New MS gun rules

[Gyroscope]

This doesn't seem like a way out. Santioned boards or tournament issue chips are not what players want, therefore not what manufacturers want. The only ones with a selfish interest in these chips being mandated is the aftermarket manufacturer who gets the contract to provide them. The tournament circuits are set up for the sake of selling many many top end products to people who haven't worn out the almost top end stuff that is 9 months old, and silly chips and boards are part of that. In fact, hoppers that feed 35 bps (yeah right) and antichop eyes don't seem all that necessary if the rate of fire is capped or if enhanced firing is eliminated.

Now, I will conceed that it may be in everyone's long term interest to see tournament issue chips or boards, but I am not especially convinced of industry's ability to get along well enough to accept limitations or start selling something that people will view as a step down in capability. This was tried before, right? 13 bps cap or something?

 

[duffistuta]

While I agree in sentiment Gyro, in practice the Millennium is the only game in Europe and if it decides that all the players have to wear giant clown shoes and the refs must make calls in Esperanto then the players will go along because they have no choice.

And if that pill is washed down with the statement that these boards make Milleennium events comply with national laws and so minimise the risk of Paintball getting banned, then even the stupidest player will accept a semi-only board. Ditto the industry - few are short termist enough to run the risk of losing large parts of the Euro market to a ban for the sale of a few dozen guns and boards.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1. I'm not indifferent. Far from it but my point remains--competitive paintball was sacrificed a long time ago and it is only in the extremity of ramping that the inequity is being widely recognized. The ramping rules weren't introduced out of thin air--they were the result of widespread and so far unstoppable "gun cheats." Those cheats existed before the ramping rules and continue to exist and cause the most disreagard for the rules of the game in the NPPL and the MS.

2. Again, I've no problem with that course but nobody has yet found a way to make it work either as a determination of will or technologically.
And, no, you can't change the parameters of the debate by now including the safety issue and others.

3. a) my point was that neither you or anybody else can say with certainty that the prior results weren't tainted by some form of "cheating", only that with widespread ramping and multi-programmable boards all those choices are now available to anyone.
b) I'm not saying it justifies anything--what I'm saying is that even from the "fair players" the guns, the flouting of the rules over time and the availability of "cheating" technology has made a complete mockery of the sporting notion of fair play but that is the way it's been for some time and far from the ramping rules taking us further into the wilderness they are actually coming closer to restoring order and fair play, just of a different sort.
c) I would agree except the situation isn't that cut and dry when not 1 in 20 "semi-only" guns actually shoots only a number of balls equal to actual, intentional trigger pulls.
d) again, the so-called skilled have had their skill augmented in numerous non-ramping but still contrary to the letter and spirit of the rules ways for quite some time.
e) we aren't, we can't given the status quo and sadly, I do not think for a second your plan is workable or effective.

4. What you and the others seem to want is some ideal of play that hasn't existed in the recent past (and I could argue never did in a truly sporting context). Doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile as a goal only that somehow going back to before ramping isn't a solution because the precise state of the game that has led here seems to be what y'all want to go back to. Which is why the rules matter and why the ability to enforce them is critical to any future state of the game.

5. You seem to expect little or nothing from Paintball yet somehow magically expect what you want it to be to somehow come into being. One flows from the other and all the rest is tilting at windmills. An excellent exercise, btw, and one I am all in favor of but productive only of the soul--not of Sport.

6. I think it's a matter of degree. I see what has occurred in the past, leading to the present and I do not see any real insititutional control of the game. I see rules routinely altered or ignored to suit the power players. That was and is the state of the game. In my opinion this issue is going to force Paintball to either do it right or simply accept we're a pastime, a hobby and nothing more. But if it's Sport we want then step one is to preserve the integrity of the game. And that demands, for a start, rules we can and will enforce.
I'm also saying the old way wasn't good enough, so simply going back isn't enough, we must move forward. I am viewing this in a Big Picture context, not merely as a semi vs. ramping issue.

7.

Baca - I have two options in terms of a response to this post, I can answer it point by point as I have been doing previously and thus render the direction we are going in to even deeper and more subtle levels of understanding / interpretation (which you are well aware that I am able to) and in doing so, most who read it would begin to either lapse into a literary coma or their head disappears up their ass and just explodes....or I can seek another path to respond.

So, I can indulge myself (and you) and extend this debate but I am going to merely restate my case and leave it at that because I truly believe that the principles of fair play and common-sense I desperately try to hang on to in Paintball can be seemingly challenged by yourself in literary form and I have a sneaking suspicion that you are well aware of this frailty.

But.....whatever you write, I still believe that it is fundamentally wrong to minimize (and in this case negate) any acquired skill.

I still believe that to introduce artificially high rates of fire and then democratically assign to all and sundry is the antithesis of true competition (if we have accepted that firing fast is an acquired skill).

I still believe that introducing ramping serves the 'wants' of the masses but will drive up costs.

I still believe we have decreased safety.

I still believe we have capitulated to the cheats and let them set the agenda.

Now...you can say anything you like but I remember some guy a few years back when commenting on the Rodney King case when the defense case for the police was in full swing...he said something like, 'As I hear those attorneys pleading innocence on behalf of all those police, it's as if he's telling me I didn't see what i saw' (referring obviously to the tapes).

In my not so humble opinion, ramping is inappropriate on several levels - I've seen it !

Over to you Hemmingway

Peace out

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Chicago

The technology is available now. What is lacking is the *WILL*. All they gotta do is make everyone spend $35 on a board with a completely readable chip with standard software.

Well ok - in THEORY that is a workable solution... but please address these issues then:

- Is the Series going to have a vast stock of boards, because they can never know beforehand what guns people show up with or buy during events?

- Will such stock not drive up the cost far beyond $ 35?

- Are all gun manufacturers going to liase with the MS on all new developments, in order to have "legal" boards ready for the products the same day they hit the market?

- How do you make a board that is adjustable for the players in the areas they need (as for example dwell) - when such adjustments affect ROF - and ensure the boards cannot break the rules?

- How do you make a board that is "readable" for the MS - but not programmable for the players?

- What sort of technology must be available at each field at an event, to make your solution quick and smooth - and what does it cost?

- Is a paintball board with a data in/outlet not patented?

- What board manufacturer is going to benefit - and achieve market domination - through the MS choosing them?

If you can address all these issues satisfactory, I believe you have a workable solution.

Nick

 

[Matski]

Chicago

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff


- Is a paintball board with a data in/outlet not patented?



Nick

Yes

 

[Richofen]

But it will never stand a chance in court...at least in Europe that is.

 

[Chicago]

Chicago

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Well ok - in THEORY that is a workable solution... but please address these issues then:

1. - Is the Series going to have a vast stock of boards, because they can never know beforehand what guns people show up with or buy during events?

2. - Will such stock not drive up the cost far beyond $ 35?

3. - Are all gun manufacturers going to liase with the MS on all new developments, in order to have "legal" boards ready for the products the same day they hit the market?

4. - How do you make a board that is adjustable for the players in the areas they need (as for example dwell) - when such adjustments affect ROF - and ensure the boards cannot break the rules?

5. - How do you make a board that is "readable" for the MS - but not programmable for the players?

6. - What sort of technology must be available at each field at an event, to make your solution quick and smooth - and what does it cost?

7. - Is a paintball board with a data in/outlet not patented?

8. - What board manufacturer is going to benefit - and achieve market domination - through the MS choosing them?

If you can address all these issues satisfactory, I believe you have a workable solution.

Nick

1. A moderate stock of boards. Boards are cheap - the first one costs a lot, the rest are very inexpensive.

2. No. You sell not only the board, but also a $100-$200 device that checks the software on the board, and the rule will filter down to other leagues.

3. They will if they want their equipment used, although it's probably not even necessary. Manufacturers like to pretend that boards have some complcated secret sauce, but it's not true - you move a solenoid forward and back to let air out. You might delay that if eyes say a ball isn't there yet. The only reason it would be hard to make a board for a particular gun is if th manufacturer intentionally did something to make it hard.

Also, there's no reason the manufacturer can't just make the boards themselves, so long as the chips are completely readable.

4. The goal isn't to make sure the boards can't break the rules - the goal is to make sure that the player can't switch the settings from legal to rule breaking during a game or before a ref can check the settings. You might even put PSP and full auto modes n the board, which is fine. All you need is ONE mode that has a 10 minute "tournament lock" - 10 minutes to get into the mode, 10 minutes to get out, or some other prohibative way of changing the modes.

Remember, the problem isn't that the boards are capable of cheating. The problem is that the players are capable of using hidden modes and changing modes without detection.

5. The same way you make any other board now? You just don't allow part of the microporcessor memory to be set as unreadable. The CODE on the board is entirely separate from the DATA (settings) the board uses. Changeable DATA is ok, changable CODE is not.

6. A device that plugs into the gun that dumps the code and compares it to nown "good" code. A laptop with the right jack would do, or a special $100-$200 device.

7. Not anymore in the US. Smart Parts took care of that (ruled as obvious) Not sure about Europe.

8. Up to Millenium. No reason they couldn't choose more than one, or just provide the standard software to everyone who wanted it and specify a standard microcontroller everyone should use.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Robbo
Baca - I have two options in terms of a response to this post, I can answer it point by point as I have been doing previously and thus render the direction we are going in to even deeper and more subtle levels of understanding / interpretation (which you are well aware that I am able to) and in doing so, most who read it would begin to either lapse into a literary coma or their head disappears up their ass and just explodes....or I can seek another path to respond.

So, I can indulge myself (and you) and extend this debate but I am going to merely restate my case and leave it at that because I truly believe that the principles of fair play and common-sense I desperately try to hang on to in Paintball can be seemingly challenged by yourself in literary form and I have a sneaking suspicion that you are well aware of this frailty.

But.....whatever you write, I still believe that it is fundamentally wrong to minimize (and in this case negate) any acquired skill.

I still believe that to introduce artificially high rates of fire and then democratically assign to all and sundry is the antithesis of true competition (if we have accepted that firing fast is an acquired skill).

I still believe that introducing ramping serves the 'wants' of the masses but will drive up costs.

I still believe we have decreased safety.

I still believe we have capitulated to the cheats and let them set the agenda.

Now...you can say anything you like but I remember some guy a few years back when commenting on the Rodney King case when the defense case for the police was in full swing...he said something like, 'As I hear those attorneys pleading innocence on behalf of all those police, it's as if he's telling me I didn't see what i saw' (referring obviously to the tapes).

In my not so humble opinion, ramping is inappropriate on several levels - I've seen it !

Over to you Hemmingway

Peace out

Good call, Pete. I'm not trying to "win" an argument, only trying to express my point of view clearly so no real need to go over and over the areas we don't currently agree on.

I am clearly less distressed by ramping than you are as an element of the game though I will grant there are safety issues we didn't get into as well as the legal concerns of the Eurokind.

I also sincerely believe that fast-shooting could be a skill of the game but the combination of electros and the consistent failure to enforce existing rules trivialized it in a sporting sense long before ramping.

I would be in favor of restoring it as a skill but not at the expense of the fundamental integrity of the game.

While I'm hugely flattered by the wildly exaggerated Hemmingway talk--my giant melon of a head is even larger than normal--I can't help wondering if there isn't a sly suggestion in there somewhere that I should blow my brains out in a Key West bungalow.

An interesting discussion for another day might be 'How exactly does ramping alter game play?'

 

[Collier]

Originally posted by Baca Loco

An interesting discussion for another day might be 'How exactly does ramping alter game play?'

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47938

Was discussing this with Ben Frain at the PA on Sunday.....

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
I should blow my brains out in a Key West bungalow.

Well, seeing as it's only up the road from you...

To bring something out into the open that people seem to be skirting round without naming names...do people think that ramping is the reason teams like Ironmen, Avalanche, Joy and the Tigers have underperformed at recent Millenniums whilst inferior (on paper) teams have prospered?