Limiting paint in tourneys

[trains are bad]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ratzo]

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

[tony3]

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

[Automaggin2]

Limited paint would make games so much more intresting.


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

[tony3]

Thats like 3000 shots

[DementedRabbit]

Tourneys have no incentive to cut into their paint sales.

[madmatt151]

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

[logamus]

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


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

[RayU]

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

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

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

[GoatBoy]

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

My thoughts exactly.

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

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

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



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

[trains are bad]

Thats like 3000 shots

Did he have a scuba tank on his back?!

[NJPaint]

Originally posted by GoatBoy

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

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


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

[RayU]

Originally posted by GoatBoy

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

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

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

[trains are bad]

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

yepyep.

[AcemanPB]

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

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