7-Minute Games and the Mil Series

[Baca Loco]

You gotta love this one. The justification for this change is to help all those players and teams who can't quite manage to generate tha sort of aggressive style somebody else has decided they ought to be playing.
After all, if you go on the field knowing you only got 7 minutes you'll be inclined to work faster and viola, more aggressive games--which everyone knows will make TV love us sometime in the future. In the meanwhile I was under the delusion the object for any and every team was to win the game. Win slow, Win ugly. Win lucky. Whatever but just win. Apparently not anymore--now you're required to win a certain way.

Of course, all you're really gonna get between certain teams is 7-minute stalemates unless field design is incorportated in the equation--like the NPPL has been doing this season, mostly successfully.
My question then becomes which factor is promoting aggressive game play? The time of the game or the demands of the field designs?

And as it relates to the Mil Series announcing caps on event participation how many more teams and games can be played with 7-minute games as opposed to scheduling 10-minute games? Was this move made to benefit the players or the Series?

 

[sjt19]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Of course, all you're really gonna get between certain teams is 7-minute stalemates unless field design is incorportated in the equation

It will be taken into consideration, we will see aggressive fields, for fast paced balling. I for one, cant wait!

 

[sjt19]

Baca

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff

And YES - more money for the promoters.... our job then is to ensure that extra money trickles down to the teams in some way.

It will, the money for the judges, the series prizes in CASH, and CASH event prizes for 4 teams from each classification is a huge drain, and some way needed to be found to generate oney for this.

In all honesty what difference does it make if the games are 7 minutes in the MS compared to 8 minute games in the NPPL. That extra miunte only makes drawn games last longer. The reduction in tim ewill make teams play more agggressive, and will make games far more interesting to watch.

Similarly, very few games actually last the full 10 minutes, most games are over in around 4-6 minutes, the reduction in time is not a reduction in games. In the NPPL you only get 8 games anyway, whereas in the MS you get 10. I would be disapointed if they reduced the number of games, but reducing the time....no problem.

 

[DMZ Hasse]

I don't actually mind. What irritates me in most of paintball tournaments is THE WAITING. These incredibly hot, sweaty and boring periods when everyone -teams, refs, photographers, spectators- are just staring at a dirty empty sup'air field.

If the Millennium board have the intention to create more aggressive field layouts, it is certainly logical to shorten game times to minimize the pointless period of waiting that benefits no one.

A partial reason for quitting my previous sport, paragliding, was the many hours spent staring at a mountainside waiting for the optimal conditions to take off. (hence the term "parawaiting"). If we have control of the parameters creating these periods of non-activity, I say we try to change them.

If the time change is made without the changes in field layout in mind, I agree that it is not that well thought through.

 

[shamu]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Of course, all you're really gonna get between certain teams is 7-minute stalemates unless field design is incorportated in the equation--like the NPPL has been doing this season, mostly successfully.
My question then becomes which factor is promoting aggressive game play? The time of the game or the demands of the field designs?

IMHO - Field design has a bigger impact on aggressiveness than time limits. Let's face it, if two teams are sitting back, all the time limit does it cut the sit time from nine minutes to six minutes... they usually start moving with around one minute left anyway As a couple of people have already pointed out, most games are over in less than five minutes anyway.

A good example of field design promoting stalemates/sitting is the Angel field at the Vegas NPPL. Lots of games ended up going to time the first two days because the field design made movement difficult.

 

[Baca Loco]

Baca

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Why couldn't this be mutually benificial ?

I think this has less to do with the fact that 7 minute games are more aggressive, than with the fact that MOST 7-man games are over within 7 minutes anyway (even if I DO believe we ought to promote aggressive play for reasons you know all too well).

Why then need the extra 3 minutes, which means less room for teams at an event and is really only there for the very few games that go beyond 7 minutes.

7 minute games also mean:

- Lower paint consumption
- 10 prelim games as opposed to 8 (something has to give)
- More thought put into field design to avoid many stalemates

And YES - more money for the promoters.... our job then is to ensure that extra money trickles down to the teams in some way.

Nick

Geez, Nick. You won't even defend your core argument--which is promotion of more aggressive games. Why is that? 'Cause it looks like you're trying to tell everyone else how they ought to play or because we both know it's field design--not time, that is the critical issue?

And how in the world does a 7-minute game improve field design? Are you suggesting every effort will be made to work something out that will necessarily shovel teams through their game lickety-split so as not to damage the schedule? Wow, sounds like everyone is keeping the player foremost in their considerations.
And where did this notion of being forced back to an 8-game prelim come from? Are you saying it's either 7-minute games or fewer games? How does that enter the equation unless it's all about jamming as many teams as possible into each event? I thought there was gonna be a cap on participation in order to assure each event wasn't overburdened in providing a service to the competing teams.
Hey, if saving paint is a positive, go to a limited paint format. And that will make it easier for players to move, making games more aggresive and with limited paint we can cut games down to a universal standard for every format of 5-minutes! Just think how many more teams will get an opportunity to play then.

 

[Red_Merkin]

I really think it comes down to field design.
The Zipper thing, we've been seeing on the JT and X-ball fields is a fantastic set of bunkers, because it allows teams to get into the oppositons half of the field easily.
And there in is the key to fast playing fields. You have to allow for players to be able to make the 50s and then get into the opposition's half.

Low back bunkers, but good intermediate and 50 bunkers make the game fun to play. Little sausage bunkers on the back line suck, but a bunker that you can't play standing is good. (temples or pasties)

If you want fast games design a field that allows players to get to the 50s and then get into the oppostions half. Then the 7 minute thing won't matter anyhow.


We played a local event this weekend, and the games were 7 minutes and it was great. I only saw one game go to time.

DMZ is right though, the waiting sucks.
X-ball anyone?

 

[Baca Loco]

Well Baca

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
1--Rather than just bitching and asking questions - why don't YOU tell me how you would like things to BE ???

2--The point is, that the two go hand in hand - they are not mutually exclusive.

3--If you build fields that give teams the opportunity to move up and win quickly, net game times are reduced as a natural consequence - AND if you shorten game time, teams will try and move upfield quicker.

4--I honestly think the Millennium board is smarter than just cutting game times and then NOT thinking on the impacts that HAS to have on their field designs !

5--You seem to think it is a bad thing to have many teams at an event ?

6--I don't - as long as they do not get fewer games, but instead get games that are more fun, on better fields.

1--Because my concern isn't for what I want. If the majority of players understand the changes being made and have no issues with them then that works for me. But the norm seems to be here's what's happen--like it or lump it. I'm simply trying to make clear what's going on. In the instance of shortened games, you like it. That's fine. I don't like or dislike it but I have serious reservations as to why it is being done.
2--Nor are they mutually necessary, which is what your suggesting.
3--where does it end? Are you agreeable to this idea simply because it conforms with your prejudices as to how the game ought to be played? If your argument is a legit one why wouldn't 5 minutes be even better?
My concern is that cut times have absolutely nothing to do with what the majority of players want and everything to do with altering the format to serve the unstated interests of the promotors.
4--sure
5--No, I think the format (mixed class open events) and the time restrictions (3 days, not game length) provide practical barriers to what can be achieved in terms of games and participation. And what I believe we are seeing is an attempt to stretch the limits of the current tournament format. My concern is that regardless of how it is dressed up in the long run the player loses, whether they see it now or not.
6--"more fun on better fields" in the universe according to Nick, that is.

 

[Red_Merkin]

As such it may be that I, in a years time, advocate 5 minutes games - or a return to 10 minute games...... but at this point in time, I believe the whole 1 minute per player on a team thing is just about right for paintball.

I (holds head down low) agree with Nick.

 

[Red_Merkin]

random coincidence really

if you say enough stuff some of it is bound to be right.