You know what I love about good old fashioned Woodsball.... [Archive]

drg

06-15-2009, 10:22 PM

No doubt! It is a shame to think about all of the elements of the game that have completely dropped out of the average player's skillset. Do players have better head to head gunfighting skills than they once did? I don't think so...they just have guns that work harder for them. But skills like crawling (especially playing the two man game...crawler in front of a loud and obnoxious cover-man), cross field longballs, the effective use of concealment and topography in addition to the patently obvious cover...being able to "listen" to a field (cause you can't see the whole thing and you don't have people shouting from the sidelines) have all but disappeared.

I don't see how those skills were lost, in fact many of them are more important than ever in speedball. I especially disagree with the gunfighting statement, today's players gunfight WAY better than back in the day; that's a skill directly honed by speedball.

Perhaps you have the wrong idea of speedball, but I find the skills for speedball don't really get honed in the woods rather than vice versa. You'd be surprised to find that the typical speedball field has far more cover than most woodsball fields.

If you see a speedballer that lacks these skills, then he lacks skills in general. This may have more to do with the higher turnover rate in the modern game than the game itself.

PumpPlayer

06-15-2009, 10:33 PM

^ The good players are better now than they used to be, sure, but there is an ever-increasing number of casual players who are just out there to burn through paint.

People play for a year or two in high school and then drop the sport. That's the same as it ever was, and some people will always stick around, but as the population increases, so does the number of casual 'ballers. The days of going to a woodsball field and finding 20 other skilled guys to play against are now over. You've now got 50 people of mediocre-at-best skill level with a few good players mixed in.

I'm not hating on newbies, far from it in fact, but it seems like the new players don't have anyone left, at the local level, to learn from. That's important and it's something most fields don't have. Sure, every kid gets a few DVDs and watches the pros play, but what does it really look like, from down in the dirt, to see a guy make a good brush crawl, a good tree walk, a patient ambush?

I remember first starting out and being in awe of some of the ninja out on the fields. They were out there every weekend and I did everything I could to learn the game. I play whenever I can, but anymore that's only 6-8 times a year. I feel like we're not passing down what we know to the next generation.

The audience is out there. Let's go out and show them how the game should be played.

XM15

06-15-2009, 10:43 PM

I remember playing a early spring 5 man tournament there once like 10 years ago. Snow flurries came down in the afternoon. The one field we palyed on had a area of water everyone avoided all day. I decided to go through it and surpirse the last guy left. I thought the water was only about knee high. I was wrong it was almost waist deep and cold. I manageed to survive the crossing and win the game. I really miss woodsball tourny's.

tasker89

06-15-2009, 11:01 PM

kcombs9

06-15-2009, 11:16 PM

Fox has regular scenario games on-site. In fact, yesterday was a "mini scenario" that ran for three hours. Basically they have a theme and instead of straight capture the flag you have objectives and re-insertions.

Fox is and always will be my home field...a great place to play paintball...even if it does flood once in awhile. :wow:

this was a 10am to 10pm scenario game. Put on by waynes world paintball

drg

06-15-2009, 11:30 PM

High turnover is definitely a factor. Players get in and get out at an alarming rate...largely because the cost to play has increased dramatically as a function of the style of play...with equipment designed for that style.

I also have a complete sense of speedball...as I've been playing since they coined the name. Please note that I wrote the "average player." I don't classify tourney players (any level) or tourney wannabes as average players. I am talking about the once or twice a month rec-ballers.

Well if your estimation of the average player is what you said, then it doesn't come from the format he or she plays, it comes from a straight lack of experience and skill-building. Speedball builds the skills you mentioned as well or better than woodsball. Remember the whole point of speedball was to emphasize skill, both individually and as a team.

tasker89

06-16-2009, 07:32 PM

Speedball builds the skills you mentioned as well or better than woodsball. Remember the whole point of speedball was to emphasize skill, both individually and as a team.

Really? That isn't how I remember speedball's origins. I recall a game format born out in SoCal that was intended to create "more excitement" for players and faster turnarounds for field owners. The format spread and became "the" way to put paintball on TV. Some of the earliest broadcast stuff was done on speedball fields. Later, tourneys started including "spectator tapelines" which typically featured foliage free viewing and staggered bunkers. Spectator tapelines became entire fields...and gradually woodsball tourneys went away all together.

I'm curious, how does a speeballer playing on a SupAir field, Xball field, or whatever...learn how to spend 25 minutes crawling 12 feet through a weed patch to put themselves into position to knock out a critical opponent? I'm not saying that speedballers don't have skills...it is just a different set of skills. I suppose a decent analogy might be this: Speedball is like a digital signal. It is sharp and it crisp...but audiophiles sometimes hear clipping and think the sound lacks warmth. Woodsball is analog. Something the sound is richer...but it isn't as easily accessible as CDs and MP3s anymore.

DamianTC

06-16-2009, 08:27 PM

If your taking your kids paintballing for the first time.. More than likely its going to be woodsball..

throw him on a speedball course the first time he ever got a marker in his hands and........
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ddMowxKchko&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ddMowxKchko&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tasker89

06-16-2009, 08:43 PM

Brutal! Poor kid is lucky he only took one.

drg

06-17-2009, 12:12 AM

Really? That isn't how I remember speedball's origins. I recall a game format born out in SoCal that was intended to create "more excitement" for players and faster turnarounds for field owners. The format spread and became "the" way to put paintball on TV. Some of the earliest broadcast stuff was done on speedball fields. Later, tourneys started including "spectator tapelines" which typically featured foliage free viewing and staggered bunkers. Spectator tapelines became entire fields...and gradually woodsball tourneys went away all together.

It may not be speedball's very origins, but it quickly was recognized as a benefit of the format and the format was developed to take advantage of that.

The first televised tournaments were in the woods, speedball did not become the standard competitive format until the late 90s, several years after televised paintball began. Speedball was adopted for competition as a means to create an even playing field for both teams, which is often impossible with natural cover. This would allow skill, not circumstance, to win out in the end.

I'm curious, how does a speeballer playing on a SupAir field, Xball field, or whatever...learn how to spend 25 minutes crawling 12 feet through a weed patch to put themselves into position to knock out a critical opponent?

The real heart of that skill is understanding sightlines and shooting lanes so that you can crawl unseen and/or unhit. You learn that faster in speedball than in woodsball where you may not be punished for messing a crawl up. The sneaking around component is mostly natural instinct that even the newest players grasp almost immediately.

Experience doesn't teach you to to apply stealth; stealth and sneaking is the starting point for all players. Knowing when to discard stealth for efficacy is the learned skill. As is field awareness, which is a learned skill and also a universal skill to all types of paintball.

JaKaL

06-17-2009, 01:13 AM

dude, you totally said "efficacy" on a paintball forum.

that rules.

txaggie08

06-17-2009, 01:46 AM

I've always loathed the sneak and crawl woodsball game. If I wanted to go crawl through fireants and weeds, or sit in a bush for thirty minutes, I wouldn't be wearing a pb mask to do it!

I want to play, and that play has NEVER appealed to me. Not 12 years ago when I stepped on the first field, not last week when I reffed for an hour with some local guys.

Damian- If it had been my field, the ref that ran that game would have gotten eaten alive once I got him alone. You don't put little ones in that position clueless. You either find them someone who wont demolish them, or you put a ref on them to help them.

I've spent my time with groups literally running bunker to bunker with kids to keep an eye on them and make sure that garbage didn't happen. They're gonna get shot, but you don't dump them in over there heads like that....

GoatBoy

06-17-2009, 08:00 PM

I'm curious, how does a speeballer playing on a SupAir field, Xball field, or whatever...learn how to spend 25 minutes crawling 12 feet through a weed patch to put themselves into position to knock out a critical opponent?

Hate to pick on this... but if you play like this, you are very nearly the functional equivalent of the kid who volunteers at every game to "stay behind and guard the flag". He does literally NOTHING for his team, spending time on stuff like using his tactical vacuum cleaner to pick up his potato chip crumbs.

1. Time limits

Games typically have time limits, like 15 minutes. Even if they're longer, say 20-30 minute games, they're typically decided after 15 minutes anyways. Regardless, I'm assuming to make up for the 10 minute differential, you crawled undetected all the way back to the staging area after the game was already over as a demonstration of just how devastating the technique of not shooting at people or communicating with your team for the majority of a game really is. Which leads to...

2. Paintball is a team game

Far be it for you to support your teammates by calling out positions, covering their movements, or eliminating other players. Instead, you're off in the bushes hoping for some "critical" elimination. For the duration of the time that you're doing this, you're not interacting with your own team. You're not even interacting with the opposing team. You're interacting with... bushes.

That's just bad paintball right there.

3. Trading players

Peeling off one of your players and making him useless while he chases the off chance that he might take out a "critical" player really seems to only make sense in limited scenarios.

Trading a knight for a knight is kind of a wash.

Trading a pawn for a knight, on the other hand, is a better deal.

If it turns out that your effectiveness on the field is so bad that it makes such a deal attractive, maybe you should just increase your skillset beyond that of a pawn.

4. Big stealth vs. little stealth

In my experience, the little stealth moves -- short distance blind spot moves -- yield way more eliminations than long, overarching "I crawed 25 minutes through a cow pasture" type moves. And that's what your team needs. It needs your opponents removed from the field, right here, right now, not 25 minutes from now.

If you play this way, you'd better have more "critical" players on your team to make up for such wasteful tactics.

tasker89

06-18-2009, 12:48 AM

drg, GoatBoy and txaggie08 - I have to ask each of you a few questions:

1) How old are you and how long have you been playing?
2) Did you ever play high level 15 man or 10 man woodsball tourneys? (Lively series or early NPPL)

I ask because I'd like to have a frame of reference for this discussion. In the interest of full disclosure: I am 33. I started following paintball at the age of 12 and started playing at 15. By 17 I was playing in and reffing tournament paintball. I played 10 man NPPL ball on a pro-team from 1993-1997. I've played regional airball and speedball tourneys on and off over the last decade...now I play for fun only.

So here's the thing...I don't need lessons on line of sight, sweet spotting, shooting lanes, the team aspect of the sport, etc. I've been there and done that. When I asked my question about crawling...I'm not talking about slipping on some ghillie suit and slinging up a Milsim Tippman so I can lay like a landmine 30 feet from a flag station. I am talking about the patient two man crawling game that was absolutely crucial to winning 10 man games. That skill was learned in woodsball open games first...and honed later.

The first televised tournaments were in the woods, speedball did not become the standard competitive format until the late 90s, several years after televised paintball began.

I am aware of this fact...which is why I wrote "some of the earliest."

Speedball was adopted for competition as a means to create an even playing field for both teams, which is often impossible with natural cover. This would allow skill, not circumstance, to win out in the end.

Not really. Speedball was adopted for competition because it was "spectator friendly." The idea of mirrored playing fields wasn't even part of Speedball when it first started. Further, good teams in the early NPPL and the Lively days could win games regardless of which side of the field they got. Walking a field, reading that field and gameplanning that field was a skill....games were not won and lost based on a coinflip or bracket placement.

Hate to pick on this... but if you play like this, you are very nearly the functional equivalent of the kid who volunteers at every game to "stay behind and guard the flag". He does literally NOTHING for his team, spending time on stuff like using his tactical vacuum cleaner to pick up his potato chip crumbs.

No...you really don't...seeing as how you've taken the time to carefully insert any number of jokes assuming things about my skill level and willingness to crawl in cow dung in addition to taking the time to carefully point out for me (the apparent rube) prima facia elements of the game like....ummm....time limits and teh teamworkz. :rolleyes:

Beemer

06-18-2009, 12:58 AM

^^^^^ word. You musta played for that team Swarm that we were always trying to spank.

Though I do agree those days are long gone and a lost art. Good to see ya around. :cheers:

edit to add...........I just noticed you started right after we went from 15 man to 10 man.
Music city open and the Masters.......those were the days.

txaggie08

06-18-2009, 01:05 AM

drg, GoatBoy and txaggie08 - I have to ask each of you a few questions:

1) How old are you and how long have you been playing?
2) Did you ever play high level 15 man or 10 man woodsball tourneys? (Lively series or early NPPL)

1)23, and I think this will make it 13 or 14 years(have to do my math cause it was the year before dad died) since I started playing.
2) No. I've never played tournament ball period. I was not one of the privileged few who got the $$ to play when I was that age, and paintball died out in any serious,organized, form around here well before I got to a point I was earning my own.

I started out playing with some of the original Lost boys, and spent time on the field and around guys who played tourney paintball in that era.

Now that I'm older, I hate the mentality of the tourney ballers as much as I hate the "creep and crawl" crowd in the woods. I like a good, old fashioned, gun battle. I want to start a game, and spend that game moving around, not sitting or sneaking, and having a good time in a paintball match. Cheating drives me crazy, and I find that the "hardcore" woodsballers are as guilty, if not more guilty, than the tourney kids.

That mentality is why I left airsoft. I'm not going to kit out in hot gear to go sit in a bush for twenty minutes, or creep around woods for the same length of time for a two second gun battle.

Some of this is why I went back to pump. No CYA ability in pump, you gotta get aggressive or get shot by the faster shooters :D

drg

06-18-2009, 04:36 AM

20-21 years since i first played, my memory is a little hazy at this point. Do I smell an appeal to authority fallacy?

Regardless, the simple truth is that taking 25 minutes to crawl 12 feet is never going to be the best course of action in the game of paintball. You have kind of sprayed your argument out in several directions by talking about this ridiculously plodding kind of maneuver on one hand, then speaking of very, very bog standard overwatch tactics on the other hand.

Neither is a lamentable "lost skill" in the modern era of paintball, and it's questionable that the former is really a skill at all.

tasker89

06-18-2009, 11:20 PM

I was not one of the privileged few who got the $$ to play when I was that age,

I worked three jobs to pay my way. Only the very best pro-teams in the early 90's had the kind of money to cover all expenses for their guys. We had plenty of sponsors...but unless you were playing on Sunday in the money rounds...you were still coming out behind.

I like a good, old fashioned, gun battle.

Actually, so do I...but I also enjoy changing things up now and again. My heart has always been in the competitive woodsball game...so that is the style I typically play....crawling sometimes comes with the territory.

Cheating drives me crazy, and I find that the "hardcore" woodsballers are as guilty, if not more guilty, than the tourney kids.

You find this at every level in paintball...now that I only play for fun, I try to blow that stuff off.

Some of this is why I went back to pump. No CYA ability in pump, you gotta get aggressive or get shot by the faster shooters

I was raised on pump...and I still play it. In fact, I probably have more fun playing pump than anything else.

Watcher

06-19-2009, 12:29 AM

What I love about good old fashion woodsball is that it brings together army-vets, army-vet-wanna-be's, speedballers, pumpers, rec-ballers, tourney players, newbies, and retro-players alike.

But it does have it's bad side, like having teammates telling you to move up and when you do they think you are the enemy and shoot you in the back :mad:

GoatBoy

06-19-2009, 12:38 AM

No...you really don't...seeing as how you've taken the time to carefully insert any number of jokes assuming things about my skill level and willingness to crawl in cow dung in addition to taking the time to carefully point out for me (the apparent rube) prima facia elements of the game like....ummm....time limits and teh teamworkz. :rolleyes:

"prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

I haven't actually seen a rebuttal yet. Calling it "prima facie [sic]" isn't actually a rebuttal.

I agree these are obvious elements of the game. Which is why I point them out when someone talks about a tactic that blatantly goes against them.

Are you trying to actually form an argument by asking people how long they've been playing? Something along the lines of, "You might not remember, but back when NPPL 10 and 15 man games had a time limit of 15-20 minutes, players were able to crawl for 25 minutes and then travel back in time by 5-10 minutes to change the outcome of a game"?

I get that you think it's a critical skill.

Can you explain why it's a critical skill? I mean, in the context of an actual paintball game?

tasker89

06-19-2009, 12:51 AM

20-21 years since i first played, my memory is a little hazy at this point. Do I smell an appeal to authority fallacy?

The only thing that smells in this thread is your thinly veiled condescension. You can reduce the dialogue in this thread into a sophomoric discussion of fallacious logic if you wish...but frankly I've had enough of that sort of thing to last me for quite some time.

So, in the interest of moving this forward, I'll start by pointing out that you only partially answered my questions drg. I didn't disclose information about myself to establish my authority, I did it as a means to put my experience and understanding of paintball in context. I was hoping that you would do the same. I guess I am just thick, but I don't understand how someone who has been playing since 1988 or 89 appears to have no recollection of how heavily crawling was relied upon in 15 and 10 man woodsball. I first learned how to crawl in open play. Later, I learned how to crawl with backup.

Regardless, the simple truth is that taking 25 minutes to crawl 12 feet is never going to be the best course of action in the game of paintball.

On this you are flat wrong. On some fields and in some games, the above course of action may have been absolutely necessary. Sometimes the crawl was accomplished by using LOS, sometimes you had to move out from cover into weeds. You might need to spend that 25 minutes getting into position for the last 5 minute rush. Maybe you shot from the weeds, maybe you stood up and took out a player that was in a position to shut down a rush, maybe you popped up and bunkered someone right in front of you. Regardless, it happened...all the time. The best pro teams in the late 80's and early 90's had guys that could crawl right up on you in the right circumstances...and they did.

Neither is a lamentable "lost skill" in the modern era of paintball, and it's questionable that the former is really a skill at all.

Typically, we don't lament the loss of something that we either don't care about or haven't invested ourselves in.

Moving on...

I didn't start this thread to create a speedball vs. woodsball argument...I only created it to state that I had FUN playing some old school woodsball. I didn't say speedballers aren't skilled, I didn't say speedballers couldn't play woodsball (and vice versa). However...there are "skills" developed in each form of paintball that do not transfer over...and since speedball is, by and large, the competitive format du jour, some of the skills valuable in competitive woodsball aren't seeing much use.

tasker89

06-19-2009, 01:20 AM

"prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." I haven't actually seen a rebuttal yet. Calling it "prima facie [sic]" isn't actually a rebuttal.

Thanks for kindly pointing out my spelling mistake. I wasn't talking about prima facie evidence of a fact. I used the phrase in the Latin sense. (on its face or at first glance...meaning...obvious).

Are you trying to actually form an argument by asking people how long they've been playing? Something along the lines of, "You might not remember, but back when NPPL 10 and 15 man games had a time limit of 15-20 minutes, players were able to crawl for 25 minutes and then travel back in time by 5-10 minutes to change the outcome of a game"?

Nope. I am trying to understand what your experience is and how long you have been around the game so I can present any argument I do make in the proper context. 15 man games were never 20 minutes. I never played 15 man...but I played on a team that started in 15 man. Those games were played on very large fields and typically had an hour time limit or more. (did some digging, Lively Series rules were 15 players, 45 minutes on fields of perhaps 4-6 acres.) IIRC, when the NPPL was formed in 1993, 10 man games were 30 minutes.

So the question again is...did you ever play that kind of ball? If you did...then you should know exactly what I am talking about.

drg

06-19-2009, 02:50 AM

So, in the interest of moving this forward, I'll start by pointing out that you only partially answered my questions drg. I didn't disclose information about myself to establish my authority, I did it as a means to put my experience and understanding of paintball in context. I was hoping that you would do the same. I guess I am just thick, but I don't understand how someone who has been playing since 1988 or 89 appears to have no recollection of how heavily crawling was relied upon in 15 and 10 man woodsball. I first learned how to crawl in open play. Later, I learned how to crawl with backup.

I have never insinuated that is was not used or was ineffective, my point is that it is not exclusive to woodsball, and indeed sees plenty of use in other formats.

On this you are flat wrong. On some fields and in some games, the above course of action may have been absolutely necessary. Sometimes the crawl was accomplished by using LOS, sometimes you had to move out from cover into weeds. You might need to spend that 25 minutes getting into position for the last 5 minute rush. Maybe you shot from the weeds, maybe you stood up and took out a player that was in a position to shut down a rush, maybe you popped up and bunkered someone right in front of you. Regardless, it happened...all the time. The best pro teams in the late 80's and early 90's had guys that could crawl right up on you in the right circumstances...and they did.

By this, what is clear is you have misrepresented the point you are trying to make. Your wording indicated crawling -- and nothing but crawling -- for 25 minutes, to cover 12 feet. What you are referring to is operating from a prone position, not simply crawling ... this obviously has its uses but it is again not limited to the woods. I don't see how anyone who has played any amount of speedball can say that crawling and operating from tight or prone positions are unused skills. Just about every speedball field has a snake structure to ensure this.

I didn't start this thread to create a speedball vs. woodsball argument...I only created it to state that I had FUN playing some old school woodsball. I didn't say speedballers aren't skilled, I didn't say speedballers couldn't play woodsball (and vice versa). However...there are "skills" developed in each form of paintball that do not transfer over...and since speedball is, by and large, the competitive format du jour, some of the skills valuable in competitive woodsball aren't seeing much use.

I don't think there are any skills that do not transfer over between the formats of paintball (if one is a smart player), and I think that speedball usually develops skills more and more quickly than woodsball.

The most significant difference I see between speedball and woodsball is that in woodsball you have the option to stay away from the action and take it easy. But that's not a skill.

tasker89

06-19-2009, 12:22 PM

1st mention:

I had fun long-balling and crawling...and never once felt out classed.

2nd mention:

But skills like crawling (especially playing the two man game...crawler in front of a loud and obnoxious cover-man),

3rd mention:

learn how to spend 25 minutes crawling 12 feet through a weed patch to put themselves into position to knock out a critical opponent?

The 2nd mention should serve as a context clue that I was referring to the two man form of crawling at bare minimum.

What you are referring to is operating from a prone position, not simply crawling ... this obviously has its uses but it is again not limited to the woods. I don't see how anyone who has played any amount of speedball can say that crawling and operating from tight or prone positions are unused skills. Just about every speedball field has a snake structure to ensure this.

I agree, but working the snake is not the same thing as crawling weeds. One is about timing, the other is about patience. One is done with eyes open on a field with precisely known quantities, the other is done nearly blind. Finally, I'm not referring to "operating from the prone", I am talking about "crawling." With 20 years in paintball...the word (and all of the paintball associated images the term evokes) should be in your vernacular. This is why I asked you to share some of your background in the game...you are either being deliberately obtuse or you don't get the shorthand. I am trying to suss that out.

chafnerjr

06-19-2009, 03:01 PM

That;s totally right... it's all about the concealment... I can hide in a wide open field if I do my job right.

athomas

06-19-2009, 05:39 PM

There are some neat tactics that you can do in woodsball games that you can't do in speedball. Crawling is one, although the 25min crawl on our team would mean the game was typically long over before you got there. The one that I liked in woods ball was the pull back move. Get a group forward quickly at the start of the game and then pull them back as if they are being overwhelmed. Leave one guy forward and hidden. As the other team moves by, pushing down that side of the field, you engage with a squad from the other side of the field. Then, with emphasis now on fighting in a new direction, your forgotten player has lots of easy shots of the other team either side on or from behind. It works quite well on larger teams, not so well in 5 man because it is too easy to keep track of where everyone is.

drg

06-20-2009, 12:16 AM

1st mention:

2nd mention:

3rd mention:

The 2nd mention should serve as a context clue that I was referring to the two man form of crawling at bare minimum.

All I see by those mentions are a pretty UNskillful style of play, hiding out and sniping at enemies rather than playing actively. Perhaps that's not your intent, but that's what you said. Even the mention of the cover-man leads down this path -- how loud the coverman is is irrelevant to experienced players.

I agree, but working the snake is not the same thing as crawling weeds. One is about timing, the other is about patience. One is done with eyes open on a field with precisely known quantities, the other is done nearly blind.

Gross oversimplification and false dichotomies. Which is which? Depending on the situation either could describe either. I don't know what the blind reference is, in no instance in paintball do you EVER want to be playing blind.

Finally, I'm not referring to "operating from the prone", I am talking about "crawling." With 20 years in paintball...the word (and all of the paintball associated images the term evokes) should be in your vernacular. This is why I asked you to share some of your background in the game...you are either being deliberately obtuse or you don't get the shorthand. I am trying to suss that out.

Again if you are crawling 12 feet and nothing more for 25 minutes, you're not doing something right, and the only reason this could possibly be something exclusive to woodsball is the forgiving nature of woodsball when it comes to poor technique, tactics and skills. This not a lost skill, this is a lack of skill.

There's nothing wrong with saying you enjoy woodsball because it allows you to play looser and take it easy. Heck I know that's why I enjoy woodsball. But saying it has some great skill component unknown to the speedball world/modern players is just BS.

There are some neat tactics that you can do in woodsball games that you can't do in speedball. Crawling is one, although the 25min crawl on our team would mean the game was typically long over before you got there. The one that I liked in woods ball was the pull back move. Get a group forward quickly at the start of the game and then pull them back as if they are being overwhelmed. Leave one guy forward and hidden. As the other team moves by, pushing down that side of the field, you engage with a squad from the other side of the field. Then, with emphasis now on fighting in a new direction, your forgotten player has lots of easy shots of the other team either side on or from behind. It works quite well on larger teams, not so well in 5 man because it is too easy to keep track of where everyone is.

While this tactic can likely be used more often in woodsball, there's no reason it could not be used in speedball in the right situation ... teams lose track of kill counts all the time. The overarching skills of field awareness and sound tactics are not exclusive to woodsball. Any specific tactic cannot be considered a format-related thing, as every field and every situation will present different tactical options.

maniacmechanic

06-20-2009, 10:11 AM

athomas

06-20-2009, 10:27 AM

While this tactic can likely be used more often in woodsball, there's no reason it could not be used in speedball in the right situation ... teams lose track of kill counts all the time. The overarching skills of field awareness and sound tactics are not exclusive to woodsball. Any specific tactic cannot be considered a format-related thing, as every field and every situation will present different tactical options.True. But most speedball fields are too small for it to be truely effective. It does happen though, but most often it is oversight on the other teams part rather than execution on your teams part. Especially since most speedball is now 5 man or at most 7 man, it is hard to send a "group" of players forward on a field that you can see almost every position from anywhere else on the field. Because of the small size of the field, if you do manage to get forward, you can't pull back. Generally if you can establish a forward presence, you stay there and push it. In woods ball there were larger fields, and more occluded areas. It was harder for the opposing team to know the whereabouts of all your players at the same time. However, a good woodsball team with good communication skills was hard to beat using any tactic like this. They just knew through communication where every player was. Its this communication skill that is the most important tool on the field regardless of whether you are playing woods ball or speed ball.

athomas

06-20-2009, 10:31 AM

This went from a statement about having fun , still after playing for many years ,, to a debate , which i wasted my time reading
IMHO there are skills in ALL forms of balling , some crossover , some don't , there are also different Style's of playing , some crossover , some don'tIts the same game different venue. If you took a typical woods field and made it small like a speedball field, it would play very similar. On the other hand, if you made a speedball field the size of a typical woods field, it would slow down and become more like typical woods play.

vf-xx

06-20-2009, 10:37 AM

This went from a statement about having fun , still after playing for many years ,, to a debate , which i wasted my time reading
IMHO there are skills in ALL forms of balling , some crossover , some don't , there are also different Style's of playing , some crossover , some don't

Isn't that how most of these conversations end? I think, realisitically it's based on preference which implies an opinion. We each have our own and they're usually different.

drg

06-20-2009, 02:28 PM

Its the same game different venue. If you took a typical woods field and made it small like a speedball field, it would play very similar. On the other hand, if you made a speedball field the size of a typical woods field, it would slow down and become more like typical woods play.

:cheers: Almost this EXACT thing was going to be my next post ... there's a lot more in common about the styles than different and skills from one translate over to the other; one just has to use their brain a bit.

GoatBoy

06-20-2009, 10:24 PM

Nope. I am trying to understand what your experience is and how long you have been around the game so I can present any argument I do make in the proper context. 15 man games were never 20 minutes. I never played 15 man...but I played on a team that started in 15 man. Those games were played on very large fields and typically had an hour time limit or more. (did some digging, Lively Series rules were 15 players, 45 minutes on fields of perhaps 4-6 acres.) IIRC, when the NPPL was formed in 1993, 10 man games were 30 minutes.

So the question again is...did you ever play that kind of ball? If you did...then you should know exactly what I am talking about.

Well, there you go. You seem to be perfectly capable of establishing at least a physically possible context without knowing how long I or anyone else has been playing. Just... state facts. At least the math works out. Logic has to stand on its own as much as possible -- NPPL, tournament, or not. I expect that if there are answers to points 2, 3, and 4, they should be just as easy to explain.

The rules bit is probably the most interesting part of this. Where did you dig up a copy of the rules from 1993? I couldn't find them. I could only get as far back as about 98-99 or so, where by that time the games were something like 15-20 minutes.

In any event, you're reminiscing about a game style which doesn't exist today, whether extinct by explicit rules changes, or simply by evolved tactics/players. Other game elements have to be in place to make the crawling tactic work, not the least of which is probably the fact that the other side is employing the same mistaken tactic. I.e. what you remember working in the 90's might have worked because the other side decided to cripple itself in the same manner. After all, if it was popular with you, it might have been popular with other people as well. And I do remember it being a popular tactic.

txaggie08

06-20-2009, 11:09 PM

I worked three jobs to pay my way. Only the very best pro-teams in the early 90's had the kind of money to cover all expenses for their guys. We had plenty of sponsors...but unless you were playing on Sunday in the money rounds...you were still coming out behind.

I'm 23 bro, I wasn't old enough to have a job. I was at that age where momma bought it for you or you didn't have the cash.

tasker89

06-21-2009, 04:00 PM

I'm 23 bro, I wasn't old enough to have a job.

Yep. I can read...I caught that when you wrote it earlier. I started playing at 15...and I was working to pay for it. I was just pointing out that I wasn't "privileged" either.

Gross oversimplification and false dichotomies.

Well, there you go. You seem to be perfectly capable of establishing at least a physically possible context without knowing how long I or anyone else has been playing. Just... state facts. At least the math works out. Logic has to stand on its own as much as possible -- NPPL, tournament, or not. I expect that if there are answers to points 2, 3, and 4, they should be just as easy to explain.

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

There's nothing wrong with saying you enjoy woodsball because it allows you to play looser and take it easy. Heck I know that's why I enjoy woodsball. But saying it has some great skill component unknown to the speedball world/modern players is just BS.

I didn't write that crawling was a "great" skill component and I didn't write that it was "unknown" to modern players. I wrote that crawling (which in the context of woodsball evokes a whole range of images) effectively seems to be something that has dropped out of the average player's skillset. I was specifically referring to a form of crawling (what I called a two-man game) that was very prevalent in the early tourney/competition scene. Again...since this thread was about woodsball to begin with...taking it out into the speedball context was your doing, not mine. I wasn't addressing crawling in speedball. I watch speedball, I play speedball and I crawl in speedball. The idea is the same in both formats...but the execution is often very different.

Again...I am going to ask...since you still don't seem to get the shorthand: As a player who has been involved in paintball since 1989-90 (by your own reckoning) what does the word "crawling" mean to you? If it means running out of the flag station in a ghillie suit and dropping on your belly, we aren't talking about the same thing. Your writing (and your apparent understanding of my comments) seem to indicate that we are talking about two entirely different forms of "crawling." In the woodsball world that I grew up in, crawling was an aggressive (albeit slow) act. Most natural fields, including those used in the early NPPL days would have areas that lent themselves to crawling. This could be a function of topography (elevation differences, line of sight obstructions, divots, ditches, etc.) or it could be a function of the natural concealment offered by the field's greenery. Typically, the two man game included the crawler and the cover player. the cover player's job was to effectively engage players on the opposing side who might have a shot on the crawler. Some crawls were fast, some were very slow.

Weed crawling was very, very slow...and in order for it to be effective the other team couldn't see the crawler getting into the weeds, or see the crawling player moving the weedtops, or hear the crawling player rustling through the weeds. If they did, they would turn a couple of guns on the weeds and shoot into them. Smart opposing teams and/or players would rake the weeds with fire regardless. They would do this till somebody came out, or until they could bully a judge into paintchecking the crawler, thus revealing the crawler's position. Consequently, a good weed crawler (often blind because his face was full of weeds and 3 inches from the dirt) would "listen" to the opposition for clues on when to move and where to move. You move when people are gunfighting, you move when your cover-guy gives you a loud (though coded) verbal indication that it is OK. You move when your "backman" is engaging the guys who can take you out. Eventually you get to a point where you can do the damage you set out to do. Maybe you dash to a bunker that controls a section of the field. Maybe you cross shoot the middle from the edge of the weeds (knowing full well you are going to get taken out yourself) to knock an opposing player out of a position that will block the last minute rush your team is putting together. Who knows? It was situation specific and fluid.

You want to say that this tandem play is the default setting for most players because it is born of a "stealth"...again I will say you are flat wrong. This was a learned skill, that required a connection between the teammates, and strong field awareness. First, you had to identify a place that was suitable for such a "tactic", second, you had to figure out how you were going to get the job done and third, you had to play it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point is that the effective use of this "tactic" requires skill possessed by the crawler, the backman and the gameplanners. EVERY successful Pro team in the Lively days and early NPPL years had players that could do this. As a result woodsballers, who had an eye on working towards competitive play, would learn this skill. Now the Pros and most of the role models at local fields are playing speedball...which, though it involves crawling...does not involve patient weedcrawling. So the skill isn't being developed is it?

Is this enough context for you? Back to my original question: How do you learn "weedcrawling" on a field that has no weeds on it?

The rules bit is probably the most interesting part of this. Where did you dig up a copy of the rules from 1993? I couldn't find them. I could only get as far back as about 98-99 or so, where by that time the games were something like 15-20 minutes.

I don't need a copy of the rules from 1993 to know time limits. I judged NPPL events in 1993 and I played in NPPL events in 1993. What I find "most interesting" is that I even have to explain to you what "crawling" in woodsball (especially two man crawling in the competitive realm) is. The two of you write as if you'd never even heard of it till it appeared in this thread. Your incredulity at the notion that crawling is/was not only useful, but also a skill, calls into question your historical understanding of the game, the numbers of years which you have been playing and the validity of any judgment you may pass on the efficacy of "crawling."

Which logical fallacy does dodging the question fit under?

Beemer

06-21-2009, 05:56 PM

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

:spit_take

drg

06-22-2009, 11:09 PM

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

You are being called out for making what we perceive to be an incorrect, possibly elitist, statement. This is not about philosophy, it's about basic discussion ... presenting a decent case for your point. Thus far you return time and time again to fallacious and nonsensical arguments, and are starting to dabble in ad hominem attacks.

I didn't write that crawling was a "great" skill component and I didn't write that it was "unknown" to modern players. I wrote that crawling (which in the context of woodsball evokes a whole range of images) effectively seems to be something that has dropped out of the average player's skillset. I was specifically referring to a form of crawling (what I called a two-man game) that was very prevalent in the early tourney/competition scene. Again...since this thread was about woodsball to begin with...taking it out into the speedball context was your doing, not mine. I wasn't addressing crawling in speedball. I watch speedball, I play speedball and I crawl in speedball. The idea is the same in both formats...but the execution is often very different.

I have no idea why you think that what you describe as "crawling" is some lost woodsball art. Crawling of any type is a basic motor skill; terrain awareness and situational analysis are universal skills. None of this is specific to woodsball moreso than speedball, a dichotomy YOU set up by your thread's very title.

Unless you are talking about modern players just not having lot of skill on average. If that's the case, you haven't made any point either because that also has nothing to do with woodsball.

Weed crawling was very, very slow...and in order for it to be effective the other team couldn't see the crawler getting into the weeds, or see the crawling player moving the weedtops, or hear the crawling player rustling through the weeds. If they did, they would turn a couple of guns on the weeds and shoot into them. Smart opposing teams and/or players would rake the weeds with fire regardless. They would do this till somebody came out, or until they could bully a judge into paintchecking the crawler, thus revealing the crawler's position. Consequently, a good weed crawler (often blind because his face was full of weeds and 3 inches from the dirt) would "listen" to the opposition for clues on when to move and where to move. You move when people are gunfighting, you move when your cover-guy gives you a loud (though coded) verbal indication that it is OK. You move when your "backman" is engaging the guys who can take you out. Eventually you get to a point where you can do the damage you set out to do. Maybe you dash to a bunker that controls a section of the field. Maybe you cross shoot the middle from the edge of the weeds (knowing full well you are going to get taken out yourself) to knock an opposing player out of a position that will block the last minute rush your team is putting together. Who knows? It was situation specific and fluid.

All of those things happen on a regular basis at my local fields even in the context of 15-20 minute games; I can't imagine I am in a unique situation here. To be honest, all that is pretty basic stuff.

You want to say that this tandem play is the default setting for most players because it is born of a "stealth"...again I will say you are flat wrong. This was a learned skill, that required a connection between the teammates, and strong field awareness. First, you had to identify a place that was suitable for such a "tactic", second, you had to figure out how you were going to get the job done and third, you had to play it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point is that the effective use of this "tactic" requires skill possessed by the crawler, the backman and the gameplanners. EVERY successful Pro team in the Lively days and early NPPL years had players that could do this. As a result woodsballers, who had an eye on working towards competitive play, would learn this skill. Now the Pros and most of the role models at local fields are playing speedball...which, though it involves crawling...does not involve patient weedcrawling. So the skill isn't being developed is it?

Is this enough context for you? Back to my original question: How do you learn "weedcrawling" on a field that has no weeds on it?

Woodsball and concept fields very often contain weeds or low brush which allows such things to be done. Sure airball and such are popular but there are PLENTY of fields that are partly or fully made up of natural cover. I can't understand why you would try to assert otherwise.

tasker89

06-30-2009, 07:11 PM

You are being called out for making what we perceive to be an incorrect, possibly elitist, statement. This is not about philosophy, it's about basic discussion ... presenting a decent case for your point. Thus far you return time and time again to fallacious and nonsensical arguments, and are starting to dabble in ad hominem attacks.

Pot meet kettle.

one just has to use their brain a bit.
Which suggests that I, by disagreeing with you, am not using mine.

All I see by those mentions are a pretty UNskillful style of play, hiding out and sniping at enemies rather than playing actively.
Which suggests that I, by engaging in such a technique, am not a "skilled" player.

These are a few quick examples. I'd ask that you not pretend to be offended by my "ad hominem attack" unless you are, in fact, an adjunct junior college philosophy professor, in which case, I apologize.

I started this thread to mention that I had a good time playing some old fashioned woodsball. I mentioned that there is an artistry to the truly effective use of what were once skills commonly developed. I mentioned that the modern game doesn't seem to be passing those skills down. You entered the thread to puke all over that sentiment...and that is what it was...sentiment. I've made my point and I have supported it with a contextual explanation...an explanation that would be completely unneeded if the two of us were coming from the same place. You should have automatically known what I was talking about...if you do, in fact, have 20-21 years of playing under your belt.

What you identify as "basic discussion" is far and away from what you actually engage in. "Basic discussion" is going to include biases, positions supported by informal logic, points made based upon context, experience, and/or expertise, etc. When I am engaged in "basic discussion" I don't reduce my side of the conversation to the pointing out of logical fallacies made by the other party. This isn't formal debate, it isn't a forensics competition, it isn't a courtroom and it isn't a logic competition...it is an internet forum.

...and you are still dodging my question. Since you are such an expert on logical fallacies and nonsensical arguments...you should know that it isn't a logical fallacy to allow for expertise and/or authority in an argument. The appeal only becomes a fallacy if it fails to meet certain criteria. Is a doctor's opinion a fallacious argument from authority? What about an expert witness in a courtroom? If you walked up to Bob Long and said..."Hey Bob, back when you were playing in 10 and 15 man woodsball tournaments, did you work on crawling as if it were a technique that could be developed, or did you just treat it as a simple motor skill?", I have a good idea what his answer would be. The same would go for any number of old school "experts." The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators...and the list would go on.

So quit dodging the question boyo...establish that you even have the credentials to make anything other than a theoretical argument, or go throw "fallacy darts" in somebody else's thread.

So what's it gonna be?

davmitchell77

06-30-2009, 08:12 PM

what about the player sent to eliminate an opposing general? he will likely have to crawl a fair distance or amount of time, but he isn't unskilled ( you'd better hope he isn't unskilled) or using a pointless tactic.

I'm not hating on newbies, far from it in fact, but it seems like the new players don't have anyone left, at the local level, to learn from. That's important and it's something most fields don't have. Sure, every kid gets a few DVDs and watches the pros play, but what does it really look like, from down in the dirt, to see a guy make a good brush crawl, a good tree walk, a patient ambush?

i agree with that. for example, my bud has a woodsball "team" (and i use that loosely) that gets together once a month to play a few games and work on skills or run drills. my playing days are numbered, due to a neurological disease, however, i CAN and DO show up, with marker and gear, and help these guys (and gal) practice. i ref for them, help them snapshoot, teach lanes of fire, verbal code, just whatever i can to help them improve. THAT is what might be a lost skill in woodsball now- the "mentoring" for lack of a better word.

i play when i can, but i'm (usually respectfully) referred to as the old guy, and running and aggressive play is forever gone for me. but i try to be as close to the line or front as i can, and even mid game, the occasional coaching helps out.

just my 2 cents, dav

drg

07-01-2009, 12:14 AM

I started this thread to mention that I had a good time playing some old fashioned woodsball. I mentioned that there is an artistry to the truly effective use of what were once skills commonly developed. I mentioned that the modern game doesn't seem to be passing those skills down. You entered the thread to puke all over that sentiment...and that is what it was...sentiment. I've made my point and I have supported it with a contextual explanation...an explanation that would be completely unneeded if the two of us were coming from the same place. You should have automatically known what I was talking about...if you do, in fact, have 20-21 years of playing under your belt.

You have failed to talk about anything special or even skillful, let alone proven that such skills are desirable ... all of which would need to precede the assertion that the skills are lamentably not part of the modern skillset.

Your assertion is rendered moot -- and frankly, laughable -- by said failures. You aren't talking about special skills. You aren't special. You aren't the holder of some wonderful lost knowledge. There are tons of players who played in the 90s and earlier that are still playing today and their knowledge is still employed on the field every weekend.

you should know that it isn't a logical fallacy to allow for expertise and/or authority in an argument. The appeal only becomes a fallacy if it fails to meet certain criteria.

Not formally true. A person's status as an expert or dunce has no inherent effect on the truthfulness or validity of his statements; only the content of the statements determines that.

Regardless, even by informal argument, you have failed to establish yourself as an expert on the topic, any more than I or anyone else has ... if we see these so-called skills being employed on fields today, you have no expert status or credibility with us.

Shane-O-Mac

07-01-2009, 03:18 AM

Dang, DRG.

You are seem to be just trying to stir the pot. What he said is true is many regards. Put a typical speedballer (3-4 years experience) on a nice wooded field with elevation changes, valleys, brush thick and light, and hes lost. I see it every January when the field has a big game. The typical speedballers run to the open areas of the field and wait for fire fights. A few venture in the woods, but have no clue on how to play the hills and valleys to get where the need/want to go. They also have no clue on how to communicate in the woods, and usually give away their positions quickly, usually with them getting shot out by the patient player. While it isnt really a lost art, it isnt often taught or learned, unless they are mil-sim type players.

Drg, dude do not just start insulting someone for their views, calling what someone else does on a paintball field "Unskilled" is wrong and makes YOU the elitist. Just because YOUR opinion of it is that its "Unskilled" does not make it so. Your no more of an "expert" than anyone else around here.

In the end, its all about having fun and playing paintball the way that YOU like to play it. Play with honor and just have fun......that should be pretty easy right?

Everyone relax and chill, this argument should not be happening, or have the insults inserted into it. AO is NOT supposed to be about insulting each other...................

maniacmechanic

07-01-2009, 05:49 AM

Well said Shane

drg

07-01-2009, 07:12 AM

While it isnt really a lost art, it isnt often taught or learned, unless they are mil-sim type players.

So in other words, it IS part of the modern player's skillset? Which is it, it's either lost or it isn't. Just because one person may face a lower caliber of player at their local field or event, it doesn't mean that others may not face a higher class of player at theirs.

Sure you might get speedballers playing that way if they rarely play the woods, but there are plenty of players who play both styles who can adapt what they learn in one in another. Tree-walking is directly analogous to walking bunkers. Overwatch is a standard team skill. Crawling is simply a method of movement that can apply to any number of situations, the analysis of which is a skill common to ALL types of paintball. Listening to a field for positions and situations is no less practiced in speedball than woodsball.

Then there's the fact that there still remain a huge number of woods and scenario ballers who learn these things just like they always have. The skills are very much present in modern paintball, either way.

It's just a gigantic farce to say that players today don't know how to play in the woods. That's ludicrous. Woodsball is alive and well. Old school players are still out there playing and sharing their knowledge. All this thread was from the start was a gross overgeneralization by a player, who seems to have been waiting for the chance to regale us with his apparently storied playing history.

Drg, dude do not just start insulting someone for their views, calling what someone else does on a paintball field "Unskilled" is wrong and makes YOU the elitist. Just because YOUR opinion of it is that its "Unskilled" does not make it so. Your no more of an "expert" than anyone else around here.

1. I have not insulted anyone, but can't say the same for other participants in the thread.

2. I didn't say what he does on the field is unskilled, I said what he described was unskilled. It is his point to make and I even allowed room for clarification on his part (which he chose not to do in favor of more ad hominem).

Notice that the fact that some of what he described could be construed as unskilled is not even the point. Whether or not you consider any of the skills described legitimate, they are all present in the modern game. Nothing has been lost.

Beemer

07-01-2009, 07:47 AM

^^^^^^ I see it differently and of course its my opinion. You can quit trolling now.

tasker89

07-01-2009, 11:53 AM

Beemer...

All relevant points have been made...and as far as I am concerned you can lock this thread up. It is quite clear that both drg and myself have serious cases of "get the last wordinitis".

I yield. I've been bested. My mother will be very disappointed to learn that I am not "special." :rolleyes:

Beemer

07-01-2009, 12:20 PM

Well I think you are special. :spit_take :cheers:

GoatBoy

07-01-2009, 01:44 PM

Well, I'd better get one in then before "appeal to mod" winds up closing this thread down.

drg is pretty much right. Much of this is pretty much an example of how bad the bad old days of paintball really were, when we coveted things like spiral ported barrels, Venturi bolts, and "closed bolt accuracy". For example:

...and you are still dodging my question. Since you are such an expert on logical fallacies and nonsensical arguments...you should know that it isn't a logical fallacy to allow for expertise and/or authority in an argument. The appeal only becomes a fallacy if it fails to meet certain criteria. Is a doctor's opinion a fallacious argument from authority? What about an expert witness in a courtroom? If you walked up to Bob Long and said..."Hey Bob, back when you were playing in 10 and 15 man woodsball tournaments, did you work on crawling as if it were a technique that could be developed, or did you just treat it as a simple motor skill?", I have a good idea what his answer would be. The same would go for any number of old school "experts." The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators...and the list would go on.

If Bob Long, The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators have something to say on the subject, then let them say it. You putting words in their mouths is, at the very least, irrelevant. Your expertise is hardly established, and much less established via dropping names of people and then stuffing your words in their mouths. Until then, you'll just have to suffer the ignominy of having to make sense like the rest of us little people.

The topic appears to be a simple numeric problem. As you have indicated, here are the parameters for your hypothetical game:

10 vs. 10
45 minutes
At least one man on one team goes "crawling" for 25 minutes, and by definition, is not engaged in normal paintball activities.
"Tournament level players"

The premise is that one man is removed from the team for the potential future payoff of some "critical" elimination at the "final" push.

The question I have tried to raise is: What exactly happens between the start of the game and the "final" push?

Let's assume your opposing team stays together and all actively plays.

First Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10
Second Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)
Third Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)
Fourth Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)

etc. etc.

What is the likely outcome of any engagement where 9 players are put against 10 players? Paintball is like any other sport -- you want to create and exploit mismatches and weaknesses, and at least one of your players is going to be facing a 2-on-1 if the rest are matched man-for-man, because you went hiding in the weeds. Given that these are "tournament level players", the outcome should be pretty obvious for that 2-on-1. You're more likely to leave that engagement with a headcount of 8 vs. 10 than retain anything.

Repeat that exercise for all engagements prior to the 25 minute mark.

It seems to me that over each successive engagement, you stand a greater chance of losing more players, to the point where the one reserve guy in the bushes won't make a difference. Especially in a long format game. With "tournament level players".

tasker89

07-01-2009, 06:22 PM

Well...I wouldn't want to be accused of flouncing.

I'm not holding myself out as an expert. I was pointing out that the appeal to authority is not automatically a fallacy of logic. For the purposes of this discussion I can't meet the criteria...because a) I don't have the credibility of an expert and b) my biases are in plain view. Further, I didn't put words in the mouths of anyone...I'm just confident I know what they would say. I listed the names and teams that I did, because back in the day, those teams were known for the heavy use of crawling. Here are some things that others have to say about "crawling."

Marty Bush, one of the last pro players to out away his pump-gun was one of the most fun players to watch. Marty talked more smack (he invented it) on the field than any other player. “I remember watching the Ironmen and Bad Company in the finals in Texas one year. It was a really tough game. Marty was coming down the tapeline and one of ‘Company’s players who was shooting at Bush was yelling, ‘check yourself’ over and over and over. Meanwhile, Marty crawled the tape until he got almost close enough to touch the still yelling Bad Company player. Marty quickly popped up and ‘grilled’ him and loudly said, ‘Check your face player!’ That was Marty’s M.O.” – John Amodea

But I suppose Amodea doesn't know what he is talking about.

There used to be an ESPN video floating around from the '94 World Cup which captured a little bit of the Ironmen crawling on the All Americans. You even get to see Marty Bush playing behind Keith Clayton and Doogie as they crawl on the near tapes. Clayton (using a patch of palms) eventually slides up and is able to bump to a midfield bunker. By doing so, he delays the AAs push just long enough to keep his team from getting maxed. Of course, by 1994 the leagues were already pushing towards concept fields so most of what they do is LOS crawling.

This PGI writer makes a couple of good points (points which validate both my POV and drg's POV).

http://www.p8ntballer.com/classroomcontents/crawl.shtml

* 10 vs. 10 * 45 minutes * At least one man on one team goes "crawling" for 25 minutes, and by definition, is not engaged in normal paintball activities. * "Tournament level players"

30 minute games. 45 minutes puts you back in the 15 man era. NPPL games quickly dropped to 20 minutes. The 25 minute figure was an arbitrary and extreme example...but certainly within reason for the era...provided the field was conducive.

The premise is that one man is removed from the team for the potential future payoff of some "critical" elimination at the "final" push. The question I have tried to raise is: What exactly happens between the start of the game and the "final" push?
You stuck with the game plan you devised prior to taking the field. If the crawl wasn't an ad-lib, then you've planned for being down one gun at the start. Some fields didn't have 10 good spots to work from...so you might see players floating back and forth from tapeline to tapeline, probing for a place to push. Recall that the crawler isn't a "reserve" player. They aren't "taking it easy." It is an aggressive action to create and/or exploit a weakness.

By asking the above questions, you have already answered mine.

Beemer

07-01-2009, 06:27 PM

Well, I'd better get one in then before "appeal to mod" winds up closing this thread down.

If Bob Long, The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators have something to say on the subject, then let them say it. You putting words in their mouths is, at the very least, irrelevant. Your expertise is hardly established, and much less established via dropping names of people and then stuffing your words in their mouths. Until then, you'll just have to suffer the ignominy of having to make sense like the rest of us little people.

Oh look the other Troll showed up again. Good thing you got that one in, even though you got the hint.

Your expertise is far from established also.

Did you take the sped reding course to improve your compression. He never put words in anybody's mouth. Simply said he had a good idea of what the answer would be.

So you admit you are one of the little ones.

Much of this is pretty much an example of how bad the bad old days of paintball really were, when we coveted things like spiral ported barrels, Venturi bolts, and "closed bolt accuracy". For example

Were you really there to know if it was bad? Speak for yourself not all of us coveted those things just because you did.

Shane-O-Mac

07-02-2009, 12:38 AM

All I see by those mentions are a pretty UNskillful style of play, hiding out and sniping at enemies rather than playing actively. Perhaps that's not your intent, but that's what you said. Even the mention of the cover-man leads down this path -- how loud the coverman is is irrelevant to experienced players.

Dude...seriously?

You typed that, re-read it and see how your insulting many many people. If another person style of paintball is to crawl and snipe, how is that "unskilled" Why do you feel your justified in criticizing anyone elses style of play? Your no better than anyone else, while you may play better than another person, that does NOT give you the right to say that the way they play is "unskilled". If they do crawl up and shoot a key person, or maybe just 2 peons, he has a skill at doing so. You seem to be as narrow minded as you accuse tasker of being, pot calling the kettle black ring a bell?

Quit taking everything as verbatim and see the big picture of what he was trying to say, instead of nit picking for your own entertainment.

Pale Rider

07-02-2009, 12:24 PM

definately agreed. woodball is the original and in my opinion, the best way to play paintball

I agree, A game with 10-20 good friends, A flag in the woods, no refs, is just plain fun.
nobody wipes, nobody complains, just a good old time with your friends.

GoatBoy

07-04-2009, 11:42 PM

Oh look the other Troll showed up again. Good thing you got that one in, even though you got the hint.

Your expertise is far from established also.

Did you take the sped reding course to improve your compression. He never put words in anybody's mouth. Simply said he had a good idea of what the answer would be.

So you admit you are one of the little ones.

Yes, I admit to not trying to lean on some sort of rank or status in order to prove a point. I try to make what I say make sense on its own. I rarely make reference to how many years I've been playing, etc. It's irrelevant in the face of a properly constructed argument. I know it's difficult for you to understand. That's probably why you have yet to actually make an actual contribution to this thread. If we went and deleted all your posts from here, it would still read basically the same. Except for my response to you now, which I probably shouldn't have even done.

I'm not holding myself out as an expert. I was pointing out that the appeal to authority is not automatically a fallacy of logic. For the purposes of this discussion I can't meet the criteria...because a) I don't have the credibility of an expert and b) my biases are in plain view. Further, I didn't put words in the mouths of anyone...I'm just confident I know what they would say.

Again, if they have something to say, let them say it. (Or link it.) Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning them, be it overtly stuffing words in their mouths or being "confident" you "know what they would say." Or am I sounding too much like an adjunct professor again?

http://www.p8ntballer.com/classroomcontents/crawl.shtml

This is a reasonable article, and I have no problem with it. In fact, I want to highlight two lines:

"The crawl is something that works against your basic instincts when playing. The crawl is a contradiction." (1)

"7) Be patient. Remember you have taken yourself out of the game while you have been crawling around; it had better be worth it!" (2)

30 minute games. 45 minutes puts you back in the 15 man era. NPPL games quickly dropped to 20 minutes. The 25 minute figure was an arbitrary and extreme example...but certainly within reason for the era...provided the field was conducive.

Fine, 30 minute time limit. I'm trying to go by your numbers.

You stuck with the game plan you devised prior to taking the field. If the crawl wasn't an ad-lib, then you've planned for being down one gun at the start. Some fields didn't have 10 good spots to work from...so you might see players floating back and forth from tapeline to tapeline, probing for a place to push. Recall that the crawler isn't a "reserve" player. They aren't "taking it easy." It is an aggressive action to create and/or exploit a weakness.

By asking the above questions, you have already answered mine.

A crawler is someone who has taken his gun out of the game, on purpose, thus leaving your team down one gun from the start. You can label this as an "aggressive" action, but where does that leave your team?

When any sports team is down a player, which is what has happened here by definition, do they play more defensive or more offensive until that player is brought back to the action?

The basic question still remains, what yields better results overall for the team: leaving that gun in play, or taking it out?

The same question can be applied to this "probing for weaknesses" bit. Is it more beneficial to probe for weaknesses via a slow, inert crawl, or via an upright, actively engaged player?

This basic question is COMPLETELY unanswered by the article you linked.

Here's what you can pull from the article:

Crawling can be a thrill. Fine, I can see how it can be.
Crawling can possibly lead to something critical to the benefit of your team. Sure, I can admit to that.

What you CAN'T pull from the article is:

Losing a player for the majority of a game is in exchange for a good crawler, in general, is worth it. In fact, it's a "critical" skill.

In fact, let me "sped [sic]" read it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.

He begs the question with quote (2). It had better be worth it! He never says that it actually IS worth it, particularly in any kind of general sense. Even if the critical elimination or spot is gained, that doesn't mean the game is won. i.e. "Sure, you got that one guy out, but the rest of your team lost so many players in the meantime that it didn't make a difference. But boy, it sure was a rush."

Is it worth it? The maneuver is a contradiction to the "prima facie" elements of paintball, as indicated by quote (1). I interpret that as meaning it means it flies in the face of all of the other things that tend to yield a better probability of a team win at face value. It's a game of percentages, just like any other sport, and it would seem that the general likelihood of a win resulting from leaving a player/gun in the game is higher than taking him out for an inordinate amount of time.

Is this not an acceptable line of reasoning?

Shane-O-Mac

07-05-2009, 04:41 PM

Goat....

Maybe you can accept that it is his OPINION, and your opinion is different? Why does everyone HAVE to disprove what someone else thinks? No one on this board is the end all be all fountain of paintball facts. If tasker feels that it is a lost skill, maybe it is at his field or local area. While in your area/field it isnt? I can say the same as him for my home field, not that it is completely lost per se, but it is not used in woods play much at all anymore.

Your argument about live gun vs crawler is irrelevant, there is no basis to make it true. What works for one team may or may not work for another. For example, at one time there were many pro teams that were very aggressive and others that were very defensive, yes they changed up at times, but their basic play was either of those and sometimes a mix. So in this instance of 10 man woodsball tourneys, on fields 2-3 times larger, completely different field terrain, bunkers/hiding places, it is a viable tactic. Your thought of having lost a live gun is your opinion, not a fact.

*edit. How long you have been playing is relevant to the discussion, as it provides a broader spectrum of experience to draw your opinion from. You may have started playing long after these tactics were commonplace..........................

tasker89

07-05-2009, 08:01 PM

Maybe you can accept that it is his OPINION, and your opinion is different? Why does everyone HAVE to disprove what someone else thinks? No one on this board is the end all be all fountain of paintball facts.

True enough. Further...an artistic interpretation of past skills in paintball goes along with what was previously a more artful...and less technically precise form of the game. This goes back to my rather clumsy attempt to draw an analogy between analog and digital recordings.

I'm just defending the wistful days of my elysian youth. :D :p

drg

07-06-2009, 01:34 AM

*edit. How long you have been playing is relevant to the discussion, as it provides a broader spectrum of experience to draw your opinion from. You may have started playing long after these tactics were commonplace..........................

Again the length of time you have been playing has no bearing on whether these tactics are valid or were common. You could just as easily say complete BS as say something factual. You could just as easily be right or wrong, so you should provide the best evidence you have for your case. Trying to validate a point by establishing a common experience based on length of play history is fruitless, because in the first place people are disagreeing with your premise.

If they had the same experience as you, they'd agree. If they didn't, whether they played back then or not, they won't agree and you won't convince them by making an unsubstantiated claim. If you make a claim based solely on your personal opinions and experiences, someone can destroy your claim simply by saying they believe or experienced differently.

The conversation could have gone like this, if people observed logical consistency:

A: Woodsball skills X, Y, and Z have died out in the modern games, and it's tragic.

B: These skills have not died out, they are used in the modern game and can be honed and transferfed from speedball.

A: In my area and experience they are not.

B: In my area and experience they are and always have been.

A: Wow it's good to hear it lives on on some places. Too bad it doesn't in my area.

B: Keep up the good fight.

And that's why logic is important.

Shane-O-Mac

07-06-2009, 08:30 AM

Again the length of time you have been playing has no bearing on whether these tactics are valid or were common. You could just as easily say complete BS as say something factual. You could just as easily be right or wrong, so you should provide the best evidence you have for your case. Trying to validate a point by establishing a common experience based on length of play history is fruitless, because in the first place people are disagreeing with your premise.

If they had the same experience as you, they'd agree. If they didn't, whether they played back then or not, they won't agree and you won't convince them by making an unsubstantiated claim. If you make a claim based solely on your personal opinions and experiences, someone can destroy your claim simply by saying they believe or experienced differently.

The conversation could have gone like this, if people observed logical consistency:

A: Woodsball skills X, Y, and Z have died out in the modern games, and it's tragic.

B: These skills have not died out, they are used in the modern game and can be honed and transferfed from speedball.

A: In my area and experience they are not.

B: In my area and experience they are and always have been.

A: Wow it's good to hear it lives on on some places. Too bad it doesn't in my area.

B: Keep up the good fight.

And that's why logic is important.

Holy crap, why have you posted then? blah, blah, blah....................
The only post that isnt logical is yours argueing for logic. Obviously you cannot accept someone else's opinion, as it isnt following your logical theory, or whatever. Give it a rest.