Suggestions for standard major league PB

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by manike
Why?

It's simpler for viewer's, judges and players if you are just going for a final goal.

The buzzer at the other end of the field.

I guess to create a little spread with the points so it isn't just win or lose. But these are just rainy day ideas. But there might be something here. The same formats can get boring after a while.

Steve

 

[manike]

If a team loses... they err lose

Why give em any points?

You could actually give them an inverse number of points related to the amount of time they were beaten in.

So if they get smashed in 30 seconds they get less points than if they are smashed in 2 minutes. That way everyone gets points. Obviously weight it very heavily in favour of the winners.

In fact winners get a point for every second left on the clock and a 30 point win bonus (you will see why later), and losers get 1/10 of the points related to how long the game took.

so from a 5 minute game...

Between teams A and B.

Team A wins in 2 minutes so they get 180 points from the clock + 30 win bonus = 210 points.

Team B lost so they get 1/10 of 120 = 12 points.

Between teams C and D

Team C wins in 30 seconds so gets 270 points from the clock + 30 win bonus = 300 points.

Team D loses and gets 1/10 of 30 = 3 points.

Between teams E and F

Team E wins in 4.59 seconds... and gets 1 point from the clock + 30 points win bonus = 31 points

Team F loses and gets 1/10 of 299 points = 29.9 points...

So the points really reflect the outcome of the came.

If it's a phenomenally close came the scores are very close. If it's a walk over the scores reflect that also.

How fair is that? You could change the win bonus slightly to give winning teams a bit more of an edge but I don't see why.

I don't think you would ever get draws in the points race.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
I have been thinking about how we can improve the rules and tournament standards in standard paintball (5-player, 7-player, 10-player, etc.).

To continue a discussion started on a Swedish website (with ideas from Nick Brockdorff, Matte of Powertrip, and Agge of Ignition, among others) here are a few things I think I would like to see in future rules:

1. 7-minute games for 7-player; 5 for 5, 10 for 10.
2. Center flag
3. 100 points for valid flag hang
4. Bonus points for shorter games: sliding scale system; from 30 seconds = 100 points to 5 minutes 29 seconds = 1 point.
5. No other points: no first grab, no elimination points, no armbands to count.
6. Netted-in area is playing field; deadbox or judges boxes clearly marked as out-of-bounds. No boundary lines to watch out for.
7. (Future development: timer connected to button and buzzer that player slams with flag to mark time and indicate a flag hang.)
8. Penalties will be recorded on scoresheets to break possible ties.
___________________________

The implementation of these ideas would simplify tournaments, make for quicker game turn-arounds and reward aggressive and well-planned playing. The result would be PB that is more exciting to watch, more time to drink beer and chase skirts in the evenings and more interesting moves to talk about at the bar.

What do y'all think?

Steve

1--depends on the fields (and why does Mil care what length of games are played for 5-man and 10-man?) Right now PSP 5-man event are playing their games on same fields that 10-man will be using. 5 on an oversized field is different than 5 on a field intended specifically for 5-man play.
2--fine, but assign it points otherwise it'll just hang there until one side or the other is eliminated most of the time and serve no purpose but to shorten the run.
3--See 2
4--this is a very bad idea as you are no longer rewarding winning games. Methodical team A wins all 8 of their prelim games in between 5 and 7 minutes ending up with score around 880. Super aggro team B wins 6 of their prelim games with 4 going in under 2 minutes. They end up with score around 880. Is something wrong with that equation? Nor does such a "bonus" system take into account differences in the draw.
This whole thing is the Paintball equivalent of social engineering with the end goal of compelling teams to play the game a certain way.
5--see 2
6--good
7--before or after flag carrier checked for hits? If before, what if carrier is marked? Buzzer has already sounded. Penalty points assesed? Does each ultimate have a bonus points score sheet to check against the time? Who is the official time keeper as teams are now gonna be arguiing and fighting over seconds gained or lost.

 

[raehl]

Can't give out inverse points.

If the game goes to time, what happens then? Does both teams get the same points? None?

If one team hangs the flag the second before the end of game time, does teh losing team then get all the points for holding the team off, effectively getting more points for losing than for a draw?

Inverse points = bad.

In a fulll=round robin format, where you're ONLY competing aganst other folks in your bracket, flag hang + time works, as longer game time lowers the points of someone you have to beat to advance. In NPPL style play, where there arn't really brackets per se, it doesn't work that well, as teams taking a long time to lose as opposed to a short time doesn't really address loss quality as the team they're taking points away from is much less significant in their chances of advancing - but a a game where they get all but one elimination would count the same as wone where they got none, which is probably not the goal.

- Chris

 

[manike]

Chris did you not read my post? The whole point of the win bonus is to take account of the inverse points scoring.

Originally posted by manike
Team E wins in 4.59 seconds... and gets 1 point from the clock + 30 points win bonus = 31 points

Team F loses and gets 1/10 of 299 points = 29.9 points...

So the points really reflect the outcome of the came.

If it's a phenomenally close came the scores are very close. If it's a walk over the scores reflect that also..

If it goes to time and no team gets points then it's a difficult situation granted... maybe both teams get nothing. It's better to have tried for a win than not... so you are rewarded for the attempt even if you lose as compared to a stalemate. Stalemate = bad for audiences and crap to watch. Let's make teams that stalemate get the least points

I quite like that concept

Yes Baca you may get more points by winning some of you games faster but winning less games than another team.

Again, if we are trying to encourage teams to win in fast aggressive paintball I see no problem for this.

Sometimes the aggressive teams lose a game, but are in general better to watch, so let them lose the odd game and still compete on points with those that were taking their time

I like that also. It rewards those that help games go quickly and play with aggressive style. Great

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by manike


1--Yes Baca you may get more points by winning some of you games faster but winning less games than another team.

2--Again, if we are trying to encourage teams to win in fast aggressive paintball I see no problem for this.

3--Sometimes the aggressive teams lose a game, but are in general better to watch, so let them lose the odd game and still compete on points with those that were taking their time

1--so winning is no longer the goal and you don't see a problem with that?
2--why?
3--if my team paid X to play I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of us watching from the sidelines. We're there to win games. Now y'all want to dictate how we win games and go so far as to suggest the actually winning is no more important than the style in which it's done. Maybe we should add a panel of judges to award points afterwards as well for aesthetics like figure skating.

 

[Urban]

Originally posted by manike

Sometimes the aggressive teams lose a game, but are in general better to watch, so let them lose the odd game and still compete on points with those that were taking their time

Why?

Please tell me your not suggesting because they look good to watch but lose they should stand the same chance of reaching the finals as a methodical, consistantly winning team??

Why reward teams just for playing aggressively? Surely winning is reward enough and they should play in whatever manner, within the rules, it takes to win?

Urban

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--depends on the fields (and why does Mil care what length of games are played for 5-man and 10-man?)

>I'm not Mil, I'm me toying with ideas.

Right now PSP 5-man event are playing their games on same fields that 10-man will be using. 5 on an oversized field is different than 5 on a field intended specifically for 5-man play.
2--fine, but assign it points otherwise it'll just hang there until one side or the other is eliminated most of the time and serve no purpose but to shorten the run.

>Agreed. 25 or 50 points?

3--See 2
4--this is a very bad idea as you are no longer rewarding winning games. Methodical team A wins all 8 of their prelim games in between 5 and 7 minutes ending up with score around 880. Super aggro team B wins 6 of their prelim games with 4 going in under 2 minutes. They end up with score around 880. Is something wrong with that equation? Nor does such a "bonus" system take into account differences in the draw.
This whole thing is the Paintball equivalent of social engineering with the end goal of compelling teams to play the game a certain way.

>I'm not out to boldly create a new PB universe; it's just an idea for another alternate format. Watching Super Aggro should be a heck-of-a-lot more interesting to watch than Methodical A. Smart-aggressive play is rewarded.

5--see 2
6--good
7--before or after flag carrier checked for hits? If before, what if carrier is marked? Buzzer has already sounded.

>Just like in X-ball. In X-ball the buzzer sounds and then the point is confirmed or not. Then the score is shown on the board. In this format a marked player would mean rehang just like regular rules. Time would be stopped from the moment of the flag-hang/button slam and restarted from the moment of rehang.

Penalty points assesed?

>A detail to be worked out.

Does each ultimate have a bonus points score sheet to check against the time?

>Yes.

Who is the official time keeper as teams are now gonna be arguiing and fighting over seconds gained or lost.

>Until we get a buttons-tied-to-clock system it will have to be field ultimates just like now.

 

[Stefu]

Originally posted by Wadidiz

1. 7-minute games for 7-player; 5 for 5, 10 for 10.
2. Center flag
3. 100 points for valid flag hang
4. Bonus points for shorter games: sliding scale system; from 30 seconds = 100 points to 5 minutes 29 seconds = 1 point.
5. No other points: no first grab, no elimination points, no armbands to count.
6. Netted-in area is playing field; deadbox or judges boxes clearly marked as out-of-bounds. No boundary lines to watch out for.
7. (Future development: timer connected to button and buzzer that player slams with flag to mark time and indicate a flag hang.)
8. Penalties will be recorded on scoresheets to break possible ties.
___________________________

Steve

1. Keep it 10 minutes for 7-man. Most games are under 7 minutes though, but it would be nice to have the extra time. Or if game time is shortened add couple of more games per team.

2. Worth a try. Flags are not needed anyway.

3. Agree.

4. Totally against this, win is a win no matter if takes 2 or 7 minutes, or you lose 1 or 6 of your own players.

5. Agree, just count wins, losses and ties as in other sports.

6. Against this. As we have seen nettings are not the same at every tournament. Also the space between the field boundary and netting is "safe" area for netting clamps and wires. It keeps the spectators a little further from the field too.

7. Agree.

I really don't understand all the talk for short and aggressive games and small fields. Take a look at some Pig Tv's NXL games, how interesting are those? Break out, massive shooting, take couple out, keep shooting and walking while taking out the remaining opposition. Best games I've seen have involved cool moves, skilled snap shooting, even some stealth on the sup'air field. And yes some of the games have lasted almost 10 minutes (RL - BL Ironmen Toulouse finals last summer, anyone?).

What I'd like to see is limiting firepower, because at top level this game is heading to be a paint dumping contest.

Stefan / Cyclone

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Re: Suggestions for standard major league PB

Originally posted by Wadidiz

1--I'm not out to boldly create a new PB universe; it's just an idea for another alternate format. Watching Super Aggro should be a heck-of-a-lot more interesting to watch than Methodical A. Smart-aggressive play is rewarded.

2--Just like in X-ball. In X-ball the buzzer sounds and then the point is confirmed or not. Then the score is shown on the board. In this format a marked player would mean rehang just like regular rules. Time would be stopped from the moment of the flag-hang/button slam and restarted from the moment of rehang.

1--of course you are. You haven't responded to the winning/losing question but instead are focused on spectators presumed interest.
And everybody in the NFL ought to be the St. Louis Rams cos all that offense is obviously the most fun you have watching. Oh, unless you want to win a SuperBowl.
2--So what happens when there are still live opposition players on field and oops, buzzer push doesn't count cos hanging player was marked. Where does everyone alive go? Does anyone know? How is match resumed? Does flag pull count? Stopping the clock to check rewards the team that illegally hit the buzzer.
Btw, the answer is hang doesn't count and can't be re-hung.

PS--flag pull points? Ask Si. No doubt with some careful numeric calculations the appropriate total will be, say, 22.38