Airstrikes are currently and are going to be the ultimate factor that kills this game. Many many many problems can be solved by taking airstrikes out of the game or by only allowing airstrikes when both sides can use them. If you look a the game play data, there are approximately 8000-12000 games played on shandowa valley because the JSF has airstrikes, and a similar number played on grissom.

The issue of being in a stalemate for 20 damn turns would also be sovled if airstrikes are not a factor.I know its part of the game, but you can't trust the general player community. no body will play anywhere they don't have airstrikes which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get a game started. I wait upwards of 30 to 40 mins to play one 6 minute game, I spend my entire day waiting rather than actually playing. I'm about to be done with this game. These issues and others need to be addressed.

If you respects us at all as a company, you should at least announce a release date for the patch so we know there is hope. Its sad to see a game like this take such a fall. The best thing you can do is eliminate airstrike support from tow except maybe the the capitols, this will solve many of your problems because no one likes that support anyways.

Disagree. I don't think elimiating airstrikes is the way to go. They are possible to beat (lots of posts about the in the General Discussion board). The clue to your problem getting games is in your post - go play where the opponent has supports.

That said I do think there is some potential to tweak ToW so that the are more times where neither side has air support, rather than having only the choice of one or other side having it.

Uhh no, what is killing the game is the unbalanced ratio of unit deaths to unit xp(from disappearing, promotions not counting, and ease of unit killing), lack of support, bad support when it is present, poor match making, and the fact that this game never got the advertisement to get the player base it needs to sustain to thrive.


I have seen plenty of advances not be hampered by uphill fight where the defender has the only supports, the question is why do these players have trouble?

airstrikes are brill...

some one kills your unit...

just airstrike 3 it... then WMD it...

Vengance is best served hot... lol

As stated already, airstrikes are not the problem. But I have a feeling that Ubisoft has plenty of stuff up their sleeves. They have a lot of games coming out soon and they might start advertising them all at once to raise sales. I am Alive, Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X., the new Splinter Cell...even Far Cry 3 is in the works. Ubisoft has a lot of resources left and as the holiday season drama wears off, less noticed games like EndWar will get boosts in sales. But still, it's only a feeling.

I can say, without a doubt, JSF can wait for eternity on the Shenendoah type map fpr me to arrive. That is not a map that can be won against force recone and airstrikes, having to capture 4-5 uplinks on a narrow streth of land broken into two masses with two tine routes between them - if one plays to keep units from being killed. And, I am not going to have 5-10 units killed for the sake of winning one game.

Actually if you look at what happened for the last 20 turn, hell for almost the entire war, who ever has airstrikes on their map wins, i'm not talking about the good players, i'm talking about the general population. look at the grissom rondane, or matrea in the beginning of the war, or shandowa valley pamlico, or regan sea base, all of these have been back an forth for upwards of 10 turns because one side will win because of airstrikes, then the other side has airstrike and end up winning, rinse and repeat.

Result: we play the same damn maps for 20 turns in a row, games are extremely hard to find on maps that are balanced. for example, rondane and rovenimi are WAY more balanced that grissom because we start in such close proximity that you can just rush and the game ends before we can airstrike. Grissom on the other hand, we start at points that are fairly far with a freakin city between us, a rush is out of the question and therefore airstrikes play a big role.

I play burner pass against the euros where they get airstrikes and out of 20 games I play, i might get 1 where they airstrike me because I finish the game before they accumelate the 4 points to airstrike.

Another point is that JSF the THE MOST RELIANT on airstrikes, if you disagree, look at the game numbers for the last few turns, 12000 games played on grissom and shandowa valley, 2500 played on rondane. this is consistent in almost every turn. This is evidence that russians play games where we don't have support while the JSF doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by avoiderman:
Disagree. I don't think elimiating airstrikes is the way to go. They are possible to beat (lots of posts about the in the General Discussion board). The clue to your problem getting games is in your post - go play where the opponent has supports.

That said I do think there is some potential to tweak ToW so that the are more times where neither side has air support, rather than having only the choice of one or other side having it.

Maybe the problem is that bad players keep playing there? What is the solution to that?
If it's really as big a problem as bitchy people make it out to be then why do people keep playing those maps over and over again? There is almost never going to be only one battle open to a faction.

It amazes me by now that people still whine about this, they should either of learned how to deal with it, or would be avoiding maps if they don't like them. It's not the games fault people are to stupid to realize that. If there was a map I couldn't win, you bet I wouldn't keep joining on it and loosing for my faction.

Instead of criticizing the game(there's plenty of real reasons to do that) why don't you find out why your faction mates are so ****ing stupid?

quote:

Originally posted by b_4721:
Maybe the problem is that bad players keep playing there? What is the solution to that?
If it's really as big a problem as bitchy people make it out to be then why do people keep playing those maps over and over again? There is almost never going to be only one battle open to a faction.

It amazes me by now that people still whine about this, they should either of learned how to deal with it, or would be avoiding maps if they don't like them. It's not the games fault people are to stupid to realize that. If there was a map I couldn't win, you bet I wouldn't keep joining on it and loosing for my faction.

Instead of criticizing the game(there's plenty of real reasons to do that) why don't you find out why your faction mates are so ****ing stupid?

I actually fully agree with you, my team mates are incredibly stupid, actually the majority of player on endwar are incredibly stupid, how else would we get 8000 losses on grissom? Some people had to loose 20 or 30 times on it and keep playing it like idiots, like something is going to change when they play it the 32nd time. Every game however, should account for idiots, because thats the majority of every population.

And for your suggestion of avoiding the maps, I do avoid the maps where JSF has airstrikes, however that comes at a consequence of waiting upward of 45 mins for a game. where trying grissom yields an instant game...kinda says something about JSF players. I think the 12000 games played on grissom vs. 2000 played on rondane are evidence that JSF only play where they have airstrikes, and russian are complete retards for playing grissom in the first place.

Either way everyone looses cuz we're stuck playing the same maps over and over again.

Cool down air strikes! Problem solved.

Airstrikes are awesome. Great way to spice up the gameplay and bend the rules a bit. If you're losing, it's because you or your faction just sucks. No offence.

We will lead the European Federation to victory and grind you Americans and Russians to dust.

quote:

Originally posted by Astalano:
Airstrikes are awesome. Great way to spice up the gameplay and bend the rules a bit. If you're losing, it's because you or your faction just sucks. No offence.

We will lead the European Federation to victory and grind you Americans and Russians to dust.

By the end of today, could you share a replay of your victory at Ft. Leviski? I would like to see your strategy.

quote:

Originally posted by tonydaglas934:
Airstrikes are currently and are going to be the ultimate factor that kills this game. Many many many problems can be solved by taking airstrikes out of the game or by only allowing airstrikes when both sides can use them. If you look a the game play data, there are approximately 8000-12000 games played on shandowa valley because the JSF has airstrikes, and a similar number played on grissom.

The issue of being in a stalemate for 20 damn turns would also be sovled if airstrikes are not a factor.I know its part of the game, but you can't trust the general player community. no body will play anywhere they don't have airstrikes which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get a game started. I wait upwards of 30 to 40 mins to play one 6 minute game, I spend my entire day waiting rather than actually playing. I'm about to be done with this game. These issues and others need to be addressed.

If you respects us at all as a company, you should at least announce a release date for the patch so we know there is hope. Its sad to see a game like this take such a fall. The best thing you can do is eliminate airstrike support from tow except maybe the the capitols, this will solve many of your problems because no one likes that support anyways.

wow you complain you cant find a game where the enemy has no airstrikes...you prolly defending a map where you only have airstrikes thats why no one will go there cuz your pussy *** hides behind the airstrikes wow stupid players these days

quote:

Originally posted by PsychoRaptor:

quote:

Originally posted by tonydaglas934:
Airstrikes are currently and are going to be the ultimate factor that kills this game. Many many many problems can be solved by taking airstrikes out of the game or by only allowing airstrikes when both sides can use them. If you look a the game play data, there are approximately 8000-12000 games played on shandowa valley because the JSF has airstrikes, and a similar number played on grissom.

The issue of being in a stalemate for 20 damn turns would also be sovled if airstrikes are not a factor.I know its part of the game, but you can't trust the general player community. no body will play anywhere they don't have airstrikes which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get a game started. I wait upwards of 30 to 40 mins to play one 6 minute game, I spend my entire day waiting rather than actually playing. I'm about to be done with this game. These issues and others need to be addressed.

If you respects us at all as a company, you should at least announce a release date for the patch so we know there is hope. Its sad to see a game like this take such a fall. The best thing you can do is eliminate airstrike support from tow except maybe the the capitols, this will solve many of your problems because no one likes that support anyways.

wow you complain you cant find a game where the enemy has no airstrikes...you prolly defending a map where you only have airstrikes thats why no one will go there cuz your pussy *** hides behind the airstrikes wow stupid players these days

WOW, and this comming for a stupid JSF player who can't read, if you read above, you'd see that there are 12000 games played on grissom and only 2000 games played on rondane almost each day. Trust me, JSF are the last people that can talk about hiding behind airstrikes. I can't get games started because all the pu**y JSF players are sitting in grissom. read before you post, you'd look a lil less stupid...just a little...

I have to agree on the Grissom mission. I've played it a few times trying to give my team a boost and it's almost impossible to get those JSF players to come out and fight. Mainly what happens is they sit back with at the very least 2 artillery units with engineers in the buildings being guarded by transports and gunships and they upgrade to airstrikes. So if I try to come near them they blow my units away in a variety of ways. I've won maybe a handful of matches at Grissom but at the cost of some units being KIA which ****es me off. I try and destroy as many uplinks as possible so I can restrict them to mayne lvl 1 airstrike.

Anyone got tips for Grissom besides avoiding it?

I don't understand how people have problems with supports on grissom, there are only two upgradeable u8plinks on each side, and every worthy opponent I ave played there we always ended up finishing with no supports because the 4 uplinks were destroyed early on.

sidenote - I found a strategy for the Shenendoah style maps that wins 75% of the time.

Airstrikes are not the end of EndWar, its unit killing. People are less likely to go against airstrikes without mission support because its a gamble of getting units killed.

So, players are not going to experiment with tactics on a ToW map to risk their units being killed. Few people are afraid of losing a match, because they want to get a match in. At the same time, they also do not want to get all of their units killed over a span of a few matches.

In my case, I have found that JSF is now filled with unit killers, that do not even care if they win a match. Last few days, it was impossible to find a "fair" match. So be it. That is a part of the game, and so are any of my decisions not to play on a map without any supports. Personally, I don't like risking my units unless I know everyone in my group. So that means, I play CoD:WaW more often now.

quote:

Originally posted by b_4721:
I don't understand how people have problems with supports on grissom, there are only two upgradeable u8plinks on each side, and every worthy opponent I ave played there we always ended up finishing with no supports because the 4 uplinks were destroyed early on.

If the defender on grissom actually allows you to destroy the delta uplink in the back, then you are playing a retarded opponent. Anyone with half a brain would take out your artillery long before you can do that.

JSF arty outranges us, so while you're hitting the uplink, they are hitting your artillery, plus you can airstrike the artilery twice and down it before you can destroy the uplink. I agree your strategy works against stupid people, but any descent player can take you out easily.

quote:

Originally posted by tonydaglas934:

quote:

Originally posted by b_4721:
I don't understand how people have problems with supports on grissom, there are only two upgradeable u8plinks on each side, and every worthy opponent I ave played there we always ended up finishing with no supports because the 4 uplinks were destroyed early on.

If the defender on grissom actually allows you to destroy the delta uplink in the back, then you are playing a retarded opponent. Anyone with half a brain would take out your artillery long before you can do that.

JSF arty outranges us, so while you're hitting the uplink, they are hitting your artillery, plus you can airstrike the artilery twice and down it before you can destroy the uplink. I agree your strategy works against stupid people, but any descent player can take you out easily.

No, my criteria for worthy opponents are far above your level, you wouldn't understand if you can't figure out something as trivial as that.

quote:

Originally posted by roguewarrior727:
sidenote - I found a strategy for the Shenendoah style maps that wins 75% of the time.

Airstrikes are not the end of EndWar, its unit killing. People are less likely to go against airstrikes without mission support because its a gamble of getting units killed.

So, players are not going to experiment with tactics on a ToW map to risk their units being killed. Few people are afraid of losing a match, because they want to get a match in. At the same time, they also do not want to get all of their units killed over a span of a few matches.

In my case, I have found that JSF is now filled with unit killers, that do not even care if they win a match. Last few days, it was impossible to find a "fair" match. So be it. That is a part of the game, and so are any of my decisions not to play on a map without any supports. Personally, I don't like risking my units unless I know everyone in my group. So that means, I play CoD:WaW more often now.

:P

You're playing as EFEC right?