tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post8492872865043382727..comments2024-01-19T00:21:36.058-05:00Comments on View from the Deadbox: The UCP Meets The Bass-O-MaticBaca Locohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-73213279811956298442009-04-01T14:18:00.000-04:002009-04-01T14:18:00.000-04:00I also think the CFOA is doing the right thing her...I also think the CFOA is doing the right thing here - maybe you missed the part where CFOA already uses UCP though. So if you like the CFOA approach, you like the UCP approach.<BR/><BR/>- Chrisraehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-30622775502592098752009-04-01T09:43:00.000-04:002009-04-01T09:43:00.000-04:00i understand the problem raehl, and honestly: i ha...i understand the problem raehl, and honestly: i have no clue what the solution is, but i have to kinda side with Chris AND you on this one. why cant local events have "beginner" and "advanced" division, both open divisions to anybody but in the beginner division cut prizes and cost to a minimum -- offer trophies or paint from the field for the kids and let the "established" teams pay more money and compete for more. <BR/><BR/>the cfoa's three man series (which was revamped this season) has a similar structure: d6 players play for event trophies and medals, at the end of the season the best three teams from each field in the series are invited to compete at PBC Rockhill for a "sponsor prize package." Cost for each tourney is 90$ entry plus paint. It's cheap, it's fun, and it's worked pretty well. 43 d6 teams competed at the first stop (and yes, the tourney's are small, but it creates a good environment for the players as it's low stress, just having fun).<BR/><BR/>d4/5 in this series is a combined division and they also play for event medals/trophies...at the end of the series best three teams from each field are also invited to compete for a year end package that includes: 500$, free world cup entry, 10 cases of paint, and the field they played at will recieve a new xball field. 29 d4/5 teams played at the last stop.<BR/><BR/>personally, i think the cfoa is doing the right thing here -- make it low cost, have fun, and for the teams that want to be more "serious" they'll be able to play the entire season and have it "justified" at the end.J-Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06416239725595871329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-77015490285990519282009-04-01T00:53:00.000-04:002009-04-01T00:53:00.000-04:00Lawrence:In what percentile should a team have to ...Lawrence:<BR/><BR/>In what percentile should a team have to place before they are moved up to the next division at the end of the season?<BR/><BR/>Top 25%? Top 10%?<BR/><BR/>Let's say you decide on the top 10%. Are you only going to move up 5 teams a year out of a division of 50?<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, no classification system is going to beat basic math, and basic math says that no matter how you divide the teams, 90% of them are not in the top 10%. Even if top spots were shared equally, teams would have to play 10 years for every team to have a top-10% of the season.<BR/><BR/>The best the classification rules can do is make it so that you play teams of a similar skill level to you. So you may never win tournaments, but you'll at least be winning games, and most times you step on the field, if you play well, you have a shot at winning.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-85898270029810349822009-03-31T22:18:00.000-04:002009-03-31T22:18:00.000-04:00Baca - If that were true, why are they making the ...Baca - If that were true, why are they making the assumption that there are enough players to fill a D5, D4, and D3 division at each local event?<BR/><BR/>If I could have 30 teams at each one of my local events I would be SO thrilled...Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14830291107215987209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-71588838164291919652009-03-31T14:13:00.000-04:002009-03-31T14:13:00.000-04:00Yes, Lawrence, it makes perfectly good sense. The ...Yes, Lawrence, it makes perfectly good sense. <BR/>The PSP however is very concerned that the well is drying up in the new players coming to tourney ball and teams forming category and I think that some of this classification nonsense is in response to that concern. Unfortunately all it has proved effective at doing so far is driving out established teams at every level of play.Baca Locohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-77577019839807131502009-03-31T11:51:00.000-04:002009-03-31T11:51:00.000-04:00as a d5 player in the cfoa -- i enjoy playing uppe...as a d5 player in the cfoa -- i enjoy playing upper ranked teams in practice. i hate paying money to go to a tournament then get skunked every game. It's not worth my time nor my money when i could be doing something more productive for cheaper (ie- practice). <BR/><BR/>What's even worse is that I know that even if my team does decent...say in the top 15 consistently, not making it to quarters, just barely making the cut each event then i'm almost guaranteed to be pushed up a division...where ill sit and repeat the last season watching the two or three power house teams compete for first while my team just cant, due to funding, lack of teams to play, etc... <BR/><BR/>I personally think that this needs to be fixed -- there needs to be a way for a team to remain in a division until they EARN their way into the next, and i mean show consistent results at the podium/making the cut. This way teams that get smashed in d5 wont just repeat...itll give at least two seasons to beginning players: one to get their feet wet, the other to actually play. I know it sucks for the other beginning teams, but at the bottom there needs to be a more limited "open" division.<BR/><BR/>does that make any sense at all?J-Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06416239725595871329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-6450168755954879542009-03-31T00:37:00.000-04:002009-03-31T00:37:00.000-04:00He most certainly did not make a D3 to D3 comparis...He most certainly did not make a D3 to D3 comparison. He said "first time player" and then made a D3-to-first-time-player comparison.<BR/><BR/>The answer to his hypothetical question is, they're not going to do anything to them, because Billy Bob's Super Snipers is playing D5, where VWC isn't allowed to play.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-86736089372324127062009-03-30T19:22:00.000-04:002009-03-30T19:22:00.000-04:00Sorry raehl but you are, as usual, not responding ...Sorry raehl but you are, as usual, not responding to what Chris posted. He specifically made a direct D3 to D3 comparison. His point was that a team like VWC might as well be the Ironmen relative to some new to D3 team.<BR/>I don't have a dog is this particular fight but at least address the point he was making. (Sheesh.)Baca Locohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-7583155263278807442009-03-30T19:13:00.000-04:002009-03-30T19:13:00.000-04:00Reading comprehension Chris. I never said a FIRST-...Reading comprehension Chris. I never said a FIRST-TIME player was any better today than they were 10 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Not letting guys who have been playing for 10 years play Rookie teams isn't punishment. It takes a whole new level of pansy to bitch because they aren't allowed to beat up on newbie teams.<BR/><BR/>Awwwe, newbie teams are not forced to pay entry fees to buy a prize package that your team can come and take from them, you poor, poor baby.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I get it. This is bad for those teams that were running around local tournaments clobbering the newbie teams. That's not a problem with the system, that's the point! If we don't give new players the chance to have FUN while developing into skilled players, we're never going to get past having a handful of teams with one or two teams beating up on everyone else until they quit. And that model is not good for ANYONE.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-73877518065383311762009-03-30T19:08:00.000-04:002009-03-30T19:08:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-40250927456067359702009-03-30T19:06:00.000-04:002009-03-30T19:06:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-59887197249621788112009-03-30T10:44:00.000-04:002009-03-30T10:44:00.000-04:00This is so wrong. Chris you want to play both sid...This is so wrong. Chris you want to play both sides of the fence when it is beneficial to your argument.<BR/><BR/>So, a first time player TODAY is much better compared to a first time player 10 years ago. Why does that player need this "Protection"<BR/><BR/>Stop talking about "Pro's" that't not the problem, its the Rookie players that are causing all the problems. You feel we need to punish the guys who have been around for 10 years+ and make it so they can't play because some 2 year old D3 team can.<BR/><BR/>Answer me this simple question... Looking at last season, you had teams like VWC, DSS, Fierce, all in D3. <BR/><BR/>Now, say VWC is at a local "D3 or lower tournament" and so is "Billy Bob's Super Snipers" Its their first tournament. What do you think VWC is going to do to them?<BR/><BR/>Swap VWC with Iornmen... Think the outcome is any different?<BR/><BR/>XChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14830291107215987209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-85888745716611160812009-03-30T09:52:00.000-04:002009-03-30T09:52:00.000-04:00Sometimes players are promoted on experience, not ...Sometimes players are promoted on experience, not talent. Especially out of the lower divisions - a system that only moves players up when they "feel" they're ready to move up is just plain not tenable - nearly everybody ends up in the lowest division.<BR/><BR/>This wouldn't be as big of a problem though if we could stop giving out prizes at every level. Save the prices for Pro/Semi-Pro/D1 maybe D2. Everybody else gets Trophies. Then people would stop thinking they need to win prizes to finance their play (which doesn't work anyway) and events would get cheaper all-around (don't have to buy prizes). And when you're not paying one or two teams to play down as long as they can, it'll stop skewing team's perspective on whether they're "ready" to move up or not.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-8923484371163159532009-03-30T06:05:00.000-04:002009-03-30T06:05:00.000-04:00-ps on the "old/new school" bit I'll add that it i...-ps on the "old/new school" bit I'll add that it is always way too easy to sit on the sidelines and talk about who should have done what, etc. When you're on the field its a whole different ball game.anonachrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-51599365627613868572009-03-30T06:04:00.000-04:002009-03-30T06:04:00.000-04:00But back to the real point. Is there nothing to sa...But back to the real point. Is there nothing to say to the resistance/discomfort of moving someone up before they are ready?<BR/><BR/>You say they are ready to move up, when they personally sense no change in their skill level, not to mention in many cases their results don't back up the assertion.<BR/><BR/>So you either need to convince people that the divisions are not organized on talent, but rather some combination of playing history and/or come up with a better classification system (who knows? not me).anonachrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-76265225117331024882009-03-30T05:57:00.000-04:002009-03-30T05:57:00.000-04:00Huh... I find it more likely that they improved in...Huh... I find it more likely that they improved in some areas and decreased in others. I'm not sure why you'd somehow think that the format and structure of the game would cause all skills to increase equally.<BR/><BR/>Like was said, no one can win the argument. I can see where you are coming from.<BR/><BR/>But the nature of the way the game is played causes certain skills to decline in favor of other ones. I already agreed that snap shooting, run/shooting type skills they have improved.<BR/><BR/>But I can't count the number of times I've seen players get stuck into this "run to your bunker and shoot mentality" that in some cases doesn't serve them so well. <BR/><BR/>I'm not living in the past and I understand that technical talent is better in many/most cases. <BR/><BR/>But some things seem to have been lost... patience in the midst of chaos is become more rare. Even Paxton is losing it a bit... you used to see him hold out on his own more comfortably when he was outnumbered on the field... now I see a lot of guys resorting to the "just run out into the open and get shot".<BR/><BR/>That sloppy play has always happened... but there are some things that seem to be missing. The best pros today have a really good sense of field awareness, "feeling" whats going on, etc. But a lot of times when you watch how things get played out, it gets discarded in favor of run to the spot and shot. And at that point it seems the game comes down to a 50/50 chance.<BR/><BR/>Of course I'm generalizing, as are you. I think the answer is a lot more nuanced and not so clear cut as you do.anonachrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-4755800410408368052009-03-30T03:04:00.000-04:002009-03-30T03:04:00.000-04:00Just because you can't see that today's Pros are b...Just because you can't see that today's Pros are better doesn't mean you're correct either. ;)<BR/><BR/>Some of the Pros are the same. I find it hard to believe that they have not become better players over the course of 10 years.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-41141783275519113682009-03-30T02:36:00.000-04:002009-03-30T02:36:00.000-04:00raehl factionTwo different things. Present day pla...raehl faction<BR/>Two different things. Present day players--as a group versus present pros. If you want to amend and go for players as a group being better today than 10 years ago I could go with that one. You're on much shakier ground making a straight pro to pro comparison however and the fact you can't see it doesn't mean you're correct.<BR/>And format does matter. As does equipment used.<BR/><BR/>This is one of those debates that won't have a satisfactory outcome though so let's just agree to disagree on this one.Baca Locohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-59468567802771292622009-03-30T00:42:00.000-04:002009-03-30T00:42:00.000-04:00"Sucked" is an intentionally dramatic way of putti..."Sucked" is an intentionally dramatic way of putting it (wouldn't be any fun if I couldn't ruffle some old-fogie feathers), but the point stands: Present-day players are better than players of 10 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Format is irrelevant - you can divide tournament players up into any group you'd like and present-day players are still better than players from 10 years ago.<BR/><BR/>But maybe you're just trying to bait me into a bad XBall vs. 7-man argument.<BR/><BR/>And while I've never been a Pro paintball player by any means, I was definitely a lot closer to your average 1999 Pro player than 2009 Pro player.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-59742406772532385132009-03-30T00:29:00.000-04:002009-03-30T00:29:00.000-04:00raehl (faction)Just because you've always sucked a...raehl (faction)<BR/>Just because you've always sucked at paintball doesn't mean your opinion about the relative merits of players holds any water. In this hypothetical match-up what format is being played? What equipment is being used?<BR/>Today there are xball teams that can't compete effectively at 7-man and vice versa. Which of those groups sucks in your estimation?<BR/>While almost certainly true that there are more dedicated players practicing more (than 10 yeara ago) and that they are likely more athletic the sweeping judgment that the "old" players defintely sucked is one of your dumber claims.Baca Locohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-74078460259570250472009-03-29T17:42:00.000-04:002009-03-29T17:42:00.000-04:00Sorry, but players 10 years ago, compared to the p...Sorry, but players 10 years ago, compared to the players of today, absolutely sucked. No doubt whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>Some of today's top players are actually the same people who were the top players 10 years ago. Do you think they have not gotten any better in 10 years?<BR/><BR/>Not to mention that your average player has gotten younger, leaner, faster, and practices more.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you take the 10 best guys in the game today, and have them play the 10 best guys in the game from 1999, and it would be a blowout. You take 10 guys from a team of average skill in 2009 and put them against a team of average skill in 1999 and it would be a blowout. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of common sense, even if it may help the feelings of people who played 10 years ago. (I'm one of them - I harbor no illusions that todays players would kick my butt - in fact, I've proven it!)<BR/><BR/>And as a consequence, a lot of this was not a problem 10 years ago both because the difference in the level of play from a brand-spanking-new player to the local field hardasses was less, and because in 1999, the equipment used by the local field hardasses was not nearly as punishing on the new players.<BR/><BR/>Reiner:<BR/><BR/>Hockey, skiing, snowboarding are all as or more expensive than paintball. They don't play for prizes either. And on the paint front, I think that's a chicken-and-egg problem. You wouldn't feel so compelled to shoot more paint to win if there was not that cash prize incentive for winning the event.<BR/><BR/>Besides, even if the paint issue were the problem, that's easily fixed by eliminating prizes in favor of awarding a paint allowance to teams that advance to the next round.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-21302265411851495932009-03-29T15:16:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:16:00.000-04:00"but the old school guys have quite a few tricks a..."but the old school guys have quite a few tricks about laning up their sleeves..."<BR/><BR/>And in case you don't believe me... I'll share a couple. If you push on the cocking rod just so, cover your max flow "vent" in the right spot, or swap you bolt out after you chrono old schoolers were able to get really good at laning!<BR/><BR/>/end jokeanonachrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-81423002706662350172009-03-29T15:13:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:13:00.000-04:00Hey now hold on... I haven't played seriously in a...Hey now hold on... I haven't played seriously in about... 10 years... don't be casting that everybody sucked 10 yrs ago crap around. You don't know jack if you really think that. <BR/><BR/>Bacas post about adding a 3rd dimension to the fields would be meet with fear and "unfair" whining from the kids these days. While only the truly adventurous and quality players would embrace it.<BR/><BR/>Remember back to the mounds field in PA? Or that awesome field in Dallas (can't remember the nick name if it had one... huge dirt berms everywhere). <BR/><BR/>The ability of players to not only deal with changes in terrain, lighting, etc but to exploit them at the right times showed how much more "Depth" players had back then.<BR/><BR/>On a technical snap shoot, run shoot laning basis I'm inclined to agree with you that modern players are better but the old school guys have quite a few tricks about laning up their sleeves...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, to the point of this classifications structure I have sympathy for Chris' argument above that labeling someone as "D3" basically means "you suck" and if someone believes themself to be D3 caliber they aren't going to be confident stepping up to D2.<BR/><BR/>This is completely irrational, which is maybe why your rational mind doesn't grasp it. But the simple fact is you can't give someone a label and expect them not to apply that label to themselves and resist changes that force force them to "step up if they're not ready" (at least in their minds.<BR/><BR/>The way around this? Don't make them step up until they've clearly demonstrated they can win an event or come close to doing it. In addition consider some kind of term of classification change. I'm not sure what it is exactly. <BR/><BR/>But if you basically tell someone "you're not good enough to place in that division" and then the next year tell them "now you're good enough to play in that division and we're forcing you to do so" don't act surprised when people who feel they play the same or worse than they did last year resist being "moved up".anonachrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-80314062186399635822009-03-28T20:39:00.000-04:002009-03-28T20:39:00.000-04:00"There is a reason the vast majority of sports com..."There is a reason the vast majority of sports competition does not involve prizes. People participate in sports because they ENJOY IT.<BR/><BR/>Paintball seems to have forgotten that."<BR/><BR/>That's because many are looking to be compensated for all the time and and finacial resources they have commited. In sports like soccer, basketball or hockey, players basically spend the same amount whether they win or lose. In paintball that's not the case. Those that spend more (mostly on paint) win more than those that spend less. Therefore those that commit more resources to the game, are going to feel they should get more out of it (be compensated). It's a basic flaw in the sport, in my opinion. To gain experience and the skills necessary to compete at high levels, you need to either be independantly wealthy, or give up everything else in your life and throw all your resources at paintball. Those that do that, feel they are owed something. And maybe they are.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, ignoring everyone else, or giving them the crappy end of the stick, makes for a very small crowd; a crowd that can't sustain itself.Reiner Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11735297279972068471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-75059122807794807932009-03-28T19:43:00.000-04:002009-03-28T19:43:00.000-04:00Well, for starters, 10 years ago, everybody sucked...Well, for starters, 10 years ago, everybody sucked.<BR/><BR/>But, you've said it yourself, somebody has to lose. In fact, most people will lose. So the question is, which is going to lead to more participation - a scheme that caters to the winners, or a scheme that caters to the losers?<BR/><BR/>There is a reason the vast majority of sports competition does not involve prizes. People participate in sports because they ENJOY IT.<BR/><BR/>Paintball seems to have forgotten that.raehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311405248370629057noreply@blogger.com