[Jarz]

Hey everyone, I have a question for the scenario community. What is your ideal scenario? What do you enjoy? What do you not enjoy? I've always had ideas in my head, and with your help, I may try to write a scenario and get it at my local field. It's a big dream, but I think I may be able to. So, what would you guys want in a scenario?

[paintballguy2255]

Well,I'm very easy to please(lolno),but here goes:
-Good paint.Nothing is worse than buying 2 cases of evil,just to find out that literally all the balls had a dimple on them.
-Good prices.It isn't fun to gear about a scenario that sounds really cool and is near you,then find out the admission is $100 and cases of evil are $300(exagerated for example).
-Big fields.Trying to play a 200v200 scenario on a 1/4 mile long field sucks.
-Good story.If I plan on paying 300 bucks to shoot at people,I want a story.
Thats about it for big details,but having alot of little things helps.Like having water at insertion points,or handing out granola bars.

[Jarz]

I agree with most of those points, especially the story. I love props too.

[Danny D]

I like more organization too. Most of the big games I go to, its still an individual game. I like it when people get rounded up for missions or objectives or the like. More of that would lead to a very rich game.

[TinyBear]

Even playing field/start points or switching starting points at mid day or start of next day. Simple rules ( with lots of people can't over complicate things ). Cool mission ideas with interesting props. Visible progress for the game in the staging area.

In one of the big games out here Alien Aggrresion at Wasaga paintball. The main objective was to collect "core material" witch were bottles of colored water that was put at pre determined points onthe field every half hr. These bottles were then brought to your commander and dumped in your teams "storeage container". The team with the most water in there container at end of the day was the winner. It was neat cause both teams containers were displayed on stage inthe main stagging area. So when ya went out for air and paint ya could see how things were going in the grand sceem of things and it got ya inspired to push harder or what not.

[Jarz]

I like that idea a lot TinyBear.

[FunkleFinkle]

Scenarios are really great when done right. I think Skirmish USA puts on an unbelivable scenario (Invasion of Normandy, Stalingrad).
When I play I like to have
1. Good back story
2. Command structure
3. Leadership is key, and I don't mean the falsetto "keep moving forward while I sit here" leadership, I mean from the front (alexander the great style)
4. MISSIONS. Fun ones.
5. A good map is always helpful
That being said, I do like that water idea thats really awesome to be able to see the progress of the game...
When making a solid scenario, theres alot of real events you can look to for inspiration. I've always thought a Battle of the bulge scenario would be great... Or an Alamo scenario, but thats far fetched. Black hawk down could make a great one, with one team going in to capture high valued targets, then hold position and exfiltrate after a set amount of time.
Maybe I'm just too much of a military history fanatic, but I think why go through all the trouble of making something from scratch when there are so many great stories already out there.
Good luck on your scenario making man!

[Jarz]

I love the realistic military scenarios (Black Hawk Down sounds great; even Iwo Jima would be an interesting take), but I may start with something different first. I'm not sure yet. I'm kind of spitballing ideas.

[Rican Medic]

Me personally, I'm tired of seeing these dramatic stories in milsim. Rather, I want to see a real mission. Protect a vip, take a strong hold, rescue a hostage. An overview of the theme is okay, I just hate the soap opera that sometimes goes with these stories. In the end, i want a mission, and I want to accomplish it tactically, game over.

Basically more direct missions, less open endedness. I rather leave that open ended role to SF and guerilla forces in real combat.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

This post has been edited by Rican Medic: 02 March 2013 - 03:13 PM

[Jarz]

Rican Medic, on 02 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Me personally, I'm tired of seeing these dramatic stories in milsim. Rather, I want to see a real mission. Protect a vip, take a strong hold, rescue a hostage. An overview of the theme is okay, I just hate the soap opera that sometimes goes with these stories. In the end, i want a mission, and I want to accomplish it tactically, game over.

Basically more direct missions, less open endedness. I rather leave that open ended role to SF and guerilla forces in real combat.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

I enjoy a backstory, but I think you are right about being direct. The missions should be very defined, and the story should be good, but not too complicated.

[UV Halo]

I think it's worth clarifying what you're trying to achieve. One problem I see is that the word 'scenario' is severely genericized. Some interpret it as 'big game' others as 'mil-sim'.

To me, a scenario is simply an enactment of storyline. Someone writes out a story, a framework of rules defining actors, scoring, props, and the game itself determines the outcome of the outcome of the scenario and, the story. Wins in scenarios are not about the most eliminations, their about objectives which may not even be relevant to shooting. For example, points may be scored by negotiating a trade with a third party for a prop.

If one wanted a 'mil-sim' scenario they would incorporate rules found in mil-sim games (if you're from the U.S. your interpretation of mil-sim might be skewed as it's not just camo outfits and using a gun that sort of looks like an HK with a hopper on top).

A big game on the other hand has little to nothing to do with a storyline and it's more focused on slinging paint on a large field with large numbers of players. There may or may not be a scoring structure for objectives (i.e. capture and hold a given area, attack and defend, etc).

A look at Living Legends can highlight a difference between big game and scenario. Last year, there were two major factions and a smaller, third faction who had the ability to insert and exit the field at any point along a tapeline lengthwise down the field. My team took a relaxed posture towards the third faction (i.e. fire only if fired upon) while our opponents launched full into them, causing a conflict that cost them so dearly in play and points on the first day that Viper had to dissolve the third team and incorporate it into our opposition just so they could compete. Another situation was the large outcry by players who felt they need to be able to tell at a glance, what team someone was on simply because of the perceived frequency of friendly fire.

[Jarz]

I talked with you on Sunday walking back to insertion UV. I think I like to lean to mil-sim a bit more, but still make it playable and enjoyable.

[smoke14]

All I want is to be able to shoot at a ton of people, along with a weekend to camp with friends and pull some shenanigans, and I'm happy.

[UV Halo]

Jarz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

I talked with you on Sunday walking back to insertion UV. I think I like to lean to mil-sim a bit more, but still make it playable and enjoyable.

LOL- memory of a goldfish here, at least as placing names to faces. I think you will find in this year and the next, is a growing interest south of the Canadian border for mil-sim games. In my opinion, mil-sim can be loads of fun- it's why I got into this game in the first place- I wanted to play something a bit more realistic than what Entertech squirt guns, Laser Tag, and rubber band guns could allow, and Airsoft wasn't a game yet (except maybe in Japan, not sure when they got into it).

smoke14, on 04 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

All I want is to be able to shoot at a ton of people, along with a weekend to camp with friends and pull some shenanigans, and I'm happy.

I totally get that. That's one of the reasons why I think folks need to be more clear on what they are promoting, playing, etc.

[Jarz]

I think that mil-sim will take off more, but not like we think (FS, mag-fed, camo, realism in markers, etc.). I believe it may take off in the sense that scenario players want a more structured game. I want to jump on that idea now in my area.

[Rican Medic]

see, I would love stand around in a circle with my team, get briefed on a mission to capture a high value target in a specific area (building, etc) (capture not kill for intel purposes) (storyline can be added in here) and have the team commander plan how many teams or squads we need, what snipers, entry team, gunners, fire suppression team, medics, etc are needed, as well as who will carry items such as grenandes, launchers, etc. Also having a briefing with a map of the target area and best points of entry and a real plan of action and rules of engagement is important for realism and excitement.

The opposing team is terrorist or a security force with the mission of protecting the high value target (add in story line here as needed).

If you set up a day with 4 types of scenarios similar to this, I think it would be a great milsim event. Keep it simple, direct, and to the point. Let the planning and the op carry the complexity rather than the story.

[Jarz]

I'm thinking that I'd almost have the teams split into two or three factions, each with their own agenda (similar to LL).

[XxJellyFilledxX]

Simple goals.
food.
good people.

[XGC_Cheevo]

Nice, fresh paint and numerous, suicidal refs. All other things are a moot point.

[Akkadian_Tim]

1. Good paint. This cannot be overemphasized.

2. Various missions. I don't want all of them to follow "take and hold X"

3. More emphasis on gameplay than story. I generally see scenarios either ignore #2 or #3. If they do the various missions, they try to over complicate things with an elaborate story. I don't care about the background past a basic level summary. From there, just tell me what the missions are and let us figure out how to get them done

4. Don't have 50 billion specialties, all with different rules and who can do whats. Have no more than 5 special things in the game. Nobody wants to have to stop and think about how they have to eliminate that special unit with the magical ability of blah blah blah under conditions XYZ.

5. Great refs that are all on the same page for what the rules are

6. Good players who bother to read the rules instead of just assume it's another "run and gun" in the woods.