Millennium Organisers

[Matski]

The Highlander is right

You reduce the number or layout of back bunkers too much and 1 of 2 things will happen. Teams will break leaving 1 center back player (as robbo described) or, teams will break very short, pairing up on barricades for example, looking to secure some of the other teams armbands before moving. Think back to the warped sports field layout at Mardi Gras, even teams like Dynasty were breaking incredibly short (and I mean a few feet from the launch point), sweetspotting and then breaking out to hammer whoever was left. Simply increasing the amount of front bunkers and reducing the number of back bunkers will just make teams look for early kills, then make few exchanges further down the field.
It seems that some people just want a setup that will stop sweetspoting altogether and believe that this is possible by changing the shape and layout of the field. I dont think it will, teams will still do it, theres always going to be open lanes no matter how built up the front bunkers are. Further more, by creating that 'funnel' kind of shape that teams would have to break out of, are you not just increasing the chances of getting sweetspotted anyway? Its all well and good being able to dominate the game from the 50's but the chances of players getting their alive have been instantly reduced, which could just reward defensive teams that will make the push when up on numbers.

 

[Baca Loco]

simple fact is...

plenty of teams routinely break hard now on conventional fields where lanes are obvious and even against teams that keep as many shooters back off the break as possible most of the players running out make their bunkers most of the time. Besides, depending on the field it's worth taking some losses to gain certain positions. On the diamond field it's paramount.
Perhaps we'll get to find out sometime.
Moo

 

[RePete]

Here's a stoopid though. I don't like it, but I thought I'd put it up and see what people think.

Remove the breakout all together and play more like football (Soccer for you Yanks)/rubgy where everyone has set positions to start. If the field is a diamond, divide that into two triagle halves of the field, and then split the triangles across three ways, giving you a 16, 32 and 50 yard lines. One person starts behind the 16, two behind the 32 and three behind the 50. Wonder how that would work...

Oops. Better go start making tea. L8rz....

 

[Robbo]

You know what ?
I got enough problems trying to work the hypotheticals on the existing format let alone shoving my brain into over-drive to analyse diamond formatted fields.
Nah, you lot can discuss the relative merits / demerits of fields formatted as diamonds, rectangles, circles, pentagons and bananas.
I got the real world to live in and that's hard enough
Robbo

 

[Robbo]

Pete

Originally posted by Nick Iuel-Brockdorff
I know the dead box thing was weak - I just couldn't resist it !

Now - please clear one thing up for me, that doesn't make sense:

If this new field design means that one player will stop short, and 6 will be running off the break, where are the 7 incoming lanes of paint coming from ?

- I dont get it !

My thought was to build fields that make fewer players stop short and sweetspot, move more players up the field early in the game, AND make attacking from the 50 and onwards easier, thus favouring the teams that push.

2 years ago Laurent experimented with a varied style of breakout in Toulouse, which was quickly dropped after the event, but NO ONE raised objections on the test mid series (or start of the Series as it were back then).

I fail to see how this new idea could ever be tried out in the Millennium Series, if the entire Series has to be played on even fields - what happens if after the first event, we find the old style fields work better.... do we stick with the new style for the whole season ?

Remember Campaign last year ?
Some fields were extremely short and extremely wide, and being played on astroturf..... a far cry from the fields used at all the other events.
Would the outcome of the tournament have been different, if the fields had been "standard".... probably ! (at least I believe several teams mised the cut, due to losing 3-4 players off the break on certain fields..... not least Shock (prelims) and the AAs (semis)).
I believe important lessons were learned at that event, and as such it served its purpose, although probably having a major influence on the Series results.
I don't think paintball has found its "final format" yet (just look at X-Ball), and we need to focus on changing the little things that don't work to perfection yet, amongst them:
- Field design to promote aggressive play
- Getting rid of the need to run/walk flags back after the entire opposition is eliminated
- Judging standards
- Etc.
Let's get to work !
Nick

I'll deal with your confusion on seven firing lanes first :-
The seven firing lanes are incoming i.e. it is easily conceivable that if you set your team up at the start of the game to all fire at the opposition as they break out (on normal sized fields that have been diamond formatted) then there will be seven lines of incoming fire directed at six player scrambling out of a funnel for their primaries accepting of course their back player is almost immediately going to take up his cover point, being the nearest (leaving 6 players) to fire at.

As for the rest of your post, I think you need to appreciate the lateral component of play a little more in relation to any shortened field length such as they had at Campaign when we are talking about possible eliminations off the bat.
Anyway, as I said, I ain’t gonna get into this any more as my head hurts
Laters Nick
Pete
PS That dead box thing.......damn that was weak

 

[Matski]

Ive got it!

A dog-leg shaped field-impossible to sweetspot off the break, both teams meet in the middle and the game lasts about 5 seconds....its the future I tells ya.

 

[manike]

Matski has it!

Make the field a 'L' or right angle shape with the flag in the far corner from the two start points... no sweetspotting and no insane quick flag grab possible...

You could tesselate the fields to get more of them in a small space...

You'd be hard pressed to break into the oppositions half...

It would make back players have to run out before being able to shoot at anything, not just sit behind a blimp.

and it would leave a lot of dead unused space at the break out points and be crap and hardly worth the effort, but lets give it a try in Toulouse anyway...

I was not impressed by Campaign and the fact that you could quite easily have 2 or 3 guys shot out on the break. The fields were too contained (as well as too small) and I felt that added a larger amount of luck to a game and reduced the skill level required.

manike

 

[fierce]

Decrease the velocity to 120-180 fps and the sweetspotting issue is solved and everyone is happy, or?!

Don't take this to serious...

 

[Baca Loco]

Nick

The proof is in the pudding. Plainly we visualize how such a field would likely play differently than Robo et al. I'm inclined to think Pete just being difficult but it really doesn't matter. It's all academic until it's tested in play.
It would interesting to see sometime regardless of where though I still think X-ball an obvious candidate.


Manike--aren't you banned? Now where is that red button marked 'Do not press'?

 

[manike]

Nick

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Manike--aren't you banned? Now where is that red button marked 'Do not press'?

me banned? with my reputation? hehehe

Pay attention my good fellow, my ban lasted less than one night. I've just been too busy as of late to post and play 'devils advocate' with you guys.

I've seen supair fields which are like you suggest in all but the boundary tapes cutting in the back corners. It's only just the placement of the back bunkers that really matters isn't it? It made naff all difference as far as I can remember really.

manike

p.s. Baco Loco you can press my buttons anytime you like