I dont know why someone hasnt come up with this before. (unless they have and I am living under a rock)
An ongoing progressive Airsoft Campaign.
Scenario, The Mexican Drug Cartels have gained complete control of the country of Mexico, and have infiltrated local governments on the US side close to the border.
The US Goverment cannot stand by and let this continue.
Special highly trained units are formed from DELTA, SEAL & RANGER teams.
Under the callsign "SHARK"
These Shark units are sent in to eradicate the cartel first off the US side of the border, then run them out of Mexico and seal the borders.
The Cartel isnt going to give up its power easily however, Using its multi billion dollar revenue it creates a powerful, highly trained and heavily equipped Militia force.
Now for the interesting part,
This isnt an OP, this is an ongoing campaign using weekend games.
One weekend of every month (Either Sat, or Sun) is used depending on which field is easier to mold to the scenario, Is designated to hold this campaign.
The missions will award to the victor points which will also alter the missions as they progress.
Factions will be SET and POSTED. And team tapes or Camo uniforms MUST be worn during the Campaign.
Dont like how your faction is doing, GET your ass to the field and HELP.
If there is a large following and competition is high, we can always have 2 Campaign scenarios per month or so on.
Hopefully this stimulates the community so we can have more members at regular weekend games, which = more revenue for PL and LP which = better stuff!
And who doesnt love competition!
Friendly criticism welcomed.
And if anyone has a better Campaign idea to use with this possible project then we can work it out, I would just love to see something like this get started.
Post wins and losses, promote friendly competitiveness, and more interesting gameplay.
__________________ DARK LIQUID, do the stanky leg.
Sponsored by Gucci Mane, Burrr.
It's a neat idea, however - it's a lot of work. A lot of work to keep track of everything - including scoring, communications, posting info, rules/regulations, etc. The staff & players are different every week which would make a 'progression' difficult in terms of planning/communications etc. (in my opinion).
Perhaps this idea might be better suited for the BIG games? Say for instance - the scenarios (& results) from a spring game would continue into a fall big game?
Yeah, I've thought about doing this stuff a long while ago (my idea was two fictional countries, but it's the basic same idea), but I ultimately passed on it because of the following 3 problems:
1) Un-secure Team Size (Lou's question above). It can be off sided and since this is a "graded/set thing", no one can change teams. So you could be looking at being greatly outnumbered for the day. Which will make both teams bored.
2) If you are getting your butt handed to you (assuming you have equal numbers), you're still forced to play (and lose) for the same team for the entire time this campaign runs. It ends up being boring, not fun, and people won't want to play anymore.
3) If you're constantly losing, tempers can and will flare.
These problems were important enough that I never even got as far as presenting the idea.
Maybe we could do something like this once a month and see how it works. That would give the infrequent players something to look forward to, and give them a chance to be included.
But again, what happens when you get something completely one-sided in terms of numbers? The idea suggests "uniforms" so it's going to be real difficult to simply balance the teams.
And then, no guarantee the "defectors" are going to give it their all since they'll be helping their enemy win.
Perhaps each team is formed each game, using tape to identify, instead of having a static team roster. That way, no one would get too attached to their team and would help the enemy out, and there wouldn't be unbalanced teams. The only problem would be reverting back to tape for identification, but I never had a problem with it.
__________________
RRRAAAAAAAAGGEEEE Dave Kills us All
浪人 - - - - Team Ronin
Dan this is a good idea, but randy is right there are problems to work out and, i hope you can cause im defenintley going to this.
__________________
S. Savitsky B&B Airsoft Battalion's
Covert Airsoft Reconnaissance Team
Go Green! Green team 2nd platoon OP:ST, Green team 3rd platoon OP:PG, Big game memorial day Green team 2nd platoon, and burning rain 2 red team!
Perhaps each team is formed each game, using tape to identify, instead of having a static team roster. That way, no one would get too attached to their team and would help the enemy out, and there wouldn't be unbalanced teams. The only problem would be reverting back to tape for identification, but I never had a problem with it.
Then it's defeating the purpose. That is a standard game with IFF tags.
And it presents a new problem of who wants to join the losing side for the day?
There's a reason I passed on this idea a while ago, guys. With the unstructured, "come and go as you please", attendance we have, it doesn't work. I'm sorry.
This is just a suggestion, but maybe you could have a sort of roster type thing. The overall roster of the entire campaign is made, so you have equal teams just like any other OP or Big Game. Then, at each weekend part of the campaign, you make a smaller roster and have a limit of say, 15 people on each side or that game. Whoever calls role first gets in that weekend. Those people who are on the roster give their name and such to get in, and they get to play that part of the campaign that weekend. Then the teams are always even, and if some people didn't get to play one weekend they can try and get onto the mini roster the next game. This is just something I thought of off the top of my head if it sparks any knew ideas it could easily be improved/changed.
__________________
"When eliminated, at your discretion, you may feign real death for added realism. To do this, simply lie down and stop moving." 21st Airsoft Marine Division
I really like this idea, but what do we do if 30 cartel people show up and there's only 6 US?
It looks like this has been disputed the most so I thought up a way that it might be fixed. First, change the number of respawns allowed for each team to balance out that difference. So, in this case give the US 5 respawns per every 1 the Cartel get. So, the ratio of people = 5/1 Cartel; but the respawn = 5/1 US.
However, even though that evens out for the people factor the question that then rises is: "What if the US respawn gets surrounded?" To balance that out give the US a tactical advantage as well. For example, put the US at the top of a hill (Like "The Guns" at PL, I've never been to LP so I'm not sure what you would do there) or put the US in the castle at PL. In any case, just give them an easily defendable spot.
So, the respawn and the tactical advantage should even out the playing field.
__________________
"How does it feel, To be on your own
With no direction home, a complete unknown, Like a rolling stone?"
I guess Randy is right, its probably going to be unrealistic as far as getting even numbers for each week and without even numbers its not going to work.
Why not have a small, 3rd neutral team (The Locals) that can be recruited by whichever team is outmanned that day? This could change week to week depending on which side needs them. This team could also be made up of the same group of players each week, but limit it to a maximum of 10 people, so that it doesn't make the teams lopsided again. They would also have their own uniform restrictions.
__________________ Use your head for something other than sideways hat wearing.~Lou
It looks like this has been disputed the most so I thought up a way that it might be fixed. First, change the number of respawns allowed for each team to balance out that difference. So, in this case give the US 5 respawns per every 1 the Cartel get. So, the ratio of people = 5/1 Cartel; but the respawn = 5/1 US.
However, even though that evens out for the people factor the question that then rises is: "What if the US respawn gets surrounded?" To balance that out give the US a tactical advantage as well. For example, put the US at the top of a hill (Like "The Guns" at PL, I've never been to LP so I'm not sure what you would do there) or put the US in the castle at PL. In any case, just give them an easily defendable spot.
So, the respawn and the tactical advantage should even out the playing field.
The problem is people still get tired. You run up that castle hill enough, and you won't care if you've got 50 more respawns left. You're not going to do it again.
It's a good idea, if we didn't have to factor in fatigue, but unfortunately, we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MfHmiller
Why not give the losing side perk's, I don't have any examples but you could come up with some.
This isn't a video game. The only perk you can give is limited/unlimited ammo. And even then, there's a limit to the unlimited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzkiller99
Why not have a small, 3rd neutral team (The Locals) that can be recruited by whichever team is outmanned that day? This could change week to week depending on which side needs them. This team could also be made up of the same group of players each week, but limit it to a maximum of 10 people, so that it doesn't make the teams lopsided again. They would also have their own uniform restrictions.
An idea, but doesn't really solve the problem. If you're down about 10 people, it fixes it, but what if you're down 20? 30?
And then what do you do with the neutral team for the days you have perfect attendance?
An idea, but doesn't really solve the problem. If you're down about 10 people, it fixes it, but what if you're down 20? 30?
And then what do you do with the neutral team for the days you have perfect attendance?
You could have the larger sized team or neutral team have different style objectives in order to make the teams more fair. For example Maverick had a scenario where one team had a squad who's job was something not envolving engaging targets.
Quote:
Terrorists will be split up into different Cells (squads). Some squads will be in charge of setting up/defending cashes, and some will be distracting the US forces. Collaborators will be unarmed, with a radio and Intel.
We could have the difference (those 20 or 30 extra people) be instructed to provide intel or in this case maybe deliver the drugs across the US border. Those people could not attacked the enemy, but to make it fair for the people delivering drugs/providing intel, make it so that the enemy could only kill them by knifing or something.
So people are going to be forced to sit around ALL day and do nothing?? I don't see that going over well. And even if you rotate out, it's hardly fair. People are paying for a day of airsoft. Not part of a day. Once in a while a "no-shoot" mission can add variety, but it would be a regular thing.
Let's drop this. It's not going to work.
I know you guys would like to do something like this, but I've been looking at this for YEARS and a viable solution has never presented itself. In the end, it fails because someone ends up getting gyped unless we can guarantee perfect numbers and attendance and have perfect balance of talent/luck. And we just can't do it.
We could have the difference (those 20 or 30 extra people) be instructed to provide intel or in this case maybe deliver the drugs across the US border. Those people could not attacked the enemy, but to make it fair for the people delivering drugs/providing intel, make it so that the enemy could only kill them by knifing or something.
Nobody wants to pay to play at the field just to run around and have no trigger time. I wouldn't mind doing it but not the whole day.
An idea, but doesn't really solve the problem. If you're down about 10 people, it fixes it, but what if you're down 20? 30? ?
Well, the size could be whatever you think a nice size platoon should be. Maybe 15-20? What you could do (on game day) is after establishing which side they will be fighting for, have this 3rd team insert anywhere on the field first. Then have the main teams insert according to the game's scenario. I would think that even just a platoon of 20 secretly inserted (possibly fortified) would still be helpful, even if the main teams were still somewhat lopsided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjaniz
And then what do you do with the neutral team for the days you have perfect attendance?
What you could do, should there be perfect attendance, is still have the neutral team, but give them their own objective too. Kinda like a versus all scenario. I think it would be fun to try to accomplish a goal with a limited number of people, but that could be just me talking. If there isn't perfect attendance than two things could happen. Should there be a large indifference, then the above case would apply. If there's a difference of merely a few, then the 3rd team would have to be divided up among the two main teams and the game would be played like a normal team vs. team game.
I just wouldn't want this to sound to OP(ish), where alot of planned needed to go into it.
__________________ Use your head for something other than sideways hat wearing.~Lou
The problem is people still get tired. You run up that castle hill enough, and you won't care if you've got 50 more respawns left. You're not going to do it again.
It's a good idea, if we didn't have to factor in fatigue, but unfortunately, we do.
Seeing as this is only supposed to be one game a week or month I doubt either team is going to end up with fifty respawns. That would take up a good portion of the day.
Here's an example, if you put 6 guys at the top of the guns hill and give them 5 respawns and give the other team 1 (and tell them to take out the six at the top starting from the bottom), no body is going to get tired.
__________________
"How does it feel, To be on your own
With no direction home, a complete unknown, Like a rolling stone?"
Im not sure if im just under thinking this. But if the numbers are too one sided couldnt the outmanned team just lose points and a normal weekend game continues.
__________________ DARK LIQUID, do the stanky leg.
Sponsored by Gucci Mane, Burrr.
Well, the size could be whatever you think a nice size platoon should be. Maybe 15-20? What you could do (on game day) is after establishing which side they will be fighting for, have this 3rd team insert anywhere on the field first. Then have the main teams insert according to the game's scenario. I would think that even just a platoon of 20 secretly inserted (possibly fortified) would still be helpful, even if the main teams were still somewhat lopsided.
What you could do, should there be perfect attendance, is still have the neutral team, but give them their own objective too. Kinda like a versus all scenario. I think it would be fun to try to accomplish a goal with a limited number of people, but that could be just me talking. If there isn't perfect attendance than two things could happen. Should there be a large indifference, then the above case would apply. If there's a difference of merely a few, then the 3rd team would have to be divided up among the two main teams and the game would be played like a normal team vs. team game.
I just wouldn't want this to sound to OP(ish), where alot of planned needed to go into it.
Unfortunately, it is becoming to OP(ish). That's a lot of work for simple weekend games. Additionally, like every op, the third party (once it starts working for the other team at any point) loses the trust of both teams and then are shot on sight or put where they can't do any good, or harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudester
Seeing as this is only supposed to be one game a week or month I doubt either team is going to end up with fifty respawns. That would take up a good portion of the day.
Here's an example, if you put 6 guys at the top of the guns hill and give them 5 respawns and give the other team 1 (and tell them to take out the six at the top starting from the bottom), no body is going to get tired.
First, the 50 respawns was an exaggeration. Secondly, I call BS. Come out to a game and we'll have you run up and down that hill 5 times and then you can tell me you're not tired at all. I have 1000 bucks saying you will be.
Additionally, what makes you think the enemy is only ever going to come from one direction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpetzGRU
Im not sure if im just under thinking this. But if the numbers are too one sided couldnt the outmanned team just lose points and a normal weekend game continues.
Yes. You're under thinking it. It's not only about the game mechanics, but people's experience in playing. And if we only do it when attendance is perfect and all the other conditions are perfect, we might as well just wait until Events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MfHmiller
No perks as in mabey 3 more respawns or something along those lines.
Learn to spell maybe. And I already explained how it doesn't work.
First, the 50 respawns was an exaggeration. Secondly, I call BS. Come out to a game and we'll have you run up and down that hill 5 times and then you can tell me you're not tired at all. I have 1000 bucks saying you will be.
Additionally, what makes you think the enemy is only ever going to come from one direction?
I don't think you and I are understanding what we're trying to say to each other; so, I'm just gonna be quiet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjaniz
Come out to a game and we'll have you run up and down that hill 5 times and then you can tell me you're not tired at all. I have 1000 bucks saying you will be.
Gear on or off?
/That was a joke.
__________________
"How does it feel, To be on your own
With no direction home, a complete unknown, Like a rolling stone?"
How about instead of having it continue between ops, you just come up with say five games to play all during one day? Each game can have victory points awarded for winning and after 5 games are done, points are tallied and winner is decided. It could be set up with a simple flow chart and you wouldn't have the problem of unreliable numbers because you would just divide the number of people you have that day in half.
Now I know the original idea was to have an interlocking campaign spanning over lots of time. You still interlock the results from each day though. So you take the points from "day 1" and carry them over to "day 2" which will have all new games and point values. Then the group that shows up that day is split in half again so teams will still be equal.
I say besides 2 or 3 commanders, no one should be able to chose what team they're on unless everyone who played on "day 1" shows up on "day 2". In that case, then anyone who didn't play the previous day will be split into 2 groups and added to the teams.
__________________
"I was born an American, I will live an American, and I will die an American!" - Daniel Webster
