30 replies to this topic

[BJ Williams]

I have been looking through various nerf war games and their rules and it got me to thinking,

Has anybody ever thought of trying a Halo-style deathmatch at a nerf war? I know that in your typical deathmatch everybody has their weapons and when you get "killed" you keep your weapons, but what about a game where a few blasters (say some NFs or Mavericks or TTGs or DTGs and a couple larger blasters of the rarity of say a rocket launcher in your typical slayer map) were scattered about and if you found one you could switch it with your current weapon (or default small blaster). This sound like a good option to offer a little variety at nerf war events?

Edited by BJ Williams, 30 March 2009 - 03:52 PM.

[BoneRiot]

My local games that i host have the idea embedded in them heavily.

My own games are more easily described as "Gears of War-esque". Rules like:
--HP: using hit points where instead of leaving the game and coming back in after three hits the player has three dynamic hit points. This means that things like four dart shotgun blasts can take you right to zero
--First Aid rule: players on a team may make a vocal count to 5 mississippi while in physical contact in order to bring a teammate from 0 points of health to 1 so that he/she may continue
--Redeemer Rule: anyone who's played Unreal Tournament should understand this. I keep a pumped and primped titan in the center of our play field, usually out in the open. The titan dart since slow and easily dodged counts as an instant perma-kill. No matter how many health points you are out of the game if hit with this item.

Things like this create a very videogame-esque enviroment and make for pretty fun theme games.

Edited by BoneRiot, 30 March 2009 - 03:51 PM.

[slienced assassin]

I like your idea. But I don't think people would like leaving their nerf guns on the ground and having a 4 year old just to come by and take it.

Edited by slienced assassin, 30 March 2009 - 04:32 PM.

[wingd man]

Maybe fun, but the more rules the easier it is for somebody to "misunderstand", "only get shot twice", or "already count to 5 Mississippi". More rules= more you have to trust in people. If you are only playing small-scale with your friends, this might be good. On a side not I don't think this counts as LARPing as it is not halo, only halo style.

[Talio]

What's sad is that dudes right. The more rules, the more you have to trust people, which some how has become a problem in nerf. It's a disgrace. People are trying to win a literally unwinable game. It's sickening. I say in my war rules that nerf runs on an honor system. Because of that, it can never be a truly equal competition. It can really only be a friendly fun game.

With that said, I think what you're talking about can absolutely be acheived, but it's got to be with a group of people you trust and you'll have to put some limits on the guns. This would be a great thing to do as an exhibition round at an invitational war, which is why those wars happen in the first place. The people that get invited are the ones who have integrity and don't try to bend the rules just to win. The ones who bend the rules and lie about hits don't because you can't do fun stuff like this when they are around.

This actually illustrates a very big problem with nerf that each and every person in this community is contributing to. This is not something to take seriously. You're playing with childrens toys, calm the fuck down.

Talio.

[death by cheez]

Try infection, and you will be amazed.

[PointBlank]

Local nerf wars I have been in do something like this, except when you kill someone you get the option to switch weapons with them, they are not on the ground. Then you basically keep the weapon you stole from the guy until he kills you back, of course you also have to return it at the end of the match.

I like your idea, it would add a nice boost to the spirit of the game. It would be fun to see people all running to the "noob cannon" strategically positioned in a tree. The possibilities are endless.

Edited by PointBlank, 30 March 2009 - 06:18 PM.

[Robonerfer1]

I do this in all of my nerf wars.
You start with a NF or TTG and all the other guns are scattered around.
I use a Big Blast for the rocket and a special 2 bladed pool noodle sword for the energy sword.
(by 2 bladed, i mean a pool noodle cut in 2 pieces then the pieces are glued to a pvc handle like this:
_ _
_ _] It's cool cause it looks alot like the halo sword)
This is a great idea, but like Talio and wing'd man said, you have to play with people who respect the rules.

[biggiy2c]

I personally do like the slightly smaller more personalized games.

I do Assault from American Gladiators as a fun game for few people.

we set up a dart tagger target on the post of a basketball hoop, and there is a person with 50-100 stefans and a primary of their choice shooting from behind the pole, with a 10' circle then must remain in. Then we set up 5-7 stations, with some form of cover, and put a different blaster at each station. The challenger uses dart taggers to hit the target. Then 5 people go through it and someone wins based on time, and hitting target, and the person with the worst time and no hits buys the winner an ice cream or something.

Its a lot of fun.

[death by cheez]

The pool noodle thing reminded me of this...

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, as cool as that sounds, I ain't tryin' it.

I think, if anything, a gametype based on Halo, such as Assault, Oddball, or the like would be fun, although the latter requires the honor rule.

Assault barely requires any rules. It runs on CTF rules, but with a reversed objective.

[BJ Williams]

Thanks for the input guys. I dont post much around here unless I have something pithy and/or germane to contribute.

I do agree with what Talio and Wing'd Man said about having more trust in people. I thought this would be an interesting idea to offer some variety to your many typical offerings at a Nerf war.

[BJ Williams]

As a follow up, in response to Schizophrenic, using a Halo gametype like Assault would Im sure be fun too. Im sure that if it was part of the plan for an existing war then whoever was planning could get some small to medium size blasters. I think personally that it would be the most fun in an indoor setting. I actually a while back had thought of trying a Halo type deathmatch on the second floor of one of our academic buildings on a weekend.

Edited by BJ Williams, 02 April 2009 - 03:12 PM.

[SchizophrenicMC]

BJ Williams, on Apr 2 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

As a follow up, in response to Schizophrenic, using a Halo gametype like Assault would Im sure be fun too. Im sure that if it was part of the plan for an existing war then whoever was planning could get some small to medium size blasters. I think personally that it would be the most fun in an indoor setting. I actually a while back had thought of trying a Halo type deathmatch on the second floor of one of our academic buildings on a weekend.

Well, DAFT is going to have Assault (Called Bomb, I believe) as a gametype.

Again, though, we don't leave our guns laying around. If you have a gun, you use it, unless someone lends you theirs.

I'll try to balance the teams' firepower out.

[BJ Williams]

This again gets back to the trust thing that Talio and wingman talked about but the way I was thinking about it is that with something like that you could get money together for a number of smaller blasters (NFs, Mavericks, Tek 6s, and the like) and then get a couple larger blasters like your Longshot and your Recon and a Vulcan and a Titan. I think itd be a nice thing to do if you have a lot of people that are fairly new to the NIC or are trying to expose people to it and maybe you can let them keep a NF or a Maverick as a token of thanks for coming and playing. I figure if something like that can get two or three people to become active in NIC and modding then I think that would be money well spent

[coltsboy29]

I tried this once and we all thought it was a great idea, but it wasn't. People had all of the good weapons in their sight while hiding in a tower on the playground that is next to impossible to hit from ground level. everytime someone went to pick the weapon up, they would just get shot. this lead to a big argument and we never did this again.

[k9turrent]

Another point, is that each player has to be educated on how each gun works, ie. them breaking gun cause they over pumped it.

[TantumBull]

Tell me if this is too off topic, and if it is, I'll start a new thread. Anyways, does anyone know of any good 2-people gametypes. Its not often that I have large amounts of friends over, ussually just 1 or 2, and we get bored with 1-hit-kill deathmatch. Also, anyone know of a good, fair way to have a 3 person game without making it complete free for all?

[HerbieHero]

TantumBull, on Apr 5 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

Tell me if this is too off topic, and if it is, I'll start a new thread. Anyways, does anyone know of any good 2-people gametypes. Its not often that I have large amounts of friends over, ussually just 1 or 2, and we get bored with 1-hit-kill deathmatch. Also, anyone know of a good, fair way to have a 3 person game without making it complete free for all?

When I get together and nerf with my friends, there's only ever about three of us, so what we do is, we each take our blasters, find secluded starting spots, and play 5 hits. We've never had problems with keeping track of hits or dishonesty or anything of that sort. We've played that way at my friend's house, and he's got a pretty big yard so we have more than enough room for a 3-man match. 5 hits makes for a slightly longer skirmish, and all of our blasters are only slightly modded, if at all; the most we've really done is taken out ARs so I'm pretty sure nobody's breaking 50 feet.

[BJ Williams]

coltsboy29, on Apr 5 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I tried this once and we all thought it was a great idea, but it wasn't. People had all of the good weapons in their sight while hiding in a tower on the playground that is next to impossible to hit from ground level. everytime someone went to pick the weapon up, they would just get shot. this lead to a big argument and we never did this again.

That really means its up to whoever is running the game to place weapons in a spot that does not allow too much of an advantage for any one person or team (if doing a team slayer type format) as opposed to allowing players themselves to set the weapons. Of course this also I would guess depend on where you were playing. In your situation it turned out to be a big issue. If we played in one of the academic buildings here you really wouldnt have a certain spot where you could just freely shoot people and keep them from all the good weapons.

Edited by BJ Williams, 09 April 2009 - 11:50 AM.

[SchizophrenicMC]

BJ Williams, on Apr 7 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

coltsboy29, on Apr 5 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I tried this once and we all thought it was a great idea, but it wasn't. People had all of the good weapons in their sight while hiding in a tower on the playground that is next to impossible to hit from ground level. everytime someone went to pick the weapon up, they would just get shot. this lead to a big argument and we never did this again.

That really means its up to whoever is running the game to place weapons in a spot that does not allow too much of an advantage for any one person or team (if doing a team slayer type format) as opposed to allowing players themselves to set the weapons. Of course this also I would guess depend on where you were playing. In your situation it turned out to be a big issue. If we played in one of the academic buildings here you really wouldnt have a certain spot where you could just eat shit people and keep them from all the good weapons.

Do you mean:

"That really means it's up to whoever is running the game to place weapons in a spots that does not allow too much of an advantage for any one person or team. (If they're doing a team slayer-type format) As opposed to allowing players themselves to set the weapons. Of course this also, I would guess, depends on where you were playing. In your situation, it turned out to be a big issue. If we played in one of the academic buildings here you really wouldn't have a certain spot where you could just eat shit people and keep them from all the good weapons."?


Punctuation is your friend.

Edited by SchizophrenicMC, 07 April 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[TantumBull]

SchizophrenicMC, on Apr 7 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

BJ Williams, on Apr 7 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

coltsboy29, on Apr 5 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

I tried this once and we all thought it was a great idea, but it wasn't. People had all of the good weapons in their sight while hiding in a tower on the playground that is next to impossible to hit from ground level. everytime someone went to pick the weapon up, they would just get shot. this lead to a big argument and we never did this again.

That really means its up to whoever is running the game to place weapons in a spot that does not allow too much of an advantage for any one person or team (if doing a team slayer type format) as opposed to allowing players themselves to set the weapons. Of course this also I would guess depend on where you were playing. In your situation it turned out to be a big issue. If we played in one of the academic buildings here you really wouldnt have a certain spot where you could just eat shit people and keep them from all the good weapons.

Do you mean:

"That really means it's up to whoever is running the game to place weapons in a spots that does not allow too much of an advantage for any one person or team. (If they're doing a team slayer-type format) As opposed to allowing players themselves to set the weapons. Of course this also, I would guess, depends on where you were playing. In your situation, it turned out to be a big issue. If we played in one of the academic buildings here you really wouldn't have a certain spot where you could just eat shit people and keep them from all the good weapons."?


Punctuation is your friend.

Wow, did you really just do that? I've had enough of school, please don't bring it into these forums. Yes grammar is important here, but it was really easy for me to read his post. If you're going to be a dick at least be one to someone who deserves it.

[SchizophrenicMC]

TantumBull, on Apr 7 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Wow, did you really just do that? I've had enough of school, please don't bring it into these forums. Yes grammar is important here, but it was really easy for me to read his post. If you're going to be a dick at least be one to someone who deserves it.

Yeah, I just felt like being an asshole there.

Besides that, I freak out about grammar, anyway. It's kind of an obsessive compulsion.

[Arconious]

When we can only get four people around, we usually play without "lives" and just have a three hit rule, and play a indoor dark war. They usually are pretty fun. Outside works well, but dark wars are usually a bit more fun.

A small number of people would also allow you to try out team hitpoints. We've played a couple of games with a 10 point team HP, and while its a bit annoying to get 4 taken off your team because of a failed rush, it also keeps things fun because you aren't being gangbanged when your partner gets out. I'd never try it with more than four or five people though.

[death by cheez]

We did a large team doubles war with our youth group and had no problems with dishonesty. Basically the rules were 5 teams of 2 (Not even half of our group showed up) and each team had 4 HP. The only problem we had was the seventh graders being asses and popping in as mercenaries when their team was out, which we had all agreed to ban in the beginning.