quote:

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
Exactly, everyone restarts so it is fair for everyone. By the time 1 war is over the casual players will have some knowledge leading to a fairer battleground.

This isn't friendly to casuals at all. Great, level the playing field for max 72 hours. Instead of knowing they'll eventually be able to cap out and compete, casuals can rest easy with the knowledge that any time they finally start leveling units and getting upgrades they'll be reset. Meanwhile, the hardcore guys the reset crew perpetually weep about will be back where they were within a week, virtually unaffected.

Terrible, shortsighted plan.

quote:

Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

A win or loss on a Primary Frontline Territory is vital. If you have three territories available and lose on your Primary Frontline Territory but win on the other two, those other two territories will still be counted as loses. However, if you win on your Primary Frontline you'll still want to win on the other two territories so that you can secure them. Winning on the Primary Frontline does not turn loses on the other territories into wins. This is done to limit splintering of battlefronts and so that factions can "push" in a specific direction.

So for PS3 in turn 37 would that mean that if we concentrate the fire on Rozenburg and win it we will winn USS Reagan at the same time or does this only apply all the attacked territories are owned by the same faction?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sajaijn23,

I don't understand what the problem is here. There needs to be a push somewhere and it only makes sense that it would be in the direction the majority of the battles were fought. How would you make it go in two directions? What would determine those two directions? The two most battles most fought on? That would make it very convoluted. I think the current system makes complete sense and I have yet to read anybody offer another way to have a battlefront move in a direction.

The two problems I do see is that no one knew about this until this post so the 360 already went through one war and the PS3 is well on its way to finishing one (JSF FTW!) without even knowing how to properly focus their forces. This is a problem that has since been corrected and ranted about serves no purpose other than mental mastubation. The second problem is the one already stated in that players don't know the frontline until the day has already passed. The solution to this is a combination of common sense and organization. I'm in JSF and I know it will be the hardest to organize, but I can still look at a map and make my own judgement call as to where I think the drive should heading - in many cases it should be obvious.

It looks to me like people are complaining about having to use their own good judgement because it isn't laid out for them. I am an adult, I'm okay with that. And if my teammates excersize poor judgement I will do what I can to help organize (endwarboards.com is a great resource for organizing btw). Either way, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

How are we, the community, suppose to know what the frontline is if you removed the # of matches played from the xml feeds? You are basically telling us that if we played each map available once, one of them will be worth much more then the others, and we will never be able to tell which.

Please give us a way to know where the frontline is.

I've never seen such a good game get blasted so much and nothing be done about it. The primary front line isn't such a bad idea, if we have all the tools we need. Such as, knowing the exact battles played on one map and not the stupid %'s. How can you have the game set this way and not let us know where to fight? How F**kin retarded is that. Fix this sh*t before more people trade the game in, and battles become even harder to find. I know countless of people who have already traded cause of all the issues. In Call of Duty, you can see how many players are in each game type (HQ, Search, Deathmatch etc), why can't this be done on each map? By faction would be great?

Hey DEVS, you got paid when the game came out didn't you? Well were still playing it and attention is needed in a bad way!!!

I think we should be able to elect generals to direct the front lines... Just look at the deadlock in Thessaly/Matera... Let's go somewhere else...

quote:

Originally posted by Sajaijn23:

quote:

Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

A win or loss on a Primary Frontline Territory is vital. If you have three territories available and lose on your Primary Frontline Territory but win on the other two, those other two territories will still be counted as loses. However, if you win on your Primary Frontline you'll still want to win on the other two territories so that you can secure them. Winning on the Primary Frontline does not turn loses on the other territories into wins. This is done to limit splintering of battlefronts and so that factions can "push" in a specific direction.

So for PS3 in turn 37 would that mean that if we concentrate the fire on Rozenburg and win it we will winn USS Reagan at the same time or does this only apply all the attacked territories are owned by the same faction?

Sorry for quoting myself but I would really love the answer to this question

quote:

Originally posted by mute11:

quote:

Originally posted by aznpwnerp:
Exactly, everyone restarts so it is fair for everyone. By the time 1 war is over the casual players will have some knowledge leading to a fairer battleground.

This isn't friendly to casuals at all. Great, level the playing field for max 72 hours. Instead of knowing they'll eventually be able to cap out and compete, casuals can rest easy with the knowledge that any time they finally start leveling units and getting upgrades they'll be reset. Meanwhile, the hardcore guys the reset crew perpetually weep about will be back where they were within a week, virtually unaffected.

Terrible, shortsighted plan.

I suppose. But the mathcmaking system needs to be more in depth then. For example, I hear people complaining that they are just now starting and they are facing a Rank 10. That's barbaric. IT should be much more within the range.

quote:

Originally posted by jhaley13:
How can you have the game set this way and not let us know where to fight? How F**kin retarded is that.

Why can't you look at the ToW and determine where the front line should be and play accordingly? If you are driving towards something continue the drive...


You have to use YOUR OWN judgement. For example, on the PS3 the JSF just spearheaded along the southern part of Europe into Russia. This probably happenned because of two reasons, the first is we did not know how the frontlines really advanced, and the second are those maps were new to us and people played them more for that reason. That is the case for me specifically. Now that I know how it works I will fight on the map that has the shortest route to the nearest enemy capital. Had I (and the rest of the community) known that previouly we would probably be in Paris or Moscow right now. The frontline is going to be a somewhat natural evolution now that people know how it works.

Besides, I would not fight on a map that would drive us to the middle of nowhere simply beacause the majority were fighting on it. I am not going to follow idiocy but will instead focus my forces in the most advantageous direction and hopefully organize others to do the same. Providing us with the numbers would just create a "pile on" mentality regardless of whether or not it is sound strategy. Additionally, not providing the numbers adds a curveball that will keep things more unpredictable and help make sure one war is different than the next.

How hard is that?

Looking at the PS3 ToW out of the available maps to fight on Rovaniemi or Kurzeme are where the JSF should concentrate forces because winning either one as a primary frontline should allow us to attack Moscow on the next turn. Knowing the rules now that seems farely obvious to me.

I have one major caveat, it is entirely possible that I only think I understand how it all works and don't mean to imply that I do understand every nuance. My main point is that I think the system as I understand it makes sense and I think needing to know where everybody else is playing is a "follower" trait and that seldom wins wars...

quote:

Originally posted by atltrancid:
I don't understand what the problem is here. There needs to be a push somewhere and it only makes sense that it would be in the direction the majority of the battles were fought. How would you make it go in two directions? What would determine those two directions? The two most battles most fought on? That would make it very convoluted. I think the current system makes complete sense and I have yet to read anybody offer another way to have a battlefront move in a direction.

The two problems I do see is that no one knew about this until this post so the 360 already went through one war and the PS3 is well on its way to finishing one (JSF FTW!) without even knowing how to properly focus their forces. This is a problem that has since been corrected and ranted about serves no purpose other than mental mastubation. The second problem is the one already stated in that players don't know the frontline until the day has already passed. The solution to this is a combination of common sense and organization. I'm in JSF and I know it will be the hardest to organize, but I can still look at a map and make my own judgement call as to where I think the drive should heading - in many cases it should be obvious.

It looks to me like people are complaining about having to use their own good judgement because it isn't laid out for them. I am an adult, I'm okay with that. And if my teammates excersize poor judgement I will do what I can to help organize (endwarboards.com is a great resource for organizing btw). Either way, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

well the "front line" does already move (or at least try to move) in two directions at once, today... well as usual really.. the EFEC are trying to fight at Reagen in America, and in Eastern Europe.. My problem with this is not that the "front line" does not make sense. It does, what ever territory has the most battles = your front line, if you can't hold it.. i guess I could deal with losing the territory attacking that one ( even though it still makes no sense that because we lose an attack we just instantly give up our territory without even a chance the defend it )

my real problem is this... why the hell does that battle, effect the results of another miles away?? If we win at Rozenburg today, we should get it.. why? because we won! someone tell me how losing in north America, or any territroy really... would thus make us lose another battle entirely that has already happened?? what happens? do our troops kill all the enemy then leave the territory vacant becuase we lost somewhere miles away!? It is just plain stupid for the system to work like this...


simple solution - if we must have the Frontline thing, fine, but stop making what happens in the main attack territory effect the other batles!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Sajaijn23:

quote:

Originally posted by Sajaijn23:

quote:

Most importantly, there is a "Primary Frontline Rule" that dictates which territory you move into on the next turn. Basically, each faction will have one Primary Frontline Territory. This is dictated by the number of players playing on a single territory. The territory with the most players at the end of a turn will be considered the Primary Frontline for that faction.

A win or loss on a Primary Frontline Territory is vital. If you have three territories available and lose on your Primary Frontline Territory but win on the other two, those other two territories will still be counted as loses. However, if you win on your Primary Frontline you'll still want to win on the other two territories so that you can secure them. Winning on the Primary Frontline does not turn loses on the other territories into wins. This is done to limit splintering of battlefronts and so that factions can "push" in a specific direction.

So for PS3 in turn 37 would that mean that if we concentrate the fire on Rozenburg and win it we will winn USS Reagan at the same time or does this only apply all the attacked territories are owned by the same faction?

Sorry for quoting myself but I would really love the answer to this question

Does my highlight and underline answer the question or am I misunderstanding you?

Edit: my UBB coding skills leave much to be desired...

quote:

Originally posted by Shadowmerc7:

quote:

Originally posted by atltrancid:
I don't understand what the problem is here. There needs to be a push somewhere and it only makes sense that it would be in the direction the majority of the battles were fought. How would you make it go in two directions? What would determine those two directions? The two most battles most fought on? That would make it very convoluted. I think the current system makes complete sense and I have yet to read anybody offer another way to have a battlefront move in a direction.

The two problems I do see is that no one knew about this until this post so the 360 already went through one war and the PS3 is well on its way to finishing one (JSF FTW!) without even knowing how to properly focus their forces. This is a problem that has since been corrected and ranted about serves no purpose other than mental mastubation. The second problem is the one already stated in that players don't know the frontline until the day has already passed. The solution to this is a combination of common sense and organization. I'm in JSF and I know it will be the hardest to organize, but I can still look at a map and make my own judgement call as to where I think the drive should heading - in many cases it should be obvious.

It looks to me like people are complaining about having to use their own good judgement because it isn't laid out for them. I am an adult, I'm okay with that. And if my teammates excersize poor judgement I will do what I can to help organize (endwarboards.com is a great resource for organizing btw). Either way, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

well the "front line" does already move (or at least try to move) in two directions at once, today... well as usual really.. the EFEC are trying to fight at Reagen in America, and in Eastern Europe.. My problem with this is not that the "front line" does not make sense. It does, what ever territory has the most battles = your front line, if you can't hold it.. i guess I could deal with losing the territory attacking that one ( even though it still makes no sense that because we lose an attack we just instantly give up our territory without even a chance the defend it )

my real problem is this... why the hell does that battle, effect the results of another miles away?? If we win at Rozenburg today, we should get it.. why? because we won! someone tell me how losing in north America, or any territroy really... would thus make us lose another battle entirely that has already happened?? what happens? do our troops kill all the enemy then leave the territory vacant becuase we lost somewhere miles away!? It is just plain stupid for the system to work like this...

That aspect I am not as sure of. They say they do not want splintering. The way I understand it is if you win both Rozenburg and Reagan and Rozenburg is your primary frontline then you take Reagan but you do not then attack from there and you stall and you will attack maps from Rozenburg. So your frontline only advances in one direction.

The losing all battles because your primary was lost is the part that I still have not wrapped my head around. I am not sure it was explained clearly because what I think happens is you do win those actual battles but the your frontline does not advance in those directions. That is not really how they explained it but is what makes sense.

yeah thats probably ture, if we won in both directions, the next turn we would probably only attack from the primary one, and jsut sit and defend the other one.. but my point still stands that if we win a territoy, then we should receive the bloody territory. I dont think the troops in north east Eurpoe decided to pack up and go home even though they won just because their comrades in America lost

This question really needs to be answered and explained very well!!!

Is the Primary Frontline based on the most total battles faught on 1 map, or is it based on a map that has the most wins?

If it is based on the most players on one map then there needs to be an explaination on turn 2 and also on turn 5.

On turn 5 (and just noticed turn 1 also), we were attacking Rondane from Grissom. Just like we have since turn 1. Now on all the other turns, that has been ours and the SPZ primary front line. Meaning if faction takes a loss, then they lose their spot. Now on turn 5, Rodane wasn't ours or SPZ's front line, yet they still take Grissom. IS MY THINKING TOTALLY OFF BASE HERE?? Since it isn't ours or their front line regardless of loss, they shouldn't be able to take Grissom like they did and fighting back and forth between us should stop, but it hasn't.

Now go back and look at turn 2. When we attacked Copenhagen from Springfield, it was not our primary front or the EFEC's. So when we won the attack and took Copenhagen from the EFEC the campaign closed and hasn't opened since. Do you see where I am going with this.

So that being said, since we lost at Rodane and it wasn't either factions primary front, shouldn't the SPZ have captured Grissom and the campaign closed? Somebody please tell me I am wrong, but I have looked at this for over an hour and I don't see how I could be!!! Let me know what you guys think.

quote:

Originally posted by jhaley13:
I've never seen such a good game get blasted so much and nothing be done about it. The primary front line isn't such a bad idea, if we have all the tools we need. Such as, knowing the exact battles played on one map and not the stupid %'s. How can you have the game set this way and not let us know where to fight? How F**kin retarded is that. Fix this sh*t before more people trade the game in, and battles become even harder to find. I know countless of people who have already traded cause of all the issues. In Call of Duty, you can see how many players are in each game type (HQ, Search, Deathmatch etc), why can't this be done on each map? By faction would be great?

Hey DEVS, you got paid when the game came out didn't you? Well were still playing it and attention is needed in a bad way!!!

+1

Tell us exactly which is our fontline at that point in time (as well as the exact figures, not hazy percentages)!

to all the JSF players who are wondering why there not getting to fight in europe its pretty ovious. Well first of all you guys are getting invaded by us(EFEC) and really if you wanna take it to what real war would be like im pretty sure that if you do get a base in an enemy territory but you also just got invaded by the enemy and they've taken 2 bases and you've only taken one your main priority would be to drive out the enemy not have a race to see who gets to who's capital first. Also i think you guys are getting a break because instead of having to defend in America and also defend your base in Europe you dont have to worry about it and after (if) you do push us out of America you already have a base to witch you can attack from and will probably be your frontline and cause hell for us.

To everyone wondering about the primary frontline: go to the TOW screen where you can select a territory on which to fight and look at the territory details (Y on 360, Triangle on PS3?). If it says "This is our frontline. A win here will advance our position," then there's a good chance that said territory is the primary frontline.

It'd be nice to be able to view that online, though.

quote:

Originally posted by IcyGuy:
To everyone wondering about the primary frontline: go to the TOW screen where you can select a territory on which to fight and look at the territory details (Y on 360, Triangle on PS3?). If it says "This is our frontline. A win here will advance our position," then there's a good chance that said territory is the primary frontline.

It'd be nice to be able to view that online, though.

I just tried that on every territory and it never gave me the info stated

quote:

Originally posted by Blooddriverr:
to all the JSF players who are wondering why there not getting to fight in europe its pretty ovious. Well first of all you guys are getting invaded by us(EFEC) and really if you wanna take it to what real war would be like im pretty sure that if you do get a base in an enemy territory but you also just got invaded by the enemy and they've taken 2 bases and you've only taken one your main priority would be to drive out the enemy not have a race to see who gets to who's capital first. Also i think you guys are getting a break because instead of having to defend in America and also defend your base in Europe you dont have to worry about it and after (if) you do push us out of America you already have a base to witch you can attack from and will probably be your frontline and cause hell for us.

I think you are right - although we have not been told that. I think whether your primary frontline is a defending and attacking action comes into play as well.

On the PS3 in the scenario I mentioned earlier we also had to defend Reagan from EFEC. Since that map is an easy one for the JSF people decided to go for the easy route and it had the most JSF players. So instead of our primary frontline being where we were on the offensive it was where we were on the defensive.

Instead of now attacking Moscow we are attacking Dukovany. I can't see the arrows to see where we are attacking from though. Is there anyone who can fill in that blank for me?

Obviously we need more explanation of how attacking and defending come into play in regards to your primary frontline.

I think there was just a great example of the primary frontline in action on PS3 for turn 37.

Moscow attacks Kurzeme and Rovaniemi. It wins on Kurzeme and loses on Rovaniemi. Since the frontline was where they lost, Moscow got counterattacked and lost Kurzeme, but since captials are immune to counter attack, Moscow still stands yet their victory on Kurzeme is negated.

I should imagine that if JSF take Dukovany during turn 38 (You are attacking from Sevastopol, btw) then Moscow will open up.

Indeed, if the JSF take Moscow, that wraps up the PS3 FirstWar barring JSF losing other territories.