One scenario book of guidelines to bind them all!

[Seth_Erebor]

Would anyone be interested in creating a rulebook for multiple standard game types with interactive elements that allowed people to vote on multiple options? (and suggest edits)

 

Like this:

 

On the first hit you must: (A) Go back to spawn (B) Call for a medic (C) Wait two minutes then continue (D) Walk back 30 paces.

 

People would click an option to vote and over time the entire rule book would reflect the opinion of the community.

If you have to sign up to vote via FB or something else then you can change your mind, this would show a change in case a rule is not working as intended.

 

In terms of coding it would be click to vote, cursor hover (tap for mobile) to see stats, etc. Other than that it is just text.

[Musica]

getting the options is the hard part. Create a thread ask for opinions on say death mechanics  so people can flood their brilliant ideas  like arm up? standard up? sit down? lie down? disassemble your RIF and hide the parts in a near by bush? dig a hole and bury your self alive for failing your team? 

 

you could just use straw poles once you have the  data for the options.  

[Seth_Erebor]

2 minutes ago, Musica said:

getting the options is the hard part. Create a thread ask for opinions on say death mechanics  so people can flood their brilliant ideas  like arm up? standard up? sit down? lie down? disassemble your RIF and hide the parts in a near by bush? dig a hole and bury your self alive for failing your team? 

 

you could just use straw poles once you have the  data for the options.  

 

It would be an interesting experiment.

 

I could do it but I would have to take a day to learn how, if someone can bang it out in a few hours then better they do that.

[Luke85]

Interested, sure. But I think what game mechanics people want to use and what works best for each game type is pretty different. Some games work best with the most simple hit = death, go back to respawn and straight back in. Other games you might be on limited lives to the first few hits you get a medic then the 3rd hit your out. 

 

On another thread the other day someone suggested using bandages/white arm bands for when your playing the medic rule in a game and I think this personally is a fantastic idea. You could really get creative and make some interesting games and game play based around that idea. Each member of a team could be given 2 or 3 medic bands so your limited to how many team mates you can revive. Or you could just give a load of arm bands to designated medics or each team and only they have revive team mates. Could make for really interesting games where your trying to carry out objectives whilst also protecting your medics as best you can etc. Can also instantly tell how many times someone has been medic'd and makes it harder to cheat. If your playing a 2 medic then third hit your out rule, and you shoot someone with a medic arm band on already then you know that persons down to their last life so to speak, or shoot someone with 2 on already then theyre out. 

[Adolf Hamster]

there's a lot of interesting stuff could be done with rulesets, like as luke puts above with medic rules and armbands would be great milsim stuff, especially if you're limiting the medic. (i've heard the americans do a buddy/bottle system, first hit is buddy revive, second is drink a bottle of water from a medic, forces folk to stay hydrated and caps the medic based on how many bottles he can carry)

 

problem is getting some people to master a concept as simple as if you're hit then you stop playing is apparently too difficult.

 

i'm a fan of the push style game- 1 life per zone or a 30 step back with no push forward if you're defending. means the game flows well and you can just time how long the defenders can hold for/how quickly attackers can get all the objectives.

 

a lot of times i've seen sites implement things like medics real badly, like giving the guy with an m249 and a penchant for rushing in a medic band, and plenty of instances of folk getting hit whilst standing around waiting for the medic.

[Seth_Erebor]

14 minutes ago, Luke85 said:

Interested, sure. But I think what game mechanics people want to use and what works best for each game type is pretty different. Some games work best with the most simple hit = death, go back to respawn and straight back in. Other games you might be on limited lives to the first few hits you get a medic then the 3rd hit your out. 

 

On another thread the other day someone suggested using bandages/white arm bands for when your playing the medic rule in a game and I think this personally is a fantastic idea. You could really get creative and make some interesting games and game play based around that idea. Each member of a team could be given 2 or 3 medic bands so your limited to how many team mates you can revive. Or you could just give a load of arm bands to designated medics or each team and only they have revive team mates. Could make for really interesting games where your trying to carry out objectives whilst also protecting your medics as best you can etc. Can also instantly tell how many times someone has been medic'd and makes it harder to cheat. If your playing a 2 medic then third hit your out rule, and you shoot someone with a medic arm band on already then you know that persons down to their last life so to speak, or shoot someone with 2 on already then theyre out. 

 

Yes, it would be one for each game type, much like a video game. Some rules might end up being quite common but right now I have no pre-conceived ideas.

 

All good ideas.

 

3 minutes ago, Adolf Hamster said:

there's a lot of interesting stuff could be done with rulesets, like as luke puts above with medic rules and armbands would be great milsim stuff, especially if you're limiting the medic. (i've heard the americans do a buddy/bottle system, first hit is buddy revive, second is drink a bottle of water from a medic, forces folk to stay hydrated and caps the medic based on how many bottles he can carry)

 

problem is getting some people to master a concept as simple as if you're hit then you stop playing is apparently too difficult.

 

i'm a fan of the push style game- 1 life per zone or a 30 step back with no push forward if you're defending. means the game flows well and you can just time how long the defenders can hold for/how quickly attackers can get all the objectives.

 

a lot of times i've seen sites implement things like medics real badly, like giving the guy with an m249 and a penchant for rushing in a medic band, and plenty of instances of folk getting hit whilst standing around waiting for the medic.

 

True, the first iteration will have a lot of bugs, but over time it could become quite refined.

 

If we can break down a game into parts then we can begin to have multiple options per part.

 

I haven't really addressed your post, but I agree with you so yeah.

[typefish]

There's a reason why I haven't gone ahead and done something like this in the past - every site, every game has different rules.

 

The one thing that is common between all the various types of games out there is that we wear eye pro.

 

tbh you don't even need something custom to do this, you could just use Google Forms afaik!

[Seth_Erebor]

7 minutes ago, typefish said:

There's a reason why I haven't gone ahead and done something like this in the past - every site, every game has different rules.

 

The one thing that is common between all the various types of games out there is that we wear eye pro.

 

tbh you don't even need something custom to do this, you could just use Google Forms afaik!

 

The voice of the community might influence sites to adopt such a unify system.

 

I had hoped it would be easy to download as a PDF while still be a live document that changes over time.

A form is the first though I had too, but it might not be the easiest for the reader and a little extra work now could encourage a far bigger response when compared to sharing a google form link with x pages.

[EDcase]

Sorry but I don't see the point of a rule book.

One of the fundamental aspects keeping airsoft alive and fresh is the diversity in games.

 

Perhaps your book could be a set of scenario ideas and methods of conducting gameplay with out being rules as such

[Guest Yukarin]

I don't want a unified rule system simply because sites have their rules tailored to their clientele, location, e.t.c.

One site I go to, Apocalypse, is massive, so we have a medic rule that allows us to respawn on teammates a few times before we have to go back to respawn. There aren't too many buildings so ricochet hits do not count.

On the flip side, Airsoft GB, is medium sized, so you go back to respawn when you die, there are alot of buildings, so ricochet hits count.

 

Seems like you want to change airsoft for the sake of change rather than for a genuine, well-founded and popular opinion.

[Steveocee]

Having rule variations is useful for ensuring balance from one scenario to another and also if one team is stronger than another.

[Seth_Erebor]

8 minutes ago, EDcase said:

Sorry but I don't see the point of a rule book.

One of the fundamental aspects keeping airsoft alive and fresh is the diversity in games.

 

Perhaps your book could be a set of scenario ideas and methods of conducting gameplay with out being rules as such

 

I'm going to change the thread title as that is what I mean.

 

7 minutes ago, UKCYukarin said:

I don't want a unified rule system simply because sites have their rules tailored to their clientele, location, e.t.c.

One site I go to, Apocalypse, is massive, so we have a medic rule that allows us to respawn on teammates a few times before we have to go back to respawn. There aren't too many buildings so ricochet hits do not count.

On the flip side, Airsoft GB, is medium sized, so you go back to respawn when you die, there are alot of buildings, so ricochet hits count.

 

Seems like you want to change airsoft for the sake of change rather than for a genuine, well-founded and popular opinion.

 

Well if it is voted on then it wouldn't be in my control. Sites can take ideas from it, don't have to use it.

If anything it might cut down on how long the morning brief takes haha!

 

3 minutes ago, Steveocee said:

Having rule variations is useful for ensuring balance from one scenario to another and also if one team is stronger than another.

 

Yes, each scenario has it's own set of guidelines

[Steveocee]

So it's just a database of game scenarios and their associated rules to be harvested from site users and available to site owners?

[Seth_Erebor]

Just now, Steveocee said:

So it's just a database of game scenarios and their associated rules to be harvested from site users and available to site owners?

 

Yes + Available to everyone since they have to see/vote on it.

[Prisce]

🤦🏻‍♂️

[Druid799]

Actually is (for once !😱) a nice idea but I think it won’t work , there’s just not enough uniformity in Airsofting sites to get the idea workable . I’ve never been to two sites that you could say were the same , I’ve been to a few ‘similar’ ones but never two that you could run the same gameday on both . You’d think if it’s woodland you can do ABC and if it’s CQB you’d run XYZ but it’s not that simple , just way too many variables . 

Player numbers ; does the site have large attendance numbers  100+ Or small numbers sub 30 players .

player types ; lot of kids (generally don’t listen too the rules)/older players (slower off the mark and more interested in the long game)/high turnover of new players (way too excited to follow a game plan)/mil-sim types (want lots of instructions and objectives)/speed S’ofters (want loads of targets to zip through at the speed of light) /etc.

is it purely woodland that’s open to the public all wk but closed on wknds for Airsoft , is it a closed site so has permanent structures and features .

CQB site is it one big open flat space with barricades or an office ‘type’ building with multiple rooms/floors or even multiple buildings so you’ve got CQB and woodland gameplay just without the trees !

So even just trying to tailor a set scenario to multiple sites will be a pig of a job .

See where I’m coming from ?

[Luke85]

Respectfully disagree Druid799. I think a unified system and set of rules or at least guidelines for various scenarios and gameplays could work. Take football as an example, a sport with very clear rules and instructions on how the game should be played. A bunch of kids in a park having a kick around, jumpers for goal posts, more players on one team than the other etc are still playing football, they've just had to adapt because they might not have access to a proper pitch with regulation goals and an even 11 players for each side. I don't see why airsoft would be any different. OK, their might be arguably more variables, but still you can have set of rules and scenarios to follow, or guidelines if you will, and common sense would surely mean people just apply any changes or variation themselves depending on the site they are playing on and whats available. Can adapt where you need whilst still following a universally agreed system and rule set.

[Seth_Erebor]

All good points, all the same, I'd like to see someone attempt it.

At least we'd see where it fails and what to work on.