Ok guys, there have been several threads on making improvements or changes to the Theater of War. There is a lot of frustration with the game's online campaign. I won't pretend to be the expert on why things work the way they do when talking about "Primary frontlines" or the logic of when a raid can be conducted.

The point of this thread is that too many of them degenerate into insults, or recommendations to play the game noob til you're better. Or your faction sucks, that's why you don't understand the TOW or the game.

I think the devs have done great things with Endwar and deserve praise, however I do think there have been some big missteps and it has caused some to sadly leave out of frustration with the game.

I'd ask that all who post in this thread would make in one single post all the recommendations or tweaks they think should be made to the Theater of War or what they think is needed to improve online gameplay.

Also I'd ask that people respect each others' arguments and don't bash each other so if you disagree, make an articulate counter-argument as to why it doesn't seem to make sense.

Ok, I'll go first:

Some changes to improve online gameplay.

1. Institute AI into the TOW. In other words, if we don't want to wait 15 minutes for a human opponent, or we prefer the AI, let us play against the AI. If Ubi or others are concerned that it's easier to score wins, then give less credits for those battles.

2. Make the TOW like a real war. Base it somewhat more on reality. If it's 2020, and these factions have the ability to mass armies across continents then WHY is it that RAIDS can only be conducted at certain times. Certain maps are where there are army bases, logistical depots or air bases. THOSE should be the maps where we can conduct RAIDS at any time, at OUR choosing. So the TOW would open up and you're given the option to jump in on any battle as it is now, however you have a separate option to go into RAID mode that allows you to pick the map that has an airbase you want to strike.

I've made a more specific request that they change the setup raid before in a different format and won't repeat it as the devs know I think how they can change it.

Anyway, let's hear your thoughts. And guys, I chatted with Raide about this so he WILL be taking a close look at this and reporting back to the dev team.

please remember be polite, make articulate arguments and let's bring the community back to Endwar!

EDITED 1/8/09 NEW addition:

3. Remove the rule of PF where if you lose one territory, you also lose the one next to it. It doesn't make sense.

After reading some other suggestions, I agree also with the point system and giving more points to higher ranked players depending on the rank their opponents are and lower ranked get less points if similarly matched but more points if they defeat a higher ranked player.

4. Rank based matchmaking system. Too many players have left out of frustration when going up against the uber players.

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

Theater of War forum

that way

---------------------->

moar. cities. heck, i'll settle for a village.

i'm not sure if this would help any, but force recon troops rushing to uplinks at start of battle like in single player. regular army troops to make the special forces seem...well, special.

Hate to point out the obvious Nick, but this belongs in the ToW forum. Moved.

quote:

Originally posted by Pal87:
moar. cities. heck, i'll settle for a village.

i'm not sure if this would help any, but force recon troops rushing to uplinks at start of battle like in single player. regular army troops to make the special forces seem...well, special.

Yea I really wish their were more army troop involvement in the game, even if it's just the lines of riflemen killing each other at the center. Especially on raids there should be infantry stationed in towers or at roadblocks, what army base is defended solely by a couple robotic guns?

quote:

1. Institute AI into the TOW. In other words, if we don't want to wait 15 minutes for a human opponent, or we prefer the AI, let us play against the AI. If Ubi or others are concerned that it's easier to score wins, then give less credits for those battles.

I know I'll probably be flamed for this but i would suggest that the AI isn't used on Capitals, if your capital is lost it should be because the enemy beat you, not an AI. Also should consider it for bases. There shouldn't be any need for this but it just relax my worry of the JSF all going into one battlefield and swarming the human players so they can face AI.

Also i would suggest that a limit is put on how much AI fights can affect a territory, it wouldn't be nice to have a faction win the majority of the human battles but they lost the territory because the enemy was able to play more. So maybe AI battles could only account for 25% of the wins that count towards victory.



Make is so all possible territory's are all open. However to prevent losing territory because of you being spread out make it so there's a minimum number of human on human battles fought for the territory to be taken (maybe up the difficulty depending how deep in enemy territory they are),to prevent factions just avoiding battles so they don't lose territory i would say 4 AI battles counts for 1 Human. Would also suggest that (if they can code it in) that if a battle didn't end on the first turn that the battles carry on to the next day.

Edit - Just in case this last point doesn't make much sense to you I'm suggesting that there has to be a minimum number of battles and once that numbers is hit it acts like normal.

a billion of these have started. They've already done the most they will do regaurding this thread: moving it to the right forum.

make AI battles count for promotions, credits and exp, but not count against the TOW

I like the idea of AI. Chromehounds had it and it worked fine (at least I thought). I have also made a suggestion before about using a points system instead of a win-loss system. This would also involve a matchmaking system. I think someone else said this before but here is an example: Beating a rank 10 = 10 points whereas beating a rank 1 = 1 point. The issue here is that some players might intentionally lower their rank so that if they lose, they cannot hurt their faction. The best way to counter this i think would be to base rank primarily on upgrades and use unit levels as a secondary basis. This way no one can cheat by having all legendaries with no upgrades to remain level 1. The bar on each map stating who is winning could be used to determine the team with the most points. Since the bar can then change more rapidly the game keeps it competitiveness and people won't be as discouraged. If people are discouraged by the bar, perhaps add a numeric image to the bar so that people can see the current points. I also suggested that losing a match lost points for your faction, however not equivalent to a win. This means that if you are rank 10 and lose to a rank 1, your faction loses 4-5 points. The AI can be set to normal or expert difficulty so that it remains competitive. Beating an AI can be the equivalent of beating a rank 2-4 player.

As for the PF Rule that has been oh so dreaded. The PF rule can remain if factions are able to see how many points each has. This way a faction can be better able to tell which map is the PF. Let's say Springfield, Okefenokee, and JFK are being fought on and attacked by the JSF. Springfield has 1298 points for JSF, Okefenokee has 932 points, and JFK has 1112 points by the end of the turn. Springfield would therefore be the PF. By placing a numerical image of how many points a faction had in a map (like chromehounds) factions will visibly say to themselves: oh damn, Springfield is our PF, we need to reinforce it. This method is not perfect by any means, but it would allow the players to have more control over the ToW.

I feel that if AI is created, the biggest issue would be how long before a player actually gets to play an AI? Perhaps add an option to just play AI? It is possible but the issue would be to lessen the amount of points per win.

this might just be me. it might be silly. but i must say it.

i want those news clips back. yes, i miss those short lame news broadcasts. it was a small way to help emerse a player into the Endwar universe. make a 1000 of them for each faction, that should be enough to cover all possible scenarios. and make them less lame.

quote:

Originally posted by Chickenbutt18:
The issue here is that some players might intentionally lower their rank so that if they lose, they cannot hurt their faction. The best way to counter this i think would be to base rank primarily on upgrades and use unit levels as a secondary basis. This way no one can cheat by having all legendaries with no upgrades to remain level 1.

I don't believe that cheating is an issue there. Once you purchase all of the upgrades, the lowest rank possible is rank 10; that is all upgrades + all recruits. As soon as you get a handful of hardened units you're back to rank 11. So, theoretically, a 12 could constantly work to have all low ranking troops to stay at 10/11 but, its such a small difference in points, plus it will affect their ability to win matches against equally skilled players with the upgrades.

quote:

Originally posted by atacms:


4. Rank based matchmaking system. Too many players have left out of frustration when going up against the uber players.

I agree. It's blocking out new players without one.

I can't beleive I was remembered haha. First time posting here in a while.

Anyways, I also agree with rank based matchmaking. The only issue with this though is it may take even longer to find an opponent.

When it comes to the TOW in general, I'll say it's dull. Better visuals or maybe some CGI video. It should be more appealing to the user.

There is my two cents. If I come up with something better, I'll be back of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Liberator:
I can't beleive I was remembered haha. First time posting here in a while.

Anyways, I also agree with rank based matchmaking. The only issue with this though is it may take even longer to find an opponent.

When it comes to the TOW in general, I'll say it's dull. Better visuals or maybe some CGI video. It should be more appealing to the user.

There is my two cents. If I come up with something better, I'll be back of course.

So maybe 3 find match options:
1. You select the territory yourself(Matchmaking)
2. You do Ranked Quick Search. Basically the quick search feature but with ranking. 1 and 2 can be combined in a fashion.
3. Regular quick search. Finds any available match. This is the alternative to long waiting times.

-Replace Arrabida with Rota naval base
-Replace Bedford with Devon Beach
-Replace Carpathia with Firebase Kirsk
-Replace Pamlico with Dorsey Knob
-Make the maps automatically available in a patch for everyone.

All the ones being replaced are clone maps in favor of unique maps, so it would help. Some would have to be reworked some for other modes, but it still helps.

As a side question, why is Thessaly, Greece west of Vlore, Albania? Albania is west of Greece(unless I'm reading the map wrong) and it should be as such in ToW.


If being able to fight the AI on the theater of war is to be made an option, it should have some conditions:
1. You can't choose to fight AI, you only get an AI opponent after a certain amount of time waiting.
2. the AI should be set to Hardcore or some new difficultly level between Expert and Hardcore. Normal and expert are just too easy to have them count for a full victory, and I think it would be easier to make the AI level legit rather than making it count for .5 wins or something.
3. No AI allies. Having a computer do its own thing will almost certainly cost a person the game. If a human ally leaves, give the remaining player(s) control of his units instead of having the AI take over them.


Another theater of war suggestion would be an "Active" list in order to give a better picture of the faction percentages. I have a strong suspicion that the 43% the JSF has isn't reflective of the number of players actually playing. Rather, a lot of them are people who got this game thinking it was a shooter, chose JSF for probably patriotic reasons, got butchered their first match when they went all gunships, and traded the game in in disgust.
My suggestion would be an active list. If a person hasn't played a game in a certain amount of time(say 20 days), they are no longer counted in the faction totals. The percentages would change to say: "X% of active players" rather than just players, and have the enlistment bonus based on that.


A minor one would be to change what the default off-map support is depending on faction. Europe, specializing in electronic warfare, could get EW1 as their starting off-map. America, supposedly having the best air power, would get air strike 1, and Russia, with its historical record of throwing grunts at machine gun nests, could get Force recon 1.

My next few for now are a gameplay improvements ideas rather than ToW ones, but here they are anyway:

More faction specialization. It says in the faction descriptions in the loading screens that Europe is "calm, professional" and "specializes in urban warfare and electronic warfare". This doesn't have any relevance in game. The only hint they are good at urban warfare is the "Urban Warfare" accuracy upgrade for riflemen(which the JSF get an equivalent of) and their camouflage options. They need to get some sort of combat bonus for fighting in city maps. Their electronic warfare should also be more powerful and/or last longer than the others.

America is supposed to have the best air power, stealth tech, and drones. So their gunships and fighters should be better than the others. Their stealth should be better, by making it much more effective than the other faction's and/or give other units stealth(stealth engineers anyone?). Rottweilers and UAV's should also be better than archers or bodyguards, if they aren't already.


A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Liberator:
I can't beleive I was remembered haha. First time posting here in a while.

Anyways, I also agree with rank based matchmaking. The only issue with this though is it may take even longer to find an opponent.

When it comes to the TOW in general, I'll say it's dull. Better visuals or maybe some CGI video. It should be more appealing to the user.

There is my two cents. If I come up with something better, I'll be back of course.

Of course you were remembered liberator, your still one of the vets. even though you dont post much anymore!

On topic though, i agree with a lot of peoples points so far.

1) Better Match making

I like the idea that some of you were throwing around, of it being more based on Rank. It is really annoying for me, as i havent played ToW much for various reasons which i wont go into, but when i do play, it really sucks having few upgrades and having to play against people who have most if not all of theres... So i like the idea of the game matching you up with someone closer to your skill level, but i think it should also consider upgrades, as from reading a couple posts it sounds like some people are cheating their ranks.

But what i think could be more beneficial, yet a lot harder to implement now that i have actually started to write this would be to do something like Call of duty has, where once you pick a map, it should ask you whether or not you wish to play against anyone or if you wish to do a 'boot camp' type game. Now this boot camp match making list, would only be for people up to a certain rank and they could have no more then half the upgrades maybe. Just so its not unfair. If your past the limit for either of the areas, that playlist is locked so it makes it more fair for those trying to learn how to play. And the other playlist would be for everyone.

I also like the idea of people gaining more/ less experience based on what rank they are, and what the rank of there opponents are.

2) AI

I think AI would be good to add, as from my experience playing the full game and from the beta, finding a game was a bitch and a half. I have waited more then half an hour a couple times trying to find games... (Remember that Azn, from the beta... i think i was playing with you ) and i have even had to resort to playing 2v2 in the full game because i could not find a match (im not to fond of playing with other people unless i know them, as it makes it so much easier to plan things out and you can rely on them) I think adding in the ability of playing against AI in certain maps/ gametypes would be benifical. Like chickenbutt was saying, adding AI to the game chromehounds made it better, and it didnt take away really from the global campaign they had. But i also agree with the fact that playing against AI in certain modes like Siege or when you are trying to take a capital should is unfair.

And if they were to add AI it should be somewhat difficult (like Hardcore or Expert) to make it more like you are facing a human opponent as normal is a joke.

Northern just to 'counter' what you said about having no AI teammates, i dont think that would be much of a problem. (I dont know if things have changed from the beta in this area, as i havent had a team mate leave on me yet) but when teammates would drop out of the game due to the faulty serves, the AI was really good. And there were a few times when i didnt even know they had left the game. (I believe that happened to me once or twice playing with you nick)So i wouldnt be to concerned about that. But it does make it much harder to call in help from them., such as airstrikes if you need one...



Now onto my less ToW related ones , i feel the need to say at least a couple of them as they are pretty major in my opinion.(Nick let me know if you want me to remove this part as it doesnt specifically have to do with ToW)

3) Upgrades/ Originallity

The upgrades are a huge problem in my opinion. As they dont add enough uniqueness to each faction like they should/ we were told they would. Every faction basically has the same ones, with a few minor differences besides what the look like and are called. The upgrades really should be what separates the different factions apart and they really dont... My suggestion if you dont want to completely redue them all (As i doubt that would happen) would be in future DLC make the upgrades very unique and based on what each factions specialty is. ALSO CHANGE THE STORM BUILDING ANIMATION ALREADY!!! OR AT LEAST CALL IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!! - This is the most frustrating thing for me in terms of upgrades... as they dont STORM the building! They stand outside and throw a couple grenades in a shot up at the defenders! The defenders should rape(not literally ) the attackers in that situation as they arent in any sort of cover. Just add them entering the building and have a cool animation of them fighting it out!



I really want to talk about making the game much less arcardy but that might get a little long and it would slightly off topic/ the devs didnt listen to us at all about that it seems before the game came out... so i wont.

quote:

A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well.

You could alternatively give the Bodyguards SA-18s (2 out of 5 carrying them seems about right) , it's 20 or so years old but it's the latest Russian MANPADS i could find.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Templar11709,

quote:

Originally posted by Templar11709:

quote:

A minor one would be to replace the Russian bodyguard units and sentries with actual drones. It doesn't make much sense to have dudes with old AK's be able to take down gunships with them, when FR riflemen can't. Just throw some off-road wheels on the drones we see in raid and siege defense and we're good. Alternatively, make the bodyguards more like riflemen than drones. Good against engineers and riflemen in the open but not much else. In this case they should get cover bonuses as well.

You could alternatively give the Bodyguards SA-18s (2 out of 5 carrying them seems about right) , it's 20 or so years old but it's the latest Russian MANPADS i could find.

The CV attack upgrade supposedly gives the Bodyguards anti-armor weapons(according to the description) but this doesn't appear on them. This also gets me thinking, why don't the bodyguards use you selected camo? The other drones do.



Another idea would be custom battalions. I know it's been said before, but it was something promised from very early on and having the personal connection to something we created would certainly help me get more involved in ToW(getting out of my losing slump would probably help to), and of course, I don't like it when I don't get something promised.

So, for completions sake, I'll go over what exactly to customize.
1. Name. I think the name should have to be unique. If another name is exactly like it they should have to change it.

2. Motto

3. Symbol. Let us choose a foreground and background symbol like in Halo(and that will be the only time I'll ever say something should be like Halo).

4. Unit distribution(1 CV, the other 24 to fill as we please, 1 minimum and 6 max like now).
5. Bonus. Choose unit then things like Damage +10%, -5%HP, etc.

6. Let us pick from all the faction's camos.

7. Back story, those little paragraphs on the right side explaining the battalion's origins and duties.

8. A way to view the battalions online, like how you can go to Bungie.net and view a whole bunch of your stats, have people be able to view all the information as well as display information like record, number of hostiles defeated, and a whole bunch of other stats that are probably recorded but not shown.

9. Terrain Specialization? This was something I just came up with when typing. You could choose what terrain your battalion is good in(urban, arctic, woodland, etc.) and whenever they were in such an environment, your units would get combat bonuses.



Something very minor to add to my "Active" list suggestion in my previous post is if an inactive player logs on to the Strategic view, the general will have some particularly harsh words for them, like even more harsh than they do now.

quote:

The CV attack upgrade supposedly gives the Bodyguards anti-armor weapons(according to the description) but this doesn't appear on them.

I don't use the CV so much (yes i know i was one of the supporters during all that crap during the Demo but i sort of stopped using it because of the need to get it to Hardened before i could get my UAV) so i have no clue if they do or not.

quote:

This also gets me thinking, why don't the bodyguards use you selected camo? The other drones do.

The bodyguards are a different branch of the Russian military that have been lent to the Spetsnaz and they have their own uniforms while the drones of the JSF and EFEC are pieces of equipment issued to your battalion thus wearing your Camo.

quote:

Something very minor to add to my "Active" list suggestion in my previous post is if an inactive player logs on to the Strategic view, the general will have some particularly harsh words for them, like even more harsh than they do now.

For us Russians that means we'll be sent to Siberia lol, seeing as i haven't been on in a while i really don't want that included.

Can this get stickied? If the devs are going to look at this, shouldn't it always be near the top of the page so everyone has a chance to look at it?

Also i think what Northern brought up about Customization is a great idea, and it is what it sounded like was promised to us at the beginning...