BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Discuss the campaign and all things BF.

Moderator: Executive

Kilo
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Location: California

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Kilo »

3 Things I Want:

• Play the map from both sides

• Play more variety of maps

• Not lose all the extra ammo in a reload - this is probably the thing I dislike most about GC.
Image
Battlefield Tournament History
BF3C4: STAR Infantry Private 2Image
BF3C5: LOD Infantry Private
BF3C6: UNSC Infantry Private First Class
BF4C1: USSR Infantry Conscript
BF4C2: GoCI Infantry Private First Class
BF4C3: LN7 Infantry Private
BF4C4: JANUS Armor Private
BF4C5: KTSS SAS Captain
BF4C6: SAD Infantry CorporalImage
BF4C7: GC Infantry Captain
User avatar
Necromancer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Necromancer »

elchino7 wrote: I might be wrong by thinking this, but i'll say that most would agree that playing 32-64 v/i on the same map doesn't help with the fatigue of playing the same thing.
Up until now different sizes/modes were considered as different maps.

A possibility is to sort different maps and sizes/modes as subcategory of the map.
Any time a map is played it is grayed out, after cycling through the map pool, it becomes available but the previously played version is still grayed out.
Spoiler: show
Image
Playing from the same side does help perfect strategies and tactics.
This can be tweaked in the suggested system, say on the maps the armies pick, the picking army get to choose which side it plays from and its best 2/3 no side swapping.
Having maps with a bias towards one side supposed to help slow down one side momentum and produce a more balanced battledays overall.
Image
-“Regret your helplessness…and feel despair.”
Achievement Unlocked: Battlefield 4 Uninstalled!!
User avatar
Nix
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: Arizona, United States

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Nix »

Kilo wrote: • Not lose all the extra ammo in a reload - this is probably the thing I dislike most about GC.
This.
Image
MAAfield 4: MAA Rising, Second MAA, MAA Strike, MAA's Teeth, Final MAA, MAA Operations, Community MAA and Legacy MAA
KingSamson
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:46 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by KingSamson »

Zombie mode mid week.
Image
Image
cancel_man
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 11:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by cancel_man »

Drop 64v maps if we don't have the numbers for the vehicles. This became a real problem for the latter half of last campaign- our army didn't have enough pilots to fill all the aircraft which left the whole army at a major disadvantage. I know we're working on recruitment, but until we have a consistent larger player base the 64v maps are going to be difficult to balance as it comes down to who can fill their jets/helos to dominate the air while still having enough boots on the ground.

Either drop Black Ops or figure out how to fix it. EU vs NA player spread was the major problem last campaign, but attendance was too low even if we had been evenly spread to both armies. If armies aren't going to show up, we should drop it or find a better time to hold it. I think a lot of people don't understand how BO affects the campaign/risk game so they don't make it a point to show up.

As for the Risk system- it's something that sets us apart from other tournaments and it's a motivation to be more strategic than just playing through a map list. But 2 player Risk is rough because if 1 army's skill is better, risk strategy doesn't matter (in the board game, player skill is augmented by dice rolls/luck to keep even footing). In the Balance thread a three army system was proposed (see pros/cons there). I've played a little too much Planetside over the holiday season, but it has made me appreciate how a 3-front war keeps things balanced & interesting rather than allowing 1 side to steamroll the other.
User avatar
Spreez
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:47 am

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Spreez »

Problems with using a three army system.

1. Finding enough people willing to be general/HC for all three armies (not to mention officers)
2. Finding enough people to participate to fill three armies.
3. The potential for one army to show up on a battleday and never play a single map.

The system they use is possible because they have a number we could never hope to achieve.
Image
cancel_man
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 11:58 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by cancel_man »

My post was in defense of the Risk system (as there seems to be some discussion in this thread about abandoning it); I didn't intend to derail it with the mention of a 3-army system. Though I'd like to see your argument posted there against Shrap's proposal of how the non-active army is used to balance the active armies and effectively keeps our numbers the same per battle.

2 generals were chosen for this campaign so I'm not proposing a change for this go-round. I am still in favor of keeping the Risk game, but I hope to see it continue to develop/improve in future campaigns.
User avatar
Necromancer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 3315
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Necromancer »

3 armies system on the RISK map is impossible to balance.
It works in planetside for several reasons:

1) The first base is protected and cannot be captured. Its a game with no winners, no losers and no end.
2) People from different factions don't know each other and can't communicate which prevents two factions joining against the 3rd.
3) The massive amount of sectors helps mitigates periodic imbalance.

If anything can be learned from it is that in the current RISK system there are too little territories and each territory WCP is too high.
The fact every map is placed only once on the RISK map guarantees the maps on the edges of the board won't be played at all.
All those things can be fixed by increasing the amount of territories on the map (~x4 times).
The amount of divisions will have to be adjusted as well.

Another problem is that using RISK would mean the victory condition will be derived from the RISK, in which case 70% RISK world control means utter destruction of the other side.
A system based on number of maps won/lost can stop (in victory/loss) a campaign at a smaller imbalance, before one side gets totally crushed for weeks, ending it in a less bitter taste then with RISK. Setting the RISK condition lower to say 60% doesn't make much sense, in a strategy game 60% is a very balanced game that can still go either way.
If you thinking about setting the campaign end condition based on maps/rounds won/lost, whats the role of the RISK board then?

cancel_man wrote:Drop 64v maps if we don't have the numbers for the vehicles.
If its not 32v32 then its a completely different experience. Part of what makes Battlefield and the campaigns what they are is the large scale coordinated battles. Playing without jets removes a big part of the rock-paper-scissors aspect of the game.

It makes me wonder, do we even have enough people left to start a 32v32 campaign?
Or competitive obliteration is where we stand?
Image
-“Regret your helplessness…and feel despair.”
Achievement Unlocked: Battlefield 4 Uninstalled!!
Sarantini
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:30 am

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Sarantini »

squad deathmatch is quite fun
Image
User avatar
Divine-Sneaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:26 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Divine-Sneaker »

How would you incorporate that?

I enjoyed SQDM a lot in BC2, but never found it fun in either of the latest two games, mostly because of changes to gun mechanics and damage ranges.
"fraking game mechanics"
o1oo1
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by o1oo1 »

I would like to see the use of warcon or some other version server manager other than we use currently to speed up and reduce mistakes in setting up servers
Image
Snoopnoop
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:29 am

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Snoopnoop »

I like the idea of best out of 3 on a territory while playing both sides. It gives an equal chance for both teams then the defending team gets that slight advantage of defending the better side for the tie breaker round. So even a successful defense doesn't completely demoralize the attacking team on an unfair map.

I like the idea of announcing territories that would be attacked ahead of time for practice but I feel it should be revealed during a teams practice and only like 2 maps.
Ex: Gladius has practice Thursday at +7 sbt. During which time a member of Star drops in and says hey 2 of the territories we are attacking are Brazil and Australia. If there is no one attending the practice then they don't get the intel.

Also keep the discarding of clips when you reload, I enjoy that.
User avatar
Jokerle
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:13 pm
Location: latest crashsite

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Jokerle »

o1oo1 wrote:I would like to see the use of warcon or some other version server manager other than we use currently to speed up and reduce mistakes in setting up servers

warcon and procon are very similar with regard to how the server settings are handled. The only real benefit are additional server commands for recording matches from what i see.
Wat ne Wuchtbrumme!
Wi1D_K4rD
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by Wi1D_K4rD »

o1oo1 wrote:I would like to see the use of warcon or some other version server manager other than we use currently to speed up and reduce mistakes in setting up servers
I would argue its not really the fault of procon that mistakes are made. Procon is literally not that hard of a system to use. Problem is TAs don't take the few seconds to verify that the settings are correct before calling it live and ultimately having to call it unlive because they missed something in their rush. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they are often dealing with other issues at the time but it still is something I think future TAs should work on. The few times I had to make sure the server was set up for a black ops due to no TAs I typically tried to make sure everything was good before calling it live. Other than forgetting to ensure a time limit at one point, there really wasn't any issues server setting wise. All while doing it relatively quickly cause there's really only like one tab to check.

The other issue is the occasional TA who has never really worked with procon before as there is usually someone else with knowledge that does it. So when they find themselves as the sole TA for the day they are essentially teaching themselves how to run procon under a stressful time limited environment which is a recipe for disaster.

Either issue of not quickly double-checking or just general inexperience isn't going to be solved by a change in server management program. TAs once they've agreed to be a TA just need to spend like a day just messing with the server settings seeing what each setting does and then once they are done making sure the settings are correct for the way we play so they can see what it is supposed to look like before going live. I did this exact thing as Event Coordinator in eGO as soon as they gave me server access which is how I learned how to use procon. You can have someone walk you through it all you want but experimentation is the only way it will stick.

On a side note, I hope TAs already do this but it should be procedure that only one TA should have procon up during a battleday. Any more and you potentially have the server confused which one to run off of resulting in conflicting server settings.

Also, on an additional side note, I believe the TAs should take more responsibility in general for server settings. It shouldn't be the army HCs job to remind the TAs a setting isn't correct. They have enough to deal with getting everyone organized and making sure everyone gets the strat. Often times they aren't looking at ticket counts. Hell when I was General I was typically alt tabbed between rounds doing General-things so definitely wouldn't have been able to see if the settings were wrong.

tl;dr TAs just need to take the time to verify settings as is their primary job as far as I am concerned, as well as some just needing to gain more experience with procon, changing programs isn't particurarly necessary.
Image
o1oo1
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Post by o1oo1 »

warcon has the possibility of making presets that procon doesnt(at least that i know of), having BD/BO presets readymade would make everything much smoother and would only require going over maps once instead before every time we play
Image
Post Reply