|
|
Post by Sithies Manager on Oct 10, 2013 11:43:37 GMT -8
This year the entries will encompass everything from duels to light skirmishes. The Yavin battle as a whole is ineligible, (it's too big) but one on one duels or dogfights from it are acceptable entries.
What are the things that you think makes something stand out for Best Conflict? What criteria do you think the Sithies judges should be looking for in nominations?
|
|
Jace Stealer
Member
Posts: 305 
Affiliation: Unfair Advantage
|
Post by Jace Stealer on Oct 14, 2013 23:54:57 GMT -8
Now I'm not too big on the duels so I won't go into that, but I will try to encompass some of the basics on light skirmishes. One of the big points of light skirmishes is to not judge it based on how effective one team is against the other, but the detail they put into how the combatants are as a group and how they interact with themselves and those that they are fighting against. For an example you could have a large band of farmers facing off against a trained but relatively green (inexperienced) force of soldiers from the Empire. Do they show the lack of experience that the farmers would display? Frequent casualties, bad communication, leaders rising to the occasion, poor planning, insufficient resources, etc. ? Do the soldiers capture the basics of the raw talent that they would contain? Chain-of-command and communication (both small scale and large), tactics, logical and illogical decisions (See * for more detail), skills and talents that someone trained in the profession would exhibit? A good skirmish should display at least a few of these details so that the reader feels more captivated by each side of the battle, wondering as they read it; who will gain the advantage next, and will the other side recover? A clear progression of events with suitable cause-and-effect results should be present. A poor example of a battle would go like this: Commando team A and B meet on the field. They duke it out. Due to the intangible skills that both sides contain, losses are minimal/negligible. Fighting continues as both sides are at a stalemate (due to their sheer awesomeness). One side either retreats or calls in superior reinforcements at a moments notice. (Not to mention that the details of said skirmish would be minimal and fairly basic) * Illogical decision making would be making a mistake or a risky maneuver that borders on suicide due to a unit or particular individual's stress level, training, prior psychological state or anything that would force someone to do something that could probably cause harm to themselves (such as diving in front of a bullet to save a comrade or ram their damaged fighter into their objective for the sake of the mission) <--- (Which is not necessarily illogical in all circumstances, but for the sake of categorizing it that is what I put it under.). That's all I got for now, I'll probably throw down some more details on PC interactions later if nobody else does. And please, this is just stuff off the top of my head to help this along, I am by no means an expert. I'll do my best though. P.S. What are the things that you think makes someone stand out for Best Conflict? What criteria do you think the Sithies judges should be looking for in nominations? How exactly will this be judged? Based on one person's interactions in the entire field? One unit or team on the battlefield? An entire side in a particular conflict? Both sides? Just wanted to clarify, as that is an important factor. |
|
Xeonon Solomon
The First Order
Posts: 2,206
Affiliation: First Order
Traffic Light: Blue
|
Post by Xeonon Solomon on Oct 15, 2013 3:51:08 GMT -8
I assume that this would be based on the posts submitted. One post could be as you described it a commando team, another one on a duel between two people. Ultimately though things that you said in your post will be taken before the tribunal and trimmed. Once the important stuff is seen (how I would do it maybe not how betty will), then we start looking at posts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2013 2:46:01 GMT -8
I would assume the award would go to the participants as a group, but that's just me.
Right. Conflict.
Obviously scale is a factor. The aforementioned mess at Yavin is too large to really be considered as a whole, as Betty said. If it won, half the site would have to fit on the stage all at once.
As a judge in the GBA, I've learned that the difference between a good duel and a bad duel is often communication. Two extraordinarily talented fighters might be able to pull off a spectacular brawl without so much as a PM between the two to clarify something, but such instances are extremely rare. The best fighters will coordinate behind the scenes to make sure they're reading their opponent's moves correctly, and the extra work really shows. The duel will flow well. It will be easy and usually fun to read. Because the authors are working together and having fun, you'll often get a nice back and forth dialogue between the combatants that really spices things up.
The same principal applies to conflicts as a whole. Our ability to see our opponent's moves comes down to their ability to describe it, and it is very easy to misread something if you're not careful. You don't have to plan out each blow of the fight beforehand, but knowing what's going on is important.
Without communication, the fight is going to be a hot mess. Confusing moves, bickering, the works. It's no fun for the fighters, it's no fun for the readers, and generally leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
|
|
