The Baca Addendum

Is it synchronicity or serendipity? (Google a definition, slacker.) The current Monday Poll wants to know your favorite format given that there is no world standard just yet--and the NPPL has jumped into the multi-point variant with both feet for 2012. But even that is just the same old same old after a fashion. Nothing groundbreaking. (Other than the tacit admission they needed to do something other than traditional 7-man to be competitive.) And then there's the new NPL (National Paintball League) being discussed over at the Nation. Like the original tourney alternative [the first USPL] it features offense and defense. A smaller field not unlike the old UAPL--that was also 3-man. The NPL splits the difference and goes with 4 players per side. Perhaps most intriguing is the fact the NPL is imagined to function from the grassroots up to a national title event modelled after more traditional sports but also akin to VFTD's own (Almost) Everything Tournament Paintball Needs To Know from the Dead Tree Archive (and the days of real paintball magazines.) Also along the way there's been real Xball, 'Moneyball' and truckloads of other random ideas for how competitive painball ought to be played. VFTD has even contributed the purely hypothetical Bacaball to the list of mostly ignored (forgotten) ideas--and probably rightly so. (Except of course for Bacaball.) But reading about the NPL got me thinking--and that's always a dangerous proposition. And I've got the answer. The Baca Addendum. [Cue Also sprach zarathustra]

Before I get into that though a couple of asides about the NPL. As raehl mentioned [at PBN] they need to focus on the basics for now and not sweat the superstructure of unnecessary rules and requirements and procedures that will only inhibit their potential for growth. (Thanks for asking, yes, agreeing with Chris about anything was a singularly unpleasant sensation.) This is not, btw, an endorsement. I've read the website, watched the videos and seen the comments (so far) and I'm unpersuaded but that's neither here nor there. If the game has something going for it--and the creators don't suffocate it prematurely--it may find an audience and if it gets and keeps peeps playing competition-oriented paintball that wouldn't be a bad thing.

About the Baca Addendum. It's one simple idea built on existing notions of playing competitive paintball. [So simple in fact that somebody must have already thought of it but was ignored or didn't set it up quite right. I'll be interested in finding out.] It's 3 simple rules that can be added to any common format or variation currently played although it really will work best in a multi-point or time limited match. It'll work in 3-man, 5-man, 7-man or whatever you like. On a PSP, NPPL or MS field layout. It will work for beginners or pros. It will both offer focus and strategic and tactical complications at the same time. It will make players better. It will reward both athletic and intellectual agility. The variety it can produce is unparalleled. And I will explain it in detail after I test play it. (Which will happen within the next two weeks.)

Kaos Theory

(Btw, I started writing this on Friday so I am claiming this post was delivered "on time." Baca time, that is. See the time stamp.)

There's really nothing new here. I just like to give stuff names and I like kaos theory because there already is a chaos theory--duh--(that says, in part, that certain kinds of dynamic systems are determined by their initial conditions and are entirely predictable--at least in theory--but otherwise appear entirely, well, chaotic)--and that is very much what offensive paintball looks like too. (But it's not.)
Kaos theory relies on sensory overload to be successful. Everything you are taught about playing competitive paintball is turned on its head in the dynamic offensive game. You are supposed to play tight and limit risk. Control lanes and wait for opportunities that are frequently the result of eliminations. Moreover, making big and/or aggressive moves too early is often a recipe for getting blown up and putting your team in a hole. And even if the big move works it can leave a single player overextended and pinned down. So what gives?
Where most teams and/or players go wrong when they want to be an aggressive offensive powerhouse is ultimately they fail to commit. They chicken out. Like a wide receiver in football going over the middle they alligator arm the attempted pass--they get halfway through doing it right but suddenly seem to realize how wrong it could all go and try to pull back--and that's when it all goes wrong. Every time. Guaranteed. The first rule of offensive paintball is follow through because once you (and your teammates) make the move it's all or nothing.
My first team captain believed in offensive paintball--and so did we (it sure seemed exciting anyway)--but we sucked at it. As a team we had a few team rules. One rule was if you see a teammate making his move--you go too. In simplest form that's what offensive paintball is all about. It didn't work for us very well because we didn't know how to practice being a cohesive offense. Or even how to think about what it took to execute aggressive offense. Back in their respective heydays that's what teams like Aftershock and Image were all about. (Don't get me wrong. Even the most offensive of teams executed their offense under control but when they came at ya, they came in a wave.) Think too of early 7-man Dynasty.
A decade ago Dynasty revolutionized competitive paintball with their aggressive running & shooting style but they were just building on what had come before them. And it wasn't the running & gunning that made the difference--that revolutionized the competitive game--it was the speed. (The running & shooting helped make it possible though.)
On last thing before we nail kaos theory down. Vision. And communication. They perform complimentary functions. The issue with both is collecting, disseminating and interpreting information about what is happening on the field--now. Conventional paintball wisdom says that visual and communicated information facilitate action. That is, if you know enough about what's going on it allows you, as a player, to act.
Kaos Theory says we are gonna give you so much information so fast you can't even begin to process it fast enough to act effectively and as a result we is gonna run you down and blow you up. Think of a player making a bunker run. Even with sideline coaching it's almost impossible to stop because it happens too fast for the player being run down to receive that information and act to counter it without getting shot. Now multiply that effect by 5. Or 7. Or, back in the day, by 10. Now I know what you're gonna say: but, but , but--if a team is committed to defense and crossed up covering lanes offense is simply going to run to their death. Which may be correct in certain situations but that isn't a failure of the kaos theory concept, it's a failure to properly execute it.
Besides, I never said it was simple to do--just simple to understand. Watch a couple of Aftershock or Impact videos from NJ. When Impact attacked the show side of the X watch what happens and what the rest of the team does in response. That's offensive paintball. (In Impact's case their pressing the attack was usually conditional.) Watch a couple of Shock videos. You will see offensive paintball. Watch the end of the Shock-Damage match and you'll see Damage counter with their own brand of offensive execution in an effort to come back. It doesn't always work but when it does it's a thing of rare beauty.
If you're still uncertain or unconvinced try thinking of it like this. Imagine you have a bird's eye view of a game being played. It unfolds over 3 or 4 minutes with moves, matching or countering moves, working angles and players shooting paint. Eventually one team gets an advantage of either numbers or field position and begins to attempt to close out the game. Rewind the game back to the beginning but this time play it on fast forward. The same things happen, they just happen a lot faster. Kaos Theory says a team (or player) can neutralize a team's defenses simply by executing their offense so fast the other team is unable to process the dynamic changing field situation fast enough to stop them. Is offensive paintball an every point or game option? Probably not for most but only because effective execution at speed is almost as difficult as trying to stop it.

The Inside Out Game

The Inside Out game is the default strategy of most defensively oriented teams. It can also be a very effective tactic for any team. Conceptually the Inside Out game is a low risk, lane control, rotation denial strategy that follows up the initial breakout with staged bumps to secondaries accompanied by moves from further inside--out. For example, (using the PSP NJ layout) the widest player OTB on the pitside takes the MT. Two players remain at Home. When the MT player makes his next rotation--to the pin, the corner or the MD feeding the snake--one of the Home players fills the spot in the MT. (And if the gameplan dictates or circumstances allow when that player moves the remaining Home player may also fill the MT.) In this way the movement risk is lowered and the key lanes maintained. There are of course also various options that can be played out from the Inside Out formation like delayed breaks to the corners, etc. but those alter the risk involved. So one aspect of the Inside Out game is about player positioning and sequential and matching rotations to work players into outside positions. The other standard characteristic of the Inside Out game is the basic shooting lanes, which are also typically inside out, as the goal is to deny the opponent wide positions OTB and an Inside Out breakout permits 5 guns up laning. (And, if one or more opponent is eliminated OTB the Inside Out configuration can easily transition into offense with attacks up the center that cut down angles & distances in order to keep remaining opponents contained. It is in the transitions, and the time it takes a team to react, that you can see whether a team is defensive or offensive in their orientation. (And in the pro game every team will opt for the offensive transition but one of the distinctions between pro teams is how quickly and universally a team will effect the transition.) The object of the Inside Out game is to limit risk, control wide rotations by the opponent, get eliminations OTB & take early control of the field with the intention of progressively building on that foundation to get wide and/or work upfield and consolidate the initial advantage with superior angles as the mid-game transitions into the end game.

Okay, but what can you to do counter a team playing Inside Out? Or, what are the risks of playing Inside Out?

There are 3 basic counters to the Inside Out game; get wide, mirror the breakout or press a strong center attack. Inside Out's effectiveness is typically a direct corallary to how effectively it keeps an opponent from getting wide. Once the opponent is wide Inside Out becomes a disadvantage as it cedes all the best angles to the wide players who in turn play to contain and fix the positions of the team playing Inside Out. (This still devolves into gunfights initially but wide guns also make it easier for the opposition to push the wires too.) If the Inside Out team gives up the wires too easily it's time to switch tactics. A mirrored breakout ought to be self-explanatory. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.) And the strong center attack hits the Inside Out team where they are weakest as the basic strategy is to stay inside and shoot wide. A center attack is relatively easy to execute--or at least move players into position--and then its effectiveness depends on the element of surprise and the boldness of the attackers. Of the counter options getting wide is best--if it can be accomplished.

Conversely the risks of playing Inside Out are ineffective lanes OTB, ie; letting your opponent get wide early, being unprepared for a center attack and weak gunfighting skills and/or edge control. No tactic or strategy can overcome poor individual play and inferior skills. Playing Inside Out is a good option to have available but no single strategy is always going to be a winner.

Next time; Kaos Theory: How & Why Pure Offense Works. (Yes, I know I spelled "kaos" wrong.)

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.