New ramp limit !
- Thread starter Russell Smith
- Start date
You know if you people didn't attract my attention by using my name this sort of thing wouldn't happen but ...Bringing the rate of fire back down to near a true semi rate will make a difference in movement, and as a side benefit, field layout will again become more creative, as well as breakouts and gameplay variety in general.
And now, Baca should come swooping in to strike at my thoughts any second now...
I'm not gonna argue with ya Sphere. It is a fruitless exercise at this Point.
I do think many of you are coming to faulty conclusions. A) the reason you can't move confronted by 15 bps is because you're not good enough, not because the guns are too crazy fast. B) Field design is far more constrained by game convention--must have a snake wire, layout must be cross field spectator or camera friendly etc.--than by rate of fire. And C) game convention is, to a certain degree, a function of the nature of the game and how it works, ie: wires don't dominate because they have so many bunkers but because they provide the critical angles.
You know if you people didn't attract my attention by using my name this sort of thing wouldn't happen but ...
I'm not gonna argue with ya Sphere. It is a fruitless exercise at this Point.
I do think many of you are coming to faulty conclusions. A) the reason you can't move confronted by 15 bps is because you're not good enough, not because the guns are too crazy fast. B) Field design is far more constrained by game convention--must have a snake wire, layout must be cross field spectator or camera friendly etc.--than by rate of fire. And C) game convention is, to a certain degree, a function of the nature of the game and how it works, ie: wires don't dominate because they have so many bunkers but because they provide the critical angles.
To further discuss Baca's points of
a) There will be a threshold limit (whatever that is) where the rate of shots will nullify movement, we haven't reached it yet but the point is, if we wish to move in the present environment, we can; as Baca implies, it just takes practice, and bemoaning the difficulties involved says more about people's lack of ability or their lack of commitment to train properly than it does about the inappropriate rof limit..
However I will add this much, as much as there is a natural limit imposed upon player's ability to move because of 'crazy rates of fire', there is also a natural limit imposed upon the average team's ability to train and therefore overcome this problem.
I don't think a decrease in the rof fire compromises any of our sporting ethics or principles too much and shouldn't be ignored purely because some teams are able to offset the problem of a higher rate of fire by a more concerted effort during training.
b) A more sophisticated and adventurous approach to field design will open up a whole new area of the game but saying that, there is still only so much you can do. We have a need for cover points, those cover points are basically inflatable, stationary obstacles that necessarily have to cover the entire playing area....it suggests we are tied by the constraints of the game itself as Paul implies in c) and if this is the case, then we can tweak the field designs (tweak not radically overhaul) and we can tweak the rates of fire and this combined approach should allow more adventurous play that still leaves room for the more committed among us to exploit with more focused training.
Rate of fire, schmate of fire
Even if we were allowed to bring a GAU-8, and hose the field with some 4000 odd shots per minute, it still would not stop teams from moving.
As explained above, the way the fields are set up creates places that can not be shot at from the start of the game. You'll have to move to get a shot at those places, but this in turn will create other places you can't shoot at.
Now while having an equal amount of players on each side of the 50 theoretically means that teams could "cancel each other out", meaning that 7 guys can keep 7 guys tucked into their cover, we all know it don't work like this, precisely because of these blind spots.
So while somebody is pointing his gun at somebody else, and locking the lane with whatever ROF you want to, other players will be popping up to get the shooter to tuck in, meaning the other guy is once again free to move.
As long as you're good at reading the field and making a plan that fits it, it doesn't really matter what ROF you use.
Even if we were allowed to bring a GAU-8, and hose the field with some 4000 odd shots per minute, it still would not stop teams from moving.
As explained above, the way the fields are set up creates places that can not be shot at from the start of the game. You'll have to move to get a shot at those places, but this in turn will create other places you can't shoot at.
Now while having an equal amount of players on each side of the 50 theoretically means that teams could "cancel each other out", meaning that 7 guys can keep 7 guys tucked into their cover, we all know it don't work like this, precisely because of these blind spots.
So while somebody is pointing his gun at somebody else, and locking the lane with whatever ROF you want to, other players will be popping up to get the shooter to tuck in, meaning the other guy is once again free to move.
As long as you're good at reading the field and making a plan that fits it, it doesn't really matter what ROF you use.
As Robbo stated, we may not be at the movement paralyzing rate of fire threshold, but we are teetering dangerously close to it. Dropping the rate of fire that 20% will permit that much more dynamic movement.
As for field design, the only necessary convention is that of field boundaries. Things like a mandatory snake wire, dorito side, camera/spectator friendly sides, etc. are primarily conventions of the TV "sure-thing" known as X-Ball. We have now accepted them,although they are not necessary to the conduct of the game.
We can, with relative ease, even out the spikes and dips in field layout, field variety, and movement. Lowering the cap will not be the only answer to stabilizing the tournament game, but it is a big chunk of the overall answer if we want the game to be healthy and have long term success, at any skill level.
As for field design, the only necessary convention is that of field boundaries. Things like a mandatory snake wire, dorito side, camera/spectator friendly sides, etc. are primarily conventions of the TV "sure-thing" known as X-Ball. We have now accepted them,although they are not necessary to the conduct of the game.
We can, with relative ease, even out the spikes and dips in field layout, field variety, and movement. Lowering the cap will not be the only answer to stabilizing the tournament game, but it is a big chunk of the overall answer if we want the game to be healthy and have long term success, at any skill level.
For those who've decided the required skill set is too exclusive at 15 bps then fine, drop it to 12, 10, 8 or whatever you like for lower levels of competition but there is no good reason to drop it for everyone. (Frankly, I think that creates a new set of concerns but hey, it's worth a shot, right?)
SP, you're prejudices are showing. Take a look at every field 1 and 2 in the NPPL this past season. What do you discover? Exactly the same characteristics you decry as conventions of X-ball.
The fact is the MS field design kids this past year experiemented with some unique field layouts for one event and the hue and cry in opposition was immediate before anyone had played the fields. Conventions are conventions for a lot of reasons.
a) Take 15 shots in the back of the head at 15bps at 300fps and get back to me on that...
b) Read my first post
c) Theres a differance between taking one hit and 20 from a tv/crowd point of view.
......Conventions are conventions for a lot of reasons.
Not least of which is intertia.......
Baca,
I have no qualms in saying that fields 1&2 in the NPPL were very much cast in the X-Ball mold. I am not per se against X-Ball, I've played it and enjoyed it ( haven't we been over this already? ) , but the fields vary very little, much to many players' dismay. At the same time, some NPPL fields in San Diego and OC were very different, and unconventional, but only if you started playing tournaments after 2002. NO one seemed to complain about those fields. I'm not saying that we need to completely reverse field design, but our layout spectrum should be a bit wider than X in the middle, snake on tape A, five doritos down tape B, and sprinkle some fingers in the middle!
I have no qualms in saying that fields 1&2 in the NPPL were very much cast in the X-Ball mold. I am not per se against X-Ball, I've played it and enjoyed it ( haven't we been over this already?
) , but the fields vary very little, much to many players' dismay. At the same time, some NPPL fields in San Diego and OC were very different, and unconventional, but only if you started playing tournaments after 2002. NO one seemed to complain about those fields. I'm not saying that we need to completely reverse field design, but our layout spectrum should be a bit wider than X in the middle, snake on tape A, five doritos down tape B, and sprinkle some fingers in the middle!