Do you (PTFO) play the objective?

[Seth_Erebor]

Is going for the objective, even without contact, better than getting kills?

 

A user on the forum mentioned that the high of a skirmish went quickly, that got me thinking about when specifically during the day does the enjoyment factor peak.

 

As an objective-orientated person, I don't mind not getting kills if I feel I'm making a difference. So playing as a medic and getting players back into the game is one of my favourite roles.

Alternatively, I go for an intel role, directing teammates on how to flank/avoid the enemy.

 

So my question is this, is getting "kills" as important as social media portrays? What are your priorities?

[Jedi_Master]

What is PTFO?  May need a better title description.

[Tackle]

I used to, now I leave all the purposeful dashing about to the youngsters & take more of an "interdiction" role, make sense as I used to do it for a living, bit of a busman's holiday lol 😁

[Hami]

16 minutes ago, Jedi_Master said:

What is PTFO?  May need a better title description.

Play the Fucking objective.? 

 

I enjoy both. A well thought out game would have both 

 

 

[Philby21]

Hard to say, really.

 

I've had games where everyone has worked well together and we've had great fun achieving the objective.

 

I've had games where I've only managed to shoot a couple of people and others where me and my side have virtually walked all over the opposition.

 

Then there's been games where a group of us have been pinned down, completely hemmed in and getting so low on ammo one of the guys threw an empty mag at someone who rushed our position.

 

And I've loved every single one of them.

 

As long as myself and everyone else is having fun I'm really not that bothered on way or the other.  Others might be a bit more target orientated but when it comes right down to it, it's really just a game/hobby.

[Druid799]

59 minutes ago, Tackle said:

I used to, now I leave all the purposeful dashing about to the youngsters & take more of an "interdiction" role, make sense as I used to do it for a living, bit of a busman's holiday lol 😁

Know the feeling bud ! Was always getting told off for being ‘too active’ as I was the medic ! 😇

any hoo I will happily stick to the objective if I’m with players I know can actually work as a team (fire and manoeuvre , breach , etc) and NOT just a team in name only as in “oh we’re the red team”, if this situation isn’t on the cards then i do more often than not brake off with a friend or two and just drift around the site getting as many kills as We can , I’m sure Tackle and most of the players who’ve served will back this up but a lot of younger players have no idea about all around awareness , there fully aware of what’s going on in front of them out to about 120-30degrees wide (about what you see on a computer game ?) but if You swing out really wide on the site you can get right in behind the other team and get plenty of kills from behind and the look of shock 😱on the ‘dead’ players faces is frequently priceless! 🤣

[Adolf Hamster]

It depends, most regular skirmishes here the objective is rarely something that can really be played any faster than normal play. Mostly we tend to play to our strengths and go sneaky in the forest areas and try and keep the flanks secured rather than actually doing any pushing (except when the enemy forgets to do the same and get a swift lesson in how not all shots from behind are freindly fire)

 

That said, site i used to play at used to run a push game, with the objective to get one guy into the tower at the end. Of course occasionally you'd get the odd enterprising chap who'd sneak through the lines and take a bloodless victory but more often than not he'd just end up sitting there while there rest of us had a fun time fighting what we thought was a frantic defensive fight. Not that we ever cared who won or lost, the fun was in holding the line.

 

In the right circumstances i do think we need better objective based gameplay, although i must admit from when i have been to events that really focus this it still ends up a chaotic free for all with the typical forgetting by almost everyone involved of what the actual objective is.

 

Not normal i'd make a sweeping generalisation but when it comes to mastering anything more complex than shoot the bad guys its amazing how badly a group of airsofters can hash it up.

[Rogerborg]

9 hours ago, Seth_K said:

So playing as a medic and getting players back into the game is one of my favourite roles.

 

Yes, I loved doing that at a milsim-light, clipping little carabiners on folk to get them back in.  I was wow such disappoint when they dropped that role the next time they ran one, it really helped to actually keep squads together.

 

On a typical skirmish day though, I sometimes don't even bother with the objective at all, if it's dull. I'm there to sling BBs, not to also serve by only standing and waiting.

[clumpyedge]

Hearding cats - That's what Airsoft compares to.

 

You do have the people that want to play the objectives and actually follow what the game scenario is, then you have the people that just want to turn up, spray the 5 bottles of bb's they bought the day before and go home. I have noticed that you can give people all the information in the world, maps, pictures...everything they need and they still fluff it. Most people don't want to do the stuff where your not shooting as much as that's why they bought a gun... to shoot people. I've been to some sites where anything more than take flag A to position B is to much information to absorb.

 

Nothing wrong with turning up with the intention just to shoot but when a majority of one side has that intention and no notion of wanting to do the objectives it makes for very boring game days IMO.

[Steveocee]

I tend not to actually carry out the objective missions, capture this or rescue that but I do tend to skirt around the flanks of "the pack". I exclusively play sniper role so it doesn't suit me being in the thick of it and on the flank of my team I'm usually on the flank of the enemy.

[clumpyedge]

6 minutes ago, Steveocee said:

I tend not to actually carry out the objective missions, capture this or rescue that but I do tend to skirt around the flanks of "the pack". I exclusively play sniper role so it doesn't suit me being in the thick of it and on the flank of my team I'm usually on the flank of the enemy.

 

I think the sniper role is really the only exception for not going for objectives unless you get a specific recce mission etc.

[Steveocee]

8 minutes ago, clumpyedge said:

 

I think the sniper role is really the only exception for not going for objectives unless you get a specific recce mission etc.

 

Don't get me wrong, there a lot of occasions where it's me and my sniper buddy going into CQB houses first or fighting our way into or out of an objective because our team are too busy playing full operator dug in not moving. Embarrassing for them really when the lads from "out back" are leading the way.

[Immortal]

I do a bit of both and a percentage depends on the rif of the day.

 

If I have a Sniper style role I'll sometimes 'go hunting' or 'lay in wait for a target', sometimes I'll stay with my squad and back them up. One team mate often acts like a spotter when there's a target he can't hit or if it would be more effective to just pick them off from a far.

 

Other times with an assault style role I flow with my squad. And depending if they have a medic rule I'll often go on a suicide run to tag people back in regardless if they're in my squad or just on the same team.

 

As for objectives; it depends what they are. I'm not a great runner so I detest being handed a flag but I'll still do it for the team.

 

I much prefer to role with the squad and exterminate the opposition to make way for true runners to go for the objective. I also like to support players going for objectives and cover their retreat.

 

It's a lot about opportunity and being in the right place at the right time too. Flip a coin on that one...

[EvilMonkee]

Here we go again, another Seth K 'topic' which is actually research for his 'site' he is opening.....

[Guest DrAlexanderTobacco]

2 minutes ago, EvilMonkee said:

Here we go again, another Seth K 'topic' which is actually research for his 'site' he is opening.....

I def agree with you that Seth K is probably using this for his perma-dream of opening a next-gen airsoft site.

 

At the same time tho it's generated a pretty nice discussion thus far ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

4 hours ago, clumpyedge said:

Hearding cats - That's what Airsoft compares to.

 

You do have the people that want to play the objectives and actually follow what the game scenario is, then you have the people that just want to turn up, spray the 5 bottles of bb's they bought the day before and go home. I have noticed that you can give people all the information in the world, maps, pictures...everything they need and they still fluff it. Most people don't want to do the stuff where your not shooting as much as that's why they bought a gun... to shoot people. I've been to some sites where anything more than take flag A to position B is to much information to absorb.

 

Nothing wrong with turning up with the intention just to shoot but when a majority of one side has that intention and no notion of wanting to do the objectives it makes for very boring game days IMO.

 

One thing I've been idly thinking about is whether it would be possible to add a level of incentive into the mix for genuinely winning, small prize per winning member or whatever. Probably wouldn't work too well for a straight skirmish for reasons you've already stated.

 

Another thing I was thinking of is a messenger-esque role that could be divvied out by marshals, essentially you'd have certain people each taking a site-issued radio and trying to stick to one area of the site to keep team-mates around them updated on the specific objectives in play, steps required etc - I've found the biggest problem with playing the objective in certain games is down to how it can be hard to keep track of the objectives! People who end up securing some/completing them might never end up updating the rest of the team, and IMO that's a key part of why some people tend to regress into playing for kills.

 

 

[clumpyedge]

17 minutes ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

I def agree with you that Seth K is probably using this for his perma-dream of opening a next-gen airsoft site.

 

At the same time tho it's generated a pretty nice discussion thus far ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

One thing I've been idly thinking about is whether it would be possible to add a level of incentive into the mix for genuinely winning, small prize per winning member or whatever. Probably wouldn't work too well for a straight skirmish for reasons you've already stated.

 

Another thing I was thinking of is a messenger-esque role that could be divvied out by marshals, essentially you'd have certain people each taking a site-issued radio and trying to stick to one area of the site to keep team-mates around them updated on the specific objectives in play, steps required etc - I've found the biggest problem with playing the objective in certain games is down to how it can be hard to keep track of the objectives! People who end up securing some/completing them might never end up updating the rest of the team, and IMO that's a key part of why some people tend to regress into playing for kills.

 

 

 

That's why the site I work at we keep linear objectives so as not to be overly confusing, once one objective has been hit game pauses and then the next is set up or communicated. Bit long winded but it keeps everyone in the same boat.

[Albiscuit]

I prefer games with an objective, but it has to be one the whole team get behind. I love sacrificing myself to get in the room with the objective or to grab the bag/box/flag but I usually end up walking back to spawn watching 90% of my team playing a team deathmatch style game. Its one of the things which really frustrate me and make me want to try sim type games.

 

Some sites do it well, Airsoft plantation had good tactical style games people seemed to get behind, Battle lakes too.

The Mall was usually one that frustrated me. As much as I loved the site and playing there,  I usually ended up with a group who tried to play the 'game' and collect the laptop bags or hunt the VIPs etc but when it came to counting them, or hunting the personality the rest of the team seemed not to have bothered.

 

I get people pay their money to play their game, but when a site has an objective then you should for the most part try to complete for the team. 

 

I guess if sites had more of an emphasis of their games being a team based objective type game it might help this. But most sites split the players, take them to a field and say whoever gets XYZ at the end wins and most people dont give a shit. 

Now if the site took the two teams aside and appointed side missions gave out maps and took more time over the brief, maybe even appointing roles or something it might help to invest the players into playing more of a team.

30 minutes ago, EvilMonkee said:

Here we go again, another Seth K 'topic' which is actually research for his 'site' he is opening.....

If he starts a good one, and it works then I will be glad for his market research.

 

Not a huge fan of his approach but a good question to ask.

[Craigmc1983]

It can depend on the day and who I've gone with.

 

I've been the guy holding down the button to get time on the clock as my team mates cover me from the enemies, gone off with one mate skirting around the edge and taking out loads of enemies from the back and led suicidal charges in the thick of the action.

 

That's one of the things I like about Airsoft, there's always a role to play that can suit how you're feeling on the day.

[Seth_Erebor]

Seems like the main issue is communication or the lack of it.

 

I too remember playing at the mall and not knowing where the bags were or if we had them.

 

It probably wouldn't go down well I was to blast to everyone's comms (on the team) that I had a bag or VIP. But at the same time, everyone wants to know.

 

I notice that team players tend to gravitate towards each other, you can just see the difference in their style of play.

[clumpyedge]

16 hours ago, Seth_K said:

Seems like the main issue is communication or the lack of it.

 

I too remember playing at the mall and not knowing where the bags were or if we had them.

 

It probably wouldn't go down well I was to blast to everyone's comms (on the team) that I had a bag or VIP. But at the same time, everyone wants to know.

 

I notice that team players tend to gravitate towards each other, you can just see the difference in their style of play.

 

 

Id say rather people who just turn up to shoot at things vs people that play the game for what it is. Comm's are a big thing but certainly not the main factor when talking about skirmish objective games.

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, clumpyedge said:

Id say rather people who just turn up to shoot at things vs people that play the game for what it is

 

Some might opine that it's a game of shooting at things, or else why are we waving toy gun around?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like objectives and am often the chap camping on the McGuffin to defend it from the attack that never reaches it.  But I'm often the sole chap doing that.  Defence can be a thankless task.

[clumpyedge]

20 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Some might opine that it's a game of shooting at things, or else why are we waving toy gun around?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like objectives and am often the chap camping on the McGuffin to defend it from the attack that never reaches it.  But I'm often the sole chap doing that.  Defence can be a thankless task.

 

 

True and you are right but personally if I go anywhere I like to at least give the objectives a go. Fire fights happen where they happen but I feel games play better if there's something to gain out of it rather than just a K/D ratio.

[Druid799]

22 hours ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

I def agree with you that Seth K is probably using this for his perma-dream of opening a next-gen airsoft site.

 

At the same time tho it's generated a pretty nice discussion thus far ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

One thing I've been idly thinking about is whether it would be possible to add a level of incentive into the mix for genuinely winning, small prize per winning member or whatever. Probably wouldn't work too well for a straight skirmish for reasons you've already stated.

 

Another thing I was thinking of is a messenger-esque role that could be divvied out by marshals, essentially you'd have certain people each taking a site-issued radio and trying to stick to one area of the site to keep team-mates around them updated on the specific objectives in play, steps required etc - I've found the biggest problem with playing the objective in certain games is down to how it can be hard to keep track of the objectives! People who end up securing some/completing them might never end up updating the rest of the team, and IMO that's a key part of why some people tend to regress into playing for kills.

 

 

Valid points but I think once you start adding physical incentives to the game it will bring out the worst in players no matter how small it is . Example I saw happen was a simple capture the building game ,  and in the building was a bag of Haribo’s for the winning team that held it at the end , nothing special no free life memberships or a new gun or anything epic just a bag of sweets ! AND the cheating/non hit taking went off the scale ! 😳 They did try it again a couple of wks later but exactly the same thing happened . 

[Seth_Erebor]

1 minute ago, Druid799 said:

Valid points but I think once you start adding physical incentives to the game it will bring out the worst in players no matter how small it is . Example I saw happen was a simple capture the building game ,  and in the building was a bag of Haribo’s for the winning team that held it at the end , nothing special no free life memberships or a new gun or anything epic just a bag of sweets ! AND the cheating/non hit taking went off the scale ! 😳 They did try it again a couple of wks later but exactly the same thing happened . 

 

Crazy, really shakes one's belief in humanity.

Oh and that was your 2500th post. Nice!

 

59 minutes ago, clumpyedge said:

 

 

True and you are right but personally if I go anywhere I like to at least give the objectives a go. Fire fights happen where they happen but I feel games play better if there's something to gain out of it rather than just a K/D ratio.

 

Bit more memorable too, no one remembers that time you hit a guy with a BB. But an epic capture or defence, that's a good story.

 

1 hour ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Some might opine that it's a game of shooting at things, or else why are we waving toy gun around?

 

Don't get me wrong, I like objectives and am often the chap camping on the McGuffin to defend it from the attack that never reaches it.  But I'm often the sole chap doing that.  Defence can be a thankless task.

 

So true, but when you get the drop on an incoming wave, it's sweet.

[clumpyedge]

Just now, Seth_K said:

Bit more memorable too, no one remembers that time you hit a guy with a BB. But an epic capture or defence, that's a good story.

 

Exactly.

 

None of my fun stories of playing airsoft ever ever consist of only "do you remember when I shot that guy" there's always much more to the fun stories.