How about a take cover order for infantry. Sometimes you tell them to secure an uplink and you don't babysit them all the way to the uplink and they run into trouble. Maybe your in a tank fight or protecting your artillery and you can't check to see why they are in trouble. It would be nice to just say unit whatever take cover and just maybe they would servive instead of walking into their graves.

Here are some ideas of mine.

i've red most of the tread but not all so I hope these weren't posted before.

1 it is a small sort of cosmetic change,it would be very nice when you enter the barracks you could walk around in you own sort of staging area (just like you can walk around in your garage in pgr4) but still allow a overview for quick upgrades in between batles.

2 let there be a sort of travel time for your battalion.like when you the JSF in south europe and you want to fight in zweden or something and the euro and ruskie frontline is in between that it takes a turn to get there or something.and that you can upgrade that ,so that you start with regular sea transport and for 5 million cr for the jsf you get a squadron of v120 valkyrie's (those big transport helicopters)so you take up much shorter time (ive got to work this out)
will be happy to get your opinion.

I'll split my suggestions into, 1. What I'd like to see personally and 2. What Ubisoft should do in Endwar 2 to be more successful :

1.
- Add a filter for quick match on number of players. This would really help wait times and just seems such an obvious quick easy addition. Surprised it wasn't there from release. If I want 1v1, I don't expect quick match to put me in 4v4...
- Add waypoint movement for all units. ie: move to bravo via X locations on map instead of always taking the shortest route.
- Improve matchmaking to account for skill correctly.
- Improve how you judge skill. Number of wins is a cop out by Ubisoft, that's just the easiest way for you to implement it. On PS3 the number 5 best player has lost 30% of his matches..... that's silly.
- Add more control to TOW. Maybe give top players each week the ability to vote on where to attack? Would help build the community as well.
- A real single player game with an actual story.
- A few more units, but don't break the beauty of this strict combat system.

2.
- Add some flipping polish omg. When I first played this game I thought it was the most rushed pathetic game I'd ever played. The UI looks like a 10 year old's computer science project in BASIC on a C64. Do you know how many customers you've lost because of how awful the menu looks? I was sooo close to sending it straight back, but luckily I stuck with it and found the gameplay to be brilliant. Why do you think you can get away with static images of generals talking to us? Every game for years has had video, it really made me feel like I'd been ripped off and I only paid £19.99.
- Add a real tutorial, teaching everything about how to play. This game is surprisingly deep in strategy and I think a lot of people get put off when they can't finish 'Prelude to war' on the easiest difficulty on the first attempt.
- Very detailed documentation on everything. I want a 10 page manual on every aspect and rule of TOW. I want a huge website with tactics and statistics and explanations on every single upgrade in the game. Have you ever seen Blizzard release an RTS? Try to do something remotely similar to them, there's a reason they're so successful - they don't release software until it's finished and they don't cut corners.
- Don't market your game for it's voice command system. It makes it seem like a gimic. The gameplay in Endwar is absolutely fantastic - focus on that! You successfully removed the RTS race and rush problem, I salute you. But you forgot to tell anyone...

Most importantly : Please please make Endwar 2.

Everything has already been pretty much said but they should re-skin maps so they all don't look alike and in expand into North Africa and a little bit of Asia.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie-Sniper:
I understand that ubisoft concentrated on online for end war but it is still not a complete online it is frustratingly close to being perfect with only small glitches and if it is because ubisoft can’t handle the seize of TOW why not break it down into smaller versions of TOW which are more local so have better connections and more personal because I always end up playing the same people anyway and within each smaller version of TOW it could have stats of each player this would make it feel like you have a much bigger part.

Just quoting the most important part of the post here. Sure, it's written in wall-o-text format, but still...

Like they did with Resistance: Fall of Man. On release, you could only play in your own region (All North American players were limited to North American opponents only).

Then once they had the numbers up, they introduced woldwide servers. Retained ranked battle for both worldwide and regional, gave players the option to play local only or go to worldwide. And they told you when you went to manually join a game, where the server was located, so you could try and aim for a local server if one was available.

I seriously think having a series of local servers when the game was release would have made a huge difference to ToW's success. Now, may be to late to salvage, but if they do it and promote it right... May just save things.
*End of first suggestion

Also, I'm sure I've seen this before, but don't think it was here... FIX SKIRMISH!!!! Let players choose to host or search for games.

Hosting player chooses map, mission type, number of players and their own faction then waits for someone to join.

Search lets you use any of the hosts options as filters, requiring you to select a faction before joining the game, and lists all available games fitting the criteria you used. So if a player searches for a 1v1 game playing as EFEC, all 1v1s hosted by JSF or SGB players will be visible. If a EFEC player hosts a 4v4 game, and the first player to join is JSF, then the game won't show on a list for SGB players to join.

At the moment, you have to pick a map, which already has factions selected, pick one of the two factions, which determines whether you're attacker or defender, and play the mission with the mission type assigned to that map. SO you can't directly select anything but which faction you want to play as, and if you don't have an opponent wanting to play on that specific combination of settings, you're screwed. As it stands, you'll get into a game FASTER when you're fussy in ToW than you will with the skirmish match system.

Even a "Skirmish Quick Match" system with the option to select only a faction, or faction and mission type, would be nice.

I think somthing cool would be to make the shields on units contermesures and armor instead of your units getting lit up then after there shields gone they take casualties. An example would be engineers shooting at a tank and u see an active protection system or something like that. There are upgrades like that so it would actually make u see them working. I know the gunships use flares but make it do more. Most units could use smokesceens, active protection systems, reactive armor, flares, and seeing rounds bounce off the tank would be very cool and make the game visualy better.

Hello Ubisoft Developers and End War Fans:

Over the last few months, I've been seriously thinking about the End War and the Tom Clancy Universe. I have a major suggestion that I think will help Ubisoft sales, and put the Tom Clancy franchise over the top. It is a major undertaking though.

In the franchise, there is Ghost Recon, End War and HAWKS. We play these titles separately online. Well, its time that we combine these franchises into one multiverse.

Let's take it from the top. Strategy buffs love End War. But what if you could issue order to real troops on the ground...for instance, to those who where playing GRAW. Those orders would be received by the group in the waiting room and while in game play.

Now think of the GRAW soldiers as special ops. Not only would they have to accomplish grabbing uplinks, but would have to fight other GRAW clans, blow up tanks, plant mines, snipe, etc.

GRAW soldiers would be able to call in assists from the End War 'Commanders'. These might be artillery strikes, transports (to move from one local to another), or tanks and transports to help combat enemy forces. But, these 'supports' would have to be requested by the GRAW soldier, and then in turn, the End War Commander would have to make that request happen anyway that he can. In other words, the method would be up to the End War Commander. This leads me to another thought...

As part of those 'supports' that the End War commander has, Air Stikes are one of them. That is where HAWKS come into play. Imagine the End War Commander requesting an air strike. HAWKS pilots would be on stand by. They would have to get to the target to strike. But they would have to fight against the other faction in order to get to their target. Hence, another universe connected to the multiverse.

HAWKS pilots would get their orders in the waiting room or while flying on station. Multiple Targets (including emp blasts and wmd) would be designated to strike. It would then be that pilot's job to make it happen.

As you can see, the central hub is the End War Commander. Their job would be more personalized due to the fact that the troops and pilots 'lives' are real. The GRAW and HAWKS universes would live in the World War that we End War Commanders fight. This would make it much more of an interesting fight for them online too.

This might take some planning to pull off, and might need to be 'one game' somehow in that you can play in the role of choice...much like Battlefield II. I think it should be considered though.

I have much more detailed in what I am proposing. I hope that the End War Dev Team might be interested in what I am proposing. But this is just a highlight. I also hope that this post will spur discussion.

My contact information is below if anyone need to contact me.

DaWayne Cleckley, President
StellarMediaWorks, LLC

814-456-4030

www.stellarmediaworks.com

Youtube: Search 'stellarmediaworks'.

Thank you for your time.

This has probably been said before, but I think the three most important improvements (aside from fixing the existing bugs) would be:

• A better lobby system that makes it easier to find where people are playing.
  
• Better lag detection. People shouldn't be penalized if they lag out, but deliberate disconnects are a pain. Also, the servers should be more tolerant of transient lag.
  
• A "follow" command. I spend entirely too much time manually following a teammates units around the battlefield in 4v4. Why can't I just tell my transport "unit 3, follow unit 7" and let him lead the way?
  

There are plenty of other good ideas, especially for the matchmaking and lobby systems. For example:

• A 5-second countdown timer before a match starts, so that people don't have to play folks they don't like, or a chance to get out without dashboarding if there's an AI.
  
• In-lobby stats on your opponents (rank, battalion type, battalion strength, and so forth) so that you can plan your battle and select your units based on the players as well as the maps.
  

Mostly, though, I just hope persistent battalions remain in the game, but that glitches like KIAs counting while promotions don't are resolved. 4v4 games suffer from a lack of available XP anyway; ranking up when half your games don't count in 4v4 because someone quit or lagged out just plain sucks.

Hmmm. And if it hasn't been said before, I think combat XP should be based on damage dealt, not just one who gets in the final shot.

The current system seriously impairs ranking up in 4v4. You might be shooting at an enemy unit, taking it down from full shields and health to one red bar, but then someone else uses a secondary atack or or gets in the final shot, and you then get no XP at all despite having done most of the work.

This isn't as much of a problem in 1v1, since it's still one of your own units that gets the XP. However, in 2v2 and 4v4, the XP can be very unevenly distributed in multi-unit firefights.

I think there should be a penalty for leaving early, even if there is an implemented system. IE: You leave before 5 seconds, Your top unit gets demoted. Why? because you shouldn't leave a match, Take your loss and begone, but don't leave.

How about since you get one exp per unit downed, you give .25 exp per squad or vehicle destroyed. and a morale boost for playing better, Paper on rock, so to say. More/(different types) units would be nice. and in 2v2 Why can't everyon have 12 units? Oh and the Leaderboards should be based on a W/L ratio, not only wins.

quote:

Originally posted by trooper1nl:
Here are some ideas of mine.

i've red most of the tread but not all so I hope these weren't posted before.

1 it is a small sort of cosmetic change,it would be very nice when you enter the barracks you could walk around in you own sort of staging area (just like you can walk around in your garage in pgr4) but still allow a overview for quick upgrades in between batles.

I kinda like this one.

And even if it's purely cosmetic, I want a better staging area than just a blank background. It would be cool to see...something.Perhaps your choice of a few options. The just behind the frontline of your last battle maybe? A large hanger? A field? A urban setting? That would be cool. Although people will no doubt get that much more attached to their units, and we all know what's going to happen when those units die.

Aww well, can't please everyone.

i don't think riflemen should carry mortars. they are heavy, and would slow them down.

engineers perhaps. and there is anti tank infantry in the game. again, engineers.

Pal you must be seeing something different, but I see:


new ENGINEER secondattack

Mortars

k benito... your posting the exact same stuff into multiple threads now... you created a thread with all these ideas already in it... i think it would be better to keep all your stuff in either ONE post on here just editing it as you add stuff, or keep adding things to your own ideas thread...

quote:

Originally posted by BenitoFinito:
ok since your only one to ask decently.

Even tho I'm shocked that so many people are petty forum nerds on here with their rules of how to post even tho this forums dead most of the time.

After being on this forum I can see why Ubi dropped this game. It seems like the place is run by a gang of nerdy ***EDIT*** sheep who probly don't give two ***EDIT*** about Endwar.

Not like there's a thread called Forum Rules, oh wait there is and specifically you would be wanting this section

quote:

No spamming

Repeatedly posting the same post or topic in a forum, or across multiple forums, is considered spamming. Such posts will be locked, edited or removed. Intentional off topic or nonsense posting is also likely to be considered spam and will receive the same treatment, especially if this takes an existing thread off topic.

If you think of something else you want to add to the thread, please use the Edit button rather than making multiple posts in a row as this may also be seen as spamming, whether intentional or not.

Also only 2 months ago you called everyone here fans in the "Regarding Future EndWar Updates" thread, nice how your story changed when people started disagreeing with you because the people certainly haven't changed since then.

quote:

From now on I'll only post my own topics so if you don't like it don't be a fool and come reading my posts chesing me round like a fag.

I'll leave you alone as long as you don't post in any threads but your own, I'll pop in every now and then for the entertainment value but that's it.

There need to be more things to spend your money on in campaign. At the end i had about 40 million CP after i upgraded EVERYTHING. Maybe upgrade the support helicopters to have guns, faster flight speed or be able to stay on the battlefield a little longer to evacuate several squads at once/attack some targets.

1. get a deeper storyline, way too little story for a game made by tom clancy

2. if possible, when explosions go off nearby the camera shakes and debris goes on the camera for a while

3. fix some graphical glitches like weak textures and popping

4. a more fluent camera that u have more control over, annoying sometimes when u cant change altitude and all that

5. a better community in game, its hard to wage world war 3 when u cant even talk 2 ur teammates off the battlefield