I have a few suggestions about the TOW.

1. PLEASE fix the problem with the units not upgrading. It's no fun playing with the recruits all the time.

2. Please do something about the matchmaking system. New players are not able to gain ranks, because veteren playes keep supressing them and perma killing there units. Players should be matched with other similar ranking players.

3. The frontline theory is completely wrong. In real life, just because you capture a teritory, that doesn't mean the whole front line advances. The game would be much more interesting if each teritory was counted as a seperate win or loss from the front line. For example: (Turn 43) The long disputed teritories of Grissom and Rondane. If the JSF are fighting for Rondane, Scania and Rovaniemi. Those three battles should be counted as seperate victories with limited affect on each other. If the JSF were to capture Rovaniemi, but fail to capture Rondane; then The JSF should be surrounded and cut off at Rovaniemi, but they would have the use of that bases resources. This should be fixed to add more strategy and real world thinking into the game.

With Respect,
Rittmeister86

you shouldnt be able to switch factions once joined . also the factions should have even people and the matchmaking sahould be bettter

To those that think undoing Pushback is a good idea, be aware that Pushback is meant to promote a dynamic battle front. Hell Rodane/Grissom is a fairly stagnant battle front even with Pushback. Take away Pushback and EVERYTHING will be a stagnant battle front with little or no significant change. It would get very monotonous, very boring, very quickly. Hell, wars already take almost two months, real world, with Pushback. Imagine how long they'd take without Pushback.

As for a ToW improvement suggestion: increase support range by +1. Or add a decaying support range.
1-2 Territories: Full support
3: Max 2 Support
4: Max 1 Support
Excluding EW.

Also, what's with all the freaking Assaults? Why not more Conquests? Just mix it up more. Maybe throw in a Siege or two.

And finally, are those new maps (Rota, etc) ever going to be included in the regular ToW? Or will they just be relegated to the Skirmish Mode?

Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against.

quote:

Originally posted by MGarf:
Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against.

Two completely different proprietary networks with two completely different proprietary network architectures and protocols.

They're not socks, you can't just mix and match.

quote:

Originally posted by USAFAB:

quote:

Originally posted by MGarf:
Combine the XBox 360 and PS3 servers. I mean its true that theirs a different controller for each system but that doesnt mean that theirs an advantage. Lets face it in the PS3 servers i wait forever just to find a opponent if we combined servers of both Xbox 360 and PS3 their will be more players to fight against.

Two completely different proprietary networks with two completely different proprietary network architectures and protocols.

They're not socks, you can't just mix and match.

Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities.

quote:

Originally posted by MGarf:
Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities.

I would hazard to guess the games are built around Microsof's XBL network APIs and Sony's PSN network APIs. Which have nothing to do with each other, and no means to interact. Granted, I am ignorant of the specifics.

Unless of course they rolled out their own networking APIs and whatnot, then managed to link the servers. That would also assume there's no agreement in place preventing cross-network data between Ubi-MS and Ubi-Sony.

quote:

Originally posted by USAFAB:

quote:

Originally posted by MGarf:
Most network architectures and protocols are all based in their servers not in each console so they share most similarities.

I would hazard to guess the games are built around Microsof's XBL network APIs and Sony's PSN network APIs. Which have nothing to do with each other, and no means to interact. Granted, I am ignorant of the specifics.

Unless of course they rolled out their own networking APIs and whatnot, then managed to link the servers. That would also assume there's no agreement in place preventing cross-network data between Ubi-MS and Ubi-Sony.

I See, there probably is a agreement in place to stop it or as you said completely different network API's if they are using Sony's or Microsofts.

I have played this game long enough to be a rank 6 Commander, I have a few upgrades, a few promoted units and I have finally discerned some of the nuances of this game. I am no Game Master; I am hardly more than proficient, but I still have my suggestions.

My first thought on this game is that the matches can be very slow to link up players on the battle field. There could be any number of reasons to this, and it probably is not something that any one action would correct. Suffice to say, that I and many others would appreciate better matchmaking times.

My other opinion to add to this is that, having just started this game a recently, I felt the learning curve was very steep. Now I do not mean to suggest you should change the game to pander to people unwilling to learn its nuances, what I do mean to suggest is that you implement a tiered ranking system. You already have Ranks to represent where you stand. You could use these.

Another complaint I have heard is that people do not like the Primary Front Line. What I propose is that for all factions you have two battle points. A Primary and a Secondary. The Primary battle field would be the one of more importance and would be fought by the higher ranking officers. The secondary could be exactly that, a secondary battle not meant to be such a hotzone and would serve as a training grounds for lower officers.

Though I do not know how it would work, I feel this could be used to enhance players wait times, enhance playability by keeping similar ranked teams together, and if done well could also enhance the effects of the Primary Front Line.

This als all makes sense to me from a real-life-aspect. You wouldn't send untrained soldiers and commanders to fight at the critical points of war, they would fight alongside at secondary points that could still be beneficial if taken but not necessary to the overall field of war.

First and foremost I have one question about the Russian Faction.

Why have you guys not fixed the "Deep Strike" bug or the "MIA Bug"?

1.) Half the time my friends or I try to Deep Strike, Our transport helicopters "freeze" over the uplink for about two minutes. Then... The Riflemen die. This has a huge effect on the momentum of the game. Deep Striking is something that can win you the game quickly, and with the Russian units already "lacking speed" i don't think it is too much to ask that we get this one bug fixed

2.) I believe that the "MIA Bug" is the biggest problem with the game. The last thing anybody on EndWar wants is to lose their units for no reason. Unit killing can be bad enough at times.

Please fix these two problems with the game before anything. In my opinion these are the two biggest problems.

one more suggestion

One thing that WILL separate the Elite players from the average is to make it so you can ONLY KILL UNITS WITH A SECONDARY ATTACK. Seriously how good of an idea is that? This means that you already have to have good units on the field to turn the game dirty.

Understandably many people have suggestions about what should be Added to the game, but please lets fix the existing problems before we explore new paths.

i just want faster servers and to not get kicked out of games cause of lag...or whatever the reason is

Make it so if an attack fails the attacker becomes the defender so you don't end up with someone defending an attack for a capital for 6 turns.

And have the capital support only support the capital so raids and taking bases actually have a effect on the people who lose them.

I would like to see the counter attack rule, where if you win a defending territory, then you automatically take the one you were being attacked from. I think it would make more sense if Territory A was successfully defended, then the next turn Territory B would be under attack from Territory A, however the owner of territory B had less reserves, less starting units, or someother handicap.

Sheesh I'll just a list...

1. Attack Loops - Ok this is getting ridiculous, why must we keep attacking the same locations over and over again. This gets us no where and the main reason why the war is lasting so long cause we just keep trading the same territories back and forth. You should set some kind of trigger and two or three times of trading the same territories back, the faction's should try attacking from a different angle.

On a side note I know several EFC players who are refusing to play at the moment because on the 360, Europe has yet to even try a push into russian territory in this war... why is that? The map selection is terrible, more options need to be opened up on all fronts each turn.

2. Introducing AI could very well destroy ToW gameplay - The biggest reason people can't find matches is because everyone refuses to play on a map where they do not have supports. I am by no means saying supports are bad. If a player drops or whatever they do to cause a AI Commander to appear it should continue the match with the AI. As well to prevent abusing of this AI should be worth only maybe 1/4 or even less the value of fighting a Human opponet. This game is about Human vs. Human people and that is what it should be focused on. And, don't tell me you can't find matches.. there are always plaenty of them... and yes that means you will have to leave your comfort zone, but that is the only way to improve you skills. As far as the AI's difficulty level Hardcore is the only option. Expert and Normal is a joke.


3. Punishment for the cowardly - This has become a big issue people leaving the match early because they are going to lose, or the ever annoying they kill a unit on purpose then bail before you get the chance to return the favor. This is just childish behavior and sadly the children aren't the ones doing this. This will destroy the game more than anything else. If the game should advance to the point where the opfor deploy's 1 new unit, if he/she/faction leaves after that point the winner or last faction standing should get full credit for the victory. As well the person leaving should get full penalties for a loss. Apologies if this is how it works allready.

4. Status Reports - It would be extremely helpful if we the players could tell where the PF is, a battle count could drastically change the war strategy is a marvelous way. All for the good of the game make it even more strategic. You must do this.

Maybe a large overhaul to make wars faster would be better for the game, especially with the declining player base.

1)I've heard of 12 hour turns suggested...maybe even 8? Shorter turns allow players to have the option of fighting on numerous territories in one day, rather than the same 2 or 3. Wars could shift very quickly either way.

2)Removal of the PF rule seems like it would make wars move quicker as well, many people feel this way. I only joined in January, so I don't know how it was before.

3)Units rank up a little faster. This would take some of the sting out of unit killing, and also get newer players up to speed quicker. It also relates to my next suggestion:

4)It may be more controversial...but resetting units after each war. At the beginning of each new war, you can pick your side. This would eliminate some of the dead weight players that are inactive...unless they login again to choose their faction. It would also mean more shifts in players from different factions, keeping the game diverse and also allowing players to try out some of the other factions without the reluctance of leaving their units behind.

5)An all time leaderboard would be more useful if there were shorter rounds. It gives people the motivation to go all out one war for recognition of most victories. Maybe break down the leaderboard into 1v1 W/L, 2v2, 4v4. Players would play 1v1 for personal notoriety, while clans and friends might be motivated to try their hand at mastering 4v4.

Just some random thoughts, based on my history of playing text based online games(nukezone etc..) years ago

My suggestion to end stalemates in TOW

Lets take the Pamlico/Shenandoah stalemate as an example. Say this is the first time they are attacking Pamlico... (If EFEC wins Shenandoah at any point it would end the stalemate, and would play out normally)

- If they win and push up to Shenandoah then lose. As normal this would push them back to attacking Pamlico over again.

- Then if they win and push up to Shenandoah then lose AGAIN. JSF gets Pamlico, but is NOW attacking Oke. If JSF wins YAY end of stalemate, normal play continues.

- Then if EFEC wins, they go on to defend Pamilco (which is a difference already). But If they move up to DEFEND Shenandoah and YET AGAIN lose. Then JSF is now attacking Palico on Assault (not attack from nowhere). If JSF wins assault continues to Oke.

- Then if EFEC assault on Pamlico, it's assualt on Shenandoah. If JSF wins front is shutdown for a certain amount of turns. If EFEC wins they get Shenandoah the stalemate is broken and its back to conquest.

This way each side gets a chance at Attacking and defending conquest and assault. And prevents a stalemate just because 1 side has the advantage of defender side or attack side.

The Game Freezes, we all know that, stuff happens. I just wish that everytime that happened my units wouldn't automatically have they're rank drop. I dont use my legendary units much if at all, but if the game freezes half the time one of my legendary units go down to recruit.That knocks my rank down from 11. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but just letting you know this is happening and change would be appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Pure_Luck-77:
The Game Freezes, we all know that, stuff happens. I just wish that everytime that happened my units wouldn't automatically have they're rank drop. I dont use my legendary units much if at all, but if the game freezes half the time one of my legendary units go down to recruit.That knocks my rank down from 11. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but just letting you know this is happening and change would be appreciated.

QuidProKou has confirmed they are working on this.

off the bat - sorry this is so long...

i would like to see rank matter a little more in the game. what if instead of awarding a win to either side, victory points were based on rank matchup equation - say:

(sum(spz player ranks)*sum(jsf player ranks))/(# of players) = victory points (or VPs)

using an equation like this would give higher ranked players more control over the outcome of a territory, but it would also give low-ranked players the ability to make more difference if they defeat a higher ranked player.

take a simple 1v1 with a lv3 vs. a lv12. the victor would take home 18 victory points. but check this out. a 2v2 with 2 lv3's vs. 2 lv12's would reap 36 VPs & the same ranks in a 4v4 would reap 72 VPs. if it were an all-out 4v4 lv12 showdown, the winning faction would take home 288 VPs!

since nobody really knows their opponent's rank at the beginning, it's a crapshoot for players - they can't necessarily focus their efforts on high-ranked matches (but they also can't refuse to play against a low-ranked player simply b/c it doesn't earn them as many points). overall, it seems as though the game engine does a decent job of matching up players based on rank, so i think problems related to abuse of this system should be minimal.

a fix like this could also eliminate some of the cheating - a lv12 player playing a cheater lv1 wouldn't be awarded the same VPs as a lv12 playing an actual battle against a higher ranked player (6 VPs vs. 72 VPs in a 12v12 match-up).

it wouldn't solve the problem of people playing multiple factions & using them to affect the overall battlemap (say a player that has both a SPZ & EEFC account, ranking the SPZ account up against JSF & then losing to EEFC players on purpose). to fix that problem, i would make ranks less static.

it seems your rank is more a result of your unit strength than your battle ability. what if it were based on your ability to win instead? & perhaps even have 2 ranks for players - one rank for each faction they play (EEFC commanders would have a "vs. SPZ" rank & a "vs. JSF" rank). this could entirely eliminate the effect of multiple faction cheating.

overall, i think inserting a system like that could help to create a more enjoyable experience for players & build more playability into the game - the better i am, the more i can affect the game's outcome. that makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Northern_Sun:

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.

this sounds like what they said would be in the game from the get go.... plz put something like this in the game. custom battalions would be a great addition.