LAN competitions

I just want an indicator of what people think i should have competitions and prizes for, if any, at these lans.

choose an option and elaborate on it in a reply

My opinion on each:

No Comp:

Could work. Would probably lose those few people who come along mainly to win stuff. Would make admining a lot easier.

Few short quick ones:

That's what I'd do. Although you wouldn't really be able to run a decent CS/DoD comp, other games could be played fast and well, such as FFA anything, an RTS or two, perhaps even a Jedi Knight Sabre Tournament... A couple rounds of SoF2... who knows... just something that won't take a long time to get through, so people are available to play other stuff.

Run one shorter comp:

Personally, I don't like the sounds of it, cos it would again be either DoD or CS... and I've had enough of them.. but still a better idea than the Big One.

One Big One:

Nah-ah...

Lots of extensive comps:

Dunno what you mean by extensive, but it sounds like you are creating a LOT of work for admin people to run something like this. Also sounds like it would need lots of pre-LAN preperation, which is good in theory, but never comes off...




My $0.02...

i really liked the idea of the Cs/DoD comp it gives the not so good people more of a chance to win because there r some clans that are only good at CS and some only at DoD
i think the final of this comp should of been as soon as we new who was in it it like 30 mins after or somefin coz that waiting period was silly
and i missed out on the quake 3 comp coz i had to go home
basically i think the comps were good at morb 3 altho they were set out weird IMO
i think it might be a good idea to like have a RTS comp maybe if ya could get enuff interest
then I'd get my dad to come and win stuff for me coz he fucken owns at starcraft ;)
-smurf

Suggestions for future LAN's:

Hold comps still for DOD and CS, but instead of team comps, have individual comps. Project up on the big projector that at 3pm till 3:30pm CS comp 1 will be running on 1 map for the entire 30 mins, then from 4pm till 4:30 PM the DoD comp 1 will be running on the 1 map for the entire 30 mins. then from 5 till 5:30 cs comp 2 will be running on another map for the entire 30 mins, then 6 till 6:30 DOD comp 2 will be running on another map for the entire 30 mins, then from 7 till 7:30 CS comp3 will be running on yet another map for the entire 30 mins, then 8 till 8:30 DOD comp 3 will be running on yet another map for the entire 30 mins. then at the end the stats are added up and the overall winner gets a prize

this is a fairly simple, yet good way at organising two popular comps. the times of course are just suggestions, but they give people time to rest inbetween, get food etc intime for the next CS or DOD comp just incase they wanted to enter both. Of course while these are running we have a couple of other servers up running other games (Q3, WC3, D2 etc), and depending on the popularity of these games possibly run a simlar competition.

Agree/Disagree anybody?
If needed, I will help setup these comps. MorB 3.5 could be a trial for this too

^^^
The problem with an *individual* CS or DoD comp is that they are team games, and even though someone might be a hundred times better than anyone else, if they get a crappy team, they'll still lose badly. You could do 1vs1 games... but the amount of time these would require would be insane and it doesn't really play the game the way they're meant to run. I think you have to keep CS/DoD team games... I've got a post here (http://morb.ath.cx/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78) about that...


I went for the most complicated, hardest, and exhauting option; lots of extensive competitions. I'd disagree with Beefy that it would never come off, you'd just have to have a fair bit of work for quite a few people. What I'd suggest is that you look for one or two people to run a competition for one game only. For instance, I'd be happy to run a Warcraft III competition at the next MorB LAN, someone else could run a CS comp, another a DoD comp, another a Red Alert 2 comp, another a MS Hearts comp, et cetera.

The trick would be a lot of pre-planning, you would have to discover people willing to run these comps before the LAN, then decide on times before the LAN so that you don't have all the comps running at once, and people can see which comps they can enter (i.e, you don't want someone entering the Hearts comp and the DoD comp if they run at the same time).

I think, though, that if you found people willing to run a comp (server boxes would have to be tracked down for each game), and pre-planned it, it could work, and be wonderful. Maybe :).

Hey, you ain't allowed to disagree with me...

Seriously though, you got some points there. But from what I saw of the last LAN, there were a fair few people that didn't actually have teams and stuff organised for comps, which they got running on the day. If you make people pre-organise, then a lot of people are gonna miss out. Perhaps they deserve it, but you'll get a fair few unhappy people there, which brings down any LAN.

That's the only major hitch I can see with comps. You either get people to enter before the event, in which case a lot of people will be unhappy and miss out, plus there's a lot of work involved... or you try do it all on the day, so everyone who wants to play can.. which is less work, just in a much shorter time span.

This is soooo much better if it's not based on team games, however. People can then just jump into the game and go nuts. Also makes individual prizes / tournaments soooo much easier to run.

agreed beefy :D

osiris, runin one team-based comp, let alone many makes for a lot of work before the LAN and during and after, and u having said what u did, makes it sound like we didnt plan that comp at all, like as if we made it up on the day.

serious thought went into the structure and timetable for that comp, i provided these forums early and opened a Clans section to give an area for people to pre-organise clans etc. we set up rules, a scoring system, and a game-time timetable.

planning is one thing, but as I have ran 3 comps now, one at each LAN, i know myself how little plans matter when it comes to putting them in place.

no matter how much you plan, it wont play out how it was supposed to on the day.

if i were to get several people to run and organise comps for the day that would be fine, most likely problem, a pizzly amount of players in each comp, rendering it near-to-pointless, the next likely thing is if i ran 4 comps, and had say 8 guys organising them all, there goes more lanners...

with an actual attendance of 60 people at the last lan, u start chopping it into little groups with separate comps, its gunna hurt

as the beefster said, a comp that is focused on the individual is far more easy to run and manage and even to hand out prizes..
no way could i run CS or DoD or RtCW comps based on the individual, like u said, thats not the games focus.

anyway i need sleep, i'll look at this again tomorrow to see what chunks of text i missed

wow. I'm actually saying smart stuff.. I wonder how long I can keep that up.

Dont ever question your self when you are on a roll Just go with the flow, and enjoy it

agreed beefy :D

osiris, runin one team-based comp, let alone many makes for a lot of work before the LAN and during and after, and u having said what u did, makes it sound like we didnt plan that comp at all, like as if we made it up on the day.

serious thought went into the structure and timetable for that comp, i provided these forums early and opened a Clans section to give an area for people to pre-organise clans etc. we set up rules, a scoring system, and a game-time timetable.

planning is one thing, but as I have ran 3 comps now, one at each LAN, i know myself how little plans matter when it comes to putting them in place.

no matter how much you plan, it wont play out how it was supposed to on the day.

if i were to get several people to run and organise comps for the day that would be fine, most likely problem, a pizzly amount of players in each comp, rendering it near-to-pointless, the next likely thing is if i ran 4 comps, and had say 8 guys organising them all, there goes more lanners...

with an actual attendance of 60 people at the last lan, u start chopping it into little groups with separate comps, its gunna hurt

as the beefster said, a comp that is focused on the individual is far more easy to run and manage and even to hand out prizes..
no way could i run CS or DoD or RtCW comps based on the individual, like u said, thats not the games focus.

anyway i need sleep, i'll look at this again tomorrow to see what chunks of text i missed

Sorry if I sounded like you didn't do anything to organise the comps - I do realise that a fair shitload of effort went in, from months before the LAN til the time the last tressle was rolled away.

From what you've said, I guess the dream of lots of comps doesn't really work with LANs with this low an attendence... :(. Oh well, we can still dream :D.

heres something that came to mind the other day...

The Ultimate Battle

one game (cs dod sof etc...)
two main teams made up of equal players
each team has a commander (can play or not, mainly in charge of the strategies)

basically its a one game - one battle kind of setup. each main team is fighting for superiourity over the other in the form of other "mini-battles". instead of it being like a 20 minute, win as many games as you can, its more like a survival of the most stretigical kind ok gameplay.

each main team is made up of a certain amount of players or clans (doesnt really matter how many as long as the teams are even). each round consists of 3 "mini-battles" (ill just call them MBs from now on). the MBs are only 1 game in length (no time limit, keep playing till one team wins) and if you die then you stay dead... ie out of the comp FOR GOOD! (meaning running away has its benifits). each commander must nominate which players make up each force (the teams in each battle). the aim of each MB is for each team to win by achieving a certain objective (it wouldnt work if you had to annihilate the enemy as then the other team would have not many players for the next round of MBs). the amount of MB rounds that you have doesnt really matter.

the main aim for the comp is to stay alive until the end (like in a real war) but also accumulate as many points for yourself as you can by helping out team-mates, achieving objectives and killing enemys. each team will score points for winning an MB and the team with the most points at the end wins, and the player (or top 3 players) with the highest ranking are rewarded (by prizes, praise, free shit...etc)

this setup probably wouldnt be for the die-hard fans of these games as they are used to running out, killing some enemys, dying, respawning and doing it all over again. it is a much more strategical adaptation of the games in an effort to emulate a real war situation.

Sorry if i might have rambled on a bit there but i was trying to write everything down as it came to mind. its proabably full of holes so if you got any other suggestions that could be included (like some sort of respawning, altho unrealistic, could be included. like a 2 game penalty for dying or something???) or removed from the layout then post them here.

if you are going to post something tho dont say stuff like "thats the dumbest idea ive ever herd" or anything relating to goats or whatever your sick little minds may be thinking of. its just an idea that i think may be worth persuing... in the name of gaming (pfffft.. yeah right!)

sorry about the length of that... just wanted to make sure i got it all out there.

oh yeah btw im not suggesting that this be included in the next morb, im just trying to think of a new comp setup that breaks out of the usual competition mould.

only problem is it would require quite a bit of admining and supervision (to make sure one team doesnt cheat by using dead players or whatever...)

oh well... like i said, just an idea.

interesting idea. I can see it happening with BF1942 especially.

I'll Pay that for a VERY interesting idea, management could be difficult, but none-the-less, original sort of idea, and yer Beefy I was thinking BF1942 all the way thru it :D

IT's something like that where you'd want a 64 player server, and HEAPS of time on your hands. cos people are gonna take things very slowly.

yeah the idea of taking your time is basically what the whole concept was was founded on.

what happens in real life?... if you were in a real combat situation the last thing you want to do is run out to try and kill 3 enemys, not knowin exactly what else is around the next corner waiting for you. it may turn ito a bit of a camping game but hey, it emphasises the need to do through recon and checking before commiting to take any action.

but it doesnt just stop there. if interfaced with roger wilco you could have a group of people trying to hack into the enemys communication systems and knowing exactly what theyre going to do. the possibilities are endless...

ill just keep writing shit down as i think of it... might get a few more interesting ideas

nice work rodney.. keep it up. :)

Sounds like a good idea so far, some fine honing and it might be ready to be slotted in for the next MorB, or even CMDR Nuke's next ~30 person LAN

Next LAN any comps I run Will be short an fast.

However if 2 clans wanna war each other I'll setup a server to allow them to but not as part of a comp.

yes but this idea is just about as short and fast as it can get, for while it may be slow in theory, you'll find that it doesn't take long for someone to die, and when they do, off they go to play their favourite game, in the true spirit of lanning!

This would probably draw a lot of spectators too. :)

And it wouldn't be that hard to organise. You set a specific time, open the server 2 minutes before it starts, make an announcement, anyone who wants to play has to be in in 2 minutes... and go.

Anyone who misses out, it's their fault.

well it sounds to me like "Have a Big all-in competition"

and from the poll, i'm not guna be runnin this sorta comp at the next lan atleast

But this is way different / simpler.. See below:

This game = 1 continues game, players slowly drop out

The old one = Certain amount of rounds, which set teams fight out in various numbered rounds, which is run as a round robin style tournament, which means people have to figure out ladders, schedules, placings and a big ol timetable.


Tell me the first one ain't easy.. :)

only problem with that idea is it lacks strategy. the idea that i had was all about making the games more strategical and putting a vital importance on the aspect of staying alive. what you are saying, while still can involve some small scale strategies amongst a small group of people, could end up being either very one sided, or even "he won cos he fluked all the kills" kind of game.

but i guess thats the problem when you get a group of games together, all with different playing styles, and put them into a team with people that they dont even know. it can, and does lead to the loss of team-work and developing of strategies.

im starting to see some holes with the original design tho. it was to have 2 teams fighting against one another over several battles, and having to decide which player or group of players play in which battle. kind of like the many number of battlefields that were being fought on during WWI and II. each army had to decide which platoons to commit to which battles and which battles to withdraw from so they didnt run out of soldiers. the original design was to have a similar idea. say x amount of players go to this server, y amount go to this one and z amount this one. if they start taking heavy losses then they can withdraw from the battle, giving the other team victory. this would then require each team leader to think about who should fight where and try to predict how strong the enemy force will be. this adds to the reality side of things as in most wars (i say most cos ive herd of the opposite happening on rare occasions) the enemy arent going to tell you exactly how many troops they are going to send against you.

(new idea here) then as soon as one team is ready to fight again they can say to the enemy "ok we are starting a new battle. you have 15 minutes to gather whatever forces you have and meet us on the battlefield". then the enemy has to decide how many players to send and if so which battles to take them out of to fight somewhere else (you would have to make a base point which players have to return to in each battle to stop people from just quitting from a game just before they die and saying that theyd been told to fight in another battle)

so as you can see "this" design would require quite a lot of organisation by both the admins and the team leaders. it may be a bit far fetched but i reckon if somebody actually sat down and said "ok lets do this thing" then it would be very enjoyable for both the people playing and others who are watching the war from a distance.

but dont get me wrong... the idea about one game, one winner would be awesome. it would require the people who are playing to actually think a bit rather then just run around shooting at any enemy that they see. plus the ease at which it could be run could make it a big hit with the players and admins.

sorry about the length again... i just start writing and carnt stop!

sounds goo to me now, but it may sound completely different to me when im errr... not drunk.

i say one on one saber battles in jedi knight and if someone comes a draw we hold sack races on every sunday untill a winer is crowned

I like it, but an important point has been left out.......what kind of sacks??

hmmm i hear potato sacks are fairly comfy