There is a contradiction here.Ghoul wrote: When the system fails it is always when one army gains momentum and begins to steam roll the other which regardless of the map selection process used, creates the drama, bad morale and complaining.
You don't ask the right questions. Trying to fix it without changing anything. These issues are at the core of the system, you have to look at the basics to tackle it.There have been ideas floated over the years on how to address this issue.
There supposed to be a winner at the end, so one army is supposed to gain momentum over the other at some point to win. This is by design. On the other hand over-balancing and you'll end up with an endless campaign.
So maybe the core of the problem is that there is a loosing side?
As i said in the other thread, how the other team takes the loss is up to its General IMO. But maybe we need to find a system without loosers then?
Was the map created randomly? Why there are 50 territories on it? Why 10 theaters? Why 5 connections? And (currently) 16 divisions?Ghoul wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by the map being the result of bad principles. If you can elaborate I'd like to hear it. The map is nothing more than a tool we use to determine what maps we play on the battle day.
BF3:C4, lasted 14 weeks, 31 maps* out of 42 were played, 73.8%
BF3:C6, lasted 8 weeks, 22 maps out of 50 were played, 44%
BF4:C3, lasted 5 weeks, 21 maps out of 50 were played, 42%
*maps - different map, size or mode.
Since BF3:C4, less then 50% of the maps are played. And thats despite the fact the number of rounds/maps played each battleday has increased since then.