There is an announcement about the NPL in the News section at PBN. There is also the NPL website here. First order of business is to suggest perhaps a less generic name for the league as it turns out lots of nations have national paintball leagues. Just an observation. Second, I want to separate the NPL vision into two parts; the game format and league structure.
Let's begin with the game format. While I'm not a fan of swapping offense and defense I will limit my concerns to problems not opinions. The principle one being uncapped semi-auto marker operation. A serious league cannot validate a mode of operation that cannot be regulated. And since the only way the defense can score a point requires elimination of the flag carrier in his/her end zone the rules also encourage illegal modes of operation. (And if refs start penalizing teams and players for things they think but can't prove happened it opens the league to unnecessary conflict and controversy.) Also, no where is the league's field set of props outlined by numbers or type. And, as with other forms of competitive paintball this will directly impact the nature of the game as it plays out as will the layout(s) used. (Though one might assume a NPPL style bunker set given the field dimensions although that would prove problematic from a game play perspective.) The other thing of note is the apparent requirement to provide scoreboards, time clocks and scorekeepers able to keep track of all the game records as matches are played. One assumes these are built in costs that a local field operator must commit to before the league even gets off the ground in his "region." If there was a simplified way to run a match it would make it more attractive for fields to opt in and give it a try.
As mentioned in passing in a previous post I think a rigid adherence to the structure as currently outlined is counterproductive. While there needs to be some sense of how all the pieces fit together as the league grows the important part, especially in this formative stage, is that it grow period. And as with any developing venture there will be growing pains and as more people and regions become involved there will be more and more diverse opinions about what ought to come next regardless of what's written down already. If the outline of the future league structure is taken as a set of guidelines instead of set in concrete the league becomes flexible enough to deal with issues as they arise. That said there are numerous incongruities and conflicts in the current details. The following is just a sample, not a comprehensive review. (And if it seems confusing I'm responding to the Rule Book and Players Guide so you're only getting half the "conversation".) For example, "regions" are defined essentially as local fields which is okay but confusing. Not okay is that local field owners are also team owners and regional directors. (Each region is supposed to comprise of 6 teams--unless it's eleven--but don't ask me how that works 'cus it isn't explained anywhere--and the field owner also owns those teams and essentially runs his little corner of the NPL too.) Regional directer--yes. Team owner--no. In part because only the Regional Director can approve trades but since that same person is all the team owners he's "approving" decisions he instigated in the first place. That's not oversight, that's nonsense. Get more local people actively involved who have an interest in the outcomes and success of individual teams. The rankings "system" given is a mess and if a region actually operated the combine completely unnecessary. The combine demonstrates talent and the teams draft eligible players. Some outside source of artificial ranking is completely unnecessary particularly given the NPL's definition for pro and semi-pro players. But seriously while sounding cool the combine and draft are a no go. (Only authorized NPL professionals will be allowed to be involved in testing and evaluations? And just who will be an authorized NPL professional and what is the criteria the league will use to determine that status? Really?) Best of all just jettison the combine (drug testing?) and the draft and the rankings because, according to the NPL, they are all Amateur players. Some teams will be better than others. So what? The Regional Director controls who plays and who doesn't and can provide competitive balance. Meanwhile not so good teams will have a reason to work to get better and recruit new players, etc. There's more but this is enough for now.
Finally there is a sanctioned NPL paintball. Why? If the idea is competitive balance that's fine. If it's part of a funding scheme for the NPL then less so but understandable. (Minimum event day purchases.) But then how is the league funded? It isn't actually outlined anywhere though there are hints in the section on registering players in which pros, semi-pros are apparently expected to pay a pro and registration fee while Ams only pay a registration fee. Otherwise how will the league afford its commitments to the regional teams once the playoffs begin? Did anybody crunch the numbers? Where will the national championships be held? Lots of partially formulated structures, short on some of the details that will matter to the players and teams.
The simple fact is if the league has any chance to succeed it needs to focus on getting local fields participating and making it as simple and easy for local players to get involved. Bottom line, the game may appeal to lots of players but it's going to have a hard time getting off the ground with all the extra unnecessary baggage its lugging around.
Showing posts with label format. Show all posts
Showing posts with label format. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Baca Addendum Explained
You didn't ask for it--but then you didn't need to 'cus you knew it was coming, eventually. We got some field time in yesterday playing with the BA rules and to be honest the jury is still out. I'll explain in a minute but first I'ma outline the rules.
It's very simple. There are two flags. Each team begins with a flag at their start position. Anyone (live player) can possess the flag to begin the point. Only a live player possessing their team flag can score a point. If the flag carrier is eliminated the flag is placed where visible nearest the elimination position and a different live player from that team can regain possession--but only if there is at least one live player opponent on the field. Once the opposing team has been eliminated an unpossessed flag is out of play and no point is scored by either team.
The two flags provide visual info for following the strategy and implementation of each team's effort and the live player possession rule means a team either must protect the flag possessor or be prepared at a moment's notice to regain possession. Theoretically it allows for an offensive or defensive game plan but field layouts will, as they presently do, tend to dictate the preferred strategy.
The jury is still out because we didn't really get to play enough points or complete a match and as the concept was a foreign one to everybody but me the players were still adapting and trying to figure out what they wanted to do. Did they want the flag further upfield or not if the original carrier was eliminated? And as often as not they forgot about the necessity of having the flag to score either until it was too late or they were left scrambling to get across the field to try and reach their flag. The mindset was the game they are used to playing.
It needs more play to determine its real potential and it needs players adjusted to the way live flags potentially alter the tactics and strategy of a match--which is a big change for experienced players used to doing things a particular way. Who knows, it may also need fine tuning as well.
If anyone wishes to give it a go feel free to do so--and let us know how it goes. If you just want to argue about it hypothetically, or throw out suggestions or whatever that's fine too--you know where to find the comments.
It's very simple. There are two flags. Each team begins with a flag at their start position. Anyone (live player) can possess the flag to begin the point. Only a live player possessing their team flag can score a point. If the flag carrier is eliminated the flag is placed where visible nearest the elimination position and a different live player from that team can regain possession--but only if there is at least one live player opponent on the field. Once the opposing team has been eliminated an unpossessed flag is out of play and no point is scored by either team.
The two flags provide visual info for following the strategy and implementation of each team's effort and the live player possession rule means a team either must protect the flag possessor or be prepared at a moment's notice to regain possession. Theoretically it allows for an offensive or defensive game plan but field layouts will, as they presently do, tend to dictate the preferred strategy.
The jury is still out because we didn't really get to play enough points or complete a match and as the concept was a foreign one to everybody but me the players were still adapting and trying to figure out what they wanted to do. Did they want the flag further upfield or not if the original carrier was eliminated? And as often as not they forgot about the necessity of having the flag to score either until it was too late or they were left scrambling to get across the field to try and reach their flag. The mindset was the game they are used to playing.
It needs more play to determine its real potential and it needs players adjusted to the way live flags potentially alter the tactics and strategy of a match--which is a big change for experienced players used to doing things a particular way. Who knows, it may also need fine tuning as well.
If anyone wishes to give it a go feel free to do so--and let us know how it goes. If you just want to argue about it hypothetically, or throw out suggestions or whatever that's fine too--you know where to find the comments.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Baca Addendum
Is it synchronicity or serendipity? (Google a definition, slacker.) The current Monday Poll wants to know your favorite format given that there is no world standard just yet--and the NPPL has jumped into the multi-point variant with both feet for 2012. But even that is just the same old same old after a fashion. Nothing groundbreaking. (Other than the tacit admission they needed to do something other than traditional 7-man to be competitive.) And then there's the new NPL (National Paintball League) being discussed over at the Nation. Like the original tourney alternative [the first USPL] it features offense and defense. A smaller field not unlike the old UAPL--that was also 3-man. The NPL splits the difference and goes with 4 players per side. Perhaps most intriguing is the fact the NPL is imagined to function from the grassroots up to a national title event modelled after more traditional sports but also akin to VFTD's own (Almost) Everything Tournament Paintball Needs To Know from the Dead Tree Archive (and the days of real paintball magazines.) Also along the way there's been real Xball, 'Moneyball' and truckloads of other random ideas for how competitive painball ought to be played. VFTD has even contributed the purely hypothetical Bacaball to the list of mostly ignored (forgotten) ideas--and probably rightly so. (Except of course for Bacaball.) But reading about the NPL got me thinking--and that's always a dangerous proposition. And I've got the answer. The Baca Addendum. [Cue Also sprach zarathustra]
Before I get into that though a couple of asides about the NPL. As raehl mentioned [at PBN] they need to focus on the basics for now and not sweat the superstructure of unnecessary rules and requirements and procedures that will only inhibit their potential for growth. (Thanks for asking, yes, agreeing with Chris about anything was a singularly unpleasant sensation.) This is not, btw, an endorsement. I've read the website, watched the videos and seen the comments (so far) and I'm unpersuaded but that's neither here nor there. If the game has something going for it--and the creators don't suffocate it prematurely--it may find an audience and if it gets and keeps peeps playing competition-oriented paintball that wouldn't be a bad thing.
About the Baca Addendum. It's one simple idea built on existing notions of playing competitive paintball. [So simple in fact that somebody must have already thought of it but was ignored or didn't set it up quite right. I'll be interested in finding out.] It's 3 simple rules that can be added to any common format or variation currently played although it really will work best in a multi-point or time limited match. It'll work in 3-man, 5-man, 7-man or whatever you like. On a PSP, NPPL or MS field layout. It will work for beginners or pros. It will both offer focus and strategic and tactical complications at the same time. It will make players better. It will reward both athletic and intellectual agility. The variety it can produce is unparalleled. And I will explain it in detail after I test play it. (Which will happen within the next two weeks.)
Before I get into that though a couple of asides about the NPL. As raehl mentioned [at PBN] they need to focus on the basics for now and not sweat the superstructure of unnecessary rules and requirements and procedures that will only inhibit their potential for growth. (Thanks for asking, yes, agreeing with Chris about anything was a singularly unpleasant sensation.) This is not, btw, an endorsement. I've read the website, watched the videos and seen the comments (so far) and I'm unpersuaded but that's neither here nor there. If the game has something going for it--and the creators don't suffocate it prematurely--it may find an audience and if it gets and keeps peeps playing competition-oriented paintball that wouldn't be a bad thing.
About the Baca Addendum. It's one simple idea built on existing notions of playing competitive paintball. [So simple in fact that somebody must have already thought of it but was ignored or didn't set it up quite right. I'll be interested in finding out.] It's 3 simple rules that can be added to any common format or variation currently played although it really will work best in a multi-point or time limited match. It'll work in 3-man, 5-man, 7-man or whatever you like. On a PSP, NPPL or MS field layout. It will work for beginners or pros. It will both offer focus and strategic and tactical complications at the same time. It will make players better. It will reward both athletic and intellectual agility. The variety it can produce is unparalleled. And I will explain it in detail after I test play it. (Which will happen within the next two weeks.)
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Mailbag Extra: NPPL Drops Format Bomb!
With the recent announcement by the NPPL that they are converting to Race2 for professional matches, and adding what they term as Millennium 5-man divisions, do you see this as:1) an attempt to offer a similar format as PSP, in the hope of a "smooth" transition in a future merger?
2) an attempt to offer enough formats to satisfy all tournament players, with the goal of stealing PSP market share?
In my mind, it has to be one or the other, or am I missing something?
Re: question #1: That's very sweet and naive. And it will be the correct answer the same day Vegans vote unanimously that their favorite fast food is JackInTheBox.
Re: question #2: In some senses I almost find this one hard to credit as well because I am initially unconvinced that much thought went into this decision. Even so I think it has to be viewed, in part, as a direct challenge to the PSP whether that was intended or not. (Nor would it surprise me to see the PSP respond in kind or at least use their left over scheduling flexibility to best effect.)
I know those probably aren't the most satisfactory answers but there's still a lot of necessary information missing before this move can be fairly judged. Things like what will the prelims look like? How will Sunday play proceed? Will the fields all still comply with current NPPL design characteristics, etc.? Will there be time limit? How will it work? Without this sort of info it's impossible to adequately project how this might work out.
However, given what we do know there are some, if not conclusions to be drawn, pitfalls that might arise. How much paint will the Pro teams shoot under this formula? (Contrary to popular belief many of them have marginal sponsorships.) Will they severely limit the prelims in order to split the difference? (Something like the Millennium currently do where teams only play 3 matches in the prelims. In which the scoring becomes matches won--which will frequently end in ties and come down to the plus/minus ratio of points scored to determine who moves on. A variant of the system that was both confusing and unsatisfactory in HB last year.) Will the return of Semi-Pro be a mixed division with D1 or an attempt to revive a separate division? Will the new formats cost more in entries? Will the offer of 5-man Xball Lite prove to be direct competition with traditional 7-man among the am teams? There are dozens of similar questions but you get the idea, I'm sure.
And then there the issues that prior experience suggest might arise. How will the format changes be reflected in the rule book? (If the NPPL can't produce an adequate rule book for 7-man can they be expected to deliver one that covers multiple formats?) Format changes don't change a registration and ID system that only function as a revenue stream for the league and they don't instantly improve the officiating. In fact they put more stress on both those factors. And then there's scheduling and field prep requirements? How many more fields will it take? The league was running 12 hour days in Vegas trying to get in all the scheduled games for much less time intensive formats. With 3 fields in Vegas the quality of the carpets was noticeably diminished--the fields looked like green quilts. How many more fields will the league need? How many more refs will it take? Does the league have any idea if they can effectively run Race 2 on 7-man style fields?
The bottom line is format changes don't fix the endemic problems. All the NPPL has done so far with this announcement is confirm that they too believe their prior format was lacking--at least when it comes to the Pros and the 5-man teams.
2) an attempt to offer enough formats to satisfy all tournament players, with the goal of stealing PSP market share?
In my mind, it has to be one or the other, or am I missing something?
Re: question #1: That's very sweet and naive. And it will be the correct answer the same day Vegans vote unanimously that their favorite fast food is JackInTheBox.
Re: question #2: In some senses I almost find this one hard to credit as well because I am initially unconvinced that much thought went into this decision. Even so I think it has to be viewed, in part, as a direct challenge to the PSP whether that was intended or not. (Nor would it surprise me to see the PSP respond in kind or at least use their left over scheduling flexibility to best effect.)
I know those probably aren't the most satisfactory answers but there's still a lot of necessary information missing before this move can be fairly judged. Things like what will the prelims look like? How will Sunday play proceed? Will the fields all still comply with current NPPL design characteristics, etc.? Will there be time limit? How will it work? Without this sort of info it's impossible to adequately project how this might work out.
However, given what we do know there are some, if not conclusions to be drawn, pitfalls that might arise. How much paint will the Pro teams shoot under this formula? (Contrary to popular belief many of them have marginal sponsorships.) Will they severely limit the prelims in order to split the difference? (Something like the Millennium currently do where teams only play 3 matches in the prelims. In which the scoring becomes matches won--which will frequently end in ties and come down to the plus/minus ratio of points scored to determine who moves on. A variant of the system that was both confusing and unsatisfactory in HB last year.) Will the return of Semi-Pro be a mixed division with D1 or an attempt to revive a separate division? Will the new formats cost more in entries? Will the offer of 5-man Xball Lite prove to be direct competition with traditional 7-man among the am teams? There are dozens of similar questions but you get the idea, I'm sure.
And then there the issues that prior experience suggest might arise. How will the format changes be reflected in the rule book? (If the NPPL can't produce an adequate rule book for 7-man can they be expected to deliver one that covers multiple formats?) Format changes don't change a registration and ID system that only function as a revenue stream for the league and they don't instantly improve the officiating. In fact they put more stress on both those factors. And then there's scheduling and field prep requirements? How many more fields will it take? The league was running 12 hour days in Vegas trying to get in all the scheduled games for much less time intensive formats. With 3 fields in Vegas the quality of the carpets was noticeably diminished--the fields looked like green quilts. How many more fields will the league need? How many more refs will it take? Does the league have any idea if they can effectively run Race 2 on 7-man style fields?
The bottom line is format changes don't fix the endemic problems. All the NPPL has done so far with this announcement is confirm that they too believe their prior format was lacking--at least when it comes to the Pros and the 5-man teams.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Format Wars
Okay, "wars" is definitely over the top but the whole topic is just plain silly. It's laughable. Deserving of ridicule. (That's where VFTD comes in.) And if that wasn't enough the proponents are positively delusional. They haven't just jumped the shark, they were jumped while they jumped the shark. (And yes, even I'm a little confused by that one.)
But as a pretense of being fair and open-minded let's first list the virtues of the glorious 7-man format. It doesn't have much of a history. It's only been a nationally recognized format since NPPL 1.0 (Pure Promotions) transplanted it stateside from Euroland circa 2003. Less than a decade. Even by paintball standards that's not very long. (Yes, 7-man was around before that, here and there, played mostly as the poor man's 10-man.) (And, maybe you can make a case that 7-man as a format and style of play continued in the tradition of 10-man--after 10-man was gone--minus 3 guys and on a field a fraction of the size. Of course for a couple of years the NPPL's 7-man was competing against the remnant of the PSP's 10-man format so, then again, maybe not so much.) But (and it's a big but) 7-man is played on a field that's longer and narrower than xball. With carwash bunkers. Can't forget the carwashes. And 7-man still has semi-auto and sneakiness. Well, except that it doesn't really. Is sneakiness a format feature? Or is it a result of no sideline coaching or crowd participation? And then there's the factoid that the recent All*Star demonstration allowed grandstand side crowd participation so ... Okay, but hey they've still got semi-auto! Capped. At 15bps and as every semi-auto aficionado knows tons of 7-man players can easily exceed the cap with their crazy fast twitching skillz. And no way to determine if the guns are ramping, bouncing, etc. Only whether or not they go over the cap. Which is a warning and/or a penalty.
Maybe the best thing about 7-man is the NPPL's willingness to change with the times. To hold on to tradition and still reach out to the majority of competitive players. Why over the last year they've considered multiple point matches, crowd participation, capped markers, shorter points and they're thinking of adding buzzers and getting rid of the flag, at least the station flags. Can bells & whistles be far behind?
And then there's the fact the rest of the world plays 7-man and if we're ever going to legitimize competitive paintball we--what? The Eurokids don't play 7-man anymore? The Asians either? They play what?!? Xball Lite? Race to 4 or 5? Really? Well, that's not very helpful, is it?
But still, at least 7-man isn't xball, right, and that's what's important.
Time to be serious for a moment. The move to capped markers is a concession to the fact the NPPL has never been able to adequately regulate guns or enforce legitimate, workable rules--until now. And anybody who spends 5 minutes at a NPPL tournament knows 98% of the guns are ramping, bouncing, adding shots, whatever you want to deny in order to rationalize the "skill" involved. (The other 2% are pumps.) The move to multiple points is a concession to the fact the outcome is both fairer and more likely to advance the better team. Everything the NPPL has done to improve their format has brought it closer to xball (Race 2). Undeniable fact. All that's left is the dimensions of the playing field and the number of players per point. So here's your compromise. Use the current PSP field dimensions as they're closer to NPPL than old xball layout. Add a few bunkers to the basic set. 4 will probably do the trick. Keep the current PSP rules regarding sideline participation and keep the spectators far enough away that all the noise is just that, noise. Field 5 guys because now isn't the time to try and force the world tournament community to change--again. And hey, we'll all go "semi-auto." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
But as a pretense of being fair and open-minded let's first list the virtues of the glorious 7-man format. It doesn't have much of a history. It's only been a nationally recognized format since NPPL 1.0 (Pure Promotions) transplanted it stateside from Euroland circa 2003. Less than a decade. Even by paintball standards that's not very long. (Yes, 7-man was around before that, here and there, played mostly as the poor man's 10-man.) (And, maybe you can make a case that 7-man as a format and style of play continued in the tradition of 10-man--after 10-man was gone--minus 3 guys and on a field a fraction of the size. Of course for a couple of years the NPPL's 7-man was competing against the remnant of the PSP's 10-man format so, then again, maybe not so much.) But (and it's a big but) 7-man is played on a field that's longer and narrower than xball. With carwash bunkers. Can't forget the carwashes. And 7-man still has semi-auto and sneakiness. Well, except that it doesn't really. Is sneakiness a format feature? Or is it a result of no sideline coaching or crowd participation? And then there's the factoid that the recent All*Star demonstration allowed grandstand side crowd participation so ... Okay, but hey they've still got semi-auto! Capped. At 15bps and as every semi-auto aficionado knows tons of 7-man players can easily exceed the cap with their crazy fast twitching skillz. And no way to determine if the guns are ramping, bouncing, etc. Only whether or not they go over the cap. Which is a warning and/or a penalty.
Maybe the best thing about 7-man is the NPPL's willingness to change with the times. To hold on to tradition and still reach out to the majority of competitive players. Why over the last year they've considered multiple point matches, crowd participation, capped markers, shorter points and they're thinking of adding buzzers and getting rid of the flag, at least the station flags. Can bells & whistles be far behind?
And then there's the fact the rest of the world plays 7-man and if we're ever going to legitimize competitive paintball we--what? The Eurokids don't play 7-man anymore? The Asians either? They play what?!? Xball Lite? Race to 4 or 5? Really? Well, that's not very helpful, is it?
But still, at least 7-man isn't xball, right, and that's what's important.
Time to be serious for a moment. The move to capped markers is a concession to the fact the NPPL has never been able to adequately regulate guns or enforce legitimate, workable rules--until now. And anybody who spends 5 minutes at a NPPL tournament knows 98% of the guns are ramping, bouncing, adding shots, whatever you want to deny in order to rationalize the "skill" involved. (The other 2% are pumps.) The move to multiple points is a concession to the fact the outcome is both fairer and more likely to advance the better team. Everything the NPPL has done to improve their format has brought it closer to xball (Race 2). Undeniable fact. All that's left is the dimensions of the playing field and the number of players per point. So here's your compromise. Use the current PSP field dimensions as they're closer to NPPL than old xball layout. Add a few bunkers to the basic set. 4 will probably do the trick. Keep the current PSP rules regarding sideline participation and keep the spectators far enough away that all the noise is just that, noise. Field 5 guys because now isn't the time to try and force the world tournament community to change--again. And hey, we'll all go "semi-auto." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Another 7-man Spectacle
Otherwise known as the 2011 Pev's, er, NPPL All*Star game. (Everything else was a Pev's this or a Pev's that. Easy mistake. I just got a little carried away.) I'm not sure it was just a game though. A match maybe. Or, as I rather prefer, a spectacle. Why spectacle? Because it featured yet another confusing and ill-conceived format change in the (apparently) never-ending effort to make 7-man better (without quite making it xball or Race 2 for that matter.) And because the introductions of the teams took longer than the actual game(s).
Before I continue I have a question: Who picked the All*Stars? And don't try telling me they were voted in by the public. The only way that happened is if the NPPL mimicked old style Soviet demokracy by allowing the voters to only vote for the players (candidates) on the ballot. And why did some teams have 3 player reps and others only 2? Who decided that? Look, some of the participants, heck, probably all of them are swell people but pro paintball all stars? Really? And seriously, how much money does Gio d'Egidio have and how much is he willing to spend on his kid's fantasy life? I realize voting in real All*Stars might be kinda hard when your league averages 40 7-man divisional teams an event--only 36 in DC--but if you're gonna fake it don't make it so blatantly obvious the thing is rigged next time. Next time. Right. I kid.
The following description of the All*Star "event" needs to be qualified with a regular 'as best I can tell' because nobody explained anything about the format changes except as incidentals as the event was in progress. So if you add a silent 'as best I can tell' to everything that will save me having to repeat it endlessly. (Thanks.)
Initially the announcer called it a best of 5 match. He also scored the first game a point when the West hung the (second) flag. It was played on the main field--and (parts of) it were probably available on the webcast. (I have no idea how much of the field the cameras actually covered.) I say second flag because there was also a center flag that couldn't be pulled during the first 60 seconds of the point, er, game, er, whatever. A buzzer sounded at 60 seconds to let the players know the center flag could be pulled. A first (only?) pull of the center flag was worth 30 points. A factoid were told after the second game when the East failed to pull it in winning the second game. The announcer called the score of game two 70-15 and later retroactively gave a score for the first game consistent with more traditional 7-man scoring. (No, I don't know where the first game "point" went.) The West followed with two more game wins to make the game count 3-1 after 4 games. It seemed like they were trying to turn each game around within a 2 or 3 minutes but nobody said one way or the other if they were on the clock or not on the game turnarounds. There was also some confusion after the fourth game and I thought they were done with the West "winning" 3 games to 1 but no, after around five minutes or so the teams took the field for one more game--which the West also won. After which Ms. NPPL, not wearing her title bikini, gave the trophy to the West All*Stars who pantomimed faux excitement at the victory and held hands to take a bow as the bleachers cleared. And just as the last of the audience was leaving the announcer gave the final score which was something like 309 to 110 but that must have been wrong as West won four of the five games. As best I can tell nobody had a fricking clue--including the brain trust that conceived of that silly, er, spectacle.
I heard later that the "real" plan is to play best 3 of 5 in brackets of 4 teams as the prelim round--next year. How that is better than the S7 prelim format attempted at HB this year I don't know. The issue with S7 wasn't the best of 3 format but a prelim round that only plays against three teams and the resulting tie-breakers. For a sample result look at any Millennium prelim round and you will discover that teams go thru all the time based on point differential and not wins or losses. At some point you might as well draw straws or flip a coin as play the games and if that's the direction the NPPL wants to go I can only assume they're less interested in the competition than the logistics and the opportunity to turn a buck.
But it gets better. Wait for the next DC Challenge post.
Before I continue I have a question: Who picked the All*Stars? And don't try telling me they were voted in by the public. The only way that happened is if the NPPL mimicked old style Soviet demokracy by allowing the voters to only vote for the players (candidates) on the ballot. And why did some teams have 3 player reps and others only 2? Who decided that? Look, some of the participants, heck, probably all of them are swell people but pro paintball all stars? Really? And seriously, how much money does Gio d'Egidio have and how much is he willing to spend on his kid's fantasy life? I realize voting in real All*Stars might be kinda hard when your league averages 40 7-man divisional teams an event--only 36 in DC--but if you're gonna fake it don't make it so blatantly obvious the thing is rigged next time. Next time. Right. I kid.
The following description of the All*Star "event" needs to be qualified with a regular 'as best I can tell' because nobody explained anything about the format changes except as incidentals as the event was in progress. So if you add a silent 'as best I can tell' to everything that will save me having to repeat it endlessly. (Thanks.)
Initially the announcer called it a best of 5 match. He also scored the first game a point when the West hung the (second) flag. It was played on the main field--and (parts of) it were probably available on the webcast. (I have no idea how much of the field the cameras actually covered.) I say second flag because there was also a center flag that couldn't be pulled during the first 60 seconds of the point, er, game, er, whatever. A buzzer sounded at 60 seconds to let the players know the center flag could be pulled. A first (only?) pull of the center flag was worth 30 points. A factoid were told after the second game when the East failed to pull it in winning the second game. The announcer called the score of game two 70-15 and later retroactively gave a score for the first game consistent with more traditional 7-man scoring. (No, I don't know where the first game "point" went.) The West followed with two more game wins to make the game count 3-1 after 4 games. It seemed like they were trying to turn each game around within a 2 or 3 minutes but nobody said one way or the other if they were on the clock or not on the game turnarounds. There was also some confusion after the fourth game and I thought they were done with the West "winning" 3 games to 1 but no, after around five minutes or so the teams took the field for one more game--which the West also won. After which Ms. NPPL, not wearing her title bikini, gave the trophy to the West All*Stars who pantomimed faux excitement at the victory and held hands to take a bow as the bleachers cleared. And just as the last of the audience was leaving the announcer gave the final score which was something like 309 to 110 but that must have been wrong as West won four of the five games. As best I can tell nobody had a fricking clue--including the brain trust that conceived of that silly, er, spectacle.
I heard later that the "real" plan is to play best 3 of 5 in brackets of 4 teams as the prelim round--next year. How that is better than the S7 prelim format attempted at HB this year I don't know. The issue with S7 wasn't the best of 3 format but a prelim round that only plays against three teams and the resulting tie-breakers. For a sample result look at any Millennium prelim round and you will discover that teams go thru all the time based on point differential and not wins or losses. At some point you might as well draw straws or flip a coin as play the games and if that's the direction the NPPL wants to go I can only assume they're less interested in the competition than the logistics and the opportunity to turn a buck.
But it gets better. Wait for the next DC Challenge post.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
NPPL DC registrations
I realize there is some tension (and uncertainty) surrounding this whole NPPL/PSP business and today's post isn't about the merger or the format or who thinks which league is better. Y'all can argue that stuff forever. This is about the numbers--and nothing else. I know, I've done stuff on the numbers recently but it's like nobody is paying any attention given the amount of made up or just plain misinformation being bandied about.
Today (August 28) the official registration of 7-man divisional teams competing in DC is 34. That's for D1, D2 & D3. Sure they still have a week or ten days or so but the numbers haven't changed significantly in a couple of weeks and the total is ballpark for the last two DC NPPL events. Does that mean the NPPL is bad? Or second rate? Or whatever negative you want to apply? No, but it does mean that in nearly 3 seasons of NPPL 3.0 no real progress has been made in expanding the 7-man base. Or demonstrating that 7-man has any real popular, widespread support. Because it doesn't. Simple as that.
Today (August 28) the official registration of 7-man divisional teams competing in DC is 34. That's for D1, D2 & D3. Sure they still have a week or ten days or so but the numbers haven't changed significantly in a couple of weeks and the total is ballpark for the last two DC NPPL events. Does that mean the NPPL is bad? Or second rate? Or whatever negative you want to apply? No, but it does mean that in nearly 3 seasons of NPPL 3.0 no real progress has been made in expanding the 7-man base. Or demonstrating that 7-man has any real popular, widespread support. Because it doesn't. Simple as that.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Monday Poll in Review
I heard from a reliable source this past week that powers in the PSP weren't exactly thrilled to see last week's The Monday Poll. (And given the results I suspect the NPPL kids liked it even less.) So let this be a teaching moment on why Baca is always right. The point of the poll was a) to give voice to you, the competitive player, and b) to make painfully clear that whatever reasons may be offered in favor of the 7-man format widespread popularity isn't one of them. (More on this coming later.)
(Reason a is also why I am on occasion frustrated at the lack of participation. Outlets for expressing your moods, views, opinions and general thoughts are relatively few and far between and trust me, participating here, at VFTD will get you a lot further than bitching & whining will over on PBN. On the flip side your apathy is a green light for the paintball powers-that-be to do what they want, when they want.)
Allow me to demonstrate. (We're talking about the poll again.) Given all the different options let's add up the percentages that favor any form of 7-man. That total is 16% of the vote. The total favoring some form of xball or Race 2 is 73%. In the debate over what format a unified major league ought to offer the answer seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Also of interest 18% voted for the current form of Race 2 while only 2% voted for the current form of 7-man. That, my friends, is 9:1 in favor of xball. (7-man collected most of its votes [14%] in the S7 category of Best of 3 competition that I am certain most of those voting for haven't actually played. Largely because it turned out to be a confusing pain in the --) And of course there is no way original Xball , despite receiving 24% of the vote, makes a surprise return because a) nobody could afford to play it (unless the PSP turned into the CXBL and nobody is gonna commit major league resources to playing two matches or whatever per event) and b) divisional teams would scream bloody murder if they were forced to return to a double elimination format or something similar. (I'll believe there's a real market for 10-man [5%] when somebody offers a 10-man tourney and anybody shows up.) For better or worse Xball Lite is where we're at. That is what has the majority of the grassroots support. That's what most of the regional leagues are playing. That's what Euroland is playing. That's what the developing paintball world aspires to compete in. The debate is over. For better or worse xball is the dominant competitive format.
NPPL Owners Extra: Sorry, kids, you got nothing. Stick with the claim of marketing superiority. Minus the revolving pro teams merry-go-round your events have averaged less than 70 paid teams per event in your first two years. Take the 5-man & pump teams out of the equation and the number of teams actually competing in 7-man drops noticeably. There's no real debate here, only your delusions. While I'm at it here's a prediction for y'all: Any format decision that isn't basically Race 2 will, within about ten minutes, spawn a new competing league or some cooperative competing national championship among the regional Race 2 series.
Edited for accuracy: I changed the number of paid teams on average in the above paragraph after double checking my recollection. More data can be found in the post Buy The Numbers. And if you remove 5-man & pump the number of divisional teams competing in the 7-man format averaged 40 teams during the first two years of NPPL 3.0.
(Reason a is also why I am on occasion frustrated at the lack of participation. Outlets for expressing your moods, views, opinions and general thoughts are relatively few and far between and trust me, participating here, at VFTD will get you a lot further than bitching & whining will over on PBN. On the flip side your apathy is a green light for the paintball powers-that-be to do what they want, when they want.)
Allow me to demonstrate. (We're talking about the poll again.) Given all the different options let's add up the percentages that favor any form of 7-man. That total is 16% of the vote. The total favoring some form of xball or Race 2 is 73%. In the debate over what format a unified major league ought to offer the answer seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Also of interest 18% voted for the current form of Race 2 while only 2% voted for the current form of 7-man. That, my friends, is 9:1 in favor of xball. (7-man collected most of its votes [14%] in the S7 category of Best of 3 competition that I am certain most of those voting for haven't actually played. Largely because it turned out to be a confusing pain in the --) And of course there is no way original Xball , despite receiving 24% of the vote, makes a surprise return because a) nobody could afford to play it (unless the PSP turned into the CXBL and nobody is gonna commit major league resources to playing two matches or whatever per event) and b) divisional teams would scream bloody murder if they were forced to return to a double elimination format or something similar. (I'll believe there's a real market for 10-man [5%] when somebody offers a 10-man tourney and anybody shows up.) For better or worse Xball Lite is where we're at. That is what has the majority of the grassroots support. That's what most of the regional leagues are playing. That's what Euroland is playing. That's what the developing paintball world aspires to compete in. The debate is over. For better or worse xball is the dominant competitive format.
NPPL Owners Extra: Sorry, kids, you got nothing. Stick with the claim of marketing superiority. Minus the revolving pro teams merry-go-round your events have averaged less than 70 paid teams per event in your first two years. Take the 5-man & pump teams out of the equation and the number of teams actually competing in 7-man drops noticeably. There's no real debate here, only your delusions. While I'm at it here's a prediction for y'all: Any format decision that isn't basically Race 2 will, within about ten minutes, spawn a new competing league or some cooperative competing national championship among the regional Race 2 series.
Edited for accuracy: I changed the number of paid teams on average in the above paragraph after double checking my recollection. More data can be found in the post Buy The Numbers. And if you remove 5-man & pump the number of divisional teams competing in the 7-man format averaged 40 teams during the first two years of NPPL 3.0.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
They've Kidnapped Junior Brown
Again.
If you missed it I poked a little fun at the ProPaintball Kidz last week for claiming that mysterious 'pro paintball insiders' leaked the 2 sample NPPL layouts. And in so doing I wondered if perhaps the insiders were kidnapping & hypnotizing JB in order to command his unwitting help in uncovering all this top secret info.
It was only posted on VFTD's Facebook page so if you aren't keeping up you're occasionally missing out. At any rate, there's been another leak--so they must have kidnapped Junior--again.
This time around the "leak" involves another format change, or perhaps unchange would be more accurate. At HB the Pros played Race 2-2 (No, they didn't call it that) in brackets of 4 teams each--despite VFTD's prediction of likely confusion and chaos. The issue with the brackets is the high likelihood of multiple team ties (4 outta 6 brackets in HB) and the resulting tie-breaker system that was poorly understood and poorly explained at HB and on the ESPN3 broadcast. All the ties gave an appearance that results were not being resolved on the field but by math geeks tucked away in a tent some place. It wasn't quite that bad but clean, simple & easy to understand is better--so the league is apparently going to return to the prior prelim practice of two divisions playing round robin with posted game scores with high scores moving on. Then on Sunday the Pros will return to the Race 2-2 in 2 brackets of four teams each to determine the semifinals.
Whad'dya mean you're still confused?
If you missed it I poked a little fun at the ProPaintball Kidz last week for claiming that mysterious 'pro paintball insiders' leaked the 2 sample NPPL layouts. And in so doing I wondered if perhaps the insiders were kidnapping & hypnotizing JB in order to command his unwitting help in uncovering all this top secret info.
This time around the "leak" involves another format change, or perhaps unchange would be more accurate. At HB the Pros played Race 2-2 (No, they didn't call it that) in brackets of 4 teams each--despite VFTD's prediction of likely confusion and chaos. The issue with the brackets is the high likelihood of multiple team ties (4 outta 6 brackets in HB) and the resulting tie-breaker system that was poorly understood and poorly explained at HB and on the ESPN3 broadcast. All the ties gave an appearance that results were not being resolved on the field but by math geeks tucked away in a tent some place. It wasn't quite that bad but clean, simple & easy to understand is better--so the league is apparently going to return to the prior prelim practice of two divisions playing round robin with posted game scores with high scores moving on. Then on Sunday the Pros will return to the Race 2-2 in 2 brackets of four teams each to determine the semifinals.
Whad'dya mean you're still confused?
Monday, April 4, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
NPPL Pro Brackets: Scoring
Not only does the new NPPL Pro format invest one third of its schedule in games that are "play if necessary" but with the brackets of 4 teams in each of four brackets the odds are (particularly over the course of a season) there will numerous results requiring resolution by tie-breaker. (Something regular readers know I find contrary to the ideals of competition.) Anyway, with 4 teams in each bracket the possible outcomes are as follows: (Wins) 3, 2, 1, 0. 3, 1, 1, 1. 2, 2, 2, 0. 2, 2, 1, 1. That's it. There are no other outcomes. 50% of the time the outcome is clear cut. 50% of the time the result will be determined by some sort of tie-breaker, and in this case it will be highest average score. (The first tie-breaker is matches won which doesn't apply. The second is head-to-head and with three teams tied [group 2 & 3] that doesn't apply either. The third tie-breaker is total points scored divided by games played or highest average score.) Since the third tie-breaker is highest average score it would seem the fewer games a team plays the better but that isn't actually correct. It's true if a team loses single games in matches it eventually wins--because that dilutes their scoring average. But in matches a team loses every extra game won increases a team's scoring average. The moral of the math is win matches 2-0 and if you gotta lose do it 2-1 for your best chance of moving on. That may seem obvious but look at this way. Two teams play 7 games each and end up 2 matches won and one match lost. First team goes 2-1 in a match it won and the second team went 1-2 in the match it lost. Who goes through? First team went 4-3 in games won/lost. The second team went 5-2 in games won/lost for the higher scoring average. So here we go again. Btw, the Millennium does the same damned thing--and has for years--like you didn't already know that. What the hell is the matter with you people?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Lazy Slacker Re-post of the Week
This week's re-post is quite timely on a couple of levels. It's from November 2008 and it was the second part of a two part posting called, Robots versus Ninjas. The old (and silly) robots vs. ninjas argument has cropped up again with the PSP's proposed change of no pit-side coaching and the post closes by framing the original debate--such as it was--within the bigger picture. A little something I like to call perspective, which always seems to be in short supply.
Monday, December 13, 2010
The Future?
It's beginning to come into focus. Still hazy and uncertain but I'm getting glimpses here and there. Some belt-tightening sees the PSP through the year but the hoped for gains in an older, self-sufficient demographic don't pan out in the numbers. Even so the league decides to stay the course. The problem wasn't the changes--the problem of too few players pre-existed (right?) The problem was the changes weren't dramatic enough. Off the mark by being too timid. So the PSP makes more changes. They lengthen and widen the fields this time and struggle with how to offer the most paintball for the money. Until it hits them--teams have rosters of at least 10 players--if all the players could play every game ... wow, it's perfect! How's that for value, dear customer? And since the fields are bigger we can add a few more bunkers ...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Where Did Everybody Go?
Picking up on the themes of The Monday Poll I want to dig a little deeper in response to Mark's Monday Poll comment. His concern relates to field operators who rely, to one degree or another, on tourney teams practicing. It's a legit question. Unfortunately I don't think there is a definitive answer. But there are some things we can take a look at that might be helpful.
Is the current relationship between (mostly) the PSP--there aren't enough NPPL fields out there to matter--and the local practice field(s) a positive one? Yes and no. Is dependency on an outside agent that has its own agenda a good place to be? More teams are more likely to schedule practices proximate to when events will be held but in some respects the PSP hold practice fields hostage to their schedule right now. There was a time when fields were only released 3 weeks prior to an event and the result was the majority of competing teams fit all their practice into that 3 week period. Because all they were doing was scrimmaging the layout. When given the opportunity to prepare for a specific layout anything else is pointless. Even with layouts released within a week or so of the prior event the schedule of events still impacts local practice habits. The longer the time between events the more practice sessions will tend to be distributed closer to the event. This is a result of two factors; a team wants to be most prepared just before the event and because of some limitation on how often a team can afford to practice.
Does maintaining the status quo do anything other than to assure that everybody eventually goes down together? Or pass off responsibility for what happens next to an agency that has its own survival to think about? On the other hand we already know what happens when teams don't have the next event's layout, they practice anyway. And how they practice is up to them.
In order to free up local practice fields one needs to disassociate practice from specific events as much as possible and reduce the cost of practice. And if practice can be conducted at a lower cost it should yield two positive outcomes; dedicated teams on a budget should be able to practice more often and players and prospective teams will be more likely to reform old teams and/or start new ones because the bar to competing has been lowered.
In the last two or three years lots of theories have been offered for the decline in competitive paintball participation. Everything from blazing gats killing newbies to the economy stupid. And each theory has its own proponents because most of them sound reasonable in one way or another and each of them connect with our assorted biases. And chances are many of them have some degree of validity but sorting out the percentages is a near impossibility. Instead I want to show y'all some numbers and let you make of them what you will--and I'll tell you tomorrow what I make of them.
All these numbers are World Cup numbers in the Xball Era. The most teams ever at WC was in 2002, the last year before xball became a regular option, with well over 400 teams. 2005 was the first year xball was the stand alone headliner at Cup with only 77 xball teams & 247 5-man teams. 2006 saw 131 xball teams & 235 5-man teams participate. 2007 was the peak for xball teams at 160 with a 10% drop in 5-man teams to 212. 2008 had 138 xball teams & 195 5-man teams. 2009 saw xball decline to its second lowest stand alone total of 125 along with still shrinking 5-man total of 183. 2010 had 134 xball teams while 5-man fell off the table dropping to 118. Make of them what you will.
To put all this into a different context here's an alternative option. Given that the PSP has not hesitated in the past to change the format in an attempt to preserve (and/or grow) participation what if they followed the Amodea Plan of slightly enlarging the field and adding a couple of larger bunkers in the back to make it easier for the older more financially stable player to compete along with all the broke ass bunker monkeys. (I'm putting this out there because John suggested it in an X3 editorial a few months ago and because I disagreed with it at the time.) Is another format change either less threatening or more likely to succeed than simply no longer releasing the event layout in advance? And if it is how does it impact cost of participation? Or maybe you'd like to see both?
Is the current relationship between (mostly) the PSP--there aren't enough NPPL fields out there to matter--and the local practice field(s) a positive one? Yes and no. Is dependency on an outside agent that has its own agenda a good place to be? More teams are more likely to schedule practices proximate to when events will be held but in some respects the PSP hold practice fields hostage to their schedule right now. There was a time when fields were only released 3 weeks prior to an event and the result was the majority of competing teams fit all their practice into that 3 week period. Because all they were doing was scrimmaging the layout. When given the opportunity to prepare for a specific layout anything else is pointless. Even with layouts released within a week or so of the prior event the schedule of events still impacts local practice habits. The longer the time between events the more practice sessions will tend to be distributed closer to the event. This is a result of two factors; a team wants to be most prepared just before the event and because of some limitation on how often a team can afford to practice.
Does maintaining the status quo do anything other than to assure that everybody eventually goes down together? Or pass off responsibility for what happens next to an agency that has its own survival to think about? On the other hand we already know what happens when teams don't have the next event's layout, they practice anyway. And how they practice is up to them.
In order to free up local practice fields one needs to disassociate practice from specific events as much as possible and reduce the cost of practice. And if practice can be conducted at a lower cost it should yield two positive outcomes; dedicated teams on a budget should be able to practice more often and players and prospective teams will be more likely to reform old teams and/or start new ones because the bar to competing has been lowered.
In the last two or three years lots of theories have been offered for the decline in competitive paintball participation. Everything from blazing gats killing newbies to the economy stupid. And each theory has its own proponents because most of them sound reasonable in one way or another and each of them connect with our assorted biases. And chances are many of them have some degree of validity but sorting out the percentages is a near impossibility. Instead I want to show y'all some numbers and let you make of them what you will--and I'll tell you tomorrow what I make of them.
All these numbers are World Cup numbers in the Xball Era. The most teams ever at WC was in 2002, the last year before xball became a regular option, with well over 400 teams. 2005 was the first year xball was the stand alone headliner at Cup with only 77 xball teams & 247 5-man teams. 2006 saw 131 xball teams & 235 5-man teams participate. 2007 was the peak for xball teams at 160 with a 10% drop in 5-man teams to 212. 2008 had 138 xball teams & 195 5-man teams. 2009 saw xball decline to its second lowest stand alone total of 125 along with still shrinking 5-man total of 183. 2010 had 134 xball teams while 5-man fell off the table dropping to 118. Make of them what you will.
To put all this into a different context here's an alternative option. Given that the PSP has not hesitated in the past to change the format in an attempt to preserve (and/or grow) participation what if they followed the Amodea Plan of slightly enlarging the field and adding a couple of larger bunkers in the back to make it easier for the older more financially stable player to compete along with all the broke ass bunker monkeys. (I'm putting this out there because John suggested it in an X3 editorial a few months ago and because I disagreed with it at the time.) Is another format change either less threatening or more likely to succeed than simply no longer releasing the event layout in advance? And if it is how does it impact cost of participation? Or maybe you'd like to see both?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
In the News
Saw this item over at the Big Bullet. It's an interesting twist on the tourney norm, if it even qualifies as a tourney format. Whatever it is it's an intriguing hybrid and I'll be looking forward to see how it works out as it could unite all kinds of ballers behind a fun, flexible competitive format.
More news on the HydroTec paintball front too thanks to the Catshack. (Litter is not optional.) In an interview that recounts elements of the conversation instead of verbatim quotes it sounds like the new paintball may be underweight compared to current 68 cal paintballs. Depending on the variance it's unlikely to be a big deal except in the competitive arena where an underweight paintball could be at a performance disadvantage. And in discussing pricing it sounded like it may end up closer to current paint prices than a lot of the rumors have suggested even though no actual pricing was given. Something to keep an eye on anyway.
More news on the HydroTec paintball front too thanks to the Catshack. (Litter is not optional.) In an interview that recounts elements of the conversation instead of verbatim quotes it sounds like the new paintball may be underweight compared to current 68 cal paintballs. Depending on the variance it's unlikely to be a big deal except in the competitive arena where an underweight paintball could be at a performance disadvantage. And in discussing pricing it sounded like it may end up closer to current paint prices than a lot of the rumors have suggested even though no actual pricing was given. Something to keep an eye on anyway.
Monday, September 27, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, September 10, 2010
What happens in Vegas ...
... stays in Vegas--as long as it's your money--or so the city fathers desperately hope 'cus everyone else is getting outta Dodge. (The wages in Sin City ain't what they used to be.) But don't you believe them. You may leave your dignity and your last dime behind but the all-night walk-in clinic you found strongly recommends you take your antibiotics home with you and finish the prescribed course of treatment.
If the NPPL follows through with one plan that's being floated they may hope it stays in Vegas, too. While I am thankfully outta the loop our team did receive a query the other day from NPPL HQ requesting our opinion of modifying the pro format to something like what was used for the All-Star game(s) in DC. As it related to competition it was forwarded to me requesting comment. (One thing I'm good at.) I immediately objected. Alter the format for the final event of the season? When we have as a good a shot as anybody of winning the series? I don't think so. But seriously. Changing the format in season? Now I have no idea if my objection was passed along or what anyone else thinks of this format altering in season but there are also some Big Picture issues with making such a change and that's what this post is really about.
When talk of the All-Star modification first came up a month or two ago I thought it was a mistake then too. Not because it was a lousy idea for the All-Star game but because of where I assumed it would lead--to this. Before I explain my objection though I have a question: What is this format change supposed to fix?
The likely answer is that a best of 3 offers greater assurance that the better team won--and in any isolated calculation I would agree. But--if that's the argument you also end up admitting the other league has had it right all along and the change becomes us too, better late than never. And that would leave the NPPL deciding if it's going to carry the format change over across the other divisions and if not, why not? If it does then suddenly the NPPL is playing Race 2-2 with 7 players (and playing follow the leader.) If it doesn't why is the change right for the pros but not everybody else?
In the current format it is possible to lose games that you normally wouldn't or fall victim to occasional poor officiating but at the same time you play everyone that everyone else in your group plays. Everyone's opportunity is identical and more of the pro teams play against each other than happens in the other league. (We've gone whole seasons not playing a team or two in the PSP.)
How is the new format organized as a competition? (There were no details in the HQ query.) How many prelims do you play? How is moving on to your next match-up arranged? Would you end up playing more or less games? Is this, in part, a paint saving scheme? How many pods are we going to need? There are lots of unanswered questions, big & small.
My guess is the plan will be tabled for now and reconsidered in the off season. If you like the idea and think it might sway you to play NPPL by all means say so. If you don't like it say that too and if you're just curious you might as well kick back and relax. We'll find out soon enough.
If NPPL HQ is concerned about exploring ways to rebuild the format's popularity and get more peeps playing again they might have more luck using the other league's field instead of its format. Just a thought.
If the NPPL follows through with one plan that's being floated they may hope it stays in Vegas, too. While I am thankfully outta the loop our team did receive a query the other day from NPPL HQ requesting our opinion of modifying the pro format to something like what was used for the All-Star game(s) in DC. As it related to competition it was forwarded to me requesting comment. (One thing I'm good at.) I immediately objected. Alter the format for the final event of the season? When we have as a good a shot as anybody of winning the series? I don't think so. But seriously. Changing the format in season? Now I have no idea if my objection was passed along or what anyone else thinks of this format altering in season but there are also some Big Picture issues with making such a change and that's what this post is really about.
When talk of the All-Star modification first came up a month or two ago I thought it was a mistake then too. Not because it was a lousy idea for the All-Star game but because of where I assumed it would lead--to this. Before I explain my objection though I have a question: What is this format change supposed to fix?
The likely answer is that a best of 3 offers greater assurance that the better team won--and in any isolated calculation I would agree. But--if that's the argument you also end up admitting the other league has had it right all along and the change becomes us too, better late than never. And that would leave the NPPL deciding if it's going to carry the format change over across the other divisions and if not, why not? If it does then suddenly the NPPL is playing Race 2-2 with 7 players (and playing follow the leader.) If it doesn't why is the change right for the pros but not everybody else?
In the current format it is possible to lose games that you normally wouldn't or fall victim to occasional poor officiating but at the same time you play everyone that everyone else in your group plays. Everyone's opportunity is identical and more of the pro teams play against each other than happens in the other league. (We've gone whole seasons not playing a team or two in the PSP.)
How is the new format organized as a competition? (There were no details in the HQ query.) How many prelims do you play? How is moving on to your next match-up arranged? Would you end up playing more or less games? Is this, in part, a paint saving scheme? How many pods are we going to need? There are lots of unanswered questions, big & small.
My guess is the plan will be tabled for now and reconsidered in the off season. If you like the idea and think it might sway you to play NPPL by all means say so. If you don't like it say that too and if you're just curious you might as well kick back and relax. We'll find out soon enough.
If NPPL HQ is concerned about exploring ways to rebuild the format's popularity and get more peeps playing again they might have more luck using the other league's field instead of its format. Just a thought.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tweaking 7-man: S7
Is it time to tweak the 7-man format? For some the answer would appear to be yes. More than an All*Star gimmick could S7 revitalize the 7-man format?
Before I go any further you need to go here and see what JB (Junior Brown from XSV) has to say about S7. His post is most of the way down the page. He lays out the basic game and the changes so I don't have to. (Thanks, JB.) He also makes clear it's a work in progress.
So what's the point? I'm fine with trying to improve the format but I'm also curious as to why. Why now? And why like this? The obvious answer is that almost two years into the NPPL 3.0 experiment there is little evidence the existence of the league is increasing competitive player interest in the 7-man format and breeding new 7-man teams. At least not in encouraging numbers, numbers that show progress. Other than returning to 2005 what can the league do? They hold events in Vegas and on Huntington Beach. They brought back the All*Star game, offer player parties, improved reffing, offer assorted perks and very nearly ignore what passes for gun rules so all the true believers in true semi-auto have a place to compete and still they have to supplement 7-man play with pump and 5-man entries. What's a league to do? Oh, yeah, fiddle with the format.
This is problematic too however. Especially when it appears, at least initially, that the changes being considered are moving the game closer to the game played by their primary competitor, the PSP. Right now there are clear and bright dividing lines between 7-man and Race 2. Format changes that move closer to Race 2 run the serious risk of conceding the format war--in favor of the other guy. Will it benefit the NPPL 3.0 in the long run to jump on the Race 2 bandwagon while insisting their version is better? Maybe it will. Maybe no coaching, a different shaped field, 7 players instead of 5 and Wild West gun rules are what the players want--but if so there is little to no evidence supporting the idea. And none of the modifications offered by S7 address the crucial issue--there are very few places left to practice whatever version of 7-man the league might decide on even if an influx of interest suddenly appeared. The only real future 7-man has is one that rebuilds a grassroots interest in the format.
Before I go any further you need to go here and see what JB (Junior Brown from XSV) has to say about S7. His post is most of the way down the page. He lays out the basic game and the changes so I don't have to. (Thanks, JB.) He also makes clear it's a work in progress.
So what's the point? I'm fine with trying to improve the format but I'm also curious as to why. Why now? And why like this? The obvious answer is that almost two years into the NPPL 3.0 experiment there is little evidence the existence of the league is increasing competitive player interest in the 7-man format and breeding new 7-man teams. At least not in encouraging numbers, numbers that show progress. Other than returning to 2005 what can the league do? They hold events in Vegas and on Huntington Beach. They brought back the All*Star game, offer player parties, improved reffing, offer assorted perks and very nearly ignore what passes for gun rules so all the true believers in true semi-auto have a place to compete and still they have to supplement 7-man play with pump and 5-man entries. What's a league to do? Oh, yeah, fiddle with the format.
This is problematic too however. Especially when it appears, at least initially, that the changes being considered are moving the game closer to the game played by their primary competitor, the PSP. Right now there are clear and bright dividing lines between 7-man and Race 2. Format changes that move closer to Race 2 run the serious risk of conceding the format war--in favor of the other guy. Will it benefit the NPPL 3.0 in the long run to jump on the Race 2 bandwagon while insisting their version is better? Maybe it will. Maybe no coaching, a different shaped field, 7 players instead of 5 and Wild West gun rules are what the players want--but if so there is little to no evidence supporting the idea. And none of the modifications offered by S7 address the crucial issue--there are very few places left to practice whatever version of 7-man the league might decide on even if an influx of interest suddenly appeared. The only real future 7-man has is one that rebuilds a grassroots interest in the format.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Format of the Future?
Maybe, maybe not but an excellent beginning point to talk about the evolution of competitive paintball formats--and, according to player testimonials, it's great fun to play.
Are you drawing a blank? Hit the title for a link to the official Formula 5 website for more info--or just keep reading. I stumbled across this on the P8ntballer forum and was intrigued. In part because I've been, now and again, noodling over possibilities for the Holy Grail of tourney paintball, the spectator friendly format. Which isn't to say I'm dissatisfied with the current situation--though in a perfect world I'd rather play "real" xball, but then I'm not footing our paint bill so I grit my teeth and accept certain compromises. (Except 3 damn prelim matches an event! Never! A line has to be drawn somewhere or eventually we'll be paying our entry and flipping a coin to see who won. But I digress...)
I do tend to think however that future changes or competitive alternatives are more likely than not. And as an example Formula 5 has some good things going for it. Played on an airball field larger than the current standard the center of the field has two buttons, one for each team, that set a clock ticking. Pressing your button begins to accumulate time for your side, scoring one point every six seconds until your opponent can reach his button and turn the clock in his favor. That's the focal point and the results are immediately visible on the scoreboard as the two team's scores either get closer or further apart. You also score a point every time an opponent is eliminated or exits the field (having been removed as the result of a penalty or to refill air and/or paint. The other big feature is that players re-spawn (thus also attracting the scenario crowd. Or not.) Fresh players enter as others exit so long as no more than 5 live players are on the field at any one time. The game action is non-stop as there is a constant battle over control of the clock.
That's it in a nutshell. Sound good? Bad? Crazy? Not sure? If you want to know more check the title link and/or P8ntballer for more details.
And, as I said it's a good way to begin a discussion on future formats--do we need them? Want them? Or is 7-man or Race 2 the final frontier for competitive paintball? Later this week I'll see if I can keep the conversation going with Bacaball 1.0.
Are you drawing a blank? Hit the title for a link to the official Formula 5 website for more info--or just keep reading. I stumbled across this on the P8ntballer forum and was intrigued. In part because I've been, now and again, noodling over possibilities for the Holy Grail of tourney paintball, the spectator friendly format. Which isn't to say I'm dissatisfied with the current situation--though in a perfect world I'd rather play "real" xball, but then I'm not footing our paint bill so I grit my teeth and accept certain compromises. (Except 3 damn prelim matches an event! Never! A line has to be drawn somewhere or eventually we'll be paying our entry and flipping a coin to see who won. But I digress...)
I do tend to think however that future changes or competitive alternatives are more likely than not. And as an example Formula 5 has some good things going for it. Played on an airball field larger than the current standard the center of the field has two buttons, one for each team, that set a clock ticking. Pressing your button begins to accumulate time for your side, scoring one point every six seconds until your opponent can reach his button and turn the clock in his favor. That's the focal point and the results are immediately visible on the scoreboard as the two team's scores either get closer or further apart. You also score a point every time an opponent is eliminated or exits the field (having been removed as the result of a penalty or to refill air and/or paint. The other big feature is that players re-spawn (thus also attracting the scenario crowd. Or not.) Fresh players enter as others exit so long as no more than 5 live players are on the field at any one time. The game action is non-stop as there is a constant battle over control of the clock.
That's it in a nutshell. Sound good? Bad? Crazy? Not sure? If you want to know more check the title link and/or P8ntballer for more details.
And, as I said it's a good way to begin a discussion on future formats--do we need them? Want them? Or is 7-man or Race 2 the final frontier for competitive paintball? Later this week I'll see if I can keep the conversation going with Bacaball 1.0.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Paintball Unity Proclaimed
Not, uh, actual unity. This particular unity is limited to competitive paintball in the United States for the time being. And in fact it isn't exactly unity at all 'cus there's a few folks out there running events and series who aren't part of the unity announced today by the PSP. For available details (and a bitchin' map) go here. But, all the same, it is a unity of the participating leagues which includes 6 regional leagues (kinda) and the PSP. And that's a very good start.
First, while I am admittedly poking a little fun I am foursquare in favor of this move as a potentially significant step in the right direction. (Remember what I didn't talk about here?)
The basics announced today establishes the Race To format as the dominate format for competitive paintball in the U.S. and lays the foundation for the vertical integration of the format from the local grassroots all the way up to the pro division. The key to that integration will be the use of APPA and as yet unannounced modified classification system to rank players around the country to assure, as closely as possible, that everyone is playing the same game and ranked in a consistent manner from region to region as well as within the ranks of the PSP.
However, the devil--as they say--is in the details and we don't know those yet so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. (No easy task given they are short & thick and about as flexible as a kendo shinai.)
Anyway, the critical issues are how effective--without being coercive--the new classification system proves to be in delivering on the announcement's promise and how the relationship between the regions and the PSP is understood by the participating parties and what the intent is in taking this step. I think the classification issue is pretty straightforward and we should see within a reasonable window of time how it's working. And it's also the sort of thing that can be "fixed" if needed--as long as the leagues and players remain convinced it's the way to go. The issue of the relationship between the leagues and the PSP is a dicier proposition because, like it or not, today, tomorrow and into the near future the PSP is in competition with the leagues for participating teams. It's unavoidable and the prospect for ultimate success may ride on whatever the plan is for some sort of transition or shift in priorities on the part of the PSP.
First, while I am admittedly poking a little fun I am foursquare in favor of this move as a potentially significant step in the right direction. (Remember what I didn't talk about here?)
The basics announced today establishes the Race To format as the dominate format for competitive paintball in the U.S. and lays the foundation for the vertical integration of the format from the local grassroots all the way up to the pro division. The key to that integration will be the use of APPA and as yet unannounced modified classification system to rank players around the country to assure, as closely as possible, that everyone is playing the same game and ranked in a consistent manner from region to region as well as within the ranks of the PSP.
However, the devil--as they say--is in the details and we don't know those yet so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. (No easy task given they are short & thick and about as flexible as a kendo shinai.)
Anyway, the critical issues are how effective--without being coercive--the new classification system proves to be in delivering on the announcement's promise and how the relationship between the regions and the PSP is understood by the participating parties and what the intent is in taking this step. I think the classification issue is pretty straightforward and we should see within a reasonable window of time how it's working. And it's also the sort of thing that can be "fixed" if needed--as long as the leagues and players remain convinced it's the way to go. The issue of the relationship between the leagues and the PSP is a dicier proposition because, like it or not, today, tomorrow and into the near future the PSP is in competition with the leagues for participating teams. It's unavoidable and the prospect for ultimate success may ride on whatever the plan is for some sort of transition or shift in priorities on the part of the PSP.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
