Global Conflict - turning BF3 into Risk

[Bam Stroker]

Found this on Reddit. I'd never heard of it before but it's blowing my MIND, man. I'm tempted to give it a crack but it starts at 4.30am on Sunday mornings so it's a bit shit for Aussie TZ. At the very least I'd want to figure out exactly how it works. If it's as rad as it seems maybe we could do something similar on the GU server?

A whole new way to play Battlefield 3. We turn each BF3 map into a small battle in a larger war. We are NOT a clan. Instead, when you join GC you are placed in one of two armies. Each army has a strict hierarchy, with a general at the top and several squads with their own captains, lieutenants, etc. Every Saturday, these two armies clash in a 6-hour battleday for control of territories on the campaign map. It's like playing Risk, where every dice roll is a round of BF3.

Linkage: Global Conflict Forums • View topic - What is GC?

[Milenko]

Man, I thought of this shit YEARS ago! I've always wanted a game that pitted players from specific countries in all-out war.

Ie; Aussies play for Australia only.

[Bam Stroker]

Well they've had an influx of interest since it was posted on Reddit and their registration servers are cactus atm. I'm definitely going to sign up though, set my alarm and try to get a few rounds in this coming weekend. On paper this sounds amazing and I want to see if the reality of it bears that out. More than anything right now I just want to see how it works.

If it's fantastically awesome I don't see why GU couldn't try kicking off something similar that is better for our TZ.

[Aegis]

in theory we could do it, depending how the server logs results/how accessible they are. would be easy to make a map similar to the above with semi-transparent image areas overlaid that are adjusted based on map outcomes (i wrote a javascript function that could do exactly this a few years back, would be easy to adapt if there wasn't a better JQueryUI option).

BUT for it to work, you want to be given a specific team you play for. Also need a larger playerbase to smooth out the skill difference between the good players and the shit ones like Unseen.

[ResLo]

Maybe start small with just the Australian continent itself, battles are for the States and territories. That way the overall time wouldn't be up in the 6 hour zone.

[Milenko]

in theory we could do it, depending how the server logs results/how accessible they are.

If it's based purely off wins and losses, you don't even need a referee.

[Bam Stroker]

Like Reslo says, we could do our own map based on Australia or some such, whether we use the states as they are or make up our own territorial boundries and then assign them maps perhaps loosely based on geography. eg. NSW - Metro, VIC - Seine, QLD - Caspian, TAS - Wake, SA - Oman, NT - Firestorm, WA - Kharg. I don't think we'd need to find some elaborate way of coding it into the server, we can just have an offline map that we update and upload the the forum and set up the games manually.

In terms of balancing teams we could just try to evenly distribute players between them based on rank, or we could cook up our own rating system based on a combination of rank, SPM and BF3's "skill" metric from the players' Battlelog profiles since rank in itself can be misleading - a shit player can still be a Colonel if he's played 500 hours. Then we arrange them in descending order and allocate them thus: #1 - Team A, #2 - Team B, #3 - Team A, #4 Team B and so on.

I think 16 per team is a good size, too. Enough to keep the large maps interesting but not so many as to turn the small ones into a total clusterfuck. We could probably get enough GU folks for half the total players and recruit ring-ins from our gaming circles who would be keen to give it a crack and take it somewhat seriously.

Each team appoints a General who in turn assembles his troops into squads based on their preferred class and play style. Squads get into their own channels on Mumble and squad leaders then become just that - the guys who take orders from the General on the battlefield and direct his guys to best effect.

For me the only thing I'm uncertain about are the actual mechanics of the strategic layer of the game, which is why I'm keen to try playing Global Conflict on the weekend. We could always devise our own game rules but those guys have been running that shit for nearly 10 years so they've probably got a really cool system for the strategic aspect figured out that I'd like to learn about.

[edit] Found their campaign ruleset. It was hiding on a wiki, not on their forum.

[OverDrive]

I'd be up for this.

[Milenko]

I'd love to, but the 400+ ping might make it a bit shit
Maybe i could represent the entire UK? :p

[Unseen]

SIgn me up scotty ..

[MetalAttack]

im keen

[Aegis]

I don't think we'd need to find some elaborate way of coding it into the server, we can just have an offline map that we update and upload the the forum and set up the games manually.

whaaaaaat? sif pick not-awesome option ;P

[dragon xr]

sighn me up

[Bam Stroker]

I like where this is going.

[rec]

I'd be keen for this if AU hosted/AU TZ and would be happy to facilitate if possible.