[coreyn]

to what tremis said.

edit:

Originally Posted by raehl

But if a team DOES have good field awareness, coaching isn't going to do much, because a player with good field awareness can act much faster than a player being coached.

I do not find this to be true Chris. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen dorrito side players post on the snake and then right after they switch to shoot the other way they get obliterated in the back from the snake player (of lower caliber) because they have someone telling them when the dorrito player switches.

I have been in that scenario plenty of times, which is why I don't like coaching.

Also, 10yards away isn't that far...
When teams are practicing for PSP events, most of the time there aren't as many people at the practice. This makes for spectator participation to be a lot more audible. I was playing dorritos this past weekend and could hear almost every single word the "specators" were yelling. This makes spectator participation change at every place you go to play Xball solely based on how many people are on the sidelines. No coaching would eliminate this issue all together.

[tremis]

I certainly can see the logic of "over the din of the crowd, coaching is relegated to being marginal" But the gent above me does bring up the issue of incosistent crowd size determining the value of coaching. I believe that if the powers that be want to amalgamate the formats, they will come up with something. If players dont like it, they can tweak it until they do.

A few friends of mine were spitballing ideas, just for fun and thought about putting the coach wherever off field you want, at the expense of a live player. No coach, 6 guys who can all be eliminated. Or 5 guys and a coach who while he cant shoot, can direct all game long. When we idly threw that out there, it was with the question of what was more valuable, another gun on the field or a set of eyes off the field. I wouldnt suggest it as a valid format, just shows that there are different ways to approach it.

I personally thought it was a great idea to put the coach inside the net, but out of bounds. If he "outed" the d-side guy who gets shot in the back by the snake player, at least the corner guy could throw a few shots in him to feel better about losing the d-side guy. But I doubt the coaches would like that. But it is all about sacrifiing for the good of the team right?

[NkdMangina]

Originally Posted by eforcegtid00d

It's easy to write off the pump division as uncompetitive, until you play even a middle of the pack team and realize that they're good enough to lane players out off the break with a pump while others struggle even with ramping. You don't have to play a format you're not interested in, but at least show some respect for other players.

There's no reason to get uptight about the idea of a merger - it's quite possible to simply have an NPPL event and a PSP event on the same property without changing how either game is played. A lot of the changes could be more focused on how things work off the field - APPA registration, universal ID cards, scheduling, and general league management.

That being said, don't let yourself get worked up about how things can go wrong, or which format is better, or whether or not we should have coaching, or ramping, or any other lesser details. Be happy that the leagues may be considering a merger and moving toward a unified sport in a time when we need to work together to survive. Show respect for fellow players, appreciate what both leagues have done for us, and support them in whatever decision they make.

[NkdMangina]

Originally Posted by raehl

That's basically where PSP is at now - you've got about 10 to 15 feet to the net, then another 15 to 20 feet to the player on the tape.

To the rest, I think a lot of people overestimate how effective coaching is. If you have two teams with players who have poor field awareness, coaching can definitely make a difference. Coaching allows the players with the better technical skills to take quicker advantage of a team that plays sloppy.

But if a team DOES have good field awareness, coaching isn't going to do much, because a player with good field awareness can act much faster than a player being coached.

Anyway, three or four years ago, the coaching difference was more significant. Nowadays, the spectator participation PSP has really isn't much different than the spectator participation NPPL has, especially when there are a lot of people watching.

So, my point is, if anyone is really that worried about coaching, you shouldn't be - the spectator participation that PSP has today is only a small step away from "no coaching".

- Chris

The PSP is starting to look more and more like the NPPL, likely because a lot of those changes make sense. I have a feeling that they will eliminate coaching all together soon enough. Like you said, its just another small step.

The PSP format today looks more like the NPPL then it does the orginal X-Ball format

[NkdMangina]

Originally Posted by coreyn

:When teams are practicing for PSP events, most of the time there aren't as many people at the practice. This makes for spectator participation to be a lot more audible. I was playing dorritos this past weekend and could hear almost every single word the "specators" were yelling. This makes spectator participation change at every place you go to play Xball solely based on how many people are on the sidelines. No coaching would eliminate this issue all together.

How many people, and who they want to win. Smaller programs have a harder time trying to get the message to thier player when they're being drowned out by the sound of everyone else yelling.

I think most people agree that the league should just let the players play and elimate coaching all together, it is only a matter of time. Even pro players who are doing the webcasts for PSP rip on coaching almost the whole time.

[Labelskate]

Originally Posted by coreyn

to what tremis said.

edit:


I do not find this to be true Chris. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen dorrito side players post on the snake and then right after they switch to shoot the other way they get obliterated in the back from the snake player (of lower caliber) because they have someone telling them when the dorrito player switches.

I have been in that scenario plenty of times, which is why I don't like coaching.

Agreed. I see this all the time.

[raehl]

Originally Posted by coreyn

I do not find this to be true Chris. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen dorrito side players post on the snake and then right after they switch to shoot the other way they get obliterated in the back from the snake player (of lower caliber) because they have someone telling them when the dorrito player switches.

The Dorito player didn't get obliterated because of coaching. They got obliterated because, if you're in a Dorito where the snake player can obliterate you if you switch to shoot the other way, switching to shoot the other way is an ERROR.

Coaching does increase the penalty for errors. Without coaching, you can play poorly and get away with it because the other team doesn't see you screwing up. With coaching, if you screw up, it's likely you're going to pay for it because the other team's coach IS going to see it.

And if you have an opponent in the snake, and you switch sides to let him shoot you, you screwed up.

- Chris

[vivalaconfederacy]

keep it how it is, i like it just fine. and the paint manufacturers wouldnt be there if they werent making money. period

[***MINIONS*** (Banned)]

Originally Posted by raehl

The Dorito player didn't get obliterated because of coaching. They got obliterated because, if you're in a Dorito where the snake player can obliterate you if you switch to shoot the other way, switching to shoot the other way is an ERROR.

And if you have an opponent in the snake, and you switch sides to let him shoot you, you screwed up.

- Chris

i disagree with this. while youre on that snake keeping him in you could have a guy close to you with almost the same angle take over that lane. the snake player will think that dorito guy is still putting him in and the dorito guy is free to do as he pleases.
our team does things like this all the time and i can tell you it's impossible with coaching.

[VPB-ChristianW]

Hey, just following this debate for fun

Chris, when you said, "Without coaching, you can play poorly and get away with it" I definitely agree that's true a lot of times. And really, I actually like coaching so I'm not fighting against it.

But I also see how it definitely changes the game. It doesn't just change it so lazy players can live longer, but so risky players can live longer too. Now, what's risky is often deemed as "dumb" when it fails. And coaching will definitely increase the failure of a risky move.

But just consider the following option...
We've all seen a player in a bunker slowly back way way way out of his bunker into a blind spot. This is an extremely risk move. It even still happens in time to time in Xball, but often by only the old school guys who are used to playing that way.

Anyway, if you try to do this on a coaching side of the field, all your coach(es) will do is to tell someone cross field or wherever to shoot into that blind spot and blow the guy up. Now, no player would have ever thought to shoot in that open blind spot. But with a coach, those kinds of moves are shut down the vast majority of the time in Xball, so we rarely see them... and when we do see them in Xball (1-2 times an event?) they don't usually work that well.

That's just one example, but you can paint another picture where a smart, but risky-dangerous player (think Maverick from Top Gun) is intentionally ignoring the "obvious" threat or move on a field in favor of the less obvious one. He's riding on the edge, and it's a crazy risk that when it pays off he is a hero, but when it fails, he crashes and burns.

Coaching has the impact to take away these kind of things, and it may very well be we don't even see the result of the kinds of moves that are missed and moreover the kinds of moves and talents that fail to be developed as a result of a coaching environment.

Now, I hope I don't come across as bashing coaching. Because I think it's actually really great for paintball at the same time. It's very cool to have some of these paintball-brains, who no longer can physically compete on the field being able to offer their mental agility to a team. It really does add another dimension to the game... I think it's great that each team basically has someone in a God-like role who can look over everything at once, evaluate the information and pass it on to the players. How cool is that, to have someone would could effectively be responsible for "winning" a game even though they weren't on the field and shooting and it was just the result of their communication and strategy. I'd even love to see the coaches for each team standing on a platform above the field in the starting box so they'd have a perfect view of everything, barking orders to their team like a general or something....

That doesn't change the idea that there is a real trade off though. We potentially lose something special in exchange for gaining something else special.

Often it does seem like coaching has been reduced to simply saying, "he's coming, he's coming!" And if that is all we get out of coaching I don't think it's worth it.

But if we can do coaching "right" I think it's worth having. Hope I made my point well... maybe it would be interesting to see coaching only in the top two levels and the lower divisions have no coaching so the players rely more on instinct and then graduate to the "big leagues" where everyone should be more talented.... That's not really a good solution either.

I'm actually a fan of my earlier suggestions to put the coach for each team in their back center elevated above the field. This way, the coach can visibly take in more information and can perhaps be more apart of his team, even though he's "above the fray". In think in someways, if we sideline coaches (double entendre intended) then you end up with creating a coach that has less information, which means less relevance, which means he can provide less benefit for the team, which means he basically is reduced to either a "Go, now!" or "He's coming now!" approach. In that case it's not really exciting right?

[coreyn]

Originally Posted by raehl

The Dorito player didn't get obliterated because of coaching. They got obliterated because, if you're in a Dorito where the snake player can obliterate you if you switch to shoot the other way, switching to shoot the other way is an ERROR.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Staying posted on snake the entire time is an ERROR.
If I'm on the dorrito side and I would need to switch off the snake I would get another teamate to put paint on the snake so I could do so. With coaching, the coach would just have to say "The ______ is on you now, tuck in and shoot the dorrito!" In a non coaching situation, if someone's dropping in paint over your head, you're not going to stick your head up unless you know for sure that angle is from someone else. This still doesn't mean the dorrito isn't posted on you though. But, if you have a guy who can see everything and let you know can stick up your head if your're careful because the dorrito has switched, that's a game changer.

edit: All it takes is literally a second for the coach to say "NOW!" RIGHT when the dorrito switches, even if only for a second or two.

[Labelskate]

Originally Posted by raehl

The Dorito player didn't get obliterated because of coaching. They got obliterated because, if you're in a Dorito where the snake player can obliterate you if you switch to shoot the other way, switching to shoot the other way is an ERROR.

[raehl]

Originally Posted by VPB-ChristianW

Coaching has the impact to take away these kind of things, and it may very well be we don't even see the result of the kinds of moves that are missed and moreover the kinds of moves and talents that fail to be developed as a result of a coaching environment.

I don't disagree at all - spectator participation changes what skills and strategies are effective.

But for all the skills and strategies that are less important with spectator participation, there are other skills and strategies that are MORE important with it. It requires players to have better technical skills. It requires players to think and act faster. And as a spectator, it speeds the match up, eliminating some dead time when players don't know what's going on.


But my main point was, the way spectator participation is currently set up in PSP, its impact is pretty minimal, especially when compared to "non-coaching" leagues where spectators still - legally and illegally - impact the game. I think a lot of people still have it in their heads that current spectator participation is like coaching was in 2004, when it was a much, much bigger factor on the game, and it isn't even close to that.


- Chris

[raehl]

Originally Posted by coreyn

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Staying posted on snake the entire time is an ERROR.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Staying posted on the snake keeps the snake from shooting you out. Turning away gets you shot out. By definition, turning away in that situation is an error.


Another way to look at it is you don't want to be in a position where an opponent has a very easy shot on you. If you are, the other team has the advantage. With coaching, the other team will realize that advantage relatively quickly. Without coaching, it takes longer for the other team to realize their advantage.

The consequence of that is, if there is coaching, it's far more important for you to not allow your opponent to get/keep key positions on the field, especially if your players are in vulnerable positions.

But again, if you find that your players are being shot out by other players, it's not because of coaching, it's because the other team is playing better than you are.


- Chris

[coreyn]

Originally Posted by raehl

But my main point was, the way spectator participation is currently set up in PSP, its impact is pretty minimal, especially when compared to "non-coaching" leagues where spectators still - legally and illegally - impact the game. I think a lot of people still have it in their heads that current spectator participation is like coaching was in 2004, when it was a much, much bigger factor on the game, and it isn't even close to that.

It's probably minimal at major events. I will agree on that. At smaller events however, especially at practices, since there are none/very few spectators to shout over, coaching easily becomes like it was back in 04.

[jarude]

Originally Posted by coreyn

It's probably minimal at major events. I will agree on that. At smaller events however, especially at practices, since there are none/very few spectators to shout over, coaching easily becomes like it was back in 04.

This.

[KBERG]

i disagree with this. while youre on that snake keeping him in you could have a guy close to you with almost the same angle take over that lane. the snake player will think that dorito guy is still putting him in and the dorito guy is free to do as he pleases.
our team does things like this all the time and i can tell you it's impossible with coaching.

fail...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Staying posted on snake the entire time is an ERROR.

First of all you should try and shoot him, if you miss, worst case scenario you essentially disable that opposing player...

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Staying posted on the snake keeps the snake from shooting you out. Turning away gets you shot out. By definition, turning away in that situation is an error.

win...
A successful dorito side player is smart enough to live against a player with coaching and do his job

If a player isn't resourceful enough to do this they should not play that side of the field