Like someone else said, keep it simple.

* Attack territory, win there = take that territory and move on to next territory. No funky rules that override or cause you to lose your primary because you didn't win that secondary and have the stars aligned that day.

* Weight the wins by rank of opposing team. If rank 12s beat rank 1s, only one point is added to winning side. If rank 12s beat rank 12s, 12 points are awarded to the winner. If rank 5s beat rank 12s, 12 points are awarded to the winner. In co-op, it is simply an average of the apposing team (round_down(12+12+10+8 / 4) = 10 points to winner) This curbs the distortion of highly ranked players ripping through 50 easy wins against low ranked players. If it were weighted, those same 50 wins added to a faction could be achieved in just 4 games of Rank 12s vs Rank 12s. Good players against good players will all of the sudden have a significant impact on the game, and up-and-coming players beating highly ranked guys will have an even greater impact. We all want to be rewarded based on who we play.

* There should never be more than 2 maps open to each faction each turn, sometimes even just 1 map, allowing 100% focus, like in a stalemate condition, just funnel everyone to a single map to go head-to-head, match after match. The player pool just isn't large enough to support that many open maps, therefore making games harder to get. With a limited map selection each day, players are naturally led to the maps that are important vs leaving it in the hands of the player to decide "oh these are easy wins, let's just rip this map to rank up or boost our leaderboard" vs "we need to win this map, lets play it". Most people take the first easy option, which isn't healthy for the TOW, just them and their battalion.

* If stalemate happens for more than so many turns, then either close down that section for now and open a new front, allowing the enemy to attempt an easier entry, or close down all maps to the two fighting factions except for the a single map, a true 100% effort from both sides ensues, whoever wins on that "last stand mode" steps two maps deep, skipping over the stalemate map. What's happening is that there are three maps, one middle, one left and one right. Neither side can take the left or the right and its a crap shoot on the middle one. Middle is won, left is fought, they lose, back to middle, middle is won, right is fought, they lose, back to middle. This "last stand mode" would allow the left and right maps to be jumped over by the winner, automatically captured. That last stand turn would be the critical turn for all of the good players.

* The war should move faster. The entire war should end in < 20 turns on average. That way we can rip through maps, win/lose and do it all over again, from a different angle/faction whatever.

* We should always be on different maps each day, losing or gaining ground, with a last stand on stalemate maps, the winner could progress to a capital much faster.

* You should only be able to switch factions in the first week of the war, once you are in a faction, you are stuck there until it opens again. People will always leave the losing faction, jump on the winning faction, and if they are lousy players they will weigh the winning side down making it an increasingly more difficult as the new players are now losing too many matches for the winning side.

quote:

Originally posted by Chickenbutt18:
I actually prefered the chromehounds way of playing. Wins = points added while losses = points lost. Team with the most points wins that territory. Simple.

How is that different than logging the wins of both sides? The outcome is the same, no? For every win on side A there is a corresponding loss for side B.

10 wins side A minus 5 losses = 5 wins side A
10 wins side A, 5 wins side B = 5 wins side A

quote:

Originally posted by barbarism2008:

quote:

Originally posted by Chickenbutt18:
I actually prefered the chromehounds way of playing. Wins = points added while losses = points lost. Team with the most points wins that territory. Simple.

How is that different than logging the wins of both sides? The outcome is the same, no? For every win on side A there is a corresponding loss for side B.

10 wins side A minus 5 losses = 5 wins side A
10 wins side A, 5 wins side B = 5 wins side A

well in chromehounds it was also determined by the rank of the person you played. Lets say 4v4 = 60 points if you beat a team that was high ranked. If you played 4v4 and there were no players, it would match you up against AI and gave you a lot less than that. Losing wouldn't mean you lost 60 points either, you would probably lose like 20 or 30. EDIT: Plus it wasnt based on a 1 scale, but 2. For instance, at the end of a turn where JSF wins, JSF might have 10000 points whereas another faction might have 9000 points, leaving the JSF to be the victor.

I would like to stop being victimized every night by the PF rule.

I guess people haven't realized it; I guess they haven't looked at the stats, but JSF has been the most successful faction in terms of wins for the last week. Tonight we are on pace to win 4 out of 5 maps. The only one that's in the way is Grissom.

But here's the sad part about it, we won't win Grissom, I'd love to, but it's nothing but SGB unit killers and air strike spammers, and dashboarders, and I don't want to hear excuses from SGB players; it's true, and everyone knows it, and the only reason why JSF are losing on it is because of quickmatch.

So here's what's going to happen; it's the same thing that has happened for the past week. We will win all but Grissom, but it will be the PF, and subsequently, we will lose everything else. Tomorrow we will be back to having 3 provinces.

I'd like to see the PF rule scrapped. Or at least make it so if we can defend Springfield, we get to keep it.

I'm so tired of fighting the same maps, granted we win them all, because SGB sucks, and can only win on one map, but I'm a bit over Springfield and Shenandoah, raid on Campbell is getting old too.

I thought the first war worked like intended - alot of time was invested everyday, but there was always the guarantee there wasn't going to be 100% the same bogus the next day, so the time invested felt justified.

Today, thanks to the PF rule I couldn't care less about ToW - it's the same two maps (EFEC) all the god damn time. Ofokee and the low-frame-rate fest called Copenhagen.

Just remove the PF rule, it doesn't work and has never done. Sure, let the ToW be a little bit of a moving mess, but as long as it's not broken enough to be afraid of picking it up it's fine for the meantime Ubisoft might consider thinking of a PATCH instead of some poorly thought-through server-side nonsense.

KILLA the dashboarders, unit killers, airstrike spamers are on all the maps, and equal amongst all the factions. the only reason why JSF was ever winning is because of air support. as soon as u guys lost maxwell u lost the south. I believe most of the JSF noobs jump ship to the SGB that's why were losing those maps.

I actually like the PF rule to control splintering. However, some tweaks would be nice.

First, I like the idea of points being awarded based on the defeated faction's rank.

Second, a secondary rule should kick in so another front opens when stalemates occur like the Reagan/ Glen Albyn back and forth.

Third, more clarity should be given as to what the current PF is and what the consquences of a win/loss will be. Related to that, the system currently does tell you "A win here and on ____ will advance our frontline" but I don't think many people check that (but that's really the player's ignorance). That notice does seem to fail because everytime I check it the blank is filled in by map name that you are looking at - even when you have multiple frontline maps available.

As an alternative I think the voting system a good idea. IMO, the PF rule flows better though as it rewards factions that have commanders who make good decisions and are organized. Additionally, it helps break the cycle of a faction stopping play on a map when they are ahead because in order for it to be their PF they must keep playing it.

Which brings me to my next point - some sort of in-game faction organizing tools would be really helpful.

Oh, and one more thing, something needs to be done about the Quickmatch thing. All of the strategy and organization I was talking about before goes out the window if you have a bunch of people selecting Quickmatch and making the PF what the enemy wants it to be.

I agree with you about the quick match. EW is the type of game that rewards consistent team play, especially when going against other ppl who are also teamed up. The vast majority of players that QM into random 2s and 4s are usually terrible players–no offense but, 99% of the time that I pick up a random, or play against a group of randoms, its either cake when going against them, they lag out, they drop in the middle of the game, they don't listen/take suggestions–when you wish you had an AI Commander. This tells me that yes, tons of lousy players are QuickMatching into the wrong maps. Since they more than likely make up the majority of the player base, it makes it very difficult for good players to swing a map.

I believe that the ranking would solve this to some degree. TOW really should be a game about mid-to-top players playing against other mid-to-top, and not joe-just-popped-in-the-disc against mid-to-tops. The rank weight would completely solve this since low ranked players just can't have an impact on the wins for the day–they are in "training mode" and maybe Rank 3s and lower have nearly zero impact on win/loss for the map. How about adding a multiplier to further push the wins. If all 12s went up against all 12s then give bonus wins, maybe 24 wins applied–as you rank up, you have more impact, and if you play in a consistent team of other highly ranked players, you have significant impact. Something that rewards people to rank up, play consistently together, in teams, and just become better players overall.

And don't say that this will create "super teams". Each faction has its set of great, good, decent and downright horrible players. It will balance itself out. If faction A is mostly low ranked, and faction B has many super teams, the super teams won't get very many wins because they are beating only low ranked players, so it balances out in the end. Like I said earlier, if a bunch of 12s get into a match against a bunch of Rank 3s, we know who is going to win, so that match should only count as zero or maybe one win for the winner–basically no impact.

With wins weighted by ranks, the matching system can be left as is, sure, the low rank guys will still lose but, if they happen to win, its a HUGE boost to the faction and if they lose, its insignificant downside impact.

quote:

Originally posted by playaplayer.:
KILLA the dashboarders, unit killers, airstrike spamers are on all the maps, and equal amongst all the factions. the only reason why JSF was ever winning is because of air support. as soon as u guys lost maxwell u lost the south. I believe most of the JSF noobs jump ship to the SGB that's why were losing those maps.

Really, I don't get it when I play EFEC on Copenhagen or Glen Albyn, well the airstrikes for sure, but I prefer maps where I don't have support other than EW, but I almost never get dashboarded by EFEC and I can't think of an instance where an EFEC set out to kill as much as he could, grissom is nothing but constant strikes on downed units for me. And the numbers have stayed the same for the factions, so to me, JSF is getting better.

I've also played for Russia and faced JSF and I will agree that there are JSF killers and dashboarders, but I could at least count on being able to finish 2/3 games vs JSF, where as against SGB, it might be 1/5.

But back on topic, I think if we could get around Grissom by removing the PF, and JSF could keep it's gains, then we could open up the south and have some fluidity to the war, and Grissom without the PF rule would cease to be the focal point.

I'm of the opinion the PF rule should basically be removed as is. I understand the logic is to direct the forward progess of the war, so why not this solution. Candidates for the PF (in order):

1) The most wins on a map that was a SUCCESSFUL attack (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction

2) The most wins on a map was a SUCCESSFUL defense (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction


3) IF no maps were won in a given turn, then that faction is on the defensive for the proceeding turn.

Please note that I am seperating the battles between each pairing of factions. It is absolutely ridiculous that failure in combat on a single map against one opposing faction prevents progress against the other faction even in cases of decisive victory.

Also, I would recommend any map that is cut off from the other territories of it's faction be a siege map.

quote:

Originally posted by Raide:
Hello EndWar Community,

It does seem there is a lot of discussion regarding the Primary Frontline Rules within EndWar. While it was made to give people a moving front to defend and attack, some of you are unhappy with how it works.

If you have any suggestions on ways to improve/modify the Primary Frontline Rule, please post here so we can get some feedback. It will be hard to find something that suits everyone but changes for the better are always good.

Keep things on topic and as constructive as possible please.

Thanks for asking.

System = XBOX360


I think it's a good rule, but needs to be implemented better. There is no way to log into the TOW and find out where our Primary Frontline is. Add an indicator that shows the PF so we can concentrate our efforts on that particular map. Thanks again.

What do we do with the countless thousands of so-called "noobs" who apparently know only how to use quickmatch? I can only imagine that these people that ARE deciding the fate of JSF (with the current PF rule) do not even know what the hell a primary front is.

quote:

Originally posted by Vehement26:
I'm of the opinion the PF rule should basically be removed as is. I understand the logic is to direct the forward progess of the war, so why not this solution. Candidates for the PF (in order):

1) The most wins on a map that was a SUCCESSFUL attack (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction

2) The most wins on a map was a SUCCESSFUL defense (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction


3) IF no maps were won in a given turn, then that faction is on the defensive for the proceeding turn.

Please note that I am seperating the battles between each pairing of factions. It is absolutely ridiculous that failure in combat on a single map against one opposing faction prevents progress against the other faction even in cases of decisive victory.

Also, I would recommend any map that is cut off from the other territories of it's faction be a siege map.

Try thinking what you've suggested through, how on earth is the PF going to affect anything diffrently if it requires success.

quote:

Originally posted by playaplayer.:

quote:

Originally posted by Babbalui:
That's a ridiculous feature! Attack and defense are completely different, so why should a defender get another territory for free without having to actually work for it? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on a game.

What really killing this game is all the bad players on each faction. Which negate all the good things us good players do. This game needs a better system. Like the one b 4721 suggested. That way it gives us hardcore more sway in how things turn out.

It's been a while since I've been in here and I probably missed a lot. I'll read over the others' posts later, but I'm going to definitely have to agree with this. I'm tired of the same darn fronts. EFEC had a new front for one turn, but that failed miserably, mainly because of PF and newblets hoarding the new lands.
It's just been the same stuff over and over again, though. It's getting boring.

quote:

Originally posted by Templar11709:

quote:

Originally posted by Vehement26:
I'm of the opinion the PF rule should basically be removed as is. I understand the logic is to direct the forward progess of the war, so why not this solution. Candidates for the PF (in order):

1) The most wins on a map that was a SUCCESSFUL attack (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction

2) The most wins on a map was a SUCCESSFUL defense (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction


3) IF no maps were won in a given turn, then that faction is on the defensive for the proceeding turn.

Please note that I am seperating the battles between each pairing of factions. It is absolutely ridiculous that failure in combat on a single map against one opposing faction prevents progress against the other faction even in cases of decisive victory.

Also, I would recommend any map that is cut off from the other territories of it's faction be a siege map.

Try thinking what you've suggested through, how on earth is the PF going to affect anything diffrently if it requires success.

I think that PF is actually a detriment, now that the game is gaining sway amongst gamers. Too many people play and determine the outcome of a single place, most of them being children or new players.

The Front's should be determined individually. If a nation loses an assault, then the area that they attacked from should be defense.
It's not fair that a nation gains a territory for successfully defending (I'm speaking for the 360 ToW and the EFEC -_-).

The successfully defended nation should just keep their territory and the next turn should be a push the other direction, putting the previously-attacking territory on the defense.

Having a single territory determining the outcome of other territories that are in the immediate area is ridiculous enough, but having a single territory that isn't directly involved in even the same area is ridiculous on a whole new level.
Let the lines grow and expand. If a line of territories gets cut off from the main land, cut off the main support. If they hold an airbase or something, they should receive the support as long as the defending territory is still close enough to it without being blocked by an enemy.

I understand that Ubi is trying to keep the order in the lines, but that's not what world war is about, is it? Let them fall into chaos. It'd give us a much, much more interesting game, not to mention new lines to tear each other apart over.

quote:

Originally posted by Templar11709:

quote:

Originally posted by Vehement26:
I'm of the opinion the PF rule should basically be removed as is. I understand the logic is to direct the forward progess of the war, so why not this solution. Candidates for the PF (in order):

1) The most wins on a map that was a SUCCESSFUL attack (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction

2) The most wins on a map was a SUCCESSFUL defense (assault, conquest, or siege) against each opposing faction


3) IF no maps were won in a given turn, then that faction is on the defensive for the proceeding turn.

Please note that I am seperating the battles between each pairing of factions. It is absolutely ridiculous that failure in combat on a single map against one opposing faction prevents progress against the other faction even in cases of decisive victory.

Also, I would recommend any map that is cut off from the other territories of it's faction be a siege map.

Try thinking what you've suggested through, how on earth is the PF going to affect anything diffrently if it requires success.

The major difference would be that if a faction wins 4 out of 5 maps, it doesn't lose all 5 maps because there happened to be more matches on the one map they lost (or being able to win all 5 by holding 1). This is why we are in a stalemate in the 360 war. The SPZ are legitimately holding Grissom, but the JSF have won Copenhagen and Springfield repeatedly and been unable to hold them when Grissom is also available on that turn.

I'm not suggesting this is the sole reason why JSF is losing the war, I'm addressing the stalemate at other maps that is a direct result of the PF rule. I do believe there was a turn earlier where SPZ took Springfield, but lost it because JSF beat EFEC on Reagan and thus won all of their maps.

Commenting on the fact the PF is 'moved by less skilled players to places where the faction loses':

If this is the case, then the game really justs needs to pass on some information in-game that allows people to better understand the rule (there is certainly almost no info in-game for the masses)

Displaying current PF's is an optional extra, but just informing players the basics of the rule should easily allow them to see the tactical possibilities. ('The most played front may dictate results of other nearby fronts, so try to make your most played front a win!')

It doesn't take much sense to realise that you should focus on whatever battle you're winning on when involved on multiple fronts to try and shift the PF there, rather than trying to prevent a defeat, almost certainly ensuring the PF is there, and then when you probably lose you just make the other fronts fail. (This goes for anybody, new guy or master)

Of course, for simple 1v1 engagements, you have no choice but to try and stop a defeat in progress if you want to keep your territories. (In which case, the usual 'allow the better players to play that map' applies)

Basically, play where you're winning.

In which case, the optional status of where your PF is would help those people decide where to play, as previously suggested.

Great points all.

I think this thread is a lot more constructive than when it started. I hope the devs are still reading.

PF is just handicapping the game. It's been the same maps for EFEC for a whole god damn month on Xbox 360 even if EFEC tend to win the rounds in the end.

Remove PF completeley, it's a dumb-*** rule implegmented by some monkey at Ubisoft knowing as little about how this game works as Ubisoft knows about communicating and interacting with their costumers.

The one who wins at a front moves on - like in the first war. It makes sense, it worked - why screw with it?
Open more fronts for EFEC Vs. Russia - or else JSF will just loose and loose as every faction needs to go through American soil to attack the neighbour country.