Millennium change M500

[lettucecheesecake]

This might actually change a lot of tournament gear. 2 pod packs. Smaller volume tanks. End of the mid grade paint as shots count. No more hi cap loaders. Return of the mech cocker!!!!!!!!!

 

[lettucecheesecake]

I wonder if any teams will use 50 cal? No need for any pods at all. All 500 in the loader.

 

[Tony Harrison]

Big like. I'm rocking the **** out of the MS in 2016.

 

[Kevin Winter]

I'm intrigued by this. I was in a position to play the Mills last summer at Basildon. I chose not to - because I couldn't afford it, simple as that. Bringing this rule in makes it much more predictable, cost wise.Interestingly, when I first got into touney play, the old NSPL KOTH series used precisely this rule. I loved it, as it opened up lots of chances to move and, after the initial lanes had been shot, no ne could hold a lane with a constant rate of fire. We were one of the only teams to swap pods around at the start gates, and this allowed us to run a snake player with just a hopper and a couple of back players with a full four pods, plus two mid players with a spare pod. Personally, I think this adds an interesting dimension to the play and could be very interesting,

 

[Bolter]

At the end of the day, we are only going to know if it works when a number of top teams go at it, and see what's what. Its one of the things I always wanted for formula 5 (two top teams). I'm not fussy, Dynasty v Heat F5 match round Sostas on a Sunday afternoon would do

 

[Tony Harrison]

So.......how about putting a p8ntballer.com team in for Campaign Cup 2016?

We could probably get enough for 2 squads.......need a pit crew too.

 

[shoaibaktar]

Earlier movement ,faster points =less playing time .

I'm glad the Millennium are trying to do something to spice up the game, and I can kinda see where they are coming from with this idea, although I see a few potential holes…

Seems to me they are trying to cut out those few minutes of paint static slinging that you get in most points where the teams break out evenly with 5on5 (or even 4on5) and cut to the chase of getting the point closed out almost instantly. Tbh the games in Europe have never been quite as much of a paint slog as some of the PSP games I've seen on the PBA webcast, but it does happen (I once watched a 15 minute double OT point in the D1 semi finals at Chicago a few years back). The flip side to that is that I feel you need that minute or so of jockeying and figuring out what the next move needs to be and how to make it happen. They are selling it as a 'skill' to be able to play with less paint, personally I;d say shooting and maintaining a good lane are two separate and very valuable skills for a paintballer, but equally so is being able to force the issue and win the point. With this new format you're getting very close to the whole thing being a series of reckless (and pointless) run throughs OTB. Great for car-crash music video style edits, not really much of a game though.

Having done some number crunching, most teams do seem to use somewhere in the regain of 1 box of paint per point they play (going off my own teams consumption and anecdotally from others) so given that this allows 2500 'balls in play' for every point, in theory this should not alter that hugely - the trick will be having the right amount of paint with the right people at the right time… Although just by putting this limit on, it will ultimately reduce the amount of paint teams shoot at events the same way as lowering RoF has. Will it half the average paint bill? I doubt it. Maybe at first as teams play recklessly as an overcompensation for the lack of paint on their back - not many players are happy to sit and keep shooting a lane when they have only one pod left, they try to make something happen, then they normally get shot still with that one pod in their pack.. But teams and players will quickly find a more natural rhythm to it and it will settle down.

As Mike said, I think it will have some refinements made before it goes live, and if they are smart enough to make it X amount of pots between the live players rather than 2 each you might see something like 12 pots between 5 players in CPL or something, just to give the game a bit more depth and allow the points to play out a bit more rather than always coming down to who runs out of paint first.

Ultimately though this is about bums on seats - will this change open the Millennium up to more teams…? Yes, but not by a huge amount.
Will the over all cost of attending one go down - yes, probably, but not by a huge amount assuming entry fees, travel, hotel etc remain will largely unchanged.
Will the national leagues all follow suit and thus become even cheaper to play than they already are - yes, and they will probably see a bigger growth / retention of teams than the Millennium.

I still maintain the biggest barrier to teams competing at the Millennium is the field layout release. If the teams are not pressured to practise all 4 weeks leading up to a Millennium (spending the cost of attending the event again just in practise) then teams will be more likely to attend. I've heard all the arguments about 'what will the training sites do, what will the CPPS do?' etc and I could give you a fistful of solutions right now to counter that.

Rather than addressing on part of the cost of a millenium ,would'nt it be better to go for better value rather than cheap?? You have spent a lot of money getting there ,now you're going to shoot less paint in shorter points =less playing time .You will also piss off paint sponsors as well as players .Surely in line with the paint per point cut,you up the points/game time .Same paint bill for more field time .Players get more field time ,paint companies dont have to increase paint prices to maintain profit /costs levels

 

[lettucecheesecake]

That's a good point. Bigger field lower fps?

 

[Spikerz]

M500 Clarification

Following an incredible amount of feedback in the short time since we released the first details of the M500, we would like to clarify the following.

M500 is due to be fully rolled out by 2016 & will go through several improvements during our testing & consultations with teams & the industry. Whilst we intend to keep the format as simple as possible, we have no intention of dictating equipment criteria, loader size etc. We want this formula to be available for all without any requirement to buy new equipment or incur unnecessary expense.

We really appreciate the positive feedback & are very happy to take on board suggestions & ideas. Our aim is to have a formula that can be embraced by all.

 

[Rudeboy]

I honestly doubt it that this format will last long if the maximum is 500 balls per person. I can't see how having this little paint will leave more room for the skilled players either or at the very least how it will aid players in becoming better .

This will seriously affect mid and most of all back players and will have a negative effect on the fronts. Strong breaks with good lining will no longer be as doable as now as it will cost a back player 2/3 of the overall paint he/she has. Thus, the number of bodies that go down within the first 15 seconds of the game might drop significantly as everyone will be saving up. I have had teammates capable of firing their hoppers and a pod in that time, allowing them to make 1 or 2 Gs in Div1 in the Millennium every second or third point. Yeah, this isn't CPL but still. Imagine how screwed would the team be if no Gs are made and the backs have 1 pod left each after the break.

Also, front player will have less pressure on them to be as fast and smart as possible in the break. We will start seeing ridiculous runs and players will actually make it 4 out of 5 times, etc. making it easy for almost everyone to do runs that only a handfull of players can normally do on a tournament now.

Furthermore, every now and then it happens so that a pod drops out of the harness or opens while one is running, which will be quite devastating if it was your second pod, you are one of the last players and it is the decisive point of a semi:final for example. No one would be happy being sent back home as a result of bad luck and this regulation. At least now it would be the player's fault he didn't take enough paint.
And think about those important points when it is 1 on 1, or 2 on 2 and both teams have little paint left... sometimes it takes ages until the point is over. We've all seen it on pretty much every tournament. With this new limit, the number of point like this will probs skyrocket.

Plus, holding a line or pressuring your mirror to stay behind his/hers bunker will now turn into simple snap shooting, which always holds greater risk. Not to mention that the really good player with vision of the whole field will no longer be able to keep pressure on 2 or 3 opposing players allowing his own to move.

I don't know... in my opinion this format will aid the ones learning but harm the decent players and few aspects of the dynamics of the game.
I am not talking about the profi players. They would probably be able to make amazing games with a pod each, but the majority of tournament players are not Chad George.

As for reducing the costs. When it comes to major events in Europe, the paint is normally just one of the expenses and rarely the biggest one, unless you make to the final and play an average of 5 points per game. Meaning that a small reduction in the paint bill will probably make a small difference anyway.
Also as Ash already mentioned it, on average a team uses around a box of paint anyways. Normally, backs shoot the most and fronts the least. But you cant leave your fronts with 1 pod so that the backs have more than 2. If the idea of the format is that everyone pays equally for what he/she shoot, than ok. But I doubt it there is a serious team that divides the cost among them on the basis of how much each person shoots, as that way the back would always be scr*wed .

Cheers