New MS gun rules

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
That isn’t why I conclude that at present there is no quantifiable skill of fast shooting. There is a huge difference between saying fast-shooting should be or could be an important skill of paintball and saying, without reservation, that it is. Because right now, today, in competitions around the globe, it isn’t and hasn’t been for years. Without clearly defined, enforceable rules governing type and use of equipment you simply cannot make any valid judgment about the merits of a so-called skill and any semblance of that train left the Paintball station a long time ago.

In my opinion, the 'enforceability', for want of a better word, has little to do with it Paul and proves to be academic.
The practicalities of adjudication cannot and should not detract from being able to define and classify 'fast-'shooting' as a skill.
It's like saying that going over 30 mph (in a 30 mph speed zone) isn't a crime because for the most part, we all do it all the time and people just ain't caught and the practicalities of putting a speed camera up on every road in Britain that has a 30 mph restriction make it the only other option if we are to maintain the integrity of that law.
We do what we can and as I see it; one trigger pull = one shot is unequivocal, any problems we face in policing should be exactly that, problems in policing and therefore that should be addressed rather than allowing a new set of conditions that allows rule-breakers to set agendas.
I agree there has to be some connection between the theoretical integrity of a rule and the practical side of enforcement of that same rule but the latter shouldn’t (in this case) affect its introduction.



And further, anecdotal evidence is at best a mixed bag, because it cannot be clearly seen or shown that losing the skill has altered either results or game play in any appreciable way. On the other hand an argument could be made that the real skill disappeared so long ago (relatively) that making the linkage and observing the changes is now probably impossible.

Really?
Just go look at the results of the past few Millenniums mate......there have been some truly anomalous results of late and if you go look at the last two final four positions, it screams out at you, something is going on mate.


I do agree that as a conception of the game you are correct but I do not see that as having any impact when the reality on the paintball fields of the world does not reflect that conception. Nobody in competitive paintball plays with a marker that doesn’t alter and enhance their skill one way or another. I assert that such has been the case in the world of competitive pball for a number of years and further, boldly assert, that regardless of era no significant effort has ever been made to safeguard or value fast-shooting. It was simply that during the mechanical era the basic one pull, one shot rule was deemed sufficient even though there was a modest equipment disparity even then. It is beyond dispute that the modern firepower wars have made a mockery of the original rules and their intent and that’s why we are at this impasse today.

I think I agree with what you are saying at the front end of this paragraph but my whole point is predicated on the need to draw the line somewhere and what I am saying is this, if you allow ramping then it's one step too far and opens up a whole new set of problems that is just as hard to adjudicate (if not in some cases worse) and the real casualty is the competitive ethos of paintball.

If, in fact, this a skill worth saving or promoting, then simply denying ramping and the capping of ROF will not suffice. If it is a skill that is to have any meaning in the context of competition then the goal must be to neutralize the impact of equipment. One simply can’t validate shooting fast for example when one player is shooting an Angel and the other is shooting a Spyder. It’s like letting one team in baseball play with aluminum bats while the other can’t and then congratulating the team with superior bats on their powerful hitting. Rules must be written and enforced that standardize or limit the equipment used in such a way that the actual on field implementation of the skill–fast shooting–is due solely to the player’s ability and not aided or enhanced by his/her equipment relative to the opponent. Then and only then will you have a skill of consequence.

I tend to agree with what you are saying in terms of Spyder / Angel usage but once again, in my opinion, this is somewhat academic because it is the rules that should set the standards of operation and not one's ability to purchase a Spyder or an Angel.
The richest football clubs in the world have the best training facilities, best physios, best equipment etc and just because less resourced teams can't achieve the same level of infrastructure doesn't then mean rules must be held hostage to that.

We set the rules that provide a ceiling of operation and an unequivocal mode of operation and how people get to that is their business and contingent upon their resources and choice....just like it is everywhere else in life.
I think we will both agree on more points than we disagree on this one Paul but I feel as though you seem to have more of a problem with the practicalities of implementation rather than the ethics of it and in this sense, it is pushing you toward rejection rather than endeavoring to find a solution to the initial problem, that of policing ramped markers.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Robbo
1. We do what we can and as I see it; one trigger pull = one shot is unequivocal, any problems we face in policing should be exactly that, problems in policing and therefore that should be addressed rather than allowing a new set of conditions that allows rule-breakers to set agendas.

2. I agree there has to be some connection between the theoretical integrity of a rule and the practical side of enforcement of that same rule but the latter shouldn’t (in this case) affect its introduction.

3. And further, anecdotal evidence is at best a mixed bag, because it cannot be clearly seen or shown that losing the skill has altered either results or game play in any appreciable way. On the other hand an argument could be made that the real skill disappeared so long ago (relatively) that making the linkage and observing the changes is now probably impossible.

Really?
Just go look at the results of the past few Millenniums mate......there have been some truly anomalous results of late and if you go look at the last two final four positions, it screams out at you, something is going on mate.

4. I think I agree with what you are saying at the front end of this paragraph but my whole point is predicated on the need to draw the line somewhere and what I am saying is this, if you allow ramping then it's one step too far and opens up a whole new set of problems that is just as hard to adjudicate (if not in some cases worse) and the real casualty is the competitive ethos of paintball.

5. I tend to agree with what you are saying in terms of Spyder / Angel usage but once again, in my opinion, this is somewhat academic because it is the rules that should set the standards of operation and not one's ability to purchase a Spyder or an Angel.
The richest football clubs in the world have the best training facilities, best physios, best equipment etc and just because less resourced teams can't achieve the same level of infrastructure doesn't then mean rules must be held hostage to that.

6. We set the rules that provide a ceiling of operation and an unequivocal mode of operation and how people get to that is their business and contingent upon their resources and choice....just like it is everywhere else in life.

7. I think we will both agree on more points than we disagree on this one Paul but I feel as though you seem to have more of a problem with the practicalities of implementation rather than the ethics of it and in this sense, it is pushing you toward rejection rather than endeavoring to find a solution to the initial problem, that of policing ramped markers.

Let me say it's a pleasure to have you on the boards if only briefly and I'll do my best not to elevate the old blood pressure. Now, to dig in--
(Yes, the numbers are back.)
1. I have no problem with that. My point is simply that such a rule has had no force whatsoever for a long time now and it's hard (for me at least) to oppose one abuse of the rules with another abuse of the rules. What I want to see--and what I think is essential for Sport--is some set of rules actually being enforced.

2. The failure to enforce a given rule or the inability to enforce a given rule necessarily creates an attitude and pattern of disregard for all the rules generally. I find that to be of far more concern and a greater danger to the game than what becomes of fast-shooting.

3. For starters the MS is the wild west, there is no law and/or order. That seems to me to be priority one. Variations of the same things are occurring in the NPPL without the same apparent result, so ...?
I think I could also make a very good argument that the results of late are more related to the fact that EVERYONE now has available to them what only a select few were using before. So was it skill before when only a few had the means to hardcore cheat or were they really better?
Until the rules mean something everyone is left to guess.

4. I would be perfectly satisfied with one pull, one shot as long as it was appropriately and effectively enforced. Personally, I'm also fine with the ramping but I would only be satisfied with either course if there is adequate enforcement.
I honestly don't see a competitive problem with regulated ramping but then--

5. It isn't academic because competitive paintball's rules have never seriously addressed the impact of equipment on the outcome of play. (And in some senses you can thank the extremis of ramping for forcing the issue.)
Anyway, I do not think the distinction between the haves and the have nots is a relevant one in this instance for a couple of reasons: In any serious sport regardless of the resources of the teams involved equipment, its limits and its character are very closely regulated for the express purpose of assuring that it is the skill on field that matters. The New York Yankees aren't allowed to use baseballs that don't conform to the very strict rules of major league baseball even though they are the richest team in baseball. Your argument is one of allowing teams like the Russians to compete against lower division teams--not the same argument at all. (And most everyone in paintball calls that sandbadgering--)

6. Nope, not having any today. Hockey sticks are regulated down to the angle of curve allowed on the blade. Pucks are controlled as to composition, weight, etc. Even footballs, you know, those oblong fellows we Americans play with are regulated as to inflation pressure, type of bladder, lacing and surface texture. The list is endless in any serious sport because the determination has been made that a disparity of equipment shouldn't alter possible results. (Precisely what you alluded to regarding recent MS play.) If Paintball is serious about being a Sport it must closely and precisely regulate its equipment whether it be semi-auto of some sort or ramping of some sort.

7. I think that's probably fair. I would add in my defense however that while I'm agnostic about the art of fast-shooting I'm all for Paintball sharpening its teeth and growing the requisite balls to make fast-shooting both a demonstrable skill and one that matters.

 

[Robbo]

Hi Paul, my BP's fine thanks

1. Now whilst you have no problem with it all because as far as you are concerned the MS have just swapped out one set of problems for another (which I readily concede) and whilst you bask in indifference sipping a JD and coke, competitive paintball (in my opinion) has just been sacrificed for the sake of an entirely inappropriate introduction of a new rule.

2. Agreed, I got no problem with what you are saying here but it is the lesser of evils for me on this one in that it is much better to work at catching the rampers and thus trying to develop new methods and procedures than creating a new rule and having the same problem, and at the same time negate skills, decrease safety and increase cost.

3. The hierarchy of Euro Paintball has been unsettled by something mate, I have seen teams that would (with no disrespect intended whatsoever) achieve placings they would not normally get and I have seen teams that have not qualified for the Sunday Club that would generally consider it a given.
We can write these off as anomalous but in my opinion, there are just too many results that are suggesting there is an underlying problem here.
Now, the point you make that all teams have available to them what only a select few had before and this somehow now justifies the new order, well it would be ok but for one small thing, I am not pitching my opinion with reference to the cheaters, it is pitched in reference to the fair players who practiced firing fast.
Of course everybody now has the same opportunities as the cheating *******s who ramped but you cannot and should not change a rule to create parity with cheaters.
Let the skilled use their skills, let the cheaters be caught and punished, if we work on that premise then we can’t go too far wrong; when we begin to capitulate for the sake of difficulty in adjudication then this sets an unwanted precedent.
I know your answer to that point would be, ‘but Pete we ain’t actually catching the rampers’….well, if we worked a bit harder in that area we might and I have already gone on record in suggesting a method to do just this and there are much more able people than I that we could turn to for help in this area but we just seem to be copping out as far as I am concerned.

4. I once again seek refuge in stating , ‘It’s the lesser of evils’; if we accept that it is better to have ‘one pull – one shot’ then we should do everything we can to have this as a rule and work to enforce it and not just jump from one ship to another.
The competitive problem with the allowance of ramping I think I have addressed in that it negates the skill of firing fast but it also has introduced an artificially higher rate of fire, if we had to cap ramping then it should have been at something like 12.
Also, it’s not just the competitive aspect; we also have safety and cost issues to consider.

5. Bejeezus Paul, I wouldn’t look toward any of Paintball’s governing bodies to consider 'effect of equipment on play', they can just about come up with semi-credible rules now let alone ones that are shaped with skill levels being addressed.
Whilst other more recognized sports do allow their sport to develop in allowing skill levels on field to flourish (which is obviously the way to go) I also think these same sports would have a stance in disbarring any new rules that introduced any artificial levels and I fully understand Paul that we are now entering an ambiguous area here but I will draw the line and say that no way should we be allowing 15 bps when the vast majority can really only get to 11 or 12 for any sustained period.
And this allowance has been Trojan-horsed in on the back of ramping.
Different issues I know but in this case linked.
League structures everywhere have disparities with the richer clubs being able to attract a better, more talented player base and as such, the description of sandbagging can be applied to almost every league in the world, it is all a matter of degree in this sense.

6. I am not sure if you have misunderstood Point 6 in that I am merely stating that any governing body should set limits of operation and those limits are the same for everybody.
If we parallel this to say Formula One whereby they might have a rule where you can have tyres that are of a certain width, all competitors then have to conform to this width restriction but it may be the more resourced teams would be able to better research tyre composites and come up with a much better tyre because of its composition but still stay within the width restriction..
This is an example of how teams ‘get there’.
I am not for one second suggesting the relevant authorities shouldn’t comprehensively regulate their sports to uphold fair and even play but at the same time, they shouldn’t be sucked into changing rules for some spurious imperative that reduces skill levels, safety and increases cost.

7. You ain’t getting no arguments from me on this one mate.

Phew !

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Robbo
Hi Paul, my BP's fine thanks

1. Now whilst you have no problem with it all because as far as you are concerned the MS have just swapped out one set of problems for another (which I readily concede) and whilst you bask in indifference sipping a JD and coke, competitive paintball (in my opinion) has just been sacrificed for the sake of an entirely inappropriate introduction of a new rule.

2. Agreed, I got no problem with what you are saying here but it is the lesser of evils for me on this one in that it is much better to work at catching the rampers and thus trying to develop new methods and procedures than creating a new rule and having the same problem, and at the same time negate skills, decrease safety and increase cost.

3. a) The hierarchy of Euro Paintball has been unsettled by something mate, I have seen teams that would (with no disrespect intended whatsoever) achieve placings they would not normally get and I have seen teams that have not qualified for the Sunday Club that would generally consider it a given.
We can write these off as anomalous but in my opinion, there are just too many results that are suggesting there is an underlying problem here.
b) Now, the point you make that all teams have available to them what only a select few had before and this somehow now justifies the new order, well it would be ok but for one small thing, I am not pitching my opinion with reference to the cheaters, it is pitched in reference to the fair players who practiced firing fast.
c) Of course everybody now has the same opportunities as the cheating *******s who ramped but you cannot and should not change a rule to create parity with cheaters.
d) Let the skilled use their skills, let the cheaters be caught and punished, if we work on that premise then we can’t go too far wrong; when we begin to capitulate for the sake of difficulty in adjudication then this sets an unwanted precedent.
e) I know your answer to that point would be, ‘but Pete we ain’t actually catching the rampers’….well, if we worked a bit harder in that area we might and I have already gone on record in suggesting a method to do just this and there are much more able people than I that we could turn to for help in this area but we just seem to be copping out as far as I am concerned.

4. I once again seek refuge in stating , ‘It’s the lesser of evils’; if we accept that it is better to have ‘one pull – one shot’ then we should do everything we can to have this as a rule and work to enforce it and not just jump from one ship to another.
The competitive problem with the allowance of ramping I think I have addressed in that it negates the skill of firing fast but it also has introduced an artificially higher rate of fire, if we had to cap ramping then it should have been at something like 12.
Also, it’s not just the competitive aspect; we also have safety and cost issues to consider.

5. Bejeezus Paul, I wouldn’t look toward any of Paintball’s governing bodies to consider 'effect of equipment on play', they can just about come up with semi-credible rules now let alone ones that are shaped with skill levels being addressed.
Whilst other more recognized sports do allow their sport to develop in allowing skill levels on field to flourish (which is obviously the way to go) I also think these same sports would have a stance in disbarring any new rules that introduced any artificial levels and I fully understand Paul that we are now entering an ambiguous area here but I will draw the line and say that no way should we be allowing 15 bps when the vast majority can really only get to 11 or 12 for any sustained period.
And this allowance has been Trojan-horsed in on the back of ramping.
Different issues I know but in this case linked.
League structures everywhere have disparities with the richer clubs being able to attract a better, more talented player base and as such, the description of sandbagging can be applied to almost every league in the world, it is all a matter of degree in this sense.

6. I am not sure if you have misunderstood Point 6 in that I am merely stating that any governing body should set limits of operation and those limits are the same for everybody.
If we parallel this to say Formula One whereby they might have a rule where you can have tyres that are of a certain width, all competitors then have to conform to this width restriction but it may be the more resourced teams would be able to better research tyre composites and come up with a much better tyre because of its composition but still stay within the width restriction..
This is an example of how teams ‘get there’.
I am not for one second suggesting the relevant authorities shouldn’t comprehensively regulate their sports to uphold fair and even play but at the same time, they shouldn’t be sucked into changing rules for some spurious imperative that reduces skill levels, safety and increases cost.

7. You ain’t getting no arguments from me on this one mate.

Phew !

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.

 

[Steve Morris]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...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.

Amen.

Others and I suggested tamper-sealed tournament-approved boards but I now understand that is not practical because of expense and the need for adjustability.

I think the only reasonable thing to do now is

¤ continue with the 15bps cap

¤ require that the first three shots are true semi (doesn't seem to be in MS's latest gun-rule revision which is scary)

¤ require that no more than one shot is discharged after the last trigger activation and that within 100ms

¤ give the refs the tools, manpower and backing to enforce the above

Then for the near future we should continue trying to find a way to bring back an enforceable non-ramping cap until eventually we find a way to have enforceable un-capped "true" semi (if that will ever become possible).

In general, ****ty rules and unenforcable rules create contempt for the rules and those trying to enforce them. It therefore puts hard-working, well-intentioned refs between a ridiculously frustrating rock and hard place.

 

[Gyroscope]

I can't see that the majority of players are going to want to go back to holding hands after they've gotten to third base. I agree that current ramping artificially inflates the ROF that most players are applying. I don't think that ramping would ever have been so readily accepted if it were capped at 12 bps, as players often do exceed that for a moment or two.

The popular acceptance of this ramping to 15 type of rule is due to the fact that it enhances what a player can do beyond what he could do without it. Leveling the playing field is so far a happy byproduct, assuming that it is an aspect of the game that we want level, and assuming that it is being maintained without rampant gun cheating with ramping in place. Players would have whined and cryed if ramping had been to 12. So far, the medicine to the gun cheat problem in the PSP sounds a lot like a sugar coated pill that is mostly sugar.

In a society like paintball, the rules are influenced by consumer demand and corporate interests. If most people want it, it will come about. If it will sell more of product X then it will be codified if enough companies can make product X or if product X is made by Smart Parts or possibly WDP.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Steve Morris
Amen.

Others and I suggested tamper-sealed tournament-approved boards but I now understand that is not practical because of expense and the need for adjustability.

I think the only reasonable thing to do now is

¤ continue with the 15bps cap

¤ require that the first three shots are true semi (doesn't seem to be in MS's latest gun-rule revision which is scary)

¤ require that no more than one shot is discharged after the last trigger activation and that within 100ms

¤ give the refs the tools, manpower and backing to enforce the above

First, Word to Robbo. He's got this pretty much right on.

Now, Steve, why in the hell would you have the three rules you have above? If you're going to give the refs the tools to enforce semi-auto for the first three shots,why not just enforce semiautofor ALL shots? That is certainly a lot easier to enforce than semi-auto for three shots, AND 15 bps cap, AND no more than 100ms between trigger pull and shot fired.

PSP has all three of those rules now, but the only rule that is being enforced is that your gun can't fire faster than 15 bps when it's pulled after the game. (Ratko has a fix for that, but even Ratko's fix does nothing for the other two parts of that rule.)

Semi auto, certified boards.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Five Finger Bullet
I'm sure Bolingbrook was excited about having a million paintballers roll in, tie up traffic, and shoot up their road signs.

Bolingbrook is more than happy to clean up some signs in exchange for the increased revenue to the city.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Hmm

This is an interesting debate.

However - one point that most of you seem to have overlooked, is that the rules that govern the MS, have to comply with the laws in the countries where the MS is played.

As only "true semi" is lawful in some of those countries (if not all - I don't know)..... then the MS is completely unable to make enforcable rules that do not clash with the law.

No Series in the world is currently able to enforce "true semi" - the technologi is simply not there.... the only thing that can effectively be enforced, is the ROF cap.... which is wholly irrelevant to the "law".

So - the MS has one of two choices - as I see it:

- Make rules that are enforceable but in conflict with the law
- Make rules that comply with the law, but are not enforcable

It's a classic "between a rock and a hard place" scenario.

Once we have all come to that realisation, we have to apply a whole new perspective to this debate.... as the question is no longer what is good for the sport or not.... because neither of the two options the MS have, are "good for the sport".

Unenforcable rules means that gun cheats are rampant and benefits the teams and players with the poorest moral standards - and enforcable rules mean that the Series risk getting shut down by allowing everyone to shoot illegal firing modes.

I personally think the very best the Series can do, is quite close to what is HAS done..... but I would prefer to see the ROF dropped to 12, as I completely agree with Pete that we have artificially increased fire rates across the board.... and that it is better to have the very few fast shooters suffer, than have everyone else shooting faster and more than they can in true semi.

The MS have to write their rules in a way that disallows anything besides true semi - but we all have to understand that such wording is nothing but lipservice - because it is not enforcable..... and then focus on enforcement methods that enforce what we CAN.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Hmm

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
No Series in the world is currently able to enforce "true semi" - the technologi is simply not there.... the only thing that can effectively be enforced, is the ROF cap.... which is wholly irrelevant to the "law".

You're spreading lies. 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. I know there are manufacturers stateside willing to do it (aftermarket board manufacturers, not gun manufacturers), so all Millenium has to do is decide to do it.

The only reason they won't is half of their money comes from the industry and the industry doesn't want it done.

And I don't want to hear any BS about why the players should ahve to spend $35 for a board when they spend $35 for ID cards and $1,000 for markers. Buy two less beers at each event and you're there.