no more secrets

[sparCKL]

While Team Snout doesn't generally enjoy "conference room" style puzzle events, we didn't have a huge problem with the "field office" pit stops sprinkled throughout NMS. Which is not to say that we loved them, but they were more fun than not, at least until the end. Here's how our feelings changed from one pit stop to the next:

First pit stop (Louden Nelson Community Center, Santa Cruz): Interested
"Hey, this is a new twist. Cool idea--slow down the faster teams with more puzzles, which they like anyway. And these puzzles are fun! I wonder how many teams will hit this bonus location? Wow, a lot of teams are showing up here... more than half of them, in fact. Did GC miscalculate? Oops, time to go."

Second pit stop (Senora Emma's, San Jose): Freaking Cold
"How much longer are we going to have to sit out here? It's colder than a witch's tit in a brass bra! Well, at least we got good parking in the red zone, thanks to Cary's traffic cone and Pacific Bell sign on the van. And all these drunk people are more amusing than not. But it's still colder than a Thermos full of liquid nitrogen in Fargo! Mmm... nachos..."

Third pit stop (Escondido Elementary, Stanford): Perfect Timing
We walked up to the gym just as all the other teams came streaming out--bonus time had expired, and they were headed to the next main-sequence clue. We followed the crowd to Elena's classroom and a hot breakfast!

Fourth pit stop (Microsoft): OMG WTF
"Ack! I'm awake! Are we still working on the same bonus clue? How long have I been sleeping on this cafeteria bench? When are they going to let us go? I wonder where the next location will be. Maybe there'll be some physical activity to wake us up. I really hope this isn't the EndGame. That would be awfully anticlimactic..."

So, we were a bit disappointed at the final resolution, but overall, we completely understand GC's desire to closely control the spread between the fastest and slowest teams throughout the weekend. We also appreciate that the pit stops allowed GC to use more clues without adding more locations. We always like to see people trying new things, especially if they're ideas we wouldn't have thought up ourselves.

Thanks again to Coed Astronomy for running a great Game!
_________________
I am not an aardvark.
http://snout.org/stories

[YARRRRR-GC]

I totally agree with the fact that the final Microsoft office was anticlimactic. We wish we could have put something else after it and/or made it shorter by a good deal. Dragon Quest would have been a natural choice to put after the field office, but it probably would have been too crowded.

Senora Emma's was supposed to have heat lamps! But they ran out of propane. Sorry about that.

Our other main reason for doing the field offices (besides the fact that we also don't like being skipped a la Rich) is that we wanted the majority of people to see our less punishing skip clues, while keeping more difficult "wall" clues near the back of the queue. As game players, we don't really like it when we just hit before the cutoff of a particularly long "wall" clue and as a result skip over some clues that may have been less frustrating and possibly more fun.

It also didn't hurt that those 15 clues or so only took one person off staff, too

[irwando]

I liked the idea of the field offices, but found the puzzles there didn't really lend themselves to solving by a team. At least, not the first few. For the first stop I found myself sitting and watching others figure out the clues. I ended up hanging out outside to get some fresh air (sooo hot in there).

Otherwise, nice idea.

[JanChong-GC]

It also always bugged me that you go through all the trouble of writing a skip clue, it goes into the route at a certain location and then only the smattering of teams that happen to be breaking the curve at that point in the Game actually get to see it.

[sparCKL]

Jan: I think this is something that all GCs struggle with. Snout is willing to do a little extra work to make our skipping more invisible, but we feel the same pain of "only three teams saw that really cool location/clue!"

Yar: None of the teams at Senora Emma's had any propane with them? C'mon, I'm sure at least one van was hauling some flammable liquids.
_________________
I am not an aardvark.
http://snout.org/stories

[CrystalChen-GC]

Also, one thing to note was that we *vastly* underestimated the amount of time it would take you guys to solve our clues. We really didn't expect so many teams to spend so much time at our field offices, but you guys blew away all our estimates! Ideally they would have been shorter and less painful. We actually had a bunch of discussion about whether we thought more than a couple teams would even see Senora Emma's...

I still can't believe you guys burned through every single one of our clues! You guys are awesome!

[JustinSantamaria-GC]

[DaleNeal-GC]

To follow up on Crystal's comment, I think my personal pre-game expectation was that 1/3 of teams would see all bonus sites, 1/3 of teams would see ~2 bonus sites, and the remaining 1/3 would see 0 or 1 bonus site. This way the really competitive teams could compete on the basis of the bonus clues, and teams in the middle of the pack would see a couple of bonus clues but wouldn't feel like they were stuck at bonus sites for hours.

Very early on, we realized that this wasn't exactly how it was going to happen. The spread was much tighter than we had predicted, and so while the top teams were at bonus sites for around as long as we predicted, the middle and back of the pack were there for much longer than we thought they would be.

On the flip side, this had the benefit of really minimizing the skipping that had to occur, which was one of the goals of the bonus sites in the first place. coed astronomy absolutely hates getting skipped, and it really kills our optimism and our puzzle solving spirit when we think we've been skipped.

Anyway, it's great to hear candid feedback from you all. We tried various things in our game, and we do really want to know what worked and what fell short.

[Justin-CB]

Being from one of the slower and less competitive teams, I was very happy with the field offices structure. Like all teams, we hate to miss any of the more fun/interesting locations/puzzles. In this Game, we figured that even if we missed out on seeing some cold cases, we would still likely see all of the main puzzles that GC wanted us to see.

[Jeff - Briny Deep]

I personally loved the puzzle pit stops. I even enjoyed the long stay at Microsoft.

I commented to my team that I've never been more relaxed at the end of a game. There was no stress from exhausted people driving/navigating and no concern about missing sites. If we had been in the van I'm sure that most of us would have fallen asleep at some point on Sunday. Instead, we sat in comfy chairs and solved a bunch of puzzles.

[Adam]

First, I want to say that GipperTech Security Solutions had a great time - the game was full of amazing, well-conceived, challenging puzzles. Really good balance between different types of puzzles as well. Congratulations all around.

Second... that was my first Game. I'd been hoping to join my Gipper colleagues for quite a while, finally got the opportunity, and I wasn't disappointed. Thanks to you all.

All that said, and this is only a minor complaint... we didn't love the Field Offices. Particularly not the last one. Sort of for the same reasons that Team Snout articulated above.

Part of it is no doubt due to our situation - for one, we were a very small team so there was no Sitting Out at any point, plus we all came from L.A. and were due to fly back that evening. But over those 30 hours we'd become a lean, focused, traveling puzzle-solving machine (okay, maybe not physically lean...), and the idea that we were going to spend the last three hours of the game sitting in a cafeteria solving paper puzzles... we found ourselves unthrilled about that.

I think we only solved one more puzzle at that site, and instead chatted, changed clothes, and pecked away at the puzzle in front of us like an over-rich dessert after a gigantic meal.

Which, in a way, it was. All the preceding adventures - the overnight puzzlefest on campus, the scramble around the park, and the amazing text adventure - all of those were tremendously active and entertaining. So yeah, it seemed a bit anticlimactic.

Still, as I said, that's a minor complaint, and we all had a great, great time. Looking forward to seeing you all again soon.

-Ad

[acorn]

Before I mention field-offices I want to say that No-More-Secrets was a great game and I thoroughly enjoyed it!!

I was not fond of the cold case clues. The puzzles felt a bit like busy work and I felt like I was back in school doing problem sets (not one of my best memories ). Part of what I like about the game is the feeling that solving the clue will move me forward in the plot of the game. I didn't feel very motivated to solve these cold case clues.

That said, I don't think the pit stops hurt the game all that much. It was nice to have a break, and I definitely understand the problem of trying to keep the teams together. The stops were a good idea to solve that problem.

I had a thought that might be worth a try in a future game: the pit stops are a place where a lot of teams have collected together. They might be a good place to get teams either cooperating with each other or competing against each other (head to head or in groups). Many games have this kind of interaction at the start of the game, and this might allow more of that at other parts of the game.

-Acorn
_________________
http://www.rawbw.com/~acorn

[YARRRRR-GC]

[Peter Sarrett]

Bay Area Games tend to be anti-competitive-- that is, they emphasize fun and de-emphasize competition. While individual teams may derive pleasure from being first at a clue site, GC tends to downplay the race element and focus on helping each team have fun.

Given that, I don't really understand not feeling motivated to solve pit stop puzzles. Puzzles are a huge part of the Game experience. Anyone playing in a Game probably enjoys solving puzzles. Therefore, being provided more puzzles to solve = goodness. What extra motivation do you need? I can solve Games Magazine puzzles at my leisure, but opportunities for group puzzle solving only come during puzzle events. I'm therefore motivated to participate, because I enjoy the group solving experience.

If the event is more competitive, that changes everything and I'd understand someone wanting a payoff to solving a puzzle. But in an event that's essentially recreational, "because it's fun" is all the motivation I need.

[sparCKL]

To Peter's point: