Supporting Adrenaline Games

It's that time of year again--apparently--when the PSP supports Adrenaline Games by sticking it to the local field operators that support the PSP and Race 2. Was that too harsh? Upon re-reading it sounds pretty harsh. Unfortunately it's also true.
Confused? Here's the dealio. Every year or so it seems Sup'Air adds some new props that the major tournament leagues incorporate in their event layouts (also frequently designed by Sup'Air) that forces fields with airball fields used for tourney practice to buy the annual new props kit in order to keep up to date. Good for Adrenaline Games, not so good for local fields.
I noticed the NPPL expressly didn't change their bunker set this season--an unequivocal thumbs up--and it appears that Adrenaline Games hasn't kicked them to the curb by refusing to provide event fields or gone out of business. And while I have no desire to see anything bad happen to Adrenaline Games I have a hard time understanding how any league can justify placing their grassroots supporters in that position to benefit a third party. It's practically extortion.
Beyond that I have a couple of other issues too. Since when do real sports let manufacturers dictate what essential elements of the game will be? Yeah, I know, competitive paintball has always been an old boys club. Now's as good a time as any to change. Also, why is somebody other than those responsible for the sport deciding what's an appropriate change? Seriously, the whole thing ought to be a no go.
That doesn't mean the bunkers shouldn't ever be changed. Want to add some interest? Keep the game fresh? Sure. Sounds good but that's a job for the PSP--or any other league purporting to be focused on competitive paintball as sport.

UPDATE: Mr. Curious weighs in with some on point rumorology. It seems the PSP thought they had a deal with Adrenaline Games to make bunker changes every other year and had no intention of changing in 2012. Seems the first the league heard about the latest changes came from sources outside of Adrenaline Games. When confronted Sup'Air allegedly claimed they only had 4 2011 field sets left and given that the league uses upwards of 20 field sets a season the PSP was left with little alternative but to accept this year's changes. It will be interesting, to say the least, how the league responds to this practical blackmail in the future.

Monday Poll in Review

No Monday Poll for you! No, you didn't do anything. You are, after all, a lazy slacker. I just didn't have a good poll topic--so no poll this week. If you've got any ideas you know what to do with them. (Take that however you like.)

UPDATE: I lied. There is a Monday Poll. The off topic who will win the SuperBowl Poll.

Last week's The Monday Poll asked about the best way(s) to improve tournament paintball. Since much the dialogue lately has revolved around the virtues of restricted paint and/or reduced ROF it's small wonder they were popular categories. Perhaps most interesting was that the only category that didn't receive any votes was Lower maximum velocity. Not a one. Less energy, less pain on impact, right? Less energy maybe more guns can consistently shoot more fragile paint. Less energy fewer breaks at longer ranges more live players after the breakout. And not one vote. The next 3 categories with the fewest votes look to have split the M. Carter Brown voters with 3% favoring a return to woods tournaments, 3% longing for the larger fields of yesteryear and a whopping 6% ready to dust off their cockers and automags and go mechanical. When semi-auto was really semi-auto and a man was a man and an enormous drop forward let you tuck that 118/3000 in nice and tight. (Right.) I'm not sure I believe it though 'cus the PSP has tried offering Tactical Race 2 [mech guns] and it ain't like they are turning teams away. The fact is even the UWL hasn't garnered much interest in all mech gun teams so those who say they want it either don't really or are so broke they can't play anyway. Four categories tied at 9% each. The pipedream universal industry standard semi-auto board or chip or whatever. Even if all the obstacles involved were overcome nobody would really want it if they had it or, more to the point, were compelled to use it because it would be too slow. I can pull faster than this, it's ruined my gun, this is no fun, etc. Also at 9% were restricted paint and lowered ROF for the lower divisions of competitive play. Of course when the PSP tried to tier ROF by experience the crowd that would have benefited most raised the biggest ruckus. And while limited paint leagues existed in the past I don't know of any currently in the U.S. Whatever plusses either option has it ain't gonna happen if nobody is willing to play that way. (At the same time it's possible to educate--or in raehl's case, browbeat--the tourney crowd into eventually seeing that a recommended alternative might not be such a bad idea after all but it's necessarily a time consuming process.) Last of the 9 percenters was more props. Fill that field up. More choices. Closer together. More angles and lanes blocked. Heck, if you stay low it almost becomes a game of hide & seek--which everybody knows is way better than capture the flag.
Next at 10% was bring back the 10-man game. I hear this a lot. What I haven't heard is anyone trying to bring it back and having any grand success. I keep suggesting to the PSP that Masters play ought to be Race 2-2 and that they'd get more geezers playing--but maybe they wouldn't. Tactical has been about as popular as a pick-up artist in a lesbian bar and for all the 10-man nostalgia I haven't seen any evidence that anybody would show up if they built it. At 11% we have the lowered ROF across all divisions of play which is, if nothing else, a testament to Brockdorff's tenacity, enthusiasm and good cheer. Which brings us to the top 2 vote getters; a completely new format (14%) & restricted paint across all divisions (17%). One thing this poll result suggests is that there is no widely held opinion of what the answer is or ought to be. Even so I'm mildly surprised that nearly 15% opted for the unknown which I think tells us more about some level of present dissatisfaction than it does an expectation of what the unknown format might deliver. I find it curious but as with all these results I think most of the votes are soft votes in the sense that you people (the voters) aren't do or die committed to your choices. Any of them. Although apparently raehl's restricted paint crowd wants to make sure everybody suffers if they have to or else maybe they imagine a time in the near future when restricted paint will allow them to play at the upper levels of competition.
So apparently if we restrict paint, lower the ROF, add props, enlarge the field, use mech guns with 10 players per side using a brand new format tournament paintball as we know (and love) it will be saved. Hurrah!

The Brockdorff Fallacy

Okay, fallacy is probably a bit strong but it sounded so good I couldn't resist. Not unlike 'The raehl Solution' 'The Brockdorff Fallacy' does have some merit and deserves consideration as a viable option in the quest to preserve the game and reduce costs (and produce better players in greater abundance.) On that score I think Nick's idea for reduced ROF is more widely applicable than raehl's restricted paint. Some of you may recall the PSP briefly attempted--a couple three years ago--to tier their ROF by divisions and that VFTD supported that effort. You may also recall that it was the teams that got them to reverse that policy after a year as well. (Which was when standard ROF went to 12.5 bps.)
Since I'm going to shorthand the argument--again--if you'd like more details look here & (particularly) here for a pair of old VFTD posts from 2008 that speak to the issue at hand. Or visit the link given in yesterday's post, 'The raehl Solution.'
The issue, as it was with restricted paint, is balanced game play. The current ROF limits reflect, more or less, the upper limits. Given the present playing environment ROF provides/creates a challenge for the very best players--and as a result can be overwhelming for less able players. The answer isn't to dumb down play for everyone; it's to balance ROF versus ability to move. (The links are particularly helpful in defining what movement as a game function is, too.)
Last season the PSP lengthened their field by 20 feet as part of an effort to provide a more "friendly" playing environment for a potentially more diverse player base. What I tended to call an invitation to the old, fat & slow. While the measure of that success is debatable what isn't is that the longer field increased paint use and produced slower points as a significant percentage of matches went to time rather than score.
The flipside of that decision was the one taken by the Millennium in their field designs last season which tended to compress the playing area further in an effort, at least in part, to encourage more aggressive play. Different layouts met with greater or lesser success but all of them, overtly or more subtly, also altered the priorities of the skills in play--just like the changes the PSP made even if the results were different.
The point, once again, is that what may seem like simple changes will almost certainly have unintended consequences, game changing consequences and should only be undertaken after the results are known and understood. Unlike with restricted paint however the relationship between ROF (and to a degree velocity) and Movement does allow for perhaps greater flexibility than other sorts of changes might. It is readily apparent that many, if not most, lower level competitive players struggle to move against the current ROF. A reduced ROF will, at some point, balance out against the limited skill of the lower level players. And that would be a very good thing as it would both encourage more movement, allow a larger pool of lower ability players to enjoy all aspects of the game and incidentally passively develop superior gun skills.
But as with restricted paint at some point the skill level of the players overwhelms the lessened ROF and you have to make other alterations to restore balance--and the challenge for the very best players.

In one sense reduced ROF if tiered for the skill level of the players will allow for a game that is, in every other respect, universal. It's just that the ROF itself can't have a universal value.

And if you'd like to dig a little deeper into what sort of changes might prove both workable without drastically altering the game take a look here. The only problem left is convincing the next generation of aspiring players that they would be better served and ultimately enjoy the game more (and probably longer) if they don't jump into the deep end of competitive play right away.

The raehl Solution

Or perhaps the off the raehl solution would be a better title. I'll let you decide. Related to this week's Monday Poll I want to take a minute to comment on raehl's preferred "fix" as expressed (many times in many places) but most recently in the thread hijack over in the PBN News section. (See Monday Poll post reference for Jan 23)
Before I start let me surprise a few of you (and bore the long time regulars) by stating (again) I am not opposed to limited paint in every possible competitive scenario. In fact, I think it's not only a viable option in certain circumstances but a desirable one as well. More on that later.
I do however think that 'limited paint' is a misnomer. All competitive paintball games/matches are played with limited paint--each team is limited to the paint they bring onto the field. (If raehl's notion of "wasted" paint were in fact correct there would be teams that chose to compete using much less paint but it isn't--and they don't.) And, of course there is no rule that requires teams or players to match another team's paint totals. What 'The raehl Solution' advocates is restricted paint; a set amount per team per point/game.
What is the point of restricted paint? To achieve a substantially reduced, nearly fixed cost for paint in a competitive scenario. The claimed benefit is to make the game more affordable and therefore more attractive to more players. Which is a worthwhile goal but there are other consequences of making such a change.
When he first began advocating his restricted paint idea he did so without qualification. It appears he may have learned something over time--see example in this post, Movement vs ROF,--as he has qualified his restricted paint proposal with a spacing change between props--in the PBN thread hijack. It's "growth" but it's also insufficient. Change doesn't occur in a vacuum--as raehl acknowledges when suggests he'd also space the props differently.
I'm not going to break this down in great detail--it would be a much longer and considerably more tedious post than it's already going to be. My objective here is to simply make it clear that restricting paint isn't so much an "answer" as it is the beginning of a whole different set of issues that would also need to be resolved.
So why would the props be spaced differently? Because as the game is presently played it is ROF and volume of paint that inhibits free movement. Take that away and you must open the space in order to try and regain a neutral balance. (Assuming such exists today. And it does at some levels of play.)
Slightly O/T this is the core of the problem with Brockdorff's solution and desire for a universal game. His notion of something like a standardized ROF at 6 bps is swell for lower division play but completely impossible for pro level competition.
Going back to the raehl solution: If the spacing is opened up all of a sudden we no longer have room for all our props and at a minimum the result would further limit the number of choices for placement of transitional (or insert) props. So, if it is necessary to reconsider spacing the game either loses some number of props or the field dimensions need to be adjusted too. But there's a problem with that as well. It seems the raehl solution is okay with more or less whatever ROF and ramping or uncapped semi etc. [Because the paint sum is so restrictive careful consideration must be given to its consumption.] However, once the spacing has been adapted some gaps will become virtually insurmountable and if I, as the player, have a high expectation of getting an elimination even if it costs a quarter of my paint then I'll do it. Which leads us inevitably to the conservation of that limited supply of paint. Each paintball becomes more valuable but only so long as it remains unshot. Consequently by its very nature heavily restricted paint games become defensive in that there are very good reasons to not shoot your gun.
At this point raehl, he of 'The raehl Solution,' will say, "Perfect!" as that will free up more movement and create a more free flowing game blah blah blah. [Which it would likely do for beginners and those just getting involved in tourney type play assuming all the other conditions were modified harmoniously. And this is why I think there's a place for restricted paint--but that's as far as it goes unless the end goal is to play a different sort of game.] For experienced players the results would be dramatically different because the risk/reward values will be dramatically different. Assume for a moment a player with superior gun skills. What is his motivation to move? Every move puts him at risk and the closer he comes to his opponent the less effective his relative skills differential becomes. (Just like now for many low division teams where ROF and their lack of skill & training produce a greater risk in movement than there is reward for moving--hence the tendency to spray & pray in their primaries.)
This is where Mr. Peabody & his boy Sherman give raehl a ride in the Wayback Machine to say, 1997 and he can revisit what his version of the game would look like--300 foot long fields & 25 minute games--except of course they were even then playing with as much paint as they chose to carry.

Next time, 'The Brockdorff Fallacy.'

Baca's Mailbag, Dec 12

The question(s) that follow are very common. I have heard them repeated for as long as I've been involved in this game and there was a time when I asked most of them. I don't have definitive answers. The best I can do is some observations based on too many years experience. I invite the rest of you slackers to include your take on these questions in the comments.

(A) Ok, What type of back round do most of the pro players or regular tourney player have ??? (B) How do you afford it? is a question I am asked many times over the couse of a season? (C) I see a lot of the newer players having a tough time, when they look at the commitment needed to play on a regular basis. Our team is made up of a mix of people, ages and incomes and we are in a rual area.. (D) We have to buget and save to do what we do. We have no team sponsors and by no means do I think we have money to throw around.. We didnt go to a couple of major event due to the cost of traveling (air fare) How how do most players afford to play ...? (E) Do sponsors make up some of the difference, has it really become a rich man's sport? (F) What your feeling on the paintball landscape and the cost of playing competitive ball?


I'm going to respond to the questions in the order they come up and in order to keep things as clear as possible I've divided the query into sections.
(A)--from an economic perspective there is no type. I joke occasionally about the lack of diverse sports interest and background among tourney players but I doubt it's much different from the generalized norm. I just find it a bit curious since most competitive people are competitive about almost everything, and as kids, tend to try more things--or did a hundred years ago when I was a kid.
(B)--the usual way most players do. By prioritizing their spending in such a way that they can keep playing paintball. Figure out what you can afford and then spend more--is the way it frequently ends up. I'm not even sure it's all that much different, cost-wise, than it used to be. (But I do think there are a couple of contributing factors that are different today than in the past.) Back in the day we shot less paint but it cost a lot more. The last IAO I played Hellfire was $105 bucks a case of 2000 (including tax.) High end guns weren't much cheaper and national events were a larger time commitment, more days off school or work. A serious tourney jones has never been cheap. The biggest difference today is practice costs.
(C)--Nothing new here either although I do think it's tougher to get started in tourney paintball than it once was. My first team had players with money but no time and players with time but no money. Some were super gung ho, others a lot less so. Our biggest issue was getting enough time & money & commitment together for actual events. We were a decent practice team and a lousy competition team.
(D)--Again, not uncommon. So does most everybody else involved in the tourney side of the game. What often happens is one or two guys end up taking on extra financial burdens (to be paid back later) which almost inevitably turn into (more) problems later. Two things are required of a serious team; strong leadership and a plan. And once the plan is agreed to everyone needs to hold up their end--or they get replaced. More problems arise here in that lots of times the team is a mix of friends and ages and resources and that has always been and remains a recipe for frustration more often than not. Nobody wants to be the bad guy, everybody understands the difficulties but if the team is actually going to function there has to be a bottom line commitment from everyone actively involved. The big difference is today the level of commitment is higher lower down the divisional ladder than it once was, or so it seems to me. 
(E)--Sponsors make up some of the difference for very few teams any more. And the lion's share of what remains of real sponsorship, not discount product deals, is product. For example, Team A gets X number of guns from sponsor Q. The guns are for the team with the understanding the extra guns are sold to help fund the team. There are a relative handful of teams that do better than that.
(F)--In many respects very little has changed. Serious competition isn't cheap, it requires some level of commitment. A commitment in time & money. It is what it is. Beyond that I have one serious concern and I think there are a couple of factors in play today that are significantly different from times past.
My fear is decisions about the game's future direction will be based too much on the current rough economic times. Somewhere there's a boundary between keeping the sport alive and killing it in an effort to get more peeps to play.
Having said all that I also think there are things that make it more difficult to compete than in times past: fewer fields dedicated to supporting local team(s); a broadly younger demographic; what practice has become. The first one seems pretty straighforward. Toss into the mix the larger number of younger players and you've got kids without direction and fewer leaders. Fewer leaders and fewer homes that welcome competitive players and teams makes it more difficult to build teams. And somewhere during the last decade the romance of the grind has token hold of all divisions of competition. Which isn't a bad thing but it has upped the ante to competing in virtually every division of play. Kick in scrimming on the event layout and the game--for too many--becomes about reps, practice points played and nearly endless cases of paint shot--and we're talking about so-called introductory levels of play. The entry bar has been raised too high and it's going to be nigh on impossible to lower it. 

In Game Coaching, part 2

The practice of in game coaching requires three related efforts. At least it does the way I do it. (Keeping in mind I'm of the school of thought that believes in doing everything you can and controlling everything you can in order to best position yourself and your team for success. In practice--not practice practice--I mean as part of the process of preparing to compete--that also covers some ground that is more abstract (team chemistry and mental preparation for starters) than the practical routines I'm going to discuss today. Of the three related efforts two of them, scouting and game-planning occur separately from the actual in game play calling, etc.
We'll begin with scouting. Scouting is simply observing your opponent(s) with the object of looking for routines & patterns, ways of playing and player assignments that will give you information you can hopefully use to counter their strengths and attack their weaknesses. In competitive paintball, even at the highest levels, it isn't that complex a proposition. Or it shouldn't be if you are well schooled in the fundamental tactics of competitive paintball. (I may be assuming facts not in evidence here.) One pro team used to check mark field diagrams by the bunkers taken as primaries OTB. By the end of a match it revealed primary frequency. I use a somewhat more complicated system. I shorthand each breakout (using our team bunker codes plus some additional codes of my own devising) to indicate shooting lanes, delays and sequences to taking secondary positions. I also keep track of points played on penalties for the same basic info. It's also worthwhile to look for player patterns. If player X is in does he only go to one of two bunkers OTB? If you discover patterns like this it can be very useful.
Additionally there is no reason scouting should only be the responsibility of a coach or coaches. Players can assume different roles in the scouting process and it may prove beneficial for them to watch matches with specific duties to fulfill that can later be discussed by the whole team.
Over time you will discover that teams (and players) have tendencies and once you have accumulated an extensive scouting file on a given team it is possible to predict how a team will generally play a given layout simply because you have worked to learn their habits and routines.
Game-planning is considerably more difficult. (But, on the other hand, it isn't an essential--it's just what I happen to do.) Using the info collected from scouting both past matches and matches played on the current layout--when possible--the game-plan is designed to gain advantages over your opponent. There are a couple of ways of approaching the game plan. One is to use the information to try and counter what you expect your opponent to do. Like picking lanes that allow you to focus one or more guns on a primary you expect your opponent to take more often than not. Or take primaries that allow you to control lanes to deny your opponent his secondary in an effort to keep your opponent's attack from developing. I am not a fan of this approach as it tends to be reactive. I prefer a game plan designed to take the play to an opponent and then continue to attempt to keep that opponent off balance. In either case each game plan is predicated on predicting your opponent's breakouts and attacks in advance. This is the tactical game that exists in Xball and Race 2. I script (usually) 8 breakouts in a sequence designed to exploit what I expect from our opponent. In addition I make notes on adjustments to be made if certain situations arise and alternative play calls for those situations. I also script our line-ups in advance but again, they have to be flexible and conditional. Sometimes changes are made based on how players are playing, what the score is, if we're killing a penalty or the opponent is, a wide variety of options that a coach needs to be prepared to deal with.
Ideally, when it's finally time to play the match I've done enough preparatory work that we're able to deal with any and every situation that may arise. There are no surprises, no scrambling and nothing unexpected happening. The play calling process (for me) is watching the opponent's breakouts, secondary rotations and personnel so I know if we can stay on script or need to make an adjustment. As each point finishes I call out the next line-up and we usually have a minute or more to relay each player's role in the next breakout including shooting lane adjustments, secondary options, timing issues and reminders about everything from communication to the occasional special instruction. There you have it. That's the way I approach the role of in game coach. (I'm not recommending it but I hope it offers some useful insights for those interested in this aspect of the game. ) It may seem initially to be kinda overwhelming but it's like anything else--you practice and get better.

One caveat seems in order. A coach can do everything right--or even a lot of things wrong--and still lose matches you probably should have won or win matches you probably should have lost because the game always comes down to the players; their ability to execute a game plan, their talent for the game and their ability to perform in pressure situations.

Next time we'll talk about ways to prepare a team to compete.

Norwegian Championships

The Norwegian Championships are being played (by 70+ teams) this weekend on a VFTD-designed field using the current Millennium bunker set. You can watch tomorrow's action live streaming if you'd like. I mention it now so you can watch some of the action and see the layout if you're interested and because I'm going to post the design next week sometime--(the competing teams saw the layout for the first time when they arrived at the venue this morning)--and hopefully we can get some feedback (via comments) from the players competing on it this weekend.

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.

Putrajaya Cup

A VFTD first--back-to-back layout reviews. (And pretty much my work limit for the week on VFTD. Luckily Mr. C has come thru and will begin with the latest in rumorology tomorrow.) Today's layout is for event 5, the season finale, of MPOC, in Malaysia and came over the transom as a special request. Unfortunately the event is this coming weekend so there won't be a lot of additional practice time available. Best of luck to all the teams competing for a podium spot and a season title. (Ok, best of luck to all the rest as well. Don't want to leave anybody out.)

First off this is a, d'oh!, symmetrical design meaning each half and each side are mirrors of the other. It also means the lanes on the grid in orange and red apply to both halves of the field. (I didn't put them all in as it would have gotten muddled and confusing. Just keep in mind if it's a lane on the left, it's a lane on the right as well.) And even though crossfield shots exist with the M perpendicular to the baseline(s) the field will tend to play in halves; D-side & snake side. Given the symmetrical design that isn't particularly relevant on this field. What will be relevant are strong side and weak side considerations. Which side does a team normally commit three players to and which side do they leave with only two? First consideration is handedness. On a neutral layout most players and teams, if they think about it, will tend to want to play strong to their strong hand. This could easily end up in unbalanced halves of 3-on-2s OTB. Ideally however the goal is to kill somebody quick.

Which will be easier said than done given that Home is a SD (small dorito) offering only marginal cover that forces the laner to tuck in low. Add to that a number of the clean lanes (in orange) are tight and slightly misplaced props could block them completely. And the spacing between the corner MTs and snake insert aztecs (or S1, MD) give good odds of making the snake OTB if they mix up their breakouts well.

Some teams will keep extra shooters Home OTB despite the SD. You must keep them honest by countering that effort right away. The means to do so, and add some complexity and effectiveness to your OTB shooting lanes is close at hand. The Pins framing Home and the TCK in the center (in red squares) are made to order. While small and frequently tricky to play the Pins here are more useful than is often the case. Most of an opponent's likely primaries do not have angles on the Pins which allows a little more latitude in playing them--and getting out of them afterwards. They can be used to edge Home, to set up crossfield angles or to get an extra lane up OTB on that side of the field. I've included the center TCK because it offers variations of the same options that the Pins and also provides the best angle for gap control in denying rotation into one of the snake MDs. I would not consider it a consistent or frequent play, but, like the Pins, it's not as badly exposed as it might at first glance appear to be and does offer the immediate option of taking the M if you've cut down the wide player(s) on one side of the field.

Let's talk snake. Short snakes with dominant bunkers tend to bog play down. As do larger props in corners. The objective, whenever possible, should be to deny your opponent a move into the snake while you get in as soon as possible. The snake 50 has a large number of quality shots but is a high risk position. (See blue squares.) The issue is not only that it is dominated by the MDs, it is also proximate to the MDs and not easily defended. As such play is likely to break down to dueling doritos if both teams are in the MDs. The best way to make effective use of these snakes is keep the other guys out.

Ideally the best teams will play on their feet as much as possible with their guns up and rolling in an effort to dominate the first few seconds so they can move aggressively into high value primaries as quickly as possible. Barring that--such play requires first class gun skills and a commitment to execution--points could devolve into relatively slow affairs with players buried in the bricks and seeing no great advantage to making moves away from their corner fortresses.

You Call That A Grind?

We played simulated matches today on the Chicago layout. Yesterday we ran breakouts and full points. Two days, one weekend and that's it until we play Shock on Friday afternoon. The old grind isn't what it once was. Oh, I know, a few teams will get in some extra scrimmage time during the week--and the Legion coaches are probably busy trying to figure out how their players can achieve positive visualizations in their sleep--if they don't already do that. Of course that isn't the only paintball we played to get ready but it was the most valuable time spent. If only we had layouts to play that really took advantage of the limited preparation time by offering unique characteristics that different teams might try to exploit in different ways. That might produce some pretty exciting paintball. That's not going to happen (much) in Chicago.

The virtue of the Chitown layout is in its lack of unique qualities. It made it easier to prep as we've all seen versions of this before. It also means there are some worthwhile general lessons to be learned from a field like Chicago. Consequently, after the event I'll try to spend some time revisiting the layout and discussing the keys to play & some of the trade-offs that will have been well illustrated during the tournament.

In some general PSP info it looks like the final number is 155 teams (although the optional registration during the event is being held open for a couple of Tactical Race 2-2 teams.) Last year's total was 154 but last year saw 93 xball teams compared to 80 this year with the difference made up in added Race 2-2 teams. During the registration period there were plenty of teams to get within sniffing distance at least of the old Chicago 200 team standard but apparently being registered for Chicago for three months was their competition.

Chicago NPPL: TBD

Hey kids. It's still Monday--but just barely. It was a long weekend and a busy day today. Got home around 3am and I need my beauty sleep. I'ma dividing my comments on the event between team-related observations and general event comments because some of my general comments will not be particularly complementary and I want to (hope to) separate the two given how poorly the team played.
Most of what I think about our performance isn't for public consumption, not because I would unleash a tirade of curses (although it's tempting) but because the core of any team is the unity and camaraderie based, in part, on trust--a trust that is violated if it isn't kept private. Within those limitations none of what follows is an excuse. There are no excuses. A team succeeds or fails together. So far this season we are struggling.
Most teams (and most competitors) spend the majority of their careers reaching for the top, trying to be the best. Most don't succeed. The lack of ultimate success makes (and keeps) a player (and a team) hungry. It keeps them loose 'cus they have nothing to lose. But once a player or a team have been to the top it changes everything.
The first thing I told the team this year was that the only thing harder than winning a championship is repeating. Every competitor has the desire, the hunger. Not every competitor stays hungry after being successful or has the fortitude to continue to succeed when that success is expected. Expectation can be a burden.
For us 7-man is the more difficult transition which is perhaps ironic considering the level of success we enjoyed last season but it's true. Team chemistry and player roles matter more in 7-man than in the format formerly known as xball. Our roster is necessarily different this year but the talent to be successful is still there. We haven't forgotten how to play, we just need to adjust to the new reality. To relax, love to play, play hard, have fun and believe. Nothing to it.

A Bar Too High

The fate of UK competitive paintball is being discussed over at P8ntballer--and it's of some interest--given nothing much is happening. (Although I'm beginning to seriously wonder what's become of the NPPL's attempt to engage ESPN & the next ESPN3 broadcast. I've heard a rumor or two but nothing of consequence and, as it's said, the hour approaches.) It's no doubt of considerably more interest to some of the UK kids, as well it should be. But here's the part I'm intrigued by; the path competitive paintball has followed in different countries. The UK is dominated by rental sites that cater--to the near exclusion of everything else (walk-ons, team practices, etc.)--to rental players and groups only. As a result players who became more involved and bought their own gear etc. were limited in the available outlets of play and (so it seems to me anyway) largely turned to tournament play. Or perhaps more of a Tournament Lite. Some teams, but not a lot, took it more seriously than others and trained and improved and worked their way up but many more didn't. When xball came along (including Euroland's bastard child, Xball Lite) the paradigm began to shift. With competitive paintball being transformed into sport so too the participants needed to be turned into athletes and competitors. That shift has had its effect around the paintball world. In the UK it has left competitive paintball in a shambles because a significant portion of their tourney base were really displaced recreational players. There are some who hope to turn that around but have yet to forge a viable plan for doing so.
Meanwhile, in places like Germany (where the development of paintball was almost the reverse of the UK in that tourney & team play has spawned recreational and training facilities) paintball is growing or at least solidly entrenched. The largest national league, the DPL, has around 300 teams competing around the country. What did they do to make that happen?
A few years ago Scandinavian (and particularly Swedish) tourney ball was very strong. It may well be it still is--I just don't know. But again, there's the same question of how did they organize successfully? Did the Germans follow their lead or did each follow a unique path?
There are other examples as well--and I'm very interested in the answers--because I'm inclined to think a significant factor in the decline of competitive paintball in the U.S. (at least in terms of the number of teams participating) shares some commonalities with the UK situation.

[Mix in the fact that PBIndustry policy frequently treated point of contact stores and fields like Sherman's Army marching through Georgia and we're well on our way towards a recipe for disaster.]

A bar too high. (I've mentioned this concept before so if you remember it, good for you and if not, it's new all over again.) The drive to legitimize competitive paintball as sport forced a lot of changes, first on the Pro teams--as did the routines & training of the Russian Legion. The effort to compete with the Russians forced the Pro teams to become more professional in their approach with fitness, drills, training & player development, etc. The whole attitude of the competitive side of paintball was transformed by both the conception of competitive paintball as sport and by the consequent demands it placed on teams. It raised the bar on what was required to be competitive. More money. More time. Greater commitment.
And it trickled down.
In magazine articles about the pro players and teams. In the How-To articles. In the nature of the xball format itself. In the shifting demographic skewing always younger. In the fever swamp created by the mirage of TV.

While I am foursquare behind the conception of competitive paintball as legit sport and have nothing but respect & admiration for the players and teams, regardless of current level or achievement, who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to strive to be the best--it has created a gulf between the average rec baller and tournament paintball. It has raised the bar to entry so high it is driving potential players away. The transition used to be easier, smoother, less demanding. Out at our home field most every weekend you will find D5 & D4 teams grinding away. (Which, after a fashion, is pretty awesome.) They're doing drills, breakouts and scrimmaging. They are working, not playing. And where does that leave the kid or father and son who have been playing recreationally for a while and are curious about the tournament experience?

Next time I'll talk about the two tracks.

HB Day 2: Tournament Interrupted

This post requires a short preface. I wasn't at HB on Sunday. I don't know who won. I don't care. I tuned in to ESPN3 but didn't watch even five seconds of the coverage. I am not a happy camper. (I am an enraged camper.) In part because we failed to go through on Saturday--as the defending series champions--which is a [expletive deleted] embarrassment of epic proportion but mostly because of the way we failed. (Warning: cliche imminent.) A team, any team, is only as strong as it's weakest link. [This is where everything I'd like to say, to get it off my chest if nothing else, would go except it's team business and that doesn't get aired out in a public forum.] Unfortunately we only had seven players for the event including guest Scott Kemp of the Ironmen otherwise we could have and would have made appropriate substitutions. On a positive note I'd like to thank Scott for filling in. He did everything asked of him like the pro he is. And I'd like to commend Jacob (Edwards the Younger) on stepping up and playing like a man in a totally unfamiliar role because somebody had to and he was chosen. [More stuff I shouldn't post. So, as wiser (calmer, anyway) heads prevail, I won't.]

The rest of this post will be about the scoring system, the refs and the rules. I'll cover the latest TV stuff in the Monday Poll in Review post.

Let's talk chips. Apparently one is enough (despite what the old commercials used to tell us.) Far as I know they worked as intended. Everybody had one and, as far as I know, they were installed in every gun that was used during a pro game. What was also clear was that some guns reached and maintained a higher BPS average with less effort than other guns. Were any of those guns exceeding the cap? Perhaps on occasion but I didn't hear anything that sounded either obviously or outrageously over the limit. It is less clear to me how effective the chip was in the role of policing guns for rules violations. The semi-auto rule to be specific. Some guns that may not have exceeded the BPS cap may have otherwise been ramping up to the cap.

Regarding the gun rules. There was, as I suspected, no real definition or even formula for action in place for the weekend. The intent was to notify teams of guns exceeding the limit and give them a warning--with the implicit (if not quite real) threat of actual penalties "next time" or "tomorrow." I have no idea how many teams, if any, received a warning--or were penalized on Sunday. I know we didn't receive any warnings. (And I sincerely doubt any of our guns ever got close to the BPS cap.) And if any team was penalized, and objected, I don't see how the league could justify assessing the penalty because the rules are simply insufficient as they currently stand. At best this may be a step in the right direction but it is far from a done deal.

Now for the referees. This is where I gain (no) friends and influence (no) body. The layout for HB should have been a referee's dream field. Few blocking obstructions. No confluence of props in the middle of the field. Clean lines of sight nearly everywhere and only a couple of areas on the field where the action might come fast and furious--and still the refs were only borderline competent. 95% of the calls were easy and most of those were probably made correctly. (I'ma giving them the benefit of the doubt.) But the remaining 5% reminded everyone--or should have--that problems, serious problems remain, in officiating competitive paintball and those problems can be divided into two camps. Inconsistency and a lack of a standardized routine. The inconsistency is most often seen in penalties called--and penalties not called. Guy dives into bunker, gets hit but doesn't check or call for check. Ref throws flag, penalty called. Guy runs through half the field gets blown to pieces shoots somebody with no penalty called regardless of how egregious (and obvious) the playing on might have been. Or vice versa. The point is the calling and assessing of penalties continues to be as diverse and unpredictable as the number of refs on the field. And in bunkering moves or run throughs the standard call is the simo because even with 5 refs standing around watching nobody wants to make a definitive call because nobody seems to know or want to know exactly what happened. But I can help.

Since NPPL mythology supports voluntary assistance I am volunteering to fix the reffing issues, free of charge. I will come a day early to the next event if the league will bring the refs in early as well and I will get everyone on the same page and teach them how to work together to make the instantaneous calls that are sometimes required. I will even work out the guidelines for making calls to improve consistency. Trust me, it ain't rocket science. The offer is on the table.

The new format; brackets, scoring, tie-breakers, etc. worked pretty much as predicted. It was a dreary mess that was nearly as incomprehensible to the players and teams as it must have been to the people trying to follow on ESPN3. (I explained what was happening and why to more than one team on Saturday.) Also, as predicted, 3 of the 4 prelim brackets went to tie-breakers as 3 teams in each bracket went 2-1 in their best of threes versus three opponents. The score page posted by the league was also woefully inadequate as it simply showed set wins and losses and never explained why one team or another either moved on or didn't. It may be possible to argue that the new format is an improvement or at least no worse than the old format but the results, and the way they were reported (or explained) (or not explained) (or posted) (or not posted) currently isn't serving the interests of the league or, it seems to me, outreach to a new TV market of potential fans who don't already know the game.

[For those who watched how did Matty do explaining the brackets and the results?]

Lastly, the boom camera. Snake side. Has got to go or the operator has to use some common sense or have some guidelines devised for its use. As it played out over the weekend it bird-dogged players all weekend long, frequently giving away positions in the snake to players otherwise unaware. Think sideline coaching. It was effectively the same thing, except worse. The operator could, if so inclined, tilt the game balance by pointing out some players in the snake and not others. Did that happen? Yes. Was it on purpose? I don't know.

In the small frame of competitive paintball HB was a marginal event; no better and probably no worse than lots of other events. In the Big Picture of the league's future with ESPN (or TV in general) the jury is still out.

STM

Stop the madness. Many's the time VFTD has looked in vain for an answer to the flagging interest (and participation) in competitive paintball. And no matter how positively received initially each time every "new" answer leaves something to be desired. Somehow doubt creeps in leaving each momentary certainty ultimately unsatisfactory. Frustration builds and hopelessness sets in making the struggle that much more difficult. And then it came to me.
It was an epiphany. Totally out of the blue. Nothing a conscious mind would have ever considered. It's the damned acronyms. Competitive paintball is suffocating under an immense pile of acronyms. What's a PSP? Or a NPPL? Or a WCPPL for that matter? A CFOA or BCPPL or a CXBL? A CFPS or a MSXL? MAPL? NEPL? PBC? PALS? And I'm just getting started. How the hell is anyone supposed to know that all those and more represent competitive paintball? I say enough with the acronyms already. Support VFTD as we work to get the message out. No more acronyms. It's time to put the "paintball" back into competitive paintball. Whose with me?

The New Major League Reality

For years the voices of discontent in competitive paintball have wanted to tear down the status quo--because, as we all know, anybody can do it better until they have to, you know, do it. Me included. (But unlike the rest of y'all I'm always right. It's a burden really.) Much of that discontent is (was) predicated on a myth. The myth of by the players, for the players. A hundred years ago (give or take) the pro kids and some of the ams threw over Lively Productions and decided they could run their own events better. Sound familiar? And they like to think they were serious about "by the players, for the players" but it didn't take long before most teams paid to play and a small group of teams/industry types were running the show. Until the falling out at one of the cow pasture on Poinciana Boulevard World Cups over strippers and alcohol. (Sorta. It wasn't as awesome as it sounds though.) Next thing anybody knows there's a second league and we're playing 7-man, 10-man & xball and the two leagues are chasing TV millions. Which ever way you turned industry was inextricably linked to the major leagues.

Anybody remember vending under the bigtop at Paintball World? Most everybody on site as a vendor had table space under one giant tent. Even as the bigger industry players began to set-up individually by they're sponsored field(s) the majority of smaller industry figures continued to share the big tent. As recently as the first couple of years at Disney's WWOS there were big tents with canvas dividers for the smaller vendors. As the scale of the competitions expanded in the explosive growth years so did the vendor displays--from the big guys custom big rigs to the smaller players expanded efforts to differentiate themselves and build their own brand identity. In the same way the top teams were flush with sponsorship dollars so to the major leagues with industry support and participation. And then, all of a sudden, the fat years were done. And as the cost of competition had risen for the pro teams the vendors, large and small, had justified spending more and more money to make money--until, all of a sudden, the fat years were over and the vendors were in a similar predicament to the pro teams--as were (are) the major leagues.

Various incarnations of the NPPL have come and gone. The PSP survived with some extra cash infusions. The one constant the shrinking share of support the league(s) can count on from the paintball industry. What once may have been around 50% of their income has been reduced to a fraction of that today. That is the new major league reality. And with this reality comes opportunity and danger. The opportunity is to get out from under industry influence for one. No money, no influence. To break the old patterns but in order to do that the league(s) must find ways to sustain themselves without the industry's money. The NPPL has discovered that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better or more profitable. The PSP has begun to see the scale of their operation as a very mixed blessing. Success in the new reality offers independence, too. The dangers are there's little to no room for error. It's a high wire act without a net.

For those who want lower entries and bigger prizes and are positive the leagues are flush and greedy--you are so far disconnected from reality I doubt there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise except you're doomed to disappointment. Those things aren't going to happen. For those who just can't wait for the current major leagues to crumble take a moment to consider what replaces them. What replaces them? Seriously. I'm curious. Do you have any concrete ideas or are you just mentally masturbating over how great it will be to get rid of those guys? What the leagues needed all along was independence and wise leadership. Circumstance has delivered their independence. The big question now is are they up to the challenge?

Pro Prelims: Day 1

Picking up from yesterday's items of interest the pro field did get the blackout sheeting up between the pro field and the CXPL field and I have a (slightly) better idea what all the cameras are all about. Seems some guys paid the PSP event video fee and set-up their cameras with the idea of collecting all the footage of the whole pro event for editing as an experimental production. If they like what they get apparently the notion is to then see about working a deal with the league for the future. This time around however there is little or no sound; it will all be visual.

You want scores go to ProPaintball or direct to APPA. Mostly the expected teams are doing what was expected. There's always a surprise or two it seems but nothing jumps out just yet. As rumored Mike Hinman is working with Dynasty. In our bracket we and the Russians are currently 2-0. We meet in the final prelim match tomorrow at 4 pm. And by the math nobody is out of the running yet regardless of record.

Instead of talking about the pro numbers some more I want to talk about a D1 team, Mayhem. Prior to the event there was a fair amount of whining about the classifications of some of the rostered Mayhem players because of their past team affiliation(s)--along with nebulous complaints or charges (of something nefarious) aimed at the league or the APPA or both. As it turned out Mayhem finished 1-3. I'm not suggesting whatever was "wrong" with the player classifications didn't matter because they didn't win. I'm suggesting a couple other things instead. One, maybe the classifications really reflected appropriate classifications for the players rostered despite past history and Two, we--as a paintball community--wring our hands over all the players the sport is losing yet the second some whiner thinks he may have to compete in order to win he wants to disqualify anyone and everyone who might stand in the way.
A related truth is that pro players do not stay pro players in terms of their skills set unless they continue to play pro or near pro paintball. And while the years don't erode experience or knowledge they take a brutal toll on the actual capacity to compete at a very high level. Another truth is the very guys who comprised much of the Mayhem roster are exactly the guys the game needs to want to stay involved and help develop and transition the next generation of tourney players.

NPPL Wrap-up 2010

Warning: This post may be subject to rambling on 'cus I is really really tired. I can seldom sleep in airplanes and yesterday was no exception. As soon as I got home the phone began to ring and here I is.
Between work and school the team left for Vegas at 8 pm EST last Friday evening. We arrived around 11 pm Nevada time with the team scheduled to meet Saturday morning at 9 am in the Marriott lobby. A walk across the street brought us to the venue and registration. Like Chicago and DC Saturday's prelim round again included the D1 teams. Along with Impact we were in the afternoon bracket. We had one less pro team and one more (I think) D1 team than the morning bracket so it was potentially easier to go through from our bracket but any loss to a D1 team was also potentially more damaging. The greater benefit to us was the opportunity to see some games played and have an opportunity to prepare a game plan as most of the guys hadn't seen the layout and no one had played it in advance. I had a basic formula in mind--a number of them actually--and as a team we went through the basics as we watched games from the bleachers. We opened with two D1 games which gave us some breathing room to familiarize ourselves with the actual field before any of our pro games demanded our best efforts. Saturday we went 9-0 but that isn't really reflective of the effort or the closeness of a few of the games. And regardless of the circumstances the prelims are just that--preliminary to the real tournament which only begins on Sunday. No matter what happens on Saturday it's meaningless the minute its over. Either you're playing Sunday or you're not but everyone who moves on begins at zero again. (Cliche much?)
The pro teams through to Sunday were us, Impact, Infamous, Arsenal, Explicit, Avalanche, Blast & Dogs. The four teams in a tight race (2 points between everybody) for the series were us, Impact, Infamous & Dynasty. Uncharacteristically (an understatement) Dynasty didn't make the cut leaving us, Impact & Infamous still in the running. The series is in the back of your mind but we didn't talk about it. In fact we made a point of focusing on the event because event success would bring series success.
Without the successes in Chicago and DC we wouldn't have been up to the challenge of Vegas. No practice has been our downfall before and while we only had a few games of practice prior to Chicago and DC it made a world of difference. What we did have was the confidence success brings. We didn't think we could win. We knew we could because we had done it before and the core team had played together all season. In HB we had Holliday. With work and family demands we replaced Holliday with Ramzi for Chicago. For DC Chad replaced Ramzi and for Vegas Keith Brown replaced Alex. We brought Alex as our eighth but as he's dealing with some injury issues and we have Cup in 10 days he was our insurance policy. The core was Timmy Propst, Jason & Jacob Edwards, Alex Spence, Bryan Smith & J-Rab with Chad Busiere playing both DC and Vegas. At the beginning of this season we took a long look at Jacob that began with him practicing with the team and playing HB. He was 14. He's 15 now. Keith is 17. He's on board because Ramzi is injured and will miss Cup but he's working hard and making a strong case for himself. I bring it up because I want to spend some time talking about young guys playing at the pro level--so more of that tomorrow.
Saturday night we ate at a terrific Italian restaurant, Piero's, next to the Marriott and the guys were given a strict curfew of 11 pm. (Which they mostly kept.)
Next, Sunday.

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.

What is Tournament Paintball? part 3

It is evident now that competitive paintball is where the drive and desire to move tournament paintball into the realm of sport has taken us. It is what it is and it was inevitable. Competitive paintball will continue to develop. If the vehicle hadn't been xball it would have been something else. It is also evident that the current difficulties are the result of a number of factors some of which have nothing to do with playing the game. There will be no one stop easy fixes. Most of us have no way to affect the outcome regardless. But there may be some things that can be done in the present to help build a more sustainable and broader tournament base.
Before offering some practical suggestions I think it's also important to make the conceptual distinction between competitive paintball and tournament paintball. Of course both terms represent a form of competition but competition is also an aspect of all paintball. Today, wherever you are, the default definition of tournament paintball is related to the xball brand of competitive paintball. And if that is what potential and beginning tourney players think tournament paintball is they (and we) are limiting their options and reducing the number who will try it out. What I mean is the PSP needs to undo everything it's done in the last couple of years with the affiliates and universal classification. (Bet that got your attention.) No, that's not what I mean but I do think one option is to offer tourney play at the local level that isn't the first few steps up the national and international competition ladder. Alternatively (or in combination with) local and regional competitive paintball needs to lower the bar to participation.For example our local practice field also hosts a PSP affiliate series with the bulk of participating teams being D3, 4 & 5. And what do those teams do to get ready for their next regional event? They spend their weekends scrimmaging each other full points and burn through paint at tournament rates. It hardly matters if the events themselves are reasonably priced if teams can't afford to practice. And they are preparing to compete this way because that's what we taught them to do. If that is the minimum requirement to compete in D4 is it any wonder we're losing teams?

Let's review: At present competitive paintball is too expensive for its target demographic and simultaneously (and unnecessarily) restricts the opportunities of a significant number of the most dedicated players.

What to do? We broaden the definition of tournament paintball in order to legitimize a wider variety of tournament options. (Sure, this already happens as a practical matter but only in a piecemeal haphazard way.) Lower costs for competitive paintball. Lower the bar to tournament play with alternatives to competitive paintball. Slow down the "career" track and also offer options that don't involve a "career" track. Reconnect with the disenfranchised players.

(Sorry. No easy button involved. And if you're still uncertain I am not throwing the PSP or anybody else for that matter under the bus. The further sport paintball moves from generic paintball the more intermediary steps it needs along the way to provide a conduit of future players.)
Ok, back to what to do. How to lower costs? Shoot less paint. Which can be accomplished a few ways. I do not favor limited paint or drastically lower ROF--at least not at the national sport paintball level of competition. Do not release the field layout prior to the event. (It's deja vu all over again. Yes, I've suggested this before.) Without the layout there's little point in shooting truckloads of paint weekend after weekend. Teams will have to adapt. Find new ways to train and not be forced by the system to try and keep up with the next team by shooting extreme amounts of practice paint. Teams could literally save thousands of dollars. The rest of my suggestions relate primarily to the local & regional tourney scene. Lower the bar to tournament play. Something that is already happening in places. We need to see more generic 3-man and 5-man paintball events. And keep those players out of the UCP (Universal Classification Program) of APPA [or on an alternate local track] until they begin playing the bottom rung affiliate league events. We need some reseeding stand alone Open events. And for the time being we need to trim the number of total events down.
The specifics aren't important. Different areas will likely require different choices but the baseline goals need to be the same. Entry level tourney play that doesn't require the dedication, commitment and expense of competitive paintball as a gateway opportunity. Keep it simple with 3-man and/or 5-man. No pre-release of the layout. Strictly limit who can play. (I'd be sorely tempted to disallow anyone with an existing APPA i.d. but there's probably some room for consideration there.) Simplify divisions. Want to limit ROF? Give it a try. Or limited paint? Sure. The goal is a low pressure tourney environment a step or two above walk-on play for the most part. Ranking should be seasonal as long as divisions remain competitive and keep those players off the UCP. Let them track at their own pace as much as and as long as possible. Those that want greater challenges will make the necessary moves on their own.
The idea of open events is aimed at the D2 and D1 ranked players no longer playing because there are lots of them and very few options for them to keep actively involved short of trying to maintain a competitive commitment. Anyone can play an open event and skill level by team doesn't matter because by the final round of play all the teams are seeded against similar skill levels. Say the promoter decides on three divisions of play; A, B & C with prizes tiered as well with A having the best. Every team that signs up has a shot at all three packages. The teams are assigned divisions randomly and Round 1 is played. The reseed puts the most successful teams in bracket A, the mid-pack in B and C for the rest. Round 2 confirms the seedings but also allows some potential movement. Reseed and play Round 3 and there you have it. Round 3 winners receive the prizes for their brackets. It's a good way for lesser teams to get to compete against better ones and at the end of the day still vie for prizes and/or trophies and it doesn't penalize any player regardless of classification status.
There's also no reason not to run these kinds of events along with affiliate league play. What should be avoided is offering or trying to offer too many events over the course of the season. Too many choices dilutes the product and odds are, particularly in the current environment, the majority will end up picking & choosing. Far better to have a few rock solid events in place early so teams can see it's a do-able schedule and plan ahead.
A few words on the UCP. It's worlds better than it was. It's also appropriate for competitive paintball. I still wonder if it's flexible enough but I am not opposed to it or the concept behind it. I just think that in the here and now there is no good reason to push every tournament player onto a one size fits all fast track. Because it doesn't and there's no reason it should. What competitive paintball needs--among other things--isn't a larger pool of rec players but a larger pool of tournament players that have an opportunity to grow and develop at their own pace.

This is hardly a conclusive post but it's a start. There's so much more to all this that hopefully I've made a dent. Regardless, I have no doubt it's a topic that will be revisited again and again.

What is Tournament Paintball? (part 2)

Picking up where yesterday's post left off--(it's no longer yesterday unless you are willing to subscribe to a very loose or generous definition of "yesterday" but better late than never)(Right?)--the last thing I want to do is assign blame. Sure there were decisions made that people disagreed with, either then or later. Yes, there were decisions made that had little or nothing to do with the players. And hindsight is closer to 20/20 with the advantage of seeing how things turned out. But even with hindsight only a few things seem clear to me and I'm a lot more interested today in where things go from here than I am in portioning out culpability like Paintball's judge & jury. It isn't going to change anything so what's the point?

What does yesterday's brief history tell us, if anything? In pure numbers the largest events ever occurred after the woods were completely abandoned. Field size did shrink over the last dozen years but the biggest turnouts happened after most of the field shrink had reached present levels or were close to it. There was a dropoff with the introduction of xball but the numbers rose year to year until 2007, when WC fielded over 360 teams. And while 2008 was lower the numbers still topped 320 teams. Throughout the huge event era the 5-man turnout floated just below or above 200 teams. Capped ramping to 15 bps was the rule during a 4 year period during the build-up of xball. Prior to that actual ROF were all over the place as they have been all along in the various NPPL incarnations but not consistently crazy fast until the Halo hit the market. Today PSP is 12.5 for everybody. After an introductory season and the massive positive hype about HB the NPPL took off in year 2 with the 7-man format. One league focused on the perks and the other on the paintball. High end sponsorship dollars peaked around '05-'06. Both leagues were pursuing TV and the Russian Legion introduced a previously unseen level of professionalism in their organization and training. A level of professionalism the other pro teams needed to compete with to stay relevant.

Today events take up less time than ever. Guns are still fast. Across the board officiating is about as good as it's ever been. Running events is almost clockwork these days and if you take paint tabs off the table going to an event is still expensive but adjusted for inflation not a lot more expensive than it ever was. So how to explain the decline?

Some want to place the start of the decline before the current and ongoing general economic malaise with the flattening of industry sales. The idea being the sales numbers were indicative of a drop off in new players entering the game and the trickle down eventually has impacted tourney ball. (The player spigot got turned off and it took awhile for the reduced flow to reach the tournament faucet.) I find that explanation less than persuasive in part because the industry downturn was at least partly self-inflicted in my estimation. (Most of the rest of the conventional wisdom fits in here as well. Stuff like ROF chased newbies away. Funny thing is I think there has been a trickle down that has affected tourney play.) The last two years WC has had 191 and 183 5-man teams signed up with both years at well over 300 teams total. The consequential decline was during the season at the NOT World Cup events and, of course, all this year. What I think is fair to say is that the level of growth we were used to stopped prior to the full effect of the recession hitting. But at this point the economy at large is depressing competitive paintball across the board--along with pretty much everything else.


Here's where I take the leap and offer a different--if not altogether new--analysis of the situation. Some of the pieces remain the same, just re-ordered a bit. (This is, btw, focused primarily on the PSP, and its sphere of influence, as the larger more active league. That and NPPL 1.0 & 2.0 mostly self-destructed.)

The first piece of the puzzle was the move to xball. Xball was intended to be a format compatible with and comparable to mainstream sports. It was designed for TV and it skewed tournament paintball's core demographic younger. (The younger demo has less resources and less ability to organize.) Until this last year the classification system pushed too many players up the ranks--and during part of that period it was done by design as a way to try and fill the upper ranks. Instead, it dumbed down the skill level and pushed players (not teams) into ranks that made it difficult for them to continue competing at the national level and almost impossible at the local and regional level. (None of the PSP affiliates operate a division above D2.) The last piece of the puzzle is what I'm calling the sports mindset--which is something that was cultivated in the xball era. At the pro level the arrival of the Russian Legion and the drive toward a truly professional league pushed all the top teams to develop more formal organizational structures along with expanded training & practice routines. (It also drove up the team costs that have since forced teams to drop out.) And that attitude--along with a practice regimen--trickled down the divisions. Which isn't, of itself, a bad thing but it has changed the definition of tournament paintball. It isn't your Daddy's tourney ball anymore. It's demanding, it's expensive and it has raised the entry bar to potential new players and teams. The end result has been an artificially short competitive paintball "career" for players starting at a younger age in a more expensive, cutthroat version of what used to be tournament paintball.

Tomorrow (eh, next time) what to do about it.