|Scenario and Big Game Archive Archived Games and Discussions|
| ||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|06-18-2008, 04:09 PM||#62 (permalink)|
Cobra Paintball Fanatic
In relation to what MstrTal said...
My personal favorite was "hmmm, 20 minutes before the pre-final battle break, I don't know about the rest of you, but i don't feel like carrying these helicopters back to the trailer. Do we have 4 pilots? yeah, ok, everyone thats taped for it, grab a stick we're going to go deliver these to the other team's base."
got to the other teams base, and they didn't have a single Demo available to shoot us down, and of course we had all the helos, so one by one we "crash landed" after circling the wagons around their base a couple times.
Shoot first, check armband tape later.
|06-18-2008, 06:29 PM||#63 (permalink)|
I try to keep me and my team grounded in all aspects of the game, we can role play, run missions, run interdiction, run counter-mission, hit the base, prop hunt, C2 (command and control) or whatever. We try to fit into the mold of whatever is needed to bring balance to our side. However I do not expect anyone to be like me, if they want to be that's great but I would never tell people that they need to be like me to be successful.
A smart commander is able to recruit all manner of teams and that is why people get to play the way they want to. Be that 'loud and proud' or mil-sim or even dressed up like a bananna, the issue that I take is that even Mike says that they aren't a scenario team and they really don't embrace the 'ambiance' of scenario paintball. It is about shooting paint and repping EMR, and that is really ok for them. But what if you aren't repping a field or sponsors? How does a team get the recognition that Blue's Crew does? They don't and that actually builds resentment, but that is another post.
In the end, the issue (at least to me) is that people need to recognize that there are other teams out there, that bring more success to their side then teams like Blue's Crew, because when you take no roles in the game play then you have no responsibility in the win or the loss and you well you can just show up shoot some paint, go get a beer on Sat night and come back on Sunday. And if everyone did that then, why have a 26 hour scenario game?
|06-18-2008, 08:09 PM||#65 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2008
The cigar selection for this post is the Coronado double corona by la flor.
TB: Thanks for replying dude, we will finally have a good debate.
I will have to start by saying that I too thought the coverage of the CPX game was a tad bit unbalanced, I remember us taking the field to their insertion point without the help of a tank the secound time around. I think the top two left paragraphs on pg. 32 where pretty good, then it did sorta devolve into us winning by luck and trickery (lone tank, paragraph on me), but the real story of how much we pwned would have been boring. Also your team deserved more coverage, from your command to the story of cilio flipping all 5 sticks in the final battle for example was nothing short of epic. The cover shot for that article did bring back awesome memories though.
"10-shot that you went off a little half-cocked where this article is concerned."
what got me pissed was this dealy-o "They don't belong in scenarios" which is entirely against my personal view of scenario. I think we both have the "play to win" mentality, which in turn requires us to focus on mission completion, but simply have diffrent approches to it. I'll hit on that in a little bit but first let me reply to what you posted.
I totally agree that,
"They are a marketing machine for EMR, combined of mostly members of other EMR home teams, who travel the NE and other parts of the country to promote EMR."
and honestly it's far better than Blues old method of "word of mouth" which was hurting EMR in comparison to Skirmishes marketing blitz (ION was not, nor has ever been, the best scenario of the year) which was killing my new home field. I'll even agree the trend of teams who don't stick it out and play the entire bloody game is a total pisser, but you and members of this board know my feelings on that already.
I see two central points that are causing debate in our two posts though,
-magazine coverage is wicked scewed
-do run and gun teams belong
let me cover the first point first. We all know magazine coverage is wicked scewed and always has been. I think Jungle does the best out of all the magazines in not being downright obnoxious about it and showing integrity. I've never seen a magazine be balsy enough to be as honest and but across actual points on hot button subjects like they did.
Are they obviously promoting a run and gun style of play in their recent issues? I'd say yes. I'd say it was because they are transitioning from speedball to scenario though not because of marketing influence but your more experienced in the subject of paintball media. It's difficult to not only fully grasp what's happening on the scenario field but to also report on it.
Another reason they could also be focusing on this style of play is their target demographic, newish players to scenario. Which sounds more exciting on page 40 secound paragraph from "go" of issue 16. My "charging into the oncoming barrage" or "securing the forward most bunkers." We both know my style of play doesn't center around bum rushes and deadman walks into the entire mass of the other side with just a pistol but it makes a better story in print for the new guy.
On point two do run and gunners belong. I'd say yes. Look at the CPX game for example. We dominated that game by holding a large percentage of the field. The same was true for the VIP game. Your write up at worldoftb.com on being fluid in commanding forces is bassically what I was trying to get across in my original post.
Does blues crews unfortunate tendancy to take long breaks and only really clear areas of the field hurt them? Absolutly, but their unlimited paint slinging pushes can be used at any scenario to help run a mission. Case in point at the CPX game when cilio was running that mission down the right tape to shoot the enemy base. I had no clue what his mission was but when I see cilio running full sprint in a direction I know he's on some hard mission.
I took the mass of the teams firepower and dedicated it to the center left knowing that would draw in BC and PBN thus every walkon on their side and proberly a couble teams leaving cilio to do whatever it was he was doing. I allocated Delta (mid team) and a bunch of other dudes I didn't know (thus firepower in my perception) to the center left so we'd hold out more than a couple minutes. I kept them a little back to allow the other team to stage up against our mass instead of locking them out. This mass of firepower along with open positions would draw in the other side while the allocation of members of voodoo I know to be "smart dudes" who don't open up right away in cilios area would support his rear. It was a total sucess, not because PBN and BC are easy to draw in but because the high majority of the time a mass of firepower lodged in someones insert with an open approach will draw them to that area instead of around it.
majority of the time. the majority of the time your not facing someone as smart and strategically sound as you. The majority of the time run and gunners can be employed strategically to put serious hurt on the other team. Sure it sucks that seldom amount of times the other team can read the field in a short span of time and it sucks more if your playing a "hard" scenario but that's the minority.
If your real point is that the utter lack of stamina of BC and other teams like them means they are a bad asset then I'd totally agree with you, and I'd agree with the article if that's what it was saying. I'm tired of never getting a true 24 hour game because scenario is hard. Instead it attacked the proverbial backbone of scenario, the grinders, and I'd have to disagree with that. You need your bishops and knights in chess, sure they arn't as important as the queens and rooks, but they open the board for the checkmates.
Your command and controll decisions are based around military doctrine and the idea your commanding an actual army against another actual army. I lean more twoards the idea that it's two militias hitting each other. Militias are swamped in politics, posturing, break ranks easily, and don't properly read the field. This is proberly due moreso to the entirely diffrent cultures in the areas we play.
Is one command style better than the other? Well yoursdeffiently is when you look at them seperatly in a stand alone test. Both your awesome record and the much higher respect you get nationwide obviously shows that. When you put them both together, as we have in a few games, it works awesomly though.
|11-01-2011, 11:13 PM||#68 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2008
back when I had wayyyy too much freetime
|04-09-2012, 08:08 AM||#70 (permalink)|
I only show up to get shot
Visit my Sponsor page:
"When all else fails, pull the pin and see what
Follow Team Blackrain on Face Book:
Best Auto cocker info ever
Just like to make crazy stuff for paintball? Click here
How Paintballs are made
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|