Mag, I gotta agree with TJ on this one inasmuch as the article does read unambiguously.
I will call Rich and find out and post his response up here....
I will call Rich and find out and post his response up here....
Forget hypotheticals, here's tha facts...
- Thread starter TJ Lambini
- Start date
Latest issue duder...and yep, kudos to tha man indeed for shooting straight, but if you're right then this article hits tha wrong target as well as tha right one...
Tj
Sorry man, I havent read the article. I thought you was reffering to a article like 5 month ago in Facefull i think?
In any case I still belive its a misunderstanding as I find it hard to belive that Rich and Micah could keep a secret from me
Magued
Sorry man, I havent read the article. I thought you was reffering to a article like 5 month ago in Facefull i think?
In any case I still belive its a misunderstanding as I find it hard to belive that Rich and Micah could keep a secret from me
Magued
I just called Rich and he wanted me to make the following clear to everybody :-
The need to run with cheater boards was only whilst playing in the NXL.
As soon as we (XSV) begun playing in the NPPL we did not use the cheater boards.
I still possess a cheater board but all our markers now have legal boards fitted.
I am sorry if I did not make this point clear in the article in Faceful and I hope things are clear now.
The whole ethos of the NPPL is different and creates an environment that actually deters cheater boards and their use, I cannot say the same for the NXL or its ruling body.
Thanks for listening
That I think makes Rich's position a little clearer.
The need to run with cheater boards was only whilst playing in the NXL.
As soon as we (XSV) begun playing in the NPPL we did not use the cheater boards.
I still possess a cheater board but all our markers now have legal boards fitted.
I am sorry if I did not make this point clear in the article in Faceful and I hope things are clear now.
The whole ethos of the NPPL is different and creates an environment that actually deters cheater boards and their use, I cannot say the same for the NXL or its ruling body.
Thanks for listening
That I think makes Rich's position a little clearer.
I am interested to know what type of cheats exist on these cheater boards.
Is it just free shots at high ROF?
Or does it increase the velocity awell?
Anyone care to speculate???
Is it just free shots at high ROF?
Or does it increase the velocity awell?
Anyone care to speculate???
Magued would know what's going on because of his nearness to people like Rich Telford and many others. Also because he was in the reffing tent most of the day Sunday in Toulouse.
If any players were using cheating boards on the finals fields on Sunday they sure weren't getting much use out of them. There were a lot of people on those fields who can spot a gun when it's ripping and that was just not happening. We had almost one ref per player during the finals and many of us were up close to the players and watching the fingers and guns. Players were chronoed during the games and every flag hanger was chronoed.
Sure, there are some cheats that are hard to see, hear or otherwise detect, but isn't the purpose of the cheater boards to put out high volumes of paint or increase the velocity? I am convinced that it just wasn't happening in Toulouse or, if so, only to a very minute degree.
So it is a hassle, there is the human element without a robot, but we're making substantial progress in Millennium on this issue.
While we're here let me say that the more I investigate this the more I find out that there most likely wasn't a single suspension that wasn't legit at Toulouse. I'm pretty convinced that every single gun that caused a suspension was definitely violating the semiauto rule.
Mark Toye - Nexus pointed out something in the "Inconsistencies at Toulouse" thread that must be addressed: "...it was spelt out at the captains meeting that the guns would be passed for bouncing if the degree of bounce did not afford undue advantage." I didn't word that right and will revise that. Even if some boucing doesn't offer an undue advantage it might make a gun illegal and if it is clear to us it is illegal we have to stop or penalize it. What I'm saying is, if we use the slow-pull trigger test while holding the gun properly and get it to burst it is illegal. A single bounce or two is a different matter.
As I've said many times before, we will continue to use whatever means we have to control illegal guns even if we lack the best tools with which to do it and even if the human element has shortcomings.
Just like a player who runs her/his gun at 299 runs the risk of causing his/her team to suffer from penalties, so must players put some margin into their guns concerning bounce.
In any case, we will introduce some procedural improvements in Madrid. And we will redouble our efforts to improve field-to-field consistency.
Steve
PS. I'm also curious about the answer to John C's question.
SM
If any players were using cheating boards on the finals fields on Sunday they sure weren't getting much use out of them. There were a lot of people on those fields who can spot a gun when it's ripping and that was just not happening. We had almost one ref per player during the finals and many of us were up close to the players and watching the fingers and guns. Players were chronoed during the games and every flag hanger was chronoed.
Sure, there are some cheats that are hard to see, hear or otherwise detect, but isn't the purpose of the cheater boards to put out high volumes of paint or increase the velocity? I am convinced that it just wasn't happening in Toulouse or, if so, only to a very minute degree.
So it is a hassle, there is the human element without a robot, but we're making substantial progress in Millennium on this issue.
While we're here let me say that the more I investigate this the more I find out that there most likely wasn't a single suspension that wasn't legit at Toulouse. I'm pretty convinced that every single gun that caused a suspension was definitely violating the semiauto rule.
Mark Toye - Nexus pointed out something in the "Inconsistencies at Toulouse" thread that must be addressed: "...it was spelt out at the captains meeting that the guns would be passed for bouncing if the degree of bounce did not afford undue advantage." I didn't word that right and will revise that. Even if some boucing doesn't offer an undue advantage it might make a gun illegal and if it is clear to us it is illegal we have to stop or penalize it. What I'm saying is, if we use the slow-pull trigger test while holding the gun properly and get it to burst it is illegal. A single bounce or two is a different matter.
As I've said many times before, we will continue to use whatever means we have to control illegal guns even if we lack the best tools with which to do it and even if the human element has shortcomings.
Just like a player who runs her/his gun at 299 runs the risk of causing his/her team to suffer from penalties, so must players put some margin into their guns concerning bounce.
In any case, we will introduce some procedural improvements in Madrid. And we will redouble our efforts to improve field-to-field consistency.
Steve
PS. I'm also curious about the answer to John C's question.
SM
I'm sure someone more qualified such as Manike will correct me if im wrong....
Some boards now can be programmed using software, to perform any command following a pre-programmed input.....e.g tap a pre-determined pattern on the trigger = change X.
This could be activate turbo, add shots, fa, change dwell, anything.......
Pretty much making it impossible for an official to find anything wrong unless they fluke the code, the probability of which has to be slim....
We live in an age where even some kids toys are using CPU's.. so what can you expect...
Some boards now can be programmed using software, to perform any command following a pre-programmed input.....e.g tap a pre-determined pattern on the trigger = change X.
This could be activate turbo, add shots, fa, change dwell, anything.......
Pretty much making it impossible for an official to find anything wrong unless they fluke the code, the probability of which has to be slim....
We live in an age where even some kids toys are using CPU's.. so what can you expect...
