Field setup

[Andy]

i like points 3 and 5 with the big middle barricades more interesting to make the 50 off the break and good for me as i play middle

Andy

 

[Pave]

I think 4 needs a little tinkering... There should never be big barricades like the Tbag or stand up cans in the centre back of the field. Wingnuts or a single stand up barricade on one side would be acceptable.

It is impossible for some of our larger back player friends to stay in when playing a witches hat bunker if two players are on them. Make em run for the cover by all means, but at least give them a chance to survive when they get there!

Having two stand up cans in the corners does give a team a chance to turn around a losing deficit, If five players can't kill two guys do they deserve to win? Just a thought.

 

[Dannefaerd]

Originally posted by Nick Iuel-Brockdorff
1) Field length should be cut down to 50-70 Metres from base to base.
2) Field width should stay at the present parametres.
3) Fields should always have big, tall bunkers in the middle, to shield players from paint shot from base to base during breakout.
4) Fields should never have big bunkers (beer cans and upwards) in the back line.
5) Fields should be designed in a manner to shield runners going for 50 yard (meaning "halfway") bunkers off the break.

Overall what you're talking about makes sense ... but with having the big wide bunkers on the 50 - effectively "shielding" the front guys - I don't think having a couple of beer cans (or the like) at the back is such a big deal. The other option would be to have the "back" cans on the 20 instead .....

 

[John C]

The game would rely more on luck on the field you describe, since the back players would be pinned down, or shot out, all the front players would be continually mugging the other teams front players, this would be a nightmare to marshall and to play...

There should only be one or 2 big barricades on the 50 but back players need stand up cans to do their job, what else are they there for, not to look pretty thats for sure!

 

[Beaker]

I have to say field design is more of an art than these rules might suggest.

You can have big back bunkers that the back players can "hide" in but if you have lots of bunkers dotted in front of them then front players have a good chance of getting in close to perform those exciting muggings.

So while I completely agree with Nick that field design is a much overlooked part of a successfull tournament, I don't know if these rules wont just go to much the other way and make games too quick like John said.

Indeed Nick, if you are trying to make it more spectator friendly, having games over in under a minute will make it hard for non-paintball players to follow as it will be much too fast. They need to have time to digest what's going on. I am not talking about having games that last 25 mins etc but I think 4-5 mins with loads of moves is better than 60 secs.

 

[Dannefaerd]

Field design

Over all I agree that field design needs some work - concept fields are well and truely here to stay ... so over to the promoters to try and do something exciting with the fields (e.g. the "zipper" field in Chicago this year)

I am not saying that we need to design fields around the "size" of some players - but make it exciting depending on the roles of the players (be they front, mid, or back players)

Other than that, Nick - I agree with what you're saying...

To make this game truely exciting for the "non player" spectator paintball as a sport needs to look at revising the format of the game into something that is:

(a) exciting to watch
(b) easy to understand/explain
(c) does not need **** loads of paint (per end) to win

I mean, with the current dual flag format we have at the moment - well, you very rarely have both flags in transit do you - let's look at a new format and really pick the game up (but that discussion is really for another thread )

 

[John C]

Yes, centre flag is much better in my opinion.

 

[Manuel MAG]

boy oh boy Nick!

that sounds a bit like Star Wars - but great in my opinion -

great for spectators and the way to show it in TV

cya

 

[Richard Kirke (DUPS Rocket) UK]

Field set up

Hi All,

I'd like to start this post by saying that I have not been playing very long and so my opinion may not count for very much, I do not wish to give the impression that I know it all.

That having been said;

Eliminating the flag and replacing it with a buzzer:

This all sounds a bit complicated to me, there is so much to go wrong, can you imagine the feeling whe you press the button and nothing happens because there's a loose conection. The Flag is a very visual objective and is easy for spectators to track. I would think that replacing the flag would detract from the "watchability" (if that's a word).

I have to say that I agree with Jon [SAD] about center flag.

Field set up:

I'm not sure that the elimination of the easy to play back bunker is a good idea either, but I think that the idea of big bunkers in the centre to screen the center field would force teams to attack (I'm thinking of the Diablo field at Simply The Best Speedball UK, which had a large Devils Head occupying the 50, which stopped end to end shots down the midle with its teeth) is a good one.

If the fields become too closed in the midle then they become very difficult to marshal and watch, which is not the idea at all.

But it is from this kind of discusion that really good ideas come, I hope that somebody is taking notice.

But then again, what do I know,

Richard Kirke

 

[John C]

Yes the big mouth thing was also on the diablo field at campaign

The only problem with it was depending on the direction of the wind, one team may find it alot easier to shoot through the mouth than the other.