PSP make massive changes!!!

[essx]

i dont disagree completely with your comments, as i said there are lots of other aspects to train and practice like the skills you mention, however a massive thing i have found in the last couple of years is dependant on the size and shape of the field itself!

the laneing, breakouts, etc are still goin to be there as basic skills, and all shooting over distance will be affected, paintballs need the arc to travel so far! so practicing on too small a field would have a negative impact on those issues was my point!

and as for joining the fields together, half the problem at bw was the lack of field time due to the number of teams attending now! reducing it again is an unlikely scenario after spending all that time effort and money!

 

[Exile]

Now I think of it, this is a great opportunity to increase exposure of the competitive side of paintball to the rec-ball masses, like we used to do.

It's no longer such a massive prerequisite to have a "regulation" field and even regulation bunkers. Meaning that training down your local site with a patchy old sup-air speedball field becomes just as valid as trekking over to UCZ/Bricketwood/CPPS to scrim.

The dedicated training sites will still continue to offer their regulation sized fields and bunkers which will be well utilised by the more ambitious/dedicated teams (and they will probably get more field time as less teams clamour for the space, meaning that a small increase in green fee to cover the lower numbers is offset by increased training time), but for the smaller/less well off team, training @ your local site in exchange for some reffing gets tourney players talking to the punters again, and they will also get to see the progression possibilities open to them should they decide to take it further. The local site also benefits from more dedicated/informed/motivated reffing staff, so it really is win - win - win.

 

[Exile]

Sorry - I missed this whilst I was posting.

i dont disagree completely with your comments, as i said there are lots of other aspects to train and practice like the skills you mention, however a massive thing i have found in the last couple of years is dependant on the size and shape of the field itself!

Not sure what you are getting at here - snapping, 3 on 2's, 2 on 1's can all be done on a half sized field with ease, negating that issue.

the laneing, breakouts, etc are still goin to be there as basic skills, and all shooting over distance will be affected, paintballs need the arc to travel so far! so practicing on too small a field would have a negative impact on those issues was my point!

But how many times have you shot corner to corner on a breakout? Or even in-game? Again, a half field is fine for most drills, and breakout drills are mostly focussed on learning the field and where to break, so they become less important in many respects and certainly do-able on a 3/4 width field.

and as for joining the fields together, half the problem at bw was the lack of field time due to the number of teams attending now! reducing it again is an unlikely scenario after spending all that time effort and money!

See my point above about training at local sites.

 

[Stan]

A question for Syd: As a tournament organiser - do the proposed changes mean you would have to purchase more or different kit in terms of field layout if you were to follow the PSP lead?

 

[essx]

same thing happened with ur post as i was writing mine!

but you do shoot end to end or at a corner from a breakout! kind of the point, and if thats an extra 2ft long that makes a substantial difference in a balls trajectory, hterefore if you practice on short fields mostly, u will 9 times out of 10 shoot short when it counts! I still feel a breaakout is a key moment irrespective of the field design or layout! positioning is key!

i like ur post about the local sited pinkie! would def get the idea of tournament ball into the masses quicker!

 

[Exile]

same thing happened with ur post as i was writing mine!

I'd like to be able to say greats minds think alike, but for fear of Jay spitting beer all over his keyboard, I'll settle for fools seldom differ

but you do shoot end to end or at a corner from a breakout! kind of the point, and if thats an extra 2ft long that makes a substantial difference in a balls trajectory, hterefore if you practice on short fields mostly, u will 9 times out of 10 shoot short when it counts! I still feel a breaakout is a key moment irrespective of the field design or layout! positioning is key!

You shoot the length of the field, but not the diagonal opposite (which is what I was referring to). Extending the length of the field, for B-Dub at least, wouldn't be as much of an issue as width.

Breakouts are important, but if you can run and gun at a distance well, then does it really matter if you run 15 metres to the corner or 18 whilst training? If the core skill is there, then the "positioning" becomes largely irrelevant, especially since the layout you will be playing is an unknown.

i like ur post about the local sited pinkie! would def get the idea of tournament ball into the masses quicker!

It's not a new concept - Chris (Syd) from the NSPL touted this a few months ago on his forums, so I take none of the credit.

 

[essx]

well i have to disagree with the field size point being asun important as you think, but guess we will see, IF the MS even change than side of things or anything for that matter

 

[Syd (NSPL)]

A question for Syd: As a tournament organiser - do the proposed changes mean you would have to purchase more or different kit in terms of field layout if you were to follow the PSP lead?

Hiya Stan. The PSP has not actually announced any new or different bunkers. All they have really said is that the field layouts will be designed with the larger back player in mind.

Personally, I like most of the PSP announcement with the exception of the field size increase, but the only reason I don't like that is because it means moving telegraph poles again!

I think what is important (for all us event organisers) is to focus on is how to bring fun and value for money to the widest audience possible whilst still catering for the sporting elite and aspiring elite. Getting the balance right may well be the difference between a successful and non-successful series next year.

But, to answer your question, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I'm sure that Sup'Air are not going to miss the trick here and extra bunkers will come in the form of another upgrade kit for 2011. This is nothing new though, so the financial impact of these changes (if the Millennium follow suit) is nothing to worry about. I hope that answers you mate as the question was a bit ambiguous or I'm a bit thick.

 

[Twizz ECI]

Well I am another player / Coach who is glad about the changes!! no field layouts till the event starts, But I hope that if the Millenium follows suit that they don't start thinking, ah herte is another money spinner by charging Teams even more to play on the Fields on the Wednesday before the event, US AS TEAMS MUST NOT ALLOW THE MILLENUM SERIES TO DO THIS.

I'm not to sure but Ithink that the PSP Fields sre smaller than the Milleniums but need to check on that. So I will be happy if the Milleniums do follow the PSP

 

[Sinister]

Saw this earlier courtesy of Dye on Facebook and I have to say, standing at little over 6' and weighing in at a very-slightly-over-average 15st, I'm incredibly pleased with these changes - albeit in the PSP with the hopes of the MS etc following quickly after. Excuse me if I refer to paintball as a 'sport' rather than a 'hobby'; imo it draws on technicalities and that's not the discussion at hand.

• 1. Lengthen the field 10 feet per side (Total size will now be 120 x 170 feet)
• 2. Eliminate Pit-side coaching and communication
• 3. Field Layouts will not be released prior to the events
• 4. Adjust position of bunkers to better suit a wider variety of players

1. Lengthen the field 10 feet per side
- Surely a bigger playing field can never be a bad thing? Obviously anything too vast would take away from the tournament structure in comparison to the woods; but 'balling shouldn't be a case of who can get to their trigger quickest off the break and hammer paint down a lane. The game, from a personal perspective, is far more entertaining as both a player and a spectator when the game is won and lost via gun-fighting across bunkers, people making moves and a better tactical awareness.

I don't think it will completely eliminate break-shooting (correct me if I'm wrong but I'll believe it when I see it), however I do believe it will make the game more viable for everyone, no matter their athletic ability. People that are faster on their feet (and this plays to your argument Minibaker) still have an incredible advantage of reaching their primary / secondary bunkers quicker than a player that's not so agile. There's a huge difference in the game when it comes down to how quickly you make a bunker, rather than a case of either making it or not.

2. Eliminate pit-side coaching and communication
- I would honestly prefer to eliminate coaching / communication as a whole. Played KotH last year and preferred the games without coaching as opposed to the one's with. To a certain degree it gets spectators more involved with the game, but it makes it hectic and I can only assume more aggravating for the marshals when there's coaching. There's been several instances with crowds getting involved with the marshalling and they're right in saying "the call is mine to make" - despite that, to think any external influence affects the game on the field - not something I personally enjoy. A small step in the right direction from my perspective.

3. Field Layouts will not be released prior to the events
- Love this. Not much else to say about it. Print-outs and diagrams never really do a blown up pitch justice and the players that can adapt to different field layouts will be the ones to benefit from this the most - rather than those that rely on pre-preparation.

4. Adjust position of bunkers to better suit a wider variety of players
- Again; I'm failing to see how this won't benefit the game as a whole. In a mirror to rugby, the larger guys tend to play at the back and smaller guys make up the front players (although it has been known for some of the bigger lads to play front, myself included) and the assumption is that the biggest bunkers will occupy the back of the field. It's perfectly logical and in my opinion, gives more people the opportunity to play more fields. I'm not really sure how smaller players will be at a disadvantage to this, or why they would complain about it.


All in all, solid progression in a game that's trying to attract a variety of players, and it's been said many a time before - paintball started in the woods; those guys are arguably the most important players to keep in every aspect and indeed format of the game.