Coordination in "Battles"

[Bloodrose]

Ever since registration closed for the Magus Cup, and general discussion for the tournament started, I've found myself coming across the term "coordination" quite a bit. In writing this, I'm surmising that the accepted norm these days is for two writers engaging in a battle thread to get together and collaborate on the task at hand. What level of coordination goes on behind closed doors is not information I am privelege to, but I find the idea intriguing. The writers are fighting one another, but they are working together?

Allow me to elaborate:

When I contemplate what one would call a "battle" thread on Althanas, I consider them to be something akin to a writer's duel. The concept behind these duels is that two writers are competing to out-do each other OOCly - to score higher as per the Althanas rubric - and thus "win". In terms of who emerges victorious in a battle here on Althanas, the IC actions are really completely inconsequential; except for in terms of how they affect one's score. For example, Teric could be killed in a fight ICly, but despite his death it is still plausible that I might "win" a battle if my writing is cleaner, better thought out, and appeals to the reader more than my opponent's writing. To be perfectly fair (and this ties into another issue raised in the lead up to the Magus Cup), Teric doesn't even have to fight anyone ICly for me to consider a thread a "battle" thread. For me, the term "battle" can be used to describe any situation in which I am trying to outwrite an opponent and score higher than them. For me, a "battle" and having two IC characters try to kill each other are not necessarily the same thing.

Are you still with me? If not, allow me to sum up my intent for the paragraph above in one simple question:

tl;dr - Would it be fair to say that the purpose of a "battle" on Althanas is to outscore your opponent in the final judgement?

If you answered yes to the question above, then let me ask you something else. If you were fighting someone in real life - literally about to engage in fisticuffs with another living, breathing human being - would you get together with them beforehand to go over where, when, and how this fight is going to go down?

The answer to that question is where my interest in all this "coordination" comes in. In my case, the answer is no. For me, half the challenge - and by proxy most of the fun - in a writer's duel is not knowing what my opponent is going to do before they do it. I like to write on the fly, adapting my IC actions to new conditions as my opponent changes them. Much like the winner of a real fight, I think the winner of a writing fight on Althanas is the author who can better adapt to surpise while still keeping their IC action realistic and true to the nature of their character. Working with (and not against) someone on the progression of a "battle" takes something out of the whole dueling aspect of an Althanas battle for me, because rather than worry about what my opponent is going to do AND my writing, I can instead just focus on my writing. I think, that if done properly, a battle in which two writers work independently can enjoy a level of spontaneity and realism that collaborative battles don't possess.

Whew!

Well, having said my piece, I think it's about time I opened the floor to you Althanas. Do you find that, in your personal opinion, collaborating with an opponent on a "battle" thread enhances the experience, or hurts it? If you do enjoy working together on the battle, what level of coordination do you prefer? Do you enjoy setting up the scenery and circumstances with someone, and then leave the action of the battle up to each individual? Or do you prefer to plan out every detail of the battle beforehand?

[Wilhelm Bosche]

I don't care about winning enough to win by forcing my opponent into awkward positions with my writing. I try to coordinate things as best I can because it gives both of us a decent opportunity to showcase our writing without severe confusion. This is especially so if the battle is consensual.

If it's part of a tournament, I do the same thing, but I can see a greater justification for doing otherwise. Still, I don't like to win simply because I "nailed" someone with the setting, or by pulling a surprise out of nowhere, or simply by having a character that is confusing to the other player and hard to interact with (which I've noticed is frequently a problem in tournaments).

If some people want to do that, more power to them. I just don't want to write something that I feel is of lower quality just to win some silly contest.

[Bloodrose]

I fear I may have been misunderstood (probably my own damn fault :().

Let me start by making it known that I'm not advocating a lack of collaboration between two writers as a means of gaining an edge. For example, I don't actively avoid discussing ongoing battles with my opponents - especially not if they are eager to discuss certain things - I merely don't initiate conversations. As it pertains to personal preference, my ideal opponent is someone who is comfortable just going with the flow and basing the inspirations for their posts on something already written - as opposed to plotting their posts out in advance.

Re-reading my original post, I feel that my long-winded attempts at giving some context to my own reasons for this preference may have muddled up my intent for this thread.

Regardless of winning or losing, I'm interested in the preferences you have as writers when it comes to battles. Judging by your response, Wilhelm, it's fairly obvious that you prefer to work together with people because you feel that it improves the quality of the overall finished work - a sentiment that I'd imagine is shared by many others.

So to hopefully avoid confusion, let me rephrase my original question.

Without regards to winning or losing, which style of battle is more appealing to each of you? Do you get more enjoyment out of planning the battle in advance and then merely focusing on the writing, or do you have more fun with threads that advance on a post-by-post basis.

[Godhand]

I can go either way, but I prefer cooperating and planning shit out in advance just because it's a huge pain in the ass to end every post with an attack or writing shit like,

"Joe Fuckface Sportsbar threw a punch, but wasn't able to see if it connected."

[Visla Eraclaire]

Without regards to winning or losing, which style of battle is more appealing to each of you? Do you get more enjoyment out of planning the battle in advance and then merely focusing on the writing, or do you have more fun with threads that advance on a post-by-post basis.

I misinterpreted it a bit. Though I know there are people who believe the sort of thing that I thought you were saying.

I also agree with Godhand. Coordinating helps correct the awkwardness of the "no declaring the results of your own attack" rule.

In contrast though, I don't like planning out quests with other people too far, because I'm never certain how my character might react until I see how things develop.

I guess a little of both...

[Christoph]

I prefer at least some degree of planning. If I win, I want it to be with both my opponent and I at our bests. Particularly, I find that it can make the intros a lot smoother, as well as allowing for more interesting stories. I do like the surprise element, but I find that it’s better placed in the thick of things, once the battle gets going in earnest. That said, typically the more unorthodox the battle is, the more I coordinate with my opponent – such as with my Magus Cup battle.

[Dissinger]

For this character in particular, I find it hard not to coordinate. Especially in the realm of battle. If I don't give my opponent some time to basically get off their stuff, the fights become boring and short. Take my fight against Amaril in the Magus, I could have killed him before he realized what was happening. However, I talked with him and we came up with a plausible way of stretching out the fight, at least enough to reach the minimum ten. Now its a chance to see how much further we can stretch it. I felt like a bully putting Seth into the ring, and frankly, this may be his last tournament. Its just no fun to be the empire state building in the city.

[MetalDrago]

Personally, I like a little bit of mix-and-match... I come up with things on the fly, I don't plan very hard ahead, but when I finally do see where my next post is going, I'll usually talk with my opponent about it beforehand. Specifically when it comes to bunnying hits or misses on an opponent, I see a lot of use in talking to them about it. Other than that, the surprise factor is fun, especially since even I don't know what I'm doing before I write the post, most of the time.

[Amaril Torrun]

Aw, do you really want to remember your last tournament as one in which you got knocked out in the first round? Shame, shame, shame.

On topic, it's hard to imagine some of the better threads I've seen being written without some sort of correspondence. I like the surprises brought on by allowing events to unfold depending on the posts before it, but the individuals should always be talking to each other in some degree in order to help the story run smoothly.

[MetalDrago]

If I get knocked out in the first round again, it's going to be because Zerith is a better writer. Besides... in the Invitational, a good bit of the reason I lost is because my partner's computer fried, and even then we only lost by a few points.

I'm more like Bloodrose in that I don't talk to my opponents unless they contact me about something... I think that will change with this battle, though... Because of our characters' allegiances, we can make one hell of a story out of our battle.

[Amaril Torrun]

Oh, I wasn't talking about you. I was taking a jab at Dissinger, seeing as how he's up against me...

I'm a pretty big deal.

[MetalDrago]

Ah... Heheh. Wow. I wish you both the best of luck, in any case.

[Dissinger]

Aw, do you really want to remember your last tournament as one in which you got knocked out in the first round? Shame, shame, shame.

You gotta take a swing that does something first, punk. ;)

Like I said I'll probably not battle with Seth after this again. Its just too hard to justify it, when the other character isn't at least within a level or two of you. Perhaps when more characters break the level 10 barrier I'll break him out again...

[Damion Shargath]

Battle threads I think are often misunderstood by most people...

Logically, in a battle, you try to win. Your primary aim shouldn't be to dispatch of the other player's character, though, moreover it should be about outwitting him. The entire idea of a battle thread is to outwrite the other person. If you're good enough, you can even draw a pretty nice IC win out of it, apart from an OOC win.

I always try to force my opponents into awkward positions from which they only have a limited array of options to choose from (concerning their character's actions). Not only does it bonus me with the IC win, it makes his/her writing seem debile and uncreative - and there you go...you win.

But ever since some fuck delibaretely disqualified me, or better put bereft me of my chances in winning fair and square I lost my faith in that sort of writing. The other writer waited until the last minute to post is closure in a tournament free for all, me having engaged his character, I had to wait for him to post. Now write up a page in one minute - it's not going to happen. I was deducted a closure and lost a large amount of points that would have allowed me to continue to the next round - so I was told by the admin. Blaming the other writer for unfair and cheap tactics OOC didn't help...so quite frankly, I don't "do" battles anymore.

The "I'm very sorry" PM with a smiley didn't really help me appreciate the person...

The only battle threads I see myself doing in the future are "normal" one's...eventually...sometime again, although apart from that one time I was always successful.

Coordinating battles makes for better writing flow though...definately. As Godhand mentioned: Ending every post with "*shitface* threw a punch but couldn't see if it connected." is pretty ridiculous.

[Christoph]

Yes, I know well that particular story -- definitely a dick move for the history books. As it is, the rules of the Invitational explicitly stated that pulling a stunt like waiting until the last minute to post in order to deny your opponent the chance would be counted severely against you. I didn't see anything about that specifically stated in the Magus Cup rules, but I think (hope) that it would fall under "common sense" these days.

[Damion Shargath]

I hope so, because it just ended up being a huge waste of time for me...I'd like to think that instead of doing that I could have accomplished something other with my time ^^ oh well...happens, so all you can do is tell people to watch out and enforce the protective rules against that harder.

I CALL UPON MARTIAL LAW! :P

[Letho]

Personally, without coordination I find battles extremely dull. No matter how you sugarcoat it, it comes down to a pattern that looks a lot like attack-reaction-counterattack-reaction-counterattack-reaction-needless rant-counterattack-unnaturally long inner monologue-etc. Yes, you can be creative, but without coordination you end up extremely limited. Example, let's say you're playing a dude that knows like judo or something. Without coordination, the best you can do is write how you attempted to throw your opponent and then leave it up to them to (mis)interpret it any way they want. I mean, when you think about it, battles rely heavily on the action, and action sequences wind up chopped up into segments (usually lacking brevity) that lack the flow without coordination.

Another thing is the story. Without coordination you can hardly get any storytelling done. That's why I avoid battles and even when I do them, I tend to coordinate a lot with the people I'm fighting and try to get some kind of a story running through it. You could argue that battles aren't meant for that, but then I could counter-argue that battles aren't really meant to determine who's the better writer either. I mean, when you look at it, the story is the very foundation of everything we do here and the better writer should be the one who tells the better story. And since battles seldom have any kind of story (and no, I don't count "I came to the Citadel to train and test my skill" as a story), they can hardly be a true measure of a writer.

But I'm probably not very objective about all of this as I dislike and avoid battles like the plague.

[Dissinger]

I love working with Letho, especially on battles. Then again He's one of the guys I just love working with period. His battles are a case in point to how the thrill of battle can be done right. THe problem with the "me first" attitude is that battles don't become fun for both players, unless there is some interaction. Take a look at Letho and Me, we both had a blast in that battle, and while it shook up his storyline for a whole three threads, (he just couldn't stomach it, the wuss ;)) my loss to him was only mildly disheartening.

When the two people involved in a battle feel they've put in all they've got, and had a blast doing it, they both come out winners even if they are knocked out of a tournament.

[Visla Eraclaire]

personally, without coordination i find battles extremely dull. No matter how you sugarcoat it, it comes down to a pattern that looks a lot like attack-reaction-counterattack-reaction-counterattack-reaction-needless rant-counterattack-unnaturally long inner monologue-etc. yes, you can be creative, but without coordination you end up extremely limited. Example, let's say you're playing a dude that knows like judo or something. Without coordination, the best you can do is write how you attempted to throw your opponent and then leave it up to them to (mis)interpret it any way they want. I mean, when you think about it, battles rely heavily on the action, and action sequences wind up chopped up into segments (usually lacking brevity) that lack the flow without coordination.

Another thing is the story. Without coordination you can hardly get any storytelling done. That's why i avoid battles and even when i do them, i tend to coordinate a lot with the people i'm fighting and try to get some kind of a story running through it. You could argue that battles aren't meant for that, but then i could counter-argue that battles aren't really meant to determine who's the better writer either. I mean, when you look at it, the story is the very foundation of everything we do here and the better writer should be the one who tells the better story. And since battles seldom have any kind of story (and no, i don't count "i came to the citadel to train and test my skill" as a story), they can hardly be a true measure of a writer.

But i'm probably not very objective about all of this as i dislike and avoid battles like the plague.

qft