by Bad Karma » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:38 pm
I want to preface this post by saying that it is not directed at any particular person, nor is any ill will or offense meant by what is contained within it.
That said, if we as a community want to push the collective goal of advancing our hobby towards creating better gameplay, we need to speak up when we feel event promoters do a poor job of conducting those events. It is only through constructive criticism that we can aim to improve the overall airsoft experience for every player.
I did not feel that Night 2 lived up to the expectations I had for it. I know that this feeling is one that is mutually shared by many of my team members.
The event was billed as a competition with various scoring criteria. One of those criteria factored in to the overall score was the time it took to complete the tasks assigned to us. However, each team was then instructed to follow a guide, a player-actor, who directed when and where our movement took place. At least for SOTA, he directed us to return to the Safe House because he didn't know whether we had retrieved the additional ammunition hidden in the lockers. This movement cost us team members and valuable time (nearly ten minutes) when, to my knowledge, no one on our team was having an issue with ammo shortages.
This would have been fine, except for that the mission was time sensitive. I would have preferred that each team be given a simple map of the building, noting key areas for objectives, and then told to get it done on our own, having our time start when we stepped off into the mission. No guide, no player actors, just zombies. With no offense meant at Mono, I felt his role totally removed me from the element of the game. SOTA had pre-planned to run three four-man stacks to accomplish our objectives, and we had configured our pre-game plans with that in mind. When we were told that that method of play would not be possible, we became much more disorganized than necessary.
Additionally, several members of the previous team to run the course acted as zombies in our run. While this would be fine if the event were promoted as a simple game, there becomes a potential conflict of interest when it is promoted specifically as a competition between teams. While I don't feel that any of the PLA members who were zombies in our round were intentionally trying to manipulate the game so our team faced more challenges than they did, the possibility certainly exists, especially given the very scripted nature of the gameplay. They know where we will be heading and where objectives are located as we would have followed the same format they did.
I found our game to be quite short given the cost involved in playing. We stepped off at 4:30 and indexed at 5:14, including our briefing time. All in all, gameplay lasted less than 40 minutes. At a price of $20/$25 (prepay/day of) I felt that overcharged. I would have asked for a refund if I would have paid the initial asking price of $45.
As an event promoter, I recognize the costs involved in securing a location like the CAGE. I know that the overhead can be prohibitive in that respect. But $20+ for 40 minutes of play is simply unacceptable.
I also felt that the missions themselves seemed rather disengaging and mundane. There has been a huge influx of events in the past year or two within this community. I would argue that it hasn't necessarily been for the better. Most of what is being produced today at a cost of $15 or even $50 is nothing more than larger versions of the skirmishes I was having in 2006 for free. Therefore, if a promoter expects to drive interest in their event and wishes to build rapport with the community as a group that produces consistently solid events, you need to step beyond traditional molds and build gameplay that is creative and engaging. The "go to this room and turn off this switch, then go to this room and turn off this switch" model is neither creative nor engaging.
[EDIT:]
It was brought to my attention this evening that flash bangs were implemented by player-actors during the second day. This inconsistency between each team's gameplay is my most paramount reprehension of the competition. If you market your event as a "competition" the most critical factor of each team's immersion needs to be consistency. That means the same script, the same rules, the same zombies. The number of zombies and the types of zombies varied, and, obviously, the gameplay varied. That's not okay.
[/EDIT:]
I appreciate, however, the great actors who showed up and did an excellent job of being zombies. The severely limited ammo meant that we had to be conservative with our shooting, only putting down zombies when absolutely needed, but otherwise moving in a way that circumvented most threats. The CAGE is a great location for such games and certainly has a distinctly creepy quality about it.
As I said before, this is not a personal attack against PSC, who I think are a great group of players and generally outstanding dudes. But just as I would hope the community would speak up and voice their concerns with any SOTA-hosted event, the only way we will drive better games is to learn from our past mistakes and take criticism to heart when planning events in the future.
Best,
Justin
Last edited by
Bad Karma on Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
