Paintball

[10-shot kid]

With the vast amount of free time I've had recently I've been reading diffrent paintball periodicals, most of which have been filled with some alright game reviews but otherwise absoluty boring fluff. A recent article in Facefull Jungle by the Hunter though suprised me. It was on who "doesn't belong" at a scenario game. Now because I've blasted facefull Jungle in the past over one of their articles I want to preface this by saying their magazine at least has integrity, takes a bloody stand on issues, and has noncrap articles inside it instead of obnoxious advertisments every other bloody line. If that magazine continues to improve along the lines it has I'll be getting a subscribtion even if they puplish articles like this I disagree with.

The Article

The article in short stipulated that certain teams don't belong at scenario's, most notably blues crew, because they 'don't play the game' of scenario. They are big game teams that show up and don't run missions, roleplay to any meaningful extent, and as best described in the infamous words of blue "We show up to shoot people and don't care about anything else." From what I could gather the hunters belief is that these teams actual hurt the scenario to some extent in their complete ignorning of the the "true nature" of the game. I got a little ticked at this, blues crew is my homefield team, which is why I've taken so long to reply to the article.

This whole speel really suprised me as out of all the magazines that cover scenario facefull Jungle has always been the most understanding of how the game is played. Yes it's true, field controll and painting up the other team doesn't win the game, it's actually quite easy to lose if this is your only focus and the other side is any good. At most scenarios missions win the game. At a few others roleplaying will win the game.

Refute in Terms of Old Doctrine

To say that a team/group doesn't belong on the field though because they arn't playing how you want is absurd. It's straight out though to think that the upfront shooters we sometimes call run and gun teams, grinders, meatshields, etc. are not important to the win. Historically they have infact been the backbone of any side.

If I controll 75% of the field guess where your not running missions and picking up props. As a nice bonus I get to chew up your mission teams as they try to get to objectives thus forcing you to spend more manpower you don't have to spare. If I take your base guess what's going to happen to that massive prop cache. I'm going to jack it from you right along with your teams morale. If I own the field I only need one guy to go flip flag X and walk to field Y instead of a whole bloody team. I like to call those people not spent on missions due to field control "assets of your immenint doom."

Sure it hurts the game when one side owns the majority of the field. It's boring to do a recon mission on an empty field on my side of the 50 when the line is at your end zone. If I have field control I've bassically eliminated the challenge of doing the majority of the missions that come in. While this is obviously good for my goal, winning, it isn't good for my players who came to play paintball instead of scavenger hunt.

My Arguement

These brings me to the two pronged reason of why this article was written. First is the changing demographic of our player pool. Secound is the movement by many run and gun teams (of which Blue's Crew isn't one) to change scenario into a big game. Both of these have lead to a division of sorts between the players.

The New Doctrine and the Cause of it's Change

The average scenario player has vastly changed in the last couple of years. For one our average skill level in scenario has been expodentially increasing due to the growing number of our core group and droping off of our newbie group (backed up by the most recent SGMA report). This means that it is both harder to play the game than it used to be and field controll counts for a hell of a lot more.

This is how back when a team owned 75% of the field it could still lose if it didn't run missions and get props by the other team striking in the right spots. Teams don't have to worry as much about those missions getting done and props getting picked up because the frontline mass isn't stupid like it used to be. I've been to numerous games where a mission has come in and commanders have sucessfully won games by going "hey, pick up like 15 people on your way to the objective and do the mission" whereas before that strategey spelled almost virtual failure.

Adding to this is the new high value sponserships being sparsely sprinkled into our section of the game. Whereas before commanders had to hope that team X was there to play for the win they now have it easily labled for them who is deffiently their for the win. If Team X has a big sponser the general knows that team has to perform. They know they'll go do the mission, they don't need that extra manpower or trust.

This allows for the new doctrine to be focused more one stopping the other side from completing it's missions than getting your own done. At your average scenario I can send just about everyone to the front bar one or two missions specific teams who I know are awesome (much to the shigrin of the good teams I don't know) and not be overly concerned about things getting done. Even better I know that I can grab almost any decent looking team off an insert and they can get the job done. The most effective way to stop the other sides sucess is to own the field.

So the old mission runners and roleplayers blame the run and gunners when they get slapped on the front line, or command favoritism, when instead it's just diffrent. The entire side at any given game is far more modular than it used to be, it's easier to swap out person X for Y. In short the specialized system of group silver does roleplay, gold does missions, and bronze hits the front is now virtually outdated and no longer effective.

We suck, so Lets Change that!

The other reason why people share the Hunters feelings is because of the movement by a rather large group to make scenario a run and gun big game. This has already been gone over at length within the community so I'll skip the whole proving portion of this point and get right to my conclusion. Because the group trying to dumb down scenario is vastly run and gun it makes sucessfull run and gun teams easy scapegoats. It's not their fault the game is changing though, it's the silly people vying for the sponserships who can't play scenario and want to look good.

If someone is offering 100 bucks to anyone with the most wins/MVPS/MVTs/etc than your average person is going try and figure out how to shape the game for them to get recognition the easiest. The majority of Scenario players don't know how to run missions or roleplay, but they know how to shoot. So they try to just make it shooting match that's easy to look good at instead of a challenge.

conclusion

So teams like Blues Crew and other run and guns guys not only belong at scenario they are becoming a more important proverbial piece on the board. The winning field doctrine is shifting and with that the skills of importance are shifting as well. This will continue until a producer finds out how to write a game that makes it impossible to just have two skirmish lines.

[Harbinger[TG]]

We need teams at the front running-and-gunning as much than teams running missions. I think all the tourney players being general is far worse than this.

We both know the tourney scene is struggling and that companies are forcing them into our game. I cannot stand that. There are tons of teams that deserve the recognition for what they have done on and off the field. But no, in order for them to sell games now, they throw some tourney guy none of us care about into a leadership role. I see this more with newer fields and producers being backed by the bigger companies.

As I have stated many times: if I show up and so pro dude is general, I will be asking for a refund and we will leave the game. What about all the teams that have done scenarios for 10+years?? Where is their sponsorship and accolades? Where is there command slots?

We have always been the heart of the sport and treated like crap. Now that they realize it is woods and scenario that will keep this sport alive as it has for almost 25 years, they want to market it and destroy it by giving people who really know squat all the things we deserve.

This reminds me of our old what is a scenario debate. Many people will think ION is a scenario. I beg to differ that it is a themed big game (not to mention a total CF).

Also why I got in trouble at the other place.

Putting a tourney in the woods does not make it a scenario.

Great post. What magazine wrote this?

[Mstrtal]

Problem I see a lot lately is there is less roleplaying. Its not just about running and gunning and the missions. Missions are paramount and controlling the field is important but where is the roleplaying disappearing to? What happened to gaining points for your side for taking your character and having a discussion with an opposing roleplayer to further the games story? What happened to dickering and swapping props and fake props for advantage and trying to convince the Mandarins Wujen that you have the missing ingredient to he elixir of eternal youth when all you have is some tap water with a fancy label you snuck onto the field to trade for some game cash? Where is the roleplaying?

[CrazyBoy78]

Originally Posted by Mstrtal

Where is the roleplaying?

Agreed. I always liked playing the role of medic but only one or two fields regularly use those rules. Same goes for engineers and spies. I miss that kinda stuff.

[Marauder_Pilot]

That's why I like D-Day so much. There's loads of room for every sort of player to get their respective scenario thing on, and they're not putting in the pro-of-the-day in the top spot.

[Clearush]

It seems that lots of places are adapting the term "Scenario Game" to also include themed big games. So its become a game of which definition of Scenario are the producers using A or B.

Field owners are looking around and seeing games with 100, 200 or even 1000 players at a time playing "Scenario" games and thinking "holy crap that's alot of money, I need to have a scenario game". And viola you get a big game labeled "Scenario" to draw the crowds.

I guess it will come down to word of mouth on who's producing scenarios and who's just labeling big games with the scenario label for the cash.

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by Clearush

It seems that lots of places are adapting the term "Scenario Game" to also include themed big games. So its become a game of which definition of Scenario are the producers using A or B.

Field owners are looking around and seeing games with 100, 200 or even 1000 players at a time playing "Scenario" games and thinking "holy crap that's alot of money, I need to have a scenario game". And viola you get a big game labeled "Scenario" to draw the crowds.

I guess it will come down to word of mouth on who's producing scenarios and who's just labeling big games with the scenario label for the cash.

Exactly. And certain sites like the one I used to mod for don't give a damn about what is a real scenario or big game. They will gladly take your money to announce a 5 man woods tourney and put it in the scenario section. While all the real players know the difference, all the newer people will not.

Just because it is in the woods does not make it a scenario. Same goes with all these new producers thinking that "super pro tourney guy" should general. Sure he is a great tourney player, but what scenario credentials does he have?? More than likely, none.

So while they get the keys to the kingdom handed over to them, we get screwed.

So This rift will continue to grow and destroy our sport. There will be tons of knobs dressing up thinking they are playing a "scenario" when it is just a big game.

To repost a thread I mad months ago that got me an infraction at peanut butter:

WELCOME TO THE GRAND ILLUSION

Welcome to the grand illusion
Come on in and see whats happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
Wishing secretly you were a star.

But dont be fooled by the radio
The tv or the magazines
They show you photographs of how your life should be
But theyre just someone elses fantasy
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because you never win the game
Just remember that its a grand illusion
And deep inside were all the same.
Were all the same...

So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because your neighbors got it made
Just remember that its a grand illusion
And deep inside were all the same.
Were all the same...

America spells competition, join us in our blind ambition
Get yourself a brand new motor car
Someday soon well stop to ponder what on earths this spell were under
We made the grade and still we wonder who the hell we are

[ScrapIron]

I think part of the problem is that your average (think new, 1st -2nd year, only 2-3 games under his/her belt) scenario player, and even some of the more experienced scenario players don't realize that simply roleplaying can in fact win your side points.

When we had Pirates fighting Vampires at Realms of Ruin and I ran into skirmishes talking like a Pirate I had no clue Trips would give us points just for that, the important thing to me was that I was having fun.

When I was playing Leroy Jenkins at the Battle for Ironforge at Blanding I didn't know I had won any style points until we were cleaning up the field afterwards.
I was just having a good time and trying to screw with the other roleplayer's heads.

(flashback coming on...)
Three role players meeting in a building at World of Warcraft game at Camp Blanding,
NPC: Good to see you two made it, I have a mission for you both
Roleplayer 1: Great, whats the mission
Roleplayer 2, Stares off into space
NPC: I need you two to... blah blah blah
Roleplayer 1: I think we can do that, blah blah
NPC: Just make sure you get it completed by blah blah
Roleplayer 2, still staring off into space
Roleplayer 1: Will do, (turnes to RP2) you get all that Leroy?
Roleplayer 2, still staring off into space
NPC: Leroy? (waves hand infront of RP2's face)
Roleplayer 2, still staring off into space
Roleplayer 1: whats wrong with him?
NPC: Tim? hey Tim?
Roleplayer 2, stops staring off into space
Roleplayer 2: Sorry, I was just putting something in the microwave, what did I miss?
NPC: Holy crap you were AFK?


(...end of flashback)

And that is how style points can be won.

[delta paintball]

Great post 10 shot, you . heh

Another issue that I dislike, is the "tourney" guys writing articles on the in's and out's of scenario ball. (cough*PB Sports*cough) I mean, they are great paintballer's in their aspect of paintball, but to try to tell others how to play scenario games is just rediculous.

This goes back to a post by harb months ago about tourney guys being jammed down our collective throats at events, and dont get me wrong, all the ones that I have hung out with were great guys, but to have them general games because of what team they play for and who they are, well, we have seen the result of it. The same goes for some scenario teams, but that is a differnt issue all together.

On a similar topic, I wish to ask the people of MCB this, what is your collective opinion of the flashy jerseys in the woods and the such? Is it "scenario" enough?

A good example happened at ION 1 or 2 years ago, (who knows at this point), a player who was in the WW II garb came up to me off the field at one point, and said that I (and my team) shouldnt be there, as we were in "motocross" gear, and were not true scenario players. I informed him that you were not required to carry around 30 pounds worth of useless gear because it made you look "WW II ish", and to make a long story short, we agreed to disagree and went our seperate ways.

I fully belive that I am a scenario player, I have roleplayed once or twice, I have generaled and xo'ed a few games (most notably, Vipers Apoc Now game), my team runs missions whenever we can (we are a run-gun-mission team), and the same goes for the guys on my team. But just because we choose to wear a bright yellow jersey in the woods, it doesnt make us scenario players?

So what says you MCBers?

[Marauder_Pilot]

I don't care what people are wearing. Everybody is there to have fun, and if fun to someone is a historically accurate costume, go for it. As long as you're doing your part, it's all good.