Global Conflict

I don't have anywhere near your guys' hours in BF3 but I didn't experience it either.

At any rate I think the thread is getting a bit derailed? Before considering gun glitches, are there enough people to run a BF3 campaign? (I'm up for both)

IMO as it stands like others have mentioned, it doesn't make much sense to debate specs or glitches if not enough people are willing to play it?

Also cognito dines with a sickle

ViperXVII wrote:Also cognito dines with a sickle

I dine with a pitchfork and a machete, everyone know that, you communist shill.

I know it’s still a long way away and won’t be ready for this campaign or even possibly the next one but I think if you really wanted to change it up a Star Wars Battlefront campaign could be amazing.

As BF4 or BF3. I prefer BF4, for people like me who live a long way away it actually has better connection speeds than BF3 did. And as well I don't think it’s fair to change plans on the people organising the campaign this far into the planning stage. They have spent a lot of time and effort getting it ready for us to play and we should be grateful so possibly the next campaign we could run BF3 but this can all be discussed and contemplated and even slowly planned whilst we play the next campaign.

As well the one thing that’s confusing me. If BF4 is as bad as you all make it out to be why do you keep playing it? No one is forcing you to play. And if you don’t enjoy playing why do you keep going back? It may be my Aussie attitude but I am not going to do something I don’t enjoy or doesn’t make me happy. That’s why most Aussies can drink anyone under the table because well that’s what we do 90% of the time, Drink. (Yes challenges will be accepted when I come to Europe next year ) so if you don’t enjoy playing don’t. it’s that simple.

Psssst: We're not that far into planning. Don't tell anyone.

To your other point, THUNDER AXE, Battlefront is already starting to look like it's not going to be very good. I'll withhold too much judgement, but nothing that they've announced sounds all that promising. In fact, all I've really heard about the game is all the stuff that won't be included. Personally, I'm waiting for Squad to get closer to release to see if that's a viable alternative since it's basically based on Battlefield and I like parts of Arma.

Crazy half assed thought time:

• Set EU for BF3, US for BF4 (or vice-versa)
• Double map pool
• Be the only community that offers both games
• Everyone happy (or equally miserable)

RazY70 wrote:Crazy half assed thought time:

I was actually thinking we bring back Black Ops and play those rounds in BF3. But that would require more servers (though maybe only a 12-24 seat for BF3/BO).

THUNDER AXE wrote:As well the one thing that’s confusing me. If BF4 is as bad as you all make it out to be why do you keep playing it? [...] so if you don’t enjoy playing don’t. it’s that simple.

Some of us are here for the organized gameplay and community regardless of the game. I don't play much BF4 outside GC but I like GC's mission and the people who participate*.

Some of the members present in this thread don't play BF4 (and have stopped participating in GC campaigns) because they don't like the game. Some continue to play because they like GC but hate BF4.

I think those who love BF4 are in the minority, though most of us prefer it over the alternatives.

GC isn't necessarily tied to the game (though we do promote as a "Battlefield community") but we are limited to specific games due to the way we choose to play (vehicles, squads, command structure, large maps). I think many agree that if a better game that met our needs came along we'd probably work to use it. Right now we're doing what we can with what we have and that's BF4.

* Except Cog.

#modsandarma3
Other than that, I voted for Battlefield 3 because it is just the better game.

Most veteran players generally stay around the community regardless of actually being active or not in the current game. Since actually getting into gc I've spent an absolute fraction of my total battlefield playtime outside of the organized play anyway.

It would not be a problem having one of our servers running bf3. It takes 15 min for NFO servers to automatically load a server type for us and changing a server on the fly from BF4 to BF3 costs nothing ( it costs the price difference the other direction though) I personally like the idea of a campaign that utilizes both versions of the game simply because I experience map fatigue.

Running one server of each is the best bet switching them every other week or something. Procon may be a bit tricky however running two server types. (Not sure if you have to run two different versions of procon on the same server or if the one instance can manage both versions of the game)

If we can manage the 2 servers and switch between EU being BF3 and NA being BF4 and vice versa, that would actually be amazing and best of both worlds kind of thing.

I think if we want to use both the HC's and TA's need to sit down and fully flesh out the details as I can see this getting very complex

Robawillis wrote:I think if we want to use both the HC's and TA's need to sit down and fully flesh out the details as I can see this getting very complex

^ This. Not to mention adding time to campaign prep. Which isn't the only factor, I know, but it's a factor none the less.

InsanityRocks wrote:

Robawillis wrote:I think if we want to use both the HC's and TA's need to sit down and fully flesh out the details as I can see this getting very complex

^ This. Not to mention adding time to campaign prep. Which isn't the only factor, I know, but it's a factor none the less.

How to balance people that only want to (or can) play bf3/bf4? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe we should just limit bf3/bf4 server switching to the initial scrims (as tests and fun) and possibly blackops (for some good rush maps).

If we go the dual game route, we would need to have people put down which games they own when they enter the draft. I'm not sure how easy that is to add as an option in the abc draft thing.

Come on, decision makers!

Ghoul is the only one that's like


Everyone else...

1. So the general idea is feasible and technically not too problematic. That's great! One thing off the table.
2. Next order of business, start a new poll to check community's interest and further feedback (I have no idea how to do that). Something similar to:
   1. Like the idea and will play both BF3 and BF4
   2. Like the idea but will only play BF3
   3. Like the idea but will only play BF4
   4. Don't like the idea. Keep things the way they are
3. Assuming most people are on board (i.e. option a) start working out the details.
   1. People start downloading the games
   2. Have a contingency plan which we can quickly switch to if crap hits the fan regarding BF3
4. If not enough are interested or community is fragmented between the two games scrub the idea and continue as usual.

Just my 2c. More constructive feedback is always welcome