Campaign system proposal (no RISK)

[Necromancer]

Campaign startup - Maps:

• The map list to be divided into 3 map pools.
  What kind of map list is used doesn't matter.
• The armies and the TAs each get a map pool

During the week

• The TAs pick 2 maps. One map is announced at the beginning of the week, the other one left hidden.
• Each army picks 2 maps and the side they wish to start from.
  One map is revealed, the other map is left hidden.
• On all the announced maps its best 2/3, alternating sides each round. The side who get to pick from which side to start alternates every map depending on the army that starts the battle that week.
• On army picks its best 2/3 no side changes.

Battle

• Order:
  1) Army A hidden map. Army A chooses which side to play from, no side changes.
  2) Army B revealed map. Army B chooses which side to play from first, sides alternate every round.
  3) TA hidden map. Army A chooses which side to play from first, alternating sides every round.
  Break
  4) Army B hidden map. Army B chooses which side to play from, no side changes.
  5) Army A revealed map, army A chooses which side to play from, alternating sides.
  6) TA revealed map, side B chooses which side to play from, alternating sides.
• The starting army alternates every week.

Winning

• The army that wins 15 maps more then the other side wins the campaign.
  Passive balance
• If the difference of maps won is 7 or more, the TA hidden pick is revealed to the looser at the beginning of the week.
• if the difference of maps won is 11 or more and its week 4 or less, the opponents hidden map is revealed to the looser on Wednesday SBT (This means the army has to submit its hidden pick by Wednesday SBT).

When one side has played through all of his map pool, the map pools are cycled.

Settings:
Bleed rate 50%
Tickets adjusted for a round to last 20 min on average.
Armies get 5 minutes to organize, then the battle goes live.
map winner determined by the side that won 2 rounds, no ticket count.


notes:

• battle time should suffice for 6 maps on average.
• the hidden maps + no side changes suppose to break the momentum of the armies, if both sides win some and loose some then everyone is happy.
• i like the idea of un-revealed maps for surprise and improvisation. It also acts as a passive balancing.
  Its been suggested all maps being fully reveled for the armies to make plans during the week and come prepared and organised. This is not a problem. The system suppose to work with all the maps being revealed, or only the TAs picks, or changes each week based on a flip coin etc...
  The campaign can start with the suggested way and if people want to its possible to change that rule to reveal all maps and it shouldn't play in favor of either side at any point.
  Though the passive balancing won't be an option if all the maps are revealed by default.
• playing 6 maps every battle, means that to gain a difference of 15 wins an army needs to loose all maps in two consecutive battles and a bit more. More or less it roughly corresponds to gaining 70% WCP on the risk map. Thats where that number came from and its pretty conservative in my opinion, i'd lower it down a bit. Perhaps upping the limit a bit after 6 or 8 weeks.

Questions, suggestions, pros, cons, tweaks, stuff i overlooked etc... all welcomed.

[Fields]

An interesting concept, but would we have to play every map chosen every single MBT to keep things fair? We might be playing later then normally some days and ending sooner other days if things get imbalanced.

Personally, risk has always been a lower priority for me during each campaign. I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear for a campaign and seeing how everyone feels about it, but at the same time I know the persistent territory battles help draw in lots of players.

[Bock]

I think I like the general concept. It eliminates all the extra work from a RISK system (picking maps, placing maps, placing and moving divisions etc...), should force map variety, and allows sides to prepare for some maps, which I like and makes for a good way to get everyone in the army a chance to effect strategy. The hidden maps also give each side a strong chance to win at least one map every week, while testing FCs' ability to make things up on the fly.

[Necromancer]

An interesting concept, but would we have to play every map chosen every single MBT to keep things fair? We might be playing later then normally some days and ending sooner other days if things get imbalanced.

20 minutes per round, 2.5 rounds per map on average, 5 minutes preparation time for every map, and a 30 minutes break.
360 - (20+5)*2.5*x - 30 = 0 ==> x= 5.28 maps per battle. So yeah, we might be ending a bit late, thats why the TA map is put last. In case we need to skip it due to time it'll still keep things fare.

About ending the battle a bit sooner... i don't see a big problem with it. especially if things gets unbalanced, who wants to keep playing?

[Jokerle]

I think, we would need to test the ticket settings before we fully commit to this. Not sure how it is exactly different to what we currently use. We had issues before where the effective bleed (I would count low starting ticket count to this as well) was to fast, so once a lead was established, any comeback become far too difficult.

[dan1mall]

numbers like ticket bleed can be tweaked.

I like the concept though!

[King6moh]

This will definitely help speed up the set up for the campaign as no territory draft, map selection, etc.. etc..

I don't really see an issue with doing this system as a trial run for this campaign. We've tried it the other way, why not try it some other way now?

[Divine-Sneaker]

Don't see any real issues with this concept. At this point it seems fairly reasonable at the very least to try out something different than the previous formula with minimal changes.

Risk has been somewhat of a unique selling point for gc, but if it goes unused by 90% of the participants, the selling part of the point may be up for discussion.

[Necromancer]

Upon wondering about it some more i purpose the following changes

Battle order

• swap TAs maps 3 and 6 (TA's unknown map will be played last)
  reasoning:
  - Due to time constraints its possible there won't be time for a 6th map. A side that thought it can perform well on that map might feel its unfair.
  - A side might try to stall the battle so there won't be enough time to play the last map if its unfavorable.
  - If the map is scrapped, the plans and strats go to waste.
  - note: TAs are encourage not to reveal the map if it is scrapped.

Timing
Battleday timing is less like 6 hours of play time and more like 6 maps of play time in the sense that battle day length may very depending on the time it takes to play 6 maps.

• 6th map won't be played if its passed SBT+5:30.
• if the 6th map is played, at least 2 rounds will be played. If the 2nd round ends after SBT+5:45 there won't be a 3rd round.
  - In case of a draw on the 6th maps due to playing only 2 rounds, each army will receive 0.5 point.
  - In case the first round of the 6th map is unexpectedly long (35 minutes or more) due to a close match & standstill and it ends after SBT+5:50, the round is scrapped.
  reasoning: It is very unlikely for a round to last that long, but in case it does the army that wishes to gain a point for it has to end it sooner. The side that finds itself cornered in that map is thus encouraged to stall. If the fight can't be decided in 35 minutes it is scrapped and no side gains points, i think its pretty fair.

notes:

• TAs encouraged to start the rounds after 5 minutes regardless if the armies are ready or not. This is to prevent battleday stalling, and encourage the armies to find ways to organize in time (or at least faster then the opponent).
  As such TAs should ready the teams and commanders in time. Its the FCs responsibility to get into the commander slot in time.
  - TAs hold the right to extend the organization period for technical difficulties like unexpected low officer turnout. But armies are expected to deal with it themselves withing the given time frame.

Thoughts

• Scrapping the first round of the last map if its really close can potentially ruin a very close round, on the other hand i don't see any fair way to decide to whom should the points be given in that case. Winning just one round doesn't mean anything even if it was very close one, it might be a draw on the 2nd round. On the other hand starting a second round after SBT+5:50 means the battleday will go for at least SBT+6:15 before army debrief and such.
• Timing: If every 2nd map has 3 rounds, time between rounds is 5 minutes and map time is 20 minutes, 6 hours fit 5 maps. If there are only 2 rounds per map, 6 hours fit 7 maps.
  I don't think every 2nd map will require 3 rounds, on the other hand i doubt we can go hold 5 minutes between maps... though i don't know where its leaning... hopefully there will be enough time for the 6th map more frequently than not.
• Battle may end early depending on the time it takes to play 6 maps. if it ends ~30 minutes earlier IMO its fine (and it happened in the past as well). If it happen to end too early then its for the following reasons: Armies are unbalanced or the bleed/ticket count needs to be adjusted.
  Though even if the battle ends early, it is still fair in the sense that both sides got to play all the maps.
  
  There can be a problem with not playing the 6th map as one may claim it could win it in (either because its favorable or they get the advantage to decide which side to start from). Having it as unknown map should help with this a bit, but the only true solution to this that i can currently see is playing the 6th map, which may drag the battle to like SBT+6:30 and then armies typically have debrief etc... and there have been times with armies/people exhausted at the end of the battle day. I think ending it close to SBT+6 outweighs the "i may or may not have won another point playing that map" (which would be a mystery most of the time).

[Spreez]

This is a lot of work and thought you have placed into this system. No guarantee that the Generals will choose this or a system related to this. What I would like to see if you put this much effort into participating in the campaign. Would you if this system were used?

[Necromancer]

I don't see why does it matter.
I post my thoughts and proposals to help, and it doesn't make it more or less valid whether i participate or not. The points are true regardless.

Whether this system is used or not won't have any influence on my participation. I just give you something more to consider. All i hope for is that whatever system is used we'll get the chance to review it so we can post any cons we find in order to iron them out before it is sealed for the rest of the campaign.
I won't hold a grudge if an equal, better or different system is used. It'll be an interesting read.


About my participation - its not new that im not fond of BF4.
I did fill the interest survey and the officer form though.

I do hope it won't be 20v20, this is a major downer for me as the smaller size emphasizes individual player skill at the expense of strategy and teamplay, which means there is less possibilities to improve one's team enough to change the outcome.
probably why i'm not attracted to those 5v5/8v8 pro tournaments.
Apart from this and the teams not being completely unbalanced from the beginning the only thing that stops me from participating is BF4. Basically all im asking is for it to not suck from the start.
I'm positive its possible.

[Spreez]

I asked a simple question with no aggression about if you would participate. Since you have very strong opinions about how you think things should be handled, done, and enforced.

To the best of my knowledge you have not participated in the last 3 campaigns of BF4. You state you ask for them to not suck from the start. I see that as an outsiders perspective on the grounds you yourself were not apart of what actually happened through the campaign.

Granted you can only act with the knowledge you have and the reading you can see, but that is exactly why I think you need to get back into the campaigns.

Many people participate because they want to be apart of it in general. Not because they like BF4.

In all honesty, had you of posted yourself as willing to be General this time around, people would of taken you up on that offer I would say. You would of been on the ballot for voting and probably of been selected by the community to see if you can preform as well as you can critique.

[MONGO_abaday]

I would be fine with that map selection process personally



My original idea of how maps are chosen was quite basic:
-Pretty much there is a map pool of every possible/chosen map that have been selected before the campaign has begun

-Each map is assigned a number from 1 to however many maps there are

-A random number generator is used to pick 6 maps each week

-Possibly use some of necro's idea where 3 of them are hidden from the armies. Or we could say 1 map each of the 3 that are hidden will be issued to each side. So only one side knows what they have but the other side does not and visa versa. (hope that makes sense) then the final one left over from the 3 "hidden maps" is kept secret full secret from both armies until right before it is due to be played.

-Once a map has been played it is removed from the map pool until it runs drys (if it does) and it is then refilled

-Finally I would say there are two options for the order in which the maps will be played:
Option1. The 3 revealed are played 1st, followed by the map "Army 1" knows, then the map "Army 2" knows and last of all the hidden map neither army knows is played last (this could then be done in the opposite order every other week)
Option2. "Army 1" known map then "Army 2" known map followed by the 3 revealed maps and then finally the completely unknown map

Any suggestions to this are welcome

[dan1mall]

I asked a simple question with no aggression about if you would participate. Since you have very strong opinions about how you think things should be handled, done, and enforced.

Not to be rude, but I think necro gave a simple answer with no aggression at all either.

Some of us just dont really like bf4, which is why its hard to participate fully in campaigns. That doesnt mean we dont care about GC or it doing well.

[Spreez]

You are not being rude, and I cant say that you are wrong. However Necro is probably the most outspoken person to not participate at all. I am requesting that since he does have an invested interest (or he wouldnt be taking time to think up and post about it) that he take that forward and go ahead and join the campaign. There are also many people who play BF4 who dont like it but want to see the community thrive.

Also, aggression is based on who reads it and how they have interacted with that person in the past. Words can be very misleading with nothing else to back them. Just because you feel no aggression in him saying why does it matter does not mean I will feel the same way.