Interesting Nick. Shame you didn't see fit to enlighten us all with your vast knowledge on this subject 
.
So, oh mighty wise one, just how is 15bps ramping policed?
.So, oh mighty wise one, just how is 15bps ramping policed?
New ramp limit !
- Thread starter Russell Smith
- Start date
How do you figure that? Your theory does not seem to hold water at all from my point of view, so I'm interested in how you came to this. I'll explain why later.All lowering the BPS limit would mean, was that people shot longer streams and went on the trigger more often, than they do today
Nick
Because Jay - no player really carries enough paint today to shoot throughout the match.
A few years back, a 7-man back player would carry upto 14 pods onfield. - granted, that was 10 minute games - but still only 7 opponents.
Most players today carry half that.
Typically a back player today carries 1160 balls on field, which factoring in loading time, is really only enough for shooting for 2 minutes non stop.
The reason is that you trade off paint for mobility, because the way the game is played has changed.
But still, most players will start to conserve paint in the bottom half of the game - they simply have to.
My point then is, that during 7 minutes, players will still shoot just as many balls at a lower ROF - they just go a little longer in the game, before the start to "conserve paint".
Nick
A few years back, a 7-man back player would carry upto 14 pods onfield. - granted, that was 10 minute games - but still only 7 opponents.
Most players today carry half that.
Typically a back player today carries 1160 balls on field, which factoring in loading time, is really only enough for shooting for 2 minutes non stop.
The reason is that you trade off paint for mobility, because the way the game is played has changed.
But still, most players will start to conserve paint in the bottom half of the game - they simply have to.
My point then is, that during 7 minutes, players will still shoot just as many balls at a lower ROF - they just go a little longer in the game, before the start to "conserve paint".
Nick
Not sure I agree, although I do understand where you are coming from.
I agree the equation is not as simple as 20% less ROF equals 20% less paint shot (which is why I said roughly equals in my posting where I first mentioned this). But I'm certain you will see less paint being shot.
Most players, particularly those in the lower ranks, shoot not so much because they have a target, but rather because they can. As soon as somebody starts shooting back at them, they tuck in and stop shooting, until they get a chance to come back at and start firing again.
If anything, lowering the ROF will increase people's opportunity to "break the deadlock" of an opponent pinning you down, as there is less paint coming your way, so your argument of people shooting longer ropes, I think, is very flawed.
You seem to argue your point mostly from a point of view that would equal that of the better players, the people in the CPL and such. Now while I fully agree that most of these guys are well capable of adjusting their game to whatever set of rules gets imposed on them, most of the lower divisions, which is where the money really comes from, can not. They will move just as much/little as they always have, shoot for the same amount of time, so paint consumption will go down.
And given the fact that the top leagues get a lot of their paint, and the lower leagues have to pay for theirs, I doubt the industry will be happy. Even if you are right, try convincing THEM of that... If indeed the avarage back player has gone from 14 pots to half that (once again, I think you are right for the top leagues, where a true back guy seems to be extinct, while in the lower regions we still see Fatty McFat-a-lot with his gut full of pots), there should already be a marked decrease in paint usage. I doubt the suppliers will back anything that even reaks of selling less paint in that case.
Fact is, the bigwigs don't give a flying f*ck how much paint is shot by the pros, or if they do, the less the better, as they are paying for it. They DO care about the amount of paint shot by the people that have to pay for their paint.
I agree the equation is not as simple as 20% less ROF equals 20% less paint shot (which is why I said roughly equals in my posting where I first mentioned this). But I'm certain you will see less paint being shot.
Most players, particularly those in the lower ranks, shoot not so much because they have a target, but rather because they can. As soon as somebody starts shooting back at them, they tuck in and stop shooting, until they get a chance to come back at and start firing again.
If anything, lowering the ROF will increase people's opportunity to "break the deadlock" of an opponent pinning you down, as there is less paint coming your way, so your argument of people shooting longer ropes, I think, is very flawed.
You seem to argue your point mostly from a point of view that would equal that of the better players, the people in the CPL and such. Now while I fully agree that most of these guys are well capable of adjusting their game to whatever set of rules gets imposed on them, most of the lower divisions, which is where the money really comes from, can not. They will move just as much/little as they always have, shoot for the same amount of time, so paint consumption will go down.
And given the fact that the top leagues get a lot of their paint, and the lower leagues have to pay for theirs, I doubt the industry will be happy. Even if you are right, try convincing THEM of that... If indeed the avarage back player has gone from 14 pots to half that (once again, I think you are right for the top leagues, where a true back guy seems to be extinct, while in the lower regions we still see Fatty McFat-a-lot with his gut full of pots), there should already be a marked decrease in paint usage. I doubt the suppliers will back anything that even reaks of selling less paint in that case.
Fact is, the bigwigs don't give a flying f*ck how much paint is shot by the pros, or if they do, the less the better, as they are paying for it. They DO care about the amount of paint shot by the people that have to pay for their paint.
That's my point. If any tournament adopts the ramping philosophy - then the organisers have to purchase (or rent at the very least) these special radar machines.
And they need at least one per field - ideally one per ref. Who ends up paying for this 'technological advance'? Simple, the players.
Whoops - getting off topic here...
And they need at least one per field - ideally one per ref. Who ends up paying for this 'technological advance'? Simple, the players.
Whoops - getting off topic here...
That sort of technowizardry doesn't cost much more than the handhelds refs use...
And why would you need one per ref, if you can use them from anywhere on the field?
Honestly, I don't see your point mate. Particularly since you need the same set up, whether you're allowing 15 or 12 BPS.
And why would you need one per ref, if you can use them from anywhere on the field?
Honestly, I don't see your point mate. Particularly since you need the same set up, whether you're allowing 15 or 12 BPS.
Still an extra cost though.
I did say 'preferably'. And wouldn't you need to be close to the player - so you don't get anyone else's stream mixed in the results?
Hence my 'getting off topic' bit
.Anyway, getting back on topic....
Why change something - just as people are getting used to it? Leave it at 15!
1) Hardly. Drop in the ocean type thing.1)Still an extra cost though.
2)I did say 'preferably'. And wouldn't you need to be close to the player - so you don't get anyone else's stream mixed in the results?
Hence my 'getting off topic' bit
Anyway, getting back on topic....
Why change something - just as people are getting used to it? Leave it at 15!
2) Nope. This stuff is surprisingly accurate.