2v2v2v2v2...

[Smukatele]

Another game that could be tried would be with teams of 2, vs numerous other teams of 2. this would increase the fireteam skills of all the airsofters, something I'm sure we all could agree would greatly help in the normal team games. Learning to enhance your skills in working with another player, learning how to properly clear a room or hallway, as a team, would be an important addition to the games, greatly enhancing the level of play.

[jawinn]

This is a great idea. I certainly want to try it at CQB, especially when there is a small group there, say less than 15. Just pair up and have the ref deploy the teams randomly.

What makes this a good idea is that I'm confident the vets will like this because they can work together on tactics and roam around the field shooting anyone. The newbies will like it b/c they won't mistake anyone the field as friend or foe and it's similar to video game death match (kill everyone and everything) which is always suggested.

[Commie]

This would be a bad ass game.... Jason and the Commie would mop up....fo sho


Only one problem....

You need different colored vests to distinguish teams. Or pair people up by what they're wearing.

[Smukatele]

If its a 2 vs everybody free for all, no vest would be needed. You stick to your partner and shoot everyone else. If 2 people on the same team are so bad at coordination that they dont know where each other are at in a 2vs2vs2 game, well, they will learn when they lose.

[Alacris]

I wouldn't pair off randomly, this would be a great chance to learn skills with the people you came with (or at least the people you know who show up a lot).

One of the best assets a team can have is near telepathic ability to know what the other is doing. This game should teach that. Plus I don't want to get paired up with a noob who will wander off (making it 13 vs. me).

[jawinn]

I agree with all of the above. I think we need to hone this idea out and play it ASAP. I see no need for vests. If they aren't your Fireteam partner then shoot them!

Is anyone going to be at CQB on Fri? I will.

[mr7q]

I like this idea... A lot.

[jawinn]

I suggest the name "Fireteam." Any other suggestions?

[Alacris]

Fireteam usually implies four guys . . . hmm . . . nope nothing that isn't inappropriate comes to mind.

[Smukatele]

Alacris is right about a fireteam being 4 guys, but at CQB we don't really have standard size units anyway. As in Platoons, Squads, Fireteams... Everything is smaller, so although fireteam in a normal setting means 4, I think that in the smaller settings we play it wouldnt be inaccurate.

[bishop]

You could call it "Battle Buddies" or something like that...oh, and great idea by the way, I'm going to suggest it for BRASS.

[Rob]

Sounds quite good.
I think that teaming in twos would increase skills alot. We run alot of small BG teams and two mans are quite common. It changes so much on how you function. In real life BG work it can help reduce the visibility of the protection detail alot (unlike the Hollywood or Iraqi types where looks are all tehre is LOL)

Combat Pairs?

[Jaberwaki]

Oh please tell me we can still run this game....

Me and Tag got somethin for ya :D

[itsahak]

Now that sounds like it has some promise for us!!! We will have to look in to it.

[chick]

We playing something like this one sunday at CQB. Except it was completely one versus everyone else. Two people got let out at intervals and tried to get everyone else. The game itself kind of fell apart because of all the new people who had no idea what they were doing. And it just never seemed to end because when you got hit you went back into the staging area and waited in line to be let in again.

[XD40B-CM]

This mayhem sounds great...., let's call it the never ending game.

[Brazzle88]

I'll have to suggest this on a late friday night when we have less than 2,000 people.

[Smukatele]

With the exception of something I go into in the next paragraph, I see no reason why the game should go forever... I don't think I like the idea of letting people out slowly because that puts unfair pressure on those who are let in earlier on. If we only do this when there a small number of people, like say 16(?) then we could evenly space them apart so that they start off with fairly equal chances. Also, the game would not be never-ending as I envision it as a last team standing type of thing. You'd have say a 2 or 3 hit max and then your out. Hell we could even go cutthroat and say you only get one hit, depends on what everyone thinks.

One thing to keep in mind is that since there are no large teams, it is not really feasable to take out an embedded team with just 2 assaulters. So there would need to be a no camping rule to make sure you don't just have teams bunker down and wait it out. What would be a reasonable time-limit or other way of ensuring no one tries to hol'up somewhere like the jail?


Last rule is that no member of Team Pain is allowed in B for this game. :)

[JohnnyDime]

How about "Elimination" for a game name?

I like the idea. Definitely up for trying it sometime.

[Jaberwaki]

Last rule is that no member of Team Pain is allowed in B for this game. :)


Awe come on :(

[Brazzle88]

I think the "letting people on slowly idea' is very bad, I presume chick does too, since she said it was bad. as for the first part of the thread, excellent idea. Maybe add it so that the teams can heal, and one hit? and a max heals of 1 or 2:confused:

[matshark]

sounds like a great game... i second bishops thoughts to play it... since itsahak already likes the idea... anybody for an upcoming game day at the fire training center?

[Smukatele]

I have not seen anyone respond to the problem I presented with people bunkering down in a 2vs2vs2... match, so I'll throw out a suggestion.

Rule #1: No team intentionally enters any area that has only once entrance. ie. Jail, Embassy rooms, etc.

Additionally, I can think of some areas that two people could fairly easily hold despite having more than one entrance, so....

Rule #2: I would suggest a time-limit of 45 seconds for non-movement. This of course only applies when you have the ability to still move about. If you are being chased by an enemy and you try to go through embassy only to run into someone coming the other way, you have no choice but to bunker down in one of those defendable hallways until one side is cleared.

I don't think the timelimit needs to apply if you are somewhere that has 3 or more entrances, but I could be wrong on this part. If someone wants to bunker down in the middle of Main street, I say more power to em!

What do yall think? Is Rule #1 reasonable? Should we extend/shrink the time-limit and do areas with 3 or more entrances need an exception to Rule #2?

[mr7q]

Played something like this on this past Saturday. Ended up being 3vs3vs4.

Spawns were Bank, other side of vent shaft room, and B building. Made a triangle of the field.

It worked pretty well. Unfortunately, the team with four ended up winning. Whether it was because they had superior firepower or numbers, I don't know. It was fun, though.

I think as long as you've got a gentleman's agreement not to camp somewhere, the game would work. As such, it'd be best with experienced people.

[Jaberwaki]

we played 2 on 2 on 2 on 2 this friday... before the majoratiy of people showed up... It was a blast...
we were not the last team standing but we took one team completely out and and got the hit 1 for one other team... :D
Lots of fun knowing the firefight can come from anywhere right off the bat :cool: