Millennium Organisers

[manike]

Hey Matski...

Originally posted by goose
... what about baseball - after all it is played on a baseball DIAMOND.

goose

P.S. sorry couldn't resist

Yeah but that's just a glorified game of rounders... and we all know what rounders is...



manike

 

[Matski]

AND...

I dont see how the present format allows players to be 'easily sweetspotted'. If a front player is gonna try to take the obvious path, straight to his primary then he can expect to get sweetspotted. Why undermine the skill of the players that can make an aggressive break without getting tagged by making things easier for everybody?

 

[Matski]

BASEBALLSCHMASEBALL...yeah yeah, thats a bat n ball game..so theres a hole in my logic. You know what I mean.

 

[goose]

BASEBALLSCHMASEBALL...

Hey don't knock it - any game where players can get paid 17 bazillion dollars for standing around in the sun and running every 5 minutes can't ba all that bad.

Anyway enough of the thread hijacking - no back to the original discussion.

goose

 

[Alex Hicks.]

The SWL used a speedball field diagonally at a couple of their events. It did work and the more agressive teams were generally rewarded. When a plyer gets to a corner bunker he is protected by the tapes around 270degrees and has great angles on the opposing team. There was no problem with sweetspotting however it was in poor weather conditions.

 

[Baca Loco]

Actually

Nick altered my idea somewhat whether he intended to or not. The "diamond" isn't a square, it's a rhombus and the long axis--point to point shouldn't be any shorter than is standard now. And with a preponderance of the bunkers between the 30's and the biggest bunkers along the 50 field shape and consequent bunker position should compel sweetspotters to target positions--not lanes. And as for being potentially useful in reduced areas of play I'd still net off the standard rectangle allowing players on the break great lattitude in how they chose to run.
Besides, the concept was offered as an idea for an X-ball field in the thread where everyone was moaning about bogged down, defensive games. And one of the points of the X-ball experiment is to test a more spectator and conventional sport format that is exciting to watch. Now that's clarified you may resume.
Moo
PS--Robo, you've got to stop sugar-coating your opinion. Say what you mean, man.

 

[Robbo]

Misunderstood

Originally posted by Nick Iuel-Brockdorff
Pete - It surprises me you take such a conservative view, without really saying WHY this won't promote aggressive paintball ?
Nick

Nick, don't be too surprised at my conservatism since most people in their forties are inexorably drawn to conservatism as part of a middle age rites of passage.
However, my scepticism isn't wholly due to extended years !
I had taken it for granted the field sizes i.e. length would remain pretty much the same as they are now.
Now as we both know, on an average Sup' Air field, the back players can shoot their opposite numbers off the bat and so sweet-spotting is essentially a lane prediction skill.
The reason it is not always successful is due to many factors one of which is the lateral extension of the field that allows players to fan out as soon as they break out.
Now if you restrict that break out in any way (On an existing size field that has been diamond formatted) then the breakout angles are constricted into an already vulnerable attack pattern.
Once you begin to punish aggressive break outs, you deter any team from being aggressive, simple laws of survival kick into tactical gear my ole mate.

If you now introduce not only the diamond format but also the lengthening of the field to cut down on break outs being so costly in terms of players shot out off the bat, you are now severely limiting the number of stadium based events we can run as the fields are not conducive to the diamond formatted game with existing field lengths.

You change one thing mate, you have to change others to accommodate it and once you start that, you end up with nowhere to play !

Robbo

 

[Magued]

Magued

I still think its a good idea, I will however agree that it may not be a good idea to try it in a major event first, but its worth looking at really hard.

And whatever makes the backplayers lifes harder Im all for it

Magued

 

[Robbo]

Yeah !

Originally posted by Nick Iuel-Brockdorff
Now I get your reservations.
But I have to disagree with you.
Breakouts are also more or less predetermined on the curretly used fields, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to do that.
Now - with the same length base to base - and the current fields with large centre bunkers, I really don't see how this would effect breakouts negatively.
NOTHING to stop a players taking an alternative route !
If the fields are "layered" rather than placed end to end, we should be able to do this without needing significantly more space at the venues.
As far as not testing new stuff in a running series, I think that is invalid - that's like saying we should have stuck with the old deadbox system, to ensure the entire series was "fair and even"
Nick

Nick, you are not taking into account the changes in the break out formation, on a conventional field, 3 players, if not more can (and do) generally take back line positions.
This requires at least two of the back players to spread sideways as 'game on' is called so introducing a significant component of lateral movement.
If you diamond format the field, this will then mean only one guy can fill the back spot with all the remaining back players (generally at least two) running forward (albeit on a diagonal) into the constrained firing lanes of the opposition.
Imagine it, one player takes up the point back bunker, while the other six run like **** to get out of a funnel with seven lanes of paint coming in ?
Nah, ain’t gonna work mate unless you significantly increase the field length !!
As for the introduction of the new rule replacing the now infamous 'no look' rule, now you ain't seriously using that as a working precedent of what you propose are you?
Oh Puuuurleeease Nick, that was weak and ill thought out, most unbecoming of a man of your intelligence.
The introduction mid series of a procedural change to dead men does not affect the playing of the game in any way and cannot (because all men are dead anyway) affect results in the same way as a new game format could.
All results post-revision of the no-look rule would be exactly the same had there been no change at all whereas any revision to playing formats, well, the results are in the lap of the gods dependant upon which team adapts quicker.
Nah, gotta do better than that mate !
Pete

 

[Baca Loco]

a less radical alternative also exists

simply alter current field design with a couple of things in mind. No back bunkers all the way out to the wires and fewer backfield bunkers with widest wire-side bunkers at the 50 and again with majority of bunkers between the 30's.
I think the results would be similar as there would be a premium on controlling the 50 wires (which exists at present as well) but without the same potential defensive fallback. Plainly, if field design promotes "dominate or die" play it will change how teams prepare.
I would also suggest that if it worked it would change the nature of player development over a period of time as well.
Between the woods game and the concept game there was an intermediary that appeared and still appears in various guises generally called speedball. Speedball modified the skill set required to be successful as did hyperball, the SupAir. Players became (generally) more aggressive, movement skills changed and technical skills sharpened in particular ways. If the field is altered sufficiently and the game moves on the players will change as the demands of success require.
Moo