The Triple 7 Option
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
A reasonable number of prelim games is 8 and 7 minutes is a good time limit. Then each game would be more significant and the 30% reduction in game time would bring more action. And it helps everyone if the scheduling is easier. (I also think they should change to center flag with only one flag pull per game ever awarded.) NPPL S7 has 8 games and I've never heard anyone complain.
ok fair enough drop the number of games down to 7, but then surely the organisers should drop the price of the entry fee down.....
So you think the MS should make a step backwards because no-one complained?
When Euro teams returned from HB a lot of them did complain that they only got to play 8 games.
I don't think having slightly shorter game times will cause too many complaints, most games are over by then anyway and those that aren't... well it may light a fire under them. But I doubt it will bring 'more action'. Teams will play the same way they have always done, and get headless in the last 30 seconds like they do when running out of time normally. You'll just have a slightly shorter stalemate period in the middle.
I don't like any actions being taken just to get more money to the event IF it's at a reduction to the benefit for the players.
If the event makes more money producing the same level experience or better, then that's fine. But reducing what you provide to make more money doesn't sit right.
Maybe so... But you just can't do it without asking players/customers opinion about it at least without informing them waaaay beforehand.
Besides desicion like this conradicts BIG time against the Millennium rules.
And dontcha think that it sounds bit funny to pay same amount of cash for less games??
and this post is for paintnerd not for you manike & co. you guys just were faster... (mebbe i just should learn the secrets of quoting )
Besides desicion like this conradicts BIG time against the Millennium rules.
And dontcha think that it sounds bit funny to pay same amount of cash for less games??
and this post is for paintnerd not for you manike & co.
you guys just were faster... (mebbe i just should learn the secrets of quoting )
I agree with you. Needs to be discussed immediately. I would prefer an easier schedule and fresher marshalls myself and agree that it should be in exhange for a somewhat reduced entry fee.Originally posted by Flaymin
Maybe so... But you just can't do it without asking players/customers opinion about it at least without informing them waaaay beforehand.
Besides desicion like this conradicts BIG time against the Millennium rules.
And dontcha think that it sounds bit funny to pay same amount of cash for less games??
and this post is for paintnerd not for you manike & co.
The overall quality of a tournament (especially marshalling and safety) is more important to me than the number of games.
are you guys sure this is happening? Did someone on the Millenium committee actually make a statement, or is this just speculation?
Personally i don't like this idea, if i'm going to all the effort to travel so far around europe then i'm want my full 10 games guanenteed.
I want five games a day, and two half days of play, plus the finals. Othewise, is it actually worth the hassle of traveling so far?
Personally i don't like this idea, if i'm going to all the effort to travel so far around europe then i'm want my full 10 games guanenteed.
I want five games a day, and two half days of play, plus the finals. Othewise, is it actually worth the hassle of traveling so far?
Colin, are you kiddin me ?
The Millennium Board make a statement and tell us all what's going on ????
Ha ha, chance would be a fine thing !!!
No, no such incidence of the Board actually telling us anything but Alvaro told me what they were considering but I already knew they were considering a reduction to 8 games primarily a month or so back but this idea has now hardened to what we now know as the Triple 7's.
They have three options:-
a) Another Millennium U turn (you would have thought they would be getting frikkin dizzy by now)
b) They deny they were ever considering it (Unlikely, even they ain't that stupid)
c) They go ahead with the proposals or tweak them in some way.
They are at a political crossroads for sure with each of their choices laden with difficulties.
The Big Picture
Euro-kids,
Have you all lost your minds? Don't get bogged down in debating the relative "merits" of elements of this notion or before you know it you'll find yourself accepting some lame nonsense and thinkin' you've "won."
Once upon a time the Mil ran 8 game prelims and old NPPL ran 6. How and why did that change? For NPPL it changed when Pro teams started playing Mil events--and more AmB teams started playing. Teams wanted more games and old NPPL 'needed' more games to live up to their own hype--PLAY THE NPPL AND PLAY THE BEST TEAMS IN THE WORLD. More lower ranked teams required more games be played. Win, win but only because it served promoters interest.
Once upon a time we played 20 minute games--not all that long ago, but as it so happened we were coming outta the woods around the same time the scale of events started to grow radically (anyone see a correlation there?) and Airball games were reduced to 15 minutes. Was it for the action? To change the pace of the game? Yeah, right. It was to fit the new demands of scheduling.
Once upon a time World Cup was held at a paintball site that was mostly woods right next to the hotel complex where most everyone stayed. The site property was sold and WC was growing by leaps and bounds. What to do? A cow pasture a few miles away with one very special feature--almost unlimited space. Enough for 12 fields--and more actually. How else do you handle 200+ teams?
My point?
In the past even the biggest PB events were on a manageable scale given what was on offer but as PB continues to grow something has to give. As it exists today tournament paintball has limitations. 4 or 5 or 6 fields of play can only accomodate so many games unless you change game length. More fields requires more room and more referees. More teams means more time on field exponentially and somewhere in that mix the fabric of an event starts to tear. A limited number of days on a limited number of fields with a limited number of refs and a set game time standard produces a limited number of participating teams. The current system has inherent limitations unless certain critical issues are dealt with and some changes made. The changes being proposed (apparently) have nothing whatsoever to do with the game.
As it stands all that is being proposed is a way to stuff more monkeys into the same size barrel cos more monkeys equals more money.
Euro-kids,
Have you all lost your minds? Don't get bogged down in debating the relative "merits" of elements of this notion or before you know it you'll find yourself accepting some lame nonsense and thinkin' you've "won."
Once upon a time the Mil ran 8 game prelims and old NPPL ran 6. How and why did that change? For NPPL it changed when Pro teams started playing Mil events--and more AmB teams started playing. Teams wanted more games and old NPPL 'needed' more games to live up to their own hype--PLAY THE NPPL AND PLAY THE BEST TEAMS IN THE WORLD. More lower ranked teams required more games be played. Win, win but only because it served promoters interest.
Once upon a time we played 20 minute games--not all that long ago, but as it so happened we were coming outta the woods around the same time the scale of events started to grow radically (anyone see a correlation there?) and Airball games were reduced to 15 minutes. Was it for the action? To change the pace of the game? Yeah, right. It was to fit the new demands of scheduling.
Once upon a time World Cup was held at a paintball site that was mostly woods right next to the hotel complex where most everyone stayed. The site property was sold and WC was growing by leaps and bounds. What to do? A cow pasture a few miles away with one very special feature--almost unlimited space. Enough for 12 fields--and more actually. How else do you handle 200+ teams?
My point?
In the past even the biggest PB events were on a manageable scale given what was on offer but as PB continues to grow something has to give. As it exists today tournament paintball has limitations. 4 or 5 or 6 fields of play can only accomodate so many games unless you change game length. More fields requires more room and more referees. More teams means more time on field exponentially and somewhere in that mix the fabric of an event starts to tear. A limited number of days on a limited number of fields with a limited number of refs and a set game time standard produces a limited number of participating teams. The current system has inherent limitations unless certain critical issues are dealt with and some changes made. The changes being proposed (apparently) have nothing whatsoever to do with the game.
As it stands all that is being proposed is a way to stuff more monkeys into the same size barrel cos more monkeys equals more money.