The finals for season 2 have been completed.
Its been a difficult season to retain teams and there are a couple of thoughts that seem to be the reason for that.

BF ladders by tradition have been at least 16 player teams.
But that is fast becoming a difficult proposition for a lot of teams.
Combined with what else is available and the way the game is evolving, more teams are struggling to get numbers.

So, the question is what would you all like to see.
Do you wish to play CQ in a ladder format?
Do you want a different format? We already have Rush, is there anything else you want to look at?
Do you want 16, 12, 10, 8 player teams?
Do you want 20 min games or 60 minute epics?
When should Vehicles be removed or restricted in what size matches?
Do you want any Inf only maps?
Weapon restrictions? Do you want them or not?

Lots of questions but few answers just now.
What do you want to see for the continuation of the CQ ladder.

CQ TDM 16v16

Conq Small 12v12 No vehicles besides jeeps/buggies would be cool

I would love 12v12 on CQ maps with all vehicles. Battlefield is a game of vehicles. It's not COD. Keep the vehicles.


I've been trying to get in touch with Malthius, having spoken to Adsa about becoming a Game Op, but I'm wanting to start a third competition on GA, where we run a 6v6 Mixed Mode competition. I see there being no problem with a 6s, 10s, and 12s competition running.

I played a few rounds of s2 in the begining and jets completely **** the game along with many poorly balanced weapons such as M16's. IMHO only one or two guns should only be allowed per class in the entire ladder with all mods included.

16v16 is too many for many reasons including the "No spotting rule".

12v12 has 3 solid squads which will make inf more of a focus and the veichles more of an asset to strategy instead if just "oh we have the extra players might as well ***** the **** sky". Also most teams were around that number when playing in the 16's anyways.

10v10 has 2 squads and 2 floaters, which means you will have 2 people running around flying jets/Choppers and raping inf in tanks/lavs which may be a fun thing to have in a team for the guys who are vehicle specialists.

8v8 is lame as **** but you will have only the truely dedicated and skilled which is pretty much ripping off the CyberGamer circlejerk.

but this can only be taken seriously if the game hasnt failed and by the mediocre turn out and broken gameplay that came with Aftermath I seriously dount you will even be able to get 5 teams of 8v8 this game is a serious load of ****.

I kinda like the mix modes idea...

combine both the rush and CQ ladder into one in a 10v10 format... but that's just my crazy thinknig

12v12 small conquest.
8v8 ConDom. - over 4 rounds?
10v10 Rush should include new maps.

Having played in pretty much every ladder type between GA and CG i must say GA are far more invested. the BF3 side of CG has turned into a warzone over there which has caused our clan to pull out of most of the ladders just because nearly every match is disputed or the ladders are locked every 2nd day because of a team hacking and being under investigation.

I like GA's setup and have noticed since the wars over at CG, alot more teams seem to be popping up here.

I'd like to see the 16v16 continue but we were a late entry so im not sure how often teams didn't have numbers?

I do like 16v16 as a concept and really enjoyed the scrims we played, however in our last couple of scrims it was hard to make the numbers. Some players have moved on to other games, and people just have things going on in their life which makes it difficult when you don't have a large reserve of (reliable) players.

I wish 16v16s could continue, but I think we'll have to look into smaller player counts such as 8v8s (and getting a second 4v4 team going). The only other way would probably be to combine with another clan for 16v16s, but that doesn't seem to be a popular option in the community.

12v12 might work as we seemed to always have ~12 reliable players, however it would have to include all vehicles in my opinion, there is plenty of infantry only around. I don't believe any particular vehicle is OP. If a team is dominating the air that is just a part of the game, the other team should have a better anti-air strategy or focus on a ground strategy that minimises the affect of the enemy's air power.

12v12 Inf only would be the best thing that could happen to the ladder.

By extension Battlefield is a game of imbalance.

Tanks, jets and helis are all anything but balanced. Especially the latter two. I doubt there was a single match last season that wasn't decided by the team that maintained air dominance longer (obviously on the maps where it's relevant). It's lame as **** - for both teams. Skyrape is not fun to be on the receiving end of, and it's not fun when you're on the team dishing it out. Why? Because there's nothing to do but either sit back and wait for the bleed to end or take pot shots at the enemy's spawn.

I hope you're aware that there are only two strategies that mitigate the effect of enemy air in the situation that your air can't take them out; make everyone use Stingers, or set up a pile of SOFLAMs and throw Javelins everywhere. Neither are actual strategies, they're just spam. They also severely limit your team's ability to capture and/or hold flags, because you have to devote time to aiming into the sky begging for a lock instead of looking for enemies on the ground which are a direct threat to you.

If that's everyone's idea of fun then all power to you, but if you want to know why there are so few teams left, it's because not many players enjoy getting smashed by things they're not equipped by the game to shoot down, making it impossible for some of the smaller teams to continue.

I'm sure there could be some provision for two teams that want to play Battlefield ~the way it's meant to be played™~ to change from the standard infantry only and play with all vehicles.

Personally I'd prefer to put fun and participation ahead of playing it ~as the devs intended™~.

My thinking is a 6v6 Mixed Mode. With each challenge, you have to choose one map from each of four modes, each mode being a different mode. One being small CQ, one being ConDom, one being TDM, one being Squad Rush (6v6 SqR, oh yeah). Just for something different.

One of two things will happen if you keep vehicles with the current maps GameArena offer. It will either be almost every single person in the match is in some form of a vehicle.
2 in Jets
2 in attack Choppers
4-5 in 2 tanks
With some map's having tranport/scout heli's
There will be less then a squad of 3/4 going Inf.

Or GA will need to restrict the maps to the maps offered by CG to exclude map's such as Firestorm/Wake and almost all other map's that have 2 Jets and multiple tanks.

Imagine playing Wake 12v12 with vehicles. Cancer would be given to every single player.
And Jet map's would be completely decided on which team have the better jet pilots.

So your either going to need to restrict the map list to those which don't include many vehicles or be prepared for match's that have near to no form of infantry gameplay.

Your naivety to the tactics and gameplay of competitive match's is exactly why you shouldn't be a GameOp.

Small maps don't have as many vehicles. Most have an attack chopper, but only 1 jet at most. Some vehicles need to be allowed because, as an example, if we play Nosh or Wake, what happens to the US team? Do they have to swim from the carrier? I still don't know why everyone is so scared about some vehicles.

Also, yes, I am naive for believing that a game with vehicles should be played with vehicles. I apologise. Next, we shall be banning all guns. And people must kill each other with sticks.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's not how people get cancer.

Pretty much, if the mass consensus is play it without vehicles, we'll play it without vehicles. I don't really care, as long as we can get another large number CQ comp going. My preference would be with vehicles, but that's my preference. I'm not sure why I have to be called naive and told that they cause cancer... And, regardless, I still think some vehicles are going to be allowed, though.

Dare I suggest a poll?

:O it's come down to a poll?

Play a pub = Jets OP
play a match = Jets flying around in circles for an hour trying to kill each other, this is a part of the game. Air defense/offense is an important part to any strat, if you don't have any capable pilots then offer infantry maps, know your opponents and choose maps accordingly

If you don't like air vehicles there is already 4v4, 8v8 and now 5v5 to fill your Infantry/Tank desires. I'm not trying to speak for everyone here I still enjoy vehicle combat and there are bound to be others.

As air vehicles are part of the 16v16 format, a team should have a good enough air squad to neutralise the enemy air, or at least keep them occupied. I would be open to limiting vehicles, however I liked the diversity that 16v16 brought compared to other ladders with its whole combat approach rather than just which team had mastered the M16/AEK the best.

Exactly, If you want to fill your Inf Only desires there is already a 5v5 Inf Only on CG. I am a Inf based player myself as I do poorly when inside a vehicle unless it is an MBT or LAV.
As I see it now, The GA ladder is the only place were there is a heavy influence with Vehicles. On CG most teams tend to choose Inf Based maps, therefore rendering most jet and heli pilots on foot unless an Air Map is chosen. This can work here as well, If you are an Inf Based Team, Then Choose Bazaar, Metro, Damavand or Karkand.

That being said, Flying a jet in pub is WAAAAAAAAAY different to flying a jet in a war. One, You can't make a magical dorito appear over someone's head and trying to spot him is like finding a needle in a haystack when you don't have comms. Two, People also forget that Air Vehicles can't cap the flag when they are 100 meters in the air. If you can dominate the ground and have some good air defense (Such as providing a no fly zone..) then you are pretty much set to burn tickets.

Most people think that the AA is a noob vehicle, Most people only think that because they can't fly their Jet and dominate... That is what you want in a match right? If the "Mobile" AA, (Yes I have to really express the "MOBILE" part) can create a no fly zone, then why not use it to it's full advantage and create a Mobile No Fly Zone, Therefore it becomes a ground war.

I'm not sure, but I am reminded when AIM took on FPSC last season when we had the Air but we were dominated on the ground as FPSC had taken good high defensive positions whilst they restricted our Jets from flying into the main battle zone by providing a no fly zone. This eliminated the fear of their Higher Ground (Which is the sky) and destroyed us from the roofs (Our Higher ground). In the end, we only managed to Cap our Home flag whilst FPSC burnt our tickets by holding two flags to one.

As Kegel has said, Know your opponent before you go into the war. Know your own players when making a strategy. Make a strategy that will work against your opponent. Use various tactics and decisions within the war. Learn the terrain of the map and use it to your advantage. Know how to bait an opponent and then ambush him. Lastly, Make sure you have good communication within your ranks.

I suggest you to all read the Sun Tzu's Art of War

Agree with everything Nuss said.

Also, pistols only.
Because reasons.

jet domination = no contest.

Have... have you ever played a match on Conquest Small? All Conquest maps - both large and small - with jets on them have 2 for each team, no exceptions.

Have you ever played Infantry Only? As far as I'm aware there's no functionality in the game to remove transport vehicles. Battlefield 3 Infantry Only means no attack vehicles. Armour, attack helicopters, and jets are removed.

Scared? No no, fear doesn't come into this. We want balance, and DICE have done a poor job of balancing their game for vehicles.

Your tangential rant needs a fair bit more padding to be effective.

Also I feel I should point out that your whole "vehicles are what makes Battlefield Battlefield" attitude is utterly invalidated by the fact that the Season 2 16v16 Grand Final was played on Operation Metro.

That's not possible with Gamearena's system. The maps for the Conquest ladder are arranged into groups with teams being required to offer a map from each group. It's impossible to not send any air maps.

Good points Happycup. I was only going off the stats of the air squads in teams I've played for, where the heli crew consistently got around 50 kills between them (despite all their whinging about not being able to see anything) and the jet pilots would usually add another 10-20 combined to that tally. Granted, kills don't win matches, but the amount of time the enemy is looking at their spawn screen would have quite a large impact.

12v12 is NOT big enough to play conquest large, there are simply too many vehicles for the number of players. 12v12 Will need to be conquest small, and even some maps will possibly need to be excluded.

Really? Wasn't always the case. Originally, four flag Caspian, at each base is 2 tanks, 2 jeeps, 1 attack chopper, 1 jet. Four flag Kharg, at each base, has 2 tanks, 2 jeeps, 1 boat, 1 attack chopper, 1 jet. Three flag Firestorm, each base has 3 tanks, 1 buggy, 1 transport chopper, 1 attack chopper, 1 jet. Three flag Nosh is an exception --- one team has two little birds, the other 1, US has AMTRAC and APC, RU has tank, no jets. The other maps don't have air (except Wake/Oman, but I don't play those, so have no idea what they have). Did they change this, because I always recall them having the above vehicle layout. As does http://randomnade.com/game/battlefield-3/maps

And, apologies, no, it has been a while since I played infantry only. I forgot jeeps/boats still spawned.



Apologies, that rant came from that moron throwing jokes around that playing BF3 with vehicles causes cancer. Sorry, touchy subject for me right now.

As for the GF being played on Metro negating the "vehicles is what makes BF3" argument --- uh, Metro was a map designed specifically for infantry. How AWESOME would it have been playing Firestorm large entirely on foot...? Exactly.



Might just add that [AIM] has one of the stronger air teams going around. In one game we were completely negated by effective use of stingers and stationary AA. In every other game, our jet pilots spend most their time doing loops with the enemy jets, and our chopper is fighting the other chopper, and getting a few shots in on enemy armour. I don't think I've ever been in a ladder match where a heli crew has had 50 kills... I should know, I'm normally in the chopper...


I understand that there are some minor balancing issues, but I've seen teams win games with all 16 entirely on the ground while the opposition has had 4 in the air. Air does not = win.

But there's balancing issues with the AEK and M16, and I've only seen one person suggest they be banned. All we're doing by banning vehicles is shifting the imbalance from "who has a decent air team" to "who has better control of their M16." Still imbalanced.



I do agree with Angry; CQ Large maps are out the window if we drop to 12s.

TLDR summary > 10v10 with jeeps only, all kits and unlocks vanilla maps only, perhaps with the option of offering expansion maps (so 3 vanilla + 1 expansion) to keep it interesting. This allow teams to offer expansion maps if their team has players to support it, but doesn't the opposing team into an expansion pack that their players don't have.


I would not like to see a restriction on maps (only map size) and so I think we need to look at restriction of vehicles to jeeps only.

10v10 is probably the best size to allow clans to field teams. 12v12 would probably be a bit demanding, plus you have to think about the whole length of the season, not just what your teams can field now. The long run picture has player number diminishing further so 10v10 is appropriate.

8v8 is too small I feel to adequately cover the distances in some maps and lockdown flag defence whilst running a good offence.

If we remove vehicles completely, I feel that some maps will be unplayable and will just turn into sniper fests (ie Caspian, Highway, Firestorm perhaps less so etc). But if you leave tanks and other vehicles in, then some maps, with lots of armour will limit what you can do with limited players on foot.


BF is meant to have vehicles, yes, but BF also needs more players that just don't exist anymore.

^^^^ This guy is smart



Sorry to correct but Kharg small has 2 jets not 1. And I honestly can't say about Firestorm as I can't remember the last time I played it on small. But im about 90% sure that has 2 Jets aswell.



And no you need to reread my initial post. I said Wake Island 12v12 small with vehicles would be cancer.
US starts off with 2 Jets, 1 attack heli, 3 Tanks and 1 Mobile AA. That means every single player is in an attack vehicle.



Obviously not a skillful air team if they've never dommed that much. I can upload screenshots from previous match's where our heli pilots are consistantly getting 30-0 and 50 kills in some cases.


I would love to hear about the team that did this


Not going to bother responding.



Every vehicle based map currently on the 16v16 list is already played in Conquest small. I see no problem with map's that only involve one attack vehicle to be clear. E.g Bazaar and Sienne.

But the main point I'm trying to get across is that their will need to either be map restrictions or vehicle restrictions on large scale map's such as Caspian, Kharg, Firestorm, Wake

Okay. Apologies. As said, touchy subject, misinterpreted.





^^ Also used to see Carnage do it back in the day, where they'd only use jets as rapid transport for a squad leader.

I love these BF must have vehicles arguments.

Basically the position is this.
If we decrease the numbers, armour and/or air assets have to drop as well.
That level of reduction can be debated.
The maps will have to be looked at and choices will need to include vanilla, dlc, armour and inf only.
And the choices will have to offer each team the ability to choose a map that their entire team can play.
The dlc weapons would need to be looked at in case they are not available to everyone.
I have not looked into that part yet.
With reduced numbers, weapons have a greater impact on the balance now.
Things like mortars would now be significant in their impact. (even though we dont currently have them).
So while the discussion about it is good, if you want something in there, add a reason or a possible solution.
I am no gaming expert, so I listen to you people who are and get the ideas from your discussions.

I suggest the same thing I suggested for Rush.

Two groups with only vanilla maps. One group with vanilla and DLC maps. (Or one with vanilla only, two with vanilla and DLC.) That way, teams always have a vanilla they can choose from, and can offer ALL vanilla if they so wish.

We used those maps for our first BF3 scrims in December/January. After the first two we played we realised they were completely wrong about vehicle spawns and had to add a disclaimer on our strategy threads stating so. The mode you're thinking about with only 1 jet is Rush. Conquest Small maps with fighter jets always had 2 of them, at least from the moment they were first used in Gamearena competition.
Ha, implying that Metro was actually designed.

Firestorm retains the Transport heli on infantry only, and because of the lack of tanks and air vehicles it's no longer a flying coffin. You can actually use it in your strategy. Only Stingers and RPGs (or l33t sn1pz0rz) can touch it, and if they're busy looking at the sky they're not looking at the ground. You can use the miniguns to kill infantry, and they're hilariously effective when you actually get angle and don't have to nervously await your inevitable death (nothing on the attack heli with its splash damage spam though). Of course they'll still go down to concentrated heatseeker fire, but that's good coordination and relies on the pilot overcommitting.

In addition, Firestorm on foot sounds a lot worse than it actually is. It subscribes to DICE logic wherein the greater the distance between the bases and runways, the larger the map is. In reality the flags which make up the actual area of play are reasonably close together.

If you're being negated by effective use of the stationary AA, I'm lost for words.

Also if you're getting hammered by Stingers you need to give your infantry and tank crews a spray, if their team are all looking at the sky they're easy pickings for everything else.

How is that imbalanced? If everyone has the same weapon and the same statistical ability to down enemies then that's the very definition of balance. It only becomes imbalanced once you consider that some people are better at the game than others, and even then that's not imbalance, it's a skill gap. The only reason for the existence of other weapons aside from the stock weapons is for variety. Again, the final was played on Operation Metro. The most important match of the season was decided by "who has better control of their M16". Not by who had the better air crew or tank crew.

^^ On the right track IMO. Debating what level of armour/air assets to be reduced on large scale maps will be a tough one. I personally think Vanilla map's such as Sienne, Bazaar and Metro will be perfect as is on Conq Small with no vehicle restrictions.

But on Casp, Kharg, Firestorm you could go with a minimal vehicle reduction by restricting the use of Jets/Helis.

Yes but if you allow tanks on those maps, you end up having half the team in those vehicles (if you have both seats filled). Tough choice I guess and up to the teams how they manage the vehicles, but might be difficult to control flags with so few boots on the ground.

There is also the issue of forcing everyone to run as engineers so they can have a squad with rockets to take on the armour if encountered.

All can be overcome, but might have a significant impact on game play.


The compromise might be to start the ladder as 10v10 with jeeps and armour (no air vehicles allowed - even transport choppers or using jets as transports) and have a mid-season break where people give feedback on changes into the second half of the season?

8v8 tank superiorty only, I had a Tank Warz server when armoured kill first came out, was the bomb and I always wanted to make a platoon dedicated to it but never bothered becuase people seem to add 300 platoons to there battlelog and never show the slightest **** towards anything. I just left a platoon that had almost 100 members no one even spoke or used our 2 servers.

in all seriousness 12v12 or 14v14 cq

14v14.

God it pains me to see how the BF franchise has degraded to a point where you cant have large format ladders anymore.

OK, I have been asked whats happening with this ladder.
I have been slack getting it running is what.

So in the next few days I will look at player numbers.
I am hoping to keep it at 16, but it may have to go a few lower.
Not sure about maps as I dont even know what they are like.
So I shall have to get some help with that.
Settings I dont want to change unless we have to or there is some major flaw in any weapons.

So wake your players up and I will see what I can do about getting something up and running on this ladder.

Well, we played tonight. We expected it to be 12v12 as that's what had been indicated it would be. Other team rocked up with 16. We were in trouble.

On a side note, I just want to point out this: AIM has one of the biggest rosters in the comp. Even during our finals matches, we struggled to pull 16, and were scrounging for players 5 minutes after the designated start time.

I don't want to see it drop below 16. 16 is ideal for CQ. But, well, 10v10 was optimal for Rush --- we even tried 8v8, and it was bad, but it was still dropped to 8v8 because teams were struggling to pull 10.

I hate to say it, but this EPIC, what, 5 month gap between ladders? It's not done anyone any favours. We still have members, and I'm sure we'll be able to pull 16 again, but a LOT of people got bored, and went and found other games because there were no comps happening here. Hopefully we can pull them back, but yeah.

Try 16v16 if we can, but, after a long hiatus, I'm expecting more than one team to be in trouble here.

Chivalry for the win!

Actually, the ladder has had a few new teams enter - it looks better than it has in a while.

I do agree with the tone of your post overall though. We'd like to keep things at 16 if we can, but lets see what happens.

Well only one way to find out, go live and see how it plays out. If there are only 6-8 teams actually playing then i would sugest changing team sizes.

Adsa,

Just letting you know that the @restart command failed last night during our freeplay match against ETS5.

In my opinion the new 16s ladder is looking better then ever. We have 4 completely new teams that have joined the ladder this season, specifically to play a 16s format. If it were to be dropped to 12 players then I reckon the interests will drop off amongst us new teams because then it will feel like a less intense 8v8 match because the maps are so much larger. I think it should be kept at 16 players for now and give it a chance and see how it plays out. I think dropping it down to 12s is putting the knife into large format BF3.

A month later, we've all fallen asleep again...

GA competition is dead. Sorry, Adsa, Pinge, but it's largely due to how slow it's been between getting competitions running. And I know that, with Rush, there's other contributing factors. And I know you guys aren't solely to blame, that there's other admins higher up that need to actually set **** up, but, well, I know with AIM we've seen a large number of players decide to play other games, etc, because pubbing in BF3 is only good from time to time and GA comps are just not happening. It's little wonder that smaller clans are struggling / withdrawing / not bothering.

Unfortunate