Global Conflict

I don't understand what's wrong about Necro's behavior.......

He hasn't offended anyone.He just wants to improve our community, more particularly GC campaign and campaign system,but for some reason, Senators and TAs think he is too aggressive to be a General. Don't you think it doesn't make any sense

CognitoCon wrote:I'm not going to take sides here, but the general selection process, from what I can see on the development forums, seems pretty strange. It's not very clear what happened, but the list of potential generals starts as a large list that doesn't include all of the volunteers, but does include some people who did not volunteer. Then it changes size a bunch of times, with no real explanation, besides some mention of a meeting, and then 3 became 2, and PM's were sent. I don't mean to cause drama, but I don't even see Necro's name on the initial list, which seems strange to me since he volunteered and he has experience. Perhaps the post was edited as people were trimmed, but there's no explanation of any sort as to why some people made the list and why some didn't. Maybe I'm just being an ass, but I feel as though a bit more transparency would go a long way in resolving some of these issues.

I'd be interested in the process and progress too. I guess it happens mostly on TS/PM and in the Executives forum so I don't know anything about it. The fact that it is not visible/discussed in public seems odd and I wish I could follow that.

But OTOH a part of the decision process won't do GC any good if it happened in public. The personality and it's influence on the community is a big part of being general, To me far more important than FPS skill and competitive mindset (see Snookfingers). There are various likes and dislikes between people in GC, for some or no reason. Discussing in public if someone's personality is suitable if he volunteers would be unhealthy for the community. Same goes if the name of a volunteer is on the list and it's stated as a reason it's not on the next. And as regrettable it might be, it is part of such a decision in any community.

And btw. I don't think more 'competitive' thinking generals are the cure to unbalanced campaigns. Even then there will be a gab between the loosing and winning army/general. Seeing the more competitive environment as a guarantee for equal armies, and a loosing Army will/can close a gab is just a claim. Through it would be nice to run a campaign with the right pair of generals.

Cog, it's really bad form to reveal the presence or lack of presence of any one name on that list. We collect that information in confidence and keep it private for all sorts of reasons. I'll be editing any further disclosure of it.

But, since it's out of the bag, Necro wasn't on the list this time because his signup didn't come in until after a lot of discussion had already taken place. He has been on the list for previous campaigns.

The list starts like this:

1) Who played hard last campaign and is worth considering?
2) Who volunteered (either via the sign up sheet or verbally)?
3) Who has been around for a while that we think should be pressured into it?

It then gets narrowed like this:

1) Who actually wants to do it?
2) Who would match up well with who?
3) Verify that your top match up actually works (sometimes people change their minds)
4) Repeat

Sometimes, we never get past #1, because there's not enough people signed up.

If we get to #2 and #3, that's when you get all the meetings and the arguments and the hoohah. If we have a pool of a few people, we want to make a good match up. There's no magic wand at this stage, just a lot of talk.

---

And again. Lackluster campaigns cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the generals. I got to be a general because the campaign before that I went from Private to Officer solely on the basis of being a constant, cheerful pain in the ass trying to improve my army. PRIDe lost C3 but it was a fun campaign; we worked our assess off to get better and ended up still losing. It happens. Someone is going to lose. But what you do while you lose defines you.

There is no magic sauce. I'd sell if it existed, but it's just hard work and willingness to fight. You need a critical mass of people in the army posting and chatting out of battledays and such before you get that "mm mm good" campaign feel. That comes from the community, not the generals.

Anyway. It all boils down to what I've been saying: you get back what you put in. This is not directed at Necro, btw. Everyone needs to grasp it. The campaigns you remember the most fondly are the ones where you personally work the hardest. Starfisher guaranteed.

StarfisherEcho wrote:The list starts like this:

1) Who played hard last campaign and is worth considering?
2) Who volunteered (either via the sign up sheet or verbally)?
3) Who has been around for a while that we think should be pressured into it?

It then gets narrowed like this:

1) Who actually wants to do it?
2) Who would match up well with who?
3) Verify that your top match up actually works (sometimes people change their minds)
4) Repeat

Sometimes, we never get past #1, because there's not enough people signed up.

If we get to #2 and #3, that's when you get all the meetings and the arguments and the hoohah. If we have a pool of a few people, we want to make a good match up. There's no magic wand at this stage, just a lot of talk.

Maybe put a description of this process in the wiki?

If general selection is a big sticking point with the community, I think we should move the discussion to supporting members and get some proposals going. It's always been a senate responsibility, as far back as I have access to see, so I'm not even sure what we'd put up on the wiki or what value it would have. If the community wants a change, though, then we should change.

ZombieToof wrote:
And btw. I don't think more 'competitive' thinking generals are the cure to unbalanced campaigns.

There are no magic solutions. And as the saying goes, the only certain thing is death.
However the whole community won't start posting strategies and RISK suggestions all of a sudden either.
You need to identify key featers that are somewhat easy to change and could bring to significant change. Good luck getting everyone more involved. Picking Generals diffrently is easier task which will make things better in my opinion.

As requested, an overview of the general selection process. From what I've seen this is roughly how things work at the moment.

Firstly the generals are very important, they lead and are the face of their army, but just one motivated HC member will make up for a poor general (though that isn't ideal). From my experience, so long as the general isn't incompetent, the overall HC balance is FAR more important.

I have been part of about 5-6 General selection processes during my time at GC, nothing shady happens and things are kept professional . Personal grievances are not taken into account, just the candidates ability to be a good general. For the uninitiated, the process goes as follows.

The Execs invite the TAs/Generals of the previous campaign to a private subforum to start planning the next campaign, a discussion is held over who should be general. This group typically has enough people to get a wide range of viewpoints and no one person or group dominates discussion. This is kept private.
The current thinking is that it is a bit reckless to critique people honesty in the open and then expect everything to be fine, this would cause far more harm than good. People need to be honest when making important decisions and that is impossible when people will get upset if you're honest. Anyone who has been an officer and taken part in a player draft will know this.
After this discussion has taken place and a pair decided on, the final confirmation of the new generals is made in the exec forum.
------------------------
Generals are typically picked out of the list of volunteers via the following informal criteria:
If they are deemed able to lead an army - any previous general will say it is a massive undertaking and not for the faint of heart.
If they have the correct character to unite people, not fly off the handle etc.
a big part of being general is inter-army/TA relations. They need to be able to coordinate, compromise and work with these groups for the success of the campaign /community.
was very active and engaged in the community in the previous campaigns.
We think they have the attendance to work hard for their army.
They have sufficient experience in GC/ FCing etc.

If a candidate is lacking in one or two points this can be made up for with a strong HC, though some of the criteria are deal breakers.

Other things we consider is balance between the two generals.
Remember that a general won't make or break an army and there are plenty of options for an army with an absent general. In bf3c4 the campaign was a resounding success but one of the general's was notably absent for significant portions of it, his HC kept things running.

I typed this on my phone so Starfisher beat me to it, but if the community isn't happy with how things work now and wants something different then the supporting members forum would be a good place to start as it would be a big shift.

Speaking for myself, I have been part of GC for two years and I have never understood how the selection process for next generals have been done, up until now (reading Starfisher's description). At times I have asked myself, "how the heck did they come up with that pair?" as one or both general(s) haven't even been mentioned anywhere in any thread visible for non-exec/senate members. Sure, one could guess parts of the process by reading various threads here and there, but never have I seen the selection criteria specified as in mentioned post above. I'm probably not alone in this, so why not put the description in the wiki, where it will be free for all to see who wonders and seek information about it.
Regarding the selection process itself, being done in senate/exec chambers or supporting forums or via all member polls, that's another issue. I suspect that keeping it as a task for the senate/execs has some valid reasons that were decided upon many years ago, something in line of that it's best handled that way for the good of the community (á la what ZombieToof wrote) and is better kept that way.

Well I'm sorry I mentioned him, but I'm glad you clarified what happened there and how the process works in general.

After Reading the more current Topic
I too was scratching my head wondering why he did not offer solutions and only criticisms, so I spend 3 hours on TeamSpeak last night to better understand his position.

I decided to re-read this thread where Necromancer explains his thoughts on what is the cause of our recent lack luster campaigns and thus led to his posts in the above forums because he felt he had already set forth his thoughts on "what is wrong with GC" and why we've had several mediocre campaigns in a row.

In this topic I think he does a decent job. In a nut shell, his observation / opinion is that our best campaigns have been the ones where the Generals and HC were very competitive doing everything within their power to win for their perspective armies. He is not wrong in this. Our more recent campaigns have been more laid back (HC not showing up etc) and thus that mojo has trickled down throughout the whole armies. The result is that people begin to feel like there is no point in continuing to fight because there is the belief / feeling that nothing is being done to motivate / improve the army. Hence we have been loosing the very competitive players that we could use in our future High Command positions.

It is really a problem of having a surplus of available players who are willing, able and qualified to lead the armies. Currently we only get a very small group of people even interested in leading an army (2 to 3) and only a dozen or so that are up for being part of an armies High Command. Until we get more people that are willing to step up I don't know how we can field two golden competitive generals and their all-star high command.

I do not have a solution to the problem but as always things get better when we recruit more players.

As to the point of the selection process of our Generals having been behind closed doors I am of the opinion that it should be more transparent. I will talk to the other exec's and see if we can't get those discussions be made in place where everyone can view them in the future. (they were in the BF2 days I am told)

On a side note. I notice that quite a few of our more competitive players are siding with Necromancer's opinions on this subject and some of them have quit playing with us. These are the very guys that we want to keep around for future HC positions because their competitive energy when focused properly can make GC quite amazing.

Please be objective. We all want GC to be the best it can be.

Well said, Ghoul.

I only played BF3 in GC for 1 1/2 campaigns, but the energy to win within everybody was strong.

GC drop rate in BF4 is above 50%, less then half of the people sign up for every consecutive campaign.

C2 (Reddit rush) total number of players in ABC: 325
C3 total number of players: 165
C4 total number of players (current): 94

Source (and some more statistics) based on ABC lists, actual attendance is even lower as some people sign up but never show up.