This leaked change--lowering the Pro only ROF to 10.2 bps--has certainly got everybody all worked up but what do you really think? Do you believe the reason the PSP is giving for the change--or do you think it's really about something else? If the league is determined to lower the Pro ROF why not 10.5 like the MS? Guns are already programmed for it. Will it have the effect the PSP hopes for and if not what will the result be?
In your comments please identify the highest level you compete at; like D2 WCPPL or MS Semi-pro. I'm not interested in who you are, only in where you play.
The PSP did this once before but at the divisional level. It lasted a season and was then rescinded because it was extremely unpopular. Why do you think the PSP doesn't get reactions or solicit comments from the impacted groups before they make decisions affecting the play of the game?
Not only is this your opportunity to vote on the issue, it's also your chance to have your voice heard. Trust me, the PSP is listening.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
56 comments:
The change makes no sense. It is not going to change the outcome of games, and it is not going to significantly reduce costs. If anything, it will slow games down because players will be more likely to live off of the break.
Seems like choosing 10.2 BPS is just to ensure that players set their guns at 10BPS with some buffer in case electronics spike the ROF (is that even possible?).
highest level played D4 Race-to 2, Open 10-man (lol)
When the divisional teams dropped to 10.5 there was a very noticeable reduction in paint shot for the 3 teams I was associated with at the time who were ranked D2 thru D4.
Mark,
Did anything else change? Faster points? Slower points? Any differences between your teams you recall?
I'm just tired of the constant change the PSP goes through every single offseason. It's bad enough that our sport is riddled with the crazy player movement we see in the offseason, not to mention the previous PSP vs NPPL league crap. The PSP as the dominant league should be the constant in all the chaos. Instead it seems to be part of it. Don't get me wrong, I love the PSP and will continue to compete. However I want to see the sport grow, and one thing that needs to happen in order for that to become a reality, is a consistent league between seasons.
Having said that, I feel that going to 10.2 for the Pro's won't have the affect the league hopes it will (quicker and more exciting points). We can compare the situation to the MS where at 10.5 the point aren't any faster between evenly matched teams. After the 10BPS phase passed through the PSP the first time and after it was at 15BPS, and then 13.3 at one point, etc, I have spoken to hundreds of players and people within the sport about the ROF and almost everyone likes the 12.5 rate.
We have heard publicly from numerous pro players, coaches, and other high level people from the industry that the Race-To format is slowing the pace of the game and we need to go to halves or just a race to as many points as possible within a given match time. I agree with that completely; especially since the slow paintball issue on the table is even worse in the divisional ranks. I play Division 1 in the PSP and Race-To 5 is better, but the teams playing in the lower divisions, playing to 4, have it even tougher. If the PSP is going to keep the Race-To format then it would be cool to see them move the point amounts higher. For example do race to 11, 9, and 7 instead of the 7, 5, and 4....
But back to the point, the pro teams, especially the better ones, will find a way to contain the field, lock it up, and slow games down, regardless of the ROF. The format needs to change to see more exciting paintball played. Time will tell at the first event, but I'm pretty confident in my opinion, as are hundreds more who feel the same way I do.
Played in two different style xball leagues NCPA Class A (12.5) and USPA (15.5) I found the xball style timing makes the games move much faster, not the ROF as much. Both leagues seemed to play just as fast regardless of how fast I was shooting. It also seemed to really change the strategy of the game as you have to think about the clock a bit more. I don't see why the PSP can't have the pros play a NCPA style game at this point now that there are only 10 teams.
Baca...do you find the coaching decisions change greatly when playing on a set amount of time rather than a race 2?
All pro sports continuously improve their game based on any number of factors, relevancy, safety, financial,etc
NFL-No helmet contact, video replay
NHL-No touch icing, instigator rule, etc
The fundamentals of the PSP aren't changing: Airball, ramping, 5v5 remain
No one is not going to attend because of proposed changes, the only thing im curious about is the who, what, when where and whys of the decision making process. I find it hard to believe no pro teams were at least consulted
CXBL Elite and PSP D1
I just want to know why the PSP is making this change, I highly doubt it'll be to make faster games so I don't really understand it. The gap between the top and bottom pros is going to widen, and I think it's already large enough.
My opinion:
1. Keep it at least at 12.5 - 10 just gives an annoying room for error, reduces a players effectiveness vs. multiple opponents, and further limits the back-center position
2. Bring back the home player! Want faster games? Push for more kills off break
3. Make the field layouts reward aggressive play
4. Timed halves - if 1hr games (2x 25min halves + half time) was too long, then shorten them and/or reduce the number of matches in the prelims
*50min matches allow for back-and-forth games and aggressive moves BUT the best team wins (usually)
"Did anything else change? Faster points? Slower points? Any differences between your teams you recall?"
Unfortunately one season was not enough to tell, and if I remember correctly that was 2009 which was a 4 event season, but the biggest thing was that in addition to the ROF drop that year D1 & D2 went from playing race to 7 in 2008 to RT5 in 2009, and D3 played RT5 in 08 which went to RT4 in 09. PSP added the D4 RT4 division in 2009.
So I seriously doubt those who claim they shot more paint when ROF was lowered to 10.5 than they did the year before. If they actually did, pretty embarrassing to admit it.
Because perhaps 20% of divisional teams look to make moves to get kills, while the other 4 fifths seem to look for kills in order to make moves, one four event season wasn't long enough to have any effect on shifting that playing style ratio.
We did have some rather large players (both tall and wide) that year who got better and better as the season went on culminating in a 3rd place at Cup.
643 Anon
The short answer is yes but I think there's more to it than simply the Race 2 format. Field layouts that don't reward movement and aggressive play is an issue as is player perception. The stats on Race 2 point margins have also altered the way the players think which sometimes alters their decision-making process.
Mark
Ah-ha, match duration changed. That's a far more important factor in shooting less paint overall that season than going to 10.5 bps.
Did match length change or just the race2 amount?
I'd assume both but just curious
I don't see a reason to make things different between divisions. If lowering rate of fire for pro's tips the risk/reward balance for them, then it does the same at the divisional level. Having different rates of fire between the two at the very least negatively impacts practices that aren't pro/pro.
I voted 10.2 for everyone, but wish their was an option for - Just make it the same for everyone.
D1-PSP
Results will NOT be what the PSP hopes for. At longer ranges less players will be shot out because less paint is in the air, primarily off the break. This will lead to more 5 on 5 points which will most likely take longer because no team will have a distinct advantage OTB. Once players settle in and at closer ranges 10.2 won't be "slow" enough to encourage "breathtaking" moves…
PSP D2
splatkid wonder how anyone was ever shot off the break when the fields were 300 feet long 150 feet wide and the manual cockers the players were shooting would only shoot 8 bps?
have you thought about the fact that psp doesn't want faster points? they want more option for action within the points regardless of how long the point lasts. with the logic you use you probably don't recognize that there will be more chance at action with 20% less random balls flying around the field, either.
Now now now, we all know they are just doing this because their paint budget was huge last year. Not only for events, but especially practices. If you're a business man and can save 20% of your paint budget that's a huge deal.
You might have slow heavy paint consumption points on finals day, but that's 5 days a year, compared to 10-15 major practice weekends a year.
I find most of this debate somewhat ridiculous to be honest.
There are two effects of changing ROF, that are logical and cannot be disputed, if all other things remain unchanged:
- Paint consumption
- Chance of getting eliminated (especially true during movement - incl. the breakout - where volume of paint has a greater impact)
Now, if you think the impact on the game is negligible, that just means the implemented change wasn't severe enough to ensure the desired effect.
Baring this in mind, the debate should not be about what you "feel" is the best ROF, but rather about the desired effects, and why we want those effects.
If for instance the object was to promote more movement during games.... at the extreme end of that argument, you could argue for ROF to be set at 1 BPS.
Obviously we will not end at that extreme.... but what the desired end result is, should be the debate, before we start to talk about how we get there.
splatkid10, if all the lower ROF will do is reduce the number of kills off the break, thus eliminating the advantage for the team that comes out with greater numbers after the breakout, does that not also reduce the number of games that are decided by "luck", since the skill of the players hasn't changed? It would seem in an athletic competition, you want to eliminate as much as possible those situations where luck is the key factor rather than skill.
Nick B. is right. So what is the PSP's desired result?
Anon 1235, I'm sure players were shot off the break then but not as much. Were any of those players shot off the break headed to a back corner on a hyper ball field? Then they probably made it just fine! Go back and watch the movie Smoked, you'll see SK making it to a back corner bunker with a pallet strapped to his back!
Yes, 20% (little less actually) decrease in paint in the air OTB I would argue will cause an INCREASE in survivability OTB. If you don't see how the math in that works, then go take a probability & stats course at your local CC.
Lets define action here as we think the PSP sees is - big moves, lots of bunkering, people getting blown up. All those things help speed up games. If someone makes a big move into the snake and crawls the length, pop up shot 2-3 guys, the point is over. The announcers preached the high risk high reward moves…they want more high risk moves…thus more high rewards (which means lots of bodies dropping off the field) thus faster points!
reiner - so can I assume you're saying that at the current ROF players like Dave Bains and Mike Paxson only get kills OTB due to luck? That at 10.2 their luck drops? I'd present it that shooting OTB is a skill, they're very good at it compared to most, and a drop to 10.2 will make it harder for them to do their job as effectively.
I see your point about leveling the playing field and providing the advantage to the more athletic…but we all carry paintball guns that shoot 300 fps - it is a great leveler. I would also add, and some may disagree, being crazy fast and agile is athletic, but having a great snap shot or one ball type shot is also a skill into itself and I believe indicative of an athlete. I'd call skeet shooting a sport, but they may not be as "athletic" according to the definition you used.
No, I never said that getting kills off the break is due to luck alone. It's definitely a skill, but the skill element decreases as the ROF goes up. All you need to do to confirm that is think about what it would be like at the two extremes. At 1 or 2 bps, only the very skilled will get kills otb relatively consistently. At 50 bps, almost everyone would be able to get kills otb relatively consistently. It would be sheer luck to make a relatively long run at extreme ROF's no matter who was doing the shooting. But the games would end quicker.
What I think you're saying is that the probability of kill (Pk) rises with more paint in the air, I agree. But the Pk for a top back player as a starting point at lower BPS is higher. Yet is it high enough…that's the question.
@Reiner
Recapping what you're saying - it takes more skill to lane at 10.2, so less people would be able to do it effectively. Based on this, you could also say that it takes more skill to gun fight at 10.2, and yaddayaddayadda.
So, theoretically, this would widen the gap between the top and bottom pro teams even more, and when you have both against one another this could support the PSP trying for faster/exciting games through one team getting blown out.
Except, when two top teams (or two bottom teams) play each other won't it do the opposite and slow everything down?
Regardless, I don't think the PSP is trying to showcase paintball-skills by lowering the ROF and we're back where we started again
We're not back where we started. You're back where you started. And you'll stay there because you don't want to move.
Just summarizing the reasons/outcomes of the change to 10.2
1. Faster / exciting games
- Given whats been said, NO
2. Save paint costs
- Highly doubtful
3. Encourage new players into competitive paintball
- Given that the change is only for the pro players, again highly doubtful
4. Unify the international leagues
- Why? Especially when PSP is considered to be the highest quality league in the world
The only other thing I can think of is this is being pushed by Damien Thareau due to some radical prop/fieldsize/layout change they'll be implementing so that there's a need for 10.2.
**I don't know Damien or his role and most likely way off, I'm just trying to connect the dots
Splatkid:
Lower ROF requires more skill as an OTB shooter.... so quality will mean more.
NStoer, I was actually just responding to splatkid10 who said that many games are decided by how many players are shot otb; that a team that comes out with great numbers after the break will win more often (which makes a lot of sense and there are probably statistics to support that). By eliminating more of the “luck” element and replacing it with the “skill” element, if his theory is true, less games would be decided by luck by reducing the ROF, all else staying equal.
If you are suggesting then by extension, gun fighting eliminations as well will be decided by more skill and less luck, then that would be a good thing wouldn’t it? If it widens the gap between the top and the bottom Pro teams, then there is something wrong with the way the recruitment/retention of players is set up, not the fact that the games would be decided more by skill then by luck. Who wants to watch an athletic competition whose results are based on a large part by luck, just so the weaker teams will have a better chance of winning? You want as much skill and as little luck involved as possible, in any athletic competition.
But all that is irrelevant if we don’t know what the true reason for this move is.
No quite Reiner
OTB shooting is not luck..... but obviously it takes more skill the lower the ROF (I can use my 1 BPS example again to illustrate)
Ok, so Reiner and Nick…I see your point as to if the ROF is dropped the OTB shooting skills are highlighted…more skill = better chance of a G OTB.
However, I have to imagine at a certain ROF that there is a break even point…I don't care how good of an OTB shooter you are, you just aren't going to get the kills. Is 10.2 it? I think it may be enough at 150 feet. Obviously people are hit OTB in Millennium and when ROF's were lower, but I'll wager not as much - without having any stats or evidence to back that statement up!
And yes, my point was more G's OTB, faster the games are…the more "action" the games have. But in points to a post I made on the blog post below this one…and as some have been alluding to, what is the PSP's goal here? Is it really action? Cause then according to MY theories I'd jack that ROF up to 25 and say let all hell break loose. What they're getting at…well they think they know, but it seems like we don't. The least we can hope for is that they are solving the right problem.
ROF / BPS??? Again what's the penalty for sitting back on your heels and waiting out the clock? None that I can see - ROF decrease just seems to me to allow more players to get to their perspective bunkers and wait... as usual - Doesn't seem to matter if its a race2 or halves - when the clock runs out it doesn't matter if you have 1 point or 7 - So how about PSP implementing some sort of penalty for stagnant play aka for the lack of a better term a "shot clock" - Hell just divided each half of the field in to thirds and give a time limit to occupy that zone (get you butt moving or get pulled at the end of time say 1 minute per zone ????) or what about per point time limits (2-3 minutes per point - max)? If you run out of time split the point 50/50, then at the end of a 15 / 20 min match if tied - go to 1 on 1's that everyone seems to really like... Thoughts????
I agree Nick. Inversely, as the ROF goes up, less skill is involved (there is still skill, but it becomes less). A runner cannot run through a stream of paint at 50 bps, no matter how skilled he/she is. The shooter does not have be very skilled at that point (assuming he has enough paint to sustain the rope and can maintain aiming the barrel in the right direction). The difference between 12.5 and 10.2 isn't going to change the outcome of most games, but it will change the outcome every once in a while if one team's players have more skill shooting otb.
Michael B, I suggested a similar idea on here once before and didn't get much positive response. Good luck. ;-)
I don't understand why people want to force fast play so much.
I also don't understand the radical suggestions people have put about penalizing slow play. What's so bad about slow play? Fast points are only fast because there are slow points.
As a spectator, I enjoy the variation in the length of points. It adds a bit of variety in to the game.
Constant 30 second points, every point, game after game would not be exciting for long. Much more exciting when a team pushes hard seemingly out of the blue.
The game is not stagnant, and while competitive paintball isn't perfect, pacing is really not an issue IMHO.
Regardless, we've identified so far that faster play CANT be the reason for the change in ROF (unless the decision makers are extremely misguided, which I doubt).
NStoer puts a point across pretty good about other possible reasons for the change. They just don't add up.
So what is this 10.2 ROF for? Could it possibly be purely experimental? Just seems so strange...
Also, how much of an impact do we think this will have on G's OTB? Will it be a significant difference?
Why is it highly doubtful to save paint costs? Who gets free paint? The pros. Who buys paint? The amateurs.
Reduce the amount of free paint you give out and maintain the amount of paint you sell. Sounds like a win. The suckers in divisional play who insist on shooting faster are playing right into the manufacturers hands.
I assume everyone who hates on 12 figures that no one has any fun playing paintball in Europe! 10bps is fine. It takes getting used to. So did everything else.
Just go play paintball, you'll have fun, I promise (unless you're a sucker who always blames your loss on the refs, the rules, etc). Then you're probably more cut out to have fun writing BS online.
Reiner - you're right it may not get a lot of response but the fact of the matter is that if PSP's intent is to speed things up then the zone idea has merit - JMO - I do however really like the zone idea for lower divisions where funds seem to be more limited (or at least for our team) - zone play = quicker points = less paint consumed = lower costs (which might help bring more players to the game that are struggling with cost considerations).
@Michael B, it would also make for more interesting viewing knowing a player HAS to make a move sometime in the very near future...tic, toc, tic, toc, the clock is ticking.
The penalty for not making a move should be losing, and that just comes down to designing fields where teams that sit lose.
Lower ROF makes for a less stagnant game.
Obviously there are fewer kills OTB, but pursuant to that, it is easier to move across and up the field, and it becomes harder to dominate an opponent by sheer firepower.
ROF does not only impact one part of the game.
But it isn't any easier to move on the field beyond the breakout. If someone is laning you at 10.2 you won't try to bump through it, you'll still have to put people in and go. The only difference now is your less effective putting multiple people in shooting 10.2; on those few extremely important seconds while you're wraping you're now asserting a lot less pressure.
The only thing 10.2 will do is give a greater chance of living on a bad bump when you should have been shot.
There are so many factors on how a paintball flies that accuracy by volume isn't unskilled, it's necessary. The top players don't put every ball on target 100% of the time because it's impossible in our sport, they put as much paint as possible where they need to in hopes that one shoots true and hits it's target, if it ends up being the first ball then perfect, but many times it isn't because of a dirty barrel, a badly made paintball, the wind, the weather, etc. Higher rof helps against that and produces more kills which equals faster games.
I don't know what the answer is, but from a spectator point of view, a format that promotes movement is a good thing. Gunfights are boring as hell to watch. When they finally end because someone got shot out, my feeling inside as a viewer is, "I'm glad that is finally over, now maybe something interesting will happen."
If you have a stake in the game, I guess the end of the gunfight will have some emotion involved for you, good or bad, making it more "exciting". But a spectator without much stake in the outcome is just bored. There is a reason paintball didn't last on TV...and it's not because it's not a fun game to play.
Just a random brainwave I had, but why not try to revamp the scoring system and tie scoring to point duration?
Go back to halves, maybe not full 20 minutes, but maybe something like fifteen minutes per? Award maybe 3 points for a sub 1min score, 2 points for a 2min hang, and 1 point for everything else?
If the scoring could be reworked in a meaningful way to allow for constant play, maybe similar to soccer and hockey where players are entering and leaving the field fairly frequently, but less "goal" oriented, I think it would be revolutionary for paintball. Somehow you'd have to have an objective(s) that handles to some degree the downside of the winning team camping out on the objective.
I suppose the pattern would actually be the UWL which awards the score based on flag possession/duration, minus the crazy scenario style and bazookas.
I've got some ideas, but I'm not too interested in hashing it out because really no idea is perfect and no one wants to make major changes anyway.
I disagree that "gunfights are boring as hell to watch".
Gunfights are an absolute fundamental part of the game. Forcing them not to happen is changing the sport many of us love.
On the flipside. Everyone loves to see big moves, myself included. But I've said it once and I'll say it again. Quick points are only quick because of slow points.
If there was a run-through point after point, game after game they would quickly become less impressive. The fact that they are tough to do adds to the impressiveness and excitement of a successful attempt.
Ok, now I will not deny that the balance between quick and slow play should be shifted a little more to aggression for a spectators standpoint, but slow play, and gunfighting, have their place in the game.
These format suggestions that force quick play are not healthy. They would minimise the plays a team have available and thus hurt the strategy element of the game somewhat.
Take the zones example. If that were to be implemented, I'd wager the result of every point would be the team that got out of the zones first would just lock it up and force the slower team into their lanes as they try to escape the zones.
The "defence" element of the game would still exist, and could possibly be abused with that tactic. What would we do then? Make a rule saying you cant do that either?
A format like that just over complicates things. If you did want a format that encourages faster play rather than forcing it, I recall a post on another thread suggesting a scoring system.
The way that a scoring system could work is that you score 3,2 or 1 point based on how long it took you to hang the flag. This would mean that the 3 point deficit would be easier to come back from and players in the lead may rethink when deciding to lock down the field whether they'd just want to curb-stomp the opposition instead. For this to work of course you'd need to increase the score limit from 7 to something higher, or remove it and run 20 mins.
Just want to point out this was not my idea - I read it on here somewhere before.
Back to the 10.2 - have to agree with NStoer again. A lane on your bunker is still a lane. Only benefit 10.2 will have to the aggressor is a little more mercy on a sloppy move.
Come on
It is indisputable that lower ROF means less of a chance to get hit.
Thus, the lower the ROF, the more movement we will see during games, all other things being equal.
It's simple math.
Whether 10.2 is the right level, or if it should be lower/higher for the desired effect - and what the desired effect is, is another matter.
But trying to say lower ROF makes no difference is simply silly.
I think using extremes, yes. 12.5 to 10.2, its not gunna make a massive difference. 10.2 isn't going to enable much more movement.
2 less balls coming in at the edge of a bunker per second is not going to enable more opportunities to move, but when you decide to move, there is a slightly lesser chance of getting clipped by a player that picks you up.
And totally agree, what that desired effect actually is is another matter :)
Ok so the "zone" idea is my contribution to this discussion (as unworthy an idea it maybe) but as it has been disputed forcing the the other team it your lanes because you "got up the field first" doesn't seem like a bad thing, if everyone moves to zone 3 on the break (we know that won't happen, but if it did) then I would wager we would see some pretty good gunfighting. If they time the zones, make the time for each zone graduated (zone 1- 2 mins, zone 2 - 1 1/2 mins, and zone 3 - 1 min) it would give you enough time in each area to work out your next moves then make them - I'm talking about 3 1/2 mins a point (long enough to do some work but quick enough to keep the action in the game) award ties or no points for time expiration - then go to 1 on 1's (snap shooting and gun fighting again) to break all ties like the do now - just no OT ( where once again players just sit and wait for the time to run out if no kills OTB) - seems to make sense...
Eh, just go to a time based point award system and/or have an additional objective besides the center flag.
It could just be as simple as a point for first pull of the flag and 2 points for hanging the flag within 30 seconds of the pull. 1 point for hanging the flag longer than 30 seconds from the pull.
What kind of dynamic would that add? Teams rushing for the flag, and trying to close the game out quickly? Or teams waiting to grab that first pull until they can confidently hang it in time? Keep in mind the opposing team will try to rob them of that crucial first point.
But the 30 second countdown from the first pull should really add some pressure.
At least it gives a very focus point on the 50 that teams will have to fight for, rather than making any kind of scoring system completely dependent on shooting the other team completely out.
Makes sense, in the same way that the NFL would be played way faster, if you had to do a 2 minute drill on every drive..... hey, let's get that implemented - enough of all that boring running game! ;)
Before actually criticizing 10.2, try playing at 10.2 first!
Our team competed and won a PSP at 10.0 bps. Switching from 15 bps directly to 10.00 was something we scoffed at initially. and granted, the rof change down to 10 is a noticeable difference when firing the marker.
However, even with a very standard, well balanced layout (2009 WC) players were getting shot OTB with about the same frequency as 12.5. Despite our teams effective laning, point length varied as it would at higher rof... at the end of the tournament we had shot much more paint than anticipated. I do recall bringing a minimum of 6 pods for each point and majority of the time blowing through every pod. This is the same amount one would go through in CXBL at 15bps give the game time.
Despite our initial reaction to the concept of 10 bps, at the end of that tournament, we shot more paint than anticipated, surprisingly laned and got laned as much as expected and the games did not feel much different.
The one aspect this did affect was snap-shooting at close distances.. at 10bps you are really able to engage back with someone attempting to hold you in... and say between 15-20 feet, an inexperienced player can dump pod after pod and effectively prevent any counter shooting at 12-15bps.. at 10bps.. the gun battle becomes really technical.. and a player's experience, accuracy and technical skill shine.
All told.. this was D2. I have years of CXBL, D1 exp. Ten plus years of paintball experience.
The pros are tighter, faster, smarter.. I think 10 will not make much a difference for them. Logically it should save more paint for practices and teams.. and at this stage in paintball's path.. that is needed above all.
My thanks to all the commenters--a lot of thoughtful ideas expressed well--except of course for Nick.
Grizz
Re-read your 4th paragraph followed by the first sentemce of your last paragraph. I would suggest to you that the revelation was consistent with your abilities at the time and that what you experienced happens for the pros at 12.5 bps (or even above.) And if that is correct reducing the ROF reduces the skill threshold required to compete as a pro.
Something we discussed briefly in the ROF Change thread on Nation. Is the sport "boring to wathc" because of issues with game play, or is it boring because of issues with presentation?
The more I think about it, the more I lean towards the latter.
To a non-paintballer, the sport is incredibly boring to watch.
It was 20 years ago, and it still is today.... despite all that has been done to change "presentation" over the years.
When you do not have a background as a player, all you see is 10 guys sitting passively in bunkers shooting.... you don't know who they are shooting at or why.... and every now and again someone appears to take a chance and run to another bunker, and then sits in his new spot and shoots.
The repetitive nature of the race to format makes it even more boring for a non-paintballer... but IMHO that is a marginal change.
There will be a day, where the combination of tv production technology and paintball technology makes paintball exiting to watch, because we can finally convey the exitement of the game to the general public..... but it will have nothing to do with game format and everything to do with technology.
The only way paintball could be made exiting to the general public with todays technology, is if the format was 1 on 1.
Even 1 on 1 though would be boring to watch. Yes it would be relatively easy to follow because now there is basically just one thing to focus on, but all you see is two guys behind bunkers shooting at each other...EVERY time. The risk/reward is quite low to make a move to another bunker when you know your one and only opponent is watching you. And what would be the point of moving to another bunker anyway? Just to move the gun fight to a new set of bunkers?
I agree Reiner, I'm just saying that it is the only way to make it interesting to non-paintballers - it could be staged like a boxing match
Yeah, like a boxing match but without the blood and the sweat and the action. In other words...booooring!
Paintball needs to be viewed from behind the breakout box, not from one side of the field
People need to watch a team move up the field, and likewise watch an opposing team move down the field.
Layouts need to be made so that bunkers don't block spectators from seeing the players (on their half of the field) as they move up.
Once that's done, then we can properly see if paintball can be understood by an outside spectator. Chances are still won't be great but it's a start.
How on earth will you design a field, so that bunkers doesn't block out moves for spectators, without it being an incredibly open and defensive field to play?
You can't have everything, and if you want fast paced and exiting paintball, you need a lot of lanes blocked out.
Post a Comment