of the attack from nowhere thing! It shuts down fronts like Thessaly, Copenhagen, and Glen Alba. JSF had Copenhagen forever and no one could fight there or from there. Open up that front again and if JSF let them push further into Europe!

roguewarrior727

01-15-2009, 12:26 PM

Fix Xbox EFC maps.

Been playing the same damn three maps for three weeks.

If it does not change, there will be a steady migration of players from EFC, or less people playing the game.

Tolarius2007

01-16-2009, 12:58 PM

i agree with atacms about them implementing an AI opponent after a certain amount of waiting. im on the verge of leaving JSF just so i can play a match. i havnt played one in 3 days because it cant find anybody. the only problem is i have to start from scratch.
i cant keep anything when i switch factions?

Artacool

01-16-2009, 01:49 PM

Or atleast when you have 4v3 and waiting for the 8th person you can give the option to start with an AI as your 4th. Waiting for that 8th person is a *****

Tolarius2007

01-16-2009, 02:11 PM

well, i left the JSF and joined the EFEC. i just want to play. i didnt pay $60 to sit around for an hour trying to get a match. ill join the JSF again when they implement an AI commander so that we can get matches.

schu42

01-16-2009, 11:39 PM

How are we going to solve the no one is getting any promotions problem?

Kingspartan1177

01-17-2009, 05:06 AM

all my units git no record of the previous battle and wernt perma killed i asked other people on live they were giting no ranks at all also after alot of battles that gust swiched Battlions becouse the Faction pack the game and they thought they would git a rank? what is ubi soft doing about it?

Rittmeister86

01-17-2009, 08:10 PM

I have a few suggestions about the TOW.

1. PLEASE fix the problem with the units not upgrading. It's no fun playing with the recruits all the time.

2. Please do something about the matchmaking system. New players are not able to gain ranks, because veteren playes keep supressing them and perma killing there units. Players should be matched with other similar ranking players.

3. The frontline theory is completely wrong. In real life, just because you capture a teritory, that doesn't mean the whole front line advances. The game would be much more interesting if each teritory was counted as a seperate win or loss from the front line. For example: (Turn 43) The long disputed teritories of Grissom and Rondane. If the JSF are fighting for Rondane, Scania and Rovaniemi. Those three battles should be counted as seperate victories with limited affect on each other. If the JSF were to capture Rovaniemi, but fail to capture Rondane; then The JSF should be surrounded and cut off at Rovaniemi, but they would have the use of that bases resources. This should be fixed to add more strategy and real world thinking into the game.

With Respect,
Rittmeister86

eagles8595

01-18-2009, 11:37 AM

you shouldnt be able to switch factions once joined http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. also the factions should have even people and the matchmaking sahould be bettter

USAFAB

01-18-2009, 11:46 AM

To those that think undoing Pushback is a good idea, be aware that Pushback is meant to promote a dynamic battle front. Hell Rodane/Grissom is a fairly stagnant battle front even with Pushback. Take away Pushback and EVERYTHING will be a stagnant battle front with little or no significant change. It would get very monotonous, very boring, very quickly. Hell, wars already take almost two months, real world, with Pushback. Imagine how long they'd take without Pushback.

As for a ToW improvement suggestion: increase support range by +1. Or add a decaying support range.
1-2 Territories: Full support
3: Max 2 Support
4: Max 1 Support
Excluding EW.

Also, what's with all the freaking Assaults? Why not more Conquests? Just mix it up more. Maybe throw in a Siege or two.

And finally, are those new maps (Rota, etc) ever going to be included in the regular ToW? Or will they just be relegated to the Skirmish Mode?

MGarf

01-18-2009, 02:00 PM

Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against.

USAFAB

01-18-2009, 02:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MGarf:
Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two completely different proprietary networks with two completely different proprietary network architectures and protocols.

They're not socks, you can't just mix and match.

MGarf

01-18-2009, 02:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by USAFAB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MGarf:
Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two completely different proprietary networks with two completely different proprietary network architectures and protocols.

They're not socks, you can't just mix and match. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities.

USAFAB

01-18-2009, 04:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MGarf:
Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hazard to guess the games are built around Microsof's XBL network APIs and Sony's PSN network APIs. Which have nothing to do with each other, and no means to interact. Granted, I am ignorant of the specifics.

Unless of course they rolled out their own networking APIs and whatnot, then managed to link the servers. That would also assume there's no agreement in place preventing cross-network data between Ubi-MS and Ubi-Sony.

MGarf

01-18-2009, 05:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by USAFAB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MGarf:
Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hazard to guess the games are built around Microsof's XBL network APIs and Sony's PSN network APIs. Which have nothing to do with each other, and no means to interact. Granted, I am ignorant of the specifics.

Unless of course they rolled out their own networking APIs and whatnot, then managed to link the servers. That would also assume there's no agreement in place preventing cross-network data between Ubi-MS and Ubi-Sony. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I See, there probably is a agreement in place to stop it or as you said completely different network API's if they are using Sony's or Microsofts.

Silvence

01-21-2009, 02:01 PM

I have played this game long enough to be a rank 6 Commander, I have a few upgrades, a few promoted units and I have finally discerned some of the nuances of this game. I am no Game Master; I am hardly more than proficient, but I still have my suggestions.

My first thought on this game is that the matches can be very slow to link up players on the battle field. There could be any number of reasons to this, and it probably is not something that any one action would correct. Suffice to say, that I and many others would appreciate better matchmaking times.

My other opinion to add to this is that, having just started this game a recently, I felt the learning curve was very steep. Now I do not mean to suggest you should change the game to pander to people unwilling to learn its nuances, what I do mean to suggest is that you implement a tiered ranking system. You already have Ranks to represent where you stand. You could use these.

Another complaint I have heard is that people do not like the Primary Front Line. What I propose is that for all factions you have two battle points. A Primary and a Secondary. The Primary battle field would be the one of more importance and would be fought by the higher ranking officers. The secondary could be exactly that, a secondary battle not meant to be such a hotzone and would serve as a training grounds for lower officers.

Though I do not know how it would work, I feel this could be used to enhance players wait times, enhance playability by keeping similar ranked teams together, and if done well could also enhance the effects of the Primary Front Line.

This als all makes sense to me from a real-life-aspect. You wouldn't send untrained soldiers and commanders to fight at the critical points of war, they would fight alongside at secondary points that could still be beneficial if taken but not necessary to the overall field of war.

GiantsIn08

01-22-2009, 02:27 PM

First and foremost I have one question about the Russian Faction.

Why have you guys not fixed the "Deep Strike" bug or the "MIA Bug"?

1.) Half the time my friends or I try to Deep Strike, Our transport helicopters "freeze" over the uplink for about two minutes. Then... The Riflemen die. This has a huge effect on the momentum of the game. Deep Striking is something that can win you the game quickly, and with the Russian units already "lacking speed" i don't think it is too much to ask that we get this one bug fixed

2.) I believe that the "MIA Bug" is the biggest problem with the game. The last thing anybody on EndWar wants is to lose their units for no reason. Unit killing can be bad enough at times.

Please fix these two problems with the game before anything. In my opinion these are the two biggest problems.

one more suggestion

One thing that WILL separate the Elite players from the average is to make it so you can ONLY KILL UNITS WITH A SECONDARY ATTACK. Seriously how good of an idea is that? This means that you already have to have good units on the field to turn the game dirty.

Understandably many people have suggestions about what should be Added to the game, but please lets fix the existing problems before we explore new paths. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

POLLxMAKER

01-22-2009, 06:18 PM

i just want faster servers and to not get kicked out of games cause of lag...or whatever the reason is

FMAylward

01-24-2009, 02:01 AM

Make it so if an attack fails the attacker becomes the defender so you don't end up with someone defending an attack for a capital for 6 turns.

And have the capital support only support the capital so raids and taking bases actually have a effect on the people who lose them.

ltdanusafx2

01-25-2009, 08:07 PM

I would like to see the counter attack rule, where if you win a defending territory, then you automatically take the one you were being attacked from. I think it would make more sense if Territory A was successfully defended, then the next turn Territory B would be under attack from Territory A, however the owner of territory B had less reserves, less starting units, or someother handicap.

Mandra42

01-28-2009, 10:08 AM

Sheesh I'll just a list...

1. Attack Loops - Ok this is getting ridiculous, why must we keep attacking the same locations over and over again. This gets us no where and the main reason why the war is lasting so long cause we just keep trading the same territories back and forth. You should set some kind of trigger and two or three times of trading the same territories back, the faction's should try attacking from a different angle.

On a side note I know several EFC players who are refusing to play at the moment because on the 360, Europe has yet to even try a push into russian territory in this war... why is that? The map selection is terrible, more options need to be opened up on all fronts each turn.

2. Introducing AI could very well destroy ToW gameplay - The biggest reason people can't find matches is because everyone refuses to play on a map where they do not have supports. I am by no means saying supports are bad. If a player drops or whatever they do to cause a AI Commander to appear it should continue the match with the AI. As well to prevent abusing of this AI should be worth only maybe 1/4 or even less the value of fighting a Human opponet. This game is about Human vs. Human people and that is what it should be focused on. And, don't tell me you can't find matches.. there are always plaenty of them... and yes that means you will have to leave your comfort zone, but that is the only way to improve you skills. As far as the AI's difficulty level Hardcore is the only option. Expert and Normal is a joke.

3. Punishment for the cowardly - This has become a big issue people leaving the match early because they are going to lose, or the ever annoying they kill a unit on purpose then bail before you get the chance to return the favor. This is just childish behavior and sadly the children aren't the ones doing this. This will destroy the game more than anything else. If the game should advance to the point where the opfor deploy's 1 new unit, if he/she/faction leaves after that point the winner or last faction standing should get full credit for the victory. As well the person leaving should get full penalties for a loss. Apologies if this is how it works allready.

4. Status Reports - It would be extremely helpful if we the players could tell where the PF is, a battle count could drastically change the war strategy is a marvelous way. All for the good of the game make it even more strategic. You must do this.

KiloMeda

01-28-2009, 07:40 PM

Maybe a large overhaul to make wars faster would be better for the game, especially with the declining player base.

1)I've heard of 12 hour turns suggested...maybe even 8? Shorter turns allow players to have the option of fighting on numerous territories in one day, rather than the same 2 or 3. Wars could shift very quickly either way.

2)Removal of the PF rule seems like it would make wars move quicker as well, many people feel this way. I only joined in January, so I don't know how it was before.

3)Units rank up a little faster. This would take some of the sting out of unit killing, and also get newer players up to speed quicker. It also relates to my next suggestion:

4)It may be more controversial...but resetting units after each war. At the beginning of each new war, you can pick your side. This would eliminate some of the dead weight players that are inactive...unless they login again to choose their faction. It would also mean more shifts in players from different factions, keeping the game diverse and also allowing players to try out some of the other factions without the reluctance of leaving their units behind.

5)An all time leaderboard would be more useful if there were shorter rounds. It gives people the motivation to go all out one war for recognition of most victories. Maybe break down the leaderboard into 1v1 W/L, 2v2, 4v4. Players would play 1v1 for personal notoriety, while clans and friends might be motivated to try their hand at mastering 4v4.

Just some random thoughts, based on my history of playing text based online games(nukezone etc..) years ago

Artacool

02-03-2009, 11:59 AM

My suggestion to end stalemates in TOW

Lets take the Pamlico/Shenandoah stalemate as an example. Say this is the first time they are attacking Pamlico... (If EFEC wins Shenandoah at any point it would end the stalemate, and would play out normally)

- If they win and push up to Shenandoah then lose. As normal this would push them back to attacking Pamlico over again.

- Then if they win and push up to Shenandoah then lose AGAIN. JSF gets Pamlico, but is NOW attacking Oke. If JSF wins YAY end of stalemate, normal play continues.

- Then if EFEC wins, they go on to defend Pamilco (which is a difference already). But If they move up to DEFEND Shenandoah and YET AGAIN lose. Then JSF is now attacking Palico on Assault (not attack from nowhere). If JSF wins assault continues to Oke.

- Then if EFEC assault on Pamlico, it's assualt on Shenandoah. If JSF wins front is shutdown for a certain amount of turns. If EFEC wins they get Shenandoah the stalemate is broken and its back to conquest.

This way each side gets a chance at Attacking and defending conquest and assault. And prevents a stalemate just because 1 side has the advantage of defender side or attack side.

Pure_Luck-77

02-03-2009, 01:15 PM

The Game Freezes, we all know that, stuff happens. I just wish that everytime that happened my units wouldn't automatically have they're rank drop. I dont use my legendary units much if at all, but if the game freezes half the time one of my legendary units go down to recruit.That knocks my rank down from 11. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but just letting you know this is happening and change would be appreciated.

Artacool

02-03-2009, 01:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pure_Luck-77:
The Game Freezes, we all know that, stuff happens. I just wish that everytime that happened my units wouldn't automatically have they're rank drop. I dont use my legendary units much if at all, but if the game freezes half the time one of my legendary units go down to recruit.That knocks my rank down from 11. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but just letting you know this is happening and change would be appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

QuidProKou has confirmed they are working on this.

mac-phisto

02-05-2009, 04:41 AM

off the bat - sorry this is so long...

i would like to see rank matter a little more in the game. what if instead of awarding a win to either side, victory points were based on rank matchup equation - say:

(sum(spz player ranks)*sum(jsf player ranks))/(# of players) = victory points (or VPs)

using an equation like this would give higher ranked players more control over the outcome of a territory, but it would also give low-ranked players the ability to make more difference if they defeat a higher ranked player.

take a simple 1v1 with a lv3 vs. a lv12. the victor would take home 18 victory points. but check this out. a 2v2 with 2 lv3's vs. 2 lv12's would reap 36 VPs & the same ranks in a 4v4 would reap 72 VPs. if it were an all-out 4v4 lv12 showdown, the winning faction would take home 288 VPs!

since nobody really knows their opponent's rank at the beginning, it's a crapshoot for players - they can't necessarily focus their efforts on high-ranked matches (but they also can't refuse to play against a low-ranked player simply b/c it doesn't earn them as many points). overall, it seems as though the game engine does a decent job of matching up players based on rank, so i think problems related to abuse of this system should be minimal.

a fix like this could also eliminate some of the cheating - a lv12 player playing a cheater lv1 wouldn't be awarded the same VPs as a lv12 playing an actual battle against a higher ranked player (6 VPs vs. 72 VPs in a 12v12 match-up).

it wouldn't solve the problem of people playing multiple factions & using them to affect the overall battlemap (say a player that has both a SPZ & EEFC account, ranking the SPZ account up against JSF & then losing to EEFC players on purpose). to fix that problem, i would make ranks less static.

it seems your rank is more a result of your unit strength than your battle ability. what if it were based on your ability to win instead? & perhaps even have 2 ranks for players - one rank for each faction they play (EEFC commanders would have a "vs. SPZ" rank & a "vs. JSF" rank). this could entirely eliminate the effect of multiple faction cheating.

overall, i think inserting a system like that could help to create a more enjoyable experience for players & build more playability into the game - the better i am, the more i can affect the game's outcome. that makes sense.

BigDC1

02-05-2009, 04:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Northern_Sun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Templar11709:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could alternatively give the Bodyguards SA-18s (2 out of 5 carrying them seems about right) , it's 20 or so years old but it's the latest Russian MANPADS i could find. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The CV attack upgrade supposedly gives the Bodyguards anti-armor weapons(according to the description) but this doesn't appear on them. This also gets me thinking, why don't the bodyguards use you selected camo? The other drones do.

Another idea would be custom battalions. I know it's been said before, but it was something promised from very early on and having the personal connection to something we created would certainly help me get more involved in ToW(getting out of my losing slump would probably help to), and of course, I don't like it when I don't get something promised.

So, for completions sake, I'll go over what exactly to customize.
1. Name. I think the name should have to be unique. If another name is exactly like it they should have to change it.

2. Motto

3. Symbol. Let us choose a foreground and background symbol like in Halo(and that will be the only time I'll ever say something should be like Halo).

4. Unit distribution(1 CV, the other 24 to fill as we please, 1 minimum and 6 max like now).
5. Bonus. Choose unit then things like Damage +10%, -5%HP, etc.

6. Let us pick from all the faction's camos.

7. Back story, those little paragraphs on the right side explaining the battalion's origins and duties.

8. A way to view the battalions online, like how you can go to Bungie.net and view a whole bunch of your stats, have people be able to view all the information as well as display information like record, number of hostiles defeated, and a whole bunch of other stats that are probably recorded but not shown.

9. Terrain Specialization? This was something I just came up with when typing. You could choose what terrain your battalion is good in(urban, arctic, woodland, etc.) and whenever they were in such an environment, your units would get combat bonuses.

Something very minor to add to my "Active" list suggestion in my previous post is if an inactive player logs on to the Strategic view, the general will have some particularly harsh words for them, like even more harsh than they do now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this sounds like what they said would be in the game from the get go.... plz put something like this in the game. custom battalions would be a great addition.

Money800

02-12-2009, 12:47 PM

How about server lists in TOW. That way we could see how many games are playing and how many players each games need in order to begin.

dynas2001

02-17-2009, 08:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mandra42:
Sheesh I'll just a list...

1. Attack Loops - Ok this is getting ridiculous, why must we keep attacking the same locations over and over again. This gets us no where and the main reason why the war is lasting so long cause we just keep trading the same territories back and forth. You should set some kind of trigger and two or three times of trading the same territories back, the faction's should try attacking from a different angle.

On a side note I know several EFC players who are refusing to play at the moment because on the 360, Europe has yet to even try a push into russian territory in this war... why is that? The map selection is terrible, more options need to be opened up on all fronts each turn.

2. Introducing AI could very well destroy ToW gameplay - The biggest reason people can't find matches is because everyone refuses to play on a map where they do not have supports. I am by no means saying supports are bad. If a player drops or whatever they do to cause a AI Commander to appear it should continue the match with the AI. As well to prevent abusing of this AI should be worth only maybe 1/4 or even less the value of fighting a Human opponet. This game is about Human vs. Human people and that is what it should be focused on. And, don't tell me you can't find matches.. there are always plaenty of them... and yes that means you will have to leave your comfort zone, but that is the only way to improve you skills. As far as the AI's difficulty level Hardcore is the only option. Expert and Normal is a joke.

3. Punishment for the cowardly - This has become a big issue people leaving the match early because they are going to lose, or the ever annoying they kill a unit on purpose then bail before you get the chance to return the favor. This is just childish behavior and sadly the children aren't the ones doing this. This will destroy the game more than anything else. If the game should advance to the point where the opfor deploy's 1 new unit, if he/she/faction leaves after that point the winner or last faction standing should get full credit for the victory. As well the person leaving should get full penalties for a loss. Apologies if this is how it works allready.

4. Status Reports - It would be extremely helpful if we the players could tell where the PF is, a battle count could drastically change the war strategy is a marvelous way. All for the good of the game make it even more strategic. You must do this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 easy way to deal with the flip flop and same boards is after 6 flips over and over or more, just take out all the supports for those boards accept EW. The reason? The area is so damaged and so on, the uplinks are all busted. There ya have it. Things will move after that, as the supports won't be such a deciding factor.

carina10

02-18-2009, 01:09 AM

I am new to this game. I tried the online fight just recently, so my armies were inexperienced and had no value or upgrades avialable. I lost the first three in a row, and it wasn't even competitive. I was over-matched with more advanced units. Even with a 3-1 advantage I still was handled easily. If there was a way that you could match aginst simular leveled players it would be a lot more interesting. The way it is now you would have to fight hundreds of battles to earn enough credits to buy at least a few upgrades to finally be able to compete. No one is going to do that.
Great game though. I do enjoy play aginst the computer. Even at the higher levels I at least stand a chance at winning some battles. To me, that is the point to these games.

jako800

02-19-2009, 07:55 PM

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif this game is so giche.http://card.mygamercard.net/jako800.png (http://profile.mygamercard.net/jako800)

Alienking33

02-20-2009, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by b_4721:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pal87:
moar. cities. heck, i'll settle for a village.

i'm not sure if this would help any, but force recon troops rushing to uplinks at start of battle like in single player. regular army troops to make the special forces seem...well, special. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea I really wish their were more army troop involvement in the game, even if it's just the lines of riflemen killing each other at the center. Especially on raids there should be infantry stationed in towers or at roadblocks, what army base is defended solely by a couple robotic guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i agree with you theres just to much rifle men theres no tanks or fast attack vehicles, there should be imrpovement to force recon.

SeigZeon

02-20-2009, 09:34 PM

who abotu makeing it so you can buy ranke promotions that why you can always use you money even if you bought all the upgrades for units and make it that each rank up cost is deiffert this would make it easyer to us the unit upgrades and make if better for peoplehow get unit killed and it will be faster then the XP thing

chavarlison

02-27-2009, 12:18 AM

Make it so only the top 80% of the TOW results gets counted into the battle for every faction. That way noob results and boosters won't count into the computation of who won a particular territory.

nazareem

03-01-2009, 01:35 PM

i read the RAID idea ,its good but why not go further ,generals (from lv11)should be alowed to vote amongst own faction where to attack or start defence .(where attacked) when 2faction choose to both attack=Asault.and both choose def nothing happence .en a faction must at least once attack in 1or 2 turns .etc...

olso make a chatprogram(a global room and private factions room[then in faction room private rooms to plan warfare ].maby rooms for generals alone ,a real community it wil come )avalaible..etc

PsychoRaptor

03-04-2009, 07:14 PM

have a special unlockable battlegroup (for each faction of course)....when a person becomes rank 12 and reaches the 50,000,000 CR limit when you enter the barracks and then go to change your battlegroup there is a custom battlegroup option where you can make the amount of each part of the battlegroup the nuber you want but must add up to, no more than no less than,25 units BUT the cost to do it is everything all the 50 million CR, all the upgrades you bouught so you actually start over and of course the units are resest and you can pick the 3 paints you want out of the however many there are for that whole faction and there is preset unit bonuses to choose from like the 10% damage,-5% HP for riflemen all those ones on the battlegroups and that would be sweet to have because some people like having more infantry but lots of tanks to and only a few gunships so i think being able to sacrafise EVERYTHING to get exactly what battlegroup would fit you perfectly would be pretty sweet and you only get one shot to get it the way you want it until you get back to rank 12 and 50 million more CR

Croft6669

03-05-2009, 10:36 AM

My biggest problem with TOW, is that JSF highly outnumbers all factions and is therfore able to play and win/lose more matches than any other faction. Also It seems that even when I notice my faction winning a territory, such as Levski... it seems that it is taken over by JSF anyways. It has become frustrating when you win a match overall, and yet still lose it at End of Turn. I think that by implementing a faction balancing system, such as not allowing one faction to have more than 33% (or balanced) than the other factions, it would make players choose other factions and balance gameplay alot more. I.E. if you are trying to join JSF, but they already possess their maximum percentage of players, then you must join Enforcers or Spetznaz. Once the factions are even it will greatly improve the gameplay. Also... unit kills are getting outrageiously out of control. I spend hours upon hours upgrading and promoting units, only to have all my work diminished in a single match. I think that if a unit is killed, perhaps it would be better to just have them go down one rank, instead of starting anew at recruit. It would remove frustration levels of players and retain a greater playerbase, if people did not lose their units so often. Also I think maybe a XP deficit for unit kills would discourage players from massive unit killing. Not only is unit killing extreemly annoying, but it also discourages many players in my experience, from continuing to play this game.

xdomination96x

03-07-2009, 08:39 AM

FIX WAITING TIMES!

sgtmcnac

03-09-2009, 12:57 AM

There should be alot more credits handed out after each game. Also the unit ranking system should be changed. So we could have more decked out battalions with out it taking a long time.

dynas2001

03-10-2009, 08:01 AM

I like that last idea by Phyco Rapture - although I believe he is no doubt one of the reasons the player base is so small.

People are sick of over zealious unit killers. It's one thing to kill a unit here and there. Its another thing to have all the advantages and kill units when there is no chance of retaliation. I have only gotten burned a few times by this, but it's usually because i am being merciful to the other team. Then I get repaid by people like him with slaughting piles of my units. Normally I can kill more of theirs, but there are those games where I do not.

That has driven many many many players away from the game. I had 30 or so people who played on my friends list. There are now 2 and that was the #1 reason they left. It wasn't the odd player killing. It was the phyco's who wipe out your entire unit.

dynas2001

03-10-2009, 08:03 AM

I suggest making the bloody gun ships less likely to die randomly over crap. Holy bloody hell. It seems everyone has the same attitude i have.. oh i lost two units that match. Ah, just gun ships. no worry.

Yeah because gun ships bloody well die constantly. I have not met anyone who haslegended a gun ship. Vet'd yep, but normally those don't last very long either.

mallard87

03-11-2009, 01:55 PM

Dear Developers,

I would like to make a suggestion. Implement changes to give people more control over unit killing.

I like to avoid killing the enemy units, but sometimes it happens when I don't want it to happen. The culprits are usually, WMDs, and air strikes. For example, sometimes there is a downed unit, and then I air strike another unit that is somewhat nearby that has full health. The air strike will sometimes end up killing the downed unit, even though it was not my intention.

I know that what I am suggesting would make the game less realistic, but since it is a game after all, I think that implementing my suggestion would make it more fun. That way, there wouldn't be any accidental unit kills. In such a scenario, if you really wanted to unit kill, you could still do it on purpose by ordering your units to attack a downed unit.

Thank you for your consideration.

--mallard87

dynas2001

03-12-2009, 07:14 AM

I think that would be a good idea for sure, that and make gun ships not randomly die too even when over water and so on. The guy pilot can't swim?

D.M.O.68

03-14-2009, 06:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
Ok guys, there have been several threads on making improvements or changes to the Theater of War. There is a lot of frustration with the game's online campaign. I won't pretend to be the expert on why things work the way they do when talking about "Primary frontlines" or the logic of when a raid can be conducted.

The point of this thread is that too many of them degenerate into insults, or recommendations to play the game noob til you're better. Or your faction sucks, that's why you don't understand the TOW or the game.

I think the devs have done great things with Endwar and deserve praise, however I do think there have been some big missteps and it has caused some to sadly leave out of frustration with the game.

I'd ask that all who post in this thread would make in one single post all the recommendations or tweaks they think should be made to the Theater of War or what they think is needed to improve online gameplay.

Also I'd ask that people respect each others' arguments and don't bash each other so if you disagree, make an articulate counter-argument as to why it doesn't seem to make sense.

Ok, I'll go first:

Some changes to improve online gameplay.

1. Institute AI into the TOW. In other words, if we don't want to wait 15 minutes for a human opponent, or we prefer the AI, let us play against the AI. If Ubi or others are concerned that it's easier to score wins, then give less credits for those battles.

2. Make the TOW like a real war. Base it somewhat more on reality. If it's 2020, and these factions have the ability to mass armies across continents then WHY is it that RAIDS can only be conducted at certain times. Certain maps are where there are army bases, logistical depots or air bases. THOSE should be the maps where we can conduct RAIDS at any time, at OUR choosing. So the TOW would open up and you're given the option to jump in on any battle as it is now, however you have a separate option to go into RAID mode that allows you to pick the map that has an airbase you want to strike.

I've made a more specific request that they change the setup raid before in a different format and won't repeat it as the devs know I think how they can change it.

Anyway, let's hear your thoughts. And guys, I chatted with Raide about this so he WILL be taking a close look at this and reporting back to the dev team.

please remember be polite, make articulate arguments and let's bring the community back to Endwar!

EDITED 1/8/09 NEW addition:

3. Remove the rule of PF where if you lose one territory, you also lose the one next to it. It doesn't make sense.

After reading some other suggestions, I agree also with the point system and giving more points to higher ranked players depending on the rank their opponents are and lower ranked get less points if similarly matched but more points if they defeat a higher ranked player.

4. Rank based matchmaking system. Too many players have left out of frustration when going up against the uber players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5. DMO68 We need more maps for theater of war Ubisoft should also add naval battles which effects the out come of the ground war on all three fronts. As well they should add other military hard ware to the conflict. Also restrict the limit of airstrikes in a match Nuff said.

LORDNAG3

03-14-2009, 10:17 AM

How about they let us buy camo. That would put to use the 50million ceridits i have.Also if you wanted to motifie your battalion you shuold have to pay for it with ceridits. Maybe even have a blackmarket upgrade option. Here you can buy upgardes form other fations upgrades.Now this would be cool. Also your units shuold beable to rank up more past 3 stars. Now that would be something to look for. Also the terrian thing bonus sounds good too. All should be able to be purhase by your cerdits. Now i wont feel like its lame to have 50 million cerdits and not have a thing to buy. One last thing buying other faction upgardes should cost doble what it cost for the original faction form wich you are buying form in the black market.

lucifersav

03-17-2009, 11:32 AM

"2. Please do something about the matchmaking system. New players are not able to gain ranks, because veteren playes keep supressing them and perma killing there units. Players should be matched with other similar ranking players."

Word. As far as End War goes I'm definitely a "noob", so maybe you're not worried about my opinion. But dude, seriously... I know that when you start playing a new game there's a learning curve and you're going to get your *** kicked for a while while you learn the intricacies of online play, but this goes a little far. I spent 10 minutes last night luring an opponent's transports away from his artillery, finally got him far enough away and hit him with a couple groups of tanks. Went back to take out the artillery, and the unit of tanks they brought in wiped out my heli's. If I can't take you out with the combat chain and you just permanently kill my units, there's nothing I can do. That combined with waiting half an hour to get into that match where I got totally raped creates a desire to play Bad Company or Rainbow Six or something.

A better matchmaking system and AI after a waiting period would make this the best game in my cabinet.

Also, I like the ability to unit kill because of the reality. I'd hate to see it taken away, but it is incredibly frustrating to have somebody rank 10+ with hardened - legendary units just permakill my entire army. Maybe have some sort of compromise? Let anybody kill units whenever they feel like it, but institute repercussions for people who abuse the ability. This could come in the form of war crimes resulting in loss of rank/CR/whatever at the end of a war, or a round to round affect where your CO demotes/reprimands you (nobody wants to see crazies killing unncessarily, it might make the other side do the same). Or have them blame it on the politicians, whatever works. Something that wouldn't negatively affect the campaign, but would hurt you individually. I'd be satisfied with the option to play in a non-Unit kill server, but I'd rather see something more dynamic to keep the realism of units dying with something to discourage the permakilling rather than making it impossible.

Either way, I know I'm just a noob and all but thats my two cents. The game as it is kicks ***, but the online version is nearly unplayable for newcomers.

VVidar

03-18-2009, 12:39 PM

Since "Unit Killing", player-level and ranking-up are phenomenon mentioned a lot in this forum, and by players that I run into when playing “Theatre of War” (TOW) on Xbox 360 Live, here is a possible viable solution for the current state of affairs.

The solution has the following elements:

1. Introduction of a “Kill” command or deliberate “Kill” mechanism. The command line goes as follows “Unit # Kill Hostile #”. That is the only way an enemy unit can be killed. So airstrikes, artillery and WMD cannot “Kill” a knocked out enemy unit anymore. Killing a unit is executed by a deliberate command. Should introduction of a “Kill” command not be technically possible, instead make it so that a knocked out enemy unit can only be “Killed” by a deliberate command, such as “Unit # Attack Hostile #” command, so no “Unit Kills” by an airstrike or random artillery fire. For purpose of this rule, make it so that Gunships that go down over water or buildings automatically survive instead of automatically “Kill”. In like manner units that are “killed” by an air strike or by random artillery fire are not “killed” but instead are automatically evacuated. Think of it as surviving soldiers/pilots making it back on foot to their own lines. The purpose of this rule is to still allow unit killing, but make it an unmistakable clearly deliberate deed.

2. CR (or Credits for short) are renamed in “Prestige”. A Battalion Commanding Officers is not paid special money after a battle nowadays. EndWar isn’t the Thirty Years War with mercenary armies! Instead, winning a battle results in “Prestige” (points) for the Commanding Officer and his command. Commanding Officers and Battalions that have a lot of “Prestige” in any Armed Forces receive better replacements, equipment and battlefield support.

3. A Commanding Officer that “Kills” units suffers negative “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) and loses his best ranked/levelled unit after conclusion of the battle. When a Commanding Officer purposely orders his troops to act as war criminals, morale and discipline and consequently unit combat performance suffers. Additionally good honourably officers and men will also start asking for transfers to other Battalions after the battle. For every helpless enemy unit killed the Commanding Officers suffers minus 25.000 “Prestige” AND in every battle where a Commanding Officer kills one helpless enemy unit the Commanding Officer loses the highest ranking unit in his Battalion. It is possible for a Commanding Officer to have infinite negative “Prestige”.

4. “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) can be used to receive/requisition better quality (human) replacements from the High Command in the barracks. Via this rule, the problem of the useless “Prestige” points (CR in current EndWar) that occurs after a Commanding Officer has received (a.k.a. bought) all upgrades is solved. Prestige Point Unit Cost: Recruit= 0, Regular= 50.000 , Veteran= 100.000, Elite= 200.000, Legendary= 400.000. This way new and veteran players can hoard their “Prestige” to requisition a few high ranked units, for instance to replace “Units Killed”.

5. Losing a battle leads to negative “Prestige” (points) for players ranked level eight (8) and higher. Before the introduction of this rule all “Prestige” (points) are set to zero (0) for all EndWar TOW players. A player ranked eight (8) or higher is considered an elite veteran commander and the High Command expects such Commanding Officers to be victorious in battle because of the men, equipment and support available to such Commanding Officers. When they lose in battle, their “Prestige” (points) suffers a minus 25.000 result. This rule simulates the High Command losing confidence in such Commanding Officers and consequently not sending them the best of the (human) replacements any more. The equipment (upgrades) and support available to the Commanding Officer is not effected by this rule.

6. All upgrades received/requisitioned (bought) from the High Command by a Commanding Officer are available to ALL unit ranks, instead higher ranked units receive a attack/defence combat factor performance bonus. The attack/defence combat factor bonus for each rank: Recruit=none, Regular=+10%, Veteran=+20%, Elite=+30%, Legendary=+40%. This attack/defence combat factor bonus DOES NOT apply to unit range, speed or rate of fire. This way a player that has his “Units Killed” still can have his upgrade advantages available.

7. Introduction of an Xbox 360 Achievement called “Infamous War Criminal”. This “Achievement” is given when a player has “Killed 100 helpless defeated enemy units”. The description for this achievement: “Your War Crimes have become known to all and your name has become synonymous with callous, inhume and brutal war crimes against unarmed helpless enemy soldiers. After the war you are demoted, discharged dishonourably and consequently sentenced to life imprisonment by an International War Crimes Tribunal.” For those that think this “Achievement” is a badge of honour, Ubisoft could also add to this “Achievement” the effects that the “Achiever” loses all his upgrades, all his “Prestige” (points) and have all his units reset to recruit rank. Alternatively there could be three such “Achievements”, one for the JSF, SGB and EFEC, for instance “Infamous JSF War Criminal” etcetera. A dedicated “Unit Killer” would become identifiable via this “Achievement” for other EndWar TOW players. The “Unit Killed” counter should be reset to zero (0) before introduction of these rules and this “Achievement”.

8. Units that are voluntarily or involuntary evacuated in battle receive negative experience points. A unit that is thus evacuated in battle can be ranked/levelled DOWN as a result of this rule. This rule is meant to A.) Prevent an incompetent Commanding Officers’ units from ranking/levelling up in defeat, B.) Introduce a mechanism to make veteran players with Legendary and Elite units fear for defeat in battle and consequently loss of unit rank/level, C.) Compensate for less units getting killed as a result of the rules above. Note that a player can still receive/requisition upgrades with his “Prestige” and also use them with recruit rank/level units.

Via these rules loss of rank/level can be a result of voluntary or involuntary unit evacuation in battle, as well as a result of “Unit Killing”. To compensate a player can to a degree receive/requisition (buy) better rank/level replacements units in the barracks via his “Prestige” (points) as a compensation for possible loss of rank/level.

Via these rules “Unit Killing” is still possible, it can even be part of your EndWar strategy or enjoyment, but a dedicated “Unit Killer” will also suffer from the negative effects of becoming a War Criminal. These rules are not meant to stop “Unit Killing”, since this would be unrealistic and would also lead to everybody having invulnerable legendary units.

Rule number 6. will allow Commanding Officers that have their “Units Killed” to still receive the equipment that the High Command allowed for them based on their earlier performance BUT the quality of the new (human) replacements depends on the current amount of “Prestige” (points) still available (= last few battle performance results) since better quality units can be bought in the barracks with “Prestige” (points).

The rationale for the solution proposed is that “Unit Killing” is akin to shooting wounded enemy soldiers, shooting enemy soldiers that try to surrender and to shooting prisoners of war. All of these deeds have been outlawed since centuries by the Geneva Convention and the “The Hague” land war Convention. These deeds consequently are clear war crimes.

A Commanding Officer who orders his troops to purposely commit war crimes against helpless enemy soldiers will in the long run NOT be held in high regard by his troops and his superiors. He will be mainly despised, even if he is successful in battle. Every action in life has repercussions.

lucifersav

03-18-2009, 05:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since "Unit Killing", player-level and ranking-up are phenomenon mentioned a lot in this forum, and by players that I run into when playing “Theatre of War” (TOW) on Xbox 360 Live, here is a possible viable solution for the current state of affairs.

The solution has the following elements:

1. Introduction of a “Kill” command or deliberate “Kill” mechanism. The command line goes as follows “Unit # Kill Hostile #”. That is the only way an enemy unit can be killed. So airstrikes, artillery and WMD cannot “Kill” a knocked out enemy unit anymore. Killing a unit is executed by a deliberate command. Should introduction of a “Kill” command not be technically possible, instead make it so that a knocked out enemy unit can only be “Killed” by a deliberate command, such as “Unit # Attack Hostile #” command, so no “Unit Kills” by an airstrike or random artillery fire. For purpose of this rule, make it so that Gunships that go down over water or buildings automatically survive instead of automatically “Kill”. In like manner units that are “killed” by an air strike or by random artillery fire are not “killed” but instead are automatically evacuated. Think of it as surviving soldiers/pilots making it back on foot to their own lines. The purpose of this rule is to still allow unit killing, but make it an unmistakable clearly deliberate deed.

2. CR (or Credits for short) are renamed in “Prestige”. A Battalion Commanding Officers is not paid special money after a battle nowadays. EndWar isn’t the Thirty Years War with mercenary armies! Instead, winning a battle results in “Prestige” (points) for the Commanding Officer and his command. Commanding Officers and Battalions that have a lot of “Prestige” in any Armed Forces receive better replacements, equipment and battlefield support.

3. A Commanding Officer that “Kills” units suffers negative “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) and loses his best ranked/levelled unit after conclusion of the battle. When a Commanding Officer purposely orders his troops to act as war criminals, morale and discipline and consequently unit combat performance suffers. Additionally good honourably officers and men will also start asking for transfers to other Battalions after the battle. For every helpless enemy unit killed the Commanding Officers suffers minus 25.000 “Prestige” AND in every battle where a Commanding Officer kills one helpless enemy unit the Commanding Officer loses the highest ranking unit in his Battalion. It is possible for a Commanding Officer to have infinite negative “Prestige”.

4. “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) can be used to receive/requisition better quality (human) replacements from the High Command in the barracks. Via this rule, the problem of the useless “Prestige” points (CR in current EndWar) that occurs after a Commanding Officer has received (a.k.a. bought) all upgrades is solved. Prestige Point Unit Cost: Recruit= 0, Regular= 50.000 , Veteran= 100.000, Elite= 200.000, Legendary= 400.000. This way new and veteran players can hoard their “Prestige” to requisition a few high ranked units, for instance to replace “Units Killed”.

5. Losing a battle leads to negative “Prestige” (points) for players ranked level eight (8) and higher. Before the introduction of this rule all “Prestige” (points) are set to zero (0) for all EndWar TOW players. A player ranked eight (8) or higher is considered an elite veteran commander and the High Command expects such Commanding Officers to be victorious in battle because of the men, equipment and support available to such Commanding Officers. When they lose in battle, their “Prestige” (points) suffers a minus 25.000 result. This rule simulates the High Command losing confidence in such Commanding Officers and consequently not sending them the best of the (human) replacements any more. The equipment (upgrades) and support available to the Commanding Officer is not effected by this rule.

6. All upgrades received/requisitioned (bought) from the High Command by a Commanding Officer are available to ALL unit ranks, instead higher ranked units receive a attack/defence combat factor performance bonus. The attack/defence combat factor bonus for each rank: Recruit=none, Regular=+10%, Veteran=+20%, Elite=+30%, Legendary=+40%. This attack/defence combat factor bonus DOES NOT apply to unit range, speed or rate of fire. This way a player that has his “Units Killed” still can have his upgrade advantages available.

7. Introduction of an Xbox 360 Achievement called “Infamous War Criminal”. This “Achievement” is given when a player has “Killed 100 helpless defeated enemy units”. The description for this achievement: “Your War Crimes have become known to all and your name has become synonymous with callous, inhume and brutal war crimes against unarmed helpless enemy soldiers. After the war you are demoted, discharged dishonourably and consequently sentenced to life imprisonment by an International War Crimes Tribunal.” For those that think this “Achievement” is a badge of honour, Ubisoft could also add to this “Achievement” the effects that the “Achiever” loses all his upgrades, all his “Prestige” (points) and have all his units reset to recruit rank. Alternatively there could be three such “Achievements”, one for the JSF, SGB and EFEC, for instance “Infamous JSF War Criminal” etcetera. A dedicated “Unit Killer” would become identifiable via this “Achievement” for other EndWar TOW players. The “Unit Killed” counter should be reset to zero (0) before introduction of these rules and this “Achievement”.

8. Units that are voluntarily or involuntary evacuated in battle receive negative experience points. A unit that is thus evacuated in battle can be ranked/levelled DOWN as a result of this rule. This rule is meant to A.) Prevent an incompetent Commanding Officers’ units from ranking/levelling up in defeat, B.) Introduce a mechanism to make veteran players with Legendary and Elite units fear for defeat in battle and consequently loss of unit rank/level, C.) Compensate for less units getting killed as a result of the rules above. Note that a player can still receive/requisition upgrades with his “Prestige” and also use them with recruit rank/level units.

Via these rules loss of rank/level can be a result of voluntary or involuntary unit evacuation in battle, as well as a result of “Unit Killing”. To compensate a player can to a degree receive/requisition (buy) better rank/level replacements units in the barracks via his “Prestige” (points) as a compensation for possible loss of rank/level.

Via these rules “Unit Killing” is still possible, it can even be part of your EndWar strategy or enjoyment, but a dedicated “Unit Killer” will also suffer from the negative effects of becoming a War Criminal. These rules are not meant to stop “Unit Killing”, since this would be unrealistic and would also lead to everybody having invulnerable legendary units.

Rule number 6. will allow Commanding Officers that have their “Units Killed” to still receive the equipment that the High Command allowed for them based on their earlier performance BUT the quality of the new (human) replacements depends on the current amount of “Prestige” (points) still available (= last few battle performance results) since better quality units can be bought in the barracks with “Prestige” (points).

The rationale for the solution proposed is that “Unit Killing” is akin to shooting wounded enemy soldiers, shooting enemy soldiers that try to surrender and to shooting prisoners of war. All of these deeds have been outlawed since centuries by the Geneva Convention and the “The Hague” land war Convention. These deeds consequently are clear war crimes.

A Commanding Officer who orders his troops to purposely commit war crimes against helpless enemy soldiers will in the long run NOT be held in high regard by his troops and his superiors. He will be mainly despised, even if he is successful in battle. Every action in life has repercussions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This with a little better matchmaking would almost all of this game's flaws, I think. It'd make it funner for new players, thereby increasing new "Colonel's" and helping in player retention, reducing wait times for games and the need for AI commanders.

(I might also suggest private ToW's. Sometimes I just wanna play with my bro, family, a few friends, and be able to come and go as we please. The global ToW is cool, but that'd be a way for zero wait times without affecting other people's game play.)

AGSF-Khaine

03-21-2009, 04:22 PM

(for pc)

1. some kind of counter where u see how many ppl from each faction are currently online

2. A bonus when u wait a long time in a "warroom" for more ppl like 1 victory point evry 30 min. of non stop waiting for each person

3. an option where u get an guarantee that u play with ure teammate when u join an room and not an random player.

4. u shoud be able to choose on fast game "only 1v1 games" or "only 2v2 games"

VVidar

03-22-2009, 05:52 PM

In addition to my previous post I add the following minor solutions to matchmaking:

1.) It appears that a lot of players shun maps where where they do not have friendly (Air) Support but where they have to face enemy Air Support. This makes finding matches on those maps a problem, because the Air Support side will be waiting in vain for an enemy that has no Air Support.

I think a good minor solution to this issue is through the addition of the voice command:

“Electronic Warfare Hostile Air Strike”

This EMP strike could then immediately shut down an enemy air strike at the cost of in-battle CP's. This would allow players to have at least some measure of defence against enemy air strikes, which would lure players to enemy Air Support maps, by which I mean maps with enemy Air Support but without friendly Air Support.

2.) Making Prestige as I call it in my post (or CR as it is called in EndWar TOW) something that is constantly needed to requisition (buy) more experienced units (a solution also detailed in my post), will lure players to maps where the main effort is. Players would have an incentive to fight on maps where the main effort is, because these maps could offer more Prestige (=CR) for every battle fought there.

3.) I think that to add a SINGLE PLAYER (only) TOW AI Commanding Officer (CO) at “AI hardcore” level might also be a good idea to kill the 40 minute waiting times and lure players back to EndWar. If players are lured back via this single player TOW AI mechanism, the player base would grow larger and this would cut back on waiting times in human versus human matches.

Different TOW rewards could be applied to the AI TOW CO (=Commanding Officer) matches, such as that every 10 battles won by a player against the AI TOW CO count as 1 battle against a human TOW player. The same 1-to-10 factor could be applied for Prestige (=CR) and “unit experience” gained in a battle against the AI TOW CO. Waiting 40 minutes for a game is just unacceptable for many a player, which makes them move on to other games. Single player AI TOW could reverse this trend.

That way a player could have an instant AI TOW battle, but still would preferably fight a human for added Prestige (CR), “unit experience” and TOW campaign results. Alternatively the AI TOW could be introduced not as a player selectable option, but it could be started automatically after waiting three (3) minutes for a match in the player lobby.

VVidar

03-23-2009, 07:33 AM

Even though only a few people responded in the "Weak EFEC units poll", the votes show that those that did think that the EFEC is TOO weak.

I think that weaker EFEC units are not bad per se, but they are just TOO weak individually. When an EFEC player sends in two infantry units against one enemy infantry JSF/SGB unit he knows that he can expect at least one friendly unit to get knocked out and the other one damaged.

As an EFEC player you must constantly try to counteract your weakness and you get the feeling of commanding weak and brittle EFEC units. To play a game you need players. A lot of players just don't like the feeling of weakness, weakness gives players the feeling of inferiority and that pushes them away from the EFEC side.

Counteracting weakness may surely be challenging for skilled EFEC players, but a major let down for any new TOW players. Not everybody likes the idea of having only weak units and CONSTANTLY sneaking around to try and counteract this.

Weak EFEC units means fewer new EFEC players and with that come problems for the player base and the matchmaking.

The EFEC should have at least one OFFENSIVE mechanized direct fire unit type that is clearly stronger than the same JSF/SGB unit type. Actually every side should have at least one offensive mechanized direct fire unit that is clearly stronger than its adversaries.

For example:

JSF: strongest Gunship
EFEC: strongest Transports
SGB: strongest Tanks

tallinn1960

03-23-2009, 09:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:
In addition to my previous post I add the following minor solutions to matchmaking:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of interesting ideas. Your suggestion 2 gave me the idea to "sell" games, i.e. when their is a map with lots of people of one faction waiting for an opponent, attract people of the other faction by offering them a free bonus of CR and/or exp. The same balancing measure that is applied when you choose a faction for the TOW.

Corporal_Bruno

03-23-2009, 09:28 AM

If you press "Y" (360) while hovering over a map in TOW you can see if they give CR bonuses for anything... also you can see if it is the map that will forward your position.

<span class="ev_code_red">No spam Advertising</span>

VVidar

03-23-2009, 10:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Corporal_Bruno:
If you press "Y" (360) while hovering over a map in TOW you can see if they give CR bonuses for anything... also you can see if it is the map that will forward your position.

I don't know why you haven't signed up or at least read about the 2v2 tournament! http://corporalbruno.blogspot.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Corporal_Bruno,

Nice website and good interviews.

After reading the interview with QuidProKuo I am even more convinced that any DLC will only offer new maps, camo, battalions etc. but not offer any huge structural changes. This would be regrettable, because EndWar TOW has so much more potential.

I refer to this remark by QuidProKuo:

"It took a long time to get the TOW rules to where they are now, the last thing the team wants to do is to change a rule and break the entire system. However, we do know that the TOW rules are very complex and are keeping this in mind for future projects."

So if anything we can probably expect less complexity and refinement in the future and not more.

I hope that I am wrong in concluding this. But it still remains useful to post in the forums, based on your interview with QuidProKuo:

"On a separate note, do the developers listen to the War Report? Do they read the forums? Do they read my interviews?

"Yes.""

HiddenShogun

03-26-2009, 02:35 AM

First time posting and I hope to influence some new content or spawn ideas for new content.

Most of my ideas come from more people than just myself and all have been run by friends from multiple factions and play styles.

1) Forced kill order where units will be able to kill only under being told to:
a) It will reduce unit kills but still enables those people who choose to kill to do so.
b) I'd also say that in the the lobby it could have a voting system where each player will have a say if the order can be used or something to that effect. I agree that killing must be able to happen but when people purposely just forfeit a win for there team to just **** people off I ask myself why should everyone be punished when some people just want to make people mad. I mean lets face it everyone, some people just want to skew up things for everyone.
c) There should be a way to prevent EMP->WMD or WMD->Air Support Kills. No offense to anyone but come on a gunship swarm rush just to kill them and a command vehicle is pretty weak.

2) Make new upgrades:
a) It's a pain when you can't spend credits cause everything is bought.
b) Make new upgrades that you purchase for a select unit not for all units of one type and make it possible to only buy a certain amount per unit and have each faction get personal ones unlike the unit abilities which are all standard for all. Some cool ideas others have state:
i) Ghillie suits for riflemen: Stealth wherever if not moving.
ii) Purchase additional special attack weapons (mini guns, sniper rifles, etc.): increased damage on spec attacks.
iii) More accuracy, damage, and/or range etc depending on unit and faction specialty (Spz: Damage and amour, Jsf: Range and accuracy, Efec: Mobility and accuracy. All can get a bit of each but some get more in their area).
iv) Gunship Emergency landing training: can navigate falling craft to a safe LZ (ie. not water or buildings)
v) Special armour plating or types:
A) Stealth: Air strikes either are less accurate in area aroud unit or plainly can't be targeted. (Vehicle only)
B) Ceramic shielding or something: Resist or negate EMP on unit. (Vehicle only)
C) Thermal active camo: Ability to remain hidden from upgraded riflemen and Command vehicle and drones. (Infantry only)
vi) Endurance training: Faster infantry movement.
vii) Submachine gun: Shorter basic weapon range on infantry, less damage VS. vehicles and more VS. infantry along with more damage when storming building.
viii) Support helo upgrades.
A) Engine upgrades: less time to evac.
B) Above listed armour upgrades.
C) Defensive weapon systems.
ix) Riflemen deep strike upgrade; Halo Jump: Faster deployment and undetectable.
3) Custom battalion and I agree with the previously posted ideas.
4) Ability to vote among comrades as too where to push on the map:
a) Lets face it some of us can't find games on the territory we wish to push on so move to a more populated map.
5) Ability to vote on placing AI on your side to get a match started as to not be force to wait for an hour.
6) New HIGHLY EXPENSIVE Support asset. Maybe a cross continental bombers or something.
a) Used in any match like electronic warfare.
b) Weaker/Slower version of air support to even playing field on matches where one side gets air support and/or force recon.

tallinn1960

03-26-2009, 05:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Corporal_Bruno:
If you press "Y" (360) while hovering over a map in TOW you can see if they give CR bonuses for anything... also you can see if it is the map that will forward your position.

<span class="ev_code_red">No spam Advertising</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. Bot those boni are both small and static. I.e. they won't raise if one faction is camping the map without finding opponents. Such a situation means that it is not attractive enough for players of the other faction to go for that map. To correct it, increase the benefit for the weaker part until the map participation is balanced. That I do mean with "selling" games.

One TOW problem is that people go for maps where they have an advantage in support. With all the rules of endwar being as they are that makes totally sense: going for a map where you are more likely to lose means risking your units to get killed. So all players of all factions end up camping maps where only a few opponents show up, causing long waiting times.

tallinn1960

03-26-2009, 06:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VVidar:

I hope that I am wrong in concluding this. But it still remains useful to post in the forums, based on your interview with QuidProKuo:

"On a separate note, do the developers listen to the War Report? Do they read the forums? Do they read my interviews?

"Yes."" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading the interview, and especially the statements about the TOW rules and unit killing I am rather disappointed. To be honest: the TOW is broken and a failure with the small player base proving that. It does not deliver satisfying gaming experience for the majority of players. The concept needs reconsideration. Fearing to break something that is broken already does not make sense. So if ubisoft leaves the TOW as it is it means they abandon the game and accept that the concept failed. From an economical point of view it may make totally sense to them.

Krakkdown

03-28-2009, 08:10 AM

Ive got an idea that will make the game 10x better." MAKE THE UNITS RANK UP CORRECTLY" e.g. ive got fully upgraded transports and their only rank 3 so they can use all the upgrades. But its seems they never will because they have been in over 40 battles and no matter how many kills i get with them with out them dieing they just wont go to rank 4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

smurfedjubjub

04-06-2009, 11:35 AM

I came up with an idea last night that might make the game more fair and thus lessen the frustration that many players have with the game.

A. Supports: Remove support bases altogether, keep the maps, but don't have them do anything special. All supports would be available everywhere (really only changing force recon and air support). Airstrikes would have a numerical limit say 4, equally divided up among the players (i.e. in a 4v4, everyone gets one airstrike). Force recon would always be able to be called in, (regular army troops always follow a speartip of shock troops).

This idea may make the game less "realistic", but honestly, who cares if it makes the game actually fun. The equality of supports would then attract more players to different maps, decreasing the wait time because no one would be scared of the maps that they have no supports on.

B. Leveling: My problem is not with unit killing itself, just that it takes far too long for a unit to regain its former level. I believe that the rate at which units gain experience should be more like 1.5x the current rate. To those who would say that everyone would have a battalion of all legendary units too quickly, I propose that there be a system added in which high level units that remain inactive for extended periods of time should be demoted a number of ranks based on their time inactive.

dynas2001

04-07-2009, 12:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lucifersav:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since "Unit Killing", player-level and ranking-up are phenomenon mentioned a lot in this forum, and by players that I run into when playing “Theatre of War” (TOW) on Xbox 360 Live, here is a possible viable solution for the current state of affairs.

The solution has the following elements:

1. Introduction of a “Kill” command or deliberate “Kill” mechanism. The command line goes as follows “Unit # Kill Hostile #”. That is the only way an enemy unit can be killed. So airstrikes, artillery and WMD cannot “Kill” a knocked out enemy unit anymore. Killing a unit is executed by a deliberate command. Should introduction of a “Kill” command not be technically possible, instead make it so that a knocked out enemy unit can only be “Killed” by a deliberate command, such as “Unit # Attack Hostile #” command, so no “Unit Kills” by an airstrike or random artillery fire. For purpose of this rule, make it so that Gunships that go down over water or buildings automatically survive instead of automatically “Kill”. In like manner units that are “killed” by an air strike or by random artillery fire are not “killed” but instead are automatically evacuated. Think of it as surviving soldiers/pilots making it back on foot to their own lines. The purpose of this rule is to still allow unit killing, but make it an unmistakable clearly deliberate deed.

2. CR (or Credits for short) are renamed in “Prestige”. A Battalion Commanding Officers is not paid special money after a battle nowadays. EndWar isn’t the Thirty Years War with mercenary armies! Instead, winning a battle results in “Prestige” (points) for the Commanding Officer and his command. Commanding Officers and Battalions that have a lot of “Prestige” in any Armed Forces receive better replacements, equipment and battlefield support.

3. A Commanding Officer that “Kills” units suffers negative “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) and loses his best ranked/levelled unit after conclusion of the battle. When a Commanding Officer purposely orders his troops to act as war criminals, morale and discipline and consequently unit combat performance suffers. Additionally good honourably officers and men will also start asking for transfers to other Battalions after the battle. For every helpless enemy unit killed the Commanding Officers suffers minus 25.000 “Prestige” AND in every battle where a Commanding Officer kills one helpless enemy unit the Commanding Officer loses the highest ranking unit in his Battalion. It is possible for a Commanding Officer to have infinite negative “Prestige”.

4. “Prestige” (now still called CR in EndWar) can be used to receive/requisition better quality (human) replacements from the High Command in the barracks. Via this rule, the problem of the useless “Prestige” points (CR in current EndWar) that occurs after a Commanding Officer has received (a.k.a. bought) all upgrades is solved. Prestige Point Unit Cost: Recruit= 0, Regular= 50.000 , Veteran= 100.000, Elite= 200.000, Legendary= 400.000. This way new and veteran players can hoard their “Prestige” to requisition a few high ranked units, for instance to replace “Units Killed”.

5. Losing a battle leads to negative “Prestige” (points) for players ranked level eight (8) and higher. Before the introduction of this rule all “Prestige” (points) are set to zero (0) for all EndWar TOW players. A player ranked eight (8) or higher is considered an elite veteran commander and the High Command expects such Commanding Officers to be victorious in battle because of the men, equipment and support available to such Commanding Officers. When they lose in battle, their “Prestige” (points) suffers a minus 25.000 result. This rule simulates the High Command losing confidence in such Commanding Officers and consequently not sending them the best of the (human) replacements any more. The equipment (upgrades) and support available to the Commanding Officer is not effected by this rule.

6. All upgrades received/requisitioned (bought) from the High Command by a Commanding Officer are available to ALL unit ranks, instead higher ranked units receive a attack/defence combat factor performance bonus. The attack/defence combat factor bonus for each rank: Recruit=none, Regular=+10%, Veteran=+20%, Elite=+30%, Legendary=+40%. This attack/defence combat factor bonus DOES NOT apply to unit range, speed or rate of fire. This way a player that has his “Units Killed” still can have his upgrade advantages available.

7. Introduction of an Xbox 360 Achievement called “Infamous War Criminal”. This “Achievement” is given when a player has “Killed 100 helpless defeated enemy units”. The description for this achievement: “Your War Crimes have become known to all and your name has become synonymous with callous, inhume and brutal war crimes against unarmed helpless enemy soldiers. After the war you are demoted, discharged dishonourably and consequently sentenced to life imprisonment by an International War Crimes Tribunal.” For those that think this “Achievement” is a badge of honour, Ubisoft could also add to this “Achievement” the effects that the “Achiever” loses all his upgrades, all his “Prestige” (points) and have all his units reset to recruit rank. Alternatively there could be three such “Achievements”, one for the JSF, SGB and EFEC, for instance “Infamous JSF War Criminal” etcetera. A dedicated “Unit Killer” would become identifiable via this “Achievement” for other EndWar TOW players. The “Unit Killed” counter should be reset to zero (0) before introduction of these rules and this “Achievement”.

8. Units that are voluntarily or involuntary evacuated in battle receive negative experience points. A unit that is thus evacuated in battle can be ranked/levelled DOWN as a result of this rule. This rule is meant to A.) Prevent an incompetent Commanding Officers’ units from ranking/levelling up in defeat, B.) Introduce a mechanism to make veteran players with Legendary and Elite units fear for defeat in battle and consequently loss of unit rank/level, C.) Compensate for less units getting killed as a result of the rules above. Note that a player can still receive/requisition upgrades with his “Prestige” and also use them with recruit rank/level units.

Via these rules loss of rank/level can be a result of voluntary or involuntary unit evacuation in battle, as well as a result of “Unit Killing”. To compensate a player can to a degree receive/requisition (buy) better rank/level replacements units in the barracks via his “Prestige” (points) as a compensation for possible loss of rank/level.

Via these rules “Unit Killing” is still possible, it can even be part of your EndWar strategy or enjoyment, but a dedicated “Unit Killer” will also suffer from the negative effects of becoming a War Criminal. These rules are not meant to stop “Unit Killing”, since this would be unrealistic and would also lead to everybody having invulnerable legendary units.

Rule number 6. will allow Commanding Officers that have their “Units Killed” to still receive the equipment that the High Command allowed for them based on their earlier performance BUT the quality of the new (human) replacements depends on the current amount of “Prestige” (points) still available (= last few battle performance results) since better quality units can be bought in the barracks with “Prestige” (points).

The rationale for the solution proposed is that “Unit Killing” is akin to shooting wounded enemy soldiers, shooting enemy soldiers that try to surrender and to shooting prisoners of war. All of these deeds have been outlawed since centuries by the Geneva Convention and the “The Hague” land war Convention. These deeds consequently are clear war crimes.

A Commanding Officer who orders his troops to purposely commit war crimes against helpless enemy soldiers will in the long run NOT be held in high regard by his troops and his superiors. He will be mainly despised, even if he is successful in battle. Every action in life has repercussions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This with a little better matchmaking would almost all of this game's flaws, I think. It'd make it funner for new players, thereby increasing new "Colonel's" and helping in player retention, reducing wait times for games and the need for AI commanders.

(I might also suggest private ToW's. Sometimes I just wanna play with my bro, family, a few friends, and be able to come and go as we please. The global ToW is cool, but that'd be a way for zero wait times without affecting other people's game play.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like point 1.

I would add that it would be nice if a UNIT only went down one RANK when murdered.

dynas2001

04-07-2009, 12:28 PM

I think raid needs a serious look at. I have spoken to no one who remotely thinks it's fair for the defender.

I posted here at a new thread and didn't get any opinions, but that doesn't shock me here.

IcE_CoLd_Tj

04-07-2009, 02:18 PM

wat jus cuz jsf loses their ***** artillery they like 2 hide behind makes raids undefendable

no matter defendin or attackin i win raids hands down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

WrathOfGod52

04-08-2009, 01:52 AM

well, there are a lot of cheaters lately because each time i look, europe is winning! but when i look next day to see what happend, we lost all! i investigated this and came out here: http://endwarboards.com/endwar...ar-spetsnaz-cheating (http://endwarboards.com/endwar-news/ps3-theater-of-war-spetsnaz-cheating)

b_4721

04-08-2009, 03:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WrathOfGod52:
well, there are a lot of cheaters lately because each time i look, europe is winning! but when i look next day to see what happend, we lost all! i investigated this and came out here: http://endwarboards.com/endwar...ar-spetsnaz-cheating (http://endwarboards.com/endwar-news/ps3-theater-of-war-spetsnaz-cheating) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I explained in your other thread, you loose all the battles because of the primary frontline rule (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1111056417/m/5581044217).

Not that I'm saying there aren't cheaters that need to be stopped, I have seen firsthand rapid shifts only explainable by a larger numbers of cheaters working, most times in favor of SGB...

YOUKILLEDKKENNY

04-12-2009, 03:15 PM

hello. Yes, I believe a good thing to do would be make a voice command for deepstrike such as "Unit 2 Deepstrike Foxtrot." Would be greatly appreciated because then you won't need command vehicles for deep striking.

b_4721

04-12-2009, 03:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by YOUKILLEDKKENNY:
hello. Yes, I believe a good thing to do would be make a voice command for deepstrike such as "Unit 2 Deepstrike Foxtrot." Would be greatly appreciated because then you won't need command vehicles for deep striking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can already do this with the move command.

While riflemen are still deploying(but before they start roping down) just say unit_ move to ___ and if you have 6 CP they will deepstrike.

Rage0329

04-26-2009, 05:14 PM

Theater of War while great in concept never really worked out in execution. I've played over 600 matches online and committed a great deal of my time for over 3 solid months until I just got bored of the stalemates and the lack of progress.

Problems with ToW:
1. Back and forth nature.
2. PF rule resulting in JSF and SGB "Defending" their way into Europe thus leaving Paris never under threat.
3. Boosting / Cheating

Theater of War should have been more like the single player campaign. So here's my idea:

Each player has on their own console THEIR OWN campaign. However, when you choose to fight @ a particular location rather than have an AI opponent, you face a human opponent.

Player A is SGB
Player B is EFEC

1. Player A has already fought 2 turns (now turn 3) of his own war and is now up to Brenner Pass.
2. Player B has fought 12 turns of his own war and is also up to Brenner Pass.

Thus both players meet at Brenner Pass. If Player A wins, he proceeds to Turn 4 of his own war and moves onto the next map. Based on their "performance" much like in single player, if they achieved an A Rank, the other battlefronts move forward, if they get a Low rank, the other battlefronts of their war might fall back. If Player A loses, he falls back. So subsequently their Turn 4 means they've lost a territory or 2.

Same applies to Player B if he/she wins or loses.

This means that Player A and Player B could potentially meet again, since one progresses and the other falls back, but it is unlikely SINCE there are more than just the two of them playing.

NOTE: A map is only fought for once! This way each player can fight a war in a day or a matter of days and have a sense of accomplishment. Rather than waiting 24 hours to see if the battle moved backwards or forwards having to rely on everyone else to be focusing their efforts in the one place.

The odds are that there will ALWAYS be someone in a position to fight you, since let's say there's 5,000+ people fighting a week, that will be fighting their own wars.

MULTI-PLAYER
This doesn't mean you can't play 2vs2 or 4vs4. The HOST of the battle has their WAR directly effected. The other players won't have their WARS effected at all, the other players would join effectively by a "SKIRMISH" style joining system. These players JOINING help the original player will still gain CREDITS and XP for their platoons by fighting here. In this way people can still invite their friends to fight with them.

This means of course that our PERSISTENT BATTALIONS in ToW must be used in "SKIRMISH".

Of course there would be no restriction on people only playing SKIRMISH to earn credits and XP for their battalion. The only cost to a player doing this would be that THEIR own war never progresses.

The advantages this system provides
1. Cheating and Boosting becomes irrelevant since each person has their own "war".

2. People can earn credits and XP for their upgrades / platoons lost in battle.

3. ALL MAPS can be played in "SKIRMISH" mode. Thus no one gets bored of the same old maps being fought for OVER and OVER again.

TooTall91

05-13-2009, 08:09 PM

How about a trueskill matchmaking system?
A kin to what Halo 3 uses. I'm tired of being a lowly rank 3 spetznaz commander and going up against rank 12 jsf players. It's really not a good way to bring new players in to the game. Why should a newbie have to go up against someone who has been playing the game since launch and has every upgrade?
This is what turns me off about Theatre of War.
Also the unit killing. How am I supposed to rank up my units if they get killed by ******bags (<-- you need to filter that word by the way. Mods, get on that.) who play just to kill units.
My suggestion is to limit unit killing to only skirmish matches and the solo campaign.
As for the achievements/trophies, change them so they don't require you to kill units in TOW. Otherwise how else am I supposed to get the "12 units ranked legendary" achievement?
In my experience, the game just isn't fun to play online, I can't do anything when I'm playing against people who have tonnes of upgrades and kill my units.

There, that's my gripe, hopefully someone listens.

ltdanusafx2

05-16-2009, 08:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooTall91:
How about a trueskill matchmaking system?
A kin to what Halo 3 uses. I'm tired of being a lowly rank 3 spetznaz commander and going up against rank 12 jsf players. It's really not a good way to bring new players in to the game. Why should a newbie have to go up against someone who has been playing the game since launch and has every upgrade?
This is what turns me off about Theatre of War.
Also the unit killing. How am I supposed to rank up my units if they get killed by ******bags (<-- you need to filter that word by the way. Mods, get on that.) who play just to kill units.
My suggestion is to limit unit killing to only skirmish matches and the solo campaign.
As for the achievements/trophies, change them so they don't require you to kill units in TOW. Otherwise how else am I supposed to get the "12 units ranked legendary" achievement?
In my experience, the game just isn't fun to play online, I can't do anything when I'm playing against people who have tonnes of upgrades and kill my units.

There, that's my gripe, hopefully someone listens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dude there is hardly enough people playing this game to find a match at all, this would completely kill the game, even more than it already is.

And i think they should make it so when someone wins a territory, THEY KEEP IT, no PF rule or other factors effect it.

brennan118118

05-24-2009, 03:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooTall91:
How about a trueskill matchmaking system?
A kin to what Halo 3 uses. I'm tired of being a lowly rank 3 spetznaz commander and going up against rank 12 jsf players. It's really not a good way to bring new players in to the game. Why should a newbie have to go up against someone who has been playing the game since launch and has every upgrade?
This is what turns me off about Theatre of War.
Also the unit killing. How am I supposed to rank up my units if they get killed by ******bags (<-- you need to filter that word by the way. Mods, get on that.) who play just to kill units.
My suggestion is to limit unit killing to only skirmish matches and the solo campaign.
As for the achievements/trophies, change them so they don't require you to kill units in TOW. Otherwise how else am I supposed to get the "12 units ranked legendary" achievement?
In my experience, the game just isn't fun to play online, I can't do anything when I'm playing against people who have tonnes of upgrades and kill my units.

There, that's my gripe, hopefully someone listens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed you know i played tow about a month ago 2 matches i played 1 vs 1 i was sthrashed i mean raped hardcore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif and put tow down as crap but few days ago decided to get back to it and discovered 4 vs 4 where i play a lot better but im sure most people wouldnt go back to it so how about being matched up with equal ranks a least if you want to be and at the very lest on 1 vs 1

tmolony

05-27-2009, 05:14 AM

I called ubisoft to complain about how I just started playing multiplayer and played 5 theatre of war matches and each match I was put up against someone ranked in the top 10 ... with 0 losses and all of them had tons of unit upgrades and myself having none and each unit would get destroyed instantly ...they said its totally random on the matches and that there isnt anything to make it a balanced match in terms of upgrades or experience ... how can this be since I bought this game for multiplayer only shouldnt there be a refund for false advertising since they claim there is multiplayer and yet there is only unbalanced play and very few people available to play when you do play!!!!???!!! Can someone explain this to me ... I guess ubisoft figures they got their money from us purchasing the game so why put any more effort into fixing the problems .. how did this game get 4.5 star rating when this is 1 star of 5 compared to other multiplayer games like starcraft or red alert !! Anyone else as upset as I am at wasting my money since it was purchased for multiplayer playability only!!

XHorridxXxKingX

05-28-2009, 04:58 AM

I love to unit Kill. XButcherofAngelsX

brennan118118

05-28-2009, 08:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XHorridxXxKingX:
I love to unit Kill. XButcherofAngelsX </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea its well fun to airstrike a a support helicopter

SpooN04

05-29-2009, 05:45 AM

I dunno if anyone else posted this already (i skipped pages 2-5) I would like to see a smarter matchmaking system if 4 jsf r in a lobby waiting with 2 SGB for 2 more SGB and 1 SGB is sitting in a lobby by himself, it should automaticly move him into the most populated game.

I would like to see 3v3 become available if possible, it wouldnt be very complicated, give each player 1 extra deployment and play it like a 1v1, start with 3 guys off the bat, instead of the 4 u get in 2v2-4v4

I would also like to see the ToW make more sense from time to time, no more colliding frontlines day after day after day, no more earning a territory in the south of an enemy country just to hold it the rest of the war and attack from the north.

I would also like these "grey days" to stop. its frustrating comming online during my week off of work just to NOT play.

and finally, for the games where your unit promotions do not count, then i think your KIA's should not count as well.

oh sorry 1 last thing, if a commander unit kills you but quits/dashboards when u start getting revenge then anything THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMANDER KIA'd should not count..it would keep players in the game if they knew they had to finish it in order to actually "kill off" your legendary artillery...no more hit and runs.

Thank you.

SpooN04

SpooN04

05-29-2009, 05:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmolony:
I called ubisoft to complain about how I just started playing multiplayer and played 5 theatre of war matches and each match I was put up against someone ranked in the top 10 ... with 0 losses and all of them had tons of unit upgrades and myself having none and each unit would get destroyed instantly ...they said its totally random on the matches and that there isnt anything to make it a balanced match in terms of upgrades or experience ... how can this be since I bought this game for multiplayer only shouldnt there be a refund for false advertising since they claim there is multiplayer and yet there is only unbalanced play and very few people available to play when you do play!!!!???!!! Can someone explain this to me ... I guess ubisoft figures they got their money from us purchasing the game so why put any more effort into fixing the problems .. how did this game get 4.5 star rating when this is 1 star of 5 compared to other multiplayer games like starcraft or red alert !! Anyone else as upset as I am at wasting my money since it was purchased for multiplayer playability only!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No im not upset, unlike u i purchased this game when it was full price but only got into it amonth or 2 ago, and in my opinion this is the BEST strategy game out there (everyone has theyre own opinion). I find it the SMARTEST game I can remember playing in forever simply because it is the closest game to CHESS, since Chess.

No bases to build means that ur strategy is alot less consumed over who can get more money and build the bigger army...its about the combat.

If ur frustrated that ur first week u played all top-10 guys (btw none of them have 0 losses on xbox360) then I would advise to you, keep playing and get better so the next time u face those top 10's u can unit kill all theyre stuff and make it alot easier for the next guy, thats what i did back when i sucked at this game..and now i am top 10.

So dont give up, keep fighting and learning..this is not CoD, u dont pick up the remote and r good at the game, u need to LEARN endwar.

or you could just give up and go put in a game that everyone is good at like call of duty.

its really your choice.

brennan118118

05-29-2009, 08:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SpooN04:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmolony:
I called ubisoft to complain about how I just started playing multiplayer and played 5 theatre of war matches and each match I was put up against someone ranked in the top 10 ... with 0 losses and all of them had tons of unit upgrades and myself having none and each unit would get destroyed instantly ...they said its totally random on the matches and that there isnt anything to make it a balanced match in terms of upgrades or experience ... how can this be since I bought this game for multiplayer only shouldnt there be a refund for false advertising since they claim there is multiplayer and yet there is only unbalanced play and very few people available to play when you do play!!!!???!!! Can someone explain this to me ... I guess ubisoft figures they got their money from us purchasing the game so why put any more effort into fixing the problems .. how did this game get 4.5 star rating when this is 1 star of 5 compared to other multiplayer games like starcraft or red alert !! Anyone else as upset as I am at wasting my money since it was purchased for multiplayer playability only!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No im not upset, unlike u i purchased this game when it was full price but only got into it amonth or 2 ago, and in my opinion this is the BEST strategy game out there (everyone has theyre own opinion). I find it the SMARTEST game I can remember playing in forever simply because it is the closest game to CHESS, since Chess.

No bases to build means that ur strategy is alot less consumed over who can get more money and build the bigger army...its about the combat.

If ur frustrated that ur first week u played all top-10 guys (btw none of them have 0 losses on xbox360) then I would advise to you, keep playing and get better so the next time u face those top 10's u can unit kill all theyre stuff and make it alot easier for the next guy, thats what i did back when i sucked at this game..and now i am top 10.

So dont give up, keep fighting and learning..this is not CoD, u dont pick up the remote and r good at the game, u need to LEARN endwar.

or you could just give up and go put in a game that everyone is good at like call of duty.

its really your choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif completely agree i even got into about amonth ago and was disapointed i didnt play it sooner you know i didnt play as soon as i got it at launch because i went into 2 1vs1 matches but got thrashed now i only really do 4vs4 and have improved a lot

Tripiox

06-08-2009, 02:55 PM

I've been playing this game on the 360 since it came out, and the most annoying part for me it's the unit killers. It's way too hard to level up your units, and the double experience points helps a lot to solve that out, but it only works on the weekends.
The solutions that I've found about this is pulling out of the game if the guy it's a unit killer or just play in maps where the enemy doesn't have air support.
I will encourage Ubisoft to standardize double experience points as a daily thing, reduce the time it takes for a unit to get killed or something like that.

I think it was a very bad idea as a game design decision to give achievements for players that perform the most annoying action of the game as unit killing is.

perfecttrumpet

06-10-2009, 04:53 AM

Unit Killers are an issue, but if they are going to offer a trophy for killing 500 units then its going to be encouraged in order to get all of the trophies possible. I dont agree with unit killing. but the problem is not enough people are playing the game just now so when it happens, you know straight away you recall the name and if its 4v4 you kill them all to make sure you got the 1 person who did it. then all 4 are branded unit killers and now so are you.

Fritz_186

06-19-2009, 09:32 AM

i have notice that more people are leaveing the game because of unit killing so if the game is to live on unit killing should stop people are geting sick of it includeing my self

j22k55l_027

07-16-2009, 09:43 AM

Do these posts really get read by the T.O.W. team? If they do then great! End war is one of the best stratagy games ever made! some people have made these points before but here is what I think would make T.O.W. a better game for everyone:

1) Different faction upgrades that would make them stand out from each other. At the moment I feel the only thing seperating the JSF from the EFEC and SGB are; range, Speed and strength respectively. Why not a specialised vehical for each faction or different upgrades beyond level 8?

2) I for one would like to see more maps be put on the game, like twenty more. Sometimes I like to get really drunk and play this game but for a european it was quite frustrating. At one time we were forced right into our capital and remained there for about a month, wasn't much fun.

3) How about merging all the servers together? I bet its frustrating for the EW team to work on all three servers. Why not merge them? it would incredebly benifficial for all the players aswell. We wouldn't have to wait so long for a game and would have a varied range of stratagies come into play.

This would make the game go from great to absolutely awsome!!!

P.S. is it just the europeans but the servers been down for five days now. Any idea why?

SnyprBB

07-23-2009, 01:16 AM

Can you explain "3 Servers" Do you mean PS3, Xbox 360, and PC? Please clarify.

dynas2001

07-27-2009, 10:22 AM

Give efec some downloads to slightly beef up arty.

I'm thinking either rate of fire, or range at the high end. No arty should have range that efec arty does hehe.

Gunships could use yet another mobility to make them much faster then the other ones.. since they have no armor.. they may as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Challenger_2

07-30-2009, 03:14 PM

Based on PC:
Okay played the game seems good, think the voice commands could like work a little better with different acsents cause it doesn't seem to understand me saying "two", probally thinks im saying "to".
Played Theatre of War and well like everyone says, how you get a match. You either get a match against some guy with full upgrades or someone living in the middle of nowhere with a system lucky enough to hit 2fps.
Also what would probally increase playablilty is the ability to actually talk to other players, or your own faction atleast.
If no chat system is invented then multiplayer is doomed. Also why is PC left out on that map pack? are we black?
Finally Ubisoft screwed up Assasins Creed on PC when it was released so dunno why I bothered to give them a second chance with an RTS. Goodluck getting a Dev team for this game.

Lord_Astaris

08-16-2009, 12:12 AM

ok, so what they need to do if find a way so everyone on each side can talk to each other. This would result in cordinated attacks/ counter attacks against the enemy. Also it would help fractions determine a plan that works. It would basicly be a feture in which you join a channel with everyone who is on ur faction is on and you can talk to thiem and stratagize everything before you go onto the battle map.

dynas2001

09-08-2010, 09:30 AM

EndWar is by far my favorite game on the 360. I honestly believe it has a great deal going for it. The graphics, the uprading, theatre itself are all GREAT!. There are some issues that should have been fixed a long time ago, and 1 of those things would kill multiplayer game that exists, but is also in part makes this game unique (killing units). I personally enjoy losing a unit here and there so I can level them up, but I assure you that if any game let anonamous behavior like this in a game, the game would die. I know plenty of people who picked up the game as a rental and were chased off. Simple Minor tweaks:

First examine the goal of the game? The goal is to have fun, and grow the community (or number of players playing theatre of war in this case). More players mean faster games, and more fun, plus you can throw them downloads.

Problem with Unit killing is it does not promote more players. If done perfectly, it could, but every faction would have to be perfectly balanced, and every map would also have to be. I propose simple changes to this and a few other things that I honestly believe will make a HUGE differenc3 for endwar.

1. Make evac, and downed units INV to air strikes. For those players who like to slaughter every unit on the map, make them work for it.
- This forces people to risk their units to kill (sure it won't make much of a difference against those legendaries that can kill super fast anyway but it's a big step).
- This will make players more likely to play on maps where the enemy have air strikes. Anyone who has played the game since release knows it's hard to get a match, but it's even harder when you have air strikes and they don't.

Other suggestions around unit killing I'm sure have been mentioned, but i'm not so sure about.
Possible ideals that are iffy:
1. Only allow 2 units per battle to die per player max? Not so sure about it.
2. No emp nuke?
3. Double XP - this may allow the units killed not to matter as much. 3 times xp on week-ends. (again not sure about this one)

Other simple changes that would make a different in my opinion:

1. Take away any progress on the theatre of war map, so we can no longer tell how well 1 side is doing. This will make people more likely to play on it to the very end instead of just boosting it and then not playing it. Sitting around in these maps for an hour to find a match is no fun.
2. Not sure how simple this is - Tell us how many players are on line in theatre of war, of indicate how many lobbies are open or something.
3. RESET the player counts! MOST of the player base has been chased away by unit killing pyco's with absolutely no respect for the other side. Those players still show up as members of their factions but haven't played in a year. RESET the counts, so players whom haven't played in 4 months no longer count towards total per faction.
4. THe faction with the least number of players - give a sign on bonus of 5 - 10 million - that will get people moving. 1 million isn't near enough, especially for these really new players.

BALANCE ISSUES BETWEEN FACTIONS:

EVERYONE thinks BLOS. How fun is blos. I Loved it. I have played all the factions, and have an account in each. Blos is without a doubt the most over powered ability in the game. EITHER drop the range to the tanks veterin range plus 1%) or make it take 1/10 the damage to gunships. That solves that balance issue.

EUROPE -

CV Drones - a recruit gun ship can defeat a legendary set of drones. I've done it. Range is the single most important focus in any fight. The range on the drones should be teh same as tehy were before the upgrade. This is offset by the fact that you can emp the cv and slaughter it due to no hp.

Europe Arty? - If the range isn't increased, it should at least get a few attack upgrades.
How about rate of fire? That combined with the speed may make it a bit more effective. what do folks think?

Possibly they should get a vet upgrade for gun ships for mobility too. I've heard lots of people say this.