Free-to-play based on teamplay and tactics.

I just had an idea. Step 1) Generals choose their high commands. Step 2) The two high commands meet, look at the list of interested officer candidates and decide on a pool of officers that should cover the needs of two armies. Officers are not assigned to their army at this time. Step 3) The two HCs...

Anyway you look at it all starts from the top. And then it's up to everyone to keep things going. I kind of get the feeling that a lot of people just want to show up on Saturdays and have things be magically organized, balanced and exciting. The truth is, the leadership is reliant on the community ...

Gwynzer wrote: For a while in BF3C4, DARK Gladius were winning.

FTFY

2/10 crap post would not read again.

JustKiddingYouActuallyNailedPrettyMuchEveryProblemRelatedToArmyBalance

indeed

My only concern with advertising the TS server on the BF4 server load screen or with automated admin messages would be if somehow the server was populated, yet no GCers were on TS. Say we managed to seed the server and it kept going after all the GC members left. In that case, I don't think it would...

Necromancer wrote:Thinly veiled stab at one of the army's HC

Allow me to demonstrate a more sensible, on-topic thread reply.

Is that their historically most used loadout, or just a sampling of the current loadouts of the top players?

Is having zero scrims between draft day and BFI a good idea?

Happy birthday, dude!

Since some comparisons have been made between BF3 and BF4 lazing, I'll start off with my thoughts on the differences in philosophy. The primary thing is that (once they finished balancing everything out), in BF3, laser-guided weapons were a soft counter to vehicles. You never got killed by something...

How many people with GC actually pub on this server? It seems like the only people it brings in are people with complaints about the server and its (lack of?) admining.

I'm not yet sure what I'll be doing Saturday afternoon, but if gaming is on the menu, I'll join in.