Global Conflict

Tea-Assault wrote:

where do u find these, i want!!!

Mmmm. I'll reiterate Stars point. Keep this civil guys or the thread will be closed. Save the gifs as well guys, as entertaining as it is, it only adds fuel to the fire. We don't want to do that because discussion is good

Weapon bans were an agreement between HCs, mediated by the TAs. Although we are happy to have discussion here, my recommendation is once you feel your arguments are fleshed out, to bring it to your HCs. If they agree they'll raise it in the relevant discussion forums where both sides will come to an agreement.

Gwynzer wrote:Mmmm. I'll reiterate Stars point. Keep this civil guys or the thread will be closed. Save the gifs as well guys, as entertaining as it is, it only adds fuel to the fire. We don't want to do that because discussion is good

Weapon bans were an agreement between HCs, mediated by the TAs. Although we are happy to have discussion here, my recommendation is once you feel your arguments are fleshed out, to bring it to your HCs. If they agree they'll raise it in the relevant discussion forums where both sides will come to an agreement.

that kinda seems like an unfair banning paradigm... it seems like it was a relatively fast process for the banning portion of a said item, but the unbanning portion seems to me atleast like we need to jump through a bunch of hoops to accomplish.... shouldnt it be a community vote as this is a community??? it sure seemed like we had a say on the banning of weapons when it happened, wouldn't it be fair to let us vote again and see where the community lies and go from there? more of a democracy? more like a community?

I totally see your point, but I think we've more viewed it as an Army-Ethos kind of deal for thins kind of thing. Both HCs agreed that there were certain issues with some weapons/equipment, and they were influenced heavily by the banning suggestion thread, however that thread wasn't the be all end all to the matter. Some things discussed there weren't banned, some things not mentioned were. This will be treated the same, they'll look at this thread, take in all viewpoints and form their own opinion on the matter.

GC is a community, and it is a community where those who do the organisational stuff like the Execs, TAs and Army Officer groups are always listening and taking on board criticism and suggestions. However due to the way the Army system works, at the end of the day it's the Generals' prerogative on how their army plays. If the General wants to stop his army using a weapon, tactic, vehicle, or anything, that's his choice to make.

Gwynzer wrote:I totally see your point, but I think we've more viewed it as an Army-Ethos kind of deal for thins kind of thing. Both HCs agreed that there were certain issues with some weapons/equipment, and they were influenced heavily by the banning suggestion thread, however that thread wasn't the be all end all to the matter. Some things discussed there weren't banned, some things not mentioned were. This will be treated the same, they'll look at this thread, take in all viewpoints and form their own opinion on the matter.

GC is a community, and it is a community where those who do the organisational stuff like the Execs, TAs and Army Officer groups are always listening and taking on board criticism and suggestions. However due to the way the Army system works, at the end of the day it's the Generals' prerogative on how their army plays. If the General wants to stop his army using a weapon, tactic, vehicle, or anything, that's his choice to make.

fully noted and thank you gwynzer and TAs alike

So you are telling me that "flares" and smoke works in BF4 ? Even with those long recharge times? I guess my guided missiles coming from the jet and still hitting must be blessed by DICE.

Lock on weapons/laser designator: the paradigma on BF3 was choosing between a dumbfire rocket or just the javelin. Now you can use Jav, sraw and law. Even then, you have a reliable counter which everyone could use: smoke. Why would you use a javelin then? To punish a thermal optics user or the chance of getting a disabled and kill all the rep monkeys.
Regarding soflam/PLD: it can be a nightmare on certain maps and i´m not sure they have make splash damage clear in a reliable way soflams.

If they have fixed the jav damage and "combo", i don´t see why it should be ban. If someone enlightens me if they work with angle + position to determine damage, that would be great.

This topic has gotten a little too 'hot' please refrain from name calling and throwing insults back and forth, it is not productive and only makes you look bad.

The banned weapon list was decided upon almost two months ago by the community, was agreed upon by both Generals, and the Tournament Administrators (TA's), our referees, are here to enforce the list and all the other rules we play by. It really does not matter if banned items have been fixed since that decision. The banned weapon list will remain in effect until both generals decide to alter it. This is how a GC campaign works and has always worked. If EA patches the game and makes something so Over Powered that the game is Un-Fun then the Generals can choose to ban the weapon for the betterment of our community fun factor (AC-130 gunship is a prime example). If you were here for BF4C1 you'll remember how frustrated people were with the game play and how there was very little interest in starting a second campaign till things got fixed. The weapons ban list was our attempt at making the game enjoyable to the largest percentage of our community so that we could move forward with C2.

So far this campaign appears to be well balanced, fun is being had by all, and there is no real reason to mess with what is working as intended.

When this campaign is over the list will be re-visited and the community will have the chance to voice their opinions on the matter.

As I see it, the weapons ban list has improved the game for our vehicle players substantially and our infantry players (who outnumber the vehicle players at least 4 to 1) still have more options to deal with those vehicles then they did in BF3 anyways.

elchino7 wrote:So you are telling me that "flares" and smoke works in BF4 ? Even with those long recharge times? I guess my guided missiles coming from the jet and still hitting must be blessed by DICE.

Lock on weapons/laser designator: the paradigma on BF3 was choosing between a dumbfire rocket or just the javelin. Now you can use Jav, sraw and law. Even then, you have a reliable counter which everyone could use: smoke. Why would you use a javelin then? To punish a thermal optics user or the chance of getting a disabled and kill all the rep monkeys.
Regarding soflam/PLD: it can be a nightmare on certain maps and i´m not sure they have make splash damage clear in a reliable way soflams.

If they have fixed the jav damage and "combo", i don´t see why it should be ban. If someone enlightens me if they work with angle + position to determine damage, that would be great.

sure thing my chinese Argentine, think of the javelins like youre AGM's in the scout heli, u can only lock one target at a time with one projectile, no stacking of projectiles is allowed with the sraw or the javelin, they fixed those bugs

as for flares and smoke, they work but they need to be used properly with the proper loadout, smoke screen pairs very well with active camo, try it out no one will ever see you on the mini map

Ghoul wrote:This topic has gotten a little too 'hot' please refrain from name calling and throwing insults back and forth, it is not productive and only makes you look bad.

The banned weapon list was decided upon almost two months ago by the community, was agreed upon by both Generals, and the Tournament Administrators (TA's), our referees, are here to enforce the list and all the other rules we play by. It really does not matter if banned items have been fixed since that decision. The banned weapon list will remain in effect until both generals decide to alter it. This is how a GC campaign works and has always worked. If EA patches the game and makes something so Over Powered that the game is Un-Fun then the Generals can choose to ban the weapon for the betterment of our community fun factor (AC-130 gunship is a prime example). If you were here for BF4C1 you'll remember how frustrated people were with the game play and how there was very little interest in starting a second campaign till things got fixed. The weapons ban list was our attempt at making the game enjoyable to the largest percentage of our community so that we could move forward with C2.

So far this campaign appears to be well balanced, fun is being had by all, and there is no real reason to mess with what is working as intended.

When this campaign is over the list will be re-visited and the community will have the chance to voice their opinions on the matter.

As I see it, the weapons ban list has improved the game for our vehicle players substantially and our infantry players (who outnumber the vehicle players at least 4 to 1) still have more options to deal with those vehicles then they did in BF3 anyways.

so we can ban more stuff for the betterment of the game but we can't revoke the said bans, the ban hammer is oh so hot all the time, so many game devs here

Snookfingers wrote: so we can ban more stuff for the betterment of the game but we can't revoke the said bans, the ban hammer is oh so hot all the time, so many game devs here

I'll highlight the sentence in my post for you since you must have missed it. It is in the Generals hands during a campaign weather or not to ban or un-ban a weapon or modify what we term "gentleman's agreements". When we are between campaigns the community will once again tweak the rules that we play by for the next campaign. I don't know what you imply by saying there are 'so many game devs here', but I will say that yes, we have been doing this for 11 years now and have gotten pretty good at it.

The banned weapon list was decided upon almost two months ago by the community, was agreed upon by both Generals, and the Tournament Administrators (TA's), our referees, are here to enforce the list and all the other rules we play by. It really does not matter if banned items have been fixed since that decision. The banned weapon list will remain in effect until both generals decide to alter it.

Which means, if the generals are in agreement to remove a weapon from the ban list then it will be removed. If one wants a weapon removed and the other does not then the weapon will remain banned. As you can see from this thread, there is a lot of disagreement on this subject hence it is better to come to a consensus between campaigns instead of in the middle of one disrupting the "FUN"

I vote for un-banning the MAA active radar missiles!

Necromancer wrote:I vote for un-banning the MAA active radar missiles!

Bring it on!!!!!
Please imagine the weiners as missiles

Necromancer wrote:I vote for un-banning the MAA active radar missiles!

well considering it takes away from the MAA using zuni's an the ARMs do low damage and now longer knock you out of the sky... so yeah unban them cuz THEY ARENT BROKEN

Ghoul wrote:

Snookfingers wrote: so we can ban more stuff for the betterment of the game but we can't revoke the said bans, the ban hammer is oh so hot all the time, so many game devs here

I'll highlight the sentence in my post for you since you must have missed it. It is in the Generals hands during a campaign weather or not to ban or un-ban a weapon or modify what we term "gentleman's agreements". When we are between campaigns the community will once again tweak the rules that we play by for the next campaign. I don't know what you imply by saying there are 'so many game devs here', but I will say that yes, we have been doing this for 11 years now and have gotten pretty good at it.

The banned weapon list was decided upon almost two months ago by the community, was agreed upon by both Generals, and the Tournament Administrators (TA's), our referees, are here to enforce the list and all the other rules we play by. It really does not matter if banned items have been fixed since that decision. The banned weapon list will remain in effect until both generals decide to alter it.

Which means, if the generals are in agreement to remove a weapon from the ban list then it will be removed. If one wants a weapon removed and the other does not then the weapon will remain banned. As you can see from this thread, there is a lot of disagreement on this subject hence it is better to come to a consensus between campaigns instead of in the middle of one disrupting the "FUN"

no ghoul, you obviously are not good at it after 11 years, cuz youve removed parts of the game just to give land vehicles a better chance at surviving instead of having the vehicles learn to play BF4 like BF4 and not like BF3 as they are two completely different games and should be played in completely different ways. some people dont have good aim so then we want to lower the health so they die faster, i mean come on now at some point someones gotta realize there have been mistakes made on the ban list, instead of riding on your high horse, its obvious that only a select few make the rules, now its even more apparent...

Closing. For some of you who were poking the fire, I am quite dissapointed.


Feel free to create another topic on this matter however if it gets even the slightest out of hand, we'll lock/delete posts immediately. Valid concerns are being addressed, but we can be adults about it. My recomendation is to bring your arguments to your HC for their consideration, as ast the end of the day it is their choice how they run their armies. I think that the process for how items were added and process for removing them was fairly well outlined in the TA Response and in the Exec Response.