Name that Skill!

[Baca Loco]

In the debate over 'To Ramp or Not To Ramp' I regularly see claims that semi-only preserves the valuable--practically essential--skill of shooting fast.
This is, of course, utter rubbish as there is no such skill in today's game, if there ever was. The reasons for this are two-fold; modern electro guns and the complete lack of standardization.
The lesser reason: electros feed the fantasies of the modern baller that with a bit of work he too can be a fast-fingered god on the pball field when the simple truth is the overwhelming majority of all youse fast shooters are being "assisted" by your guns--even those guns set up to nominally pass basic chrono station testing. Feel free to deny it--I know most of you will--as it's always the "other guy" using his technology to gain a shots but that long line of other guys will eventually call your name. But even if that wasn't the case . . .
The real reason: without standardization there is no demonstrable skill. Unless and until everyone is shooting a marker or markers that are sufficiently constrained by rules to be virtually identical in the way they actuate you can't claim any skill in their use. DM5's and Spyder Fenix's simply aren't comparable and markers are the basic equipment of the game. If they aren't functionally "equal" then anything to do with their use cannot be qualified as a legitmate skill because you do not have the oft mentioned level playing field.

If you don't agree tell me where I'm wrong. (Hint: my argument hinges on the notion that competitive pball can be classed as a sport. But so does the notion that shooting fast is a skill. )

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Skill = the ability to act according to a set of rules, the act being based in the realms of tacit knowledge.

Well if we are going by this definition then to a degree you are right. But I think you have made too many convenient assumptions and sweeping statements.

Shooting fast is, imho, a skill. The fact that we havent got a way of truly measuring it or a standard framework to base it on doesnt undermine it as a skill 'in essence'. As soon as these parameters are defined the skill won't just suddenly appear! It's here - it's just not set out and proven

Mark

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Mark Toye-Nexus
1--Shooting fast is, imho, a skill.

2--The fact that we havent got a way of truly measuring it or a standard framework to base it on doesnt undermine it as a skill 'in essence'.

3--As soon as these parameters are defined the skill won't just suddenly appear! It's here - it's just not set out and proven

Mark

1--at least you aren't alone in being incorrect, Mark. Shooting fast has the potential to be a skill but the act of shooting fast right now, today, is often used as some sort of justification of semi only in the ramping debate and it simply isn't.

2--of course it does! Hitting home runs in baseball is both a skill, related to swinging the bat, and a value within the context of the game and both have come into question recently because of the current steriods controversy. The same thing, to a lesser degree, applies to corked or tarred bats or the inclusion of aluminum bats all of which can affect the hitting of home runs and why the major leagues have always disallowed them. Without clear and precise parameters you DE-value both the "skill" and the result. In pball at present it's practically anything goes so while you can claim shooting fast might be a valuable skill there is no arena of play in which to make that judgment the way the game is presently played.

3--Yes, it will because you can only assign value to it within the context of the whole game and all else being essentially equal.

And, I daresay should anyone attempt to define the equipment in such a way that shooting fast became a quantifiable skill you'd have as much or more outrage as exists now over ramping.

 

[Ben Frain]

My biggest problem is that even if all markers were equal, and some people can wave their fingers faster than others - who do you think will care??

Everyone, when it comes to physical prowess, can appreciate and recognise a true physical skill when they see it. But walking the trigger just looks like an epileptic seizure confined to the hand!

Look at it another way. Picture the scenario...

You have the option of two players to join your team. One is **** slow but can knock 22BPS out unaided (he's using a marker made pre-2004 ). The other can only knock 8BPS out but is fast as a cheetah. If all their other qualities were identical - which one would you pick?

Shooting fast, even if it can be called a skill, has to be perhaps the least important when it comes to a paintball player.

 

[Bolter]

Originally posted by Ben Frain Shooting fast, even if it can be called a skill, has to be perhaps the least important when it comes to a paintball player.

That there, I totally agree on. I would put it down to a bonus "skill". As in if a player was everything, AND could shoot comfortably fast, then its a bonus.

Ramping......I dunno, Im enjoying it, just for the fact that sheer uniform firepower, from across the team can put a lot of pressure on certain game situations. But its not that much different from my point of view.
It doesnt take as long at the chrono I suppose is one benefit. I think also on the whole (at ramping tournies) the guns are alot safer. I really feel the trigger bounce era was mega dangerous, and lets face it, 04 was the trigger bounce year.

What the problem is, is we are relying on general Joe Public to be a sensible person. We can't rely on this at all.

EDIT: Stark, you quoted me I feel all warm. Wait have I pissed meself?

 

[stark]

Baca, your getting bogged down in assumptions I think. IMO trigger `skill` boils down to 2 simple statements:

1. Regardless of what trigger is being fired there is still an optimal firing algorithm - ie a method of pulling the trigger with a minimum of time delay.

2. The skill bit is applying that algorithm to any trigger type in a consistent manner.

Eg people skilled in trigger action will be on average faster firing on any trigger than those who aren't.

 

[Intheno]

Once all guns used are true semi-auto there will be 2 things left.
How fast you can pull the trigger - a skill
Your choice of marker and how easy it is to pull the trigger on said marker, the choice of which (if you have one) is also a skill.(kinda)

Until its True Semi-auto there is no skill. But it makes you look more skillful, which is hella cool....

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

I cant disagree more

The skill is there - it is devalued by the modes etc I agree. But only devalued.

The skill to pull a lever that activates a switch with a finger is a learnt action. It is an improvement of that skill to shoot it fast

The instructions for carrying it out can be written down and passed onto a complete novice at it but they simply will not be able to do it just by reading the instructions. They must then experience the action, by doing it and will often need to be shown exactly how to pull the trigger fast.

This is the classic knowledge heirarchy and encompasses 'skill' as one of the first wrungs of the ladder.

All the rest is, imho, irrelevant. The semantics regarding level playing fields, same equipment etc are a red herring.

Break it all down to the basic element - as you say, the swing of the baseball bat and all other considerations are worthless. The advantage that can be gained by certain changes to equipment only change the degree by which the skills effect is increased as an end result.

 

[Intheno]

The skill is there - it is devalued by the modes etc I agree. But only devalued.

If by devalued, you mean negated, then yes, you are right on.

If you mean that the guy who can pull the trigger 6 times per second and achieve a fire rate of whatever his hopper can feed at, is notably less skillfull than the guy that can pull the trigger 17 times per second and acheive a fire rate of whatever his hopper will feed at, then in theory you may be right, but in practice you are obviously not. Therefore the skill is non-apparent, which may as well be non-existant, for all the difference it makes.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
If all their other qualities were identical - which one would you pick?

That depends, am I looking for a back player or a front guy?

Shooting fast, even if it can be called a skill, has to be perhaps the least important when it comes to a paintball player.

Shooting fast is important for back players. I'll agree that it's never been a skill though, as how fast you could should has always been chiefly a limit of technology, aside from the very brief period between the advent of electronic markers and electronic markers that added shots.

How did you fire faster with your pump marker? Did you practice a lot?

No, you bought a pump with an autotrigger.

If you wanted to fire faster than that, did you practice more?

No, you bought a Hurricane.

If you wanted to shoot faster than that, did you practice more?

No, you bought an Automag. Unless you didn't want to chop paint, in which case you got an Autococker.


S pulling the trigger has never been a "skill". But it's definitely important. Your question would have been much better phrased as thus:


If you had a choice between a slow player with an Angel Speed, and a fast player with a Tippman, who would you choose?


And I'd much rather have a fat, slow back player with a speed over a fast skinnybackplayer with a tippman, and I'd much rather have a fast, skinny front player with a Tippman than a fat slow front player with an angel, for this fundamental truth about paintball:

Paintballs are accurate up close, making AIM important. Paintballs are not so accurate, and not so reliable (likely to break) at 125 feet, making VOLUME important.


And VOLUME has always been improved with technology, not practice. It's paintball equipment's equivalent of accuracy. (Technology can't make a paintball fly straigher, but it can put more of 'em in the air)