BF4C3 Feedback

[Róka]

Before more of you simply post hastags in support of a BF3 campaign I'd like everyone to read this:

-other
Since we're close to a patch, I'm quite certain the next campaign is gonna be played in BF4, so I'm not gonna write a whole diatribe on why we should play BF3 (or RO2 or Arma). But yeah, I agree with Bock. If Dice makes one step forward and two steps back with BF4, why don't we do the same and just play the better game? I had loads of fun this campaign but that was in spite of the game, not because of it. I would describe the mood in my squad this campaign as morbid at best. If we didn't have so much fun with each other, frustration would have gotten the better of us.
I really think that many players are at the breaking point. If this patch doesn't fix the majority of the game's issues, I don't see a future for it.

I'd encourage all of you to refrain from wasting actual feedback responses on asking for BF3 campaigns so close to a new campaign and patch. You could be giving us more suggestions on any changes so that if on any off-chance that DICE actually "finishes" BF4 with their next patch and/or Final Stand patch we'll have a better or more supported campaign system to go along with it.

[Sarantini]

#Bf3 Venice Unleashed

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

http://forums.emulatornexus.com/viewtop ... =11&t=2932
closed beta starts in a month

[Spreez]

BO:
What happened with Assault Carrier ? Did it ever had being played without the parachute spawn?

Spoiler: show

Suggestion:
Anyone have the data on which maps have we play the most and which the less ?

What about implementing an "extra" combat system during BD:
-2 rounds. Teams alternate sides.
-Attackers chooses map
-Attackers must choose from map pool, a map which hasn't being played during the campaign yet. If all maps have being played, the map to be choose must be the one less played.
This also takes into account if a map has being played both 32,64 or infantry version.
-Attack must start after SBT+2.
If an attack to a territory is being done, after finishing it must be followed up by this.
-What are we fighting for? Well...that depends on the campaign system, BOs and how creative you want to be.
**Activating/deactivating a theatre bonus
**Paradrop: allowing it, letting a longer distance or more divisions to do so, etc
**Ressuply disconnected territories
**Assasinating or forcing a division to relocate momentarialy to another territory.

Goal of all this: play more different maps, slow down the campaign.

BF3:
Gunglitch....shivers. Who i'm lying to? I was in a tank ...(Rear bug hit detection, lolpods jets, 50% disable...shivers.)
PD: it is still more fun in general i guess but old =/= gold

Before you get to in detail about what we could be using BO's for. Please take the time to look at past campaigns. This system was set in place to be very simple and easy to use but still have an impact on the over all gameplay. We have used many variations of BO's styles which include an entire system containing what you have listed. The trick is we cant keep using the same "pony" every time. We have to mix it up. Which is why we simplified it for this one.

[MONGO_abaday]

As a lot was mentioned regarding how we need a new load of players joining the GC community. I don't know if this is feasible but would it be possible to turn our servers public throughout the time we do not require them for BD and BOs during the week etc. This might help gain a bit more interest especially if there is a realitve turnover of current GC players on there. Along with this being advertised on the server its self regarding what GC is all about and its arranged BDs.

I know this won't be to everyone's taste but its only a bit of an idea that came to mind after reading a lot about what everyone had to say so far. I'm aware that this would mean higher need for ta's / admins and possibly a number of plugins being added to the servers.

But yeah like I said it is only an idea and see what could possibly come or not come from it

[zorplex]

It might be interesting to play with two max attack/defend instead of three with a reduced total division count. It would make map exchange more fluid and mean we would play more maps every week.

[A Docile Sloth]

-weapon bans
Were okay as far as I could tell. Never heard many people raging about anything being OP (Apart from me hating on snipers. I get it, you can snipe now stop sniping me >.>)

-BO battles
Attendance has never been 32v32. 16vs16 is a typical high.
I think scrapping Rush is an idea well worth considering. It was a huge pain this campaign. Other than that, maybe add three flag 32v/i in BOs and take them out of the campaign map.

-server settings
Need to drop the bleed rate. It was something that I think slipped through the net during campaign set up. Not anyone's fault just an oversight by all parties. Should have it as it was in C2. Other than that, they seemed okay. Not a fan of dropping the health below 100%, even if the CTE patch increases TTK, as I think the TTK is already too short but I expect I'm in the minority there.

-campaign system
Was good. I'd like to keep away from "best of x" as moving the divisions gives the defender an idea of where they are likely to be attacked.

-campaign map


-maps used for battledays
Fine as far as I'm concerned. May be against having 3 flag maps due to the earful I kept getting over them from a couple of people. There will always be v and i in the pool due to the size of the map (50 territories) and crap maps (lockers, metro)

-punishment of rule infractions
Okay. Need TAs to b consistent with "Jets Jets Jets" to be able to really punish early jets.

-timing and general running of the campaign
Need to ensure the TAs know the server settings for all modes.

-[insert other stuff we may have forgotten]
Attendance is a hard cookie to crack.

[FisherMan9999]

#Bf3 Venice Unleashed

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

http://forums.emulatornexus.com/viewtop ... =11&t=2932
closed beta starts in a month

Faith is restored! Thank you Sarantini!

[Di3for3v3r]

My comments i want to add:

-weapon bans:

This campaign i was in the airforce, and the combination off stingers and igla are overpowerd against the choppers even with 2 repair Guy's in the scout it's hard / impossible to escape once you are hit. For the attackchopper it's even harder.

[elchino7]

Before you get to in detail about what we could be using BO's for. Please take the time to look at past campaigns. This system was set in place to be very simple and easy to use but still have an impact on the over all gameplay. We have used many variations of BO's styles which include an entire system containing what you have listed. The trick is we cant keep using the same "pony" every time. We have to mix it up. Which is why we simplified it for this one.

This isn't for BOs, it's for BDs.

And as i said before, it's aiming at slowing the amount of territories you can gain on one attack while also forcing to play those maps which are never played during a campaign.
The value assigned to the result of this battle can be whatever you guys thinks might be worth it.

[Róka]

My comments i want to add:

-weapon bans:

This campaign i was in the airforce, and the combination off stingers and igla are overpowerd against the choppers even with 2 repair Guy's in the scout it's hard / impossible to escape once you are hit. For the attackchopper it's even harder.

For this either a separate thread should be brought up when the next campaign is about to start rolling for the consideration of banning one or a General's agreement must be made.

[Sana_Khan12]

Sifted quickly through the entire thread so I might've missed stuf / repeat stuff.

- weapon bans:
The Javelin is a weird ban since it's so weak to begin with, unless coupled with PLD/SOFLAM.
If it were up to me I'd ban RGOs and Minis

- BO Battles:
really cool, keep it going !

-campaign system and maps:
I agree with the others saying that playing a map 4 or 5 times is too much. Also, the map selection falls back on the same maps way too often. Maps like Hainan or Dragon Pass are not only played a lot, they're also far from being the best maps of the game. Dragon Pass is in fact arguably the worst, from a design standpoint. So yeah, more map variety and 3 games tops on any one map imo would improve the system.

-timing and running of the campaign:
This was ok but it seemed to me like we had more delays and weird starts than last one. Maybe I'm just imagining stuff though.

- Balancing:
That was pretty obvious, but the 2 teams weren't balanced, at least on battledays (BO were surprisingly more balanced). It just didn't work. Getting steamrolled 6h every saturday is kind of the opposite of fun in my books. Not sure what we can do about that but something needs to be done this time around. Besides the fact it's not fun, it also makes us hemorrage new players since they come in, get spanked thoroughly, get bored and leave.

There you go for my 2cents. Overall I found BOs to be more enjoyable than battledays by a lot. I think the diversity, smaller playercount but better teamwork, helped a lot in making those a really fun experience.

[Spreez]

Before you get to in detail about what we could be using BO's for. Please take the time to look at past campaigns. This system was set in place to be very simple and easy to use but still have an impact on the over all gameplay. We have used many variations of BO's styles which include an entire system containing what you have listed. The trick is we cant keep using the same "pony" every time. We have to mix it up. Which is why we simplified it for this one.

This isn't for BOs, it's for BDs.

And as i said before, it's aiming at slowing the amount of territories you can gain on one attack while also forcing to play those maps which are never played during a campaign.
The value assigned to the result of this battle can be whatever you guys thinks might be worth it.

Again, noted and listed as used in the past. Also has to have some sort of system in place. Which we have had many variations of over time. Please request access to the archives and look at the past camp systems.

[Wi1D_K4rD]

I was going to mention some of this in the Call for BF3 thread but I feel it's more appropriate here and less conducive to other potential situations.

21CW has has 120+ active members last I heard and still run BF4 leading me to believe its not BF4 that is the problem. I think we should maybe take a look at how we balance campaigns both map wise and player wise.

Reducing the amount of times we play certain maps in two weeks time via either already suggested reduced attack divisions. Or via some general agreement not to spend 3 weeks in a row attacking essentially the same map every single week. Many of which won't be as much an issue solely because of the addition of at least 4 maps reducing the need for terrible 4 flag grind maps like Zavod 32.

This next part is less about map fatigue and more just something I think we should do in general. Reinstate the risk cards earned via BOs. I know we got rid of them to simplify things I guess but IMO it simplified it to much. Being able to assassinate divisions so there is potentially less attacking or defending. Having opportunities to bypass the front line via cards like paradrop and play a territory behind occupied territory would similarly potentially reduce map fatigue from playing the same few maps over and over again. Intelligence and counter intelligence cards that allow a team to ascertain the first attack of a battleday 2 days early or something or if the counter intelligence card is played be given a false attack. Or like Ambush cards that if used divert enemy forces so they can't attack certain territories they might have planned on. Just small things like that.

Alternatively, I had the idea based on what elchino said we could maybe link game modes to some of those options. Not entirely sure how it could be done but I'm fairly certain it could be done. If we switched the tables had an attacking teams Attack BOs occur after their attack BD as opposed to the other way you could do the following. Playing Rush, if the attacking team gets all of the MCOMs they are granted an Intelligence "card" they can use to determine one of the attackers attack. Limit it to only 2-3 Rush modes per BOs to ensure at most only half the attackers planned attacks can be pilfered from them. Playing Conquest Small if we keep those in BOs can link it to Ambush and if the attacker wins that Saturday when the enemy team attacks a territory they can choose to claim that it was diverted earlier by the ambush and they have to choose a different territory. Link Obliteration to division assassinations. For every bomb detonated for either side that side gets to choose one division to destroy on the map. CTF be the opposite of Obliteration for every flag capped you recover one division as if you recovered the supplies needed to recruit that division. CTF and Obliteration would then become less about who gets the first point and then turtles the bestest and more fluid. Don't know what we'd do with Chainlink atm but this whole paragraph is just a random idea I had, not necessarily the one I'd see everyone going for at all. It does have potential to be "complicated" but I think if the HC of both armies at a minimum understood it it really wouldn't be that convoluted.

Lastly as far as player balance, I don't know how we could work on that. Especially when it isn't really noticed until nearly a month in sometimes. That's something I think might just be something the generals discuss if its noticed that for instance the last 3 weeks army A has only won 4 out of 33 matches they discuss the possibilities of army trades done via mostly volunteers of course. Though I could see how that isn't really an ideal solution. Maybe just not have an old school team draft this time and instead just have the two HCs discuss the army makeup together working to try to make it as even as possible before it even starts.

That's my rant of random ideas I had that I thought I'd share.

[elchino7]

Again, noted and listed as used in the past. Also has to have some sort of system in place. Which we have had many variations of over time. Please request access to the archives and look at the past camp systems.

You made me read. On spoiler so you see it (i guess you can skip it)

Spoiler: show

BF4:
C3: this one
C2: similar system but with the addition of the islands. Neutral territories played on the Naval strike maps where the best of 3 won the territory. Defenders choose side.
BF3:
C1: theres no entry on the wiki nor the archives on the forum
C2: archives links to a inexistent link on wiki
C3 to C6: mostly follow the same rules regarding attacks on BD.
BF2 n others:
Theres nothing on the wiki
C13: used an Hexagonal tiles map with fixed territories assigned to each tile.
...
If theres has been any campagin on previous BF where this has been used please enlighten me. YES, i know that BO follows a similar patron on what am i asking: choose from a poolset a list of maps n modes and you discard till you play all the list. Well, i'm asking why not translate it into the BD.

Again, let's not focus on the "rewards" for winning. The things i mentioned previously HAVE been used on the past (paradrops, HQ, blitz, etc.), that is not the main focus.
My intention is not to make the Risk rules more complicated nor change how BO are being played. I just want to "force" to play on SATURDAYS those maps which are not touch durign the campaign due to positioning on the risk board.

EDIT:
Number of times maps where played

Spoiler: show

Maps played during the campaign (Scrim and BFI included, not taking into account BO)

Silk Road 10=2+4+4
Hainan 9=2+1+2+4
Rogue 9=4+2+3
Zavod 8=1+2+4+1
Op Mortar 8=2+3+3
Guilin 7=1+2+4
Dawnbreaker 6=2+2+2
Dragon Pass 6=2+2+2
Shangai 5=2+3
Caspian 4=2+2
Floodzone 2
Golmud 2
Lancang 2
Paracel 2
Altai 2
Oman 2
Firestorm 2
Nansha Strike 2
Wavebreaker 2
Lost Islands

EDIT2:
BALANCE: this has always being tricky. This campaign started pretty balanced: Scrim1+S2+BFI+MBD1+MBD2: 26/24 rounds for TCF/LN7. Average win round (168.5/163.375). MBD1 was LN7 attack and got 8/3 while MBD2 TCF got 8/4.

MBD3 and specially MB4 were decisive. MBD3 was LN7 attack and received heavy losses (3/9) but that is a bit expectable when attacking (eventhough ticket difference was a bit high). But MBD4 (TCF) attack was pretty overwhelming (10/1)
Average win round (233,31/106) (19/4 or if we count MB2 it's 27/8 streak).

MBD5 was the point of inflextion. LN7 started great and there were really close rounds but they broke when they went to the NA. At this point we felt the campaign was near the end.

I guess Mr Blue will do this but here are some preliminar numbers:
-90 rounds where played. TCF 58 (64.4%) (223.5ticket) / LN7 32 (35.5%) (150.62ticket)
First half (S1/2-BFI-MBD1/2): 26/24 (168.5/163.375)
Second half (MBD3/4/5/6): 32/8 (268.18/112.37)
-24 rounds were won by a margin of 100-200 tickets (26.6%)
-25 rounds were won by a margin of less than 100 tickets (27%)
-Of those 25 rounds, 7 were by less than 10tickets (7.77%)

[undrt0w]

I agree with Razy and Relik.

+ next TAs should be people with more free time.