Joy Masters field design...

[goose]

Okay people - let's hear the opinions (Brockdorff we know yours ), what did you guys think of the fields Magued & his boys came up with for us?

Personally, at first glance I was thinking that whatever they where smoking when they designed the fields musta been som pretty heavy sh!t.

But after playing them I thought they where great, fast-paced-in-yer-face-action, with very few games going the limit - so much so that the schedule got screwed up with so many games being done early. I think our average game was 4-5 minutes in length - if that.


So let the debate begin....

goose

 

[Northy_Delta]

were there no back bunkers at all? did this mean that there was very little shooting off the break from the back guys?

 

[goose]

There where back bunkers - just not what people are used to. There where small x's on the diablo field, small laydown tubes on the angel field, cones & a pig on the tomahawk field, & a half moon and a cone on the raven field (I think).

But this didn't mean there was a lot of shooting off the break, we did plenty - it just meant you had to find the right way to do it.

goose

 

[Northy_Delta]

sounds good. hopefully similar fields will kick off over here in england, nothing wrong with a bit of variation! if the fields were quick and full of action then all the better!
Northy.
Delta

 

[Pinky_81]

Fields...

I liked the fields too, except it was a bit difficult keeping the team together when the backs get so isolated... But lovely designs with a lot of ball-play!!

Unfortunately it became more the rule than the exception to loose a player in the break, or was it just me??

Pinky

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by goose
Okay people - let's hear the opinions (Brockdorff we know yours ), what did you guys think of the fields Magued & his boys came up with for us?

Personally, at first glance I was thinking that whatever they where smoking when they designed the fields musta been som pretty heavy sh!t.

But after playing them I thought they where great, fast-paced-in-yer-face-action, with very few games going the limit - so much so that the schedule got screwed up with so many games being done early. I think our average game was 4-5 minutes in length - if that.

So let the debate begin....

goose

What's to debate? The field design, by your reckoning, did exactly what it was supposed to do and what everybody has always said they wanted--fast paced, aggressive games.
Congrats to Magued and Joy Division for taking the risk and trying something new.
BTW, I told y'all so. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[goose]

Baca...

There is no debate from my side - but I heard a lot of grumbling about the fields when I was there. Just want to hear other points of view - gets boring listening only to Brockdorff all the time anyway.

goose

 

[jeff]

Value for money???

My personal opinion is this.

I played a total of 40-50 mins of paintball in the prelim games.
( 10 games at an average of 4-5 mins per game).

I don't train and pay to go all the way round Europe for an hours 'balling. Half our team played even less than that because they physically could not get to there primary bunkers. They were either shot on the break or had to sit those games.

Over the prelims we effectivley played a five man tournament!!

Yes the fields were designed to be aggressive and in your face but you have to consider that not all teams are made up of top athletes and technical gurus. For these teams, especially the lower end Novice teams, their weekend consisted of sitting in the dead box. They would have had no opportunities to improve their skills and enjoy playing paintball. After all, that is why we all do it, to play paintball.

Everyone complained about the feilds at the Campaign Cup 2001 for being to small and those same people are now saying that these types of feilds are a good thing. Funny how this change of heart has come after these same teams got to grips with the Joy feilds but were ripped to shreds on the Campaign feilds?!?

Field layout has to be a compromise. One which encourages exciting play but also offers a game to all of the promoters customers, i.e the teams that pay to play these events.

Just my opinion and in no way am I speaking for Campaign Power or Campaign Paintball.

Jeff

 

[manike]

one lanky gits opinion...

Well said Jeff, I agree completely with your post and especially this bit.

Originally posted by jeff
Field layout has to be a compromise. One which encourages exciting play but also offers a game to all of the promoters customers, i.e the teams that pay to play these events.

Now, I unfortunately didn't make Sweden this year

but it does sound as if there was descrimination against certain styles of play and players. Something Magued actually said he was going to do with "anything that makes it harder for back players" , how would he have felt if Niall had said anything to make it harder for front 'bunker monkeys'...

This is a game about tactics and is open to people of all shapes and sizes which makes it a truely great sport. To descriminate against that on purpose seems to be very wrong for me. If a lot of people who play are complaining then something is not right...

The fields should be a compromise allowing all styles of play to be on the field. Yes they should enhance aggressive play (maybe with more bunkers in total like x-ball) and with more bunkers allowing teams to work into the opposing halves but they shouldn't stop teams playing in different ways and with different tactics.

It should be a case of field tactics to 'enhance' aggressive play not 'disable unaggresive players'.

I think the Toulouse fields (especially 1 & 2) with a great bunker complexes in the middle of the field in combination with decent bunkers at mid, side and backfield led to some of the best paintball of all. With teams that could actually make or not make primarys and moves solely on their tactics and game plan. Isn't that the way it should be?

Give all options it is possible. That way the front players can be agressive and get up the field to win games, and the back players can play and support them etc. One thing that is good is fields large enough and with big obstacles in the way that force back players to move up field to support their front guys.

manike

 

[TJ Lambini]

Show me a tourney no-one moaned at and I'll show you a tourney that was cancelled due tio lack of teams or an Act OF gOD OR SOMETHING.




Ooops.

Anyhow, Magued, like the JTs, Richmonds and WDPS of this world, is thinking ahead and thinking long dollar. Extreme sports don't have lazy, good for nothing unfit specimens in em, just buff, lean whippets, so for tha good of tha sport Magued is taking out tha backplayer's role, hence removing all the lard-assed no-gamers.

It's bold, it's brash and in tha end we'll all thank him for it when Nike and Pepsi start riding the pball gravytrain.

There, I said what every front and mid player in tha world was thinking.


Back guys - y'all go and take up golf or pool or whateve, y'hear - pball's not for you guys anymore. Deal.