1) Is lower paint consumption a good thing or a bad thing, for players, industry, spectators?
For players, I would say good, unless they get free paint ordinarily. For teams with free event paint, it is bad, because it removes an advantages they hold. It is also bad for wealthy but unsponsored players/ teams, for the same reason.
For industry, I believe that it would be bad, as economies of scale no longer pertain. The less paint we use, the less they make, so the more they need to charge to maintain profits. It ios hard to go back to haolding hands with a girl, and it is hard to go back to 7 balls per second, though that would make it much easier to move.
Spectators? I have never been purely a spectator. I have always been a player first. I believe that moving players are more interesting to watch than players hosing from a stand-up can without moving anything except their fingers. Lower paint consumption might invite more movement, which would be good. More games in less time would probably mean more between game lulls, which would be very bad.
2) You can't make someone play a more exciting (to watch), aggressive game by only cutting out three minutes from a 10 minute game. Make the game three minutes at the longest, if that is the reason for shortening the games. Everyone will be desperate to move, and you'll still have stalemates.
3) As Shamu and Col and others have said, field design is the best way to influence how teams play. If you want more aggressive games, with more bunkering and more movement up the field, add more bunkers. Make them small, and low, if you want, but a 40 foot gap is not something most players can cross until all their opponents are gone. Make bumps available, and players will take the bump.
4) I don't like the points for quicker finishes, because that rewards a style very directly. I think having some variation within tight bounderies is a better way to keep team identities intact. If everyone player the exact same game, that will be very dull.
I am all for making games more aggressive and faster paced. Although I erspct the ability to lock down a field, it is so dull to watch, that even without TV coming into the equation in any way, as a player, watching from the net, I would rather see plays made or not made than peopel plunking away till a millimeter of technical inferiority or a sudden wind decides the game.
