Can Any Webcast Survive If Spectators Are Paying To Watch Boring Games?

I wanted to call this post, 'Hello Pants.' And open with, 'Find Gary Busey!' but decided that was probably too confusing--so I sorta did it anyway. Just because I find it terribly amusing. Otherwise this is a Baca's Mailbag sorta post. From the cheap seats of blog comments: Baca, I'd love to read your thoughts on the layout in Bitburg. I recently used the webcast to go to sleep as the games were so long and drawn out. Are we going to see major changes to the layouts (both Millennium and PSP)? Paint sponsors cannot be happy with field layouts that cause all 5 players to shot over 7+ pods a game. And it just seems that the games are really boring spectators. How can it be corrected if at all? Good teams will find a way on most layouts to lock up lanes and just wait, but what if the field layouts actually gave a reason to move up? Watching the Bitburg event, it seemed like there was no advantage to moving to even the 50 snake as you still didn't have many shots available. Can any webcast (think PBAccess) survive when spectators are now paying to watch boring games?

That's a lot to chew on so let's get started. I'ma answer the questions posed in order.
Re: Bitburg layout. This year's kit added some more lane blocking type bunkers but seems to have lost some utility props in the process which may be limiting what can be done design-wise a little bit. It also seems to me that the M, regardless of configuration, is generally less playable than the A but I honestly haven't paid much attention this year.
I can't speak to what the MS will do but I expect the PSP to make an effort to try and keep things exciting. Of the layouts I sent Damien recently I tried to retain some balance but made sure certain elements were present that should provide more entertaining paintball. The question of course is how do you do that, if it's even possible, without becoming too one dimensional. The layout can (and often does) have a dramatic effect on the game play.
Paint sponsors are also paint sellers so it's a mixed bag. Do they want to give away as little paint as possible? Sure, but they are also selling considerably more in those situations as well. I don't know which side of that equation they come down on.
'Corrected' is kind of a loaded term but I think there are ways to encourage movement and more aggressive play. Ideally I'd like to see layouts that are relatively neutral so teams can play their style and compete. Unfortunately since the tendency in recent years is to tailor style to layout there are some elements that need to be avoided in creating a design.
Giving teams a reason to move up is half the answer but I suspect it will also be necessary to limit a team's ability to effectively deny their opponent's movement as well. That doesn't mean no lane control or lockdown opportunities but it will mean limiting their effectiveness so that between the enticement of superior position it also becomes somewhat easier to accomplish. And of course it will need to be nearly impossible to live playing defense alone.
The factors I focused on were: making the 50s (or near 50s) effective killing opportunities; making it harder to deny movement upfield; make the whole field playable; make a back line defense very difficult if not impossible. At the same time I tried to make some spots hard to play; retain gun-fighting situations and deliver lots of options for how a player or team choose to accomplish a winning strategy. None of this is a science however, it's an art.
On a PPV basis I think it will be very hard to sustain the webcast without exciting paintball to watch. There is already resistance to paying for what was free before and in order to overcome that hurdle the closer we get to must see paintball action the better. At the same time though I'm concerned about too much tailoring of the game simply to satisfy a webcast--even if it's the best in the business.
It's really uncharted territory and everyone is learning as we go.