The Future of the OP?

[Electric Sponge]

Ladies and Gents, over the past couple of years and the various OP's that have been hosted, while they have great successes, I've always felt that there was an element that was either underdeveloped or missing all together. The element I'm thinking of is the element of storytelling. With the OP's that have been hosted there's always been a backstory, one that explained where, what, why and when, but after that it seems to get a little dry, with the games settling into force vs force with vague objectives like seize this or defend that. The story then ends with whoever delivered the most plastic death being the victors and everyone else the defeated. What I intend to propose is a way to add a whole new level of immersion, and whole new level of strategy.


[quote]
Well here is an idea i've had for an event that I believe would define what a full immersion OP should be; an event with a constantly changing battlefield and a changing story that depends on the players actions. This would not just be a force on force event with some missions thrown in, this would be HISTORY. This is my idea for an event and I start by saying this: this would not be easy to pull off, it would require quite a few people dedicated to the sport to help produce and run an event such as I propose, but I believe that it is more than worth it and I believe that we have a community that will support this, so without further ado, I present my plan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First I will present my idea of how to structure the event. Preferably the event would consist of three teams and the reason for this is basicly for the sake of storytelling. Having three teams allows for teams to freely make allies depending on what they need to get accomplished. It also allows for double crossing and betrayl, thats the fun stuff! So here is an idea for how each team would be structured (all these players are active in the game at all times unless in designated rest areas).

General (*HQ)
|--------------------------(Security*)
Field Commanders (3)
|-------------------------(Special Teams*)
Platoon Commanders (number depends on size of team)
|
Sqaud Commanders (number varies)
|
Squad Members (preferable 4-6 men in a squad)



HQ: Headquaters in a NPC entity which sends primary and secondary objectives and helps guide the story. For all you nerds out there this can best be explained as the Dungeon Master Smile .

Sercurtiy Squad: This is the General's personal protection and personal weapon. He can send them out on any mission, but their primary objective is to protect the General. While security detail can be boring they will be integral to the story.

Special Teams: Special Teams because of their small size (generally sniper/spotter teams) are put under direct command of Field Commanders. They can be send on assasination orders, to collect intelligence, or to connected to a squad.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next I will talk about the point system. The event will ultimately be based on a point award/deduction system. Each team starts with 5000 points and points can be gained and lost in three ways: missions, resources, and intel. Below is a breakdown of the first two with a description and their point values (all point values are arbitrary).

Successfully completing primary objective: (500 pts) Primary objectives are missions that drive the
story through its twists and turns. There are generally only two or three given out each day depending on successful completion by HQ.

Successfully completing secondary objective: (100 pts) Secondary objectives help provide more
details the story and present the oppertunity to collect valuable intelligence. They are given by HQ

Time Sensitive Objectives: (50-200 pts) Time sensitive missions are either given by HQ or collected on the field through intel or interrogation. The General usually has little intel except from maybe a time or place so there is a risk to be considered about sending out men on limited intel. As the name implies, they have a time restriction which can range from 4 hours to a mere 30 minutes needed to be completed. THESE ARE NOT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE! They are just a chance to gain points and possibly more valuable intel.

Hidden Objectives: (50-300 pts) This is intel retrieved by either capture of an enemy camp or interrogation of a captured enemy soldier. The General should be warned that this could be counter intelligence and by acting on it could be sending soldiers into an ambush.

Capturing Enemy Resources: (50-100 pts) During the game teams will need to move “resourcesâ€

[Catch22]

Not to burst your bubble, but I've seen everything you've listed done at Ops.

[Variable]

Ya know what makes great ops great? Immersion. When players become and act like the characters they are supposed to be playing. Using your head and guile to complete objectives *other* than walk 100 yards from the respawn to the action and fire 200 rounds before returning to the respawn.

Coming up with a complex backstory and points values are meaningless when in reality the game is the same symmetrical slugfest that you've played 30 times already.

[Nocte]

Not to toot my own horn too loudly, but there have been games that immersed people deeply enough to generate genuine feelings of anxiety and fear in its participants. That you didn't get the chance to attend doesn't mean the community didn't have them.

http://www.airsoftpacific.com/viewtopic.php?t=20363
http://www.airsoftpacific.com/viewtopic.php?t=9964

Just sayin'.

[Variable]

The neph games kicked so much a$$.

[shakespeare]

Immersion makes any game awesome.
For example, we had a cheap springer revolver at a little skirmish in the woods today, and we had a neutral party hide it in a general area, and called it the "general's revolver", and had an unarmed "general" out searching for it, and one team was supposed to retrieve him while the other was supposed to arrest and capture him. My team subdued him with fake handcuffs (breakable) and walked with him to a safe spot, where we hid him and we were all acting, we said we were giving him "truth serum" and he had to tell us everything he knew, he said there was a spy and one of our guys later betrayed us. The best part is when he purposefully fell down and rolled down a hill in a feeble attempt to escape. We were all pretending to talk in Russian accents and stuff, and it was just really immersive, and I enjoyed it a lot.

[Electric Sponge]

Ya know what makes great ops great? Immersion. When players become and act like the characters they are supposed to be playing. Using your head and guile to complete objectives *other* than walk 100 yards from the respawn to the action and fire 200 rounds before returning to the respawn.

Coming up with a complex backstory and points values are meaningless when in reality the game is the same symmetrical slugfest that you've played 30 times already.

Thats exactly what I'm trying to get at. My idea is that an OP run with this format would be carried out with a scripted storyline that would be told organically through the chain of command. Certain events would be pre-determined and the purpose of the point system is to give commanders so real dilemmas to face with consequences that can effect the end result of the game, as well as provide an objective way to evaluate each teams effort. So no matter whether or not they win or lose in the story, they can still win or lose the game through the actions they take. The whole reason I'm posting this is because I want to improve the story telling aspect of these games and I believe that that has to be dealt with by starting with a game format that allows for a certain complexity of action and dynamic outcomes. Ultimately what I'm trying to suggest is a story that already has a beginning and end and an environment where the players can write their own story and have it be as complex and riveting as the context he finds himself in. Hope that makes sense


And to Nocte, not trying to judge or anything, just going off of my own experiences and trying to contribute to the community. Everyone knows that the OP's that have been hosted throughout the years have been excellent. Just trying to add my bit to make them better if at all possible.

[Attack37]

My limited experiance in OP's has shown me one thing....if you limit the rate in which BB's are expelled, you increase the "immersion". In saying this instead of giving points...how about resupply. Literally, make each person walk on with a combat load. No extra BB's, no high caps, just what you have loaded in magazines. (obviously allowing box mags for support weapons)

When people have to count rounds....they don't spray all over the place, and start using tactics instead of just running at the opponant shooting as they go. At that point it doesn't matter how many respawns you have....when you run out of ammo....you are done.

[G36 FTW]

My limited experiance in OP's has shown me one thing....if you limit the rate in which BB's are expelled, you increase the "immersion". In saying this instead of giving points...how about resupply. Literally, make each person walk on with a combat load. No extra BB's, no high caps, just what you have loaded in magazines. (obviously allowing box mags for support weapons)

When people have to count rounds....they don't spray all over the place, and start using tactics instead of just running at the opponant shooting as they go. At that point it doesn't matter how many respawns you have....when you run out of ammo....you are done.

+1

I've been to a couple of (admittedly cheaper) OPs that allowed any type of magazines for any weapon; the firefight always ended up coming to a standstill, which really kills the feel of any well planned OP.

[Cap n pickles]

The holy wars game had some people so into it that the other team was so upset about it (Not following rules and geting blown up by IEDs) that we actually had people quit because it was not shoot em up, racking kills, and grabbing flags!

I just laughed. I got a few complaints about how the game didn't have enough shooting and trigger time in it. I told them they should have read the Game thread.


The problem that i have seen is that about 90% of the people DO NOT bother to read the game thread. they write down the date, location, and time along with other basic info for the game and they show up and play. All with out really reading any of it or even thinking about it.

[Attack37]

The holy wars game had some people so into it that the other team was so upset about it (Not following rules and geting blown up by IEDs) that we actually had people quit because it was not shoot em up, racking kills, and grabbing flags!

I just laughed. I got a few complaints about how the game didn't have enough shooting and trigger time in it. I told them they should have read the Game thread.


The problem that i have seen is that about 90% of the people DO NOT bother to read the game thread. they write down the date, location, and time along with other basic info for the game and they show up and play. All with out really reading any of it or even thinking about it.

Then I guess it ends up bein 40 people having a blast and 30 people leaving because they didn't get to play Halo. Thats why you make a little disclaimer...you pay before you play....refund for lack of fun is not guranteed.

[Cap n pickles]

Exactly. +1

[Rayne]

I like the format, especially since it might help the chain of command work harder. Also making an alliance completing an objective then giving your squad the order to terminate your ally would be fun, especially since you get to see who betrays first. I would do one of these in a 1 year game with games every 2 months and maybe skirms in between, 6 OPs total would be enough for a good story.

[Darius137]

Yeah, I'm actually seeing a trend towards more immersive games. Immersion is good, and there are many things to "sim". There is mil-sim, which simulates specific types.

I think that lately more "immersive" games are coming out. From what I heard about the Fallout game, it had very little props but because everyone was there to be in character, it was an amazing time.

[Blitzkreig]

The holy wars game had some people so into it that the other team was so upset about it (Not following rules and geting blown up by IEDs) that we actually had people quit because it was not shoot em up, racking kills, and grabbing flags!

I just laughed. I got a few complaints about how the game didn't have enough shooting and trigger time in it. I told them they should have read the Game thread.


The problem that i have seen is that about 90% of the people DO NOT bother to read the game thread. they write down the date, location, and time along with other basic info for the game and they show up and play. All with out really reading any of it or even thinking about it.

I was at that game. The reason we got mad is because our team got stuck in the fort and we couldn't get 10 feet out without getting shot (it was our respawn). Apparently the mujahideen had a good time.

Otherwise, I think that what matters most is having a lot of admins, and keeping the battle moving and shifting. Allowing the players to control the game isn't the best option. Admins should change the game up as it happens. For instance, if one team is dominating in achieving objectives, allow a small group of soldiers to capture their commander, forcing them to pull out and giving the other team time to regroup.