Posted by: Dale "Head_Hunters" DuPont on September 07, 2003 at 13:22:19

I've never played there so just a point of view here. Not directed at anyone in particular unless they decide the shoe fits. Their choice. I've played around the Missouri Area including D day. I play scenerio games almost exclusively now since our paintball community has provided some 22 Scenerio and Big Games within a 5 hour drive of St. Louis this year. D Day included. Some patterns are developing that producers and player might want to take note of and evaluate if it applies in their area. 1. I now regularly ASK for, but RARELY get a response for them to publish or send me the POINTS SCHEDULE for the scenerio missions. I ask AT the GAME and again AT Briefings and ASK MY GENERAL if he has the information. I don't usually get a response and the producer seems a bit uncomfortable when I ask. The actual point assignments seem to be "classifed" even from the General. Heck of a way to plan your attacks and battle plan priorities. At the end of the games, the producers ALWAYS tell us it was a "CLOSE GAME" and this or that mission put this side or the other to the winning circle. We all go home happy and tired. We won or 'almost won'. Our side has been slaughtered all day long and it was a "Close Game". We dominated the other side all day and it was a "Close Game". We've been given a points mission on the last day of play to go here and take this base and hold it until 11:00. No opposing players were defending it nor showed up to attack us holding it. It was a "Gimme" set of points to make the Game CLOSE. I would rather have been playing paintball and getting slaughtered again than gathering ticks in a fox hole with nothing going on. It simply raises the question: ARE WE PLAYING A TACTICAL WAR GAME SCENERIO WHERE WINNING IS BASED ON A EARNED POINTS SYSTEM? I suspect it is NOT. It is common knowledge that the outcome of Oklahoma D Day is manipulated by the Producer DURING the Game. This year he told the German Tanks to stand down for the Sunday Battle so the Allies could make the Game Close. Well, that just ticked off the German Tankers that paid Good MONEY to play with their tank for TWO days of paintball. The producer gives the Generals 'orders' how to deploy and run their side. That is out of bounds for a producer. Set the rules, the missions, the points and LET the GENERAL RUN THE GAME. So who 'won' at D Day? Not the Germans, and Not the Allies. The outcome was manipulated. The score was manipulated. No side truely won on a points EARNED system. The points are being handed out like candy. No "Earning" about it. 2. Do you ever SEE a posted score sheet or marker board with the points earned to date in the STAGING are or Recycling area? We don't around here. No way to see how your side is doing. IF THE SCENERIO GAME POINTS ARE MANIPULATED BY THE PRODUCER AND THUS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME, NOBODY 'WINS'. All they get is bragging rights. I would rather WIN or LOSE based on my team's ability to play a scenerio game. A squad of 5 kids with low end guns that will take orders and rush a position on command is more likely to earn the mission points than 5 tournament level players just wandering around looking for something to shoot at. I don't CARE if it is Close or Not. I want a straight up game where the TEAM earns the braggin rights. Then the whiners and simular comments made here will fade into insignficance. I have NO problem with a game that has clearly been dominated by one side or the other and the producer wants to give the loosing side has a 'chance' to catch up. But the missions should be evenly designed and both sides contesting for the points. Just run 5 missions simultaneously instead of one and see how good the General and their troops can respond to the change in pace. In all probability, the outcome of total points would be the same if they were all 'fair fights'. And for the loosing side to make a come back and take the "Win" they would have to sweep all 5 of the missions. If they did, then they EARNED it. Have you guys is other parts of the country observed the same thing I have here in the MidWest? Should the games be manipulated or just won or lost straight up. Or something in between. What do you producers say? Do you manipulate the game to keep it "close". To make sure ONE side wins, barely... Why don't you publish the mission points and post ongoing scores during the game?

Follow Ups: Re: Do What? Mothman 21:50:00 09/08/03 (0) Re: Politics, excuses, and egos aside...... Hipkiss - Twilight Zone 10:50:02 09/08/03 (0) Post a Followup Show your name as: DefaultRealnameBothNickname E-Mail address (eg: joeschmoe@aol.com): Show your e-mail address? DefaultYesNo Your Password: Don't have a password? CLICK HERE - Forgot your password? CLICK HERE Subject: Subject:Message: : I've never played there so just a point of view here. Not directed at anyone in particular unless they decide the shoe fits. Their choice. : I've played around the Missouri Area including D day. I play scenerio games almost exclusively now since our paintball community has provided some 22 Scenerio and Big Games within a 5 hour drive of St. Louis this year. D Day included. : Some patterns are developing that producers and player might want to take note of and evaluate if it applies in their area. : 1. I now regularly ASK for, but RARELY get a response for them to publish or send me the POINTS SCHEDULE for the scenerio missions. I ask AT the GAME and again AT Briefings and ASK MY GENERAL if he has the information. I don't usually get a response and the producer seems a bit uncomfortable when I ask. The actual point assignments seem to be "classifed" even from the General. Heck of a way to plan your attacks and battle plan priorities. : At the end of the games, the producers ALWAYS tell us it was a "CLOSE GAME" and this or that mission put this side or the other to the winning circle. We all go home happy and tired. We won or 'almost won'. Our side has been slaughtered all day long and it was a "Close Game". We dominated the other side all day and it was a "Close Game". : We've been given a points mission on the last day of play to go here and take this base and hold it until 11:00. No opposing players were defending it nor showed up to attack us holding it. : It was a "Gimme" set of points to make the Game CLOSE. I would rather have been playing paintball and getting slaughtered again than gathering ticks in a fox hole with nothing going on. : It simply raises the question: ARE WE PLAYING A TACTICAL WAR GAME SCENERIO WHERE WINNING IS BASED ON A EARNED POINTS SYSTEM? : I suspect it is NOT. It is common knowledge that the outcome of Oklahoma D Day is manipulated by the Producer DURING the Game. This year he told the German Tanks to stand down for the Sunday Battle so the Allies could make the Game Close. Well, that just ticked off the German Tankers that paid Good MONEY to play with their tank for TWO days of paintball. : The producer gives the Generals 'orders' how to deploy and run their side. That is out of bounds for a producer. Set the rules, the missions, the points and LET the GENERAL RUN THE GAME. : So who 'won' at D Day? Not the Germans, and Not the Allies. The outcome was manipulated. The score was manipulated. No side truely won on a points EARNED system. The points are being handed out like candy. No "Earning" about it. : 2. Do you ever SEE a posted score sheet or marker board with the points earned to date in the STAGING are or Recycling area? We don't around here. No way to see how your side is doing. : IF THE SCENERIO GAME POINTS ARE MANIPULATED BY THE PRODUCER AND THUS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME, NOBODY 'WINS'. All they get is bragging rights. : I would rather WIN or LOSE based on my team's ability to play a scenerio game. A squad of 5 kids with low end guns that will take orders and rush a position on command is more likely to earn the mission points than 5 tournament level players just wandering around looking for something to shoot at. : I don't CARE if it is Close or Not. : I want a straight up game where the TEAM earns the braggin rights. Then the whiners and simular comments made here will fade into insignficance. : : I have NO problem with a game that has clearly been dominated by one side or the other and the producer wants to give the loosing side has a 'chance' to catch up. But the missions should be evenly designed and both sides contesting for the points. Just run 5 missions simultaneously instead of one and see how good the General and their troops can respond to the change in pace. In all probability, the outcome of total points would be the same if they were all 'fair fights'. : And for the loosing side to make a come back and take the "Win" they would have to sweep all 5 of the missions. If they did, then they EARNED it. : Have you guys is other parts of the country observed the same thing I have here in the MidWest? : Should the games be manipulated or just won or lost straight up. Or something in between. : What do you producers say? Do you manipulate the game to keep it "close". To make sure ONE side wins, barely... Why don't you publish the mission points and post ongoing scores during the game? [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ WARPIG Rec Talk ]