New Campaign Proposal (Poll added)

[o1oo1]

So were a battlefield community after all and this downtime and uncertainty is not helping anyone .

So how about we make a new campaign:
*fraking COMMANDER
*standard world map like in bf3
*no battlepickups
*actual infantry only modes in black ops
*an open recruitment system so that things are balanced and one army doesn't whoop the others ass, no sign up a buddy bias
*everybody has DLC
*only lock weapons allowed will be infantry AA weapons
*no lazer targeting

a full list of weapons that will be banned:

• Spoiler: show

  all battlepickups
  mbt law
  fgm-148 javelin
  guided shell
  staff chell: exploding without having player input decreases skill, and its glitched atm
  gunner soflam
  active radar missiles
  heat seekers
  smart rockets
  soflam
  suav
  pld

i made a poll about mines since the the community seems to be divided about it

POLL ABOUT MINES

NEW POLL ABOUT MINES

BATTLEDAY MAPLIST


BATTLEDAY MODES:
CONQUEST 64
CONQUEST 32
OBLITERATION 64

BLACK OPS MODES:
defuse : on low player counts
RUSH: vehicles enabled but players can only use transport vehicles.
conquest 32 :vehicles enabled but players can only use transport vehicles.
obliteration : infantry only on select maps
capture the flag


RUSH AND DEFUSE MAPS

Spoiler: show

OBLITERATION MAPS

Spoiler: show

CONQUEST MAPS

Spoiler: show

CAPTURE THE FLAG MAPS

Spoiler: show

[Sarantini]

Sounds good

But not even heatseekers for helicopters and MAA?

[InsanityRocks]

+1

I can't comment on vehicles or banning weapons that affect vehicle play because I prefer Infantry-only combat.

[Hgx]

defuse : on low player counts

You sure about this? It still doesn't work.

[Gardalop]

No defuse that is a broken game mode. And the newest patch made it so the bomb carrier to be always spotted.

[Nix]

I like the idea of banning Battlepickups. The AT4 is really not a problem (for me at least) so maybe we could allow that?

As much as I don't want infantry to get raped by helicopters all-day, I do think the Stinger should be banned because it can be fired every 3 seconds, while helicopter/jet's flares/ECM take 23 seconds to reload. Kind of unfair if you ask me.
EDIT: Remove repairing from Scouts too. Totally forgot about repairing....
However, the IGLA I would allow because you have to hold the lock, so it's a little harder to use.

I would like Scout helicopter heatseekers banned too. Why? because they do more damage then Attack heli heatseekers. It imbalances a dog-fight between the two. Plus the Scout can be repaired mid-air and the AH can't...
^ And this is coming from a Littlebird Whor...pilot

Active Radar, MBT-LAW, Staff Shell banned as well.
M2 SLAMs are up for debate. (I would give my opinion about them, but I think I've ranted enough already )

[Necromancer]

With two reps and no stingers the littile bird can become invincible.
The littile Bird can take a reasonable amount of.damage. the problem is with the attack heli, but its so nerfed nothing you ban will balance it without making the littile bird potentially invincible.
I think we need to give up on the attack chopper for now.

The map you added makes USA, Canada and a few more areas too big of a chocke points. If that territory can't be captured its impossible to get around.

I think SRAW should be allowed too, and whats wrong with laser designations?

For draft, i think that at least the "skilled player draft" should not be done live on teamspeak, it creates an option for underhanded opportunism, where one side can "snatch" better players.

What is a lot better is negotiation iterations. Every two days at SBT each army has to sumbit their list of picks to the HC forum, and it goes like that until both sides agree on the aplit. This way adds something TS live drafts lack - time. It gives both sides time to evalute the propositions. And if a certain high command member is missing, then we can wait.
Thats better then coming on teamspeak with half of the HC and doing some picks you later regret or not even realize you got outplayed. The most important part of the campaign cannot be settled within one hour on TS with half of the HCs were both seek to leave TS with the better players. Its not going to be balanced.

And unfortunately, its not us calling the shots here. We need to wait until one of the senators wakes up do something about it.

[undrt0w]

thx for taking the time to do this.

lets see what happens.

[o1oo1]

The map you added makes USA, Canada and a few more areas too big of a chocke points. If that territory can't be captured its impossible to get around.

Do you mean that the areas in north america need to have more overlapping borders?



My goal in making these changes is to add player skill and tactics into the game.
some things i should expand on:

*an open recruitment system so that things are balanced and one army doesn't whoop the others ass, no sign up a buddy bias

the goal is to make both armies as balanced as possible with recruitment going over many iterations, including HC. will NOT be done on TS in an hour

*only lock weapons allowed will be infantry AA weapons

I did mean that everything that works with a lock on is banned, including vehicle weapons. This is to make player skill something that will have an impact on the battlefield.
I understand that this can have a negative effect on some players, but if the armies work together to field players of similar skill on power positions the dominance of high skilled players would be low.

a full list of weapons that will be banned:

• Spoiler: show

  all battlepickups
  mbt law
  fgm-148 javelin
  guided shell
  staff chell: exploding without having player input decreases skill, and its glitched atm
  gunner soflam
  active radar missiles
  heat seekers
  smart rockets
  soflam
  suav
  pld

*no lazer targeting

this is so that weapons that are allowed: stinger, igla, sraw, dont become lock on weapons.

MAYBE MAKE ALL CHOPPERS HAVE 1 REPAIRER MAX 2 repair littlebirds are hard to deal with , and without air v air lock on weapons , battles could last forever unless someone is shot out, it would make them really weak vs infantry AA fire though


How this will affect the battlefield:
jet v jet. endless circling unless your team helps you
jet v choppers: no change
jet v ground: no change
chopper v chopper: you have to actually shoot the other guy out or down
chopper v ground: no insta disable small vehicles, main targets will be enemy infantry and other choppers
ground v air: maa, no active radar means only bullets and zunis.
ground v air: with no lock on weapons vs ground. small vehicles with guns will be more useful in an aa role
ground v air: infantry strength vs air increases
ground v ground: tank v tank becomes more positional relying on reps. infantry has to aim well to hit vehicles.

[Necromancer]

i don't understand your proposed map.
this is a new world/RISK map, correct?
if so, then it lacks connections between continents and is not balanced in access.
based on the connections, some areas are far more important then others as they cut off completely one side from the other. if you have a connection in Venezuela and Greenland similar to the map we used in BF3, then USA and Canada are too big of a choke points on top of the connection territories (which are choke points too). its simply impossible to get from Venezuela to Greenland without taking those too. its not only makes them super important, it also makes it so if an army fails to take USA for example, it can't flank it, it can't attack any other territory there. there must be 2-3 alternative routes within the same continent.
on the other hand you have Africa-Europe and west Asia with a lot more access.

I would suggest taking the BF3 map and removing territories from it as needed, and add a connection between Asia and south America, possibly Australia too.

or maybe create a new and symmetric map?

[o1oo1]

yeah i havent done any connections yet, they will probably be the same as on the bf3 map. Editing the bf3 map wont work , because we need 42 areas or 6*7 or 14*3, bf3 map has 10*5.

Anyway i think the risk map is the smallest issue atm

[Jokerle]

this campaign is an interesting proposal. It involves fairly new aspects that may or may not work out well, but I like where all this is going.

Thx 01 for putting up the effort and working something for bf4

[Necromancer]

yeah i havent done any connections yet, they will probably be the same as on the bf3 map. Editing the bf3 map wont work , because we need 42 areas or 6*7 or 14*3, bf3 map has 10*5.

Anyway i think the risk map is the smallest issue atm

disregard the continent bonus. its only in C5 that every continent was made up of 5 territories and each gave equal bonus. prior to that, continents had different amount of territories in them and gave different amount of bonus. The continent line and its bonus are far smaller factors then correctly position (and shape) the territories.


how about a symmetric map, with 1 fixed HQ per side, and each controls his side at the start (no territory draft)
the maps associated with each territory is to be determined by the sides after map draft, and then just fight it out during the campaign?
if this sounds viable option i might give it a thought next weekend and possibly make a draft of a world map.
EDIT: something more or less like this

Spoiler: show

[A Docile Sloth]

*everybody has DLC

Do you mean we use all DLC or that to play you want everyone to have all the DLCs?

*no battlepickups

I don't personally see the reason for this but they I barley ever use them anyway so I can live with this.

*no lazer targeting

I'd prefer to just see the SOFLAM banned and allow the binocs on a risk v reward basis

Everything else I'm down for.

[Necromancer]

while i think javelins and laser designation didn't change much from BF3 and thus supposedly should be allowed, countermeasures did change. In BF3 a tank could smoke all the time disrupting locks and causing missiles to hit, it would also obscure the line of sight against any direct RPGs. so it was all around countermeasure.
now you can either break a lock using flares, which doesn't even work most of the times, or block one missile with the active protection, but not disrupting the lock.
so while in BF3 a tank could sit in his own smoke safely, in BF4 you must break the line of sight.
and with the addition of height, where a recon can just sit on top of a roof and lase everything it becomes a bit problematic.

plus the thermal camo was nerfed as well. in BF3 it took 5 seconds to lock, and the camo doubled it.
now the camo only adds like 2 more seconds.

i think that part of the problem is that some maps are too small. on Shanghai, the PLD can cover from one side to the other, effectively everything but behind buildings. most maps are like that.
On Paracel storm it might be more balanced.

TL;DR so all in all i guess the countermeasures between BF3 and BF4 were nerfed too much, making smart weapons OP.

on the subject of battle pickups i'd say banning them makes it even. nobody gets a rifle that insta-kills, which is fine by me.