7-Minute Games and the Mil Series

[BaddahBoom]

>>If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle; to ask me what I would do if somebody came along offering a TV deal that involved 3 minute games etc is nonsensical.<<

I was wondering, which is most of the time nonsensical at that given moment, where the line should be drawn
as to how far a format should be reformed and for what price


>>TV highlights of train crash paintball are going to be a lot more attractive than highlights of pussyball, no matter what way you try and wrap it up.<<

not trying to wrap up anything but, my reply was to your TV reference not to what spectators alongside a field look at


but since i just came out of the woods
i can be in awe of some back guys locking up a game, making it a "pussyball" (wasn't it known as technoball a year ago ??) game

The two backs of Denmark vs france in the Xball game at DMA 2003 come to mind

but watching players using their markers as a bunker steamrolling their opposition like dynasty can is also great to watch
when i watch a game i can at least decide what to look at
with Televised sports u only get to see what the director/producer decides

but no need to discuss if PB should be on TV
it should without a doubt

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by BaddahBoom
I was wondering, which is most of the time nonsensical at that given moment, where the line should be drawn
as to how far a format should be reformed and for what price

The format proposed is merely a step forward in the right direction and just because I am not going to indulge you in trying to define specific limits to this change, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the proposed format change.

not trying to wrap up anything but, my reply was to your TV reference not to what spectators alongside a field look at

Two sides of the same coin !

but since i just came out of the woods
i can be in awe of some back guys locking up a game, making it a "pussyball" (wasn't it known as technoball a year ago ??) game

You may well be in awe of a lock up but I'm afraid TV ain't about producing programmes for ex Woodland players who appreciate lockdowns, thankfully TV programmes are produced with other criterion in mind.
I think I might know what 'technoball' means as I was the first one to use this term and when applied to describing a game, it means that a team did not play aggressively and relied more on their techniques but what this has to do with anything, I am not sure as I am advocating aggressive games being the way forward regardelss of any technoball considerations.

but watching players using their markers as a bunker steamrolling their opposition like dynasty can is also great to watch.
when i watch a game i can at least decide what to look at
with Televised sports u only get to see what the director/producer decides

but no need to discuss if PB should be on TV
it should without a doubt

Aggressive games are more attarctive to watch as you admit; your persepctive in all this is as a player, you have to shift that persepctive to being a spectator, once this has been done, the whole game emphasis changes and would be more readily understandable and acceptable by yourself.
This shift in emphasis was the pivotal part of Sergei's presentation he made to Ged Green, Laurent, Niall and myself a month or so back.
So far, nobody who knows what they are talking about has refuted its relevance or foresight.

 

[acsik]

Originally posted by Robbo

Aggressive games are more attarctive to watch as you admit; your persepctive in all this is as a player, you have to shift that persepctive to being a spectator, once this has been done, the whole game emphasis changes and would be more readily understandable and acceptable by yourself.
This shift in emphasis was the pivotal part of Sergei's presentation he made to Ged Green, Laurent, Niall and myself a month or so back.
So far, nobody who knows what they are talking about has refuted its relevance or foresight. [/B]

Mmmm mucho interesting! Can you further elaborate what is boiling in the pot there?

Cheers

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by acsik
Mmmm mucho interesting! Can you further elaborate what is boiling in the pot there?

Cheers

Hey Ascik ,

as most people know Sergei owns and runs a bank, he analyses situations and makes judgements based upon that analysis, this is his trade, this is how he made his money and continues to make his money, it's all about risk assessment.

He applied this same rationale to Paintball and came up with some great insights into what he believed was going to happen to us in Europe if we just went on with what we were doing.
The prognosis wasn't all that encouraging.

Now, this analysis and forecast was done because of the uptake of paintball by TV with regard to the NXL and its consequent effects on all things paintball, non-NXL.

That said, he came up with answers for our survival and those answers included a blueprint plan of action that had its heart the shift in emphasis I mentioned in an earlier post away from the player toward the spectator in terms of marketing the sport to the media.

Once this revolutionary principle had been embraced, many things fell into place concerning format, outside sponsor deals, financing and so on.
Changes have to be made to survive, make no mistake about that.
Businesses in the real world have to position themselves for what will happen to them in the mid and long term futures, the paintball business is not immune from these influences and nor should it be.
We could choose to stay as we are and for two maybe three years we would more than likely be ok, but.......and this is a big but...the winds of change would blow us away.
The short termists among us, the idealists, the misinformed and the ignorant must not be allowed to get in the way of where we must go....it's as simple as that mate !

 

[Baca Loco]

One thing I find fascinating in the general discussion is what underlies so many of the assumptions being made about how to "package" paintball. Seems to me everything is more or less predicated on the notion of a stupid, short attention span public that has to be mesmerized into watching paintball. No sport has automatic appeal. People need to know (and understand) what they are seeing in order to make sense of it and then decide whether or not they like what they see.
If anyone thinks snippets of game action repeated over and over again is gonna hold anyone other than the players attention in serving paintball they are sadly mistaken.

I'm further amazed at how blithely so many Big Picture types are prepared to make casualties out of today's paying customer in the name of "Progress." I wonder if alot of the folks with the means to change the game aren't so concerned with their own grandiose vision of the future or locked in mortal combat with the enemy that the little guy is at best an afterthought.
(And no, Pete, I don't mean you specifically but your exchanges with Boom got me thinking.)

Nor am I opposed to Progress or TV or any of the rest of it but if the "right" questions aren't being asked before decisions are being made it's unlikely to result is the "right" answers. And certainly part of the consideration has got to be the current players, doesn't it?

For example, what exactly is the rationale to the ever decreasing field size?

And why a 7-minute game? Is there more to it than the "benefit" of being able to plug in more teams to the same amount of overall tourney time? Could it have anything to do with conforming to an aspect of the so-called premier league concept?

 

[acsik]

Pete


Thanks for the insight! Getting some gunpowder from Baca's VERY valid pioints I have 2 questions.


1, Are you able to disclose those "blueprint plans" as I think if they are not über confidential would interest many here.


2, Are Sergei's undoubtely valid points filtered down to the Mill. people? And if yes are theese "suggestions" influenced the recent changes in the Mill. matters?


Thx

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
One thing I find fascinating in the general discussion is what underlies so many of the assumptions being made about how to "package" paintball. Seems to me everything is more or less predicated on the notion of a stupid, short attention span public that has to be mesmerized into watching paintball. No sport has automatic appeal. People need to know (and understand) what they are seeing in order to make sense of it and then decide whether or not they like what they see.
If anyone thinks snippets of game action repeated over and over again is gonna hold anyone other than the players attention in serving paintball they are sadly mistaken.

I'm further amazed at how blithely so many Big Picture types are prepared to make casualties out of today's paying customer in the name of "Progress." I wonder if alot of the folks with the means to change the game aren't so concerned with their own grandiose vision of the future or locked in mortal combat with the enemy that the little guy is at best an afterthought.
(And no, Pete, I don't mean you specifically but your exchanges with Boom got me thinking.)

Nor am I opposed to Progress or TV or any of the rest of it but if the "right" questions aren't being asked before decisions are being made it's unlikely to result is the "right" answers. And certainly part of the consideration has got to be the current players, doesn't it?

For example, what exactly is the rationale to the ever decreasing field size?

And why a 7-minute game? Is there more to it than the "benefit" of being able to plug in more teams to the same amount of overall tourney time? Could it have anything to do with conforming to an aspect of the so-called premier league concept?

I am afraid the predicate you mention is an underlying consideration that has to be made here when trying to package paintball. We have to take into account the fickle nature of the viewing public when it comes to not switching from one channel to another or not re-attending an event.
You say no sport has automatic first time appeal, I am not sure about that but what I am sure about is this; some sports can bore me ****less automatically and I am merely advocating a format that insures against this.
I am also convinced that the less complex a game, the more likely it will appeal in its initial presentation and so people will be more likely to keep it switched on (or go again to a tournament) if we keep it simple.

Your next point regarding casually sacrificing the players of today for agendas that are purely selfish, is I think, directed toward me (let's not fcuk about here Paul) and maybe two other people but Sergei is independent from all that cr@p and will have no truck with any of it and it is his ideas that I hope we will adopt, not mine.
I just happen to agree with him wholeheartedly.
Whatever petty animosities or agendas that may have erupted in the past are soon forgotten when the ‘real’ big guns spout forth and in this case, when Sergei opened up all our eyes, I for one, was willing to change my views on things.

Our vision of the future is a default version as my original vision encompassed X-Ball for Europe being integrated into a world series with the NXL which was on offer to us a year back, for whatever reasons (it matters not now), we did not go down that road which left us high and dry if we wanted to follow a similar evolution that the NXL now enjoys.
There is no provision whatsoever in the NXL to include any European involvement which means we have to make our own destiny and take advantage of any opportunities that will allow us to strut our stuff.

I don't see you now mentioning similar PSP mandates on their tournament series a year back when they drastically changed the goalposts for all their tourney teams just so's they could accommodate the NXL.

As for what questions need to be asked at this stage of the game, I think I will trust Sergei to come up with the goods on that one and I will also trust his answers.

As for field sizes, I don't care as long as you can play attractive (aggressive) games of paintball on them.

Peace

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by acsik
Pete
Thanks for the insight! Getting some gunpowder from Baca's VERY valid pioints I have 2 questions.
1, Are you able to disclose those "blueprint plans" as I think if they are not über confidential would interest many here.
2, Are Sergei's undoubtely valid points filtered down to the Mill. people? And if yes are theese "suggestions" influenced the recent changes in the Mill. matters?
Thx

Hey Acsik :-

1. Not really my place to disclose the details but in essence the plans advised that fundamental shift in emphasis I mentioned and a greater professionalising of the way we organise or sport with regard to creating a coherent presentation to outside and industry investors, mainly in the US.

2. Sergei's presentation was made directly to Laurent and Niall of the Millennium who were as impressed as myself I think and the changes now being suggested are I think, as a result of that meeting.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
One thing I find fascinating in the general discussion is what underlies so many of the assumptions being made about how to "package" paintball. Seems to me everything is more or less predicated on the notion of a stupid, short attention span public that has to be mesmerized into watching paintball. No sport has automatic appeal. People need to know (and understand) what they are seeing in order to make sense of it and then decide whether or not they like what they see.
If anyone thinks snippets of game action repeated over and over again is gonna hold anyone other than the players attention in serving paintball they are sadly mistaken.

I'm further amazed at how blithely so many Big Picture types are prepared to make casualties out of today's paying customer in the name of "Progress." I wonder if alot of the folks with the means to change the game aren't so concerned with their own grandiose vision of the future or locked in mortal combat with the enemy that the little guy is at best an afterthought.
(And no, Pete, I don't mean you specifically but your exchanges with Boom got me thinking.)

Nor am I opposed to Progress or TV or any of the rest of it but if the "right" questions aren't being asked before decisions are being made it's unlikely to result is the "right" answers. And certainly part of the consideration has got to be the current players, doesn't it?

For example, what exactly is the rationale to the ever decreasing field size?

And why a 7-minute game? Is there more to it than the "benefit" of being able to plug in more teams to the same amount of overall tourney time? Could it have anything to do with conforming to an aspect of the so-called premier league concept?

I understand Paul's concerns; we've been down that road before. Paul has raised some legit questions IMO about what guides the tournament proposals that have come lately. He seems to me to want to go back to square one as it were and decide on some guiding principles.

Is it PB as a hobby (which the tournament scene seems to be now), is it the notion that PB should be legitimized as a sport, is it the panacea that going in full force to TV might be, is it the need and/or the benefits of obtaining outside sponsorships?

I think that the proposals Sergei, Laurent, perhaps others and I have made sweep in all of those at once.

Therefore the need and benefits of shorter more aggressive games, perhaps time-bonuses, along with other features. Therefore the need to package the competition in a more attractive way.

I may be idealistically romantic but I believe that we can appeal to the paying customers, novices up to super pros, AND appeal to the mass-media all at the same time if we put it together correctly.

Sergei is obviously a smart cookie. Maybe he's done it right. And Pete is smart enough and concerned enough to have picked up on that.

Steve

 

[acsik]

Splendid!


So you say that the seemingly unfavorable (for the players) changes in the Mill. matters are at the end might be benefical for us the players?

or

You say that by implementing the changes Mill. brass will have better chance to get outside sponsors, TV and who knows what in even if it might hurt the players?


Thx!
(I should be a damn reporter)