View Poll Results: 21cw v 21cw or 21cw v GC

Voters
39. This poll is closed
  • 21CW vs 21CW

    6 15.38%
  • 21CW vs GC

    33 84.62%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40
  1. #1

    21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    The potential is here for us to run a 21CW vs GC campaign or to continue with another 21CW only campaign. Here is the rub. Should we decide to run a vs camp then we will need 300 dollars to do so as we will lose the income from the pay to pick system. Therefore we would like input from the community as to how we are to move forward. Please vote on which you would prefer bearing in mind that should you want a vs camp, we will need donations to the value of $300.

  2. #2

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Can we ensure that asset players and ringers will get balanced should we go for a vs campaign?
    A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.

    C46: [2ID] Roadrunner | 2LT
    C47: [16AA] 23 Engineer Regiment / The Household Cavalry Regiment | 2LT
    C48: [NB19] Heimdall | Kapten-Major
    C48v2: [4ID] | LtG
    C49: [IMAB] | General
    C50: [21CW] | Major

  3. #3

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    What would the setup be ? All GC players vs All 21cw players ? A mixture ?

    Essentially, how would the player base be divided ? What checks and balances will be present to ensure a balanced campaign ? What rules would the campaign use ? What format ? How many battles ? What time will they start, on what day of the week ?

    Those are all questions I think people would need answers too before agreeing to sign up for something, regardless of how much it costs.


    Intel 6600K 4.5GHz
    32GB DD4 Ram
    Titan X (Pascal)
    3x1 TB SSD - Raid 0
    Razer Orbweaver Chroma
    Razer Mamba TE Chroma
    Razer Kraken 7.1
    Razer Blackwidow TE Chroma
    3 x 24" Monitor

  4. #4

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    I can answer some of those, others obviously would have to wait until we have a definate answer.

    Currently we are looking at a 21cw vs GC with the asset players being balanced between both sides as those are the areas in which a) we are weak, b) cause the largest imbalance on a battleday.

    The format would be as we currently use, with the same points system.

    The day of the week would be saturday. Time and ruleset will have to be decided once we have a go ahead from the playerbase as those are things that we need to discuss with our opposite numbers and come to an agreement on. I would tentatively say that you should not expect any major rule changes or massive change to the time of the battle.

  5. #5

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    For clarity there were 3 options proposed amongst the admin staff for how we could do the camp.

    These are:

    "1) a straight vs camp. No balancing, just a vs.
    Benefit: quick to set up
    Negative: have to force people who play for both sides to pick one. Possible imbalance.

    2) a vs camp with some balancing of asset players.
    Benefit: more balanced.
    Negative: longer setup, need to draft/organise the split.

    3) a fully balanced mixed camp between the communities.
    Benefit: Most balanced.
    Negatives: long setup time, drafting, could possibly be damaging to communities as it feels a bit like a merge."

    The overall consensus was that the second option is the best one right now. This has been discussed with our opposite numbers at GC and they are in agreement on that.

  6. #6

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    After the unsportsmanlike actions by GC of bringing in ringers for the friendly scrim, I have serious reservations about having a campaign against them. It doesn't help the fact that it seems some of our good players would rather play for GC than us if forced to pick sides (as evident by the scrim). I would be open to a campaign "with" them but not "against" them.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  7. #7

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Ringers were most mikely motivated by a one-off thing and maybe settling some scores with 21CW... My guess is that they won't be around for the long haul. If care is taken balancing asset players AND everybody shows up on a consistent basis, a 21CW vs GC may turn out both easier to organize and pretty fun. I would have nothing against 21CW/GC mixed armies though.

  8. #8

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    everyone, please vote on this matter.

  9. #9

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    I'm kind of having a tough time deciding on which way to vote.

    I enjoy having more people, so it's nice to mix it up with GC. Team balancing seems somewhat haphazard, so that could use a little work, but otherwise I don't really have any issues. Maybe we could try taking ASF and pairing them with one team from GC, and IMAB with the other team. See how that goes and if it's not balanced, maybe swap 21CW teams around so they are playing with the other GC team.

    The only issue I had on the GC vs 21CW day was that several of our stronger players are members of both 21CW and GC, and they all played for GC. They had a fair amount of really strong players show up after Level was done for the day (some of those same people included). I thought about volunteering to drive a tank a few times but wound up sticking with infantry for the day. Maybe next time I'll try hoping in a tank here and there.

  10. #10

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Hiphop. I understand what you are meaning regarding the teams, however should the camp happen, then it will be happening from a position of both our and their current camp being ended. Therefor there will not really be armies to "merge" in that manner.

    If you have a look up the thread you can see the 3 options we have discussed for how to do the camp, option 3 is probably closest to what you suggest. However obviously we cannot guarentee which option we will go for or be able to agree on, until we have the playerbase wanting to move ahead with the camp to start with.

    As it stands the most likely option is that it would be 21cw infantry vs GC infantry, with the asset players mixed between both, which is option 2, which to myself and the admin staff seems to be the option that gives the fairest balance while also retaining the individuality of each community.

    Also if anyone else is struggling to vote due to questions, please post them here and I will do my utmost to answer them with transparancy and honesty.

  11. #11

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Heh yea, I was typing and talking to people, hadn't read that bit yet. Option 2 or 3 seem fine to me.

  12. #12

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    No probs, Im here to help

  13. #13

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Option 2 would imo be the best option then, if you can manage to balance the asset players right. Availability of those players is very important, not just their skill level. And I honestly don't know if you can ever manage to balance jets...
    Last edited by [21CW]R|Sgt.Jasper; 09-01-2015 at 04:00 PM.

  14. #14

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [TA]H4RP View Post
    everyone, please vote on this matter.
    before we vote we want to know more info Harpie...

    For me i would like to know as anyone asked the assets players of both sides what their opinions are? i mean it's cool to have both sides admin staff willing to go for this that's the 1st step but now the most important is what i'm asking... do the assets players of both even know what's going on? have they been asked? what was their reply?

    To the above if i've read right it's only the agreement between both admins staffs correct?

    when it comes to infy i would 21cw has more then enough infy that play regularly for 21CW to match their own infantry... to be honest when it came to infy fight and we lost it seemed more like the BFCO - CO having troubles getting into the same page... and also training infantry to significantly improve isn't extremely hard, take for example what Biggster or Sword/Silent did in the past... people only have to show up...

    Would jet also be banned in this campaign? if so to be honest only the helo should balanced coz most of what i saw from the scrim everytime GC didn't had Artillery or Air supremacy 21CW armor wouldn't have much of an issue... at least me and fengard didn't from what i could remember...
    21CW Lesson (Sword, Silent, Dogma, Webke): If something or someone keeps killing you, stop crying about it and figure out a way to stop it.

    "Remember that guy who gave up? neither does anybody else"

    Undefeated as a HCO of an Army. Hoohah !.




    C38: [1CAV]FA|WO1 | C40: [IDF]NP|1LT | C41: [RDG]AAC|CPT | C42: [9AU]T|MSG | C43: [3AAG]BW|1LT | C44: [AMID]RBC|Pvt | C45: [101AD]LTG | C46: [1MD]LtGen | C47: [1CAV]GEN | C48: [TA]/[4ID]Gen | C49: [ASF]KSK|Pvt

  15. #15

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Option 2 I worry about just being the scrim again - But drawn out over many weeks. Option 3 is the way forward


    Intel 6600K 4.5GHz
    32GB DD4 Ram
    Titan X (Pascal)
    3x1 TB SSD - Raid 0
    Razer Orbweaver Chroma
    Razer Mamba TE Chroma
    Razer Kraken 7.1
    Razer Blackwidow TE Chroma
    3 x 24" Monitor

  16. #16

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    @ Ethnickx.

    GC asset players have no problem with the balance since they already balance as such prior to a camp. This is what I was told by GC admins. So the question to you is, will 21CW asset players have a problem with it? If they havnt had a problem with it in the past here, why would they suddenly have a problem with it now? So while noone has spoken to our asset players, noone should really have to, since its a question that has already been adressed at 21cw in the past and has been answered.

    As to if jets would be banned. At this moment no, but obviously like any campaign, should the generals want to ban them, then its something that would have to be discussed. If you have questions about possible rule variations they will be almost impossible for me to answer, since the rules will be decided by discussion just like they are before every 21CW camp.

    I will repeat what I have already said up thread. We do not anticipate any MAJOR rule changes from the norm as of right now, this is what has been spoken about between the admin staffs. However since rules are finalised with input from generals, we cannot give a final and definate answer to that question.

    To make this easier since people seem to be wanting answers to all sorts of hypotheticals first, then the question is : "If we ran a camp against GC where it was as close to a 21CW camp as possible , but one army was GC" would you want to play?

  17. #17

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Most people do not care about the details, they just want to have a good time playing an organized game. They don't want to be excluded by some random bs rule like forkie was or argued with for just trying to help out. All people want is organized fun. That's it.

    That being said, I think most people do not really care who is playing who as long as it's balanced. The last battle was more balanced and I'd be happy do donate again to keep the fun going this fall/winter.
    Dammit Gym, I'm a couch potato not a badazz!
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You just can't help some people."

  18. #18

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    I'm down with which ever option the group prefers. option 2 seems like the path of least resistance and with Zalittle's busy schedule may make a good short term solution anyway.
    "We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw

  19. #19

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    21CW vs 21CW can still work. I believe having a 21CW vs GC campaign will seal the fate of this place. I hate to say this, because I respect the job they do, but the admins dropped the ball this campaign. They have no one else to blame. From the beginning, the army that got the SBS company was going to have a HUGE advantage. For some reason, one company was allowed to have the majority of the top infantry players in the entire tournament. This made no sense and was going to be problems from the start.

    The admins just recently tried to balance things by moving over several guys to IMAB and bringing in more v2 guys to IMAB. While I applaud this effort, it happened way too late. There have been calls for balance in almost every one of the IC meetings and the response was always the same "let's just wait and see." Eventually you waited so long that people refused to show up after getting stomped week after week. People aren't going to show up if they aren't having fun no matter how much you beg of them.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  20. #20

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    I don't want to respond in anger but you are starting to push my buttons zone. First imab wasn't getting stomped they were loseing close battles and winning as well. It wasn't ontell imab stop showing spirit is when the true down turn of the army we did what we could as admins hoping the influx of people would help moral. But even with the increase of players imab decided not to show. I can not make people want to fight and win it is on them. Let me ask you this zone did the imab practice together or attempt to recruit new players to help themselves? If you did then I didnt see it. Surely the admins can't be to blame for all the imab problems. Would you like the admins to organize practices recruit more players and lead the imab in battle aswell. Don't cast stones on less you are without sin zone.

  21. #21

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15 View Post
    From the beginning, the army that got the SBS company was going to have a HUGE advantage. For some reason, one company was allowed to have the majority of the top infantry players in the entire tournament. This made no sense and was going to be problems from the start.
    This part of your post is not only factually incorrect it brings into question the rest of your post, if you honestly believe this you are either deluded or looking at things through some really rose tinted specs.

    Fact, SBS was initially balanced against Kilos group of players , both companies were of equal skill level approximately, and IMAB got a company just as good as SBS.

    Fact switching a group that you claim is the best to the other side, is not a viable solution since that just makes the other side unbalanced.

    Fact at no point were numbers good enough for the admin staff to just give IMAB a bunch of ASFs players without severly damaging ASF. Once Sword and his group came to play and we had the ability to move people , we did so.

    So, the admins did everything possible at the start of the camp to balance the armies, then during the camp also. I understand that it sucks that people dont show up to play and make it more competitive for your side, but that is in no way the fault of the admin staff. We provide you a place to play, we enforce rules so its fair and we organise it. After that it's down to the armies themselves 90% of the time.

    I understand it hurts to fail and you want to find someone to blame for that. But you should really look at yourself first and foremost for that.

    Sorry to be blunt but , thats how it is. If you want to be a positive force for this community then the oppertunity is there for you to be one, but first you have to accept responsability.

    The person I feel most sorry for in all this is Furydivine, he has shown leadership qualities above and beyond, a positive can do attitude and has given his time and effort to make this camp a success. If more players followed his example, you would not be in this position.

  22. #22

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [TA]Niz View Post
    This part of your post is not only factually incorrect it brings into question the rest of your post, if you honestly believe this you are either deluded or looking at things through some really rose tinted specs.

    Fact, SBS was initially balanced against Kilos group of players , both companies were of equal skill level approximately, and IMAB got a company just as good as SBS.

    Fact switching a group that you claim is the best to the other side, is not a viable solution since that just makes the other side unbalanced.

    Fact at no point were numbers good enough for the admin staff to just give IMAB a bunch of ASFs players without severly damaging ASF. Once Sword and his group came to play and we had the ability to move people , we did so.

    So, the admins did everything possible at the start of the camp to balance the armies, then during the camp also. I understand that it sucks that people dont show up to play and make it more competitive for your side, but that is in no way the fault of the admin staff. We provide you a place to play, we enforce rules so its fair and we organise it. After that it's down to the armies themselves 90% of the time.

    I understand it hurts to fail and you want to find someone to blame for that. But you should really look at yourself first and foremost for that.

    Sorry to be blunt but , thats how it is. If you want to be a positive force for this community then the oppertunity is there for you to be one, but first you have to accept responsability.

    The person I feel most sorry for in all this is Furydivine, he has shown leadership qualities above and beyond, a positive can do attitude and has given his time and effort to make this camp a success. If more players followed his example, you would not be in this position.
    Not even going to legitimize that with a reply.
    Last edited by Zone15; 09-02-2015 at 10:36 PM.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  23. #23

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by (TC)Duke View Post
    I don't want to respond in anger but you are starting to push my buttons zone. First imab wasn't getting stomped they were loseing close battles and winning as well. It wasn't ontell imab stop showing spirit is when the true down turn of the army we did what we could as admins hoping the influx of people would help moral. But even with the increase of players imab decided not to show. I can not make people want to fight and win it is on them. Let me ask you this zone did the imab practice together or attempt to recruit new players to help themselves? If you did then I didnt see it. Surely the admins can't be to blame for all the imab problems. Would you like the admins to organize practices recruit more players and lead the imab in battle aswell. Don't cast stones on less you are without sin zone.
    So are you disputing the fact that questions regarding balance were brought up very early on in the campaign and the only response was "to wait and see" ? Once it became aware that most of the IMAB's good players had left to play in other tournaments, our General made it clear in the IC meetings that we needed some help, yet nothing was done.

    I will say this is not squarely on the admins fault though as it is more a fault of the system. The problem started in the beginning when players were allowed to stack the very best players in the tournament into one "super" company. There was never going to be a company strong enough to counter SBS and that would imbalance the armies by default. The fact that IMAB won the first battle was actually quite shocking. If you go back though, you will see that most of SBS left during the middle of that battle. The presence of SBS and the fact that the few good players IMAB had left to go play at places like Level and GC swung the balance of power way in the favor of the ASF. This was clearly brought up in an IC meeting, I think either after the 2nd or 3rd battle.

    Also Duke, you said we should have been recruiting for our army. I would agree with you if this was any normal campaign with the "win at all costs" attitude. This campaign and the one before it were supposed to put balance above everything else. There wasn't supposed to be any recruiting for your army, it was supposed to be recruiting for the tournament. Have I personally been recruiting? No. That is because I do not play this game outside of our battles. Battlefield 4 is a dying game thanks to DICE LA. They took a game that was "bad" and made it absolutely horrible. The majority of people that play this game still only play for the Metro/Locker 24/7 Cluster that is the opposite of everything this tournament stands for. The few players left that want to play in a fun strategic 32vs32 tournament, have already done so at places like Level.
    Last edited by Zone15; 09-02-2015 at 11:07 PM.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  24. #24

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    21cw vs 21cw cant happen because even during the first scrim there were less than 40 people at the start, and 20-24 people at the end. playing that few of people is no fun and thats one of the reasons why people would rather play elsewhere than play here. this place hasnt had a 32v32 in several campaigns. so why not try something different and play a 21cw vs gc campaign? that can only make people want to play more when there are closer, bigger battles that last all 6 hours.

  25. #25

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [TA]H4RP View Post
    21cw vs 21cw cant happen because even during the first scrim there were less than 40 people at the start, and 20-24 people at the end. playing that few of people is no fun and thats one of the reasons why people would rather play elsewhere than play here. this place hasnt had a 32v32 in several campaigns. so why not try something different and play a 21cw vs gc campaign? that can only make people want to play more when there are closer, bigger battles that last all 6 hours.
    The problem with that H4RP is it seems the players want to see a 21CW/GC vs 21CW/GC not a 21CW vs GC. The owners of both tournaments on the other hand want a 21CW vs GC. I realize the owners will get what they want but what they may end up with is the same 10v10 that we have now.

    It doesn't even have to be a full merger of people. You can have 21CW companies and GC companies fighting for the same armies. That would be a way to keep the tournaments separate while at the same time combined.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  26. #26

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [TA]Niz View Post
    Thats just a long way of saying that everything I said is correct.

    Seriously, I just pointed out where most of what you were saying is bollocks. Its not about legitimising anything, if you disagree feel free to dispute it , but obviously you cant so you will hide behind "im being the bigger man by not replying" and continue to spread falsehoods and untruths.

    When you have something constructive to say, I might be inclined to give your opinion some merit, but since you appear to have nothing better to say than "everything is the admins fault" when Ive just pointed out how we did everything we possibly could, then Im just going to consider everything you say as instantly dismisable.
    The reason I did not reply to your original post was purely due to your condescending attitude.

    Yes, Niz, the admins did do what they could to balance things, but in the end, it was too little and too late. Even at that, there was no communication to the general players that things were being done to make things balanced. I would be willing to bet that most of the players on IMAB who haven't shown up for the past few battles even knew of the fact that Sword and others were brought over. I had suggested in the IC meeting that some sort of mass PM or something be done after the attempt at balancing the armies but it never happened.

    To be honest I may have went too far with saying it was solely on the admin's shoulders. There were failures on both the players and the admins parts that led to what we are faced with now. You can say what you want about me, but I believe I am one of the few people who have shown up to EVERY battle. I'm pointing out mistakes that are made so we can learn from them.


    C38 - [1FJR]B|SGT.Zone15 | C40 - [IDF]C|PVT.Zone15 | C41 - [RDG]B|2LT.Zone15 | C42 - [18AD]F|2LT.Zone15 | C43 - [USA]B|CPT.Zone15 | C44 - [AMID]W|Cpt.Zone15 | C45 - [AMID]R|2Lt.Zone15 | C46 - [PLAN]J|1Lt.Zone15 | C47 - [16AA]RE|LCPL.Zone15 | C48 - [4ID]KPD|2Lt.Zone15 | C49 - [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15

  27. #27

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [IMAB]KPD|1Lt.Zone15 View Post
    Even at that, there was no communication to the general players that things were being done to make things balanced. I would be willing to bet that most of the players on IMAB who haven't shown up for the past few battles even knew of the fact that Sword and others were brought over. I had suggested in the IC meeting that some sort of mass PM or something be done after the attempt at balancing the armies but it never happened.
    I sent a pm to all IMAB players on 2015-08-17 mentioning these reinforcements and a plea to show up for the next battles, the outcome is well known. Right now there are 28 votes for the poll, what's up with the rest of the community? Let's work out what can we do to get more people involved (again).
    Last edited by furydivine; 09-03-2015 at 06:02 AM.
    A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.

    C46: [2ID] Roadrunner | 2LT
    C47: [16AA] 23 Engineer Regiment / The Household Cavalry Regiment | 2LT
    C48: [NB19] Heimdall | Kapten-Major
    C48v2: [4ID] | LtG
    C49: [IMAB] | General
    C50: [21CW] | Major

  28. #28

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by [IMAB]GEN.furydivine View Post
    Right now there are 28 votes for the poll, what's up with the rest of the community?
    What rest of the community? At present that IS the community we have. Not even an army, and that in spite of the efforts of many people to recruit new players, bring back old blood, etc...

  29. #29

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Reinforcements are Fine - But reinforcements that are going to be given special privledges to do only the fun jobs, and that automatically get made into the special forces company without doing jack shit for the division.. well that rubs people the wrong way, and thus they don't show up. Once I let my guys know the role that swords group was going to play in the army, they wanted nothing to do with it. I can't convince them to come play when all their hard work in weeks previous means absolutely nothing, and people who just get to our division are given special treatment.

    If you don't appreciate the people that work hard for you, eventually they are going to stop doing that work - as what's the point of showing up when we know we are going to get the crappy jobs, get stomped on, and that our HCO staff has a hard on for one group of people (who have done nothing to deserve the special treatment aside from existing)


    Intel 6600K 4.5GHz
    32GB DD4 Ram
    Titan X (Pascal)
    3x1 TB SSD - Raid 0
    Razer Orbweaver Chroma
    Razer Mamba TE Chroma
    Razer Kraken 7.1
    Razer Blackwidow TE Chroma
    3 x 24" Monitor

  30. #30

    Re: 21cw vs GC Campaign poll

    Quote Originally Posted by (IMAB)K|Cpt.Juno[XLV] View Post
    Reinforcements are Fine - But reinforcements that are going to be given special privledges to do only the fun jobs, and that automatically get made into the special forces company without doing jack shit for the division.. well that rubs people the wrong way, and thus they don't show up. Once I let my guys know the role that swords group was going to play in the army, they wanted nothing to do with it. I can't convince them to come play when all their hard work in weeks previous means absolutely nothing, and people who just get to our division are given special treatment.

    If you don't appreciate the people that work hard for you, eventually they are going to stop doing that work - as what's the point of showing up when we know we are going to get the crappy jobs, get stomped on, and that our HCO staff has a hard on for one group of people (who have done nothing to deserve the special treatment aside from existing)
    In case someone wants to verify these false accusations, I hereby grant the TO, IC, TC, TAs and ambassadors the permission to access my pms and the IMAB strategy threads, especially the thread for battle V that was created knowning that the v2/SHH players will be reinforcing IMAB.

    furydivine
    A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.

    C46: [2ID] Roadrunner | 2LT
    C47: [16AA] 23 Engineer Regiment / The Household Cavalry Regiment | 2LT
    C48: [NB19] Heimdall | Kapten-Major
    C48v2: [4ID] | LtG
    C49: [IMAB] | General
    C50: [21CW] | Major

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •