Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle
I have noted.. that practically NO players are chiming in on this thread. Yet many complain about games after the fact.
maybe we are overthinking this, as it seems that players don't really care what kind of games there are, as long as there are games.
|
As a player and a host I feel the need to say something. While I agree with much of what Brian is saying I also disagree with much of it. Players of today are no different than players of the past. The difference is back in the day the sport was new and fresh, getting the guns was difficult, expensive, and it catered to those that had money. The community was so small and tight it was easy to know everyone. The community felt more like a community, for those that were in it and for those that were onlookers (myself included into the onlooker category) These days getting into the sport has never been easier or more cost effective, in Canada that is. Anyone can get into the sport, regardless of their budget. This brings in a greater volume of players all at one time, with little to no guidance. Many of the old timers share biased and bitter views (Like Brian's) on new players, which in my opinion is the wrong way to do it. Granted there are some real asshats out there, but that happens with every sport. Why as a community do we not welcome new players into the sport with open arms. Guiding them into making safe choices and making them productive members of the community. Instead many of the vets shun "newbs", ostracizing them, and leaving the new generation with nothing but a bad taste in their mouth for the veterans of the sport and in many cases the sport its self. All that said, I welcome new players onto my team every year and I will continue to do so. I prefer completely green players, they come with a clean slate, no ego, no bad habits, and most of them are eager to learn. Why is it that so many share Brians views for new players yet so few will stand up and take the new players under their wings?
As for the questions at hand in this thread. Simplicity and cohesion are everything. Too many games are put together that have easily misinterpreted rule sets, game control seems to be lacking a strong presence, and more work seems to go into the back story than into the actual objectives put into the field. As a player I have a strong appreciation for physical objectives that make sense for the game structure. Actual comm towers, crates, bombs to be disarmed, dummies to be carried out, decent maps, etc are what really turns me on to a game. When I pay to play and the event boasts a flag or a jar of jam as part of the objective list it starts to lose its appeal to me. Game control also needs a firm and strong presence at all times. If an issue arises game control needs to handle it asap and without bias. Too many times I see game control handling an issue with bias because they are friends with one of the accused or they don't want to upset a whole team for fear of them never returning to a game. This makes game control appear weak and spineless, which is a massive turn off. Multiple obtainable objectives with strict guidelines and time structure is huge too. Loose time lines and single file type objectives are over done and lacking in creativity.
Here are some issues I encountered at AOW.
1) Game Control was sparse and slow to respond to in game issues. Fast to respond to injuries or health concerns though. In game conflicts were handled half assed and with a biased tone.
2) Time lines and objective structures were unclear at time, loosely enforced, and changed on the fly to suit one team or the others outcomes. I understand changes must be done on the fly to make the game move along smoothly but it must be done with great caution. Confusion makes the players lose focus.
3) The secrecy surrounding the teams, structures, etc leading up to the day of the event put a sour taste in my mouth. I had no clue what was going on up until a few days before the event, and I had been signed up well in advance.
Just my two cents