Fight Club Tips, Suggestions & General!

[FSUSpiderFan]

Sounds pretty good to me. Not sure if it will have an effect but we'll see I guess.

[CrazyChris]

It was said that the battle bowl was partially meant to test out team play, so I thought I'd offer my feedback. On the positive side, I think it is a great concept with a lot of new opportunity for creative arguments and cooperation among message board posters. For the first couple days I would have said it was the most fun I've had in Fight Club. However, there are a few things I would iron out.

First of all, I think there should be some clarification about how relevant "team cohesiveness" or so forth is. If "team" has any meaning in team play, I think how well your opponent's characters would work as a team should be fair game for arguments. There are certain assumptions we've always made in Fight Club. We don't question that the characters want to win, how the characters got to the location, or why they're fighting. I think the logical extension of that for team play is that we don't question why these characters are fighting together on teams. But that not asking "why" they are working together is an entirely different question to "how well" they'd work together. Some characters are better at cooperating, leading, or following orders than others, and if that doesn't factor into team play then half the art in crafting a team is gone. For example, the idea that the notoriously wild and uncontrollable Phoenix would put her entire nature aside and be able to perfectly follow orders from Doctor Doom like some kind of worker drone doesn't make sense. I wouldn't question why she would be on the same team as Doom, but if I can't question how well a character like that would listen to orders as opposed to fighting her own way, then we aren't really talking about who these people are as characters. We're just reducing them to stats and lists of powers. In summary, I would amend the rules to say it is irrelevant *why* they are working together, but it is very relevant *how well* they could work together.

Second, I think five days is a little too long to be arguing about the same thing. I'm not just saying that because my team lost at the last minute; I felt that way back when we were well ahead. No new points were really being made there at the end and it just became a contest to see who could get the last word in to sway voters who skip to the last page. The usual three days is plenty of time.

So those are the kinks I see. Feel free to take this feedback or leave it. I think team play is a good idea in principle and I wouldn't be averse to trying it again sometime in the future. I do believe I'll be taking a break from Fight Club for at least a short time, though, so I don't get burnt out.

[FSUSpiderFan]

I agree that how well they work together is a should be part of the argument, although it will limit the type of characters you pick and people might have a tendency to pick only people from established teams.
Five days might have been a bit long but the usual three might have been a little short. How about a compromise at 4?

[CrazyChris]

I agree that how well they work together is a should be part of the argument, although it will limit the type of characters you pick and people might have a tendency to pick only people from established teams.

I wouldn't say it would "limit" the type of characters you pick. It would certainly influence it, though. People's choices should be influenced by what is and isn't good strategy. That's what makes it a game.

Five days might have been a bit long but the usual three might have been a little short. How about a compromise at 4?

I don't know. The idea of signing onto another online debating match that's going to go on for more than half a week is making me feel queasy. Even the normal matches that go on for three days seem to go on too long to me, but there have been enough great down-to-the wire matches (e.g., Samus versus Boba) that I live with it. Maybe I'm wrong. If everyone else likes the idea of spending potentially hours a day debating about a fight for an entire business week, go on ahead but count me out.

[AmFan15]

I thought Battle Bowl went pretty well, but I had only one problem with it:

I think, for an introduction to team play, 5 on 5 might have been a bit too much.

One of the things I enjoy most about Fight Club is joining in on the debate, and when we're talking about 1 on 1 battles, that's easy enough to do. The closest we'd gotten to team play before was MFC #23: Slamalama Ding Dong, which only involved three characters (Thing, Mr Hyde, and Rhino)...Still easy enough to wrap my head around.
But this one, I found it hard to even begin to pick a side, let alone join in the debate.
I mean, you guys did a great job coming up with plausible scenarios as far as how things would go, and for that I'm glad...because with so many characters, there were FAR too many possibilities for me to have even begun to have voted on my own.

If you're planning on making this a regular thing, George, I think maybe we should work the group battle in gradually...say start off with 3 on 3, let us get accustomed to it, and work our way up from there.
But if it's just going to be an annual thing, it's all good. Whatever you think is best.

[FSUSpiderFan]

I do like the idea of smaller team play. The 5 on 5 could be annual but for any other matches it would be nice to do 2 on 2 or 3 on 3. Just the prep time on picking teammates and characters took a lot of time for 5 on 5 and that was with everyone being pretty prompt.

[Thrawn]

I actually liked the five day debate time. It gave everyone involved ample time to make their respective points. If the consensus ends up being to reduce the amount of time, I say 4-4.5 days.

The idea of signing onto another online debating match that's going to go on for more than half a week is making me feel queasy.

That's possible but didn't George say that if team battle was going on then there could only be one or two other regular matches? If that's going to be the case then I'm fine with a four or five day team brawl.

I also agree that five per team might have been a hair too much. I'd say give people the option of four to five member teams.

The 5 on 5 could be annual but for any other matches it would be nice to do 2 on 2 or 3 on 3.

I think 3 on 3 or 4 on 4 would be fine as well.

I do like the idea of smaller team play.

Absolutely. I had quite a bit of fun during our match.

[FSUSpiderFan]

Later on we could have a full on 10 on 10 and call it Maimum Battle Brawl It might be fun before our brains all explode.

[FSUSpiderFan]

George are you going to start the DC and Marvel fights again at some point?

[CrazyChris]

I know I suggested shortening the time limit, but right now I'm about ready to take that back. These fights are flying by too fast for me to really get involved in them. It seems like 2 days just isn't enough time to get the epic point/counterpoint debates from season 1 going.

[George Berryman]

George are you going to start the DC and Marvel fights again at some point?

I'd meant to all along. They'll probably come back for the next off-season.

I know I suggested shortening the time limit, but right now I'm about ready to take that back. These fights are flying by too fast for me to really get involved in them. It seems like 2 days just isn't enough time to get the epic point/counterpoint debates from season 1 going.

I'm loathe to change it now that we're ten fights into the regular season. It wouldn't be fair to the ten fights we've had so far that were limited to two days if we expand out again to three. The most fights we've had thus far at once was six and that was because two of them were close to ending.

The epic point/counterpoint is entirely dependent on the participants. We've already had one fight so far where neither of the Fight Clubbers even showed up to post in their own fight.

I'm up for re-examining the 2-Day vs. 3-Day vote at the end of the season but changing it right now, midstream, isn't fair to those first ten matches.

[FSUSpiderFan]

I agree with keeping it consistent through the rest of the season. I suppose you might consider a one day extension for close matches but that could get really quick.

[Thrawn]

I was always fine with the three day span for fights. I think three days is better for the voter turnout, and the debaters, but two days is actually somewhat easier on me as a participant. So I guess I'm fine either way.

If you want to change it now, or wait until the end of the season, I'm good George. I would say that it would probably be better to try a full season of two day fights though.

[CrazyChris]

Yeah, keeping it consistent through the season is a good idea. When I start participating I might even appreciate the lower time commitment.

[Donomark]

Has the concept of a 2 vs. 1 match come up before?