Global Conflict

o1oo1 wrote:what ?

1) BF4 only
4) BF3 only

cover that clear as day

simple one: I'll play both versions but think it'll be not wise to mix em up

(If I've posted this twice, please accept my apologies).

Disregarding, at the moment, BF3, I think we Generals should get together to see if and how a Black Ops would work in the proposed Campaign System.

I'm not going to speak for Gonzo or Th30ne, as they were the guys behind developing BF4C5's Campaign System. I'm sure they had their reasons to discontinue Black Ops.

However, I think it prudent us Generals attempt to figure out how a Black Ops could potentially fit in.

We took BOs out by popular demand. Only 5 to 10 people were showing up for them anymore, so we discontinued them. My problem with reintegrating them would not be system-wise, but that I'm still not sure people are even gonna be here regularly.

I also can't say that I'm a fan of the "one server this, one server that"-solution, because it's inevitably gonna lead to sustained lag issues one way or the other. The only fair way for this then, without switching the game on the server around every time, would be to get another server, and that's obviously a terrible idea from a financial standpoint.

In my view, BOs are the only good way to integrate a second game, since it doesn't screw what we allready have set up and working as a campaign system, but the server issue makes even that hard to do without f**king a bunch of people over ping-wise.

In any case, as someone who is involved in planning the next campaign, I would really like some clearification on this as fast as possible. Contrary to what Cog has said, we're allready pretty deep in the planning stages at this point. TCF is basically waiting for SAD to confirm their officers and then we're ready to open the draft. Our HC have allready put 10 to 12 hours into this campaign in the form of meetings, writing PMs and prepairing documents. Until this discussion is conculded somehow, we're gonna have to put everything on ice and see what comes of it and how many changes that amounts to for our planning.

There's still plenty of things to do while this discussion continues. We don't even have forums up yet and we've only confirmed a handful of officers. I understand that changing things at this point will probably lead to some extra work, but that's the name of the game. We shouldn't just do things because they're served to us on a platter, especially when half the community doesn't want to eat the stagnant turd that rests on said platter.

CognitoCon wrote:There's still plenty of things to do while this discussion continues.

What though? System discussion isn't possible while we don't know what game we're even playing. Officer draft is probably gonna look very different if location plays a major part because of BOs. Map discussion is impossible for the same reasons. We need to solve this issue before we can move forward. Forums can be done in 20 minutes, at least the HCs role in that.

We'll discuss the details tomorrow.

With regards to Black Ops, I don't think it's feasible to run them as a different game. If swapping from 3 -> 4 costs money, then we can't afford to swap them back and forth each week. I know I listed that as an option but unless Ghoul comes up with a saving throw against our server providers it's just not going to happen.

Ditto swapping during a battleday - that's a bad idea for stability reasons, but also is likely not feasible due to cost.

At this point, our options are:

1) BF3
2) BF4
3) One server BF3, one server BF4

The poll here shows a slight edge towards BF4, but is functionally tied. Given the work already done by the HCs (and their selection with the understanding that this was going to be a BF4 campaign), the tie should go to a BF4 campaign. I support polling the community on the idea of a split campaign but caution that we really need people to understand the downsides and limitations of that before they vote.

StarfisherEcho wrote: The poll here shows a slight edge towards BF4, but is functionally tied. Given the work already done by the HCs (and their selection with the understanding that this was going to be a BF4 campaign), the tie should go to a BF4 campaign. I support polling the community on the idea of a split campaign but caution that we really need people to understand the downsides and limitations of that before they vote.

Jesus Christ, you still believe Battlefield 4 is a good game?! I do not know what to say really. I DO NOT WANT neither Battlefield 3 nor Battlefield 4. WE NEED something fresh. The one thing that will bring more "new blood" to the community.

The only game that isn't complete garbage, in my opinion,meets community's demands and is suitable for all-out-war is ARMA 3. The transition won't be easy,that's for sure, but success only comes after we have suffered and sacrificed a lot.

People need to understand the horrible reality. BATTLEFIELD FRANCHISE IS DEAD . It is extremely difficult for me because Battlefield 3 was more than just a game to me. I met people with whom I became irl friends which is amazing. Battlefield has brought many tears as well as happiness and joy. We need to move forward! We are a great community and we must withstand! Продължаваме напред братя! We will never give up!

The ever-present issue with Arma is that most of the community either doesn't own it, or doesn't want to play it. Also, our room to grow is somewhat limited since most people playing Arma already belong to a gaming group as far as I understand. Also, it's a completely different style of game. Also, Flummi might come back.

CognitoCon wrote:The ever-present issue with Arma is that most of the community either doesn't own it, or doesn't want to play it. Also, our room to grow is somewhat limited since most people playing Arma already belong to a gaming group as far as I understand. Also, it's a completely different style of game. Also, Flummi might come back.

You might be right, but right now our numbers are tailing off so we need to step up and do something "more extreme" than usual.What a pity we can't have 64 players anymore playing at the same time .

Is there a reason why we aren't considering Insurgency? It supports 32 players which isn't as big as Battlefield, but might be more appropriate for our recent numbers. I would even rather play BF2: Project Reality at this point, which still looks pretty good in my opinion. I might be alone on this, but I don't like how complacent we've become with playing the same crap game just because it's convenient to do so.

Insurgency is alright but it doesn't support armor and air combat which is a huge drawback imo.

In that case, I'd say Project Reality is a good choice since as far as I understand it has everything except maybe jets, which I don't think people will miss much. Also, it would prepare us for Squad if we decide to play that when it comes out.

Apologies if my thoughts are all over the place, been typing this at work in some of my breaks between meetings and phone calls

Second of all. I don’t know about all of you but for me, I would prefer to be actually playing a campaign whilst this happens and whilst campaign 6 is running we can discuss and work all this out. I don’t see this problem going away over night until one of these new games comes out, which I believe will happen hopefully next year with all these new games being developed. No one is ever going to agree on the same thing. It’s part of being human. And yes I understand you’re trying to work out which is the best option for the greatest amount of players, but there is always going to be someone who is upset by the decision. We could also be sitting here for months trying to figure out who would play which game more and which more people would play. But I think we should just get on with the next campaign and suck it up. There will be plenty of time to work out the details whilst we are playing.

Everyone who I played with in the last campaign knows I enjoy playing with you all seeing as I wake up at 0300 play with you guys. The community was greeted me with open arms and made it very enjoyable for me. Now in the 3 battle days I played. I didn’t really hear about anyone complaining about bugs, and they didn’t occur for me. And I’m probably playing with the worst connection out of all of you seeing as I play in this weird place called Australia where Kangaroos deliver our mail. But if you’re worried about losing more people, the longer you all fight over this the more bored people will get and will just stop coming. People come here to play battlefield and seeing as BF4 is the latest instalment, that’s what most people play and that’s the reason I joined. Now weather battlefield 3 or 4 is better is a different issue but the fact is more people play Battlefield 4 than battlefield 3. I looked earlier today (and this is just AUS servers but there was 1 half-filled battlefield 3 server and over 20 full BF4 servers. So if you’re worried about numbers. You’re more likely to grow playing battlefield 4 than 3.

Also there is no point getting angry because people still think battlefield is still a good game, I for 1 am one of those people. And people are allowed to have a difference of opinion. So I would request that you don’t put people down based on what they believe. I’ve noticed it a few times people getting angry because someone else disagrees with you. Sorry for repeating the point but we are human, and one of the things that makes us all so unique is our difference in opinions. If we all had the same opinion life would be boring. We would only have chocolate ice-cream because its Everyone’s favourite and we would all be paly pregnancy simulator or grass simulator. And yes they are actual games .

One question I have is what days are BO played on? Because given I live in Australia I can only come on if I don’t have work the following day. Well actually I could and might depends on if I am able to get the early morning or midnight shift.

And apologies about the length.