Why MCC Will Hurt FC

[Houdini]

FC is barely surviving right now; everybody knows it.

But we have hope. Everybody keeps saying "Let's just wait for MCC" or "Everything will be better with more people come MCC."

Are those "excuses" valid?

If you are in the community right now, you must care about the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Otherwise why would you stick around for unbalanced match ups and unbalanced armies?

If you don't believe me that the match ups aren't balanced, look at the last 2 weeks of battle nights. Of the 50+ games played, only 9 had score difference of less than 10%. A third of the games played had the winning team more than double the losing teams score. Those types of matches aren't fun for anybody.

People aren't playing for the fun, exciting and close battles. We are playing because we don't want the community to die.

Here is the major problem:

If we can't balance armies and have a fantastic war when the community is composed entirely of people with a deep desire for a successful and thriving community how can we expect things to get better when we have tons of new recruits who couldn't care less if Forerunner Conflict lives or dies?

I don't know what the solution is to fixing this war, and I doubt anyone person does otherwise they probably would have said something by now.

Before everything else, the community needs to be fun. Ideally all matches would be close and competitive, but I think if we had even 50% of the matches be competitive everybody would be happy.

I doubt anybody knows the entire picture about what is going on in every squad and both armies. We need teamwork and cooperation to fix not just the balancing issues, but all of the minor issues people might have with each other. It will take a lot of work, but everybody here is passionate about the success of the community. If we can't get this war back on track the entire community could very well collapse when we have an influx of people who simply don't know the history or care about the proud past we have in Forerunner Conflict.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Houdini for War Director.

[Zeta Crossfire]

I feel like there are a few things that are going to have to happen at least.

Squads are going to need to be ranked skill wise freely be switched to what ever army needs them more. Just because your squad is one color now doesn't mean it will be that color during MCC.

New squads also need to be formed right as MCC starts. Some officers, even if its only and CO and maybe and XO need to start from scratch to start recruiting and adding to their squad. We need blood and new squads to build off of, as well as continuing to add to existing squads.

Leadership positions in the whole army will need to be touched. Make sure those in HC, FLAG, ect are fit for the job. Also if one army is in need of leaders some might volunteer to head across to bolster the ranks.

Just a few positions I've had in my head, feel free to pick them apart they aren't the end all be all of ideas.

[Guzzie]

MCC has nothing to do with what you are talking about, so the title is misleading. It's all about rotation and the matches being set up. MCC has nothing to do with that.

[Spartanbh]

New squads also need to be formed right as MCC starts. Some officers, even if its only and CO and maybe and XO need to start from scratch to start recruiting and adding to their squad. We need blood and new squads to build off of, as well as continuing to add to existing squads..

I really like this idea. For the daring officers willing to create a new squad from scratch, we could maybe say they won't be allowed to play until they have "X" many members, thus forcing them to recruit fast and hard, as well as train fast and hard.

[Houdini]

MCC has nothing to do with what you are talking about, so the title is misleading. It's all about rotation and the matches being set up. MCC has nothing to do with that.

Maybe you aren't hearing the same things I am, but all I hear is that MCC will save the community and MCC this, MCC that. People are using the probable influx of new recruits in MCC to be an excuse to why we can't fix things now. MCC has everything to do with why we aren't seeing things get fixed. I remember at the start of the war everybody was talking about how this was going to be the last great war. We even had an extended peace time to ensure that both armies where ready to go. I have yet to see this great war everybody was talking about. If it is as simple as rotations and matches being setup, why have we had 9 weeks of Battle Nights and not fixed the rotations yet?

- - - Updated - - -


Squads are going to need to be ranked skill wise freely be switched to what ever army needs them more. Just because your squad is one color now doesn't mean it will be that color during MCC.

Just to play the devils advocate here:

How can we rank squads based on Halo 4 performance when not all of the members will be going over to MCC on launch? How can we rank squads by skill when there probably will be a huge influx of recruits which could change the squad skill dynamics?

[Jam Cliché]

Maybe you aren't hearing the same things I am, but all I hear is that MCC will save the community and MCC this, MCC that. People are using the probable influx of new recruits in MCC to be an excuse to why we can't fix things now. MCC has everything to do with why we aren't seeing things get fixed. I remember at the start of the war everybody was talking about how this was going to be the last great war.

I have seen this excuse a lot, too. There was a clan I was in during Halo 3 that insisted everything was going to get better after ODST. Then it happened before Reach. I've only been here since Halo 4 began, but I know that towards the end of any given war, I heard people saying, "next war will be different!" and now we're seeing it again before MCC.

It's this idea that, during a major change, we can declutter. But waiting just makes the mess worse. I've only just gotten back, but I watched the Statbook during this war, and I agree that there was hardly any close matchups, especially last week. Hard to argue for a way to change that, because we know what happens when we start talking about "depolarization".

[Silko]

FC has ran into this issue before. I believe this happened during the Halo 3 to Reach change and the 2 to 3 change. Both times lead to an explosion of members. It will be rough at first but I do believe it will get better. It all depends on how much recruiting we do and how much we focus on the halo game most people are playing (Most likely 2).

- - - Updated - - -


Just to play the devils advocate here:

How can we rank squads based on Halo 4 performance when not all of the members will be going over to MCC on launch? How can we rank squads by skill when there probably will be a huge influx of recruits which could change the squad skill dynamics?

Houdini this is something have had to deal with for 3 game changes now. We do it using Beta wars and community wide scrims.

[W3z4b1]

I always get sad when I hear the MCC stuff because I'll be late making the jump and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As far as MCC prep ideas, I'm with Zeta


New squads also need to be formed right as MCC starts.

That's the best thing to get balance issues fixed because it actually gives more possibilities to make everyone happy.

[Barry Soap]

The reasons I say "wait for MCC" are as follows:

-Bigger pool of players to recruit from
-Old members coming back (left because of Halo 4)
-Members wanting to start squads because they actually enjoy playing the game
-Squad leaders having more inclination to recruit

That being said, I won't even try to go into what I think about people doing things here...

[KazuhLLL]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that we've been "putting off" problems while we wait for MCC to drop. Pretty much this entire war has been WC trying to fix problems, then fixing the problems that arise from the first fix, etc, etc. (God I hate debugging.)

Legacy has gone from REDD to BLUE, back to REDD, then back again to BLUE trying to keep up with numbers/skill issues. This war has probably seen the most squad/member transfers of any other war in recent memory.

MCC won't magically fix anything just because it exists, but the likely boost of recruits will help to get fresh people and ideas back into the community. That alone will be great, but the added numbers have many other added benefits. Bootcamps will be more appealing when run with multiple recruits. Squads at both ends of the skill spectrum will have more potential opponents to be matched against, which should make matchups closer (so long as all our recruits aren't of one particular skill-level). Also any squad transfers should be a bit easier to balance since they wouldn't be such a relatively large percentage of our population.

There are probably other benefits of having a "new" game that I just can't think of offhand. But my point is that while there's plenty of reason to look forward to MCC, that doesn't mean that anyone is (or should be) giving up now. If anything, the positive attitude moving into the next game is something we should hold on to, since it's that kind of optimism that motivates people into doing the necessary work to actually take advantage of the increased activity.

TL;DR: MCC isn't a magical solution, simply a catalyst. It's everyone's work and outlook that will determine how effective it becomes.

[Anarchy]

Prepare thyself.


FC is barely surviving right now; everybody knows it.

FC has been much worse off. The notion that we're a dying dog with 3 legs is mostly said by either those who joined during the massive influx of recruits we got at the beginning of Halo 4, or by those from way back when who see a less militarized community as a less successful one.


But we have hope. Everybody keeps saying "Let's just wait for MCC" or "Everything will be better with more people come MCC."

Are those "excuses" valid?

If you are in the community right now, you must care about the wellbeing of the community as a whole.

Agree, sort of. The "I'll wait till MCC" is common, happened in reach with people waiting until Halo 4. 9 times out of 10 it's just an excuse to leave with a timeline. Not that it's necessarily bad, but trying to imply that the community will fundamentally change due to a new game's release is absurd.


Otherwise why would you stick around for unbalanced match ups and unbalanced armies?

If you don't believe me that the match ups aren't balanced, look at the last 2 weeks of battle nights. Of the 50+ games played, only 9 had score difference of less than 10%. A third of the games played had the winning team more than double the losing teams score. Those types of matches aren't fun for anybody.

People aren't playing for the fun, exciting and close battles. We are playing because we don't want the community to die.

Here is the major problem:

If we can't balance armies and have a fantastic war when the community is composed entirely of people with a deep desire for a successful and thriving community how can we expect things to get better when we have tons of new recruits who couldn't care less if Forerunner Conflict lives or dies?

I don't know what the solution is to fixing this war, and I doubt anyone person does otherwise they probably would have said something by now.

Before everything else, the community needs to be fun. Ideally all matches would be close and competitive, but I think if we had even 50% of the matches be competitive everybody would be happy.

That's debatable. One of the most common ailments this community has, is that people focus way too much on their battle night success. FC, this community, is about a lot more than showing up on Sunday and expecting close games. One of our jobs as leaders of this community is to provide everyone with a plethora of activities, events, and general "content" for members to be a part of. Of course battle nights are our main act, but it should in no way be anyone's end-all deciding factor on if they're enjoying FC itself as a community.

We have side-wars, squad events, practices, forum games, easter eggs on the website, discussions, events on other games, chats, tournaments, competitions of any sort, LARP, forum RP, and yes of course battle nights.

Not to get too in depth as to the logistics of "why", because it would open up a huge can of worms that no one well ever agree with, but the wars will never be 100% even, squads will never be 100% equal in skill, there will always be a diverse member-base for which we rely and survive on, and in many ways that diversity is the key to our success. To assume we can create such an artificial landscape, and to expect such a thing from those leading the community is preposterous and would only be remotely possible in a situation where War Directors and/or FMs are given ultimate control on master designing squad makeup and the like.

You don't go into matchmaking and always find people 100% the same skill as you, so you can't expect the same from a community that accepts anyone regardless of skill. If you're REALLY getting angry about losing halo games on battle night, priorities need to be re-aligned. No one inherently likes losing, but assuming that because someone's losing there's a fundamental problem in leadership and community health is not looking at what we truly are.

Yes, infusing some lower skilled squads with some higher skilled members/recruits would be a nice change, and when squads don't make a full team mixing units of opposite skill levels to equal things out would be an even better boon. Actually, that would help a lot. But there's zero room for expecting 50% or more of the games we play to have a miniscule 10% score difference, because there's zero room to actually make something like that possible.




I doubt anybody knows the entire picture about what is going on in every squad and both armies. We need teamwork and cooperation to fix not just the balancing issues, but all of the minor issues people might have with each other. It will take a lot of work, but everybody here is passionate about the success of the community. If we can't get this war back on track the entire community could very well collapse when we have an influx of people who simply don't know the history or care about the proud past we have in Forerunner Conflict.

Mythonian, myself, and (sorta) phoenix keep our eyes on the prize on a constant basis. There's a plethora of forces that push and pull things like this, and of course no one knows the entire picture 100%, that's impossible. But those who are active in War Council do what we can. Unfortunately, perfection is never an option. Nor has it ever been accomplished.





Squads are going to need to be ranked skill wise freely be switched to what ever army needs them more.

We'd have to measure how willing we are to force people to a place they don't want to be just for master design, a master design that may or may not work in our favor. As a community we need to be sensitive to everyone's wants and desires.


New squads also need to be formed right as MCC starts. Some officers, even if its only and CO and maybe and XO need to start from scratch to start recruiting and adding to their squad. We need blood and new squads to build off of, as well as continuing to add to existing squads.

This should be assumed, growth is survival. There will always be turnover that needs replaced.


Leadership positions in the whole army will need to be touched. Make sure those in HC, FLAG, ect are fit for the job. Also if one army is in need of leaders some might volunteer to head across to bolster the ranks.

One of the hardest things about getting to the end of a game like this is finding willing leaders to take up the mantle and grow the community. As interest in a game dies out, so too does the motivation of potential leaders.

This ends up going one of two ways. Either more people are given leadership titles to over-saturate leadership positions, so that there's enough firepower in terms of leadership to survive, though the quality of each tends to go down and many inexperienced people are given spots. Also, it lowers the general value of having an officer position.

OR, you simply deal with less leaders, putting a lot of the weight on a lone few people with its own host of obvious problems. We can see both of these situations with both our current armies, and though I have my own bias as to which is the lesser of two evils, the general theme is that we have to put value back into leadership positions, mentor new leaders, and have those with experience step up in general.

Even those who do step up in situations like we're in right now usually aren't as enthused as they could be.




What needs to happen to, supposedly "fix" things:
1. Stop worrying about winning. No, I'm not talking about the competitive wanting to win too much, I'm talking about the casuals who for some reason can't find a way to have fun in a community of MANY MANY different activities because they lost 2-3 games on a battle night. WHEN POSSIBLE, mix low and high skilled people to counter it out, but really if you're losing games come up with something non-traditional to try. Please stop asking for a tier system, please stop hating another squad because they're doing well and winning a lot, and please stop demanding change if your squad doesn't get as many wins as you think they should on a battle night.

2. Enthused leaders, and enthused members wanting to be leaders. So long as no one wants any leadership position, those positions will continue to be filled with inexperienced or unmotivated individuals just serving as a placeholder, doing the job minimum to get the community by. A rock could become a HC member in 2 months if they spent 30 minutes a day on something FC related 5 days a week.

3. A push towards an atmosphere of growth everywhere. We should all be aiding one another, allowing each individual squad the chance to grow themselves and have proper leaders, regardless of army lines. A squad getting close to death is something needing addressed frickin' immediately.

4. Finally, stop acting like FC is a goddamn cesspool for poor leadership and mismanagement. FC is what it has been for a long ass time, we wont change what we fundamentally are ANYTIME soon, definitely not before Halo 5. For gods sakes, people have no problem mentioning that Myth didn't make this week's maps until Friday, but no one has any inclination to see the fact that the guy donated $150+ on our fucking anniversary event for prizes for everyone.

We will never go anywhere, ANYWHERE, so long as everyone thinks of FC as a shitty place to be, and sees leadership as the fucking anti-christ. Productive thinking, productive action. There are small things to change, but FC being what system FC is, there's no reason to change the general formula that got all of you here in the first place.

The "Holy shit holy shit everything is falling apart!" notion is completely false and is the leading cause of our downfall.

As for actual plans for MCC, anyone can contact myself or Myth on things that are in the works, on hold, and in the thought process.

[Silko]

Prepare thyself.



FC has been much worse off. The notion that we're a dying dog with 3 legs is mostly said by either those who joined during the massive influx of recruits we got at the beginning of Halo 4, or by those from way back when who see a less militarized community as a less successful one.



Agree, sort of. The "I'll wait till MCC" is common, happened in reach with people waiting until Halo 4. 9 times out of 10 it's just an excuse to leave with a timeline. Not that it's necessarily bad, but trying to imply that the community will fundamentally change due to a new game's release is absurd.



That's debatable. One of the most common ailments this community has, is that people focus way too much on their battle night success. FC, this community, is about a lot more than showing up on Sunday and expecting close games. One of our jobs as leaders of this community is to provide everyone with a plethora of activities, events, and general "content" for members to be a part of. Of course battle nights are our main act, but it should in no way be anyone's end-all deciding factor on if they're enjoying FC itself as a community.

We have side-wars, squad events, practices, forum games, easter eggs on the website, discussions, events on other games, chats, tournaments, competitions of any sort, LARP, forum RP, and yes of course battle nights.

Not to get too in depth as to the logistics of "why", because it would open up a huge can of worms that no one well ever agree with, but the wars will never be 100% even, squads will never be 100% equal in skill, there will always be a diverse member-base for which we rely and survive on, and in many ways that diversity is the key to our success. To assume we can create such an artificial landscape, and to expect such a thing from those leading the community is preposterous and would only be remotely possible in a situation where War Directors and/or FMs are given ultimate control on master designing squad makeup and the like.

You don't go into matchmaking and always find people 100% the same skill as you, so you can't expect the same from a community that accepts anyone regardless of skill. If you're REALLY getting angry about losing halo games on battle night, priorities need to be re-aligned. No one inherently likes losing, but assuming that because someone's losing there's a fundamental problem in leadership and community health is not looking at what we truly are.

Yes, infusing some lower skilled squads with some higher skilled members/recruits would be a nice change, and when squads don't make a full team mixing units of opposite skill levels to equal things out would be an even better boon. Actually, that would help a lot. But there's zero room for expecting 50% or more of the games we play to have a miniscule 10% score difference, because there's zero room to actually make something like that possible.





Mythonian, myself, and (sorta) phoenix keep our eyes on the prize on a constant basis. There's a plethora of forces that push and pull things like this, and of course no one knows the entire picture 100%, that's impossible. But those who are active in War Council do what we can. Unfortunately, perfection is never an option. Nor has it ever been accomplished.






We'd have to measure how willing we are to force people to a place they don't want to be just for master design, a master design that may or may not work in our favor. As a community we need to be sensitive to everyone's wants and desires.



This should be assumed, growth is survival. There will always be turnover that needs replaced.



One of the hardest things about getting to the end of a game like this is finding willing leaders to take up the mantle and grow the community. As interest in a game dies out, so too does the motivation of potential leaders.

This ends up going one of two ways. Either more people are given leadership titles to over-saturate leadership positions, so that there's enough firepower in terms of leadership to survive, though the quality of each tends to go down and many inexperienced people are given spots. Also, it lowers the general value of having an officer position.

OR, you simply deal with less leaders, putting a lot of the weight on a lone few people with its own host of obvious problems. We can see both of these situations with both our current armies, and though I have my own bias as to which is the lesser of two evils, the general theme is that we have to put value back into leadership positions, mentor new leaders, and have those with experience step up in general.

Even those who do step up in situations like we're in right now usually aren't as enthused as they could be.




What needs to happen to, supposedly "fix" things:
1. Stop worrying about winning. No, I'm not talking about the competitive wanting to win too much, I'm talking about the casuals who for some reason can't find a way to have fun in a community of MANY MANY different activities because they lost 2-3 games on a battle night. WHEN POSSIBLE, mix low and high skilled people to counter it out, but really if you're losing games come up with something non-traditional to try. Please stop asking for a tier system, please stop hating another squad because they're doing well and winning a lot, and please stop demanding change if your squad doesn't get as many wins as you think they should on a battle night.

2. Enthused leaders, and enthused members wanting to be leaders. So long as no one wants any leadership position, those positions will continue to be filled with inexperienced or unmotivated individuals just serving as a placeholder, doing the job minimum to get the community by. A rock could become a HC member in 2 months if they spent 30 minutes a day on something FC related 5 days a week.

3. A push towards an atmosphere of growth everywhere. We should all be aiding one another, allowing each individual squad the chance to grow themselves and have proper leaders, regardless of army lines. A squad getting close to death is something needing addressed frickin' immediately.

4. Finally, stop acting like FC is a goddamn cesspool for poor leadership and mismanagement. FC is what it has been for a long ass time, we wont change what we fundamentally are ANYTIME soon, definitely not before Halo 5. For gods sakes, people have no problem mentioning that Myth didn't make this week's maps until Friday, but no one has any inclination to see the fact that the guy donated $150+ on our fucking anniversary event for prizes for everyone.

We will never go anywhere, ANYWHERE, so long as everyone thinks of FC as a shitty place to be, and sees leadership as the fucking anti-christ. Productive thinking, productive action. There are small things to change, but FC being what system FC is, there's no reason to change the general formula that got all of you here in the first place.

The "Holy shit holy shit everything is falling apart!" notion is completely false and is the leading cause of our downfall.

As for actual plans for MCC, anyone can contact myself or Myth on things that are in the works, on hold, and in the thought process.

http://i0.wp.com/communicateskills.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/memetldr.jpg?resize=450%2 C363

[Maxdoggy]

I for one read all of Anarchy's post, Silko. :P

Sometimes I dislike Anarchy. Sometimes I like Anarchy.
Right now, the latter is true. Good post, and I am basically in agreement with everything you said.

[Project X A02]

One thing I've heard about the Master Chief Collection is that the maps from each game are designed to play like they do from their respective games (ie Guardian will play just like it did in Halo 3, instead of a remastered map with Halo 4 gameplay mechanics). Now it that's true I'm not sure how that's going to effect future wars.

[Silko]

One thing I've heard about the Master Chief Collection is that the maps from each game are designed to play like they do from their respective games (ie Guardian will play just like it did in Halo 3, instead of a remastered map with Halo 4 gameplay mechanics). Now it that's true I'm not sure how that's going to effect future wars.

It will effect in minor ways really. Some squads will be better at some Halo games then others. It will also effect the war map. That depends on how the WDs and WC wish to do the war map. We can do it the current way and put Halos 1-4 maps in it. We could do what Kaz suggested. We do can what I suggested. All depends on the WD/WC which will reveal what they wish to do when they are ready.

[silversleek]

i'll be back for mcc if we're playing on the one, now that i'm settled in my new place and got a steady job. if it's on the 360, sadly i can't join you.

[EagleOne]

Recruiting players from twitch is easy. Join me. Lots still playing Halo 3 and Halo 2 who can't wait for MCC.

Eagle out.

[Toast78901]

I agree with a good portion of what Anarchy has said is the solution, with only a few minor disagreements as to his ideology. So, instead of focusing on bashing those and being unproductive, I'll simply say now that I am back, I am here to help however I can; just let me know what needs to be done (hard to know myself as a Lower Enlisted lol). But, I would like to draw attention to one thing:


who see a less militarized community as a less successful one.

Now, I'm not a vet by any means. But I have always seen this as true. On the grounds of principle really. We call ourselves a WARSIM. It is a huge aspect of what defined us as a community and the reason for a lot of people signing up. They didn't join because we were like a clan; they joined because we offered something different than that whole experience. At this point, we have become so disconnected from the WARSIM aspect that we might as well start calling battles clan days and list squads as clans.

Point is, if we are going to bill ourselves as something, we are unsuccessful if we don't deliver. I don't feel that MCC is a cure all; the influx of members will help, but like Anarchy said, we need to start thinking positively and get shit done if we want to see change. But I do hope that as FC progresses and grows we can return to what set us apart. We can get back to actually following through with what we promise.

[Silko]

Now, I'm not a vet by any means. But I have always seen this as true. On the grounds of principle really. We call ourselves a WARSIM. It is a huge aspect of what defined us as a community and the reason for a lot of people signing up. They didn't join because we were like a clan; they joined because we offered something different than that whole experience. At this point, we have become so disconnected from the WARSIM aspect that we might as well start calling battles clan days and list squads as clans.

Point is, if we are going to bill ourselves as something, we are unsuccessful if we don't deliver. I don't feel that MCC is a cure all; the influx of members will help, but like Anarchy said, we need to start thinking positively and get shit done if we want to see change. But I do hope that as FC progresses and grows we can return to what set us apart. We can get back to actually following through with what we promise.

Going to far will also drive people away. I have actually recruited real military vets during times where we were really militarized and they left because 1) we are not the military and they do not plan on calling people not in the military (especially when that person above them is some 16 year old kid) sir and 2) role playing as military when they have done the real thing is not something they wish to partake in. Also keep in mind that the majority of our community are between the ages of 16-21. The vast majority of the community does not know how a military actually operates, we just go on how we think it does. Going around and screaming into the mic like it is a real military during bootcamps and training camps is not the way to keep recruits. The idea that we are not military focused enough is a is not a belief held by the majority of the community. It is a belief mostly held by older vets who are very out of touch with the community.

[Toast78901]

Going to far will also drive people away. I have actually recruited real military vets during times where we were really militarized and they left because 1) we are not the military and they do not plan on calling people not in the military (especially when that person above them is some 16 year old kid) sir and 2) role playing as military when they have done the real thing is not something they wish to partake in. Also keep in mind that the majority of our community are between the ages of 16-21. The vast majority of the community does not know how a military actually operates, we just go on how we think it does. Going around and screaming into the mic like it is a real military during bootcamps and training camps is not the way to keep recruits. The idea that we are not military focused enough is a is not a belief held by the majority of the community. It is a belief mostly held by older vets who are very out of touch with the community.


To which my response is as it always has been when someone says that: Then it is time to rebrand. Nothing but harm in making claims we aren't delivering on. Either rebrand or become more like a WARSIM. Anything other than those two options is pretty much lying to recruits.

[Houdini]

Going to far will also drive people away. I have actually recruited real military vets during times where we were really militarized and they left because 1) we are not the military and they do not plan on calling people not in the military (especially when that person above them is some 16 year old kid) sir and 2) role playing as military when they have done the real thing is not something they wish to partake in. Also keep in mind that the majority of our community are between the ages of 16-21. The vast majority of the community does not know how a military actually operates, we just go on how we think it does. Going around and screaming into the mic like it is a real military during bootcamps and training camps is not the way to keep recruits. The idea that we are not military focused enough is a is not a belief held by the majority of the community. It is a belief mostly held by older vets who are very out of touch with the community.

Then why are we calling the community a warsim if we don't even try to make it one?

I'm not a huge fan of all of the military roleplaying, but if we aren't going to attempt to make the community more military like, we should probably attempt to re-brand the community. We will retain more recruits if we are truthful about what we provide as a community.

[NervyDestroyer]

Going to far will also drive people away. I have actually recruited real military vets during times where we were really militarized and they left because 1) we are not the military and they do not plan on calling people not in the military (especially when that person above them is some 16 year old kid) sir and 2) role playing as military when they have done the real thing is not something they wish to partake in. Also keep in mind that the majority of our community are between the ages of 16-21. The vast majority of the community does not know how a military actually operates, we just go on how we think it does. Going around and screaming into the mic like it is a real military during bootcamps and training camps is not the way to keep recruits. The idea that we are not military focused enough is a is not a belief held by the majority of the community. It is a belief mostly held by older vets who are very out of touch with the community.

I'm gonna have to agree with Silko... In a way, we are still a WARSIM. The enlisted ranks cannot see Officer Chats or Meetings. Officers can't partake in nor see the War Council chats and meetings. We don't need to be all "yes sir no sir" to be a WARSIM. A Corporal does not have the same responsibility as the Field Marshal or General. As for screaming during Boot Camps. Do you have any idea how awkward it is to scream into a plastic mic? Ranks directly affect your responsibilities so saying that we "aren't militarized" is just wrong.

[Jam Cliché]

I'm gonna have to agree with Silko... In a way, we are still a WARSIM. The enlisted ranks cannot see Officer Chats or Meetings. Officers can't partake in nor see the War Council chats and meetings. We don't need to be all "yes sir no sir" to be a WARSIM. A Corporal does not have the same responsibility as the Field Marshal or General. As for screaming during Boot Camps. Do you have any idea how awkward it is to scream into a plastic mic? Ranks directly affect your responsibilities so saying that we "aren't militarized" is just wrong.

I wouldn't ask anyone to roleplay that hard, but there are definitely a great many levels between what FC is now and what you're saying, and somewhere within that space is a middle ground where FC can be more disciplined, structured, and militarized than it is now without being humiliatingly too intense and insulting to actual members of the armed forces.

[Toast78901]

I'm gonna have to agree with Silko... In a way, we are still a WARSIM. The enlisted ranks cannot see Officer Chats or Meetings. Officers can't partake in nor see the War Council chats and meetings. We don't need to be all "yes sir no sir" to be a WARSIM. A Corporal does not have the same responsibility as the Field Marshal or General. As for screaming during Boot Camps. Do you have any idea how awkward it is to scream into a plastic mic? Ranks directly affect your responsibilities so saying that we "aren't militarized" is just wrong.

In terms of "being militarized" see Jam's post above.

Let me just say this. If we can be called a sim, it is a very weak sim. More an inspiration than a simulation. So, we rebrand. "Military-Inspired Halo Community" "War-Based Halo Community" etc. Those are much more accurate. Are they more of a mouthful? Sure. But quite frankly, it's better to be accurate than convenient.

[NervyDestroyer]

So I can't play and laugh with a FM if I'm a Private because he is a much higher rank and that it's not disciplined? Besides, I'm not sure where you guys get the notion that people only come here for the WARSIM atmosphere... Every recruit and member I talked to came here for the community. I get what you're saying, but rebranding isn't necessary because our ranking system is quite diverse in that different ranks provide different responsibility

[Zeta Crossfire]

So I can't play and laugh with a FM if I'm a Private because he is a much higher rank and that it's not disciplined? Besides, I'm not sure where you guys get the notion that people only come here for the WARSIM atmosphere... Every recruit and member I talked to came here for the community. I get what you're saying, but rebranding isn't necessary because our ranking system is quite diverse in that different ranks provide different responsibility

I came here or the war sim, a lot of people I recruited did as well. I enjoy the military structure, and that's one of things about FC I wish would come back.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I'm trying my darnedest to make my part of FC feel mil-sim. :'c

[NervyDestroyer]

I came here or the war sim, a lot of people I recruited did as well. I enjoy the military structure, and that's one of things about FC I wish would come back.

I'm talking recently Zeta. A point yes, but a moot point at that. The overall message I'm trying to send here is that we are still a WARSIM, but because the structure isn't as military-like as it used to be we should rebrand it? This community still has a military feel to it and rebranding it is just not necessary because like I said, different ranks provide different responsibilities. For example: I have the final say in what happens with Divinity, but Purple has the final say in what happens with REDD army as a whole etc. We have delved more into more of a community aspect than a WARSIM aspect, but that doesn't mean we start rebranding the community

[Jam Cliché]

So I can't play and laugh with a FM if I'm a Private because he is a much higher rank and that it's not disciplined? There's a time and a place for everything. Ask any roleplay related community and they'll tell you that they aren't always "in character". The same used to apply to FC. At certain times, there was a strict adherence to protocol. This was especially true for meetings, where the only remnant left seems to be that there's a "permission to speak" rule. And especially Battle Nights. Even as late as the beginning of Halo 4, only team leaders and army leaders were permitted to speak when lobbies were being setup, so that everything could be done quickly and smoothly. When I was put in charge of a team, our only communication in a BN lobby was for me to say "Mics muted" to my men as they entered, then the gametype was chosen, then I sounded off each member of the team individually to confirm readiness. That was it. And battles went more quickly then.


Besides, I'm not sure where you guys get the notion that people only come here for the WARSIM atmosphere... Every recruit and member I talked to came here for the community.
I'm not sure where you get the notion that the WARSIM atmosphere and community were ever mutually exclusive. The community defines the atmosphere. The community I joined still had pieces of the greater WARSIM atmosphere.


I get what you're saying, but rebranding isn't necessary because our ranking system is quite diverse in that different ranks provide different responsibility
I don't see much diversity in our ranks. Basically you're an Officer, High Command Member, or Squad Member, and the exact rank you have as part of that position is left almost entirely up to a roll of the dice. Responsibilities are: come to practice (maybe) and battles, and try to behave.

[Toast78901]

So I can't play and laugh with a FM if I'm a Private because he is a much higher rank and that it's not disciplined?
Not in a legit WARSIM, no. Not on legit FC time anyway. But like I said, we don't have to be that strict. We just need to rebrand.




Besides, I'm not sure where you guys get the notion that people only come here for the WARSIM atmosphere...
Um. No one said they ONLY came here for that aspect. There are plenty of reasons to join. All that has been said thus far is that if we call ourselves one thing and people join under the pretext that it is what we are, we have deceived them.


Every recruit and member I talked to came here for the community. I get what you're saying, but rebranding isn't necessary because our ranking system is quite diverse in that different ranks provide different responsibility

Rebranding has nothing to do with Ranks. It has to do with what we call ourselves as a community. And obviously rebranding is necessary if they came to a WARSIM for a reason other than the actual sim... which is what is supposed to set us apart. Also, I have no clue what FC you have been a part of, but our Rank system hardly denlotes responsibility. Only to the point that I can tell who is an officer and who isn't. For the most part, the definition of each rank is incredibly loose (especially the NCO ranks), at least here in BLUE (and I hear it isn't that much different, but a bit better) in REDD. I can remember when my officer rank was LITERALLY determined by a DICE ROLL. Hell of a lot of meaning there lol.

In short, all I'm saying is we drop the WARSIM from our description of ourselves and just say we are "military-inspired". But calling ourselves a legit sim is like calling Taco Bell Mexican food.

[Sicarioano]

Lol real military. This is nothing close to real military. If you want to go back to what it use to be follow this then...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y0QgZsxfCFtN-N6w9ISdp7j0QyAV4ljrPEdIsH 2uv_4/edit

Not really sure where I got this but I found it the other day. Good luck telling people that have been here 2 months and are already officers that they are going back to SGT

[VerbotenDonkey]

If anyone here remembers Emmett... well then you'll remember what a mil-sim was all about. :P

[NervyDestroyer]

My issue with creating a rigidly structured WARSIM is that members who come in with an eager attitude may leave because they have to make up months and months of "experience" to really feel like they can make a difference and help out. I like this loose WARSIM environment, it provides opportunity to those willing to help...

[Toast78901]

My issue with creating a rigidly structured WARSIM is that members who come in with an eager attitude may leave because they have to make up months and months of "experience" to really feel like they can make a difference and help out. I like this loose WARSIM environment, it provides opportunity to those willing to help...

If they leave because we require them to commit, then I hardly doubt they would have stayed long anyway. Anyway, I don't feel our points are conflicting. Again: we don't need to become more strict. All we have to do is change what we call ourselves. This is an issue of branding, not operations.

[Jam Cliché]

My issue with creating a rigidly structured WARSIM is that members who come in with an eager attitude may leave because they have to make up months and months of "experience" to really feel like they can make a difference and help out. I like this loose WARSIM environment, it provides opportunity to those willing to help...

Once again I feel like yours and our ideas of "rigidly structured" are different. Don't let Sicarioano confuse you - we're not saying to go months without a promotion. Obviously the armies in this community have an accelerated timeline compared to what we'd grasp as real life terms for an interstellar conflict. Wars last months instead of years, battles happen every week on different worlds, etc. All we're saying is there was more rigidity before than there is now, and going back to that in certain aspects shouldn't be ruled out.

It's not even a "decision" to be made to radically change the community. It merely requires individuals to step up and encourage people to engage in a more respectful culture, recognize when and when not shout, cut up, and laugh, and regard ranks (and those who hold them) up to their responsibility. Is that so foreign?

[Sicarioano]

My issue with creating a rigidly structured WARSIM is that members who come in with an eager attitude may leave because they have to make up months and months of "experience" to really feel like they can make a difference and help out. I like this loose WARSIM environment, it provides opportunity to those willing to help...

Just because you want to help doesn't mean you deserve that position especially if you're new here and have no experience. I don't think anybody here would feel comfortable handing off HC positions to a bunch of 14-15 year old's just because they want to "help". This place has been around a while and in order to have some responsibility here you need to be here a while and have enough experience and trust from older members before we start handing out upper level positions.

[NervyDestroyer]

Once again I feel like yours and our ideas of "rigidly structured" are different. Don't let Sicarioano confuse you - we're not saying to go months without a promotion. Obviously the armies in this community have an accelerated timeline compared to what we'd grasp as real life terms for an interstellar conflict. Wars last months instead of years, battles happen every week on different worlds, etc. All we're saying is there was more rigidity before than there is now, and going back to that in certain aspects shouldn't be ruled out.

It's not even a "decision" to be made to radically change the community. It merely requires individuals to step up and encourage people to engage in a more respectful culture, recognize when and when not shout, cut up, and laugh, and regard ranks (and those who hold them) up to their responsibility. Is that so foreign?

I agree. Sometimes the proper respect is not shown to those who dedicate so much time and effort into the community. They don't just hand out HC positions like tissues.



Just because you want to help doesn't mean you deserve that position especially if you're new here and have no experience. I don't think anybody here would feel comfortable handing off HC positions to a bunch of 14-15 year old's just because they want to "help". This place has been around a while and in order to have some responsibility here you need to be here a while and have enough experience and trust from older members before we start handing out upper level positions.

Agreed, but you also don't want them to get "lost in the ranks" so to speak

[Zeta Crossfire]

I want more military structure, not less. Not full blown but I miss the idea that rank meant something. When I joined Redwatch back in back in Rec 1 I started out as a Pvt. Between January and may, nearly 5 months of putting a lot of time into this community only then was I promoted to 1sgt sgt. Before that I had to recruit, run battle nights, squad practices, impress to earn that rank. While our community is smaller now and ranking up will be faster, I want more of the milsim environment.

When I first joined I remember meeting Unlucky number the FM at the time for Redd and going out of my way to show him respect for his rank. I never see that anymore, even field marshal the highest rank is treated with casual attitude. I don't like that anymore

[Houdini]

Another thing to consider is how the transition away from warsim has correlated with an increase in disrespectful behavior. If you haven't been told yet, there have been way too many infractions and just general disrespectful behavior in this last war. I'm not saying the cause of all this is the fact that we are losing the warsim feel, but it sure looks like there is a strong correlation.

[Mythonian]

Another thing to consider is how the transition away from warsim has correlated with an increase in disrespectful behavior. If you haven't been told yet, there have been way too many infractions and just general disrespectful behavior in this last war. I'm not saying the cause of all this is the fact that we are losing the warsim feel, but it sure looks like there is a strong correlation.

Actually, being here for 5 years, there is much less disrespect now and recently then there was at other times, such as the end of Halo 3 and various parts of Reach. We've made punishments harsher and harsher for some reason, even though in general there's much less reason for it then there used to be.

The drama, flame wars, and general disrespect was so much worse in the past. We used to have to lock battle results topics just to avoid people flaming and insulting each other after battles. This last year it hasn't gotten nearly that bad.


Although to be brutally honest, this "transition away from warsim" stuff you all are talking about, isn't really totally true. Since I joined in Halo 3, we never had this strict, serious warsim atmosphere throughout the entire community. It's always been in specific squads or companies. Even back then, at certain times there were "casual attitudes toward FMs" as Zeta said (especially in BLUE), or times where 14-15 year olds have been in HC, as Sicario said (Johnkilla even got elected as FM at 15, but WC overruled it and put Max as FM).

The warsim atmosphere in REDWATCH, for instance, was mostly only in REDWATCH. Sometimes an FM and HC would spread it throughout the entire army, but never was it universal. It changed with leadership changes, it changed with squad changes, etc. For those of you who want to help bring it back, work to get into HC positions and actually make those changes. Pointing out something being gone won't bring it back, you've got to be proactive and productive to bring it back.

[Maxdoggy]

Even back then, at certain times there were "casual attitudes toward FMs" as Zeta said (especially in BLUE), or times where 14-15 year olds have been in HC, as Sicario said (Johnkilla even got elected as FM at 15, but WC overruled it and put Max as FM).


Kinda off-topic. But I do have to say this about that WC:

Best. Decision. Ever.


On topic, Mythonian's totes right, as per the usual.

[Silko]

To which my response is as it always has been when someone says that: Then it is time to rebrand. Nothing but harm in making claims we aren't delivering on. Either rebrand or become more like a WARSIM. Anything other than those two options is pretty much lying to recruits.

So clearly you and I have different ideas on what a WARSIM is. Last I check we simulate wars. So we are a WARSIM. Rebranding is not necessary because we do exactly what we call ourselves. Now are we as military like as we use to back in REACH? No. I believe this has been caused by several things. 1) Firestrom. Firestorm caused the community to go all over the place, during which the survivors became much more familiar with one another. This familiarity made people less rigid. Kinda ironic seeing as one of the goals of OP FS was to make it more military like. 2) Lack of experienced officers. Over time more and more newer members became officers despite being here for a very short amount of time. That was mostly caused by the fact that many of the older members had to step down and a large hole needed to be filled. These newer officers help create a much more relaxed feel to the community, mostly due to the fact that they had not been around enough to know how we use to operate. I'm not stating that this a bad thing and I am not saying these officers did a bad job. 3) The state of Halo. As more and more people leave halo, only the more die hard halo fans stuck around. Meaning we had aim for more quantity over quality to make sure the community has a some what stable income of recruits. But this also drove retention into the ground as many of these recruits washed out.

In the end, rebranding is not going to be this magic bullet. We do what we say we do. We simulate wars through the sunday battles and the strats on the map through aux battles. We are military themed as we use a military based ranked structure. The question here is how much of a military theme do we wish to create. My vote is to go more like the REACH days but maintain the familiarity we currently have now. Do not create this idea where the officers are above everyone. Do not attempt to divide the community.

[JamiDJ]

Max for FM

[KazuhLLL]

For those of you who want to help bring it back, work to get into HC positions and actually make those changes. Pointing out something being gone won't bring it back, you've got to be proactive and productive to bring it back.

^This. Along with the rest of what he said.

[NervyDestroyer]

So clearly you and I have different ideas on what a WARSIM is. Last I check we simulate wars. So we are a WARSIM. Rebranding is not necessary because we do exactly what we call ourselves. Now are we as military like as we use to back in REACH? No. I believe this has been caused by several things. 1) Firestrom. Firestorm caused the community to go all over the place, during which the survivors became much more familiar with one another. This familiarity made people less rigid. Kinda ironic seeing as one of the goals of OP FS was to make it more military like. 2) Lack of experienced officers. Over time more and more newer members became officers despite being here for a very short amount of time. That was mostly caused by the fact that many of the older members had to step down and a large hole needed to be filled. These newer officers help create a much more relaxed feel to the community, mostly due to the fact that they had not been around enough to know how we use to operate. I'm not stating that this a bad thing and I am not saying these officers did a bad job. 3) The state of Halo. As more and more people leave halo, only the more die hard halo fans stuck around. Meaning we had aim for more quantity over quality to make sure the community has a some what stable income of recruits. But this also drove retention into the ground as many of these recruits washed out.

In the end, rebranding is not going to be this magic bullet. We do what we say we do. We simulate wars through the sunday battles and the strats on the map through aux battles. We are military themed as we use a military based ranked structure. The question here is how much of a military theme do we wish to create. My vote is to go more like the REACH days but maintain the familiarity we currently have now. Do not create this idea where the officers are above everyone. Do not attempt to divide the community.

And once again I find myself agreeing with Silko. Damn dude you are on a roll this week! lol


As for the "get into HC and make the changes," you best make sure the community is ok with the change else you will cause people to get salty and leave.

[Graycochea]

Mythonian is so right. When I was in BLUE and Anarchy was FM, I didn't feel like he was an unapproachable Field Marshall, I felt like he was a bro in a leadership position. When I first joined REDD, VerbotenDonkey was the unapproachable leader of REDWATCH who I made sure to respect. That's changed by now, of course, but that original REDWATCH respect is still there. And don't even get me started on Ghosthammer. I've never thought about it, but it's kind of weird/cool how there's those changes depending on the squad and the army you're in.