Movement: Playing The Game

In the recent post, 'Twenty Feet Too Far', the comments suggest a general failure to understand how movement fits into the game, movements relationship with ROF and the cause of some of the "problems" enumerated in the post. For a more in depth review of Movement & ROF a blog search using those two key words should result in more posts than you'll want to read.
Herein I will endeavor to clarify the situation moving from the specific to the general. Much of the concern (and the follow on spate of "solutions"--like adding bunkers) is the result of the consensus view that World Cup pro matches were too often long drawn out dull affairs, especially those overtime points. And there were in fact more of those sorts of points at this most recent World Cup. But the assumption being made--that the points were like that because the players couldn't move--is mistaken. Likewise the fixes predicated on erroneous perceptions.

The long points were long not because the players couldn't move but because they chose not to--and they chose not to because the risk didn't yield any significant reward in the majority of situations. And that was a defect of the layout design in combination with the extended field length of 2011 & '12. Many of the long points evolved into Home, Snake 1 & D1. Could the d-wire player(s) advance to the fifty? Yes but making the move didn't offer an advantage. All it did was put the player who moved closer to his wire-side opponent in a position where the opponent's supporting Home gun was more effective. A similar outcome was achieved moving into the middle segment of the snake. No clear advantage, only more proximate to players and guns that could eliminate you after moving further away from your own support. They didn't move 'cus it didn't make game sense to move. If aggressive moves upfield are rewarded with real opportunities to get important eliminations the moves will be made. At least in the pro division.

About that extra 10 feet at each end that stills seems (to some of you at least) so negligible despite the overwhelming evidence derived from the data here's another way to look at it. The half field diagram is the Galveston '12 layout. The orange SD is where the d-wire corner would have been if the layout was 150 feet long instead of 170 feet long. The orange and red lines indicate the angle of difference for a shooter at the 50 snake. It is approx. 6 degrees tighter on the shorter field; a 35 degree angle compared to a nearly 41 degree angle and if that looks inconsequential to you test it out sometime and see much harder it is for a player in the orange SD to live than in the original.

Let's move on to the new "extra" bunkers. (Rumor is that it will be 4 props and Sup'Air is already contacting their customer data base to buy this year's kit as everything else will stay the same.) Would the extra props have altered play at Cup? Given the same layout with two more props on each side chances are they wouldn't. The only way they make a difference at Cup would have been to force the Home player to move somewhere else. Okay, but what about in the future? Will four bunkers "fix" the current problem? No. But it will make it easier for players to move, right? Depending on where the bunkers are in relation to the layout as a whole--sure--to a limited degree--but all the evidence suggests that between the designer(s) and whoever chooses the layouts the league uses there is minimal understanding of what sorts of outcomes the various designs will deliver. And I don't see how that will change.

For now the extra bunkers fall into the couldn't hurt category. Keep in mind too we will apparently enjoy the technical snake again next season and the biggest impact the new snake had was in how it limited layout designs and required numerous "supporting" props to make it playable.

In closing a word or three about the relationship between ROF and movement. As the game is currently played movement is recognized as a skill both in making big moves and in knowing when and how to make small moves--but only because there is a degree of difficulty attached. And that degree of difficulty comes from the ability of opponents to shoot players on the move. In pump play it is possible to run around the field with near impunity (assuming basic knowledge of the game and a bit of confidence) simply because pump guns can't put out enough paint to stop movement. At the other end of the scale it is possible to make some moves nearly impossible. That isn't a problem, that is a characteristic of the game. When watching pro players move they move with a skill and ease despite the potential volume of paint in the air and that is one of the distinguishing features of a pro level player. A lower ROF at the pro level only reduces the skill set required to compete. On the other hand a tiered ROF based on skill level would improve divisional play and contribute to making players generally better faster.

UPDATE: When your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Adrenaline Games has confirmed 4 new unspecified props in the upgrade kit. To display how the extra props will "help" a modified WC field is offered. It is damn near perfect for showing why the extra bunker mentality is simply wrong. I will be posting a follow up tomorrow complete with illustration provided by Sup'Air.