Gentlemen, I and my compatriots on both EFEC and JSF have reason to believe the U.S.S. Reagan is programmed to be biased towards the attacker. That is, every victory the attacker earns on the U.S.S. Reagan awards more points towards the attacking faction rather than equal points for a successful defense.

According to www.endwarboards.com's territory wins tracker, the USS Reagan is one of the most hotly-contested ,if not, the most contested territory out of all of EndWar, and its most notable battles were decided by the following scores:

War 5, Turn 1:

EFEC (attacking): 5675
JSF: 2778

War 5, Turn 4:

JSF (attacking): 11,480
EFEC: 1002

War 5, Turn 6:

JSF (attacking) 12,830
EFEC: 1712

War 6, Turn 1 (the current war)

EFEC (attacking): 10595
JSF: 3504

War 6, Turn 3:

EFEC (attacking): 7115
JSF: 2642

War 6, Turn 6 (following 3-day downtime):

EFEC (attacking): 8400
JSFL 3238

Turn 8, War 6:

EFEC (attacking): 6600
JSF: 2240

Turn 10, War 6 (yesterday as of 3-JUN-09):

EFEC (attacking): 5135
JSF: 2192

One can infer from this information that the alleged "1.5 bonus" granted to an attacker awards 1.5 points per win for a successful attack, while awarding only 1 point for a successful defense.

Additionally, both JSF and EFEC players on www.endwarboards.com have reason to believe that oppositions dashboarding or disconnecting result in a win for the attacking side, regardless of who dashboards, despite Ubisoft claiming subsequent patches "addressed this concern."

I woke up at 0505 and fought all day on some of these days, scoring 30 victories each day for the JSF, and yet the JSF still lost, in some cases horribly, while in the defensive position, a point at which they usually win.

For several wars before War 5, every time the USS Reagan was attacked, the JSF has dominated and pushed the EFEC back each time. Every strategy EFEC has deployed, including the "unbeatable strategy" of moving artillery and transports to the center pier, has failed, and EFEC players on www.endwarboards.com have acknowledged this.

I am asking Ubisoft to look into this matter. Check their programming codes. See if biases do exist.

Gentlemen, we know 10,000 people don't play EndWar today.

CDR_Alpha_Niner

Just so you know, the supposed unbeatable strat is not moving artillary and transports to the center peir. I don't know why anyone would do that. Just letting you know that, that isn't it.

I havent seen one that does work yet. I was EFEC last war and there was very little that worked (arty to Foxtrot and coming up the right side ramp neither one work, nor does rushing Lima and Whiskey and we know how an assault will play out there) then all of a sudden it went from losing by 2000-3000 per turn to winning by 3000-6000+ overnight and has not stopped since. I call BS. That is the most biased map on the game if you are defending, its not like all of a sudden the EFEC are defending the top, that I could see causing such a swing.

thats a seriously hard map for efec and until now i had no idea why we were winning ,you have the high ground well placed building , airstrikes and force recon, the main only hope europe would have is to stand there ground and wait for jsf to attck but with air strikes and force recon reaking havoc its impossible i only win about 1/3 of games on that map and without these glitched or advantages europe would have almost no hope of attacking america

It really isn't that hard of a map to win on if you have a good strat. I have a 1v1 strat the generally takes about 5-6 min to win on. I have beaten some top commanders aswell. My quickest is 3:59 capturing all the uplinks.

i see what your saying, whenever i attack Reagen, i always lose, yet my side wins, when ever i defend, i always win, my side loses.

it gets worse!! its more biased in favour of JSF. when they attack they have Airstrike When we attack they have it too as defenders. we only have EMP not fair

quote:

Originally posted by perfecttrumpet:
it gets worse!! its more biased in favour of JSF. when they attack they have Airstrike When we attack they have it too as defenders. we only have EMP not fair

hahahahahah i cant believe you actually said that you stupid noob washington dc is 2 spaces away of fricking course they get airsupporrt and as attacker the jsf has the range so they can camp back on either side...the russians have power they dont need supports as long as they get rid of the attackers support unless against jsf arty but their gunships' defense is quite usefull now with the euros with the fast units all you do is deploy 2 arty and a transport as your starting units then deploy an engy at the start and rush strait to behind foxtrot break the uplink and if anything comes down the ramp you have 2 arty and an engy for tanks and a transport and an engy for gunships and after that run to fox then deploy atleast a riflemen to campture and guard tghe back uplink you secure i would suggest another riflemen to guard the unsecured one in case of deepstrike

as a player that has played endwar since the day it came out i would like to say...how in the world did the JSF LOSE reagan...up until today i thought that was impossible...all the best players know how to play the map and will NEVER lose

I have a strategy for reagan, but I will admit it only works 50-60 percent of the time.

add to this...

I'm highly doubtful anyone else uses it because it is barely defended. If everyone used my strategy, the only one I know to work on reagan, i would expect more people to defend against it.

It's a good strat though, if the JSF only deploys artillery and transports/engineers. otherwise....well, damn, evac.

i have the most perfect plan 4 reagan it works alot of times all the ppl i play quit n like d first minutes cuz they jus wanna kill my units wit supports like fags

I haven't been beaten on Regan in so long. i beaten all types of strategies on that map.

Lots of EFEC and SPZ maps are biased to the attacker. Sevastopol, Dukovany, Rovaniemi, and Ramstein AB, and Copenhagen are all biased to the attacker. The JSF can do excellent on every map, it's not hard to do well when you have all good stats and no weaknesses. USS Reagan was heavily biased to the defender before the attacker multiplier was added.

I think the JSF need to stop complaining that they now have a weak point. Of course its not that important because the JSF can always win on Three Mile Island. You don't have any right to complain unless you've tried at least one other faction for an entire war.

Yes we do, and so does everyone else in this situation, because the bias is deliberately programmed into the game, giving an unfair advantage to a given side.

It's a loss of balance.