In the last 36 hours or so, somewhere in there, I've had an hour or two of alcohol-induced something like sleep so I'm not up for a full recap of the event (maybe tomorrow or the next day) but a few random thoughts keep popping up.
One other thing before I get started. If there's any earth-shaking paintball news in the next few days forward me a source 'cus odds are I won't see it. I am intentionally avoiding the usual resources mostly because I want to forget about Phoenix for a few days at least. Exactly how that's gonna work for posting to this blog remains to be seen. (Naw, I got plenty of material.)
There is nothing in the world worse than second place when you know you didn't put forth your best effort. (Btw, no disrespect whatsoever to the winners. They did everything they needed to do and deserved to be the last team standing.) Just an observation. (Yep, I have edited the original post)
Thought the refs did a pretty good job on the Pro field. (That, btw, is high praise indeed 'cus I'm usually not impressed. And yes, I know it's a hard, thankless job, blah blah blah and we're all grateful somebody is willing to do it yah yah yah.) The way I look at it if they're out there I expect them to do the best most impartial job they can. Nothing less. Nothing more. Call me crazy.
I did notice there were no "inside" refs--and with a layout like Phoenix they would have been advantageous--and that the refs appeared to be working not only their zones but also looking inside and cross field trying to see hits that refs on the outside of the field often can't see. I don't know if that was programmatic or not. And I'm not sure if it was that it worked very well with refs well away from the action making calls from across the field. Even so, all in all it was a pretty good job.
With respect to the Pro field action and changes made in the off season things ran fairly smoothly with one exception. The new overtime scoring rule. Seems some of the teams potentially affected weren't aware of the change and it didn't come up until the actual circumstances occurred on field. More details in a later report.
Twitter updates of the action. Okay, this one is serious nit-picking but that's where I'm at so take it or leave it. Whoever is stuck tweeting the action needs a simple roster list of players and their numbers--because they didn't know who many of the players were. (It's in the rules. We have to have them. Even though there is no webcast. And no statistics.) Mostly I'd like to see players get their due--even on Twitter--and if the league is gonna make the effort then let's dial it up a notch and do it right. S'all I'm saying.
More on the event later this week.
Showing posts with label Phoenix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phoenix. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
PSP Phoenix: Pro Field Surprises
It's Day 1 and on the pro field it's a new day. New teams and new names on some old ones. New rules; case in point, the 90 second rule (which was really 90 seconds plus or minus a few seconds here and there but it's a new day for staff, crew and refs, too.) New prelim schedule, 3 matches, new path to victory. No more best of threes, maybe for Cup? But what you really want to know about are some of the surprising scores, right? What happened? How?
If you want a blow by blow recount of the day's events probably the best you'll find is here at PBN. If you're wondering what it may mean for your favorites it's pretty simple. 10 teams start, 6 will go through. The top 2 seeds get byes directly to the semi-finals. The remaining 4 teams are seeded 3 v. 6, 4 v. 5. Winner goes on, loser goes home. With 3 prelim matches there will be some number of teams with identical records and, best I can tell after a cursory examination, there is a real possibility a team with a 1 - 2 record will go through as the 6th seed. That means nobody was determinatively eliminated today.
For the "new guys," Vicious and XSV, it was a long and probably disappointing day 'cus nobody likes losing but the truth is the transition isn't an easy one and both teams have made a number or roster changes during the off season. Another truth is that most of the time, no matter how good the player or players, this remains a team game and it takes time for a group of players to become a team. It's one of the great frustrations no matter what level you compete at, the sense of beginning again, starting over, re-building. For XSV and Vicious they also came to Phoenix with a sense of opportunity, of nothing to lose--but of course that's not true. Look for both teams to accept the Phoenix results as the hard part of an ongoing process, learn from it and come back better.
For those inclined to see the Ironmen and Dynasty losses as signs of decline, think again. Even with established teams roster changes must be assimilated and a new chemistry established. And part of that process is time together, learning the way new teammates play the game. The reality is there's not necessarily a lot separating any of the top teams on a given day and then throw in even a single untimely penalty and that might be all it takes. In matches marked with numerous penalties the outcomes in question were just simple wins or losses. Important in the here and now but no more than that.
Don't read too much into any single result. We play a season and it's the accumulation of results that tell the final story.
Look for more hard-fought lively action tomorrow.
I'll have more about this field, tournament and the pro play next week in a recap.
If you want a blow by blow recount of the day's events probably the best you'll find is here at PBN. If you're wondering what it may mean for your favorites it's pretty simple. 10 teams start, 6 will go through. The top 2 seeds get byes directly to the semi-finals. The remaining 4 teams are seeded 3 v. 6, 4 v. 5. Winner goes on, loser goes home. With 3 prelim matches there will be some number of teams with identical records and, best I can tell after a cursory examination, there is a real possibility a team with a 1 - 2 record will go through as the 6th seed. That means nobody was determinatively eliminated today.
For the "new guys," Vicious and XSV, it was a long and probably disappointing day 'cus nobody likes losing but the truth is the transition isn't an easy one and both teams have made a number or roster changes during the off season. Another truth is that most of the time, no matter how good the player or players, this remains a team game and it takes time for a group of players to become a team. It's one of the great frustrations no matter what level you compete at, the sense of beginning again, starting over, re-building. For XSV and Vicious they also came to Phoenix with a sense of opportunity, of nothing to lose--but of course that's not true. Look for both teams to accept the Phoenix results as the hard part of an ongoing process, learn from it and come back better.
For those inclined to see the Ironmen and Dynasty losses as signs of decline, think again. Even with established teams roster changes must be assimilated and a new chemistry established. And part of that process is time together, learning the way new teammates play the game. The reality is there's not necessarily a lot separating any of the top teams on a given day and then throw in even a single untimely penalty and that might be all it takes. In matches marked with numerous penalties the outcomes in question were just simple wins or losses. Important in the here and now but no more than that.
Don't read too much into any single result. We play a season and it's the accumulation of results that tell the final story.
Look for more hard-fought lively action tomorrow.
I'll have more about this field, tournament and the pro play next week in a recap.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Field Design–Phoenix 3
I know, it's about time but it's not like my mailbox has been full of irate demands to get this one posted. I'm just saying.
Without further ado and after the fashion of the UFC's Bruce Buffoon, er, Buffer "It's time!" for the review of the snake side of the field. (Try to picture me spinning on my heels to the left and dramatically pointing from the hip like a pompous--and shaved--Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top.)
First, the snake side played okay in combination with the D-side. The play balance across the field was fairly good despite pace of the game issues across the field.
What is pace of the game? What I mean is the time it takes to press an aggressive attack up one side of the field. And I divide the field in half for this calculation because with the odd body count most breakouts will result in a strong side (more players) and weak side (less players) mid-point result. Ideally, to my way of thinking, each half of the design should play out at approximately the same pace because that offers the nearest thing to a neutral playing field and allows the players and tactics to dictate opportunity, or advantage/disadvantage of position. Of course, actual results will vary as the complex of variables like execution, skill and luck all play a part.
The snake side alone was less successful as a design than the D-side. It clearly followed the conceptual pattern established on the D-side of having two lanes of upfield movement–which was good--but the actual utility of some of the props as playable positions was inconsistent. The midfield stand-ups (2 MTs & 2 cans) were primarily lane blocking bunkers even though the rockets could be played effectively in certain situations. The pin (pillar) (tree) placements were very good because of the offset which offered risky but very playable positions that matched up well with the cake as positions that could feed upfield or to the wire. And also created additional lane options to shoot off the break
The principle weakness of the snake side was the lack of countering positions. And here what I mean is positions capable of containing snake movement. Ideally a design should try to avoid both dominate offensive and defensive positions. If, for example, the home bunker only offers decent off the break lanes but no or few good opportunities to hold up snake side upfield movement it forces a defender to make a decision and in a sense "rewards" the success of the offensive player in ways other than eliminations. Different positions then offer diverse but limited offensive and defensive options.
As it turned out this deficiency was counterbalanced by the relative ineffectiveness of the snake. A player could easily reach snake 50 in short order and be largely ineffective. In both instances those effects were largely the responsibility of the lane blocking bunkers placement. (The MTs and the Cans could easily have been repositioned and still served to block the same lanes yet open up access to the snake.)
The other factor impacted by the weaknesses of the snake side was the side-to-side balance. Side-to-side balance is the capacity to eliminate players cross field with relatively equal facility based on similar upfield positions. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways in the design but in this case favored the D-side.
Okay, that was less about Phoenix as a specific design than about the concepts at work in my evaluation but hopefully this will prove helpful for future field design posts as well and, as usual, if anyone has any specific questions I'd be happy to tackle them. Recap: Key Concepts. pace of the game, side-to-side balance and offense/defense neutrality in the placement of the bunkers.
Without further ado and after the fashion of the UFC's Bruce Buffoon, er, Buffer "It's time!" for the review of the snake side of the field. (Try to picture me spinning on my heels to the left and dramatically pointing from the hip like a pompous--and shaved--Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top.)
First, the snake side played okay in combination with the D-side. The play balance across the field was fairly good despite pace of the game issues across the field.
What is pace of the game? What I mean is the time it takes to press an aggressive attack up one side of the field. And I divide the field in half for this calculation because with the odd body count most breakouts will result in a strong side (more players) and weak side (less players) mid-point result. Ideally, to my way of thinking, each half of the design should play out at approximately the same pace because that offers the nearest thing to a neutral playing field and allows the players and tactics to dictate opportunity, or advantage/disadvantage of position. Of course, actual results will vary as the complex of variables like execution, skill and luck all play a part.
The snake side alone was less successful as a design than the D-side. It clearly followed the conceptual pattern established on the D-side of having two lanes of upfield movement–which was good--but the actual utility of some of the props as playable positions was inconsistent. The midfield stand-ups (2 MTs & 2 cans) were primarily lane blocking bunkers even though the rockets could be played effectively in certain situations. The pin (pillar) (tree) placements were very good because of the offset which offered risky but very playable positions that matched up well with the cake as positions that could feed upfield or to the wire. And also created additional lane options to shoot off the break
The principle weakness of the snake side was the lack of countering positions. And here what I mean is positions capable of containing snake movement. Ideally a design should try to avoid both dominate offensive and defensive positions. If, for example, the home bunker only offers decent off the break lanes but no or few good opportunities to hold up snake side upfield movement it forces a defender to make a decision and in a sense "rewards" the success of the offensive player in ways other than eliminations. Different positions then offer diverse but limited offensive and defensive options.
As it turned out this deficiency was counterbalanced by the relative ineffectiveness of the snake. A player could easily reach snake 50 in short order and be largely ineffective. In both instances those effects were largely the responsibility of the lane blocking bunkers placement. (The MTs and the Cans could easily have been repositioned and still served to block the same lanes yet open up access to the snake.)
The other factor impacted by the weaknesses of the snake side was the side-to-side balance. Side-to-side balance is the capacity to eliminate players cross field with relatively equal facility based on similar upfield positions. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways in the design but in this case favored the D-side.
Okay, that was less about Phoenix as a specific design than about the concepts at work in my evaluation but hopefully this will prove helpful for future field design posts as well and, as usual, if anyone has any specific questions I'd be happy to tackle them. Recap: Key Concepts. pace of the game, side-to-side balance and offense/defense neutrality in the placement of the bunkers.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Field Design–Phoenix 2
Aight, you're gonna have to bear with me a minute as I hit rewind and go back to cover a couple of items I neglected last time--caught up as I was in doing a field-walking prep disguised as a field design post. (I'll get the hang of this blogging business before you know it.)
The first significant field design change--other than the no dog leg rule--occurred when competitive paintball ditched the woods. It was (drum roll please) the symmetrical layout. If you find this hard to believe or don't know what symmetrical means you haven't been playing paintball very long (Have you?) and you are (no doubt) the product of a public school education. Simply put it means the design is the same on both sides of the field. Each half mirrors the other.
Early hyperball fields were, in many respects, corrugated tube simulations of some of the bunkers and forms of the woods days. In relatively short order some hyperball and early airball fields tried to accommodate and reinterpret the woods skills set for a new kind of game wherein snakes and multi-level diamonds, for example, made crawling a part of the game again.
Since then change has mostly followed form as the conventions of a snake wire and a dorito wire dictated design thinking. In the last year or two some new ideas have begun to influence field design.
My version of these new ideas go like this: intentionally incorporate changes of elevation; minimize the defensive effectiveness of any single prop, encourage aggressive play and provide multi-directional movement options. For example, changes in elevation produce a more dynamic game by providing additional shot and control options. When the stand-up props--cans and rockets (Mayan temples)--are placed up field they function as lane blockers as well. There is also the added benefit of upfield stand-ups in that they become less defensively playable balancing out their potential offensive advantages.
There are some other elements involved but let's start in on the Phoenix layout by breaking down the D-side of the field. A home shooter laning off the break has 3 basic options; inside the rocket expecting an edger, between the rocket and the can and wide of the can toward the corner. (Did I mention now would be a good time to have a copy of the layout handy?) Runners off the break have 4 basic options. The result is a good balance of clear lanes plus a lot of offensive options including dead zones and an opportunity to play aggressively gun up.
The second key to this half of the field is the placement of the two med. doritos inside the wire that effectively create a second avenue of upfield movement. This inner avenue offers a wire control option as well as an inside out rotation option and lastly, the proximity of the two med. doritos puts the player at risk of being run down. It created a really nice dimension to the play of the D.side of the field.
It is also worth noting that no individual position dominated the play either offensively or defensively and that balance of trade-offs does a couple of important things. It elevates the importance of movement and coordinated action and tended to turn the mid-game in more gun-fighting and less lane control.
For a more in-depth look at elevation in play all we need do is examine how the rocket played. Standing the player has vision from his mirror and along the full length of the D wire with some minimal line-of-sight blocks that weren't sufficient to deny the rocket's primary roll of containing wire side movement. (There is a difference between containing and denying.) But what happens if the corner temple (which I am liable to call an Aztec the next time) forces the rocket player onto a knee. Virtually all the avenues of movement open up instantly including the can rotation to D1. (If there is no paint in the gap--go. Or alternatively edge the kneeling rocket player off his lane using the angle of the inside med. dorito.
The only thing I might have changed on this D wire is to slightly reposition the small doritos to improve their playability.
Okay, enough for now. Remember, I warned you about terminology in the first Field Design post so if you have any questions about what I mean one place or another please ask. Also, I'm trying to avoid overanalyzing this but if you are a glutton for punishment and want to ask about one thing or another--go for it, but consider yourself warned.
The first significant field design change--other than the no dog leg rule--occurred when competitive paintball ditched the woods. It was (drum roll please) the symmetrical layout. If you find this hard to believe or don't know what symmetrical means you haven't been playing paintball very long (Have you?) and you are (no doubt) the product of a public school education. Simply put it means the design is the same on both sides of the field. Each half mirrors the other.
Early hyperball fields were, in many respects, corrugated tube simulations of some of the bunkers and forms of the woods days. In relatively short order some hyperball and early airball fields tried to accommodate and reinterpret the woods skills set for a new kind of game wherein snakes and multi-level diamonds, for example, made crawling a part of the game again.
Since then change has mostly followed form as the conventions of a snake wire and a dorito wire dictated design thinking. In the last year or two some new ideas have begun to influence field design.
My version of these new ideas go like this: intentionally incorporate changes of elevation; minimize the defensive effectiveness of any single prop, encourage aggressive play and provide multi-directional movement options. For example, changes in elevation produce a more dynamic game by providing additional shot and control options. When the stand-up props--cans and rockets (Mayan temples)--are placed up field they function as lane blockers as well. There is also the added benefit of upfield stand-ups in that they become less defensively playable balancing out their potential offensive advantages.
There are some other elements involved but let's start in on the Phoenix layout by breaking down the D-side of the field. A home shooter laning off the break has 3 basic options; inside the rocket expecting an edger, between the rocket and the can and wide of the can toward the corner. (Did I mention now would be a good time to have a copy of the layout handy?) Runners off the break have 4 basic options. The result is a good balance of clear lanes plus a lot of offensive options including dead zones and an opportunity to play aggressively gun up.
The second key to this half of the field is the placement of the two med. doritos inside the wire that effectively create a second avenue of upfield movement. This inner avenue offers a wire control option as well as an inside out rotation option and lastly, the proximity of the two med. doritos puts the player at risk of being run down. It created a really nice dimension to the play of the D.side of the field.
It is also worth noting that no individual position dominated the play either offensively or defensively and that balance of trade-offs does a couple of important things. It elevates the importance of movement and coordinated action and tended to turn the mid-game in more gun-fighting and less lane control.
For a more in-depth look at elevation in play all we need do is examine how the rocket played. Standing the player has vision from his mirror and along the full length of the D wire with some minimal line-of-sight blocks that weren't sufficient to deny the rocket's primary roll of containing wire side movement. (There is a difference between containing and denying.) But what happens if the corner temple (which I am liable to call an Aztec the next time) forces the rocket player onto a knee. Virtually all the avenues of movement open up instantly including the can rotation to D1. (If there is no paint in the gap--go. Or alternatively edge the kneeling rocket player off his lane using the angle of the inside med. dorito.
The only thing I might have changed on this D wire is to slightly reposition the small doritos to improve their playability.
Okay, enough for now. Remember, I warned you about terminology in the first Field Design post so if you have any questions about what I mean one place or another please ask. Also, I'm trying to avoid overanalyzing this but if you are a glutton for punishment and want to ask about one thing or another--go for it, but consider yourself warned.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
PSP Phoenix Open cont.
The Vibe. I'm glad Don Saavedra brought this up in his post about the webcast experience because after I mentioned my first impression last Thursday I thought I probably should have kept it to myself. All the stuff that goes on at an event that is not directly part of the competition is stuff I usually ignore anyway so I'm already a poor judge of how most people are likely to experience a tournament. Even so, whatever Don was feeling, I was feeling it too.
The Changes. Let's begin with ROF. Given there were apparently lots of games in the Race 2-4 or 5 that went to time with modest scores being posted it's been suggested the game time is too short. While I won't argue that except to remind you of Baca's Hard Truth of Life #8, it is what it is and you get what you get--the stunted games tell me a different story. There are lower division teams that didn't know how to take advantage of the lower ROF. Breakouts became more 5 on 5's and without the added "skill" of firepower players and teams hunkered down to avoid giving up the game-changing plays so they ended up playing the same way they did before with some percentage less likelihood of actually shooting anybody. This isn't a great surprise. One can only hope most of these teams have someone who can help them move forward. Otherwise the ROF changes weren't a monumental deal but you did see its impact, in part, on the pro field with fewer off the break elims and flashes of hyper aggressive play.
Paint usage. According to anecdotal evidence some teams used more and some used less. And I have no reason to doubt either one as I am confident that style of play was the predominate contributing factor.
All the other changes seemed to have been adapted to reasonably well. The penalty changes appeared to work okay. Nobody is thrilled with length of game changes except perhaps Raehl who is determined to snip every inefficiency away from the game--we don't want to score too many pointless points now do we? Overall, I thought the PSP plugged in the changes fairly seamlessly and the teams and players adjusted with a minimum of bother for the most part and PSP-style tournament life goes on.
Paint usage. According to anecdotal evidence some teams used more and some used less. And I have no reason to doubt either one as I am confident that style of play was the predominate contributing factor.
All the other changes seemed to have been adapted to reasonably well. The penalty changes appeared to work okay. Nobody is thrilled with length of game changes except perhaps Raehl who is determined to snip every inefficiency away from the game--we don't want to score too many pointless points now do we? Overall, I thought the PSP plugged in the changes fairly seamlessly and the teams and players adjusted with a minimum of bother for the most part and PSP-style tournament life goes on.
The Venue. A terrific venue, even in February. Easy to get to despite the wretched rental shuttles from the airport to the rental hub in Outer Mongolia. Lots of everything near-by. So how 'bout Tucson next year?
The Refs. This will always be an issue. So instead of nit-picking this and that I'm gonna make a couple of suggestions. There were refs working fields in Phoenix who shouldn't have been. I assume it was unavoidable because I know Tim prides himself and his crew on putting the best effort possible forward. There's two problems with refs who aren't really equipped, either by temperament or knowledge, to be officiating. One, they drag whole crews down and Two, veteran players can spot them in a heartbeat. Players do not disrespect a referee's authority so much as they are far more likely to disrespect a lack of authority. The second thing is a personal preference: I hate the spray of paint but it left no mark elimination. Does it legitimately happen? Yes. But it leaves the ref's judgment and integrity in question. I'm sorry but it does. It just does. This has always been a game about being marked, not hit, and it ought to stay that way.
The Pros. Let's start with the new kids on the block; the Hurricanes and the Bushwackers. Both had some uphill trials over the weekend but I think the Bushwackers came out ahead of the Canes in lessons learned. At least it was more apparent from on the field play. Ron and the Wackers actually did a remarkable job adjusting after taking a couple trips to the woodshed early in the event. They responded and responded well. The Canes have always been an enigmatic team--they have an excellent roster, a committed owner and coaches and yet can't quite get over the hump. Phoenix was just getting reacquainted with xball. They will be much improved by MAO.
The rest of the pro teams, all veterans of NXL seasons past, offered up a few surprises like Shocks strong but ultimately inconsistent showing and Infamous's struggle--though to be fair they've undergone a serious roster shake-up. By and large I'm inclined to attribute the inconsistencies to either adjusting to changed rosters and/or limited practice sessions. Though how to account for the Legion's Sunday collapse?
All the pro teams are competitive--which is a good thing and the Race2-7 has a brutal internal tension that may not translate to the stands but all the participants feel it. You want, you need, hard, fast and aggressive points but at the same time, from the sound of the first horn you can't afford to give away cheap or easy points and frequently the very things you need to do once you're down are the higher risk options you don't want to pull the trigger on and yet--if you want to win ... And when you're ahead you can't comfortably sit back because all it takes is one mistake and it's a game again. I've seen a few comments on point spreads for some of the pro matches but the score alone doesn't really tell you anything about what a given match was like. Sure, there were a couple of blowouts but there were a few wild point swing comeback matches too and plenty of others where the final margin of victory was gained late in an otherwise see-saw match. I'm almost beginning to like it--or at least learn to live with it. For now.
Btw, anybody know a good ulcer remedy?
The rest of the pro teams, all veterans of NXL seasons past, offered up a few surprises like Shocks strong but ultimately inconsistent showing and Infamous's struggle--though to be fair they've undergone a serious roster shake-up. By and large I'm inclined to attribute the inconsistencies to either adjusting to changed rosters and/or limited practice sessions. Though how to account for the Legion's Sunday collapse?
All the pro teams are competitive--which is a good thing and the Race2-7 has a brutal internal tension that may not translate to the stands but all the participants feel it. You want, you need, hard, fast and aggressive points but at the same time, from the sound of the first horn you can't afford to give away cheap or easy points and frequently the very things you need to do once you're down are the higher risk options you don't want to pull the trigger on and yet--if you want to win ... And when you're ahead you can't comfortably sit back because all it takes is one mistake and it's a game again. I've seen a few comments on point spreads for some of the pro matches but the score alone doesn't really tell you anything about what a given match was like. Sure, there were a couple of blowouts but there were a few wild point swing comeback matches too and plenty of others where the final margin of victory was gained late in an otherwise see-saw match. I'm almost beginning to like it--or at least learn to live with it. For now.
Btw, anybody know a good ulcer remedy?
Rosters & Injured Reserve. Or something quite like it. (This is for those of you who like a scoop.) In Saturday's final prelim match Tampa had two players injured. There had been some concern initially that the pro rosters were too abbreviated--it was certainly a concern of mine--and the PSP took up the issue on site at the event and the upshot is there will be some changes made that will allow teams some flexibility in dealing with injuries. The formula isn't final but an adjustment will be made for MAO and beyond. (Thanks, Rob.)
Prediction: NO significant changes that will affect many or most of the teams between Phoenix and MAO.
Prediction: NO significant changes that will affect many or most of the teams between Phoenix and MAO.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
