Suggestions for standard major league PB

[crazzzy]

I don´t like the idea of rewarding shorter games with more points. I simply don´t like it cus i prefer the fact that every win should count as much. I hope it will never be accepted in the millennium cus I think it is a bad idea.

Centerflag is cool but it is a hater to ref, when 2 teams are making a dash for the flag off the break, shooting the crap out of eachother.

I also think this whole thing is getting complicated. I don´t think your (Steve) suggestions about the gametime being stopped and restarted etc is making it simpler. It sounds pretty complicated. It could be cool if it worked, but I´m pretty shure it could end up in a big mess with lots of arguments about seconds being lost etc.

No, keep the old format! I like it and it works fine! I don´t feel a need to change it!

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by crazzzy
I don´t like the idea of rewarding shorter games with more points. I simply don´t like it cus i prefer the fact that every win should count as much. I hope it will never be accepted in the millennium cus I think it is a bad idea.

Centerflag is cool but it is a hater to ref, when 2 teams are making a dash for the flag off the break, shooting the crap out of eachother.

I also think this whole thing is getting complicated. I don´t think your (Steve) suggestions about the gametime being stopped and restarted etc is making it simpler. It sounds pretty complicated. It could be cool if it worked, but I´m pretty shure it could end up in a big mess with lots of arguments about seconds being lost etc.

No, keep the old format! I like it and it works fine! I don´t feel a need to change it!

Just to be sure: don't think that because I work for Millennium that these are Mill ideas. I'm just doing some brain-storming with the well-respected (and disrespected) group of ballers that frequent this forum.

Should teams be rewarded for longer games with the same point results? I don't think so. I would like to see teams encouraged to get the job done. I know I'm repeating but games finished in a shorter time is better for everyone concerned: faster games tend to be more interesting for the spectators and they mean a more manageable schedule for the organizers and the judges.

Center flag has been the standard for years in NPPL for 5-player and I much prefer reffing center flag than dual flag. And it is easier for the crowd to follow. And X-ball also does center flag.

The gametime being stopped and started (in the case of a flag-hanger being hit) is EXACTLY the way NPPL, PSP and Millennium does it now (except for X-ball). So that is not adding any complications at all. When I ref I always stop the game timer at exactly the split-second the flag-hanger breaks the flag-station plane with the flag. If the flag-hanger is clean I declare the game over. If not, I shout out for a re-hang and at the second the flag is re-hung I shout "Keep playing!" and start back the clock again. All of that is the way it is supposed to be done with the existing rules. (Don't peepz know these rules?)

I'm sure a lot of people feel more comfortable with the old ways. I understand that. These are just suggestions for a different approach that is simpler, rewards in-your-face playing from the get-go and is more spectator interesting.

Steve

PS. Nick B. note that I credited you for your ideas at the start of this thread.

SM

 

[Liz]

I think the general ideas are good, you'd just need to get a balance of rewarding teams for a fast win without making speed the be-all and end-all of the game. I LIKE to see some tactical ball sometimes, and think a bit of variety in playing styles can be a good thing.
Points at Millenniums are so close between the top teams now (often just a single elimination), that giving just a handful of points for a speedy win can make all the difference between qualifying or not and will therefore make it worth while to the teams to go for.

 

[raehl]

Arn't close point totals part of the problem?

As there's really only 10 points of difference between wins? (I.e. a win is usually a 90->100 point affair.)

I think modifying the scoring system so close calls like that in the prelims are rare is a good thing.


- Chris

 

[crazzzy]

Originally posted by Wadidiz

I know I'm repeating but games finished in a shorter time is better for everyone concerned: faster games tend to be more interesting for the spectators and they mean a more manageable schedule for the organizers and the judges.

The gametime being stopped and started (in the case of a flag-hanger being hit) is EXACTLY the way NPPL, PSP and Millennium does it now (except for X-ball). So that is not adding any complications at all. When I ref I always stop the game timer at exactly the split-second the flag-hanger breaks the flag-station plane with the flag. If the flag-hanger is clean I declare the game over. If not, I shout out for a re-hang and at the second the flag is re-hung I shout "Keep playing!" and start back the clock again. All of that is the way it is supposed to be done with the existing rules. (Don't peepz know these rules?)

Well, I don´t agree it´s better for everyone. I agree it is way better for the running of a tournament, but for the teams that are also paying customers but build their gameplans on sitting back, the new system would definitely not be as good as the old. And I think that you have to cater for the paying customer more than the organisers. (But I see what you are writing, that games finnished in a shorter time is better, maybee I misunderstand your point.)

Another thing Wadidiz (maybee not as important in this discussion) but I think you are wrong concerning the rule about stopping the clock. When the player breaks the plane of the flagstation, the judge RECORDS the time, not stopping the clock. This time will be used if in case you are very close to the end of the game when the flag is hung. Now, if the player is hit, the rules only state that the judge should radio his counterpart at the other flagstation and he shall then rehang the spareflag (does the millennium use spareflags by the way?). The game is then continued with the time ticking. As I understand it when scanning through the rules, you never stop the clock even if that would make sense. But i could be wrong though.

 

[Gyroscope]

The intent, in rewarding quick play, is not to serve the interests of either the players or the promoters. It is to serve the interests of the advertisers. The question that is being begged is taht fast games are more exciting to watch.

Of course, you could cramp more commercials between games if there were more games.

I like the idea of rewarding dominating play, though. I also like the idea of rewarding almost pulling out a game when a team loses. But simpler score keeping is a value for spectator as well.

2 for a win. 1 for a tie. 0 for a loss. I think that is too simple. We can handle more complexity.

Awarding a changing points total based on increments of 6 seconds is too complex. You can't follow the action while doing the math, methinks.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by crazzzy
Well, I don´t agree it´s better for everyone. I agree it is way better for the running of a tournament, but for the teams that are also paying customers but build their gameplans on sitting back, the new system would definitely not be as good as the old. And I think that you have to cater for the paying customer more than the organisers. (But I see what you are writing, that games finnished in a shorter time is better, maybee I misunderstand your point.)

Another thing Wadidiz (maybee not as important in this discussion) but I think you are wrong concerning the rule about stopping the clock. When the player breaks the plane of the flagstation, the judge RECORDS the time, not stopping the clock. This time will be used if in case you are very close to the end of the game when the flag is hung. Now, if the player is hit, the rules only state that the judge should radio his counterpart at the other flagstation and he shall then rehang the spareflag (does the millennium use spareflags by the way?). The game is then continued with the time ticking. As I understand it when scanning through the rules, you never stop the clock even if that would make sense. But i could be wrong though.

The rules are very poorly written. The point of someone recording time would be to start the game back up at the point of the flag-hanger breaking the plane and becoming neutral. The simplest way to get what the rules are going after is to stop the official timer and restart it when the game begins again, on the re-hang. No one has taken the time to word it properly.

As for the radios, that's o.k. but the airball fields are small enough that I can shout so that a ref downfield can re-hang the spare flag.

Spare flags are supposed to be kept for Millennium and NPPL 7. Whenever I have reffed I have always gone and asked for two more flags. That's what the rules say, and sometimes you need that spare flag hung, pronto!

I'm not sure what I think about all the ideas here, but I would like to see some motivation for teams to move to the next level of skill and that is total-run-through power plays. It's coming somehow.

Steve

 

[duffistuta]

>>>but I would like to see some motivation for teams to move to the next level of skill and that is total-run-through power plays.

 

[crazzzy]

me confused too

If we force teams to play those total-run-through power plays we have to understand that paintball will be very hard to marshal. We will have many more situations than today with mutual eliminations, bonusballing, playing ons etc, as the games will be much faster. Maybee the teams will play it fair and we won´t have those problems, but before someone descide upon this, consider the reffing part of it.

 

[duffistuta]

Not forgetting one-dimensional and dull...