Recent LAN problems: Console Side

[Eyce 0]

Honestly, I think the entirely game lineup for all systems need to be re-examined.

 

This quote is from a topic in the Playstation Discussion section of the boards, which is where I was going to reply to it initially, but I thought it better to make a seperate topic in LAN Events since I ended up covering so many issues. This isn't just me ranting or something, I want this to be a discussion topic first off. It just happens to be that I have alot to say at once about this.

 

Lately, the tournament list format for consoles has grown to 6-7 games being held at one event, in the interest of diversity. For the most part this format has given us two fighters, two FPSs, and two Misc. games per event. Sounds fair on the surface, right? Instead, this mix has brought us a great many conflicts over the past year, with two different crowds butting heads while casual LAN attendants' interests have slowly been pushed out of the way.

 

--------------------

***Remember that the following is my OPINION of why certain *edited* keeps happening. I'm starting by generalizing the club's members into categories, which are true for a large number of us. Don't anyone get offended, now.

--------------------

 

I'm part of our Fighting game crowd - we don't participate in the club's PC side that much, and we have regular contact with each other to gather and play games often (ex: Saturday mini LANs). Pretty much all of us reside on campus, so it's not like traveling to the LANs is a chore for us. Our tournaments have the potential to start and end quickly, but usually get drawn out because of one or two people who are stuck in an FPS match for half an hour.

 

Our FPS group is more connected to the PCs than the Fighters are. Alot of them are on campus, but there are some that come down from App and other locations. FPS tournaments are longer and drawn out by nature, due to having so many skill factors in their gameplay. They can get behind because of Fighting tournaments as well, when someone's on a good winning streak.

 

Our casual group doesn't give a *edited*, they just want to play some games. Most of them don't care about winning *edited* either. They expect to come to a LAN for free play and a good time; alot of them are on campus, but there are also alot of people that take road trips to WCU just for these events. Lately they've been shafted in the free play department, especially in our latest LAN. The only free play I was aware of was on the Wiis while I was waiting for Melee/Brawl entrants to get out of other tournaments, some slight Misc. games on Merit's PS3, and some Wheel of Fortune on Josh's PS3 after everyone *edited*ing left.

 

--------------------

So what does that have to do with the big picture at the actual event?

--------------------

 

The general view on running our console tournaments have turned into a "let them do it, I'm only worried about my own tournament" mindset. This is what causes all of our problems. With three different tournament organizers trying to get people sat down for their games at once, we had a *edited*load of conflicts at the last LAN where certain people were busy and unavailable for HOURS. The Melee tournament started at 2:00 PM on schedule, but ended at what, *edited*ing 7:00 PM? That was horrible. The other main problem was the amount of systems we hogged for tournaments, as I mentioned. So many people had asked me when tournaments were going to end, then left because they didn't want to wait so long with nothing to do. This must have been a bad impression on the Freshman that attended, since we put hundreds of flyers in their dorms and delivered a casually boring event. I hope nobody that drove a long way to be there was dissapointed (but to be honest, most off-campus members are PC gamers, and I heard their side ran quite smoothly last time).

 

--------------------

So what's your bright idea?

--------------------

 

Well I'm not saying that my suggestions are "right" for the club, but we definitely do need a console-side overhaul. We've grown, and we have divided interests as to what we really want to achieve at a LAN event. We should all remember that the original intention is to host a good time for anyone that attends, and not simply to compete for prizes. With that said, I do have a few ideas on how to improve the way we run *edited*.

 

The first option that comes to mind is, hold less tournaments. We've ALWAYS run behind in tournaments for the reasons above, but they would become dealable if we only held, say, 4 console tournaments for the whole event. I'm not saying drop our favorite games, either. My suggested tourny layout would involve two fighting games and two FPSs - one new release, and one known popular game each. I don't believe we need any Misc. tournaments personally, since the casual demographic is just as happy jumping from station to station of free play. If we started both New Releases early in the day it would attract new members and encourage people to show up early, and those of us who come for our most popular tournaments (like SC4 and Gears 2? iunno) are most likely to stay the whole event anyway, so we can leave those for later in the day. This also allows us leeway to improve the rules a bit in certain tournaments, since some were originaly designed around tight time constraints. It's a great improvement all around the way I look at it.

 

If people still want to hold so many tournaments, then I would suggest something that some of you probably wouldn't like. That is, holding the Fighting tournaments on another date in the Central Multipurpose room. This fixes the major issue of people being tied up in an FPS/PC game and holding up the Fighters, allowing us to hold double elimination tournaments fluidly without worries of a delay. I believe this wouldn't be much of a hassle, since our Fighter demographic is pretty much entirely on campus, and we gather on a regular basis anyway to free play. It could be a true mini LAN this way, possibly held Friday night before the main LAN. We might want to alter the method of entree fees if we did this, but we could always just keep track of who payed and let them in at the main LAN for free. I doubt anyone who would attend the mini LAN would skip the main LAN either, since there are more reasons to enjoy it than just tournaments.

 

 

 

Anyway, discuss and post your opinions or ideas about what we could do in the future. I know that we can do better to make the event enjoyable to everyone.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Eyce

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

Wow man, that was a mouthful lol. But getting on topic here I completely agree, unfortunatley we may have ruined our chance with the freshman thanks to a lack of free play, which sucks because we did bust our asses hanging up those fliers. My suggestion for fixing this is designating some systems STRICTLY for free play and giving free play its own section at the LANs (maybe somewhere in the middle of the console section). That way, no matter what, their would always be games being free played and everyone there would be able to do something other than standing next to a table waiting to be called on for a tournament.

 

I also think that your idea for the tournament layout would be great! Two FPS's, 2 Fighters, and either a mix of or 2 new releases and or one known popular game. This is a very good idea in my opinion and would keep things fresh.

 

There is one more thing I would like to add though concerning the game pickings for the LANs. We are suppose to, as a group, choose what we believe the people that come to our LANs want to play. Well I believe that if a game that gets voted in is in the bottom 2 in terms of sign ups for a game for 2 LANs in a row, it should NOT be allowed to be voted back in a third time for the sack of losing attendees. Now I know you guys are all about the philosophy "If you dont show up to vote, then you dont have a right to complain" but if you guys want more people to join the club and show more of an interest in it, then we need to vote in what the people want and are clamoring about instead of what we as a small group. And I believe EYCE's new system of picking tournament games would fit well with this and keep things fresh and keep people coming back to the LANs.

[MasterP 0]

[PC-viewpoint bias]

 

Keep in mind that if you reduce the games played someone is going to feel left out. To be blunt, I see the Wii disappearing under this system because there's always going to be a hip cool fighting game on 360/PS3 that everyone's going to be caught up in and forget 3 months later (or completely hate after the LAN). Just remember to keep past tournament numbers in mind when deciding on games to play, if a game is continually drawing heavy crowds keep playing it.

 

You could have tournaments overlap and tell people they can't play in both, or if they do they won't be allowed to hold up the entire bracket while they play somewhere else. I know it's not ideal but people come for diversity and while the PC side can get away with only playing 4 games I'm not really convinced the console side can.

 

[/PC-viewpoint bias]

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

Actually Mitch, he pitched the idea of 6 games (2 FPS, 2 Fighting, and either 2 brand new game releases or two old favorites). I HIGHLY doubt the Wii would dissappear under this system, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is still the most popular game at our LANs (followed by Halo 3 and Soul Calibur IV according to the last LAN). So honestly, I think the Wii will always have a game at our LANs just because the Smash Bros. series is so popular. I mean hell our 2 most popular fighting games (and two of our most popular games overall) are on two completly differrent systems (Wii and PS3) and have produced some of the highest numbers at our previous 4 LANs (Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Soul Calibur IV).

 

And I love the biased brackets, thats pretty funny. lol.

[Eyce 0]

Actually Mike, I was suggesting only 4 games. One new Fighter/FPS and one repeat Fighter/FPS. I'm sure we'd still have Brawl set up for free play under this, except we wouldn't have to spend prize money on it and it would be played by more people since the Wii's won't be set aside for a tournament. Angel and Devon might be dissapointed, but there's maybe five people on campus that even take Brawl seriously, two of them being Ephraim.

[Ephraim 0]

Angel and Devon might be dissapointed, but there's maybe five people on campus that even take Brawl seriously, two of them being Ephraim.

 

1. Brawl consistantly brings in lots of people. It would be foolish not to bring it back next LAN.

2. For the Wii Council Leader to say he doesn't take one of his own tournaments seriously is inappropriate.

3. The notion that only five people on campus take Brawl seriously is baseless. Maybe none of your competitive gaming friends like Brawl, but they represent a tiny fraction of overall LAN attendance.

 

You are allowing your personal opinions get in the way of basic logic: High Attendance=Repeat Tournament

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

oh my bad John, thought I read 6. But yea, I think we should do 6 with a free play table, we just need to stop being so nice about letting people hold up tournaments. We could just say if anyone holds up a match for longer than 2 or 3 minutes, they are DQ'ed. I have to agree with Ephiram on this, despite the fact that we dont take it seriously, it still pulls in A LOT of people. Now honestly, I don't think most people would care weather we played Brawl or Melee (honestly I would prefer Melee but thats just me) because they are essentially played the same way with some minor tweaks (and NEBS seem to own in both lol). This however is for the general public to decide but honestly I don't care. I just think we should run 6 games, 4 is not enough, 5 at the least.

 

And Ephiram, when he says he doesnt take it seriously, he means the game play of Brawl, not the tournament itself. And honestly, how many people do u know that constantly play this game nowadays for the sake of pure competition? Most people do not practice this game anymore for the sake of getting better, therefore most people don't take it as seriously as you would think. There is only so much u can learn in Brawl, and unfortunately it is a restricted game in terms of new things to learn. Now Melee is a different story, lots of people that have been playing that game since its release in 2001 are STILL learning new things about it but this is not the case with Brawl. Brawl is catered more towards the causal crowd, but this is ok because so many people can play it and have fun. Sounds to me like you are generalizing us competitive guys and just because we dont take the game seriously doesnt mean we dont like it and arent having fun!

[Ephraim 0]

And Ephiram, when he says he doesnt take it seriously, he means the game play of Brawl, not the tournament itself. And honestly, how many people do u know that constantly play this game nowadays for the sake of pure competition? Most people do not practice this game anymore for the sake of getting better, therefore most people don't take it as seriously as you would think. There is only so much u can learn in Brawl, and unfortunately it is a restricted game in terms of new things to learn. Now Melee is a different story, lots of people that have been playing that game since its release in 2001 are STILL learning new things about it but this is not the case with Brawl. Brawl is catered more towards the causal crowd, but this is ok because so many people can play it and have fun. Sounds to me like you are generalizing us competitive guys and just because we dont take the game seriously doesnt mean we dont like it and arent having fun!

 

I'm going to do my best to avoid an argument, but I disagree on this one. At the last LAN, I talked to John about the tournament. I said something along the lines of "I hope I do well in the Brawl tournament. I've been practicing a lot." He responded with "Dude, it's just Brawl." If you don't care about your own tournament, you shouldn't be running it. I do not find lots of people playing Brawl nonstop, but I only know three or four people who play Melee nonstop. These people would have hated Brawl no matter what it was like, because they miss Melee. It is wrong to say that Brawl is limited in gameplay when the only form of Smash Bros. you want to play is a very limited form of Melee that excludes most stages, modes, and items. I know some people get *edited*ed off at me because I defend Brawl, but look at it from my perspective. Every *edited* time I play Brawl with you, John, or Nebs, all I can hear is constant complaining that we aren't playing Melee instead. If I am playing a game, the implication is that I like it and don't want to hear *edited*ing while I play. And this does not mean that everybody hates Brawl but me, because I have played with people who are good at Brawl and who actually like it. That is why I no longer provide my Wii at LANs. I don't want people to use my property just to criticize a game I like.

[Eyce 0]

My personal dislike of Brawl doesn't factor into my suggestion of making it free play only, but the opinions and priorities of the people who enter it's tournaments do. I've talked to our Brawl entrants often between matches, and I've found that at least 80% of them come to the LANs either for a different game or free play - Brawl is just a way to pass the time for them.

 

Yes, I do know that a small percentage of entrants play the game regularly. Ephraim does obvously; Matt F. plays Brawl with his group of friends every once in a while (Matt would play Melee more, but his group of friends are more about Gears 2 than anything else). There were two girls who showed up to the first LAN of last semester that came for Brawl specifically, but didn't show up to the last LAN. You can throw in Angel and Devon too if you want, since they're the ones who get the prizes.

 

But for most everyone else, it's just for some good laughs. Zack, for example, just chooses Jigglypuff and uses Rollout the whole time. Kelly will just choose Kirby, because he looks cute. This is why I held Brawl with items enabled recently, since the majority interest in the game preffered to play for entertainment rather than competition. If Brawl was setup on a few Wiis as background free play for the event, the players that usually enter Brawl to pass time until their favored tournament, could instead drop by for a few pickup games. This sounds like a better option than waiting to be called, and possibly losing after one match, leaving them bored for a while.

 

But MOST importantly, I believe making Brawl free play would majorly alleviate the holdups we get when waiting for entrants to finish matches. I didn't note this in my first post, but more people enter Brawl as a 'secondary' tournament than any other; Brawl gets connected to the wait times of FPSs, Fighters, and PC games, which makes it the one game that slows down the whole event the most.

 

EDIT: Even if you think I'm wrong about everything else, this last point is very valid. And I'd rather provide a smoother run, better overall event to everyone who comes than provide a bunch of conflicting tournaments just to make sure we get the largest attendance possible.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Eyce

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

I'm going to do my best to avoid an argument, but I disagree on this one. At the last LAN, I talked to John about the tournament. I said something along the lines of "I hope I do well in the Brawl tournament. I've been practicing a lot." He responded with "Dude, it's just Brawl."If you don't care about your own tournament, you shouldn't be running it. I do not find lots of people playing Brawl nonstop, but I only know three or four people who play Melee nonstop. These people would have hated Brawl no matter what it was like, because they miss Melee. It is wrong to say that Brawl is limited in gameplay when the only form of Smash Bros. you want to play is a very limited form of Melee that excludes most stages, modes, and items. I know some people get *edited*ed off at me because I defend Brawl, but look at it from my perspective. Every *edited* time I play Brawl with you, John, or Nebs, all I can hear is constant complaining that we aren't playing Melee instead. If I am playing a game, the implication is that I like it and don't want to hear *edited*ing while I play. And this does not mean that everybody hates Brawl but me, because I have played with people who are good at Brawl and who actually like it. That is why I no longer provide my Wii at LANs. I don't want people to use my property just to criticize a game I like.

 

Ephiram, I really dont understand how you dont see the dark side of Brawl. Its a fun game but come on. Infinte chain Throws, moves that are inescapable when hit and an unbalanced roster bog this game down. Dont get me wrong its a good game but Melee is much more balanced and complex in terms of gameplay and combos. We wouldnt have hated Brawl just because its not Melee, hell I played Brawl non stop for months after it came out and thought it was much better. Then, when I found out that you pretty much had to pick one of four characters to even have a chance at winning a match, I said *edited* it, I'm going back to Melee (and the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do combos in that game, which I thought was odd). And its not just because of the Wavedasing and the L Canceling, and all that advanced stuff, but it was the simple fact that I could see people kick some *edited* with all kinds of characters instead of seeing the same four characters played over and over (GO LUIGI!). And saying that Melee is limited in gameplay is an understatment. Check out tournament play vids of Melee on youtube and youll see what I mean (look up Ka-Master, he's the man!) We arent hating on your property/your games just because we say that Melee is better, we are just voicing our opinion. And hell, I might complain about some of the roken stuff in the game but that doesnt mean I dont enjoy playing it with friends, its a good party game. We understand u like Brawl more and thats ok because thats your opinion. But honestly, you shouldnt punish the club because of a few people disagreeing with you on a game, we really could use your Wii at the LANs. Also, Im not trying to pick a argument with u or call you out, I just consider this a "friendly debate" lol.

[Ephraim 0]

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore because it will only lead to hurt feelings. All I will say is that I plan to oppose any proposition to remove a popular tournament because it makes no sense.

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore because it will only lead to hurt feelings. All I will say is that I plan to oppose any proposition to remove a popular tournament because it makes no sense.

 

Well Ephiram I do agree with u, I dont think its going anywhere. We shall see at the next meeting, though I highly doubt Brawl will leave (I think every time its been voted in it was a unanimous vote for it. lol)

[Bitey 0]

Just curious because I can't remember but do your brawl matches have time limits, if they don't then there is your problem right there, every single match you do, fighting or fps, doesn't matter should be timed, especially in this case where you are "running out of time".

 

About Brawl, one side is saying it isn't competitive enough (the same side that says, the LAN isn't about being competitive (winning prizes), but about having fun?). Both sides seem to think that there is only a small percentage of the gaming club community who actually play either game. Look at the fights between CounterStrike 1.6 and CounterStrike:Source, believe it or not this is the same circumstance, you have to learn to live with both, if Melee is good enough to have a follow crowd then it should be considered, if Brawl beats it out because of popularity then so be it, sure we are sad to see it go, but the community has spoken, this is not about personal opinion.

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

Just curious because I can't remember but do your brawl matches have time limits, if they don't then there is your problem right there, every single match you do, fighting or fps, doesn't matter should be timed, especially in this case where you are "running out of time".

 

About Brawl, one side is saying it isn't competitive enough (the same side that says, the LAN isn't about being competitive (winning prizes), but about having fun?). Both sides seem to think that there is only a small percentage of the gaming club community who actually play either game. Look at the fights between CounterStrike 1.6 and CounterStrike:Source, believe it or not this is the same circumstance, you have to learn to live with both, if Melee is good enough to have a follow crowd then it should be considered, if Brawl beats it out because of popularity then so be it, sure we are sad to see it go, but the community has spoken, this is not about personal opinion.

 

Honestly, I dont care which we play, Im just going to do the best I can to make an *edited* out of myself lol j/k. The only thing that would kill me is if Soul Calibur IV left but if it did, I wouldnt throw a fit.

[Ephraim 0]

Honestly, I dont care which we play, Im just going to do the best I can to make an *edited* out of myself lol j/k. The only thing that would kill me is if Soul Calibur IV left but if it did, I wouldnt throw a fit.

 

Skrew it. I'll jump back in.

 

My support for Brawl is not based on some sort of fanboy-like devotion, but logic. After a year and a half, the game still packs in the contestants. That is why I want the tournament to stay. By that same token, I have never been in love with Soul Calibur, but as long as it has high attendance, I want it voted in. Now, I never said there is no negative elements to Brawl. I just think that competive gamers tend to play up these problems, while downplaying problems with Melee. It greatly annoys me how, at every gaming-club event, I hear the same three or four people constantly badmouthing Brawl, sometimes while playing it. Just once I would like to play the game with a few people who actually like it. I know they are out there, considering the plethora of possitive reviews and the fact that it is now the 40th best-selling game ever released.

 

But back to the LANs: Attendee enjoyment must take pecedence over competition. Competitive gamers regularly come to the LANs, so it is good to keep them happy. But, the club does not exist to cater to them. I'd say the that most attendees (and club members for that matter) are neither competitive nor casual gamers. I'd describe them as dedicated gamers. Competitive gamers may loathe Brawl (and I don't think that is too strong a word), but most people actually enjoy it. That is why the tourney is packed every single time we host it. The time issue can be resolved with faster disqualifications.

 

One thing I will give to the competive gamers is the importance of good prizes. Fun may be king, but realisticly, sweet prizes almost always result in higher attendance. If we could afford cash prizes, I'd be all for it.

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

One thing I will give to the competive gamers is the importance of good prizes. Fun may be king, but realisticly, sweet prizes almost always result in higher attendance. If we could afford cash prizes, I'd be all for it.

 

Ive actually been thinking about this for quite some time and have wanted to do this for a while, since before I became President. For some odd reason though, people use to appose this with a passion but I think Ill pitch it as an idea in subsititute for just going out and buying prizes.

[Eyce 0]

I think my suggestion was misunderstood - I'm not suggesting to replace Brawl with Melee. Through my own analysis and logic, I only suggested Brawl as free play for the plethora of reasons in my last post. Don't take offense to this post Ephraim, but I'm going to use bits of your post to provide examples of the usual logic when it comes to choosing LAN games, because you covered it well.

 

My support for Brawl is not based on some sort of fanboy-like devotion, but logic. After a year and a half, the game still packs in the contestants. That is why I want the tournament to stay.

This is normally a great way of doing things. However, I suggested doing away with it for reasons surrounding Brawl specifically. There would be the lowest negative impact on our playerbase if this game were free play, with the highest return of tournament speed up. See my last post for reasons why.

 

...considering the plethora of possitive reviews and the fact that it is now the 40th best-selling game ever released.

Can't argue that, but it's really just another point for how casual it's playerbase is. These same people are the ones that come to the LAN for free play mainly.

 

But back to the LANs: Attendee enjoyment must take pecedence over competition. Competitive gamers regularly come to the LANs, so it is good to keep them happy. But, the club does not exist to cater to them.

This is another big reason why I suggested that it become free play, you just used it the other way around. The only Brawl players that I consider truly competitive that enter our Brawl tournaments now are Angel and Devon, who come down from App for the prize every LAN. As I already said, most all of our entrants play Brawl to PLAY Brawl, not to hardcore compete in Brawl. It's the most casual playerbase we have, so let's cater to them and have some Brawl stations set up through the whole event, instead of imposing a tournament timeframe on it. The way it is now, less people get a chance to play Brawl because of the holdups and conflicts with other tournaments.

 

The time issue can be resolved with faster disqualifications.

This I dissagree with, it just gives off a bad impression and makes the event feel rushed to me. Rather than having more tournaments for people to enter with the good chance that they'll be DQ'd in one, I think it makes more sense to hold less tournaments that we know everyone will get a fair chance to complete their rounds in.

 

One thing I will give to the competive gamers is the importance of good prizes. Fun may be king, but realisticly, sweet prizes almost always result in higher attendance. If we could afford cash prizes, I'd be all for it.

I don't remember what the opposition for it was, really. Lets just do that *edited* if the majority agrees.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Eyce

[Ephraim 0]

I'm glad this didn't degenerate into name calling. En garde.

 

There are three major problems with your proposal:

 

1. You seem to be saying that we should pick which tournaments we host based upon the number of competitive gamers that attend the tournaments. My arguement is that it is totally irrelevant how many competitive gamers attend the tournaments. The bottom line is number of attendance. The approval of the competitive gamers should be an afterthought. A competitive gamer pays the same fee as everyone else. Numbers are numbers. The more, the better.

 

2. I don't think you are giving our attendees enough credit. When a large number of people sign up for a tournament every time we have it, it is a reasonable assumption that lots of people really like the game. I would not call such a large fanbase casual; I'd call it enthusiastic. Just because somebody is not a competitive gamer, it doesn't automatically mean they are a casual gamer. Most gamers fit in between the two extremes. I am also a bit confused by your belief that a large fanbase makes for a casual crowd. At the last LAN, Halo 3 was our most successful tournament. By your line of reasoning, the folks who came out for that game are casual gamers. I'm sure they wouldn't take kindly to that.

 

3. You say that eliminating the Brawl tournament will result in more free play for fans of the game. In actuality, all we will end up doing is stir up resentment. After chucking one of our most popular tournies, all night long we are going to hear: "Wait. There's no Brawl tourney? Lame."

 

Edit: As for time problems, just explain to the attendees that, if there is a confliction, they might have to make a quick decision as to which game they like more. It doesn't make us look rude; just efficient.

[Nebs 0]

Obviously you guys don't know me. Brawl is mah lyf, dog. WAR POKEMANS TRAINER!

[MasterP 0]

After chucking one of our most popular tournies, all night long we are going to hear: "Wait. There's no Brawl tourney? Lame."

I can guarantee this will happen. A Smash Bros game has been on our official tournament list for so long and has drawn such large crowds you can't expect them NOT to complain.

 

What bothers me is that this is a game everyone can pick up and play, even Josh is decent at this game and he hates Nintendo. Other games such as Gears, Halo, and SC4 are NOT easy to pick up and play. If I sat down and tried to play SC4 it would be embarrasing. I like playing in tournaments but don't like super competitive console games because I don't have the time to master the massive move lists. In the last couple years I've seen the console side shift to a much more competitive environment. There's nothing wrong with being competitive but when the games you play are entirely geared towards highly competitive gaming you're going to start turning off massive chunks of your attendance. Once they're gone it will be extremely hard to get them back.

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

Obviously you guys don't know me. Brawl is mah lyf, dog. WAR POKEMANS TRAINER!

 

LAWL, That trainers a beast! GO SQUIRTLE! Ill tell ya what would be interesting. Playing Brawl 2.1 (I believe thats what its called). I even have to admit, the way it modifies Brawl even feels wierd to me.

[Oh Malley 0]

Can I bring up a suggestion that has been talked about between several leaders both present and past?

 

>,> Having competitive LANs AND casual LANs?

 

Secondly, the fewer games the better, but there's always going to be some crowd that will feel like they got ignored and kicked out and will proceed to *edited* and whine.

 

Get used to it. And do the best you can with what you've got.

[FTE Kaz-Ka 0]

We can definitly try the casual LANs but before we dive into it, why not try a survey to see who is interested? Because, not to be *edited* or anything but my Saturday mini-LANs are pretty much the same exact thing as you guys are proposing and its free. But I am willing to give this a shot IF you guys can show that it has support outside of a few members of the club. I say this because, the way the school's budget is going, we are probably going to have to buy our own pizza for the competitive LANs.

 

Either way, we will bring this up at the meeting regardless because it is a good idea. We could use some extra funds.

[Oh Malley 0]

The difference between the Saturday mini-LANs and the casual LANs is size and scope.

 

The casual LANs would be open for console players AND PC players. You would have organized blocks of time for certain games to be free-played for the most part. You could still have door prizes and such as well.

[MasterP 0]

The casual LANs would be open for console players AND PC players.

Push this point. PC players don't really get to play console competitively at the LANs and many of us would really like to if given the opportunity.