Jump to content


Photo

Nonstandard Game Types - Ideas, Rules, Etc.

How to Have FUN-fun at a Nerf War

78 replies to this topic

#26 themilkman

themilkman

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 February 2008 - 06:23 PM

Also, I just ordered a documentary on LARPing for a analysis of documentaries class that I am taking. It looks like a hoot...these guys are extremely dedicated (and possibly crazy). Hopefully it will be an interesting watch. It's called Darkon

Holy crap!!! That was very interesting, I would never ever EVER be caught dead doing that but it was um... special?
  • 0
"I am The Milkman, my milk is delicious"

I had a long hiatus from nerfing from '09-'13

#27 Green Riptide

Green Riptide

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • Location:Columbus, Ohio

Posted 27 February 2008 - 08:13 PM

As for the commenting on LARP...drop it.


Fine, but that doesn't make it any less gay.


It should be noted that Humans vs. Zombies is larping.

In response to Piney's Idea of Passing a football, Falcon and I are working out the rules for something similar using foam frisbees... I'll post something about it in here when it's figured out fully.


Gametype Concept:
Ultimate NERF


Who doesn't know how ultimate frisbee works? Since this board is mostly college kids I'd say not many. people play it in gym class and it is the second unofficial sport of college life, behind beer pong. Unless you play quarters, lamewads.

So here's the breakdown. Ultimate NERF is a chaotic speed-CTF gametype concept with two flags [frisbees, usually]. Utilizing the basic concepts of Ultimate Frisbee, this game will involve passing a throwable object [flag] from one end of the field to the other. It should be played in an area that is fairly large and relatively open, though just using a soccer field might be a bit too open.

There are two flags; we'll call them red and blue. red flag is on one end of the field, in an easily definable area- under a tree, in an endzone, past a certain line, whatever. blue flag is similarly placed on the opposite end of the field. Flags should be throwable/catchable objects; NERF footballs, frisbees, various types of balls, even socks if you want.

Red team starts in the blue flag area and vice versa; Each team's goal is to bring the enemy flag back to their flag area. This entails running out to the opposite end of the field and grabbing the flag and then passing it back ultimate-frisbee-style. This means that you cannot move with the flag other than to pivot (one foot stays in place while you utilize the other to turn about.) The flag must be chucked, tossed, hurled, or otherwise projected to a team member in order to advance its position.

Ultimate NERF would be non-elimination. Any player can be shot at any time, with the penalty for taking a hit being a time-out whose magnitude is to be determined on a situational basis. To prevent too much chaos in the middle of the field, players should quickly and expediently make their way to a timeout area for the duration of their time-out. The time-out area could also be varied, but should probably be located off to the sides rather than in a flag area, since the action should be going back and forth the whole time. timed-out players should not provide cover for their still-in-play teammates while exiting, etc.

If a flagger (person holding flag) is shot they must drop the flag where they were shot and take a time-out.
The flagger may shoot while holding the flag.
The opposing team may intercept the flag when/if it is thrown, and if they do they may run while carrying it to return it to its starting point.
If an opposing player is shot while returning the flag they must drop it where they were shot and take a time-out.


I think that about covers it. Plenty to be tweaked here- if you have an open area that is the proper size but has no obstacles, here are some possibilities:
Ignore the time-out area rule and allow timed-out players to stand in place and act as human shields.
Designate a certain number from each team to be unarmed "rushers" who may gain certain benefits from being unarmed; they can take an extra hit before being timed-out, or something similar.
Ignore the time-out rule in favor of a "you must run back to your start point when hit, but may then continue play normally" clause. Basically a respawn.

It obviously would take some tweaking, but I think it could work. The initial standoff would last a decent while, but once one team got ahold of a flag things would more than likely stay fast and furious for the duration.
  • 0

#28 Langley

Langley

    LGLF - Since 2002

  • Administrators
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 03:32 AM

I don't understand the attraction of footballs and Frisbees as flags. Why would you want to be able to pass farther than you can shoot?
Something I forgot to mention about single flag CTF: In FPS game, the flags always reset automatically--Obviously not possible in nerf. So for a few rounds at GnomeFEST, we borrowed a bit from football and experimented with resetting each time the flag bearer was hit (a fumble). We would replace the flag in the center and begin again, but everyone would still have the same number of hits left. It worked really well with a relatively small group (6-10) and we avoided the standoffs we usually encounter when one team grabs the flag and then wanders around with it for half an hour before making a run on the goal. The trick is to keep things moving and reset quickly so people aren't waiting around for very long.

Tindall Style CTF
Objective: A flag is placed in the center of a field. Two teams compete to run though the opposing teams goal with the flag. The first team to capture the flag 3 times wins.
Rules: Team members have 3 hits each and must count to 5 before clearing back in out of range and on their half of the field. When the flag bearer is hit, the round is stopped temporarily, the flag is returned to the center of the field, teams regroup on either side, and play resumes. When the flag is captured, players reset to 3 hits, the flag is returned, and a new round begins. Repeat until a team reaches 3 captures.
  • 0

You can poop in my toilet anytime champ.

2016 Nerf War Schedule
Bless you, my son. Now recite 3 New Members Guides and 5 Code of Conducts for your sins.


#29 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 08:33 AM

Riptide, why not just play ultimate frisbee than? The nerf aspect of that scenario seems incredibly forced. Also, how about we try these game types out before posting them here? Otherwise this degrades into the same thing as a modification concept thread. If I have to read through 3 paragraphs of ridiculous bullshit only to find that it's not even something you've tried before I'm gonna give up on this thread imediately.

VACC
  • 0

#30 Eboreg

Eboreg

    Member

  • Banned
  • 220 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 11:55 AM

This game is quite the special scenario.

Necessary equipment:
4 Magstrikes preferably with plenty of extra clips and external air tanks
2 makeshift bases with only one entrance
2 targets that stick to dart tag micros
4 dart tag vests

Special rules:
Only Dart tag micros can be used
Guards must not remove micros from their vests

Set-up: Set up the targets in the bases and give the obligatory weapons and dart tag vests to one person each. These people are the guards. Set up two guards at each base to guard the entrance.

Gameplay: Each team member starts at their base. Guards must stay near the entrance and may only move without their weapons to collect extra ammo. You cannot shoot guards unless they can shoot a player opposing them. The objective is to get inside the base and hit the target of the opposing team. Guards will be permanently taken out of the action if five darts hit their vests during the course of the game. If the other players get hit with a dart, they must count to 15 and clear at their base. If a target gets hit with a dart the game ends with the team whose target is not hit winning.

Edited by Eboreg, 28 February 2008 - 11:56 AM.

Always bring your sword to battle.

I pity the fool who attempts to use a single-shot blaster against me.

#31 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:28 PM

This game is quite the special scenario.

Necessary equipment:
4 Magstrikes preferably with plenty of extra clips and external air tanks

Guards will be permanently taken out of the action if five darts hit their vests during the course of the game.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the combination of that equipment and the following rule with only 1 guard at each base make for incredibly short games? I guess it works well with a smallerwar, but you couldn't really run this with more than....well one or two non-guard players on each team, no?

By the way, for anyone I reply to. I'm not trying to knock your ideas, but as someone who likes to think of himself as a pretty inventive war organizer I have become accustomed to poking holes in play types of both my peers and my own in order to develop exciting and balanced modes of play. Anything I say here is a part of that process.
  • 0

#32 Eboreg

Eboreg

    Member

  • Banned
  • 220 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:41 PM

Actually, there are two guards at each base and another rule is that you can't shoot them if they can't hit you or anyone else on your team. Now that I think about it, guards could pull darts off of their vests if no enemy was in the guards' shooting distance

Edited by Eboreg, 28 February 2008 - 01:06 PM.

Always bring your sword to battle.

I pity the fool who attempts to use a single-shot blaster against me.

#33 Langley

Langley

    LGLF - Since 2002

  • Administrators
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:53 PM

Gunslinger Heaven incorporates this to some extent by allowing people to stay in the game by sending people to hell, but has anyone played a pure game of Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch? Deathmatch meaning a win is based on number of kills rather than survival. One of the things that always bothered me about the generic team elimination games we all seem to play is that they encourage people to be cautious, because they can only win if they are still alive. It rewards players who hang back and wait until they get the perfect shot. Deathmatch on the other hand requires players to be more aggressive, because if they hang back, other players or teams will get too far ahead of them. Players are less concerned about getting hit because getting hit only sets them back a point or two.

Obviously there are some issues with keeping score, since nerf is on the honor system. Your targets would have to be very clear in communicating weather or not you'd hit them, and players would have to be honest about how many kills they'd gotten. Either that, or players would have to keep track of how many times they'd been hit and by whom.

Edited by Langley, 28 February 2008 - 12:56 PM.

  • 0

You can poop in my toilet anytime champ.

2016 Nerf War Schedule
Bless you, my son. Now recite 3 New Members Guides and 5 Code of Conducts for your sins.


#34 jwasko

jwasko

    PowerBeard

  • Moderators
  • 1,021 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA
  • State:Pennsylvania
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:20 PM

I've been trying to refrain from asking this question, but in light of Langley's question:

How do the "big" wars play CTF? Is there also an elimination component, or does everyone have infinite lives?

At the small, local war I attended in December (all noobs there, including myself...no offense to those guys) we played CTF in which everyone had infinite lives, but whenever a guy got hit he had to run back to a respawn point in addition to counting to 15.

I liked this system because, firstly, it kept everyone in the game the entire time.

Secondly, it helped to reduce the number of standoffs and shapshooting (there was a lot of cover to be had, which promoted that type of play) since the consquences of getting hit were not so severe.

I would definitely like to try Langley's idea of a pure Team Deathmatch: although it probably wouldn't work well in a larger war, it should work better at a small war in which everyone knows everyone.
  • 0

-Jwasko, STILL Sole Surviving member of Steel City Nerf and Sober Sister of the Sex Dwarves
We NERF ON all day, and FUCK OFF all night


#35 Eboreg

Eboreg

    Member

  • Banned
  • 220 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:24 PM

it should work better at a small war in which everyone knows everyone.


Or in a war with plenty of (color_one) bandannas (color_two) bandannas and possibly (color_three & color_four) bandannas
Always bring your sword to battle.

I pity the fool who attempts to use a single-shot blaster against me.

#36 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 01:35 PM

Gunslinger Heaven incorporates this to some extent by allowing people to stay in the game by sending people to hell, but has anyone played a pure game of Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch? Deathmatch meaning a win is based on number of kills rather than survival. One of the things that always bothered me about the generic team elimination games we all seem to play is that they encourage people to be cautious, because they can only win if they are still alive. It rewards players who hang back and wait until they get the perfect shot. Deathmatch on the other hand requires players to be more aggressive, because if they hang back, other players or teams will get too far ahead of them. Players are less concerned about getting hit because getting hit only sets them back a point or two.

Obviously there are some issues with keeping score, since nerf is on the honor system. Your targets would have to be very clear in communicating weather or not you'd hit them, and players would have to be honest about how many kills they'd gotten. Either that, or players would have to keep track of how many times they'd been hit and by whom.


I've tried things with a similar feel to this and it doesn't work very well. The point you brought up about keeping score is issue number one. And tt complicates matter much more when it matters WHO hit you. There is always a little bit of dishonesty at nerf wars in some sense, and someone telling me they've scored x number of kills is just such an easy thing to fudge, unintentionally even. Without some method of automation it would have to be a small war for this to work effectively.

The other issue is the game style it induces. You say you dislike cautious play, but the opposite end of the spectrum is worse. If someone is being too cautious is only hurts them, as an aggressive team can surround and pick off a slow moving pack of nerfers. This emphasizes skill and team coordination over pot-shots. With a deathmatch style war (anything with infinite lives really) your rules encourage blind charging and reckless assault in the persuit of compiling kills.

And that's only really if it's a multiple team affair. You put these rules into play with just two teams and I guarantee you that most of the nerfers change very little, if anything, about how they play. I've seen this happen in all kinds of different variations where I assumed people would be nerfing completely differently, and yet they don't change a thing. Hell, I remember the first time the LCM ran a playground siege round when I was there. I was flabbergasted by the fact that NOONE was taking advantage of the rules. The sieging team has infinite lives and a time limit in which to take the base and yet noone was running to and from the spawn point and most of them were engaging in standoffs. On the other side, the defend team had finite hits, limited room to move, and the same timetable, and yet these guys were counting into play in less than the required time and taking long and hopeless potshots at enemies with infinite lives that were out of their range. Yet once I showed them how to exploit the rules and take full advantage of their situation everyone was quickly playing a much smarter brand of nerf. I guess my point is, if you believe that a more aggressive style is superior you are better off leading by example. If your tactics are successful you can bet people will follow your lead.

One other note. I would be slightly concernd that the deathmatch rounds you described could lead to individual statistic compilation. The last thing I want is to hear kids comparing how many kills they've scored over lunch. Fuck that, worry about winning, not stats.

That said, if you had some idea how to actually work the scoring system I might be intrigued, but again, this is not something you've tried, it's a "concept" war. You say you have small wars at school every week. Try this out and get back to me with some anecdotal findings and I'd be more interested.
  • 0

#37 Thom

Thom

    Member

  • Members
  • 759 posts
  • Location:SUNY Buffalo

Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:29 PM

I've been trying to refrain from asking this question, but in light of Langley's question:

How do the "big" wars play CTF? Is there also an elimination component, or does everyone have infinite lives?

At the small, local war I attended in December (all noobs there, including myself...no offense to those guys) we played CTF in which everyone had infinite lives, but whenever a guy got hit he had to run back to a respawn point in addition to counting to 15.

I liked this system because, firstly, it kept everyone in the game the entire time.

Secondly, it helped to reduce the number of standoffs and shapshooting (there was a lot of cover to be had, which promoted that type of play) since the consquences of getting hit were not so severe.

I would definitely like to try Langley's idea of a pure Team Deathmatch: although it probably wouldn't work well in a larger war, it should work better at a small war in which everyone knows everyone.

Last UBCon was mostly CTF, and we had well over fifty people. For the reasons you mention, we had unlimited respawns you just had to run back to a table at the front of the building.
  • 0

#38 The Infinite Shindig

The Infinite Shindig

    Arma-what-now?

  • Contributors
  • 1,383 posts

Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:56 PM

I like experimentation with new game styles, but typically haven't dabbled in that at wars I had a hand in running. The notable exception to this rule was Apoc 2007. In theory, the Civil War round sounded like a crazy good idea that we had to try. However, I have a new respect for Spoon when he ran an 'Geddon years ago with over 45 people. Herding a large group of people through new round styles is just a bad idea. I'll reiterate that: trying different war styles with a large, varied group of individuals is a terrible idea. It was hard enough keeping different fields open simultaneously and then regrouping back together in a timely manner. So many lessons were learned on my part during that war, despite organizing them for seven years before that.

Field location also plays a large role in determining what round styles can be used. Therefore, what works at one place doesn't necessarily work at another just because of geography. For example, gunslinger heaven wouldn't work out well at a heavily wooded Mill Creek.

Team death-match rounds where the number of kills achieved by each team determines the winner does sound intriguing. I'd be against it for the obvious reasons of honesty, but also because even though I'd stay in a round longer, I'd still be useless to my team in the area of actually tagging people. :lol:

I think the moral of the story here is that in order for more round styles to emerge, the community has to host many small wars and just nerf. As great as the forums are to brainstorm, it needs to be tried out in the field. These wars shouldn't be at the wars with large attendance, but small clan skirmishes and very local wars. So go out and nerf. Then, let us know what kind of round you played, how many people you had, and what the field was like. Isn't that the intention of the forums and the wiki? To share useful ideas that members from all over the country (and world) have come up with? I may have missed the point these last seven years, but that's the impression I was under.
  • 0
Shindig of the Lawn Chair Mafia

<a href="http://www.albinobla.../flash/posting" target="_blank">Posting and You</a>

#39 Shadowblade

Shadowblade

    Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts
  • Location:Augusta, GA

Posted 28 February 2008 - 08:06 PM

Being from Augusta, Georgia, there aren't that many nerfers here except for some of those rich bastards from the neighboring county (but let's not go there...). As a result we never have large-scale wars but one gametype I plan on testing is an escort-type of game, possibly a spinoff of Assassins. There will be two teams in the scenario: the bodyguards and the assassins. There will also be one "VIP" who is only armed with a pistol of some sort and it is the job of the bodyguards to protect this person until a given date and time. The assassins have to take the target out before this date. The target will probably have to be escorted (hence the game name) from place to place to avoid being completely pwned by an ambush.

So yeah, I don't know if I can find enough people to test this out, but I have a feeling the police are going to get a little suspicious if I'm camping out at someone's house with a modded black LS. Then again this may be stupid, but I just wanted to throw out this idea.
  • 0
QUOTE
Proverbs says, "The wise man doth not shoot the Viking in the ding ding for he shall pummel thee."

But you can totally shoot Vacc there, he loves it!

~Talio

#40 NerfMonkey

NerfMonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,820 posts
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • State:Arizona
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 08:20 PM

My friends and I used to play a game like that about three years back and it worked just fine with only three people. The VIP wasn't allowed any weapons at all and could only walk, not run. One person was his bodyguard and the other an assassin; usually the VIP would end up getting pwned but I used to be allowed to dual wield NFs to protect him, which made it a lot of fun.

I don't think this could be applied to a very big war, mostly for the reason that everyone would forget about the VIP and just start shooting each other; just saying that it is a fun game with a limited amount of people.
  • 0
SexD Warves

#41 imaseoulman

imaseoulman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:DFW
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 09:28 PM

That said, if you had some idea how to actually work the scoring system I might be intrigued, but again, this is not something you've tried, it's a "concept" war. You say you have small wars at school every week. Try this out and get back to me with some anecdotal findings and I'd be more interested.


A few months ago we did something similar to this. We have several feet of snow on the ground (around four feet) so we made four forts and utilized some large snow plow piles for a fifth fort. The forts were about fifty yards apart on a sort of oblong circle with a radius of about 50 yards, so farely spread out. We wanted to put one in the middle so we grabbed our snow shovels and dug out a massive fort (about 15' x 15') in the middle of a field. The fort was very well fortified but in the middle of all the other forts and therefore prone to being attacked on multiple sides (we were playing a variation of capture the flag with respawn being 25 yards away from your base). We decided to make the middle fort the "equalizer" and the winning team of the last round had to take the middle fort. It helped balance the game out (even though my team generally kept the middle fort, it wasn't a slaughter).

Anyway, using that same field we played another scenario similar to the one Langley and Vacc were talking about. We wanted to have a sort of tournament with small three man teams. We didn't want to do just survival because if you just hid/played defensively the whole time, your team would win. So we played three hit elimination and everybody had little cards to write down who they were hit by. You could still lie about who hit you, but that's pretty intense lying. The guys we play with don't have too many problems with deliberate lying (of course we have the occassional "I hit you" "No I saw it go by me" "It was a two dart blast" "Oh" or "I saw both go by me" "Okay"). We didn't have any problems with the scoring and we did accomplish the goal of balancing caution (you only have three lives) with attacking (you have to get hits to win). More so than the scoring be an issue, I think you need to have a certain number of lives, but the winner isn't the last one standing, but the one who scored the most points. Has anybody played a similar type of game before? Limited lives, but winning by points?
  • 0

#42 VACC

VACC

    Vacc is Legend

  • Founders
  • 3,265 posts
  • Location:New York
  • State:New York
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 11:11 PM

That's pretty interesting. The idea to have cards for marking down kills is nice, but again I wonder how well it would work at a very large war. I suppose anything of 20 or less wouldn't be too hard as long as everyone is fairly familiar with each other. The only concern I would have, again, is the accumulation of personal statistics. As an individual battle this really is not an issue at all and the play type perhaps should not be judged bases on this. However, if it were to become a staple, or an anticipated event I worry that there are many nerfers who would be far more concerned with racking up kills than with actually winning. Than again, maybe that would just make winning easier for my team, hehe. It's something I think we'd have to flush out a little more though.
  • 0

#43 Lynx

Lynx

    Member

  • Members
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Columbus, Ohio
  • State:Ohio
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 11:30 PM

Comment on other game: I think if you took marks of who you killed and who you were killed by would make the confirmation of kills a ton more easier.

Idea for a new game: I also thought of having people have a deck of cards being handed out and after being shot one would give one card at random to the person who shot them.

At the end of the game (timed or when someone runs out of cards) you could see who has the best 5 card hand.

I think that would be CRAZY because if one was shot 5 times, if they were lucky, they could still win!

Also, you could have two winners, the person with the most cards and the person with the best hand.
  • 0
Columbus' original crazy asshole now comes with:

AWESOME NITEFINDER

#44 imaseoulman

imaseoulman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:DFW
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 February 2008 - 11:40 PM

You're right about it not working well at a large war (unless everybody knows everybody). Our usual wars are in the 15-25 range, but we're a group that lives in the same apartment complex, knows eachother's first and last names, majors, wives' names, number of kids, etc. Originally my concern with the card thing was that people would forget to mark down or whatever, but since you have to do a "respawn count" anyway, it didn't seem to be a concern. At a very large war, I guess you could wear numbers (like runners). It wouldn't be that hard to grab a sharpie, some paper, and some safety pins.

I'm with you, though, on being concerned with stats. There are already too many ridiculous "penis length comparison threads" (especially lately) and this would just be another outlet for exagerated claims and debates. Maybe for invitational wars only? It does seem pretty dumb to be more proud of number of kills than actually winning (who cares how many kills you get if you fail the mission?) but we all know it would happen. I can't think of anyway to curb the stats tracking, if you win by points, except to ban the first (and second and third) person who mentions their "kill count."

As far as "racking up kills"... that is kind of the point of this scenario. But if you just go crazy suicidal, you may get two kills for each time you die, but the team that plays smart and survives to the end will probably have a lot more kills. Also, if you just play cautiously and don't shoot anybody, you can't win. It keeps gameplay moving fairly quickly. I still think banning abybody who mentions their "kill count" isn't a bad idea.
  • 0

#45 Ambience 327

Ambience 327

    Member

  • Members
  • 561 posts
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 February 2008 - 02:48 PM

I play indoors with the youth group at my church (my wife & I are sponsors), and one game that we repeatedly come back to is King of the Hill. It is relatively easy to set up, explain, officiate, etc. and is a lot of fun as well.

Basically, two teams start at opposite ends of somewhere (a large gym, a building, a field, etc). In the middle of the two areas is an area marked out in some way as "the hill". (We use a colored square on the floor of the activity room in the basement - big enough for our purposes.) When the starting whistle is blown, each team must try to get their forces on to "the hill" and keep them there until time runs out. Players who are hit must return to their team's starting point to respawn. When the final whistle is blown, whichever team has more surviving members on "the hill" wins the game.

It is very fast-paced, and quite a lot of fun - at least in our experience. If "the hill" is sufficienly small and barren of cover, it can be quite the kill zone as well. Works best if the players don't know how long the timer will be set for.


As an alternative, if you have two players willing to sit out each match, you could have teams rack up time on the hill instead. Each time-keeper would pay attention to whether his own team has one or more players in "the hill", and run a stop watch during that time. The first team to rack up a set amount of time would win. You could stipulate that the hill may only be occupied by one side to rack up time if you want. The important thing is to have observant timekeepers who can get a good view of the entire "hill".
  • 0
Foam in the Fort IV
The fourth exciting Nerf War in Fort Wayne, IN.

#46 imaseoulman

imaseoulman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:DFW
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 February 2008 - 03:42 PM

As an alternative, if you have two players willing to sit out each match, you could have teams rack up time on the hill instead. Each time-keeper would pay attention to whether his own team has one or more players in "the hill", and run a stop watch during that time. The first team to rack up a set amount of time would win. You could stipulate that the hill may only be occupied by one side to rack up time if you want. The important thing is to have observant timekeepers who can get a good view of the entire "hill".


I like this idea lot. We've tried playing this before, but each team was using their own stopwatch and people would "forget" to stop it some times, so it didn't work out too well, but we liked timing it rather than who has how many players at the end. It would work well if you had "score keepers" or "time judges" or whatever. As long as the rounds weren't too long, I don't think people would mind sitting out and timing. I know we get tired when we have long NERF days and nobody minds being the one taking a break. Good post.
  • 0

#47 Langley

Langley

    LGLF - Since 2002

  • Administrators
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:38 PM

In regard to the Pure Deathmatch discussion, problems with individual statistics could be solved by only recording what team hit who. If you've got three teams, for example, members of the red team would note whether they were hit by the blue team or the green team when clearing back in, instead of recording who specifically hit them. To make recording easier, each team could have a separate spawn point with a sign-in sheet or maybe a container that you put colored tokens into to record what team you were hit by before you spawn in.

But like VACC said, this set of rules might not be an improvement, and I haven't had a chance yet to test them myself, so this is all conjecture.
  • 0

You can poop in my toilet anytime champ.

2016 Nerf War Schedule
Bless you, my son. Now recite 3 New Members Guides and 5 Code of Conducts for your sins.


#48 imaseoulman

imaseoulman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts
  • Location:DFW
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:48 PM

In regard to the Pure Deathmatch discussion, problems with individual statistics could be solved by only recording what team hit who. If you've got three teams, for example, members of the red team would note whether they were hit by the blue team or the green team when clearing back in, instead of recording who specifically hit them. To make recording easier, each team could have a separate spawn point with a sign-in sheet or maybe a container that you put colored tokens into to record what team you were hit by before you spawn in.

But like VACC said, this set of rules might not be an improvement, and I haven't had a chance yet to test them myself, so this is all conjecture.


Wow, I can't believe I didn't think about that. I guess I didn't really feel the need since our local wars don't have the problem, but maybe we could try this at some of the bigger summer wars. The sign in sheet could help too, but you'd have to bring clipboards and stuff. We play in the snow in the winter, so the papers might get too wet too quickly, but that should work for the summer...I hope we get a chance to try this large scale and see how it works out.
  • 0

#49 sputnik

sputnik

    Member

  • Members
  • 911 posts
  • Location:San Angelo, Texas

Posted 29 February 2008 - 04:57 PM

One of the best gametypes I've ever played is a variation of attack and defend.
The Attackers are allowed as much ammo as they can carry, but the Defenders can only have the amount specified for the gun they are using(i.e. 12 for a LS, 10 for a DTG, etc.) and 1 sidearm (usually a NF or a Mav)
The Defenders can however, use the ammo shot at them by the Attackers.
Attackers have 3 hit points; Defenders have 4.
When the Attackers/Defenders are all defeated, the game ends.

The game is best played indoors, as it is a closer quarters game.
  • 0
tcambre on IRC.

<3

#50 Retiate

Retiate

    Member

  • Members
  • 778 posts
  • Location:Gig Harbor, Washington
  • State:Washington
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 March 2008 - 04:06 PM

I'll post some of the ones our group likes to play. Note that we are a group of usually 6 people.
Feel free to critique any/all of them, any ideas on how to improve them are appreciated.

I saw this in a thread a long time ago, and we tried it out.

Double Team

Set Up: 4 players is probably the least you can have for this to work. You will need a field with an easily accessible area, this is the "Dead Zone". Preferably, this should be as close to the center of the field as possible. You can set up cones, or just use natural land marks if they are there. The game starts as a free for all.

Rules: When you are shot, go to the Dead Zone, you are out for now. When someone else comes into the Dead Zone, you two are now a team and you leave the Dead Zone and enter play. If your partner is eliminated, he is no longer on your team, and he will wait for a different partner in the Dead Zone. You can play with a certain number of lives for each person, or count kills and end when someone reaches x number of kills, or whoever has the most kills after a time limit.


One of my favorites. This one's a little confusing at first. Inspired from a game I saw posted here a long time ago. It has some similarity to the game now, but the play style has changed completely.

Snipers

Set Up: You need a pretty random field with good amounts of cover scattered throughout. You also need a specific area that is more open if possible, or at least just mark a specific area. I a concrete section of my driveway, right outside my garage. To make things less confusing, we'll refer to this as the "Base". You also need a place where you people can go so they can't see/hear other players outside. We use my house, but if a building isn't nearby, just have them go somewhere out of site.
There are 3 groups of people in this game: Scouts, Guards, and Snipers.
You need an equal amount of Scouts and Guards, and that number should be greater than the amount of Snipers. With 8 people, we would use 3 Scouts, 3 Guards, and 2 Snipers. Try to keep as close as a 2:1 ratio of Scouts/Guards to Snipers. If you have less than 8 people, have the Scouts double up as Guards. The Scouts will alert themselves (this will make sense later).
The Guards and Scouts are the ones that go away from the field, and the Snipers go off and hide.

Rules:

Scouts: After the Snipers hide (give them a set amount of time to hide), the Scouts come out to the base and announce they have come out and the game is starting. Scouts are unarmed, think of them as, well, scouts, and they're on the lookout for intruders. They have to go off and try to find the Snipers without getting shot by them. When they spot a Sniper, they call out "Sniper!" and run back to base to alert a Guard. When someone calls "Sniper!", the other Scouts can't call it out and start running. Each individual must actually see one of the Snipers. So it is best for the spotted Sniper to casually remain out of sight from other Scouts, and not to jump out and chase him down. Though there can be occasions where this is completely appropriate/necessary. Most the time, it just leads to more "Sniper!" calls. Also, Scouts may not tell other Scouts where they saw the Sniper, they simply keep it to themselves for the time being. If a Scout is shot, they are eliminated and our for the rest of the game. Scouts need to be observant, cautious, and have a good sense of their surroundings.

Guards: Think of these guys as royal guards protecting the president. The Guards sit at base and wait for a Scout to alert them. When one Scout returns to base after calling "Sniper!", they alert one Guard. The Scout can try to describe where the Sniper was last spotted to give them an idea of where to look. Guards are armed with anything they want (things legal in a regular war, so big shields, Titans and such are right out). When called out, the Guard goes out and tries to locate and eliminate the Snipers without getting shot. For each Scout that comes back to base after calling "Sniper!", another Guard comes out. So it is best if the Snipers take out Scouts before they alert Guards to reduce any possible threats. If a Guard is shot, they are eliminated and out for the rest of the game. Guards need to communicate with other Guards, be quick, and cautious to take out all of the Snipers.

Snipers: These are the bad guys, the assassins after the president. Snipers go off and hide in the beginning, they must be far away from the base. When the Scouts/Guards announce the game has began, the Snipers can move from their hiding spot. Their goal is not to take out all of the Guards/Scouts, but to take out a target located in the center of the base (the president). The target should be about the size of a person, it is recommended that it's slightly padded to reduce dart breakage. The target is placed in the center of the base, and it can not be moved. Snipers must quietly advance towards the target, trying to avoid being spotted by a Scout. Each time a Sniper is spotted by a scout, they have a new threat of a Guard out to eliminate them. If a Sniper is shot, they are eliminated and out for the rest of the game. Snipers need to be quick and quiet, make good use of cover, and be aware of any Scouts.

The Scouts/Guards win when all the Snipers are eliminated. The Snipers win when the Target has been shot.
Walkie Talkies for the Snipers could be a very good idea depending on how big the area is.



Not war tested, just an idea. Not good for big wars, just smaller local wars.

Red Rover

Set Up: You need teams of two, with each team having equal amounts of people. You need a field where you can have a side for each team.

Rules: Each team goes to each side of the field. Each team takes turns calling over a single person. When a single person is called, that person runs to the other team and tries to take out as many people as he can. All eliminated people then switch sides. The other team then calls over a person, and the cycle repeats. Game ends when one team has all the people. I recommend setting a time limit (like 3 minutes, but depends on amount of people) for each round. When the time expires, the called over person is counted as eliminated.

Alternative: If the called over person eliminates x amount of people, he gets to go back to his original side.


Again, not war tested, probably better for smaller wars.

Player Control

Set Up: The game is like Multi Flag CTF, where each team holds multiple flags. Gain all the flags to win. So you need a field with two sides and an easily accessible area where the flags go. Each side needs the same number of players. Team members should have something on them so they can be told apart from members of the other team. This is a requirement, even if all players know who is on each team.

Rules: The rules are much like regular CTF, but with a twist. Each team will have x amount of flags, where x is the amount of players on the team. Each flag, called "Controllers" has the name of one player written on it. So in the end, each team should have a controller for each player on their team. When a player is shot, they return to base, wait a set time to respawn, and they're back in play. If a player returns to base and finds that their controller is not there, they go to the other side, where their controller should be. They are now on the other team. They put on/take off whatever they used to tell teams apart. Game ends when one team has all the controllers.


And lastly, after seeing the Civil War round, I was inspired to make something big, with fast paced, close up action. I don't know the rules to the actual Civil War, so this could be close to it, or far from it. Once again, not tested, but I don't see how it wouldn't work. This one however, should work for bigger wars. In fact, it won't work for small teams.

Civil War

Set Up: You need pretty large teams, at least 6v6. You need even teams. It should be played on an open strip of grass. A soccer field is perfect, but it would probably need to be thinner depending on how many people you have.

Rules: Each team starts on either side of the field. The point of the game is to get as much of your team to the other side of the field, while trying to stop the other team from doing so. Each team charges, firing and dodging, running through the other team to the opposite side of the field. If you are shot, go off to the side of the field, you're out for the round. It might be better to lay down where you got shot at when you're dead. Once you reach the other side of the field, you're done for the round.
When everyone is done, whichever team has the most people on the opposite side of the field wins.

Alternatives: 1. Have a number of rounds. If you decide to reset teams after each round, add up the number of people on each side at the end of each round for a score. After all the rounds, the team with the highest score wins. Or you can keep the remaining people, then after x rounds, whichever team has the most survivors wins.
2. If the teams are big enough, designate two people on each team to be medics. For this one, when you are shot, lay down where you were shot at. Medics are unarmed, their goal is to help your team instead of hurting the other. Each medic grabs the hand of an eliminated player and helps them up, they are back in play. Medics must work in pairs, single medics cannot revive people. Medics can be shot and eliminated, and they also count towards the teams score at the end of the game. Medics might make the game slower, but I don't really know since this is not war tested at all.

Edited by Retiate, 02 March 2008 - 04:08 PM.

  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users