Page 1 of 2

Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:01 am
by the oncoming storm
Lets face it we do the same gametypes way to much here are some paintball gamestypes I think could be fun

A team of snipers is sent out into the field given the chance to hide. The others then approach the field and try to kill all the snipers. The snipers are allowed all the ammo they want. There should be about 2-5 ratio of snipers to others.

Typically played like an elimination game. The difference being that if you are shot you are only “frozen” (must stay still) and are not immediately out. You may kneel if you are in the line of fire. While you are frozen, if your own teammate tags you, you are “thawed” and return to play. If an opponent tags you, you are “shattered” and must leave the field.Frozen – Typically played like an elimination game. The difference being that if you are shot you are only “frozen” (must stay still) and are not immediately out. You may kneel if you are in the line of fire. While you are frozen, if your own teammate tags you, you are “thawed” and return to play. If an opponent tags you, you are “shattered” and must leave the field.

Hostage Rescue
One person is selected to be the hostage. A team hides them somewhere on the field. The hostage is not allowed to speak until they are rescued. The rescuing team must find the hostage and bring him to a safe point. If anyone shoots the hostage, that team loses.

When you are hit you are taken prisoner and go to the opponents camp. You can be released if a teammate tags you. Capture all the opponents to win.

One flag is placed in the center of the field. The goal is to get the flag and bring it to the opposing teams base.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:24 am
by atvan
I used to wonder why paintball guns are sometimes called taggers. I guess it's because several of these gametypes are essentially tag. :goofy:

I don't think the snipers gametype wouldn't work for the same reason snipers don't work in general. Engagement range is so limited that snipers could easily be isolated and overrun, especially with the ratio you give. Engagement range could also present a problem for frozen, because a hit person is more than likely very close to a teamate, and will almost never be approachable by the other team. The only tactic I could see working would be a sort of divide and conquer thing. I suppose an advantage of this gametype would be to discourage retreats, as teams would have to decide whether or not they would be able to save any frozen teamates or would only suffer greater losses. The other gametypes have no glaring problems that I can see.

A gametype that I though of that might be interseting as well is a OHS gametype inspired by the chaos round with the random guns in boxes where everyone spawns in the center. Instead of the guns being random, there are alternating guns spots for each team around the circle equal to the number of playes, with two adjacent spots marked in some way. At the beginning everybody has their gun on a spot. When the game starts, you may either chose to race for your gun and become a valid target, or forfeit your "respawn" until the next one, either 30 seconds later (or maybe a minute would be better) in case your gun happens to be sittign next to DX's, for example, and you know that you have no way of getting there in time. If you are hit, you return to the spawn and place your gun at the marked spot for your team, or if there is another of your teamates respawning, at the first spot clockwise of the marked spot, so that if the other team also has a player respawning, they will have their gun near yours and conflict will occur verey quickly, unless the respawn is forfeited. There would have to be some way to protect respawning players from those that are not, such as perhaps making players withing the circle due to respawning immune to shots other than from opponents spawning at the same time.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:27 pm
Snipers don't exist in water warfare and never have, end of discussion. Yours would play out more like a hunters' game, where a small team has high range water weaponry and concealment capabilities (depending on how much trouble the group's willing to go through to conceal), and the larger team has smaller water weaponry. However, it'd be easy for quick players on the hunters' team to pick off those on the larger team due to the superior range. If the game becomes about survival instead of hits made, then it becomes merely a contest to see who can outrun who.

I have a variation of Frozen called Magic Hammer. Rules are listed here: It's basically like a mix of CTF and Frozen.

As for hostages, I generally use other objectives, 1-flag CTF in particular. I've also been known to substitute the actual player with a giant stuffed Pikachu as the hostage in Nerf games.

POW's sounds like it could get drawn out too long, although it has potential to become pretty interesting.

Speedball: Looks like one of those CTF variations. Another involves the same flag in the middle of the field, but the teams try to bring it back to their own base. Your variation would be more interesting though.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:25 pm
by the oncoming storm
I stole these word for word off of a paintball website, because I thought they sounded cool.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:57 pm
by atvan
Haha, I tried to right that snipers wouldn't work, but my stupid keyboard failed and wrote that it would. The problem with taking the flag back to one's own base is that there may be little to no conflict if one side has a faster runner. Basically, you would have to make the field fairly large just to keep DX's team from winning.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:54 pm
by marauder
*massive facepalm at all the sniper talk*

We often use terms like "gun" and "cannon," and in the past the community used terms like "bombers," "artillery," or and "HeavyWeaponsOfficer," without people getting up in arms, but mention the term "sniper" and everyone goes crazy about how there are no snipers in water wars. I honestly don't see the difference. When I say this is going to be a "pistols only" round no one goes reaching for their Glock. The same applies to the term sniping.

Some of us use it to refer to an individual who operates alone or in a buddy group that takes out opponents from a hidden position. If you've had a watergun fight I'm sure you've done it before. I used to hide under the house when I was growing up and shoot people through the vents. I would consider this sniping. I've also climbed the pear tree in front of my house and shot people from the roof, many times. I've even hidden in our mulch pile once during a night battle in order to make a hit. It doesn't matter if it's score based, elimination, or just a soakfest. There's something truly awesome about making that surprise attack from a position your opponent can't get to, long range or short.

I do not use the term sniper very often, but to say there are no true snipers in water warfare is pretty ridiculous. If we're going to go around using "gun," "pistol," "scout," "cannon", etc. it's pretty silly to say we can't use the term "snipe."

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:35 pm
by the oncoming storm
I am basically the only "Heavy Weapons Officer" left in the online community, most are simply "Heavy Infantry" nowadays, while Scout and scrimmaging classes are totally dead. back when their were massive 20 vs 20 rivalries with clear solder classes were common place and "H.W.O's" and "H.I" were greatly feared by smaller guns.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:21 pm
by atvan
I still don't really think that classes are implemented at all in the games our community plays. What do you believe distiguishes you as a HWO? Perhaps using one of your homemades would begin to make that distinction, but the reason so few guns and fighting styles are used is because they are the most effective. Most of these guns are probably in the top 85-90% for almost every useful rating category, except perhaps mobility depending on how that is judged. A homemade is going to likely be up at 95-100% for a few categories, but at great cost to others. While your fighting style may maximize these strengths and minimize any weaknesses, the problem is still that homemades are a long way from being as perfected as manufactured guns and are going to suffermore greatly for any gains they have.

Lighter armaments really don't make sense for what the community does. They hardly make a difference is mobility and speed, but suffer greatly in combat. What good will spotting the enemy team do if you are always effectively outnumbered because one (or more) guys on your team is never going to get a kill? I'm not saying scouts are silly, just that they might as well have a 1200. Scrimagers, on the other hand, would be a bit silly. Why intentianally give somebody worse weapons and send them to fight? They would serve little purpose and would, once again, reduce the effective size of your fighting force.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:54 am
by the oncoming storm
(Brace yourself off topic posts are coming. :goofy: )
I tend to wield my 300 and almost exclusively, firing liberally in support of teammates from out of most peoples range . my greatest strength is that while I carry the largest stock water gun ever, I can still run and dodge faster than my teammates can with smaller guns.

As a rule of thumb I tend to use this guild line for classes

Scout/light infantry. wields blasters XP 150 sized or smaller

Medium Infantry. wields blasters Gorgon sized or smaller

Heavy Infantry. any non backpack CPS longer than 22"

Heavy Weapons Officer. Any 2 gallon or larger capacity blaster

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:59 am
I agree with atvan here, although there are rarer cases where mobility helps such as in CTF. However, as mentioned, you get diminishing returns when sacrificing combat effectiveness for mobility. Flag runners should carry 1200's or carry nothing at all. (Or a Max-D 3000 if you absolutely have to have something.) That said, there are 2 classes of armament for me in water warfare: one where you can hit others and one where you can't. Some people could take on a 2500 with Flash Flood (on balanced teams) and actually make kills. I'm not one of them. I always come up with loadouts on the spot, deciding whether I'm in the mood to carry this or that. Last time, I had a pouch of water balloons and no water bottles, which was different because previously I'd carry water bottles with no balloons at all. Both items are just for fun or convenience.

Even for those cases of "sniping" mentioned, the target can return fire easily. "Sniping" is a pretty worthless term if you can immediately pinpoint exactly where someone is when they take a shot, and lets face it, if you can't observe a blaster shooting from 20-60ft away and tell where it's coming from, water warfare may not be for you. Although from what you mentioned, I vastly favor the term "sidearm" over "pistol". I don't use the terms "rifle" or "smg" to refer to blasters either. "Cannon" or "gun" are very generic terms though.

Regardless of semantics, I'd have to argue that concealed ambushing is of limited use in our water wars today. How often does it happen where a whole team blindly walks into 20-30ft of another team camping there, completely concealed, without having the slightest clue of their whereabouts? I haven't seen it happen; every stealth kill I've made or seen has been the result of lots of movement on the part of the attacker.

Lastly, everyone seems to have different definitions of heavy/light. I consider 2000's/2500's pretty standard. While on the heavy side compared to the 1200/1000/2100, they're still very mobile and don't involve huge water tanks and backpacks. Their mobility should be leveraged accordingly; any half decently skilled player or better carrying nothing but a 2000 ranges from effective to super-effective for the most important tasks other than suppression or liberal shooting.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:11 pm
by marauder
The greatest thing about water wars is their flexibility and how completely different they can be depending on who you're playing with and where. We need to accept that the battles Atvan has been in have not been the same as the battles CA99 have been in which were not all that similar to the watergun fights the oncoming storm has had.

CA99, I am not at all surprised that you've never seen a hit made from a concealed, stationary position. Especially after meeting you in person, and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Most of your battles have had less than 10 people and have been fought around the house, at parks, at lakes, or similar places. Those type of battles are loads of fun, but that doesn't mean they are the same as the kind I've played. A majority of the games I used to play were in the woods and nearly half were played at night. If we weren't fighting in the woods then it wasn't uncommon for someone to climb a tree, hide under the house, or get on top of the roof and behind the chimney. I've shot someone from a mulch pile in the dark and they didn't know where I was. I've shot someone from under the house and they had an idea where the shot came from, but they couldn't find me. I've eliminated someone from the top of the tree before. Yes, they knew where I was after that, but they were eliminated so it didn't matter.

Just because you have never seen a stealth hit made from a concealed, stationary position doesn't mean it doesn't happen quite often in other people's battles. We need to stop thinking our experiences are universal.

The same can be said for weapons classes. These originated back when our membership's average age was much younger and people were having a lot more soakfests. If you are playing with a group of 10-13 year olds in a soakfest, then yes it does completely make sense to use an XP 270 and not a CPS 2500 when looking for the enemy. If you get rushed you won't be able to get away as quickly with a 2500, and if your enemies close in on you it's better to have a 270 that can keep up a rapid rate of fire than a 2500. This is not that applicable to the community wars, but we need to realize that it is still very applicable to other situations and other people.

Things change, I get that most of us on the board are older now, mostly play 1 hit scores, and tend to have less than 10 people per battle these days, but it doesn't mean that it's never a good idea to go light. For instance, when making a dash for a flag. Do you carry your CPS 2000 because it offers the most power? Do you take an XP 150 because it's more mobile? Or do you go without a gun and trust your own athleticism and your teammates ability to cover you? That's something that DX and I discussed quite recently in real game planning. Age and athleticism is another thing we need to keep in mind. My nephews were 9 and 12 during Frozen Fury. It was a mistake to get them some 21ks. The size and the k modding made it very difficult for them to keep the guns pumped and to keep up with the rest of us. After the war I ended up giving them my WWF Undertaker and WWF Stone Cold. You could argue that that was huge step down, but now they actually have guns they can use and enjoy, which is the whole point of this to begin with. Due to their age and lower powered blasters we would have to use them differently than the rest of the team. I'm not sure if I would send them out as scouts, but it certainly requires different tactics - which is the whole purpose behind old class based tactical articles, they recognized the reality that not everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses. CPS 2000s and 2500s may be standard for you and me, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't of our age or physical ability. For instance Popular Mechanics said the Gorgon was too big. I think that's ridiculous if the review was intended for the grown men (and women) who read PM, but if the review was intended for parents, then I can understand why they said what they said.

I know I come across as being really "hardcore" with night fights in the wood and camo, etc. but I do that because I find it fun, and I think that we should embrace the fact that we all like to and get to do different things. I don't really ever use the term rifle, but I don't have a problem with people who do. Aquanexus and a lot of the older, soakfest based, less militaristic, sites used terms like that.

I think it's really silly for people who have 2 fights a year to tell other people what does and does not go on in watergun fights.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:23 pm
How does a thread on gametype suggestions turn into an argument on what people think about battles?

Urgh, anyway, I don't think most of us think our experiences are universal. At least not that I've noticed. I don't think anyone else has battles like I do, and my battles are different again from community war battles. We also have the power to change how community battles are done. Personally, I have several ideas for that, but that's for another day. Snipers... I remember that argument from when I first joined the community. Some people thought that sniping can only be done long-range, and others thought that simply shooting someone from a hidden location counted as sniping. I say, who gives half a flying crap?!? Seriously, I couldn't care less what someone calls something as long as I know what they're talking about. Kind of like "gun" vs. "blaster". I don't see what the problem is. Maybe it's just human nature; we like to argue. Heck, look at what I'm doing.

Now, back to the original point, because I haven't commented yet. Some of those gametypes sound kind of interesting. I'll go over each and give my opinions.

Snipers: That just sounds like Manhunt to me, which I will be doing at Downpour at night, by the way.

Frozen: That sounds kind of interesting, but I don't know how it would play out. Maybe each player could have melee weapons to "finish off" people who are "frozen", and towels or something to "heal" them.

Hostage Rescue: Haha, I actually used to visualize battles where teams could take hostages when I was younger. It might be worth trying sometime, but it's kind of similar to VIP. And what's to stop the enemy team from shooting the hostage before the rescuers get there?

POW: Might work out. Maybe we should try this sometime too.

Speedball: What the heck is up with the name? Shouldn't it just be "reverse-CTF" or something? I don't see how it relates to the gametype. Anyway, this is actually similar to one of the ways I was thinking of doing Soak 'n' Destroy. You'd run to the bomb, then you'd have to try to get it to the enemy base to blow it up. I don't think I'll be doing it that way though.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:29 pm
by marauder
Manhunt is awesome. Especially at night! To make it a little different you could give the hunters different weapons than the hunted/people hiding. Especially if they are outnumbered.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:51 pm
@marauder: Your point on younger players using smaller blasters kind of goes along with the 2 classes of blasters: those that work for you and those that don't. The thing is, one man's heavy gunner is another man's light scout, which limits the usefulness of defining classes so rigidly. I'd only ever take a 150 against CPS's for flag running if I wanted to play as a fast-moving supporter, but I'm almost as mobile with a small CPS and actually stand a chance to be effective with one. Otherwise, I'd go for the Max-D 3000 for just-in-case situations, or just go with nothing. I guess the real problem with class systems is that it's difficult for them to account for this; for player skills/attributes as well as how those attributes are brought out in different blasters, along with how these attributes interact with the opposing team. There's too many dynamics and possibilities, so that accounting for player skills and blasters needs to be done more on a case-by-case basis before figuring out who fits better for which roles.

I have pet peeves about terminology because without consistent, good terminology, no one knows exactly what anyone else is talking about. Of all the hobbies involving blasters or mock combat I've ever been in, water warfare is the only one where everyone who uses the term "sniper" does so completely differently than anyone else. Some people say you can snipe with a CPS 1200, others require a CPS 2000. In laser tag, you can pick people off from high, difficult to locate positions out from ranges people usually make hits in. They won't even be able to see you easily nor tell where the hit is from. All "sniping" in water wars happen barely outside of common engagement range at best (but at these ranges, it's difficult to pull off a shot that actually hits due to how slow the stream is and the fact that the target is usually moving), and those are from height advantages. What happens if a more accurate WBL is developed that has sights? When someone with a 12k is considered a "sniper", someone else may confuse that with a long range WBL shooter when the time comes that they're actually battle-effective. That and calling someone a "sniper" when there's very little marksmanship or distance involved is just awkward.

So, anyone can call whatever blaster, role, playing style, etc. whatever they will, but if I hear the term "sniper rifle" to refer to a certain kind of water war equipment, I'm not going to have a clue what the hell you're talking about. At least "light"/"medium"/"heavy" are better established terms, though as you pointed out they still vary heavily with the player. I'd imagine that whole deal with me never using a 150 as a primary holds true for smaller players who'd definitely use a 150, but not a Cricket as a primary.

This is why we now say "Attack Target" and "Container Target" instead of "stationary target such as a square of toilet paper, scored by hitting the target or disintegrating it" and "objective with bucket/bottle/etc. scored by filling it up with water to a specified point."

Concealment is rare in daytime water warfare. Peek around a building's corner from 60ft away and you're likely to be spotted well before you can even start shooting. Making hits from the top of a tree requires perfect conditions: a somewhat oblivious opponent, thick foliage (especially lots of grown, nearby trees), and camoflauge. I'm not discounting anyone's experiences, but the way games are played now just doesn't see it happening often. My argument is that the conditions for camping still as a rock and waiting for enemies to walk into the kill are too difficult to pull off and are too rare for the whole thing to be useful enough to be used often, in most battlefields during the daytime. It certainly doesn't warrant calling a CPS 2000 with camo covers a "sniper rifle" by any means.

So to bring this back out on topic on the "Snipers" gametype, how would it actually work? I know now that it was copy-pasted, but I can't think of a way to make it work that doesn't involve a variety of very specific conditions:
- Middle of summer when foliage is at its thickest in woods, or very densely packed urban environment specifically setup for this.
- Nighttime in areas with enough concealment/cover/advantage points.

The battlefield, time of day, time of year, equipment, etc. all have to play into each other the right way this to make it work. This applies to any kind of concealed ambushing anyway; your examples of such happened mostly at nighttime or under specific battlefield/situational conditions. It's not something you can just pull off anywhere, like in St. John's woods at MOAB.

So let's say we do have the conditions and go with the Manhunt gametype. The advantage to staying immobile is highly situational, and any concealed ambush setup that fails will result in the so-called "snipers" dashing away. Then the guys who are supposed to hunt them may want to setup themselves. We may need some rather gameplay-restrictive rules to deal with this, such as requiring a team to use flashlights, requiring them to stay moving, etc.

I'll split this thread if the whole sniper/concealed attacking discussion happens to continue anywhere. The topic's already been discussed and beaten to death though, and the general response to new members asking about "sniping" hasn't changed.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:36 pm
by soakinader
SEAL wrote: I say, who gives half a flying crap?!?
lol, I love that expression.

EDIT: I would have replied but the conversation seems to have exploded. I wouldn't say I use the XXP 275 a lot, I tend to use whatever guns I have the most access to XD but it is one of my favourite all-around guns. I took the picture a while ago and just got around to making it my avatar.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:14 pm
by marauder

BTW Soakinader, I love that avatar. Do you use the 275 a lot?

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:07 pm
by DX
Before the community war era, I would have argued that straight up dueling was not an ideal type of engagement and even avoided. Most hits and attempts at attacking came from ambushes and pincers from concealed positions, because such attacks were "high yield/high chance of success". Even now, straight up fighting usually wastes a lot of water and energy, while producing few hits. Here are some instances of using concealment from the RM-WB wars from 2004 to 2007 and they are only from daytime wars:
Concealment is rare in daytime water warfare.
. The RM ambushed WB in the middle of Waterbridge's East Bank in a staggered split set up. It became known as the "perfect" ambush and got 2 hits.

. Nick ambushed the RM from below the Grove St Bridge. The ambush could have taken out everyone if Nick had a CPS, but it failed due to lack of range and output.

. The RM ambushed WB from next to the Spring St Bridge. This where my water balloon bounced off Matt and the others chose to shoot instead, so he still got annihilated.

. WB ambushed me from behind Reed Hill. They got in several lax stick shots from within 15 ft before I even noticed they were attacking. While the ambush failed, a more accurate person would have succeeded.

. Jeff ambushed Court from a dry culvert in the Goffle dam. He walked right into it even with me shouting at him that there was an ambush.

. WB tried to ambush the RM on the West Bank path near Telos-Groven, but I was checking under the leaf canopy and spotted them. They were also situated too far away.

. The RM ambushed WB using the Goffle treehouse in a "fake base" style ambush, where we hid away from the treehouse. It failed because we used water balloons, and their accuracy sucks.

. The RM ambushed WB on the Goffle main path where it forks. There isn't even particularly good concealment there and we split up while outnumbered. The score went from 0-2 us losing to 3-2 us winning in that ambush.

. The RM ambushed WB in another treehouse fake base ambush, but triggered it too late.

. The RM ambushed WB from behind some trees on the Goffle East Bank. Again, it's just standard woods, not good concealment there. Again it was 0-2, and again we made it 3-2 in this attack.

. Connor ambushed WB from behind at the Goffle dam. It worked, but he was also hit.

. WB tried to ambush the RM from within the Sacred Grove. The RM ended up ambushing Matt in the Grove, cause limited visibility was a double edged sword.

. Half the RM ambushed Hannibal at the Spring St Bridge. It was easy.

. WB tried to ambush the RM in a cache ambush, but we spotted them before they could trigger it.

. The RM ambushed WB near Corning in the Goffle mounds. I triggered too early from 40ft.

. Nick tried to ambush the RM solo on both banks at Waterbridge, but was spotted.

. The RM tried to pincer ambush WB near the Waterbridge gazebo. Coordination problems and thorns made it fail.

. The RM tried to ambush WB again in thorns near the Grove St Bridge. I had to trigger it a bit too early as they were about to spot us.

. WB tried to ambush the RM from behind a large, fallen tree on the Waterbridge West Bank, but we spotted it.

. WB tried to ambush the RM again from Ivy Hill, but triggered it way too early.

. RM tried to ambush WB near Echopont, but 2 dog walking civilians alerted them to the danger.

. WB tried to ambush the RM in the rear from Ivy Hill, but there was too much going on and we moved in time.

. The RM ambushed WB from near Upper Bluff, in a rushing ambush where you start way out of range and rush all at once hoping to get them to run, which is what happened. Most got away, but Nick tripped.

. Both teams ran into each other in reeds near the Grove St Bridge. We ended up getting 1 hit. Utter chaos.

. WB ambushed the RM between Ivy Hill and Telos-Groven in a rushing pincer ambush, one of their best ambushes ever. But, CPS...and I countered with a suicide rush that was good for 2 hits.

. The RM ambushed WB from a hill near the refilling gravel bar. That led to lopsided fighting and 2 hits for us.

. The RM tried to ambush WB in the reeds near the Spring St Bridge, but they did not get within range.

. WB tried to ambush the RM while we were in an ambush position near the Goffle dam, but we spotted them first. We should have all died, but we ended up hitting all of them in a staggered split by popping up one at a time, unexpectedly.

. The RM tried to ambush WB near the dam again, but they came from the Heights path instead.

. WB hid from us at Waterbridge and we unable to find them for an hour and a half.

. WB tried to ambush the RM from under the Spring St Bridge, but we split up and sent a guy around to deal with that.

. Both teams ran into each other in the Sacred Grove. It was utter chaos.

. WB ambushed the RM from below Upper Bluff. We spotted part of the ambush, but it was a staggered split...ulgh.

. Both teams tried to pincer each other in the reeds near the refilling gravel bar. Utter chaos.

. The RM ambushed WB in the same area, using enemy footstep sounds to score a hit, since sight was useless in there.

. The RM ambushed WB in a distraction ambush, but it took a lot of maneuvering to get it just right. It did end up working, and even better than expected, because one of our teammates respawned there and it became a pincer.

. WB pincered the RM near the Goffle entrance path, which would have been a problem, but time expired.

. CJ ambush pincered Jeff near the Spring St Bridge, but neither was able to get a hit and the rest of the RM was too far off to support.

. WB forced an RM assault on the Sacred Grove. We came out ahead, but it was utter chaos.

Camo is not actually necessary, we rarely had full body. Most people just wore green or brown shirts, cargo pants, and often swimsuits. For hardcore teams, both had quite casual appearances. Also, Ridgewood cops are assholes.

One thing to note is that ambushing is not necessarily about sitting in one place and waiting for the enemy to hopefully walk by. There are many types of ambushes you can try, several of which involve intentionally giving away your position.

Ambushes are not uncommon in community wars. The Friday soakfest at Downpour '11 ended in an ambush. In the first OHK round, my team ambushed the enemy to great effect, Wetmonkey ambushed Ben and almost got him, and they ambushed me on the path and almost got me. At Frozen Fury, Ben's nephews were *supposed* to ambush the enemy from the press box in the theater, Ben ambushed Keith from a crawlspace near the stage, and the Seals ambushed us on the Laurel Ledges during the long rivalry round at Paine. Hell, at Moab, we got ambushed near Ranch Rd.

They also happen in around the yard fights. At duelfest, I hid behind 2 cars and got Ben when he came by the first car. I tried it again later on, but he didn't fall for that again. We tried to ambush each other at corners of the house.

The only thing I consider a sniper weapon right now is a water cannon. The APWC could be used from a concealed position, at longer range and accuracy at that range than 99% of the things we field. You'd then need to make a quick getaway, as it has very low RoF, like a sniper.

The snipers gametype looks like some RM-WB wars, where we hid with CPS while WB tried to find us with lesser guns.

Frozen isn't going to work very well because water guns...low ranges...very close to'd need to run people out of water.

Hostage rescue is like a variation of VIP. With the size of the venues we use, I'd rather just play normal VIP where they travel with you and not go look for someone hidden anywhere in a huge area.

POW is like the gym class version of CTF, without flags. If too many people get hit, it might turn into a standoff where you don't have enough left to go for the enemy flag, cover your own flag, and try to rescue people.

Speedball = single flag CTF. Single flag CTF is a huge fail. We tried that in Nerf and it lasted 30 seconds because Mike and I sprinted for the flag without guns.

There's a reason we have our gametypes, Nerf has theirs, and paintball has theirs. And in all honesty, I don't understand why people want to make the games so much more complex. If you examine what the most fun rounds have been, virtually everything has been straight up OHK, straight up OHS, and straight up CTF. Changing the teams, numbers, and soakers produces most of the variation between rounds. Do we need more complex rules? I am going to stand back, shut up, and let Seal do what he wants for his own war, but for the next Frozen Fury, I'll be sticking to mostly simple, time-tested games that require zero set up and explaining. After really looking at what we've played and what people enjoyed the most, it sticks out that all but a couple have been seriously basic.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:53 am
Looks like I'll have to make Downpour this year so I can check it out. Never got a chance to ambush at all at MOAB, and at the time I was hit, the opposing team was still detectable from some distance before getting in range. In local wars, I've been easily spotted behind cars since they can see my face through the windshield while I'm watching them, as well as my feet under it, although the area around is quite open. Saying that concealment is rare was the wrong way to put it (since technically, most of my kills have used some level of concealment, even as rudimentary as someone not paying attention to a tree), but it does require those conditions. Player count could be another factor, particularly on smaller fields. Tracking 2 opponents at a time is much easier than tracking 5 or 10.

Some of my own best games have been a break from the typical 1HK games that I'd run, although I will say that said experimenting has failed more often than succeeded. I suppose in that respect, while some may try to turn water warfare into a military simulation, I've tried to turn it into an online multiplayer FPS. (Although now I'm trying to do this literally, lol.)

So with that said, I suppose one of my mistakes on local wars was trying to create variety only by mixing up new games instead of making a real push for different playing areas, nighttime wars (still haven't had a local nighttime war to this day), and even trying to improve my own fighting skills and tactics. In my defense, hosting conditions were never ideal, but that doesn't stop the fact that I was unable to get anyone truly hooked to the hobby. I guess community wars are the future for me as they seem to be for many of us.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:32 am
by DX
When ambushing from behind a car, you need to squat and position yourself behind a wheel well. That way, they cannot see you, although you also cannot check on them. A car ambush needs to be launched blind for best results. Concealment does require the right kind of places, and several community war venues have been less than ideal for that type of fighting. However, Goffle Park and Saugatuck show that hiding and ambushing remain effective even in terrain that would not appear to support them.

I think tracking 5, 10 players is much, much easier than tracking 2. More players make more noise, more movements, take up more space in hiding, etc. 2 players that really don't want to be found can completely vanish.

I've been headed down a more sporty direction for water wars rather than military as of late. I've found that real war helps for strategy and ambushes, but when you get into straight up contact, sports help more. Nick approached engagements from an ancient angle, I approached them from a black powder angle, and both of our approaches had drawbacks. Ancient was more suited to line battles, but black powder was more suited to line battles with guns. Ancient had weaknesses in that it's too little range, and powder had weaknesses in that it's too much range. All war-derived tactics have weaknesses in that for water wars, you want to fight, there are no civilians, there are no politicians, you don't die, you don't need to fund a campaign or provision it on a large scale, and so on. Sports tactics are great for line battles because range of engagement is a good match for water guns, plus it's about lots of small, but important moves. A good mix of sources has created a nice pool of tactics and strategies to use. However, I don't use video game tactics because of the limited feedback available in games. ie, they do not stress your actual body and there's situational awareness things you'd pick up in RL that you can't in a video game, and thus produce unrealistic scenarios.

I'm also pretty much limited to community wars now. There is no one and nothing to do in Easton.

Re: Other gametypes

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:37 pm
by the oncoming storm
DX whats is "sports"? I'm assuming that you forgot to type something else in front of it.