...since he was replying to Chicago, I would have a will stab in the dark and suggest it was him
Is Reunification still in the cards?
- Thread starter Baca Loco
- Start date
...since he was replying to Chicago, I would have a will stab in the dark and suggest it was him
different tack,
Out of (hopefully) intelligent decisions to embrace the scenario game/woodsball community, my business has been actively engaging that market by supporting two scenario production companies (NOCER & NAWL) and working on a variety of other projects as well ("mil-sim" markers/accessories, product lines that offer what those guys are looking for, etc)
along the way I've noticed a few things that I think may be an influence on tournament ball.
first is the obvious business-oriented fact that the average mil-sim/woodsball/scenario player is older and better-funded than the average tournament guy.
second is the fact that the audience is, in general, less 'greedy' than the tournament audience; this does seem to be changing as time goes by, but there does remain a good, solid core of more "mature" individuals who influence things and set a 'volunteer'/less about me, more about the game kind of an attitude.
third is the fact that several companies (SpecOps/Tippmann, NAWL among them) are trying to find ways to bring a greater sense of competition into the woodsball thing (they appear to be trying to recreate the tournament scene in the woods: they also appear to have forgotten one of the least talked about and perhaps most important aspect of competition in the woods that led to concept fields. Forget the viewing and the taping - the woods present inherently UNFAIR terrain. Many of us did learn all kinds of neat tricks for 'balancing' woods fields for tournaments, but the fact remains that all you can ever hope to achieve is 'close to balanced'; concept fields (depending on how much time you want to spend) can be completely balanced.
Now, true, one advantage of the near balance of a woodsball field for comp play was the fact that it forced teams to recognize that there were several ways to play the game and that they had to be equally adept at offensive play and defensive play; they had to learn to be patient; they had to learn how to set up traps and ambushes; they had to learn that 'timing' was everything (that piece of terrain is death to us unless the other team is here, here and here, then we need to take it...), etc., etc, and that just plain made for interesting games, better, more skilled players and lots of cool paintball stories (yeah, I know there's only 15 guys on a team, but I still shot all 25 of them!)
However, the overriding concern became the fact that people were spending a LOT of money and sometimes (be it reality or perception) they lost their chance at winning the cash BECAUSE of the imbalance of the terrain. (Historically, this was also complicated by the fact that teams were usually assigned flag stations and a scheduler or promoter could really affect the fate of teams by which station they assigned them to on a particular field.)
Obviously, in addition to the other concerns, this contributed mightily to the move to concept fields - and I'd suggest is perhaps the strongest reason why we all did so.
(The company I'm working with on the tv show tells me "there's no reason not to tape games in the woods - as long as you know what you're doing. it LOOKS better and is more interesting)
So, as an aside to ponder, I'm wondering if these new 'woodsball leagues' aren't ultimately heading for the same issues we've already dealt with; as the importance, noteriety and cash increase over there, the push for 'fairness' will begin to rear its head...
But, to the main point. I'm wondering what you all thing about how much the increasing momentum towards 'woodsball' and the ascendancy of scenario games is affecting the dollars that would be going towards tournaments and tournament team sponsorship - in addition to the other pressures that have been talked about elsewhere.
Out of (hopefully) intelligent decisions to embrace the scenario game/woodsball community, my business has been actively engaging that market by supporting two scenario production companies (NOCER & NAWL) and working on a variety of other projects as well ("mil-sim" markers/accessories, product lines that offer what those guys are looking for, etc)
along the way I've noticed a few things that I think may be an influence on tournament ball.
first is the obvious business-oriented fact that the average mil-sim/woodsball/scenario player is older and better-funded than the average tournament guy.
second is the fact that the audience is, in general, less 'greedy' than the tournament audience; this does seem to be changing as time goes by, but there does remain a good, solid core of more "mature" individuals who influence things and set a 'volunteer'/less about me, more about the game kind of an attitude.
third is the fact that several companies (SpecOps/Tippmann, NAWL among them) are trying to find ways to bring a greater sense of competition into the woodsball thing (they appear to be trying to recreate the tournament scene in the woods: they also appear to have forgotten one of the least talked about and perhaps most important aspect of competition in the woods that led to concept fields. Forget the viewing and the taping - the woods present inherently UNFAIR terrain. Many of us did learn all kinds of neat tricks for 'balancing' woods fields for tournaments, but the fact remains that all you can ever hope to achieve is 'close to balanced'; concept fields (depending on how much time you want to spend) can be completely balanced.
Now, true, one advantage of the near balance of a woodsball field for comp play was the fact that it forced teams to recognize that there were several ways to play the game and that they had to be equally adept at offensive play and defensive play; they had to learn to be patient; they had to learn how to set up traps and ambushes; they had to learn that 'timing' was everything (that piece of terrain is death to us unless the other team is here, here and here, then we need to take it...), etc., etc, and that just plain made for interesting games, better, more skilled players and lots of cool paintball stories (yeah, I know there's only 15 guys on a team, but I still shot all 25 of them!)
However, the overriding concern became the fact that people were spending a LOT of money and sometimes (be it reality or perception) they lost their chance at winning the cash BECAUSE of the imbalance of the terrain. (Historically, this was also complicated by the fact that teams were usually assigned flag stations and a scheduler or promoter could really affect the fate of teams by which station they assigned them to on a particular field.)
Obviously, in addition to the other concerns, this contributed mightily to the move to concept fields - and I'd suggest is perhaps the strongest reason why we all did so.
(The company I'm working with on the tv show tells me "there's no reason not to tape games in the woods - as long as you know what you're doing. it LOOKS better and is more interesting)
So, as an aside to ponder, I'm wondering if these new 'woodsball leagues' aren't ultimately heading for the same issues we've already dealt with; as the importance, noteriety and cash increase over there, the push for 'fairness' will begin to rear its head...
But, to the main point. I'm wondering what you all thing about how much the increasing momentum towards 'woodsball' and the ascendancy of scenario games is affecting the dollars that would be going towards tournaments and tournament team sponsorship - in addition to the other pressures that have been talked about elsewhere.
Woodsball is where it's at. It's a group of customers who (gasp) actually expect to pay money to play!
But I agree with woddsball not beign suited to competition, but not so much for your reasoning (although I agree it's an issue). The BIG problem with woodsball is it's pretty much impossible to officiate. A certain level of honor kept it reasonable the first time around, but I just don't see how that's going to hold the second time around.
And I ahve a basic philosophical objection to the tournamentification of woodsball. Don't let the 'everything has to be a competition' people ruin it for all the 'I want to go out this weekend and have some fun' people. There is a lot more of the latter and they are much more willing to spend $ and those are the people that should be catered to. We've already blown it with tournaments, no need to repeat the error.
But I agree with woddsball not beign suited to competition, but not so much for your reasoning (although I agree it's an issue). The BIG problem with woodsball is it's pretty much impossible to officiate. A certain level of honor kept it reasonable the first time around, but I just don't see how that's going to hold the second time around.
And I ahve a basic philosophical objection to the tournamentification of woodsball. Don't let the 'everything has to be a competition' people ruin it for all the 'I want to go out this weekend and have some fun' people. There is a lot more of the latter and they are much more willing to spend $ and those are the people that should be catered to. We've already blown it with tournaments, no need to repeat the error.
The 'coming out' of the woods was evolutionary with no single reason for this phenomenon much like man assuming a bipedal stance all those millennia ago.
As for suggesting woodsball 'looks' better, you gotta be kidding me Steve, you really gotta be kidding me mate.
Some people might think it looks better but these people can be similarly classified as 'retards' and they are in a very small minority
The dashy, colourful, athletic nature of Sup' Air is an evolutionary leap forward and is so self-evidentially superior to woodsball that I can't believe you are even suggesting woodsball is more attractive.
And just to back up my assertion that arenaball is an evolutionary step forward (rather than n aberration) all we have to do is look at the required skill sets required to play both formats and I proved before in another thread that arena ball requires a higher level of skill.
Woodsball, because of its relationship with entry point paintball in the US (rental site paintball played in woods) is more attractive in terms of investment for the industry because of the sheer numbers of people who play that format.
I have long thought that tourney ball is a classic emperor's new clothes situation just waiting for the kid to cry out but I don't think tourney ball will suffer because of pressure from the woodsball lobby, more like the industry may default to investing more in woodsball more but certainly not because it is superior.
As for suggesting woodsball 'looks' better, you gotta be kidding me Steve, you really gotta be kidding me mate.
Some people might think it looks better but these people can be similarly classified as 'retards' and they are in a very small minority
The dashy, colourful, athletic nature of Sup' Air is an evolutionary leap forward and is so self-evidentially superior to woodsball that I can't believe you are even suggesting woodsball is more attractive.
And just to back up my assertion that arenaball is an evolutionary step forward (rather than n aberration) all we have to do is look at the required skill sets required to play both formats and I proved before in another thread that arena ball requires a higher level of skill.
Woodsball, because of its relationship with entry point paintball in the US (rental site paintball played in woods) is more attractive in terms of investment for the industry because of the sheer numbers of people who play that format.
I have long thought that tourney ball is a classic emperor's new clothes situation just waiting for the kid to cry out but I don't think tourney ball will suffer because of pressure from the woodsball lobby, more like the industry may default to investing more in woodsball more but certainly not because it is superior.
Depends on your definition of 'superior'. If you're measuring suitability as a competitive format, then no, definitely not superior. If you're measuring, as any good business should, return on sponsorship dollars invested, I'm pretty sure woods/scenario ball is superior.
Pete,
please note that I did not make that statement - the director/cameraman made that statement.
Since he does do good video and has a track record of success some ten years long, I will defer to his opinion - for his show. I'm just a sponsor interested in the demographics he appeals/presents to and as long as people keep on watching his stuff and saying its cool and they like it, I'll not kick about it.
He has, incidentally, taped at both NPPL and PSP events and maintains the following: woodsball remains more interesting for the camera (note 'interesting'), NPPL is friendlier because he doesn't have to edit the soundtrack so much.
On to other things.
I predict that when prize money for woodsball begins to approach that of regular tournaments (and we have every reason to believe that is the direction its going), those folks promoting those games are going to run into the same cheating, accusation and pressures for 'fairness' that we've already been through. At that point, there won't be any discernable difference between the two markets.
Chicago,
enforcement of the rules in the woods was harder - no doubt - but still do-able; had there been no alterantive (sup'air) the emerging methods for dealing effectively with it would have had time to develop and mature and would, by now, be at the 'acceptable' level. NPPL Dallas - '93 - is a case in point. Not a single team came out of the woods without feeling that they had been reffed fairly and adequately and that the outcome of the games reflected the play on the fields - not cheating.
The diffrence was that the fields were analyzed by terrain and 'need' as opposed to a blanket '6 refs per field'.
The same thing was done during the PaintCheck 5 man games in the Poconos - this field is dense, we need 12 refs. this field is open, we need 3...
please note that I did not make that statement - the director/cameraman made that statement.
Since he does do good video and has a track record of success some ten years long, I will defer to his opinion - for his show. I'm just a sponsor interested in the demographics he appeals/presents to and as long as people keep on watching his stuff and saying its cool and they like it, I'll not kick about it.
He has, incidentally, taped at both NPPL and PSP events and maintains the following: woodsball remains more interesting for the camera (note 'interesting'), NPPL is friendlier because he doesn't have to edit the soundtrack so much.
On to other things.
I predict that when prize money for woodsball begins to approach that of regular tournaments (and we have every reason to believe that is the direction its going), those folks promoting those games are going to run into the same cheating, accusation and pressures for 'fairness' that we've already been through. At that point, there won't be any discernable difference between the two markets.
Chicago,
enforcement of the rules in the woods was harder - no doubt - but still do-able; had there been no alterantive (sup'air) the emerging methods for dealing effectively with it would have had time to develop and mature and would, by now, be at the 'acceptable' level. NPPL Dallas - '93 - is a case in point. Not a single team came out of the woods without feeling that they had been reffed fairly and adequately and that the outcome of the games reflected the play on the fields - not cheating.
The diffrence was that the fields were analyzed by terrain and 'need' as opposed to a blanket '6 refs per field'.
The same thing was done during the PaintCheck 5 man games in the Poconos - this field is dense, we need 12 refs. this field is open, we need 3...
Maybe Steve, but I think your agrument cuts both ways - officiating may have gotten better, but cheating has also become much more rampant since the move from the woods as well. I mean, we can barely contain cheating now on nice open speedball fields, I can't imagine we'd do even that well on a woods field.
I really do hope that if we get to the point where there's big prizes for woods play that it becomes a third branch of paintball and doesn't occur at the expense of the scenario/rec/big game/mil sim crowd.
I really do hope that if we get to the point where there's big prizes for woods play that it becomes a third branch of paintball and doesn't occur at the expense of the scenario/rec/big game/mil sim crowd.
ahhh, yes - rampant cheating (or should that be 'ramping' cheating...?)
the cheating issue, no matter where we are playing, will remain insoluable until such time as the following occurs/no longer occurs:
we remain dependant upon players to draw our referees
we tolerate cheating because 'my' team winning is good for business
we accept a non-game as the basis for competititon (no, not pushing any format - merely the fact that if refs can't stop the game, they remain inherently out of control of said game)
we already know what the requirements are:
control of technology used in the game
establishment of a reffing org that is beholden to no particular interest within the paintball business community
rules and formats that are truly self-contained
the willingness to spend the dollars to make those happen
if such were to come into being, any competition format would become viable, regardless of the terrain.
the cheating issue, no matter where we are playing, will remain insoluable until such time as the following occurs/no longer occurs:
we remain dependant upon players to draw our referees
we tolerate cheating because 'my' team winning is good for business
we accept a non-game as the basis for competititon (no, not pushing any format - merely the fact that if refs can't stop the game, they remain inherently out of control of said game)
we already know what the requirements are:
control of technology used in the game
establishment of a reffing org that is beholden to no particular interest within the paintball business community
rules and formats that are truly self-contained
the willingness to spend the dollars to make those happen
if such were to come into being, any competition format would become viable, regardless of the terrain.