Does anyone feel like it's only the good sites shutting down while the crap ones somehow linger?

[NiallT]

I live in the North West and site options have become extremely limited in the past few years. Bravo 22, an old classic, fell victim to COVID. Redworks in Wrexham, if any one remembers, was only open about a year but was one of the best ran sites I've been to, was turfed out without notice by the landlords a few years back and as far as I know never found a new home. Now I've just found out Alpha 55 went in December for the same reasons.

 

Without naming names the remaining sites within reasonable driving distance are pretty mediocre. It's very disheartening and am considering packing in the sport for the foreseeable future unless I relocate. Is this a phenomenon people have observed elsewhere in the country?

Edited January 18 by NiallT

[ruskitseller]

Hi mate, 

 

I remember UCAP Sandpit shutting down to be built on and I was gutted. But to me its mostly just a matter of business metrics as in - surely only the ones that continue to draw in good crowds and provide consistency (as much as is possible within airsofting) tend to stick around? (Outside of things beyond control e.g the landlords turfing out I suppose)

 

I think there are a lot of decent sites that have stood the test of time (Skirmish Exeter and Warminster Airsoft are some good examples) because people will simply keep on returning, but also there will be other factors such as just bad luck and going on a day where all planning goes to s*** and where you will experience non hit takers etc. and forever brand the site as rubbish. Outside of repeat custom I suppose the rest is very subjective as to what constitutes a "good" site.

 

Cheers

Edited January 18 by ruskitseller

[Anonymoose]

Maybe the crap ones are cheap to run so they're more resilient, but the good sites have higher running costs and more susceptible to market/financial issues.

[ruskitseller]

11 minutes ago, Anonymoose said:

Maybe the crap ones are cheap to run so they're more resilient, but the good sites have higher running costs and more susceptible to market/financial issues.

Yes possibly. I suppose we should have started off by setting some universal definitions as in:

• What constitutes a "crap" site?
• What constitutes a "good" site?

There seems to be a lot of factors in determining this. Is a cheap to run site defacto crap, or are they doing something right elsewhere on a shoe string budget...and of course vice versa  I wonder if they do a "site of the year award" somewhere. ?

Edited January 18 by ruskitseller

[Tackle]

A site near me has done a lot of work to improve the pretty substantial playing area, clearly investing time & money, safezones pretty good too, but every time I've visited (prob 5 or 6 times over 10 years), I've come away disappointed due to the bad organisation on the day, shit marshaling, poorly thought out games, etc etc.

Yet I've played some really barebones sites, bog standard woodland, that  was amazing, thanks to the people running it putting some thought & effort in on the day.

Remember playing longmoor once, on paper what a site, so many features in a workable size plot, but the staff & organisation on the day was horrendous, vowed I'd never play with that firm again.

[Galvatron]

Another factor is the players making bookings (pay on the day) but they don't turn up without a word to the host/site owner. Especially when that site has a cap on bookings, the no-shows will cost it money and those losses add up.

[ruskitseller]

Yeah some really good points. It sort of makes me think I take it all for granted a bit. I just turn up nowadays and expect it all to be nipped, but I always make an extra effort to not piss staff off (yapping in briefings even though we have all heard them a million times is a bit of a pet peeve of mine) lol. I have ran some big games in the past and booked out sites for exclusive use, that was hard enough. By the sounds of it I think one thing that we can all agree that makes a "good" site is:

• Staff/Management - who operate a tight ship. No favouritism among the regulars is a key operational show of excellence to me, as well as a firm and fair way of managing fair play (aka hit taking) - at Spartan, the staff carry rifs and will test you.

Tackle is quite right, you can have the coolest site ever like Longmoor which is used by MOD still for FIBUA - but if you get some not so great staff, then that can ruin the day no matter where you play. And yeah Galvaton, again I think you hit nail on head. I think I know why Spartan does a pay to book only now! ?

 

My philosophy is that we play the game for the enjoyment of others, in that - taking hits is about ensuring your fellow player has a decent day, this is of course philosophised in perhaps the naïve sense that others will agree with this lol.

 

I am sure I am not the only one who has seen a patch in the woods somewhere and thought "hmmm maybe I should start an airsoft business"...I can barely run a bath these days! ?

[Colin Allen]

6 hours ago, NiallT said:

I live in the North West and site options have become extremely limited in the past few years. Bravo 22, and old classic, fell victim to COVID. Redworks in Wrexham, if any one remembers, was only open about a year but was one of the best ran sites I've been to, was turfed out without notice by the landlords a few years back and as far as I know never found a new home. Now I've just found out Alpha 55 went in December for the same reasons.

 

Without naming names the remaining sites within reasonable driving distance are pretty mediocre. It's very disheartening and am considering packing in the sport for the foreseeable future unless I relocate. Is this a phenomenon people have observed elsewhere in the country?

Not really; I have seen good and bad sites close over the years.  Where this has happened, it is been due to circumstances outside the site managers' control, such as the landlord wanting to develop the site, change its use, or put up the rent.

As ruskitseller points out, it would be handy, but probably impossible, to define what we mean by a good site and a crap site; people will have different perceptions of these two terms.  For example, I would describe TWA as an utterly fucking crap site run by utter fucking twats, but it seems to attract a reasonable number of regular players who presumably think it is good.  For a while, I would gave described it as reasonably good, although its main attraction for me was that it opened on Saturday, which meant that I could play on rehearsal weekends.

I would be intrigued to know what site @Tackle is describing, given that I suspect that we have played at many of the same sites.

[Tackle]

30 minutes ago, Colin Allen said:

Not really; I have seen good and bad sites close over the years.  Where this has happened, it is been due to circumstances outside the site managers' control, such as the landlord wanting to develop the site, change its use, or put up the rent.

As ruskitseller points out, it would be handy, but probably impossible, to define what we mean by a good site and a crap site; people will have different perceptions of these two terms.  For example, I would describe TWA as an utterly fucking crap site run by utter fucking twats, but it seems to attract a reasonable number of regular players who presumably think it is good.  For a while, I would gave described it as reasonably good, although its main attraction for me was that it opened on Saturday, which meant that I could play on rehearsal weekends.

I would be intrigued to know what site @Tackle is describing, given that I suspect that we have played at many of the same sites.

It's Apocalypse near Maidstone, someone did say it had improved recently, possibly in part to the site "owner" Martin suffering a family bereavement & handing the running over to someone else. 

Obviously I'm sorry to hear that he's going through this, irrespective of my issues with how it's run.

 

I often wonder, when sites that some of us consider to be crap in some way, but still get consistent steady numbers is because:

A. Its local & They've not played at many any other sites, so accordingly their benchmark for a quality site is low.

Or

B. They're low-grade cheating pos, probably hpa users?, & the site doesn't care enough to do something about them, putting pounds over principles.

???????

[Jez_Armstrong]

I'd rather shit in my hands and clap than play at apocalypse ?

[Colin Allen]

48 minutes ago, Tackle said:

It's Apocalypse near Maidstone, someone did say it had improved recently, possibly in part to the site "owner" Martin suffering a family bereavement & handing the running over to someone else. 

Obviously I'm sorry to hear that he's going through this, irrespective of my issues with how it's run.

 

I often wonder, when sites that some of us consider to be crap in some way, but still get consistent steady numbers is because:

A. Its local & They've not played at many any other sites, so accordingly their benchmark for a quality site is low.

Or

B. They're low-grade cheating pos, probably hpa users?, & the site doesn't care enough to do something about them, putting pounds over principles.

???????

I think it is a bit of both, with the former being the most significant factor.  I completely agree with your comments about Apocalypse, which is where I thought you were referring to; I have played there a few times, including since the change of management, and have found the management, organisation and marshalling to be poor to the extent that it ruins the experience.

[Cannonfodder]

 With the cost of living going up some players are going to be spending less so sites will have less income while running costs increase. Add to this land owners seeing a better return on another use or redevelopment (especially CQB sites) and tbh I'm not surprised we're losing sites.

3 hours ago, Colin Allen said:

As ruskitseller points out, it would be handy, but probably impossible, to define what we mean by a good site and a crap site; people will have different perceptions of these two terms.  

This. I know I've had sites described as both and found then to be the opposite which is why I recommend trying as many different sites where possible

2 hours ago, Tackle said:

They're low-grade cheating pos, probably hpa users?, & the site doesn't care enough to do something about them, putting pounds over principles.

[Jez_Armstrong]

2 hours ago, Tackle said:

It's Apocalypse near Maidstone, someone did say it had improved recently, possibly in part to the site "owner" Martin suffering a family bereavement & handing the running over to someone else. 

Obviously I'm sorry to hear that he's going through this, irrespective of my issues with how it's run.

 

I often wonder, when sites that some of us consider to be crap in some way, but still get consistent steady numbers is because:

A. Its local & They've not played at many any other sites, so accordingly their benchmark for a quality site is low.

Or

B. They're low-grade cheating pos, probably hpa users?, & the site doesn't care enough to do something about them, putting pounds over principles.

???????

did you see this just got announced?

 

https://www.facebook.com/platoonstores/posts/pfbid06bQyz6vRn1Pfv16xbrTmvkDbMSeLgaJiCNhYm4NfpWJShXQo1Gyuptpx9B1SVa7El?rdid=YpVoKeWvjC0saVhM#

 

 

[Spartan09]

17 minutes ago, Jez_Armstrong said:

did you see this just got announced?

 

https://www.facebook.com/platoonstores/posts/pfbid06bQyz6vRn1Pfv16xbrTmvkDbMSeLgaJiCNhYm4NfpWJShXQo1Gyuptpx9B1SVa7El?rdid=YpVoKeWvjC0saVhM#

 

 

Didn't I see somewhere that this citadel site is only going to be one or two small buildings off to the side of the site?

 

I was at citadel for the AI500 and we had the entire site, but we were told it would be closing down to become a data farm....  or has that changed?

 

But if they have the whole site, i would love to play there again with slightly lower numbers...   and a cap on pyro-per-respawn...   but may be a bit far for me

 

Edited January 18 by Spartan09

[Tackle]

17 minutes ago, Jez_Armstrong said:

did you see this just got announced?

 

https://www.facebook.com/platoonstores/posts/pfbid06bQyz6vRn1Pfv16xbrTmvkDbMSeLgaJiCNhYm4NfpWJShXQo1Gyuptpx9B1SVa7El?rdid=YpVoKeWvjC0saVhM#

 

 

Certainly interested,  never was when ai500 was announced ???.

Although I'm a bit of a dalek with stairs at the mo ♿️

[Speedbird_666]

2 minutes ago, Spartan09 said:

Didn't I see somewhere that this citadel site is only going to be one or two small buildings off to the side of the site?

 

UCAP posted this map of the buildings they have use of. It's a sizeable site.

 

[Jez_Armstrong]

6 minutes ago, Tackle said:

Certainly interested,  never was when ai500 was announced ???.

Although I'm a bit of a dalek with stairs at the mo ♿️

I ain't carrying you ?

[Cannonfodder]

8 minutes ago, Tackle said:

Certainly interested,  never was when ai500 was announced

Same here. When the ai500 was announced my thoughts were that the site looked great but I knew ai would fuck it up

 

"It's been played before now it's time to play it properly with vastly reduced numbers, carefully planned cover between buildings and lead by a professional team"

 

Bloody hell that's a not so subtle dig???

[Dogsbody100]

The question is of course, subjective.

 

Theres often a shit ton of opinions good and bad about any site. 

 

The only time you can say a site is absolutely shit is if you have a general consensus across the board that it’s so, opinion is rarely so polarised making it nigh on impossible to gauge.

 

I’ve always thought that you really can’t know what joys await you at a field till you go, many places have been reviewed one way then turn out to be the opposite. 

[TheFull9]

So that'll be 3 former-prison sites now just under the UCAP umbrella? Plus I think there's another one or two around the UK? Be interesting to know what it is about a prison that seems to make the locations less ripe for repurposing than any other plot of land or big old building that's often (briefly) used as a skirmish site. Would just cost mega bucks to demolish and turn in to flats perhaps, but they're not all in bad locations to say the least.

 

As to which type of place would be more likely to close, I'd say that if anything a better site has slightly more chance of being shut down, certainly anywhere that's in an easy-to-reach location or with anything approaching usable buildings. If you take 2 sites that were, for the sake of argument, run to the exact same levels and frequented by the exact same customers, but one is more interesting to play at because of whatever is already built there, then there will probably be slightly more chance of that location being interesting to businesses that have/make serious money i.e. not airsoft.

[GiantKiwi]

2 hours ago, TheFull9 said:

So that'll be 3 former-prison sites now just under the UCAP umbrella? Plus I think there's another one or two around the UK? Be interesting to know what it is about a prison that seems to make the locations less ripe for repurposing than any other plot of land or big old building that's often (briefly) used as a skirmish site. Would just cost mega bucks to demolish and turn in to flats perhaps, but they're not all in bad locations to say the least.

 

Would place heavy bets on old prisons being chockful of currently unexposed Asbestos - which makes them completely unviable for redevelopment, as removal/containment is astronomically expensive/time consuming.