Global Conflict

The "Yes, but I would rather finish our campaign before doing this:" is simply an option to infer that you would very strongly prefer to finish our campaign before doing this.

So as was suggested in the other thread, we're in contact with another BF4 community to do a cross-community campaign. As it stands we only know that their admins are agreeable and looking into it on their side. We still need to know if our TA's and execs could do it from our side as well. But to know if we even have enough interest and members so that getting this set-up would be worth it, let's see if we can't gauge some interest.

Harp indicated the timeframes from their side might be as soon as 2 weeks (in the middle of their campaign), we don't know our timeframe yet, also we still have a campaign going so I don't know what the rules would be on that, maybe the execs/TAs can weigh in on this.

Interested.

I am for anything that brings something 'fresh' right now.

Post campaign is the only real option this can work, unless we plan on doing this on a totally separate day, which brings its own problems.

Voted #4 but it's not a "I won't play if we stop the current campaign" thing, just my preference.

I also think that if 21CW really want to start in two weeks or a month or w/e and the campaign hasn't ended, we should oblige. Mainly to avoid one side, or the other, losing interest in the campaign.

Could, of course, start planning in two weeks while the campaign is going on and hope we finish the campaign before the planning is done.

A Docile Sloth wrote:Voted #4 but it's not a "I won't play if we stop the current campaign" thing, just my preference.

That was my general idea for that option, "I'd like to do the cross-community, but I feel really strongly that we should finish our campaign before doing this, but if for X reason we can't finish in time I'm ok with it" I'll clear it up in the OP so it's not confusing.

Like sloth said, there's also the issue of both communities being available, if we don't sync we risk never being available at the same time or making either community have to wait a month or more for the other community to finish their campaign.

If it came to this, could we maybe do a high stakes game for the campaign Gwynzer? Is there precedent? As in, triple points awarded for wins or something similar?

At any rate, the current time estimates are just estimates, this is just covering the bases.

ViperXVII wrote: If it came to this, could we maybe do a high stakes game for the campaign Gwynzer? Is there precedent? As in, triple points awarded for wins or something similar?

That is more a question for the generals, if they agree to change the point system we are good to go.
Or you know...you can finally surrender

I don't see why we should add artificial constraints to end the campaign faster. If the 21cw guys finish their campaign before ours they are more than welcome to hop in to join our running one (as I'm sure we'd be welcome to go there). That'd serve as a way to build up some small friendship prior to battling it out against each other. That should help to prevent some of the drama that pops up when two rivals are fighting each other when we go at it.

I like Gwyn's idea on this. 21CW guys are more than welcome to join the ranks while we finish up our campaign. While this is going on, we should try our best and plan the other campaign (i.e. TAs/General(s)?/HC). If our campaign runs for more than x number of weeks (x = 4?), then we should have a plan to break our campaign and carry on with the inter-community one.

Theoretical question here. Let's say 32+ GC players agree to attend a campaign against 21CW. And let's say 21CW agrees to go ahead with the idea within a 2 weeks time frame. Would you wait for the current 12v12 campaign to reach a conclusion before committing to a normal 32v32 campaign?

Second, I think kind of impolite to invite your neighbor to share the lawn and then ask his daughter to move in with you for a while. A pretty crappy analogy but you catch the drift.

And what happens with campaign imbalance? 21CW might just disappear suddenly.

Then the side that keeps showing up wins, just like our normal campaigns

Gwynzer wrote:I don't see why we should add artificial constraints to end the campaign faster. If the 21cw guys finish their campaign before ours they are more than welcome to hop in to join our running one (as I'm sure we'd be welcome to go there). That'd serve as a way to build up some small friendship prior to battling it out against each other. That should help to prevent some of the drama that pops up when two rivals are fighting each other when we go at it.

Realistically I doubt they would join up GC's campaign if you guys were not to finish before they were ready for the cross-community tournament. Most of the people left at 21CW are the die-hard 21CW fans - they've been playing since DC/BF2 and won't play in any other community.

I'm mean think about it, it just looks like you are trying to poach their players when you do this. They have more active numbers than GC at this moment as well lol, there's no way they will go for this.

Necromancer wrote:And what happens with campaign imbalance? 21CW might just disappear suddenly.

I have a feeling GC has a higher chance of doing that at the moment, if yesterdays numbers were indicative of community health.

Not a good idea IMO. It's often difficult enough solving issues arising between two armies from one community, but with two communities where the players hardly know each other? That's just asking for arguments and bitterness to ensue from the get go.

Mixing the communities between the armies might work, have one general from each side. You'd have to make sure that the HC's and officer core were mixed too.

Logistically this will be difficult as well, unless both communities already play at the same time there's going to have to be compromises made somewhere, and that's going to leave some people from both communities at a disadvantage for playing time.

I think a better idea would be to have a friendly scrim match, then encourage people to play with both communities. If numbers are the issue and the main reason for this then perhaps a merger between communities could be looked at, starting with scrims, then having two campaigns running (one for each community) whilst encouraging people to play in both and get to know each other, and then finally merge.

styphon wrote:Not a good idea IMO. It's often difficult enough solving issues arising between two armies from one community [..]
Logistically this will be difficult as well [..]

While definitely true, I don't think we should discard the notion simply because it will be difficult. It will take effort from officers on up to the execs and admins, but if they're willing to put in time I think it might be at least worth trying out?

Worst case scenario, if it fails we simply revert to our own campaigns. I've only been with GC for one campaign and the current one, so maybe there's been incidents in the past, if so IMO bring them up so we can make informed decisions.

styphon wrote: I think a better idea would be to have a friendly scrim match, then encourage people to play with both communities. If numbers are the issue and the main reason for this then perhaps a merger between communities could be looked at, starting with scrims, then having two campaigns running (one for each community) whilst encouraging people to play in both and get to know each other, and then finally merge.

A) The times for both sites for campaigns are the same
B) A merging? If anything that seems unrealistic, I don't think either community wishes to "disappear" but I might be wrong on that IDK.

I personally don't like mixing both communities.

ViperXVII wrote: I've only been with GC for one campaign and the current one, so maybe there's been incidents in the past, if so IMO bring them up so we can make informed decisions.

Not sure what styphon had in mind, but one point is the level of competition. 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.


I see this whole thing as an opportunity to get full servers again, and maybe we can some new people to join as well.
Making a reddit ad for GC, but playing with super low numbers is not really much incentive to stay.