BF3

[Thur]

Welcome to Global-Conflict BF3 Edition

We are all looking forward to the next release and are preparing for the first camp. There is much work to be done and we would like to hear from everyone willing to help. Time is money and we would much rather have a bit of your time than money. We need server admins, code writers and creative thinkers. =GC= has a history of smart, talented people who take on the challenge on their own. If it is your time now. Make it happen.

Post your ideas in this thread.
All points of view are welcome.
I will remind you to conduct yourself in a gentlemanly like manor at all times.
This is an open forum for debate about the game and the system we will build around it to facilitate a more organized and interesting meta-game.

=GC=Thur

[gribble]

Put me in the group of "reanimated veterans".... will try to be smart and then post again

[Gravis]

ill help where i can... not a code monkey but i can try my hand at server admining if need be

[Shrapnel]

Well, I've always been a fan of the risk system but understand that it is labor intensive for both the admins and HCs. If we can't pull that off I think the campaign system should still have some strategy involved rather than just a head-to-head on the map list.

Depending on what options are available on the game perhaps we can make certain territories on the map allow certain unlocks, access to certain vehicles, intel on asset positions, a head start (10 second earlier spawn for one side), maybe the option to para-drop (or tunnel) skipping one territory, denial of attack (right to declare one territory unattackable for one battle day), etc. This would give territories extra value besides just being an end run for the capital. This system will only work if the game allows it,if we can MOD the changes, or if our options don't change game play. It will take a bit of time to work out all the details. I envision this system using a geographic map rather than a hex map.

Another option could be a conquest style tourney where each team must win the best of three on each map to be declared the winner. Some strategy could come into play if we say the maps can't be repeated during a battleday. That way if a team picks easy maps to attack up front they may end up repeating those attacks when they can't win a harder map. This could give the other side the opportunity to win that map with out using an attack. The benefit of this system is it's easy to understand for new comers and easy to admin.

OR we could revive the risk system yet again.
Of course even the risk system could be improved by going to the Axis & Allies system...

I'll probably have more ideas once the game is actually out and I've gotten some play time. Personally I think I'm leaning towards the best of three on each map at least for camp 1. Less to mess with on the admin side and fewer issues that could arise due to not knowing the game yet.

Then the risk system for camp 2...

[.Sup]

Shrap there will be so many unlocks available that it will be hard to monitor who uses what

[Thur]

I like Shrap's idea on the conquest mode. Thanks for the input. Keeping it simple is best for =GC=BF3-C1. What is it about the Axis and Allies system? It is very similar to risk in theory. In fact I think the system we used from BF42 camps C5 thru C7 were more like AA than risk.

Let's hope we will have some kind of control over unlocks. Personally I do not mind playing someone with more unlocks. If we need to restrict it by a rule we can.

[Goggles]

I've never played Axis & Allies, so I'm not sure what's different between that and RISK?

I feel wholeheartedly that there are two important ingredients that should be in the campaign system. First: keep it simple. Second: involve as many people as possible in the map.

Now... how to do that... I have no clue

Anyone ever play Diplomacy? What if we play with a board like that (with army rules similarly), but each army's division/squad leader has control over a piece on the board? It would be up to the General to try to get those division leaders to move according to his plan. Likewise, each person can only submit a move for their unit... requiring a lot more participation from people besides the General.

[Shrapnel]

Axis & Allies is very similar to Risk, but it adds the complexity of a basic economy and a supply chain as well as different movement capabilities for different troop types.

I know we adopted some of the AA rules for C5-7 with attacking from the sea and para-dropping, etc. I'm not sure we ever really had an economy or supply line though. I seem to remember most of the troops just being dropped on the front lines.

As far as getting people involved, it really depends on the community. You have to have people interested in discussing strategies and tactics, either on the camp map or on game maps. I can remember getting into lengthy discussions with Ricky, Thur, drinsane, Davout and others regarding moving troops around on the map. IMO, it's complexity that breeds discussion as there will be multiple ways to solve the same problem, while simple usually results in fewer choices. This is really the brillance behind using the Risk system. It has a reasonable level of complexity yet most people (well Americans at least) are already familiar with how to play Risk, so we're not asking them to learn a new game.

Ultimately I think our goal should be to bring back some sort of strategy board-game style campaign system, but for the first camp or two we should focus on solving some of the other issues involved in running a campaign (ABC, figuring out a server, learning the game, etc).

I do also like Chef's idea on an "experience" system for GC, but as a campaign system rather than for individual development. As previously expressed I think those "achievments" are already in place with promotions and medals and even the coveted "Cheesy Cookie" award (where the heck is that guy any way?). I also wouldn't want to limit a new members ability to participate and contribute simply because they are new.

However, I think it could meld nicely with my other idea for "abilities" unlocked by gaining territories. Perhaps instead of saying this territory will grant this ability we create a tech tree and each territory grants a point to spend on the tech tree. Obviously the actual capabilities of the game will limit what we can do as sup said, but other abilities such as para-dropping or may be hardened defenses (enemy has to win an additional round to capture a hardened territory, each point spent in that tech will allow the hardening of an additional territory), reinforcements (same as defences but defender must successfully defend an extra round to defend the territory) etc., could be used with out completely imbalancing the game.

We'd have to be careful to not to make the abilities too powerful though to help prevent the steam roller effect.

Any way, I have no idea what's being discussed in the TA forum so I hope I'm not de-railing anything. If you guys need help let me know.

[Shrapnel]

I guess I can't edit in this forum. Should this thread be moved to General discussion?

@Goggles, I've never played Diplomacy. It sounds like it may use a similar system to Shogun (aka Samauri Swords) where the player has units in every territory for defense but only three roving armies which represent a seperate cache of units and move for attack. Does that sound about right?

[AusbilderSchmidt]

i only played AA in C7 and it was very difficult to understand for me...risk was easy

[HumanSpeedbumpAK]

100% in to play, and I'd love to work HC again when drafting comes down.

As far as development goes, I am studying programming and have some experience in webdesign so I'd love to help out there.

For campaign 1, I like a lot of talk about using simpler rule systems like Risk. While AA Provided some added strategy and changes we should probably focus more on players, organization, communication, and a basic understanding of the game before we complicate the background system too much.

That said, Risk has undergone changes lately, and the video-game version I have on my Xbox carries interesting "Objectives" we could easily use in play. Taking over specific territories, winning multiple battles in a row, or landslide victories can grant players additional troops, additional maneuver phases, or bonus's to neighboring territories dice rolls. They don't change the balance too much but help speed things up.

My main idea's center around use of the Rush and Conquest game modes. I know we have always used Conquest (obviously they didn't have Rush) but I personally enjoy Rush more, and would love to see it used in =GC=. I was thinking we should play have the Attacking team play a single round of rush before attacking any territory. They must succeed in a game of Rush before establishing a foothold in order to play a game of Conquest and take the territory. I can't say for sure all maps will work in all modes but if possible this would be a ton of fun.

I'll come up with more as we get closer to release. My email is dareitus@gmail.com if you want to get in touch with me and I'm not around the forum.

[BRUMMIE]

I just wonder if EA are going to give us (the players) the latitude on the server side we will need to do what is we want to do. We may be shackled by their need to control. I guess, I mean, don't put out too much energy till we know what we can control. I don't want to hamper the discussion, but let us know if you have reason to believe otherwise.

[HumanSpeedbumpAK]

From what I gathered during the...well I know things, servers seem function similarly to those used in Battlefield 2. Judging by the independent company that was hosting the test servers we were using, Servers will be available in both Ranked and UnRanked variants. Ranked servers are connected to EA's Battlelog and provide stat tracking, including Experience Gained and Weapons Unlocked. UnRanked servers allow for (at least some, obviously I haven't seen any of it) user-end modification, but will not earn the player Experience or change his Stats.

We should be familiar with this. UnRanked server's are obviously the only way to go for actual battle times. It's the only way we will be able to use mods (and yes, DICE has said Modding will be supported/allowed, although they have not specified if the tools will be available upon release. Judging by the fact that the game itself isn't done yet, I wouldn't hold my breath) and ensure proper balance on the playing field.

However, Ranked Server's are pretty much the only way to drag in Public players and attract new Soldiers to the Global Conflict. I can't confirm yet if we will be able to switch between Ranked and UnRanked on the fly or if we will actually need two separate servers (And the increased funds associated with this) to pull it off.

As far as Unlocks go, there are a metric crap ton of them, and they can only be unlocked by playing that specific class/weapon that you are looking to upgrade. IE: To get sights/grips/mags/suppressors for a particular weapon, you must get kills with that weapon. To unlock new perks/weapons for a class you must level up that particular class. Global unlocks are also obtained through leveling your individual soldier.

This might be great for variety online, but I'm not sure the Unlock system is going to work to our advantage come Camp 1. I say this because, for Example, I like to play almost exclusively as the Medic/Assault. I was a Medic in the "real" Army so it's more fun in-game. That said, if High Commander Brummie needs to order me to drop suppressing fire on my next spawn so Dark Overlord Thur can't get his troops off the bridge, and I only have the 30-40round mag's unlocked for my Support class (Drum mag's are unlocks for most the support weapons it seems) I'm hardly going to be effective. Some could argue that this puts more stress on leadership, requiring in this example that Brummie know my strengths and weaknesses before hand, but to me it would likely limit the functionality of =GC= the way we typically execute a campaign. Of course, we have to wait till the game comes out to even see what our options are, but I would imagine we should be able to pick and choose unlocks available on a per team / per class basis when working with UnRanked servers.

I have more ideas and info, but the NDA on the Alpha makes me cautious as to what I actually say. I'll be more active as we get closer to release.

[Thur]

I agree with Dareitus and Brummie and Shrapnel, almost does not need saying, that the camp system is a low priority for C1. Lot's of good idea's as well. Focus on membership and maintaining interest long enough for new members to start reaping the benefits of playing at GC, should be our priority.

Thanks for the insight as well Dareitus, I do not think anything you have said would be construed as a breach of your NDA, but i would recommend you err on the side of caution when speaking of server details and the like. (Just a recommendation of course) Besides things seem to change, a lot, the closer we get to release. On the subject of the alpha, how many active members of GC participated in it? Is there any discussion going on within the alpha group? Or is it signed and sealed? Also have any of you established any contacts at EA that we may be able to further develop? Our extensive track record as a community of dedicated BF players and participants in the larger BF community may help us with any possible negotiations that may need to be pursued. I am thinking of the possibility of getting the controls we need while still being a ranked server. I know we can track a players attendance and time played (and maybe more) but having our battles not count toward a players official EA stats was detrimental to our membership for BF2 and all following releases. In effect the EA stat system was giving the average player the same thing we offer. A larger more interesting BF experience for free.

=GC=Thur

[styphon]

I'm looking forward to BF3 and willing to help out where I can. I loved the risk system and think we should revive that after a couple of campaigns. I think we could even run it for the first campaign but delay running C1 a couple of months and run battle weekends with changing armies and changing leaders every weekend for the first month or two, like we used to do between campaigns. Just do it for a longer stint as an advertising thing.

As for the actual campaign, I've done everything except TA so far so would love to step up and be a TA for the first campaign. Hopefully my PC will run the game.