Tournament paintball is rubbish

[Robbo]

..........I might be totally wrong and I don’t think I am but let's see.

You started off well and then went and spoiled it Markie, it was your only redemption in your entire post but hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion mate; go look up what George Orwell quoted about animals and maybe you'll understand.

There was a time when the UK had something like 20 pro teams ..... and what you seem to be completely missing is the relationship between number of pro teams and health of the tournament scene .... if you get the product right, we end up increasing the number of teams - increase the number of teams and you increase the number of pro teams ...... we have how many pro teams now?

The tournament product was wrong, we need another paradigm to work from that attracts rather than repels.
We also need to understand the close relationship between cost and enjoyment [value for money] and if the balance isn't correct, then you end up exactly where we are now.
And the situation now is THE worst in UK tournament history and yet you wanna maintain the format????

The format catalysed the decline, if you can't see that Markie, seriously mate, you really need to go to Specsavers.

 

[Robbo]

Yeah it would like i said i didnt read the whole thing but i was just putting something forward which is was going to write a post about any way so.

Sometimes it helps if you read the whole thing before you comment on it ..... just a thought!

 

[essx]

There was a time when the UK had something like 20 pro teams ..... and what you seem to be completely missing is the relationship between number of pro teams and health of the tournament scene .... if you get the product right, we end up increasing the number of teams - increase the number of teams and you increase the number of pro teams ...... we have how many pro teams now?

.

What was it back in those days that made it what it was then?
Was the fact that the distinction between the top teams was bigger to those playing lower levels or running around in the woods?

I wonder how those 20 "pro" teams would fair in the various levels of ball now?
Surely the fact that teams in the UK are wanting to be competitive is increasing again at the better levels across europe is a good thing?

but do you really see the F5 format above Xball as a base for this to happen?

 

[Dark Warrior]

Points of issue
1. Cost - individual monetary outlay is one of the biggest restrictions to ballers, players want more game time for the same amount of money. Evidence so far is that this costs more and when teams already struggle to get 5 players regularly then getting more is also an issue. I have seen teams turn up with 4 or 5 players to X-ball.
2. Location - Unless this game style is franchised fast the support will be low due to being based in one small corner of England - 2 hours from Birmingham, Ashford, Ancaster & Basingstoke, 3 hours from Bristol, over 4 hours from West Yorkshire & more from Lancashire and Northumbria
3. Marketing - The be all and end all of promotion, sadly lacking, I know I spent ages trying to get details after advising that the website was down and nobody initially was willing to say much about it including the main detail which was the venue.

 

[Robbo]

What was it back in those days that made it what it was then?

Good question and it's one that should be asked time and time again if we are to understand the real dynamics that underwrite our sport.
I think two things need to be acknowledged, firstly, the age demographic was about 10 years older for new ballers at that time and secondly, the actual product, was better in terms of 'value for money'.
I'm not suggesting we all go back into the woods, that's just silly, but I am saying, we need more game time and we need to enjoy that game time better.
The product has to be tailored to what players want and it's not that difficult to work out what that is.

Was the fact that the distinction between the top teams was bigger to those playing lower levels or running around in the woods?

I don't think the difference between top teams and those lower ranked has anything to do with it at all; as for playing in the woods being a reason for players enjoying it more?
I think yes they did but that doesn't mean to say we can't make tourney ball outside of the woods enjoyable or better for value for money, we just have to rethink how we go about things and not maintain anachronistic formats just because they are there.

I wonder how those 20 "pro" teams would fair in the various levels of ball now?

This has nothing to do with anything I'm afraid and is completely academic.

Surely the fact that teams in the UK are wanting to be competitive is increasing again at the better levels across Europe is a good thing?

Hmmm, this isn't happening to any significant degree, Markie has a very blinkered view on things and has a point of view that he moulds things around.
We have to assume all teams playing tourney ball are to some degree competitive because contemporary formats are competition based.
To suggest UK teams are now increasing their desire to compete is ludicrous and misleading.
I'm afraid this is just fictitious rubbish.

but do you really see the F5 format above Xball as a base for this to happen?

I suggested the 'not so' old 7-man format as a viable alternative but if this new F5 format gives increased game time and greater value for money, then I'm all for it.

One thing here, I'm not suggesting we do this unilaterally, we have to talk to our European friends here and I suppose the best may to do this is to talk to the Millennium guys but before that happens, the Millennium guys would have to be convinced it's what the players wanted.
And I'm afraid, getting players motivated to the point whereby they become proactive is like shoe-horning a hippo back into the water ...... I remain unconvinced that even though the players and teams want greater value for money, they won't get pro active enough to achieve it by a change of format which means if change is going to happen, then it has to be Millennium led.
And that ain't gonna happen ...... they have zero incentives if you think about it.
They cut the game time down, they can have more teams, they get more teams and they get more money .. for them to increase game time thus increasing value for money [for teams] means they earn less ..... as I said, 'that ain't gonna happen', well not in this universe anyway ..... mind you, according to string theory, there are nigh on an infinite number of parallel universes, and so I'll go looking in one of them to see if I can find a Millennium series that embraces altruism as an integral part of their mission statement

 

[Gadget]

I'd love to know where all the 20-somethings with money have gone, when I started playing at 20, most players were older than me, however it seems like today the majority of new players are teenagers who, in the main, aren't able to support their habit financially in the same manner.

Although my article was focused on F5, I think Pete is talking about the wider issue - what we have today doesn't seem to be working, so we need to try new things.

 

[Robbo]

I'd love to know where all the 20-somethings with money have gone, when I started playing at 20, most players were older than me, however it seems like today the majority of new players are teenagers who, in the main, aren't able to support their habit financially in the same manner.

Although my article was focused on F5, I think Pete is talking about the wider issue - what we have today doesn't seem to be working, so we need to try new things.

You are right, I am talking about the wider issue but you touched upon one of the compounding problems; the playing demographic has decreased in age which seems to suggest, these guys have less disposable income to play with ... this alone makes it even more important we address the value for money problem.
I don't think the playing demographic is gonna change short term and if it does, it will just mean young players are squeezed out of paintball by the lack of greenbacks in their wallet.
If that shortfall isn't met by an older demographic [which I doubt will happen] who happens to have more money in their pocket, then numbers will inevitably decline, which of course, is what's been happening.

We can't turn the clock back in terms of playing demographic but we sure as hell have control over the product and this is where the recent Federation's initiative comes in.
But we can only do this with the co-operation of RESPONSIBLE promoters who can see the long-dollar policy as against short dollar gains.

 

[essx]

.
This has nothing to do with anything I'm afraid and is completely academic.

My question regarding the 20 old pro teams was meant to ask more along the lines of...what made them pro?
In the uk currently people recognise 2 or 3 "pro" teams. What enabled there to be 20 in years gone by?
Is it because of the more defined divisions now, and generally better level of play across a broader range of players and teams?

Where did all the old pro teams play? surely they were simply the divisions we simply now play as the higher xball levels in the tournaments?

 

[Robbo]

My question regarding the 20 old pro teams was meant to ask more along the lines of...what made them pro?
In the UK currently people recognise 2 or 3 "pro" teams. What enabled there to be 20 in years gone by?
Is it because of the more defined divisions now, and generally better level of play across a broader range of players and teams?

Where did all the old pro teams play? surely they were simply the divisions we simply now play as the higher XBall levels in the tournaments?

Back in the day [sounds bad I know], teams used to be able to declare they were pro any time they wanted.
There were no stipulations or controls, it just meant they ended up being classed as pro and therefore somewhere down the line, in the formats played then, they would be up against the other pro teams.
And so, teams declaring themselves as 'pro' was more a statement of intent.

The reason there were 20 teams back then was because pro teams were an emergent property of the playing pool, there were a lot more teams around then.

As for now, I think self-declaration of pro status is more a financial statement because to play in pro leagues you need a lot more commitment from your players, both financial and time and with the expense of playing now, the number of pro teams is down because less people can afford to play pro, it's as simple as that I'm afraid.

The format played back then had qualifying rounds that pitched pros against everybody else [amateurs and novices] and the pros only ended up playing against themselves after that primary qualifying round.
Seeded groups were the preferred playing format back then and although it wasn't perfect, it did have a lot of redeeming points that made it more enjoyable and greater value for money.

 

[Thib]

I guess what change is "Passion", people spending more than their wedge for a sport they loved.
Waking up at 3 in the morning to freeze in the cold, for what we were looking forward all week:
playing paintball

The atmosphere is far from what it used to be.
New players doing everything to play with "Pros", without regarding if you have a chance or not.
I still remember my first tourney "with star", using a pump gun in semi7 ; just because I wanted to play against "stars".
Students working/reffing/marhsalling just to pay to play paintball.