My favorite paintball webpage is still up 20+ years later!

[Trbo323]

Some clarification up front.
To me, “MilSim Paintball” is a gameplay format that includes LARPing elements (medics, wounding, etc). Tactical Paintball refers to how a player equips themselves and conducts themselves on the field (i.e. sights and or stocks on a gun, carrying a backup pistol, wearing and properly using camo on the field). I'm not saying any tactical idea is always the best idea but, I'm not dismissing it outright either.

And that's fine, but you are literally the first person I've seen draw that kind of distinction between the two sides. For pretty much everyone else, they are both considered milsim. Even to myself, the second one you described I would consider milsim because it requires specific equipment. The first one is "scenario" play because it's not reliant on the equipment, it's the actions of those players.

I can't speak for you but, I personally observed many conversations where folks (completely new, or a low post count) posted a pic of their 'tactical' Tippmann and the responses were along the lines “get rid all that stupid stuff that is making your Tippmann heavy”, “Sights don't work anyways”, “for all the money you put into that, you could've saved a little bit more and got a [insert electro of choice]". I saw this at the field just as often. The mantra was 'Start with a Tippmann, get gud, get an electro and start competing (in speedball)”.

As far as the new players with the tippmann though, this is what I was talking about with spending all kinds of money. If nobody ever tells them, they believe because COD gives them a stat boost for using a long barrel then it has to have a real world advantage as well. The companies were sure as hell not going to tell them. And yes, a lot of the players came off as aggressive but that didn't mean these new players were spending their money wisely to get performance, they were ignorant of the physics.

Again though, if someone KNOWS the long barrel and folding stock don't really make a difference but wants them to complete a look or really just because they like them, cool, that's a good reason. But a lot of the milsim crowd, especially then would tell you these items would absolutely make your setup better

I've told many players to stop throwing money at a tippmann. If they have already thrown $200 into a 98 and especially if they want to spend more money on an e frame (moot these days) and their goal is performance, it makes more sense to trade it out. They can get more performance for less money by switching.

And that's where I think the perceived "hate" for milsim comes in. The "milsim" players who are really just ignorant new players, are saying they want more performance are pointed in a direction to get that and it's seen as trying to force them out of milsim. Sure I'm sure there were some ignorant speedball players that were actually trying to get them into speedball but most of us were trying to get them the performance they were seeking, didn't matter where they wanted to play with it.

Especially in the mid and late 2000s there were only a couple very expensive milsim markers that were NOT blowbacks, but you could get a $250 pmr that would out perform any tippmann short of an e bolt.

Overwhelmingly, most of the 'tactically' interested players were new, which makes sense when you think about this game you're getting into where you're going to be shooting at other people who will be shooting back at you, more often than not, in the woods.

Yeah, I agree for the most part, new players getting in see that the sport is people shooting at each other in the woods believe the only thing they already know, military. So they look for something that looks the part.

I hold the industry (to include field operators, equipment manufacturers, media, etc) as at least partially responsible or complicit because they entirely catered to one (speedball) side of the market. Look at the guns released between 1990 and 2010. How many paintball-specific clothing manufacturers made camo patterns? That side of the industry dwindled down and down until Specops PB came on the scene and by that point, it was just the Tippmann guns (98s and A-5s), and the tactical Mag (the name escapes me). Look at how fields (as playing area vs park) got smaller, with lots of bunkers, as Tom Kaye would later describe as Speedball in the woods. Where were all the magazines focused? Where were all the videos (as in DVD releases) focused? Even the UWL was speedball in the woods.

This i will disagree with whole hardly. It's completely ignoring a whole side to the sport. Companies like tippmann wouldn't exist without the milsim push. Hell once Ben tippmann left tippmann (a largely milsim company) he went and created BT which is exclusively milsim products and was/is quite successful there. How is that the industry as a whole ignoring milsim or pushing people into speedball?

As for field owners, that's a no brainer, of course they would rather have players dumping pods of paint. That's how they stay afloat. The hour long woodsball game that has less than 200 paintball shot and is using 5 acres of land doesn't make a lot of economic sense. Field owner Bob is paying more in taxes on that land than he is making. So the fields that had that model and catered to the milsim crowd went out of business not because they were pushed out by speedball but because the economics were not helping them.

As for how many manufacturers made camo patterns, pretty much all of them. They just were not BDUs which is what the milsim crowd wants typically.

Are you really surprised that competitive play is similar to speedball regardless of it's setting? It's competitive play. Does a race car driver want a slow pit stop because he is on dirt instead of pavement? Does the professional weight lifter change his technique because the Olympics are in the southern hemisphere? I'm not sure what you expect here, like some sort of slow drawn out match? How would that work as a competitive format if each game is taking up an hour of time on the field? If you only had like 4 teams maybe but if your goal is to grow it then that's going to be difficult and that's assuming you even had enough people interested.

There was plenty of misinformation going around all over paintball. Even a notable individual on this forum (prior to the crash) who tried to convince others that if you shoot a wall long enough, from far enough away, an accurate paintball barrel will leave a donut shaped ring. Oh, and Elliptically honed barrels are the absolute best for accuracy and consistency (in FPS).

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It was so rampant in milsim in specific that a lot of it was(and sometimes still is) actually believed. Short side story, I had a guy on another forum talking about how his barrel was basically the best thing in all of paintball. What he had done was mount an apex in front of a flatline. He was going on about how it was so accurate etc etc. He even posted his tests to "prove" it. To his credit his tests were done fairly well, decent bench tests, the problem was he completely ignored the results. I took his own photos of his target board to measure the area covered by each barrel just to show him that the all American barrel he used as a "control" was actually the most accurate. Didn't really matter, he was drinking the Kool aid so to speak, he saw what he wanted to see and facts be damned!

There were two ways an airsoft sniper could get more range than other players but, I suspect this went away once airsoft fields started getting insurance and, the ASTM created regulations for airsoft (my local PB/Airsoft field doesn't afford snipers anything). Higher velocity and/or higher density BBs. Airsoft BBs are more spherical than a paintball but, they're still spheres so, they aren't that much more accurate if at all. Even if fired at a higher velocity they will still slow down incredibly fast.

I sure hope it's gotten safer, it's not like I keep up with airsoft really

That being said, your mention of camping is yet another thing someone punching down on the new player would accuse them of if they wanted to 'set an ambush' (i.e. at or near the flag station). Very much “Play my way” don't you think?

Does it somehow change what they are doing if I call it camping and you call it an ambush?

You kind of inadvertantly are getting at my point here. (Back in round ball only days) If I spend $500 to get a l33t "sniper" setup, to then "ambush" the flag station, why am I seen as a "sniper" but the kid with the rental setup doing it for the other team who has the exact same range and accuracy as I do, is not seen as a "sniper"?

For many, it basically came down to the money spent that legitimized the roll and I've always hated that. Today with FSR there's much more of a difference in the sniper roll because the capabilities are actually different.

Being dissatisfied with my gear was the story of my paintball life until First Strikes came out. I still played because of the people I played with. I tried rifled barrels (when Armson was new), I tried the flatline barrel, and I tried the apex just to be sure. I converted my Ion to a single-finger electro because I wanted a quieter gun and never liked the two-finger trigger grip. I tried the Qloader to get the hopper off the top before switching to the Warp Feed. I never once got to the point of believing a dot sight was not worth the weight- It's great for quickly and repeatedly lining up a shot at distances as far as 75'. I've used camo to good effect (being as thorough to camo my gun and using Goggleskinz) in nearly every game (rec and scenario). I'm not trying to say that I'm super sneaky sniper man but, rather, in wooded environments, I nearly always spot enemy players before I am spotted. Often because they are simply moving more (which camo doesn't help at all with) or, I'm seeing their mask, hopper or gun because they don't blend into nature (due to no camo, and or brightly colored). The question becomes “can I line up a shot before they unload on me”?

I can say the same thing about being seen and I don't play in camo. I'm sure we will disagree on this but I used to play in camo when I started in paintball, I found that it really didn't help me. The human eye catches movement long before a color difference. I switched to a bright red sp impulse and red halo and found that they actually helped me stay hidden better. I was paranoid about them being red so I was way more cautious about how and when I moved. I found that controlling my movement made a huge difference, even little things like moving my head around. I fully believe that in paintball, camo is overrated and if anything gives false security that people are hidden making them then make mistakes. You will see the ghillie suit moving around long before the clown suit holding still.

The recurring costs are definitely lower. But, they don't come with hit verification. This causes lots of problems for public snipers because the hit player will keep playing sometimes only to draw the sniper out.

[FONT=Calibri]At parks where ammo isn't checked or velocity regulated it will be the wild west if it's public.

You may need to explain this one a little more. I'm not up on my airsoft lingo, public?

Everything I've seen about capsule BBs is that they are garbage (don't fly well, cause problems in guns, etc). What I find most amusing is the concept of speedsoft (and yes, it's played just like speedball). It's being pitched as a competitive, more adrenalin-driven format.

The capsule bbs, that was the impression i got from my roommate as well.

I actually saw a video of speedsoft a few weeks ago (didn't know that was the name though) and I left a comment on the video basically asking, why not just play speedball? The owner of the field didn't answer my question but just said something like, you must not be an airsofter. While true, I was still confused because I saw a few times in the short video where it looked like people got bunkered only to have them keep playing. No hit detection obviously.


Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[martix_agent]

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It was so rampant in milsim in specific that a lot of it was(and sometimes still is) actually believed. Short side story, I had a guy on another forum talking about how his barrel was basically the best thing in all of paintball. What he had done was mount an apex in front of a flatline. He was going on about how it was so accurate etc etc. He even posted his tests to "prove" it. To his credit his tests were done fairly well, decent bench tests, the problem was he completely ignored the results. I took his own photos of his target board to measure the area covered by each barrel just to show him that the all American barrel he used as a "control" was actually the most accurate. Didn't really matter, he was drinking the Kool aid so to speak, he saw what he wanted to see and facts be damned!

I remember this guy and he might have been drinking the koolaide, but he didn't seem hateful about it and actually seemed like a pretty fun guy. I liked his videos and commitment to video quality. The dude had a huge box hanging of his barrel with zoom on it to capture his hits. That was ahead of the time. I think about him occasionally and wonder what he's up to. Maybe I've played with or against him..who knows? I wish I wasn't so brash towards his ideas because other than his accuracy idea, he was just out having fun and not hurting anyone. The consistency he got out of a tipman was pretty incredible, also.
That's to UV_halo i found him https://www.youtube.com/@TrailsOfDoom Looks like he hasn't uploaded paintball stuff in many years. I hope I wasn't part of the reason he quit.

[uv_halo]

IIRC, that guy was FreeEnterprise on this forum (before the crash). A nice enough guy. I would never describe him as 'tactical' or a 'sniper' wannabee. Definitely all woodsball though.

[martix_agent]

yea, that's the guy!!

[Trbo323]

Some clarification up front.
To me, “MilSim Paintball” is a gameplay format that includes LARPing elements (medics, wounding, etc). Tactical Paintball refers to how a player equips themselves and conducts themselves on the field (i.e. sights and or stocks on a gun, carrying a backup pistol, wearing and properly using camo on the field). I'm not saying any tactical idea is always the best idea but, I'm not dismissing it outright either.

And that's fine, but you are literally the first person I've seen draw that kind of distinction between the two sides. For pretty much everyone else, they are both considered milsim. Even to myself, the second one you described I would consider milsim because it requires specific equipment. The first one is "scenario" play because it's not reliant on the equipment, it's the actions of those players.

I can't speak for you but, I personally observed many conversations where folks (completely new, or a low post count) posted a pic of their 'tactical' Tippmann and the responses were along the lines “get rid all that stupid stuff that is making your Tippmann heavy”, “Sights don't work anyways”, “for all the money you put into that, you could've saved a little bit more and got a [insert electro of choice]". I saw this at the field just as often. The mantra was 'Start with a Tippmann, get gud, get an electro and start competing (in speedball)”.

As far as the new players with the tippmann though, this is what I was talking about with spending all kinds of money. If nobody ever tells them, they believe because COD gives them a stat boost for using a long barrel then it has to have a real world advantage as well. The companies were sure as hell not going to tell them. And yes, a lot of the players came off as aggressive but that didn't mean these new players were spending their money wisely to get performance, they were ignorant of the physics.

Again though, if someone KNOWS the long barrel and folding stock don't really make a difference but wants them to complete a look or really just because they like them, cool, that's a good reason. But a lot of the milsim crowd, especially then would tell you these items would absolutely make your setup better

I've told many players to stop throwing money at a tippmann. If they have already thrown $200 into a 98 and especially if they want to spend more money on an e frame (moot these days) and their goal is performance, it makes more sense to trade it out. They can get more performance for less money by switching.

And that's where I think the perceived "hate" for milsim comes in. The "milsim" players who are really just ignorant new players, are saying they want more performance are pointed in a direction to get that and it's seen as trying to force them out of milsim. Sure I'm sure there were some ignorant speedball players that were actually trying to get them into speedball but most of us were trying to get them the performance they were seeking, didn't matter where they wanted to play with it.

Especially in the mid and late 2000s there were only a couple very expensive milsim markers that were NOT blowbacks, but you could get a $250 pmr that would out perform any tippmann short of an e bolt.

Overwhelmingly, most of the 'tactically' interested players were new, which makes sense when you think about this game you're getting into where you're going to be shooting at other people who will be shooting back at you, more often than not, in the woods.

Yeah, I agree for the most part, new players getting in see that the sport is people shooting at each other in the woods believe the only thing they already know, military. So they look for something that looks the part.

I hold the industry (to include field operators, equipment manufacturers, media, etc) as at least partially responsible or complicit because they entirely catered to one (speedball) side of the market. Look at the guns released between 1990 and 2010. How many paintball-specific clothing manufacturers made camo patterns? That side of the industry dwindled down and down until Specops PB came on the scene and by that point, it was just the Tippmann guns (98s and A-5s), and the tactical Mag (the name escapes me). Look at how fields (as playing area vs park) got smaller, with lots of bunkers, as Tom Kaye would later describe as Speedball in the woods. Where were all the magazines focused? Where were all the videos (as in DVD releases) focused? Even the UWL was speedball in the woods.

This i will disagree with whole hardly. It's completely ignoring a whole side to the sport. Companies like tippmann wouldn't exist without the milsim push. Hell once Ben tippmann left tippmann (a largely milsim company) he went and created BT which is exclusively milsim products and was/is quite successful there. How is that the industry as a whole ignoring milsim or pushing people into speedball?

As for field owners, that's a no brainer, of course they would rather have players dumping pods of paint. That's how they stay afloat. The hour long woodsball game that has less than 200 paintball shot and is using 5 acres of land doesn't make a lot of economic sense. Field owner Bob is paying more in taxes on that land than he is making. So the fields that had that model and catered to the milsim crowd went out of business not because they were pushed out by speedball but because the economics were not helping them.

As for how many manufacturers made camo patterns, pretty much all of them. They just were not BDUs which is what the milsim crowd wants typically.

Are you really surprised that competitive play is similar to speedball regardless of it's setting? It's competitive play. Does a race car driver want a slow pit stop because he is on dirt instead of pavement? Does the professional weight lifter change his technique because the Olympics are in the southern hemisphere? I'm not sure what you expect here, like some sort of slow drawn out match? How would that work as a competitive format if each game is taking up an hour of time on the field? If you only had like 4 teams maybe but if your goal is to grow it then that's going to be difficult and that's assuming you even had enough people interested.

There was plenty of misinformation going around all over paintball. Even a notable individual on this forum (prior to the crash) who tried to convince others that if you shoot a wall long enough, from far enough away, an accurate paintball barrel will leave a donut shaped ring. Oh, and Elliptically honed barrels are the absolute best for accuracy and consistency (in FPS).

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It was so rampant in milsim in specific that a lot of it was(and sometimes still is) actually believed. Short side story, I had a guy on another forum talking about how his barrel was basically the best thing in all of paintball. What he had done was mount an apex in front of a flatline. He was going on about how it was so accurate etc etc. He even posted his tests to "prove" it. To his credit his tests were done fairly well, decent bench tests, the problem was he completely ignored the results. I took his own photos of his target board to measure the area covered by each barrel just to show him that the all American barrel he used as a "control" was actually the most accurate. Didn't really matter, he was drinking the Kool aid so to speak, he saw what he wanted to see and facts be damned!

There were two ways an airsoft sniper could get more range than other players but, I suspect this went away once airsoft fields started getting insurance and, the ASTM created regulations for airsoft (my local PB/Airsoft field doesn't afford snipers anything). Higher velocity and/or higher density BBs. Airsoft BBs are more spherical than a paintball but, they're still spheres so, they aren't that much more accurate if at all. Even if fired at a higher velocity they will still slow down incredibly fast.

I sure hope it's gotten safer, it's not like I keep up with airsoft really

That being said, your mention of camping is yet another thing someone punching down on the new player would accuse them of if they wanted to 'set an ambush' (i.e. at or near the flag station). Very much “Play my way” don't you think?

Does it somehow change what they are doing if I call it camping and you call it an ambush?

You kind of inadvertantly are getting at my point here. (Back in round ball only days) If I spend $500 to get a l33t "sniper" setup, to then "ambush" the flag station, why am I seen as a "sniper" but the kid with the rental setup doing it for the other team who has the exact same range and accuracy as I do, is not seen as a "sniper"?

For many, it basically came down to the money spent that legitimized the roll and I've always hated that. Today with FSR there's much more of a difference in the sniper roll because the capabilities are actually different.

Being dissatisfied with my gear was the story of my paintball life until First Strikes came out. I still played because of the people I played with. I tried rifled barrels (when Armson was new), I tried the flatline barrel, and I tried the apex just to be sure. I converted my Ion to a single-finger electro because I wanted a quieter gun and never liked the two-finger trigger grip. I tried the Qloader to get the hopper off the top before switching to the Warp Feed. I never once got to the point of believing a dot sight was not worth the weight- It's great for quickly and repeatedly lining up a shot at distances as far as 75'. I've used camo to good effect (being as thorough to camo my gun and using Goggleskinz) in nearly every game (rec and scenario). I'm not trying to say that I'm super sneaky sniper man but, rather, in wooded environments, I nearly always spot enemy players before I am spotted. Often because they are simply moving more (which camo doesn't help at all with) or, I'm seeing their mask, hopper or gun because they don't blend into nature (due to no camo, and or brightly colored). The question becomes “can I line up a shot before they unload on me”?

I can say the same thing about being seen and I don't play in camo. I'm sure we will disagree on this but I used to play in camo when I started in paintball, I found that it really didn't help me. The human eye catches movement long before a color difference. I switched to a bright red sp impulse and red halo and found that they actually helped me stay hidden better. I was paranoid about them being red so I was way more cautious about how and when I moved. I found that controlling my movement made a huge difference, even little things like moving my head around. I fully believe that in paintball, camo is overrated and if anything gives false security that people are hidden making them then make mistakes. You will see the ghillie suit moving around long before the clown suit holding still.

The recurring costs are definitely lower. But, they don't come with hit verification. This causes lots of problems for public snipers because the hit player will keep playing sometimes only to draw the sniper out.

[FONT=Calibri]At parks where ammo isn't checked or velocity regulated it will be the wild west if it's public.

You may need to explain this one a little more. I'm not up on my airsoft lingo, public?

Everything I've seen about capsule BBs is that they are garbage (don't fly well, cause problems in guns, etc). What I find most amusing is the concept of speedsoft (and yes, it's played just like speedball). It's being pitched as a competitive, more adrenalin-driven format.

The capsule bbs, that was the impression i got from my roommate as well.

I actually saw a video of speedsoft a few weeks ago (didn't know that was the name though) and I left a comment on the video basically asking, why not just play speedball? The owner of the field didn't answer my question but just said something like, you must not be an airsofter. While true, I was still confused because I saw a few times in the short video where it looked like people got bunkered only to have them keep playing. No hit detection obviously.


Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[uv_halo]

And that's fine, but you are literally the first person I've seen draw that kind of distinction between the two sides…

Actually, I developed this point of view by watching how the rest of the world was describing MilSim vs how it was/is being described here in the States. Here in the states, it was so inarticulate that people started referring to the Smart Parts / GOG SP-1 as a “MilSim” marker because it had picatinny rails. Meanwhile, folks in Canada were hosting games (not just scenarios) that required Tac Caps (remember those?), as MagFed wasn’t a thing yet.

As far as the new players with the tippmann though, this is what I was talking about with spending all kinds of money...

When SpecopsPB arrived on the scene, there were still plenty of myths coming from and held by the mainstream (speedball dominant) paintball community: closed-bolts being more accurate than open bolts, barrels, bore-matched vs underbore, (most of the stuff from Alien PB at the time) and a whole host of others that Punkworks went on to debunk. The problem is when it extends beyond highlighting performance differences (or lack thereof) and goes into how folks play.

I've told many players to stop throwing money at a tippmann…

You dwell a lot on performance, and how Tipmanns were under-performers (i.e. don’t spend your money on this, get this instead). On what basis? Certainly not in regard to accuracy- contrary to what the mainstream was saying at the time, no paintball gun is actually more accurate than any other gun. They shoot balls as fast as you can pull the trigger at a given speed. You mean more BPS? Sure, a double-finger trigger electro will put out more BPS. But, time showed just how good for the game that was. More consistently in FPS? Mostly depends on the barrel and the paint, followed by air source. Better efficiency? Sure. But, does this matter if you’re playing woodsball, in a more tactical manner, with free air fills? Lighter- most definitely but, I never met an adult renter who complained that their rental Tippmann was too heavy to have fun with. The worst part is that in the early to mid 00s, the ‘alternative’ (electro pneumatic) to a Tippmann was a brightly anodized and fancy milled piece of work, that nearly universally had a double finger trigger.

So, now you’ve dropped down to saying milsim = ignorant. Totally missing the point. Folks wanted a more tactical style of play. This interest is what enabled Specops PB to exist as a business. Magazine fed paintball guns finally forced it. I remember all the bullshit that popped up about how it was a travesty that there were MagFed only games. If you want a different style of play sometimes it means you need different gear. That being said, this highlights the differences in how the U.S. is a bit different than the rest of the world. Here in the U.S. MagFed is often conflated with MilSim, even by folks hosting the events. In other words, saying it's a MagFed event but, dictating how a paintball gun looks. In Canada, where doing MilSim events, they simply just moved to MagFed and, kept all of the other rules (wounding, medics, etc). However, there were notable exceptions in the U.S., like some of the MagFed scenarios hosted by Viper.

Yeah, I agree for the most part, new players getting in see that the sport is people shooting at each other in the woods believe the only thing they already know, military. So they look for something that looks the part.

Not only to look the part but, they want something other than running around on a turf field with inflatable or plastic bunkers, and everyone trying to lane. Even if they can’t really articulate what it is they do want.

This i will disagree with whole hardly. It's completely ignoring a whole side to the sport…

Sure there were some ‘tactical’ inspired markers available post 2000. But in the first decade of the 2000s, how many manufacturers? I happen to know that there were no ‘tactical’ electropneumatics until SP released the SP-8 (2006). How many other manufacturers followed? (I think only one in the decade- the MTAC). Look at this list of Manufacturer sub-forums from PBN in 2010:
AGD, AKA, Alien, Angel / WDP, Ariakon, Azodin, Bob Long, Brass Eagle, BT, WGP (and other Cocker makers), Dangerous Power, DLX, Dye, Evil, FEP, ICD, Infinity, Invert, Kingman / Spyder, MacDev, Palmers, Planet Eclipse, PMI, Proto, Smart Parts, Tiberius Arms, Tippmann, Vanguard

Out of this list, I count five (out of 28) manufacturers who made anything remotely tactical in the decade, and only two of them had any significant share of the market (and visibility in paintball stores). From this list, who was making paintball-specific camo clothing in 2000-2010? Black and green or (camo accented) versions of speedball clothing (i.e. JT), or BDUs don’t count. I count BT (and that’s a maybe, as I can’t recall when their camo came out). Tippmann didn’t get into the business until they bought Specops PB. In the later part of the decade, there were a lot of custom jerseys being made with user selected patterns but, those are not paintball companies putting out paintball clothes.

There are ton of ideas out there for competitive, milsim (or anti-speedball) formats, they're just all ideas, and everyone has one. As for something that actually happened, look at the SPPL. This was at least an attempt to do things differently.

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It was so rampant in milsim in specific that a lot of it was(and sometimes still is) actually believed…

You seem to have missed the point, myths existed on both sides of this game. Do you remember which manufacturers were saying specific guns shot farther than other guns with their fanboys supporting them? Where did the idea of underbores causing paint breaks come from? Backspinning bolts, or, how about all of the aftermarket barrels that claimed to be more accurate, and the fanboys of those barrels (Dye, Lapco, Smart parts, Empire, Redz, etc)? Hammerhead was doing the same thing, and they settled on the tactical crowd after failing in the speedball side (their youtube ads were hilarious). Or how about .50 being more magically accurate than .68 (GI Sportz was exclusively in the speedball camp at this time).

Folks in whatever game they are in will look for improvements wherever they can be found. Folks of either stripe are also just as likely to see things that aren’t really there.

Does it somehow change what they are doing if I call it camping and you call it an ambush?

The word itself is derogatory in its usage- comes from online gaming culture if you didn’t know. If you can’t imagine a difference between just picking the nearest bush to hide behind at the start of the game, versus anticipating where their opposition is going to move to and letting them get there (while you hide) before taking them out, I can’t help you there. If you can’t imagine a woodsball game or scenario where that could happen, the game is, and has been, failing you.

You kind of inadvertantly are getting at my point here. (Back in round ball only days) If I spend $500 to get a l33t "sniper" setup, to then "ambush" the flag station, why am I seen as a "sniper" but the kid with the rental setup doing it for the other team who has the exact same range and accuracy as I do, is not seen as a "sniper"?

Here’s an argument from that time: Being a sniper isn’t just about having more accuracy or range. It’s a matter of tactics. Shooting from a concealed (vice covered) position (or otherwise not revealing your location) is the most fundamental aspect of it (so you can rinse and repeat). Shooting a lot, will increase the likelihood of detection and location. This whole thing of precision shooting, from extended range, ‘special targets’, being specifically skilled, etc is ignorant folks misapplying military definitions of a Sniper, both on the milsim side (when they claimed they could do it) and, the speedball side (when they said there was no such thing as a paintball sniper).

I can say the same thing about being seen and I don't play in camo.

I mostly agree with you. In speedball or speedball in the woods, if you can see the opposition at the start of the match (or within seconds after the start), what you wear is irrelevant if not entertaining. It provides its best benefit when you can get to a position (without being seen) and wait for someone to move into your ‘area’. If applied correctly, (patterns and colors suitable for the location) it will delay or prevent them from seeing you. It doesn’t help much, if at all in the reverse situation.

I hate 99% of all ghillie suit applications in paintball games (again, speedball in the woods). In scenarios, it depends on where (the terrain), how player-dense the field is (how many folks on how many acres of land), and how it’s used.

You may need to explain this one a little more. I'm not up on my airsoft lingo, public?

My own usage: Public events: airsoft or paintball events where you don’t know (or are friends with) all or the majority of the other players. For the vast majority of folks playing paintball, especially at its peak, they are public events. Public events have a different social dynamic, especially as it pertains to cheating (folks are more likely to cheat if they don’t know and, aren’t known by the other players). This is why paintball has an advantage over airsoft and, I believe its part of the reason there is such high turnover in airsoft.

You know it’s funny how you say that First Strikes changed things for paintball snipers. Consider this, my quote came from the straight up opposition he was getting from folks in the AGD forum (heavy, speedball-centric focus) with comments like “so I can lob a dollar 500ft instead 3 cents 300 ft”, “ it is a hell of a lot easier loading your hopper. (Especially on how much paint the average player uses).” “While this is novel and interesting, I see this as setting paintball back about 20 years. Back to stripper clips….”

The game has been doing its community a disservice if they got most of us not being able to imagine games run a different way. I played a good number of games in the late 80s that were all long running, over a large area, with a mostly pump crowd (how's that for making money via BPS?). They drew more players than I see currently at the parks these days. Oh, and everyone was interested in being more tactical.

[Trbo323]

Actually, I developed this point of view by watching how the rest of the world was describing MilSim vs how it was/is being described here in the States. Here in the states, it was so inarticulate that people started referring to the Smart Parts / GOG SP-1 as a “MilSim” marker because it had picatinny rails. Meanwhile, folks in Canada were hosting games (not just scenarios) that required Tac Caps (remember those?), as MagFed wasn't a thing yet.

There were some formats like that in the states in the mid 2000s, my father and brother in law actually played them but they were pretty small in comparison to everything else

As for the markers, yes the "milsim" label gets applied to anything that has rails, if it didn't then you would need some kind of authority judge to determine which markers can have the label and which don't. I'm not saying it's accurate, that's just how it is

Also, isn't THAT a form of "play my way" as well? You own an SP-1? That's not "milsim enough" sorry kid, go spend more money.

And by your own definition

Some clarification up front.
To me, “MilSim Paintball” is a gameplay format that includes LARPing elements (medics, wounding, etc). Tactical Paintball refers to how a player equips themselves and conducts themselves on the field (i.e. sights and or stocks on a gun, carrying a backup pistol, wearing and properly using camo on the field). I'm not saying any tactical idea is always the best idea but, I'm not dismissing it outright either.

Milsim only refers to the way someone plays not the gear so I don't see how you can define any marker as a milsim marker if that's how you want to define it. The marker doesn't decide if the game will have medics or not.

You dwell a lot on performance, and how Tipmanns were under-performers (i.e. don't spend your money on this, get this instead). On what basis?

A) I never said they were under-preformers, please go find it, they perform exactly as they are intended.

B) as for the basis of saying someone should buy something else, depends on the situation. I use Tippmann as a benchmark because in the late 2000s it was most field rentals and I would argue the marker that around 50% of new players first purchased

But what happened more often than not was something like this

New player: hi guys, I have this Tippmann and I want to upgrade it
Me: ok, what are you looking to upgrade or change about it?
NP: like I want it to be a machine gun sniper plasma rifle!
Me: (lots of paintball physics explanations)
NP: ok, so if I get an e frame, regulator, switch to HPA, on/off ASA and double trigger that will all work
Me: yes but that is really expensive. If the performance is more important to you, you might want to look at this marker instead (insert marker here)
NP: hmmm, never heard of it
Me: it has everything you just listed already on it and on the used market is about half the price

This really came down to new players being ignorant of not only paintball physics but the market as well.

So, now you've dropped down to saying milsim = ignorant.

Seriously? At least read the whole post. Here

And that's where I think the perceived "hate" for milsim comes in. The "milsim" players who are really just ignorant new players, are saying they want more performance are pointed in a direction to get that and it's seen as trying to force them out of milsim.

There's a reason I put milsim in quotes. These new players get labeled as milsim because they buy a 98 or a5


New players are ignorant
New players often buy a "milsim" (98) marker first because that's all they have ever had exposure to
That does NOT make them milsim players

even by your own definition above they are not because being a milsim player is not reliant on the marker they purchase

As for the definition of milsim that I use,
A milsim player is a player who chooses clothing and gear that is seen as military in nature specifically and often at the detriment of performance. Their priority is the look at the sacrifice of pretty much all else besides safety.

These new players are not milsim players because when you would talk to them they would more often than not, choose the performance over the appearance. I'm not saying that makes them speedball players either, they are just rec players who value capabilities that their current setup doesn't have.

I actually have a lot of respect for the hardcore milsim guys because they are making decisions that they know will mean they are carrying around extra weight, have less shots and in general, could be "higher performance". Like a lot of the stock class guys they found something that's fun to them.

What I don't have respect for is the player who doesn't actually know those choices are detrimental to performance and tries to sell them to everyone else as increased performance or a necessity

These days there are a lot more cross over options than there were back in the late 2000s. If a player wants all kinds of performance increases but doesn't want to lose a military appearance a dye dam, if they can afford it will get them that.

I'm trying not to make this a giant wall of text so I'll leave it there. I glanced over the rest of your post and didn't really see anything I felt worth commenting about


Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[uv_halo]

As for the markers, yes the "milsim" label gets applied to anything that has rails, if it didn't then you would need some kind of authority judge to determine which markers can have the label and which don't. I'm not saying it's accurate, that's just how it is

That’s a lack of articulation. Think about it, the person using an SP-1 (or later G-1) is simulating something military (the root of the word) because they showed up at a woodsball field? It’s a paintball gun (with a hopper), not designed to look like any particular firearm, with rails. Meanwhile, another player with a Maxtact TGR1 is Milsim? Oh, so is the guy with a Dye DAM and a box mag (refilling with pods)?

Also, isn't THAT a form of "play my way" as well? You own an SP-1? That's not "milsim enough" sorry kid, go spend more money.

Are you really asking if my definition (and how I’ve seen it applied in places like Canada or Europe) is a form of “play my way”? OF COURSE IT IS! Just like I said earlier, IT’S A GAME FORMAT! When you sign up to a game format you are expected to equip and conduct yourself accordingly. Just like in speedball tournaments when they banned camo, or how you can’t bring an electro to a pump game.

If I was running a MagFed game, I would only expect players to have guns that meet a technical definition of MagFed, I wouldn’t care how the guns looked. Granted, with the lack of articulation here in the states, there’s plenty of folks confusing the issue because they fail to adequately define MagFed and, implement certain look requirements.

Milsim only refers to the way someone plays not the gear so I don't see how you can define any marker as a milsim marker if that's how you want to define it. The marker doesn't decide if the game will have medics or not.
...

As for the definition of milsim that I use,
A milsim player is a player who chooses clothing and gear that is seen as military in nature specifically and often at the detriment of performance. Their priority is the look at the sacrifice of pretty much all else besides safety.

You define MilSim as to the way someone plays and not the gear. What do you mean by this? You then define a MilSim player based on the gear they use and maybe the reasoning behind it?

I’d define a Marker as MilSim if it simulates a particular firearm in its handling and appearance. i.e. MagFed, and meant to look like an AR-15/M4/M-16, etc. Anything short of that, I would refer to as either simply MagFed or, tactical. I’d define a MilSim player as someone who plays MilSim games (as in the game format). If a player shows up for woodsball or recball, with a MilSim gun, they’re just a MagFed player if it uses magazines. The look of the gun, to anyone else doesn’t matter.

A) I never said they were under-preformers, please go find it, they perform exactly as they are intended.

As an example, “They can get more performance for less money by switching.” Which invariably is to a speedball gun in that time.

B) as for the basis of saying someone should buy something else, depends on the situation. I use Tippmann as a benchmark because in the late 2000s it was most field rentals and I would argue the marker that around 50% of new players first purchased

That’s a fair approach. That isn’t how your previous posts came across.

Seriously? At least read the whole post. Here
There's a reason I put milsim in quotes. These new players get labeled as milsim because they buy a 98 or a5

This is what you started with:

To me, and I think many, the push wasn't against milsim play but more the ignorance and egotisticalness of the players themselves. Especially around the early 2000s there was so much misinformation and misconceptions around paintball, ballistics, tactics etc that what felt like the average milsim player was little more than a snake oil dealer.

You’ve largely carried this theme throughout the conversation.

[Trbo323]

I remember this guy and he might have been drinking the koolaide, but he didn't seem hateful about it and actually seemed like a pretty fun guy. I liked his videos and commitment to video quality. The dude had a huge box hanging of his barrel with zoom on it to capture his hits. That was ahead of the time. I think about him occasionally and wonder what he's up to. Maybe I've played with or against him..who knows? I wish I wasn't so brash towards his ideas because other than his accuracy idea, he was just out having fun and not hurting anyone. The consistency he got out of a tipman was pretty incredible, also.
That's to UV_halo i found him https://www.youtube.com/@TrailsOfDoom Looks like he hasn't uploaded paintball stuff in many years. I hope I wasn't part of the reason he quit.

I missed this part the first time around.

I hadn't really thought about his camera setup but you are right, it was kind of ahead of the time.

The barrel setup was a neat trick but the thing that really erked me about the whole situation was he was cherry picking his "facts".

He would have one video showing good consistency but then none of the others would. He would claim an accuracy of two shots but then be going through Hopper loads in a paintball game.

The bench test for accuracy though probably took the cake because it was actually a good test he just interpreted the results exactly how he wanted it to be. I think if he had shot a lot more paint it would have been more clear

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[Trbo323]

That's a lack of articulation. Think about it, the person using an SP-1 (or later G-1) is simulating something military (the root of the word) because they showed up at a woodsball field? It's a paintball gun (with a hopper), not designed to look like any particular firearm, with rails. Meanwhile, another player with a Maxtact TGR1 is Milsim? Oh, so is the guy with a Dye DAM and a box mag (refilling with pods)?

And? Why does it matter what field they show up at? If I bring that maxtact to an airball field am I suddenly not a milsim player?

Your definition is exclusive, mine is inclusive that's all

Are you really asking if my definition (and how I've seen it applied in places like Canada or Europe) is a form of “play my way”? OF COURSE IT IS! Just like I said earlier, IT'S A GAME FORMAT! When you sign up to a game format you are expected to equip and conduct yourself accordingly. Just like in speedball tournaments when they banned camo, or how you can't bring an electro to a pump game.

So what are you even mad about then? You were getting after the "speedball" community because they were recommending gear that in your estimation steered players to "play their way" and now just admitted that by your own definition milsim IS "play my way". You're doing the same thing you were complaining about.

You define MilSim as to the way someone plays and not the gear. What do you mean by this? You then define a MilSim player based on the gear they use and maybe the reasoning behind it?

That was supposed to say "if you define milsim by...."

Typoed the if

I'd define a Marker as MilSim if it simulates a particular firearm in its handling and appearance. i.e. MagFed, and meant to look like an AR-15/M4/M-16, etc. Anything short of that, I would refer to as either simply MagFed or, tactical. I'd define a MilSim player as someone who plays MilSim games (as in the game format). If a player shows up for woodsball or recball, with a MilSim gun, they're just a MagFed player if it uses magazines. The look of the gun, to anyone else doesn't matter.

If that's how you do it fine but you are just going to confuse people because your definitions break it down way too far. Using your definitions, if I bring the m-16 replica to a magfeed game I'm a milsim player, but then on the same day I decide to fill in on the hyperball field to make the teams even and now I'm not.

As an example, “They can get more performance for less money by switching.” Which invariably is to a speedball gun in that time.

And if the performance is what they are actually looking for, what's the problem?

I'm not going to steer people towards a side of the sport if in a few questions it becomes clear that's not where their priorities are.


It seems like your definition of milsim is so restrictive that I'm not even sure we are talking about the same players anymore either.



Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk