BATTLEFIELD AIRSOFT NEEDS 40-50 PLAYERS !updated!

[Phantomsan]

Guys here is their new facebook ... they have an event posted as well

[Wayne]

Good to see, just RSVP'ed!

[RescueRanger]

I have class ALL weekend.. sorry guys I wont be able to make it!

[USMCRecon]

Good games guys! It was a blast.....it still needs some tweeking, but has the potential to be an awesome CQB arena.

[RandyCapp]

just bought my CQB G&G Raider today for the new CQB field!!

[keesbb1]

Most of just played pistols and it was epic

[USMCRecon]

[Dood]

To the owner of battlefield,

I do not mean to offend or to trash talk your establishment there, because I had a GREAT time on your opening day of cqb there at battlefield. But there seems to be a slight flaw in design.

Just so we have some common ground, Let's take the perspective from the garage door, as if you were inside the warehouse looking into the field. the 5" gap hall would be on the right and the boxed hall on the left.

obstacle count- Far too many. This is a link to a course out in cali, TAC's home base. the wide angle shot is misleading, but my point here is the spacing between obstacles..on average, 4-5 feet. reason for this is movement, this allows a greater number of players to enter the arena and allows people to move in 2-4 man teams. Currently with the obstacles in play, it allows for no movement but up the middle, and that is a whole other situation.

Angled barriers- first and foremost they are considered very dangerous and causes far too many issues with defection/ricochet. With a arena running 400fps guns, ricochet is a issue, and will be a huge reffing issue.

here is a video of a location that roped off 2/3's of their arena. this is appox 25% longer in size but 25% more narrow. but notice the total lack of angled walls. there are two angle walls in this arena, just on the other side and they are NOt in the middle of a 10 way kill zone.

Love the half walls, but they are located only in one spot, i understand that this is a siege opportunistic scene there, but those are generally reserved for small field "Fort" play. you only see fort plays out in cali in warehouses 60,000+ even then, it's a structure they build just for that day.

currently you have two chokes, left box wall and middle. the 5" gap is out of play, was only used once in opening day, and end result? total conflict of ruling. With out a ref contently keeping a eye on that hall , that hall will only create a reffing nightmare and point blank 400fps bb wounds. if you want to make a bang rule, (slightly unheard of in cqb) it needs to be clear. meaning, define "having the drop" on someone.

Triangles- where two walls meet to form a right angle, creating a triangle field of cover, you have far too many short sided walls, walls that are less then 2 feet while the other walls are 5+feet...creating point blank range kill zones, impossible to judge unless the ref's on top of it. IN a game of hard core players, reffing should play a small role, but for the casual gaming and for teen/young adults, this will be a major issue of conflict.

this is just my ..well it's more then 2cents...but I'm more then willing to explain the reasoning as to why battleground will be hard to ref and tough to play. With the current set up, 5 on 5 is far more practical.

[KnoxVegas]

Dood, I really like the input you have. I agree that with that many obstacles in there it makes team movements pretty difficult. I was involved in a very close (less than a foot) engagement earlier in the day with USMCRecon and if he and I hadn't been more veteran players who knew each other it could have gotten dangerous.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing how these suggestions change the gameplay. You seem to have much more indoor experience than most everyone locally, so I'm sure Joe (gliderpilot) will be more than willing to put to use what you have to say.

[Phantomsan]

I love the layout shown in that video...

[Dood]

knoxvegas- applicate the feedback, but the more I think about it, the more I"m concerned with the 400fps. Let me geek out here for a second...

a .25g bb traveling at 350fps produces appox 1.4 joules of kinetic energy :This energy is normally expressed in units of foot-pounds or joules . from the book "Principles of firearms control" considers that the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound force (1.35 J). now how does that scale to a bb traveling 400fps? just under 2 joules....that's is nearly 50% increase in kinetic energy..meaning that a 25g bb will hurt almost 50% more at a 50fps increase of 350 to 400

this can easily be measured by a brave soul, 20 feet of space, 2 bb's of same weight, two guns calibrated at 350 and 400...

I'm concerned about soft tissue contact, neck, face, eye,...it's just food for thought, i'll tell you what though, next time, I'll be covered up. 6-10 feet shot at 400fps on open skin = Scar...there is no need to make me any uglier then I already am ty very much!

I'd like to see a date where it's pistols only or if enough of us with pistols are willing, it'll change the game to much faster pace, and for those that have served, MOUNT training come seriously handy here.

[KnoxVegas]

Well I'm thinking 400fps with a 0.2g BB. That's about 357fps with a 0.25g BB, or about 1.49 joules. I'm an engineer, so I appreciate your math-based logic. Haha.

Having played there Saturday and doing some of the larger national events that use 375fps with a 0.25g BB, the speed wasn't scary IMO. That speed generates about 1.63 joules of energy. Either one is fine for me. The main issue of contention I have is limiting people's weapon options. If you put it down any lower than 400fps with 0.2g BB, people won't be able to use stock, out of the box Echo1's. That would make it pretty tough on those people who don't have a whole lot of disposable income. I also don't want it to go too much below 400fps with 0.2g BB because I won't be able to use my gas MP7 with tracers. Haha.

Another point is people need to control their shots at closer ranges and aim for limbs and center mass. Those of us who are veteran players shouldn't have an issue with keeping everyone scarless and unbleeding. But this would take a little bit of reffing to keep an eye on the dudes who CoD it a little too much and aim for the head 24/7.

I'm down with a pistols only game, also. I just really want to blast some tracers man.

[Sigmarius]

There is a happy medium. From what I understand, the field owners were talking about running multiple games throughout the week. Make one day of the week, say Saturdays, a "high speed" game, where the FPS limits are 375fps with .25s, but with absolutely ZERO leeway above that. Just like Irene. Make every other day a lower fps limit day, so 350 with .2s. That way, everyone gets a chance to play with what they want, but those of us that are willing to accept more of a risk to play with higher FPS limits get a day.

For the record, I am not the type of guy that thinks higher FPS is the end all be all. I have 2 reasons for wanting the higher limits. First, because as KnoxVegas said, lowering the FPS limits could severely restrict the potential player pool. Secondly, because I'm trying to get used to OP:Lion Claws level FPS limits, as my goal is to play at Irene in 2012. And, as they say, train like you fight, fight like you train.

[Dood]

I'd like to see exceptions being made to 350fps guns with 20g, full auto allowance

[Wayne]

Full auto to the face neck or bare skin would hurt at any speed, i wouldn't want to see full auto in the buildings at all.