NPPL to attach ROF monitors to all pro team guns

[Tony Harrison]

True, as per Daryl Trent:-

http://www.propaintball.com/2011/03/rumor-nppl-to-install-anti-cheating-monitors-in-paintball-guns

An interesting way to police a 15 bps cap, no?

 

[Baca Loco]

No, actually, it's not. Not until somebody explains how the enforcement part is going to work. PSP monitors gap times between shots--which isn't the same thing as BPS or what most players assume ROF is--but since guns are ramping, it works, more or less. The facts are a single gap violation is a penalty but DOES NOT mean the gun in question shot faster than 12.5 bps in any given sequence of 12.5 paintballs shot.
However, the NPPL rule is semi-auto function with a 15 bps cap. Theoretically the very nature of semi-auto is varied gap times so how do you regulate ROF on that factor? And even if the occasional gap time would suggest a possible violation the cap should see to it that no more than 15 bps are ever fired from a properly set up gun. And if they are going to monitor every shot which sequence of 15 shots are they checking for possible violation? And after the guy with the computer somewhere off field makes a determination--however that will be decided--how does that translate itself into an onfield penalty assessment? The only other alternatives are post-game penalty assessments (which is insane) or the ability, via the chip, to turn guns off during the game, and consider that the penalty. The existence of the technology alone isn't an answer to much of anything.

 

[Thib]

No, actually, it's not. Not until somebody explains how the enforcement part is going to work. PSP monitors gap times between shots--which isn't the same thing as BPS or what most players assume ROF is--but since guns are ramping, it works, more or less. The facts are a single gap violation is a penalty but DOES NOT mean the gun in question shot faster than 12.5 bps in any given sequence of 12.5 paintballs shot.
However, the NPPL rule is semi-auto function with a 15 bps cap. Theoretically the very nature of semi-auto is varied gap times so how do you regulate ROF on that factor? And even if the occasional gap time would suggest a possible violation the cap should see to it that no more than 15 bps are ever fired from a properly set up gun. And if they are going to monitor every shot which sequence of 15 shots are they checking for possible violation? And after the guy with the computer somewhere off field makes a determination--however that will be decided--how does that translate itself into an onfield penalty assessment? The only other alternatives are post-game penalty assessments (which is insane) or the ability, via the chip, to turn guns off during the game, and consider that the penalty. The existence of the technology alone isn't an answer to much of anything.

This is always like that.
If you drive at 100mph, it doesn't mean you have done 100 mile in an hour ...

 

[Robbo]

This is always like that.
If you drive at 100mph, it doesn't mean you have done 100 mile in an hour ...

Well it does if you've been driving at that velocity for an hour

 

[Robbo]

No, actually, it's not. Not until somebody explains how the enforcement part is going to work. PSP monitors gap times between shots--which isn't the same thing as BPS or what most players assume ROF is--but since guns are ramping, it works, more or less. The facts are a single gap violation is a penalty but DOES NOT mean the gun in question shot faster than 12.5 bps in any given sequence of 12.5 paintballs shot.
However, the NPPL rule is semi-auto function with a 15 bps cap. Theoretically the very nature of semi-auto is varied gap times so how do you regulate ROF on that factor? And even if the occasional gap time would suggest a possible violation the cap should see to it that no more than 15 bps are ever fired from a properly set up gun. And if they are going to monitor every shot which sequence of 15 shots are they checking for possible violation? And after the guy with the computer somewhere off field makes a determination--however that will be decided--how does that translate itself into an onfield penalty assessment? The only other alternatives are post-game penalty assessments (which is insane) or the ability, via the chip, to turn guns off during the game, and consider that the penalty. The existence of the technology alone isn't an answer to much of anything.

I'm confused here Paul; now it may well by my mathematical skills have been eroded by good ole Father Time and I'm no longer as adept as I once was but can you please explain how they ascertain RoF or BPS or indeed whatever ... because in my head RoF is an approximation to BPS if not definitively then maybe I need to appreciate the distinction a little better.


Firstly, do they adjudge a marker by its RoF or BPS?
And if they are different then what's the difference?

Cheers Paul

 

[Lollingsgrad]

There was an update to the story, but as of yet I don't see anywhere stating how they intend to enforce it. In this update, they talk about the information gathered in terms of aggregates, so you could infer that they're more interested in average BPS rather than checking to see if the time between any two shots corresponds with the expected BPS limit. Just speculating though.

 

[Rabies]

No, actually, it's not. Not until somebody explains how the enforcement part is going to work. PSP monitors gap times between shots--which isn't the same thing as BPS or what most players assume ROF is--but since guns are ramping, it works, more or less. The facts are a single gap violation is a penalty but DOES NOT mean the gun in question shot faster than 12.5 bps in any given sequence of 12.5 paintballs shot.
However, the NPPL rule is semi-auto function with a 15 bps cap. Theoretically the very nature of semi-auto is varied gap times so how do you regulate ROF on that factor? And even if the occasional gap time would suggest a possible violation the cap should see to it that no more than 15 bps are ever fired from a properly set up gun. And if they are going to monitor every shot which sequence of 15 shots are they checking for possible violation? And after the guy with the computer somewhere off field makes a determination--however that will be decided--how does that translate itself into an onfield penalty assessment? The only other alternatives are post-game penalty assessments (which is insane) or the ability, via the chip, to turn guns off during the game, and consider that the penalty. The existence of the technology alone isn't an answer to much of anything.

You don't need to measure the number of shots in a whole second to get ROF, any more than you need to measure a car's speed for a whole hour to work out the speed in MPH. The few yards in front of the cop's radar gun are quite enough to measure your speed; likewise, if two shots are less than 65ms apart, then the gun is firing faster than 15.4bps at that instant. Simple. Any board with a working 15bps cap should not legitimately allow shots closer than 65ms apart, ever. If it does, it either has buggy software or it's cheating. Doesn't matter whether it's in Semi, Ramping or Full Auto, the same applies.

And $10 says these RF modules are not FCC or CE certified, a requirement to sell them in the US or Europe respectively.

Also, it's ironic that the NPPL should look, for a solution to gun cheats, to the very company that introduced cheat boards to the mass market.

 

[Tony Harrison]

Given that the NPPL's record on detecting and penalising gun cheats hasn't exactly been glowing, maybe they are simply just going to give an award to the player with the fastest gun.

You'd get a lot of agg points from the PBN kids rolling with an award like that.

 

[Baca Loco]

Hey Pete
Maths isn't really the issue; it's definitions & plain meaning.

PSP uses ROF and defines that term by the time gap between shots because that is what they can measure. So a ROF set at 12.5 on a ramping gun provides a specific interval minimum between shots that is the legal baseline time gap. Theoretically a shorter time gap shouldn't occur unless the gun is exceeding the designated ROF. Of course theory and practice are two different things because, for whatever reason, the closer a gun is set to its max ROF the greater the likelihood it will, now and again, register a shorter (and thus illegal) time gap. If your gat is being monitored when that occurs it is the basic penalty for you. (Even though it is highly unlikely your gun actually shot above the legal limit in actual paintballs discharged.) (Btw, I've seen hundreds of guns tested and the interval times measured are never uniform, there are always small fluctuations in the intervals.)
The confusion comes because most players think of ROF and BPS as interchangeable or as the actual amount of paint a gun shoots in a second--which, of course, it sorta is--just not for regulatory purposes w/ ROF.
The related issue with the new monitoring chip is the specifics of the new NPPL gun rules. Part 1 allows for semi-auto function; no ramping. Part 2 places a cap on the BPS. Semi-auto function ensures varying intervals between trigger pulls so measuring time gaps is irrelevant and BPS is the actual number of paintballs the gun shoots in a second. Theoretically a functioning cap will not allow a gun to shoot above the cap regardless of how many times the trigger is pulled. If that is the case the only way to determine such a marker illegal is if it exceeds the BPS limit or change the plain meaning of BPS.

Beyond that nobody has offered how one goes from there (monitoring) to here (defining and enforcing gun penalties.) The ability to record the data alone doesn't solve the application issues when it comes to enforcing gun rules.

Rabies--A) your analogy sucks. (If you had equated the distance the car traveled in a specific timed interval to calculating speed you'd have been in the ballpark.) B) you are confusing ROF with BPS. C) Standard ROF gun rules are irrelevant given the latest NPPL gun rules. D) Virtue wasn't the first.

 

[Rabies]

Rabies--A) your analogy sucks. (If you had equated the distance the car traveled in a specific timed interval to calculating speed you'd have been in the ballpark.) B) you are confusing ROF with BPS. C) Standard ROF gun rules are irrelevant given the latest NPPL gun rules. D) Virtue wasn't the first.

A) Splitting hairs. Replace "few yards" with "fraction of a second" (however long it takes for the radar gun to get a reading), the logic is still the same.

B) ROF is the variable we are measuring. BPS is the unit used to specify it. Continuing the analogy, ROF is to speed as BPS is to MPH. BPS is not generally taken to mean "balls shot in the space of exactly one second", since then rates like 12.5bps would be nonsensical unless you chop the 13th ball in half. ROF, measured in BPS, is almost certainly intended as an "instantaneous" measure, regardless of fire mode -- all modern boards will delay a single shot (despite queuing multiple shots being outlawed) as necessary to remain within a set ROF cap or loader feed rate without unnecessarily discarding trigger pulls. So if you're pulling the trigger fast enough, the actual pattern of fire will look the same as it would if ramping or in full auto. There is slight variation, but it should be on the scale of tens of microseconds -- barely measurable with any ROF counter. Yes, I've tested many boards and some are way sloppier than that, or in some cases prone to random bursts faster than the set limit, but that is because the software is poorly written, not because of some innately chaotic or inaccurate behaviour imposed by physics (as is the case with velocity.)

C) I think it takes a pretty wilful misinterpretation of the wording to assume that the NPPL rules would allow you to shoot 15 balls in the space of half a second, as long as then the gun doesn't shoot for the next half a second. If the word "average" had been in there, then there may be a case for reading it that way.

D) They weren't the first to sell cheat software, but they were the biggest, and certainly among the first to shed the euphemisms, the under-the-counter image, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink descriptions, and to push the message that "this chip will help you cheat" in the face of kids that, up to then, would have to at least actively search out such chips. Not many companies have had the accolade of ALL their products being banned from use in the NPPL, before they changed their name to highlight the fact that they had a rules-compliant product as well.

Anyway, to answer your pertinent question: there is a weak precedent in chronograph penalties. Guns are only really checked on the way onto the field, at the flag hang, and the occasional spot check in between. Generally penalties must be applied retrospectively. That doesn't seem to have been a real problem in the past. Even entirely conventional fouls -- playing on with a hit, for instance -- are imperfectly managed. The penalty is the same whether the hit has been there 5 seconds or 3 minutes, and the judges can't run around the field reinstating players eliminated by the penalised player. Many sanctions can only be imposed after the fact, I don't see why ROF violations would be different.