Moving panels on Jumping Spider = good idea?

[Homeslice]

Here's something I thought of (and mentioned in some other thread). Remember how the earliest versions of the Spider Walk used some moving panels (even in 4-6 when water was introduced to the obstacle)? Do you guys think moving panels on the Jumping Spider is a good idea?

In my mind, I think so, because it would present a bigger challenge to many competitors. You'd have to move fast through the wall - I'm talking Nagano or Akiyama fast - or else the panels would help suck you down into the water.

Thoughts?

[scnoi1217]

Honestly, I think the obstacle is hard and long enough. I mean, that is a cool idea and they might do that if multiple people make it to the Final Stage. However, I think that would take too long. Most people would just be even more cautious there, thus wasting more time. Plus, the Jumping Spider always has issues with grip and sticking, especially in cold weather, so adding another element would make it even harder.

[davidyko]

I agree with scnoi here; if we see consistently 10+ people passing the 1st stage, then perhaps it's time to do something like that, but the First Stage (and in particular the JS) does its job admirably well as is. Let's see what happens in 23.

[BLM]

They will probably do it when someone finally wins but until then i think it will stay the same

[quasikoz]

I think they would have to make the JS longer (in length, not the jump itself) to warrant some moving panels.

These days you see more people wiping out from the jump than on the panels. When a majority of the people master the jump, then it'd be time to start moving the panels.

[obakemono]

I was never a fan of the moving panels. It just looks kind of ridiculous and doesn't really make it much harder. Plus, the spider walk is no longer the focus of the obstacle.

[lars072]

LEave the 1st stage alone I say. You aren't going to get 10+ people pass any time soon, so just leave it be. The 2nd stage may be tinkered with though.

[RiderLeangle]

Jul 5, 2009 2:12:27 GMT -5 lars072 said:

The 2nd stage may be tinkered with though.

Geez.. No wonder people avoided failing in 22... I mean I knew that "Water" was nasty but damn.... Oh, TINKER! I thought you said... Well that's not important..

But I don't think the jumping spider is even long enough to need moving walls. I mean transfer to the second pannel and what would that do? Make it a high or a low jump to get off? real impressive there

[artyfowljr]

it would be useless

[Ninja Chris]

Here's something I would have always wanted to see, although it would be too dificult to pull off:



Think the jumping spider, but you have to drop down into another section, separated by air. Then continue shimmying through the remainder of the obstacle.

Couple things you should know: The drop would be a quite deeper than that... say, a 4 foot (Minimum) drop. Enough that they literally have to drop down, not just 'reach' for it.

The other proportions are off too... gimme a break. It was a quick image. But nonetheless, you all get the idea.

[VenusHeadTrap]

I liked the idea but looks too painful. Nothing on the course should force you to "fall straight down" like that, only if you fall your self should you have to experience that.

[Homeslice]

Hmm, no, I don't think I like the drop idea either. And I'm sure they could use some small moving panels on the JS if they find the right areas. But yeah, many people would need to master the jump first (good luck with that, people).

And even when it had the moving panels, I never considered the Spider Walk to be three obstacles. Just my 2 cents on that.

[Ninja Chris]

Jul 11, 2009 23:15:05 GMT -5 Homeslice said:

But yeah, many people would need to master the jump first (good luck with that, people).

Yeah, true enough

[gtoneko]

Jul 11, 2009 21:29:39 GMT -5 Ninja Chris said:

Here's something I would have always wanted to see, although it would be too dificult to pull off:



Think the jumping spider, but you have to drop down into another section, separated by air. Then continue shimmying through the remainder of the obstacle.

Couple things you should know: The drop would be a quite deeper than that... say, a 4 foot (Minimum) drop. Enough that they literally have to drop down, not just 'reach' for it.

The other proportions are off too... gimme a break. It was a quick image. But nonetheless, you all get the idea.

That's actually not a bad design actually, but just like the others mentioned, that one drop will be too brutal for even the most experienced. If it was just a regular drop down like in stage 2 (7 I think-17) , then you've got something going there.