|
Post by Mosin on May 11, 2008 16:30:49 GMT -5
Like I said Darcness, 3 "Well known players". By that I mean players that have attended at least 2 OPs and know how things run. And those three players need to be known by the field owner (Hence "well known")
|
|
|
Post by SGT. Darcness on May 11, 2008 16:37:20 GMT -5
I have no problem with the rule, I'm not even trying to knock it.
However, I do feel that it needs to be a set guideline.
To me, 2 OPs mean dick. I mean really, 90% of airsofters (including the youngins) have been to 2 OPs. I would think it should be more geared towards active members who are common place at nearly all games in their respective geographical area. Also, I think a certain amount of playing time (whether it be years played or OPs attended/ran) would help with the qualifications of these well known players. I think the more stringent the requirements are, the less chance of an unexperienced player slipping through the cracks would be.
|
|
|
Post by Nexus on May 11, 2008 17:30:55 GMT -5
I think the 18+ age limit, if in place, should be enforced literally, and strictly. While all of us know mature individuals who are under that age, that would operate in and possible perform better under the milsim event than some of us older guys (older being a relative term ;D);and while we would never question their love for the game or their desire to uphold all of the elements involved in milsim gameplay... it would be VERY hard to draw lines if we went under that age line. On my team (Black Talon) we are all over 21 now, except our 4 newest members as of a couple months ago; who's ages range from 17,and 16, down to 14, between the four guys. While I do not doubt that all four would LOVE to play in a milsim 18+ event, it would put us in an odd predicament when we would vouch for the guy who is a couple months from being 18, and possibly stretch down to the 16 age, we would certainly offend our 14 year old player. Or say if we had two 16 year olds, one who would perform well under milsim, and the other would not, and we vouched the one in and not the other for the sake of the game. It would cause issues I'm sure. Also, as another has mentioned, just because we are over 18 doesn't necessarily make us good judges on who should be allowed in under the 18+ rule. There is more potential trouble. The easiest most concise way, would be a indiscriminate cut off at an age point, rather than any other personal characteristics. I would say, the only exceptions to the age rule, if any, should be made by the event hosting person/team, and even then that could potentially cause far more bad blood than it would be worth. Age is a poor judge of character and maturity, but in cases like this I don't think it is something that should be budged on. My 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Talisman on May 11, 2008 18:58:38 GMT -5
I just want to throw this out there.
Half the reason for putting up an 18+ age limit is to cut out half the idiots that attend ops.
I'll say it again.
We'd CULL THE IDIOTS.
I attend like 2 ops a year, partly because I come home with a sour taste in my mouth because of morons at our ops. 90% of the time, these morons are under 18. If you put an age limit up so the people under 18 can't come, then 90% of the idiots can't come!
I'm sorry to generalize, but that's the facts. Ask any of the older, more veteran players, and they'll tell you the same.
Now.
This thread isnt for age discussion, at least not specifically. On to milsim goodieness!
|
|
|
Post by Mosin on May 11, 2008 19:00:36 GMT -5
Right, being 18 is just one of the guidelines.
Perhaps if people read entirely what I said, they could have a good arguement to it, but here is pretty much what I said.
For players under 18, you need the following:
-3 Vouchers from 3 well respected or active members of the MiA community.
These 3 players need to meet the following: Be over 18 Have gone to more than 4-5 Operations/Events Has been a member of the MiA community for more than a year and a half (18 months) Is well known and well respected
Included on this list would be pretty much any admin/moderator/global mod as well as a few other individuals. Also if the player truely was active then the owner of the said event would more than likely know that person, and know that their opinion is legit.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on May 11, 2008 19:05:02 GMT -5
WTB: Milsim game with tanks?
I think if someone can set up a big enough field, and some good safety guidelines, and technicals/light APC's could be a NEAT addition.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 11, 2008 19:12:31 GMT -5
Personally, I don't mind allowing a very few of the mature, and Mil Sim oriented younger (16/17) members play in an 18+ event. So long as they *are* mature and act that way, I see no problem. There are very few people who I would make the exception for, but people like Mosin, 17, and shipping out less than a month after the OP... I wouldn't see a reason not to allow him to come. But I feel it's up to the individuals running the OP something to be discussed between them rather than the masses
|
|
|
Post by O'Dwah on May 11, 2008 19:26:02 GMT -5
I would rather have a Milsim OP be 18+, I think that's one of the reasons that GK doesn't come out very often anymore. The last time I saw any of them in great numbers was at Red Out, which wasn't the greatest event in the world, as we know.
It really does urk me though, when I go to an OP with 90+ people, and all it is force on force bullshit. I could go do that with people in my backyard. That's why I like the SpyOps games, because there are objectives that have to be followed, if that field was bigger, there would be some A1 games there.
I'm glad that the event organizers around here are brainstormer new ideas, but in the long run I think less people is better for quality of game play, and simpler is better in any scenario. These long thought out scenarios can leave people confused, but that also comes back to the point of having an age limit.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 11, 2008 19:39:44 GMT -5
Something I have noticed, during the event write ups, players are given all the objectives, of both teams. That's really begun to bug me, because in a real world scenario, you aren't handed 20 tasks at a time to complete, they focus on one thing at a time, the outcome of the objective that is being completed often plays a role in the next objective, and so on and so forth.
Also, squad structure. We see basically none of this at OPs, I would like to see a rigid structure in which say a squad of 5 individuals is led by ONE person. That person gives orders, and isn't questioned, but rather the orders are listened to. For instance, I all to often ask for a few individuals to make a strong push with me, and only 1 of the 5 people actually come with me. Very frustrating, especially when the 2 who did move were able to flank 10 people, but simply didn't have the firepower to neutralize them all.
I'd also like to see an actual commander give actual orders to squads. A battle of wits if you may. Require all squad leaders to be on the same channel, which would be used for orders from the commanders (people who are not attacking in a squad, but are on the field, in gear, at a "base", just given information via radio and from messengers), and to announce completed objectives or failed objectives, even complete squad eliminations.
This would of course require maps for each squad and commander so that they could accurately communicate, but that's a small task for the amount of realism it would add.
|
|
|
Post by Knief on May 11, 2008 20:21:21 GMT -5
Part of the problem with the command structure at most ops is that when a "General" of some sort it needed, the event host often gives that permission to the first person to post, "ME ME MEMEMEME!" If you want to set up a command structure, the event host has to be much more discriminating when establishing leaders. Just because airsoftsniper91 saw the "we need team leaders" post first doesn't mean that he's the best man for the job. I'd like to see the event host take a look at a finalized roster and pick his own team leaders. Maybe have a couple in mind incase your first choice isn't interested, but still, find the people who you know can do the job.
|
|
|
Post by Zorak on May 11, 2008 20:34:33 GMT -5
Tex, I 100% agree with you about having a chain of command and mirroring it in the radio layout. It's no coincidence that I recommend much the same thing on my radio page. The biggest problem with requiring people to follow orders is that it's hard to enforce them. You can't exactly hold courts martial after the game.
Regarding Knief's post, I think that once a series of events is established, the best way to recruit new generals is to require them to have been squad leaders at previous events.
|
|
|
Post by operatordoc01 on May 11, 2008 22:37:02 GMT -5
I have to say I am all for the 18+ age for milsim as I agree with it, As I also do agree with what Mosin had stated as well about the 3 vouchers for the the person/s under the age as well.
Also I have to say I like a lot of what Tex is saying on here as well. Since this thread was started I would have to say he has come to the forefront with a lot of great ideas and info.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on May 11, 2008 23:32:31 GMT -5
Knief, Zorak, completely agree with you guys.
It seems this thread has become a much more productive one than I thought, a good collaboration of ideas from everyone.
An idea, for those under the 18 year age, but still desperately want to be a part of the MilSim aspect of airsoft. Perhaps allowing them to be Role Players, if they can prove their maturity and ability to be a role player, that is one step closer to actually playing. I wouldn't want to see 14yr olds, but 16/17 year olds who really want to be a part of it could fill that part fairly well.
Anyone with more "role player" experience than I think that would be a negative idea? I haven't been around the "role player" scene enough to know how a younger crowd handles themselves in those positions.
|
|
|
Post by Munin on May 12, 2008 1:42:51 GMT -5
Something a lot of people are forgetting is insurance. 18+ age limits remove a lot of the extra restrictions and expense involved with getting insurance for an event, and you really can't run an event without insurance. In the days when most of the events were MilSim, very few fields have insurance that could accommodate younger players. It's more common now, but in a lot of cases it's still more expensive to carry an insurance rider that covers minors.
And before anyone says anything about legal guardians signing waivers or any of that, just stop. Seriously. It's been discussed to death, and regardless of how carefully they're worded, waivers are really no protection in our litigious society.
For the most part, Zorak has hit the nail on the head - MilSim is about the objectives. It's about forcing the sides to make hard choices about how they're going to approach a problem. It's about encouraging "outside the box" thinking, teamwork, planning, coordination, communication, and camaraderie. It's about having fun doing something other than pulling a trigger. It's about the thrill of lying in ambush for your foes, of sneaking unseen into position, of crawling for an hour to get the perfect shot on an enemy "high-value target." It's about adapting to changing situations and figuring out what the other side is up to. It's about dealing with uncertainty and doubt and the "fog of war." It's about the triumphs and the tribulations, and the war-stories that you can share about them both (like the time I staged the textbook-perfect solo ambush - only to discover that my mag was totally empty).
These are the kinds of elements that I (and many of the other "old veterans") miss, and a large part of the reason why I go to places like Fort Knox for big national events. For those of you who've never had the opportunity to play a game like this, take the opportunity when it presents itself. It won't be what you're used to, but you may find you enjoy it quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on May 12, 2008 2:14:20 GMT -5
I only got to experience very minimal milsim elements down here last night, but it was honestly a lot of fun. We played 4 games, and i fired maybe 200 shots over the whole night. Me and one of the Florida Airsoft guys got bored of the stalemate and said, "lets go get the case" and we ran into a group of dudes and ambushed 'em. What literally only occured over the course of a minute seemed like an eternity due to the adrenaline raging, waiting for the suckers to come into the kill zone.
That is an element I have not experienced at ANY game in MI to this day. I get kind of hopeful when I see the veterans of the game posting about ways to solve the problem, and people responding positively. Perhaps if some of you don't mind driving over to Bangor this June, that way we can put the Milsim aspect into play, and jump start it in MI.
|
|