Winners and losers

[-MAD- SARGE]

To those that attend organized events, what do you guys like to see?

I have my preference but I'm just curious to see how others feel.   Your feedback is appreciated!  Thanks!

[birdman]

Hmm, this is interesting. It has actually made me think, because before all the games I go to there really was no winning or losing being considered. however I do try to communicate and work as a team (or at least a small fire team). But I do not have an actual team so I cannot speak for something that may be a little more organized that teamless players are blind to. I would think that maybe there's friendly rival's and competition between the teams, then at the end of the day it's all fun and games anyway.

[-MAD- SARGE]

When I say team, I use it loosely as in the side you are fighting for or the squad/people you are working with.  There are many people who arrive to a game as an individual who then ends up working with others as a team at airsoft games. You definately don't need to be on an airsoft team to have a preference.

[birdman]

I know, but It just made me think that made had I had the experience of being on an actual team maybe my mindset would be different. I cannot say for sure since I have no experience.

[Vince]

I voted yes.

Airsoft games are about airsoft, not honoring the fallen and veterans, etc, etc. It's noble and nice to say that, but I don't need a day or weekend blocked off to do that. Not to mention 99.99999999% of veterans alive who are unaware of what airsoft is would be like 'WTF?' if you tried to tell them that to pay them respect, you imitate them in the woods on the weekend. Raise that up to 100% if you're out of shape. Too many ops gloss over the actual gameplay and just focus on the pageantry and use this as a blanket excuse for not having a winner, or a loser.

However, by the same token, almost every op I've ever been to has an inexcusably bad point system or a point system adjusted on the fly. If you're going to have actions broken down as points, have them be commensurate of effort and set ahead of time. Measurements are common in everything; manufacturing, business, other sports, etc. If I set out at the beginning of a fiscal quarter and said I'd measure the success of my staff by x, x and x and then I changed those 2/3 of the way through, the data would be useless and I would acting unethically.

There's been too many games where like, you got 1000 points for defending a point way out in the middle of nowhere that had no strategic value other than simply existing, but you got 350 points for disabling crucial enemy assets such as armor and transporation or by conveying neutral strategic assets long distances (Night Scorpion 2 comes to mind; we brought a box of screaming babies [dumb] like 3 or 4 miles down a ravine and up a pretty steep grade and received less points for this activity than we did for simply grabbing a flag the previous day).

I guess my answer is more like 'yes, but only if they are done properly.'

[xTanTricK]

I voted no just because I enjoy trying to work well with my team more than anything. A point system is nice and keeps the game conpetitve but to me, its just more important to go out and have fun with a group of guys I get along with.

Excuse any typos as this was typed on a phone.

[theFlyingTrumpet]

I submitted no, just because I've seen some ridiculous point systems that end up flying out the window as soon as a game started. I still like knowing what team won and lost, but prefer judging by which team is holding the most bases/ground as the end of the game, or whether one team blew up a bomb or the other team successfully defended against the bomb. In my mind this adds to the realism. There's no point system on an actual battlefield. (Please don't flame me for comparing airsoft to actual warfare haha)
That being said, having a point system won't make me not attend a game. I'd rather have a not perfect point system than a game with no winners and losers.

[rictas777]

I put down no, there are some ridiculous nubs out there who will make an EXTREMLY BIG deal out of admitting if they are hit or make a big fuss if they think they shot another. It is what it is, i'd rather just have fun and know in my heart that i got him/her and i have a cool story to tell to my buddies now.

[nukeduster]

I agree with both yes and no, in the way they are worded.

I like to have objectives that focus on team work and planning. I like to know that we worked as a team and won or lost because we failed to do so.

If the game is evenly matched, and the objectives are clear and well thought out, and the point system makes sense for what the game is trying to achieve, then point systems can work out well.

However, you need a fool proof way of accruing points and making it known to your guys how many you have, as the game progresses. If the way to win a points game is to accrue points, knowing as the game progresses will help formulate plans on the go to ensure you have enough points to win.

Being told a number at the end of the day is un-rewarding. The winners will feel victorious and the losers will probably wonder how they could have done better, because there was no direct feedback about how they were doing, while they were doing it.

Keeping it simple, and broadcasting over the coms as objectives are achieved and I think points can work quite well.

My teams next game will focus on points, but mainly from the perspective of reinforcement, not objective based points.

[carbon14c]

I guess my answer is more like 'yes, but only if they are done properly.'

this. properly weighted objectives/scoring systems are cool

[Paradox]

Mine was no. After reading over everyone's  input you have too many factors that can manipulate the outcome of a game  using a point system. These are negative factors. Like people not calling their hits. This alters the game  mechanics dramatically therefore by spending valuable time working on a strategic point that's worth say 50 points when you could have disarmed a bomb worth 100 points... In my half ass opinion working with a team to overcome obstacles and objectives way out weights the point system. I learned something from our Green horn games. Having Objectives to be over taken and not worrying about points helps for fluidity of the mechanics of the game more so than worrying about who got what points.

At GreenHorn 2 we had the snipers play key roles. If we didn't bother about points I think the game might have turned out differently. I am basically saying that in our experience in hosting the games we have. We have learned to have an objective and give them X amount of time to complete until End Ex of the game. Let them figure out how to obtain their objective. Thus creating an environment where the players have control of the outcome by forcing them to work together.

[Bowser]

I like having point systems that are tied to control of physical objects or locations at the end of the game.

An easy example would be field domination games at Fighter Town. The team that has control of the most flag sites at the end of the game wins.

[-MAD- SARGE]

Here is my out look on things.  I have never enjoyed games with a points system.  They generally don't work because they are way too subjective and don't make sense.  How should it be determined how much each mission should be worth?  As Vince mentioned, he had an experience where two missions were scored the same but each mission was vastly different in difficulty.  This leads me to have a bad experience because I feel like the missions don't matter because they are arbitrarily assigned points that don't make sense. Another example is where the game dynamics are usually poor and a day that was fought very hard all day was quickly lost in the last 15mins because the enemy finally took the control points which were only looked at and scored at the end of the day.  I've seen a whole weekend of play decided in the first 15mins due to the poor points system, simply by one side gaining control of a single key building.  Also in general most point based games seem to either have very simple objectives which don't satisfy me with a mental challenge or go way overboard to have convoluted objectives that are subjective to "chance" and are very tacky at best. Like finding a "random" banker for "intel" who is just wandering the streets in the mists of a heavily contested area.

The only few exceptions where points can work is either at a team competition, because this type of event demands a non biased point structure. And the other is a standard game set up with a simple control point structure system where all control points are worth the same, are equally spaced from both factions and are equally defendable/breachable. Easier said than done but is achievable. 


For me it just comes down to what is my mission and how are we going to best accomplish that task so we can be issued the next task or Frago.  Especially at milsim events, I don't care if I shoot anyone all day long, as long as we successfully complete our missions. I really enjoy the process of getting a grid coordinate, plotting a course, setting up an ORP, recon the objective, creating a plan of attack and then moving to contact. I love watching how the plan either falls exactly into place or how we have to quickly adapt the plan to meet the ever changing conditions on the field. Then reviewing what we did well or bad during the task.  I and the team know how well we did by the outcome of how well we performed. I don't care about how the other teams performed or not.  It's all about the mission and taking care of my teammates. If I just wanted to shoot people or have random points thrown at me, I would have gone to a local tailgate game.   

With that said, that's my opinion and there are many more out there.  So what is your's?

[Toast]

I personally like objective based games. Even in a battlefield style game with capturing and defending flags. I'm not thinking of points earned or lost, I thinking about what needs to be done to reach an objective, then move on to the next objective. I'm also a fan of dynamic game play that evolves as the game plays. Now that is not an easy task to plan but it is doable and I've played at a couple great games that worked that way.
An example of gameplay that I like usually only happens at larger games mostly due to logistics and the size of forces. Your squad gets a FRAG to take a position or building. You don't worry about why, you just concentrate on getting the job done.
Of course it's always hard to design a perfect game. You could have a point based system and have half the guys on one team wander off on self proclaimed search and destroy missions. They may rack up more kills, which are not counted, but end up "losing" the game because no objectives were completed. I've also played at games where lack of management or game design is so bad the rules change every 10 minutes. I've also seen games change halfway through because players complain they don't like how it works.
I've found that the most important factor in any game is management and communication.
Game planning just comes with years of practice and experiencing what works and what doesn't.