Guys, what do you think about this idea for giving the hardcore players a bigger role in determining the overall outcomes of a territory?

Instead of just counting battle wins/losses as the determining factor for who gets a territory, they should use a "points system." Simply put, whatever rank the losing player is, that amount of points gets added to the "win total/points" for that map. This way, when 12 nubes lose on one map it can be remedied by someone with some skill taking out a level 12 player on the opposition. Also, 100 nubes losing 2 battles each can be made up for if we take out 20 (rank 10) commanders.

To make things more interesting, your opponent's rank should be made known to you in the deployment screen so you have a rough idea what you're up against and how important the battle will be (ie fighting a rank 1 is not too big of a deal).

Just throwing it out there since something needs to be done to fix some of this game's flaws. What say the masses?

Oh yeah, I'm for 360 - JSF.

I posted this in the other forum, but I figure it probably belongs here:

(Disclaimer: I am not part of UBI, and this is all my understanding. So I may be wrong)

Turn 9 on PS3 is the best example that I can find of
1. how primary frontline works and
2. why primary frontline is implemented the way it is.

Before you knock the primary frontline rule, you need to understand it. This is where ubi has failed us--they didn't explain it fully, and so almost all of us are completely confused about how it works.

OK, in order to explain this, everybody open your TOW viewer to Turn 9 of PS3.
JSF- From Chattanooga, attacking SPZ owned Pamlico, Ft. Campbell and Pascagoula. There are over 1300 games played on Pamlico, less than 1000 Pascagoula and less than 900 on Ft. Campbell. In this case, JSF's primary frontline out of Chattanooga is Pamlico. They happened to win this, so they took Pamlico. They lost the other two so SPZ kept those territories.
EFEC - From Glen Albyn, attacking SPZ owned Rozenburg and attacking JSF owned Reagan Seabase. Over 5000 games on Reagan, while about 2100 games on Rozenburg. Thus, Primary Frontline is Reagan. EFEC loses at the PF (Reagan) and so forfeit Glen Albyn to JSF. The SPZ retain Rozenburg despite losing more games there because the JSF took Glen Albyn and so EFEC has no attacking territory to stand on.

My reasoning why this is a better idea than some alternatives. Take a look at Chattanooga: JSF is attacking 3 enemy territories. So JSF has the opportunity here to win 3 of SPZ's territories. From SPZ point of view, they can only win 1 territory--Chattanooga. They already own the 3 being attacked. So if we didn't have the primary frontline rule, we need a way to determine if SPZ gets to win the 1 territory. It's unfair to say they have to win all 3 defending territories in order to win Chattanooga. This is why they make it so that the most-played territory is the one that determines if Chattanooga is given up. Thus there is a one-for-one territory at risk here: JSF gets the PF territory if they win it, and SPZ gets Chattanooga if they win it. If SPZ gets Chattanooga, then they don't risk losing the other two territories. If JSF gets the PF territory, then they get the bonus option of being able to take the other two territories. In this case, they lost both the other two and so they weren't able to capitalize on the bonus.

Glen Albyn: Same situation, different outcome. If both attacks Reagan and Rozenburg fail, who gets to take Glen Albyn? SPZ or JSF? We need some way to determine this. Enter Primary Frontline--whichever territory has the most players. Also, EFEC has one territory to lose (Glen Albyn) and two chances to gain territories here.
Consider the four possible outcomes (Reagan is PF):
EFEC wins Reagan, EFEC wins Rozenburg-- congrats, EFEC gains both territories. (+1, bonus: +1)
EFEC wins Reagan, EFEC loses Rozenburg-- congrats EFEC gains Reagan (+1, bonus: 0)
EFEC loses Reagan, EFEC wins Rozenburg-- Losing the PF, EFEC loses Glen Albyn. (-1)
EFEC loses Reagan, EFEC loses Rozenburg-- Losing the PF, EFEC loses Glen Albyn. (-1)

If you don't like the PF rule, how would you appropriate the territories in each of the four outcomes? If in the scenario that happened (EFEC loses Reagan, EFEC wins Rozenburg) you give EFEC Rozenburg, then it's a (0) outcome since they gain one territory and lose one. Thus, in four outcomes, EFEC comes out positive in two, negative in one, and wash in one.
The game already is net-positive in favor of the attacker when the attacker attacks multiple territories, giving EFEC Rozenburg would make it even more net-positive. The PF rule prevents the game from overly favoring the attacker that gets multiple fronts. (it already favors the attacker a little bit since they get the bonus of winning multiple territories if it wins all, but only loses one territory if it loses all)

Now, why do we even have multiple fronts in the first place? For interesting variety in maps, and to give players a choice in where they want to push.

quote:

Originally posted by silkyballz:
Guys, what do you think about this idea for giving the hardcore players a bigger role in determining the overall outcomes of a territory?

I agree. It really wouldn't be all that difficult to throw in a little tweak that makes commander's rank a larger factor in determining a battlefield's overall outcome. This would allow higher ranked players to have a greater affect on fate of a particular battlefield and it also would reduce the affect cheaters/beginners have on a map because even if they purposefully lose a bunch of matches, they still wont have as big of an affect as the higher ups.

APOLLO457 - 360 - SGB

Dear Ubisoft,

I have been an avid player of endwar since the game came out and I must say that I absolutely LOVE it. Unfortunately, I am writing in regards to an issue that is affecting multipls factions in varying ways. This is the attack from nowhere rule in TOW.

Simply using Reagan seabase as an example, the attack from nowhere rule is making it extremely frustrating for players of both the EEFC and the JSF. It is as some of you may know, currently a stale mate due to no progress in either direction. The EEFC players keep trying to take the territory, and are unfortunately repaid by having their squads consistently beaten and countless units killed. However, despite the consistent winning at the seabase for the JSF, they are not allowed to counterattack, for example, Glen Albyn, which is the source of the european attack, or Wilstermarsch, which they could easily do from Copenhagen, which the JSF had held for several turns without using it at all.

Thus, since reagan has been a great place for the JSF newcomers to build up their forces since their winning percentage is so high, not to mention a fun place for the JSF AND the EEFC to play, it has consistently been the JSF primary front. However, since it is considered an attack from nowhere, there is no forward progress ANYWHERE for the JSF, and the best they can do is attempt to hold on to the territories they have, and then slowly lose them, which is what the JSF has been doing now for the majority of war 2.

I am speaking as someone not representing any faction, because while this rule is certainly frustrating for the JSF, it also affects the ability of the Europeans to have a shot of making a better offensive in the northern US or at least to have the JSF come to eruopean territory and have their units killed for a change.

Ubisoft, you guys have done a wonderful job making corrections from war 1 to war 2 in order to make the playing more fair and fun for everyone. Please, PLEASE continue to provide excellent service to your players by getting rid of the attack from nowhere rule so that there can be an end to the stalemate in the northern US and a chance for the JSF to gain a territory

maybe the PF rule shouldnt be removed but i think it should be altered slightly, for example in the last turn the JSF won copenhagen (against the europeans) but lost at our primary front of grisom (against the russians), this caused a loss at copenhagen, perhaps make it so a PF apears for each faction we are fighting. so we have a european PF and a russian PF, this way battles against one faction dont affect our results against another faction.

actually here's another thought, make it so people who hit the quick match button do not count towards the primary frontline counter, this would make it eaisier for people like myself who actually think about what battles are neccesary to decide the PF, rather then the guy who just picked up the game and just wants to play quickly

Is it possible to implement in a future patch the ability to start a match with AI's if there are not enough team members to start a match whether on your faction or the opposing one?

instead of that they should allow you to play 2v1 is your waiting too long. No AI, just have full control of all 12 units.

quote:

Originally posted by FenrisWolf228:
instead of that they should allow you to play 2v1 is your waiting too long. No AI, just have full control of all 12 units.

Exactly - I've thought about that too, it's rather stupid not to support 2v1 as there's no real handicap playing alone unless you have problems with keeping track of all units.

I have a few thoughts that might make the game more enjoyable than having to wait sometimes.....about 2 hours to get a 10 minute game.

If Ubisoft devs/or whoever can change the online servers so I can find people near enough instantly, I know it would bring more people to buy this game.(A bit like what Gears 2 has done)

Another thought is that when and if you wait about 10 mins (long enough) and no-one else joins in the match, the empty slots get filled in by AICommanders (expert obviously).

Another way to make the online more enjoyable is if there is an empty slot in your team, and you know someone who is in the same faction, and is online, why not invite them to your game?

Also here is a few things that I personally would like to change including those above:

1: The abilty to have offline system link (I mean this is perfect for system link!)

2: The ablity to choose to either have on Skirmish to use your online persistant battalion or the default ones chosen for you)

3: If the 2nd one is added to EndWar it would also add more memebers to the online community because you actually get to use your battalion in MLG/GB clan matches.(Compared to those given to you)

4: The special support moves should have timers like everything else so no-one can spam them and camp off. (Airstike/EW/Force Recon>30 second timer would be fine) It would make the game more tactical than just bombing very unit in sight.

5: After each war, reset the ranks to recruit so every1 has a fighting chance.(evryone still keeps their upgrades, but have to level them up) This would be better for newcomers, since they start of recruit and would not the certain few who played this game no stop, with legendary units to wipe out everything in one.

6: Im sorry but why did Ubisoft or whoever made the 1st DLC break the chain? I mean its usually tanks>transports>gunships>tanks, but with that DLC it broke it and made the Russian tanks>tansports>gunships<Tanks.
(Very unbalanced)

I cant think of any more at the moment, but I will update this when I do. IMO I love this game, best RTS ever! but there are so many problems with this game. Matchmaking being the worst.
Im not saying this is the only game with problems,(cough...Gears 2....cough) but if Ubisoft added/changed these into the already brilliant game, then it probably be my favourite game for along while.
And I bet alot of the Endwar gamers would agree, if these were put into the game, then this game would be allmost perfect.

Thx 4 reading. Hopefully Ubisoft will read this!

I would also like to know when ubisoft will tell use how to get the VIP Camo, and what it is, and also how to intercept the airstike with Electronic warfare

So we all know that the PF rule is all out of whack. For example, I distinctly remember a turn where our (EFEC) PF was decided to be Reagan because it had the most matches on it. Obviously a vast majority of these matches were noobs who hit quickmatch as very few competent commanders would waste their time trying to fight there. Either way, since we lost at Reagan we lost our other battles as well.

I realize that that is not a question or an issue really, at least not a new one. Here are some suggestions that I feel would better the gameplay.

1. First off, there is absolutely no way that everyone can be complaining about wait times, at least not if the matchmaking system worked correctly. Think about it, if everyone is waiting for a match, then there should be plenty of people available to fill the games. I play for EFEC on 360 so I admit that my wait times are probably worse than JSF or SGB. But you cannot tell me that after waiting in a lobby for over 30 minutes, not one person has hit quickmatch. There has to be several lobbies full of players waiting for games that should be matched against each other, and I don't see why it is so difficult for ubi to fix this. My suggestion is that if they don't care about it or if they don't want to fix it then at least let the players do it. Give us a list of joinable lobbies. Let us see what maps have people waiting to play and then allow us to join those lobbies.

2. Regarding the PF rule. Just let the players vote before each turn where they want their PF to be. They would have to win that map they voted for but it would at least take the randomness out of it. I read a post from QPK about factions needing to organize to decide the PF. In theory this is a good idea but we all know that the wars are won and lost by the swarms of noobs who don't check the boards and who just hit QM. You can organize to an extent where you want your PF to be but, speaking from the EFEC perspective, when you cant get a game on any map but reagan you don't have much choice over where you PF will or won't be.

3. Give us 3v3. I know it is already in the game so just let us use it.

4. Allow 2v1, 4v2, 3v2 etc. etc. I wouldn't mind taking on 4 opponents at once, I would love to try it.

5. 360. Open up the eastern front for God's sake. It makes absolutely no sense that we would go to America to attack Russia. If Russia is focusing in America then Europe would be marching on Moscow, not trying to go through Southern USA, Westward across the globe.

6. This is more of a queston than a suggestion. On 360, turn 37, JSF was attacking Copenhagen from Springfield. They were also fighting Russia in Springfield. Now, disregarding how they are attacking from a territory under attack, why after winning Copenhagen are we attacking Reagan rather than Springfield? JSF won at Springfield, we won on Copenhagen so we should pursue into Springfield similar to JSF pursuing into Glen albyn whenever we lose on Reagan. My guess is that this is another retarded result of the PF rule, another reason it needs to be changed.

Any response to these would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

6. This is more of a queston than a suggestion. On 360, turn 37, JSF was attacking Copenhagen from Springfield. They were also fighting Russia in Springfield. Now, disregarding how they are attacking from a territory under attack, why after winning Copenhagen are we attacking Reagan rather than Springfield? JSF won at Springfield, we won on Copenhagen so we should pursue into Springfield similar to JSF pursuing into Glen albyn whenever we lose on Reagan. My guess is that this is another retarded result of the PF rule, another reason it needs to be changed.

Yes, it's due to PF. JSF attacked Copenhagen, but it wasn't their PF. Their PF was Grissom that day, and so they continued along that front by attacking Rondane the next day. Since Copenhagen wasn't their PF, EFEC isn't awarded Springfield as a defensive spoil.
The EFEC attack that day was on Arrabida, and by winning that, they moved onto attacking Okefenokee.

I got 1 MAJOR issue, with a suggestion...

Issue: UBISOFT

Solution: Never buy another game UBISOFT makes...

I don't hear many complaints about the gameplay itself, and no software operates free from bugs. The main issues with the game in my mind are wait times (not enough players), no lobby or out of game command center or message board for faction-level planning, and a complete embarassment of a leader board.

There clearly wasn't enough good promotional activity for this game, and the timing was not good with release of many great shooters around the same time. I am still telling friends about this game, who are diehard PS3 players that had no idea what the game was about. I do feel that the game will ultimately develop a solid base of players that will keep playing for a long time, as long as there continue to be upgrades to the game (i.e. introduce some new maps into the TOW down the line to replace some of the redundant sites using the same maps)

The leader board to me is exhibits a complete lack of creativity. If a guy was 1500-2700 W/L record currently he would be ranked #1 based on this elementary system, not to mention cheaters are rewarded by not getting their losses recorded, destroying credibility. You can't see where your PSN friends are on the ranking list. For "fun" on Friday I actually spent 40 minutes scrolling down the leaderboard, what a joke. There should be a smarter ranking system taking other factors into account (strength of competition and magnitude of wins and losses - for example tracking the % of hostiles defeated over your own units defeated) and opportunity to move up the ranking list other than just by playing the most games.

The game itself is awesome in my opinion, and I just want to see the franchise succeed. It is not too late to salvage Ubi's investment in the engine of the game, just fix the easy peripheral stuff to improve the experience!! Even the RBV leaderboard was better but both leaderboards seem to be using heavily out of date graphics/resolution capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by dan6374:
I don't hear many complaints about the gameplay itself, and no software operates free from bugs. The main issues with the game in my mind are wait times (not enough players), no lobby or out of game command center or message board for faction-level planning, and a complete embarassment of a leader board.

Yeah, I totally agree. The gameplay itself is excellent for the most part. Too bad a multiplayer game requires... other players in order to enjoy. Everything besides gameplay is completely frustrating and has served to push me away from the game.

quote:

There clearly wasn't enough good promotional activity for this game, and the timing was not good with release of many great shooters around the same time. I am still telling friends about this game, who are diehard PS3 players that had no idea what the game was about. I do feel that the game will ultimately develop a solid base of players that will keep playing for a long time, as long as there continue to be upgrades to the game (i.e. introduce some new maps into the TOW down the line to replace some of the redundant sites using the same maps)

Big assumption that they're going to continue making upgrades to the game. If that's going to happen, they're sure taking their sweet time. From what I've seen, this game is going to die off soon. I really hope I'm wrong.

quote:

The game itself is awesome in my opinion, and I just want to see the franchise succeed. It is not too late to salvage Ubi's investment in the engine of the game, just fix the easy peripheral stuff to improve the experience!! Even the RBV leaderboard was better but both leaderboards seem to be using heavily out of date graphics/resolution capabilities.

I wanted it to succeed too, but they haven't demonstrated any ability in making root-cause long-term fixes in a timely manner. All we've seen so far are knee jerk rushed patches that come out weeks late. I still check the forums once a week in hopes that they've come up with some good fixes, but am sorely disappointed every time.

Now, I'm intensely curious as to whether the PC version will succumb to the same set of frustrating annoyances. Hey: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

i believe that the primary frontline is a horrible idea, why not make it if you are occupying a territory you can attack any connected territorys. at the end of the day calculate the wins for the factions and whoever has the most on the corrosponding territory occupies it the following day. this way you can even have all three factions battling for one territory. raids and such are to be done on airbases and depots and so forth. another thing we need to have something were we can orginize with friends in lobbys and pick for instance 2 russian dudes and 2 JSF guys are friends and they want to battle each other, lets come up with a lobby of sort to come together. this game could be the dominate force for online strategys. another thing we need an update or expansion to get rid of all this excess credit. maybe a camo pack and if your rank 12 you can customize it with each faction having set patterns or be able to spend a couple million to rank you units up. something to keep the currency running and being used.

quote:

Originally posted by Victorc232:
actually here's another thought, make it so people who hit the quick match button do not count towards the primary frontline counter, this would make it eaisier for people like myself who actually think about what battles are neccesary to decide the PF, rather then the guy who just picked up the game and just wants to play quickly

Well I shoot that Idea down myself as Quick matching can put me into a battle quicker either being a 4v4 or 1v1 I just want to play.

whatever the outcome of the match I would like to have known that my Victory/Loss WAS counted weather or not that I "QUICK-MATCHED"

check this, two things. 1. question: how are the matches connected is it random signals or do the random signals get organized then put in order meaning a list. 2. suggestion: for quick match why not make it so if you are 1v1 and do quick match it puts you with a 1v1 match or 4v4 quick being taken to 4v4 waiting room and so forth with 2v2 and why dont we have 3v3. this game is getting better and better with updates keep them coming. especially happy about the, if the host quits match while waiting for another group, group will stay with host back to ToW lobby. well done on that.