Baca's Mailbag, Dec 23

What do you think Division 1 teams can and need to do in order to better themselves to make the jump to Pro? Besides the experience, what do Pro teams have that a successful D1/ Semipro team doesn't have and how can we best prepare ourselves for what's to come.

Players capable of competing on the Pro level. Of course part of that capability is born of experience--but not all of it.
Then there's the interesting qualifier; "successful" D1/Semipro teams. But what constitutes successful in this context? The big unknown for any team making the jump is whether the team belongs or doesn't. Let's look for a moment at the last two PSP am teams to make the jump; Vicious & CEP. Vicious via D1 and a Semi-pro season and CEP from D1. Vicious finished 10 of 12 teams in their first season and 8 out of 10 in their second with one Sunday appearance. Fortunately that Sunday came at Cup and provides a lift going into next season. CEP finished 10 of 10. Would it surprise you to know that Vicious has only won 2 PSP events since 2007? And that CEP won only one of 8 D1 events and one of those D1 seasons also saw the PSP offer a Semipro division. I mention the history of the latest two additions to the PSP Pro division because almost everyone would have said they were successful programs prior to making the move. (I am not, btw, saying neither Vicious or CEP can compete at the pro level but I also don't doubt for a second it's proved much more difficult than either team expected.) The (apparently) soon to be Pro Upton 187 has been more successful winning their final three D2 events and the final two D1 events this past season. That's 5 wins in the last 8 events. Now that is a successful team. Will it translate into pro success? Depends on what "success" means, doesn't it? Just being able to call yourself a pro player or have PBN turn you green is not success. Joining the club isn't success--it is the ultimate challenge in competitive paintball--embrace it.
Realistically--for pretty much everybody--early on success is survival. Success is staying engaged, staying positive, fighting the good fight. Recognizing there is a steep learning curve. One positive way to do this is to have clearly articulated goals. Focus on those goals and focus on learning the necessary lessons the competition will try to teach.
As a practical matter there are perhaps a few proactive things to be done. Play pro teams. (Easier said than done, I know.) (Keeping in mind that practice isn't competition. You only succeed in practice if you learn something and improve.) Organize your pit. Do it the same way every time with everyone having a known role to perform as required. (The less the team has to think about things other than playing the better.) The same applies to any and all team-related roles. It promotes order and frees the players up to focus on playing. At the beginning of each season the team should set goals, by practice, by event and for the season. Adjust upward as needed. Make every practice count. Practice needs to focus on making each and every player better, every time. (The critical question is how, I know.) One way is to tape practice and matches for later evaluation. Ideally, here's where a captain or coach can make a significant difference, particularly one who has been there and done that. It's mighty hard to know what you're missing when you don't know you're missing it. It is also difficult for most teams to internally evaluate one another and the team's deficiencies--much less have a good idea how to fix identified problems. And most players, however motivated, need someone to help draw the best out of them. And of course Race 2-7 is a more tactical and strategic variant than they will be used to as well.
At the end of the day there remain no guarantees. No sure fire answers. No roadmap to certain success. The best you can do is do your best.

Baca's Mailbag, December 19

For 2012 we will be playing D2 Xball nationally and I feel like all of our gun fighting skills individually are there, but just as a team I'm worried about the overall game plan execution. What are the best ways to lay out a game plan? How to make sure everyone sticks to their objective for that point? AND at what point do you have to change the game plan when it's not working? When you're down 0-3?

A good off season question. One I could (sadly) spend hours and pages answering but for now let's cover the rudiments and follow-up in comments or with another question--or ten. The two core points are simple; the game plan begins with (but extends beyond) the breakout and the players must know their role despite the constantly shifting game play. You have the weekend prior to the event to decide what your breakouts will be and the different ways you will sequence the runs during the breakout. (See below.) And to run those breakouts and run options until your squad is comfortable with the basic breakouts. That's the easy part.
When we talk about roles we're talking both fundamentals of playing the game--What is the wire lead's primary responsibility?--and if you're the third live player between two wire players what's your job in closing out a point? What do you do and why do you do it? And we're talking positional responsibility. What is the job of the snake side insert? When and how does the Home shooter decide to make a move? Too often what happens is teams run their breakout and just let the rest of the point happen. It is important in practice to play various mid- and end-game scenarios as teaching opportunities and in the process use those opportunities to also define what the role is of a each player in various positions on the field. Finally, despite  what seems to be the conventional (uninformed) wisdom it's very important that players communicate on field in order to cooperate and coordinate their actions.
You don't change the plan. You come prepared with a number of breakouts and alternative ways of reaching your desired primaries. You practice them in advance. Your alternatives are designed to keep your opponent guessing--and shooting the wrong lanes at the wrong times--and as pre-arranged responses to certain predicted situations. If we can't get into the snake OTB this alternative will accomplish our requirement with only minimal delay. For example, when you struggle to get your player into the snake OTB add a Home edger who delays his primary run; or trail a corner runner who is gunning back into the Home zone; or send the corner runner first and trail the snake runner who is gunning the Home zone; or delay the snake runner until other guns are in position to counter the lane shooter(s) and slingshot the snake runner once your countering lanes are up, etc. The basic goal doesn't change or even the number of players committed to the effort--just the way you accomplish the task OTB or soon thereafter. But if you haven't practiced these options you cannot expect to execute them in a match.
The basic in-match adjustments are principally changing shooting lanes OTB and responding as needed to inside/out play. Lane adjustments can be anything from edging, to doubling lanes with delaying secondary shooters, changing the zones runners are shooting back into, etc. The reason you change shooting lanes is as a direct counter to effective laning by your opponent, to increase the effectiveness of your laning or to facilitate making your primaries. Knowing when to make adjustments depends on recognizing your opponent's tactics and communicating with your players. Inside/out play refers to the tactical option of either aggressively getting wide and on the wire OTB or keeping extra shooters inside to add lanes OTB and take primaries on the delay or else play short primaries looking to make limited, progressive bumps to the wire(s). The issue is effectiveness. For example, if your opponent is playing inside OTB and consistently eliminating one or more of your players an immediate adjustment may be required. Conversely if you're playing short and your opponent is getting wide and taking the play away from you, again an inside/out adjustment may be necessary. The standard inside/out adjustment is to match your opponent. Alternatively simple lane changes may suffice. Knowing your team and experience will tell you what you need to know. Expect a learning curve and incorporate adjustments into your practice.

2011 World Cup Asia layout analysis

I know I said I wasn't going to do any more of these for a while but Mr. Allan Phang of PALS (and much more) made a special request--and it is World Cup Asia--so here you go.

This layout fits a recent trend of more technical and demanding fields coming from our friends at Adrenaline Games. (Which isn't a bad thing.) (I don't know if they were responsible but it looks like it.) The one unfortunate element to this layout is the MTs filling the four corners. (See Orange.) Largely because this layout will encourage a team's defensive tendencies and those MTs will look like impregnable fortresses off in their corners. The other characteristics trending toward defensive choices are the two MDs positioned on either side of the breakout. Add the fact that neither the first snake or the D-wire offer many clean kill lanes but will either be difficult to get into or hard to stay alive in and a defensive game plan begins to look like a good option. Then there is the fact that many of the props in the Home 30 look like they give you opportunities to cross up lanes all over the field. (If you divided the field into thirds, from wire to wire, the Home 30(s) would be the sections at each end, approximately.) However, on closer examination I think you'll discover that the Pins, along with some other intervening props, do a good job of allowing lines of sight but break up the shooting lanes well enough to make a lot of those cross field lanes only marginally effective as a feature of your game plan or general strategy. (In addition, a commitment to cross field lanes will tend to give up rotations on the wire. What I mean is many of the bunkers that appear to give cross field opportunities are also the same bunkers that allow you to contest movement on the same wire.)

I am not suggesting that a team shouldn't choose to play this field from a primarily defensive posture. I wouldn't but it might be the proper choice for some teams. The deciding factor is the relative skill, across each team, when matched up with their opponents. In order to play this layout aggressively it will be necessary to contest key edges and dominate certain lanes--along with getting the advantage OTB more often that not.

How you and your opponent play the Pink Zone OTB will be critical to your success or failure. The placement of the Home Can well up into the mid-field increases the risk of keeping laners inside but it would be a mistake to assume teams won't attempt, at least on occasion to keep laners at, or near, Home to shoot lanes OTB and take their primaries on the delay. As a unit your team needs to be prepared in advance to make necessary adjustments from match to match. For example, there are a number of ways to counter inside laners--with edgers, by matching them and being more patient, attacking the center to cut off the ability to get wide late or by getting wide and turning wide guns back inside. Of course the options are more sophisticated than that too. For example, your opponent is running snake OTB and to assist the runner they are stepping out an edger to take anyone in the Home Zone off his lane. You have two good counter options for this: your Home laner shoots a close lane aimed at the edger and a second laner steps off the board shooting the snake lane, or, Home continues to shoot the wide lane and your counter is the step off player who looks to shoot the edger. (For more detail look here & here.) [I was looking for past posts on countering laners OTB and didn't find any--which doesn't mean they don't exist in the archive somewhere--but maybe a follow-up is in order.]
Let's talk about the Red TCK. The run is to take it slightly wide, gun up, and come back into the TCK while defending yourself by shooting the zone around your opponent's TCK. The Pins will handle the rest and if you, as a team, run either the snake corner or the snake often enough to keep your opponent honest the snake TCK will become an easy primary and the natural secondary in the progression into the snake. (However, the corner also offers a good option for making the bump into the snake.) Sure but why is the TCK red? Because it is likely to be the critical control bunker on the snake side of the field. If you can control the TCK, or get routine eliminations from it, you will stymie your opponents attack and if you can contain a primary opponent in the TCK you pin his teammates in their primaries as well. Don't get me wrong, you have to deny the snake first and foremost but assuming you are doing that consistently all snake attacks will revolve around movement into and out of the TCK.
So what's up with the Green Brick? It could be the key to successfully playing this layout. It is relatively easy to make this prop as an occasional primary--go for it too often OTB and your opponent will be expecting it and have a gun dedicated to stopping you--or a quick fill as a secondary from a number of other primary options (Home Can, D-side MD and insert Temple) and once a player is in the Green Brick that player has a number of active options. It offers a good crossfield lane on the snake section one to two gap, snake two and the gap between the corner MT and the first snake section. And it also can function as an offensive transition prop by being a launch position to move into the center of the field or rotate from the inside out over to the D-wire. Given the gap between the D-wire SD and the 45 Temple the Green Brick offers an excellent alternative means of reaching the 45 Temple particularly in concert with another teammate's active support.
One last note regarding the Orange MTs. When pushing to close a point out the corner player(s) must close the gap between themselves and their lead players. A failure to do so reduces your active offense, reduces the number of players and guns your remaining opponents must contest and could result, if you lose a lead, in giving up a body unnecessarily along with a big chunk of field position. The inclination will be to stay in the MT--it must be resisted--and the MT player must move upfield to support the close of the point.

I hope this helps some of the participants in their preparation for this coming weekend's competition and good luck to everyone competing in the event.  

2011 World Cup practice, part 2

Yesterday was the set-up. Today we begin to dig into the details. But before I get into specifics I want to suggest some Big Picture ways of thinking about the practice process whether we're talking drills, intra-team scrims or full blown match sims against real competition. It is not about winning. Points, matches, the day or internet bragging claims. Nobody gets the trophy for practice. It's about becoming better players and a better, more fully prepared team. It's about taking every opportunity to improve; to learn. In this instance it's about learning the specific field inside and out, individually and corporately, and matching our talents to the demands of the field. In this process you are testing various options; everything from breakout runs--do we run & gun or just run?--breakout action combinations (paths, sequences, delays, spacing)--lanes OTB--and counters to your opponents actions--and adjustments to his counters of your efforts. There are too many important things to accomplish to worry about "winning." (There is one important caveat to the "winning" practice isn't important conversation. And that is dependent on the personalities on a given team. If a team has very limited competitive experience or tends to lack confidence as a group or perhaps wilts a little under pressure a team's leadership needs to be aware of those tendencies and act accordingly. It may be necessary in those sorts of circumstances to tread more carefully but even then the time has to come where the team either steps up to the challenge or they don't.)
Also, a quick note regarding individual players. Versatility & competence. The more options you as a player can perform at a high level the more utility you have to your team. Do you not worry too much in practice about your laning ability 'cus that's not what you do? Are you exclusively a snake player? Or a doritos player? If your skill set is limited what happens when a player comes along who does your job better than you do? Here's a football analogy for you: Think running backs in the NFL. Do you know what the number one deficiency is that keeps skilled runners off the field? It's the ability to block and pick up blitzes. But what's that got to do with running the ball like Barry Sanders? Nothing but it's still part of a running backs job description in the NFL. Running backs who want to be in the game for more plays learn to block. If you want to be more valuable to your team and get as many reps on the field as possible the more things you do well the better.
One of the things we do in practice is move players around. In practice there are no snake players or dorito players or Home shooters, wire leads or inserts. Are some guys better at some aspects of the game? Sure, but everybody is capable of playing pretty much everywhere and fulfilling all the roles required and the better they are at more parts of the game the more they are relied on and the more different situations they can be counted on to play effectively. On the Cup field we made a number of positional changes from our norm. Ramzi was returning from an injury and in practice was struggling a little bit to find his rhythm playing the snake. Instead of having no options I moved him to insert and moved Holliday over from the D-wire to snake lead. I could do that because Ramzi is a very good lane shooter and support player when called on and Holliday was (and is) a great snake player before we moved him to the D-side. And we didn't leave a deficiency on the D-wire because Jake has improved so much this year I was totally comfortable with him as a D-wire lead along with Chad. On Friday we were without Bryan Smith so Timmy & Jason did some double duty playing both sides of the field. No problem. On Saturday and Sunday with Bryan in the line-up Timmy played exclusively on the D-side even though he almost always plays the snake side (because he too is an excellent snake player.) This time we needed him on the D-side and it wasn't an issue. Plug & play. But it wasn't (isn't) enough for one or two guys to be versatile. Numerous members of the team needed to be able to fill changing or different roles effectively in order for me to be able to make those changes.
Back to the Cup field--and the forward MT most everyone was playing on the cross to try and control snake entry and movement. Given my pre-practice evaluation we began Saturday's scrimmage both playing the MT and looking for ways to deny the MT to Dynasty. I didn't like taking it off the top (as I thought it mitigated the effectiveness of our OTB lanes) so we mostly moved into it on a delayed basis. Either immediately after laning from Home OTB or later in the point depending on Dynasty's ability to get into the snake. Over the course of the two days of practice it remained an option but we used it less and less. Instead we chose to counter from the dorito wire or from within the snake itself. It was possible for D-side players to stay alive even with a snake player in the midfield snake segment so we didn't worry about it to the point of consistently committing a player to try and stop the snake.

Coming to that conclusion involved the full two days however. Early we tried pinching the MT runner OTB with a D-side Home shooter and edger--which was frequently effective but allowed a free run wide. Later, after Dynasty started using the snake corner to harass the MT we slowed our Temple insert runner in the zone between the TCK and the Temple (snake-side) where he could lane the player moving into the MT who was, initially, still focused on shooting the head of the snake. Later they countered by shooting a primary lane inside the Temple to hopefully get a runner and counter our ability to kill that guy early. At which point we ran the corner and up or straight into the snake because on the break the MT was no longer defending the snake, he was defending himself. And when we had little success early denying Dynasty the snake we started playing the dead zone behind the Can (snake-side) and doubling up our lanes OTB. Dynasty tried to counter with edgers and running & gunning wide. The edgers weren't very effective so we settled on shooting the lane inside the Temple to catch either a snake or corner runner. And we tended to stay at Home early if the opponent hadn't got into the snake because both the snake corner and insert Temple could harass the MT player's edge but couldn't shoot at a tucked in Home player. (OTB Home was susceptible on the D-side so when teams would pack Home in hopes of getting up extra lanes and then breaking to short primaries we edged them from the D-side mostly or ran & gunned both corners.)

The point is we're (so far) only talking about one key prop and the process through practice of determining the best ways to play it and counter it and if either team had been more focused on "winning" practice we would have learned less, experimented less and ultimately been less prepared for the real tournament.

More next time.

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.)

Defense vs. Offense

The PSP NJO field layout is ideal for the purposes of this discussion because it's relatively easy to understand the characteristics in play--especially if you've played on the layout at some point, either at the PSP event or a local or regional one or even just for fun.
First let me suggest that more often than not people confuse the pace at which something happens for the style of play involved. Let me further suggest there are fundamentally three styles of play in competitive paintball; offensive, defensive & tactical or conditional play we can call counterpunch paintball. Finally let me suggest that teams can also have tendencies toward different styles that aren't the style itself. Few teams are truly defensive and only defensive. Fewer teams are only offensive. Most teams are counterpunchers with either an offensive or defensive tendency.
A breakout that eliminates 2 opponents can turn into a short point if the team recognizes and responds as a group (or a, ahem, team) to the opportunity 2 quick eliminations present. That doesn't make a team an offensive team. It probably does mean the players have some aggressive tendencies and have learned (and/or been taught) how to capitalize on such opportunities. However, that same team on a breakout that leaves both sides 5 up is likely to play a very different point from the one played with the 2 early eliminations. Is that a style change--or simply the result of different circumstances? (Hint: it's not a style change.)
Now consider our hypothetical team on the PSP NJ layout breaking out 5 up. As we saw this result was not uncommon particularly if the teams stayed inside and played the "safe" primaries; Home, either or both the show side MT & Can, the pit side MT and/or midfield Temple. Variations on that set-up allowed teams to cross up their lanes or play them straight up and offered movement in stages for getting wide. One might be excused for considering that breakout to be fundamentally defensive--but that would be a mistake. Any breakout, wherever the primaries are, is a tactic. What happens after the breakout is your style or tendency indicator--most of the time. (It does little good to try and force "big" breakouts if the aggressor continues to lose bodies, and points in the process. Better to take up positions that can be used to take control of the field in order to then execute a gameplan consistent with a team's strengths and abilities.) At NJ even Dynasty routinely took short positions on breakouts--and frequently do anyway--as part of a larger strategy and because they have the players and talent to execute aggressive play from any breakout formation.
Take a moment to consider the NJ layout. The show wire had limited bunker options countered by decent Home shooting lanes, excellent dead zone lanes and two stand-up bunkers the taking of which made wide rotations difficult OTB. There were better Home shooting lanes wide on the pit side along with the midfield Temple and close by MT. The layout encouraged short, safe breaks that also allowed for having 4 or 5 guns up coming off the board. (The weakness of any short or inside breakout is heavy pressure up the center--because, in part, there are no wide guns able to counter a center push. As a practical matter the only consistently effective center attack was the show wire side of the X even though teams routinely tried to use the fifty dorito and lockdown the pit wire using the upfield Can. That option was sometimes effective but usually only as part of a larger mid-game push and a numeric advantage.) Given a layout like NJ what is a team to do? To a larger than is usually acknowledged extant any given layout will strongly influence how every team plays regardless of their preferences or tendencies.

To be continued. Next time we'll take a look at the inside/out game in more detail.

2011 WCPPL Battle Royale

First, this is an excellent layout that should be fun for all skill levels while presenting the better teams with a real challenge as well. (Could it bog down? Yes, but only in games where teams are equally matched and equally timid. I'll say timid instead of what I'm thinking.) Team paintball or at least paintball in pairs will be at a premium on this field. (Let me take a second and explain what I mean by paintball in pairs. More often that not typical breakouts see two players committed to each side of the field--even when one stays Home to lane first--while the dedicated Home shooter is usually committed to one side or the other; strong side snake or D-wire. The most effective effort derives from the pair of players working together, playing off each other and the lanes Home is shooting to gain secondary positions and begin eliminating opponents. Too often, even in those basic situations players tend to play in isolation. Playing in pairs can limit the number of necessary gunfights and brings extra firepower to bear where and when its most effective, among other things.)

There's a lot to cover so most of this will be short on in depth details. If you have any questions post them up in comments. More DZ (dead zone) talk on playing the D-wire. Denying rotations on the D-wire or all out attack? Playing the center. When Home is only a TCK. Making the snake. The dominant early and mid-game bunker. Snake side DZ & when to use it. Whew!

The grey shaded areas are approximate zones where either the Home shooter or players wrapping the D-corner aztec of wire MT cannot see ... or shoot. Given that the only insert prop is a mini-race it can make the D-side breakout appear rather daunting. It doesn't need to be. With all the dead space there is no reason not to take advantage of the opportunity to shake thinks up on your opponents once in a while. This can assist in countering the Home shooter and/or allow an extra gun to be up laning. A further advantage is the player gets to "read" the breakout action and respond accordingly meaning the player isn't necessarily forced to commit to a predetermined primary but can "flow" as the unfolding action allows. Learn the field. Once you think you have it start again.

Most of the time the D-side is the weak side. Two players are committed to playing the D-side. A one man attack is high risk but if you want to have a gun in position to deny or slow down your opponents rotations wide or upfield what do you do? The green lanes on the grid show shooting lanes available to a d-side player trying to deny movement. If you push both D-side players to the wire quickly most teams seem to lose the ability to deny movement but it need not work out that way. When you are wide and your opponent isn't instead of having the lead wire player focus on inside and cross field eliminations--which is the norm--and instead have the lead focus on wrapping and denying rotation from an upfield position while the second wire player moves up looking for the inside shots. One standard alternative is to simply get upfield more quickly than your opponent. Some teams and players will attempt to counter with aggressive bunkering efforts, which is fine if you're prepared, but plenty of other teams and players, particularly divisional players, will hesitate and struggle afraid to get too close or not close enough. And the fact you already hold the superior position means they can't.

The center of the field is a must play--at least some of the time. In prepping to play the center however don't simply consider how you're going to get to a particular prop and who you hope to shoot from it. Take a few steps further. The cans can be pinched and the MD can be attacked directly. What do you do when the pressure starts to mount? Hope to get skinny and live as long as you can? Or maybe a better idea would be to move before it comes to that. But where? The other question is when do you use the center? Oftentimes center play can be conditional; shoot a wide runner OTB and move up field to cut down angles and reduce distances.

When Home is only a TCK do not let your opponent get comfortable. A lot of teams will struggle to keep two shooters alive if you attack them with edgers OTB. You should already know it's a fairly safe option from the D-side so what are you waiting for? (See the orange squares.) Teams that routinely keep players inside OTB have to be countered. Force them to change. You may discover they don't know how and one simple adjustment puts them in a world of hurt. (Of course y'all still have to be able to hit something and I've seen plenty of 12 and a half balls per second wizards who are more danger to their teammates OTB than the opponents. Go practice.)

Who can shoot the gap in front of snake 1? The insert TCK but if the paint isn't streaming it won't work because because the TCK can't see most runners coming. And can be pushed off his edge by the opposite corner aztec. How about the Can? (See purple square.) There's a lane but no telling until the field is set up how much of one. And, if you look closely you will see the Can can see the corner aztec but only part of the gap between the corner and snake 1. Struggling to get into the snake? Use the corner--push the Can off his edge--take the snake--and refill.

Why refill? Because the corner--especially when you don't have a mirror--is the most valuable bunker until the end game phase begins. It feeds the snake, can contest its mirror on an equal footing and dominate the opponent's TCK and 30 Can and even blind shoot the insert snake side MT. If you aren't in the corner you're at a disadvantage. Plenty of props offer some utility but not playing the corner puts you in a hole. (On the flipside kill the corner, deny the corner will be a very effective tactic.)

And finally, check out the red square. It's another DZ. Getting hammered by edgers you can't seem to compete with? Giving up the 30 Can all day and the guy never comes off his edge? This wide DZ could be the answer you need. Get out there quick--like you're taking the corner--but come up short, gun up, and shoot some fools. The edger will never see it coming and even if you trade out with the Can player he's no longer pinning your team to the back line.

Baca's Mailbag

Received a question recently about what to do about a team that seems to wilt under pressure. (That's my paraphrase and we'll leave the query anonymous so as not to potentially embarrass anyone.) I know what you're thinking: Did one of my teammates send in that question? It's a pretty common problem. It's easy to succeed when things are going well and a lot harder to turn things around when they go south.

The thing is I'm not answering that question today. I need a little more information. But it did get me thinking about performance in a competitive environment and what sets some players apart from the rest. And it isn't skill. Oh sure, skills are a prerequisite, the foundation of performance but there are a lot of players with some serious skills. Everybody who competes in the Tour de France knows how to ride a bicycle and has trained long and hard. So what separates the winners from the losers? (No, it isn't blood doping. Okay, maybe it is but this is just an example of a competition where the fundamentals are similar across the board.) Let's switch to basketball. And the question shouldn't be about winners and losers. The real question is what separates the unquestioned greats of a sport from all the other gifted, talented, hard-working & determined players? The answer is a self-confidence bordering on the irrational. A self-confidence that cannot be shaken by transitory failure. A self-confidence that doesn't ebb & flow with the tides of Fortune, the results of competition. A self-confidence that leaves no room for doubt or uncertainty. Michael Jordan is the archetype. (And why LeBron isn't.) I'm sure you can name other players in other sports whose performance routinely transcends that of their fellow competitors. This is a common trait they all share in degrees.
Of course it's one thing to identify what is, in many cases, a very frustrating factoid for those without and another thing to find a positive way to make something of it. (This is where Baca takes pity on all you mere mortals and herewith divulges one of the secrets to superior play.) But before I do I want to tell you a story. Once upon a time I began working with a team. From Day 1 it was apparent one of the players had enormous untapped potential. He had physical tools. He was teachable. His fundamentals were sound if perhaps unhoned. In a lot of respects he had all the makings of the perfect player--except he was a headcase; his own worst enemy. Over the course of that first season he made progress but nothing that suggested he was on the verge of fulfilling his potential. I was disappointed. And yet, somehow, sometime during the first month of preparing for that second season--the following January--everything changed. Almost overnight the lightbulb had turned on--and here's the important part--the same is possible for any and every player who picks up a marker but somewhere along the way hits a wall they can't seem to overcome.
Here's the secret: You can manufacture your own self-confidence. All you have to do is act as if it already exists. It's like muscle memory training for your emotions & perceptions. If you consistently act like a supremely self-confident player you will become one. This is easier to say than to do however. And I cannot promise Michael Jordan results if you don't have the skills and tenacity to go with the self-confidence but I do promise that it will open up both your mind and your game. Begin with practice. You will never do anything in a match that you haven't or won't do in practice. Push the envelope and keep on pushing. Believe it and you can be it.

Thoughts on the layout of PSP Galveston

As most of you probably know the new PSP rules for 2011 fostered a fair amount of debate. In particular those rules that altered the playing field. It was spectacularly obvious (to some) from the get go the new rules would be a step back from the xball ethos that has, in past seasons, driven the PSP. Many suggested, including VFTD, that the new rules would slow the games down--perhaps enough to make the clock the arbiter of winning and losing more often than the Race 2 result. We will see. It is a distinct possibility given the layout the PSP has released for Galveston. The only mitigating factor is that probably more teams than not won't be able to hit the broadside of a barn off the break--or an opponent for that matter. (And it's highly questionable if the inability to hit anyone OTB will speed up or slow down any given point. That will depend on what a team does with an 'extra' body.)

Instead of the usual review that offers some tips on shooting lanes or breaks down some aspect of how a given field will play this time VFTD will explain in detail the characteristics of this layout that tend to encourage defensive play and slow overall movement. To begin note there are three colors used; orange, yellow & green. Green for example represents those nice cozy spots where one might settle down to cultivate a little garden. (I'm kidding. Sorta.)

Sticking with green that's the real point. You'll be sticking with green. The backline bunkers are the only wire feeds that may be taken OTB with relative security. They both force the player to the ground reducing visibility and making exiting the bunker that much more difficult. The snake side "new brick" has some (marginal) utility in contesting the snake. The d-side cake has less. And as long a player is contained in one or the other it will inhibit further team movement from the inside out or compel a teammate to a longer, riskier move. On the d-wire the other "new brick" might as well be a stop sign as that is the effect it will most often have as the same characteristics apply that affect the other green bunkers.

Moving on to the orange designated bunkers it should be immediately apparent 2 of the same bunkers that are green on the diagram are also orange on the opposite end of the field. That's because the bunkers are as ineffectual as defensive positions as they are as offensive launch points. From the cake it is clear that despite an inside angle the cake cannot contain or inhibit movement along the d-wire or even contest rotations from its mirror, given the distances involved. The "new brick" feeding the snake is slightly more useful in that it may inhibit some movement but will also be under heavier attack from more positions on the field much of the time. The thing to remember is that the lack of options from these bunkers will at the same time encourage the effort to push more players to the wires while also often making it more difficult to do so.

Finally the yellow designated bunkers appear to be the only tips of the hat to the hoped for influx of lumberjacks the PSP wanted to attract with the rule changes. You know, the bigger, slower, older player who played tourney ball when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. The yellow bunkers are both MTs and both positioned where they are primarily defensive in nature and any layout that virtually requires backfield bunkers to be played for extended periods of time (or in isolation) are fields that tend to neutralize any (but not all) aggressive play tendencies.

One key to this kind of field is player elevation--and, no, I don't mean levitation--I mean lines of sight and ability to respond quickly. (Bunkers a player can stand up in, or play tall.) Much of this layout wants to bury the player's nose in the ground and that tendency must be resisted. Remember communication is just an extension of what you can see. It is important to play this field as tall as possible and maintain crossfield communication.

The Lazy Slacker Re-post of the Week

This week's re-post is quite timely on a couple of levels. It's from November 2008 and it was the second part of a two part posting called, Robots versus Ninjas. The old (and silly) robots vs. ninjas argument has cropped up again with the PSP's proposed change of no pit-side coaching and the post closes by framing the original debate--such as it was--within the bigger picture. A little something I like to call perspective, which always seems to be in short supply.

Back to the Future

Picking up on elements of the post, Weekend of Paintball, and also related to the post, Crazy is probably a little harsh, John, this post will look at the ramifications of restricted paint on upper level competitive paintball as well as evaluating the skills of the game. While I am not opposed to the use of restricted paint in tournament paintball it's critically important to recognize what the impact will be. At the developmental level--players are learning the game and have little or no experience--restricted paint will likely advance those players development by encouraging a focus on the correct skills by providing a less intense, less demanding playing environment. But what happens if you put highly skilled players in that same environment?

I've used this story before and if I have to use it again, then dammit, I will. Years ago, during the tourney transition out of the woods, at team practice we decided to use pump guns--to save paint!--playing on a speedball field. After a game or two of eventual close proximity trainwreck paintball one group decided pump guns couldn't control the field and decided to play accordingly from the go. As one side was taking their primaries, setting up and assuming we were playing the game they expected the other side kept running, ran through the field and shot everyone up close and personal. Given the dimensions of the field, the number of bunkers and the lack of firepower it only took the one game to demonstrate that pump practice was over. Once everyone understood the implication of a lack of firepower there was no point in trying to make the pumps work. The corollary lesson is that players conform to their expectations and those expectations (along with fear) frequently have a greater impact on a game's outcome than any other factor.

Let's talk more about the game environment for a minute because the issue in the pump game example wasn't limited paint. It was an inability to get enough paint in the air when needed; it was about the ROF. It was the (low) ROF given a compact field with quite a few bunkers. That combination didn't allow the pump guns to exert any real control over the actions on the field. After volume of paint the next critical calculation becomes ROF. If field dimensions and bunker sets remain the same but competitive paintball introduces restricted paint the new primary calculation becomes conservation of paint (because you can't afford to run out.) And we already know that in the current competitive environment without paint in the air you cannot control movement. If you can't control, restrain, inhibit movement the result is players quickly gaining upfield positions with superior angles in close proximity to one another. And if the combination of sideline coaches and 12.5 bps can't stop players from bunkering each other in the current competitive environment the result in a limited conservation of paint game will be trainwreck paintball--or, if a team thinks it's to their advantage they will play a defensive make-the-other-guys-run-into-our-guns style.

None of that is set in stone, of course, but in order to "fix" any "imbalances" caused by the move to limited paint more changes are required. Three options immediately come to mind; enlarge the field so the space between bunkers expands, reduce the number of bunkers or enlarge the field and reduce the number of bunkers. Two aspects of distance now come into play; between bunkers and between shooter and target. If the space between bunkers is expanded a moving player is exposed to opposition paint for a longer period of time while the distance between shooter and target roughly defines how long it will take a paintball to reach the target. The object is to restore some sort of balance of the game's elements, ie; make is as difficult to move in the limited paint game as it was in the unrestricted game but at some point proximity and ROF will (again) overwhelm the field modifications. (And where is the dividing line between difficult and a roll of the dice?) Will it occur in such a way that the result still replicates, more or less, the current game play? I wonder. If we go with option one at what point does the field become too big to play a cohesive 5-man game? To sustain any of the Race 2 variants given the time constraints built into the format? Reducing the number of bunkers might leave us with the same sized field and increased space between bunkers but will also dumb down the game play by reducing the movement options available to the player. Or a combo of a slightly larger field and a few less bunkers might work best even if it is less complex than current field designs.
One thing restricted paint can't undo is the lessons learned about how to play the game and as long as ROF remains the same (or something similar) restricted paint won't turn back the clock or restructure the hierarchy of skills used to play the game.

Since I'm running long I'ma bump the discussion of how skill fits into all this for a follow-up post.

Reading the Keys

This year's World Cup field provides a couple of interesting challenges for both the offensive- & defensive-minded teams. With the SD as the Home bunker teams will find it more difficult to keep two laners at Home otb despite good lanes to both sides of the field. That will in turn tend to push teams more rapidly into their primaries. Preferably primaries that are reasonably secure and offer lanes that can contain (or slow down) the opponents upfield moves. One of those primaries will be the near T (circled in orange) on the snake side and lots of teams will be tempted to use that Temple to try and control D-wire movement.
This poses a necessary trade-off. The trade off is unbalanced play to one side or the other. (I know what you're thinking. With 5 players there's almost always some imbalance. Except this is different.) It comes from the crossfield position and tends to push teams to favor a strong D-wire play. For example, given the limited options snakeside and the risk involved in running two players wide otb snakeside the tendency will be to keep a snakeside home shooter and run two players D-side as a typical breakout. For snakeside play this deprives the home shooter of a low risk move--except for the prospect of doubling it up and still leaves snakeside as the play's weakside. (An acceptable change of pace but also a key your opponent can "read.")

What are keys--and how do you read them? In this scenario the key is knowing which way a specific position is playing and understanding what immediate options and opportunities exist because of that single fact. Remember the trade-off? Here's where it comes into play. The (orange) temple played on the cross should immediately signal snakeside weakness to their opponent and barring a loss otb should result in an aggressive effort to push the snake and even shift a player to make the snakeside the attack side. (One common counter to this is to play the inside D-side Can on the cross as well but that puts two of your 5 players in a defensive posture otb. Which is fine if you eliminate a body or two. Not so fine if you don't.)

The larger point is that knowledge of the field and the right kind of preparation will allow players to "read" the action at various points in the game play and react in a coordinated effort without delay or communication and press the fast, aggressive game style.

A Weekend of Paintball

Last Saturday I was out with the team at our regular practice field, CFP, preparing for Cup. We already know how we want to play the World Cup layout when we're in control of a point so my focus on Saturday was addressing the ways an opponent can attempt to take us out of our game and take control for themselves. As it turned out our practice opponent's strategy was exactly what we needed. And what I expect a number of our potential opponents at Cup to employ to one degree or another.

A few former teammates (and old friends) were also out at the field on Saturday playing paintball and during a couple of breaks in our practice session I walked over to the players area for the rec ball fields. Both times the guys were on the field in the middle of what seemed like endless games. Both times I had to return to our field before they finished their game(s) and/or got eliminated. A number of the guys I used to play with who are still active have gone to playing predominantly pump paintball, rec & tourney. It's certainly more economical and it seems like pump may also be the current home of the inveterate tinker & customizer. Back when I started playing creating a unique marker was all the rage as there were lots of aftermarket parts makers while the truly enterprising no-lifers made their own parts. To look over the selection of markers the local pump crowd was playing with was almost like going back to the future without the Delorean or Doc Brown. (Thankfully no crazed Libyans wielding RPGs showed up either although they could make an appearance at Wayne Dollack's Grand Finale. You never know.) There was also a limited paint tournament event last Saturday that was of some interest. In watching some of the competition I was reminded of a bit of Faction propaganda and one statement in particular, "A slight adjustment to the rules would remove the advantage of shooting more paint and totally change the economics of tournament paintball." This particular version of the limited paint mantra is in the HydroTec thread over on the Nation. More on that shortly.

After we finished practice I hung around for a while to shoot the breeze. My friends and I walked over to check out the tournament. Turned out it was a 2-on-2 event on an approximately xball-sized field (with a few additional bunkers). The paint limit was 10 paintballs. Yeah, 10. It was a pump event. And, no, it wasn't restricted to stock class guns. More interesting was how the majority of games (points?) played out. With never more than four players on the field at a time and enough bunkers to hide half a scenario team and, dare I say, damn little paint flying around the set-up practically promised wide open, crazy action. Which never materialized. In fact 90% of the games used the same half dozen bunkers with the players one balling at each other until somebody was eliminated--at which point the remaining two player team would attempt to pinch out the single player. It was perhaps the most hilariously tedious tourney ball I've ever witnessed. I mention it because I find it instructive on a few levels and because it really was amazingly bizarro paintball. As a real world game played using Faction's limitation to the extreme it demonstrated that the controlling variable in any paintball game is the human one.

Now it's time to take a closer look at Faction's statement. He is asserting a couple of things; that some measure of restricting paint use in tournament play will 'totally change the economics of tournament paintball' and be 'a slight adjustment.' He is also claiming that any disparity in the amount of paint shot between two competing teams amounts to some sort of unfair advantage and competition by wallet. For starters all tournament paintball is already limited paint; limited to the amount of paint each player carries to begin a game or point. What Faction is really advocating is restricted paint--and if it is actually going to have a real economic impact it will need to be a severe restriction. Really, a severe restriction? Let's say a D1 team shoots as much paint per point as my pro team does, around a case and a half. Is a full hopper and three pods per player a severe restriction? Not so much 'cus three pods and a hopper is the case and half they average shooting per point. Now if that's all they had would they likely end up shooting less? Probably, but would it be enough less to really matter? How much less do they have to shoot before it makes a big enough economic difference? Or let's put it another way. The same D1 team averages 7 points played per match (MAO was between 6.75 and 7.5 points per match in the prelims) and makes the cut so they play a total of 6 matches to place somewhere in the top 4. At a case and a half a point that's approx. 65 cases per event. With the three pod restriction let's say their usage drops to one case per point, or around 42. Compare that to the D1 coach who said in response to my recent suggestion the leagues stop revealing the event layouts that his team would likely shoot half as much practice paint or less. They currently shoot 200 cases in practice between events so by his calculation they would save 100 cases. Is it the tournaments teams can't afford because of the volume of paint or is it the preparation for tournaments?

Nor will the result be 'a slight adjustment.' What Faction fails to understand is that paint is neutral; it is offensive & defensive. It is the means by which the struggle for control is contested in any and every game of paintball played. And as the competitive game has evolved it is the high volume environment that defines and displays the skill level of the individual players.

Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying limited (restricted) paint is bad. I think it's a perfectly acceptable option for tournament play particularly where the majority of the players are young and learning the game. But I'm also saying that as the universal answer it leaves a lot to be desired because it would not be a slight adjustment, it would be the first in a chain reaction of then necessary changes to make the resulting format/game playable by the most skilled players. Without sufficient paint to contest control of the field a restricted paint game between highly skilled teams will result in either a bunkerfest bloodbath or revert to a predominantly defensive match in an effort to keep enough room between the players to avoid the bloodbath. In either case it would dumb down the skill level required to compete. More on this next time when I talk about skills.

MAO Day 3

Sunday began early for some of us under overcast skies. The low slow-moving gray clouds might have been ominous under other circumstances but were overall a welcome sight as they kept the temperature down and promised, rather than threatened, the possibility of cooling rain. The fulfillment of that promise did drench a D1 match-up on the pro field and teased another match or two with sprinkles but otherwise held off as the final day of the tournament ran its course.

The pro quarters began at 8am with Aftermath meeting Entourage. This was a first for Entourage who had played well if somewhat scattershot paintball throughout the prelims. The characteristics that make Entourage fun to watch and dangerous to play also tend, on occasion, to be self-destructive. In some respects the two teams mirror each other in style, youth, energy and capacity to harm their own cause. Given a little time and a little maturity they will both get better. This time around Aftermath came out on top only to be rewarded with a semifinal against the Red Legion who carried the only perfect record into Sunday.
In the other pro quarter Damage played Impact in a rematch of the Phoenix final. By this stage of the tournament Impact was, more often than not, playing a dorito wire heavy game and Damage, for whatever reason, continued to struggle to get on track. One of the intangible qualities of this year's Impact is a collective unwillingness to get rattled or give up. Point after point they continue to fight. It's similar to the Ironmen mantra of "bloody knuckles" which I take to mean they are ready, willing, able and determined to make every match a brawl if that's what it takes to win. Damage got two majors on the second point and started the next two points down 3 on 5 but it was only two points because they managed to burn off both penalties while only giving up two points. Down 1-3 it felt like a fresh start in the Damage pit but the penalties kept coming. In the end Damage was assessed 4 majors and 2 minors and lost to a confident, consistent Impact team.
In one semifinal Aftermath went all out to challenge the Red Legion and scored some early points. They were bold and unafraid but over the length of a Race 2-7 match they were also no match for the Legion. Beginning on Friday the Legion were playing hard, precise, fast and elegant paintball. The layout suited their talent and they were impeccably prepared and executed their game plans like the Russian Legion machine of old. For anyone who appreciates and understands what xball can be to watch the Legion play the MAO was a thing of beauty.
The other semi, Impact vs. Ironmen, was a battle; no quarter offered, no quarter given. Where the Legion was paintball blitzkrieg Impact versus the Ironmen was trench warfare. Back and forth, move and countermove, a combat of attrition. It was the kind of game the Ironmen had been playing all tournament long. Tight close matches, multiple overtimes. Frequently not pretty paintball but that's not really the point. Despite the tough year to date and all the roster moves the Ironmen that showed up for MAO earned their name and proved they will be a team to be reckoned with come World Cup. The only blemish on their semi loss to Impact was some controversy at the final call of the match which swung the point in favor of Impact. Ask any ten people what happened and odds are you'd get at least half a dozen different answers. The Ironmen protested but it didn't matter, they were out and Impact would face the Legion for a second time. First time around they'd lost 7-1 in the prelims.
We decided to call it an event and pack up when the rain started coming down hard before the pro final. After getting knocked out early it was either hang around the event or hang around the hotel and the team had split on their preference so I'd stayed with the group at the field. Those hours are among the few I have at tournaments to chat with friends and enjoy paintball. Even so I'd rather not but there it is. As we readied to leave Gary Baum of Paintball Photography asked me if I wasn't staying for the final. I told him I already knew the outcome--barring act of God or the officials--and since it's Tuesday you know how it turned out, too.

MAO Day 2

Day 1 was a story half told. By the end of Day 2 the story has been written for the majority of competing teams. The prelims are over and so is their tournament. After Day 1 we were a part of that uncertain limbo, our future in doubt and we had lots of company.
The morning pro bracket had a few surprises. Much to the dismay of the Midwest Aftershock struggled, seemingly unable to find the quality of game that has propelled them to talk of glory renewed this season, and finished out of the running at 1-3. Entourage turned that result around and went through 3-1 as the four seed and a Sunday morning match-up with Aftermath ( 5 seed) whose strong Friday wasn't matched with an equally strong Saturday. Vicious failed to reach Sunday but played like they belonged for the first time this season taking two wins home with them. And the Red Legion took the top seed and a bye into the semi-finals with an unblemished 4-0 run and some dominating play.
After Day 1 our plus/minus put us at the top of the teams that went 1-1. It's not much but sometimes the smallest of margins make the difference between going on and going home. After the first day it looks like Aftermath is on their game and Infamous is uncharacteristically off theirs but yesterday's scores are just that, old news. And doing half the job isn't enough to get you to Sunday and nobody is eliminated the first day. (Hey, paintball has cliches, too!) We needed our first match of the day against Aftermath. All my calculations tell me we can get through with a split--though it's hardly a given--but our odds go up significantly if the win is against Aftermath. Aftermath is a good team with a developing roster, a building organization and a good mix of experience, exuberance and hunger. After splitting the first two points Aftermath gets a major, followed two points later by another. It's an invitation to finish the match before it ever gets started and that's exactly what we do by a score of 7-1. The result leaves questions unanswered but it is a match we needed to win. Those questions will be answered in the last match of the prelims when we face Infamous. All year long, or so it seems, we keep banging into these guys. In 7-man we've had the upper hand but in xball they dealt a second consecutive second place trophy. The numbers going in leave Infamous small hope of going through but of more immediate concern is winning the match at hand. It's hand-to-hand combat from the beginning as we eventually forge a 3-1 lead. Amid penalties and some brawling paintball Infamous brings it back to 5-5. A final 2 point surge leaves us with a hard fought win, a sweep of Saturday and a trip to Sunday morning paintball and a match-up with Impact.
Whatever Saturday paintball demands it's nothing compared to Sunday. All the preceding effort has done is earn us a seat at the table of those who can finish Sunday as MAO pro champion. The real tournament begins tomorrow.

MAO Day 1

Just a short post. It's late 'cus our games were late. We didn't get away from the venue 'til a bit after 6pm. I'd like to tell y'all we were rockin' & rolling and swept through the day's matches. Unfortunately it wouldn't be the truth. (The post title is a link to the day's pro scores.) Today we faced Dynasty & the Ironmen. The truth is we have yet to play the way we practiced this layout. Oh, sure, we talked about getting a strong jump out of the gate. We talked about being on point and focused on the job at hand from the sound of the first horn--but, but we couldn't quite pull it off. In the Dynasty match it was nit and tuck for a while until we got a major. We killed the penalty and won that point. It seemed to give us a boost of confidence and when Dynasty got a penalty we were able to press the advantage and get the win. Facing the Ironmen we got behind early and the Ironmen kept fighting. Even after we came back and got the match into overtime the Ironmen refused to lose. The day's wars left us 1-1. We have 2 more tomorrow and we need them both. (By the numbers we might make Sunday with another split but the goal isn't just to show up.)
In case you were wondering--yeah, it's bloody hot. The field is in excellent condition and the PSP extended our time between points to two minutes in response to the heat. More of the same tomorrow.

NPPL DC Semis/Finals Breakouts

I thought some of you might be interested though in all honesty there's nothing special here. No super secret breakout. No unique insights nobody else had but we did do a few things some of the other teams didn't and vice versa, of course. The places where most of the differences, and the decisions, were made was on the wires and how aggressively to press the middle and get into the U.
The dark blue shading indicates our basic OTB primaries. For example we decided we wanted to play the snake corner SD despite all the guns that could put paint on it. We wanted to have the widest possible gun to work the edges of the snake side MT and MC as we pressed to get into the snake. (Efforts across the field to take the snake OTB failed more often than they succeeded.) The corner SD could also shoot D2 and play the gap between the U & the 50 Dorito which was important against Dynasty. With the C feeding the snake surrounded (MT, MC, SD) it provided multiple options for getting into the snake as well. Additionally we had a primary run to take the C OTB--see blue dash line--that mimicked a corner run but dipped inside the SD and used the C to block incoming paint. Our Home shooter laned snakeside, the blue circle was a floater with differing primary lanes and the last two played the carwash down the D-wire and the D-corner. Two of the primary runs had delays to allow the shooting of separate lanes. Snakeside MC shot over the carwash looking for careless over the top play as well as in an effort to drop paint on the CK, where players often delayed before taking the corner. Our carwash corner held up to shoot a lane thru the U looking to catch a player moving to the snakeside MT or someone shooting a similar crossfield lane. Home shooter immediately after shooting initial lane went upfield to the center MT. That left the floater free to seek targets and lanes of opportunity although he also had a priority to play D-side if we dropped anyone on that wire. The green arrows indicate the basic secondary moves; the blue lines most of the early shooting lanes and the orange line represents Alex Fraige's run to get into the 50 dorito or U. (As mentioned in the DC Challenge recap post a couple of days ago.)
The biggest differences OTB were whether or not to delay moves to the corners (some teams were comfortable skipping the snake corner though most everybody wanted to fill the D-corner at some point); delay the move to D1 (as everybody was pounding that gap) and whether or not to go to the U early or use the center MT to launch a counter.
Nothing real fancy. Mostly just about playing smart paintball, executing a little better than the other guy and pressing home the advantage if/when you had it.

Appropriating the Paintball Lifestyle

There's a video (and lengthy comments section) over at my favorite tourney ball news, rumors & gossip site, ProPaintball. It's the HK Army Chicago 2010 video. Now, the thing is I'm not all that interested in the video--which is okay--but I am fascinated by the general debate regarding the HK Army. For those heroically out-of-the-loop the HK kids (and not so kids) initially parlayed internet popularity with hordes of adolescent fanboys into T-shirt & headband sales in order to finance their paintball. At least that's the myth. They are a bit more commercial these days--which is also fine. The intriguing part is the hook which is a Cali slacker variation of the hard living, hard partying, hard playing way of life (or so-called paintball lifestyle). Much of the "debate"--such as it is--revolves around whether or not this sort of promotion is good for paintball. While I think that "debate" is worth having when it comes to thinking about what competitive paintball is becoming and the dominant image the public has of our sport--that's not where I'm going here.
It's the paintball, stupid.
I am reminded of the high roller world of Formula One racing and the dead head phenomenon. A certain class of wealthy and indolent rich peeps used to (and probably still do) follow the international Formula One circuit; it is the quintessential jet set lifestyle. Do they love racing or is it just an exciting excuse to travel the globe and kill some time? Dead heads followed the Grateful Dead around to catch live shows and get high. At one time it was a prominent enough activity to be considered a subculture, a lifestyle. It seems to me one could as easily lump the
HK kids into the same category--and if that's all it is, it's harmless enough but shouldn't make any claims on competitive paintball. It just turned out to be the activity the "lifestyle" is constructed around.
It seems to me that a priority of a "paintball lifestyle" is, practically by definition, the paintball--and try as I might I don't now and never have seen any evidence the HK kids are particularly serious about competing. Or maybe most of them just aren't that good and the handful that have actually made something of themselves as players have done it on serious teams. There's no paintball lifestyle without real commitment to the sport.

PSP MAO '10

First I want to commend the PSP for taking the risk of putting out a seemingly unconventional field when they know there will be some vocal internet backlash and participation is down--at least in the Race 2-2 divisions. In fact the field isn't all that unconventional as this post will demonstrate although it will, in some perhaps critical ways, play differently for those players and teams who try to push the envelope a little bit. (Fortune favors the bold, it's just the referees who can't make up their minds.) Otherwise, frankly it will play like a mediocre conventional field.

Let's begin with diagram 1, the perimeter. (Btw, I'm reproducing these diagrams in small but you can enlarge them with a click, or two.) I've blocked out all the interior mid-field props so you can see the basic field layout minus the clutter and "out-of-place" bunkers. Viewed this way it's not all that unconventional at all--in fact, perhaps the most unconventional aspect may be the dearth of playable props on the D-wire. There may be lots of bunkers in the middle of the field but it's easy to see where teams & players will go most of the time OTB.

Diagram 2, Home lanes & DZs, show that while there are a few clean lanes to be shot they are, by and large, just gaps (with a couple of exceptions) and the significant amount of DZ space affords a lot of guns up opportunities--particularly in light of the real limitations in terms of the number of bunkers feeding the wires.

Diagram 3, crossfield lanes, highlights the relative ineffectiveness of the crossfield wire shots from the snake and the doritos. Those limitations are matched by a lack of shots that can eliminate wire positions. When this characteristic is a feature of a field's design one result is the field tends to play in halves; D-wire battles D-wire and snake battles snake. (The unique midfield will modify that tendency to some degree but how much will be completely dependent on the teams & players.) In purple, this design also features corner props as widely placed as any other wire props. Coupled with a lack on interior placements for wire control the corner props will be near necessities much of the time and reinforce the (expected) heavy wire play.

Finally, both wire 50s are virtual full stops. The A is begging to create officiating problems (as will portions of the midfield) and the "sub" section of the snake actively discourages interior play by offering few shots and a high degree of exposure to elimination. The purpose of this post was to illustrate that in many ways this design is both conventional and slow. How a team chooses to play or not play the midfield could make a decisive difference and, of course, since we will be competing on this layout I won't be discussing ways to incorporate midfield play into your game plan.