|
Post by mikeypoopoo on Jul 26, 2009 8:09:22 GMT -5
i just wanted to give my in put .......
it was different not having generals on the field and a bit of confusion. i think the gens. are needed to put a little more player control on the field. again with all the perks that the field gives you too be a gen. i would think that every one would want to do it... As well as it giving you a new look at the game...
i would like to see more people stand up and be the ballers they are for the amount of teams and players there is...you should be able too put a new general in each box with out , the same man doing it twice... theres 11 games= 22 gens...
as you all seen at black arrow the game will play it self with out a gen. but i believe its a much funnier game with one . this is just my 2 cents............ poo, out
|
|
|
Post by chowda on Jul 26, 2009 9:34:14 GMT -5
Our opininion differs.
We agree that yes a GOOD general is better than the mission release system.
However I would rather have a mission release system than a lousy general.
A&B ran more missions yesterday than they have in long time. We completed every mission we ran. Some of that was due to the fact that without a general it was on the players to take control and some of it was the fact that without generals CP kills aren't nearly as gratifying.
We liked the mission release system as a change of pace.
I think that Splatbrothers short games are great places to learn to be a general. I also know that it is far more fun (and easier) to play a game, than general one. It can be really trying to play a serious scenario against an excellant enemy.
In closing, I would like to say that the package that Splatbrothers offers as incentive to be a general is generous. If you think you can do it you should. If the only thing that isn't allowing you to play is money than this is the way to go.
I personally have played the role of general and XO at least once every year for the past few. I will continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by pickle on Jul 26, 2009 12:46:29 GMT -5
Just to expand on my friend Chowda's comments, it isn't easy to be a general. I mean it takes no effort to be a lousy general, but it takes hours of work to be a great general (for the 8 hour games). Now I'm not discouraging people at all from stepping up and finding their talent, and I wholly support any first time general. The key is preparation, its not something that I'd recommend doing on the spur of the moment. Take time to carefully consider if you want to be the man who is ultimately responsible in the 50 to 100 people's eyes (in an 8 hour game) for the out come of your side. Sure, it may not be your fault, but you represent your side to the players and are responsible for the result of the game in their eyes. Now that doesn't mean you have to win, but you do have to make sure you at the very least, look like you know what your doing. Which is best done by preparation, spend time recruiting teams, and drafting up a plan for how you want to control the field. With preparation and confidence, any one can be a general.
|
|
|
Post by kouza on Jul 26, 2009 13:10:24 GMT -5
I think people were pretty gratified killing our CP time, and time again, chowda lol. I think generals are a good thing because, it makes the game completely player controlled and gives the players a little direction. I know at one point while O.F.U was off the field, I walked up and asked the Ref where, the battle was,and asked where he needed me. (I assumed the ref was pretty much playing general) He told me he could not tell me, that I would have to find it. If I was a new player, I would have had absolutely no clue what to do. Basically, what I am saying is the game was still fun but, the learning curve was made MUCH steeper.
|
|
|
Post by Red Devil A&B on Jul 26, 2009 14:02:23 GMT -5
on that note kouza, i have to give it up to branswick on SaD, had some first timers that showed up late, he took them under his wing. pointed them in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Twister on Jul 26, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -5
And they had a great time. Thanks Brian...
The referees are not to influence the game in any way. It is up to the player to "get" in the game once he is tagged in.
Without a General everyone plays whereas the General is more or less giving the missions out and relying on his players to inform him of what is going on. It was very very player controlled. Yesterday the referees handed out the missions and the rest of the game was up to the players. Why even the awards were of the players (plural). Very democratic wouldn't you say... ;D
|
|
|
Post by mntlhazrd on Jul 26, 2009 16:31:25 GMT -5
To echo what Twister said is that this is a game that is very player controlled and the outcome of the game lays more in their collective hands than in the hands of one person. IMO while there may not be a general there is still a way to coordinate to achieve victory. I would assume many prefer to have a general to have a focal point for information and direction but when put into perspective this kind of scenario game is a walk-on-day on a grander scale. Befrore the breakout you need to figure out what tasks need to be accomplished and who will be the ones responsible to carry out the tasks and all this is decided upon in a collective way. Game on you go about to fulfill your task and have faith in your teammates that they are fulfilling thiers while the whole time you keep up good communication. I see this as an environment that promotes scenario teams to reach out and actively work with other teams and a means to interact more so with walk ons and new players. An example for a plan i thought of includes 4 scenario teams: 1st team does base security and is also the focal point for communication between teams if they do not have radio contact with the others. 2nd team is responsible for carrying out missions. 3rd team is responsible for holding the 50 below Speed Ravine and 4th team responsible for holding 50 Speed Ravine and above. Walk ons could be taken on by any team and shown the ways of scenario paintball. There is always a need for a leader/ leaders and teamwork with good communication will always be the deciding factor in a game.
-William-
|
|
|
Post by spudcrazy on Jul 26, 2009 21:34:28 GMT -5
I just want to chime in a TINY bit. I didn't mind having no generals because a lot of times the generals will only give responsibilities to the teams and LESS to the walk-on's, so in that respect, I saw walk-on's be every bit a part of the game yesterday. But, having generals allows for strategy rather than just chaotic battles here and there and with so few players on such a big field, a lot of time was spent looking for sed battles. I suppose you could always go where the major sounds of gun fights are, but I can do that during a walk-on day. I, OMM, prefer to preemt battles and usually a general will have intel where to set up and ambush or skirmish. However, it did make for a nice change of pace.... As to the awards, they were not player picked. From what I was told by the person that presented me with the "nominees", I had to pick from the two choices for each award that were presented to me on the sheet of paper. I was told I had to choose from those two and could NOT pick someone else as I prefered (there was only one name to choose from for MVP for what it's worth). Some of which I didn't even know their effect on the field since me and my team were doing our own thing. I should note, I didn't have a problem with any of the awards recipients, as I'm sure they were well deserved (I know A&B deserved every bit of their MVT), but having the base ref pick the nominee's (as I was told by a "power that be") was NOT a good way of doing it in my opinion. Oh, and only the captains got to vote. Sorry if I let a cat out of the bag and sound so negative, but I couldn't hold my tongue on that one!!!! As great as Ronn and Don are and as fair as I know they are, that was not one of their better ideas....
|
|
|
Post by Lil Gimpy on Jul 27, 2009 8:29:11 GMT -5
I know i wasn't there, but just a short blurb, i know teams can be great leaders, heck i have had other teams grab me on the field and direct me the right way, especially in my first few games where i would be out wandering near the back of the field (<- lost as heck) but really, it was a drive to complete a mission not just for pts, but for your general, they were counting on you, they were the figure head that you followed.
I dont think i'd want to play a no-general game anywhere near as much as a general game. i mean, what if your a new player and your first experience is two seasoned teams telling you completely different things?
I think it'd be confusing as all but at least with a gen you have someone to go back to, to figure it out.
We all know we have different tactics on the field, and as teams we make it work, as a side it's best when we have someone who knows team styles and can make it work for the side. (Ex: social hazard is great if you need an area cleaned out).
Plus, for military games it makes sense to have a general, and makes the role play a little more believable than a ref who cant tell you where to go.
Basically, while i am sure this was a unique experience i hope it doesn't become the norm.
|
|
|
Post by Twister on Jul 27, 2009 18:39:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments Spud and LG. Let me address a few things.
First off there isn't any cat to let out of the bag. SplatBrothers® is about as transparent as can be. There were actually more people and points of view in the award process than there is with just the Generals. The selection(s) came from those that were in every aspect of the game. Then the names/teams were taken to the team Captains for further selection so there was several people involved - not all that bad.
As for Generals they are a time proven position however, when no one steps up then there are no other choices left. Again I say - no other choices. Actually I have had several people say they liked the Mission Release System as when they were General they didn't get to play as much or at all. This way everyone played the entire day.
If you all have any further ideas let me know.
Anyone want to General the 3 Musketeers game on August 22nd?
|
|
|
Post by Oxyfyde on Jul 27, 2009 19:24:55 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments Spud and LG. Let me address a few things. First off there isn't any cat to let out of the bag. SplatBrothers® is about as transparent as can be. There were actually more people and points of view in the award process than there is with just the Generals. The selection(s) came from those that were in every aspect of the game. Then the names/teams were taken to the team Captains for further selection so there was several people involved - not all that bad. As for Generals they are a time proven position however, when no one steps up then there are no other choices left. Again I say - no other choices. Actually I have had several people say they liked the Mission Release System as when they were General they didn't get to play as much or at all. This way everyone played the entire day. If you all have any further ideas let me know. Anyone want to General the 3 Musketeers game on August 22nd? If no one objects, I'll General the Three Musketeers game.
|
|
|
Post by Sabot Ranger on Jul 27, 2009 19:55:11 GMT -5
I have to agree with Chowder, and Red Devil, and Spud... not noncommittal just a hybrid observation. I think the 'no general worked very well this weekend in terms of getting the missions out exactly at the same time evenly, fairly to both sides. I heard Ronn call both base refs and say in his just total Maxwell smart decoder ring, "Are the kids home? Go Ahead." I like the fact that the real decider was not how fast a mission was decoded but in how many players each side had on the field to execute the missions. So a poor decryption or slow radio procedures or just CP confusion didn't put another team at a disadvantage or misinterpretation. I also liked how the refs could and would answer questions about missions. I saw several walk ons help missions or go with a mission card because they understood what was going on and what was expected. So I do like the no general concept- or at least the no difficult decoding radio operator stuff. Now conversely, this seemed to be a low number event. Had there been tons of folks, like 300 without a general to direct them to spread acrosss the field on mission team, attack, defend team etc it could have been madness. Now I have to apoligize for not generaling. I obviously have no fear of commanding troops. But the hard part that hasn't been mentioned yet is beyond winning or recruiting teams and encouraging people to play - it is doing their best for the players to have fun and a good game. Every good general I've ever seen on the field, including Chowda, Spud and Red Devil have been more worried about folks having fun in the game. A fair, even, balanced and safe game with opportunity for win has been the core of these guys generalships. For this past weekend I have to salute the entire ref package. They were out there in the boonies manning their posts, even if no players were there. They moved to the action, explained questions in a helpful manner, safeguarded out players-great job and I thanked each that I saw personally. Best reffing I've seen in some time. Speaking of refs, I also like how another park uses the refs to nominate recognition. Refs are spread across the whole field and see all the action and both sides and all teams. Great to swee all the old guys again. Hadn';t seen Chowder sine NJ Nam. Red devil, great to see you. And you are the sole witness to my skilled 'duck and cover' away from enemy fire!!! Yep I got bruises for that one but I was safe and he was out! T%hanks all and call me when Don and Ronn arrange for the ACagain!
|
|
|
Post by Gravity on Jul 27, 2009 21:37:27 GMT -5
If no one objects, I'll General the Three Musketeers game. Rock On! Call them and ask to speak to Ronn about it. Let me say that it is definitely a fun, if somewhat hectic, position. Also, the extras you get for being a general is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by spudcrazy on Jul 28, 2009 9:22:43 GMT -5
I gotta ditto what Sabot said about the refs... Holy crap, they were top notch!!! I loved the way they had "stations" to be manned. Even in the most remote parts of the field, there always was a ref close by. That was a great change. And there demeanor, I thought, was very professional and calm. I also loved the insertion lights. There was never a question about insertion and they seemed to be timed to an atomic clock, because it was perfectly sync'd with my watch... Loved it. But crap, turn down the heat and get some AC on that field... LOL. Still the best terrain of any field I've ever played. All the improvements only make it harder to cope with the distance. So, when exactly are you gonna pick up and move the field closer to DC?
|
|
|
Post by fishmishin on Jul 28, 2009 10:29:59 GMT -5
Way to go Ox !! Way to step up to the plate !! ;D How about it, does anyone have any objections?
|
|