Here is a suggestion....

The top 10 or so players of the last round gets to decide where the PF is. Just focus that PF thing on them. It'd be fair because the best players should get rewarded. It wouldn't really be something they select or anything just focus on where they play the next night. And that will be the PF... Not the 2000 players that some don't have a clue how things work... Something like that...

No, this idea has been discussed before and it's not right in any sense to me.

The "best" players are not proven to be better than anyone else in terms of skill. There are 1 or 2 of them from each faction that are clearly "dashboarders" and there numbers only show that they have more time to play. There are many players that have played far fewer games with much higher win percentages, and I myself have beaten top 10ers from EFEC and SGB and I'm barely in the top 350 on the JSF side.

Just because you have devoted more time towards the game, doesn't mean you have the right to subject the rest of the community to your authority.

And putting the PF (as is) at the mercy of someone's vote doesn't do anything to improve the way it works. It would only shift the blame for it's inadequacy from the developers to the community, and then the developers would be even less inclined to care about the PF debacle.

It seems most people that care enough to post in this thread are in agreement that the PF rule should be scrapped. I foremost among them.

quote:

Originally posted by Marauderhd:
Here is a suggestion....

The top 10 or so players of the last round gets to decide where the PF is. Just focus that PF thing on them. It'd be fair because the best players should get rewarded. It wouldn't really be something they select or anything just focus on where they play the next night. And that will be the PF... Not the 2000 players that some don't have a clue how things work... Something like that...

As Killa said, most are in accordance that this rule is only a detriment to the game. I am an obvious supporter of the elimination of the PF rule.
Players shouldn't decide, because half of them cheat anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Babbalui:

quote:

Originally posted by Marauderhd:
Here is a suggestion....

The top 10 or so players of the last round gets to decide where the PF is. Just focus that PF thing on them. It'd be fair because the best players should get rewarded. It wouldn't really be something they select or anything just focus on where they play the next night. And that will be the PF... Not the 2000 players that some don't have a clue how things work... Something like that...

As Killa said, most are in accordance that this rule is only a detriment to the game. I am an obvious supporter of the elimination of the PF rule.
Players shouldn't decide, because half of them cheat anyways.

Really? 50% of all players cheat? So between you and me... Which one of us is it? I know it's not me...

They main issue is the loss of ALL territories if you loose the front. I get what the theory behind this is. But in practice it has failed. I think if you loose the front you should then be counter-attacked but not immediately loose the originating territory. You should have a chance to defend it first.

Also wins should be wins. Simple. The PF should dictate whether you get to attack or defend from those wins. A win on the PF all territories attack the next territory. Loose the PF, all territories defend. Simple.

Let us know which territory is the front as well. Give us some sort of mass communication either through XBL or PSN to your respected faction. This will help with faction wide strategy.

I hope this helps.

Here is a simply and fair answer to the problem...

Only use the Primary Front to determain where you attack next, not the success of all your other attacks.Meaning give all the territories that faction won that round to them. Then out of the territories they won, the one with the most battles becomes the new Primary Front.

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:
Here is a simply and fair answer to the problem...

Only use the Primary Front to determain where you attack next, not the success of all your other attacks.Meaning give all the territories that faction won that round to them. Then out of the territories they won, the one with the most battles becomes the new Primary Front.

I like it. Just make sure we have the PF identified in the TOW.

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:
Here is a simply and fair answer to the problem...

Only use the Primary Front to determain where you attack next, not the success of all your other attacks.Meaning give all the territories that faction won that round to them. Then out of the territories they won, the one with the most battles becomes the new Primary Front.

Of course, but there also needs to be another element that prevents these colliding front line assault fests.

I think the best way would be that when two frontlines are at the same point then whichever faction had the most wins on their PF last turn launches attacks from there and the other faction launches attacks from it's next highest battle next turn.

But since assaults only occur on capitals or t colliding front lines there should be a chance of every territory advance being either a conquest or assault, like a coin flip.

That way there wont be anymore of these two territories attacking each other and stalemating because the only way to advance is by winning both battles. This should provide for a greater variety of maps and game modes on them, and make it a lo more simpler without 3+ battles relating to a single territory.

quote:

Originally posted by b_4721:

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:
Here is a simply and fair answer to the problem...

Only use the Primary Front to determain where you attack next, not the success of all your other attacks.Meaning give all the territories that faction won that round to them. Then out of the territories they won, the one with the most battles becomes the new Primary Front.

Of course, but there also needs to be another element that prevents these colliding front line assault fests.

I think the best way would be that when two frontlines are at the same point then whichever faction had the most wins on their PF last turn launches attacks from there and the other faction launches attacks from it's next highest battle next turn.

But since assaults only occur on capitals or t colliding front lines there should be a chance of every territory advance being either a conquest or assault, like a coin flip.

That way there wont be anymore of these two territories attacking each other and stalemating because the only way to advance is by winning both battles. This should provide for a greater variety of maps and game modes on them, and make it a lo more simpler without 3+ battles relating to a single territory.

My suggestion would fix the problem. Its cause because the during the colliding frontlines one side has to lose and that makes them lose all their other battles. With my suggestion one faction would take both colliding frontline territories and the losing faction's PF would be moved to somewhere else they won.

I mentioned this earlier, I'll say this again.

Removing the PF rule and leaving straight 1v1 battles could become very repetitive.

We know the rather boring results of cross-border fronts that swing back and forth that neither side can win when attacking.

Same for when the PF happens to give a setup of territories that bounce back & forth and that front refuses to move since people just keep playing them.

Having the ability to launch multiple attacks means that you might be able to get a win somewhere, and with any luck if it's your PF you can prevent losing ground to counterattacks.

If you're stuck with 1v1 only battles though, it could be like this a lot.

The war's progress will also be very much slower since you can only win a territory at a time.

Of course, this is just my conjecture.

quote:

Originally posted by TThomaso:
I mentioned this earlier, I'll say this again.

Removing the PF rule and leaving straight 1v1 battles could become very repetitive.

We know the rather boring results of cross-border fronts that swing back and forth that neither side can win when attacking.

Same for when the PF happens to give a setup of territories that bounce back & forth and that front refuses to move since people just keep playing them.

Having the ability to launch multiple attacks means that you might be able to get a win somewhere, and with any luck if it's your PF you can prevent losing ground to counterattacks.

If you're stuck with 1v1 only battles though, it could be like this a lot.

The war's progress will also be very much slower since you can only win a territory at a time.

Of course, this is just my conjecture.

So playing the same maps for 37 days is the name of variety?
Removing PF would make people wish to play again with the ambition to get somewhere in ToW as it right now is static ground with no sense what so ever.

Personally I played around 20 games today though, as Arabida was suddenly unlocked for EFEC which is my favorite map with no air-support favors for either side.

Uh, the PS3 version couldnt even finish their FirstWar. On 360, we are stuck around regan and grissom for about 10+ turns and w/ battle/assault game modes where we have no chance to progress.

I'm so SICK of playing the same maps every day!!!

I agree w/ the first response of the thread. If you attack a territory & get the most wins, you get it. Very simple, and it will keep things moving along with multiple avenenues of attack to an enemies capital.

PF rule is making things very boring for us, I wanna see land grabs that are more unpredictable and more fluid/free. It should be like a real battle maps, with multiple fronts and gains/losses in more than one place.

quote:

Originally posted by JAGX:
Uh, the PS3 version couldnt even finish their FirstWar. On 360, we are stuck around regan and grissom for about 10+ turns and w/ battle/assault game modes where we have no chance to progress.

I'm so SICK of playing the same maps every day!!!

I agree w/ the first response of the thread. If you attack a territory & get the most wins, you get it. Very simple, and it will keep things moving along with multiple avenenues of attack to an enemies capital.

PF rule is making things very boring for us, I wanna see land grabs that are more unpredictable and more fluid/free. It should be like a real battle maps, with multiple fronts and gains/losses in more than one place.

You know what would be another great way to keep playing different maps? The ability to use my custom battalion in skirmish. I don't even want EXP, i just want to use it, it would make skirmish 10x more fun, and would entertain me when there are crap maps. Though i agree, i don't really see the point in the PF rule.

Whatever the rules will be, these are my grading criteria.

1. Understandable and predictable - Such that an individual player can look at the available matches and know what will happen if they win this territory.
Current rules are unknown due to devs failing to communicate the algorithm satisfactorily, especially with colliding fronts, multiple fronts and multi-faction fronts, and attacking from nowhere. Basic rules are understandable and predictable. Grade: D

2. Fairness - The rules need to be fair. The attack from nowhere does not seem fair. When a territory opens a multiple front attack, the attacker has more opportunities to capture territories. This multiple-capture opportunity needs to be evened out among the factions. It's not fair that one faction can capture 4 territories in one turn if they win all the matches, whereas another faction can only capture 1 territory in one turn if they win all their matches.
Right now, the rules don't seem fair, because whoever opens up a multiple front attack or whoever opens up an attack from nowhere has an advantage. Grade: C-

3. Variety - Every turn should have some variability in maps from the previous turn. Every turn should have a variety of maps to play. The map-choosing algorithm should try to avoid stalemates.
Currently, for the most part, the multiple front rule helps provide variety, and the territories are spaced such that you typically get different looking maps within a turn. However, more work could be done to prevent stalemates (matera/thesally took too long to resolve, and there was a point where we had the same exact maps several turns in a row, USS Reagan is played like 90% of the turns). Grade: C

4. Organizable/Controllable - If a faction wanted to, they should be able to organize and figure out how to tactical decisions and push in a certain direction. Part of this is influenced by criteria 1 (understanding the rules). The other part is the quick match option and the effect of noobs. Noobs and quick match are the only way I can explain 6800 matches lost by EFEC on USS Reagan on Sunday. Why would you keep playing this map if you keep losing it? But when these same noobs quick match into losing a critical map, experienced players get frustrated that their ability/efforts are negated. Grade: E

You know what, f*ck it, your side just needs to get better.

I look at what JSF has done the last few turns, and it has everything to do with our EFFORT and very little to do with the PF rule, as opposed to SGB who were just owning Grissom and then owning the rest by PF default.

No, I'm not talking about where JSF was briefly in Russia's backyard (that's all due to the PF).

JSF fought tooth and nail to FINALLY beat SGB on Raid in Grissom, which led us to beating them once again on assault even though they still had Force Recon. But what's more important, is that we held at TMI until enough of our players figured out how to win on Springfield, and then we took it, and defended it, and then took out Grissom.

JSF has gotten better, and all the while facing air strikes and force recon.

I think SGB has gotten lazy, and I can imagine EFEC getting bored. Now is the time to open up some European fronts, no need for the war to be decided on American soil.

quote:

Originally posted by KILLA2993:
I think SGB has gotten lazy, and I can imagine EFEC getting bored. Now is the time to open up some European fronts, no need for the war to be decided on American soil.

If only they(UBIsoft) could hear us!?!?!?

quote:

Originally posted by Mighty_Borka:

quote:

Originally posted by TThomaso:
I mentioned this earlier, I'll say this again.

Removing the PF rule and leaving straight 1v1 battles could become very repetitive.

snip...

So playing the same maps for 37 days is the name of variety?
Removing PF would make people wish to play again with the ambition to get somewhere in ToW as it right now is static ground with no sense what so ever.

Personally I played around 20 games today though, as Arabida was suddenly unlocked for EFEC which is my favorite map with no air-support favors for either side.

I didn't say there was currently a big variety, though I am saying that it could be made even worse.

JUST GET RID OF IT ALREADY!

quote:

Originally posted by Artacool:
Here is a simply and fair answer to the problem...

Only use the Primary Front to determain where you attack next, not the success of all your other attacks.Meaning give all the territories that faction won that round to them. Then out of the territories they won, the one with the most battles becomes the new Primary Front.

That's not fair to the defender. Say an attacker is attacking 3 territories, and assume no colliding front, for simplicity sake.

In this situation, the attacker puts its one attacking territory at risk, while the defender has 3 territories at risk.

According to your rule, the defender must successfully defend all 3 of those territories in order to take the 1 territory the attacker attacked from, while the attacker must only win 1 of the 3 territories in order to take it.

The reason the current PF works is that one of the territories is deemed the PF, and the defender needs only to win that one territory in order to push back the attacker (i.e. take the territory attacker was attacking front). Which is the whole point of a primary, i.e. *most important*, front. The other two territories were already the defender's to begin with, and even with this rule, the attacker by virtue of attacking multiple territories still has the advantage, it's just not a *huge* advantage like your rule change would make it.

To see what I mean, enumerate the possibilities: attacker territory Z attacks defender territories A, B, and C. Let's assume A is the PF (in a more concrete example, just assign A = whichever territory is the PF).
Let +A denote attacker victory, -A denote defender victory. There are 8 possibilities of the outcomes of the three contested maps in the current PF :
+A +B +C attacker wins all 3 territories
+A +B -C attacker wins 2 territories, A B
+A -B +C attacker wins 2 territories, A C
+A -B -C attacker wins just A
-A +B +C defender takes Z
-A +B -C defender takes Z
-A -B +C defender takes Z
-A -B -C defender takes Z

In your proposed solution:
+A +B +C attacker wins all 3 territories
+A +B -C attacker wins 2 territories, A B
+A -B +C attacker wins 2 territories, A C
+A -B -C attacker wins just A
-A +B +C attacker wins 2 territories, B C
-A +B -C attacker wins B
-A -B +C attacker wins C
-A -B -C defender takes Z

In 7 out of 8 scenarios, attacker got the better of it.

PF is necessary to make a multiple front battle fair to both attacker/defender, but it needs to be improved by making it controllable by only the attacking faction which territory will be PF.

Possible solutions to determining which territory is PF:
1. Have the attacking team explicitly vote where it wants its PF to be. Each player gets one vote each day.
2. Have the attacking team vote by choosing which map to play, where it wants its PF to be. Example: Suppose I'm JSF and the PF could be Scania or Rovaniemi, each game where I choose 1v1 or 2v2 or 4v4 in Scania, I cast one vote for Scania. Anytime I quickmatch into Scania, no vote is cast. Defender gets no vote (SPZ can choose Scania or quickmatch into it to make the match to have a game, but it doesn't matter for determining JSF's PF)
3. Have only the rank 6s and above count for determining PF (to prevent noobs who don't know or don't care about PF from influencing it)
4. Randomly determine the PF ahead of time and make it well known, clearly denoted on the map.


I personally would recommend choosing option 2 and option 3 combined.

Whatever you do to modify the rules: MAKE THE RULES CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!

Another suggestion: list the current # of votes somewhere. If that's too much, at least make the territory with the most votes (mostlikely to become PF) known.