Can paintball be saved ?

[RogueFactor]

Steve:

Interesint points. All of which I totally agree with. Do you think these points were instituted by them to attempt and make their format differ from yours enough?

Also, can you expand on these points:

2. they're still only playing 5 man center flag - a stalemate format

What kind of format did you envision? The one in your patent of a player carrying the flag? What size team did you prefer?

3. they keep changing the field layout - preventing teams from ever being able to develop 'plays'

I agree, 200% with this one. I brought this very point up to a Pro team coach(who has played about as long as you have) and discussed it at length. It was explained to me that the field always changes because there is no focus in paintball(like there is in soccer, football, baseball, etc). And that if the fields were always the same, it would make for a boring game, one where every player would make it to their first bunker and never leave.



Hopefullly, one last question. If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently to assure success of your format?

[Aggravated Assault]

here's just a few:

1. they insist on allowing the game to run its course, rather than stopping play for infractions
2. they're still only playing 5 man center flag - a stalemate format
3. they keep changing the field layout - preventing teams from ever being able to develop 'plays'
4. they allow ramping/artificial shooting modes
5. they do not have enough refs on the field
6. they block camera angles with their huge 'x' in the middle of the field
7. they have done nothing to market the game outside of a very small group of people
8. they have done nothing to give the teams personalities that spectators can identify with
9. they have an antiquated scoring system where each goal is only worth one point - no chance for the equivalent of the long bomb-desperation touchdown
10. they rarely enforce all of the applicable penalties, and none of their penalties redress the imbalance of the game caused by the original infraction - everyone is STILL (after 25 years) left with 'oh well, we just got screwed'

It goes nowhere; its so intensive and expensive that they can't export it to the lower ranking teams, there's nothing to attact the wider paintball world to investing in it, there's no real player representation, there's no real roster rules, the list goes on and on and on

My god, this is right where I was hoping a different thread awhile back would lead. It is awsome to see posts like this.

Thanks for putting up with the "interrogation"

[rabidchihauhau]

I feel like my brain is being picked over by Hannibal Lectors holding paintball guns...

Let's see; the 'no focus' argument (in a different form) was the explanation/discussion/justification that I provided for using a flag in the game.

Its so funny/upsetting to see how these things come back at you after ten+ years, devoid of any connection to their origin AND devoid of most of their sensibility. Its also kind of funny to see/hear MY words coming out of the mouths of people who, shall we say, 'borrowed' them in the first place.

Here is the deal on those questions:

My personal background, and something I spent about the first 25 years of my life doing is as a game designer. I've designed successful board games, successful computer games, games for the military, games for training and gaes for education. One of my games was featured at Disney's EPCOT for over 5 years; another won the IICS 'Golden Disc' award for videodisc-based games; another was nominated for 'most humorous board game of 1984' by GAMA. I think that background gives some validity to my claims.

After playing in my first tournament (which was scored like one of the original NSG tournaments - points for everything, mutually exclusive points for some things, mutually inclusive points for other things, poor game balance, etc - it became painfully apparent to me that the people who had designed this game HAD NOT A CLUE.

For example: they created the primary objective of capturing a flag, and gave it the highest point total to reflect its importance in the game. THEN they added 'flag grab' points - essentially rewarding a team for FAILING TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE. This is the equivalent of giving a basketball team 1/2 point for bouncing the ball off the rim, or a football team a couple of points for almost getting the ball over the goalline. Ask yourselves how those games would change if the above were in effect. My guess is that football teams wouldn't risk going for touchdowns - they'd just try to get close, and basketball teams would be throwing the ball at the rim from all over the court...

They also did something which is a major game design fubar, which was to create a set of rules that emphasized defensive play. This was done by putting a score value on eliminations, and having those points weighted so heavily that protecting your players becomes a major concern of the game; when one or two eliminations means the difference between advancing and not advancing, sitting on your butt and playing cautiously is a viable (almost dictated) overall strategy.

I must now take a moment for 'game theory' education.

Once you have a set of rules for a game, you've defined a little enclosed universe. The permutations of the rules, coupled with game play, define the boundaries of that universe. ANY permutation that is within the rules is a valid action and anything that breaks the rules is outside that universe.

Game theory is the method by which we analyze the permutations and derive the 'best overall strategy(s) for winning'. The 'best overall strategy' is not a 'do this and you will win every time' its a probabalistic evaluation that says that if you follow a particular strategy, you will stand the best chance of winning most of the time.

For example - when playing tic-tac-toe, who DOESN'T start in a corner? Who DOESN'T try to get first 'go'? We all know that the best chance of winning that game involves two elements - going first and starting from a corner. If you stick with those moves, you will win most of the time.

One of the first things you realize when delving into game theory is that every single rule affects every single other rule and that in order to get a complete picture/analysis, you've got to look at the whole thing in its entirety. This is difficult, as not every rule or permutation expresses itself every time the game is played. Many modern day games have had to go in for major mid-publication redesign following a player finding a major hole - even when the game was tested and evaluated for years in advance.

Paintball is difficult to analyze because of the foregoing and because it involves live people and reality. Your 'best overall strategy' may be working flawlessly until a key player's gun has a screwup. However, that doesn't mean the strategy is bad necessarily.

Okay. If you can wrap your heads around that, here's the rest.

Once you finish analyzing the rules for paintball, it becomes obvious that the best strategies for winning are inherently defensive ones.

1. it is much easier to achieve the primary objective when the number of opponents is reduced in size.

2. there is a higher percentage chance of elimination of a player the closer to the opponents that player is

3. the fewer players you have on the field, the more difficult it will be to achieve the objective

4. if your players are eliminated, not only does you ability to win become compromised, but you are also contributing to the opponent's score

Add to that such classic military maxim's as Napoleon's 'the defense is to the offense as 3 is to 1' and you begin to get the picture.

There is unconscious recognition of this fact in the way teams play; they always set their back players first; they cross up the field when pressured; they 'stage' movement up the field from a defensive base, etc.

Look at it this slightly different way. If a team plays really good defense, they've guaranteed a draw, while maintaining a good possibility of a win in the last few seconds - and isn't that what we see most of the time? whittle whittle whittle - run through - hang ?

All of the above contributed to making games boring for the camera - little or no movement, very light aggressive play, etc.

Once I figured all of that out, I realized two things; the game was bad because there was hardly any movement and somehow the rules needed to reward OFFENSIVE play and minimize or eliminate the impact of defensive play.

I then came up with a scoring system, using the flags, that made you pay a price if you didn't advance your flag; that price was giving the other team a better chance at a higher score.

Now, the more aggressive you were, the fewer the points your opponents could achieve AND at the same time, the higher your potential score become.

I eliminated player points; I wanted teams to throw those bodies down field without fear of paying a price.

(It still mystifies me today that '?-Ball' teams so willingly screw their chances of winning by making foolishly aggressive moves on the field. A team that learned really good defense would win just about every time... I just can't see any reason for it: look at it this way. You win a match by having one more points than the opponent. Let THEM kill themselves with aggressive play and counter when you've eliminated them all to get your points. This FACT of that game is going to hand them problems the minute that the first good team figures this out and puts it to use.)

Now, to answer the questions:

yes, I believe they 'changed' these things in a futile attempt to get around the patent.

yes, we used the flag format at PaintFest and everyone loved it; team size hardly matters; in fact, smaller teams might be more interesting and the PERFECT way to play that game is with pump guns.

the field layout is critical. teams MUST be able to run set plays in order for the audience to get a handle on the game. its KEY to spectator participation that the spectator be involved in predicting and anticipating outcomes.

my plan for fields was that the layout would change every two seasons. season 1 - layout A
season 2 - layout A with layout B provided for practice. Season 3, layout B. season 4 layout B with layout C available for practice...

(giving bunker layout as the focus is like painting the grass neon orange on a football field and telling everyone to watch the grass! Is it a game or a horticultural exhibit?)

What would I do differently now? Despite how distatestful it may be, I would go to certain individuals and say 'ok, I guess I'm not going to get anywhere unless I cut you in on the action. How much do you need?'

[cledford]

Interesting thread here:

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63851&highlight=game+time+penalty

Has some ideas about how to make play more dynamic and some prognostication from Tom regarding the future of Xball.. Seems that (as usual) he was right on the money - saying the same thing almost 4 years ago that we're saying today.

-Calvin

[rabidchihauhau]

Tom endorsed PaintFest and the concepts behind the format; my partner (Biff Thiele) and I presented it to him sometime in 1999 - might have been as early as '98 - and AGD was a major sponsor of the event, picking up the tab on the fireworks show (when have you ever seen one of those at a tournament?)

Our ideas were very similar about where the sport needed to go: tournament ball SHOULD be the marquee, high-profile public display of the game - it has interesting characters, cool-looking futuristic gear, its own slang, the uniforms and fields are colorful and attractive and the basic concept of people shooting guns at other people for fun is very apealling, at least in an american market.

Where we differed from most everyone else was in our recognition that it wasn't enough to 'say' that, nor was it even enough to buy some air time and wait for the dollars to flow in; a league, a structure - in fact ALL of the elements of any other professional sport had to be in place, not the least of which was SHOWING potential marketing partners HOW they were going to realize the return on their investment.

None of the efforts to date have demonstrated that.

[CKY_Alliance]

Tom endorsed PaintFest and the concepts behind the format; my partner (Biff Thiele) and I presented it to him sometime in 1999 - might have been as early as '98 - and AGD was a major sponsor of the event, picking up the tab on the fireworks show (when have you ever seen one of those at a tournament?)

Our ideas were very similar about where the sport needed to go: tournament ball SHOULD be the marquee, high-profile public display of the game - it has interesting characters, cool-looking futuristic gear, its own slang, the uniforms and fields are colorful and attractive and the basic concept of people shooting guns at other people for fun is very apealling, at least in an american market.

Where we differed from most everyone else was in our recognition that it wasn't enough to 'say' that, nor was it even enough to buy some air time and wait for the dollars to flow in; a league, a structure - in fact ALL of the elements of any other professional sport had to be in place, not the least of which was SHOWING potential marketing partners HOW they were going to realize the return on their investment.

None of the efforts to date have demonstrated that.

I believe it was the Mid-Atlantic Open that had fireworks...i believe that is where i was.
But that was well after PaintFest..so ye

[Old S.O.B.]

You guys should all understand someting. In my opinion, Steve (Rabid) is the father of modern tournament ball. He was the one that started time outs, reffing from the sidelines, cheering spectators, outside refs and real rules! He actuall DID some research when everyone else was saying "we don't need more rules" and found out all serious sports have a rule book a mile thick. He realized that the refs can't sort things out on the fly so the time outs allowed for things to be fixed. Today you have multiple short games that accomiplish the same thing.

In order to personally try and send the sport in a better direction he fanagled all of his retirement money out of a locked account and put on his vision of a tournament. Most people ignored him but everyone that actually attended the tournament thought it was pretty darn cool!

He even had a promo for a million dollar paintball shooting contest! That has never been duplicated.

Love him or hate him, Steve plans, executes and puts his money where his mouth is. A lot of people hate him for it but I think had we followed his lead we would be in a better place today.

AGD

Amen to that Tommy!

[hitech]

I feel like my brain is being picked over by Hannibal Lectors holding paintball guns...

It is!

I've have found this thread to be fascinating. Tournament rules has always been my favorite topic to discuss. This is the first time I've read anything that was has truly unique ideas that make me go hummmm...

I have always hated the idea of scoring points for player eliminations, but it seemed that I was the only one. And the idea of having a team carry their own flag and attempt to get it to the other side is great. Easily gives the game focus. It also eliminates the wait till the other team is completely eliminated and pull/hang the flag. I've always hated games that went that way.

Thanks for a great read. Too bad your game format wasn't successful. Tournaments might actually be interesting...



Added: Just read some of the patent (and the entire summary). THAT soulds like a fun game. Too bad I'll never get to play it...

[Old S.O.B.]

So youre saying if we have an issue with modern tournament ball, its all Steve's fault?

I digress...of course he was the one who started all that, its in his best interest to do so. Being that Steve Davidson is the patent holder of this format, thats of little surprise:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=davidson&s2=paintball&OS=davidson+AND+paintball&RS=davidson+AND+paintball

I dont follow. If he is the father of modern paintball, the "win at all cost" attitiude, and we followed him...wouldnt we be right where we are?

The ideas gave way to realities. Steve adapted as he had to. We spent a lot of cash and sweat trying to show people how it could be done. Those that witnessed it first hand, know how good PaintFest 2000 was. But, we each ate about 120K from our pockets to prove that point. It was a grand event. We paid for the teams hotels, rentals, airport and field shuttles, $20 per hour for judges, TV ... even put on a fireworks show for Tom. The idea was to show players what real sponsorship should be. Of course, we hoped that future events would be covered by real sponsors, like Coke, Bud, American Airlines, etc. But, the fix was in and those in the industry with money prevailed. They liked being the big fish in a little pond. So, win at all cost applied to the industry who I believe saw major outside sponsors coming in as a threat to their control.

[Aggravated Assault]

Tom endorsed PaintFest and the concepts behind the format; my partner (Biff Thiele) and I presented it to him sometime in 1999 - might have been as early as '98 - and AGD was a major sponsor of the event, picking up the tab on the fireworks show (when have you ever seen one of those at a tournament?)

Our ideas were very similar about where the sport needed to go: tournament ball SHOULD be the marquee, high-profile public display of the game - it has interesting characters, cool-looking futuristic gear, its own slang, the uniforms and fields are colorful and attractive and the basic concept of people shooting guns at other people for fun is very apealling, at least in an american market.

Where we differed from most everyone else was in our recognition that it wasn't enough to 'say' that, nor was it even enough to buy some air time and wait for the dollars to flow in; a league, a structure - in fact ALL of the elements of any other professional sport had to be in place, not the least of which was SHOWING potential marketing partners HOW they were going to realize the return on their investment.

None of the efforts to date have demonstrated that.

My question is: in the end if we strip it all down, have the best possible format, do we really have a viable product that people will watch on tv or whatever? And I don't mean some unrealistic goal of paintball becoming some big mainstream sport, but being able to justify its place by getting/keeping the interest of its target audience and attracting sponsors/advertisers from outside the world of paintball.

I would love to hear some opinions on this, in light of everything discussed here.


I myself am wondering if there is something inherent in paintball that is a particular hurdle, and if there is, how would it be handled? Example: Dirt Late Model racing is the biggest racing sport you never heard of. CNN did a special on it and the reporters couldn't believe it's popularity. I know how popular it is, I've been around it for awhile. It stays underground because no matter how hard someone has tried, they havent been able to put on a good TV program. It has particular problems. Dirt is one. Another is being able to give the watcher the visual sensation of speed. This is the angle I'm looking at tv paintball at...Is there an inherent problem not really associated with gameplay?

[Old S.O.B.]

My question is: in the end if we strip it all down, have the best possible format, do we really have a viable product that people will watch on tv or whatever? And I don't mean some unrealistic goal of paintball becoming some big mainstream sport, but being able to justify its place by getting/keeping the interest of its target audience and attracting sponsors/advertisers from outside the world of paintball.

I would love to hear some opinions on this, in light of everything discussed here.


I myself am wondering if there is something inherent in paintball that is a particular hurdle, and if there is, how would it be handled? Example: Dirt Late Model racing is the biggest racing sport you never heard of. CNN did a special on it and the reporters couldn't believe it's popularity. I know how popular it is, I've been around it for awhile. It stays underground because no matter how hard someone has tried, they havent been able to put on a good TV program. It has particular problems. Dirt is one. Another is being able to give the watcher the visual sensation of speed. This is the angle I'm looking at tv paintball at...Is there an inherent problem not really associated with gameplay?

I believe the answer is yes there is still a viable product and there are still sponsors that support the format and the general principles that Steve tried to establish early on. But the key has always been money. If our series could advance independently and the sponsors shared the vision, as our sponsors did at PaintFest, the potential was enormous. But, stuff happened. We exhausted our capital to show people how it could be done so that everyone involved could share the rewards. As Steve pointed out, at the event, there was a chorus of support. When he called them 2 weeks later, he was shut out. What happened in those 2 weeks is what killed the USPL. We had no money left to invest and potential sponsors dried up.

XBall is a compromised and much weaker version of the USPL format, designed to skip around patent infringement. By dodging the facets of the game that could be bold infringement, the format was so watered down that it lost the potential it had for that brief moment in LaPorte. It goes back to the defensive posture that was dragging the game down in the beginning. (Dragging it down as in losing that offensive, action based appeal that ESPN told us was missing.) That was what motivated Steve to design the game around TV. It has to be appealing to an audience. No TV audience - no big time sponsors. When they cut deliberately the USPL out of the USPL format, they got what's left. It's JUST XBall!

[RogueFactor]

I feel like my brain is being picked over by Hannibal Lectors holding paintball guns...

It is

Interestingly enough, 3 years ago I was reffing, assisting coaching, running with a pro team or 2 to the major tournaments. After a year of being on the 'inside', I wasnt happy with any of the formats. Or the obvious cheating. Then came the widespread use of ramping. Within that next year a handful of incidents made me realize that ramping was the straw that broke the camels back. And it wasnt just me, others were sick of it too.

For those 3 years I was formulating a new format. Revising it here and there. And over the last 3 years I had been researching---which is how I came across your patent.

Its interesting to read so many of the ideas that you came up with before I was even a part of mainstream paintball, but that I arrived at independently before ever seeing your patent.

There is no doubt in my mind that you have the background that gives validity to your claims. All of your postulations make total sense.

For example: they created the primary objective of capturing a flag, and gave it the highest point total to reflect its importance in the game. THEN they added 'flag grab' points - essentially rewarding a team for FAILING TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE.

I agree. But, in their defensive game, I believe the intent of getting some points for pulling the flag was to 'try' to encourage offensive moves. Albeit, a crappy way of doing it, but still the intent.

They also did something which is a major game design fubar, which was to create a set of rules that emphasized defensive play. This was done by putting a score value on eliminations, and having those points weighted so heavily that protecting your players becomes a major concern of the game; when one or two eliminations means the difference between advancing and not advancing, sitting on your butt and playing cautiously is a viable (almost dictated) overall strategy.

Ive found this also emphasizes the desire to cheat. If points are assigned for eliminations, then not being eliminated is of paramount importance---creating the need to wipe, play-on, etc.

Once I figured all of that out, I realized two things; the game was bad because there was hardly any movement and somehow the rules needed to reward OFFENSIVE play and minimize or eliminate the impact of defensive play.

I think thats what most will argue that XBall does. But, without the other major details, they fall short of the full game it creates.

the field layout is critical. teams MUST be able to run set plays in order for the audience to get a handle on the game. its KEY to spectator participation that the spectator be involved in predicting and anticipating outcomes.

Or to building for the inevitable 'touchdown' or 'homerun' type play, right?

What would I do differently now? Despite how distatestful it may be, I would go to certain individuals and say 'ok, I guess I'm not going to get anywhere unless I cut you in on the action. How much do you need?'

Did you originally not intend to cut them in? Or do you think they thought you were asking for too much $$$?

I guess I dont understand why, given the format you propose, why any company wouldnt want to pay the licensing fee and figure it into the Cost of Doing Business.

[robnix]

snipped very long and informative post

You've managed to address every single complaint I had about the recent tournament they had on ESPN.

[zorrotmm]

You know, I've recognized the need for a new format for quite some time now. In fact, I've been privately brainstorming a new format for a couple years. I've got some radically different ideas, but there's also several I came up with that have already been addressed in this thread. The common denominator is we're all trying to solve the same problems that have been thrust upon us.

I plan on owning a field in the next 2-4 years if all goes well. My plan is to implement the new format, and begin building tournaments locally. If all goes well, I would look at slowly starting a chain of fields, and/or coordinate with other local fields to form leagues/tournaments. I think the key to this issue is to build strong local fields that are willing to network, use a different format and build their own league or leagues. I think we all need to accept the "revolutionary" idea that right now, we DONT NEED professional paintball. We don't need the NXL and we don't need the NPPL in their current state. Let them continue on this self-destructive path until they strangle their own industry. Quality national events, while appealing, are not the answer. Local leagues operated by strong local fields that can sustain themselves is where we need to start.

From that foundation, in years to come perhaps we can build back up until we have a professional league that is good for the sport. But I don't think we need to think about that until we no longer have to drive for hours to find a halfway decent field. The key is to take the game back from the manufacturers and make them work for the sport, not the other way around. It would take some quality leadership and a lot more time, but it's the only way to put the fate of the sport back in the hands of those who care about it.

[RogueFactor]

They also did something which is a major game design fubar, which was to create a set of rules that emphasized defensive play. This was done by putting a score value on eliminations, and having those points weighted so heavily that protecting your players becomes a major concern of the game; when one or two eliminations means the difference between advancing and not advancing, sitting on your butt and playing cautiously is a viable (almost dictated) overall strategy.

All of the above contributed to making games boring for the camera - little or no movement, very light aggressive play, etc.

Once I figured all of that out, I realized two things; the game was bad because there was hardly any movement and somehow the rules needed to reward OFFENSIVE play and minimize or eliminate the impact of defensive play.

I then came up with a scoring system, using the flags, that made you pay a price if you didn't advance your flag; that price was giving the other team a better chance at a higher score.

I eliminated player points; I wanted teams to throw those bodies down field without fear of paying a price.

Interestingly, there is a format that addresses many of these points... http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207209

Is this format based on your input? Are you involved with Money Paintball? It strangely has quite a few similarities.