What Was the PSP thinking?

What was the PSP thinking introducing Tactical (Really? Tactical? What with all the Mil-Sim connotations built in) Race 2 in mid-season? Who is going to want to play the poorer man's xball at a national level event? On the bright side it looks like the league has finally found a rule that will, in fact, reduce paint consumption.

Not Plane Nor Bird Or Even Brawl

It's just a game called Paintball. Ot is it? Following on the excellent batch of comments the last two days I want to sum up and continue this particular dialogue. (Though this post will only cover some selected comments so go read them all if you haven't already.) The Monday Poll (on Monday) began with the premise that not releasing each event layout would reduce practice costs, sometimes very dramatically, making tournament participation more viable for more teams and players. (If you haven't voted yet, go vote, you lazy slacker.) It has also been suggested that a move to (severely) limited paint usage would also achieve a cost savings across the board. When it comes to layout releases it's also been suggested there be a season long single layout that must, at some point, push teams to focus on getting better as opposed to simply learning the field. It's been suggested that some number of field layouts be released--greater than the number of events--at the beginning of the season with event layouts chosen at random from among the released layouts. (To my mind this would have precisely the opposite effect in pushing teams to learn all the possible competition layouts as early as possible just in case.) I have similar doubts about a seasonal field release being as effective as no release largely because I have doubts about some percentage of team owners/captains/leaders. (I look forward to your irate emails and Facebook comments.) With respect to the limited paint idea--I'm for it--in a limited way. I think it would be an excellent way to introduce new players to competition paintball as well as the youngest players. I think one could potentially develop a limited paint league, at least on a local level but at some point it would also stymie player development. Alternatively it might be possible to tier the amount of paint allowed by division, for example. Ultimately however the game as presently played requires the potential for high volumes of paint. (The reasons for this have been covered a number of times. A search of things like ROF, movement vs. ROF should get some results.)

There has also been a spirited defense of the status quo suggesting that there's a symbiotic relationship between MLP, the local tourney practice fields & other industry members and that breaking (or altering) the relationships may create something like a domino effect. My reply, in essence, is that it looks like everyone is circling the drain together and everybody is reliant on somebody else, who may or may not, have their best interests in mind when crunch time comes around. Besides, it creates other complications. For example, MLP agrees with the field manufacturer to modify the bunker set annually in order to help support the bunker maker and passes that cost on to the local fields. Layout release may help the local practice field but forcing them into annual upgrades doesn't.

Lastly, it was suggested competitive paintball might be organized by a standard league/Junior league division along with some number of tiered divisions of competition as is current practice. The idea being the standard league participant is protected with the goal of shifting the demographic because, in the example given, everyone 18 and younger played in the Juniors. The Juniors could be organized and operated with lower costs in mind while the Standard divisions would be populated with a larger number of self-sufficient players able to afford the competition. It makes for an interesting idea but it also highlights perhaps the core struggle going on; Is competitive paintball sport or customer service entertainment? It's struggling right now trying to be both. And why is it that the industry (and everyone else) have left the problem of resolving these growing pains issue in the hands of MLP alone? Or phrased another way: Why is MLP responsible for "fixing" everything that ails competitive paintball?

Tomorrow, crunching those WC numbers I gave you the other day--and a Mailbag over the weekend. (If you have a question or comment get them in now.)

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.