BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Spreez · Post by **Spreez** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:37 pm

Everyone has their own suggestions or opinions on what they would like to see happen during a campaign. NOW is your chance to voice those. Note that the Generals of the next campaign reserve the right to choose the system they want to use and I am sure they will take your suggestions into account. So lets hear what you guys have to say!

JCoalts · Post by **JCoalts** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:33 pm

I've been here in GC for two campaigns now and while I enjoy the way the Risk system adds to the game I also think there maybe some opportunity to breathe new life by removing if for this campaign. I'm not sure on alternatives ... so this is kind of half baked! See you all in C5!

RazY70 · Post by **RazY70** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:59 pm

I think that with our current player count and in light of the last campaigns the Risk system, although I like it, can become kind of tedious and not involving for some. Maybe we can simply have a campaign with a fixed number of preset rounds (maybe 6 weeks?).

TA's can present the armies with the maps for the week. A different option can be something like we have in the BFI, meaning each army plus the TA's select the maps, but I think it's more cumbersome.
Maps are known to both sides so strategies can be devised and practiced.
Each map is played from both sides.
Map winner is determined by ticket difference.
Campaign winner is the army with more points, or by one side surrendering.

Something like that should be pretty easy to setup. There would be no need for map draft or division deployment with all the involved discussions. A wider variety of maps is guaranteed. It's more balanced from the tactical standpoint. And there's a known end point so things wouldn't drag on indefinitely, which could have a positive impact on motivation.

Necromancer · Post by **Necromancer** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:09 am

Spreez wrote:Note that the Generals of the next campaign reserve the right to choose the system they want to use

Why do 2 people get to force their will on the rest of the community in a matter that pretty much defines the tournament and GC?
Should be the other way around.

No RISK system? similar to what Razy said.

- Each army picks a map, and TAs pick 4 maps. 2 maps the TAs announce at the beginning of the week, and 2 maps left unknown. This way each army can prepare for 3 maps, and 3 maps left unknown.
This gives each army 1 biased map, two equally prepared maps, and two equally unprepared for maps.
This can be tweaked.

- Armies switch sides after every round, best 2/3. Map winner is the army that won 2 rounds, no ticket count.

- To avoid wasting time the teams get no more then 8 minutes for preparation, after that the round goes live.

- Campaign ends after 6 weeks, but only when difference between maps won for each side is greater then 15 (similar to Tennis)

Spreez · Post by **Spreez** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:24 am

Because those two people will define how this campaign goes in pretty much all aspects since they are the leaders of the armies. That is why they get the right to choose what they want to do. Since they were chosen by the community by a majority vote, there should be no problem with letting them do what they want in this regard.

Secondly, everyone would like to see you come back to play in BF4 since you continue to give your opinion on what should or should not happen. Given that this time everything is being driven by the community you should have no reason to NOT partake this time. I am not only going to push you but EVERYONE else to step up and have their time to speak on what they want done and then be a part of that this time around. I will not say they will do exactly as you suggest since it goes through many phases of discussions and changes. But if you ALL do not become a part of that nothing will change.

Necromancer · Post by **Necromancer** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:17 am

you have a point, however i disagree it should ultimately be the generals call on the campaign system as it pretty much defines GC. It is as important as the Generals.
Generals get to do whatever they want within their own armies, that what they were elected for and what we trust them with. The only people that get to force stuff on the entire community is the Execs and correct my if im wrong but that shouldn't happen on regular basis either.

The more people participate in the decision the more it will suit the community. Less people are more likely to overlook a few things. And ultimately it'll be down to just two people persuading each other and finalizing what they want to do and the rest of us will have to deal with whatever system they come up with and its imperfections for the next 6 months.
IMO tournament rules is for the community to discuss on, and if there are multiple proposals, its for the community to vote and choose how things run. As Generals are elected by the community they should trust and accept the system chosen by the community as well. They are a part of this community and can suggest and persuade for their system just like anyone else.

What if most people don't want Black Ops, but both generals decide they do want to have Black Ops? it'll just end up meh.
You can't force things on others and things that aren't taken into account tend to backfire, as has happened multiple times with different RISK/BO perks.

Perhaps Generals should be elected after the campaign system has been voted for, but its too late for it this time.

King6moh · Post by **King6moh** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:52 pm

The past few campaigns, I have enjoyed the RISK system and the strategies behind it: from drafting territories to map selections. It did seem like I was one of the few to like it while others just felt that it is something that we "need" to do. For that, I am in agreement with what others have said if the majority don't like the system. We tried something different with community chosen generals, why not try a campaign without the RISK system.

Looking forward to see what the others think!

elchino7 · Post by **elchino7** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:44 pm

If the Risk system remains:
-A system which forces every single map to be played. Once per BD the most least maps played during the campaign has to be chosen. 2 rounds, switching sides, ticket difference.
What will you fight for? Whatever you find ideal. Extra division at the end of the day, more movements for reinforcement, blitz or paradrops, etc.

Basically, breaking that feeling of playing the same map.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Seat switching back, not for the countermeasures, but for the loadout difference.

Necromancer · Post by **Necromancer** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:31 pm

Ticket count has a major flaw. If im not wrong we already had a campaign (or was it BO?) with winner determined based on ticket count, and every now and then the first round was won by ~400 tickets, and then the second round one side had to bleed the other just below that count, and at that moment, one side technically won, the other one technically lost, but there are still 400 tickets to go. Those 400 tickets were sometimes just total retardness with one side trying to over it as fast as possible (reckless suicide runs) and the other trying to just stall as much as possible.

With ticket count 1 ticket rounds will be much more rare, as they hardly ever happened then.

EDIT: BF4C1

King6moh · Post by **King6moh** » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:49 pm

I suppose a way to balance off the ideas above would be to still have the world map with territories and divisions. Only thing is that we don't have specific maps associated with them. This allows us to use Necro's method mentioned:

Each army picks a map, and TAs pick 4 maps. 2 maps the TAs announce at the beginning of the week, and 2 maps left unknown. This way each army can prepare for 3 maps, and 3 maps left unknown

This will leave the maps that haven't been used up to the TA's to choose and play and will provide some balance. Also, a max of 3 rounds would be played leaving it a BO 3 (like C4).

I also agree with Necro's point about the ticket difference. The winner would be decided pretty early on if the first round was won any where over 150-200 tickets.

PS. Any stats on the maps used and rounds played from previous C4? I didn't think we had too many repeating maps?

elchino7 · Post by **elchino7** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:40 am

Necromancer wrote:Ticket count has a major flaw. If im not wrong we already had a campaign (or was it BO?) with winner determined based on ticket count, and every now and then the first round was won by ~400 tickets, and then the second round one side had to bleed the other just below that count, and at that moment, one side technically won, the other one technically lost, but there are still 400 tickets to go.

Good point, specially on the delay/rush part.
My focus is on 2 things: delay a bit the winning momentum a team might have a week and forcing a wider array of maps to be played. I initially said 2 round ticket difference taking into account that generally theres 9-12 rounds during each BD.
-1 round could work, but it wouldn't be as significant.
-Best of 3: it might take too much time of a team attack. Here you could play with ticket count, not low enough to make it so whoever gets the best opening wins 100%.

King6moh wrote:PS. Any stats on the maps used and rounds played from previous C4? I didn't think we had too many repeating maps?

Campaign 3:

Spoiler: show

Campaign 4*:

Spoiler: show

*It was a 3 week campaign. So most of the diversity comes from the 2 Scrims and BFI. I'm putting in bold those rounds. Also it was a huge 1 sided campaign, so there was no much stale fights between the same territories.

Necromancer · Post by **Necromancer** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:05 am

When a win with 100 tickets is the same as a win with 1 ticket, 1 ticket rounds are very intense.
When its ticket count it hardly ever comes to it because 1 ticket doesn't matter when counting tickets.
There was even a case when with a standoff with 12 tickets one team decided to end the round as all they had to do is win the next one with more then 12 tickets.

regarding map variety - you count the same map although it was played in different sizes and mods, which means different territories were attacked on the RISK board --> The map was played several times as a result of the RISK board layout and not because the same territory was attacked. If you count every size/mode as a unique map, the variance is pretty wide.

Number of maps/rounds played per battle can be adjusted by amount of tickets and bleed rate.

Hypol33t · Post by **Hypol33t** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:00 am

All i want for.... the upcoming campaign is all the maps in rotation.

elchino7 · Post by **elchino7** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:54 pm

Hypol33t wrote:All i want for.... the upcoming campaign is all the maps in rotation.

Prepare for Metro/Locker meatgrinder.

Necromancer wrote: regarding map variety - you count the same map although it was played in different sizes and mods, which means different territories were attacked on the RISK board --> The map was played several times as a result of the RISK board layout and not because the same territory was attacked. If you count every size/mode as a unique map, the variance is pretty wide.

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. Yes, tactically wise there are changes but at the end of the day i don't want to just play the same map with slight modifications when there are other maps on the rotation which are never used.

It's also been discussed before that while we have a strict Risk system, this kind of situations are encourage to happen. You take decisions in order to reduce as much as possible the number of territories vulnerable to attacks. Therefore on a balance campagin, having to engage the same territories.

I'm not in opposition of not having a risk system (in fact i've never being involved with it), just pushing the idea that we need a more flexible system.

Post by **Gonzo** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:29 pm

Iirc, we didn't attack the same territory twice throughout the last campaign. So if there's still a feeling that we play the same maps too often, then that can only be attributed to the incorporation of different versions of the same map. Sadly, there is no way around that short of drastically reducing the map pool, which would inevitably lead to more repetion of the same maps, leaving us right where we started.

Honestly, I think we pretty much hit the sweetspot allready, it's just that most maps in BF4 aren't that great, so they feel very same-y.

Free-to-play based on teamplay and tactics.

BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?

Re: BF4C5: What do YOU want to see?