NPPL Paint?

[Baca Loco]

Camille,
As Chris pointed out and I was alluding to the event is barely 5 weeks away and wider distribution of information, whether via responses here, or in new press releases reaches a wider audience and saves you time.
It also serves to keep those who won't be attending this first event but are interested in how the NPPL fares informed of the ongoing process.
As to that membership biz please note how well ignoring possible issues of concern has worked for the PSP.

 

[Baca Loco]

Apparently poor old Baca doesn't rate a personal reply as per Camille's suggestion.
Can anyone give anymore info on paint on site for the first NPPL?

And while you're at it let me know how tossing an extra $245 into the NPPL pot on top of your entry strikes you.

 

[raehl]

There should be several paint vendors on site, from what I gatehr, most of the major ones. It's a BYOP event, so if your vendor isn't there, you can bring your paint, provided you can prove it's not going to damage anything.


As for $245...

Better venues costing more? Players not wanting to actually pay more for better venues? Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait....

As I've said before, if you want a player's organization, you're going to have to pay for it. If you don't want to play a league with player's organization that requires $35/yr from its members to run, play PSP. But then you also don't get a player's organization. Up to you whether that's worth your $35.


- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by raehl
There should be several paint vendors on site, from what I gatehr, most of the major ones. It's a BYOP event, so if your vendor isn't there, you can bring your paint, provided you can prove it's not going to damage anything.

As for $245...

Better venues costing more? Players not wanting to actually pay more for better venues? Who could have seen that coming? Oh, wait....

As I've said before, if you want a player's organization, you're going to have to pay for it. If you don't want to play a league with player's organization that requires $35/yr from its members to run, play PSP. But then you also don't get a player's organization. Up to you whether that's worth your $35.

- Chris

I had no doubt you would respond. Chris but I was actually looking for a few more experienced replies. And while your counsel is always welcome I'd really feel far more comfortable with responses direct from the NPPL. Silly me.

And as to the "extra" expense the entry is already more expensive per player than the PSP and I haven't once objected to receiving what I'm paying for--I have objected to compulsory support for an organization beyond my willingness to take a chance and pay for the opportunity to play their event. Nor do I know just what my "membership" gets me. You keep making claims but they aren't supporting by REAL info from the NPPL.

And while we're at it--the NPPL promised flat grass venues, not sand. Now the sand is being promoted as a great showcase and an excellent location to attract outside interest. All well and good but it isn't what was promised and as long as the players are pulling freight maybe they need to be told a bit more than "it's gonna be good for paintball." After all, what the hell does that mean exactly? For most of the players participating in particular? How many of them will reap any benefit whatsoever and how much of what it's costing them is going "to the betterment of paintball" instead of the event they're playing?

There's also the issue of all the info we haven't been given yet. Rudimentary stuff like game times, prelim games, semi's and finals format, field dimensions, etc. There is absolutely nothing regarding any of this currently available--(and please don't say check the rules as they are out of date and refer to 5-man and 10-man games. Oops!) No doubt it's a big job trying to get everything ready but that's not an excuse that fly's for the PSP so it ain't gonna fly for the NPPL either.

PS--Chris, don't feel any pressing need to respond.

 

[raehl]

Hah.

I *ALWAYS* feel a pressing need to respond. Sometimes I'm able to overcome that feeling, but apparently this isn't one of those times.


S7 made a decision to forgo a grass playing surface in favor of sand. If that bugs you, don't play. Some players seem to think that they're supposed to be informed on everything that's going on and why, and that's simply silly.

In the NCPA for example, I pretty much make most decisions on my own or with the CEO depending o the circumstances, but any departures from existing "common practice" I run by our Board of Directors first. Beyond that, the players pretty much have to take what they get, with the caveat that at the end of the year, if they don't like it, it's all of our (the officers and directors) asses when elections roll around. A certain level of trust is necessary: The players have to accept that I and the Board are going to have access to information they can't have, and are going to have to trust that we'll do the right thing with that information. Hopefully we do and everyone is happy with the results at the end of the season - even if during the season we didn't do what the players thought we should be doing.

Unfortunately, it seems that most players have lost that trust in the organization(s) backing the major national circuits, and I really don't see a short term solution for fixing that. Nothing short of a good chunk of time delivering what's required is likely to do.

Neither S7 nor PSP or anyone else should be expected to answer questions on web forums, or answer many questions from players at all. That may have been common practice in paintball, but in the real world, that kind of information is conveyed on official web sites, through press releases, and rarely, media interviews. Controlled release of information is a part of a successful commercial enterprise, and involvement in the decision making process is NOT the territory of the customer.


Or, more directly, it's none of your business WHY they decided to forgo grass in favor of a sand location - believe the reasoning they have given, or don't; attend the event, or don't. S7 has decided players need to pay a membership fee in order to play - pay it, or don't. Try calling up your phone company and asking why you have to pay an extra $4 per month for caller ID when it only costs them .50 to provide it to you - all they're going to say is that if you want caller ID, pay your $4. Why or how a company does something is irrelevant - either they're providing something you'll pay for, or they aren't.


S7 is promising a lot of changes players have been saying they want, but they are also doing so at a higher price tag. Now we have to see if S7's bet that the players will actually pay more for what they've said they want is a good one. Think S7 is too expensive for what they're offering? Don't play it. They don't have to sell you a product you want any more than you have to buy the product they're selling.


- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Chris,
I know you enjoy seeing your thoughts in print. But you might at least pretend to respond to my concerns or else just post under a heading like, "Raehl's Musings" or some such.

Regarding the venue--when I'm promised one thing and offered another, yes, I expect an explanation. But The Word According to Raehl tells me to forget about it. Am I, and everyone else, also not entitled to know how many games and of what duration we will be "allowed" to play?
(Btw, be very glad I don't have an NCPA vote. )

Why is a certain level of trust necessary, if things are as you claim, merely a matter of take it or leave it--"buy it" or skip it?

And (the bonus question) will the NCPA All-Stars score more than 100 points? (But regardless you'll have fun, I know)

 

[raehl]

Raehl's Musings

You got an explanation - sand and public location was a good trade for grass. It's up to you whether you trust/accpet that explanation or not (despite you not being entitled to one in the first place.) Better question: Why does it matter why they switched? Does it make a difference in terms of whether or not you think sand and Huntington Beach is a good place for a tournament?


You, and I, and everyone, should know how many games and how long - that should be on the S7 site, no doubt.


Trust is necessary because that factors into how much you believe the information you're given. LEt's say I promise a free entry National Championships and top notch reffing for college nationals this year (which I intend on doing, although I have not done so yet). If there's a level of trust there on par with what college players have in the NCPA, most of them will trust that we're not BSing them and believe that they'll get top notch reffing despite not paying for entry. If they didn't trust the NCPA, they might think they'd get shoddy reffing despite what we're promising and therefore decide not to attend the event. There's a difference between what a company says they'll provide and what the customer believes they'll get, and the difference comes down to trust - and also affects whether the customer decides to buy it or skip it.


I'll answer the 100 points question when I know how many chances we'll have to win a game. Seriously though, I'm pretty sure we broke 100 points at every event last season save Challenge Cup where we had a rookie team in the Am division. Warpig seems to be down at the moment so I can't check. The All-Stars is just a buncha players who show up the day before the event to play, and that lack of team practice shows. That and many of the NCPA's best players play on other teams at major events and thus not on the All-Star team... esp. when we've got 12 teams playing X Ball.



- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Raehl's Musings

Originally posted by raehl
1--Better question: Why does it matter why they switched? Does it make a difference in terms of whether or not you think sand and Huntington Beach is a good place for a tournament?

2--You, and I, and everyone, should know how many games and how long - that should be on the S7 site, no doubt.

3--Trust is necessary because that factors into how much you believe the information you're given-

1--it matters because they haven't delivered one event yet and promised something different. And if they're saying the change is in "paintball's" interest I want to know how.
2--and yet, it's not--which you would have known if you had actually read one of my recent posts in this thread.
3--but you continue to insist I have no right to any information but what "they," whoever they might be, choose to tell me. If I'm not entitled to any info why does my trust or lack thereof factor at all? C'mon now, Chris, you're starting to dance and you're still not answering the questions.

 

[raehl]

1 - So you're saying that if they had never promised grass, you'd be fine with sand, but now sand is no longer a suitable playing surface because they made the mistake of saying it would be grass and changing their mind?

You may want to know, but you wanting to know has zero to do with whether sand is or is not an acceptable playing surface for paintball.

2 - You misread the should - I meant should as in "It SHOULD be there, but isn't", not "should be there, look and you'll find it." Also note that while I'm saying it SHOULD be there, no one is entitled to know. (But if we're not told, I suspect that will have a negative effect on the number of teams who elect to attend.)

3 - I just explained it to you. Not having a right to the information doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to provide SOME information. You just have to get used to the idea that you get the information "they" want you to have, not the information YOU want you to have. Trust comes into play in evaluating the information "they" decide to provide you.



- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by raehl
1 - So you're saying that if they had never promised grass, you'd be fine with sand, but now sand is no longer a suitable playing surface because they made the mistake of saying it would be grass and changing their mind?

2 - You misread the should - I meant should as in "It SHOULD be there, but isn't", not "should be there, look and you'll find it." Also note that while I'm saying it SHOULD be there, no one is entitled to know. (But if we're not told, I suspect that will have a negative effect on the number of teams who elect to attend.)

- Chris

1--I'm not saying any such thing nor have I ever--and I'm quite sure virtually everyone else who has bothered to read these posts is well aware of the fact.
2--when you added "no doubt" you plainly implied the former interpretation, not the latter. Otherwise your clarification is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read. Congrats!