Friday, April 27, 2012

Millennium Style

This is the last one (Millennium post) I swear--until the next event at the end of May and chances are I won't ramble endlessly about whatever happens at Bitburg. For one I've covered all the generic stuff and there's no need to repeat any of that. Odds are I'll post a simple event report and any signs of progress--should any such signs manifest. And that's it. Not so bad really.
Worse luck for you I want to tie today's post into the game philosophy notions recently put forward here. A demonstration of how a shared & active game philosophy can/could make a real world difference--and the potential problems that can arise when there is no real game philosophy underpinning. Let's begin with the logistics of running an MS event; 4 teams playing at the same time to be precise. It's a more efficient use of time and space, provides some cost savings to the MS and allows more teams teams to play on fewer fields. Was the move made to improve the game or improve the MS's bottom line? I have no inherent objection to the MS (or any other league) making smart business decisions--but I do have a problem when there are conflicts of interest because, like it or not, the major leagues control the direction and the destiny of the game we play. At least for now. Did the MS decide Race 2-5 was the ideal variant or were they more concerned about the logistics, scheduling & cost (to everyone) when that decision was made? Same goes for a 3 match prelim. Is that the competitive ideal or even a decent compromise given other considerations? What drove those decisions? Was it the good of the game or what was good for the league? [And, no, what's good for the league is NOT necessarily good for the game. The game existed before the league and will exist after it.]
Virtually every serious concern anyone involved has had about the state of the game and its future direction has revolved around the lack of direction and purpose that a game philosophy would provide. And that goes for the other major leagues as well.
As competitive paintball continues to evolve whose priorities will drive future change? And will competitive paintball in the future be a better game, one we even recognize or something completely different?


Anonymous said...

Well done.

Nick Brockdorff said...

I agree wholeheartedly that running 2 matches simultaneously is an extremely poor decision.

And, I don't even think they save that much time (they do save a little), because there are only 2 pits each end of the field, so the turnover time between matches is far longer than it would be, if the next match could be ready to play as soon as the previous one was over.

Either way, it completely makes a mockery of the "x-ball format" to run games that way, and it should be stopped.

As for running race-to-5, I don't really have a problem with it.

I think it's largely arbitrary anywhere from race-to-4 and upwards, how many points you play.

Yes, watching the PSP Pro ranks, you get the occasional comeback from teams being 4-5 points behind, but those are few and far between.... in the vast majority of the matches, a team leading by 3 points at any time in a match, will also win the match.

3 Prelims matches hails from way back in the EXL days, when the Pro division only had 8 teams, and we played full on original X-Ball.

However, there IS something to be said for the paint saved for some of the poorer Pro teams (and even more so in the lower ranks), with only 3 prelims matches.

Personally, I would like to see it increased by 1 more match, as that would make fluke results less important.

As for why things are the way they are... I most definitely do not think is a master plan at work here... I think many things are the way they are, because nobody has bothered to change them, or actually made a comprehensive strategy.

2 simultaneous matches is most definitely ALL about the league pinching pennines, not a single team likes it.

Race-to-5 came about because many euro Pro teams (who have always been way worse sponsored than their US counterparts) complained X-Ball was too expensive.... so in this instance, the league actually listened to the customers.

3 Prelims matches, is all a league decision, most certainly based on the math of how many matches can be run on 4 fields in 2 days... Most teams would enjoy getting one more prelims match.

Christian said...

Your previous post you said, "If I haven't sufficiently antagonized the Eurokids yet just wait."

This post backed way off that promise. I guess it's the more pragmatic decision, but I was hoping to see you really dig into them.

I will say this... coming from HB to Phx, I think the HB and Milliennium format is better for a player and paintball oriented spectator.

It's nice that there is hardly any downtime between matches. Nonstop paintball. That's good for the spectator, if they are informed. And it's still decent from the player side as you still are in the pit planning your next move, etc. I suppose there is a little less pressure in the HB format that might allow panicky teams to take a breath and recover themselves, rather than continue to get rolled by more experienced teams. But I don't think that's a bad thing.

(maybe) The only people the 2 game concept doesn't work for is TV and for the uninformed spectator. Neither of those we should care much about.

As a player, I'd much rather have the 2 game concept.

Nick Brockdorff said...

The 2 match at a time system is fine, except when the other match has a point where 3 guys are shot off the break and the other two run down fast... all of a sudden your turnover time is 1 minute.

Other times it's 4-5 minutes

It's not a real format - the turnover time should always be the same.

Mark said...

You also said: "The matches play to the schedule aided by the field design and the tendency of the Eurokids to play a style of paintball I'm guessing they think mimics aggressive American paintball. In general it's more like inexperienced D4 kids running down the field after a kill or two than a well schooled D1 or professional team. (More later.)"
No "More" later?

Baca Loco said...

If you don't mind my asking, since you're speaking on behalf of players, when's the last time you played any of these formats in competition?

For more antagonism see 'One Crazy Game' as that's what I had in mind at the time.

Conceptually I'm less concerned with actual decisions than the fact many of those decisions demonstrate the lack of a game philosophy. My intent is aimed more at making the case for such than taking potshots at particular practices.

Gee, you guys are bloodthirsty. Easy when it's my blood. :-)