Cross-community campaign interest poll

[ViperXVII]

I personally don't like mixing both communities.

In our past scrims (level, 21cw, only bf3) there was the danger of being overly competitive, meaning only the top players would get full play time. In our own campaigns we can manage mixing differently skilled players quite well, in external scrims it can become difficult.

Community vs community battle raises almost always the competitiveness, as it is naturally perceived as a clan-war type of thing. Along with that comes harsher reaction to broken rules , and people can get pissed really really quickly.
It probably comes down to having a well respected group of TAs from both sides to handle these issues smoothly.

Ok that unfortunately makes a lot of sense. And it's definitely a difficult issue.

For the moment, if the poll is any indicator we have just about the numbers for the full 32. So I don't think skill-weeding would be an issue this particular campaign. But in the future it might indeed be an issue. All I can think of on the spot would be an RNG enforced sit-out when the player base exceeds the available slots. How does GC deal with overflowing numbers? I've always seen volunteering to sit out, is there an official rule on this?

At any rate It's definitely worth bringing up, see what 21cw plans to do about that and how serious this would be.

[Gwynzer]

Over numbers was always an army issue. The way it's usually worked is that everyone marks the number of rounds they've played and we swap people out so everyone plays an equal amount. In armies I've been in a command role for, I can't think of any that let the pro players keep playing, but I'm fairly sure that has happened in the past. Usually though, when you have a full server, a single pro player isn't going to achieve much in the grand scheme of things. Individual skill is much more apparent the lower the playercount is.

[King6moh]

I am just excited at the fact that we could possibly have a full server again meaning planning the BD for HC/officers be a lot easier. I feel strats and practice would be taken a little bit more seriously resulting in general increase in the community. I also wouldn't mind switching to this campaign whenever 21CW is ready (if ours keeps going past theirs).

I also volunteer to help out in any shape or form.

[InsanityRocks]

Spoiler: show

It would really be nice to have a separate forum where we can keep track of planning items.

Right now I see (as has been mentioned elsewhere):

* server logistics
** game servers
** team speak server

* campaign logistics
** battle day time and duration
** set time?
** by points?
** maps
** banned weapons
** TAs
** post-draft enrollments

* army logistics
** generals/HCs/Officers
** army enrollments

* community logistics
** communication between Generals/HCs/TAs
** communication between community members
** community member access to army information

And I'm assuming this would be a Battlefield 4 campaign, yes?

Am I missing anything?

I like the idea of a cross-community campaign. However, I feel we have a lot of questions to answer before we start theorizing when it would start.

[ViperXVII]

Spoiler: show

It would really be nice to have a separate forum where we can keep track of planning items.

Right now I see (as has been mentioned elsewhere):

* server logistics
** game servers
** team speak server

* campaign logistics
** battle day time and duration
** set time?
** by points?
** maps
** banned weapons
** TAs
** post-draft enrollments

* army logistics
** generals/HCs/Officers
** army enrollments

* community logistics
** communication between Generals/HCs/TAs
** communication between community members
** community member access to army information

And I'm assuming this would be a Battlefield 4 campaign, yes?

Am I missing anything?

I like the idea of a cross-community campaign. However, I feel we have a lot of questions to answer before we start theorizing when it would start.

I think everyone can agree to the last part. But I think if a few of us can manage to start ironing these details out before our current campaign ends it'd be a bonus. At any rate, this was just a "see if people would like to do this" before serious time went into it. With a 32 - 3 at least interested specifics could start being brought in without making it a futile effort for the TAs and Execs. The whole date issue was simply a feeler.

[King6moh]

I think that's about the complete list Insanity. Is there anything Generals do before the campaign begins other than this?

[RazY70]

People, it's a simple poll and a simple concept. No need to freak out about it.

And please, enough with the lets get them to join GC talk. I'm not sure 21CW members who might be reading this thread would appreciate it.

[ViperXVII]

I talked with duke for quite a bit, really nice guy. We traded impressions and rules, read out insanity's list (more on that later), and they seemed to be more than willing. I'll write what we talked about when I put it on PC since I have it on writing. In general GC and 21cw have the same rules, although there are some exceptions.

At any rate, we came to agree that a scrim with a mixed ruleset and a mixed admin TA team would be a good feeler for how the campaign would turn out. It also gives more time for our campaign to end in the mid-rim.

The problem would be the day on which to do this scrim. Could we get enough people to play on Sunday? Would people be willing to do a scrim instead of a normal battleday? Don't want to open another poll to avoid poll overload ...

[King6moh]

I am willing to do a scrim instead of a normal battleday. Sunday is a bit difficult since it means both days being occupied with GC/BF4 stuff.

[o1oo1]

the biggest issue i can see is that 21cw is US and GC is mostly EU so raging about ping on both servers is going to happen

[Róka]

the biggest issue i can see is that 21cw is US and GC is mostly EU so raging about ping on both servers is going to happen

so just move to america
I'm european and i did it - it's all the rage now-a-days

[ViperXVII]

the biggest issue i can see is that 21cw is US and GC is mostly EU so raging about ping on both servers is going to happen

Currently proposed to do half and half(EU then US), same as GC, so far it's agreed to do so (pending GC is ok with that)

[InsanityRocks]

the biggest issue i can see is that 21cw is US and GC is mostly EU so raging about ping on both servers is going to happen

Currently proposed to do half and half(EU then US), same as GC, so far it's agreed to do so (pending GC is ok with that)

Do you mean 'pending 21CW is ok with that' because this is the norm for GC.

[StarfisherEcho]

First off, awesome job taking the lead on this, Viper. It's great to see someone stepping to the plate!

Secondly - AWESOME IDEA. I look forward to seeing it play out. The major issue I see is the potential for community imbalance - if one side or the other has a pile of comp players show up then it could just be a total stomp - but even that could be addressed with recruiting efforts.

The main benefit is that it would hopefully breathe some fresh life into the community. Just poking my head in every now and again, I don't get the sense that used to exist of people actually trying hard instead of just coasting from BD to BD. BF4 burnout? Campaign burnout? Dunno. But an external competitor to challenge? Fuckin bring it! That could be the spark we need for a good campaign.

[Kilo]

The problem would be the day on which to do this scrim. Could we get enough people to play on Sunday? Would people be willing to do a scrim instead of a normal battleday? Don't want to open another poll to avoid poll overload ...

I think Sunday would be a bad idea because you're going to be asking the communities to show up for 2 days in a row and some will no doubt decide to only play the day that they felt was more important.

the biggest issue i can see is that 21cw is US and GC is mostly EU so raging about ping on both servers is going to happen

21CW has a significant EU population, I'm sure they will not mind splitting the battle-day. They've have numerous instances of wanting to add an EU server to split their battle-day but they got caught up in the red-tape of "this is always how it's been" as well as balking at the cost of paying for 2 servers.

I don't know if you can see this without a registered account but this is their list of players with countries listed to the right: http://21cw.net/forums/showroster.php

I don't get the sense that used to exist of people actually trying hard instead of just coasting from BD to BD.

That's how I remember GC being awhile back, both sides tryharding and being competitive. Now it seems the main focus is artificial "balance" rather than balance from being competitive with each side trying.

But of course my memory may be faulty and this was how it always was. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

edit: also lol, I can't even comment in the GC vs 21CW discussion thread