I posted somethink in there meant for here duder, then I thought better of it...there's enough spoons stirring tha pot at present without Momma leaping in just now...maybe tomorrow.
Okay, on this whole reunification thing...
- Thread starter Furby
- Start date
Steve what I am saying is this :- Anybody who believes that defensive play when applied to paintball is intrinsically more effective than aggressive play is not only mistaken but doesn't understand the true dynamics of paintball.
That is all mate, nothing more.
Stevbe, I can't figure out if you're mistaken or intentionally manipulating your numbers to make a point. Any 5-man team that manages to shoot 30-40 cases of paint in an event needs to learn to aim, and would shoot even more paint in 7-man. 20 cases is the HIGH end of paint consumption for PSP 5-man.
As for XBall, again, 80-100 cases is the HIGH end of paint consumption, and there's a reason for that: A team that plays 8 matches of XBall has 5 players on the field for 160 minutes of play time. 7-man just doesn't come close in terms of play time.
Newsflash: The more paintball you play, the more paint you shoot.
I can guarantee that the format with the LEAST paint shot per elimination is DEFINITELY X-Ball. You don't see XBall players going onto the field with 4 pods, but 7-man players certainly do. Hell, most XBall points only last 50-90 seconds. Think about that - that's an elimination every 20 seconds at minimum. 7-man rarely comes close.
It also strikes me as odd that you keep trying to blame any paint difference on format when there's one blatantly obvious difference between 7-man and X-Ball that is FAR more likely to effect amount of paint shot, especially for teams who are paint budget conscious:
Ramping.
XBall is "expensive" on a team basis because teams have 15 players. XBall is cheap on a per-player basis. Unfortunately, too many tournament players have become accustomed to a free ride, so it's a lot easier to give the free ride to a 7-man team.
Anyway, I find most of what you're arguing here to be head-in-the-sand arguments trying to support using your genesis format than being any effort to reasonably interpret all available information.
As for paint consumption - Ramping does add a little to it - but not much.
Our paint consumption used to be 3000 for a 7-man game - and after the introduction of ramping in the MS, is has gone up to about 3300 per game.... so while there is a change, it is not a signicifant one.
Also - There is absolutely no reason a new format would have to use anything BUT true semi - the technology to check for it will soon be in place.
5-man is NOT less costly in terms of paint than 7-man.... it's more or less the same per player.... if the game time is the same... which is the real decider.
Nick
Our paint consumption used to be 3000 for a 7-man game - and after the introduction of ramping in the MS, is has gone up to about 3300 per game.... so while there is a change, it is not a signicifant one.
Also - There is absolutely no reason a new format would have to use anything BUT true semi - the technology to check for it will soon be in place.
5-man is NOT less costly in terms of paint than 7-man.... it's more or less the same per player.... if the game time is the same... which is the real decider.
Nick
Steve's numbers were per-team, and 7-man teams shoot more than 5-man teams. I do think 7-man layers also shoot a bit more than 5-man players; just like 3-man players shoot less and 10-man players shoot even more (remember them 10-man back guys with a case on their back?
)
Chicago,
Obviously I'm arguing the benefits of my format over the 'other' version of the same thing - but I've been trying not to do so at the expense of the greater arguments. If I stepped over the line, I apologize.
When it comes to the expense of the xball format, I don't see how anyone can argue in any way shape or form that its less expensive than either 5 player or 7 player: we're not just talking event expense, we're talking 'playing' expense, which includes travel and practice.
When you have a line of 15 players, you're transporting and hoteling and feeding three five player teams or two seven player teams. Then you have practice sessions (one would hope at least once a week), at which you've got to put paint into 15 guns and etc.
It may not be the individual event expense, but it sure as heck is the support expense.
On the paint numbers - I don't know about anyone else other than the teams that order paint from me for events. Sure each of them take home some cases, but I was comparing apples to apples - paint ordered for xball, 5 man and 7 man, and those numbers were the true range of what I shipped or delivered.
Pete, yes; sitting on your duff hoping to get a couple of snapshots is going to lose games all the time. What I'm saying, I guess, is that the orientation of the game is inherently defensive in nature - strictly from a game analysis point of view. Successful teams play very aggressive defense, while bad teams think defense means sitting on their buts and laning all game long. If there were no point to defense, players would simply run and gun down the field, in a coordinated fashion, without ever taking up a static position. What I observe during games between good teams and players is the establishment of 'fortified' defensive positions, from which aggressive moves are made to gain ground and curtail their opponent's control of other defensive positions, denying them manueverability. Denial of manueverability is a defensive approach.
This back and forth on the issue is helping me better define what I'm referring to - and I accept all the responsibility for confusing everyone while trying to figure out how to explain what I mean.
Chicago,
if you accept the numbers I quoted as that being ordered by the teams in anticipation of what they figured they use:
its 892 balls per minute for 7 player
1111 balls per minute for xball
2000 balls per minute for 5 man (if I've got my game time right)
There are, unfortunately, all kinds of ways to look at those numbers; in the end, ball usage more than likely has most to do with "player-in-game" time than anything else. Most 7 player games I've watched this year, both teams are down to 3 to 5 players within the first minute of play - which reduces ball consumption tremendously. Most 5 player games I've watched this year have more players surviving for a longer length of time. I'm sure that if we were able to reduce these numbers to actual balls per minute across the formats, there'd be a rough parity, with the higher consumption going to an xball team because of team size.
When talking economics, it hardly matters, since the issue is, what costs more to sustain, and xball is the clear winner in that regard.
Obviously I'm arguing the benefits of my format over the 'other' version of the same thing - but I've been trying not to do so at the expense of the greater arguments. If I stepped over the line, I apologize.
When it comes to the expense of the xball format, I don't see how anyone can argue in any way shape or form that its less expensive than either 5 player or 7 player: we're not just talking event expense, we're talking 'playing' expense, which includes travel and practice.
When you have a line of 15 players, you're transporting and hoteling and feeding three five player teams or two seven player teams. Then you have practice sessions (one would hope at least once a week), at which you've got to put paint into 15 guns and etc.
It may not be the individual event expense, but it sure as heck is the support expense.
On the paint numbers - I don't know about anyone else other than the teams that order paint from me for events. Sure each of them take home some cases, but I was comparing apples to apples - paint ordered for xball, 5 man and 7 man, and those numbers were the true range of what I shipped or delivered.
Pete, yes; sitting on your duff hoping to get a couple of snapshots is going to lose games all the time. What I'm saying, I guess, is that the orientation of the game is inherently defensive in nature - strictly from a game analysis point of view. Successful teams play very aggressive defense, while bad teams think defense means sitting on their buts and laning all game long. If there were no point to defense, players would simply run and gun down the field, in a coordinated fashion, without ever taking up a static position. What I observe during games between good teams and players is the establishment of 'fortified' defensive positions, from which aggressive moves are made to gain ground and curtail their opponent's control of other defensive positions, denying them manueverability. Denial of manueverability is a defensive approach.
This back and forth on the issue is helping me better define what I'm referring to - and I accept all the responsibility for confusing everyone while trying to figure out how to explain what I mean.
Chicago,
if you accept the numbers I quoted as that being ordered by the teams in anticipation of what they figured they use:
its 892 balls per minute for 7 player
1111 balls per minute for xball
2000 balls per minute for 5 man (if I've got my game time right)
There are, unfortunately, all kinds of ways to look at those numbers; in the end, ball usage more than likely has most to do with "player-in-game" time than anything else. Most 7 player games I've watched this year, both teams are down to 3 to 5 players within the first minute of play - which reduces ball consumption tremendously. Most 5 player games I've watched this year have more players surviving for a longer length of time. I'm sure that if we were able to reduce these numbers to actual balls per minute across the formats, there'd be a rough parity, with the higher consumption going to an xball team because of team size.
When talking economics, it hardly matters, since the issue is, what costs more to sustain, and xball is the clear winner in that regard.
Steve, when semantics enters a debate where Game Theory analysis is its subject base, I'm outa here like a bat outa hell
It will be like building a house outa jelly.....
Not my scene duuuuuuude, I like science not art
Broadly, this is undeniably correct. I think it's just the terminology that makes it confusing (or at least the way the terms are usually understood).
I also think a fair illustration would be a random selection of some of the game tactics articles in PGI over the last few months written by Dynarats as they tend to focus on elements like overlapping fields of fire; how to arrange them and how to break them down. It seems clear--to me anyway--that Dynasty take their defense very seriously even if it is in the context of how they control and dominate a pball game.
Now if someone could explain what this has to do with unification?
Uh... unification... uh....
Oh, right, 7-man won't work on TV ever, so we should keep XBall, which Steve thinks is too expensive.
But, I maintain XBall could be made very not expensive by trimming your roster to 12 guys.
I also think XBall should be xscrapped for the lower levels - should be entry level plays 5-man, mid-level plays xball lite, and maybe only Open/DI and possible DII play "real" doule elimination bracket xball.
This gives you the best of both worlds: a format you can put on TV on the high-end, and a stepping ladder which is easy to afford on the low-end.
And 5-man is definitely cheaper than 7-man. Period. Not massively so, but still cheaper. I just don't see how that point can be argued.
Oh, right, 7-man won't work on TV ever, so we should keep XBall, which Steve thinks is too expensive.
But, I maintain XBall could be made very not expensive by trimming your roster to 12 guys.
I also think XBall should be xscrapped for the lower levels - should be entry level plays 5-man, mid-level plays xball lite, and maybe only Open/DI and possible DII play "real" doule elimination bracket xball.
This gives you the best of both worlds: a format you can put on TV on the high-end, and a stepping ladder which is easy to afford on the low-end.
And 5-man is definitely cheaper than 7-man. Period. Not massively so, but still cheaper. I just don't see how that point can be argued.
no worries pete - we certainly don't need to be arguing.
Chicago - ok. But I'm not just arguing that Genesis is less expensive. I'm also saying its better. (oooops)
Chicago - ok. But I'm not just arguing that Genesis is less expensive. I'm also saying its better. (oooops)