Idea of objectives in next OP

[Scott]

I was thinking about how to improve upon what we had at redout, and I was thinking of this. Every hour or so, one of the objectives is announced to both teams. The teams then fight for control of the objective until the hour is up, and whoever controls it at the end of the hour gets a point. I think it would be better if maybe the team generals had each hour's objective in an envelope ahead of time, then opened them individually when the time came. This would keep either team from knowing where to go before the time came. Also, to keep it interesting, some hours would have multiple objectives.

Tell me what you guys think of this.

[OaKeY]

I think it would be a good idea, maybe announce hidden objectives before hand to build suspense.

[El Phantasamo]

Sounds good to me ;D

BTW guys, this should be in game planning

[Zorak]

I sent Knief a PM about this on MIA. Dynamic objectives are an invitation to chaos. To make them work right, you need excellent communications across the board. You're also courting player frustration, especially if the change from one objective to the next leaves one team in a bad tactical position.

After the events GK ran in the ACO CQB facility last year, I've come to believe that pessimism is the iron law of event planning. No matter how simple something looks, someone in the crowd will get it wrong, and they will get it wrong in whatever way is least conducive to everyone else's enjoyment of the op. My advice is to start as simple as can possibly be, and then slowly add complexities at the rate of one or at most two per event, and that way you always have a solid base to work from.

I've heard SEMIA members say that relative to their expectations, Red Out was a failure. If you feel that way, my further unsolicited advice is to keep the original Red Out vision fixed in your sights. Stick with that vision or small variations until you achieve it. Then you can ask yourselves how to take the next step.

The good news in all this is that airsofters are mostly good sports and will find a way to enjoy most things you throw at them.

[Psychosis]

I agree with Zorak, keep it simple. If we want to improve on Redout, let's not make things more complicated.

[Scott]

This would be more for a smaller game.

[Toothbrush]

As it has been said, it is probably an invitation to disaster. Stopping and starting the game (or even informing teams via radio) every hour will be extremely inefficient.

While the idea is nice, for (at least at the moment) it is simply unfeasible IMHO.

[Scott]

Like I said, smaller group of people. Maybe if you had a 50 person game or something, where the team for the most part worked together. This way, there is no group of people getting left out of the instructions. You wouldn't stop the game either, this would really just be a way of having a changing set of objectives without starting new games.