Jump to content


Photo

The technological limit of paintball?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#1 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:14 PM

As you may have noticed Dye isn't coming out with anything new or revolutionairy anymore. PE isn't even making a new ego. No new superguns are any better than the ones since 09. And since 07 the differences between paintball guns has gotten less and less every year.

Look at the difference from Dm3 and Dm4. Then look at the difference of the Dm9 and the Dm12.

There was a bigger difference in one year back then than in 3 years today. Do you think paintball is reaching the limit at how much smoother faster better guns can get? How long untill the next revolutionary thing?
It just seems to have reached the limit. This also seems to be backwards with technology of everything else as they are increasing exponentially (computer, planes, cars).

Why is it that there are no MAJOR improvements? Is it because paintball just can't get any higher or is it because of greedy companies?

(P.S. I dont hate dye, im just using them as an easy example.)

Edited by Noreac, 04 February 2012 - 11:15 PM.

Real men play paintball.

#2 Cookybiscuit

Cookybiscuit

    Schadenfreude Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,653 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mexico


Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:17 PM

Its been noticed that in the history of paintball the big changes come around every 3 years, theres plenty to be done with paintball.

Awarded: " the biggest dumbass on this forum" 2012


#3 mrtwo719

mrtwo719

    Knees flexin and arms T-rex'n

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:19 PM

I would think at some point the Projectile itself will be the determining factor in how far they can really go with it.

#4 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:24 PM

I would think at some point the Projectile itself will be the determining factor in how far they can really go with it.


Thing is though nothing truly great is happening with paint, its getting smaller and more expensive (More profit for companies).

Maybe if there was a new way to seamlessly make paintballs, that would be a true revolutionary thing. But if that cost $70 bucks a case I don't think it would be worth buying.
Real men play paintball.

#5 atlpaintball24

atlpaintball24

    Do you even lift?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:27 PM


I would think at some point the Projectile itself will be the determining factor in how far they can really go with it.


Thing is though nothing truly great is happening with paint, its getting smaller and more expensive (More profit for companies).

Maybe if there was a new way to seamlessly make paintballs, that would be a true revolutionary thing. But if that cost $70 bucks a case I don't think it would be worth buying.

It's already $80 a case at pbatl.. fpo :tdn:

#6 Molybdenum

Molybdenum

    Aspiring Ninja

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MN


Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:42 PM

The projectile truly is the technological limiting factor for paintball right now. Even if someone successfully builds an integrated backspin system, its still a spherical projectile.

Edited by Molybdenum, 04 February 2012 - 11:43 PM.


#7 Patar

Patar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:53 PM

just like everything else we're inventing nowadays, everything's just going to downsize. see how small you can get your tank and your hopper and your marker and your paint and your barrel and all that crap. Posted Image

#8 NJC

NJC

    pumper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,395 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:25 AM

the tech limit of paintball? well, paintballs probably

I split my vote, half for etekgirl's body, half for her mind, because I respect a woman's mind just as much as her cans.
*Waits to get hit*


#9 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:48 AM

There is a large economic component to this IMO.
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#10 Molybdenum

Molybdenum

    Aspiring Ninja

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MN


Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:53 AM

There is a large economic component to this IMO.


This is true as well. Perhaps if it were cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) we would all be shooting FS rounds from a drum. That would be a completely different game.

#11 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:41 AM


There is a large economic component to this IMO.


This is true as well. Perhaps if it were cheaper (like an order of magnitude cheaper) we would all be shooting FS rounds from a drum. That would be a completely different game.


That's one of the things I was thinking of. You would think that the price has to come down sometime, no?
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#12 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:52 AM

Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.

#13 Vaellis

Vaellis

    Just call your boy and we'll get luxed together

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,326 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2012 - 10:00 AM

Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.



WAs going to mention Hydrotech ^
I love when people can't pronounce my user name. ninja 50/45
Posted Image

#14 Av4Lon

Av4Lon

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 37 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:38 PM

Paintball technology is at its peak...the only thing that can be done imo is to find a way to cut production costs

#15 drunkenpriest

drunkenpriest

    I relax 8 days a week.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:34 PM

i think now they are focusing more on mid-end guns then high-ends Posted Image
Posted Image

#16 Teek

Teek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 05 February 2012 - 03:22 PM

Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.



i think now they are focusing more on mid-end guns then high-ends Posted Image


Got to agree with these two, especially with Bryce on FS rounds and hydrotec, there's a lot of interesting stuff there. As for FS, I'm really excited to see how gun design can improve there, especially with how psyched Mike is about the FN303. Not to bash on Tiberius, but I feel like they've rested a bit on their laurels with the T9.1, and there are a lot of improvements to be made. I was pretty impressed by the proposition that the new Trracer made of a cheap, light, pump-action FS gun, even though the design had some flaws, I'd love for someone to take that idea and run with it. I would also love to see a small FS gun that you could attach to the barrel of your regular marker. I think the FS market has the greatest possibility for growth in the industry.

I also like the growing emphasis on mid-range guns, to even things out and let nearly everyone to get their hands on a great-shooting marker.
Rest in Peace, Borg.

#17 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 05 February 2012 - 04:52 PM

Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.


Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#18 Teek

Teek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 05 February 2012 - 08:57 PM


Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.


Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.


But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.
Rest in Peace, Borg.

#19 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 05 February 2012 - 09:45 PM

One thing I have noticed also is that higher quality paintballs aren't going down in price, they're going up.

Paintball is going backwards as everything else is going forwards, higher tech phones are getting cheaper, computers for 300 bucks today can destroy a 2,000 computer 4 years ago, and technoligy overall is getting smaller and cheaper.

But paintball? Its staying the same (and even getting worse) and getting more expensive. The largest cost in the game are the paintballs themselves, why do the high quality paintballs get more and more expensive?

If paintballs were 20 bucks a case for decent quality then that would be good enough for me and help paintball grow a hell of alot faster due to many people who cant play because of financial issues.

Edit: Fixed typo ololo

Edited by Noreac, 06 February 2012 - 12:05 AM.

Real men play paintball.

#20 Coastermaniac

Coastermaniac

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:29 PM

One thing I have noticed also is that higher quality paintballs aren't going down in price, they're going up.

Paintball is going backwards as everything else is going forwards, higher tech phones are getting cheaper, computers for 3000 bucks today can destroy a 2,000 computer 4 years ago, and technoligy overall is getting smaller and cheaper.

But paintball? Its staying the same (and even getting worse) and getting more expensive. The largest cost in the game are the paintballs themselves, why do the high quality paintballs get more and more expensive?

If paintballs were 20 bucks a case for decent quality then that would be good enough for me and help paintball grow a hell of alot faster due to many people who cant play because of financial issues.


Well I hope so Posted Image

#21 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 05 February 2012 - 11:36 PM

i think without a major paradyme shift, we are nearing the limits of what we can do, yes. so much has been built around the flaws in paintball (ie range and accuracy) that without essentially rejecting most of modern paintball, the fundamental issues wont be solved.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#22 betasniper

betasniper

    Self Proclaimed Mechanical Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:where the sun always shines

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:11 AM

But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.


Just wanted to say that the largest capacity FS compatible magazine would be a Q-Loader with a new screw designed by alpha434. It allows you to hold 80 FS rounds. http://www.mcarterbr...s-like-pro.html
Although I don't think he is making them any more.
╔══╗╔╗────────╔═╗───╔╦╗Zdspb-Marker Animations Long list of working markers, visit if confused
║╬╬╠╝╚╦═╦══╦╦═╣╚╬╦╦╦╣║║
║╔╗╠╗╔╣╬║║║║║╠╬╗║─╣║║║║
╚╝╚╝╚╝╚═╩╩╩╩╩═╩═╩╩╩═╩╩╝
Mechanical Engineer(working on a degree in college) and Machinist(Riverside Community College Norco)

#23 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:27 AM



Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.


Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.


But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.


this is because the format of the game was changed to cover up the range/accuracy problems that paintballs had.

you have to get past the number of band-aids that the way we play paintball to cover up the inherent technological issues of the past.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#24 LV Backpacker

LV Backpacker

    Master Member

  • TechPB Players Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Walking into Mordor

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:55 AM

i think without a major paradyme shift, we are nearing the limits of what we can do, yes. so much has been built around the flaws in paintball (ie range and accuracy) that without essentially rejecting most of modern paintball, the fundamental issues wont be solved.

I agree. Without something big to change the game, everything will remain quite stagnant. If you look at speedball especially, the way its played has not adjusted very much since guns such as the shocker sft and intimidator appeared. The guns will shoot faster, be more efficient, be smaller, etc., but the only aspect that has changed the sport is an increase of bps, and that has more to do with the loader technology then the gun technology. As far as gun technology goes, we'll probably continue to see increases in efficiency from spools and smoothness from poppits, however until something changes in the way we play or the paint used, there is only so much companies can do to make something better. The only other thing I could see revolutionizing gun technology is a new firing system that doesn't fit into current terminology.

If you want to get sponsored, present yourself as a mature adult, not a four year old with a crayon.

Posted Image
Gearbag
Feedback

#25 Teek

Teek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 06 February 2012 - 02:11 AM




Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.


Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.


But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.


this is because the format of the game was changed to cover up the range/accuracy problems that paintballs had.

you have to get past the number of band-aids that the way we play paintball to cover up the inherent technological issues of the past.


Too true, it's an interesting thought exercise to imagine paintball solely as a sport based around the FS round. Paintball above all else emphasizes speed and capacity. Large amounts of paint, high efficiency, large tanks, high rates of fire. None of that is really necessary with FS rounds, and you have the constant and undisputed advantage of range and accuracy. And yet, normal paintball markers still have advantages over their more accurate relatives. If you're on a speedball field, you probably don't want to just use FS rounds, if you want to use them at all. In a close range fight, I take the 20bps, 150 rounnd ego over the Tiberius 9.1 ANY DAY. Like CockerPunk said, so much of the game has been designed to take full advantage of the .68 paintball, it's hard to remove without drastically changing everything.

That said, I do think pump gun makers should really latch on to the idea of adapting to FS rounds as much as possible. For all it's flaws, I still think the idea of the $125 Trracer able to shoot the highest performance paintball in the game is awesome, and I think my mind would be blown if I saw a phantom able to take a FS magazine. Even without magazines, I'd love to see some new ideas for milling the breach for optimal FS feeding. Maybe an ability to lock the bolt back, or make the feeding easier.
Rest in Peace, Borg.

#26 oldnewb

oldnewb

    always playing Devil's advocate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver Canada

Posted 06 February 2012 - 06:50 PM

I would like to see:

-hoppers / loaders move from centre top feed to something underslung, or mounted under the grip (100-200 round capacity, force fed up to the marker through the front or back grip? Yes please!). Clears the top for easier / quicker sighting, and reduces profile when popping out of cover to shoot.

-A more efficient / powerful propulsion "fuel" as compared to compressed air. I mean, there's got to be something better than hooking a small scuba tank to your marker. I know HPA is convenient to fill, relatively safe, relatively consistent, etc., but it's also bulky, heavy, and offers no better efficiency than the equivilant sized Co2 cannister.

-More advanced electronics. Circuit boards and eyes that do more. Instead of simple break-beam eyes, imagine a sensor system that feeds more information about the paintball to the circuit board than just "is there a paintball in here?". Then imagine a processor / software that can adjust settings like dwell on the fly, from shot to shot.

Just a few thoughts.
Techpb Mike doesn't use Trojan Magnum extra large condoms 'cause he doesn't believe in underboring.

Techpb Mike doesn't hide behind cover. Instead, he shoots down incoming paintballs.

#27 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:08 PM



Hydrotech is possibly moving in the right direction - we just need to wait and see if they can get the process to be economically viable.

As for FS rounds coming down in price - they already have. They're half of what they were when they came out. Based on materials and process I don't think there's a reason for them to come down in price. Loading and shooting mechanisms for them, yes, the actual projectiles, no.


Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.


But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.


I honestly don't see them as more than a novelty, even despite the things you list. I mean I think they have a lot of potential but the penetration isn't as universally high as you may be thinking. Now we don't exactly do things quite like everyone else around my neck of the woods but I have yet to see ANYONE using first strikes, other than the people that have brought them down to demo or promote them.

It seems like they are really only anywhere near common on the largest, most popular outdoor venues.
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#28 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 06 February 2012 - 07:24 PM

TBH i'm not really even sure paintball SHOULD be encouraging longer engagement ranges. I don't think getting sniped out by someone you can't even see is a great way to promote the game with noobs.
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#29 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:29 PM

I'm personally a huge proponent of pump play for expanding the new player base, and I know I'm not alone in the industry. The low risk of overshooting, low initial investment and ability to encourage more moving should translate into higher player retention
Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#30 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:00 PM

I'm personally a huge proponent of pump play for expanding the new player base, and I know I'm not alone in the industry. The low risk of overshooting, low initial investment and ability to encourage more moving should translate into higher player retention


pushing pump play as a way to keep older tournament players on the verge of burnout is also ideal. my pump team consists about 80% of players who used to play mainstream semi/xball tournaments and got bored/ran out of money/realized how much of waste of money tournament paintball is/won to much and are too highly ranked.

and then pump play segues nicely into classic gun collecting and playing rec ball with cockers, mags, and the like.

Edited by cockerpunk, 06 February 2012 - 10:01 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#31 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:21 PM

I'm personally a huge proponent of pump play for expanding the new player base, and I know I'm not alone in the industry. The low risk of overshooting, low initial investment and ability to encourage more moving should translate into higher player retention


My only niggle about this, and yes I generally agree with the idea that more pump will mean better player retention of all levels, is that pumps are more prone to operator error, i.e. chopping balls. Especially the kind of pumps and loaders that are likely to be found in rental fleets.

IMO successful play first and foremost is about competitive matchups. That and good ref involvement IMO are the keys to successful introductory experiences.

I am a big proponent of one-on-one play for introductory players, having them play one on one with their peers. It rarely happens but IMO that's a really fun way to simplify the game and get EVERYONE several rounds where they can go all out and play rather than catch a random ball early or cower all game from the other team (regardless of firepower).
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#32 Snake

Snake

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:00 AM

to the OP: I don't think its ALL about money. Look at the guns, hoppers, barrels... What else can be done? Pretty much nothing. They've gotten to the point where the only "improvements" are easier (tool-less) dissemblance.
We already have super high-tech guns, cabon barrels, carbon tank, super fast loaders, etc... there's really nothing else to improve in term of performance where almost everywhere guns are regulated to <300fps and/or 12-15bps.

Edited by Snake, 07 February 2012 - 12:03 AM.


#33 The_Economist

The_Economist

    It's business time.

  • BST Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW Indiana

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:46 AM

As far as pump play being pushed onto newbies, it would not have worked on me. If someone had shoved a pump gun into my hands and told me "You play this until you get better," I would have walked away. In fact, I kinda did; I remember, back in high school (1997 or so), listening to some friends talk about playing paintball. I asked them about what the rental guns were like and they said that you had to pump them in order to shoot. I laughed paintball off as a silly waste of money. If they couldn't rent me a gun that shoots with a trigger pull, then it wasn't worth my time. As a result, I did not even try paintball until 2008.

Pump play is not for everyone. Semi-auto was what I was looking for in a mock combat game. I don't think I am alone in having that view.

As far as technology goes, I would venture that it's all splitting hairs and chasing extremely small gains in .68 caliber gun technology. My 3-year-old gun objectively shoots just as well as the newest gun on the market. I'm sure that there are 5- and 6-year-old guns with the same objective performance. Maybe if efficiency were improved to a point where a 13ci tank would perform like today's 68ci tanks, we could see a change in gun setups.

Edited by The_Economist, 07 February 2012 - 12:47 AM.


#34 Old Dude PB

Old Dude PB

    Safety third.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, MA

Posted 07 February 2012 - 01:44 AM

I think many of the technological improvements we've seen over the last 20 years have actually hurt the sport. Putting more, cheaper paint in the air is a negative for many new players. Constant air, electronic triggers, ramping and full-auto firing modes, motorized loaders, anti-chop eyes, and everything else that helps us shoot more paint faster, make paintball less attractive to a lot of people who might enjoy the sport if it were more like a game of tag, and less like a machine gun battle. I also think that the pain and bruising associated with playing are a big turnoff for a lot of people. If you want there to be more paintball players, keep rates of fire and muzzle velocities low, and develop a paint that doesn't break easily in your gun, but breaks very easily on your target. Or maybe come up with protective wear that doesn't restrict your movement or roast you, but that takes the sting out of getting shot.

An example from my own experience: I took a group of my friends and their kids paintballing last weekend. My kids had played before, but the other dads and their children had not. Everyone rented but me. I played pump. Of the new players, two will likely never play again. One of the dads got lit up with multiple shots in each of his first few games, and decided it wasn't for him. Done for the day, done for good. This is not an overly sensitive or feeble guy. He's played most popular sports over the course of his life. He just hated that when he put his hand up to signal that he was out, more paintballs hit him. One of the kids, a twelve year old boy, absolutely loved it, but when he got home, his mom saw the welts and declared he was never going again. Needless to say, she was not super pleased with her husband and me. This all happened at a field where they're actually pretty good about safety, keeping newbies and experienced players apart, and trying to make it fun for everyone.

I guess I'm just suggesting that if your idea of technological progress is faster guns and cheaper paint, don't expect participation to grow much.

Edited by Old Dude PB, 07 February 2012 - 01:45 AM.


#35 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 07 February 2012 - 09:24 AM

Yeah coming down from ridiculous to merely unacceptable is obviously not what we're talking about here. They are still not economically viable as primary rounds for a majority of players; to be revolutionary they have a ways more to go. They remain a novelty.


I see them regularly at the field. The math does start to work out at big event paint prices. I shot 2.5 cases last year at Living Legends at $80 a case. UV_Halo shot about 425 rounds of first strikes at about $50/100. that means that we spent roughly the same on projectiles. He shoots a ton of FS and is really good with his equipment. He estimates an aprox 25% hit rate. That translates to 100-ish eliminations in the game. I shot a lot of guys - but I would never claim 100 for the weekend. So, skilled player compared to skilled player the cost per elimination looks to be about the same - AND he loves playing that way. I don't think FS rounds will be common in walk-on games but in big games and scenarios they're great.

But paintball? Its staying the same (and even getting worse) and getting more expensive. The largest cost in the game are the paintballs themselves, why do the high quality paintballs get more and more expensive?

If paintballs were 20 bucks a case for decent quality then that would be good enough for me and help paintball grow a hell of alot faster due to many people who cant play because of financial issues.


This argument has come up dozens of times over the years. The fact is that paintball grew UNTIL prices started coming down and ROF went up. The fastest growth in the sport was when paint was relatively expensive and guns were relatively slow. In my opinion high tech loaders and guns and cheap paint are part of what moved paintball in the wrong direction.

I think that intro modes like Billy Ball would really help the sport grow - which is the same as the suggestion to keep pump play growing.

#36 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 07 February 2012 - 10:36 AM

To answer the basic question, yes I think the limits of the round ball have been reached.

Just wanted to say that the largest capacity FS compatible magazine would be a Q-Loader with a new screw designed by alpha434. It allows you to hold 80 FS rounds. http://www.mcarterbr...s-like-pro.html
Although I don't think he is making them any more.


He nevery made it past the prototype stage- he has shelved any further work until someone designs a breech that can accept his loader (should it actually work, and not just hold rounds, it is a viable design/concept).

this is because the format of the game was changed to cover up the range/accuracy problems that paintballs had.

you have to get past the number of band-aids that the way we play paintball to cover up the inherent technological issues of the past.


Actually, the format of the game was changed to make it a spectator sport and then, to make field operators more money per player (increased shots per player, increased matches per day)

I honestly don't see them as more than a novelty, even despite the things you list. I mean I think they have a lot of potential but the penetration isn't as universally high as you may be thinking. Now we don't exactly do things quite like everyone else around my neck of the woods but I have yet to see ANYONE using first strikes, other than the people that have brought them down to demo or promote them.

It seems like they are really only anywhere near common on the largest, most popular outdoor venues.


I think this is only viewing it through the lens of '1 projectile for the sport' and that 'one projectile must die for another to thrive'. I welcome the concept of multiple projectiles in the sport, they each have their strengths and weaknesses and good players should adapt to their chosen projectile.

TBH i'm not really even sure paintball SHOULD be encouraging longer engagement ranges. I don't think getting sniped out by someone you can't even see is a great way to promote the game with noobs.


Actually, I play mostly rec-ball with my setup and the 'noobs' react no differently to my gun than they do to my camo. They are interested, they joke about being 'sniped', and by the end of the day- they are having conversations with me about how much it costs, the merits of less shots for the same cost, just how far flying and accurate they are and "wouldn't it be cool if... [insert their own creative take on a fantasy marker]". You're forgetting / ignoring just how ignorant the vast majority of new players are. The entire day is a new experience filled with tons of new information to digest. I've seen newer, articulate grown men say that longer barrels make a difference (while I silently held my tongue until I could interject tactfully).

In my opinion, if you disregard the politically correct, vocal minority, there's historically been nothing that has drawn more folks to the sport than the idea of charging/sneaking around in the woods and getting into firefights. Keeping folks interested has been the challenge and it's due to the limitation of the traditional paintball (in the one-projectile market), and the changes to the game format to accomodate said projectile.

I'm personally a huge&nbsp;proponent&nbsp;of pump play for expanding the new player base, and I know I'm not alone in the industry. The low risk of overshooting, low initial investment and ability to encourage more moving should translate into higher player retention


Actually, with the round projectile, you don't need to even go back to pump. Limited (truly) paint, billy ball, mag fed, games all play very differently.

...IMO successful play first and foremost is about competitive matchups. That and good ref involvement IMO are the keys to successful introductory experiences.

I am a big proponent of one-on-one play for introductory players, having them play one on one with their peers. It rarely happens but IMO that's a really fun way to simplify the game and get EVERYONE several rounds where they can go all out and play rather than catch a random ball early or cower all game from the other team (regardless of firepower).


I agree with this but, I feel that the game is already too 'structured' with it's postage stamp sized fields, bunkers every 15-20 ft, and short time limits.

I see them regularly at the field. The math does start to work out at big event paint prices....

...This argument has come up dozens of times over the years. The fact is that paintball grew UNTIL prices started coming down and ROF went up. The fastest growth in the sport was when paint was relatively expensive and guns were relatively slow. In my opinion high tech loaders and guns and cheap paint are part of what moved paintball in the wrong direction.

I think that intro modes like Billy Ball would really help the sport grow - which is the same as the suggestion to keep pump play growing.


Actually, I got my rounds for $40/100rds and free shipping :P but, yeah, I pay roughly the same as I do when shooting regular paint (and employing regular paint tactics).

I'm actually of the mind that most players (to include the silent majority who never visit a paintball forum), think in ways that is bad for the sport. Most players want a higher ROF, larger ammo capacities, more body padding. Personally, I'd like to keep it somewhat 'combat' realistic but, fun like:

Limited Paint / Mag Fed
Unlimited firing modes
Multiple projectiles (.50, .68, FS, Metadyne/Nerf)
Large Fields
Long Format


When I think about objectives... Why is paintball so sucky in regards to rec-ball game types? I swear most fields I've been to have just "Elimination", 'Attack and Defend', "Capture the Flag" "Center flag", even though the game has been around for two decades. Just a handful of online gaming years has spawned a riduclous number of game types.

#37 oldnewb

oldnewb

    always playing Devil's advocate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver Canada

Posted 07 February 2012 - 11:55 AM

Agree with pretty much everything UVHalo has said. Let tourney play do their own thing, but with rec play, we need to figure out how to retain more new players, and that just might mean more formats, more choices in ammo and marker styles, and perhaps figuring out how to keep the overshooting down a bit when playing against "newbs".

Just curious, what's it like to be overshot with .50cal? I know many fields are introducing .50cal for renter games, but I've never even SEEN the stuff shot around here. Could a field set some rules like, "full size hoppers for .50cal, mag fed, tac caps, or 100round loaders for .68", and see better player retention?

And I don't think many people would mind being "sniped" by a single FS round. Sure beats getting lit up on ramping or full auto.
Techpb Mike doesn't use Trojan Magnum extra large condoms 'cause he doesn't believe in underboring.

Techpb Mike doesn't hide behind cover. Instead, he shoots down incoming paintballs.

#38 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:22 PM

...Just curious, what's it like to be overshot with .50cal?


Being tickled? Sorry, had to :P

Given the same distance, the impact forces are much lower:
3g paintball at 10yards: 6FtLbs of force per impact
1.21g .50 paintball at 10yards: ~2.25FtLbs of force per impact

Of all the marketing claims made by GI Milsim, that's one of two that actually held true (the other being efficiency).

#39 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 February 2012 - 01:51 PM

Im against ramping. I use semi auto. And I don't overshoot people when bunkering or when they're coming out.

Now im sure theres guys with the same gun as me and go onto the field full auto 20 bps and overshoot everybody. Its not the guns that are ruining it in that aspect its the players and field owners not enforcing rules.

I don't think cheap paintballs is a bad thing, I would have to quit if paintball were any more expensive than they are now. I doubt more people would play if paint was 100 a case than 20 a case.

If no improvements are being made im sure prices should be going down atleast. As they do for everything that stays the same, but paintballs haven't gone down in price since 2009 like they should.
Real men play paintball.

#40 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 07 February 2012 - 02:11 PM

I don't think cheap paintballs is a bad thing, I would have to quit if paintball were any more expensive than they are now. I doubt more people would play if paint was 100 a case than 20 a case.


there's evidence showing exactly that more people play at 80/case than at 40. The late 90s were the fastest growing section in the history of paintball. paint cost from 80 to 120 a case. The early 2000s continued that trend. guns got faster, paint got cheaper and the sport started to shrink.

There are a myriad of causes - but the cost of paint did seem to be part of that decline.

#41 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 07 February 2012 - 02:15 PM

I see them regularly at the field. The math does start to work out at big event paint prices. I shot 2.5 cases last year at Living Legends at $80 a case. UV_Halo shot about 425 rounds of first strikes at about $50/100. that means that we spent roughly the same on projectiles. He shoots a ton of FS and is really good with his equipment. He estimates an aprox 25% hit rate. That translates to 100-ish eliminations in the game. I shot a lot of guys - but I would never claim 100 for the weekend. So, skilled player compared to skilled player the cost per elimination looks to be about the same - AND he loves playing that way. I don't think FS rounds will be common in walk-on games but in big games and scenarios they're great.


Of course you are going to find anecdotal evidence of nearly everything, but really if you look at how many people are committing to FS ... well from what I've seen most of them are in your area. I really don't think there are that many, among the millions that play paintball. But I think they are overrepresented online, given that the idea of shooting a 40 cent+ projectile is probably something only an enthusiast can justify.

Actually, the format of the game was changed to make it a spectator sport and then, to make field operators more money per player (increased shots per player, increased matches per day)


This is a somewhat important point to consider. Speedball and smaller fields were developed independently of paintball's technological limits, and arguably drove a lot of technological advancement. They were a game PLAY development, and a pretty revolutionary one.

I think this is only viewing it through the lens of '1 projectile for the sport' and that 'one projectile must die for another to thrive'. I welcome the concept of multiple projectiles in the sport, they each have their strengths and weaknesses and good players should adapt to their chosen projectile.


Not at all. This is mostly a mental exercise as to what would be "revolutionary" for the sport and indeed an adoption of a more accurate projectile would be that. But cost is going to have to come down for that to happen. The mentality I see in FS players is a bit like the pre-Ion mentality of high-end electro players where there is some thought that money and commitment could buy an advantage on the field. To a certain degree it was true, but a revolution of sorts happened when the price barrier was broken and ended that.


Actually, I play mostly rec-ball with my setup and the 'noobs' react no differently to my gun than they do to my camo. They are interested, they joke about being 'sniped', and by the end of the day- they are having conversations with me about how much it costs, the merits of less shots for the same cost, just how far flying and accurate they are and "wouldn't it be cool if... [insert their own creative take on a fantasy marker]". You're forgetting / ignoring just how ignorant the vast majority of new players are. The entire day is a new experience filled with tons of new information to digest. I've seen newer, articulate grown men say that longer barrels make a difference (while I silently held my tongue until I could interject tactfully).

In my opinion, if you disregard the politically correct, vocal minority, there's historically been nothing that has drawn more folks to the sport than the idea of charging/sneaking around in the woods and getting into firefights. Keeping folks interested has been the challenge and it's due to the limitation of the traditional paintball (in the one-projectile market), and the changes to the game format to accomodate said projectile.


Well I didn't say it explicitly but I also believe the flip side is also important -- for the shooter the closer engagement ranges are better. Seeing the target, seeing what he does, seeing who it is and making the play ... that's the stuff that really gets the new players bubbling after the games. As soon as they come off the field they are buzzing about it. Not, oh you were standing in the open so I sniped you from across the field. Oh that was you? What gun you shooting -- instantly into the money and material equation of the game. Whereas the close and personal engagement has people excited about the thrill of PLAYING the game.

Now I understand that the equipment is a big part of paintball, heck it's arguably what keeps me in after more than 20 years. But from discussion I've seen around, a lot of new players are driven away by the investment, and having a purely (costly) equipment-based advantage can be a bad thing in that context.

Edited by drg, 07 February 2012 - 02:16 PM.

Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#42 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:03 PM

This is a somewhat important point to consider. Speedball and smaller fields were developed independently of paintball's technological limits, and arguably drove a lot of technological advancement. They were a game PLAY development, and a pretty revolutionary one.


Actually, I strongly disagree with this. These fields were designed with the limitations of the paintball in mind. Look at an airball field, Corner to corner is the distant end of maximum range (94yds @300FPS). 15-20ft bunker spacing was designed to allow folks to sprint from cover to cover with a reasonably high expectation of success at 50 to 75 ft, if their opponent isn't posted / laning. Airball / speedball then found it's way back into the woods by owners removing vegetation, placing bunkers everywhere and, shortening the sizes of the fields, and duration of the games. It's unfortunate that it drove technological advancement because by and large, it hasn't been useful to the sport at large.

Not at all. This is mostly a mental exercise as to what would be "revolutionary" for the sport and indeed an adoption of a more accurate projectile would be that. But cost is going to have to come down for that to happen. The mentality I see in FS players is a bit like the pre-Ion mentality of high-end electro players where there is some thought that money and commitment could buy an advantage on the field. To a certain degree it was true, but a revolution of sorts happened when the price barrier was broken and ended that.


I'm not looking for a technological revolution in the sport. I'm looking for a behavioral revolution.

Over the past two years of being one to pitch these rounds to over five fields in my area (so I could use them), numerous conversations with players of all ages and experience levels, I see the biggest impediment to their growth is cost (per round primarily, dedicated marker is a distant second). But, here is my take on it: Most folks simply cannot internalize the concept of having more accuracy. They feel the need / want to be able to shoot more than 500rds in a 10 v 10 match. They don't realize the silliness of how they shoot on average, more than 20rounds for a single elimination.

Now, I'm certainly comfortable with these rounds requiring dedicated equipment, and costing more. Not because of 'exclusivity' but rather, how the current situation forces a different style of play. With my T9.1 and FS rounds, I cannot play like I do with a regular paintball gun (i.e. my Woodstalker Ion). If I try to get in close, work angles, etc, I find myself within range of my opponents and on average they can return over ten shots for every one I carry onto the field and I'm further limited by the fact that I only have 8rds in a mag and 'classical' semi-auto. On the other hand, if everyone carried first strike rounds, and they were nearly as cheap as regular paintballs, we'd be right back at where the paintball is now "I want to shoot more, give me more ROF"

Well I didn't say it explicitly but I also believe the flip side is also important -- for the shooter the closer engagement ranges are better. Seeing the target, seeing what he does, seeing who it is and making the play ... that's the stuff that really gets the new players bubbling after the games. As soon as they come off the field they are buzzing about it. Not, oh you were standing in the open so I sniped you from across the field. Oh that was you? What gun you shooting -- instantly into the money and material equation of the game. Whereas the close and personal engagement has people excited about the thrill of PLAYING the game.


Actually, I think you're generalizing to what you feel is better. New players come in with a huge variety of ideas on how to play. Then, the projectile and the player community shaped them. Consider the history of the phrase "Paintball Sniper" how many 'experienced' players said "I want to be a paintball sniper"? It was new playes who were then confronted with a hostile community and, the limitations of the round.

For over 20yrs I've always preferred to shoot and not be shot at, the further away the better (less of a chance of them hitting me), I was an early adopter of Armson rifled barrels (I hoped that they'd work), the Flatline Barrel, the Apex, and the First Strike round. I fully realize that many folks are not like me. Some players like to charge, some like to hide and ambush, some just like to shoot(lots).

#43 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:31 PM


I don't think cheap paintballs is a bad thing, I would have to quit if paintball were any more expensive than they are now. I doubt more people would play if paint was 100 a case than 20 a case.


there's evidence showing exactly that more people play at 80/case than at 40. The late 90s were the fastest growing section in the history of paintball. paint cost from 80 to 120 a case. The early 2000s continued that trend. guns got faster, paint got cheaper and the sport started to shrink.

There are a myriad of causes - but the cost of paint did seem to be part of that decline.


Well things like 9/11 happened and the terrorism scare with Bush becoming president. Who wants to go play a sport WHERE YOU GET SHOT AT!?!? SOMEBODY COULD BRING A REAL GUN!!!!!

Ramping was also introduced, I think its ramping that is ruining the game for many. Not pro ramping, they stay in their own league, im talkin guys ramping in recball. Mike from TechPB had a video about this and brought up many good points. Paint is still 80 bucks a case for ultra evil and them pro guys shoot a nearly case per round per person. Per game thats 480 bucks per game with 6 man teams!

Just 1 pro game gets the paintball manufacturers nearly 1,000 bucks!!!
Real men play paintball.

#44 drg

drg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts


Posted 07 February 2012 - 07:54 PM

there's evidence showing exactly that more people play at 80/case than at 40. The late 90s were the fastest growing section in the history of paintball. paint cost from 80 to 120 a case. The early 2000s continued that trend. guns got faster, paint got cheaper and the sport started to shrink.

There are a myriad of causes - but the cost of paint did seem to be part of that decline.


Ehhhhhhhhhhh I think that's a stretch at best. Correlation, causation and all that. IMO the biggest reason for the purported decline was the economy going bust. Cheap paint was kind of mixed up in all of the economics issues anyway, with the effects of outsourcing, reduced disposable income among players, etc. To say it CAUSED any kind of decline is simply unsupported by anything.

I'm not actually convinced paintball is in some kind of decline anyway. Expecting huge growth indefinitely is unrealistic. It has probably just matured and found the true stable level of player interest.

Actually, I strongly disagree with this. These fields were designed with the limitations of the paintball in mind. Look at an airball field, Corner to corner is the distant end of maximum range (94yds @300FPS). 15-20ft bunker spacing was designed to allow folks to sprint from cover to cover with a reasonably high expectation of success at 50 to 75 ft, if their opponent isn't posted / laning. Airball / speedball then found it's way back into the woods by owners removing vegetation, placing bunkers everywhere and, shortening the sizes of the fields, and duration of the games. It's unfortunate that it drove technological advancement because by and large, it hasn't been useful to the sport at large.


Airball wasn't developed for many years after speedball was "invented" and field dimensions remain most dependent on team sizes. It's more about gameplay, always has been.

I'm not looking for a technological revolution in the sport. I'm looking for a behavioral revolution.

Over the past two years of being one to pitch these rounds to over five fields in my area (so I could use them), numerous conversations with players of all ages and experience levels, I see the biggest impediment to their growth is cost (per round primarily, dedicated marker is a distant second). But, here is my take on it: Most folks simply cannot internalize the concept of having more accuracy. They feel the need / want to be able to shoot more than 500rds in a 10 v 10 match. They don't realize the silliness of how they shoot on average, more than 20rounds for a single elimination.


Not sure why 20 rounds or more per elimination is silly, there is no inherent silliness to any given number of rounds fired for an elimination. But anyway don't lose sight of what I wrote and the response that is promoting this ongoing conversation -- someone claimed that prices have dropped significantly enough on FS rounds to allow them to engender a paintball revolution. I say not even close. No response has yet really proved otherwise, in fact by and large they have supported it even in trying to oppose it.

Now, I'm certainly comfortable with these rounds requiring dedicated equipment, and costing more. Not because of 'exclusivity' but rather, how the current situation forces a different style of play. With my T9.1 and FS rounds, I cannot play like I do with a regular paintball gun (i.e. my Woodstalker Ion). If I try to get in close, work angles, etc, I find myself within range of my opponents and on average they can return over ten shots for every one I carry onto the field and I'm further limited by the fact that I only have 8rds in a mag and 'classical' semi-auto. On the other hand, if everyone carried first strike rounds, and they were nearly as cheap as regular paintballs, we'd be right back at where the paintball is now "I want to shoot more, give me more ROF"


That would depend on what the bulk loading technology brings. Ostensibly FS rounds will always take more care, and therefore more space/weight/cost, to load en masse as compared to paintballs. It is quite possible that FS will always represent reduced paintload regardless of any increase in use, reduction in cost, etc. And the bottom line is reduced paint is what engenders the big play change.

Actually, I think you're generalizing to what you feel is better. New players come in with a huge variety of ideas on how to play. Then, the projectile and the player community shaped them. Consider the history of the phrase "Paintball Sniper" how many 'experienced' players said "I want to be a paintball sniper"? It was new players who were then confronted with a hostile community and, the limitations of the round.


Well I'm generalizing based on my experience and decades of observing how new players react to the game. I remember quite well how much I enjoyed my first games when, being in an era where semi was basically nonexistent, technological issues such as ROF were basically moot. But time and time again it's not so much the technology that causes a new player to have a good or bad day, it's their level of success on the field. If they play equal competition and have their share of wins and losses, that is the recipe for fun. Playing unfair games however is the recipe for a bad day.

For over 20yrs I've always preferred to shoot and not be shot at, the further away the better (less of a chance of them hitting me), I was an early adopter of Armson rifled barrels (I hoped that they'd work), the Flatline Barrel, the Apex, and the First Strike round. I fully realize that many folks are not like me. Some players like to charge, some like to hide and ambush, some just like to shoot(lots).


As you note, many folks are not like you, and as new players may not even know they are not like you. A longball fest as a first experience IMO is less than ideal.
Keep your pump hand strong!
PUMPPB.COM TIGHTSTICK - Custom LAPCO 1-piece underbore barrel! SALE!
PUMPPB.COM - Pump paintball forums
HawaiiPB.com - Paintball forums for the state of Hawaii
HawaiiPB/PumpPB - Our videos

#45 Jaccen

Jaccen

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Ontario

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:47 PM

I would like to see:

-hoppers / loaders move from centre top feed to something underslung, or mounted under the grip (100-200 round capacity, force fed up to the marker through the front or back grip? Yes please!). Clears the top for easier / quicker sighting, and reduces profile when popping out of cover to shoot.

-A more efficient / powerful propulsion "fuel" as compared to compressed air. I mean, there's got to be something better than hooking a small scuba tank to your marker. I know HPA is convenient to fill, relatively safe, relatively consistent, etc., but it's also bulky, heavy, and offers no better efficiency than the equivilant sized Co2 cannister.

-More advanced electronics. Circuit boards and eyes that do more. Instead of simple break-beam eyes, imagine a sensor system that feeds more information about the paintball to the circuit board than just "is there a paintball in here?". Then imagine a processor / software that can adjust settings like dwell on the fly, from shot to shot.

Just a few thoughts.


-Warp feed
-C3 propane
-check out some of the messages from the Angel guns. They were pretty funny.

But, yeah, all good points.


I think many of the technological improvements we've seen over the last 20 years have actually hurt the sport. Putting more, cheaper paint in the air is a negative for many new players. Constant air, electronic triggers, ramping and full-auto firing modes, motorized loaders, anti-chop eyes, and everything else that helps us shoot more paint faster, make paintball less attractive to a lot of people who might enjoy the sport if it were more like a game of tag, and less like a machine gun battle. I also think that the pain and bruising associated with playing are a big turnoff for a lot of people. If you want there to be more paintball players, keep rates of fire and muzzle velocities low, and develop a paint that doesn't break easily in your gun, but breaks very easily on your target. Or maybe come up with protective wear that doesn't restrict your movement or roast you, but that takes the sting out of getting shot.

An example from my own experience: I took a group of my friends and their kids paintballing last weekend. My kids had played before, but the other dads and their children had not. Everyone rented but me. I played pump. Of the new players, two will likely never play again. One of the dads got lit up with multiple shots in each of his first few games, and decided it wasn't for him. Done for the day, done for good. This is not an overly sensitive or feeble guy. He's played most popular sports over the course of his life. He just hated that when he put his hand up to signal that he was out, more paintballs hit him. One of the kids, a twelve year old boy, absolutely loved it, but when he got home, his mom saw the welts and declared he was never going again. Needless to say, she was not super pleased with her husband and me. This all happened at a field where they're actually pretty good about safety, keeping newbies and experienced players apart, and trying to make it fun for everyone.

I guess I'm just suggesting that if your idea of technological progress is faster guns and cheaper paint, don't expect participation to grow much.


I find this thinking to latch on correlation, not causation. What would be "killing the sport" (if that is even true.......paintball leagues are filling up here in London and the rec games I go to have had 20+ people show just from word of mouth.........oh, something about Canadian Carnage? ;) ) would be pricks competing at a "professional" level against "newbs" or people competing out of their skill range. Part of this is the flied operator's fault and part is immature players. Paint price, in my mind, has nothing to do with it. That's a correlation.

Compare it to sports.

HOCKEY
-learned to skate with a chair
-played shinny with siblings
-played pick-up with friends
-joined little league
-played junior
-made it to the big leagues.

No one would have a problem with any of those levels of play (unless you hate hockey..........poor soul).

Now, someone would have a problem with an NHL bruiser showing up to junior high pickup and playing at his skill level against them. Now, someone might say that new "space dildo" elec guns give that ability to everyone. That, to me, would be no different than a 20 year old playing hockey against 5 year olds. He'll still likely suck, but his physical development will still decimate the kids. That's because he'd be a prick to do that. People who buy fancy guns and misuse them are just pricks. The equipment doesn't really have anything to do with it.


"Guns don't kill people. I kill people."


Field operators are guilty, though, I can understand why. When you make your living off paint, you would think selling more would make you more money. That's just short-sighted on their part. Segregate your walk-on's (ie. pump/mech semi only for people completely fresh) and leave the electronic play for people who know what they're getting into. Better organization will reap more return customers. The "Pump and Pistols" play here is a perfect example of that. Some people will never like paintball. That's just something we need to accept. If they try it once and everything was done to make it enjoyable for them (ie. segregate, no pricks, etc.), then if they still don't like it we just have to accept that. Some people don't like hockey. I accept that. I pity them, but I accept it ;)


Paintball would grow if people practice good sportsmanship. Cheap equipment only broadens the appeal. I didn't get to play league hockey because it was just too expensive for my family. I played with a Brass Eagle Stingray for 6 years. Loved every minute of it even when playing against guys with Autocockers and Automag RT's. They weren't pricks and I imagine that's why I had so much fun.

TL:DR

Don't be a prick.

Edited by Jaccen, 08 February 2012 - 05:50 PM.


#46 Old Dude PB

Old Dude PB

    Safety third.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, MA

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:58 PM

Paint price, in my mind, has nothing to do with it. That's a correlation.


We're not the first people to bat this around, and I don't think it's been solved. As a point of reference, though, you might want to look at a post by a field owner who became sort of the poster boy for higher paint prices on the Field Owner's forum on the 'Nation. He makes the case better than I have, and he certainly has better credentials.

http://reiner-schafe...ming-along.html

If you go to his field's website, you'll see that it's field paint only, at $160 a case. Most speedballers will look at that and say "I'd never play there." Mr. Schafer, of course, is perfectly happy if we don't. He prefers that we don't. His contention is that recball is the growing edge of the sport, and that new players are more comfortable in a lower paint environment. He creates that environment by charging enough for paint that the speedballers won't play at his field. His business is in its 11th year, and it sounds like he's done pretty well, even through the recent economic downturn. Just another data point to consider.

Paintball would grow if people practice good sportsmanship.


No argument there.

#47 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:54 PM

i think its not the decline in paint price that started killing paintball, its the demographic change.

from 1995-2005, tournaments were played by 25+ to maybe 45 year old dudes. just watch the old videos, you rarely see someone under 18 playing. now, its rare to see tournament players that are even 20 years old. they just dont have the same kind of money the old demographic did, as a result they demand more sponsorships and cheaper play, until any field that wants them to play there has to almost loose money to do it.

now, im not saying kids shouldn't be playing paintball, but when you had 45 year old dudes laying down there own credit cards, instead of tweens working at mcdonalds laying down there $6.50 an hour pay checks, that will change the sport dramatically.

cheap paint, and cheap guns can only help the sport, arguing that raising the price will improve paintball is MCB level crazy. the problem we have seen though is that as the sport got younger, the amount each player could afford went down. and in order for those young guys to keep playing, the rec player became the source of subsidy to keep prices reasonable on the young tournament kids. so the tournament player life span went down to two years, meanwhile, to keep the field factory team running, the rec players are being asked to subsidize that ... it got silly.

Edited by cockerpunk, 08 February 2012 - 08:57 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#48 Teek

Teek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 February 2012 - 01:16 AM

i think its not the decline in paint price that started killing paintball, its the demographic change.

from 1995-2005, tournaments were played by 25+ to maybe 45 year old dudes. just watch the old videos, you rarely see someone under 18 playing. now, its rare to see tournament players that are even 20 years old. they just dont have the same kind of money the old demographic did, as a result they demand more sponsorships and cheaper play, until any field that wants them to play there has to almost loose money to do it.

now, im not saying kids shouldn't be playing paintball, but when you had 45 year old dudes laying down there own credit cards, instead of tweens working at mcdonalds laying down there $6.50 an hour pay checks, that will change the sport dramatically.

cheap paint, and cheap guns can only help the sport, arguing that raising the price will improve paintball is MCB level crazy. the problem we have seen though is that as the sport got younger, the amount each player could afford went down. and in order for those young guys to keep playing, the rec player became the source of subsidy to keep prices reasonable on the young tournament kids. so the tournament player life span went down to two years, meanwhile, to keep the field factory team running, the rec players are being asked to subsidize that ... it got silly.


Yeah, I can understand cultivating a certain clientele, and essentially regressing the game a bit by raising prices, and I could see how it would work for a field or two, but across the whole sport it'd do more damage than it'd fix, alienating more current players than recruiting new players. That said, I think it has a good general goal but with a generally bad approach: which is slower, easier play.

I think a firm boundary needs to be set between recball and tourneyball or just more competitive play. Set something up like a beginner's field or something like that, cap the rate of fire at under 10 BPS, no ramping, maybe even limit the pods you can carry or something like that. Create a place where new players can acclimate and learn without getting punished by veteran players, or older players can play very relaxed or teach new players (I swear, I think I'm quoting a video Cockerpunk or Mike played, I can feel it.) But it needs the coordination of players and field owners to really make it work. Other fields can work with no limit bps or ramping or whatever, but we need to make sure we cultivate players in a healthy atmosphere that they want, rather than subject them to the full weight of the game all at once.

But yeah... technological advances... (we've digressed a bit, in a good way. Great discussion.)

I like the slower pace. I think a lot of problems with the current state of paintball came about because guns and hoppers advanced too quickly, and we really didn't fully think of the consequences of it. It was mostly just speedspeedspeed. Now that this is really a part of the game, and getting more common, I think it's better that new ideas are coming out slowly, and are subject to more analysis and discussion.
Rest in Peace, Borg.

#49 Noreac

Noreac

    In a perpetual state of confusion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 09 February 2012 - 01:41 AM

I think the whole speed thing should be left up to the field owners to decide, they can seperate the aggressive tourney players and the chilling out pump players who don't cross the 50 yard line.

But I think for paintball to grow it should get cheaper, since the technology isn't getting any better it should atleast get cheaper. Hopefully when Hydrotech hits the market at a good price around 35 bucks a case for ultra evil quality then that will really put a shock into the paintball pricing and force companies to bring their damn pricing down. I can't wait for Hydrotech.

Other than Hydrotech in terms of guns it seems we have hit a dead end. What could paintball possibly get better at with guns? Get any smaller and they will be too small, no need for faster than 35 bps, all that.
I think the guns are just going to start getting more and more luxury on them.
Real men play paintball.

#50 Old Dude PB

Old Dude PB

    Safety third.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, MA

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:22 AM

i think its not the decline in paint price that started killing paintball, its the demographic change.

from 1995-2005, tournaments were played by 25+ to maybe 45 year old dudes. just watch the old videos, you rarely see someone under 18 playing. now, its rare to see tournament players that are even 20 years old.


Is there a consensus on why the demographic change happened? Is is just that the game got faster and more athletic? Did it affect only speedball, or did the same thing happen in woodsball, too?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users