Okay, on this whole reunification thing...
- Thread starter Furby
- Start date
Chicago,
stopping for penalties IS what football does. (If someone is offsides, they call it right there...)
I agree that conceptualization of how the game is played will have an impact; I do not think that impact will translate into changing the way the game is played.
Rollers help make the game; they definatey make it viewable.
I'm erring on the side of THINGS TELEVISION PRODUCERS WANT and accomodating paintball to it, within reason.
We'll see.
Doing the demo will at least get it out of my system, even if it results in no forward movement.
Baca - moving the flag was not an issue with most folks playing the game, nor was it a major objection I heard before PaintFest. In fact, several teams commented that it would be cool, because it would create a new position of a 'quarterback' on the field (at east until he got eliminated).
We'll see, we'll see.
stopping for penalties IS what football does. (If someone is offsides, they call it right there...)
I agree that conceptualization of how the game is played will have an impact; I do not think that impact will translate into changing the way the game is played.
Rollers help make the game; they definatey make it viewable.
I'm erring on the side of THINGS TELEVISION PRODUCERS WANT and accomodating paintball to it, within reason.
We'll see.
Doing the demo will at least get it out of my system, even if it results in no forward movement.
Baca - moving the flag was not an issue with most folks playing the game, nor was it a major objection I heard before PaintFest. In fact, several teams commented that it would be cool, because it would create a new position of a 'quarterback' on the field (at east until he got eliminated).
We'll see, we'll see.
Steve:
I still think the moving flag is overkill..... and it seems like trying to make paintball "like" other sports - instead of focussing on the inherint strengths of the sport itself.
I like a lot about your format, but think you tend to overcomplicate things.
I'd just get rid of the flag altogether.
First of all I don't think we really need something singular to focus on - and secondly I don't think that flag would really change the way the game is played - even if that is what you are hoping for..... teams would still kill the opposing team and then win the game
Just make the game about reaching the opponenst starting point, and you've got something.
Nick
I still think the moving flag is overkill..... and it seems like trying to make paintball "like" other sports - instead of focussing on the inherint strengths of the sport itself.
I like a lot about your format, but think you tend to overcomplicate things.
I'd just get rid of the flag altogether.
First of all I don't think we really need something singular to focus on - and secondly I don't think that flag would really change the way the game is played - even if that is what you are hoping for..... teams would still kill the opposing team and then win the game
Just make the game about reaching the opponenst starting point, and you've got something.
Nick
Nick,
the flag(S) are essential to the 'offense only' aspect of the game.
Let me try this explanation for all:
in any standard version of paintball (xball included), whether they are scored or not, the players are your assets (no puns necessary on that word, we all know about players) without which you can accomplish nothing. Yes, you must risk them to reduce the other team's assets, but you do so from a cost-benefit point of view that emphasises preservation of those assets; the key being, you need to have at least one more left than the other guy.
That's the key, btw, in understanding what I've said about the game being inherently defensive in nature. You can risk and be offensive, so long as you end up with more than the other guy.
In the G-D Format (nice, huh?) flag advance is your asset and you don't need bodies left on the field to negatively affect the other team. Players are a throwaway, so long as the flag advances. (Yes, you need players to do it, but they are actually represented by the ground you took with the flag - you don't need them on the field in order for you to 'preserve' them.)
In fact, you pay a tactical penalty (and a point penalty) if you do not aggress and/or try to protect player assets.
If for example, you lose all of your players advancing the flag down field, the most the other team will gain is a single point. Sitting back allows them to gain many more points - but without having some kind of silly 'you must move within a set period of time' kind of rule.
I've simplified the scoring and introduced the element that both teams can potentially score something during each 'play' - but the flag isn't there for 'focus' or to make it look more other sport like. Its there as a marker to represent tactical progress by the teams and is used to base scoring on.
We tried looking at a very simplified version - no flags - scoring based on number of live players crossing the opposing goal line (a blow out would be 7 or 5 to 0 per play), but it puts so much emphasis back on denying the opponent a score that it once again turns into a shootfest. (I'm worth one point, I better stay alive.)
We'll give that version a try once again tho, with some changes thrown in.
And Nick, you're right. All of my game designs start out 'overly' complicated - but its only through actual play that it can be learned which elements can be subsumed into others, how deep a level of 'simulation' is required (do I need to show ten levels of terrain, or is 3 more than enough to give the tactical feel we're looking for?).
I can look at a game design history, stretching back to the early 80's (edutainment for museums, board games for some of the big publishers, simulations for the military, a nomination for most humorous game of 1984 and an IICS Golden Disc Award for interactive training simulation) that tells me that my particular method works for me.
With board games and computer simulations, I can sit behind the desk all day and work out how to decomplicate the design and create broader levels of representation (one board game went from 10,000+ game counters in the original to 50-60 per player in the final version). With live people, there are lots of elements that can't be adequately covered by a rule to 'do thus and such this way', which necessitates playing it in order to write proper rules that will surround those kinds of things and take them into account.
Chicago - there's no reason why there can't be a single period G-D format lite version played at the lower levels. Thus, when advancing in the ranks, you simply play more rounds, with no changes to game approach necessary.
Some of this commentary kills me. I like this element, I like that element, change this, do away with that. Did anyone here play at PaintFest?
What's so difficult about saying 'let's give the guy a chance to show it to us and we'll evaluate it while watching it'.
I'm not hell bent on preserving it in any one particular version. I know there will be changes - there are about ten or 15 already planned as a result of paintfest. The only things I'm wedded to are the basic concepts. And I'm not wedded to them because of lofty ivory tower ideals, I've seen them work and in some cases had to stick to my guns against heavy opposition in order to prove that they did. The jury came back and said 'you were right, leave it that way'.
Regardless, we're all going to be sorry when the powers that be ultimately decide that the only way to get this game on tv is with a top gun format.
If anyone is interested in looking at the original rule set (which includes suggested changes, league format, alternative versions and etc) and making suggestions or commentary based on the actual item in question, please feel free to ask for a copy. If anyone is sufficiently interested to try it at home, let me know - all I want is some video...
the flag(S) are essential to the 'offense only' aspect of the game.
Let me try this explanation for all:
in any standard version of paintball (xball included), whether they are scored or not, the players are your assets (no puns necessary on that word, we all know about players) without which you can accomplish nothing. Yes, you must risk them to reduce the other team's assets, but you do so from a cost-benefit point of view that emphasises preservation of those assets; the key being, you need to have at least one more left than the other guy.
That's the key, btw, in understanding what I've said about the game being inherently defensive in nature. You can risk and be offensive, so long as you end up with more than the other guy.
In the G-D Format (nice, huh?) flag advance is your asset and you don't need bodies left on the field to negatively affect the other team. Players are a throwaway, so long as the flag advances. (Yes, you need players to do it, but they are actually represented by the ground you took with the flag - you don't need them on the field in order for you to 'preserve' them.)
In fact, you pay a tactical penalty (and a point penalty) if you do not aggress and/or try to protect player assets.
If for example, you lose all of your players advancing the flag down field, the most the other team will gain is a single point. Sitting back allows them to gain many more points - but without having some kind of silly 'you must move within a set period of time' kind of rule.
I've simplified the scoring and introduced the element that both teams can potentially score something during each 'play' - but the flag isn't there for 'focus' or to make it look more other sport like. Its there as a marker to represent tactical progress by the teams and is used to base scoring on.
We tried looking at a very simplified version - no flags - scoring based on number of live players crossing the opposing goal line (a blow out would be 7 or 5 to 0 per play), but it puts so much emphasis back on denying the opponent a score that it once again turns into a shootfest. (I'm worth one point, I better stay alive.)
We'll give that version a try once again tho, with some changes thrown in.
And Nick, you're right. All of my game designs start out 'overly' complicated - but its only through actual play that it can be learned which elements can be subsumed into others, how deep a level of 'simulation' is required (do I need to show ten levels of terrain, or is 3 more than enough to give the tactical feel we're looking for?).
I can look at a game design history, stretching back to the early 80's (edutainment for museums, board games for some of the big publishers, simulations for the military, a nomination for most humorous game of 1984 and an IICS Golden Disc Award for interactive training simulation) that tells me that my particular method works for me.
With board games and computer simulations, I can sit behind the desk all day and work out how to decomplicate the design and create broader levels of representation (one board game went from 10,000+ game counters in the original to 50-60 per player in the final version). With live people, there are lots of elements that can't be adequately covered by a rule to 'do thus and such this way', which necessitates playing it in order to write proper rules that will surround those kinds of things and take them into account.
Chicago - there's no reason why there can't be a single period G-D format lite version played at the lower levels. Thus, when advancing in the ranks, you simply play more rounds, with no changes to game approach necessary.
Some of this commentary kills me. I like this element, I like that element, change this, do away with that. Did anyone here play at PaintFest?
What's so difficult about saying 'let's give the guy a chance to show it to us and we'll evaluate it while watching it'.
I'm not hell bent on preserving it in any one particular version. I know there will be changes - there are about ten or 15 already planned as a result of paintfest. The only things I'm wedded to are the basic concepts. And I'm not wedded to them because of lofty ivory tower ideals, I've seen them work and in some cases had to stick to my guns against heavy opposition in order to prove that they did. The jury came back and said 'you were right, leave it that way'.
Regardless, we're all going to be sorry when the powers that be ultimately decide that the only way to get this game on tv is with a top gun format.
If anyone is interested in looking at the original rule set (which includes suggested changes, league format, alternative versions and etc) and making suggestions or commentary based on the actual item in question, please feel free to ask for a copy. If anyone is sufficiently interested to try it at home, let me know - all I want is some video...
Uh, no. Fotbal will only stop play for a penalty that occured PRIOR to the snap (like offsides) - what they'r really doing is not letting play start.
Anything that happens during play (holding, pass interference, whatever) doesn't get sorted out until pla is over (down, out of bounds, or touchdown). The official tosses the flag, and that's all that happens until play ends. Depending on how the play turns out, the penalty may not even happen.
I don't agree with those arguing that the format has to be exactly the same at all levels; cose is good, but ifferences in time, number of players field size, shouldn't be a big deal.
I think we may be getting football and soccer mixed up here! But I could be wrong, because I don't know much about American Football. Anyway, back on topic...
Ooops sorry Steve, didn't see this...yes every word was true, he's banged up for another 3 years or so in an Afghan jail
If you want the full low down, call me
I'm a little too curious when it comes to these things.... and I followed this when it was in the news..... had no idea it was distantly paintball related....
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/07/09/afghan.prison/index.html
http://amsam.org/2004_07_04_archive.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/07/09/afghan.prison/index.html
http://amsam.org/2004_07_04_archive.html
Steve:
My issue with your format is this:
I think you are trying to convert paintball into something akin to football.
I understand your reasoning behind it - but I think you are doing paintball a disservice.
What I THINK you should be doing, is focus on the core values of paintball, and then enhance those (if need be).
Paintball is about shooting people.
It may not be PC to say - but I believe it to be the fundamental truth of the sport.
Just like fencing is about sticking your opponent with a sword and motorsports about driving faster than the opponents.
When paintball gets to be a normal feature on paintball - I'd like it to be simple - when someone asks what paintball is about, I'd like to just say "shoot the other team and you win".... Not some longwinded intricate explanation about moving a flag about, different scores for different zones, and so on.
The ONLY reason we introduced flags into the game, back in the day, was because the fields were so damn big (and filled with trees), that without a "hang" closing the game, nobody would have known when a game was won or lost.
I think flags are completely obsolete in modern paintball - and have very little relevance to what the sport is about at its core..... and no matter what significance a format puts in the flags - it will always be a footnote to why people play paintball.
- And that is my main point.... paintball should be played under a format that is based on why people like to play paintball.
People fence because they like sticking people with swords and people drive racecars because they want to go fast.... everything else is a footnote.... and that is the way it should be.
People don't love paintball, because they are crazy about moving a flag about on turf..... and when you make the game about that, I think you take away the soul of the game.
I respect what you are trying to do - and respect your for it... but I disagree with the method you have chosen.
Nick
My issue with your format is this:
I think you are trying to convert paintball into something akin to football.
I understand your reasoning behind it - but I think you are doing paintball a disservice.
What I THINK you should be doing, is focus on the core values of paintball, and then enhance those (if need be).
Paintball is about shooting people.
It may not be PC to say - but I believe it to be the fundamental truth of the sport.
Just like fencing is about sticking your opponent with a sword and motorsports about driving faster than the opponents.
When paintball gets to be a normal feature on paintball - I'd like it to be simple - when someone asks what paintball is about, I'd like to just say "shoot the other team and you win".... Not some longwinded intricate explanation about moving a flag about, different scores for different zones, and so on.
The ONLY reason we introduced flags into the game, back in the day, was because the fields were so damn big (and filled with trees), that without a "hang" closing the game, nobody would have known when a game was won or lost.
I think flags are completely obsolete in modern paintball - and have very little relevance to what the sport is about at its core..... and no matter what significance a format puts in the flags - it will always be a footnote to why people play paintball.
- And that is my main point.... paintball should be played under a format that is based on why people like to play paintball.
People fence because they like sticking people with swords and people drive racecars because they want to go fast.... everything else is a footnote.... and that is the way it should be.
People don't love paintball, because they are crazy about moving a flag about on turf..... and when you make the game about that, I think you take away the soul of the game.
I respect what you are trying to do - and respect your for it... but I disagree with the method you have chosen.
Nick
It might be for the best of this thread if we kept Mr idema seperate from it, and the rest of tha board, from now on please gentlemen.