Joy Masters field design...
- Thread starter goose
- Start date
yeah - I saw it - cool little dude.
Call Jannick ASAP - he has your stuff - and is getting ready to throw it out. His number is 25385445.
Okay - now back to the thread.....
goose
Call Jannick ASAP - he has your stuff - and is getting ready to throw it out. His number is 25385445.
Okay - now back to the thread.....
goose
Guys, I was just being about as cynical as I could. You can see it going through tournament organisers heads now, NOT any specific organisers I hasten to add, I'm not getting at anyone here but you can see the logic.
100 teams playing 10 games with X as the tournament fee, halve the game time & you can fit in 150 - 170 teams playing 10 games each paying X. Immediate increase of 50-70% in income. Even if the tourney fee was dropped by say 20% to make up for the shorter game time there's still more profit.
I think part of the problem about the fields last weekend was purely down to expectations. Teams assumed that the fields would be of a certain type, trained for that type, maybe even made team selection decisions for that type & then when they got there it was all different. Maybe some teams might even have not entered if they knew, & on the other hand other teams may have entered that didn't. In general, people don't like things dropped on them unexpectedly & in general, people are conservative & don't like sudden change.
I know for example that I wouldn't be up to playing X-Ball, my bad leg sometimes doesn't even stand up to one full day at a traditional tournament, so I wouldn't enter such an event. But if I went to an event that was part of a series where all the rest of the events were, say, woodland, and no-one had said that particular round would be air ball despite the previous year's running having been in the woods, I would have a bit of a shock when I got there and vice versa. I know my example is a bit extreme but you can see what some people's reactions would be like.
Some of the heat in this discussion was also encouraged by the somewhat inflammatory way a few posters put their views across (I was probably a bit at fault here as well, but I was reacting angrily).
100 teams playing 10 games with X as the tournament fee, halve the game time & you can fit in 150 - 170 teams playing 10 games each paying X. Immediate increase of 50-70% in income. Even if the tourney fee was dropped by say 20% to make up for the shorter game time there's still more profit.
I think part of the problem about the fields last weekend was purely down to expectations. Teams assumed that the fields would be of a certain type, trained for that type, maybe even made team selection decisions for that type & then when they got there it was all different. Maybe some teams might even have not entered if they knew, & on the other hand other teams may have entered that didn't. In general, people don't like things dropped on them unexpectedly & in general, people are conservative & don't like sudden change.
I know for example that I wouldn't be up to playing X-Ball, my bad leg sometimes doesn't even stand up to one full day at a traditional tournament, so I wouldn't enter such an event. But if I went to an event that was part of a series where all the rest of the events were, say, woodland, and no-one had said that particular round would be air ball despite the previous year's running having been in the woods, I would have a bit of a shock when I got there and vice versa. I know my example is a bit extreme but you can see what some people's reactions would be like.
Some of the heat in this discussion was also encouraged by the somewhat inflammatory way a few posters put their views across (I was probably a bit at fault here as well, but I was reacting angrily).
Fortunately for tha non-cyber world, I have decided that this phenomenon is worthy of being the main topic of discussion in next issue's ProZone - so soon tha world will know of Magued's genius and mr Broccoli Dwarf's somewhat shadier proclivities...
what mark has said about mixing it up at the back is the best way to go. the temple tried that, upright cokes in the middle and laydowns at the side at the back, this completly changed how teams played that field, then on the next field the back line was close but they were all laydowns, on the third field the back line were cokes upright. in the MS everybody in the prelims plays at least 2 games on each field, have a selection will cause the teams to have to adapt (therefore making them a better team) and will create various types of game for the spectators. from this thread i have seen that people have loved or hated the fields at campaing and at joy, so mix them up. i haven't seen the joy fields (i am shocked no one has put a picture up) but i did see campaign last year, temple most of this year (yes.. ido know that temple is a small tourney and nothing like MS) and toulouse this year, and i think that toulouse had great fields that did make teams have to think.
the draxus field had lots of barricades high and low around the field and teams had to think carefully how they would play it, we were destroyed the first time we played it but the second we had adapted and almost won. the angel field had a low back line, the tomahawk field had tall one side and low the other (witches hat). creating fields were putting a player to each back tape didn't work. fields like toulouse made me and my team mates at least think. and thinking improves play, which makes teams better which is the way teams want to go.
Nick, Goose, all others in favor of the JM field design:
I totally agree with you guys. I think Magued's setup of the fields created a game that was both more fun to play and more fun to watch.
About spectators: If football's Champions League attracted an average of 500 spectators every game, would FIFA try to change the game to make it more crowd-pleasing? I think yes.
We played Novice in Stockholm, and had no big problems adapting our game to the new set of assumptions. (exept for the Tomahawk field, but that was because we really %&¤#ed-up in reading the field). And we played a bunch of teams with skills roughly equal to ours, under the same rules and assumptions.
I wouldn't say the fields where designed for very fit 20-year olds, I'm 35 and had no problems to sometimes even run up to bunkers on the 40 in the break (and I am definitively not a health freak). Had I not been able to do this I would have played the center cans (to which you could basically WALK).
For those of you with bad knees, etc etc: -I think no one should be excluded from the game of paintball because of age or physical shape- but (semi-elitist statement coming up) is the Millennium Series really the right place to be if you are injured/not physically fit? That is supposed to be the best of the best in paintball, right?
Oh, about the paint companies and the smaller amount of paint being used: Wouldn't that mean that the sponsored pro teams shoot less free paint -and that we as novice players would have to buy less expensive paint to subsidise those freebies?
I totally agree with you guys. I think Magued's setup of the fields created a game that was both more fun to play and more fun to watch.
About spectators: If football's Champions League attracted an average of 500 spectators every game, would FIFA try to change the game to make it more crowd-pleasing? I think yes.
We played Novice in Stockholm, and had no big problems adapting our game to the new set of assumptions. (exept for the Tomahawk field, but that was because we really %&¤#ed-up in reading the field). And we played a bunch of teams with skills roughly equal to ours, under the same rules and assumptions.
I wouldn't say the fields where designed for very fit 20-year olds, I'm 35 and had no problems to sometimes even run up to bunkers on the 40 in the break (and I am definitively not a health freak). Had I not been able to do this I would have played the center cans (to which you could basically WALK).
For those of you with bad knees, etc etc: -I think no one should be excluded from the game of paintball because of age or physical shape- but (semi-elitist statement coming up) is the Millennium Series really the right place to be if you are injured/not physically fit? That is supposed to be the best of the best in paintball, right?
Oh, about the paint companies and the smaller amount of paint being used: Wouldn't that mean that the sponsored pro teams shoot less free paint -and that we as novice players would have to buy less expensive paint to subsidise those freebies?
Nick...
pro·cliv·i·ty
n. pl. pro·cliv·i·ties
A natural propensity or inclination; predisposition. See Synonyms at predilection.
---------------
predilection
n 1: a predisposition in favor of something [syn: preference] 2: a strong liking; "my own preference is for good literature"; "the Irish have a penchant for blarney"; "martinis are an acquired taste" [syn: preference, penchant, taste]
goose
pro·cliv·i·ty
n. pl. pro·cliv·i·ties
A natural propensity or inclination; predisposition. See Synonyms at predilection.
---------------
predilection
n 1: a predisposition in favor of something [syn: preference] 2: a strong liking; "my own preference is for good literature"; "the Irish have a penchant for blarney"; "martinis are an acquired taste" [syn: preference, penchant, taste]
goose
missing the point...
Goose.
I at no point used the field designs as an excuse for the team not performing. Our team is made up of extremely intelligent people who are able to recognise their strengths AND weaknesses. The reason we didn't perform to our potential is because we didn't get our sh!t together. We know this and have learnt alot from the Joy Masters. My concerns stemed from the fact that if your team was on fire and rolled over teams like they weren't even there, your game would last all of 30-45 seconds. If your team was having a complete nightmare and played like a bunch of arses your games would last all of 30-45 seconds.
The title of my post was value for money and I don't think I received that. That is my opinion.
Jeff
P.S. Some of my points raised in the "Open Tounament" waffle were to be honest the product of a very long day and extreme tiredness. Alot of it was in response to a few other posts saying that the sport, if it is to become a sport, should be played by athletes and that the less fit and less able had no place in these tournaments. If you want a full pro super league then go create one but don't try and do it with the money from the fat, the unfit, the visually inpared . Thats all I was trying to say.
Goose.
I at no point used the field designs as an excuse for the team not performing. Our team is made up of extremely intelligent people who are able to recognise their strengths AND weaknesses. The reason we didn't perform to our potential is because we didn't get our sh!t together. We know this and have learnt alot from the Joy Masters. My concerns stemed from the fact that if your team was on fire and rolled over teams like they weren't even there, your game would last all of 30-45 seconds. If your team was having a complete nightmare and played like a bunch of arses your games would last all of 30-45 seconds.
The title of my post was value for money and I don't think I received that. That is my opinion.
Jeff
P.S. Some of my points raised in the "Open Tounament" waffle were to be honest the product of a very long day and extreme tiredness. Alot of it was in response to a few other posts saying that the sport, if it is to become a sport, should be played by athletes and that the less fit and less able had no place in these tournaments. If you want a full pro super league then go create one but don't try and do it with the money from the fat, the unfit, the visually inpared
. Thats all I was trying to say.
Jeff...
... cool - I guess I read more into your post more than I should have - just like Scutty did mine
I can kinda understand the "value for money" thingy - but hey as you can see we have solved that problem - TWICE THE NUMBER OF GAMES
Good luck at CC2002 - see ya there .
goose
P.S. Note that I have never said that "the fat, the unfit, the visually inpared" are not welcome at the top events - god knows we need them - especially because I, unfortunately, will be one one day. I just think they should play against other "fat, unfit, and visually inpared" players - that way they get more value for money by not being rolled over in 45 seconds.
... cool - I guess I read more into your post more than I should have - just like Scutty did mine
I can kinda understand the "value for money" thingy - but hey as you can see we have solved that problem - TWICE THE NUMBER OF GAMES
Good luck at CC2002 - see ya there .
goose
P.S. Note that I have never said that "the fat, the unfit, the visually inpared" are not welcome at the top events - god knows we need them - especially because I, unfortunately, will be one one day. I just think they should play against other "fat, unfit, and visually inpared" players - that way they get more value for money by not being rolled over in 45 seconds.