Okay, on this whole reunification thing...

[Nick Brockdorff]

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?

Absolutely!

At any rate, I'm not advocating straight X-Ball Lite.

I think the format has to be a "best of 5 with 3 minute turnovers" type thing.

Many sports have a set preset "score" you have to reach - and many more use that type of scoring for tiebreakers - which is often when those sports are most exiting to watch.

Nick

 

[SteveD]

Nick,

stability long enough to give people something interesting to watch.

Your response illustrates why it is so difficult to try and explain something like game theory.

You have to think in terms of absolutes and cast the analysis in terms of perfect situations - then extrapolate the less than perfect.

This is my fault for not being able to explain it sufficiently - not a 'you can't understand' kind of thing.

If you have two teams that are absolutely equal in ability - speed, shooting skill, intelligence, etc - to whom does the advantage go - the team that has locked down the field or the team that's trying to manuever forward?

I am not referring to a bad defense - or a static defense - I'm talking about the basic premise that, when all things are equal, defensive postures are inherently stronger than offensive ones.

Most cases that you are referring to of the win going to the aggressor is referencing the aggression and the will to win, not offense versus defense.

Look at it another way: if you could play against yourself, what's going to win? Running from bunker to bunker and exposing yourself or taking up good positioning, good protection and choosing the shot?

Sure, every once and a while the moving is going to pay off, but in the vast majority of cases, you're too exposed and the probabilities say doing so is going to get you shot.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

If you have two teams that are absolutely equal in ability - speed, shooting skill, intelligence, etc - to whom does the advantage go - the team that has locked down the field or the team that's trying to manuever forward?

I'm sorry buddy - I still disagree with you on this point

9 times out of 10, the team moving will win the game.... all other things being equal.

If not - nobody would ever move in a paintball game - there would be no point in doing it.

Nick

 

[SteveD]

red ring

yes, to an extent.

if everyone shoots the same relative amount and the number of players on the field is larger, more paint will be shot. if the game length increases, more paint will be shot.

However, if you change the format such that opposing players are eliminated with fewer shots required, it changes everything.

XBall utilizes more paint per player than 7 man does - even tho there are 2 fewer players per team on the field because the guns are allowed to fire in enhanced modes, because the 'style' of the game requires that some players put out enormous volumes and because of the game length.

If you were to compare an equal amount of playing time between regular psp 5 player and xball, you'll see a rough parity in the amount of paint shot.

7 man nppl is more of a thinking game and more of a manuever game - there are fewer opportunities to just lay on the gun, and thus lower paint consumption in a given period of time for a given number of players.

The teams I supply paint to for 5 man use 30 to 40 cases an event; for xball, 80 to 100 cases and for 7 player, 15 to 25 cases.

that's a rough average of
40000 balls per player for xball
16000 per player for 5 man
7000 per player for 7 man

we used to use roughly 500-600 balls per game per player average. now its doubled or tripled.

 

[Robbo]

Steve, clichés come about because they bear some relevance to what goes on in the real world and as such, the phrase, ‘the best means of defence is attack’, is entirely relevant to paintball as aggressive strategies lie at the very heart of winning consistently.

There is no intrinsic superiority to a defensive strategy either in paintball theory or practice but there is in being aggressive if you truly understand the game of paintball and its dynamics.

 

[SteveD]

Nick,

you're assuming that when I say 'defense', I mean static positions, and that's not what I'm referring to.

Manuever can be both defensive and offensive in nature.

In such a limited forum, its impossible to adequately explain this, and my own ability to do so is lacking here. Your disagreement would turn to agreement if I could manage to convey the entire concept of 'game theory', risk analysis and etc.

I won't subject the board to the lengthy attempt at explanation that would be required.

You, on the other hand, might be interested enough to look up 'Game Theory Analysis' published by the Rand Corporation and other related theory explanations for a better explanation than I can provide.

 

[SteveD]

Pete,

you don't think I understand the inherent nature of paintball?

I think we can all agree that I have some little clue. This is not an issue of being in disagreement, its an issue of me being unable to explain what I'm talking about properly.

Give me a couple of days to think about how to write it up in just a couple of hundred words and I'll get back to you all.

"Defense" may take the form of very aggressive moves to gain control of a particular tactical position. Once gained, abandoning that position in favor of more aggression would be tactically unfeasible.

All good teams aggress to what they believe are tactically defensible positions on the break. they then manuever to gain a 'forward line of defense' and so on. This is inherently defensive in nature, not offensive in nature, although the distinction is a subtle one.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Manuever can be both defensive and offensive in nature

I agree with THAT statement.... but in terms of TV (which we are disussing here)... any "manuever" is a positive, because that is one of the things that makes the game interesting to watch.

Let's not get bogged down defining "aggression" - as the definition of the word itself is really not that relevant to the issue at hand.

You said (at least that is the context in which I understood it) - that the problem with 5-man was that it was too defensive - i.e. too little movement in terms of being interesting TV.

Now you say that there is just as much movement (manuever) in 5-man - but that it is defensive?

I don't really get the point you are driving at now.... so please explain why "defensive manuever" is a problem in terms of TV??

Nick

P.S. - I also don't really get what you mean by "defensive movement" in terms of modern day tournament paintball..... 99 out of a 100 moves I see on a paintball field is forward.

 

[TJ Lambini]

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Invalid link???