CPL Coaching, Dump It

[Chicago]

First of all, this is a sport, however not EVERYTHING that makes a player win more consistently is necessarily good as it was proved by the extensive "XSV" thread.

I said no such thing and the thread proved no such thing. I said anything that lets the *BETTER* players win more consistently is a good thing. If I'm winning because I can communicate with other people on my team more effectively, because I can reload faster than you can, because I can aim better than you can, move faster, etc, then that's a good thing. Winning consistently because I have a cheater board is a bad thing. See the difference?

In conclusion, I take it that you, as a player, would rather have a guy in the sidelines, barking commands at you that you would blindly obey, just to win consistently? Ok, I value your opinion, we see things different, help me understand, because I think that that ruins the game completely.

Well, for starters, this doesn't end up happening - at best the gun on the sideline near the coach can do this and the rest of the guys have to be able to communicate. And personally, I don't care too much either way, I just think it's hogwash that people scapegoat coaching as a problem because they are losing when the real reason they are losing is because the other team is better and coaching just makes it easier for them to decisively beat you instead of doing it through 7 minutes of randomness where they would usually win but lots of times something flukey happens and they don't.

I would say that coaching is more suited to an xball-like format than a straight 5/7man type format.

Your opinion is that sideline coaching is good, my opinion is that it is bad. I think we can agree to disagree.

I think we can agree that coaching is good and you're misinformed.

 

[Chicago]

HI don't know of any other sport - except maybe for US Football, where coaches have such a great impact - and even in football, once a play is started, the coach is rendered ineffective.

There are some basketball coaches who stomp their feet on the floor a certain way to get their players to do something. And basketball coaches, who have the luxary of frequent timeouts, will frequently design and make their players excecute plays (or at least call plays that have been practiced). Who do you think does all the clock management, player substitutions, etc? Saying coaching doesn't have much affect is just assaninely silly. Coaches have a HUGE affect on the game, and are in complete control of many aspects of it that paintball hasn't even figured out exist yet (like subbing particular players to play against each other - hell, there are NXL coaches who still havn't figured out how to manage the clock yet.)

What you seem to be trying to say is that once a play starts, the coach doesn't have much affect - that is true, but what you are missing is WHY that is true. If people playing basketball made a move every 60 seconds, the basketball coach would be VERY effective. I mean, the guy is allowed to stand right there on the sideline and scream whatever he wants at the players.

The reason coaching appears to have such a big effect on paintball is because paintball players do everything in slow motion. Before we had coaching, you'd break out, you'd spend 30-60 seconds figuring out what happened, then maybe you'd make a move, then spend another 30-60 seconds - that's why 7-man games used to last 10 minutes and XBall games last about 60 seconds. Is it because it takes 8 minutes to shoot out those other 2 guys? No - it's because the xball people don't sit around for 2 minutes at a time not doing anything.

Basketball, soccer, football, etc coaches don't have as big an effect on the game because their PLAYERS MOVE TOO FAST. The coach just simply isn't able to assess, decide, and communicate before the game situation changes. Paintball isn't there yet - players who are not used to coaching are used to only having to maake one move every 30-180 seconds, and when you're only doing something every 30-180 seconds, a team with coaching is going to annihilate you. 30 secons is plenty of time to give their coach a chance to assess, decide, and communicate to their team what to do.


Paintball can only be like chess with guns if the players insist on moving like chess pieces, one at a time, every 1-3 minutes. As players get used to coaching, they'll be driven to get better at assessing what they should do and doing it before coaching can make a difference. The teams that win with coaching are teh teams that are better at making the adjustment.

If you have two teams, one team is going to have a coach that can communicate and they're going to know what to do sooner and act quicker and the game is going to get shorter. Then their opponents are going to adapt to this and learn to communicate better and move quicker and the game will get shorter. And this will repeat, until the players are moving so fast that the game is over before the coaches can really make a difference - just like a basket in basketball or a down in football.


There's one other big thing you're missing: In all those other sports, players can see almost the whole field. So at worst, coaching just approximates what all the other sports already have, which is players knowing what the field situation (where all the other players are) is.

We may just have to accept that it's tough to play hide-and-seek in front of a couple thousand people.

 

[Chicago]

And just to hit what I think is going to be the natural objection:

Yes, faster is absolutely better. It's more fun, for the players, AND the spectators. Watching people shoot paintball guns is boring. Watching people MOVE is fun. Faster games->more movement->more fun.


As with any change, there are going to be losers. And they are going to fight very hard to stop the change from happening. But the change is good, and we should not stop the change just because people who could do OK when we were playing hide-and-seek with paintball guns can't handle playing when you have to have spectacular field awareness, decisiveness, speed and tip-top skills to win because if it takes you 30 seconds to figure out what to do you're toast.

Coaching doesn't mean players don't need skills. Coaching just means players need the skills to act in the 3-5 seconds instead of having half the game to do it.

 

[shamu]

If the whole point is to create a format that is exciting to watch, then the crowd has to be close enough to feel part of the action, to at least think that their support is having some effect on the game. The crowd has to be in the best position to see the game-busting moves and people getting drilled in the head.

So if you're not getting sprayed with paint from the field, it's not exciting to watch? Guess that means no paintball on TV for you ...

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Chicago

You just spent - what? - 20 minutes?? - typing a lot of stuff that is blatantly obvious to everyone...... and it leaves me wondering if you think the rest of the people on this board are a bit challenged in the brain department?

NOBODY is saying we should have no coaches in paintball.... but we are saying that their impact on the game should be no greater than in other sports.

I am FINE with coaches calling plays, making substitutions, etc..... what I am not fine with, is the coach on BOTH sides of the field remote controlling their players, so that instead of the game being about what team is better - it becomes about what coach is better - in-game.

Now, you argue that the better team will always win - and I beg to differ.

At the highest level of our sport, everyone can play.... and if you pit a great team with a sucky coach, against an average team with a great coach, you will see the outcome be different than it would be without the coaching.

The great coach will be able to set up firing lanes, orchestrate moves and order bunkering runs throughout the match, that will give the average team an advantage they would otherwise never have.

Yes - eventually everyone will get a great coach... but then... what is the point of the coaching anyway?

NOBODY here is saying the spectators should not be just as involved with the games as they are today... but what many are saying is, that it would be great to use a format and a setup, that decreased the effeciveness of coaching, while still allowing spectators to be involved.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Chicago

You just spent - what? - 20 minutes?? - typing a lot of stuff that is blatantly obvious to everyone...... and it leaves me wondering if you think the rest of the people on this board are a bit challenged in the brain department?

NOBODY is saying we should have no coaches in paintball.... but we are saying that their impact on the game should be no greater than in other sports.

And I'm saying that, after a little more adjustment by players and teams, it won't be. Players will get faster, to the point, just like in other sports, that by the time the coach is able to have an influence on a live game, the game will have changed enough that his input won't be useful.

I am FINE with coaches calling plays, making substitutions, etc..... what I am not fine with, is the coach on BOTH sides of the field remote controlling their players, so that instead of the game being about what team is better - it becomes about what coach is better - in-game.

Now, you argue that the better team will always win - and I beg to differ.

At the highest level of our sport, everyone can play.... and if you pit a great team with a sucky coach, against an average team with a great coach, you will see the outcome be different than it would be without the coaching.

What's your point? You don't think great coaches change the outcome of games in other sports? They don't pay the big bucks to Phil Jackson because he doesn't make a difference in whether the team wins or not. Having good coaches is important to winning.

Even if you do accept that non-player influences shouldn't effect a team's ability to win, if one team has 5 superstar players and another team has 15 almost-superstar players, the outcome will be different if you limit teams to 5 people on a roster instead of 15. Does that mean we should cut XBall rosters to 5 players because a team is only winning because of a deeper roster?

The great coach will be able to set up firing lanes, orchestrate moves and order bunkering runs throughout the match, that will give the average team an advantage they would otherwise never have.

Unless you ban all staff from the pits, that's going to happen anyway. Or do you mean from the sideline while the point is being played, in which case I have to wonder in what mythical universe you're playing paintball where one guy can tell 5 guys where they're supposed to be shooting based on the position of 5 opponents who are moving around enough that the games are ending in 30-60 seconds, and be heard by them, especially if there is a crowd present.

In fact, 5 guys relying on their coach to tell them where their firing lanes are is a sure-fire way to get beat. The players on the other team are just going to act quicker.

There's really only one area of the game where coaching has an unnatural impact, and that's the coach's effect on the player playing the sideline right in front of him. And, if you're allowing spectator involvement, having a coach there doing that is more fair than the extreme imbalences you can have when matches are played with few spectators especially when their allegience is strongly towards one team or another.

Yes - eventually everyone will get a great coach... but then... what is the point of the coaching anyway?

IMMEDIATELY - it's to mitigate one team being at a severe disadvantage merely because they are playing at a time of day when there are very few spectators and one team happens to have more fans there than the other. Longer-term, I think it forces people to acquire the skills they need to speed up the game and make winning more dependent on ACTION as opposed to CAUTION. Extremely long term, I think coaches won't have much affect on the game at higher levels at all - the players will be acting so quickly that coaching will only make it hurt more when a team makes a big error.

NOBODY here is saying the spectators should not be just as involved with the games as they are today... but what many are saying is, that it would be great to use a format and a setup, that decreased the effeciveness of coaching, while still allowing spectators to be involved.

You don't need to change anything. Coaching appears effective now because players are still figuring out how to play against it. Give it some time and the effect on the game will continue to diminish.


Look, the cat is out of the bag - spectators are there and they are talking. PSP has EXTREMELY marginalized coaches over the past couple years - they're now off-field behind the netting on the dorito side. Has it made a difference? No. When there are lots of spectators, the players get a huge wall of sound whether the coach is there or not, and when there are few spectators, if you get rid of the coach the spectators just take their place.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

This is boring me - so I'll just comment one thing, because we are not agreeing anyway:

What's your point? You don't think great coaches change the outcome of games in other sports? They don't pay the big bucks to Phil Jackson because he doesn't make a difference in whether the team wins or not. Having good coaches is important to winning.

Do you think they pay him the big bucks for the work he does in-game???

I think not - in other sports, what a coach does in-game is rarely very deciding on the final outcome of the game... which is exactly my point.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Do you think they pay him the big bucks for the work he does in-game???

I think not - in other sports, what a coach does in-game is rarely very deciding on the final outcome of the game... which is exactly my point.

Coaches OFTEN make decisions during the course of the game that affect the outcome. Who actually gets to play and for how long is a big one. Do I call in the relief pitcher or not? When do I use my timeout? Do we go for the tieing field-goal or the 2 point converstion for the win? It's 4th and one - kick or go for it? Shaq's got 5 fouls - play him or sit him? Man-to-man or zone? 4, 3 or 2 forwards? Pass coverage or blitz?

Hell, football coaches will go so far as to tell their players EXACTLY WHERE TO RUN!

But, even if they didn't, isn't trying to say coaches making a difference out of the game is ok and in game is bad a bit of a convenient distinction?


I think you have an illusion as to the true impact of coaches in other sports and an illusion as to the impact of coaches in paintball.



I have another solution: Get rid of coaches, but make the bunkers transparent. If coaches in paintball are bad because they supposedly have more effect than coaches in other sports do, surely opaque bunkers on the field are bad because players can't see as much of the field as players in other sports can, right?

 

[cremuzzi]

My Opinion on Coaching

Coaching totally ruins any of the jedi like moves that are very important to paintball. If you take two paintball players with equally good gun skills but one of them happens to have a brain, the smart player will win more often. Coaching makes everyone equal. Being able to figure out where everyone is and make the right move faster than the other guy is what distinguishes a good paintball player from a great one. That is a players responsibility to train themselves to know what to do in a given situation, having someone just give you the answer is kind of sad. Are paintball players getting that dumb they have be told everything? On a bigger level, a team that can communicate to their players what is going on (body counts, enemy positions etc) has an advantage over a team that was mute. If you want to tell people where to shoot then get out there to a back corner bunker or back center and play, then you can coach them as much as you want.

What gets exciting for the crowd is when they can see things going on that the player cannot and thus the tension builds.....Its like watching poker, you know what cards the other guys have you are just watching hoping your favorite guy will make the right moves. If you had coach telling you what to do the outcome is a little bit less exciting isnt it?? As a fan you can relate to the player on the field trying to figure out what is going on and you are rooting for or against them to make the right choices. If you have someone tellin them "look left" it takes a lot of the anticipation out of it.

That why we need to leave it all on the field and let the people who have been training to play paintball actually play not be remote controlled like some sort of video game. Coaching in terms of setting up plays, making sure your players execute them correctly, and giving feedback after the point/match is what coaches need to be doing not telling them where to shoot. Obviously teams have to do play within the format they are given but ask any of the people actually playing who have been playing paintball for a while and have some skill at reading the field, and most will say coaching is weak. The players who like coaching are the one that havent taken the time or energy to analyze what happens in a paintball game be it a Xball point or 7 man game, and to do the right thing. They are lazy and just want to be pointed in the right direction. So there it is my opinion flame away..........

 

[Jimmothy]

Is coaching allowed in the millenium series, or does it just go on anyway?