BF4 or BF3 - The poll is back again!

[Divine-Sneaker]

Black ops were played on tuesdays, starting at SBT+3 and lasting 3 hours.

They generally included most of the other game modes outside of conquest and were used to award some sort of currency for the armies to use in the risk system. With a campaign like the last one that didn't have a risk system, it wouldn't make that much sense unless a high amount of people somehow couldn't get enough and just wanted to play even more.

[Fanne]

Black ops were played on tuesdays, starting at SBT+3 and lasting 3 hours.

just to add: we had EUBO SBT +2 or 3 and NABO SBT +6
BOs started as full BD with BF42 some decades ago and we used them in different ways later ( raoads / capital controlls / cards or some kind of money - I'm sure I missed some), they always had les attandance and were infantry orientated ).
I think it's up to HQ / Generalls to chooose if and how to use them atm.
We can have a poll about who is willing to show on Tuesdays to see if it's worth the efford but attendence is never set to stone ...
bring on the next campaign as fast as possible is right, we can discuss further what is next or worth a try. If BF series tend to end we get plenty of time to test things...
s tend to bounce back, don't they

[CognitoCon]

Our main battledays are probably gonna have about as many people as a black ops.

[Gonzo]

Second of all. I don’t know about all of you but for me, I would prefer to be actually playing a campaign whilst this happens and whilst campaign 6 is running we can discuss and work all this out. I don’t see this problem going away over night until one of these new games comes out, which I believe will happen hopefully next year with all these new games being developed. No one is ever going to agree on the same thing. It’s part of being human. And yes I understand you’re trying to work out which is the best option for the greatest amount of players, but there is always going to be someone who is upset by the decision. We could also be sitting here for months trying to figure out who would play which game more and which more people would play. But I think we should just get on with the next campaign and suck it up. There will be plenty of time to work out the details whilst we are playing.

Everyone who I played with in the last campaign knows I enjoy playing with you all seeing as I wake up at 0300 play with you guys. The community was greeted me with open arms and made it very enjoyable for me. Now in the 3 battle days I played. I didn’t really hear about anyone complaining about bugs, and they didn’t occur for me. And I’m probably playing with the worst connection out of all of you seeing as I play in this weird place called Australia where Kangaroos deliver our mail. But if you’re worried about losing more people, the longer you all fight over this the more bored people will get and will just stop coming. People come here to play battlefield and seeing as BF4 is the latest instalment, that’s what most people play and that’s the reason I joined. Now weather battlefield 3 or 4 is better is a different issue but the fact is more people play Battlefield 4 than battlefield 3. I looked earlier today (and this is just AUS servers but there was 1 half-filled battlefield 3 server and over 20 full BF4 servers. So if you’re worried about numbers. You’re more likely to grow playing battlefield 4 than 3.

Also there is no point getting angry because people still think battlefield is still a good game, I for 1 am one of those people. And people are allowed to have a difference of opinion. So I would request that you don’t put people down based on what they believe. I’ve noticed it a few times people getting angry because someone else disagrees with you. Sorry for repeating the point but we are human, and one of the things that makes us all so unique is our difference in opinions. If we all had the same opinion life would be boring. We would only have chocolate ice-cream because its Everyone’s favourite and we would all be paly pregnancy simulator or grass simulator. And yes they are actual games .

All of that! Like, read it again, because all of that! This man gets it

Also, AFAIK in the last iteration of BOs, the one we played since i've been here, we played from sbt+2 til sbt+4.5 for the euro- one and sbt+8 til sbt+10.5 for the US.

[FisherMan9999]

I don't know guys. I mean, you are trying to sound so democratic and that people should hear and listen to others, but at the same time, you don't even care what we are saying and thinking aka you are being ignorant towards criticism which is a shame. I wish you could be in my shoes to see my POV.

[RazY70]

All of that! Like, read it again, because all of that! This man gets it

Seems to me people should actually be more concerned with all of that:

Our main battledays are probably gonna have about as many people as a black ops.

Sticking our heads in the sand pretending like it's business as usual isn't going to change that, and neither will another BF4 campaign. It is all a question of numbers and evidently BF4 isn't exactly a player magnet.

Bringing in the tK and LoB guys was a good idea which helped things for a while, but even that didn't last long for some reason. I think that in order to keep things going it's necessary to come up with ways to revitalize things and create interest. That's what I meant by mixing things up, and reintroducing BF3 was just a means to that end. While it's really easy to dismiss this poll, it's essentially saying that about half the community would rather try something else over another BF4 campaign. But apparently this is too much of a risk/hassle so...

Maybe we can try to arrange a joint campaign versus another community? We can't be the only community playing this masterpiece of a game that has numbers issues. Might even cut expenses if each community handle one server instead of two.

[Fanne]

Also, AFAIK in the last iteration of BOs, the one we played since i've been here, we played from sbt+2 til sbt+4.5 for the euro- one and sbt+8 til sbt+10.5 for the US.

jep sir, I counted +6 after Eu start , sry

[Gonzo]

I don't feel like I'm dismissing this poll and I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I'm very aware of the number of active members we have right now. But I am sceptical that the reintroduction of BF3 is gonna increase that number. How will an older game with fewer players get us more players in the long run? In fact, I fear it might do the exact opposite when people who only like one of the games leave, because they have to play the other.

Our numbers last campaign were a little better than the one before that (albeit not by much), so I don't think this is the time to profecise our doom just yet.

Our main battledays are probably gonna have about as many people as a black ops.

Well, yeah, if we wait any longer, they sure will.

[ICallIDTheft]

I rarely check in here any more, but I happened to see this thread. I can't enjoy BF 4, it runs like crap for me and I also hate most things they changed so I haven't really taken a part of GC for a while. I feel what BF 3 really benefits from is that it is a simpler game, nothing to ban, no battlepickups, less gimmicky maps. With less clutter, I think it is easier to enjoy the teamwork and tactics that make GC different from pubbing.

Also for me air gameplay was always the most important bit and honestly it is boring as all hell in BF 4. I understand getting randomly blown up from the air can be frustrating as a ground player, but every kill an air player got in BF 3 was worked for. It was incredibly rewarding because you could always make an impact, but getting the freedom to do so required you to beat out the other guys and work closely as a team. In BF 4, air gameplay is an ugly mess where you get a headache trying to figure out the heads and toes of it and when you do you can hardly make a difference in the outcome of the match.

If GC would switch back to BF 3 I'd be willing to put a lot of time in to make it work, there is nothing quite like the mixture of casual and serious fun anywhere else and I've always very much enjoyed it here. I just can't enjoy BF 4. There is also nothing stopping us from imposing restrictions such as limiting the numbers of jets on a map, for example, to better suit the needs of matches with fewer players.

I would also not have anything against trying some like project reality or insurgency, might be good to try to put together a single night. Be it BF 3, Insurgency or PR I think an event to gauge the feasibility and actual interest might be a worthy investment.

Haven't read all the replies yet, so I apologize if I reiterate unnecessarily.

[cancel_man]

you don't even care what we are saying and thinking aka you are being ignorant towards criticism which is a shame. I wish you could be in my shoes to see my POV.

Pretty sure the fact that this discussion has gone for 8 pages and has members of all levels discussion options reflects that this community does care and is considering criticism. But just because you strongly believe in something doesn't mean you'll get your way- that's democracy.

Insanity is prodding the Public Relations committee to better promote the upcoming campaign (though until we know how it's going to work and when it will start, that's hard to do). I'm hoping our promotion efforts will help bring in new players. Right now everybody's considering players as a static, stagnating number but we haven't done much to promote in the last couple of campaigns.

Even though we're stretched thin, maybe GC should consider running simultaneous, separate campaigns. Continue with BF4C6 as planned and let the BF3 players run their own BF3 campaign on Sundays. It would open the doors to an even broader player base/appeal without affecting our current draw. Members could play in both campaigns or just one. From what I read earlier in the thread, NFO allows us to temporarily switch the BF4 servers to BF3 servers at no additional cost. It might stretch our leadership thin, but it seems like there are enough passionate BF3 players who would step up to organize and operate themselves without putting too much burden on BF4C6 leadership.

[CognitoCon]

Talking to Ghoul in the past, he said that switching from BF4 to BF3 is fine, but switching back up to BF4 charges us every time we do it or at least that's what it sounded like. That being said, a small BF3 server is pretty cheap at about 30 bucks a month for 32 players, but I'm not sure if people would want a separate campaign.

[RazY70]

@Gonzo:
I was talking in general and not specifically about you. You and TheOne made more changes and tried more new things in the last campaign than I've seen in forever.

I wasn't thinking about BF3 as a long term solution. Just as something to break the monotony and try something different for a campaign. I think there are a number of things going for it: the nostalgia factor; most, if not all, members still have it; there are still plenty of people playing it (right now ~11K) who don't have a place they can experience organized play; and it's not that different from BF4 so not a major leap to anyone or require lot of modifications in terms of the campaign. Sure there are risks involved, but we always have BF4 to fallback to.

Our numbers were slightly up as long as tK and LoB participated. I might be wrong but it seems to me that each BF4 campaign we lose a few more players, either not signing up at all or seldom showing up.

I have no idea which campaign format is planned this time around, but I really don't think something is holding back the planning. Even if all of a sudden everyone were on board regarding the switch to BF3 how different would things really be compared to planning a BF4 campaign? We have plenty of experience running both.

[cancel_man]

but switching back up to BF4 charges us every time we do it or at least that's what it sounded like.

I think if you're paying for a BF3 server but want to upgrade to BF4 you have to pay the difference (because they charge more per month/per seat for BF4).

If you're already paying for BF4, you can temporarily disable your BF4 server and run a (cheaper) BF3 server at no additional cost and swap back to BF4 any time (since you've already paid for it). That's my recollection of how NFO works, anyway- been about a year since I managed one.

[Ghoul]

The only cost effective way to run both games is to start with BF3 on one server and BF4 on the other. Then after two weeks like that we switch. Running this way would only cost us at the most $10 to $20 a month and shouldn't cost us more than running two BF4 only servers.

Any time we go from a BF3 server to a BF4 server we have to pay the difference (BF3 server is roughly $62 BF4 $82) but that difference is pro-rated. So if we switch the server mid billing cycle it only costs $10. Downgrading a BF4 server to the less expensive BF3 server costs nothing. If we time things right, and don't switch more than once a billing cycle we shouldn't exceed the amount we already pay for two BF4 servers.

As for the scheduled break, we would just have to finish playing all Euro Server rounds before moving to the other version of Battlefield on the U.S. Server. I don't think it would be terribly hard to implement. Just two map lists, one for each version of the game.

It would be nice to see some of the older veterans playing with us again.

My two cents

[CrookedBarrel]

We have plenty of experience running both.

This here is exactly my problem with this thread. Who is this "We", Razy? Because from where I'm sitting you've never done so much as squad lead, let alone actually get involved in organising a campaign, yet you are ALWAYS among the people complaining about the decisions that have been made by people actually sacrificing their time and energy to actually make things happen.

Now, Razy is a prime example, but how many of you are actively making an effort to improve things here? I'm not talking about 21st century activism, where you think yelling loudly from your comfy chair is getting things done, but about actually signing up and getting involved in making decisions.