Milsim Section? Skirmish Section?

[Viking]

Hi folks,

I've been very busy lately, and I've been unable to read the posts in detail, or at length, for about a month or so. I just sat down and thought I'd read some threads, and I saw some friction between people, again.

To sum up, I noticed that certain players have completely different views on the sport than others, and after reading further responses, I'd say that there is a definitive line seperating two groups. Namely;

Milsim enthusiasts, and
Skirmish enthusiasts.

Without getting into the merits of each type of airsoft gameplay, would it be resonable to suggest that moderators could consider splitting the game/event thread into Skirmish and Milsim titles? It seems pretty easy on the surface; if straight skirmishing is your thing, venture through the Skirmish section, otherwise you can venture through the Milsim section if 24hr ops satisfy you.

I think this would also help in keeping the discussions in perspective. To be really truthful about it, I know fuck all about the day to day dealings that go on within this board, but I recognize passion and drive, as well as discomfort and skepticism. Doesn't anybody else?

Moderators: How feasible would this be? Do you think that I've made a fair assumption? Is this reasonable?

In the end, I believe that this would be a positive step towards positive gameplay. I respectfully submit this suggestion to the moderators. Those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[Agit-Prop]

I understand that you are suggesting this as a solution to a problem. The questions that naturally follow are "Wouldn't that be reinforcing divisions in the community?" and "Shouldn't we try to build bridges instead?"

How does this sound for a radical idea - try designing a game that caters to both types of players? Something where the milsim guys can go deep in the field and the skirmish guys can cycle in and out throughout the day.

[zapplez]

Originally Posted by Agit-Prop

I understand that you are suggesting this as a solution to a problem. The questions that naturally follow are "Wouldn't that be reinforcing divisions in the community?" and "Shouldn't we try to build bridges instead?"

How does this sound for a radical idea - try designing a game that caters to both types of players? Something where the milsim guys can go deep in the field and the skirmish guys can cycle in and out throughout the day.

How exactly would that work? The more you go either way (more mag restrictions, or say, faster reinforcements) the more you alienate people on the other end of the spectrum.

Id like to see a game like this, I just dont think it would get neccesarily more attendance then a dedicated milsim or skirmish game.

[NewBie]

Why do you (ppl in general) have to change the way the milsimers play to please the skirmisher? Why can't it be the other way around?

[Bravo One-Six]

Hmm..

Although your idea has merit Tom, I think it's going to end up providing both sides of the coin with what they consider a substandard experience. While I think everyone can enjoy either genre of game, in an event designed for both, the skirmishers will be unimpressed by the rules, and the milsimers will be eager for more realism.

I know that eventually the IC events won't be tollerable to skirmishers at all. I wouldn't want to lower the bar just to accomodate someone who wants to play with 3 high caps.

However, Viking, although it would be super easy to do this, I would question whether it's really necessary. Most events plainly explain the rules and you can quickly gather whether it is a Milsim or skirmish event. Even now, I'm sure by just viewing the titles of the games in the events section that you could probably figure out which are which to a high degree of accuracy. Would a division really be necessary? Is there that much trouble looking through the Ontario section to find milsim events?

This could, in theory, be much easier to impliment with a simple title system rather than separate forums.

And, as a note, Newbie has a very good point, but I think it works both ways. Hosts will decide what kind of game they want, and they shouldn't be asked to compromise.

[Viking]

I don't see any bridges being built here.

As interesting as your idea is, and believe me I have thought on this, having skirmishers coming in and out of a Milsim game could be disruptive to persons already involved in an extended scenario.
An example. If a designated Milsim game is into it's 14th hour and opposing teams, who have been briefed inside and out on their specific taskings and know them like the back of their hand, have taken the utmost care in achieving their objectives and are operating in a sensitive environment, have to halt the op so a player coming in can get up to speed on all the op specifics? Without rehersals? How will he find his team that's already balls deep into the op? What stops this new player from jeapordizing the whole mission because he's decided to "camp out" in an area you've already negotiated and passed undetected? That may come off as too much bullshit, but those games exist, and many thrive on them.

Flipping the coin here, I'm sure you've seen first hand how players sigh and moan when a milsim guy starts on them about comms and formations and fire discipline. You wanna say, "Dude, join the army then." Milsim guys will take the freedom out of a loose skirmish by trying to organize the shit out of it, and players will not feel like they are in control of their own actions any longer.

I admit that I adore Milsim, and the people it attracts, and I'm not one for skirmishes, but I've been known to skirmish from time to time. When I do, I respect the rules and understand that people aren't going to follow me because I've been made a team leader, or whatever. It's a bit of a free for all, but still team vs team. In the end, I have a hard time making the transition. I am led to believe that it is the same with skirmish players who enter Milsim Ops.

If that's the case, why not please both sides with their own sections? How do we know it won't work unless we give it a try?

[Scarecrow]

When I get criticism about milsim, its usually "you take the game too seriously" or "you're too hardcore". These criticisms usually occur when we win a game. When we lose a game there are no criticisms, just gloating. Generally the anti-milsim sentiment keeps these two camps separated. As zapplez said, it would be a tough sell.

...plus I really don't know how people would feel about being cycled into a field where a bunch of milsimers have had time to consolidate a position and strategy. Actually I do know, and it would kinda look like uh, rape. Thats not being elitist, its just stating a fact - we practice at that kind of stuff, it would be unfair. When you march milsimers into positions prepared by other milsimers, its usually rape, except milsimers tend to appreciate a good ambush whereas non-milsimers are usually freaked out by it.

Might work better if you reversed it though, put the skirmishers out and have the milsimers cycle patrols in... that would give the skirmishers a chance to prepare positions and take static prepared positions advantage away from milsimers. This more resembles my 'Op Holy Vengence' game two years ago, Iraqi's versus SAS. That worked pretty good but it wasn't milsim by any real stretch. It was more a scavenger hunt chess game.

Either way, milsim appears to be a dirty word these days hence why the two camps generally don't mix.

[Viking]

Meat,

In regards to a simple title system, I think that's a great idea. Thanks for your consideration.

[Duckman]

cant we all just get along? ultimately, one will decide what style of play they prefer and will attend accordingly.

i agree that skirmishing and milsim dont really mix that well but i dont think there's a need to seperate them. we can mostly all read and figure out what the game will be like. why make more work for all. cus...you know....clicking requires effort.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Viking

Meat,

In regards to a simple title system, I think that's a great idea. Thanks for your consideration.

Actually the title system is an elegant solution...

MILSIM: Humanity's Hammer
SKIRMISH: Plantation Shits and Giggles Day

works for me.

[Bravo One-Six]

Let's not turn this into a Milsim vs. Skirmish thread. That's like Islam vs. Christianity.

Viking,

The reason I offer that suggestion was because it was the same solution we used for the classified sections up until they were too large. We'd have to create a milsim and skirmish section for each region, and the milsim events per area would be fewer in number than the casual skirmishes simply based on the effort and time needed to produce a good one.

HOWEVER... we did consider a section showcasing large milsim events. Things like Keystone Strike 2 and the regional milsim ops that take place once a year.. That was meant more to encourage inter-region participation than simply to isolate milsim.

Jay,

I like to continue my legacy of title formatting.

[Scarecrow]

That way we could also include:

BEASTIALITY: Scarecrow and Claymore have sex with small forest creatures.

...naw maybe we'll just stick to the first two.

[Viking]

I think at the end of the day, as long as there are considerations, than the right posts will attract the right repondents. Thanks again.

[Duckman]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. at least be large animals

[Mantelope]

Originally Posted by Duckman

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. at least be large animals

How in hell would that make it ANY better?