Reply With QuoteWhat does that solve? As far as I can tell it adds complexity for no reason at all.
This would require some tech, but what about an RFID (our similar) tag on the gear and reader(s) at the goal line? Have to make it have a maximum reading distance of say 7' for super tall people, but then it would be offset behind the line that distance. As soon as the gear crosses a point is scored. Cameras at the line for challenges to scores, double checking for hits.
What does that solve? As far as I can tell it adds complexity for no reason at all.
That's what I was aiming forOriginally Posted by Lurker27
Any changes should be simple I think. We're mostly just adding complexity. Paintballers in general aren't all that smart, you have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
That's my major objection to endzones or "gates" - you need more reffing, cameras, or both to make it enforceable at a decently high level of play.
Again, JUST ADDING TIME BASED INCENTIVES was my original proposal, which requires ZERO added complexity while solving a host of issues.
Pfffffft. Applying the KISS principle to something, Lurker? It's like i don't even know you anymore
Truthfully, Lurker's idea is pretty easy to implement. We do something similar for our RFID wrist band games. There are 3 capture points and each second you hold that point you get 1 point. After the initial 5 second capture to get the counter running, the game computer tallies up all the points at the end and you find out who's won. It's similar to Unreal Tournament's Domination game play mode if you've ever played it.
One could do that for speedball only specify a 4 min (or some other length) max per game. Subtract how many minutes remain (round up or down) from that 4 min to get your score per game. Tally it up at the end and see who wins. 20 minute matches still a possibility or however long is desired.
Anybody willing to try it and record the footage? Vigil, i likely missed it, but do you have any footage?
No footage sorry Jaccen, but there's word out about an experimental paintball day where we'll try out a few different ideas. I'll try to have a camera handy.
An enders game style score where the point ends once one player crosses the line was the idea all along lurker, not sure I made that clear. Ref load as mentioned gets too high if multiple players are scoring all over the place. With a (throwable?) flag which one team starts with you make things even better from a reffing and spectating viewpoint, but it's not entirely needed.
Regarding things turning into a deathmatch or getting completely insane, see the paragraph on my last post about tuning the format. There are easy solutions to both problems. Mostly you can just relocate the touchdown lines relative to the back line - ie have a touchdown zone that extends into the field some amount rather than having to run right over their back line. How far the zone extends in is something you playtest many times and get right.
Ref load: having to make a call as to whether a player is hit when they cross the line isn't any different to a current ref making calls about a run through. Probably easier since it stops the game and you don't have to deal with fallout after the fact. For that reason I don't think buzzers are needed - especially since they add complexity. Having a game that requires minimal admin - preferably even no stopwatches * - is ideal. Streetballers need to be able to play essentially the same format for it to really grow.
*imo we need a penalty system that doesn't rely on timers. Minor = sit the next point, major = two players sit the next point. The less tech involved in core game mechanics the better. That said we actually play a computer controlled version of exactly that three flag format here in NZ using electronic flag stations. Very cool system, works with wifi and tickers just like Battlefield.
Mixed markers - the idea (I'll admit it might be terrible) is that someone may only be able to afford to run a pistol, but can still join a high end comp team and be valuable. Players are not forced into spending gazillions while those that want to still get to play full noise. Rich guys can do it all. In an endzone format like this the pistols come into their own for front players looking to move and score. The downsides I can see are 1: policing it and 2: paint makers wouldn't be happy and 3: nor would Jack Wood. Tippmann and MILSIG would be all over it though...
Last edited by vijil; 10-30-2014 at 05:14 AM.
https://www.instagram.com/vijil/
I draw guns and spaceships and bunnies
There's actually a fairly elegant solution already in existence for an end zone buzzer. Sean Scott's/CPX's electronic slap sticks.
Maybe a little refining to the design to cater to a tournament style field, but basically what's already there. They're timed to a computer just off the field, so even if both teams were to push their buttons within the same second, the computer could figure out which pushed first.
the problem with adding all this tech ... is you have to practice at a local field, on a random Thursday night, the entire format.
5 grand worth of computers and camera equipment ... unless this format is going to be played every day, all day at that field, is pretty silly.
KISS
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Those same fields invest thousands of dollars on current year fields. Some of them replace those fields entirely every year. All of them that have house teams spend whatever the "update package" fee is at the minimum.
IIRC, Sean said that while prototyping his system wasn't cheap, producing it really wasn't bad.
fields again, already cannot actual practice xball because almost none have air in pits, timers between points, etc etc etc
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Posting Permissions
