simple one: I'll play both versions but think it'll be not wise to mix em upo1oo1 wrote:what ?
cover that clear as day1) BF4 only
4) BF3 only
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
Moderator: Executive
simple one: I'll play both versions but think it'll be not wise to mix em upo1oo1 wrote:what ?
cover that clear as day1) BF4 only
4) BF3 only
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.CognitoCon wrote:There's still plenty of things to do while this discussion continues.
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.
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 timeCognitoCon 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.