Millennium Series Field Committee - feedback from Maxs

[Nick Brockdorff]

Hi guys

The Field Committee, consisting of Laurent, Hasse, Ricardo and myself, would like some feedback on the field designs we used at Maxs.

The DMA fields are in the works, but before releasing them, it would be nice to hear from the players about what you thought of the designs used at Maxs.

"They sucked" or "they were great" is not that helpful (but will be noted nonetheless).... so please try and be constructive and give us some input on what was good and bad about the fields in a general way.

Basically, we are looking for the players to give us input on the "philosophy" we should use when designing fields.

Thanks b4hand

Nick

 

[Steve Morris]

I think the field layouts were interesting and creative but the high density of props led to several zones that were out of control much of the time. Therefore there seemed to have been a lot of cheating that didn't get caught...according to some. But the ones who said this was the case didn't complain because they said it was the same for all teams.

We really needed 10 refs on our field which, of course, costs money. And I guess you can't design the fields for the refs?

 

[martin]

LOVE

they rock they encourage you to get up and move

 

[Smally85]

Well if they get Martin up and moving they can't be bad

 

[martin]

lol

point well made!

Nut claps are in!

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Steve

We really needed 10 refs on our field which, of course, costs money. And I guess you can't design the fields for the refs?

Correct - we design them to be exiting for the players - and to create exiting watchable games.

If the Series needs more refs for that kind of designs, it is a good thing they dropped the number of games this year, without decreasing the entry fees by the same factor, because then they have the extra money to employ more refs

Seriously though.... I DO think every MS field - design notwithstanding - should have 10 refs!

3 on each tapeline (actually 4 would be better)
2 inside looking out in each half of the field

That is the only way to cover the whole field.

But - that is a debate for another thread

KEEP THE FEEDBACK COMING PLEASE

Nick

 

[sjt19]

Bit of feedback Nick,

Dye Field:

was maybe a bit too busy on the T Bag tape, and not busy enough on the other tape. Also the little barricade in the back center was too small for anyoneto play, maybe a small brick, or little temple would be better next time? I know the fields are designed to be fast, but it would have been good to either not have it in there, or have something else there instead

Chronic Field:

Was really good,maye the center fifty could have been rotated so that the little 'wings' of the rocket were pointing to the corners, so that it would have been a bit easier to play.

Millennium:

Was a great field, no complaints.

JT/WGP/Brass Eagle:

Again, a good field, maybe the complex could have been set out at a different angle, so it would have been easier to play. If you remember how it was in HB Nick,i believe you were on that field all tournament. The angle there was better

Tomohawk

Great field, no complaints.

Hows that?

 

[TAG]

Dye: not enough bunkers on the snake side and a little bit to many on the dorito side

Chronic: very good...

JT: maybe lie down bricks instead of stand up bricks at the end of the snake?

Tomahawk: good..

Millennium: little bit cluttered, but still fun..

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Sam

That's brilliant... especially as my two designs were MS and Tomahawk.... I get to tease Hasse plenty now

Nick

 

[gaff]

sorry Nick

only field i thought needed a small alteration was the Tomahawk field. the large square block on the 50 allowed runthroughs that could not be followed by the refs, if it had been angled diagonally from corner to corner of the field i think it would have played better

other than that i liked the new fields with mucho bunkers, which allowed for some exciting fast paced ballin!