The Pros & Cons of Small Ball

There's lots of heat and lots of opinions but not a lot of clarity on the subject of the 50 caliber paintball--depending on who you're inclined to give credence to anyway--but that poses a separate problem. Who to believe. Who to take at face value, if anyone, and how to judge what they tell you about the 50 cal small ball.

So who is on which side? Let's start a list.

The pro small ball crowd includes the obvious suspects in GI Milsim, Smart Parts (such as it is), the Millennium Series (and certainly Laurent Hamet--can a Facefull editorial be far behind?), Kingman and, I'm told, PBL--a big Canadian retailer and Dark Sports in the UK. One might also include the P8ntballer website as supportive but not biased in content.

The con crew, last I heard, includes Tippmann, Dye, Badlands--the other Canadian retail dynamo, and the PSP. There's at least one or two other possibles I'm not yet prepared to list. But the territory here is ripe for speculation. For example, is Procaps con? How to explain the fact KEE, not Procaps is producing GI's paint? And after the long and close association of the PSP with Smart Parts and the brothers Gardner isn't it something of a surprise to find them at odds over this?

Of course not everyone is choosing sides. The kids at Planet Eclipse for example appear to be hedging their bets just waiting to see how this all shakes out. If small ball is a go they're ready, if not, no real harm done.

Clearly this isn't a comprehensive list but it's a start. Who else belongs on the list?

Mr. Curious

Mr. C can't remember if he asked about this already or not. (I asked if age was catching up with him and he replied, rather indignantly, that he had no idea how much rum was in the eggnog. Yeah, me either.) Anyway, he's curious as to why KEE (and not Procaps) is producing small ball paint for GI Milsim. Not really a big deal from the outside but positively scandalous from the inside. Go figure.

Mr. C also wonders what Commish Hendsch was doing in Kuala Lampour for the Asia World Cup and whose dime he was doing it on. Does NPPL 2.0 really have the cash to front an international goodwill tour? And last time Mr. C checked they were playing a 5-man format, not 7-man so the chances of drumming up some extra entries for next season doesn't seem like a good bet but maybe Chuck's got a new gig with a new paintball company Mr. C hasn't heard about. Yeah, that could be it.
Mr. C would also like to officially volunteer to be the next commissioner of the NPPL 2.0 and he pledges, right here, right now, not to go further east than Hawaii.

The Monday Poll (sorta)

Aight, this week's poll isn't exactly a poll. It's an information gathering device masquerading as a poll but despite that ominous sounding characterization I promise it will be far less intrusive than Amazon and the results will be insufficient to allow me to put the data to nefarious purposes--unlike pretty much everybody else collecting info about you these days, on the net and elsewhere. And besides, you're a risk taker, right? An extreme sportsman even (I can't even type that with a straight face) so it's really no big deal.

This week's not quite a Monday Poll is actually a clever attempt to get an idea of who is reading VFTD. Not who specifically--just who in a general way. What part of paintball do readers self-identify as their particular (or peculiar) niche. See, harmless. But now that I bring it up your kinda curious too, aren't you? Of course you are.

Which of the following options best describes my place in paintball--

Monday Poll in Review
Last week's poll wanted to know how best to "fix" competitive paintball given that the conventional wisdom insists that something (or even lots of things) are wrong with it but mostly that not enough people are playing. Two weeks ago the poll decided it was the economy stupid and a demographic skewed to the young (and as a consequence) frequently broke. Unsurprisingly 48% of this week's votes went to options that could be interpreted as cost saving measures though only 37% of the total vote has a clear application to cost savings. 12% suggested limited paint. 12% also suggested shorter events and 10% were willing to accept anything that made events cheaper. (Though I think its safe to say that the percentage would drop as soon as the "anything" option was defined in specific terms and that this vote actually reflects a degree of desperation and an uncertainty about how to actually make events cheaper.)
On the other hand 32% were hoping for no more change and suggested leave well enough alone--which may or may not be cost neutral in this context. In any context cost matters but it seems reasonable to conclude the leave it alone vote doesn't see a benefit versus current costs in more changes.
Finally, while one might conclude that if 68% voted for some kind of change that the majority isn't averse to some change I wonder if that's really true given that the majority of the options were fairly specific. For example, the limited paint vote won't necessarily be in favor of a format change or switch to 50 cal small balls. The open ended options that focused on change alone only collected 11% of the vote and, as noted above, 10 of that 11% went to the make events cheaper option.
In any event it will be interesting to see how competitive ballers respond when the league(s) announce the changes for next year.

Back To The Future?

The Big Bullet has been running a series of teases / announcements regarding a new pump woodsball league that is in the works. While I begrudge no man (or woman) the brand of paintball they want to play--with the exception of the wackiest of the wacko fringe Rambo wannabes. (Oh, how I miss the days when the magazine would get those big bold misspelled letters written in crayon.) I'm wondering if there is a real market for tourney woodsball and from which branches of paintball they will come. Will they be mostly Old Skoolers? Or dissatisfied scenario guys or disenchanted competition ballers?

I'm also curious what this conception of tourney woodsball is gonna look like. There's already the SPPL out there which is more of a scenario lite hybrid and UWL which (at least sounds like) tends more toward the tourney end of the spectrum but I don't really know how it plays out. And now the National Pump League wants to go further back into the past. Kinda.

Another thing I wonder is if the lessons learned in the tourney game in recent years can be undone in a woodsball environment, particularly in a pump game. How will the skill set priorities change? Will they change? And then there are some of the "problems" that were endemic in the woods. Chief among them unbalanced (unfair) fields and the virtual impossibility of reffing as it's come to be understood and largely accepted in the competition realm.

What about current technology? Sure, they can return the game to low tech, low paint but there's lots of peripheral technology out there that could influence games. Stuff like walkie-talkie phones, companies that can provide yours or others GPS coordinates via your phone, tiny radios, Bluetooth, text messaging and who knows what all else.

Aight, enough with the pessimistic vibe. I guess my point is that you can't really go back again. That tourney paintball in the woods was always something less than the Golden Age of paintball, maybe. Or that cherished memories seldom, if ever, recall the refs or the price of paint or that lousy hole-riddled pallet nobody could live behind. Most of the best memories of paintballin' past revolve around moments and friends. Some of elation and others of frustration. If the NPL can recreate a few of those memories all of Paintball will be the better for it.

Enlistments for the Week

VFTD is pleased to announce the signing of two new recruits over the past week. Joining the DPA are Jii from Helsinki Cyclone and Jokella from the Jokers in Ankara Turkey. Welcome.

Show Me the Money

The Millennium Series, impeccable masters of timing that they are, announce a confirmed Germany event date (but not a location) in the aftermath of a massive riot police raid of an indoor German tournament this past weekend and with no fanfare and even less surprise announce the introduction of 50 cal as a legal paintball for series event use. The letter sent to teams can be seen here on the P8ntballer website. As discussed here (at VFTD) one of the MS owners, Laurent Hamet, was (and is) a proponent of the 50 cal paintball. One interesting question is why?

The Millennium kids tell us why. "As a result we will open up our events to new companies ..." New sponsors prepared to pay. Of course they also say, "There is a growing demand to allow other calibers to participate in The Millennium Series ..." So I guess we are left having to pick and choose what's true and what isn't. Unless you've heard or been part of the growing demand to allow other calibers--in which case please fill me in 'cus I missed it. All kidding aside this sort of, let's call it hyperbole, is the stock and trade of paintball promoters and industry and anyone who has been around the competitive game for any time at all knows how this particular game is played. Now nobody with a modicum of sense begrudges either industry or promoters a profit -- unless of course they are delivering a shoddy product. (I'll leave deciding that part up to you.)

What concerns me about this move is a couple of things. One, it opens the door for the other big leagues to make the jump and "blame" their acquiescence on the other guy. "Hey, would Millennium allow this if it wasn't okay?" And, Two, as far as I know there still hasn't been any definitive effort made to test the 50 cal balls against the current ASTM standards. On that basis alone the safety issue is an unknown.

Beyond that just how are the two calibers going to be integrated? If 50 cal performance is inferior at "normal" velocities is the MS gonna allow higher velocities for the small ball? Can a 50 cal team carry twice as much paint as a 68 cal team? The questions are almost endless. But my biggest question is -- Does anybody responsible for this decision actually give a damn about competitive balance and fairness? On its face it sure doesn't look like it.

Update from Germany

Last weekend news of a police raid on a German tournament hit the web. Initially there were on scene reports that video was shot during the raid and would be edited and posted online. Since then the only posted video has been removed and no additional videos have been posted. A VFTD correspondent reports that almost all mention of the raid have been removed from German paintball sites and it appears a decision was made not to disseminate information about the raid. The basis for this decision is unclear although there seems to be single thread aimed at connecting with the persons involved.
Is the German paintball community being intimidated or acting on advice of legal counsel?

In other related news it is beginning to appear that the raid was retaliation of a sort. VFTD is told the field owner who was raided had previously tipped off the police to the unlicensed operation of a local competitor who was subsequently shut down. Coincidentally the shut down field had strong ties to the new GI Milsim.

Rules & Officiating 2

Before I get started today let me clarify a bit of yesterday’s hyperbole. Yes, of course, penalties have a punitive impact–otherwise they wouldn’t be called penalties. And, yes, the intent, in part, is to have those penalties act as deterrents – but, there is a point where deterrence doesn’t work and a point where it becomes overkill. Where that place is can be debated endlessly (I'm sure) but I'm inclined to think that penalties that almost invariably result in a score change is a pretty severe penalty--particularly when it's the assigned penalty for nearly every possible infraction. But maybe that's just me.

Let’s talk football. More specifically the holding penalty. Holding, along with a number of other rules, address what is allowable contact and provide penalties for forms of contact that aren’t allowable. Holding in particular however is instructive because it is a rule that has been re-written a number of times and the current iteration of holding doesn’t come close to barring actual holding, it describes what sorts of holding aren’t a violation of the rules and what sorts are. My point here is this: holding is not an inviolate rule. It is a flexible rule and it is a flexible rule because the first concern is the play of the game. While it is necessary that football have rules that regulate physical contact the rule is rightfully understood to be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. And even under these conditions there is a football truism that says an official can call holding on every play if they chose to–but of course they don’t because it wouldn’t serve the game. (And the reason a holding penalty could be called on any and every play is because blocking and aggressive physical contact are elements of the game play–not because everybody is a compulsive cheater.) My larger point is that until competitive paintball writes a rule book based on what game we want to play the result will be a rule book that results in something less. And I would go further and argue the current rule book(s) are little more than band-aids on top of past band-aids that, each in their turn, simply addressed problems that arose over time but have never been considered as the foundational means of describing and defining the game we want to play.

Now this is necessarily a rather esoteric argument and one that might be difficult to grasp (or easy to ignore) but today’s game isn’t yesterday’s game and the rules (and the common interpretation of those rules) ought to reflect today’s game.

The other aspect of this I’d like to address is the very limited nature of the penalties paintball assesses and the potential for disparate impact of those penalties. Ever since the game was 15 on 15 (at least) bodies have been pulled as a form of penalty. But what made sense in a slow paced game with 15 or even 10 players strikes me as overkill in a lot of common penalty situations when playing the format formerly known as xball. The penalty needs to fit the infraction. Or else the penalty should only be assessed when it literally has a game altering effect and redress is required.

Player A makes a move from one dorito to the next upfield dorito and comes up shooting. In making the move Player A is hit. By rule Player A has committed (at least) a minor infraction that should result in pulling another body. But how often in the couple of seconds it takes the ref to signal the player out does it actually affect the other team one or two bodies worth? (And how often do real live refs actually make that call by the letter of the rules? They certainly don’t in the pro game.) But I can hear the sticklers beginning to whine that it isn’t fair. Player A broke the rules and must be penalized. To not penalize him encourages more of the same. (But then so does the nature of the game.) To which I respond of course it isn’t fair but the nature of our current rules and penalties means somebody pays an unfair price. One question that follows is how do we minimize that unfairness. The other question is what impact does any given rule have on the play of the game?

(For those who will argue a definition of "fairness" that, in practice, dramatically alters the outcome of scoring points – or even assigning points – that issue really comes down to what impacts the play of the game with the minimum impact. Sure, you can try to pummel violators into submission but as the NTP posts suggest that actually following the letter of the rules in every instance doesn’t make the game fair, it can make it unplayable. Remember that whole rules aren’t the ends, they ought to be the means? This is where the rubber meets the road.)

Am I trying to say the game is all screwed up? Not at all. (It does amazingly well sometimes considering.) What I am saying is that the playability of the game is dependent on the officiating and varying application of the rules results in wildly different experiences on the field of play. And if we want to create and provide as much consistency as possible it begins with rules designed with the gaming experience we want to promote in mind and with a unified interpretation for the referees to rely on when they are officiating actual game play. No big deal really.

Rules & Officiating

This is the continuation of the Name That Penalty trilogy of posts found here, here, and here. If you missed them first time around (or skipped them) or just plain forgot them ‘cus it’s been so damn long do a quick review because the content of this post assumes familiarity with the ‘Name That Penalty’ (NTP) trio of posts. (If you are wondering why I didn't stick with the 'Name That Penalty' series title for all related posts you haven't been here long, have you? I'm afraid that would be too easy and make too much sense. That, and I'm switching gears a bit with these follow-up posts. What can I say? Embrace the eccentricity. Or, for the geek crowd, resistance is futile.)

Each of the NTP posts posits a very common situation in the format formerly known as xball. Each of the NTP posts asked readers to describe the outcome as a decision made by the refs. And as one might have easily predicted there was no unanimity in the responses. Now this could be attributed to the limited information supplied or an incorrect understanding of the rules–since at least theoretically Faction’s interpretation must be correct given that he wrote them–but regardless, the point was (and remains) that situations that occur potentially dozens of times in a single match are open to interpretations that include no penalty assessed to possibly minor or major penalty assessments. Each one requiring the judgment of a referee. And in less time than it takes to read, much less, a referee must decide what the appropriate outcome should be and act accordingly. (And we haven’t even begun to touch on the touchy topic of whether a particular penalty really is appropriate given the game we claim we want to play. That’s tomorrow.)
In the running and gunning a corner scenario the player may or may not know he was hit and cannot know if the ball broke. The question then becomes what do the rules require him to do? Apparently he is allowed to finish his run but not continue shooting. So how many steps is he allowed if any? For that matter how long does it take to recognize a possible hit and then stop shooting? How does the ref know whether or not the player in question did or didn’t stop shooting? The whole run takes no more than 3 seconds.
At this point a couple of factors come into play. Let’s consider this first in terms of risk/reward. As a practical matter would anyone trade two seconds of shooting their gun for two players removed from his team? Of course they wouldn’t but not everyone acts sensibly all the time either but the real hazard here is the ambiguity. What does the player understand the rule to be? Will the ref call it or not? Did the player realize he was hit? And so on.
The other question I have here is about the fairness–or appropriateness--of a penalty assessed and its’ deterrence value. (I’m not a big advocate of penalty as deterrent, btw.) As a practical matter we have a gun being fired for anywhere from 1 to 3 seconds too long and the penalty is the removal of one or two players; 20% or 40% of the team for a given point. Is that an appropriate penalty or is that an attempt to deter a behavior? Can it be both at the same time? Does it in fact deter or does a combination of inconsistent interpretation, the speed of the game and the value players and teams assign to the ability to run and shoot simply create an oft-repeated situation that results in a frustrating crapshoot? [This applies to divisional play as this is not a call made in the pro game 99% of the time–though every once in a blue moon ...]

In the second NTP scenario we have a snake runner hit in the legs below the hips. Break or no break? When, and where, does the player check? (Here’s where a case could be made that Faction got his own rules wrong as 2.8.7 says a player in motion must move to the "nearest cover.") So unless the possible hit occurs at the last possible moment the snake runner, and the corner runner for that matter, should not continue running to their primary but stop at the "nearest cover" and, in fact, be liable for some assessed penalty if they don’t in any situation where the player may or may not be eliminated and can’t know which at the time it happens. Is that the way you want to play the format formerly known as xball. Me either.

Look, I’m running long so I’ll stop for now. Real world officiating is not and probably can’t be as clean and simple as rule book rulings because the rulebook can’t cover all the possibilities. For example, the current PSP rule book doesn’t even include a definition of playing on–it simply assumes in a couple of places that everyone knows what playing on is.

First things first, penalties need to be appropriate to the infraction and refs need to know the whole rule book. In addition a handy item for promoting consistent officiating might be a Referees Guide to the Rule Book written by somebody other than Chris.

The Monday Poll

This week's poll continues on the general topic of competitive paintball. Last week's poll was looking for the source(s) of the apparent decline in participation. This week VFTD wants to know what you think needs to be done to help fix the decline in competitive paintball, if anything.

What's the first thing you would do to try and "fix" competitive paintball?

The first thing you will notice is that there is no reduce entry fees or similar options related to making the events cheaper. The reason is it would skew the poll as all you lazy slackers would immediately opt for the easy answer that costs somebody else money. Most of the options might impact cost but those that apply directly don't allow you, the voter, to choose how costs are reduced so if you pick one of those options you are agreeing with the general idea that reducing costs is necessary no matter what it entails. And as usual, if you choose 'Other' and actually have something else in mind please post it up in comments and it will be greatly appreciated. (Otherwise I twist and turn at night unable to sleep wondering what 'Other' you meant when you voted.)

Here's your opportunity to solve one of the nagging problems facing paintball today and it's as simple as clicking a mouse.

Monday Poll in Review
Last week's poll was about the decline in competitive paintball participation and the one certain thing we can take from the poll is that the nearly unanimous opinion (98% - 2%) is that competitive paintball is definitely in decline. (While believing it to be true doesn't make it necessarily true that's not relevant to the poll--though it may be relevant in the real world.) 23% either couldn't make up their minds or thought it was a goulash of factors all contributing to the downturn. 21% laid the bulk of the blame on the economy at large while another 14% claimed it was simply too expensive. Add 'em up and you have 58% of the vote that attributes the decline to cost in one way or another.
The other double digit response was that there are too few new players entering the ranks of competitive ballers. Followed by it's not as much fun (9%) the new generation is too young (7%) the new formats are too demanding (5%).

Burning Question

How much "support" are the forces behind 50 cal offering the Big Leagues to accept an unproven product?

50 Cal Update for Mr. Curious

In a follow-up I didn't want to get lost in the comments of an old post here's what VFTD regular Frederick Rodrigues from France put up in comments yesterday. (Thanks, Fred!)

A little update about pricing. Laurent Hamet - Millennium, Sup'Airball and Facefull owner announced on a french board that the .50 cal box will be 50% cheaper than the actual .68 cal. Yes you got it, 50% cheaper!! It means that tournament players could buy their high grade tournament paint at a range of 24€ to 30€ ($36 to $45) Since few weeks now, the french market is suppressed with the whole .50cal marketing process. L. Hamet claims that the .50 cal is the only way to save paintball, Profusion - official GI MilSim dealer in France, broadcast tests about accuracy and new range of products, Kingman, Dye and Eclipse also joined the party. Oh! And last but not least, L. Hamet let us know that the Millennium Series could feature both of caliber on his fields in the upcoming season.

History Lesson

The Big Bullet has posted an excellent history of the 50 caliber paintball as part of the site's editorial take on the push to bring the small ball back. Well worth the read if you missed 50 cal the first time around. The link is in the title. Check it out.

Ask Baca

Gonna try a new feature and see how it works out. I realize this runs counter to the lazy slacker creedo and will require some meager percentage of VFTD readers to actually do something but it's not like I'm sitting at the keyboard waiting with my fingers crossed. So, if some of y'all are interested, that's cool and if not, c'est la vie.

Here's the deal. Got a question you'd like an official VFTD response to? Drop me an email. Got a suggestion for a topic VFTD ought to address? Drop me an email. Got a killer idea for a Monday Poll? Drop me an email. Feeling lonely and need a shoulder? Get a dog.
Additionally, there's tons o' stuff been posted in the last year plus here at VFTD. Try out the Lost & Found and if (when) that doesn't work to dredge up past pearls of VFTD wisdom--well, drop me an email and I'll see what I can do. (All past posts have keywords but honestly the Google search function doesn't seem to work all that well--and you never know when I gave something a bizarre and/or incomprehensible keyword link to begin with.) So there you go. Wanna give it a try, knock yourself out.

Ask Baca responses will be posted on Fridays and I'll answer as many of the requests as possible or until I get bored. Oh yeah, questions are limited only in their general relevance to competitive paintball. Anything from game theory to bunkering technique. It's up to y'all.

VFTD Stuff

Right, I missed last week's enlistment announcement. Maybe the last couple of weeks. Oops. Not like it mattered as the DPA has actually lost a member. I blame the economy. I'll try to keep up but if anyone does decide to enlist drop me a note so I don't overlook anyone else. Thanks.

UPDATE: Is the lost recruit back or is there a new enlistee? Help me out.

Remember my effort a couple (or more?) weeks ago to try and stop the onslaught of "friends" dropping Facebook requests into Baca's emailbox? Well, it didn't work very well. In fact, it only precipitated an ongoing wave of daily requests that continue to clutter the place up. So, I'ma try a new tactic--I surrender. I will be converting the Facebook page into a VFTD-oriented page (maybe this weekend sometime) and hopefully it will be possible to do all the cool internet friends thing without my direct participation. If not--well, I guess I'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Maybe y'all can hang out and be friends with each other.

Picking up the 'Name That Penalty' series next week, probably on Tuesday. Finishing those posts will have priority so unless something big comes up ...