Soaker Combat Rules: Re-Start - @ iSoaker.com
I think what he meant by artificially evening teams out is, say one team has more numbers, the other team gets more technology or more cover.
Personally, things like protected refilling depend on the situation. If it's during a heated war, then we won't use it. If we're just shooting at each other to kill time, then we'll use it.
A rule I like to use is no stealing of guns. I had to go through a FF and CPS 1200 while I was only armed with a Lightning to get my MD6k back. Not too much I know, but I'm not that great at dodging.
I always use refill stations, and I don't see the restriction in that.
As for technology bans, I hate them (it's always against me), but they even things out, so I sometimes follow them.
Personally, things like protected refilling depend on the situation. If it's during a heated war, then we won't use it. If we're just shooting at each other to kill time, then we'll use it.
A rule I like to use is no stealing of guns. I had to go through a FF and CPS 1200 while I was only armed with a Lightning to get my MD6k back. Not too much I know, but I'm not that great at dodging.
I always use refill stations, and I don't see the restriction in that.
As for technology bans, I hate them (it's always against me), but they even things out, so I sometimes follow them.
I've had my 2000 "stolen" once in a battle (the 2000 actually belongs to a neighboor who didn't go to the war), but no one on the other team was capable of using it, except for one who was already using a 2500 and did not wish to dual wield. Turns out I took the FF and SC 400 that were supposed to be used by my team but they never did, and dual wielded them as I moved onto the other base. The guy with the 2500 never managed to get me there, and the other one who stole the 2000 threw water balloons at me that were very easy to dodge. We did lose (it was a soakfest CTF game), since I apparently didn't do well keeping order to the base defense and went off by myself. (there was really no way to avoid a fortifications type battlefield and make flexible positions, the field is fairly small consisting of me and my friend's house, and most of it was open, plus the hoses help)
For my wars, I would almost always allow blaster stealing. Sometime, someone is probably going to drop it anyhow, and both teams should be reasonably armed well in the first place, unless it's a small battle where there are only a few players and each gets one blaster.
Overall, placing restrictions also limits tactics, as said above. Say everyone has XP and similar air pressure guns, and then there are 2 3200's. Split into teams and divide that up, and work together, works much better than trying to ban the 3200. Someone stole the 3200? If you need it that badly, organize a squad and get it back. (My friend pointed the SC400 nozzle to the back of someone's head once, demanding his 2000. Nothing wrong with that unless he was pointing at his face, and thing was, he was smaller and couldn't use the 2000 well.) All in all, I am against restrictions on something completely fair and counter-able.
However, if you're talking about banning homemades in a war where everyone is using squirt guns, that's a pretty legit reason, but then again, you don't have much of a war with just squirt guns.
Speaking of restrictions, why exactly were they placed so strictly on editing posts?
Edited By C-A_99 on 1170361874
For my wars, I would almost always allow blaster stealing. Sometime, someone is probably going to drop it anyhow, and both teams should be reasonably armed well in the first place, unless it's a small battle where there are only a few players and each gets one blaster.
Overall, placing restrictions also limits tactics, as said above. Say everyone has XP and similar air pressure guns, and then there are 2 3200's. Split into teams and divide that up, and work together, works much better than trying to ban the 3200. Someone stole the 3200? If you need it that badly, organize a squad and get it back. (My friend pointed the SC400 nozzle to the back of someone's head once, demanding his 2000. Nothing wrong with that unless he was pointing at his face, and thing was, he was smaller and couldn't use the 2000 well.) All in all, I am against restrictions on something completely fair and counter-able.
However, if you're talking about banning homemades in a war where everyone is using squirt guns, that's a pretty legit reason, but then again, you don't have much of a war with just squirt guns.
Speaking of restrictions, why exactly were they placed so strictly on editing posts?
Edited By C-A_99 on 1170361874
Speaking of restrictions, why exactly were they placed so strictly on editing posts?
@ C-A_99: What are you talking about in this question? All members can edit their posts here (unless LockedOut or banned).
"Stealing" of soakers can work when playing with a group you are familiar with, but becomes problematic if playing with strangers. Last thing anyone would want is their soakers to actually be stolen, lost, or damaged by another player during a game. This is why, for the most part, stealing another team's soakers is typically banned. Such a rule can be put in as an option, of course.
Anyhow, this discussion is going into too much detail (though I know it's partly my fault ). My real point is that the purpose of trying to create a rule set is to try to unify some talked-about-but-not-fully-explained ideas while not limiting things or being restrictive on a tactical level per se.
However, as there are bound to be rather sharp differences in terms of what is acceptable to some as opposed to others, I'll probably end up drafting up a "tournament" rule set alongside the general rule set that are somewhat more restrictive (i.e. only clear, drinkable water only) that will err on the safer side of some of the more controversial rules that the general rule set could allow as an option.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Yep, the details leaked in...not necessarily a bad thing though. Sparks interest, and I don't think anybody has really objected to the premise of having a rules set so far.
I'd go for lax rules, general ones at the least. Like gametype--1HK Lives or CTF. I know that's going into details again, but 1HK is all-important IMO for defining a caliber that is somewhat more formal than your backyard soakfest.
I'd also be more inclined towards rules stressing less limitations such as being able to be attacked while refilling. Issues like water sources aren't really important; those are limited by where you fight and your preferences. If you need QF, you use a hose; if you're fine with using stream water, then you have an advantage of sorts.
Sure, anybody may use a hose at the Goffle Park...where you'd find one is up to you.
I'd go for lax rules, general ones at the least. Like gametype--1HK Lives or CTF. I know that's going into details again, but 1HK is all-important IMO for defining a caliber that is somewhat more formal than your backyard soakfest.
I'd also be more inclined towards rules stressing less limitations such as being able to be attacked while refilling. Issues like water sources aren't really important; those are limited by where you fight and your preferences. If you need QF, you use a hose; if you're fine with using stream water, then you have an advantage of sorts.
Sure, anybody may use a hose at the Goffle Park...where you'd find one is up to you.
Anyways, for editing posts, I seem to be unable to edit a post after a certain time period it was posted, like an hour or so but I never counted.
That's odd. Never heard of anyone having that problem. Not even sure what to check to try to solve the problem.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
There's no such option (as far as I could find) to set a time limit on these forums. It's pretty much either allowing editing or not. The "member" level is granted full post editing privileges so no idea why that problem is happening in the first place.Duxburian wrote:@iSoaker: check in the posting options section of the admin cp that the length of time allowed for editing = 0. 0 is infinate, anything else is bad.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
A-ha! Thanks for the link (though the link didn't state the correct part of the Admin CP, it wasn't too far away, either).
I've opted to just blank it for now and we'll see what happens.
I've opted to just blank it for now and we'll see what happens.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Back to the topic, I have a few more things to say:
Dividing by numbers and/or firepower is [IMO] not good way to create "even" teams. Experience matters more than either. Most would not accept the odds of that 50v3 example above, but I'd gladly take it and hand those 50 people the most crushing and surprising defeat in their lives. In this age of the Outnumbered Defense, the more extreme the numbers gap, the more powerful that Defense becomes. Firepower is a bit harder to counter, especially when the teams have similar numbers, but with enough moving and ambushing, you can build up a lead if you have the know-how and the rules to back it. Dividing by experience actually may make the battle "even".
The restriction is if something like that is mandatory. It is one thing to have refill stations, but quite another to require that you can only refill at them. In my local wars, you are able to refill anywhere on the battlefield at any time by any means. Water is carried in backpacks, cached in strategic places, and found in nature. We even have a tactic for rotative refilling during a long stand-off at a natural barrier on a stream. Taking away the ability to refill anywhere with anything may force you to withdraw from a stand-off before you'd like or give ground in an unnatural manner.
The thing that annoys me about any bans on technology is that those who make the bans obviously can't counter the tech. If you won't make an attempt to devise a counter using your brainpower, then you deserve to lose the war. You should not have the right to strip away an enemy advantage so cheaply. Find counters or throw in the towel, it is that simple. There are countless hundreds, probably thousands, of tactical combinations that deal away with firepower advantages. Use your head or you're rightly dead.
The main "restriction" on wars is that people are idiots and can't think or innovate. If presented with a problem in battle, you should attack the problem head-on and find a solution. If no known solution can be found, then make up a totally new one. Bans and other rules meant to level the playing field are cheap and cowardly ways to make up for lack of skill and/or lack of the ability to use your brain in any meaningful way.
Edited By Duxburian on 1170430718
- artificially making teams "even" (not sure what this means; in a tournament-type battle, I'd expect fighting teams to be of approximately equal numbers of members; for local group fighting, it really depends on how people want to divide up. At the same time, if you have 50 vs 3 or 10 guys with XP150s vs 8 guys with firehoses, that's not conducive for a good game, either).
Dividing by numbers and/or firepower is [IMO] not good way to create "even" teams. Experience matters more than either. Most would not accept the odds of that 50v3 example above, but I'd gladly take it and hand those 50 people the most crushing and surprising defeat in their lives. In this age of the Outnumbered Defense, the more extreme the numbers gap, the more powerful that Defense becomes. Firepower is a bit harder to counter, especially when the teams have similar numbers, but with enough moving and ambushing, you can build up a lead if you have the know-how and the rules to back it. Dividing by experience actually may make the battle "even".
I always use refill stations, and I don't see the restriction in that.
The restriction is if something like that is mandatory. It is one thing to have refill stations, but quite another to require that you can only refill at them. In my local wars, you are able to refill anywhere on the battlefield at any time by any means. Water is carried in backpacks, cached in strategic places, and found in nature. We even have a tactic for rotative refilling during a long stand-off at a natural barrier on a stream. Taking away the ability to refill anywhere with anything may force you to withdraw from a stand-off before you'd like or give ground in an unnatural manner.
However, if you're talking about banning homemades in a war where everyone is using squirt guns, that's a pretty legit reason, but then again, you don't have much of a war with just squirt guns.
As for technology bans, I hate them (it's always against me), but they even things out, so I sometimes follow them.
The thing that annoys me about any bans on technology is that those who make the bans obviously can't counter the tech. If you won't make an attempt to devise a counter using your brainpower, then you deserve to lose the war. You should not have the right to strip away an enemy advantage so cheaply. Find counters or throw in the towel, it is that simple. There are countless hundreds, probably thousands, of tactical combinations that deal away with firepower advantages. Use your head or you're rightly dead.
The main "restriction" on wars is that people are idiots and can't think or innovate. If presented with a problem in battle, you should attack the problem head-on and find a solution. If no known solution can be found, then make up a totally new one. Bans and other rules meant to level the playing field are cheap and cowardly ways to make up for lack of skill and/or lack of the ability to use your brain in any meaningful way.
Edited By Duxburian on 1170430718
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
The main "restriction" on wars is that people are idiots and can't think or innovate. If presented with a problem in battle, you should attack the problem head-on and find a solution. If no known solution can be found, then make up a totally new one. Bans and other rules meant to level the playing field are cheap and cowardly ways to make up for lack of skill and/or lack of the ability to use your brain in any meaningful way.
err... insulting "people" by using such a generalization alienates those from even considering trying out organized water warfare. Not cool.
Besides, in a thread not too long ago, you were arguing that switching to soak-based games would throw tactics out the window, while I was stating that tactics would need to be adjusted, not lost. The problem of the "suicide-soaker-attack" comes to mind. However, your above statement suggests that solutions should be available for ANY situation if you use your brain. Which is it? ???
As for other items:
A) In the 50vs3, it was not to imply 50 n00bs vs 3 veterans, rather 50 vs 3 of roughly equal experience level and firepower. Swaying the situation to an improbable one simply to suit an argument fails to address the more likely situations. Wouldn't splitting groups into 26 vs 27 as opposed to 50 vs 3 or 52 vs 1 make more sense in general? Would you feel satisfied to find yourself on the team of 50 versus 3 noobs? Team imbalances should be due primarily to skill level and not due to huge number differences. Though can be stated as an option, I still think in general it is better to have battles between teams of similar sizes, thus having both teams equal in the theoretical number of tactics they can use.
B) Forcing people to refill at a station with clean water forces people to really think and conserve their ammo instead of relying on a creek or stream. Caching of clean water is also quite different than filling from a creek/swamp. IMO, it is "cheaper" to refill from a creek/river/lake than it is to be forced to rely on your soaker and refill bottle water limits, but that's my opinion. As noted before, choices here would be optional in the rule set so discussion on which is better for the general rule set is a moot one.
C) As for technology bans for a given game, such limitations are imposed virtually universally in organized games. Take Chess. Why not allow people to choose their own pieces as opposed to being stuck with a given set? "My pawns each carry a nuke and wipes out any other piece within a 2 square radius if I want to detonate it." Or baseball: why have the pitcher be forced to throw the ball when he could use a potato cannon to aim and fire the ball towards the catcher? Or wrestling: would it be fun to watch one wrestler pulling out a stun gun and shooting the other before they even can make physical contact in a wrestling match?
Technology bans are done to enforce use of tactics and test individual skills when faced with a limitation as opposed to relying on tech. It is not simply made by those unwilling to try to face against a particular type of soaker, but also to force users of a particular soaker to try something else. It is a way to test who is better at using a specific class of soaker by eliminating tech variable. Of course, tech bans would be also an option in the general rule set. I could imagine a soaker-pistol-only war could prove quite fun and tactically challenging even though the higher-class soakers are removed. A "Douchenator-only" battle could also prove to be very fun, indeed, forcing players to fights at longer distances and rely on their aim of artillery objects. Mixed tech can be fine, but tech limits can also be fine, too.
For tech-bans, IMO, the only "solid" rule would be that any bans must be stated and agreed upon well in advance of a scheduled war so the teams involved can make proper preparations. Changing allowed tech rules on the spot can be aggravating to players. The exact wording would be fleshed out in the appropriate thread.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
err... insulting "people" by using such a generalization alienates those from even considering trying out organized water warfare. Not cool.
Besides, in a thread not too long ago, you were arguing that switching to soak-based games would throw tactics out the window, while I was stating that tactics would need to be adjusted, not lost. The problem of the "suicide-soaker-attack" comes to mind. However, your above statement suggests that solutions should be available for ANY situation if you use your brain. Which is it?
You know what I mean by "people are idiots". It is not a direct or specific statement. It's like stating that "Bush is dumb' or "English class is stupid."
Adjustment of tactics includes loss. There are things you simply can't do in a soakfest. And while I have said that suicide rushing has no counter, if offered a soakfest I wouldn't turn it down and I would look to find some sort of counter. What I say shouldn't be taken so literally all the time.
A) In the 50vs3, it was not to imply 50 n00bs vs 3 veterans, rather 50 vs 3 of roughly equal experience level and firepower. Swaying the situation to an improbable one simply to suit an argument fails to address the more likely situations. Wouldn't splitting groups into 26 vs 27 as opposed to 50 vs 3 or 52 vs 1 make more sense in general? Would you feel satisfied to find yourself on the team of 50 versus 3 noobs?
I was implying that the experience wouldn't matter. Even with 50 vets vs 3 vets, the 3 take all with the Outnumbered Defense. The sheer size of the larger side makes mistakes and unlucky hits more likely. They also can only score 3 points in one go, whereas the 3 have quite a bit more possible targets. In extreme cases like that, yes I would probably favor a better distribution of people for a tournament. Locally you fight with whatever and whoever you have only.
B) Forcing people to refill at a station with clean water forces people to really think and conserve their ammo instead of relying on a creek or stream. Caching of clean water is also quite different than filling from a creek/swamp. IMO, it is "cheaper" to refill from a creek/river/lake than it is to be forced to rely on your soaker and refill bottle water limits, but that's my opinion.
Putting a focus on the water limits the length of the possible engagements and how far one is willing to travel from said stations. Being forced to rely on your soaker for almost any reason cuts tactical options. Even with those secondary sources open, it still takes effort to refill. You've still got to know how to refill under fire and when. If the enemy picks up your intentions to refill, they will usually not fail to counter.
The type of water isn't really an issue, since the overwhelming majority of people would rather not get shot with lake/stream water, so limits for tap water only [which is not necessarily clean] are fine.
Technology bans are done to enforce use of tactics and test individual skills when faced with a limitation as opposed to relying on tech. It is not simply made by those unwilling to try to face against a larger soaker, but also to force users of a particular soaker to try something else. It is a way to test who is better at using a specific class of soaker by eliminating tech variable. Of course, tech bans would be also an option in the general rule set, but I'd imagine a soaker-pistol-only war could prove quite fun and tactically challenging even though the higher-class soakers are removed. A "Douchenator-only" battle could also prove to be very fun, indeed, forcing players to fights at longer distances and rely on their aim of lobbed objects. Mixed tech can be fine, but tech limits can also be fine, too.
You can force someone to not rely on tech power without banning tech power. The RM's 2004 season is a haunting reminder of the limits of tech. We thought we didn't need to use advanced tactics or even leave the open. We thought our guns would win us the wars. It did not work out that way. Once we started using the appropriate tactics, fighting the enemy in the worst terrain, taking the initiative, tech started to fade. You don't cast aside the Douchenator, water cannons, and even water balloons for no reason. Right now, you can face the RM with a pistol and come out of the war not hit at all. Likewise, I've gone in with powerful guns and come out with no points. Tech is naturally restricted by a number of factors, though in some wars there are less natural factors in place to do this. Terrain, size, tempo, etc. make-or-break big cannons. So does the strength, endurance, and experience of the user. A seasoned veteran may be able to defy battle practicality to a certain extent, but most users will not use something that is not designed for the current situation. A water cannon is not going to work for a fast-paced forest war and a major homemade won't fit through a reed grove. You might actually choose a pistol over a homemade if the battle calls for it, such as fast-paced CQC in an urban area.
Having battles like pistol-only and WBL-only are indeed fun. I've said nothing against variations, since this is about a general rule set. I've fought my fair share of special condition fights, such as scenarios with certain class-guns and fixed limits. However, Standard 1HS [one hit scores] has remained the local default for fighting ranked wars.
These are gritty details though, so maybe I should hold additional commentary for later.
Edited By Duxburian on 1170445568
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
You know what I mean by "people are idiots". ... And while I have said that suicide rushing has no counter, if offered a soakfest I wouldn't turn it down and I would look to find some sort of counter. What I say shouldn't be taken so literally all the time.
If I *knew* what you meant, I would not have brought up the point. Fact is that typed words hold much more weight than spoken ones which is why I'm more critical on how typed things are phrased. While perfect typed phrasing is virtually impossible, some phrasings are worse than others. If what is said cannot be taken so literally, that would make it exceedingly difficult to determine what is actually being said.
I was implying that the experience wouldn't matter. Even with 50 vets vs 3 vets, the 3 take all with the Outnumbered Defense. The sheer size of the larger side makes mistakes and unlucky hits more likely. They also can only score 3 points in one go, whereas the 3 have quite a bit more possible targets. In extreme cases like that, yes I would probably favor a better distribution of people for a tournament. Locally you fight with whatever and whoever you have only.
What I don't like about this counter-argument is that it puts the faults more on the side with larger numbers. In the end, I agree that for local groups, you try to hold a fight with whatever sized groups are available, but I'd still lean towards trying to keep numbers closer together in general to reduce the number-advantage aspect and instead focus on the tactics aspect. As noted, though, it really depends on what is available locally, team-wise.
The latter topics are discussions on variations which can all be covered in a general rule set (i.e. water sources and allowed tech). Different people have different preferences so as many as possible will be described.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
I was refering to a more absolute situation. The only way to go against the homemades is through buckets, hoses, and whatever water balloons. It would take way too many squirt gun shots (I'm talking about finger squirt guns, most other guns have enough output to quickly make a hit) to build up enough for a hit, and you might as well use a water bottle. Of course, the battlefield would have to have a way to counter the range of the more powerful weapons.
I do agree most bans do occur because people don't know how to counter them. For the situation I mentioned, it's because there pretty much is no counter, I'm talking about a situation where there aren't enough water balloons to do much, and hoses are not or are seldom available.
I do agree most bans do occur because people don't know how to counter them. For the situation I mentioned, it's because there pretty much is no counter, I'm talking about a situation where there aren't enough water balloons to do much, and hoses are not or are seldom available.
On the refilling issue, I'd stress freedom to use whatever you want to. The example I gave might have been at WWc--you may use hoses at the Goffle, but you'd have to find one and you'd be restricted by having to go there to refill. Likewise, if everybody has to use a hose on a different battlefield because there are no natural water sources, it's still fair.
Duxburian, I've mentioned that the Outnumbered Defense works only in 1HS. If you consider the remaining players on the larger team, they could easily capture an objective or the flag or something in a different game type. Also, the outnumberees could very well fight aggressively against the outnumbered, and the larger team has the opportunity to hide its members to let the numbers be even. My point is that the larger team nearly always has the advantage. More experienced people would have some type of advantage no matter what the numbers are.
Disregarding experience, it's always fairer to split the players and weapons evenly.
Duxburian, I've mentioned that the Outnumbered Defense works only in 1HS. If you consider the remaining players on the larger team, they could easily capture an objective or the flag or something in a different game type. Also, the outnumberees could very well fight aggressively against the outnumbered, and the larger team has the opportunity to hide its members to let the numbers be even. My point is that the larger team nearly always has the advantage. More experienced people would have some type of advantage no matter what the numbers are.
Disregarding experience, it's always fairer to split the players and weapons evenly.
On the refilling issue, I'd stress freedom to use whatever you want to. The example I gave might have been at WWc--you may use hoses at the Goffle, but you'd have to find one and you'd be restricted by having to go there to refill.
That's actually a really good/funny example. We allow unlimited use of hoses at the Goffle. It's not physically possible to hook one up to anything in the middle of a vast forest, hence why we wouldn't bother imposing any regulations on them!
I do make the mistake of implying 1HS in most of the things I write involving tactics. That's because I'm used to using things like 1HS as a formal gametype for ranked wars and things like CTF as a casual gametype for non-ranked skirmishes. Obviously, many people use CTF as their formal gametype, while others weigh gametypes equally. I'd get absolutely murdered in a 3v50 CTF game. However, I don't agree that the larger team nearly always has the advantage, unless talking about all gametypes in general. In that case, then totally yes. In 1HS though, they nearly always carry the disadvantage. In that gametype, when experience is even, the Outnumbered Defense still has decisive power. It can even be used against the outnumbered, though that is rarely thought of and is difficult to execute. There is nothing that says it only works for an truly outnumbered team.
There is great pressure to come up with an effective counter in real-time. When that counter fails to appear, even 6th year veterans will reel. Waterbridge has never won a ranked war against the RM when WB has had numerical superiority. In fact they've found the most success with numerical inferiority. Numbers have not noticably affected the RM record, mainly because we've got the Theory and a commander who is extremely careful when the team does have numerical superiority. You might say this is an unfair comparison because it seems like the RM has more experience, well, we don't. Waterbridge is our tactical superior by 2 full seasons. We just fashion our tactics as we please and WB largely reacts to them, which resembles the interaction of the initiative in the Theory. The point of this digression is to show that when veterans have the numbers, they still are in great danger of losing the war.
With experience ignored or even, it would be fairer to split teams by numbers and guns, true. But experience is often too important to be ignored and/or uneven. IMO, an experience gap has much more of an effect than a technology gap, extreme examples aside.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers
All the concerns above fall into options depending on the battle ground and preferences of the Players, IMO.
For a "tournament"-class event, however, I'd imagine that there would be a whole rule set governing what the battle ground must have to be worthy of an "official" battle. I could even imagine games where you give opposing teams a fixed amount of water each, forcing them to conserve and make each shot count during gameplay as opposed to allowing unlimited refilling.
Oh well, I'm digressing.
As for Duxburian's number of Players tactics, somehow I'm reading the discussion as numbers matter but don't matter so much if a team knows what it is doing and, in the end, it is experience over numbers that really matters the most. I completely agree with the experience wins in most cases over number of players, but to better compare two teams' experience levels, I'd prefer to have the team sizes roughly equal. Of course, for the general rule set, it's all optional. For "tournament" rules, different types of tournaments would undoubtedly have different team requirements on who can join.
For a "tournament"-class event, however, I'd imagine that there would be a whole rule set governing what the battle ground must have to be worthy of an "official" battle. I could even imagine games where you give opposing teams a fixed amount of water each, forcing them to conserve and make each shot count during gameplay as opposed to allowing unlimited refilling.
Oh well, I'm digressing.
As for Duxburian's number of Players tactics, somehow I'm reading the discussion as numbers matter but don't matter so much if a team knows what it is doing and, in the end, it is experience over numbers that really matters the most. I completely agree with the experience wins in most cases over number of players, but to better compare two teams' experience levels, I'd prefer to have the team sizes roughly equal. Of course, for the general rule set, it's all optional. For "tournament" rules, different types of tournaments would undoubtedly have different team requirements on who can join.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Then why don't we just say that the teams must
A) Be set by permanent members for each team
or
B) Be split as even as possible by experience, numbers, and technology.
I don't doubt that the Outnumbered Defense works in 1HS. Indeed, if I were playing 1HS, it would influence the specific rules set I'd follow. But since we're trying to be as general as possible, it's probably better to specify even teams.
Unless, of course, you group certain rules for the teams with the gametype. It's always an option.
A) Be set by permanent members for each team
or
B) Be split as even as possible by experience, numbers, and technology.
I don't doubt that the Outnumbered Defense works in 1HS. Indeed, if I were playing 1HS, it would influence the specific rules set I'd follow. But since we're trying to be as general as possible, it's probably better to specify even teams.
Unless, of course, you group certain rules for the teams with the gametype. It's always an option.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests