NPPL bps Cap Revisited...

[Ben Frain]

Originally posted by Beaker
Ben - on what basis are you discounting the Evo 2? true it uses a catch cup to sort before agitiating them, (just like the apache), but neither applies pressure on the ball stack, it isn't force fed. Same goes for the warp (to a point).

You can't "just" limit it to gravity loaders any more than you can limit guns to just semi auto, Manike has already said that elsewhere. Plus see Manning comment regarding the old Dynasty revvys

Martin - I don't agree that because people have "had" to buy chips they have suddenly all chosen the hidden ones. The hidden chips are no more available than then ever were, just the easily identifiable ones - which shouldn't be any problem to the NPPL at all.

Shamu - can you answer my question on number of gun on the robot please as you would know more than anyone.

Beaker, again, I'm not defining the Evo II one way or another in relation to gravity, I am simply saying that it is a non 'agitaing only' loader.

That is the limitation right there 'agitating loaders' only.

In a way the definition is irrelevant, the organiser simply has a list of allowable loaders and a list of non allowed loaders = hey presto, instant ROF cap with zero on field/marker ROF policing needed

 

[SteveD]

everything paintball is gay...

now that we've laid the majority of the arguments to rest...

Gravity feed only: I seem to recall holding the line on that one in the PC NPPL for about two years (PC=Pre-Chuck); it was obvious to me then that if the feeder put a natural limit on things, rof wasn't an issue.

That rule got gutted by the manufacturers who were trying to out-do the VL monopoly.

Just as mfgs screwed with a variety of other rules (either getting them made to keep a competitor out or getting them changed to get their stuff in).

Rules-making needs to be insulated from outside pressures in order to get decent ones in. Rules should be predicated on three factors only:

1. safety
2. enforceability
3. supporting the internally defined parameters of the game in question.

Safety is easy - standards exist and they are already being broken; clearly, if guns currently exceed the ability of safety gear to protect, then the guns need to be curtailed WHILE the safety gear is being improved.

There's nothing wrong with establishing future standards; unlimited rof in 2010, so long as masks and pads are developed to support it. (Competition rules can DRIVE product development, rather than being subject to its whim.)

Enforceability is easy. Write down everything that can have a black and white call made - those become done deals. Write down everything that requires interpretation. Find the factors necessary to the interpretation; analyze them, create defaults (if the ref didn't see it, he can't make a call...) create a list of criteria for making subjective calls combined with the defaults. If you can't enforce it, you don't write the rule or write rules around it.

Supporting the internal parameters is subjective, but we've seen it evolve over the years and everyone pretty much agrees we want hot action, lots of movement, lots of shooting and an equal chance (at the beginning) for each team to win. We want things than can be scored. We want things that are visually easy to understand. We want players to have to use their heads as well as physical skills. We want communication to play a role, etc., etc.

You want these gun cheats and bad reffing issues to be resolved? Have rules that are written away from industry influences and that are written to achieve objectives, not just to put a rubber stamp on what the hot tech is.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Beaker
The NPPL will not give in while it can still catch the odd high profile case and hold it up evidence of their policy. They risk being too pig headed about it though from the problems that Tampa seems have had.

NPPL has a hype problem. They generate a lot of hype, and last year one of the things they hyped was their robot. NPPL has put a lot of effort into their "There's no gun cheats in NPPL!" hype, and a lof of people in the NPPL camp have pushed the notion that semi-auto can be enforced.

As evidenced this past weekend, we know that's a load of crap. But to change the rule now would make it pretty obvious that all the hype was just that.

So NPPL will just penalize the occasional sap, publicise those instances, and pretend everything is ok.

Not that PSP isn't going to be in the same spot soon - people exceeding the 15 BPS limit isn't as obvious of a problem yet.

Tampa also seems to have had the largest share of reffing complaints of an NPPL for some time - was that born out by those of you that were there?

That's because with the extra fields, there are more teams losing.

The truth is, reffing at NPPL has never been "good". There are simply not enough qualified refs who are willing to work for the pay provided by NPPL or PSP. NPPL hides it better by putting their refs in jersies and making sure their main fields have better refs, buthat just means there other fields have worse refs. What is NPPL paying refs? I've heard as low as $70-80 per day. You jsut can't pay that for people working 12 hours outside and expect anything approaching quality. Well, you can't have refs work 12 hours period and have anything approaching quality.

The reffing is going to be bad until refs dont work more than 6 hours per day and are paid well as well. Anybody who has refs on the field for 12 hours and thinks they have good reffing is kidding themselves.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
At tha risk of repeating myself for tha gazzillionth (yes, it's a word - look it up) time, uncapped FA is tha only logical conclusion and field design, rules and safety equipment will evolve in order to accomodate it....why everyone keeps fighting tha inevitable is beyond me.

Because that isn't an end. You can't have unlimited full auto, because unlimited full auto could be 100 bps. Does anybody really want to play paintball with 100 bps? Eventually the technology will get there.

So you have to accept that there needs to be a limit.

Certified chips or mechanical only are the only logical conclusions. And not just because we have to stop bps ramping, but because even if you accept that 100 bps is ok, more importantly because we have to stop velocity ramping. Since you're going to need certified chips to make sure people are shooting a safe velocity, you might as well put something sane like semi-auto in there.

It may take a major catastrophe and/or legislative action to get there, but at some point the guns are going to go too fast and somebody is going to get hurt.

There is one other logical conclusion: People stop playing paintball, because everyone who tries the sport gets the crap shot out of them by some kid shooting 30 bps.

It's already happening: You can't go to a local tournament anymore without finding a bunch of kids with designer cheat boards. That may not be a big deal in Tampa or Orlando, but at the local 3-man, the kid with the tippman who used to have fun and then grow into a serious tournament player is more and more likely to be the kid with the tippman who didn't have any fun getting the snot shot out of him and never plays another tournament again.

The biggest thing paintball has going for it is it's easy for new players to play it and feel like they're successful. It would be a grave mistake to ruin that in the pursuit of bps.

Unfortunately, the paintball industry has never been very good at sacrificing their short-term interests to protect their long-term ones.

 

[Intheno]

Interesting points Chicago,
a bit of clarity would, I'm sure, convince me you are doing more than just spouting off.

for example:

1. Who said there are no gun cheats in the NPPL? As you put this in speech marks I expect you can tell me where it was written, or who said it. I don't know anyone who might have said this and I have never seen it written anywhere, but I am sure you can clear this up for me.

2. Out of the 'lot of people' in the NPPL camp that have supposedly 'pushed the notion' that semi-auto can be enforced, would you mind naming some of them? People refer to me as being in the 'NPPL Camp', but I know I haven't pushed any notion such as that one. Please clarify.

3. How do the NPPL publicise the 'saps'?. Are you refering to the way it is reported in the press? Do you believe this was reported in the press because the NPPL publicised it, or could it be that this was reported simply because it was newsworthy and wasn't actually publicised as some kind of vallidation of the NPPL rules by the league? Should a member of one of the most celebrated teams in the world, and a 2 time world champion be refered to as a 'sap' in a vain effort to prove your point?

Can you refer to what makes you believe that the NPPL is 'pretending everything is ok'? Or maybe just enlighten me as to who led you to believe this?

I normally think you talk a lot of sense, but on this one I believe I either know better or that you are privy to a line of 'NPPL hype' that I am not subjected to. Either way, please enlighten me...


one more thing, I believe the NPPL refs work on a tiered system. The more experienced they are, and the more competent they are, the more they get paid. I am informed that this is so that the best refs are kept and compensated well. Personally $500 a day wouldn't make me go out and ref you guys. I would 'lose it' in the first game and go on a killing spree for sure. I believe it woudl be easier to get and keep good refs if the players weren't complete asshxles to them at every opportunity, but then thats just me...

 

[Red_Merkin]

I agree that something has to be done, a limit has to be set.

Even as we play now, it's getting crazy! People are getting shot to crap, refs are discouraged from getting in, and Paintball guns are quickly becoming dangerous!

Repeated hits from a paintball gun in the same location can cause serious damage. I witnessed palayers shooting thru bricks in malaga by striking the same spot over and over!


You have to give the power to the ref to make an ON THE SPOT decision about gun cheats. If a ref witnesses a gun going into breakout mode, and is convinced that what they saw is accurate, then they should be given the power to make the call right then and there.

This is made easier by enforcing a ROF cap, as it's pretty easy to hear the differnce between 15bps and 18bps. You hear it, you watch the player and if the player is obviously cheating, you pull them.

A police officer can pull you over for speeding even without a radar gun if they are convinced you are speeding.

And it's super easy to program cheat modes into guns, look at advantage... the code on those chips can be replicated quite easily, so we're going to see a lot more of this!

NPPL, Millennium and PSP/NXL all have to start investing heavily into devices to detect the cheats, or detect guns shooting outside the set paramaters. The directional mic seems like a good idea, and i'm sure this idea can be improved on drastically.

The sport is on the verge of getting dangerous. Until now paintball has been a relativly safe sport, but recently a kid in Quebec, Canada got shot in the eye (he took his goggles of....) and there were tons of news stories here about how harmfull paintball can be. Thing is that it won't be long until someone actually does get hurt, with all the safety equiptment, following all the rules, cause they got owned by several guys at the same time with ramping guns!

Hell Chris Lasoya went thru a phase where he tried to shoot the goggles off people's heads, and Markus kept a knock out count... do you really want to give these guys unlimited firepower?

Or maybe this is the natural evolution of paintball, to become a blood sport like boxing or ultimate fighting... where people pay to watch professionals hurt each other?

 

[shamu]

Beaker - check your PMs.

Chicago and ITN both have valid points about the hours and pay for refs. NPPL refs do work on a tiered pay system. However, most of us don't do it for the money. The truth is the pay for an entire tournament is about what I make in one day at my real job.

We do it because we love the sport and this gives many of us an opportunity to experience it at the highest levels. After an event or two, the other refs become like family, and no one wants to let their family down by quiting. Unfortunately, sometimes that's not enough and we lose good refs after every event.

The sport moves much faster than it did a few years ago, even in DII. At the higher levels, 8 sets of eyes sometimes just aren't enough. Even the most experienced ref can only look at one player at a time. More bodies means more coverage, reduces the impact of a single shoddy ref, and reduces the fatigue factor of those 12 hour days. You want better reffing? Put more (qualified) bodies on the field.

(back on topic)
More refs also means that they have a smaller zone of focus, making it easier to spot some of those illegal guns.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by shamu
At the higher levels, 8 sets of eyes sometimes just aren't enough.

That's generous. At ANY level of 7-man, 8 sets of eyes are NEVER enough. Even PSP puts 8 judges on a 5-man or X-Ball field. (Whether those 8 judges have their eyes open is another story....)

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Intheno

1. Who said there are no gun cheats in the NPPL?

Nobody. That's the IMAGE NPPL was trying to promote with the robot. There was a lot of marketing that went into that robot, and promises that it would catch gun cheats.

But it's not true. It only catches bad gun cheats used by idiots, and NPPL either knew this or is just being dumb.

I have had NPPL people tell me that the robot would almost eliminate gun cheats because no one would want to be disqualified. This was last year, and we all saw how well that worked out.

2. Out of the 'lot of people' in the NPPL camp that have supposedly 'pushed the notion' that semi-auto can be enforced, would you mind naming some of them? People refer to me as being in the 'NPPL Camp', but I know I haven't pushed any notion such as that one. Please clarify.

Who writes the press releases? Those people.

3. How do the NPPL publicise the 'saps'?. Are you refering to the way it is reported in the press? Do you believe this was reported in the press because the NPPL publicised it, or could it be that this was reported simply because it was newsworthy and wasn't actually publicised as some kind of vallidation of the NPPL rules by the league? Should a member of one of the most celebrated teams in the world, and a 2 time world champion be refered to as a 'sap' in a vain effort to prove your point?

NPPL is very good at PR. Sending a message is just as much about what the media reports and what you don't say as it is about your press releases, and it's very much about your actions as well.

People who were at the event know that A LOT of people were using OBVIOUS gun cheats. What did the paintball media report? Did they report that there were a lot of players using gun cheats that did not get penalized? Or did they report on the two or three people who were unlucky enough to actually get the penalty?

I think you're misinterpreting my use of the word sap. I don't mean sap as an insult, I mean sap as in pity. NPPL allows an environment where the only way to compete on a level field is to cheat, because so many players have gun cheats, and is content to basically pick one or two people each event to penalize, let that get reported, and call it a day. Even Dale got suckered in - he's writing that Refs are making great strides in stopping gun cheats by asking players to set their guns down at the start of a game!

Can you refer to what makes you believe that the NPPL is 'pretending everything is ok'? Or maybe just enlighten me as to who led you to believe this?

Because that's what they're doing. Enforcing a devastating penalty on a handful of people for behavior a LOT of people are doing isn't enforcing the rules, it's picking a couple people each event to sacrifice for the sake of a couple sentences in the event coverage about how the rules are being enforced.

The press coverage makes it look like NPPL has a semi-auto rule that is enforced. The reality is that they don't, they know they don't, but they'd rather have a couple people get screwed than just admit that the rule is a joke.

 

[Steve Morris]

Some of us have been suggesting using the hopper to limit ROF for years. I remember Egi suggesting that at the first Pomona event over two years ago. Of course we always get kicked back by Manike, Beaker and others who want a definition of gravity feed.

Much more than the definition of gravity feed, the biggest reason for it seeming undoable is the political impossibility of it; of course those who sell the various versions of the Halo B will do everything they can to stop such a rule.

All we would need to do is announce which hoppers are NOT allowed and then simply have a look at the hoppers players use to make sure they haven't been modified. Problem solved.

And after another tournament or two all of us who ref Millenniums and PSPs will know instantly when a gun is shooting at illegal limits...so we'll know which guns to scrutinize.

Then we wouldn't have to deal with the expense of new software, guns that still shoot after trigger release, expensive boxes that distract refs away from their real jobs, balls bouncing off of props while players "activate" their modes and a host of other difficulties with both the PSP/Millennium ways of testing and NPPL's.

Some organization needs to have the balls to see what an elegant and inexpensive solution this is and simply GO FOR IT.