Millennium Series Field Committee - feedback from Maxs
- Thread starter Nick Brockdorff
- Start date
Tomahawk DMA
I can't wait for people to see that one... it is the wildest field ever..... in my humple oppinion..... think Napoleonic wars
For everyones information, the DMA fields are completed, and have been submitted for 3D rendering.
The DMA organiser have received the 2D versions today.
So, it is all up to the DMA crew when they make the 2D versions public - and the 3D versions will follow as soon as they have been completed.
Nick
I can't wait for people to see that one... it is the wildest field ever..... in my humple oppinion..... think Napoleonic wars
For everyones information, the DMA fields are completed, and have been submitted for 3D rendering.
The DMA organiser have received the 2D versions today.
So, it is all up to the DMA crew when they make the 2D versions public - and the 3D versions will follow as soon as they have been completed.
Nick
The Max fields, all my opinion:
On overall, to many barricades makes them very time consuming to walk! Except the chronic field, perfect.
The field should be made so that movement is awarded, the 50 bunkers should be made so that they are a threat to the corners and the rest of the field. But not in a way that moving there can be shot by the hole field.
When a bunker is hard to get to the ability to slide into cover helps a lot, use more lay down bunkers.
Dye field:
Too many bunkers that were of no use, could not be played and did not cut of angels.
I think the field would have played a lot better if you have put the dorito the "right" way around.
Chronic: a very good field, both 50 were important, the middle 50 could stop players to the 50 side bunkers, but were hard to play.
Not to many bunkers
Tomahawk: An ok field but if there were some more lay downs that you could slide into.
By putting the big thing in the middle two players can pretty much lock down the field, never good! Bunkering on a field with that many bunkers, mistakes are going to be made.
Millennium: the snake side were good, and again some lay down bunkers or bunkers that could be slid into would have helped the other side.
Too many bunkers.
jt: too many bunkers and again some lay down bunkers. We played that field for 60 seconds so no more input.
looking forward to the DMA fields.
On overall, to many barricades makes them very time consuming to walk! Except the chronic field, perfect.
The field should be made so that movement is awarded, the 50 bunkers should be made so that they are a threat to the corners and the rest of the field. But not in a way that moving there can be shot by the hole field.
When a bunker is hard to get to the ability to slide into cover helps a lot, use more lay down bunkers.
Dye field:
Too many bunkers that were of no use, could not be played and did not cut of angels.
I think the field would have played a lot better if you have put the dorito the "right" way around.
Chronic: a very good field, both 50 were important, the middle 50 could stop players to the 50 side bunkers, but were hard to play.
Not to many bunkers
Tomahawk: An ok field but if there were some more lay downs that you could slide into.
By putting the big thing in the middle two players can pretty much lock down the field, never good! Bunkering on a field with that many bunkers, mistakes are going to be made.
Millennium: the snake side were good, and again some lay down bunkers or bunkers that could be slid into would have helped the other side.
Too many bunkers.
jt: too many bunkers and again some lay down bunkers. We played that field for 60 seconds so no more input.
looking forward to the DMA fields.
Tomahawk DMA
Why make the fields the wildest ever??????Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I can't wait for people to see that one... it is the wildest field ever..... in my humple oppinion..... think Napoleonic wars
For everyones information, the DMA fields are completed, and have been submitted for 3D rendering.
The DMA organiser have received the 2D versions today.
So, it is all up to the DMA crew when they make the 2D versions public - and the 3D versions will follow as soon as they have been completed.
Nick
Christian
That having been said, you are ofcourse entirely intitled to your oppinion, and I will try to answer your question as best I can.
When saying "wildest ever" I do not mean that the field will in any way be unplayable... just that the design priciple will be new to paintball at this level.... so "wild" refers to the fact that at first, it will seem extremely alien to most of the players.... but I do not believe the field will take anything away from the teams or the game (we'll have to wait and see ofcourse, I may be wrong).
One lesson that many teams learned at Maxs was, that the new type of fields, combined with everyone shooting 15 BPS off the break, meant you had to put a little more thinking into your game planning than what has been necessary upto now.
I do not view that as a bad thing.
I (or the other members of the committee) do not design fields to **** teams over or to create situations that make the teams playing appear as clowns in circus.
The guiding principle, is to design fields that challenge the teams mentally and create aggressive, watchable games.
Your feedback on the Maxs fields kind of puzzled me.... you want fields that award movement... but think there are too many bunkers on the fields and want more laydowns.
Personally I think those wants are contradictory.
Would you like to try and do some designs and submit them to the committee, so that we can get a clearer idea where you are coming from?
Nick
The overall feedback from Maxs was extremely positive.... you are actually the only guy I have personally heard not liking the new field design philosophy.
That having been said, you are ofcourse entirely intitled to your oppinion, and I will try to answer your question as best I can.
When saying "wildest ever" I do not mean that the field will in any way be unplayable... just that the design priciple will be new to paintball at this level.... so "wild" refers to the fact that at first, it will seem extremely alien to most of the players.... but I do not believe the field will take anything away from the teams or the game (we'll have to wait and see ofcourse, I may be wrong).
One lesson that many teams learned at Maxs was, that the new type of fields, combined with everyone shooting 15 BPS off the break, meant you had to put a little more thinking into your game planning than what has been necessary upto now.
I do not view that as a bad thing.
I (or the other members of the committee) do not design fields to **** teams over or to create situations that make the teams playing appear as clowns in circus.
The guiding principle, is to design fields that challenge the teams mentally and create aggressive, watchable games.
Your feedback on the Maxs fields kind of puzzled me.... you want fields that award movement... but think there are too many bunkers on the fields and want more laydowns.
Personally I think those wants are contradictory.
Would you like to try and do some designs and submit them to the committee, so that we can get a clearer idea where you are coming from?
Nick
Christian
Perfect example here would be the tomahawk standup tape. Very hard to move foward because there were no good laydowns. Some good 50s laydowns or wide bunkers will make games sometimes more player and spectator friendly, you can try to reach those bunkers in tight and even game instead of only being able to walk up there while up on numbers.
Hmm
Maybe I'm confused Sherman.... but why does it require a laydown, to be able to slide into cover?
Nick
Maybe I'm confused Sherman.... but why does it require a laydown, to be able to slide into cover?
Nick
Hmm
Also - too many bunkers can actually make movement difficult as you "lose" players. If you know where the guys are you know the angles they can shoot and how you can move. Too many bunkers means that if you move up you can just get suprised by guys and shot cheaply, so you stay put and take things very slowly working where people are.
It's a balance between too many and too few bunkers - I don't believe just throwing more bunkers on the field = more movement.
Because it's far too easy to get pinched in a stand up - having stand ups between the 40's is only useful for blocking lanes, they rarely make playable bunkers except in the very end game unless they have some width at the base (e.g. the JT wedges)..
Also - too many bunkers can actually make movement difficult as you "lose" players. If you know where the guys are you know the angles they can shoot and how you can move. Too many bunkers means that if you move up you can just get suprised by guys and shot cheaply, so you stay put and take things very slowly working where people are.
It's a balance between too many and too few bunkers - I don't believe just throwing more bunkers on the field = more movement.
Hi Nick
"The guiding principle, is to design fields that challenge the teams mentally and create aggressive, watchable games."
I could not agree more, it is just what we want, the thing is that we disagree on what makes aggressive field.
"Your feedback on the Maxs fields kind of puzzled me.... you want fields that award movement... but think there are too many bunkers on the fields and want more laydowns.
Personally I think those wants are contradictory"
I understand why that can seem contradictory, I will try to explain from our point of view and I saw other with the same ideas have posted also:
When we try to move we would like to do that with a certain degree of security, you check of one or two bunkers or shoot at them/push them in and move, you can get help from a team-mate to push them in and make a move, or a combo of both.
All this is a lot harder when the opposition can be at 6 different bunkers instead of 3.
On laydowns; it is a lot easier to make a gutsy move into a bunker when you can slide into the bunker on you stomach instead of doing a baseball slide and stop.
"Would you like to try and do some designs and submit them to the committee, so that we can get a clearer idea where you are coming from?"
I woul love to that, but for now, look at the chronic field in Max, killer 50 both sides, a big middle bunker so shooting of the break is not a gamble, but not so big that you can stand behind it for "ever".
The middle bunker was big enough to play but not "the best" so that a run through to clear the middle was not necessary.
We managed to do good on gameplans in Max and shot people of every break so that is not the problem, I think cluttered fields will put less emphasis on skills more on "gung-ho" factor.
Looking forward to seeing the DMA fields
"The guiding principle, is to design fields that challenge the teams mentally and create aggressive, watchable games."
I could not agree more, it is just what we want, the thing is that we disagree on what makes aggressive field.
"Your feedback on the Maxs fields kind of puzzled me.... you want fields that award movement... but think there are too many bunkers on the fields and want more laydowns.
Personally I think those wants are contradictory"
I understand why that can seem contradictory, I will try to explain from our point of view and I saw other with the same ideas have posted also:
When we try to move we would like to do that with a certain degree of security, you check of one or two bunkers or shoot at them/push them in and move, you can get help from a team-mate to push them in and make a move, or a combo of both.
All this is a lot harder when the opposition can be at 6 different bunkers instead of 3.
On laydowns; it is a lot easier to make a gutsy move into a bunker when you can slide into the bunker on you stomach instead of doing a baseball slide and stop.
"Would you like to try and do some designs and submit them to the committee, so that we can get a clearer idea where you are coming from?"
I woul love to that, but for now, look at the chronic field in Max, killer 50 both sides, a big middle bunker so shooting of the break is not a gamble, but not so big that you can stand behind it for "ever".
The middle bunker was big enough to play but not "the best" so that a run through to clear the middle was not necessary.
We managed to do good on gameplans in Max and shot people of every break so that is not the problem, I think cluttered fields will put less emphasis on skills more on "gung-ho" factor.
Looking forward to seeing the DMA fields