Can paintball be saved ?

[rabidchihauhau]

No, I am not involved in this project and was just as curious as everyone else to see if there was something new in it - and I don't see it there.

I think paintball players are going to roundly reject the concept that they can be eliminated without being shot.

At first blush, this looks more like a combo of dodgeball and paintball than anything else.

I also think - without looking at the rules or really be familiar with the format at all, that a swapped offense/defense format is problematical for paintball; how do they handle a team NEVER able to go on offense?

And, once again - tactics and play balance: if 'any player behind the scrimmage line is eliminated' - you are NEVER able to gain angle shots, which are critical to paintball play - ummm - FLANKING ...

So how do they handle a run through with the flag posessor screaming - he was behind me when he shot me!

And, of course - defense. A player gets the flag, defenders lock down the field and the game just sits...

Once again (and I concede up front that I don't have enough info to really be making such pronouncements) it seems that someone unfamiliar with games has designed one without really looking at all the future permutations.

[rabidchihauhau]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.

NO, I did not deliberately cut anyone out. The 'mantra' at USPL was "WE WILL WORK WITH ANYONE WILLING TO WORK WITH US"

The problem was on THEIR end, not mine. They didn't want to share, they didn't want a 'piece' they wanted CONTROL AND they wanted me out of the picture.

Why? Because I'm "unreasonable". Instead of making lots and lots of money right now, I wanted to build something that would last for a long time AND, perhaps most damaging of all, I didn't want ANYONE "in control"; I wanted proper representation for the teams and players, I wanted the referees to be totally independant of any financial coercion, I wanted every paintball company to have a reasonable and proportional opportunity to participate and benefit and I wanted to put the breaks on technology within the league. Most of all, I wanted a set of rules and operating policies that provided accountability, transparency and responsibility on the part of the participants.

Those requirements are like letting the sunlight in on a vampire's coffin room when it comes to many of the companies in the industry. They CAN'T maintain their position of dominance in a FAIR environment, so they MUST prevent fair environments from ever coming into being.

This is perhaps the biggest irony of our industry: everything is based on playing a game that by all rights should be fair, but instead the winners get the cheese by cheating...

[Aggravated Assault]

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.

Thanks SOB. So your feelings (and rabids too I assume) is that there is no big inherent hurdle paintball has in regards to putting out a good tv product. Myself, I was thinking there could possibly be a couple. One could be the paintballs themselves. Its pretty hard to see the actual paintballs flying around. The other is the camera work I've seen on ESPN or WGN or whoever has had the recent TV shows. I guess that would be a thing that could improve, unless the problem lies more with the format or maybe the fact that the teams are spread out so much. Take Football - it has a line of scrimmage - they all line up there and its easy to follow the games progress. In paintball we are all over the field thats prolly 3/4 as big as a football field.

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...

This is interesting. And kinda goes along with the last posts. Are you (or rabid) of the opinion that "in the couple weeks after the event" certain people in the industry got their heads together and went "hmm, this has potential. How do we take [someone elses] idea and make it own?" (hey, politicians do it all the time) Or, do any of you feel that it was just a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat to "their" format.

I've dug around my own pile of mags and the web (very briefly) looking for articles. I haven't found much except just small blurbs on Paintfest or some on USPL (usually piggybacking a bunch of info on XBALL and its inventor.) The article I found at home is not a rip, but a less than flattering assesment of the event itself. Did the paintball media try to bury the concept? Or did some of the 3rd party assesments of the event and concept have valid points? Either? Neither? Both?

[Lohman446]

Imagine the hit to marker sales if ramping was never allowed - that basically helped support sales from when ti was allowed until now as old products were rendered "obsolete" by a rule change.

Of course the manufacturers want say in the rules, and control. Now, when ramping up to 25BPS is allowed, everyone will be convinced they need new equipment designed for it.

[Old S.O.B.]

Thanks SOB. So your feelings (and rabids too I assume) is that there is no big inherent hurdle paintball has in regards to putting out a good tv product. Myself, I was thinking there could possibly be a couple. One could be the paintballs themselves. Its pretty hard to see the actual paintballs flying around. The other is the camera work I've seen on ESPN or WGN or whoever has had the recent TV shows. I guess that would be a thing that could improve, unless the problem lies more with the format or maybe the fact that the teams are spread out so much. Take Football - it has a line of scrimmage - they all line up there and its easy to follow the games progress. In paintball we are all over the field thats prolly 3/4 as big as a football field.



This is interesting. And kinda goes along with the last posts. Are you (or rabid) of the opinion that "in the couple weeks after the event" certain people in the industry got their heads together and went "hmm, this has potential. How do we take [someone elses] idea and make it own?" (hey, politicians do it all the time) Or, do any of you feel that it was just a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat to "their" format.

I've dug around my own pile of mags and the web (very briefly) looking for articles. I haven't found much except just small blurbs on Paintfest or some on USPL (usually piggybacking a bunch of info on XBALL and its inventor.) The article I found at home is not a rip, but a less than flattering assesment of the event itself. Did the paintball media try to bury the concept? Or did some of the 3rd party assesments of the event and concept have valid points? Either? Neither? Both?

First of all Steve also developed a patent (that WarPig shared with USPL for a few years) which basically taught the cameras to focus on a particular color traveling at a certain speed. The paint color would be designated by the promoter and the camera told which color. You or me running with similar or identical color on our jersey wouldn't show up. But paintballs travelling at 250FPS or higher would look like tracers. Steve took what was done in hockey and converted it. Unlike hockey pucks, paintballs could not have chips in them - too expensive and would slice up the player when the balls broke. But, teaching the camera was genious.

To your other point, yes. People in the industry and some in the paintball media worked closely and Steve was seen as a force to be reconed with. I have no doubt that there were calls made and money exchanged to stifle the attempt to make the game fairer for players of the game and players in the industry. They wanted to maintain control and keep the game manageable. As I stated before, they wanted to remain the big fish in a small pond. Even the biggest paintball industry manufacturers and distributors would be no match for Coca Cola, United Airlines or NASCAR. Steve's ideas were inconvenient for those wanting to manipulate the game, which is why it is STILL a game and not a sport.

[Old S.O.B.]

< Thanks SOB. So your feelings (and rabids too I assume) is that there is no big inherent hurdle paintball has in regards to putting out a good tv product.>>

TV wanted this after the '94 debut by Disney World/ESPN2. Fred Schultz brought about 50 people to Orlando. Fred flew us all in from all over the country. He put us up in private cabins on the lake at the Marriott. He got us all Back-Stage passes to Disney World. We met with ESPN and laid it out. Fred captained a team and Tom captained a team. Disney World shut down New York Street and we played paintball in brightly colored tights and jerseys, hiding behind taxis, hot dog stands and other Disney props - all on ESPN2. ESPN planned to stuff the show in as filler over a particular weekend, but the show had the top ratings for the entire weekend. That opened people's eyes - both in TV and in paintball. It was the first time players were not wearing camoflage and playing in the woods. The potential was huge.

Within a year the powers that be with money stepped in and destroyed it all. Again having narrow self-serving interests and short sighted profits for "just us" in mind, TV was brought in. But, players had to pay to play again and ESPN got ripped off. It was in court for a while and when it was over, ESPN said "We are done with these paintball guys!" At the same time the teams were struggling to hold power in the NPPL. But, the same control freaks with the big cash, bought support, threatened to cut sponsorship and manipulated the vote.

Steve, myself and a few dozen others, including other NPPL officers and teams cut our loses and left the NPPL. Steve and I decided to try to implement his ideas in the GTO and later in the USPL. But, it didn't stop there.

I'm reminded of a tournament we held at the old Challenge Park. There were a couple of teams that tried to sabotage the event. One actually called in, asking us to hold off starting times, because they were lost. They said they were right on the road in, but couldn't find the field. They didn't know that we were standing on the raod and you can see the entire span from one end to the other - no car existed, they weren't coming and we knew it. We started on time. Other teams called in sick or simply didn't show, in an attempt to throw off the scheduling. But, Steve had multiple schedules in his head and we adapted within minutes. The event went on and since only about a half dozen teams or so showed up, we dumped thousands of dollars worth of prizes (not promises) on the few that came. The teams and sponsors loved it. The press ate it up and we did 5 more events that year.

Some of the teams who failed to show up (all coincidently sponsored by some of the same control freaks) actually had the nerve to call and ask for their entry money back. We told them their money did not go towards a profit, but rather went to the teams who showed up in the form of prizes - not cash - since we barred all pro teams and this was strictly an amateur series.

But, I digress. My point is, "if you build it, they will come." A lot of good people are still out there and TV would jump on a descent product. Steve has it all exactly right. Patents and contracts are key to keeping the sharks away. But, we ran out of cash.

Can you imagine... If we had had the cash to maintain a patented series and wage fights to hold the thiefs accountable, the game would be a sport, today, the big sponsors would be national brand names, TV would be at every event, the players would be getting paid to play and EVERYONE would be profiting. Players get on planes looking like NASCAR drivers with sponsors names all over their jerseys. Teams would flock to local fields to practice where licensing agreements existed. Local stores would have their names right next to Coca Cola on bunkers and TV screens. So, many possibilities!

That's my diatribe. I guess the short answer is there is only one "inherent hurdle" ... money.

[hitech]

TV wanted this after the '94 debut by Disney World/ESPN2. Fred Schultz brought about 50 people to Orlando.

Was Freddy at the original paintFest? I remember him having his own (or was it part of the one you spoke about) legal issues with TV coverage/contracts. I never did hear the final word on that.

[Old S.O.B.]

Was Freddy at the original paintFest? I remember him having his own (or was it part of the one you spoke about) legal issues with TV coverage/contracts. I never did hear the final word on that.

Can't raise Fred. Been trying for a couple years. I guess I could write a letter and send it to his home i California. I don't think he opens email any more. Once in a while I would catch his daughter on line.

No, he was gone by the time we did PaintFest.

[hitech]

Can't raise Fred. Been trying for a couple years. I guess I could write a letter and send it to his home i California. I don't think he opens email any more. Once in a while I would catch his daughter on line.

No, he was gone by the time we did PaintFest.

Seems like he fell off the edge of the earth. NO ONE seems to be able to get a hold of him.

When was paintfest? I thought he was still playing late into the 90s, but memory is the second thing to go, and I've never been good with dates...

[Old S.O.B.]

Seems like he fell off the edge of the earth. NO ONE seems to be able to get a hold of him.

When was paintfest? I thought he was still playing late into the 90s, but memory is the second thing to go, and I've never been good with dates...

PaintFest 2000 was in September 2000. It aired in 120 venues on Thanksgiving weekend.

[RogueFactor]

NO, I did not deliberately cut anyone out. The 'mantra' at USPL was "WE WILL WORK WITH ANYONE WILLING TO WORK WITH US"

The problem was on THEIR end, not mine. They didn't want to share, they didn't want a 'piece' they wanted CONTROL AND they wanted me out of the picture.

Why? Because I'm "unreasonable". Instead of making lots and lots of money right now, I wanted to build something that would last for a long time AND, perhaps most damaging of all, I didn't want ANYONE "in control"; I wanted proper representation for the teams and players, I wanted the referees to be totally independant of any financial coercion, I wanted every paintball company to have a reasonable and proportional opportunity to participate and benefit and I wanted to put the breaks on technology within the league. Most of all, I wanted a set of rules and operating policies that provided accountability, transparency and responsibility on the part of the participants.

Those requirements are like letting the sunlight in on a vampire's coffin room when it comes to many of the companies in the industry. They CAN'T maintain their position of dominance in a FAIR environment, so they MUST prevent fair environments from ever coming into being.

This is perhaps the biggest irony of our industry: everything is based on playing a game that by all rights should be fair, but instead the winners get the cheese by cheating...

Interestingly, that is exactly what I was striving for too.

But, we ran out of cash.

Can you imagine... If we had had the cash to maintain a patented series and wage fights to hold the thiefs accountable, the game would be a sport, today, the big sponsors would be national brand names, TV would be at every event, the players would be getting paid to play and EVERYONE would be profiting. Players get on planes looking like NASCAR drivers with sponsors names all over their jerseys. Teams would flock to local fields to practice where licensing agreements existed. Local stores would have their names right next to Coca Cola on bunkers and TV screens. So, many possibilities!

That's my diatribe. I guess the short answer is there is only one "inherent hurdle" ... money.

Was it not possible to seek outside investors? With the amount of money you had already put in, and the results to show from successful events, did nobody want to invest?

[Old S.O.B.]

Interestingly, that is exactly what I was striving for too.



Was it not possible to seek outside investors? With the amount of money you had already put in, and the results to show from successful events, did nobody want to invest?

People wanted to invest, teams wanted to play, sponsors wanted to join. But, everyone was afraid of pissing off the powers that be. Those in control could manipulate players, teams, even some sponsors. No one wanted to be involved in the politics and so they became the pawns in the politics. I can't tell you how many amateur teams called me to complain about issues that they ignored when we needed their support.

"The system sucks" they would say. "We don't care about the politics. All we want is to play." I would tell them "You can't just play. You need to stand up at NPPL meetings and vote in your team's best interest." The meeting would begin and teams would change their vote, because they were told by a sponsor if they didn't change their vote, their sponsorship would dry up. Or ... certain teams were instructed not to show up at all, insuring that the best case scenario in the interest of the amateur teams and fair play would not prevail. The same thing was going on within the industry. Businesses were bought out, distributors didn't deliver on time.

Everyone had something to lose if they stepped out of line. We didn't care. We couldn't be bought. We stood up. We spoke for the teams. We bucked the system. And then we got shut out. We counted on each other and we did exactly what we said we would 'til the money ran out. The only people to ever complain about us or GTO or the USPL were motivated by selfish greed and a desire to control the game and stifle dissent. If I had a quarter million to burn, I'd drag every damned one of them to court. After I beat them in court, I'd take a piece of their business and donate it to the amateur divisions and leagues. The pros are too far gone. They have too much to lose and they so have become pussies to stand up for what's right. They are slaves to their owners and sponsors.

Don't get me wrong. There are some great sponsors out there - people with real integrity and a desire to do the right thing by their teams and players. But, there are just not enough to make a difference. And then there's the spine issue. A lot of people talk the talk. But, as described above, when it comes time to speak, often the silence is deafening. It is very tough to step up and place your business or team on the line to make a point - even when you know it's the right thing to do.

[RogueFactor]

People wanted to invest, teams wanted to play, sponsors wanted to join. But, everyone was afraid of pissing off the powers that be. Those in control could manipulate players, teams, even some sponsors. No one wanted to be involved in the politics and so they became the pawns in the politics. I can't tell you how many amateur teams called me to complain about issues that they ignored when we needed their support.

"The system sucks" they would say. "We don't care about the politics. All we want is to play." I would tell them "You can't just play. You need to stand up at NPPL meetings and vote in your team's best interest." The meeting would begin and teams would change their vote, because they were told by a sponsor if they didn't change their vote, their sponsorship would dry up. Or ... certain teams were instructed not to show up at all, insuring that the best case scenario in the interest of the amateur teams and fair play would not prevail. The same thing was going on within the industry. Businesses were bought out, distributors didn't deliver on time.

Everyone had something to lose if they stepped out of line. We didn't care. We couldn't be bought. We stood up. We spoke for the teams. We bucked the system. And then we got shut out. We counted on each other and we did exactly what we said we would 'til the money ran out. The only people to ever complain about us or GTO or the USPL were motivated by selfish greed and a desire to control the game and stifle dissent. If I had a quarter million to burn, I'd drag every damned one of them to court. After I beat them in court, I'd take a piece of their business and donate it to the amateur divisions and leagues. The pros are too far gone. They have too much to lose and they so have become pussies to stand up for what's right. They are slaves to their owners and sponsors.

Don't get me wrong. There are some great sponsors out there - people with real integrity and a desire to do the right thing by their teams and players. But, there are just not enough to make a difference. And then there's the spine issue. A lot of people talk the talk. But, as described above, when it comes time to speak, often the silence is deafening. It is very tough to step up and place your business or team on the line to make a point - even when you know it's the right thing to do.

But it sounds like the format you envisioned, the team cost is considerably less. Meaning less reliance of the teams on their sponsors.

Was everyone just short-sighted?

[geekwarrior]

paintfest 2000 vid

scroll down to tournaments, near the bottom.

[Old S.O.B.]

But it sounds like the format you envisioned, the team cost is considerably less. Meaning less reliance of the teams on their sponsors.

Was everyone just short-sighted?

Yes. And initially, we took all the risk. PaintFest was on us. In fact, what we proposed down the road was no cost to teams. That required others to invest in the future.