Why do people shoot so much paint?

[dmonahan]

I have played all types, Unlimited (nppl) Limited (Pan-am) and stock (also Pan-am and osc) My team primarily play's Pan-am 5 man and the paint limit is 200 per player and 10 man is 500 per palyer. Once on the field you can distribute the paint any way you want. (we give the front 100, mid 200 and back 300)

There is a big differance between limited and unlimited play. But what it really comes down to is skill. The same teams that win at unlimited are the same ones that win in Pan-Am. Cartel for exampel. Limited will make you pick you shots with a little more discretion but playing one way over the other will not make you a better player.

[Tyger]

See, the other problem in all this is a culture created by a history of "Too much is just enough". Now we have a game that as a part of CULTURE you have the working theory that more paint is better.

And until we see a need, paintball players will keep the theory that more is better.

And what need will that be? Well, TV for starters. What's more dull than watching one team sit behind bunkers twiddling a trigger finger? Two teams. You need MOTION to keep a TV audience. I'm finding this the hard way working on the video. SPPLAT Attack is full of MOVEMENT and DYNAMIC ACTION.

So you need to keep people moving, and how do you do this? Lower the ROF through tech, which nobody wants. Limit the paint, which nobody wants. Create a fied that's so bunker heavy that you CAN get hop-up movements, but nobody wants those either.

So tournaments want the brass ring of being on TV? You need to encourage movement and action to make it entertaining to a TV audience. Hell, the audeience is being silenced so they can't cheer at major events, so perhaps it's all lip service to begin with, and the whole "TV" line is made as an excuse to get people to go along with the flow?

Forgive the rant, I just get frustrated to see this argument over and over. It's been discussed for 10+ years, and it's never reached resolution to anyone's satisfaction. That's a long argument, folks.

-Tyger (stirring up the muddy waters since 1989...)

[MinimagRockin']

I think that it is pretty obvious that with unlimited paint spraying is the way to win but I also think tournament play would be more intense with limited supplies. 400 rounds would be a good number.

[Mag pusher]

And this discussion will go on until people realize that this is all part of the evolution of the game. Things changes and developes by itself. You don't have to like it, but it sure will make your life easier if accept it :-)Playing tourneys these days requiers using a lot of paint. In a sup'air game (7 man) I carry a full hopper + 7 pods and I try my best to use it all. Greetings from Europe guys, have a great christmas and a great PB season 2003

[TheJester]

think of it this way, even if you're a good shot, which are you more lilkely to hit someone w/, if you shoot 1 ball at him, or 10 at him? if you figure you have a 66% chance at hitting a guy, and shoot 1 ball, you only have 2/3 of a chance of hitting him w/ that 1 ball, but if you shoot 10, w/ thos same odds, statisticly you should hit him w/ 6 balls(little of kill, but i was just using that for easy math, and to prove a point) and if some 1 is only shooting at you once in a while, are you gonna try to move? you prolly will, but if you hear an entire hopper be emptied on your bunker you're gonna keep your *ucking head down, makeing you useless in a game because you're not shooting. and besides, if there was a top prize of a sweet gun, or 1000's of dollars on the line, tell me, honestly, you wouldn't shoot more paint?

[shade23]

Originally posted by Tyger
See, the other problem in all this is a culture created by a history of "Too much is just enough". Now we have a game that as a part of CULTURE you have the working theory that more paint is better.

And until we see a need, paintball players will keep the theory that more is better.

And what need will that be? Well, TV for starters. What's more dull than watching one team sit behind bunkers twiddling a trigger finger? Two teams. You need MOTION to keep a TV audience. I'm finding this the hard way working on the video. SPPLAT Attack is full of MOVEMENT and DYNAMIC ACTION.

So you need to keep people moving, and how do you do this? Lower the ROF through tech, which nobody wants. Limit the paint, which nobody wants. Create a fied that's so bunker heavy that you CAN get hop-up movements, but nobody wants those either.

So tournaments want the brass ring of being on TV? You need to encourage movement and action to make it entertaining to a TV audience. Hell, the audeience is being silenced so they can't cheer at major events, so perhaps it's all lip service to begin with, and the whole "TV" line is made as an excuse to get people to go along with the flow?
-Tyger (stirring up the muddy waters since 1989...)

well there has been a recent development in speedball that encourages the type of things TV viewers would like to see (movement, dynamic action etc.) and that is the game X-ball. Its not limited by paint but by other aspects of the format such as bunker size, time limit, and the ideal of getting more than one flag hang to solidify your win. just a thought not trying to get anyones nose bent out or anything!

[Tyger]

Originally posted by shade23


well there has been a recent development in speedball that encourages the type of things TV viewers would like to see (movement, dynamic action etc.) and that is the game X-ball.

Been there, done that, got the jersey.

Played it when the USPL rolled out the format first. (Ask Tom Kaye, he was there too...) The X-ball format has a few MAJOR flaws in it, becasue the players won't take the few adjustments to make it look more dynamic.

I watched X-ball at the IAO, and I saw a lot of movement, yes. But, IMHO, they were putting on a show. Considering that players were 'encouraged' to 'tolerate' bonus balls (The Russian player who was shot 5+ times after he was already out hugged the American player who did it to him after being told to by a ref...), I openly wonder how much else they were told to do.

X-Ball wil bog down into the basic premise of sit and shoot, if allowed to continue on the path it's on. Why? Becasue that's what will happen as long as :

1) we are not taking ourselves seriously as athletes.
2) we do not take paintball seriously as a "sport".
3) players are not limited to work within a constraints to show true skill.

How do I know? It's happened. I've seen it happen MANY MANY times before. ESPN's games, for example, that were aired in 1995. With the rules used, AND the format used, the whole game was 15 minuttes of sit and shoot, and 2 minutes of run for the flag after we whitled down the other team. X-ball will be no diffrent, if no changes are made in plyer attitude or rules. MARK MY WORDS, because I'm NEVER wrong when I talk about this stuff. (It's not ego when your track record is 100%)

What needs to happen is movement. And you won't SEE that until the tech or the players or the paint alowed is changed. Sorry, won't happen. I've heard the grand plans before, I've heard the ideas before, I've heard all these promises over and over. And it's all empty, it's all just promises of a "New and exciting" format that is always the same old thing.

"A cash cow for paintball manufacturers and tournament promoters where the players get soaked for money." Same song and dance, new music.

-Tyger

[Sinnet]

tyger- great points, especially the last one on dynamic movement. You should post here more often, i've read a lot of good post of yours on the p8nt forums.

One of the more possible solutions for creating movement, along the lines of a more bunker-heavy field, would be having fields have more tall bunkers, especially towards the center of the field. It seems a trend towards this has already started, with field centerpieces like JT's Ziggurat-thing, diablo's car-wash, and all the other major monstrocities in the center of some recent speedball fields. Anything like this will foster more movement, because of the safety gained in moving up to such an obstacle, and do it without toning down tech, limiting paint, or overcrowding fields.

thoughts?

[HIKARU]

re:

i think the base tournament style should include access to any equipment, and number of paintballs per game/tourney.

racing also adopts this attitude.

if you have the cash and want to use it, do it.

if you don't want to then by all means don't but your still allowed to participate.

filling lanes is a good move but comes at a huge expense paint-wise.

pan-am style restriction is good too, for those interested in a game with a different pace.

both types are still a "thinking man's" game, if you don't got game you won't be in the game long enough to unload all those pods...

everybody has preferences, if people like to shoot poorly and just wail the trigger so be it, if somebody wants to take their time aim thats fine too. its all preference.

i think its a good idea that they have an "open ended" type tourney system and one with "restrictions." offers players a choice.

[A.T.S]

I am happy to hear about the pan-am rules! I did not know they had paint restrictions. By the way, does anyone know where I can get my hands on some 45-50 round hoppers?

[Orange Crush]

All right, I reread this thread and think I misunderstood the quote. So yes Accuracy by volume is understandable.

Originally posted by Havoc_online
Have you ever played at a major event?

Yup, exactly one. Didn't enjoy it. Didn't do it again. Probably would enjoy one now, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. Honestly though, I don't think that would matter much. The strategies and tactics for paintball are the same, regardless of the event and what "level" its at.

I understand filling the lane, especially when you expect a player to pass through there. What I don't understand about the "high volume of paint" issue, is laying 7-10bps into the bunker. Someone here said 3-5bps wouldn't keep their head down. I seriously doubt that. That would mean that at 5 bps, he would have exactly 2/10 of a second to come out of cover, aquire the target, take aim and fire. I don't see it happening. Also...why shoot the bunker? How many eliminations is that gonna get you? If I am holding you down, you can bet that my fire will be coming by you, as close to the bunker as possible, so should you happen to stick your head out, I'd hit you and not the bunker....but that's just me. Chances are I'd increase my rate of fire as well.

Someone also said that the game was all about eliminations, plain and simple...with that being the case, wouldn't you be better off taking a good aim on the edge of bunker and waiting for a target to present itself instead of keeping your opponent under cover?

Now don't get me wrong...I know that when an opponent moves from bunker to bunker a hail of paint is enroute, and that's justified. I just don't get the high rate of fire against bunkers or providing cover fire when its not needed.

[Tyger]

Originally posted by Sinnet
One of the more possible solutions for creating movement, along the lines of a more bunker-heavy field, would be having fields have more tall bunkers, especially towards the center of the field. It seems a trend towards this has already started, with field centerpieces like JT's Ziggurat-thing, diablo's car-wash, and all the other major monstrocities in the center of some recent speedball fields. Anything like this will foster more movement, because of the safety gained in moving up to such an obstacle, and do it without toning down tech, limiting paint, or overcrowding fields.

Good point, but the problem is that these bunkers are not audience friendly. A "car Wash" is a cheater's haven, and the audience can't see IN there to see if the player is in or out. (Neither can the refs, actually...) Tall bunkers are OK as well, but then an audience member sitting on the other side of the field can't see what's opposite of that bunker. It's like getting a seat behind a pole at Wrigley. You can't see anything cool happening.

The better way to control movement on the field is to increase the odds to the runners. Restrictions to ROF / Paint consumption is the way to do that. I'm not saying go stock class (But, lemme tell ya, SC speedball is audience friendly!!!!!) But I'm saying that the ONLY way you can get people to move is to have a risk/bennefit ratio in which the risk of getting hit is low, and the bennefit of making a bunker is high.

You do THAT by loweing the ROF, or limiting the paint. Period. But, nobody wants to DO that, becasue it goes agains tthe theory of "too much is just enough", AND it would drive the "Credit Card Commandos" out of the "sport". Oh, and it would make the mediocre players get skill or get out. But, hey, whadda I know? I'm jsut a rec guy.



-Tyger

[Sinnet]

heck, i'd love limited paint tournaments. Even the odds out a bit for a poor student like myself who only shoots a case, when going up against a sponsored team with four/five/more per person.

Do you think the paint companies would allow it?

[SlartyBartFast]

Re: re:

Originally posted by HIKARU
i think the base tournament style should include access to any equipment, and number of paintballs per game/tourney.

racing also adopts this attitude.

if you have the cash and want to use it, do it.

Absolutely not true. Every racing series has some constraint on the design of the cars and the equipment allowed and the equipment required.

Allowed technology, maximum displacement, maximum intake area, turbo or naturally aspirated, gasoline/methanol/special blends, maximum amount of fuel per race, car silouette or manufacturer, and many, many, many others.

Some racing series are almost guarenteed to go to the deepest pockets but not all. There are racing series for those with unlimited funds and there are those for the budget conscious.

I think in paintball, some of us would just like to see a little of the same and some coverage of alternate classes in the paintball media.

[mykroft]

Couple of Things:

Shartley, Did you know the original SAW was an M16A1? Until they started issueing the M249, the M16A1 was used in the SAW roll, with most riflemen having the A2.


And now back on topic.

Throwing paint as a tactic becomes more important the larger the teams. In 3 man, it's quite possible to max a game on less than a hopper, a good stock class team can even be competetive. In 5 Man, your paint consumption goes up, because you now have a couple of guys playing back, and using suppressive fire to keep the opponents heads down, your front gus might burn through a couple of pods, a superlative stock class team might make the semis. In 7 Man, you now have mid players functioning like both back & front players, depending on the situation, and paint consumption goes up. 10 Man is 1 case 1 kill.

Your paint use depends on the situation you find yourself in, the more targets, the larger the field, the more pant you're going to use as a back guy. The front guys don't use that much paint.

And for those who like the limited paint format, Pan Am is hopperball.