LlamaLAN 6 - Post Event feedback and comments

[Autarkus]

my pc wont run CS:S



If it knows whats good for it

[CyberDrac]

... also alot of people were saying they didnt have the games being played or their pc wouldnt run them, which is kinda silly imo if your at a lan lol

We published the games which were going to be played in what I thought was good time before the event, maybe we should close the voting earlier next time and announce earlier than a week before hand, but we probably couldn't publish more than a fortnight before. I was very surprised at how few, about a third of the participants, expressed a preference prior to the event as to the games to be played, we may consider making the voting on the game part of the sign up process to make sure that everyone has a say and that we can truly go with the majority. As I said in an earlier post, servers were run, announcement were made, timetables were published, and there is a limit to what we as organisers can do to force people to play any given game, but we hope that if everyone votes and then from a shortlist we narrow it down to another vote to get our final games we will achieve a list of games that a vast majority want to play ... unfortunately from that point onwards it is down to the participants to actually join the games when they are announced.

Another point was that nobody knew what anyone was playing without having to actually looking at their screen. Would it be possible to perhaps set something up that has a sort of status of who is playing what on some projector? A tall order I know but at least you can keep an eye on what game is being played by the majority and perhaps join in?

A nice idea, we'll look at whether we can get a game browser installed so that we can get an overview of servers which are running, any suggestions as to which we can try would be welcome. The projector with the Announcer software will make a return to LlamaLAN 7 to reinforce the timetable and my shouting.

We will make it known more obviously that the LAN's planned games will be more keenly encouraged and point out that there is plenty of free-for-all time outside of the planned games and that if this isn't your style of LAN event then maybe this isn't the LAN for you, we don't like the idea of discouraging people from attending, but judging by the sentiment expressed here more people are upset about the planned games NOT running than being run and interfering with them playing what they want, when they want.

But remember, we can make the polls, look at the votes, refine the choices, plan the timetable, run the servers, make the announcements, encourage and coerce people into playing ... but in the end it comes down to the participant ... YOU ... choosing to join in with the games. We can't do it without your co-operation.

CD

[BlackVelvet]

yeah i gotta agree totaly there CD, that was my point that people never really made their views known as such in the voting, if everyone had said "no my pc wont run this or that game" or "i dont have those games and wont be albe to get them" then maybe it would have been possible to have a rethink of the voting if enough people said it
like u said theres only so much you can do to enforce the rules but yeah people really ought to be made tho think if its the right lan for them.
this is gonna sound like a stupid idea probably but is there any point having a pc spec requirement to actualy be allowed to attend?. as in peoples pc's must be over a certain spec to be sure everyone can run the games, cos so many people were running around saying "my pc cant run that game"

[CyberDrac]

I don't think that having a minimum PC spec will be the way to go, but people will have to realise that a LAN is a community/group, event, and should be played as such, we don't want to exclude anyone, but we do try our best to ensure that the majority of people have the best time possible. I don't think anyone had a bad event, I think most people had a great or better event, but I would agree that it didn't go according to plan, there are a few things we can tweak from the organisational point of view, but the rest is up to the people who attend to play.

We WILL start and finish the voting earlier, we WILL refined the votes and get a consensus on the final games to be played at LEAST two weeks before the event, we WILL do more to encourage the planned games, we WILL make it easier for people to be aware of when the games are running. That much is within our control and we WILL do that much ... I hope that it works out to everyone's satisfaction.

CD

[Autarkus]

Actually getting stuff that you want to play Installed
and tested Before the day would be a good start,
but then, if some people cant even ensure the're
Virus free - I've now caught
virii at 2 of the 3 I've been to - i dont think theres
much hope of ppl getting up to patch level
before hand.

[EvilWarlock]

I thought people may have realised by now that if you want to play a game at a Lan, Whichever Lan that may be you install the game before you get there, The ammount of people that insist on turning up and getting images and key gens and everything else off other people so they can play a game at a Lan!!! When will they learn!!!! Spend the money and get the game we all have to. That`s one of the reasons people weren`t joining in they didn`t have it installed and were hoping no get it at the event.
Also glad to hear that the announcer projector will be back next event, it was badly missed this year. Perhaps also you can make abit more use of the intranet?? maybe a section showing current servers and where people can post there own servers running. encourage people to use the tools available.

[OdiN]

I agree with all of the above. But as the hosts of the LAN the least that could of been done to encourage ppl to play the games scheduled were to actually play those games at the time.

Also, regarding the games voted to be played, I have to agree strongly that you didn't give enough time to allow people to go out and get the game to allow it to be played at the LAN. I would of gone out and bought Joint Operations but you didn't leave enough time to do so. Perhaps closing the voting a month prior or something would of allowed me to have enough time to organze myself to go out and buy it.

Just my opinion, but perhaps the projector games section could of been played with the slider dorrs shut because, sitting next to the stage made it kind of difficult to hear what my team were saying due to the really annoying sound tracks of the 16(?) bit games. I'm sure anything-but would agree with me here - but it was extremely distracting to have such a game playing whilst the tourny was going on - especially in the heats. Having the screens open also made it extremely distracting for ppl to play the games scheduled - i think the projector games were played the most the entire lan. Sorry to go on about it - but I think they hindered more than they helped.

I expected the lan to have an overall high level or participation by all members all at the same time. I agree with black velvet with the groups that came together played a game together at the same time. Like the AvP2 played by MAD and nobody else joined in, not that it was a bad thing, I'm just using it as an example. I was expecting a game where everyone was in the map all at the same time. Perhaps a bombing run on ut2004 with all 40 players. It would of kicked ass.

If you can get a projector or something that displays what ppl should be playing to encourage them to play together and less time playing amoungst each other. At one point I started playing painkiller because I got fed up with the amount of chaos around. For me, I hope next lan will have more enforcement from all hosts rather than just CD yelling out amoungst ppl playing - coz although it was loud, ppl still ignore one person. If all the leaders were responsible for 1 set of tables to tell ppl whats going on, it will be better than leaving CD to do everything?