D
duffistuta
Guest
And the JB is Jerry Braun, and I ain't going into Steve and Jerry's shared history again cos it''s very long and very controversial and very litigious
Super 7s to change format? Kopcock to Miami Effect?
- Thread starter TJ Lambini
- Start date
R
raehl
Guest
And "passable" = "you can throw it from player to player", not "will function as a flag". Well, maybe it means that too.
cheers duffy
i thought it would be cool in sweden if i had been allowed to bounce the other player out of the 50 center double stand up can then nip round and shoot him....would have been real funny!
i thought it would be cool in sweden if i had been allowed to bounce the other player out of the 50 center double stand up can then nip round and shoot him....would have been real funny!
Boy, I really do surely appreciate other folks explaining my thing for me so I don't have to put out the effort - not.
The flag is passable; its a lacrosse ball, covered in foam and surrounded by a nylon sheath. It can be passed from player to player; the field has three zones on it and only single line passes are allowed, plus, a live player must PRECEDE the flag into a new zone (so you always have to put bodies at risk to move down the field).
Bouncing or slamming is an integral part of the appeal of the game, and it includes aerials - players going over the top of bunkers, bouncing off bunkers, etc. We've modified the physical contact rule to allow for non-intentional contact. You bounce off a bunker into an opposing player, its non-deliberate, therefore, no penalty. You tackle an opposing player, its deliberate and heavily penalized.
Our broadcast/director/extreme sports friends told us that aerials were 'big camera time' - so we've given it to them.
My theory about bunker shape, size and usage has been distorted (big surprise):
the bunkers used were Ultimare Airball sausages or cans, all 7 feet long and 4 foot diameter. Thirty of them are dispersed on the regulation field, 9 in each 'team zone' and 12 in the center/neutral zone.
They are all laydowns, and here's the reasons for it:
1. any seating position in bleachers that run parallel to the long side of the field can see 90+ percent of the field surface and therefore, 90% of the action
2. obviously, cameras can see more of the field, therefore, fewer cameras required to do a good shoot
3. for players, the field is broken up into two visual planes - one above the height of the bunkers, one below. This promotes more 'woodsball' like play in allowing players to crawl and take up positions that are not behind bunkers (sitting in the open as it were). More positions, more tactics = better more interesting games
4. the diameter and width of the bunkers was VERY carefuly engineered so that a single player can not cover BOTH sides of the bunker without shifting position; if you play off the bunker far enough to cover both angles, you are exposed to shots over the top.
5. the distribution of the bunkers is such that the area behind the bunkers is exposed to numerous other bunker angle shots - playing off the bunker to avoid being bounced is not generally possible - which is why its such an interesting dynamic of the play: not only do you have to play the angles, you've got to watch out for being bumped.
6. Advertising - again, 90%+ visible from anywhere
, can be placed on the bunkers WITHOUT making the field look like a NASCAR driver's convention.
7. Since you can't effectively cover both sides of a single bunker, you have to make a tactical decision on which side to play at any given time. This gives your opponents the opportunity to pin you on that side and attempt a bunker move around the other. The width of the bunkers is such that you have little if any opportunity to turn to deal with the bunkering player - which creates two things: clean bunkering moves (we had hundreds of bunkerings at paintfest and not a single one NOT ONE devolved into a he said, she said multiple elimination bs call. All were clean and clear to players, spectators and referees) and eliminations from bunkering that were rarely closer than 5 feet.
8. Because players KNOW they can bunker cleanly, they are encouraged to take more chances AND can attempt to make more than one bunkering move at a time; one of the boys from Smoke did three guys in one move during one of the games at PaintFest and it brought the crowd to its feet.
When the crew was assembled for PaintFest, they gave me two arguments concerning the field: (remember, these are all long time tournament players, lots of experience, etc) one was that I had too few bunkers on the field, and the other was that all laydowns would be a mistake.
I asked them to indulge me for one day; if things didn't work the way I expected them to, I'd change it for the second day.
All of the teams had the same reaction - too few bunkers, too much open space, no standups - can't play the field.
After day one, we held a meeting for all staff and teams to review the day. Question one - do we need more bunkers on the field?
NO!!!!!
Question two - do we need standups on the field?
NO!!!!!
Why?
Most people seem to think - and its a legacy of woodsball and speedball - that the more bunkers you have, the easier it is for players to move - when in fact exactly the opposite is true (to a certain point). Many bunkers means many more angles that can be taken against you and - perhaps more importantly - more bunkers means that your visual of the field, from a player's standpoint, is more restricted the more bunkers you have.
As for standups: standups - especially back standups - with good back players on the field become fortresses, and as anyone familiar with seige warfare will tell you, fortresses slow things down.
My objective was to keep things fast AND to reintroduce those aspects of woodsball that made the game what it is today: psychology as important as shooting as important as moving as important as longball as important as crawling as important as charges as important as bunkering. In other words, more than just the single element of high volume shooting contributing to game play.
You may disagree with my theories, but I can point to one very successful event as my proof that, regardless of how radical those ideas may be, they worked and worked well.
Duffistuta - let me know if you want a rulebook.
The only 'mistake' in my marketing plan was that I didn't turn ownership, patent and profits over to an unnamed, non-playing, control-freak pipsqueak.
The flag is passable; its a lacrosse ball, covered in foam and surrounded by a nylon sheath. It can be passed from player to player; the field has three zones on it and only single line passes are allowed, plus, a live player must PRECEDE the flag into a new zone (so you always have to put bodies at risk to move down the field).
Bouncing or slamming is an integral part of the appeal of the game, and it includes aerials - players going over the top of bunkers, bouncing off bunkers, etc. We've modified the physical contact rule to allow for non-intentional contact. You bounce off a bunker into an opposing player, its non-deliberate, therefore, no penalty. You tackle an opposing player, its deliberate and heavily penalized.
Our broadcast/director/extreme sports friends told us that aerials were 'big camera time' - so we've given it to them.
My theory about bunker shape, size and usage has been distorted (big surprise):
the bunkers used were Ultimare Airball sausages or cans, all 7 feet long and 4 foot diameter. Thirty of them are dispersed on the regulation field, 9 in each 'team zone' and 12 in the center/neutral zone.
They are all laydowns, and here's the reasons for it:
1. any seating position in bleachers that run parallel to the long side of the field can see 90+ percent of the field surface and therefore, 90% of the action
2. obviously, cameras can see more of the field, therefore, fewer cameras required to do a good shoot
3. for players, the field is broken up into two visual planes - one above the height of the bunkers, one below. This promotes more 'woodsball' like play in allowing players to crawl and take up positions that are not behind bunkers (sitting in the open as it were). More positions, more tactics = better more interesting games
4. the diameter and width of the bunkers was VERY carefuly engineered so that a single player can not cover BOTH sides of the bunker without shifting position; if you play off the bunker far enough to cover both angles, you are exposed to shots over the top.
5. the distribution of the bunkers is such that the area behind the bunkers is exposed to numerous other bunker angle shots - playing off the bunker to avoid being bounced is not generally possible - which is why its such an interesting dynamic of the play: not only do you have to play the angles, you've got to watch out for being bumped.
6. Advertising - again, 90%+ visible from anywhere
, can be placed on the bunkers WITHOUT making the field look like a NASCAR driver's convention.
7. Since you can't effectively cover both sides of a single bunker, you have to make a tactical decision on which side to play at any given time. This gives your opponents the opportunity to pin you on that side and attempt a bunker move around the other. The width of the bunkers is such that you have little if any opportunity to turn to deal with the bunkering player - which creates two things: clean bunkering moves (we had hundreds of bunkerings at paintfest and not a single one NOT ONE devolved into a he said, she said multiple elimination bs call. All were clean and clear to players, spectators and referees) and eliminations from bunkering that were rarely closer than 5 feet.
8. Because players KNOW they can bunker cleanly, they are encouraged to take more chances AND can attempt to make more than one bunkering move at a time; one of the boys from Smoke did three guys in one move during one of the games at PaintFest and it brought the crowd to its feet.
When the crew was assembled for PaintFest, they gave me two arguments concerning the field: (remember, these are all long time tournament players, lots of experience, etc) one was that I had too few bunkers on the field, and the other was that all laydowns would be a mistake.
I asked them to indulge me for one day; if things didn't work the way I expected them to, I'd change it for the second day.
All of the teams had the same reaction - too few bunkers, too much open space, no standups - can't play the field.
After day one, we held a meeting for all staff and teams to review the day. Question one - do we need more bunkers on the field?
NO!!!!!
Question two - do we need standups on the field?
NO!!!!!
Why?
Most people seem to think - and its a legacy of woodsball and speedball - that the more bunkers you have, the easier it is for players to move - when in fact exactly the opposite is true (to a certain point). Many bunkers means many more angles that can be taken against you and - perhaps more importantly - more bunkers means that your visual of the field, from a player's standpoint, is more restricted the more bunkers you have.
As for standups: standups - especially back standups - with good back players on the field become fortresses, and as anyone familiar with seige warfare will tell you, fortresses slow things down.
My objective was to keep things fast AND to reintroduce those aspects of woodsball that made the game what it is today: psychology as important as shooting as important as moving as important as longball as important as crawling as important as charges as important as bunkering. In other words, more than just the single element of high volume shooting contributing to game play.
You may disagree with my theories, but I can point to one very successful event as my proof that, regardless of how radical those ideas may be, they worked and worked well.
Duffistuta - let me know if you want a rulebook.
The only 'mistake' in my marketing plan was that I didn't turn ownership, patent and profits over to an unnamed, non-playing, control-freak pipsqueak.
Hi Steve
) Difference when it was used at this event is was a centre buzzer surrounded by water and if you ran out of paint...it happened as the barricades were not that big so you tended to be laying down so to refill was not an easy option so if you were out of paint but still in then you made a mad dash to hit the buzzer...rules at the time stated that as soon as the buzzer sounded then the game was over regardless of the body count...body count came into it but the buzzer points were rather large...I tried it and got shot to bits but I couldn't do anything else...others tried and made it though. The format is used at Country Club Paintball outside Chicago, well sorta similar as when the flag is pulled an alarm and light go off. It isn't like the format couldn't be used after all with the tubed versions of Sup-Air there is power already on the field and the tubeless version one is pumped up by a blower the other version is a battery powered fan so same could be rigged for a centre buzzer. It would give a better focus to the game but to be totally fair, the rules would have to adapted as often a flag carrier is shot on the way back by a player they missed seeing.
Already been done, at Mick Holdaways site in Maidenhead for the World Speedball Championships (see the americans don't have the monopoly on the name World
) Difference when it was used at this event is was a centre buzzer surrounded by water and if you ran out of paint...it happened as the barricades were not that big so you tended to be laying down so to refill was not an easy option so if you were out of paint but still in then you made a mad dash to hit the buzzer...rules at the time stated that as soon as the buzzer sounded then the game was over regardless of the body count...body count came into it but the buzzer points were rather large...I tried it and got shot to bits but I couldn't do anything else...others tried and made it though. The format is used at Country Club Paintball outside Chicago, well sorta similar as when the flag is pulled an alarm and light go off. It isn't like the format couldn't be used after all with the tubed versions of Sup-Air there is power already on the field and the tubeless version one is pumped up by a blower the other version is a battery powered fan so same could be rigged for a centre buzzer. It would give a better focus to the game but to be totally fair, the rules would have to adapted as often a flag carrier is shot on the way back by a player they missed seeing.
Nick,
if you had watched the games at PaintFest, you would know that the flag advancement 'focus' only serves to help everyone keep a good idea of "where the game is at" - but does not distract from the action of player on player, shooting and etc.. I doubt I'll ever convince you - but I can try:
When the Brimstone Smoke player made his move down the sideline, all eyes were on him, cheering increased with each of his successive eliminations and he got a round of ovations when it was finally over. THEN (and only then) did the crowd turn to look elsewhere on the field, found the locations of the flags (which told them that Brimstone had used the distraction to advance their flag considerably) and settled back in to watch what would happen next.
The flags are only a 'marker' of game progress - a quick check to see how close to scoring someone is, then back to watching the interesting bits.
if you had watched the games at PaintFest, you would know that the flag advancement 'focus' only serves to help everyone keep a good idea of "where the game is at" - but does not distract from the action of player on player, shooting and etc.. I doubt I'll ever convince you - but I can try:
When the Brimstone Smoke player made his move down the sideline, all eyes were on him, cheering increased with each of his successive eliminations and he got a round of ovations when it was finally over. THEN (and only then) did the crowd turn to look elsewhere on the field, found the locations of the flags (which told them that Brimstone had used the distraction to advance their flag considerably) and settled back in to watch what would happen next.
The flags are only a 'marker' of game progress - a quick check to see how close to scoring someone is, then back to watching the interesting bits.
Nick,
I'm mystified. I think I proved my point and you think I've proven yours.....
But I'll tell you. There is a 'flagless' version of the format. Let me think about it a bit.
The problem with a flagless game is keeping it from devolving into an unmanageable run-n-gun shootfest.
You've got me thinking about it again though. I'll run some scenarios and get back to you.
***
I previewed the above post and re-read my example of play and now I see what you're saying about proving your point. Yes and no.
As I mentioned above, eliminations-only (flagless) can quickly become unmanageable. Flag capture or flag advancement serve to place a check on uncontrollable play.
Standard ball forces you to take certain tactical postures that prevent the early loss of your flag or forces skirmish-line like postures in center flag versions. My format (flag advancement) forces other tactical positioning related to moving the flag forward. ALL of these limit the speed of the game and to one degree or another help to keep the game controllable.
Most solutions to elimination only ball will impose changes to the game that are either so artificial or so radical/unusual that they won't be accepted - so long as you are trying for a presentation format that meets all of the other requirements.
I'm mystified. I think I proved my point and you think I've proven yours.....
But I'll tell you. There is a 'flagless' version of the format. Let me think about it a bit.
The problem with a flagless game is keeping it from devolving into an unmanageable run-n-gun shootfest.
You've got me thinking about it again though. I'll run some scenarios and get back to you.
***
I previewed the above post and re-read my example of play and now I see what you're saying about proving your point. Yes and no.
As I mentioned above, eliminations-only (flagless) can quickly become unmanageable. Flag capture or flag advancement serve to place a check on uncontrollable play.
Standard ball forces you to take certain tactical postures that prevent the early loss of your flag or forces skirmish-line like postures in center flag versions. My format (flag advancement) forces other tactical positioning related to moving the flag forward. ALL of these limit the speed of the game and to one degree or another help to keep the game controllable.
Most solutions to elimination only ball will impose changes to the game that are either so artificial or so radical/unusual that they won't be accepted - so long as you are trying for a presentation format that meets all of the other requirements.
Rethinking the game too many times is like cooking a chicken. Spice this, blanche that, sauce this....after too much cooking you've got more condiments than meat and/or the chicken is cooked to a nice black burned heap of char so either way there's nothing recognizable left.
R
raehl
Guest
I think a good change would be to ditch the flag and first team with a live player to cross the end line of the other team gets a point. Make every player a flag - you let ANY of the other teams players cross the end line behind you, game over.
Steve: I had no desire to control your format - but the NCPA is not going to sign onto any format where the league does not have 100% control over every facet of how their game is played. You wanted us to pay you membership dues, surrender our advertising rights, force our home fields to pay you for franchises so we could practice, amongst other things, and we basically told you to go to hell, because you weren't giving us anything. We pay you to promote your format? Not going to happen.
- Chris
Steve: I had no desire to control your format - but the NCPA is not going to sign onto any format where the league does not have 100% control over every facet of how their game is played. You wanted us to pay you membership dues, surrender our advertising rights, force our home fields to pay you for franchises so we could practice, amongst other things, and we basically told you to go to hell, because you weren't giving us anything. We pay you to promote your format? Not going to happen.
- Chris
Chris, I think Steve has got the point that while you are at the head of NCPA you won't be playing "his" game/format don't you think it is time to drop it now? Come up with something that isn't done already and keep it in house and then prove it to the world at large and then we "may" be playing your format but for you to constantly bitch at Steve is getting more than a little tiresome. It has been said in vielled terms that Steve has an issue with a certain someone and although we are all clear as to who that is at least he is tackful enough to avoid saying it...as it could be someone else entirely Where as you just go over the same ground time and time again...you think it a coincidence that Nick and a good many others invariably ignore what you post.
don't you think it is time to drop it now? Come up with something that isn't done already and keep it in house and then prove it to the world at large and then we "may" be playing your format but for you to constantly bitch at Steve is getting more than a little tiresome. It has been said in vielled terms that Steve has an issue with a certain someone and although we are all clear as to who that is at least he is tackful enough to avoid saying it...as it could be someone else entirely Where as you just go over the same ground time and time again...you think it a coincidence that Nick and a good many others invariably ignore what you post.