Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21
    Elite BLUE Veteran
    Spirit of Hope
    Vacuus Quietis
    Psalms of Planets
    Nicholas Sapien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Psalms of Planets
    Posts
    3,419
    Blog Posts
    6

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    This is actually pretty damn good. Perhaps a combination of some of that. For one, I like the idea of War Council selecting leaders, as long as it doesn't turn into a popularity contest that it. I like role-play and battles coinciding, that's pretty cool since they kind of go hand-in-hand which would add to the lore pretty damn remarkably.

    I don't know if picking one category is good, maybe mixing and matching a little bit?
    We would probably have to figure out how to do the lore part and see how it fits in
    "I bought a xbox one to watch my team suck in HD"

  2. #22
    Useless without Toast Jam Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,750
    Blog Posts
    2
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamcliche

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    I don't know if picking one category is good, maybe mixing and matching a little bit?
    That's what I intended. The first column is a checklist, and the four items next to each category are checkboxes. For instance, I would say FC currently fits this combination.

    Competitiveness: Formal but Casual
    Balance: Voluntary Transfers
    Roleplay: Battles Precede RP
    Unit Freedom: Squad Leader Rules
    Leadership: Elections Every War


    Real power comes from the man next to you and is built on the foundations of brotherhood and unity. There is no such thing as a one man army.

  3. #23
    Elite BLUE Veteran
    Spirit of Hope
    Vacuus Quietis
    Psalms of Planets
    Nicholas Sapien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Psalms of Planets
    Posts
    3,419
    Blog Posts
    6

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive
    Balance: Mandatory Player Drafts
    Roleplay: Battles Precede RP(RP and Battles Coincide would only work if we can find a good system for it)
    Unit Freedom: Strict Army Guidelines
    Army Leadership: War Council Picks Leaders
    I'd prefer something like this
    "I bought a xbox one to watch my team suck in HD"

  4. #24
    Useless without Toast Jam Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,750
    Blog Posts
    2
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamcliche

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    I can almost agree, Nick. Mine would be


    Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive (Enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions)
    Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)
    Roleplay: Events Determine Lore (This is because I feel that RP elements can be built into the Rules of Engagement, Battles, Boot Camps, etc.)
    Unit Freedom: Strict Army Rules (Make the rules identical across armies, so that drafts are smooth every war)
    Leadership: Elections Every War (I still believe in elections, and I like public voting)

    In summary, I think that we should be competitive enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions by having stacked teams, powerhouse Squads, or any business where an FM would swap out Squads during events to intentionally sacrifice underperforming players and cherrypick matches for a team on a hotstreak. I believe one of the best ways to avoid that slippery slope is drafts, but I think we can afford to draft in small groups rather than individual players. I picked groups of 3 because you can't make a full team out of three people or six people. It means that finalizing a team roster after a draft won't be as simple as putting two groups from the same old Squad back together, and everyone would have to accept more diversity in their event rosters. For Roleplay, I do not feel that it should be separate from events, but I believe you were aiming for the same reasoning, Nick, so I may have to reword the options in that category. For Unit Freedom, I think it's important to establish a system. The rules and ranks in armies change all the time as upstarts like myself try to make overhauls, but if we could stick to one system that is standard across both armies, transfers and drafts would be a little less frustratingly logistically. Finally, for leaders, I feel that elections are great, especially neutral ones. In the future, if the importance of rank is re-establish, we may need to move back to voting for REDD and BLUE FMs rather than just "Pick two," but both elections could still be public.

    Those are my thoughts and choices. Overall, NIck, I think we might only really disagree when it comes to FMs.


    Real power comes from the man next to you and is built on the foundations of brotherhood and unity. There is no such thing as a one man army.

  5. #25

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jam Cliché View Post
    I can almost agree, Nick. Mine would be


    Competitiveness: Relaxed but Competitive (Enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions)
    Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)
    Roleplay: Events Determine Lore (This is because I feel that RP elements can be built into the Rules of Engagement, Battles, Boot Camps, etc.)
    Unit Freedom: Strict Army Rules (Make the rules identical across armies, so that drafts are smooth every war)
    Leadership: Elections Every War (I still believe in elections, and I like public voting)

    In summary, I think that we should be competitive enough that results matter, but not enough to draw out tensions by having stacked teams, powerhouse Squads, or any business where an FM would swap out Squads during events to intentionally sacrifice underperforming players and cherrypick matches for a team on a hotstreak. I believe one of the best ways to avoid that slippery slope is drafts, but I think we can afford to draft in small groups rather than individual players. I picked groups of 3 because you can't make a full team out of three people or six people. It means that finalizing a team roster after a draft won't be as simple as putting two groups from the same old Squad back together, and everyone would have to accept more diversity in their event rosters. For Roleplay, I do not feel that it should be separate from events, but I believe you were aiming for the same reasoning, Nick, so I may have to reword the options in that category. For Unit Freedom, I think it's important to establish a system. The rules and ranks in armies change all the time as upstarts like myself try to make overhauls, but if we could stick to one system that is standard across both armies, transfers and drafts would be a little less frustratingly logistically. Finally, for leaders, I feel that elections are great, especially neutral ones. In the future, if the importance of rank is re-establish, we may need to move back to voting for REDD and BLUE FMs rather than just "Pick two," but both elections could still be public.

    Those are my thoughts and choices. Overall, NIck, I think we might only really disagree when it comes to FMs.
    Only problem with small group drafts is that how does one determine which small group is better than the other. You can't measure that empirically because there are too many factors. Good K/D doesn't equal good team player and vice versa. That's the only issue with that which is why I think it should be squad drafts because that can be measured by how many wins a particular squad has for Battlenight. Easily and accurately measured that way. If that makes sense?

    I'm against public voting because leadership isn't a popularity contest. Leadership also should have absolutely no lobbying whatsoever which almost inevitably happens with direct public elections. Should be a system of succession for that IMO.

    Other than that, I do wish to see the roleplay come back meaningfully and would like a separate event for it. This would establish ranks better IMO than Battlenight ever could though it can still play a factor. Pretty good idea
    "Gamers always believe that an epic win is possible and that it's always worth trying, and trying now."













  6. #26
    Useless without Toast Jam Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,750
    Blog Posts
    2
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamcliche

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    Only problem with small group drafts is that how does one determine which small group is better than the other.
    You don't. I don't support rank-based drafts. If it were me, I'd tell every enlisted member to get into a group of three, get assigned a number, and have FMs take turns rolling dice.


    Real power comes from the man next to you and is built on the foundations of brotherhood and unity. There is no such thing as a one man army.

  7. #27

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jam Cliché View Post
    You don't. I don't support rank-based drafts. If it were me, I'd tell every enlisted member to get into a group of three, get assigned a number, and have FMs take turns rolling dice.
    Hmm that's pretty interesting actually, but what if someone doesn't find a group of 3? Like for example a new recruit that doesn't know anyone yet can't find a group because they don't really know anyone? There'd be some polarization there. Unless of course it's randomized...

    You could take people voluntarily that can't find groups or want to meet other people for a randomized sort of thing, or you could make the system entirely randomized.
    "Gamers always believe that an epic win is possible and that it's always worth trying, and trying now."













  8. #28
    Useless without Toast Jam Cliché's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,750
    Blog Posts
    2
    Livestreams
    View Channel: jamcliche

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    Hmm that's pretty interesting actually, but what if someone doesn't find a group of 3? Like for example a new recruit that doesn't know anyone yet can't find a group because they don't really know anyone? There'd be some polarization there. Unless of course it's randomized...

    You could take people voluntarily that can't find groups or want to meet other people for a randomized sort of thing, or you could make the system entirely randomized.
    The picky details aren't as important right now. It's not up to me anyway. I just want our leaders to know what the community thinks a "Warsim" is.


    Real power comes from the man next to you and is built on the foundations of brotherhood and unity. There is no such thing as a one man army.

  9. #29

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jam Cliché View Post
    The picky details aren't as important right now. It's not up to me anyway. I just want our leaders to know what the community thinks a "Warsim" is.
    fair enough
    "Gamers always believe that an epic win is possible and that it's always worth trying, and trying now."













  10. #30
    Remember
    RedWatch

    DarkSail Raiders
    Apple Fanboy
    Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,047

    Re: FC Mission Statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jam Cliché View Post
    Balance: Small Group Drafts (3 is a magic number here)
    I really can't imagine a system like this ever working. You mentioned that groups of 3 or 6 wouldn't be sufficient to form a team, so you wouldn't be able to simply combined teams of 3. That means that some of the groups of 3 would be split and others would not. That seems like you'll be playing some sort of favoritism deciding who should be split from their draft group.

    I also don't really understand that advantage of drafting in a group of 3. Are you trying to let people stick with old friends?

    A group of 3 seems like we are losing a lot of the advantages of a player draft (namely fine grain adjustments) without actually creating any value. The only way I can really see this working is if everybody in FC has a circle of 3 friends. Anytime somebody has a 4th person in that circle, somebody is going to be left out and that will most definitely create drama.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    'm against public voting because leadership isn't a popularity contest. Leadership also should have absolutely no lobbying whatsoever which almost inevitably happens with direct public elections. Should be a system of succession for that IMO.
    I don't think this is strictly true. Popularity is an important part of leadership. What leader is any good if everybody hates him? He is going to have a lot of fun getting a whole lot of nothing done.

    There are leadership characteristics that are very important outside of popularity, but since everybody has a different idea or what characteristics they want in a a leader it is very hard to have some sort of arbitrary group of people select a leader that represents what the people of the army want.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Website maintained by Metkil5685 and Mythonian.