Duxburian wrote:but that wasn't the original intention.
That's the problem; can't make assumptions about how games will play out, which is why we have to be more open to trying different games.
Duxburian wrote:You absolutely need to know the playing area inside and out and remember the small details like that if you're the host.
But if you don't, and something unexpected happens, the plan has to be flexible enough to make things change. I will admit I was guilty of assuming that there may have been another route in the Factory CTF, or that we as a team would've tried to make the move of breeching through the doorway quickly to break the stalemate.
SEAL wrote:There are exceptions, but more often than not coming up with games on the spot gives us rounds like assault-the-restroom HTL at MOAB or the naval battles at Soakemore.
I made a number of suggestions for tweaking the naval battles or for the restroom HTL game to make them more interesting, and no one regarded them at all. They would have unbalanced the game a bit, but it didn't matter that much since they were asymmetrical games in the first place, and there's other possible tweaks to re-balance the game.
SEAL wrote:I think giving guests a good first impression is EXTREMELY important. You want them to come away from the war talking about how awesome and fun it was (telling their friends), not talking about how the hosts had no idea what they were doing and only got three or four little 15-minute fights wherein both teams just stared at each other the whole time.
This is likely how I lost a good number of potential players, but there's also no real gauge of quality here either. I thought MOAB was quite fun, but it's not something I'd want to repeat exactly again. The OHS in the typical woods game is getting a bit stale for me already; we need different dynamics to shift that game in order to make it interesting again. Some places such as Legend Park Woods, only really work one time.
The problem is, if anyone is expecting a guarantee
that a war/game will be good, that's just plain naivety. We can improve our processes, but there will always be the possibility of something going wrong. When that happens, we need to be able to quickly adapt the game setups and/or use a fallback plan. We also need cohesion; the war host must make clear who's in charge of game planning or make the decision of delegating the calls on what to play when others bring up suggestions. Attempting to stick to a plan too rigidly results in another Downpour 2013. Not planning at all results in a Soakemore 2013. Having the right mix of planning and flexibility (not to mention kickass battlefields) results in Frozen Fury 2013.
This is not to discourage or discredit the extensive efforts you guys are making to plan out games, or to test out different setups only to point out the following:
- We need to improve our ability to setup and play games on the spot no matter what.
- We need to be able to break from a plan if it isn't working out.
- We need to be able to tweak game rules even if it seems jarring or unfair to do so.
- Testing is not foolproof, as different players and number of them will shift how a setup functions. (Albeit often in somewhat predictable ways.)
Straight-up finishing a game isn't the best use of time, although it does result in completion. The alternative is to try more ballsy moves within a game; take more risks at the expense of loosing a game, but that never happens. Still, the role of player actions on breaking a stalemate is there, even if the game's setup is a much more important role.