Soaker Combat Rules: Re-Start - @ iSoaker.com

[isoaker]

Back in the days of WaterWar.net, a general soaker combat rule set was being worked on. Sadly, with the crash of that board, the info was lost. I am going to dig through some of my archives to see if anything can be salvaged, but I'm not too optimistic about recovering the lost info.

That said, developing a standardized rule set would be very helpful in getting more interested in water warfare. Of course, any rule set developed may not be compatible with the preferred method of gameplay of local groups, but it would offer a good starting point for those newer to organized water warfare in helping them set-up a game. Also, the eventual goal would be to have a rule set that if ever groups from different areas were to meet and battle, these rules would be the one both sides would have agreed to in order for the battle to take place.

That said, first thing is to define what sections of a more formal rule set are needed to be defined, then to go into each section and work out more details.

Major sections would be (updated 20070202):
1: Game Play / Scoring
2: Teams
3: Players
4: Equipment / Water Sources
5: Referees / Moderators

If those sections sound good, a new thread to develop each one will be set-up along with site pages as well. If additional sections are needed or if sections should be re-ordered, please post suggestions below.

Any input would be most welcomed!

[mr. dude]

I could have something for gameplay/scoring. But I usually play CTF with 1HK in it, so I don't know if everyone would be interested. However if is very fun and IMO more fun than 1HK alone.

[HBWW]

I'm not sure how a standard would bring more people into water warfare, mainly because there isn't really a way to make the rules widespread and known. (however, I get your idea, going with how most other war games as well as sports have some kind of standardized rules) Rather than having a standard set of rules, it's better to present the possiblities and show the most common options. If the group still can't agree on rules, they are better off with soakfests.

To scoring, there's an issue with the fist size blast rules; when the person is completely soaked you won't see how big a hit is on them, which is a problem if you're doing respawn instead of elimination. Targeters (i.e. blast off paper towels, SoakerTags, etc.) are simply that, limiting where one can be hit and couted as a score. (though a larger targeter would work better) And obviously, soakfests carry neary no tactics. All in all, I'd say the fist sized blast on a shirt should do the job, which would require cooperation of the team to only soak for scoring.

For location, I'd say anywhere where everything is waterproof and where property owners accept/public place is ok. Equiptment should match the caliber of both teams, for example, no one nor group should have only squirt guns while the rest is using modded and homemade weapons. Weapons should be at a reasonably similar level between teams, and in most cases, numbers. For refills, IMO anywhere with reasonably clean water should be useable. (some may opt to make exceptions to this and limit it to tap water, thoug I cannot prove this, water with minerals, organisms, etc. can damage internals and/or trigger systems) Attacks during refilling are completely legit and can be considered a tactic. A gun with more storage would take longer to fill up. Any gun with a quick fill cap is probably underpowered anyway.

I would strongly disagree with having ref's/mods, it would be unfair to the person, and there is usually not enough time to have muiltiple battles and switch off ref's, and even then, there are others who don't take the job. Plus, on larger/complicated battlefields, you need more ref's, and overall, it limits the amount of players that can play at a time. Yes, players must be able to be able to be trusted, but even without this issue, they still need to be able to be trusted with everything else; rules, blasters, etc.

[isoaker]

@C-A_99: thanks for your input, but this isn't the right thread to go into details for particular sections; that's for threads that have yet to be made.

I'm not sure how a standard would bring more people into water warfare, mainly because there isn't really a way to make the rules widespread and known. (however, I get your idea, going with how most other war games as well as sports have some kind of standardized rules) Rather than having a standard set of rules, it's better to present the possiblities and show the most common options. If the group still can't agree on rules, they are better off with soakfests.

In terms of presenting possibilities and letting local groups choose, that's part of the idea behind the rule set. An optimal rule set would include a listing of common variations, but it could also be reduced to a skeleton rule framework for the most basic of organized wars. The most "common options" would be the standard rule set with additional variations included as additional options in game play. However, for a new group trying out organized water warfare, seeing too many options can be overwhelming, thus keeping a rule set initially simpler would be preferred.

In terms of people finding out about it, that's not a concern at the moment. Without a rule set, it is impossible for it to be found so I figure start by creating one and worry about distribution as the rule set matures.

The referee/moderator section would apply only for "official" games and/or if local groups feel a need for a third-party arbitrator to help settle disputes. The referee does not have to be everywhere to still be effective at helping settle disputes and would help settle disputes more quickly for some. Optimally, if players can settle disputes on their own with the need for a referee, that would be preferred, but sometimes some people prefer a non-combatant's opinion.

[HBWW]

Sorry about that, I was slightly skeptical on some of the ideas but any sort of 'standard' is better than none. Just giving my thoughts.

[mr. dude]

Question about referees.. Why would anyone watch over a war rather than play? I definately wouldn't volunteer. Besides, all my friends that wouldn't whine about not being in the war don't even care about soakerdom (don't ask why I'm friends with them). Basically I don't quite like the idea.
Anyway, would you accept 1HK+CTF? If so, when will you post the gameplay/scoring topic?

[isoaker]

@C-A_99: no need to be sorry; opinions and concerns are most welcome! I agree with some of your thoughts, but as you now note, it's still better to have some sort of framework than none at all

@mr.dude:

Question about referees.. Why would anyone watch over a war rather than play?

That goes for virtually any sports game; Why have referees for any game if players are able to resolve issues? Thing is, not all players are rationale during a game and it is good to have an objective third-party to help resolve disputes. As I noted above, referees would NOT be mandatory for local games, but guidelines for their inclusion into a game would be added. They would be needed for "official" games (whatever that is), in order to have an objective witness to who wins when two or more teams are battling. It would be impossible to have an "official" game without an objective, impartial third-person witness to the game.

As for game types, pretty much all game types members would want included should be included. The rule set will need to be organized in such a way that things are easy to read and understand while containing adequate detail to explain some of the less-common terms.

In terms of development timeline, I want to wait 'til the next of the week to see if anyone feels that there is something missing from the categories listed at the start of this thread.

[DX]

WHERE DID MY POST GO? I spent like 3 hours typing this long-winded thing and it vanishes!

Oh well, I'll write something new. Don't you hate when that happens?



Edited By Duxburian on 1170202967

[isoaker]

@Duxburian: 3 hours to write a long response? Err.. that's probably overkill for the purpose of this thread. Then again, since I can't read it, perhaps its length was necessary. Just remember that this is a very general testing-of-interest thread.

[DX]

The length was necessary, though it was probably a mistake to have almost posted some of the more controversial thoughts. I'll tone the replacement post down and later, as I don't like losing 8 paragraphs of hard-thought thoughts.

[isoaker]

Controversial thoughts? Are they concerned over the idea of a "common rule set" or the categories or are they about particular details within a section?

If it's about details of a category, those thoughts should wait for a latter thread. If it's about the whole rule set idea, then post away!

[SilentGuy]

Ouch...that sucks. Generally, in Firefox you can press the back button and text in fields will still be there. Same with Undo Last [x# of] Closed Tab.

Unless you closed the browser somehow and don't have Session Manager...

[DX]

I refreshed the page for who knows what reason and with iKonboard, your text disappears. It's not Firefox's fault really.

Anyway, most of it had to do with details, so I'll leave that out. A VERY brief summary of what I had: I'll support anything as long as it is not too "restrictive" and does not "drag" those from higher calibers down a lot. An example of "restrictive" would be something like having respawns at bases or for some reason requiring bases. Another example would be designating certain areas as refill stations and/or requiring all water to be from a hose or tap. Sometimes little things have a huge effect on caliber, which has a huge effect on how well certain people are able to fight. This is more important in a tournament set than a general set, for the general set would not affect those already used to water warfare. Basically, I'd love to see a rules set which does not favor and/or lock all the players into the same set of attitudes, aka a single progression and/or caliber level. The community is notorious for resisting change in the wars department, and from what I've observed naturally likes to lock everyone into the same set of beliefs.

[isoaker]

@Duxburian: I completely agree with not wanting a rule set to limit or lock players into a certain calibre level. The rule set may end up being closer to what C-A_99 describes as being a set of commonly used variations. I figure the "solid" rules would be of the most basic kind such as "no intentional aggressive physical contact between players".

The nature of other things like filling stations (if applicable or if even necessary) or respawning rules can be fleshed out in detail in latter threads.

[WaterWolf]

Excelent, it'll be good to see a standardized system back in place.

[DX]

Back in place? There never has been a widely accepted standard. Well, there kind of has, but it has been unspoken and unrecognized since fighting contexts are still a rather new idea. The community has been for the most-part stuck in the same progression level since way before I even knew it existed. The unspoken standard is something around the Fort-Building and Firepower Levels, highly conventional stuff. Let's fight between two conventional bases with conventional positions refilling from conventional sources and let's not try any tactics with any hint of unconventional sophistication or innovation. Oh crud, we're outnumbered, we've got a low chance of winning!...Oh crud, that team has such good guns, we'll never be able to stand up to them! General organized warfare is weak in the view of anyone with any decent tactical sense. Read old battle guides and advice articles, feel out all the limits that are unnecessarily imposed. The general community puts so many limits on the 1HK gametype that few really know how far you can exploit its possibilities.

That's the "standard" that the community has been functioning with as far as wars go. Wars innovation has simply not existed, while every other aspect of water guns has advanced quite nicely. So you see why I feel so strongly about this. An "official-esque" rules set is an opportunity to try to erase some of those antiquated methods of fighting and to knock down some of the pointless limits, both in the physical and abstract realities. Conventionality is second only to self-surrender in regard to the easiest ways to "achieve" decisive defeat.

[isoaker]

While I agree to most of what Duxburian states, I can't say that fort building has been a huge thing, really. While some of the battle reports, notably M4's, involved the use of forts, none of the battles or soakfests I've been involved in ever even considered using an area as a fort or base. As noted, forts/bases are rather restrictive.

I'm also curious about what limits have been imposed on 1HK games. Perhaps advanced tactics have not been discussed or exploited in general, but not sure I'd go as far as saying members have been limiting themselves due to game rules (except, perhaps, due to their own fears/beliefs of what is possible, of course ).

[mr. dude]

The rule set I had in mind involves territories, but that can easily go.

[DX]

Most members do create a large amount of unecessarily restrictive rules. They often shut out options that they aren't even aware exist. Obviously there are important things like "no physical contact" which are quite restrictive and rightly so. However, many other things are simply not necessary. The overwhelming majority of battle reports I've read include references to bases. They are still extremely prevalent, fortified or not. Anything forcing defensive action limits tactical choices. I have the impression that there is a lack of advanced tactics not just because people don't like them, but that styles of play themselves prevent the good stuff from becoming possible in the first place. From the Tactical Theory angle of viewing this, users don't have actual conscious choice over their tactics; their choices are provided to them by their gametype and contexts. It is therefore largely the rules set which entrenches attitudes and carries weight in deciding how well the resulting war can be fought.

Other "limits" include having refilling stations, having protected refilling, having technology bans or set numbers of wieldable guns, having fixed starting and/or respawn positions, having gun-based fighting positions, having a small battlefield and/or little if any cover, artificially making teams "even", etc.

[isoaker]

While many battle reports talk about bases, most battles are not reported, thus not sure how much "base" building has been going on in the community in general.

As for "limits", some of what you described come from older tactics but have nothing to do with rules (i.e. gun-based fighting positions) or would be described as optional (i.e. whether to allow soaks to occur at filling stations).

The following is how I'd break up the "limits" noted:
- having refilling stations (optional, but sometimes necessary depending on availability of water in an area)
- having protected refilling (game option, also depends on general water availability and game type)
- having technology bans or set numbers of wieldable guns (game option: tech bans or allowances really depends on groups, setting limits on what is allowable is similar to only allowing some weapons in various multiplayer FPS games. Sometimes not needed, sometimes needed if teams end up hugely lop-sided. I see tech bans akin to not allowing the use of corked bats in official baseball games; some types of tech can reduce the fun of the game)
- having fixed starting and/or respawn positions (that's a game option; having fixed or flexible respawn places or even to allow respawning in the first place depends on the game type)
- having gun-based fighting positions (that's not a limit due to rules; that's just from old FFA-based tactics)
- having a small battlefield and/or little if any cover (depends on available terrain; small is too subjective and not necessarily a bad thing)
- artificially making teams "even" (not sure what this means; in a tournament-type battle, I'd expect fighting teams to be of approximately equal numbers of members; for local group fighting, it really depends on how people want to divide up. At the same time, if you have 50 vs 3 or 10 guys with XP150s vs 8 guys with firehoses, that's not conducive for a good game, either).