Game Philosophy in Action

While I'm in Phoenix noodle on this post for a bit. I'ma try to post up some daily drivel on the PSP proceedings in Phoenix but no promises. Next week there will be a Phoenix wrap-up and part 2 of Game Philosophy & Officiating. (I know, you can hardly wait.) (Plus the long-awaited TBD experience in France.)

If you had a blank piece of paper and an opportunity to re-write the tourney paintball rule book what sort of game would you craft the rules to deliver? It's not, btw, a trick question. It is however a much more difficult question to answer than you might at first imagine. So this is your chance to give it a try. Don't worry about specific rules. Instead focus on the play of the game; what you'd like the game to be like and then consider what the rules would have to incorporate to make your perfect paintball game a reality.

Go on. Give it try. Where's the harm? You might even enjoy it. You might even have the next big idea. Could happen.

MS Paris Longchamp blowup

Before I begin on the upcoming MS event layout I need to apologise to VFTD's followers out in PALS country. I received their layout with a request to do a breakdown--which I intended to do--but neglected to check the event's date. And--you guessed it--it done came and went. Sorry about that.

This field is a very technical design that is playable but only highly skilled players are going to be able to make the most of it. (And I remain skeptical that they will enjoy it much.) Less skilled and lower division teams are likely to work ruts into certain runs and bumps because they won't have much alternative. I expect some teams to find this very frustrating unless their players happen to enjoy routinely running to their death or constantly battling out of props that don't push the action.

Let's briefly discuss the snake side. The Home lane displayed in red is the probable primary OTB lane. (A better lane is the one inside the Can and between the trees and SD but I suspect it will be difficult for many team's primary shooter to consistently put an effective lane thru that zone.) However the red lane, when shot properly, will deny the mini, tall cake and snake. (Barring bad luck and/or bad paint.) And it is easily redirected on a player trying to make a move into the Can. Additionally, a disciplined Home shooter will be able to deny upfield bumps past the snake SD with very little difficulty.

The props marked in yellow are the only dual elevation props on the snake side (excluding the trees.) By dual elevation I mean the props may be played on a knee or on the feet, even though the tall cake can--and will be --problematic--as will the Can. Given the elevation and placement of the rest of the snake side props only the Can and Home are decent counters for an active snake player--which is another reason many teams will maintain a Home shooter. Otherwise contesting the snake will be much like the D-side; up close and personal. And with no snake corner prop the SD actually slows down a player's ability to get wire-side; making the snake more difficult to take OTB. All things considered for most teams the snake side is likely to slow play until bodies start to drop.

More interesting is the D-side. The gradient pink area is the primary OTB laning zone. A Home shooter also has a very narrow lane (see dotted line) that will be dependant on actual on site prop placement plus a lane on the outside of D1 (or D3.) In the case of the dotted lane the fact its trajectory must be lifted above the near T will allow a runner to dive low between the Can and D1. Given that there is a D-corner bunker it will be possible to run the Can OTB and if you can make the Can you can make D1. Note all the blue lanes from the various D-side props. Only the mirror Can or the nearest-to-Home MD has an opportunity to contest the run. The run requires speed but it won't be that hard to make. And once in D1 a player commands lanes on all the snake side props except Home and the snake itself. If that happens OTB it should result in a short point.

Because other D-side props can't contest D1, it will be necessary to close and attack the opposition directly. By the same token there are few effective lanes to battle D1 there are equally few lanes that can support and defend D1. Which means, like the snake side, contests on the wire sides could devolve into who bunkers who last. Or, everybody can hunker down and shoot long range lanes.

The primary tension created by this layout is the need to battle at the fifties versus the obvious utility of keeping players in Home. Figure that out and you may have discovered a winning formula.

Tipping Point

As I'm enjoying the format discussion instead of adding comments I'm going to focus on a couple of items of interest and see about extending the dialogue with some additional related posts. This will, once again, delay the regularly scheduled posts including the series posts you may or may not have given up any hope of ever seeing. I haven't forgotten them--I've gone high tech with Post-It notes. So as long as the adhesive lasts I'll have colorful reminders decorating my computer.

While I'm all for talking new formats and debating ways to "fix" or "improve" the existing game but no change occurs in isolation and every change needs to be examined with respect to the other parameters of the game. The idea of a "tipping point" suggests there is a harmony or balance in the status quo (otherwise it would be in a state of constant flux) and the tipping point is reached when some aspect of the existing balance or harmony shifts sufficiently to change the status quo. Fo purposes of this post and in a game application the Tipping Point is reached when a change, any change or series of changes sufficiently alters the nature of the game so that the game itself becomes something different. I bring it up because one tangent in the comments is discussing the various virtues of Hopperball and/or other measures of limited paint. (Of course the current game also uses limited paint but what the restrictionista mean is even less paint. And along with the cost savings being promoted less paint will mean more movement--both of which are viewed as good things.

Since VFTD long ago pointed out the correlation between ROF (volume of paint) and the potential for movement I have no objection to the concept. Same goes for cost savings. (Who would oppose making the game more affordable?) But--

It's more complex than that. The current relationship between ROF & movement as the game is played now is a function of field dimensions (and field dimensions are tied to effective marker range, more or less.) Imagine a field three times the current xball dimensions with everything else being the same. In the game on phase movement isn't inhibited at all and that doesn't change (much) until the proximity between players closes to ranges within our current field size. And now you may have the issue of bunker relationships--did we begin with the same number on a larger field?--how close together or far apart are they? Too far apart on the same dimensions we currently play and we've altered (again) the balance between ROF and movement.

Once upon a time (I think I've used this illustration before but I like it so you're getting it again) at team practice we decided to play 5 on 5 on a speedball field with pump guns instead of our regular markers because, you guessed it, we wanted to limit our paint usage, save some money, focus on accurate shooting and so on. However, our best laid plans didn't survive the second game as the team that lost the first game realized a couple of things and thought they could take advantage. The first thing they realized was that OTB everyone took up primary positions that covered lanes but also restricted visibility. The other thing they realized was that the dimensions of the field in play meant that a pump's ROF was too slow to control movement. (Given they were old field rentals.) With the next game on one team broke out normally--given they way they were thinking about playing the game--and the other team simply ran them down using speed to counter the pumps ROF and the other team's conception of the type of game they were playing. Once it became clear that the size of the field created an insurmountable imbalance between pump guns versus foot speed the plan for practice fell apart.

The rather long-winded point is twofold; sometimes there's no telling exactly where the tipping point is until you experience the result and when you start making changes in the parameters of the game they cannot be made in isolation without risking running full speed ahead into the nearest tipping point--and who knows how many unintended consequences. By all means let's keep the dialogue going but maybe try to keep the Big Picture clearly in sight during the process. (Of course, the notion of new formats at a minimum implies new, or at least different games from the one(s) we play now.