Blindfire in milsim

Stonewolf

I was chatting to a friend about this the other day and thought I'd stick up a thread about it.

So in skirmish for very good reasons there's no blindfire. It's no very fair if someone can spam out a hi-cap or boxmag around a corner with no scope for the enemy to return fire and in a skirmish fairness and balance are very important.

In most milsim though you're going to have limited ammo (all the ones I've played so far have used realcaps) and gunhits. Realcaps mean there's a limit to how much firepower a blindfirer can put out and gunhits mean it's possible (if difficult) to neutralise a blindfirer by hitting the gun.

With 20-40 rounds per magazine and the inherent inaccuracy of spraying around a corner at targets you can't see it's not likely to actually take anyone out but does work as a suppression tactic. In a milsim situation you're also striving for a more varied set of tactical options and this is something soldiers can and will do (along with shooting the opposite wall to create shrapnel).

So what do people think? Is there scope for allowing blindfire in a limited ammo, milsim environment where gunhits count?

Puding

personally blind fire is about safety more than anything else, just pointing an aeg with any capacity of magazine round a corner and firing without looking could possibility cause injury to someone just round the corner

blind firing is not really a tactical option in my eyes there is no reason in any game type for blind fire

FunkBlaster87

I thought people were against blind-firing in case you rammed your gun into someone's face. Or someones face just happened to be in front of your barrel.

Getting a mouth full of bbs would suck.

J.D.R

Also, I don't think marshals like it when they get sprayed by sombody sticking their M4 round the corner without looking.

Bernie Mac

yeah i have to agree with the top two statements from a marshals and players point of view blind fire has always been a safety thing more so than a tactical decision which in my mind is a very poor decision to make. if you have only limited ammo why try and waste that ammo by firing blindly when you could easily try and get some kills with your rounds as aegs or gbb for that matter not accurate.

Interesting point all the same i would say it should be allowed but for safety reasons frowned upon sort of like bang kills

Spetzcong

Interesting question, and an interesting point of view on blind firing, however, it is a safety decision to ban blind firing, so I reckon the rule is just as important in mil-sim as in a regular skirmish, it raises another question for me though, should riccochets count in milsim? In the real world riccochets kill and injure, in a regular skirmish with people spraying hi-caps all over the shop they don't count but with the emphasis in mil-sim on increased realism should hits from rebounding bbs be counted?

Puding

yes in real life ricochets and such can cause casualty's but its the same as taking cover behind a wooden door or a bush in airsoft, a some point practicality has to override, ricochets would be almost impossible to enforce and just confusing to plays, i watched bb easily bounce of a couple of concrete walls in sennybridge thought a window off a wall and into another room

also you just get far far to many ricochets in airsoft bb just bounce of everything

milsim from my experience is not about massive rule sets that replicate every facet of real life engagements the best ones i;ve come across are normally the most stream line and simple, if you have the right mind set of players there is no need for 101 rules, if you need all the rules then your more than likely doing something wrong, always say it but milsim is not defined by an ammo limit or rules set but by the plays and the mindset they bring to the field

TheDoc

Interesting topic, hopefully it can stay civil.

Playing devils advocate, I can entirely see the times you would want to blind fire and could to tactical use in games.

Obviously without doubt its a safety rule, without knowing you could be dropping your barell in some poor lads mush or nuts.

But in certain situations it cannot be faulted for its use. Bit of sporadic firing over the top will do a world of good keeping the enemy thinking twice about moving.

And we have all had those moments where we have had a peek and seen someones position, the easy safe option is sliping that pistol round the corner and letting some shots loose, rather then releasing your complete right/left side exposed to fire.

I guess it shout be pointed out that Stonewolf was part of the hrta ops weekend, and is part of a core of players who are trying to think outside the box, and its well commended. Puding is very correct in one aspect that its about the mindsets and players there.

Now theres no doubt that when paul first started pushing milsim in HRTA, things werent complicated, it was about getting people into the idea, the thought process of a milsim.

But after time its evident we keep seeing the same type of players coming back to the milsim games there, plus some added few. One of the things I was hearing positively from the new players over that weekend is that they embraced and enjoyed the indepth rule sets. I know me personally, I enjoy them more too.

Taking this building and that building, this point and that can be a bit, meh. Throwing some optional stuff in there to give people options is great and as I'm always saying, for me milsim isnt about a person taking players by the hand through a script, its about the organiser putting tools and rules in place, to let the players imaginations and creativity go wild.

Blind fire is a tough one. I can definitly see the advantages of allowing it, but I can fully understand the reasons why its not. And I know I'm always at times like " whatcha mean you cant use a rubber knife you bag of pussies" ( although never said it like that, but it seems how its interpreted) I can genuinely see the dangers of letting blind fire go rag tag.

Wolf its a very interesting concept, but one I think should be probably tested out in a closed game. Much like the rubber knife syndrome, once you allow it I dont think youd see everyone doing it every second, but it is a main stay in the safety rulesets for the game.

Nice to see interesting open minded conversations looking at some of the gameplay mechanics of the game, will watch this with interest

evilrobotshane

Does anybody actually know the reason for the no blind fire rule? Is it that people might get hit from short range by the BBs? That you might hit somebody with your gun? What?

When I play airsoft I'm prepared to get hit by BBs. They're not going to hurt me, they're going at less than a Joule.

I suppose the test required is when will it actually get used. Will it be when there's several positions pinning you? Great, go for your life, I reckon. Will it be almost exclusively when you're at a wall of a building and you think there's someone sneaking up on you along a perpendicular wall? That's likely to cause aggro.

It has potential to be an overpowered tactic, I think, with an abundance of ammo in the magazine, allowing you to spray for a long time. But I'd definitely like to try it out for real-capacity loads. People get use out of it in real life, and they're much better at gun combat than we are.

Inari

Specific to MilSim, I'd say it would be valid and not likely to cause safety issues, largely due to everyone being on the same page, and knowing that someone blind firing is a possibility, so to err on the side of caution.

I think it is only applicable in MilSim due to the ammo limitations, and the mindset of the players

Blazer

evilrobotshane wrote: »

Does anybody actually know the reason for the no blind fire rule? Is it that people might get hit from short range by the BBs? That you might hit somebody with your gun? What?

When I play airsoft I'm prepared to get hit by BBs. They're not going to hurt me, they're going at less than a Joule.

I was shot in the face at about 30 feet with about 5 bb's.
Yes it did hurt...and yes it drew blood as well.

So I can imagine some guy blindfiring and hitting a guy in the face at 5 or 10 feet is really really going to hurt..

Stercus Accidit

Blind fire is an obvious safety concern, people would dump a whole magazine, not seeing the people they would hose down with bb's.

If you empty a mag into someone from 2ft away you should be banned from ever playing the game again, doing that while waving an aeg round a corner is just as bad for the person on the receiving end.

It shows an utter lack of respect for others playing the game to disregard them so much. It should be so obvious why its not on, I have bled from short range face hits, only two of them, in cqb, swap that out for 30-40 hits from some idiot who doesn't even know how many people he has hit round the corner and you have really bad injuries, faces pumping blood and so on.

Its stupid and ignorant, that's why its banned. Its one less way people can be gobshites in airsoft, and that's to be welcomed.

gandalf

Blind firing is wrong because of safety. Getting hit in the face by bb's can be quite painful (and I have normally been shot in the face at around 30-50ft). I can only imagine how painful it is at point blank range.

Also shoving an AEG or GBB around the corner with no idea on whether someone is standing there is not a good idea. I don't think you need to look beyond those reasons tbh, they make sense to me.

Sod'o swords

I don't think the OP was questioning the rule, or demanding it be removed, he's well aware of the Safety aspect of it as are all of us here. His suggestion is for milsim games where people have been playing a while, know the rules, arn't window lickers and in games where they don't even have 30-40 rounds to fire blindly around a corner.

It's an interesting idea, but i think Pudding gave a good point, or so this is what i took from it. Yes in real life there might be situations where sticking your gun around a corner and firing off a shot or two would work well, and probably in airsoft too, but like trying to count Ricochets you have to dry the line sometimes in airsoft when it comes to realism.

Also of course taking into account the obvious safety concerns it's probably best not to allow in games.

Puding

Sod'o swords wrote: »

I don't think the OP was questioning the rule, or demanding it be removed, he's well aware of the Safety aspect of it as are all of us here. His suggestion is for milsim games where people have been playing a while, know the rules, arn't window lickers and in games where they don't even have 30-40 rounds to fire blindly around a corner.

It's an interesting idea, but i think Pudding gave a good point, or so this is what i took from it. Yes in real life there might be situations where sticking your gun around a corner and firing off a shot or two would work well, and probably in airsoft too, but like trying to count Ricochets you have to dry the line sometimes in airsoft when it comes to realism.

Also of course taking into account the obvious safety concerns it's probably best not to allow in games.

ammo capacity and rule type does not really come into it, i can fire 100bb from a mid in one go, a lot of hicaps do not allow that in one go without winding

blind fireing semi or auto of any amount for safety in all rules sets is best left on the bench, there is no safe ammo limit to do this with

hrta

The Blind fire rule, could not be taken out of a game, it's there in case the person you are shooting might have removed there eye wear, thats what the blind fire rule is for.

Paul.

Puding

hrta wrote: »

The Blind fire rule, could not be taken out of a game, it's there in case the person you are shooting might have removed there eye wear, thats what the blind fire rule is for.

Paul.

tbh thats circumstance had not really crossed my mind, but defiantly another good reason for the rule

Inari

That's a very fair point, and one I'd only briefly considered. Blind firing means you're completely blind, and unawares as to what lies ahead. You could be firing at an injured party, someone without eye-wear, or nailing someone close range.

However, don't a lot of people do the same thing with M203's? Firing where you cannot see everything etc? The power is lessened etc, but it can still be firing blind. And on the note of m203s, what would the consensus be with regard to blind firing using those? Lets say your penned down on a hill. Firing at an angle, where you can't technically see...could get you out of a tight spot

hrta

Inari wrote: »

That's a very fair point, and one I'd only briefly considered. Blind firing means you're completely blind, and unawares as to what lies ahead. You could be firing at an injured party, someone without eye-wear, or nailing someone close range.

However, don't a lot of people do the same thing with M203's? Firing where you cannot see everything etc? The power is lessened etc, but it can still be firing blind. And on the note of m203s, what would the consensus be with regard to blind firing using those? Lets say your penned down on a hill. Firing at an angle, where you can't technically see...could get you out of a tight spot

It's a good point, but as the rules state, you should only shoot at what you can see to be a player in game and have eye wear in place.

Sod'o swords

Puding wrote: »

ammo capacity and rule type does not really come into it, i can fire 100bb from a mid in one go, a lot of hicaps do not allow that in one go without winding

blind fireing semi or auto of any amount for safety in all rules sets is best left on the bench, there is no safe ammo limit to do this with

Well I was really replying to Sam's post about getting 30-40 bb's point blank, and as suggested by the OP the games where the rule would be removed would be Milsim games where ammo limits would be 30 rounds, and no one would ever really empty a mag in one go, let alone around a corner.

I still agree with everyone that the Safety issues largely out weight any dimension it would add to the game.

Just it seemed everyone was dismissing it as a silly idea and i could see where the OP was coming from.

Stonewolf

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Just it seemed everyone was dismissing it as a silly idea and i could see where the OP was coming from.

Thanks, I wanted to strike up a little constructive debate. The safety issues are all perfectly valid but it's good to sometimes question why we do things and if that way is right.

sliabh

Inari wrote: »

However, don't a lot of people do the same thing with M203's? Firing where you cannot see everything etc? The power is lessened etc, but it can still be firing blind.

From what I have seen of them, the range is so poor that to totally blind fire it would have to be something like shooting them in the air to rain down on the far side of a wall. Then the bbs would pretty much just be falling under gravity.

Genghiz Cohen

The rule, last time I was at HRTA was you must be looking down the sights of your gun.

But pieing a corner like that leaves your entire arm and half your head exposed.
Is it unreasonable to hold the gun lower than your shoulder and slightly away from you to get the muzzle and your eye around a corner to fire?

Gray

OP has a valid question in a milsim real cap scenario as blind fire is used as a suppression tactic in real life. However as we are only playing a game H&S considerations must come first no mater how realistic we would like to make it.

The thing is during a normal safety brief we are told blind fire is not allowed without elaborating on the reasons (could last longer than the game if we went into every detail). This can lead to people quite reasonably asking why do we do do this? & it is nice to see a reasoned debate on a subject.

Personally in a real-cap scenario I would not mind giving it a try as long as every one is happy with the risks mentioned above. Certainly more enjoyable than facing a 3000 rnd box mag on an AK47 (flank em while they can't see what your doing).

On a related subject of realism in game play why are you dead when shot in the foot? (carry on firing but can't move).There are plenty of extra rules we could put in place to add realism but would it make the game better or just more complicated?.

Just a few inebriated thoughts I may edit later

Zen 2nd

Gray wrote: »

On a related subject of realism in game play why are you dead when shot in the foot? (carry on firing but can't move).There are plenty of extra rules we could put in place to add realism but would it make the game better or just more complicated?.

It would make the game a lot more complicated. A shot to the leg for one person could just be a wound, a shot to the leg for another person could have hit an important vein and you bleed to death.

Also generally if you are shot anywhere in real life you are taken out of battle and seen by a medic.

Puding

it is hard enough at times to tell if you hit at times let alone its location, at the last few event it was more down to sound of impact, bb landing nearby or others being hit

but you can introduce this aspect in another way as ta events have done, they use a randon medic card you pick up at eash respawn to let you know where your hit and how this effects your bleed out time, movement and treatment type

have a read
http://www.ta-events.co.uk/battlesim/ -- bottom of the page

http://www.ta-events.co.uk/rules/#casualtiesmedics

StevieGriff

Shooting 101:
Know your targets foreground and background..

Plus blind fire would just promote camping, why move when you can throw your 30rps M4 with a 5000 round testicle mag over a wall and just hose every now and then.

Lemming

StevieGriff wrote: »

Shooting 101:
Know your targets foreground and background..

QFT.

If someone is around that corner, with eye protection removed for whatever reason (emergency or carelessness ... it doesn't matter), and you open up on them and maim them, how would you feel? Could you tell yourself "I was entitled to blind fire. It's a legitimate tactic and it's his fault for not having eye protection on despite the fact this is only a game and I couldn't see him and fired indiscriminately anyway" ?

What about if the target is facing theother way and you unload several shots point blank into the back of their head. How'd you feel about that? I've had someone carelessly fire at the back of my head point blank (i.e. from less than five foot) whilst I was clearly visible AND on their team at Ground-Zero's weekender event in 2007. It hurts like bollocks.

hrta

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The rule, last time I was at HRTA was you must be looking down the sights of your gun.

But pieing a corner like that leaves your entire arm and half your head exposed.
Is it unreasonable to hold the gun lower than your shoulder and slightly away from you to get the muzzle and your eye around a corner to fire?

It has been the best way so far to get the point across to new players, as they seen to think if you can see miles down a field, it's not blind firing,
As for slicing the pie, thats a tactic that lets you get more sight around a corner, and you should have your gun at the ready, as your gun should be were your head is at, As reaction time is very important, so you Keep your gun in front of you at all times, And you never look away from your gun,
it's much easier to depress the trigger than to look, and have to swing your gun to your target, and then depress the trigger.

Stonewolf

StevieGriff wrote: »

Plus blind fire would just promote camping, why move when you can throw your 30rps M4 with a 5000 round testicle mag over a wall and just hose every now and then.

We were specifically talking about scenarios where such firepower is unavailable.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

We were specifically talking about scenarios where such firepower is unavailable.

Trust me ... you arent.

Once you make it ok in one kind of game people start to think they can do it in any game. It doesnt matter if you say "oh just experienced players" - they can be some of the worst offenders.

Introducing any leniency in the rules, any grey areas always results in a slackening of control throughout the system. I've seen this myself - I've even been guilty of causing it.

Blindfire has been against the rules since the start for the safety reasons given before, just like rubber knives and bayonets.

It is also begging to be exploited because the shooter cant observe if he has hit anyone and therefore those hits are more likely to be ignored by certain problem players (you know who you are MilSim player or not!).

Stonewolf

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Trust me ... you arent.

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

Puding

Stonewolf wrote: »

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

im sorry but any site owner or event organizer have to plan for the lowest common denominator, the fact someone only has 30 rounds in a mag ( tbh real cap limit games are in the minority more than likely your dealing with around 100 ) does not really mater the same danger and risks still apply, you can never dismiss it as out of the scope that is where accidents start to happen

safety rules should not be changed to suit games rules, down a path you do not want to go

Inari

With enough legislation and explanation it can work to good effect. It's similar to the rubber knife debate. It can be done. It's whether it's worth doing (Time X Effort = End Result - so is it worth the time and the effort?) that matters.

I think it 'could' add a lot to certain game types. Ammo limits would need to be in place to prevent overkill (and this helps reduce the danger of an incident). That said I think it would cause problems IF it was not handled properly (i.e. full rule explained, specific scenarios, and why it's not allowed in your every day skirmish - that if you do it in an everyday skirmish you will be ejected etc).

Long story short, it would take a good solid event planned months and months in advanced, with an invite only system for players, to trial it out to see if it could be done to good effect.

Stonewolf

Puding wrote: »

im sorry but any site owner or event organizer have to plan for the lowest common denominator, the fact someone only has 30 rounds in a mag ( tbh real cap limit games are in the minority more than likely your dealing with around 100 ) does not really mater the same danger and risks still apply, you can never dismiss it as out of the scope that is where accidents start to happen

safety rules should not be changed to suit games rules, down a path you do not want to go

This was specifically about realcap games though, it doesn't matter how rare they are, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

I put it out for debate whether there was scope to allow blindfire in games with a specific set of rules (realcaps and gunhits) that apply to everyone playing. Some people have pointed out that there are safety problems, fair enough. Then someone comes on who clearly hasn't read the original post and says it would just promote box-mag campers even though that scenario was specifically ruled out so I post to clarify that. Then you two come along and wade in with omg, your scenario doesn't matter, everyone would be doing it all the time.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

This was specifically about realcap games though, it doesn't matter how rare they are, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

I put it out for debate whether there was scope to allow blindfire in games with a specific set of rules (realcaps and gunhits) that apply to everyone playing. Some people have pointed out that there are safety problems, fair enough. Then someone comes on who clearly hasn't read the original post and says it would just promote box-mag campers even though that scenario was specifically ruled out so I post to clarify that. Then you two come along and wade in with omg, your scenario doesn't matter, everyone would be doing it all the time.

Calm down a little. I was offering the benefit of my experience as a marshal, a writer and runner of games and 4 years or so on the airsoft scene.

It doesnt matter a tinkers figgin what restriction you place on the situation if those restrictions are unrelated to the problem itself. They simply wont fix anything.

1000 rounds, 100 rounds or 10 rounds it's still not a safe thing to do and it is still opening the door for Larry McDip**** to kick off in another game because he's played one MilSim and thinks thats the rule across the board. It happens all the time, ask any regular marshal - you have to mitigate stupidity because you can not account for it ahead of time.

Saying that ammunition limits alter this doesnt work either since it takes only a single strike to a (admitedly stupid) person without their eye protection on to cause all kinds of hassle. We dont play a 100% safe-wrapped-in-fluffy-things game. Theres been teeth chipped, cuts, bruises and a number of dislocations from people slipping or falling. Why would anyone want to add to the already substantial chaos of either a MilSim or a skirmish?

More over, it encourages stagnant play. Its far easier to sit behind a wall and fire blindly without moving hoping to hit something rather than pepper-pot across a battlefield.

MilSim works because we place greater restriction not because we provide more freedom - its counter intuitive I know but it provides the structure within which games can run according to a set of pre-defined rules. We use fewer rounds. We use longer re-spawn times. We handicap teams and hamstring players to create a greater depth of play. Adding elements such as "blindfire" allowances wont add anything to the game - quite the opposite, it will detract from it.

Hivemind187

Stonewolf wrote: »

This thread was specifically about games in which players were restricted to realcaps. Discussing other situations or idiots being confused about the rules was outside its scope. If you have to assume that all rules must be written in a way that accounts for morons thinking that because it's okay to do X when Y they can do X when Z we may as well all just stay in bed.

<hands you a hot-water bottle and a mug of Horlick>

Enjoy. Because thats the reality of things.

Inari

@Hivemind: I would have to completely disagree. You're right, we don't live in a bubblewrap world, and airsoft itself is not the safest of all games (when done right, it's perfectly safe - but things can happen). The idea that you must avoid anything that can maybe perhaps have some possible potential risk, in a hypothetical situation is exactly the mindset that people who want Airsoft banned have adopted, and I for one do not think it pertinent for Airsofters to have as well.

This debate was on an already hypothetical situation, yet more and more is being added to it, and the topic is being shut down, rather than talked down. Can we please keep the posts informative and continue the debate, rather than going in cirlces?

So in the spirit of becoming the change you wish to see:

Eye protection must always be worn in Airsoft. Unless you are in the safe zone you cannot remove them. This is for your own protection. However in a post made by OzCam, it would appear that 1j is not enough to cause permanent damage to the eye. With this in mind it would appear that in a specific (and well thought out) scenario, in an invite only game, that the rule could be well tested in a safe environment. The outcome of said 'test' game, could then determine whether it is worth the time and effort.

Lemming

Was anyone paying attention to HRTA's post on this matter and why blindfire isn't allowed? I really should have thought that would have buried this discussion. But sure, feel free to go ahead and gamble with people's safety. It's not like we can't replace the human eye or anything ...

Airsoft & common sense; never the two shall meet so it seems.

For those who want the quest for realism above common sense, I present the following additional rules. Lets see just how committed to this premise you are;

1. No eyewear. After all, you want realism.
2. One hit, pack your bags and go home. You're dead.

Inari

@Lemming: Don't most SWAT teams, and similar response teams wear eye protection?

There is no harm in discussing these things, not as far as I can see at least. HRTA's post spoke a lot of truth, but it was not infallible. This topic is a small healthy debate about its use as a tactic.

TheDoc

Lemming wrote: »

Was anyone paying attention to HRTA's post on this matter and why blindfire isn't allowed? I really should have thought that would have buried this discussion. But sure, feel free to go ahead and gamble with people's safety. It's not like we can't replace the human eye or anything ...

Airsoft & common sense; never the two shall meet so it seems.

For those who want the quest for realism above common sense, I present the following additional rules. Lets see just how committed to this premise you are;

1. No eyewear. After all, you want realism.
2. One hit, pack your bags and go home. You're dead.

Can you lighten up for like 10 minutes and let a discussion actually take place :P

I did read pauls intervention into the thread and what I got from it was in the event of someone round a corner not wearing eye protection and you don't know.

Whose really the idiot in that situation?

Its a purely hypothetical discussion that wont be seen on field any time in the future, but theres no harm in questioning and discussing gameplay mechanics.

Lemming

TheDoc wrote: »

Can you lighten up for like 10 minutes and let a discussion actually take place :P

YORE MA

Whose really the idiot in that situation?

Who is the idiot? That would depend greatly. After all, who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?

Why has someone got their eye protection removed? And who is the more careless? The guy who is careless by removing their eye protection, or the person who pulls the trigger without looking? What if the other guy had an emergency or their eye protection had a fault? You are responsible for your actions; removing your eye protection will harm nobody but yourself. Pulling the trigger may harm somebody else because you weren't paying attention and fired indiscriminately.

Could you seriously look somebody in the eye and claim you were in the right by blindfiring and then maiming them? We aren't talking about a couple of welts or a bit of bleeding; we're talking about loss of sight that cannot be regained. Ever. We play a game; do you want to tell someone they lost their eyesight for a game?


edit: as an aside point to Inari with regards realism; most (if not all I should imagine) schools of paramilitary police and military training run by the rule of "do not pull the trigger unless you intend to kill what you are aiming at". it's a safety rule; if you cannot see what you are shooting at, it's both a) a waste of ammunition and b) a liability to do so.

TheDoc

A yeah I know what you mean, but taking your eye wear off in game your asking to get yourself hurt like.

And if by some change blindfire was allowed and that situation arose, only the person removing their eyewear is to blame surely

If I'm shooting some lad behind a bush from 100ft and he has taken his eyewear of, its a similar situation. I know he is there, I've marked the target and fired, but its not my fault he took his eyewear of in game, thats being a silly goose

And your absolutely correct on the last paragraph, if I'm not mistaken semi auto fire is severely encouraged and blind fire would only really happen if the **** hit the turbine.

Can still definitly see the benefits of blind firing if it was allowed.

Heres a question.

On a number of sites now, palletes are dissapearing but there is an increase in solid wooden structures or logged structures. Many of these have gaps where you can see through very clearly, and holes in wooden structures for you to look out. Red Barn for example has a number of peep holes in their new fort to look out.

Now I'm assuming should a BB come through these or logged defenses ( the logged ones leak BB's with force) that you call your hit, thats what I've been assuming anyway.

But these structures tend to be just above waist height, ir not a little higher. Entirely possible to be looking through a peep hole and fire a pistol over the top on a target. ( I'm taking about a number of different cover options accross a number of different sites)

The field of vision is very clear and it would be entirely safe and possible to over the top pistol fire on targets.

Could this be counted as blind fire? I remember when the palletes made the brief appearance in the warehouse, a marshall was cool with me pistolling over the top, since a pallet by nature, I can easily see people moving form behind it, and its only waist height.

Wondering whats the feeling on that. If I am in a situation behind a structure that gives me a cleared field of vision, and i see numerous targets approaching, the safer option for me is to pistol over the top on the targets, rather then exposing my upper torso and head to the enemy.

As an opposing player, I'd be very comfortable with someone pistoling over the top, I might have a problem if someone just slaps a 249 barell on a structure and holds the trigger, its stupid and a ridic rate of fire, but with a pistol it seems a fair deal.

The player behind cover gets the suprise shot off, hes in cover, and the worse he gets is hit in the hand or a gun hit.

As the approaching player, I get the benefit of him only using a pistol, I've enough time to react, move to my own cover or return fire. In the encounter if theres 5 attackers, I'd imagine 1-2 will go down hit when it kicks off but atleast 3 can move and adjust, rather then someone with an aeg taking out 5, and I guarantee you they will just rest the barell on the structure and hold the trigger.


Theres definitly some interesting options and viable scenarios that it could be useful, and where it could be safe.

Another option is one I stated above, how many times have you peaked a corner and seen an enemy close by. You pop out exposing your right side of your body, take the target but then have to dice with probably getting qucikly shot back yourself.

However if you used a sneaky pistol around the corner, targets down and his pals probably get a bit confused as to where it came from.

However all this depends on the reliability and common sense and tact of players. Again this leans to probably only being implemented in milsim game types and even at that probably specialist closed of games.

Interesting all the same though. Its not a case of changing the game and all of a sudden everyone is blindfiring all over the place.

Its just allowing another tool being available to the player to try adapt, adjust and conquer certain situations.

Lemming

TheDoc wrote: »

A yeah I know what you mean, but taking your eye wear off in game your asking to get yourself hurt like.

And if by some change blindfire was allowed and that situation arose, only the person removing their eyewear is to blame surely

Nope. You are the one who was negligent in not being aware of your target's foreground and background, i.e. situationally aware of what you were aiming at. You are the one inflicting harm on someone else. Yes there is an element of cuplability for the injured party, but they have to live with a life-changing injury, whilst you get to skip off guilt free? No, I really don't think so.

Further, consider the following - as has happened on quite a few skirmish sites both in Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere (and in fact I've seen it happen); the non-airsofter who wanders into the middle of a skirmish without realising it. Are they responsible for being hit in the eye? or the shooter? If you can answer that, you answer your own question as to who is really responsible for an eye injury.

Can still definitly see the benefits of blind firing if it was allowed.

I can't help but feel that the discussion of blind firing is simply to do with "winning at all costs", i.e. competitive airsoft rather than the game of airsoft. I should point out that "winning at all costs" comes with a price and responsibilities/implications.

But these structures tend to be just above waist height, ir not a little higher. Entirely possible to be looking through a peep hole and fire a pistol over the top on a target. ( I'm taking about a number of different cover options accross a number of different sites)

The field of vision is very clear and it would be entirely safe and possible to over the top pistol fire on targets.

Could this be counted as blind fire? I remember when the palletes made the brief appearance in the warehouse, a marshall was cool with me pistolling over the top, since a pallet by nature, I can easily see people moving form behind it, and its only waist height.

Wondering whats the feeling on that. If I am in a situation behind a structure that gives me a cleared field of vision, and i see numerous targets approaching, the safer option for me is to pistol over the top on the targets, rather then exposing my upper torso and head to the enemy.

The definition of blind firing is not being able to sight down the length of your gun. If you can't do that, you're blind firing. It's that simple.

What yuo've described is pointing and making an educated guess, walking BBs into your target by trying to adjust a 'spray' of sorts. That's still blind firing. Wildly inaccurate by default.

As an opposing player, I'd be very comfortable with someone pistoling over the top, I might have a problem if someone just slaps a 249 barell on a structure and holds the trigger, its stupid and a ridic rate of fire, but with a pistol it seems a fair deal.

You either allow blind firing, or you don't. Which is it? Blind firing from a sustained MG w/box mag is just as kosher as a pistol, or it isn't.

Inari

I remember reading a post of OzCams that stated that <1j isn't enought to cause permanent damage to the eye? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being mentioned in the Sniper FPS thread.

Witcher

Inari wrote: »

I remember reading a post of OzCams that stated that <1j isn't enought to cause permanent damage to the eye? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being mentioned in the Sniper FPS thread.

Does anyone want to be the test subject to prove that though?

Inari

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

Witcher

Inari wrote: »

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

Yeah but they're dead, if someone said to you "I'll shoot you in the eyeball" would you take the chance on it?

Hivemind187

Inari wrote: »

It can be tested through cadaver eye balls etc

*sigh*

Do you happen to have a cadaver handy? I'll settle for a pig carcass?

The fact is that the tests were carried out by the police forensics division of Northern Ireland (near as I recall) so there is no necessity to test this. How do I know?

Ask around before teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

Whinging on about that .35 of a joule being reason enough to essentially dismiss the safety element of the blindfire rule is disingenuous at best and downright idiotic at worst.

Firstly the difference between 1 and 1.35j is marginal - its possible to have a shift in that value from elevation above sea level alone. Secondly the .35j is a useful buffer only, it doesnt account for people with pre-existing weaknesses in the Choroid layer of the eye (thats the fibrous white bit).

For the record, the human eye is an amazingly tough bit of kit for something that is complicated and requires a lot of delicate apparatus to work properly. However, this toughness is relative and not something that I recommend you test by removing your eyewear in a game.

All the arguments being made in support of blindfire are ultimately seeking to do one thing - bend a rule for the sake of bending a rule. It's no better than people who want a 10% leniency in chrono readings or any of a dozen other selfish and destructive demands made by players.

Its interesting that very few of those supporting this idea are assuming that they will be hit y a random and aimless spray of rounds.

Consider the number of times your have been told to put your eye protection back on? I know for a fact (because I kept notes) that every one of those supporting this that I have marshaled on the field has been warned at least once for removing their protection. Usually this results in nothing more than being told off or sent back to the safe zone. However, introducing an uncontrolled - and catagorically uncontrollable element such as blind fire can make this already bone behavior even more dangerous.

... and for what benefit? So you can sit behind a wall and blatt away without burning calories? The suppression value of blindfire is almost nil since you can not see what you are suppressing. Should the enemy notice this they can simply ignore you and flank your position. Just because you have seen it in a video game doesnt make it a useful tactic.

Stercus Accidit

For the record less than 1 joule won't cause a penetrating wound was the basis of the limit brought in by the UK testing, it can definitely damage an eye, I think a detached retina is what is most likely from what I know about impact injuries to eyes, and that is no minor issue.

I say no to blind fire, it is pointless and dangerous, and shows utter disregard for a fellow player. I have had bleeding injuries on my face from semi-fire in cqb, I never want to get 10-15 or more of those, I don't want half my teeth shot out, and even if I call hit, the blind firer won't stop shooting, there may be another guy with me, its all guess work.

Are people not satisfied with the sport as is, it will never be 100% real. Milsims work wonderfully as is, and we can be proud of the rules we use with regard safety, and I can truthfully say I play a safe sport, and have no hesitation in telling friends that for when they have tried it. A bunch of reckless yahoos waving aegs like gangstas and roaring and cursing at each other I'm fuckin' hit stop shootin' and I didn't fuckin know you were on your own isn't an ideal scenario. Next people will want to be able to melee people with their stock cuz ye can in da games.

Lemming

I just want to elaborate on somethign I mentioned earlier; namely Joe soap wandering accidentally into the middle of a skirmish.

Now, I'm sure lots of you are thinking to yourselves "sure how could that happen?" or "f*cking idiot, can they not see what's going on?" etc. Consider the following ...

Berget - Sweden - where at least forty people who read this forum have played at least once, is played on public land. On several occasions members of the public have encountered airsofters and/or engagements have been halted due to members of the public stopping to watch. In fact, the Berget-events rules make explicit reference to being aware of the potential for encountering members of the public.

Do you really want blind firing given the above? Do you really think blind-firing is a good idea, given the above? "He shouldnt' have removed his eye-protection" wont cut it when you're facing the wrong side of a police interrogation room on an a serious assault charge.

Food for thought.