The Millennium Series - what a joke!

[NickBrockdorff]

Nick, you well may flame me for this, but in my opinion, the change is good and for a few reasons....

Whether you like it or not, sup'air drives the tournament scene......everything from field designs that all 3 major leagues play on as well as investing back into the sport. Do they have to make a living as well? Yes. It's not anyone's call if they're making too much money from this, bottom line is they are holding the future of our sport in their hands and if there's not enough cash in it for them to keep on doing it, it means no sport for us as we now know it. Heavy lies the crown, and if field owners kept their fields in A1 condition then they probably wouldn't need to change fields for 5/6 years....which would result in the end of sup'air, I guarantee it. Upgrades have also funded their ability to innovate their bunkers, allowing them to last longer, stay inflated, water bladders added etc etc....all valuable to a field owner in terms of time and therefore money.

I'm not biased either.....these changes have cost us ££££ to change our field designer app for this season, but it's a necessary evil. This isn't a sport where we can just stay still, we have to keep pushing things to keep things fresh and new....to find out what works and what doesn't. As already said above, it adds a tougher dimension to the snake - no one will be sat hugging cake knuckles this year, and will encourage more aggressive and tactical snake play.....not to mention no sneaky shots through the knuckles (which are hard to spot reffing) being a thing of the past. Not only this, but it doesn't really stop teams playing at their local fields? What percentage of teams actually play Mills in the UK anyway? It's probably less than 5%, so I'd hardly say not investing will change much....yes it's nice to play on the latest field, but not required. I'd say locality is more the issue for teams training and as that the field is in good condition. If they do run a few fields, just buy 1 upgrade kit so that the mills teams can train/play on there.....

You mention about UEFA, but it's not stopped them changing the ball more times in the past 10 years than I change my underwear in a week....and this in turn drives everything from retail sales to grass root sales. It's impossible to compare the two anyway as they're so out of skew. NPPL took the stand not to change anything this year, but they probably looked at the the future (and possible merger with PSP) and thought is it worth the hassle for one year and the flaming we'd get if it did all come to an end in 2013?

This is going to be a long one

I would never flame anyone for a well reasoned and thought out reply, because I much prefer those, to senseless drivel.... but I do reserve the right to disagree..... and what would a discussion forum be, if everyone agreed?

I completely agree the 3 major leagues (4 if you count in PAL, which is the only one still growing), drive the development of our sport.

However, I do not believe they are living up to that "responsibility" anymore.... rather, I think they no longer view it as a responsibility.

They used to - Laurent used to be the primary visionary in paintball, and I wish that was still the case, because then paintball would be in a different (and better) place today.

The key to growing tournament paintball, imho, is arriving at a game format and a field layout, that is viable for use at many rental fields. The key to growth, is that the general public actually get to try our sport, rather than still running around in the woods playing Rambo, like they did 25 years ago.

At rental level, our game has not changed one iota, in 25 years.... and the leagues and the major companies in the industry, are to blame for that combined (more on that later).

YES - technological upgrades, like the water bladders are awesome, and they should keep working on that kind of thing at Adrenaline Games.

But there is no need to keep the game "fresh" by introducing new bunker shapes every 2 years. - It is not something demanded by the players, and all it does, is scare field owners away from making an investment in a SupAir field, because they all understand they have to upgrade it every 2 years, if they want to attract "sports players".

And, it is especially bad, when they introduce new bunkers, that have little purpose at all, comparatively, irrespective of what they may advertise about them.

Nor is there, by the way, any need to restrict industry, by forcing them to sponsor the MS, if their products are to be allowed there (thinking on the gun lock in the top 3 divisions).

None of these things help grow our sport - they do quite the contrary.

The last 5 years, the MS has seemed more about salvage, than progression, and many put that down to the global finacial crisis..... but I would put it to you, that the paintball sport still has a huge growth potential, because very, very few people have ever tried playing our sport..... what they have tried out in the woods, is not our game - it's something entirely different.

People always used to fawn over the SGMA numbers.... but in terms of the sport, they have always been completely pointless, because at least 95 % of what those numbers represent, are people playing woodland/scenario type paintball, which has just as little in common with our sport, as badminton has with tennis, or rugby has with NFL football.

The major leagues are not thinking about paintball the right way - they are not realising the trickle down effect them making the right moves could have, on the whole industry (incl. fields)..... instead they are totally focussed on squeezing every last drop out of the few fields and few teams, that are still in the sport.... and chalking their diminishing market down to the global financial crisis.

They need to change their thought proces, to growth on a global scale, rather than making € 100,000 more in 2012 off existing customers. - They need to take a long view of paintball (which incidentally they should have done already 10 years ago, but many of us failed to see it back then, me included).

If I ran the MS, I would do the following:

1. Advertise that starting in 2013, ROF in Divisions 3 and 2 would be dropped to 6, in division 1 to 8, and keeping SPL and CPL 10 BPS
2. Advertise that the current bunker shapes would remain unchanged for at least 3 years
3. Enlarging field size to 50 x 40 (or something along those lines)
4. Drop the gun lock on the top 3 divisions
5. Drop the need for paint brands to sponsor the league, and instead make them pay a kickback on volume sold at each event
6. Keep field designs secret until the day before each event - meaning Thursday (incl. not letting the Tontons "test them" )

What they would achieve, would be:

- Tournament paintball, at entry level, becoming much cheaper (paint consumption would drop to half, minimum)
- More fields would view tournament style paintball as a viable addition to their fields, for rental customeers
- More local and regional leagues would spring up, all over the world
- Manufacturers would make more money, because the customer base would get larger
- More companies would attend MS events and players would have more product choices
- Tournament games would be more focussed on movement, and less on shooting a crapload of paint
- Paintball would slowly gain relatability in the general public, which is what is needed for media deals and outside sponsors

I have been along for the entire ride, from 15 man woodland, to today - and I LOVE playing Xball..... if I was to think only of my own needs and wants, I would not advocate any change at all, and I would love the new bunkers, because I will get to shoot a lot of players out of the snake this seasons.

But, my critique is not about me, it's about what I think is good for paintball, globally and in the long term..... and while my tone may be harsh, fueled by frustration, what I hope to achieve, is being a small part of a wake up call, that makes the major leagues start to think creatively about developing out sport, instead of thinking creatively about how to make more money off their existing market.

 

[Dusty]

This is going to be a long one

I would never flame anyone for a well reasoned and thought out reply, because I much prefer those, to senseless drivel.... but I do reserve the right to disagree..... and what would a discussion forum be, if everyone agreed?

And as long as you stick to your own advice about reasoned and well thought out replies your stay here could be extended longer than the last one eh?

Stay civil, you'll be welcomed here as everyone else is but the rules apply to all equally.

By the way, welcome back

 

[NickBrockdorff]

And as long as you stick to your own advice about reasoned and well thought out replies your stay here could be extended longer than the last one eh?

Stay civil, you'll be welcomed here as everyone else is but the rules apply to all equally.

By the way, welcome back

I treat people like they treat me - always have and always will....... and I bow down to no one...... same before, same now

 

[Dusty]

I treat people like they treat me - always have and always will....... and I bow down to no one...... same before, same now

Ah, some things never change. I fear your stay here will be brief but entertaining to the members at large

I've merely given you a fair warning, you know the score on this forum, belligerence does not become you.

 

[Robbo]

Hi Nick, first off, welcome back!
You seem to have hit the ground running with your first series of posts; I think the MS have let things slide on too many occasions for any of us to feel comfortable with.
Money's tighter these days and as such, entry fees and user friendliness should reflect this downturn.
There seems little evidence of any customer feedback or concerns in how they promote and cost their events .. hence your stance above.
I agree, and have said on numerous occasions, the only way to provoke change, real change, is by organising a player's union with elected representatives that will interface with the MS.
It's player power, pure and simple.

But ... the fact it's 'pure and simple' means diddly squat when people can't seem to get up off their ass and do something for the greater good .... paintball players, almost uniquely in my experience are the least motivated in terms of organising themselves into some form of membership body ... it's insane we are like this bearing in mind the sort of money the average tourney baller has to hand over to play these events.

Nobody minds paying this sort of money AS LONG as they are getting value for it, and it's obvious the MS customers don't feel they are; we seem also to have a disconnect between what we feel and what we consequently do and until we can navigate that hurdle, it's gonna be hard to effect any meaningful change by the occasional thread that pop up every now and again on forums like ours.
I tend to agree with what you say above and no doubt there will be many others agreeing with you because it does distil and reflect all of the points MS customers might wanna make; problem is, that's as far as it goes as you well know.
Articulating the points of dissatisfaction doesn't seem to be a problem .. acting on them however, is ....

 

[Ainsley]

Excellent.....I do like a good debate, and that's exactly what I view this as, so thank you Nick

I think the main difference that I see above is that I don't feel its from a "top down" problem but a "bottom up" one......As you say, most (I hate to use this word but I will) "punter" sites have not changed in 25 years and have no need to do so. To most, offering a way in to "tournament" ball sees nothing but a loss of custom to them. They are by no means entirely blame however, as people are happy to go perhaps once a year or so, shoot their friends and go home for another year. Most are also run from woodland sites, so they simply don't have the option to offer a flat, cleared playing surface.....along with any storage of bunkers to stop vandals slashing bunkers and the cost of setting them up every weekend. I don't think it's merely a case of not wanting to look at buying bunker kits every 2 years, I'd say it was more a case of shelling out £4k for something unknown in terms of payback. Even if they did have suitable land for people to even try out, with ever decreasing margins from regular players it becomes less attractive by the second.

Dropping the paint to 6bps again may have a negative effect. In practice, you might even find that people shoot more paint than they would on 10 due to the fact that lanes aren't as effective and takes more shots to get someone out. Be an interesting subject to research mind.....

Enlarging fields.....this alone is a massive cost to field owners. Most have the fields set up all year round, and so to change this by moving cemented in poles etc is so much hassle - that is even if they had the space! I realise this is a "one off" measure, and large fields result in longer games etc, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. To me, value isn't about my time spent on the field for a game. Paintball is and always will be about those tiniest of snapshot moments, so increasing field size, which then leads to increase in game time doesn't necessarily add "value". When have you ever come off a field feeling happy that a game lasted over 5 minutes? Ah, you say though, bigger fields allows more mature players to make back corners and these are the people who have money to play. Again I disagree. Money is in the 16-25 bracket, before they become home owners or have major financial responsibility. More people making corners means longer game times, more paint shot and therefore more money spent from every player on that team.

Keeping field designs secret. I have to disagree with this. Making them known the day before only results in less teams actually training at their local sup'air sites. It's not like TonTons have been sweeping up every year in the pro league from their "in the loop" heads up. One of the great things about sup'air is the training of a layout in my opinion, and rewards those who put the effort in. It makes it more of a sport for me. Surely this is a regression to the past where you turn up, pays ya money and takes ya chances? We need to encourage training.....the more the better. This is where teams bond, friendships between friends are made and communities built within our game.....all of which keep the average guy or girl playing.

Yes, we do need more local fields. More local fields equates to more youth entering our sport. At the moment, it's expensive enough for parents or minors themselves to "fund" their game, without the insult of driving them (or making their own way) 2 hours to the "local" site. How do we get there though is another thing entirely....when all said and done, the main reason why people stop playing is cost (and not value within the game). Cost to me starts and ends with paint pricing, and that's who we should be looking at to the future survival of our game.

 

[Dusty]

Younger players may have more disposable income – short term
Younger players may have less commitments – short term
Older more settle players have their finances more in order and are more likely to be able to afford to play.
Older players may also have the time to dedicate to playing, instead of having to make the choice between affording to go clubbing on sat night with mates or going out on Sunday to training.
Older players are more likely to have the time and finances to travel, younger folks have to save for cars, insurances, uni fees, mortgage deposits or rent.
Older players may well have kids and all that, they’re more likely to be of an age where it’s not such a hassle to leave them.

Just my thoughts, very quickly at that!

 

[NickBrockdorff]

I think you are missing that all my points are leading to the same conclusion Ainsley:

Dropping cost. - They are not individual points designed to do different things - they are all part of a whole (but obviously some points are less important than others).

So, let me try and reply to each point in turn:

"Punter sites":

Yes, there is resistence there, which is only natural, if you have run your business a certain way for 20 years.
But, all these fields are reaching the point, where there is no more "new market" for them.... everyone has tried paintball by now, or they never will, and their standard customer, returns once a year - maybe.
So, the time is ripe for adding another revenue stream or two to their business, and be able to revisit every past customer, with a brand new concept.
The reason this has not happened before, to any great extent, is that our industry has been so focussed on selling fields equipment "whatever you want, I can sell it to you cheap" - rather than help them develop and diversify their business, like it is done in more professional industries than paintball. So only the most visionary and ambitious field owners, have diversified.
What industry has failed to make fields see, is that tournament style paintball, creates a very loyal customer base (still talking rentals here, not teams), that they make far less on per outing, but they return many times per year, and often are willing to do it at times when the field is traditionally "slow". Couple that with an on-site "pro shop", business leagues, etc. - and it can be a very lucrative market for them - not to replace their old business - but to add to it.
We are actually starting a field in Denmark to prove this point as I write - planned opening May 1st - so this is not just talk

"6 ROF":

I do not believe at all this will increase paint spending.... quite the contrary.
Less paint shot, translates into more movement.
It becomes easier to run through a lane, while gunfighting to gin dominance is no harder than before, if you rely on first ball accuracy, like good players do.
I know some will look back at the good old cocker/automag days, and say low ROF translates into slow games, but you have to realise how much the game has developed technically since then.... players today have a skillset, that would make todays div. 3 team, the Ironmen of 2000 (purely talking technique here, not gamesmanship).

"Field size":

I agree enlarging field size will be a large cost to existing SupAir field owners, and we might achieve what I want without it, if it is too big an obstacle.
BUT... increased field size does not mean longer games - instead, it means movement becomes even easier (and thus more frequent), because opponents are further away.
Obviously, I would combine it with adding a few more large bunkers to the fields, which I forgot in my first post, so that while field size is larger, space between bunkers is more or less unchanged.... or there are more large bunkers on the fields than today, cutting down paint lanes.

"Keeping field designs secret":
Yes, teams would practice less if field designs were kept a secret.
However, I believe the advantages to that far outweigh the drawbacks.
Less practice would mean less money spent to be competitive.
And it would mean more new teams could join the sport, without it costing them an arm and a leg every month.
Also, it would mean field owners needed to be less concerned with having the EXACT field used at the next MS event, which in turn means more fields would consider having a tournament field.
For the Pros, it would make no difference - they would train just as much..... we are talking entry level here.

"Paint pricing":

You cannot bank on the paint manufacturers being our saviors. Their margins are incredibly low as is - the lowest of any manufacturers in paintball.
And that will get worse, once one EU country government or another, starts taking an interest in low grade oilfilled paint, filling up a piece of nature, for decades on end
The key is not to drop paint prices, the key is to drop how much is shot - AND - to open the other parts of the industry up to more and smaller manufactuers, rather than making room for only the major manufacturers at events, because they are the only ones with the cash to pay sponsorships.

 

[Robbo]

It's a curious thing that as our sport has evolved, the playing demographic has been getting younger.
What drives this?

 

[Ainsley]

I can see what you're saying, but when I look at my team, (of around 20 players) off the top of my head 75% of those players are under 25 and have been with me for 2/3 years. Disruption, Firm.....most of their players I'd say are around the same ratio if not higher than that. Do I expect to loose some of these players in the next few years? Certainly. Do I expect to aspire to play a millennium series with an average player age over say 35? Certainly not.....and I'm not far away from that myself so it's no insult

Yes, often players drift back in over the age of 35 when their families have settled down and they once again have the time and the income from their job at a higher level to take it up once again....but the foundations are often started back in their teens/20s when you first start out paintballing.....I'd say we need to look how to retain those players through controlling our main cost....paint. Moreover, It would be interesting to look at the true demographic of players at the CPPS/NSPL this year for example and get some definite data to go on.....this would surely be the first step into creating some sort of players union? To actually know your players rather than guessing?

One of the main reasons we as a team haven't yet entered a mills series yet (we are playing a full season next year) is cost and has nothing to do with perceived value. I agree entirely that the cost seems disproportional to the current economic climate for entering a mills season. It's only after a few years that we now have the support and backing from people like Eclipse and Lips/GI that we can even contemplate entering a full season.....without that support there's no way we could even think about it for next season, and it's like that for 90% of the teams out there in the UK. We'd all love to play them, but with the travelling, event cost etc, it's just not financially possible. It's a sacrifice for something that we love to do week in week out that will get us there. Why do we want to look at playing Mills? As that is the highest level in Europe and my players have aspirations to compete at the these higher levels, just like in any other sport. Is there a better solution? I don't know.....we just want to play the best teams we can.

I digress......