BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Moderator: Executive
BF4C5: Generals Discusion
All,
The survey results are in and we've had a lot of really good feedback. It's appreciated. We've also got a list of General applicants. As we've announced, this campaign we are allowing the community to chose the Generals.
How will it work?
Use this thread to discuss the individual applicants and their merits, and also take a look at potential pairings. Which of the applicants would be best suited fighting against each other? It's been raised in the Balance Thread that it is very important to have Generals who are going to be fighting on the same level. The Generals are listed at the bottom of this post, as people join and leave the running, it will be updated.
At Thursday SBT(ish) a poll will be put up in the Supporting Members Forum with a list of the possible potential combinations of Generals we can have. If you are an applicant and specifically do not want to fight against another, either say so in this thread or you can PM me and I'll remove that combo from the poll. If the community seems overwhelming against a certain combo in this thread, we'll also remove that prior to the vote. On Saturday SBTish the results will be confirmed and the selected grouping invited to General.
Why Supporting Members???
We have a few reasons for wanting the discussion public but moving the choice to supporting members. The reason for keeping the discussion public is that we want every member of this community to have a say and be kept in the loop. Moving the vote to the supporting members allows us to stop any potential "vote fuzzing" where people may make new accounts to vote for themselves, their friends, or against people they don't like. It also serves as a way for us to recognise the commitment to the community the supporting members have shown.
If you're not a supporting member and have strong feelings about the Generals, it's your responsibility to use this thread to get your opinion out there and try to convince others. It's actually the responsibility of everyone in the community to get their part said, and to follow this thread. If you don't get involved at all and later start complaining about how rubbish the Generals are, I'll be pointing you to this thread and telling that it's your fault, and as you didn't speak up you've got no right to complain.
The Applicants
The following are the people who have said they are willing to be a General next campaign in the survey. If you want to add your name to the running, post here and/or send me a PM and I'll add you to the list.
I have a question for anyone who does that though - why didn't you just say it in the survey??? How else are we meant to know you're willing? That's why it's there!
The List:
KingSamson
CrookedBarrel
LordGonzo
Th3One
I'm sure we'll have more people signing up now the discussion is actually ongoing.
Please keep this discussion civil and constructive.
The survey results are in and we've had a lot of really good feedback. It's appreciated. We've also got a list of General applicants. As we've announced, this campaign we are allowing the community to chose the Generals.
How will it work?
Use this thread to discuss the individual applicants and their merits, and also take a look at potential pairings. Which of the applicants would be best suited fighting against each other? It's been raised in the Balance Thread that it is very important to have Generals who are going to be fighting on the same level. The Generals are listed at the bottom of this post, as people join and leave the running, it will be updated.
At Thursday SBT(ish) a poll will be put up in the Supporting Members Forum with a list of the possible potential combinations of Generals we can have. If you are an applicant and specifically do not want to fight against another, either say so in this thread or you can PM me and I'll remove that combo from the poll. If the community seems overwhelming against a certain combo in this thread, we'll also remove that prior to the vote. On Saturday SBTish the results will be confirmed and the selected grouping invited to General.
Why Supporting Members???
We have a few reasons for wanting the discussion public but moving the choice to supporting members. The reason for keeping the discussion public is that we want every member of this community to have a say and be kept in the loop. Moving the vote to the supporting members allows us to stop any potential "vote fuzzing" where people may make new accounts to vote for themselves, their friends, or against people they don't like. It also serves as a way for us to recognise the commitment to the community the supporting members have shown.
If you're not a supporting member and have strong feelings about the Generals, it's your responsibility to use this thread to get your opinion out there and try to convince others. It's actually the responsibility of everyone in the community to get their part said, and to follow this thread. If you don't get involved at all and later start complaining about how rubbish the Generals are, I'll be pointing you to this thread and telling that it's your fault, and as you didn't speak up you've got no right to complain.
The Applicants
The following are the people who have said they are willing to be a General next campaign in the survey. If you want to add your name to the running, post here and/or send me a PM and I'll add you to the list.
I have a question for anyone who does that though - why didn't you just say it in the survey??? How else are we meant to know you're willing? That's why it's there!
The List:
KingSamson
CrookedBarrel
LordGonzo
Th3One
I'm sure we'll have more people signing up now the discussion is actually ongoing.
Please keep this discussion civil and constructive.
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Thought I ticked the General box in the survey.
Whack my name down as well!
Whack my name down as well!
“‘In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe.”
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
I really dont think we should leave the vote to supporting members only.
I highly doubt anyone would actually do vote spoofing.
Supporting members also isnt about commitment to GC, it's about donating money. Those two dont necesarily correlate.
I'll agree to all the people in supporting members probably having shown commitment to GC at some point, but there's members who arent in the supporting members group who still deserve to vote imo. People like ICallIDtheft.
Also: lets pressure Starfisher into being general again
I highly doubt anyone would actually do vote spoofing.
Supporting members also isnt about commitment to GC, it's about donating money. Those two dont necesarily correlate.
I'll agree to all the people in supporting members probably having shown commitment to GC at some point, but there's members who arent in the supporting members group who still deserve to vote imo. People like ICallIDtheft.
Also: lets pressure Starfisher into being general again
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
dan1mall wrote:I really dont think we should leave the vote to supporting members only.
I highly doubt anyone would actually do vote spoofing.
Supporting members also isnt about commitment to GC, it's about donating money. Those two dont necesarily correlate.
I'll agree to all the people in supporting members probably having shown commitment to GC at some point, but there's members who arent in the supporting members group who still deserve to vote imo. People like ICallIDtheft.
Also: lets pressure Starfisher into being general again
There are lots of people in supporting members that have never donated a dime. Your right it is probably time to review members that should have access that don't.
This post is a year old but outlines the thinking behind the Supporting Members forum
and to quote Brummie's wise words
BRUMMIE wrote:[...], so how do we limit the discussions so that decisions are actually made. The easiest way is to limit the decision makers to those who seek the best for GC and appear to have a vested interest in its continued existence. We can measure that to a small degree by individuals choice to invest time and if lacking that then money (which is just a method of moving time invested in one place, work, into another place, play). Its really as simple as that.
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
oh didnt realize that, I thought it was only people who donate.Ghoul wrote:dan1mall wrote:I really dont think we should leave the vote to supporting members only.
I highly doubt anyone would actually do vote spoofing.
Supporting members also isnt about commitment to GC, it's about donating money. Those two dont necesarily correlate.
I'll agree to all the people in supporting members probably having shown commitment to GC at some point, but there's members who arent in the supporting members group who still deserve to vote imo. People like ICallIDtheft.
Also: lets pressure Starfisher into being general again
There are lots of people in supporting members that have never donated a dime. Your right it is probably time to review members that should have access that don't.
That makes the decision better, but then we really should update the supportive members group ^^
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
You ticked everything but! You are added to the listTh30ne wrote:Thought I ticked the General box in the survey.
Whack my name down as well!
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
LordGonzo its the only one that i saw that does a nice job being a leader, so my vote is for him as one of the generals. Dunno the rest so neutral.
Was going to vote for necromacer but i guess he doesnt want to be general anymore ...
Was going to vote for necromacer but i guess he doesnt want to be general anymore ...
- Divine-Sneaker
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:26 pm
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Gonzo is the only one I really know, so that'd currently be my nr. 1 pick.
Is there any way we can perhaps get an introduction from candidates, or just a salesspeech of some sort? I think that'd help, also particularly for new recruits.
Is there any way we can perhaps get an introduction from candidates, or just a salesspeech of some sort? I think that'd help, also particularly for new recruits.
"fraking game mechanics"
- A Docile Sloth
- Executive
- Posts: 2323
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:32 pm
- Location: Somewhere where you aren't.
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Gonzo - pretty level headed. Well known and respected face
Zorplex - not on this list but would make a good general
CrookedBarrel. Seems level headed and probably capable. Not worked directly with him though so others would have to speak to that end. From what I've seen he's willing and comitted. Plus he loves to knife people just as much as correct my speling.
Gonzo vs Crooked could be interesting, although I'd expect Crooked vs TheOne to be a better match.
Perhaps TheOne vs Samson. Never really been lead by either but they both seem to come across as slightly reserved people. Can;t really speak to their leadership though.
Zorplex - not on this list but would make a good general
CrookedBarrel. Seems level headed and probably capable. Not worked directly with him though so others would have to speak to that end. From what I've seen he's willing and comitted. Plus he loves to knife people just as much as correct my speling.
Gonzo vs Crooked could be interesting, although I'd expect Crooked vs TheOne to be a better match.
Perhaps TheOne vs Samson. Never really been lead by either but they both seem to come across as slightly reserved people. Can;t really speak to their leadership though.
Spoiler: show
-
- Executive
- Posts: 3037
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:24 pm
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
doo eeetttStarfisherEcho wrote:Feel free to use this thread to pressure people who haven't signed up
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Your wish is my commandStarfisherEcho wrote:Feel free to use this thread to pressure people who haven't signed up
“‘In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe.”
- FisherMan9999
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:17 am
- Location: Sofia,Bulgaria
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
I vote for LordGonzo because he is experienced enough and I think he will do whatever it takes to win the campaign .I don't have opinion about the other candidates,though. I would really like to see Necromancer in the list,so please NECRO SIGN UP NOW! or STARFISHER SIGN UP NOW!. Both Generals will be great !
BF3:C3-Armour(Dragoon)Corporal
BF3:C4-Armour(Anvil)Staff Sergeant/Infantry(Hammer)Corporal
BF3:C5-Armour(Yellow)Specialist
BF3:C6-Armour(Armour Column)Warrant Officer
BF4:C1-Armour(Grizzlies)1st Lieutenant
СЪ НАМИ БОГЪ !!!
GOD IS WITH US !!!
BF3:C4-Armour(Anvil)Staff Sergeant/Infantry(Hammer)Corporal
BF3:C5-Armour(Yellow)Specialist
BF3:C6-Armour(Armour Column)Warrant Officer
BF4:C1-Armour(Grizzlies)1st Lieutenant
СЪ НАМИ БОГЪ !!!
GOD IS WITH US !!!
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
FisherMan9999 wrote:I don't have opinion about ...
Well, thats a first.
Gonzo and Crooked.
Absolutely against Necro. Dont want someone to lead an army, that hates the game and generally (Ololo) only spreads bad attitude.
BF4 C3
BF4 C4
- FisherMan9999
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:17 am
- Location: Sofia,Bulgaria
Re: BF4C5: Generals Discusion
Hypol33t wrote:FisherMan9999 wrote:I don't have opinion about ...
Well, thats a first.
Gonzo and Crooked.
Absolutely against Necro. Dont want someone to lead an army, that hates the game and generally (Ololo) only spreads bad attitude.
Spoiler: show
BF3:C3-Armour(Dragoon)Corporal
BF3:C4-Armour(Anvil)Staff Sergeant/Infantry(Hammer)Corporal
BF3:C5-Armour(Yellow)Specialist
BF3:C6-Armour(Armour Column)Warrant Officer
BF4:C1-Armour(Grizzlies)1st Lieutenant
СЪ НАМИ БОГЪ !!!
GOD IS WITH US !!!
BF3:C4-Armour(Anvil)Staff Sergeant/Infantry(Hammer)Corporal
BF3:C5-Armour(Yellow)Specialist
BF3:C6-Armour(Armour Column)Warrant Officer
BF4:C1-Armour(Grizzlies)1st Lieutenant
СЪ НАМИ БОГЪ !!!
GOD IS WITH US !!!