interferance

[Adolf Hamster]

wonder what people's thoughts/experiences are on getting interference in-game?

 

i'm meaning like for example if a fallback game has pushed to a stalemate forcing the defenders to fall back just to get things moving, or shifting one man out of a particular spot simply because he's too hard for the enemy to dig out.

 

worthy cause for keeping the game flowing? or just ruining folk's fun when they've got a decent fight going on?

[Keldon]

Been on both sides of this. It gets really demoralising when your pinned down at times and just can't seem to get anywhere. So always glad to have the interference. 

 

On the other side it gets real boring when your doing the pinning too, just becomes to easy and no challenge. I have been known to just let myself be hit before the ref interference just so the game can be fun for all. 

[Adolf Hamster]

56 minutes ago, Keldon said:

Been on both sides of this. It gets really demoralising when your pinned down at times and just can't seem to get anywhere. So always glad to have the interference. 

 

On the other side it gets real boring when your doing the pinning too, just becomes to easy and no challenge. I have been known to just let myself be hit before the ref interference just so the game can be fun for all. 

 

problem i have is a case of when the particular position you have isn't necessarily that good, and they could easily get you if they bothered to run even the simplest flanking maneuvre.

 

perfect example was today i was running a spot that i'd previously been kicked out of after chain killing about half the enemy team who for some reason refused to learn that i had a particular piece of cover pinned, but this time a couple of my squad mates were on the other team and whilst i got a few good kills it didn't take long for me to get knocked out.

 

it does get a bit aggravating especially when the whole point of a defensive game is to put up a good defence.

[Druid799]

If it’s to lift a stalemate in a game then I say yes nothing sucks the fun out of a game more than reaching an impass and NOT being able to get past it . BUT if it’s because one team is getting steam rolled because the other team is better or some sneaky little shit has got the drop on the other team then no I don’t like it at all , you rectify the team problems after game over by moving players about NOT during the game . Examples ; last gameday we had a 3 stage fall back game , blues falling back reds pushing forward , unfortunately the reds were crap no team work so they just couldn’t shift us from our start point so the marshals called an ‘airstrike’ so we had to move back ! Now I say this wasn’t covered by the stalemate caveat as it was a result of crap gameplay and not a physical problem (reds couldn’t reach us due to xyz blocking there advance) and same thing happened when we turned it around , airstrike because we were advancing too quickly so we had to fall back as well ! 

[ImTriggerHappy]

This is a difficult one as part of me thinks that if one team is wrecking the other then that is the fault of the losing teams players. 

 

The other part of me from PMing can see how keeping a game flowing is better for both parties. At the mall players were never swapped around just encouraged to try harder. What was done was there was always a couple of player marshals who would shift teams if needed. They could break deadlocks and get the losing team moving again.

 

The thing that always amazed me was how two people could completely swing a game when a 100 people are playing.

[Druid799]

8 minutes ago, ImTriggerHappy said:

This is a difficult one as part of me thinks that if one team is wrecking the other then that is the fault of the losing team players. 

 

The other part of me from PMing can see how keeping a game flowing is better for both parties. At the mall players were never swapped around just encouraged to try harder. What was done was there was always a couple of player marshals who would shift teams if needed. They could break deadlocks and get the losing team moving again.

 

The thing that always amazed me was how two people could completely swing a game when a 100 people are playing.

Basically that’s what happened , a couple of more experienced players and P/M’s swapped to the other team just to try and give them a bit of ‘motivational kick up the arse’ and it worked . From then on games were a lot more balanced .

[Adolf Hamster]

1 hour ago, Druid799 said:

If it’s to lift a stalemate in a game then I say yes nothing sucks the fun out of a game more than reaching an impass and NOT being able to get past it . BUT if it’s because one team is getting steam rolled because the other team is better or some sneaky little shit has got the drop on the other team then no I don’t like it at all , you rectify the team problems after game over by moving players about NOT during the game . Examples ; last gameday we had a 3 stage fall back game , blues falling back reds pushing forward , unfortunately the reds were crap no team work so they just couldn’t shift us from our start point so the marshals called an ‘airstrike’ so we had to move back ! Now I say this wasn’t covered by the stalemate caveat as it was a result of crap gameplay and not a physical problem (reds couldn’t reach us due to xyz blocking there advance) and same thing happened when we turned it around , airstrike because we were advancing too quickly so we had to fall back as well ! 

 

see this is the problem i have, if it's a stalemate born of the other teams inability to figure out that constantly charging the same cover they just got shot at then it's kinda shit as a defender to get told to shift when you know fine damn rightly a few moments thinking on their part would have you ousted.

 

part of the problem is poor balancing at the start of the day, i've seen a few times where you end up with a team of experienced players versus a team of mostly new starters and they let it run because the numbers match up.

 

i'm cool with team mixing post-game, sounds like a better way to do it.

[Musica]

My local site say it like "everyones here to have fun" so they try to help and if some folk just keep hiding in 1 spot they will tell players where they are etc.

 

If a marshall tells me to push a certain stairwell or check an area I know it's a good tip and it works out great but if my team was stomping the enemy they wouldn't give duff tips just give the enemy heads up on our pushes etc.

 

I was covering a enemy flag carrier once and 2 marshals liturally built a tyre wall between me and him to block my LOS because I had him on lock down. Didn't have a problem with it. Got to keep the game moving for both sides or it gets boring.

[Prisce]

8 hours ago, Musica said:

My local site say it like "everyones here to have fun" so they try to help and if some folk just keep hiding in 1 spot they will tell players where they are etc.

 

If a marshall tells me to push a certain stairwell or check an area I know it's a good tip and it works out great but if my team was stomping the enemy they wouldn't give duff tips just give the enemy heads up on our pushes etc.

 

I was covering a enemy flag carrier once and 2 marshals liturally built a tyre wall between me and him to block my LOS because I had him on lock down. Didn't have a problem with it. Got to keep the game moving for both sides or it gets boring.

Reminded me of a game I had a while back now. 

 

My team an I were at one of our regular sites, where we all met actually, and we know the site like the back of our hands. We’d pretty much romped through most of the games during the day, but I distinctly remember the Marshall standing in front of the objective and only shooting me every time I ran in to claim it.To be honest, I was laughing so much and enjoying the extra challenge that it didn’t bother me, but I could see it annoying others. 

 

Same site a different day, we did one of those zombie games where once shot you become the opposite team. I really really wanted to get in and shoot my team mates, so as the whistle blew I stood up in the open prancing about asking to be shot. Not one person tried to shoot me, after about 2 mins I hear a Marshall shout turn around as he throws a handful of bbs at me.  Needless to say I went out respawned and charged in to get my team, had a couple of rentals surrender(site doesn’t play the rule, but I always give people a chance), got next to my brother poked his neck with the ole Mk23 suppressor, ask him if he wants to surrender, cheeky beggar turns around and shoots me in the Nads.

 

Theres me trying to be fair(he’s in a public people fronted job). Learnt my mistake came back and got him and 2 other team mates.

 

I honestly think it’s down to how it’s done, and also who your doing it to. 

[Luke85]

Think this one is entirely down to the Marshals to decide as every situation is unique and a stalemate can be down to a number of things. Unbalanced teams, flawed game/scenario, or just one or two experienced players with decent guns in good positions can make all the difference. Had a very similar situation myself the other week. First game of the day was a simple, fast attack and defend to get everyone going. Defenders had a one medic then out rule, attackers infinite repawns till position is taken. We attacked first and took the position in under ten minutes easily. But then the other team attacked and got absolutely no where, 20 odd minutes later and marshals called end ex. Was a combination of unbalanced teams and also seeming lack of motivation from the other team and complete failure to look at what worked for us and replicate it regards best flanking positions etc. They just ran to the same pieces of cover over and over, got shot and fell back. Eventually we were literally standing out in the open firing and still they were struggling to get many of us out. Sure the teams were a bit unbalanced but they were not helping themselves at all. Marshalls changed things up a bit with games after that to make things more balanced. Certainly frustrating though when the other team does the same thing repeatedly and expects different results.

[Druid799]

22 hours ago, Luke85 said:

They just ran to the same pieces of cover over and over, got shot and fell back. Eventually we were literally standing out in the open firing and still they were struggling to get many of us out. Sure the teams were a bit unbalanced but they were not helping themselves at all. Marshalls changed things up a bit with games after that to make things more balanced. Certainly frustrating though when the other team does the same thing repeatedly and expects different results.

Would appear Ivan’s dog plays airsoft ? 🤦‍♂️

[Guest DrAlexanderTobacco]

If the site is running a consistent set of games (objectives, locations, etc.) over a consistent site, then IMO the only interference should be going on at the start of the day - to balance teams, because it's hard to control considering walk-on variation etc., rentals and so on. If interference is occurring past the first game or two then there's other issues causing the slowdown - in my experience it's normally spawn points changing as this often completely changes the flow of a game.

[Huxley]

Trouble is you get those that have all the gear and all know each other so side up with each other. 

So the other side is left with kids running rentals, and just a couple experienced players.

Had this happen last Sunday, ended up going out shopping as I thought what a waste of time this is.

Marshals need to step in more often to stop things like this from happening, ok they want to play with their friends, but not at the detriment of the game.

[Adolf Hamster]

18 minutes ago, Huxley said:

Trouble is you get those that have all the gear and all know each other so side up with each other. 

So the other side is left with kids running rentals, and just a couple experienced players.

Had this happen last Sunday, ended up going out shopping as I thought what a waste of time this is.

Marshals need to step in more often to stop things like this from happening, ok they want to play with their friends, but not at the detriment of the game.

 

i've seen that happen, you do wonder if marshalls realise that there's more to team balancing than purely numbers.

 

doesn't help when you get folk sneakily switching sides, or leaving midgame. once played a game where a nominally 25v25 game ended as a 10v1 game

[Druid799]

57 minutes ago, Huxley said:

Trouble is you get those that have all the gear and all know each other so side up with each other. 

So the other side is left with kids running rentals, and just a couple experienced players.

Had this happen last Sunday, ended up going out shopping as I thought what a waste of time this is.

Marshals need to step in more often to stop things like this from happening, ok they want to play with their friends, but not at the detriment of the game.

Problem is as the regular attenders you get to know each other , make friends and want to be on the same team as each other (I know I do) as ;

A , you get too know each other’s playing style ,

B , after a while you reach a point where you’ll have certain players you just ‘click’ with , it’s game on and as you head out you just know if your watching 6-12 they’ll be watching 12-6 and watching your back as you move up and they know you’ll do it for them , and you’ve got the added advantage of just knowing each other’s names so you can shout out warnings or whatever and not just “hay ! Random red player at my 11Oclock there’s a blue to your left about to shoot you !” 🤦‍♂️

Plus as paying customers if want to stick with your mates you can the venue can ask you to swap but can’t ‘make’ you swap sides .

[Guest DrAlexanderTobacco]

4 minutes ago, Druid799 said:

 

Plus as paying customers if want to stick with your mates you can the venue can ask you to swap but can’t ‘make’ you swap sides .

I roughly, roughly agree with this - no one wants to play without their mates. Something to remember IMO is how as @Adolf Hamster says there's a lot more to balancing than just numbers. If there was a solid group of regs at the site who wanted to stick together (and I was hypothetically the show runner) I'd allow it but only if they'd be at a solid numerical disadvantage (That's made up by the stronger teamwork element)

[Nick G]

3 minutes ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

I roughly, roughly agree with this - no one wants to play without their mates. Something to remember IMO is how as @Adolf Hamster says there's a lot more to balancing than just numbers. If there was a solid group of regs at the site who wanted to stick together (and I was hypothetically the show runner) I'd allow it but only if they'd be at a solid numerical disadvantage (That's made up by the stronger teamwork element)

Sod that ! I love shooting my mates ! If we are on the same team , great. If not , we tend to go hunting for each other 😁

[Adolf Hamster]

3 minutes ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

I roughly, roughly agree with this - no one wants to play without their mates. Something to remember IMO is how as @Adolf Hamster says there's a lot more to balancing than just numbers. If there was a solid group of regs at the site who wanted to stick together (and I was hypothetically the show runner) I'd allow it but only if they'd be at a solid numerical disadvantage (That's made up by the stronger teamwork element)

 

hard one to call, and as druid says there's an element of wanting to stick together, but realistically most groups tight knit enough to not bother splitting aren't too big, mostly 5-6 with looser connections between the few groups that make up the regular clientel.

 

we've played a fair few games with split groups, kinda worrying when you know the other side is comprised of people who know you well enough to make the game a challenge, but then that works both ways.

[Huxley]

10 minutes ago, Druid799 said:

Problem is as the regular attenders you get to know each other , make friends and want to be on the same team as each other (I know I do) as ;

A , you get too know each other’s playing style ,

B , after a while you reach a point where you’ll have certain players you just ‘click’ with , it’s game on and as you head out you just know if your watching 6-12 they’ll be watching 12-6 and watching your back as you move up and they know you’ll do it for them , and you’ve got the added advantage of just knowing each other’s names so you can shout out warnings or whatever and not just “hay ! Random red player at my 11Oclock there’s a blue to your left about to shoot you !” 🤦‍♂️

Plus as paying customers if want to stick with your mates you can the venue can ask you to swap but can’t ‘make’ you swap sides .

 

Of course, trouble is then people started leaving as we were being dominated, not to mention they started on the high ground giving them a big advantage.

It's all well and good keeping their mates happy, but it'll just alienate everyone else into going elsewhere.

[Druid799]

11 minutes ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

I roughly, roughly agree with this - no one wants to play without their mates. Something to remember IMO is how as @Adolf Hamster says there's a lot more to balancing than just numbers. If there was a solid group of regs at the site who wanted to stick together (and I was hypothetically the show runner) I'd allow it but only if they'd be at a solid numerical disadvantage (That's made up by the stronger teamwork element)

Do agree with you but even with a large core of regulars your still going to get sub groups  amongst them so if there asked nicely and not told I’d think very few would object to switching teams (my team and a couple of single regulars did this very thing last game after the first proper game of the day was a massacre) so if the site goes about it the right way you ‘shouldn't’ have any real disparity in the teams ? 

 

3 minutes ago, Huxley said:

 

Of course, trouble is then people started leaving as we were being dominated, not to mention they started on the high ground giving them a big advantage.

It's all well and good keeping their mates happy, but it'll just alienate everyone else into going elsewhere.

Now that I’d put down to poor site management and NOT the player .

[Huxley]

18 minutes ago, Druid799 said:

 

Now that I’d put down to poor site management and NOT the player .

 

Course, no issues with any of the players they're a good bunch.

I just couldn't believe that they just chose to let it run, they have been running for a few years so should know better.

Last year it was epic, but the guy who was the main one running it has since left due to other commitments.

 

I'll just head to another site, if not to give this one a break.

Hopefully with all those that left last Sunday, it'll give them a kick up the Arris.

[Druid799]

31 minutes ago, Huxley said:

Last year it was epic, but the guy who was the main one running it has since left due to other commitments.

Nails and heads my friend most definitely nails and heads ! 

One person can make such a difference to a site for the positive OR the negative .

two examples , my old home site was amazing then the guy who ran the safezone/bookings/day to day stuff tragically past away and the site went down hill on a shit skid mark ! Late starting , taking ages to book everyone in , big gaps in between games just generally poor organization and even now a good 10yrs after he passed there still like a shower of shit .

then another site I went too had a couple of gamedays that were totally one sided due to team balance , so we arrived next gameday and as we’re walking In to the safezone and a newly promoted member of staff is standing by the door going “red team , blue team” as everyone is walking in , ask him what’s going on to be told “it’s your team allocation” obviously we objected to this to be told by him “I’m running the site today so it’s my rules !” We kicked off a bit but he wasn’t shifting on it SO we picked up our bags turned around and started to walk out he goes “where you going ?” To which I said “we’re leaving your not dictating to us like that , Sparta has a game on today so we’re off !” And left for the car park to then have the site owner come running up after us all apologetic (I’m sure all he could see was £160 walking out the door!) saying sorry and the guy had over stepped the mark (no shit !) . Now none of this would have happened if we’d been asked to go on this team or that team when we arrived wouldn’t have been a problem at all just a classic example of poor customer skills . He was very good at organizing actual games (was very inventive in fact) just zero people management skill . 

Makes ALL the difference .

[Adolf Hamster]

Its bad when it gets to voting with your wallet, but ultimately its the only power we have.

[Luke85]

Agree, just some politeness and people management skills and Im sure the vast majority of players would not mind a bit switching teams to help balance things up. And as some of you have said, as much fun as it is playing alongside friends, you can have just as much fun (if not more 😈) hunting down your mates mid game and recognising their cries of "OWWW SHIT FUCK BOLLOCKS" when you shoot them in the arse...… yeah I have no issue playing against my mates. 

[Adolf Hamster]

12 minutes ago, Luke85 said:

Agree, just some politeness and people management skills and Im sure the vast majority of players would not mind a bit switching teams to help balance things up. And as some of you have said, as much fun as it is playing alongside friends, you can have just as much fun (if not more 😈) hunting down your mates mid game and recognising their cries of "OWWW SHIT FUCK BOLLOCKS" when you shoot them in the arse...… yeah I have no issue playing against my mates. 

 

problem is when you know your mates are better at the game than you