What, in your opinion promotes fast, agressive play?
- Thread starter Collier
- Start date
K the drugs comments are;
a. Really ****ing boring
b. Really predictable
c. soooo damn old, jeez.
Hardest thing most of you have tried is a diet frickin coke and even if it isn't I really don't give a ****!
Paul
a. Really ****ing boring
b. Really predictable
c. soooo damn old, jeez.
Hardest thing most of you have tried is a diet frickin coke and even if it isn't I really don't give a ****!
Paul
It's true though, it is all a bit predictable and tedious. I wouldn't mind if any of them were Keith Moon or something...
Anyway, back on topic...
I agree with the fat people remark of Glen's to a degree (too fat and obviously you aren't going to move as fast) but to a larger extent you need to cut out the wide open shooting lanes on a field if you want fast aggresive play (I am assuming you mean close quarters 'in each others face' gunfights?) so people can make further bunkers but further more bump with more relative ease to the next.
Busy fields are great to play but are they also far harder to ref??
Anyway, back on topic...
I agree with the fat people remark of Glen's to a degree (too fat and obviously you aren't going to move as fast) but to a larger extent you need to cut out the wide open shooting lanes on a field if you want fast aggresive play (I am assuming you mean close quarters 'in each others face' gunfights?) so people can make further bunkers but further more bump with more relative ease to the next.
Busy fields are great to play but are they also far harder to ref??
Faster, more aggressive play is largely field design. Smaller back bunkers, large bunkers between the 40s, cutting down on shooting lanes all add up to more opportunity. Still, even the most aggressive field can be a stalemate if teams don't _want_ to play aggressively.
Are aggressive fields more difficult to ref? Yes. Faster action is always more challenging than a bunch of guys sitting back just dumping paint. But it's more fun to ref too
Are aggressive fields more difficult to ref? Yes. Faster action is always more challenging than a bunch of guys sitting back just dumping paint. But it's more fun to ref too
Paul, if you've run out then gimme a call bud and I'll hook you upOriginally posted by Collier
K the drugs comments are;
a. Really ****ing boring
b. Really predictable
c. soooo damn old, jeez.
Hardest thing most of you have tried is a diet frickin coke and even if it isn't I really don't give a ****!
Paul
field design!
which by there design force most of a teams players to break either wide or forward- promotes running and shooting- laning and getting in other teams faces sooner. Not crawling up anyones arse but if you watch shock play they usually send a coupla players right into the 50 or further running and shooting all the way- then they sit there ready to blow peoples faces off- love it! Also breaking up long distance lanes as with the small pillars in x-ball means players must move for the angle rather than sitting and dumping a pack between two bunkers.
Oh and everyone should be 6' +
which by there design force most of a teams players to break either wide or forward- promotes running and shooting- laning and getting in other teams faces sooner. Not crawling up anyones arse but if you watch shock play they usually send a coupla players right into the 50 or further running and shooting all the way- then they sit there ready to blow peoples faces off- love it! Also breaking up long distance lanes as with the small pillars in x-ball means players must move for the angle rather than sitting and dumping a pack between two bunkers.
Oh and everyone should be 6' +
TRUE!
Before our tournaments we'd set the field up and play it and every time we'd think "this is the most aggressive field we've ever built." Yet half of the games stalemate and almost all of them end up with people stacking the back line and dinking each other out for 9 and a half minutes and then running the flag in at the very end.
If a team is an aggressive team, they play any field aggressively. They create moves. If they are not an aggressive team, there is no hope in making them one.
Unpopular answer:
Shorter time limits. I played a 5 man once with 3 minute game limits. At first, there were a lot of stales, but later on, everyone hopped up the pace.
Unpopular answer 2:
Limited paint format. I have never played one, but it seems clear that when there is no ability to camp and dump paint, people must move.
I imagine that better players with more situational awareness and superior athleticism also contribute to faster more aggressive play.
I wonder whether cheating guns would? If they are easier to shoot on the run, would people be more apt to use that advantage to move, or would the higher rof be used to shut down lanes so effectively that people would be unable to make moves?
Shorter time limits. I played a 5 man once with 3 minute game limits. At first, there were a lot of stales, but later on, everyone hopped up the pace.
Unpopular answer 2:
Limited paint format. I have never played one, but it seems clear that when there is no ability to camp and dump paint, people must move.
I imagine that better players with more situational awareness and superior athleticism also contribute to faster more aggressive play.
I wonder whether cheating guns would? If they are easier to shoot on the run, would people be more apt to use that advantage to move, or would the higher rof be used to shut down lanes so effectively that people would be unable to make moves?