Field design 7-mann

[Red Ring Inflictor]

Originally posted by Christian-Malera
I am sad to see that not very many think field design is important for the game and the outcome.

My lonely anonymous voice may not count for much but I'm definitely with you on that one, bro. And I also maintain that a field design that is hard or almost impossible to properly ref is not good for the game or outcome because it encourages and rewards cheaters. In case someone says I have to do it myself before criticizing I answer that I did it at a recent 5-man tournament (with the help of other refs and without drawings) and it seemed to work very well for playing and reffing.

 

[Red_Merkin]

I am sad to see that not very many think field design is important for the game and the outcome.

i hope you don't need grief counciling.

unfortuatly i agree with you Christian....


Ok here's what i think:
Field layout makes a huge difference in how the game is played. When i design fields i start with a design that i know works. I make continuous modifications, (and i draw lots of little drawings) until i have worked out something new.

Bottom line is, if you you want to change the field design, do it a little bit at a time. It's easier on the players, as they get used to the changes in smaller adjustments.

I design a lot of Xball fields these days. I have generally the same configuration, with tall bunkers down the tape closest to the pits, and a snake of some sort down the crowd side. I have a back center bunker, and atleast one bunker in the back center (it's required to be 2 meters from the penalty box) and of course the X standing up in the center. From this basic configuration you can have a lot of very different field layouts. You can have back heavy fields, which accomodate lots of shooters, or you can put a tiny bunker in the back center which makes teams have to break for the corners.

I always design a field with a God bunker or two. The God Bunker is one that you can live forever in, and lay waste to the armies of your enemies from, but it comes with a price... it's damn hard to make! Usually this is a great big Dorito (T-bag to the dentaly impared amongst you...)

To counter the God Bunker, you need at least one bunker that can guard access to it, but again it comes at a price... usually this bunker is a b!tch to survive in.

Snakes... They should alway reward you for crossing the 50. When you cross over the 50, you should be rewarded by lots of packs of unsuspecting victims... but it should also be easy to counter the snake attack with someone at the other end of the snake. I hate classic snakes, unless you put little cubes in them to get tucked up behind. Also, i don't like to put tall bunkers over the end of the snake, because it's too easy to drop shots in. Personally i love ladders, because i actually fit in them.

Blind spots are wicked to design. I think of fields from the perspective of the dude sweetspotting from the 12s (back center) first. I place mid field bunkers to create 'shaddows' or blind spots. They're great because i can stand in the shaddows and rip my gun, looking like a superstar, while the bad guys shoot the lanes... where i'm not! Personally i hate fields that allow you to stack a whole load of guys in the back center, and i like to punish this by chosing a bunker that's hard to survive with more than 1 dude in it.

Ok, Millennium fields. Too many bunkers i think for starters, i'd drop at least 4 from each field.

Personally it looks to me like the guys designing the fields were trying a little too hard to make them original. I mean these fields were WIERD! My suggestion is to make the fields more conventional, and look for more basic geometry. More snakes are great.

However i really liked the way the M on the Millennium field was turned side to the crowd. This i thought was a great solution to what we saw last year (2004)

The bottom line is, if you change 1 bunker, you can change the way the entire field plays. If you put a huge bunker in the back center, you will have teams stacking lots of shooters in it. (remember the RPS field at Campaign Cup the last year it was in Crystal Palace) If you have a snake with lots of big bunkers in it, and easy access to get into it, then it will become the center of action (Spyder field snake at Malaga Beach).

You don't think it makes a difference? Paintball fields are like maps for videogames like counterstrike for example. Not all maps are equal, some are total classics, and get played on EVERY server. Dust anyone?
Game makers spend countless hours researching what is fun, and what is not. If a field design really works well, why not use it again and again?


I think the bottom line is, start with something that works, then change it a bit. Keep changing it and in several generations it will be something totally new. You don't have to re-invent the wheel, so spare the players the discomfort of playing these 'over designed' fields.

Finally, get 1 guy to do all the fields. Then the series will have some consistency. Vivian used to do a great job of designing fields like this...

I have a saying ' a camel is a horse, designed by comittee'.
(if you don't get it, send me a PM)


The Xball template will be available in a week or two.

I'm working on a way to export the field designs into an online 3D viewer, that will allow you to actually walk the field. It's similar to what i do when i'm checking the angles for sweet shooting lanes...

Stay tuned.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Aaaahh Col. - If ONLY you had been invited to design fields for the MS this year - things would have been different

Aaaanyway..... I think people are completely overlooking something is this debate:

As opposed to earlier years, it has now become "normal" for many fields to have one very massive central bunker.

That was rarely the case before, where the biggest things we saw were carwashes and the Angel field "A" - which were not that massive, because there was a lot of open space within them.

With a field like DYE or Tomahawk this season in the MS - it is virtually impossible to avoid the "jack in the box" effect Christian mentions.... simply because the DYE burger and the Tomahawk giant temple take up so much space, and HAVE to be placed on the 50 yard line, because there is only 1 of them.

So - to try and avoid those bunkers becoming too dominant, to attempt to give teams many possibilities on each field and to broaden out the game - you make both tapelines easily accessible as well... at least that has been my philosophy.

I have also, in most designs I have done this year, attempted to favour teams that like to play positive aggressive paintball, and in turn disfavour teams that like to play negative defensive paintball.

Last, the object has been to make fields that allowed for many different game plans, so that spectators and media did not see the same game plans unfold time and time again.

Some may not like this philosophy - but it is the one I subscribe to, and also the one the MS wanted me to go by.

My favourite fields this year (from a design standpoint):

M field at Maxs
M field at DMA
M field at World Cup
DYE field at Campaign
JT field at Iberian Cup

Anyway - looking back at Madrid, where I did all the designs, the only one I am unhappy with is the Tomahawk one, where the snake was much too dominant.

The 3 other fields I think worked out really well.

All 4 fields had fewer bunkers than at previous events, because most players wanted that... but unfortunately that effect was negated by the promoter being forced to make all the fields 7 metres shorter than regulation.

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what people felt was wrong with them?

As for having parametres for field design - I think that is really difficult. - What would they be?

I WOULD suggest some of the bunkers being discontinued though. - I think bunkers like tombstones and bricks are much too sensitive to windy conditions and players leaning into them - and the smaller variations of them also do little except clutter up the field - unless they are an integral part of a snake or zipper.

Also, big central sponsor specific bunkers should not be as massive as the burger or the giant temple. - The should either have the possibility of being broken down into smaller elements like the JT wings - be smaller - or have large gaps in them to make them less dominant.

The Chronic central modul I think is crap - too many players have been eliminated by paint spraying in between the big module and the smaller ones this year. - If it is to return, the wings should be an integral part of the big module.



Nick

 

[Red_Merkin]

lol i knew you were going to bring that up Nick!

I will definatly do fields for next year. I'm currently working on 3D templates...

Personally i think the giant bunkers like the burger and the temple are too big. They could both be effective if they were half the size.

Also, you could have just left them off the field, because there were enough bunkers otherwise.
If not, you want to make sure someone can kill them from the snake, or another god bunker.

I actually didn't like the Dye field at CC. I did like the Millennium field, but that's more to do with the fact that teams had to be really creative playing it (Nexus' break with Bo running to the snake after delaying from the back center - SWEET)

I don't think Paramaters are needed as much as suggestions. It's about having a philosophy of what players like but keeping variety.

 

[BURLEY]

Originally posted by Red_Merkin
I'm working on a way to export the field designs into an online 3D viewer, that will allow you to actually walk the field. It's similar to what i do when i'm checking the angles for sweet shooting lanes...

That kind of viewer is already availeble.
If you export the 3D scene from 3D max to a VRML file and use a VRML viewer you can walk the fields in 3D, we use it every time.

check it out here;

VRML viewer (install first)

October field in 3D

September field 3D

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Also, you could have just left them off the field, because there were enough bunkers otherwise

Nope - that was not an option.

The big central bunkers are sponsor trademarks - per se - and could not have been left out of the field designs.

Just like you cannot design n X-Ball field without the X.... in a real X-Ball sanctioned tournament at least.

Nick

 

[Christian-Malera]

Originally posted by Red_Merkin
i hope you don't need grief counciling.

unfortuatly i agree with you Christian....


Ok here's what i think:
Field layout makes a huge difference in how the game is played. When i design fields i start with a design that i know works. I make continuous modifications, (and i draw lots of little drawings) until i have worked out something new.

Bottom line is, if you you want to change the field design, do it a little bit at a time. It's easier on the players, as they get used to the changes in smaller adjustments.

I design a lot of Xball fields these days. I have generally the same configuration, with tall bunkers down the tape closest to the pits, and a snake of some sort down the crowd side. I have a back center bunker, and atleast one bunker in the back center (it's required to be 2 meters from the penalty box) and of course the X standing up in the center. From this basic configuration you can have a lot of very different field layouts. You can have back heavy fields, which accomodate lots of shooters, or you can put a tiny bunker in the back center which makes teams have to break for the corners.

I always design a field with a God bunker or two. The God Bunker is one that you can live forever in, and lay waste to the armies of your enemies from, but it comes with a price... it's damn hard to make! Usually this is a great big Dorito (T-bag to the dentaly impared amongst you...)

To counter the God Bunker, you need at least one bunker that can guard access to it, but again it comes at a price... usually this bunker is a b!tch to survive in.

Snakes... They should alway reward you for crossing the 50. When you cross over the 50, you should be rewarded by lots of packs of unsuspecting victims... but it should also be easy to counter the snake attack with someone at the other end of the snake. I hate classic snakes, unless you put little cubes in them to get tucked up behind. Also, i don't like to put tall bunkers over the end of the snake, because it's too easy to drop shots in. Personally i love ladders, because i actually fit in them.

Blind spots are wicked to design. I think of fields from the perspective of the dude sweetspotting from the 12s (back center) first. I place mid field bunkers to create 'shaddows' or blind spots. They're great because i can stand in the shaddows and rip my gun, looking like a superstar, while the bad guys shoot the lanes... where i'm not! Personally i hate fields that allow you to stack a whole load of guys in the back center, and i like to punish this by chosing a bunker that's hard to survive with more than 1 dude in it.

Ok, Millennium fields. Too many bunkers i think for starters, i'd drop at least 4 from each field.

Personally it looks to me like the guys designing the fields were trying a little too hard to make them original. I mean these fields were WIERD! My suggestion is to make the fields more conventional, and look for more basic geometry. More snakes are great.

However i really liked the way the M on the Millennium field was turned side to the crowd. This i thought was a great solution to what we saw last year (2004)

The bottom line is, if you change 1 bunker, you can change the way the entire field plays. If you put a huge bunker in the back center, you will have teams stacking lots of shooters in it. (remember the RPS field at Campaign Cup the last year it was in Crystal Palace) If you have a snake with lots of big bunkers in it, and easy access to get into it, then it will become the center of action (Spyder field snake at Malaga Beach).

You don't think it makes a difference? Paintball fields are like maps for videogames like counterstrike for example. Not all maps are equal, some are total classics, and get played on EVERY server. Dust anyone?
Game makers spend countless hours researching what is fun, and what is not. If a field design really works well, why not use it again and again?


I think the bottom line is, start with something that works, then change it a bit. Keep changing it and in several generations it will be something totally new. You don't have to re-invent the wheel, so spare the players the discomfort of playing these 'over designed' fields.

Finally, get 1 guy to do all the fields. Then the series will have some consistency. Vivian used to do a great job of designing fields like this...

I have a saying ' a camel is a horse, designed by comittee'.
(if you don't get it, send me a PM)


The Xball template will be available in a week or two.

I'm working on a way to export the field designs into an online 3D viewer, that will allow you to actually walk the field. It's similar to what i do when i'm checking the angles for sweet shooting lanes...

Stay tuned.

We agree on a lot of things I see....

 

[Christian-Malera]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Aaaahh Col. - If ONLY you had been invited to design fields for the MS this year - things would have been different

Aaaanyway..... I think people are completely overlooking something is this debate:

As opposed to earlier years, it has now become "normal" for many fields to have one very massive central bunker.

That was rarely the case before, where the biggest things we saw were carwashes and the Angel field "A" - which were not that massive, because there was a lot of open space within them.

With a field like DYE or Tomahawk this season in the MS - it is virtually impossible to avoid the "jack in the box" effect Christian mentions.... simply because the DYE burger and the Tomahawk giant temple take up so much space, and HAVE to be placed on the 50 yard line, because there is only 1 of them.

So - to try and avoid those bunkers becoming too dominant, to attempt to give teams many possibilities on each field and to broaden out the game - you make both tapelines easily accessible as well... at least that has been my philosophy.

I have also, in most designs I have done this year, attempted to favour teams that like to play positive aggressive paintball, and in turn disfavour teams that like to play negative defensive paintball.

Last, the object has been to make fields that allowed for many different game plans, so that spectators and media did not see the same game plans unfold time and time again.

Some may not like this philosophy - but it is the one I subscribe to, and also the one the MS wanted me to go by.

My favourite fields this year (from a design standpoint):

M field at Maxs
M field at DMA
M field at World Cup
DYE field at Campaign
JT field at Iberian Cup

Anyway - looking back at Madrid, where I did all the designs, the only one I am unhappy with is the Tomahawk one, where the snake was much too dominant.

The 3 other fields I think worked out really well.

All 4 fields had fewer bunkers than at previous events, because most players wanted that... but unfortunately that effect was negated by the promoter being forced to make all the fields 7 metres shorter than regulation.

I'd be interested in hearing exactly what people felt was wrong with them?

As for having parametres for field design - I think that is really difficult. - What would they be?

I WOULD suggest some of the bunkers being discontinued though. - I think bunkers like tombstones and bricks are much too sensitive to windy conditions and players leaning into them - and the smaller variations of them also do little except clutter up the field - unless they are an integral part of a snake or zipper.

Also, big central sponsor specific bunkers should not be as massive as the burger or the giant temple. - The should either have the possibility of being broken down into smaller elements like the JT wings - be smaller - or have large gaps in them to make them less dominant.

The Chronic central modul I think is crap - too many players have been eliminated by paint spraying in between the big module and the smaller ones this year. - If it is to return, the wings should be an integral part of the big module.



Nick

I totally agree in all what you say but the designs work just the oposite in a lot of cases.

I sat down and tried to coment on all of your conclusions but it got to be to much for me but I think we will get something done just on the statement:
"Anyway - looking back at Madrid, where I did all the designs, the only one I am unhappy with is the Tomahawk one, where the snake was much too dominant"
THAT WAS I QUOTE" THE ONLY REAL PAINT BALL FIELD THERE" who said so does not matter the point is I totally agree.

Snake to dominant?
Two shooters of the break and there is no way to get there of the break. If he made it he would have been spotted. If he was in the snake, the snake side corner( on the tape but futher up than the back bunker as we call them....) would stop him going up the snake and the oposite dorito would keep him out of the game.
Now the thinking part and the skill part starts, the snake corners will battle to stop the snake guy or to let the him work his way up the snake, the team with a man in the snake has to stop the other team getting in the snake to bunker him out.
There were good bunkers to make secondary moves into, doritos, there were posible to win the game from the other side even if the oposition had the snake.
This was mainly because it was some lay down bunkers you could slide into.
That field was a good field and it took 45 min to walk.
If you wanted the snake to be less dominant you should have put the snake corner on the tape and used a good bunker, like the big temple.

One other thing if we want the side to be played more aggresivly, we need to put some bunkers that you can slide into and be safe!
The Big bricks or doors, are imposible to get into when you place them on the 40-50 yard line, the only thing that will come out of that is a cluttered field.

I will get back to the other fields, when I am rested

 

[Christian-Malera]

check out the NPPL Miami fields! on paper they look very playable all 5.....
not any crazy stuff . ( i Think, we will wait and see to be 100% he he)