Okay, on this whole reunification thing...

[Dannefaerd]

Steve - "Focus" is a better word for this conversation than "Reference" ... thanks for that.

Chi - With that in mind, F1 and Nascar does have the point of focus ....

But I don't know if we do have the point of focus in paintball that was alluded to in other sports. I agree that there is the point of focus when you've got two people battling it out in the snake ... but you might miss a great game breaking move on the dorito side. (Something that will NEVER happen in baseball or football).

That said - for TV as we know it, so long as there are enough cameras ... it can all come down to editing, so the point is moot.

HOWEVER - it does not change the question. Has anyone ever asked what the TV guys want?

 

[Dannefaerd]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
It's about time we get rid of points for eliminations.... and by all means - get rid of the flags also..... "Reach the opponents base (goal) "clean" and you score the point" - end of story.

Buzzerball! Have a countdown clock with the goal for teams to push a buzzer at their oppositions starting station ... the quicker you can push the buzzer the more points you get.

Beauty of the format - you can use it in X or standard 7 ... with some minor tweaks

 

[Red Ring Inflictor]

Originally posted by Dannefaerd
Buzzerball! Have a countdown clock with the goal for teams to push a buzzer at their oppositions starting station ... the quicker you can push the buzzer the more points you get.

Beauty of the format - you can use it in X or standard 7 ... with some minor tweaks

Reminds me of something with the code name "Blitzball" that was floating around a couple of seasons ago. The only difference was that you slammed the buzzer with a flag in hand; the flag there for the benefit of the viewing public to instantly show the status of the game.

 

[duffistuta]

Looks like I am about to owe Robbo a tenner...

 

[Chicago]

Good points all.

7-man won't work in it's current form because it is too slow best 2-of-3, and it's too confusing round-robin.

The crux of the issue is this: The amount of "points" has to be theoretically unlimited. In XBall, baseball, football, soccer, etc, the score is limited only by the time available - score fast, get high scores. Score slow, get low scores. With 7-man, best-of-anything, there is a fixed amount of score to have, so once you get it.... camp.

Someone is probably going to point out hthat even baseball is played in a series, which is true, but each of those games ina series still isn't over until the last inning. At 7-man's most basic level, your score can only be 1-0, 0-1, or 1-1 for each game when played in a best-of format.

So I'm not saying that XBall is necessarily the answer, but unless NPPL/PP find a way to do 7-man so there is a clock and a score (Steve's USPL format would work for TV, if not for 5 divisions of play) they're never going to get anywhere.

When IMG sees what they put together with the footage, I fear they're just going to write off the money they've spent so far and paintball is going to have another 5 to 10 year hiatus of TV executives thinking paintball is untelevisable like we did post-braun-ESPN in '95.

 

[Sherman]

Naah, they should count body count wins as a draw. And if a game ends in a draw, instant 1-on-1 to decide the winner of the game. I believe this would push teams who are ahead in body count to try and finish the game instead of trying their luck at 1-on-1.

 

[SteveD]

So much to respond to:

Nick,

I was not addressing format issues with that commentary, I was discussing 'why 7 man is better', and offering a few responses from the players I took to NPPL.

Most of what you said was correct - but you missed the issue of 'mass'; 5 man is too small of a 'force' to give the game any kind of stability for any length of time. You lose one player, 20% of your force is gone and, most likley (given the field layouts and size), you also now have no 'depth' to your line in at least one location on the field; there;s not enough bodies to provide a reserve to fill in gaps. Maybe 6 is the right number.

But that's one major problem with a team size under 7 - and even 7 is pushing the limit.

The other major issue is one coming strictly from a game design point of view and I'll get to that below.

***

To whoever asked 'hasn't anyone talked to the tv people'? - YES

I have.

Here is what they want:

MOVEMENT
AERIALS
PHSYICAL CONTACT

SIMPLE GAME RULES
SIMPLE SCORING

(And as an aside, the main criticism of the 'genesis' format was that the scoring was too complicated and I recently revamped it so that it is much simpler but has the same effect on the game. again, more on game design below)

TV wants A*C*T*I*O*N!!!

Plain and simple.

Do I need to mention that the genesis format provides all of the above?

***

Game theory and design.

The main problem with 5 man center flag is that it is an inherently DEFENSIVE game.

When you analyze a competition scenario with game theory, you take a look at all of the possible options for one player, and then all of the possible options for the other player and stick them in a comparison table; you then make some shrewed guesses as to the outcome of each played against the other (either just reasonable guess work or plugging in numbers from observed instances of the game) and then tally up the wins, losses and draws. Doing this will usually show you, on balance, what the better strategies are as well as show you what kind of game you're involved in (in this case, offensive, defense, etc).

You're analyzing risk/benefit.

Paintball, as its played now, is essentially a 'zero sum' kind of game, in that one team ends up with all (or most of all) of the poiints at the expense of the other team. There's one big pot to grab and only one team can have them.

We see the effects of this in a very clear manner; teams rarely go for the flag these days until after they';ve swept the field.

A defensively oriented game that allows for some give and take (like a 7 body game) has a few more tactical options, but also devolves to the 'skirmish line' and an emphasis on eliminations until enough of an advantage is achieved to make a successful push.

Here's some idea of what I'm talking about (we're speaking in generalities here)

Team A full offense/Team B defends B wins most of the time
Team A full offense/Team B full offense 50/50 outcome
Team A full offense/Team B Partial offense 50/50 outcome
Team A defense/Team B defense 50/50
Team A defense/Team B Offense A wins
Team A defense/B partial offense 50/50

I know you can nitpick the above, its VERY simplified, but you can see that your only real guarantee of a win is a defense.

The genesis format's key was to change the above to 'your best winning strategy is an offense'

One key was, as someone mentioned, to remove body count points; now you can risk your players without the detriment of giving points up to the other team.

To sum up: you need enough bodies, related to field size and layout, to provide a manuever reserve to each team; they have to be able to lose some players without automatically having to resort to a defensive posture in order to stay in the game. You need a scoring system that puts emphasis on offense. You have to have a format that allows for lots of manuever. And

You need a format that puts control of the game firmly in the hands of the officials, which means the ability to stop and start the game for penalties.

Fortunately, I'll be doing a demo of the genesis format in a few months, we'll tape it, we'll have some important folks there to observe, and we'll see, once and for all, if it isn't the answer (but of course I know it is)

Good to see everyone I saw. Not happy with all of the 'rumors' I heard floating around, most definately not happy with the doom-and-gloom attitude I heard from many (the 'INDUSTRY' needs change to survive, they are DEMANDING this that and the other thing - to which I say, screw them, they're the ones that effed it up to begin with by spending money they didn't have), but all in all, its obvious we're in for change and that usually means some good stuff will happen.

 

[SteveD]

on XBall.

Its not affordable - even the lite version is beyond the reach of most teams.

Going in that direction will put the industry in the same state they are now - too much cost for too little return

You need an xball type format that isn't a paint waister.

 

[Red Ring Inflictor]

Originally posted by SteveD
Its not affordable - even the lite version is beyond the reach of most teams...You need an xball type format that isn't a paint waister.

I really would like to learn something here. Isn't paint consumption a factor of the number of players per side related to the amount of time spent actually playing?

If any type of X Ball, Lite or not, uses more paint than standard single-goal 5-man or 7-man isn't it simply because more time is actually spent playing the game with X Ball compared with single-goal? If using less paint is so important why not just cut game times in ANY format we choose. I mean teams should have been happy when Millennium went from ten prelim games to eight because paint comsumption must've also gone down.

If less paint consumption per match is what we want then just cut game times or number of guaranteed matches regardless the format.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Most of what you said was correct - but you missed the issue of 'mass'; 5 man is too small of a 'force' to give the game any kind of stability for any length of time. You lose one player, 20% of your force is gone and, most likley (given the field layouts and size), you also now have no 'depth' to your line in at least one location on the field; there;s not enough bodies to provide a reserve to fill in gaps. Maybe 6 is the right number.

Steve:

Why is "stability" important for our game in terms of media?

The whole object of our game is to de-stabilise the opponent by "killing" his players.

The more stable you make the game, the less interesting it is to watch - from what I hear, the finals yesterday proved that to the point of boredom.

When you analyze a competition scenario with game theory, you take a look at all of the possible options for one player, and then all of the possible options for the other player and stick them in a comparison table; you then make some shrewed guesses as to the outcome of each played against the other (either just reasonable guess work or plugging in numbers from observed instances of the game) and then tally up the wins, losses and draws. Doing this will usually show you, on balance, what the better strategies are as well as show you what kind of game you're involved in (in this case, offensive, defense, etc).

You're analyzing risk/benefit.

Paintball, as its played now, is essentially a 'zero sum' kind of game, in that one team ends up with all (or most of all) of the poiints at the expense of the other team. There's one big pot to grab and only one team can have them.

We see the effects of this in a very clear manner; teams rarely go for the flag these days until after they';ve swept the field.

A defensively oriented game that allows for some give and take (like a 7 body game) has a few more tactical options, but also devolves to the 'skirmish line' and an emphasis on eliminations until enough of an advantage is achieved to make a successful push.

Here's some idea of what I'm talking about (we're speaking in generalities here)

Team A full offense/Team B defends B wins most of the time
Team A full offense/Team B full offense 50/50 outcome
Team A full offense/Team B Partial offense 50/50 outcome
Team A defense/Team B defense 50/50
Team A defense/Team B Offense A wins
Team A defense/B partial offense 50/50

I know you can nitpick the above, its VERY simplified, but you can see that your only real guarantee of a win is a defense.

I think your basic premise is wrong here.

Most top players will tell you, that aggression wins games in modern paintball.

You can then define "aggression" in many ways - it's not all movement - it's also a question of how the individual player plays his bunker.

But, bottom line is, that 9 times out of 10, you'll see the team willing to take risks win the game.

Nick