Forums End War End War: Theater of War Want to fix the Theater of War? Make suggestions here|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
This with a little better matchmaking would almost all of this game's flaws, I think. It'd make it funner for new players, thereby increasing new "Colonel's" and helping in player retention, reducing wait times for games and the need for AI commanders. (I might also suggest private ToW's. Sometimes I just wanna play with my bro, family, a few friends, and be able to come and go as we please. The global ToW is cool, but that'd be a way for zero wait times without affecting other people's game play.) |
||||
|
(for pc)
1. some kind of counter where u see how many ppl from each faction are currently online 2. A bonus when u wait a long time in a "warroom" for more ppl like 1 victory point evry 30 min. of non stop waiting for each person 3. an option where u get an guarantee that u play with ure teammate when u join an room and not an random player. 4. u shoud be able to choose on fast game "only 1v1 games" or "only 2v2 games" |
||||
|
In addition to my previous post I add the following minor solutions to matchmaking:
1.) It appears that a lot of players shun maps where where they do not have friendly (Air) Support but where they have to face enemy Air Support. This makes finding matches on those maps a problem, because the Air Support side will be waiting in vain for an enemy that has no Air Support. I think a good minor solution to this issue is through the addition of the voice command: “Electronic Warfare Hostile Air Strike” This EMP strike could then immediately shut down an enemy air strike at the cost of in-battle CP's. This would allow players to have at least some measure of defence against enemy air strikes, which would lure players to enemy Air Support maps, by which I mean maps with enemy Air Support but without friendly Air Support. 2.) Making Prestige as I call it in my post (or CR as it is called in EndWar TOW) something that is constantly needed to requisition (buy) more experienced units (a solution also detailed in my post), will lure players to maps where the main effort is. Players would have an incentive to fight on maps where the main effort is, because these maps could offer more Prestige (=CR) for every battle fought there. 3.) I think that to add a SINGLE PLAYER (only) TOW AI Commanding Officer (CO) at “AI hardcore” level might also be a good idea to kill the 40 minute waiting times and lure players back to EndWar. If players are lured back via this single player TOW AI mechanism, the player base would grow larger and this would cut back on waiting times in human versus human matches. Different TOW rewards could be applied to the AI TOW CO (=Commanding Officer) matches, such as that every 10 battles won by a player against the AI TOW CO count as 1 battle against a human TOW player. The same 1-to-10 factor could be applied for Prestige (=CR) and “unit experience” gained in a battle against the AI TOW CO. Waiting 40 minutes for a game is just unacceptable for many a player, which makes them move on to other games. Single player AI TOW could reverse this trend. That way a player could have an instant AI TOW battle, but still would preferably fight a human for added Prestige (CR), “unit experience” and TOW campaign results. Alternatively the AI TOW could be introduced not as a player selectable option, but it could be started automatically after waiting three (3) minutes for a match in the player lobby. |
||||
|
Even though only a few people responded in the "Weak EFEC units poll", the votes show that those that did think that the EFEC is TOO weak.
I think that weaker EFEC units are not bad per se, but they are just TOO weak individually. When an EFEC player sends in two infantry units against one enemy infantry JSF/SGB unit he knows that he can expect at least one friendly unit to get knocked out and the other one damaged. As an EFEC player you must constantly try to counteract your weakness and you get the feeling of commanding weak and brittle EFEC units. To play a game you need players. A lot of players just don't like the feeling of weakness, weakness gives players the feeling of inferiority and that pushes them away from the EFEC side. Counteracting weakness may surely be challenging for skilled EFEC players, but a major let down for any new TOW players. Not everybody likes the idea of having only weak units and CONSTANTLY sneaking around to try and counteract this. Weak EFEC units means fewer new EFEC players and with that come problems for the player base and the matchmaking. The EFEC should have at least one OFFENSIVE mechanized direct fire unit type that is clearly stronger than the same JSF/SGB unit type. Actually every side should have at least one offensive mechanized direct fire unit that is clearly stronger than its adversaries. For example: JSF: strongest Gunship EFEC: strongest Transports SGB: strongest Tanks |
||||
|
Lots of interesting ideas. Your suggestion 2 gave me the idea to "sell" games, i.e. when their is a map with lots of people of one faction waiting for an opponent, attract people of the other faction by offering them a free bonus of CR and/or exp. The same balancing measure that is applied when you choose a faction for the TOW. |
||||
|
If you press "Y" (360) while hovering over a map in TOW you can see if they give CR bonuses for anything... also you can see if it is the map that will forward your position.
No spam Advertising This message has been edited. Last edited by: aznpwnerp, |
||||
|
Corporal_Bruno, Nice website and good interviews. After reading the interview with QuidProKuo I am even more convinced that any DLC will only offer new maps, camo, battalions etc. but not offer any huge structural changes. This would be regrettable, because EndWar TOW has so much more potential. I refer to this remark by QuidProKuo: "It took a long time to get the TOW rules to where they are now, the last thing the team wants to do is to change a rule and break the entire system. However, we do know that the TOW rules are very complex and are keeping this in mind for future projects." So if anything we can probably expect less complexity and refinement in the future and not more. I hope that I am wrong in concluding this. But it still remains useful to post in the forums, based on your interview with QuidProKuo: "On a separate note, do the developers listen to the War Report? Do they read the forums? Do they read my interviews? "Yes."" |
||||
|
First time posting and I hope to influence some new content or spawn ideas for new content.
Most of my ideas come from more people than just myself and all have been run by friends from multiple factions and play styles. 1) Forced kill order where units will be able to kill only under being told to: a) It will reduce unit kills but still enables those people who choose to kill to do so. b) I'd also say that in the the lobby it could have a voting system where each player will have a say if the order can be used or something to that effect. I agree that killing must be able to happen but when people purposely just forfeit a win for there team to just **** people off I ask myself why should everyone be punished when some people just want to make people mad. I mean lets face it everyone, some people just want to skew up things for everyone. c) There should be a way to prevent EMP->WMD or WMD->Air Support Kills. No offense to anyone but come on a gunship swarm rush just to kill them and a command vehicle is pretty weak. 2) Make new upgrades: a) It's a pain when you can't spend credits cause everything is bought. b) Make new upgrades that you purchase for a select unit not for all units of one type and make it possible to only buy a certain amount per unit and have each faction get personal ones unlike the unit abilities which are all standard for all. Some cool ideas others have state: i) Ghillie suits for riflemen: Stealth wherever if not moving. ii) Purchase additional special attack weapons (mini guns, sniper rifles, etc.): increased damage on spec attacks. iii) More accuracy, damage, and/or range etc depending on unit and faction specialty (Spz: Damage and amour, Jsf: Range and accuracy, Efec: Mobility and accuracy. All can get a bit of each but some get more in their area). iv) Gunship Emergency landing training: can navigate falling craft to a safe LZ (ie. not water or buildings) v) Special armour plating or types: A) Stealth: Air strikes either are less accurate in area aroud unit or plainly can't be targeted. (Vehicle only) B) Ceramic shielding or something: Resist or negate EMP on unit. (Vehicle only) C) Thermal active camo: Ability to remain hidden from upgraded riflemen and Command vehicle and drones. (Infantry only) vi) Endurance training: Faster infantry movement. vii) Submachine gun: Shorter basic weapon range on infantry, less damage VS. vehicles and more VS. infantry along with more damage when storming building. viii) Support helo upgrades. A) Engine upgrades: less time to evac. B) Above listed armour upgrades. C) Defensive weapon systems. ix) Riflemen deep strike upgrade; Halo Jump: Faster deployment and undetectable. 3) Custom battalion and I agree with the previously posted ideas. 4) Ability to vote among comrades as too where to push on the map: a) Lets face it some of us can't find games on the territory we wish to push on so move to a more populated map. 5) Ability to vote on placing AI on your side to get a match started as to not be force to wait for an hour. 6) New HIGHLY EXPENSIVE Support asset. Maybe a cross continental bombers or something. a) Used in any match like electronic warfare. b) Weaker/Slower version of air support to even playing field on matches where one side gets air support and/or force recon. |
||||
|
I know. Bot those boni are both small and static. I.e. they won't raise if one faction is camping the map without finding opponents. Such a situation means that it is not attractive enough for players of the other faction to go for that map. To correct it, increase the benefit for the weaker part until the map participation is balanced. That I do mean with "selling" games. One TOW problem is that people go for maps where they have an advantage in support. With all the rules of endwar being as they are that makes totally sense: going for a map where you are more likely to lose means risking your units to get killed. So all players of all factions end up camping maps where only a few opponents show up, causing long waiting times. |
||||
|
After reading the interview, and especially the statements about the TOW rules and unit killing I am rather disappointed. To be honest: the TOW is broken and a failure with the small player base proving that. It does not deliver satisfying gaming experience for the majority of players. The concept needs reconsideration. Fearing to break something that is broken already does not make sense. So if ubisoft leaves the TOW as it is it means they abandon the game and accept that the concept failed. From an economical point of view it may make totally sense to them. |
||||
|
Ive got an idea that will make the game 10x better." MAKE THE UNITS RANK UP CORRECTLY" e.g. ive got fully upgraded transports and their only rank 3 so they can use all the upgrades. But its seems they never will because they have been in over 40 battles and no matter how many kills i get with them with out them dieing they just wont go to rank 4.
 |
||||
|
 |
I came up with an idea last night that might make the game more fair and thus lessen the frustration that many players have with the game.
A. Supports: Remove support bases altogether, keep the maps, but don't have them do anything special. All supports would be available everywhere (really only changing force recon and air support). Airstrikes would have a numerical limit say 4, equally divided up among the players (i.e. in a 4v4, everyone gets one airstrike). Force recon would always be able to be called in, (regular army troops always follow a speartip of shock troops). This idea may make the game less "realistic", but honestly, who cares if it makes the game actually fun. The equality of supports would then attract more players to different maps, decreasing the wait time because no one would be scared of the maps that they have no supports on. B. Leveling: My problem is not with unit killing itself, just that it takes far too long for a unit to regain its former level. I believe that the rate at which units gain experience should be more like 1.5x the current rate. To those who would say that everyone would have a battalion of all legendary units too quickly, I propose that there be a system added in which high level units that remain inactive for extended periods of time should be demoted a number of ranks based on their time inactive. |
|||
|
I like point 1. I would add that it would be nice if a UNIT only went down one RANK when murdered. |
||||
|
I think raid needs a serious look at. I have spoken to no one who remotely thinks it's fair for the defender.
I posted here at a new thread and didn't get any opinions, but that doesn't shock me here. |
||||
|
wat jus cuz jsf loses their pussy artillery they like 2 hide behind makes raids undefendable
no matter defendin or attackin i win raids hands down  |
||||
|
 |
well, there are a lot of cheaters lately because each time i look, europe is winning! but when i look next day to see what happend, we lost all! i investigated this and came out here: http://endwarboards.com/endwar...ar-spetsnaz-cheating
Loading...My style ... ██████████████] 99% EFEC 6th Assault Division |
|||
|
I explained in your other thread, you loose all the battles because of the primary frontline rule. Not that I'm saying there aren't cheaters that need to be stopped, I have seen firsthand rapid shifts only explainable by a larger numbers of cheaters working, most times in favor of SGB... |
||||
|
hello. Yes, I believe a good thing to do would be make a voice command for deepstrike such as "Unit 2 Deepstrike Foxtrot." Would be greatly appreciated because then you won't need command vehicles for deep striking.
|
||||
|
You can already do this with the move command. While riflemen are still deploying(but before they start roping down) just say unit_ move to ___ and if you have 6 CP they will deepstrike. |
||||
|
 |
Theater of War while great in concept never really worked out in execution. I've played over 600 matches online and committed a great deal of my time for over 3 solid months until I just got bored of the stalemates and the lack of progress.
Problems with ToW: 1. Back and forth nature. 2. PF rule resulting in JSF and SGB "Defending" their way into Europe thus leaving Paris never under threat. 3. Boosting / Cheating Theater of War should have been more like the single player campaign. So here's my idea: Each player has on their own console THEIR OWN campaign. However, when you choose to fight @ a particular location rather than have an AI opponent, you face a human opponent. Player A is SGB Player B is EFEC 1. Player A has already fought 2 turns (now turn 3) of his own war and is now up to Brenner Pass. 2. Player B has fought 12 turns of his own war and is also up to Brenner Pass. Thus both players meet at Brenner Pass. If Player A wins, he proceeds to Turn 4 of his own war and moves onto the next map. Based on their "performance" much like in single player, if they achieved an A Rank, the other battlefronts move forward, if they get a Low rank, the other battlefronts of their war might fall back. If Player A loses, he falls back. So subsequently their Turn 4 means they've lost a territory or 2. Same applies to Player B if he/she wins or loses. This means that Player A and Player B could potentially meet again, since one progresses and the other falls back, but it is unlikely SINCE there are more than just the two of them playing. NOTE: A map is only fought for once! This way each player can fight a war in a day or a matter of days and have a sense of accomplishment. Rather than waiting 24 hours to see if the battle moved backwards or forwards having to rely on everyone else to be focusing their efforts in the one place. The odds are that there will ALWAYS be someone in a position to fight you, since let's say there's 5,000+ people fighting a week, that will be fighting their own wars. MULTI-PLAYER This doesn't mean you can't play 2vs2 or 4vs4. The HOST of the battle has their WAR directly effected. The other players won't have their WARS effected at all, the other players would join effectively by a "SKIRMISH" style joining system. These players JOINING help the original player will still gain CREDITS and XP for their platoons by fighting here. In this way people can still invite their friends to fight with them. This means of course that our PERSISTENT BATTALIONS in ToW must be used in "SKIRMISH". Of course there would be no restriction on people only playing SKIRMISH to earn credits and XP for their battalion. The only cost to a player doing this would be that THEIR own war never progresses. The advantages this system provides 1. Cheating and Boosting becomes irrelevant since each person has their own "war". 2. People can earn credits and XP for their upgrades / platoons lost in battle. 3. ALL MAPS can be played in "SKIRMISH" mode. Thus no one gets bored of the same old maps being fought for OVER and OVER again. --------------------------- Europeans had no idea America would show up to single-handily rescue them from destruction. That's why Europeans are so grateful to America, and why when Americans travel to Europe today they're treated like heroes. - Cracked.com  PSN ID: Rage0329 www.endwarboards.com |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Forums End War End War: Theater of War Want to fix the Theater of War? Make suggestions here
