Global Conflict

Spreez wrote:Not everyone here is going to be all hardass and competitive. Much less every general we look at.

Then don't expect the next campaign to be any different then the last 5 ones.

After every campaign like that everyone around here asks why the campaign ends so soon with such imbalance? And every time the player draft and attendence is at fault. Well, I think its the fault of the Generals that were picked. Why you picked 'em matters none. You want to Ignore the fault and reaponaibility the generals have over the campaign? To be all nice and politicly correct to everyone?! Fine with mw. Just don't expect a differen't result at the end, and don't point fingers at the attendance as the sole reason for such an end. Its not. Its jusy the easiest thing to blame, nobody gets hurt and it cannot be guarneed next time it'll be better so everyone is setisfied with that reason.

And frankly if this discussion will make next generals take a bit more responsibility and not go "awww, we lost x players, its not our fault, theres nothing we can do about it, I had fun" then I did mine.

And yes, a General's position is not without obligations and responsibility for ~40 players. People who take that position should be aware of it and have to be up to it. And if they aren't up to it then they shouldn't be Generals no matter how nice they are.
Being nice and laid back isn't a qualification for the General's position.

As to having fun regardless of winning, thats true. But i'm not having fun simply from playing the game or just because im playing at GC.
I have the most fun when i have a challenge. When the teamplay reaches new levels and the officers are required to use every advantage possible to gain the upper hand, to map the spawn points and their order to increase the chances of winning, because its NOT guaranteed. When the same mistake doesn't happen twice.
I didn't have fun at Campaign 1, when there was no teamplay at all, and the same mistakes were repeated round after round and there was no challenge at all, we just got our assess handed to us without posing any threat at all.
And being on the other side is a little better, but its just boring. When it turns into a pub stomp i usually stop attacking, stay at the flag and just pass the time till the end of the round. There is no fun playing against someone who has no chance.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think people drop from the armies and stop showing up at the last battledays from having excess amounts of fun they simply can't handle.

Necromancer wrote:

+1

mrBLUE9 wrote:I don't know where are you guys getting this concept of GC being casual from.

Spreez wrote:. One thing you have to remember is that this is a game and we are here to have fun. Not everyone here is going to be all hardass and competitive.

o1oo1 wrote:

Spreez wrote:. One thing you have to remember is that this is a game and we are here to have fun. Not everyone here is going to be all hardass and competitive.

I really don't understand what you guys want, do you want to prohibit casual players from joining? Should we create mandatory practices? Should we implement skill caps? GC has never been about this, even on its most balanced campaigns. You're free to be however you like here, a hard ass competitive or a casual player. Short of the things I mentioned, everything else here is geared towards a competitive scenario but you can't just make other people be like you want them to be.

And I don't even know what to say to you Necro, you're being extremely disrespectful to all the Generals we had. And if you think you can make 40+ people have regular attendance just on your command then I would love too see you try.

Look, I miss 5 page AARs, 20 person practices and mapping spawn points as much as you do, Necro. But it's not something you can magically force on the community. It's something that grows out of an army's personality. The general certainly sets the tone, but it's not just him that matters. I have never met a general who wouldn't promote the crap out of someone who worked hard to make strats, writes good AARs and pushes for better play in their army. Provided they do it right, of course. And that one person in an army can make all the difference to the character of that army.

Individuals make up the community. Everyone reading this right now needs to make a conscious decision during the campaign to improve themselves and their team. GC is very much about putting in to get something out. A tough loss is much more fun than an easy win, but everyone needs to pull for that to happen.

BF4:C3 Starfisher because he is FISHER vs Necromancer !
or Hitman vs Starfisher

Necromancer wrote:

Spreez wrote:Not everyone here is going to be all hardass and competitive. Much less every general we look at.

Then don't expect the next campaign to be any different then the last 5 ones.

After every campaign like that everyone around here asks why the campaign ends so soon with such imbalance? And every time the player draft and attendence is at fault. Well, I think its the fault of the Generals that were picked.

Just out of curiosity, Necro, have you been volunteering for General?

StarfisherEcho wrote:Individuals make up the community. Everyone reading this right now needs to make a conscious decision during the campaign to improve themselves and their team. GC is very much about putting in to get something out. A tough loss is much more fun than an easy win, but everyone needs to pull for that to happen.

Hear hear!

mrBLUE9 wrote: And I don't even know what to say to you Necro, you're being extremely disrespectful to all the Generals we had.

I've been thinking it for a while. And not just me.
I didn't say anything for this particular reason: to not hurt anyones feelings.
Yet another shitty campaign ends. And again i'm thinking to myself whats more important, the honor of a few generals (and myself) or the fun factor of the whole community for campaigns to come?!
I'm really sorry if someone took it personally, i didn't point or name anyone and that wasn't the point. I was simply trying to point to the reason why we have such shitty campaigns in hope it'll change, soon. I'm sorry there isn't a nice way to say it, But sometimes you gotta put your emotions aside and talk professionally to solve things.

mrBLUE9 wrote: And if you think you can make 40+ people have regular attendance just on your command then I would love too see you try.

I would like to see me try too.

I never said its possible to keep full attendance across the entire campaign both on battledays and practices. What i say is that 5 people who don't show up shouldn't cause the army to loose. Why? Because teamwork beats out talent. Because its possible to overcome a small skill imbalance with better teamwork. There is no army that hangs on a single person.

StarfisherEcho wrote:The general certainly sets the tone, but it's not just him that matters.

I agree, it might be that its not just him that matters, but the General is responsible for like 90% of everything.

StarfisherEcho wrote: I have never met a general who wouldn't promote the crap out of someone who worked hard to make strats, writes good AARs and pushes for better play in their army. Provided they do it right, of course. And that one person in an army can make all the difference to the character of that army.

Easier said then done. If you're not an officer, its practically impossible. Out of the loop, and without access to anything, you can hardly influence anything. And even if you are an officer, there is little to no motivation to do crap when your general doesn't do nor care about anything. And the rest of the officers. The only person who can, and need to set an example and have demands from others is the General. I guess its possible to do it from the bottom up, but its a million times easier to do it from the top down.

zorplex wrote: Just out of curiosity, Necro, have you been volunteering for General?

Several times.
I haven't been approached once.

Necro, have you ever asked yourself why? Much less asked those making the decisions why? The answers might shed some light on the situation for yourself on how the process is managed.

CognitoCon wrote:

phpBB [video]

I agree with Necro's points, the general is very vital to the campaign and also that sometimes you've gotta throw kindness out the window to get things done. I think all of us know how crappy the past ~3 campaigns have been, and we all know that things need to change, though it seems that people just pussyfoot around without changing a single thing.

Spreez wrote:Necro, have you ever asked yourself why? Much less asked those making the decisions why? The answers might shed some light on the situation for yourself on how the process is managed.

I'm sorry but I don't think it sheds light on how the process is managed at all. Quite the opposite. The only relevant question here is whether Necro would do a good job as a General or not, that's it. If the selection is based on some vague personal likes or dislikes of the decision makers instead of objective criteria then the process leaves a lot to be desired.

I couldn't care less if Necro or anyone else for that matter might be rough around the edges at times. I really can do without the reassurances at the end of a bad battle that everything is just dandy and good fun. What I expect from the General/HC/Officers when the crap hits the fan is this: http://youtu.be/RMbAANfUJhI?t=34s.

Now lets go over the relevant details: Necro has been around GC for more than 2 years; had a lot of experience as SL, Officer, HC, and replacement General; plus volunteered for General a number of times (I was under the impression there was a shortage of those). I honestly can't understand where the problem is. The decision seems pretty straightforward and logical. Yet evidently the decision makers thought otherwise. Which brings me back to my previous post regarding the criteria used when making such decisions. What are the deciding factors and why?

RazY70 wrote:What I expect from the General/HC/Officers when the crap hits the fan is this: http://youtu.be/RMbAANfUJhI?t=34s.

-Can I be the Wolf?

I'm not going to take sides here, but the general selection process, from what I can see on the development forums, seems pretty strange. It's not very clear what happened, but the list of potential generals starts as a large list that doesn't include all of the volunteers, but does include some people who did not volunteer. Then it changes size a bunch of times, with no real explanation, besides some mention of a meeting, and then 3 became 2, and PM's were sent. I don't mean to cause drama, but I don't even see Necro's name on the initial list, which seems strange to me since he volunteered and he has experience. Perhaps the post was edited as people were trimmed, but there's no explanation of any sort as to why some people made the list and why some didn't. Maybe I'm just being an ass, but I feel as though a bit more transparency would go a long way in resolving some of these issues.