Fight Club: Ramping

[Baca Loco]

Shot Ramping: Makes the game better or easy way out of enforcing semi-auto?

In favor (makes the game better): Rosie

Opposed (easy way out of enforcing semi-auto): Chicago

So we don't get off track ramping is defined as any of the various methods for adding shots beyond the traditional semi-auto definition of one pull, one shot. (Should either or both contestants wish to refine the debate topic post up your changes. I make the offer as it appears in its original formulation Chi-town is actually talking about capped ramping as opposed to the free-for-all that is "semi-auto" at the mo.)

This debate will run until (at least) Monday, March 13 to close at 9 pm GMT.

 

[Rosie]

I am looking in particular at the Millennium and PA model of ramping which is ramping capped at 15bps.
The activation point is 8.5bps is it not?



Ramping is a technological advancement, similar in a way to the move from pumps to semi markers.
I had not yet started playing at this point, but I know there were very similar arguments then as we have had in the last year and a half.
Ramping could be seen as part of the natural progression of the sport.
The main similarities which I can draw from the arguments were safety concerns, the changing game (for better or worse?), how it will affect us as players, and loss of skills which were once integral to the game, being sidelined (such as ROF on pump markers, and finger speed).


Why do we have ramping?
Ramping was brought about through a need to "level the playing field"- to take away the advantage from the cheaters which was very hard to detect- yet could have a profound effect on the game, safety etc.
It was a cost benefit analysis- yes quite an easy way to stop cheaters -or at least take away their advantages-, by making a not too costly change.
The changes which would have to be brought in to fully enforce semi auto would be costly and time-consuming.

Ramping is safe, if enforced properly and used with care. There are some problems, which I will bring up later, but overall I would have to find in favour of ramping over other methods of controlling cheating.
Or rather, -as I know you will pick up on this- reducing the advantages of the cheaters over other players.

touché

 

[Chicago]

I framed the question in terms of allowing anything other than true semi-auto, and specifically, the capitulation of some of the major tournament circuits to trying to giving up to the cheaters.

I'll hit Rosie's "technological advancement" arguement first. It's a red herring. With ANY change, there are going to be people who gain an advantage from that change and will be in favor of it for purely personal reasons, and there will be people who are opposed to that change just because they "like the old way". You can pick pretty much ANY change and make both arguments, which makes both arguments irrelevant.

The question is: Is THIS change an overall improvement? Just because a similar change in the past may have been an improvement does not mean that more of the same change is still good. Making a car that could go 60 miles an hour is a positive change over cards that can only go 30. But just because we can now make cars that go 200 miles per hour doesn't mean letting people drive 200 miles per hour on public roadways is a good idea.

Some techonological advancement is BAD, and ramping is bad.

It is bad because:

- The overall effect of ramping on the sport is negative; and
- There are alternatives that address the same shortcomings that ramping was purportedly adopted to address without the overall negative effects.


Personally, I'm not too concerned with the direct effect of ramping on national-level tournament play. The people who play national-level tournaments are SERIOUS paintball players who are already committed to the sport and doubling their (legal) rate of fire isn't going to affect them much.

But, even at the national level, ramping has a major side effect: It slows down games. The more paint in the air, the less movement you have. If we are seriously trying to have a spectator sport, anything that encourages shooting over moving is bad, as watching moving is interesting and watching shooting is dull.

I am more concerned, however, with the "trickle-down" effect of ramping. Changes in the rulesets of the national leagues have profound affects outside those leagues. Chips that shoot (significantly) faster than semi-auto used to be a designer commodity reserved for a handful of teams. Legalizing ramping made them stock in all new electronic markers.

Partially because of this availabillity ("It's in my gun, why can't I use it?") and partially because of a similar lazy attitude on the part of regional and local event promoters, we are seeing more and more regional and local tournaments where ramping is allowed. This in turn magnifies the demand for ramping, fast-shooting markers and the supply of them.

Wyh is this a problem? Because ramping has no place in the hands of a new player, or on the same field as a new player, but since we've basically equipped everyone with an electronic marker with a marker that shoots 15 bps, we now have people who have no gun skills at all running around fields and tournaments shooting people who are trying paintball or trying paintball tournaments.

And they don't like it. A rookie player does not want to get shot at at 15 bps. They don't want to get bunkered by another rookie player who has no control over his marker and is going to shoot him point blank in the back 6 times. They are not going to have fun, and new players who do not have fun quickly become ex-players.

Our tournament system can not survive, as I think we are all becoming aware of this season, without a healthy industry that supports it. The money that pays for the best of the best to play has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the not-so-good to the worst. They may suck, but they'll still play as long as it's fun. By arming every tournament-pro-wannabe-skillless punk with a ramping marker and the ability to SHOOT like a Pro without any of the SKILLS of the Pro but definitely the EGO of a Pro, we've created our own little new-customer "I'm the best and I'll shoot you more if you don't believe me" death squads.


And for what? Because we were lazy. I agree that the unregulated semi-auto we had prior to ramping and we still have in some semi-auto leagues is in many ways worse than ramping at the national level (never was a huge problem at the local level). But all we needed to do to fix it was require certified boards. Rosie argues that the reason we went with ramping is that it "was an inexpensive solution". This is simply not true. In order to effectively have and enforce ramping, everyone needed to buy new boards and leagues needed to invest in new PACT timers at $300 each.

What do we need to do to have certified boards? People will need to buy new chips ($10) or new boards ($40) and leagues will need to invest in chip readers ($150-$300 each). It's the same money.

The difference is we decided to cater to the stupidity that is the paintball player, who will happily plop down $150 for a ramping board that lets him shoot the same speed as everyone else with a ramping board because you tell him he'll get to shoot faster, but doesn't want to spend a dime on a board that lets him shoot the same speed as everyone else that doesn't let them shoot faster.

What is even worse are the non-national leagues who are allowing ramping, but don't have any PACT timers! That's like having a 300 fps velocity limit and not having any chronographs.


Allowing ramping doesn't do anything we couldn't do with a little cooperation, certifieid boards, and the same amount of money. It has a profound long-term impact on our ability to retain new players. And it has a negative impact on game play itself, sacrificing movement to rate of fire.

All because nobody had the balls to tell players that they were going to have to learn to pull their own triggers.

 

[Baca Loco]

Don't let him push you around with his novelette length posts, Rosie. And while I will refrain from taking sides (for now) your last statement, Chi-town is totally ridiculous. But carry on.

(And, yes, I can post cus I's the moderator.)

 

[Chicago]

OK, ok, so maybe I threw that last one in for a little emotional misdirection.

 

[Rosie]

part 1

Originally posted by Chicago
The question is: Is THIS change an overall improvement? Just because a similar change in the past may have been an improvement does not mean that more of the same change is still good.

Making a car that could go 60 miles an hour is a positive change over cards that can only go 30. But just because we can now make cars that go 200 miles per hour doesn't mean letting people drive 200 miles per hour on public roadways is a good idea.

Is this a good argument?
I think I've focused on this a bit much but anyway...

Obviously it would be madness to let people drive on the roads at their cars current speed ability which I have no doubt on some cars may be 200mph, but there is a speed limit set at 70mph for the safety of other drivers. There may be the idea that 'this is my car I can drive it as fast as I want' but for others' safety this isn't possible.

Angels can cycle at 31bps apparently, & on fullauto a high-end cocker can do 54 bps (albeit without paint)
on full auto, with paint, a high end marker and an excellent loader could easily do about 20-25bps without chops. Some Pro's claim to be able to shoot at such high speeds already naturally.
-Obviously allowing players to shoot at these speeds is wrong- for the safety of other players a safe limit, or a cap, should be imposed.

-I think you will find ramping capped at 15bps, some pros have mentioned that their rate of fire is actually hindered by this, some as aforementioned being able to hit 18bps no problem.

it is a technological advancement but there is a limit to it, people are limited as to the use of this technology through this method.

I have read various tourney organisers and refs posts after a tourney claiming to have pulled out illegal markers firing at up to 22bps (Russel S claimed this one, I can find the link if you like)

Originally posted by Chicago
Some techonological advancement is BAD, and ramping is bad.

Yes evidently some technological advancement is bad.
Obviously "vorsprung durch technik" (advancement through technology) is good
BUT just because something's an improvement on current technology it doesn't make it good it has to adapted to the current situation and the use must be pertinent.

Like nuclear weapons for example- just because a scientist can make a new bigger bomb which could destroy vast(er?) amounts of life, this isn't good and it's use must be controlled, obviously it isn’t good just ‘cause it's new.

which I think applies to ramping- this isn't change only for the sake of change this is technology being needed and implemented to improve a situation.

 

[Rosie]

part 2

Originally posted by Chicago
Some techonological advancement is BAD, and ramping is bad.

It is bad because:

- The overall effect of ramping on the sport is negative; and
- There are alternatives that address the same shortcomings that ramping was purportedly adopted to address without the overall negative effects.

Please expand on the alternatives,
you haven't mentioned any -apart from chips, which you have ignored the negative aspects of.

Other methods of stopping cheating were looked at before ramping was introduced and a great deal of constructive debate occurred after it was implemented, however no workable other solutions have appeared so far.

"Allowing ramping doesn't do anything we couldn't do with a little cooperation, certified boards, and the same amount of money."
"all we needed to do to fix it was require certified boards"
you seem to ignore the fact that people are trying to gain an advantage purposefully, not just an 'oops I pressed the wrong button silly me I was firing full auto that last game'.
True semi is in the rules, it is some players who are deliberately not co operating with the rules which has brought about this whole thing out of a need to protect other players. -If we had total co-operation with the rules then ramping would not be needed.
- if you brought out a 'certified' board you would need to bring out a new one out for every single tournament, as some smart-ass would just alter the certified board within a month or two for the next tourney.

or, you would have to check each and every marker board's code before play began, and tamper-lock it. which as mentioned below would not be time or cost effective.

*Having tamper-locked boards or markers would be expensive for the tourney organisers, would result in price rises for the player whether the player or the tourney organiser paid for the board.
MD suggested a locked handgrip, and there were other suggestions, but there are people determined to find a way around everything. It’s like a game for them.
*Having either hoppers or markers supplied by the tournament organiser being one suggestion (!) would be unworkable- far too expensive.
*Mere checking for hidden modes (in unregulated semi) in the chrony tent was not good enough as modes such as breakout modes can be changed by a certain number or specific sequence of trigger pulls. If the marshall was unaware of this they would be unlikely to by chance find a cheat.
*better marshall training would be a good idea but as the modes can be personalised there would be no way to know, unless…
*…you checked the software of every single board (after the player had installed your 'chip' or certified board themselves, who knows whether they will have altered it) of every marker present at that tourney, and gave it a non-tamper lock as suggested above.
Cost effective? No.
Take a lot of time? Yes, which tourney organisers would be very pushed to find.
*Changing technology and the people determined to cheat developing this technology in particular would ensure that whatever the alternative solution, there would be a way found around it. Even ramping has its flaws, but it is the best, most workable and most cost effective solution.

 

[Rosie]

part 3

Effect on the game

Personally I don't agree with you that it has had a negative effect on the game

International (pro) level:

Originally posted by Chicago
But, even at the national level, ramping has a major side effect: It slows down games. The more paint in the air, the less movement you have. If we are seriously trying to have a spectator sport, anything that encourages shooting over moving is bad, as watching moving is interesting and watching shooting is dull.

I don’t agree, I think after a settling in period when games were slower as teams adjusted, games have gradually speeded up. It’s not that common that games time out on fire-fights, it singles out the very best teams which can move under this fire.
Dynasty for example rarely time out their games in fire-fights- they bust moves which break open the game. Lesser teams cannot cope with the firepower, study the path of the game, or move quickly enough and this allows us to compare the two teams’ aggressiveness and speed. Dynasty bust the moves because they are more aggressive. The teams are now equal in terms of how much paint they can lay down but it is obvious now that some of their opposition simply cannot match their aggressiveness.

By controlling one variable (firepower) we can study the other variables (aggressiveness, speed, ability to read the field, technical ability etc etc) more easily.

Ramping therefore has helped the sport, because people are now able to more easily compare the teams- short of making them use all the same kit which is not possible.

That’s what sport is about isn’t it, seeing if one human is better than another human- the wins can now be less attributed to the markers and more to the people playing and their skills.


National level:
after the first round of the ramping PA, on the forum at least the general consensus was that being able to fire 15bps without bursting a blood vessel to do so was a good thing, and helped game play.
-Players had to concentrate less on firing and were able to make more ambitious moves. Players had to worry less about shooting lanes and creating suppressing fire.

I read more complaints about the effect on play in the PA about the placement of bunkers than from ramping…I take it there were some problems with back bunker placement meaning that it was harder to lane.

Ramping makes for a faster, more aggressive game, and though removing one aspect previously seen as a skill could be seen as negative, I see it now as easier to compare players’ aggressiveness and tactical ability.

You have said that new players will be disadvantaged, or may be pushed away from the game by ramping, because of the pain and the possibility of getting pinned into a barricade.
However the argument stands that there is a mixture of ramping and non-ramping tournaments in the UK- you can choose to play the format you wish. And I agree with this non-regulation across the country *at the moment*.
To be honest the PA is not a series designed for very new players anyway!
Ramping capped at 15bps has been implemented in the PA and in the millennium because the standard of play is higher than most domestic tourneys, and the rewards are higher.

To qualify:
I do not want to see little kids running around in King of the Hill ramping, simply because there is no need to regulate their markers as much- cheating is not as widespread, and the rewards for cheating are not so great.
For example why test kids running in a school sports day for nandrilone or steroids?
It is unlikely they will be using it, & you could spot one which was using steroids or growth enhancers anyway…

It's a choice.
-either use uncapped semi (but face the risk of possibly facing a marker firing at an uncapped speed), or play ramping, however you are assured that you will face speeds no higher than 15bps, and also *your marker will be doing the same*.
Personally I don't believe that ramping needs to be used in local domestic tourneys as the need to control cheats is not so great, and cheating

The other angle is that whereas before, maybe some newer players who were naturally fast or aggressive or had a natural ability to play were disadvantaged by the time it took them to learn to shoot quickly.
It comes back to levelling the playing field. Having each side having the same ROF will place the focus onto -as above- aggressiveness & speed of movement, placing of players and angles. Tactical and technical ability in the game.

 

[Rosie]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Don't let him push you around with his novelette length posts, Rosie.

Oh don't worry, I'm sure I'll cope


Right just so I'm not one sided & ignoring the problems of ramping, here they are:

I agree about the PACT robots I cannot deny that- look at the PA- ramping was seen as a good solution, however the PACT robots which were meant to count ROF never really came into play, or would not work effectively (correct me if I’m wrong please I have never played in a PA event though have spectated), which I think is what you are reffering to.

The NXL however was regulated well using these devices.
improvements still need to be made, but ramping is still the lesser of two evils.

There were comments after the first PA that there were multiple over-kills, however this is partly due to slow human reaction times. The balls are coming out faster than the player is pulling the trigger- there is no link between the marker & the human brain which tells the marker that the fingers have stopped pulling the trigger- it finishes it’s current cycle of 15 balls and if the trigger is not pulled again it does not fire
Does that make sense?

There has been speculation that there were some ulterior motives for introducing ramping. For example, at some tournaments which use ramping, the paint is not bring your own is it- you must use the paint which is supplied by the organisers. It has been suggested that there is a monopoly on paint- they want you to ramp so that you will use more paint, and spend more money.
Another viewpoint might be that this in turn does promote growth in the industry as it does force people to use more paint.


Ramping I find is like Communism- not a bad idea, but in practise it is difficult to get right. See Lenin- good intentions in the beginning, but communism generally ends up developing into a dictatorship (see Stalin, & Chairman Mao & Saddam who styled themselves on him) because there's always some paranoid megalomanic tw@t in the background ready to exploit the problems.

There is no question that semi auto needs to be policed or controlled.
However the real question might be seen as 'are we doing the wrong thing for the right reasons'

sorry I've written too much I've forgot the question
what side am I on again ?

 

[Chicago]

part 1

Originally posted by Rosie
Is this a good argument?
I think I've focused on this a bit much but anyway...

Obviously it would be madness to let people drive on the roads at their cars current speed ability which I have no doubt on some cars may be 200mph, but there is a speed limit set at 70mph for the safety of other drivers. There may be the idea that 'this is my car I can drive it as fast as I want' but for others' safety this isn't possible.

Angels can cycle at 31bps apparently, & on fullauto a high-end cocker can do 54 bps (albeit without paint)
on full auto, with paint, a high end marker and an excellent loader could easily do about 20-25bps without chops. Some Pro's claim to be able to shoot at such high speeds already naturally.
-Obviously allowing players to shoot at these speeds is wrong- for the safety of other players a safe limit, or a cap, should be imposed.

-I think you will find ramping capped at 15bps, some pros have mentioned that their rate of fire is actually hindered by this, some as aforementioned being able to hit 18bps no problem.

it is a technological advancement but there is a limit to it, people are limited as to the use of this technology through this method.

I have read various tourney organisers and refs posts after a tourney claiming to have pulled out illegal markers firing at up to 22bps (Russel S claimed this one, I can find the link if you like)



Yes evidently some technological advancement is bad.
Obviously "vorsprung durch technik" (advancement through technology) is good
BUT just because something's an improvement on current technology it doesn't make it good it has to adapted to the current situation and the use must be pertinent.

Like nuclear weapons for example- just because a scientist can make a new bigger bomb which could destroy vast(er?) amounts of life, this isn't good and it's use must be controlled, obviously it isn’t good just ‘cause it's new.

which I think applies to ramping- this isn't change only for the sake of change this is technology being needed and implemented to improve a situation.

Your whole post agrees with my point, then you make a conclusion that is contrary to your post.

You originally proposed that criticism of ramping could be ignored in general because it was the same as the criticism against semi-auto. My main point was that this is a silly, irrelevant argument, because there is a point at which further technological improvement is a BAD thing, i.e., just because criticism about semi-auto being too fast may not have been valid doesn't mean criticism about ramping being too fast isn't valid.

You now argue that ramping is "needed" to improve a situation. This is simply not the case. It may have been one way to make guns "fair", but it's not the only way, and it's certainly not the right way, any more than taking out some extra insurance and tossing a hair dryer into the bathtub with my wife is a good way to get $500,000 to pay off my gambling debts. It solves my immediate problem, but it's still not the right thing to do.