While we continue to wait to hear the list of final changes for the new season there is one item that needs to be considered (or reconsidered) and it concerns the implementation of the new 90 second rule. (And, no, I'm not gonna lobby to not do it 'cus that's a battle I'm not gonna win--not right now anyway.) But the issue does relate to the 90 second rule. The routine on the pro field has been to start the two minute countdown on the ref's signal of a flag hang. But this happens prior to the official awarding of the point as the refs check the player after signaling the hang. The result is our 2 minute clock has always started running before live players can leave the field. The intent, I assume, was to save game time and not burn clock while the refs are checking the player(s). Problematically, the refs take however long they take and with the break time now reduced the commish and/or the league needs to decide how they're going to handle this before the first teams step on the field.
The sensible answer is to stop the game clock on the hang signal but not start the 90 second clock until the point is actually awarded or denied. The problem this presents the league is that the time they thought they were saving per match will be reduced. In fact, the only way it won't be reduced is if game clock runs off while the refs decide every clean hang or the 90 second clock starts as before--with live players on the field. Either way it takes away from the game for the teams and I can easily foresee teams having to burn their timeouts because of it. In the past it passed unobjected to because 2 minutes was a large enough buffer that it seldom proved to be a critical inconsistency but in this effort to play more matches there isn't ten, fifteen or twenty seconds to spare anymore.
So, what you gonna do PSP?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Pro*file: Tyler Humphrey
A remake of 'Escape from New York' is in the works and one of the contractual stipulations is that the Snake Plisskin character "I heard you was dead," has an eyepatch, must be called Snake and remains a "bad ass." (Yes, that is literally part of the deal.) And it reminded me of Tyler because I tend to think of him as one of the last of a generation of Pro players who lived the role the way all the hopeful kids on the outside looking in dreamed about.Yeah, I know. If you want to be a stickler Tyler isn't currently ranked pro by APPA, so if you want, consider this a throwback Pro*file.
Name: Tyler Humphrey
Age: 20-something
Hometown: Raleigh, NC
Occupation: Operations and IT at Paintball Central
Family: Best Parents in the World: Brian and Marilyn, Little Sister Lindsay, Big Brother Brian
Interests other than paintball: I’m really into tennis these days, I play on a couple teams and in different leagues. I’m just a huge fan of all sports and competition, really. I’m also really into politics, all the way from the local level up to DC.
1. What was your first paintball experience and who introduced you to the game?My brother and I started playing together when we were young’ins living in Ohio.
2. What team do you play for now?
I have been really involved with and coaching a team called Lost Boys. I hope to be playing with those awesome kids in the near future. Just being around a group of great guys that are passionate about competing and winning has really re-motivated me!
3. What teams have you played for in the past?
I’ve played for numerous teams in Europe like the Ton-Tons and Moscow Phoenix, a few teams here in the States like Gridlock, Aftermath, Image (2007) and Shockwave. But really the only team I’ve played for that matters in my career is Trauma.
4. What role do you play on your current team?
Sadly, I’m nothing more than a coach at the moment. L
5. You and me both, buddy. Who helped you become the player you are?
My dad is a fierce competitor and brought me up the same way; without him I wouldn’t have the competitive drive that is necessary to win. Brian Stewart and I started at the local tournament level and really pushed each other to become better, so I attribute a lot of my fundamental paintball skill to that relationship. I really looked up to a few players on Image (sadly, most paintball players today don’t even know about this team) during my Amateur years like LD, Lane Wright, Opie Thomas, LB, and Rob Staudinger. I believe watching that team created my aggressive playing style. It was Rob who brought me and the rest of Trauma to the Pro ranks and taught us how to play as a team. And believe it or not even you, Baca, taught me a few things. Specifically, you taught me how to think much more analytically about breakouts, shooting lanes, and risk-taking which has helped me become a better coach. So, thanks to all you people!
6. Who are your favorite paintball players?
My favorite players of all-time are Opie Thomas, Richie Maliszewski, and Billy Ceranski.
7. What’s your best paintball experience or memory?
My favorite paintball memory of all-time is a three way tie between 2001 World Cup, 2002 World Cup, and 2005 World Cup. 2001 was Trauma’s first national level victory as an Amateur team. We had moved from Am-B to Am-A mid season and were not expected to do as well as we did. 2002 World Cup was Trauma’s last event as an Amateur team. We won the event, capping off our unprecedented 6-wins-in-a-row and guaranteeing our spot in the pro ranks. 2005 World Cup was Trauma’s first win as a Pro team. All 3 were the result of a whole lot of work and sacrifice by everyone on the team. The more work you put in, the better the victories feel.
8. What’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve done in order to play paintball?
I remember the first World Cup I played in, back in 1999. I didn’t have enough money for a plane ticket, so I hitched a ride in the bed of a pick-up truck and rode there and back (13 hours each way). It was snowing on the way back, but it didn’t matter at the time.
9. What advice would you give a new player who hopes to one day play pro?
To become a pro player, you MUST:
a. Check your ego at the door, you are not as good as you think you are, you are only as good as the work you put in.
b. Learn from people that have done it before you.
c. Be a leader! Be early for practice and don’t leave until all the work is done. Do your homework at practices and events. Encourage your teammates and stay upbeat even after a loss.
d. Be a competitor. There are two types of people: those that don’t want the ball during the last few seconds of the match, and those that do. If you aren’t the type of person that wants to be on the field when it really counts and your team is depending on you, you will never make it.
10. I remember the photo of you in the ballerina outfit. Very becoming. Did you ever consider, I don't know, dressing up like a cheerleader?
It was actually a one piece women’s swimsuit from a Wal-Mart in Honolulu. I was about to grapple with a Gracie brother and needed some type of distraction. In the end, it didn’t help. Seriously though, paintball has provided me so many opportunities: I have met so many life-long friends along the way and been to so many different cities and countries that I normally wouldn’t have been able to see. I appreciate everything that my sponsors have given me over the years and all the people I’ve met. I hope I can give back to the sport and help others realize the same dream that I’ve lived.
Thanks, T, nicely done and I appreciate the props. You'll take a check, right?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
PSP PHX '10: The Twin Towers
I am going to revisit a comment I made in the laning post for this layout in the next to last paragraph and offer a fuller explanation. Specifically this: (This includes routinely filling the MTs as the result is a predominantly defensive posture that won't allow teams to push the wires if they drop a body. It will also tend to overextend the lead wire player as it will lead to an inability on one side or the other to fill the voids anytime the lead player is eliminated.)This is not an attempt to talk you (or anyone else) out of playing those bunkers because I know lots of teams will and that's fine. Given the typical skill levels exhibited in the lower divisions a defensive strategy is frequently effective because it is less demanding of the individual players and puts the other team in the position of needing to be demonstrably better all around--or else points devolve into two defensive-oriented squads hosing away at each other hoping to shoot somebody before they get shot. [And on this basis alone the move to raise the ROF will undoubtedly retard the development of some percentage of lower div players.]
My interest here is in discussing why dependence on the MTs is a tactical error, all things otherwise being equal. The attached diagram of the layout identifies the MTs and Home with red. Other likely breakout primaries are marked with yellow and the same side of the field transition bunkers are marked with green. The colors are intended for quick reference and to help visualize coming points. Red indicates primary spots taken in a common breakout using the MTs. Yellow indicates other primary options that are initially neutral but become defensive positions if the opponent is forcing the action. Early on green represents a first stage offensive push.
In any breakout using the pair of MTs as primaries the likelihood is the MT players will initially be inside the shooting zone and/or shifting to positions similar to B & I shown on the laning post diagram of the layout. This will tend to push both wire players to a limited number of primary options and on the D-side in particular will consistently expose that player to running the same lanes over and over. (On this layout that outcome is hard to avoid regardless but is particularly risky when playing both MTs.) The only tactical discretion that remains is whether the Home shooter has a specific rotation to make or is simply looking to fill should one wire or the other be eliminated. Among other things this becomes extremely predictable. Even the most aggressive breakout option utilising both MTs will seldom, if ever, push more than two players out to a wire. The immediate impact is twofold; basic breakouts employing the two towers put a premium on your laning for effect (as failure gives up the wide gun as often as not) and maximizes the impact of any wide rotation losses you take (because there is no one left to fill the spot.)
Once the breakout is accomplished there are only two options moving into the mid-game transition; Home player makes a pre-planned rotation to one wire or the other, or, Home player waits to fill if/when a wire player is eliminated. In the first case one wire player at least gains support but conversely the other wire is isolated. And eliminations of the wire players give up both angles and open the field deep into the defensive team's side of the field with only the inside guns of the MTs (and possibly Home) to contest control. Additionally wide eliminations without immediate attempts to fill put the defensive team at risk of pressure up the middle of the field.
Of course eliminations off the break will change the dynamics of how a point plays out but my basic point stands. Playing both the MTs is fundamentally a defensive game plan that puts extra pressure on your wings to stay alive and offers them little when its time to shift to offense. Do the MTs have a role on this layout? Yes. Should they be relied on or figure prominently in any game plan? No.
There's plenty more to all this but as usual I'm going long. If there are any specific questions don't hesitate to ask and I won't hesitate to try and answer.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Gun Whore Effect
I have a new theory on the decline of the industry. Like all the other theories it's short on verifiable facts but there is at least a certain logic to it--unlike some of the others, for example, oh, I don't know, say the trickle down theory of robotic hordes of ballers shooting mad paint because that's what the insignificant One Percenters do. (Not to be confused with the punk ass tourney wannabes swarming unwary fields across the country like a plague of locusts. Shooting mad paint. At high ROF.) And while I wouldn't give this theory a primary role in the decline it could have served to make matters worse after the fashion of what repackaged mortgage debt did for financial institutions during the real estate collapse--and beyond. I call it the Gun Whore Effect.
It might more properly be called the Turnover Effect but that doesn't have the panache of The Gun Whore Effect. Gun whores, in fact, have been with us almost as long as the game has been played. Once different kinds and brands of markers hit the market the gun whore soon followed. The gun whore is, of course, that select group of ballers who can't resist the next hot gat and will buy as many of them as possible--sometimes selling older guns in the process, sometimes not. There is also a gun whore lite group that may not have a stash of markers but must have the latest and greatest and as a consequence goes through guns faster than Tiger Woods does cocktail waitresses. The result is gun whores churn the turnover rate in gun sales well above the norm.
It used to be that gun manufacturers made guns and aftermarket shops customized them. Eventually manufacturers began to try and tap the custom market and in no time at all the cycle of "new" gun introductions was annual. In creating an annual turnover cycle manufacturers overheated the marketplace (although since this first occurred during the big growth years it went unnoticed.) Amongst gun whores the effect was to accelerate the rate of turnover; both buying more guns faster than the average but also dumping more used guns back into the market as well. When demand was still rising it didn't matter but as soon as demand flattened (and/or declined) the result was a market glutted with used guns of virtually identical performance and nothing like enough newcomers to sop up the excess and still buy new at anything like the volume the manufacturers had come to expect.
Today that glut continues and continues to depress new sales while manufacturers are stuck trying to differentiate their latest gear from last year's and perhaps even incongruously relying on the gun whore portion of the market for even their reduced sales. And since player numbers have been calculated based on new sales nobody really knows how the numbers stack up, only that the sales aren't there. The one thing I would be willing to bet is that there are a lot of guns collecting dust in a lot of closets.
It might more properly be called the Turnover Effect but that doesn't have the panache of The Gun Whore Effect. Gun whores, in fact, have been with us almost as long as the game has been played. Once different kinds and brands of markers hit the market the gun whore soon followed. The gun whore is, of course, that select group of ballers who can't resist the next hot gat and will buy as many of them as possible--sometimes selling older guns in the process, sometimes not. There is also a gun whore lite group that may not have a stash of markers but must have the latest and greatest and as a consequence goes through guns faster than Tiger Woods does cocktail waitresses. The result is gun whores churn the turnover rate in gun sales well above the norm.
It used to be that gun manufacturers made guns and aftermarket shops customized them. Eventually manufacturers began to try and tap the custom market and in no time at all the cycle of "new" gun introductions was annual. In creating an annual turnover cycle manufacturers overheated the marketplace (although since this first occurred during the big growth years it went unnoticed.) Amongst gun whores the effect was to accelerate the rate of turnover; both buying more guns faster than the average but also dumping more used guns back into the market as well. When demand was still rising it didn't matter but as soon as demand flattened (and/or declined) the result was a market glutted with used guns of virtually identical performance and nothing like enough newcomers to sop up the excess and still buy new at anything like the volume the manufacturers had come to expect.
Today that glut continues and continues to depress new sales while manufacturers are stuck trying to differentiate their latest gear from last year's and perhaps even incongruously relying on the gun whore portion of the market for even their reduced sales. And since player numbers have been calculated based on new sales nobody really knows how the numbers stack up, only that the sales aren't there. The one thing I would be willing to bet is that there are a lot of guns collecting dust in a lot of closets.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Major League Paintball on Suicide Watch
The Grand Tour is promoting a pro division again this season--with a couple of changes. The format this year is to use the results of the first four events to seed a top four that will compete the Tour title and series prize money. The championship event ending the season has been confirmed as Moscow in late August. They will be competing in something like the current Race 2 -5 format. Other divisions will be playing Race 2-4 (or thereabouts.) The first event remains scheduled for Venice for May 1 & 2 but no details have been posted yet. The (Not-So) Grand Tour's participation numbers were very modest last year so it will be interesting to see how registration goes for 2010. With a preponderance of Eastern Euro and Russian teams I wonder if they'll see Venice as a holiday--or just too far away.
There's not much to report on the NPPL either. Online registration is supposed to open Feb. 15th and at that point we'll see if more team info is also available. The HB event is still about two months out though so any current data is unlikely to be too meaningful. It is perhaps a bit more interesting that the league has virtually gone silent with the departure of Camille. While the near daily email blast was somewhat annoying it made the NPPL hard to ignore. Right now the NPPL is a hopeful tournament series being run like a covert op--on a need to know basis--and apparently nobody needs to know.
The MS have opened registration for Malaga and are so far taking a page from the NPPL playbook. (Maybe.) The thing is under teams playing Malaga the open divisions show registered teams; so far 6 in D2, and 3 each in the new D3 and M5. But there's nothing in any of the closed divisions; D1, SPL & CPL. (And last year's CPL champ, SK Moscow, is registered to play semi-pro PSP in Phoenix.) As I understand it teams in the locked divisions are also on a payment schedule that has them pre-paying either all or a significant portion of their fees up front so the fact that the league can't or won't identify who is--and isn't--registered in the locked divs is curious to say the least. Especially as there's been lots of grumbling and whispering this off season with rumors that a number of locked div regulars won't be back this coming season.
I'm also interested in how 50 cal will fare. So far I've heard it will be allowed but I've yet to hear of any team receiving a 50 cal specific sponsorship or intending to compete using the 50 cal guns and paint. It would seem with all the established 50 cal backers in Euroland that would be an obvious next step.
PSP Phoenix is about a month out with the format-formerly-known-as-xball currently showing 87 teams registered and Race2-2 (5-man kinda) at 33 registered. Last year Phoenix ended up with 143 teams paid including 92 xball and 51 5-man. Last year also saw a lot of teams paying entry at the last minute but even so the current numbers must be a little nerve-wracking particularly in light of all the off season changes which were generally well received. If folks are happy with the changes and total numbers still decline it will be a sign of continuing weakness at the national event level. (Although with the new affiliates strategy it might be worth seeing if there is improvement this year over last at the regional level as the season goes on.)
So far an updated rule book is yet to be released and I'm wondering about the logistics of a 3 day event. We already know Pro and S-P are going to 90 seconds between points to save time and extend the number of matches per day on the pro field and while Phoenix has room for more fields every field added without x number of registered teams makes it that much harder for the league to stay out of the red. Is the 90 second rule soon to be a part of everybody's event?
There's not much to report on the NPPL either. Online registration is supposed to open Feb. 15th and at that point we'll see if more team info is also available. The HB event is still about two months out though so any current data is unlikely to be too meaningful. It is perhaps a bit more interesting that the league has virtually gone silent with the departure of Camille. While the near daily email blast was somewhat annoying it made the NPPL hard to ignore. Right now the NPPL is a hopeful tournament series being run like a covert op--on a need to know basis--and apparently nobody needs to know.
The MS have opened registration for Malaga and are so far taking a page from the NPPL playbook. (Maybe.) The thing is under teams playing Malaga the open divisions show registered teams; so far 6 in D2, and 3 each in the new D3 and M5. But there's nothing in any of the closed divisions; D1, SPL & CPL. (And last year's CPL champ, SK Moscow, is registered to play semi-pro PSP in Phoenix.) As I understand it teams in the locked divisions are also on a payment schedule that has them pre-paying either all or a significant portion of their fees up front so the fact that the league can't or won't identify who is--and isn't--registered in the locked divs is curious to say the least. Especially as there's been lots of grumbling and whispering this off season with rumors that a number of locked div regulars won't be back this coming season.
I'm also interested in how 50 cal will fare. So far I've heard it will be allowed but I've yet to hear of any team receiving a 50 cal specific sponsorship or intending to compete using the 50 cal guns and paint. It would seem with all the established 50 cal backers in Euroland that would be an obvious next step.
PSP Phoenix is about a month out with the format-formerly-known-as-xball currently showing 87 teams registered and Race2-2 (5-man kinda) at 33 registered. Last year Phoenix ended up with 143 teams paid including 92 xball and 51 5-man. Last year also saw a lot of teams paying entry at the last minute but even so the current numbers must be a little nerve-wracking particularly in light of all the off season changes which were generally well received. If folks are happy with the changes and total numbers still decline it will be a sign of continuing weakness at the national event level. (Although with the new affiliates strategy it might be worth seeing if there is improvement this year over last at the regional level as the season goes on.)
So far an updated rule book is yet to be released and I'm wondering about the logistics of a 3 day event. We already know Pro and S-P are going to 90 seconds between points to save time and extend the number of matches per day on the pro field and while Phoenix has room for more fields every field added without x number of registered teams makes it that much harder for the league to stay out of the red. Is the 90 second rule soon to be a part of everybody's event?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Dye picks up Hinman, er, Aftermath
One might read the sponsorship deal Dye has offered to Aftermath as just one in a long line of similar arrangements but I wonder if there's more to it than that. And I'm not talking about the Big Picture implication of cementing ties between the PSP's principle owner and the owner of the west coast's PSP affiliate league--though that can't be discounted and is no doubt an element of the deal.
Traditionally successful teams attracted sponsorship because of their success but the nature of the relationships was (is) fluid. Some teams/sponsors forged longer term relationships while others didn't but it was all rather hit or miss and team formation mostly remained a product of serendipity; friendships, proximity, luck, etc. (Discounting the factory teams which are no longer anchoring the upper echelon of teams.) Except players come and go as does desire and motivation and it has been a rare accomplishment to see the best teams remain amongst the best for any period of time.
That may or may not be all that big a deal but in an environment where industry is re-thinking its priorities and also adjusting to the new media and a shifting marketplace the idea of branding has gained some momentum. Branding can work a couple of ways; by lifting the product du jour up on the back of a successful and popular brand (in the case of a team) or by tying product to an up and comer where the product is seen as essential to the success of the developing brand. It's a longer term strategy but has real advantages if the risks can be minimized. The primary risks are a failure to ultimately succeed or even survive the term of the deal.
Now take a look at Aftermath. Is Dye counting on this latest batch of kids to fulfill their expectations? No way. Dye is counting on Mike Hinman to do what he has consistently demonstrated he's capable of doing--putting a very competitive team together and on the field, over and over, despite (or because of) a lack of roster continuity.
So did Dye sign Aftermath or did they sign Hinman? I say they signed Hinman. And I will further suggest that if the industry is serious about branding, continuity and minimizing risk they should think seriously about emulating this move by Dye to support the organizations and/or individuals who have demonstrated staying power and the ability to build successful teams.
Traditionally successful teams attracted sponsorship because of their success but the nature of the relationships was (is) fluid. Some teams/sponsors forged longer term relationships while others didn't but it was all rather hit or miss and team formation mostly remained a product of serendipity; friendships, proximity, luck, etc. (Discounting the factory teams which are no longer anchoring the upper echelon of teams.) Except players come and go as does desire and motivation and it has been a rare accomplishment to see the best teams remain amongst the best for any period of time.
That may or may not be all that big a deal but in an environment where industry is re-thinking its priorities and also adjusting to the new media and a shifting marketplace the idea of branding has gained some momentum. Branding can work a couple of ways; by lifting the product du jour up on the back of a successful and popular brand (in the case of a team) or by tying product to an up and comer where the product is seen as essential to the success of the developing brand. It's a longer term strategy but has real advantages if the risks can be minimized. The primary risks are a failure to ultimately succeed or even survive the term of the deal.
Now take a look at Aftermath. Is Dye counting on this latest batch of kids to fulfill their expectations? No way. Dye is counting on Mike Hinman to do what he has consistently demonstrated he's capable of doing--putting a very competitive team together and on the field, over and over, despite (or because of) a lack of roster continuity.
So did Dye sign Aftermath or did they sign Hinman? I say they signed Hinman. And I will further suggest that if the industry is serious about branding, continuity and minimizing risk they should think seriously about emulating this move by Dye to support the organizations and/or individuals who have demonstrated staying power and the ability to build successful teams.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
VFTD: Book Review
A first--and probably a last given shrinking attention spans and literacy rates--which kinda of begs the question; who is this book for?But I'm getting ahead of myself. The book is 'A Parent's Guide to Paintball,' by Steve Davidson. The book is for parents, d'oh, (of would be young players) but it is also a source of comprehensive general information about most every aspect of the game. As such it's also an excellent resource for anyone interested in getting their paintball knowledge on. Distributed by KEE there is a dedicated website and it's also available through Amazon. And a routine Google search for "paintball books" puts 'A Parents Guide..' at or near the top of the list.
Davidson, considered by some a polarizing figure in the early history of the game, has been involved in paintball for 25 years and knows his stuff. Beside being eminently qualified he writes in a clean, easy-to-read style that communicates the simple to the complex in an understandable and (even) entertaining manner. The book includes a number of useful appendices and while some of the info is out-of-date, given the way the industry & media in particular are changing, it's neither s huge surprise nor a fault of any real consequence. There's also a solid glossary of paintball specific terms. The only aspects of the book some might object to are the price and the advertisements. The Amazon price is $15.95 and the majority of the ads are full page black & white ads for mostly KEE distributed product lines. (Compared to buying 3 paintball magazines you get a lot more specific and useful info and a lot fewer ads.) Overall the book is a straightforward and honest introduction to the game of paintball that also conveys a sense of the fun and excitement playing paintball offers.
If KEE (for example) wanted to make a long term contribution to "growing the sport" they could do worse than making a commitment to putting a copy of this guide in as many local libraries as possible around the country. Just saying. And if you know somebody who wants to know more about paintball 'A Parents Guide ..' fits the bill.
Friday, February 5, 2010
PSP PHX '10: Laning Off The Break
Normally I don't do this prior to an event we are playing but in this case it's a more complex "problem" than usual and I don't expect I'll be giving anything away to our competition--and even if I do it will still come down to players, plans and execution.Keep in mind that ideally the lanes chosen are consistent with team goals and not simply picked by the player(s) randomly or because it's a more 'comfortable' option; ie, I can't do that 'cus I'll get shot so let me shoot over there instead. The lack of a unified effort on this layout will prove particularly counterproductive in a match with a real team. (And, yes, if you're wondering I am suggesting there are plenty of 'teams' that aren't really teams in a meaningful sense.)
Inside the half circle on the diagram is the basic shooting zone. I've chosen some spots but the available lanes aren't limited to the spots. Anywhere within the zone offers most of the same lanes. On the d-side of the field the home shooter has limited lanes and minimal control of the wire. This is where A, B & C come into play as players delay their move to their primaries in order to lane first. A & C are moderately high risk which is where E & I become options. E represents player movement up field with the option to shoot a moving lane to either side of the field and I is positioned in the nearest TCK in order to shoot a cross field corner and D1 lane. The problem in relying on I is that you remove a gun from the snake side of play otb.
Regarding the snake side, while it is more open to effective laning options, it is still possible and important to make your opponent prove their laning ability. And once again relying on crossfield lanes will weaken your initial efforts on the opposite side otb. (A d-side shooter [A or B] in those positions is a d-side player on that point but is, in a sense, out of the play during the critical initial seconds so the effort to shoot the crossfield lane leaves that player playing catch up. So while it's a good lane there is a real trade off.) Additionally, players shooting lanes from outside the shooting zone will require time to reach their spots and this is where your team speed can come into play. It is important to make solid judgments in practice about actual degree of risk involved in the various breaks you attempt and to have alternative options planned in advance.
The core complication is how to mix your laning options so that you consistently put paint through the critical lanes without getting caught inside the shooting zone or simply inside generally after your opponent is wide and denying outside rotations. (This includes routinely filling the MTs as the result is a predominantly defensive posture that won't allow teams to push the wires if they drop a body. It will also tend to overextend the lead wire player as it will lead to an inability on one side or the other to fill the voids anytime the lead player is eliminated.)
Hopefully this will give some teams a good place to start preparing fo Phoenix. If you would like additional information or have a specific related question put it up in comments and I'll (probably) be happy to take a stab at an answer.
Recruits for the Week
This is a milestone week for the DPA here at VFTD. (I love acronyms, how 'bout you?) We have broken the triple digit barrier thanks to our two latest recruits; Electriko and Mr. L. Thank you both and welcome aboard. Now a century strong how long will it be before that number is doubled and doubled again? And every new recruit moves us one step closer to--world domination! (cue maniacal laugh)
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Optimized Bracket Adjustment
Before I get started on the OBA (optimized bracket adjustment) a few (more) words on yesterday's classification post. I want to demonstrate in real numbers the difference in the current method for moving down and my suggested alternative.
Let's say a player earns 4200 points during the 2010 season. The player is ranked semi-pro as a result. In the current system (assuming no higher scores are received) the player's scores remain the same in 2011 and 2012. For 2013 the score is reduced from 4200 to 3150 dropping the player's rank to D1. And in 2014 the score drops again to 2100 where it stays, leaving the player ranked D1.
Using my alternative take the same player and the same 4200 points earned in 2010. The score remains the same in 2011. In 2012 (assuming no new qualifying scores are received) the player's score drops to 3360 and the player is ranked D1. In 2013 the score drops to 2520 and player remains D1. In 2014 the score drops to 1680 with the player assigned a D2 rank and in 2015 it would drop to the D2 floor of 984 where it would remain--until sufficient new scores were earned to start the climb up the ladder over again.
The larger point is simply that any player who rises to semi-pro (or pro) status but is unable for whatever reason to maintain it is no longer a semi-pro (or pro) player by demonstrated ability and shouldn't remain one by rank. That player may retain semi-pro potential but that is very different than playing at a semi-pro level and their classification rank ought to reflect the fact.
The Optimized Bracket Adjustment modifies scores earned in sub-optimal brackets. In a bracket of 8 teams 50% of the field end up in the top 4. In a bracket of 20 teams 20% of the field end up in the top 4. Clearly the larger bracket has a higher degree of difficulty in achieving a top 4 result. In the 8 team bracket the winner receives a 100. Second gets a 77 and third gets a 64. (All numbers rounded.) Eighth place gets 10, seventh gets 23 and sixth gets 36. In the bracket of 20 teams the winner receives 100, second gets 85, third gets 80. Twentieth gets 10, nineteenth gets 15 and eighteenth gets 19. All scores revert toward the mean except the polar scores of 100 and 10.
My contention is that a win in a bracket of eight is not equivalent to a win in a bracket of twenty (or more.) All results aren't created equally and shouldn't be valued equally for the purpose of determining a player's classification. The OBA takes into account the disparity in the relative degree of difficulty between random bracket population sets. The OBA would assign an optimum number of participants to a bracket and any number less than the optimum would modify the final event scores received by the participating teams. It would NOT alter their place of finish and the purpose of the modified score is as it relates to the ratings that impact classification only. Any number of teams below the optimum is then recognized as being competitively insufficient to award maximum points. It would also be relatively easy to do. It could be accomplished at least 3 ways, 2 of which are; by altering the range of scores from the top down (meaning the max score would be less than 100) or by changing the mean score (by moving both the high and low score possible.) In either case it would only require a simple numeric change to the equation generating raw event scores. And depending on the program structure it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to include. (Easy for me to say.)
But, again, this is more of a quibble than an absolutely necessary modification. The OBA would be most useful in under-populated brackets that displayed little or no parity. The fact that the high score is removed from consideration goes a long way towards assuring only players who legitimately earn their rank receive it--particularly in under-populated brackets--and as I said in the first post the new system is a substantial improvement over the old one. Any perceived or real inequities in the system are unlikely to affect any significant number of players. All it really needs is a little more flexibility in allowing downward player movement.
Let's say a player earns 4200 points during the 2010 season. The player is ranked semi-pro as a result. In the current system (assuming no higher scores are received) the player's scores remain the same in 2011 and 2012. For 2013 the score is reduced from 4200 to 3150 dropping the player's rank to D1. And in 2014 the score drops again to 2100 where it stays, leaving the player ranked D1.
Using my alternative take the same player and the same 4200 points earned in 2010. The score remains the same in 2011. In 2012 (assuming no new qualifying scores are received) the player's score drops to 3360 and the player is ranked D1. In 2013 the score drops to 2520 and player remains D1. In 2014 the score drops to 1680 with the player assigned a D2 rank and in 2015 it would drop to the D2 floor of 984 where it would remain--until sufficient new scores were earned to start the climb up the ladder over again.
The larger point is simply that any player who rises to semi-pro (or pro) status but is unable for whatever reason to maintain it is no longer a semi-pro (or pro) player by demonstrated ability and shouldn't remain one by rank. That player may retain semi-pro potential but that is very different than playing at a semi-pro level and their classification rank ought to reflect the fact.
The Optimized Bracket Adjustment modifies scores earned in sub-optimal brackets. In a bracket of 8 teams 50% of the field end up in the top 4. In a bracket of 20 teams 20% of the field end up in the top 4. Clearly the larger bracket has a higher degree of difficulty in achieving a top 4 result. In the 8 team bracket the winner receives a 100. Second gets a 77 and third gets a 64. (All numbers rounded.) Eighth place gets 10, seventh gets 23 and sixth gets 36. In the bracket of 20 teams the winner receives 100, second gets 85, third gets 80. Twentieth gets 10, nineteenth gets 15 and eighteenth gets 19. All scores revert toward the mean except the polar scores of 100 and 10.
My contention is that a win in a bracket of eight is not equivalent to a win in a bracket of twenty (or more.) All results aren't created equally and shouldn't be valued equally for the purpose of determining a player's classification. The OBA takes into account the disparity in the relative degree of difficulty between random bracket population sets. The OBA would assign an optimum number of participants to a bracket and any number less than the optimum would modify the final event scores received by the participating teams. It would NOT alter their place of finish and the purpose of the modified score is as it relates to the ratings that impact classification only. Any number of teams below the optimum is then recognized as being competitively insufficient to award maximum points. It would also be relatively easy to do. It could be accomplished at least 3 ways, 2 of which are; by altering the range of scores from the top down (meaning the max score would be less than 100) or by changing the mean score (by moving both the high and low score possible.) In either case it would only require a simple numeric change to the equation generating raw event scores. And depending on the program structure it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to include. (Easy for me to say.)
But, again, this is more of a quibble than an absolutely necessary modification. The OBA would be most useful in under-populated brackets that displayed little or no parity. The fact that the high score is removed from consideration goes a long way towards assuring only players who legitimately earn their rank receive it--particularly in under-populated brackets--and as I said in the first post the new system is a substantial improvement over the old one. Any perceived or real inequities in the system are unlikely to affect any significant number of players. All it really needs is a little more flexibility in allowing downward player movement.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
PSP Classification System: Moving Down
Picking up on yesterday's post on the PSP's new classification system I want to nit-pick the details a little bit in the areas where this system retains some of the old system's problems. Hereafter a "problem" is something I would like to see handled differently or better--not a problem in a design or structural sense. So, my problems with the system may not be yours--until I convince you otherwise.
Yesterday I mentioned there was a floor in each division where the event rating (raw score times multiplier) was insufficient alone or cumulatively to push a player (team) up a rank and that it was roughly the bottom third that wouldn't change their rank assuming consistent scores. (If you are D3 playing in D2 and routinely at the bottom of the results you stay D3.) Well, there is also a threshold for moving up and it is approx. at the 23rd percentile so that if your accumulated average event ratings put you (your team) in the top 25% percent or so consistently the numbers will move you up a rank at season's end. My quibble here is only at the margins--what is the appropriate amount of teams (players) to gain the next rank--and does this threshold do that? Ideally I'm not sure it ought to be a standardized value across the divisions but despite that reservation I think the new system serves the interests of the lower divisions quite capably.
Now all of this is a little fuzzy partly on account of dropping the high score and only counting scores 2, 3 and 4 as determinative. As I noted yesterday this keeps an aberrational score (or one received in a less populated bracket--more on this coming tomorrow) from dominating the results. But the fuzziness is advantageous to the players as it also creates boundaries that aren't as hard and fast as before and helps make the overall system one that sees players earn their rank while simultaneously being less likely to push wholesale advancements. This is particularly so in the lower divisions with more populous brackets. [Despite the fact all the calculations up and down the divisions are computed consistently the size of the sample--the number of competing teams--has an impact in increasing potential opportunities for movement. For example the boundary between D2 and D1 is more fluid than the boundary between D1 and Semi-pro. One might argue the differences are small but they become readily apparent as sample sizes increase.]
Despite these improvements and despite the standardization of how a player's rank goes down I think it's still too restrictive. (Once again my problem may not be yours.) In the lower divisions with the focus on moving up dropping ranks has little to no priority but nonetheless remains a function of this system. From the upper divisions however movement down has greater urgency because there are both practical and artificial limitations on opportunity. This system, like the last one, is heavily biased toward the notion that once a rank is achieved the player is not subject to significant change or loss of skills and/or game-playing ability. For example any, let me repeat that, any player who achieves a pro rank cannot, in this system, ever drop below semi-pro.
Flatly, that's ridiculous. The system continues to judge players on team results--there's little option on that count--but all players aren't equal and some player gain ranks with teams their ability doesn't merit. Players may like to think once a high-ranked player always a high-ranked player but it simply isn't true. Most players, regardless of rank, have to work at keeping up their skill level and that is more true the higher a player gets. The new system drops scores 25% after 2 years and 50% (total) after 3 years which results in a player dropping one rank. Instead, drop a player's score 20% a year after the first year with a maximum 80% for all players ranked higher than D2 while using D2 as the floor with no higher-ranked player ever dropping below that level. The result would prioritize recent performances and scores and good players would continue to accumulate scores that keep them in the upper levels.
Tomorrow: Part 3 (The Big Finish): The Optimized Bracket Adjustment
Yesterday I mentioned there was a floor in each division where the event rating (raw score times multiplier) was insufficient alone or cumulatively to push a player (team) up a rank and that it was roughly the bottom third that wouldn't change their rank assuming consistent scores. (If you are D3 playing in D2 and routinely at the bottom of the results you stay D3.) Well, there is also a threshold for moving up and it is approx. at the 23rd percentile so that if your accumulated average event ratings put you (your team) in the top 25% percent or so consistently the numbers will move you up a rank at season's end. My quibble here is only at the margins--what is the appropriate amount of teams (players) to gain the next rank--and does this threshold do that? Ideally I'm not sure it ought to be a standardized value across the divisions but despite that reservation I think the new system serves the interests of the lower divisions quite capably.
Now all of this is a little fuzzy partly on account of dropping the high score and only counting scores 2, 3 and 4 as determinative. As I noted yesterday this keeps an aberrational score (or one received in a less populated bracket--more on this coming tomorrow) from dominating the results. But the fuzziness is advantageous to the players as it also creates boundaries that aren't as hard and fast as before and helps make the overall system one that sees players earn their rank while simultaneously being less likely to push wholesale advancements. This is particularly so in the lower divisions with more populous brackets. [Despite the fact all the calculations up and down the divisions are computed consistently the size of the sample--the number of competing teams--has an impact in increasing potential opportunities for movement. For example the boundary between D2 and D1 is more fluid than the boundary between D1 and Semi-pro. One might argue the differences are small but they become readily apparent as sample sizes increase.]
Despite these improvements and despite the standardization of how a player's rank goes down I think it's still too restrictive. (Once again my problem may not be yours.) In the lower divisions with the focus on moving up dropping ranks has little to no priority but nonetheless remains a function of this system. From the upper divisions however movement down has greater urgency because there are both practical and artificial limitations on opportunity. This system, like the last one, is heavily biased toward the notion that once a rank is achieved the player is not subject to significant change or loss of skills and/or game-playing ability. For example any, let me repeat that, any player who achieves a pro rank cannot, in this system, ever drop below semi-pro.
Flatly, that's ridiculous. The system continues to judge players on team results--there's little option on that count--but all players aren't equal and some player gain ranks with teams their ability doesn't merit. Players may like to think once a high-ranked player always a high-ranked player but it simply isn't true. Most players, regardless of rank, have to work at keeping up their skill level and that is more true the higher a player gets. The new system drops scores 25% after 2 years and 50% (total) after 3 years which results in a player dropping one rank. Instead, drop a player's score 20% a year after the first year with a maximum 80% for all players ranked higher than D2 while using D2 as the floor with no higher-ranked player ever dropping below that level. The result would prioritize recent performances and scores and good players would continue to accumulate scores that keep them in the upper levels.
Tomorrow: Part 3 (The Big Finish): The Optimized Bracket Adjustment
Un, er, Redacted
The post I pulled last week has been re-posted to its original date, 1/25/10. It's irrelevant now and not really worth your time--if it ever was--but the curious can have a look. It's called 'T Minus 90 and Counting'
Monday, February 1, 2010
PSP’s Restructured Classification System
Without rewriting the classification rules in simple English I’m hoping to get through this subject relatively painlessly. That means, 1) if there’s any follow-up questions don’t hesitate to ask and, 2) there will be a second part regardless of how long this post ends up being. The second post will cover the one area of weakness in these new rules.
Fortunately it should be a relatively short post as the new rules have done a very good job of addressing some past issues. The new system puts players in the position of earning their rank (by and large.) The new system is more flexible in that it has a structured consistent methodology to handle player movement both up--and down. Which is a big and positive step. The mid-season movement qualifier is protection against outliers moving players prematurely. And the dropping of the high score in the calculation of the player’s rating helps confirm the player’s ability as well as reinforcing the idea of earning the rank assigned. There is no automatic movement up the ranks based on which division a player is competing in. And there is a rational floor built into the system that assures players (teams) that simply aren’t competitive or even average won’t be forced to move up beyond their ability (in most situations.) Put it altogether and it’s a significant improvement. Add it to the regional affiliates inclusion this season and the Big Picture concept of a universalized competitive paintball environment regardless of where you play or what level you compete at and the new system is an essential, perhaps the essential piece of that puzzle. It’s not perfect–but what is?–but it is world’s better than the old system and even without the addition I’m going to suggest in the next post it will work well for most players in most circumstances. It is the new state of the art.
Okay, perhaps a bit about how the new system works is in order. In some respects it’s just a more nuanced version of the old system but it is the new flexibility, and the way the accumulated numbers are valued, that makes all the difference in the world. The event score formula simply assigns a place value to any number of competing teams in a range between 10 - 100. First is 100, last is 10 and everybody else falls in-between. That’s not where the changes are. The key to the new system is the multipliers and the idea that players play themselves into the rank(s) they achieve. The disparity between the top ranks and the lower ones may seem extreme but the relationships between each rank and within those ranks is consistent top to bottom. The same event results in each division will result in the same outcomes. A D3 player becomes a D2 player in exactly the same way as a semi-pro becomes pro. For example the "floor" of each rank is around the 69th percentile. That means as a D3 moving up to try D2 if your season sees scores in the bottom third of the D2 scores most of the time those players would almost certainly retain their D3 rank. This means the standard to move up a rank is to consistently score in the upper two-thirds so that a player’s accumulated rating minus their best score moves them into the upper two-thirds. Conceptually, with a floor all players will eventually find their place within the divisions in a largely non-coercive system.
In the larger divisions I don’t see any real issues with the new system. However, there are vestiges of the old issues in small divisions and I’ll discuss the problem and suggest a fix tomorrow.
Fortunately it should be a relatively short post as the new rules have done a very good job of addressing some past issues. The new system puts players in the position of earning their rank (by and large.) The new system is more flexible in that it has a structured consistent methodology to handle player movement both up--and down. Which is a big and positive step. The mid-season movement qualifier is protection against outliers moving players prematurely. And the dropping of the high score in the calculation of the player’s rating helps confirm the player’s ability as well as reinforcing the idea of earning the rank assigned. There is no automatic movement up the ranks based on which division a player is competing in. And there is a rational floor built into the system that assures players (teams) that simply aren’t competitive or even average won’t be forced to move up beyond their ability (in most situations.) Put it altogether and it’s a significant improvement. Add it to the regional affiliates inclusion this season and the Big Picture concept of a universalized competitive paintball environment regardless of where you play or what level you compete at and the new system is an essential, perhaps the essential piece of that puzzle. It’s not perfect–but what is?–but it is world’s better than the old system and even without the addition I’m going to suggest in the next post it will work well for most players in most circumstances. It is the new state of the art.
Okay, perhaps a bit about how the new system works is in order. In some respects it’s just a more nuanced version of the old system but it is the new flexibility, and the way the accumulated numbers are valued, that makes all the difference in the world. The event score formula simply assigns a place value to any number of competing teams in a range between 10 - 100. First is 100, last is 10 and everybody else falls in-between. That’s not where the changes are. The key to the new system is the multipliers and the idea that players play themselves into the rank(s) they achieve. The disparity between the top ranks and the lower ones may seem extreme but the relationships between each rank and within those ranks is consistent top to bottom. The same event results in each division will result in the same outcomes. A D3 player becomes a D2 player in exactly the same way as a semi-pro becomes pro. For example the "floor" of each rank is around the 69th percentile. That means as a D3 moving up to try D2 if your season sees scores in the bottom third of the D2 scores most of the time those players would almost certainly retain their D3 rank. This means the standard to move up a rank is to consistently score in the upper two-thirds so that a player’s accumulated rating minus their best score moves them into the upper two-thirds. Conceptually, with a floor all players will eventually find their place within the divisions in a largely non-coercive system.
In the larger divisions I don’t see any real issues with the new system. However, there are vestiges of the old issues in small divisions and I’ll discuss the problem and suggest a fix tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
