Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Tweaking Airsoft games...

  • 10-10-2011 12:05pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,160 Inari


    Airsoft games...in your typical Sunday Skirmish, you will see a variety of games:
    - Team Deathmatch (eliminate the other team)
    - Capture the Object/s
    - Rolling Assault
    - Attack/Defend
    - Assassinate the VIP/Defend the VIP

    There are more, but that is the main gist of it. Now, there is nothing wrong with those game types...or is there? By making one simple and subtle twist, you change the whole dynamic of the game - ask yourselves this one simple question:
    "Why do both teams know the other team's objectives (i.e. attack, defend etc)?"

    If you were to divide people into their teams in Safe Zone, and then send them out to different starting positions in the site, and then be given your game brief. Marshals would be pre-briefed, or briefed over Comms.

    Think about it...you've to assault the enemy stronghold...but first you have to find it. You have to assassinate the VIP, but first you have to figure out who it is (either specific arm band or something simple). There is a new and additional element in play; reconnaissance. You must first find out the information you need with a little bit of tactics, and then proceed.

    But that is not the only thing that you can do for the games...there is a world of options; build in more scenarios (HUGE advocate of scenario play i.e. clear objectives (plural, very important) to be achieved), stop setting up one team to lose etc.

    PS: This suggestion comes from my brother; he has skirmished twice and found both times to be lacking something very simple...he then realised it's a simple fact of knowing too much. Personally I think you could and should go further, but what do you think?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,261 Puding


    Have done stuff like this in the past, really depends on the players to how well it will work, it can be fun having the teams on there own conflicting objectives , one is on VIP escort and the other maybe on recovering some material in the field, teams do not know what each other is doing

    know this again all depends on the player mindset involved, some groups do not care about objectives and it all turns into death match


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 984 CpcRc


    Don't forget zombie games during night games :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,160 Inari


    Puding wrote: »
    know this again all depends on the player mindset involved, some groups do not care about objectives and it all turns into death match

    Very true. But, if you make the objectives there anyway, then there's still room for deathmatch, and people will do it anyway. It's like the need for rules so that they can be bent or even broken; everything has rules, and there is always an exception (well, nearly always).

    Objectives can, and should be simple for the basic everyday skirmish to keep people interested. Then you can branch out and add more interesting things further down the line. But I would definitely like to see a start made now in changing the standard paintball style skirmish into a more objective based style.

    Even that simple way of two teams not knowing the other's objectives...unbelievably simple, and I don't really know why it's not used. Far more dynamic and organic play, and still plenty of room for people to think as much (or as little) as they want


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,261 Puding


    you can play like that but tbh from experience if half your players have no interested in the objective it can just goes downhill, but every group is different i can only go by my experiance

    games like this can be great introductions to the milsim style of play, another fun one is changing the objective mid way, done this in the past with a vip game, a team has to go an retrieve a pilot and escort him back, when they find the pilot he is already dead it can then go a number of ways

    1) it is a trap and the group are know in an alimo situation and have to defend for a set amount of time

    2) team know needs to recover sensitive material or destroy the down aircraft

    3) team have to find and destroy aa that shoot the plane down

    nothing to complicated as there all based on simple ideas with different fluff, when it comes down to it does not matter if it is skirmish or hard core milsim the underlying objectives are the same , kill, capture, escort, hold, recon

    i've seen stuff like this work really well and i;ve also seen it fall flat on its face, a lot of the time it is just a case of trying it out and see what happens and how people respond

    but the key thing is always to remember KISS and keep it simple, you can add as much fluff as you want but keep the core mechanics simple and do not add to many twists


  • Registered Users Posts: 511 Alan b.


    Can't speak for sites here as I haven't played in ages, but predator up north have ran games like that. Even limiting info to a ankle group of one team.
    Like a spec ops team that then need to be re enforced mid way through a mision etc. Good games. But they have huge numbers of players and large sprawling sites


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭ Zomg Okay


    Interesting post. Personally though, I play skirmishes because its so simple. Skirmishes, to me, are just a quick laugh with friends. If I want meatier game play, like having to establish the VIP first, I go to milsims.

    Might just be me, might not be, but thats my view on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 511 Alan b.


    Zomg Okay wrote: »
    Interesting post. Personally though, I play skirmishes because its so simple. Skirmishes, to me, are just a quick laugh with friends. If I want meatier game play, like having to establish the VIP first, I go to milsims.

    Might just be me, might not be, but thats my view on it.

    I enjoy both, but sometimes its nice to have some middle ground. Deathmatch over and over can get boring, and without wanted a long drawn out don, a few small twists can change it up without slowing the pace too much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,160 Inari


    It remains simple having each team receiving their objective separately.

    Let's take the basic "Assault 'x' place' - one team know that they are defending it, the other team are told "locate and assault the enemy stronghold". The defending team can go further afield, but since their respawn is in their stronghold, and if it's captured it's game over, then it's within their interest to defend with a little more gusto.

    It's no more complicated; just adds a tiny bit more to the game's dynamic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,125 ✭✭✭ Bobby Baccala


    Just wonderin can anyone from hrta tell me why rolling assault isnt played there anymore.

    I remember playin it on the old site and it was unbelievable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 511 Alan b.


    P4DDY2K11 wrote: »
    Just wonderin can anyone from hrta tell me why rolling assault isnt played there anymore.

    I remember playin it on the old site and it was unbelievable.

    Could it be down to the terrain? The old site suited a rolling assault/fall back game with the lane and the ditch the way it was.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,822 ✭✭✭ Evade


    My local site sometimes do a similar thing, both teams have completely different objective which are usually chosen at random. It gets interesting when your not exactly sure what you need to defend while trying to make what you're going after as subtle as possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,125 ✭✭✭ Bobby Baccala


    Alan b. wrote: »
    Could it be down to the terrain? The old site suited a rolling assault/fall back game with the lane and the ditch the way it was.

    The lane was top quality.
    I remember there was a sniper down there and he took me out four times before i actually found him and he was gettin me from some distance aswell.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,447 Mod ✭✭✭✭ thermo


    P4DDY2K11 wrote: »
    Just wonderin can anyone from hrta tell me why rolling assault isnt played there anymore.

    I remember playin it on the old site and it was unbelievable.

    it is the odd time, defend the village, fall back to the river compound, fall back to docks, ect.
    the old games are kinda pushed out in order to play the newer games such as the "barrel game".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,125 ✭✭✭ Bobby Baccala


    I hate the barrel game.
    If one team gets a support gun on overwatch of the barrel thats it.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,447 Mod ✭✭✭✭ thermo


    P4DDY2K11 wrote: »
    I hate the barrel game.
    If one team gets a support gun on overwatch of the barrel thats it.

    as can be said for any objective based game, however if you work as a team and supress and flank its handy, however the snag is you must work as a team to succeed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,160 Inari


    That is exactly why changing the objectives ever so slightly each time is extraordinarily beneficial - it can stop, or at least delay adaptation to the game. Studies have shown that human nature is to take the path of least resistance, that people will only try (i.e. give their all) until they learn the ropes, and from then on they just go through the motions after realising exactly how each game is played.

    I was talking to a site owner today, and one point was mentioned that I had not considered...the practicality of explaining both sides of the game to everyone means you can do a straight reversal; more game-time, less down-time.

    So it seems that a balance between the two styles would be most effective. Some people only want to run and gun, do not listen to any rules, and in short, need very simplistic games. Others crave more variety. A mixture of both will work the best. Use the simpler games as "warm up" or "BB" games, and as people grasp the basics, move on to slightly more complicated concepts as the day progresses.

    I do not think you need to over complicate things...just keep it logical. Why does a defensive team know EXACTLY where an attack will come from? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to have to prepare for every eventuality, and establish a good network for figuring out where the attack is coming from? Why would an attacking team know the finer details of the defensive force? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to find out where exactly their stronghold/respawn is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭ andy_g


    P4DDY2K11 wrote: »
    I hate the barrel game.
    If one team gets a support gun on overwatch of the barrel thats it.

    Then go after the support gunner or sniper as a sniper is just as effective


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭✭ FlankWiz94


    andy_g wrote: »
    P4DDY2K11 wrote: »
    I hate the barrel game.
    If one team gets a support gun on overwatch of the barrel thats it.

    Then go after the support gunner or sniper as a sniper is just as effective

    Snipers FTW


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭ andy_g


    FlankWiz94 wrote: »
    Snipers FTW

    I couldnt agree more, That and support gunners


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭✭ FlankWiz94


    [/QUOTE]
    I couldnt agree more, That and support gunners[/Quote]

    I love sniping because of the challenge. Especially in ireand where you need to get relatively close to targets. One of the best feelings is when someone literally walks past you(almost stepping on you) and not even noticing. Or just shooting a guy and the clueless look on their face basically saying "where the hell did that just come from" :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ PonchoTron


    At my local sight todaywe had a new game, which was basically a small twist on the usual VIP game mode. A very simple twist; each team had a traitor pre selected and no one but the traitor knew who it was. The traitor was then "activated" about 20 minutes into the game. Made the game so much better, adding an air of uncertainty, and turning yourself on your teamates. It was an excellent game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,822 ✭✭✭ Evade


    PonchoTron wrote: »
    At my local sight todaywe had a new game, which was basically a small twist on the usual VIP game mode. A very simple twist; each team had a traitor pre selected and no one but the traitor knew who it was. The traitor was then "activated" about 20 minutes into the game. Made the game so much better, adding an air of uncertainty, and turning yourself on your teamates. It was an excellent game.
    It's an old game we hadn't run in about two years. It is fun though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭ PonchoTron


    First time for me anyway. Was brilliant.


Advertisement