Survival:

This is actually supposed to be more of a game mode than a full scenario.

This game would be best played at night (or at dusk) for low visibility.

There are 2 teams, The Hunters and the Prey. The Hunters must "hunt and kill" the Prey to win, and the Prey must survive the Hunters or manage to kill them to win. The ratio for Hunters to Prey should be around 1:5 or 1:4. Hunters should use mostly higher end guns, but the Prey must be using weapons that have a significantly lower performance rate than the Hunter weaponry. The Prey has the option of using Claymores or other traps if they're available to them

The object of the game is for each team to gain the most points and at the end of the round whichever team has the most points wins. The game can last however long you want it to be, but the suggested time is half an hour.



Here is the list at how the teams can gain points.

Hunters:
Hunter team gains 1 point for every Prey player that is killed.


Prey:
Prey team gains 1 point for every Prey player that is alive at the end of the round.
Prey team gains 3 points for every Hunter that is killed.


Each player will die with either 2 chest/limb shots, or 1 headshot. And this game can be played with or without respawns.

Starting area:
The game begins with all of the Prey spread out over a small area of land. The Prey can wander around or find a good defensive position but they must remain fairly spread out. And the Prey can only move close to each other if they spot the Hunters. The Hunters begin relatively close to the Prey but the Prey does not know the Hunter's starting location. The Hunters can work cooperatively to attack the Prey but it isn't necessary for them to stick together.

Hope you all enjoy, and I'm open to any suggestions on improving the game.

This post has been edited by The Death Merchant: Jun 27 2007, 06:39 PM

I think it might be a good idea if you used the normal text, because I can't read that very well.

Pretty cool. A nice multiplayer man-hunt.

This post has been edited by The Mad Bomber: Jun 27 2007, 07:35 PM

I did use normal text. I copied it over from Word and the text was all weird so I changed it to the standard text.

This post has been edited by The Death Merchant: Jun 27 2007, 08:15 PM

Sorry for the Necro-post, but I figured I'd throw in my input.

It looks like this scenario rewards the "Prey" for being aggressive, since they get 3 points for killing an enemy, whilst the Hunter only gets one point.

It's only stated that the Prey has to use "Lower Performance" weapons than the Hunters. Now, if that just means LPEG when the Hunters have AEG's, then it's still skewered in favor of the Prey. They're more likely to win if they fight, than if they run. If they stand off against the Hunters, they only have to kill an amount of Hunters equal to 1/3 their casualties to break even. And this is very likely, even if the prey has LPEGs.

Now, if the prey only got springers, then it's a different story. If they want to kill a Hunter, they need that headshot to kill him, which makes it a lot more frantic; which they prey should be feeling. Now, we could make it even MORE difficult if the prey was denied the use of Flashlights/NVGs, where the Hunters had use of them, or if the Prey had to wear white T-shirts over their uniforms (to make them easier to spot.) If you're really looking for a challenge, you could even up the "hitpoints" of the hunters, requiring more shots to kill them.

That would give the Hunters extra strategic advantage, and it's up to the Prey to nullify that advantage through superior teamwork and tactics.

I think the Prey while having the numbers advantage and "significantly lower performance" guns isn't that much of an advantage. Seems about even to me rather than overwhelming.

But you have to take into account that the writer was going for more of an even game all things considered rather than an outright staked game.

1. Or you could make the prey use .12g ammo, thus making there gun shoot less far and being horribly inaccurate. also this would allow for ppl to use their own guns... they wouldnt have to have a springer or somthing.

2. Handguns only. I realize that there are some ppl that only use handguns and that have High performance pieces, but semi on full auto will kinda even that out.

3. Limit Their Ammo. If the prey only had "x" amount of ammo it would make it harder to attack. they would have to be alot more cautious.

4. Extra points for not killing the Hunters/ Extra points for staying alive the entire time.

5. Any combination of the following Options.


Just my opinion on it. sounds like a good scenario though.

I did consider a lot of situations when I was writing this scenario. But I found that this would probably be the most balanced. It's kinda like in the Vietnam war. The VC vastly outnumbered US forces, but the US had far superior weaponry. And in battle the US would decimate the VC, so the VC had to be very resourcful. Fairly even if you think about it. But lack of public support for the war and other factors prompted US government officials to abandon South Vietnam.



Think about the Hunter's advantages. They have the option of utilizing more stealth, have better weaponry, and best of all they can work together. The Prey on the other hand can only come close to eachother if they spot the Hunters. So it doesn't matter that the Prey could be using LPEGs or even some MPEGs for that matter. Because depending on how many people are playing, you could have 2-3 Hunters(with high end guns) battling against 1 or 2 Prey at a time. So it would be hard for the Hunters to be rushed by the Prey, because by the time the several Prey come to help the ambushed players, those ambushed players would already dead. And think about it lets say there are two teams standing roughly 60-80 FT from eachother; one with 10 players all carrying LPEGs and another team with 2 plaryers carrying TMs or CAs. Which one do you think would win? The 2 players with CAs or TMs would mow down almost all of the LPEG players before they even got close to them. Considering that most LPEGs have horible range and accuracy, and would probably die before they could even fire their weapons because they would be out of range.

This post has been edited by The Death Merchant: Jul 30 2007, 07:27 PM

I think guerilla warfare would be succinct.