Okay, on this whole reunification thing...

[SteveD]

Nick,

you know, you don't have to make it a '5 point match', you can give it a game time and let the scoring add up (as many plays as necessary to fill the time slot) - and it doesn't have to be getting to the goal line or the back of the field.

If we're talking tactics here and 'the true nature of paintball', it really ought to be enough to get one player behind the other teams line to score (representing the tactical advantage of having broken through the lines); that vulnerability might be enough to shift the firing focus onto the rearmost opponents (in an effort to reduce their depth). being vulnerable to a run-through or a sneaky crawl or a suicide play might be enough to counterbalance camping.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

why Nick, why don't you like flags? what have they ever done to you? oh the humanity

Flags freak me out - something went awry in my childhood I think - but is is now repressed

Seriously... I appreciate your effort to meet me halfway here - but I still think adding scores for reaching somewhere midfield is too complicated.... let's keep it clean.

I know not having a fixed gametime can be a bitch in terms of direct broadcast... but then, it's the same with other sports, that often go into overtime.

Yes, my concept would mean games (more often than not) went on for shorter than regulation time... but you have to remember, that just boradcasting one match would very seldom make sense to a network - as it would be out of context.... it would almost always be multible matches... and as such it is not that big of a deal.

At any rate - I think direct broadcast is so many years away, that we should not be too concerned about it just yet.

I fear that any attempt to make the gametime fixed, will have equal drawbacks... for instance in X-ball, where once a team is trailing 6-7 points, the match becomes entirely pointless to watch.

So - I don't think a format can be made that ensures both against games becoming overly boring and fixes the game time.... the two are mutually exclusive - which is entirely logical.

If having to chose between the two, I'd take the varied gametime anyday, because that ensures the games stay interesting.

Nick

 

[SteveD]

adding scores? not sure what you mean by that.

(btw, you're not alone: I used to have a problem with sock puppets...)

your contention about x-ball and a blowout being pointless is one of the reasons that the GD format had differing point scores; teams had the potential to overcome a serious point deficit; even if it was only potential, it kept everyone interested.

In the long term, multi-match broadcasts are not going to sustain an audience. accepting such will most likley be the game's death.

I fear that we're firmly viewed as a 'clown sport' by broadcasters (witness the planned paintball episode of 'wife swap' and, much as I like Milt and applaud his efforts with UAPL, its the same thing - tits, flashy lites and a game way too short to get anything meaningful out of. I know my own brief stint with WWF (now WWE) proved that that was how they viewed it (they were looking for a filler for their failed XFL and hit USPL up - but were not willing to state that they would take the game seriously, so, once again, I turned down potential millions)

'Elimination' formats are what "the game is all about", but there's got to be something more in there...

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

adding scores? not sure what you mean by that

I meant this:

a player getting to field center earns a point, but the player scoring is then removed from play

Anyway.... my whole point of this debate has always been two things:

- We should not compromise the "soul" of the sport for the sake of TV.

- We should not make a format complicated to understand.

If you can come up with something that fulfills both those requirements for me - I'd be the first to support it

Nick

 

[jotajotaZ]

What's wrong about a team switching to a more defensive stance to keep an advantage they've got?

It happens in a lot of sports, from Formula 1 to Soccer. In fact, the only sports I can think where that never happens are those that have a theoretical infinite time of play (tennis, volley-ball...).

 

[TJ Lambini]

Originally posted by jotajotaZ
What's wrong about a team switching to a more defensive stance to keep an advantage they've got?

It happens in a lot of sports, from Formula 1 to Soccer. In fact, the only sports I can think where that never happens are those that have a theoretical infinite time of play (tennis, volley-ball...).

And even then players can play a conservative, defense game designed to lure their opponents into over reaching and making mistakes.

 

[Steve Hancock]

And from the point of view of TV viewing interest, it doesn't matter if one team plays defensively. Its only a problem if both do, or if playing defensively is so effective that the other teams attempts are completely futile. So long as one team is making moves, and those moves stand a chance you have still got drama. Sometimes the more desperate they get the more drama. WWF showed us that there is nothing more dramatic than a come back from behind. (Provided it doesn't happen EVERY time ) I say that having teams playing defensively can actually add interest. There is a whole level of tactics assoiated with it. And so long as the other team is making the dramatic moves to try and counter it, and with the chance of success, then it will be interesting to watch.

The question is how do you make it possible? Field design?

 

[Red Ring Inflictor]

Originally posted by Steve Hancock
The question is how do you make it possible? Field design?

Just have them play double-elimination X Ball.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
for instance in X-ball, where once a team is trailing 6-7 points, the match becomes entirely pointless to watch.

Not true. In last year's championship we trailed Oakland by 6 and came back to win. And would you consider a 5 point deficit to the Legion a waste of time watching? That match ended 11-10.

In Xball as currently organized two factors are in play. 1) a couple of crucial bunker placements, and 2) the relative balance of the teams competing. Team A can get behind due to a variety of factors but if the teams are otherwise an even match-up there is no reason not to assume the score will tighten.

That at least has been my general experience. And isn't really here or there but since we've long since left the thread starter, what the heck.

 

[H]

Personally I love XBall as a format, shame i've not seen it enough live.

Baca, in your experienced opinion, how would you change XBall to make it a more practical and cost effective format?