RE: Grand Battle Planning and General Discussion Thread
06-15-2013, 03:46 AM
Well, if people are still looking at this thread and people still care, I'll have my say.
On one hand, I back entirely the last point made by seedy. I think that we shouldn't have many spin-off battles on our hands. In fact, I don't think "spin-off" should be a classification for battles. I think the people who used the term "isolated battle" put it a little better.
And although you guys are aiming to cut down the idea that Official Battles are Better, but the truth is most of the non-canon spin-offs have died off pretty quickly, and a better tactic would be to make it seem like All Battles Are Official. Speaking as somebody who jumped on when there was already a considerable amount of material, I think new players won't look at a battle that is labeled as "unofficial," "non-canon," or a "spin-off."
Hell, it took quite a lot of references before I even thought to look at S!
Also, I think metaplots are a great part of the Battles. Battles with good amounts of metaplotting seem like grander, more epic stories. Though crossovers between seasons, even battles within seasons, do serve to make the text more daunting. I feel like a battle with no metaplot at all would feel like a bunch of people following the rules they've been given. It could still be enjoyable, since the rules were pretty vague and designed to be entertaining from the outset, but it wouldn't be as grand or as fun.
I think a good battle to exemplify which new ideas work really well and which might not need to be implemented is Epic Clash. It had, as far as I remember, little to no crossing-over with other battles or seasons, but there was a considerable level of inter-battle metaplot. As a result, the battle is immensely entertaining, without being intimidating to people who need a jump point for the various Battles out there.
What else it proves: A battle with all new players, as it was at the time, can have phenomenally awesome results. Also, in my humble opinion at least, it does prove that a six-character system could work really well. I mean, yes, the battle did have the traditional number of characters, but it also had only five rounds. Also, the pacing seems to have been better there, as it did finish before several Battles which started before it.
And back to my original point, I feel like it would be a good idea to make a list of all of the Battles That Aren't Dead, regardless of canonicity. Of course, which battles are connected would be shown, but it would be a list of Battles with the idea in mind that all of them are important, so that new people interested in starting or joining battles don't have to feel like they need to join something "canon" in order to prove their worth or avoid worrying that battles they are involved in will die off before getting off the ground.
Whoever would be in charge of making the list (I could do it, if nobody else wants to) could also put in notes on which battles are good points to jump in and which ones require a ton of extra reading and what that extra reading is.
And... sorry for the textwall that may or may not be a choppy and disorganized mess. I just had a lot to say.
On one hand, I back entirely the last point made by seedy. I think that we shouldn't have many spin-off battles on our hands. In fact, I don't think "spin-off" should be a classification for battles. I think the people who used the term "isolated battle" put it a little better.
And although you guys are aiming to cut down the idea that Official Battles are Better, but the truth is most of the non-canon spin-offs have died off pretty quickly, and a better tactic would be to make it seem like All Battles Are Official. Speaking as somebody who jumped on when there was already a considerable amount of material, I think new players won't look at a battle that is labeled as "unofficial," "non-canon," or a "spin-off."
Hell, it took quite a lot of references before I even thought to look at S!
Also, I think metaplots are a great part of the Battles. Battles with good amounts of metaplotting seem like grander, more epic stories. Though crossovers between seasons, even battles within seasons, do serve to make the text more daunting. I feel like a battle with no metaplot at all would feel like a bunch of people following the rules they've been given. It could still be enjoyable, since the rules were pretty vague and designed to be entertaining from the outset, but it wouldn't be as grand or as fun.
I think a good battle to exemplify which new ideas work really well and which might not need to be implemented is Epic Clash. It had, as far as I remember, little to no crossing-over with other battles or seasons, but there was a considerable level of inter-battle metaplot. As a result, the battle is immensely entertaining, without being intimidating to people who need a jump point for the various Battles out there.
What else it proves: A battle with all new players, as it was at the time, can have phenomenally awesome results. Also, in my humble opinion at least, it does prove that a six-character system could work really well. I mean, yes, the battle did have the traditional number of characters, but it also had only five rounds. Also, the pacing seems to have been better there, as it did finish before several Battles which started before it.
And back to my original point, I feel like it would be a good idea to make a list of all of the Battles That Aren't Dead, regardless of canonicity. Of course, which battles are connected would be shown, but it would be a list of Battles with the idea in mind that all of them are important, so that new people interested in starting or joining battles don't have to feel like they need to join something "canon" in order to prove their worth or avoid worrying that battles they are involved in will die off before getting off the ground.
Whoever would be in charge of making the list (I could do it, if nobody else wants to) could also put in notes on which battles are good points to jump in and which ones require a ton of extra reading and what that extra reading is.
And... sorry for the textwall that may or may not be a choppy and disorganized mess. I just had a lot to say.