Global Conflict

Ok no one likes sitting in the waiting room and no one likes to see players sitting in there either. But it's inevitable unfortunately. But what we can affect is the protocol surrounding rotating players in and out in an attempt to be as fair as possible. This is an issue that affects both sides equally and as it evolves will be carried forward into future campaigns. It is to be considered a tournament wide issue. So please chime in with your ideas on how best to satisfy this. Lets consider it a 'brainstorming' session so no ideas should be dismissed out of hand as the final answer is probably a little bit gleaned from everyone. Thank you.

Add a number behind the rank designation in teamspeak. This number will indicate the number of rounds played.

ie after 1 round I would change my tag to [HI91] YangXYZ

Use this to prioritize which player to be switched in during the half game swap.

Changing out squads every round would be a pain in the butt. Command would spend all its time choosing people to play rather then deciding strategies. However, switching out at half-time is way too long to leave people to sit and wait (unless we designate people to a half-battle time slot based on availability). Therefore, I think that our best bet would be to switch out squads every time the map changes. That way, each team would get 2 or 3 rounds in to play together, and it's still short enough to get a lot of people to play quickly. Just a thought.

Can't we just use the waiting server as another campaign server? It'll reduce the number of players waiting to play. It'd also be smart to have someone organizing people (like assigning squads) in the waiting room so that they're ready to go in the upcoming round.

I also agree with what yang and blackice are suggesting.

The problem with a 3rd campaign server would be (at least i think thats the problem) that we need more tournament admins, more force commanders and more squad leaders. I think both KI and Hitcorp lack that kind of personnel.

HCs, SLs, and TAs were formed this campaign with expectation of only running one server at a time.
Somehow both armies and the TAs took on double the logistics in less than a week. Getting a 3rd running can happen, just need to make sure the structure doesnt break in the process.

If you want to help, post in your barracks. Even helping outside of the army is always needed as there are many things that could use more manpower.

With the huge amount of players, maybe a 3rd army can be formed. While KI and HiT are playing their match this army can establish a command, think up a strategy and be ready to play when the first game is over.
This would army would consist of KI and HiT members both(the waiting room members ones), we could get to know more members that way, and completely new strategies could be thought up making the gameplay maybe a little more dynamic.
Members could try out squadleading or even leading an army to battle so they get a feel for it and know whats going on "upstairs". Also you infantry could grab a tank instead of being a grunt, pilots can become grunts for one round, this way players could get a feel for everything during a match. Think of it as militia fighting back the invaders. They are not really trained, don't have a real strategy, but still, HiT or KI could be in for a surprise!
This way, there's a full army ready with squads and the only thing to do is load in and then its game time!
This could be done when there is enough players for one army.The only thing I haven't thought of is how to rotate members back to their real (KI or HiT) armies. Any ideas for this, if people like this idea ofcourse!
This army could have a neutral color, thus when they win they would turn a territory neutral again and the campaign would last longer(infity? ).

If theres enough players to form 2 new armies, KI and HiT could play a synchronous round on a 3rd server if logistics allow OR we could have 2 neutral armies(one on each server) fight back the oppressors!

Idea ?

Note: It's important that the neutral army be a mixed one. So internal army competition can be kept to a minimum!(bad experience!)

Regarding servers, there were a few people in KI who were offering the use of servers if need be. I can possibly lend my clan server for the weekends (London or Amsterdam, can't remember offhand) if it's needed at any point.

Going from the problems we currently are experiencing regarding the massive influx of players, and not enough people available to command us all, more campaign servers aren't really manageable at the moment. I'm sure this will change in the coming weeks, as everyone signed up gets used to playing with each other, and those capable of leading start getting recognised.

Hi Gwynzer, could you link me to your server on Battlelog?

At the moment, this http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/se ... Sync-VOIP/

It doesn't see much use, but it's been paid for. I'll have to confirm with some of the other lads if ye's want a shot, but most of them are playing in the campaign, I don't see them having an issue with it.


EDIT: WE've also a 16slot passworded server which sees NO use (came free), that could be used for trainings or such if need be.

Gwynzer wrote:At the moment, this http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/se ... Sync-VOIP/

It doesn't see much use, but it's been paid for. I'll have to confirm with some of the other lads if ye's want a shot, but most of them are playing in the campaign, I don't see them having an issue with it.


EDIT: WE've also a 16slot passworded server which sees NO use (came free), that could be used for trainings or such if need be.

An i3D server right? Can teamsync be disabled?

It's i3d (used multiplay in the past for other services, wasn't too much of a fan, tho their EU servers are decent), and teamsync can be disabled no problem at all.

I think playing extended times rather than a map here or there would be better. I'd much prefer to play a 1/2 or 1/3 of a battle day straight, rather than have that same time dragged out over 6 hours.


This may only be relevant to kinetic influence, I think one of the major problems for me was having to sit in the waiting room while everyone was chattering for 2.5 hours. It basically forced me to not do anything productive with my time. Also I couldn't just mute the channel as I could have missed out on an invite to join the server.
Would it be possible to have two waiting rooms, one quiet one where no-one talks except when an admin calls someone in to the server to play(is it possible to talk to individuals over ts without broadcasting to the entire channel?). And the other channel the gaming(NA#2 server)/socialising one. Admins would be able to drop into either and pull players into the game without real difficulty.

I can always relate to waiting in a room with 100+ or 1000+ others. Strikes a chord. Its like winning the lottery but you cant win if not present and make noise. Hmmm, sounds like a GeForce LAN party last October.

We're already registering our intention to play any given Battleday, so why not use that as a cutoff/threshold? Once n users register their intention, they are the ones who get to play that day. So if there is room for 120 players, that would be registrants 1-120.

You can also have a second threshold (e.g. 121-130 on the list) to provide a standby group to step in for those with the inevitable connection/PC issues and no-shows. They can sit in the Waiting Room and/or participate in public games together (good for team building) until called.

I was fortunate on Saturday in that - after the authentication servers fell over and came back up - I was able to join my K2 squad (thanks PKROCKY et al) and played all rounds except for the last one, where our squad members were asked to make room for others to play. I was happy to give others a chance to play (particularly as that was the understanding of how it would work), but the potential negative consequences of that is that a squad that worked well together were split up. We've added each other on Battlelog and hope to team up again in future battles, but that's up to the leadership, not us.

On a separate note: there was definitely a problem with the player numbers with respect to the TAs/judges/etc. It left our squad one man down at one point, which made it harder for us to follow orders. May I suggest that the server/squad numbers be set up so that non-combatant players are taken into consideration?

And on a related note: Awesome experience! Had a great time. Looking forward to many more battles.