Limiting paint in tourneys

[trains are bad]

Why is it that the idea of limiting paint is completely foreign? I think it would be cool to have a paint limit; it could really change gameplay a lot.

Right now, the limti is-how much you can carry.

A lot of people are saying the play dynamics are worse with the huge firing. I don't see ROF as the problem, but volume.

Think how much the game would change if the back men couldn't afford to pound bunkers. It would be cool if there was a team amount of paint, and they could split it up however they wanted. It would be entirely different.

Actually, I know why there is no paint limiting in paintball. FPO.

[Ratzo]

I can't remember the series name but the promoter is Dan Bonedrake and that series has a 500 ball limit per player.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[tony3]

The pan am series, they are doing some new format this year. They limited balls all different ways depending on experience and division I think.

[Automaggin2]

Limited paint would make games so much more intresting.


I saw a guy shoot 20 pods at NJ NPPL. That takes skill?

[tony3]

Thats like 3000 shots

[DementedRabbit]

Tourneys have no incentive to cut into their paint sales.

[madmatt151]

Limiting paint would make th egae more interestin, but then all th epaint companies who sponsor the tournies would go away. THen the tournies would go away. Look at the NPPL page and see who the major sponsors are. Makes sense that no limit on paint has ever been implemented.

[logamus]

as long as paint sales are the numbers 1,2, and 3 things that make the field/promoter money they will never limit usage. infact, they will try to get you to use more and more.


as far as dumping 20 pods, there is some amount of skill in that. maybe not what you consider skill, but there is a talent there.

[RayU]

Until a marker manufacturer (not tied to a line of paint) is the primary sponsor, or even better, a nonpaintball related company is the primary sponsor (Mountain Dew! Chevy! for example...) limited paint events will be a rarity.

That's too bad, as I think paintball-skills are ballsy moves and super-accurate snap shooting, not how fast you can twiddle your fingers. :rolleyes: But it seems like I'm in the minority opinion nowdays.

I can see it now... "That bunker move was brought to you by Excedrin: headache #517, taking 3 shots to the head at close range!"
:D

[GoatBoy]

Originally posted by DementedRabbit
Tourneys have no incentive to cut into their paint sales.

My thoughts exactly.

The industry and the sport I think are going to start diverging over this one point.

The industry segment wants you to buy more equipment, more paint, and faster, more expensive guns. Their vehicle for doing this is through the "pros", and of course, an inexhaustible supply of mindless zombies.

The sport segment wants to see better players. Better games, more movement, real displays of athleticism, more skill.



In the end, I think paint usage will be self-limiting. It won't come from a mandate from any authority. It will come from common sense.

[trains are bad]

Thats like 3000 shots

Did he have a scuba tank on his back?!

[NJPaint]

Originally posted by GoatBoy

In the end, I think paint usage will be self-limiting. It won't come from a mandate from any authority. It will come from common sense.


Common sense? I'm a front player. I rarely shoot more than 2 pods. However, my common sense tells me that I don't want my back guys to stop shooting. I have to move, that is my job. Its my back players job to keep me posted on where the other team is as well as keep them in check. I don't care if they do it with 10 rounds or 100 rounds. Common sense says, more paint means more chances to hit the guy and the more they have to watch out. (wrong or right, not saying, what I am saying is that THAT is common sense)


I personally like the idea of limiting paint, it favors my style of play. However, I donj't think that it is right to authoritatively change the game. Limiting paint will simply change the game. Better or worse will depend on the player, but in my opinion it will make it simply a different game, not significantly better or worse.

[RayU]

Originally posted by GoatBoy

In the end, I think paint usage will be self-limiting.

Unfortunately, the only self-limiting will be in the pocketbooks of the players. The teams with the deep pocket sponsors don't have any reason to be self-limiting, thus continuing to widen the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". That makes the big tourneys more of an exclusive club than it currently is now. The home-grown teams cough up their entire budget on one tourney, while the sponsored teams can go just about anywhere they choose.

Limited-paint helps "level the playing field" by allowing the budget team to demonstrate their skills against the well funded team without facing the unfair advantage of walls of paint. Sure, the well funded team will still be expected to perform better (outright skill, equipment, practice time, etc.), but at least it would give the budget team a fighting chance.

[trains are bad]

Better or worse will depend on the player, but in my opinion it will make it simply a different game, not significantly better or worse.

yepyep.

[AcemanPB]

A limited paint tournament would pretty much kill the idea of cheater guns.....

I think if they do start limited paint tourneys they should do X number of paintballs per team per game, not player. That way each team has to decide how to split up their paintballs between the back and front players.

[f3rr3+]

i know i would be hard pressed to shot 20 pods in a game... think about the weight of all that on your back plus some running plus moving your fingers all that time... so id say yes it takes some skill

[Branchvillian]

Don't expect to see big tournys limiting there paint sales anytime soon.

[GoatBoy]

Well, everyone's going to have their differing opinions on this.

If you're in your bunker, and you hear a stream of 30 paintballs go past the left side, are you going to stick your head or gun out that left side and have a look? No. As the shooter, did putting a stream of 30 balls past the bunker INCREASE or DECREASE your chances of hitting the person behind it? It's the first few shots that count, the other 27 balls are for "n00b check".

Suppressing fire is a different case, and it helps when I'm on the run, but even as a front player, realistically, it's not that often, as I just hop from bunker to bunker. On these little speedball/airball games, it seems the games are pretty much over before a player gets to make more than 4 moves. And like you said, you don't care if the back gets it done in 10 or 100 shots; the better player accomplishing it in 10.

I agree that it's probably not right to just come out and tell people to limit their paint. But I see it as a "Never interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake" situation. I'm all in favor of full-auto; let the guys wear as much paint onto the field as they want.

If you want to "level the playing field", why not level the playing field... literally! Shrink down those back bunkers; in fact, make it so there are no bunkers near the start area. You can still keep people from getting hit immediately off the break with, say, a large X in the middle, but if you don't move your butt immediately, you'll be tagged out by those who do. Lets see who decides to walk onto the field with 20 pods then.




Originally posted by NJPaint



Common sense? I'm a front player. I rarely shoot more than 2 pods. However, my common sense tells me that I don't want my back guys to stop shooting. I have to move, that is my job. Its my back players job to keep me posted on where the other team is as well as keep them in check. I don't care if they do it with 10 rounds or 100 rounds. Common sense says, more paint means more chances to hit the guy and the more they have to watch out. (wrong or right, not saying, what I am saying is that THAT is common sense)


I personally like the idea of limiting paint, it favors my style of play. However, I donj't think that it is right to authoritatively change the game. Limiting paint will simply change the game. Better or worse will depend on the player, but in my opinion it will make it simply a different game, not significantly better or worse.

[tony3]

Originally posted by trains are bad


Did he have a scuba tank on his back?!

You would need a nicely tuned gun, and a 114/45 to get that many shots

[trains are bad]

Goatboy-

Good thinking. There are many ways to mix this gameplay up besides time limits. I'd like to see them happen more often.

[NJPaint]

Well, if I feel the heat on me I'm going to get my backplayers to put some pressure on that guy to ease off of me or to make him work for his shots. In doing that, sometimes pounding his bunker and lacing the sides is extremely effective. He can't pop out with out risking serious chance of getting hit. That give me time to either post on him this time, or make my move. If my back players don't have that firepower, if a guy is posting on me, or pounding my bunker, firing 10 balls isn't going to keep him down, it will make him cautious, not out of commition temporarily.

Granted, this works both ways, but I think that it opens up a greater variety of game dynamics if people can use the paint that they 'need' to. That having been said, I don't like spamming of lanes. It ruins my day when all I see is lines of paint between me and any bunker. Because of the angles no one can put pressure on the guys doing it, so I am stuck where I am. I like moving quick and that stops me dead in my tracks.

The simple solution to that is to play 3 man. Nobody can bring tons of paint because its all about moving and doing that fast. But I can't stand just playing that, it looses its appeal. Teamwork plays a much bigger role when people have specialized roles and I have a much better time when I'm working with people. So, I don't really support limiting paint. I like the sport as it is and hey, it isn't my $$$ going towards cases chucked at me. :D