Oooooh!! Dynasty FA Scandal!!

[noop]

Don't let them hold you down TJ, brilliance is rarely appreciated.

I think many of you are missing the point. You have concerns about safety, concerns about it involving less skill, concerns of not being able to move. But I don't think that you realize that guns are being used that pretty much, for lack of a better term, ARE full-auto. You need to accept the fact that you are going to have to play against cheating guns that are pretty much full-auto. Once you do, it makes your decision a lot easier.

Now a lot of you are rightfully asking, where is the limit, where does it stop? Paintball has to be limited by something physical, and that factor is the paintball itself. It is .68 caliber, and that's what we have to work with. Players are not going to run around with 800 round hoppers on their guns, because there is a point where the advantage of the extra paint is eliminated by the inconvience of that extra paint. Now if a player wants to shoot 50 bps second, good for him, but how much an advantage is that going to have over a guy shooting 25 bps? The one will be able to shoot his gun twice as long before having to reload, and it's probable that the possibility of someone evading 25 bps is small enough that he won't care about wasting his hopper twice as fast. It doesn't matter if a guy is shooting 100 bps at me, if I'm tucked safely behind a temple. The good news is that ROF can always be negated with hopper size. If we don't want people shooting 50bps, give them 30 round hoppers.

Now TJ, the only problem that I see, is leveling the playing field with the ramping (dwell) guns.

 

[noop]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Way Rodney explained the Millennium game was Alex had the team walk...

I don't doubt it, but unfortunately, we know what that means it terms of guilt.

I don't know any real player who, knowing their gun was perfectly legal, would just walk off the field.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--I ain't gonna kick a man while he's down. Again.

Thanks a lot! Remind me to buy you a Coke sometime.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
2--No, how bout some particulars? Just what were the circustances that saw a TonTon banned?

A Tonton's gun started showing some very suspicious symptoms leading the head field judge to check it. After one or two shots the gun emptied its hopper without even a finger on the trigger. We booted the player for the tourrnament and Tontons had to give the max to the other team. In this case it was obvious the player suspected something was wrong with the gun.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Way Rodney explained the Millennium game was Alex had the team walk, so how do they equate?

In this case the same scrutineer as in the Tonton case used the standard Millennium rules trigger test during a guns-down just after the teams had declared their readiness to play. I personally supervised the testing of every single marker and they were tested exactly the same way. All of Team Millennium's guns were OK. We went through six Dynasty guns with no problem. The D guys even joked, "Don't check THAT gun!". The head judge/scrutineer encountered bounce/ramping in the last gun, handed it to me and I noticed the same thing. Then he tested again and judged that the gun was illegal forcing us to give the game to Team Millennium 100 - 0. We didn't suspend the player because the head field judge gave the benefit of the doubt about iill intent to the player.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
3--probably, but as the very vocal point man for rules enforcement you gotta see how this looks. In this particular instance where was the problem? Was it the rules, the scrutineer, the teams or the confluence of power, influence and Sport? (Ouch. Sorry, had to ask)

The problem of illegal guns seems to have only got worse during the off-season. We had just started a new reffing program with less-than-adequate-and-clear rules. Nevertheless I am responsible for whatever inadequacies resulted the less-than-perfect organization of the judging regarding this area.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
4--back to the old itty bitty bouncey gun theory, eh?

Yes. I'm trying to increase my knowledge in this area but what I gathered during this tournament was that perhaps a distinction should be made between a gun that can be artificially made to bounce using means that would never realistically be employed during a game and guns that don't just bounce once or twice under such tests but ramp 'n rip giving the player clear advantages over legal guns. Perhaps the robot will solve much of this when we get it.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
5--what is reasonable is the uniform application of all current rules. If that didn't happen it wasn't a failure of the rules but a failure of the will to enforce them.

Everyone involved on the staff side agreed that the rules and procedures need to be sorted before the next tournament. We're not looking to be "letter of the law" people in every single case but we're trying to be fair and develop our rules and routines.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
6--last time I checked nobody was paying me for my pball insight except for the bread crusts the PGi gnomes toss my way. Even so, try this idea on for size and see what you think.
A--is anything really wrong with the trigger testing procedure that exists now (except we know they can't catch everything)?

Yes. If we can catch guns because they are artificially induced to bounce once and still let guns that really rip get by then something is fundamentally wrong.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
B--were the scrutineer's used chosen in advance and did they exhibit an ability to effectively examine most markers?
If you're prepared to answer A, no, and B, yes, then the problem, if you want to call it a problem, is the variances that may exist between the skills of scrutineers performing the same tests.

The scrutineers were chosen by the head field judges for every field. We simply did not have enough time to examine and compare their abilities in comparison to one another. I don't think that any scrutineer was lacking in their ability to perform the standard test, we just had one guy who had a remarkably uncanny ability to instantly get almost any gun to bounce (he said himself he can get over 80% of all guns to bounce). Maybe the way to do it, until we get the robot, is to have two scrutineers on every field for the pre-game. That way both have to induce the single bounce to stop it there but the guy with the lightest trigger finger should be the one to stop the ripping before and during a game. I don't know.

While we're here, routines are going to be firmed up regarding how much time the teams have to get their guns adjusted before the game starts. That is very difficult during our best-of-three games on the last day of the tournament. The rules say teams have a minimum of 40 minutes between the end of a game and the start of the next. But obviously we try to turn around those games as quickly as possible. We have to establish clear rules and routines for that or we will have the finals running into the following morning.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Option C: Appoint one (1) scrutineer and make it abundantly clear that all appropriate penalties will be enforced for any markers that fail an examination by the scrutineer. That means the scrutineer makes random checks including the occasional stoppage prior to or during the 10-second warning. Further, have the field ultimates note suspect teams or players and the scrutineer can make a point of "randomly" checking their next game. And in order to help out the players make the scrutineer available for a period of time on field-walking day and during assigned times during the event where he would check guns without penalty so teams or players would know when their guns were compliant.

Food for thought.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Option D: Similar to C except there's a scrutineer for each field in play and all scrutineers are available to test guns on field-walking day. After all, umpires in baseball apply the same set of rules but have variations in the strike zone they call. Same here, if all scrutineers operate the same way there will remain some variance but as long as the players have the option to ensure their guns are okay they've got no reason to complain if they cut the line too closely.

Unfortunately we had guns that passed the standard tests on other fields flippin' out on other fields.

Anybody that things this is so easy please run for President. You got my vote.

Steve

 

[Gadget]

Rather than sidelining the person who had the knowledge and skill necessary to demonstrate bounce on 80% of the markers present, we should be cloning him 'dolly' style.

Who gives a monkey's arse if he delays the pros from playing? Don't want to be held up by a super-anally-strict-chrono marshall? Then don't run your marker so close to the edge that it bounces.

I'm getting fed up with people excusing their own forays into the grey area by claiming that "all electros bounce" - yeah they can all be made to bounce, but setting a marker up like that is a conscious decision - it's equally true to say that all electros can be made to not bounce.

If people don't want to abide by the rules, they shouldn't bother playing the f***ing game.

Like I said on the other thread - they're rules to be obeyed, not guidelines for people to follow when they feel like it.

As for deliberately ramping dwell - lifetime ban, no appeal, no ifs, no buts, just get out of our game.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by noop
Don't let them hold you down TJ, brilliance is rarely appreciated.

I think many of you are missing the point. You have concerns about safety, concerns about it involving less skill, concerns of not being able to move. But I don't think that you realize that guns are being used that pretty much, for lack of a better term, ARE full-auto. You need to accept the fact that you are going to have to play against cheating guns that are pretty much full-auto. Once you do, it makes your decision a lot easier.

Now a lot of you are rightfully asking, where is the limit, where does it stop? Paintball has to be limited by something physical, and that factor is the paintball itself. It is .68 caliber, and that's what we have to work with. Players are not going to run around with 800 round hoppers on their guns, because there is a point where the advantage of the extra paint is eliminated by the inconvience of that extra paint. Now if a player wants to shoot 50 bps second, good for him, but how much an advantage is that going to have over a guy shooting 25 bps? The one will be able to shoot his gun twice as long before having to reload, and it's probable that the possibility of someone evading 25 bps is small enough that he won't care about wasting his hopper twice as fast. It doesn't matter if a guy is shooting 100 bps at me, if I'm tucked safely behind a temple. The good news is that ROF can always be negated with hopper size. If we don't want people shooting 50bps, give them 30 round hoppers.

Now TJ, the only problem that I see, is leveling the playing field with the ramping (dwell) guns.

The fact that faster firing guns need reloading more is academic for some important and highly significant reasons.
The first ten seconds is a crucial and critical part of the game where players run out to their primaries.
If players can shoot their guns at 20 bps as against 12 bps, then it gives a huge advantage in terms of increasing the likelihood of eliminating opposition for the more prolific paint-chucker (cheater).

Secondly, with players becoming more athletic, coupled with the tactical requirement of teams having to move aggressively, this means any player making a move up field takes a chance.
That chance of elimination is increased if the amount of paint coming in is increased.
The reload time in both these instances is neither here nor there.

Windows of opportunity in terms of elimination are becoming increasingly decreased because players are getting faster and more technically able.
Simply put, as players become technically and athletically improved, the need to look for alternate methods of eliminating those improved players becomes more apparent.
It's a crying shame we don't look toward improving our shooting skills and / or counter-aggressive moves to get those kills rather than just programming yer gun to cheat !


Games can be easily won and lost in the first ten seconds, they are also equally won or lost on elimination of opponents making moves, it don't take much to work out the consequences of both these areas being unfairly exploited by some people amongst us.

 

[Felix]

Originally posted by tubbie
Was watching thew dynasty game where ryan greenspan got one-for-oned.

Ryan is being shot during his run on the break, get's up and starts walking to the dead-box, with a normal pace, a marshalls comes up behind him and starts to push him and shouts at him move move. Ryan turns around and tells the marshall , don't push mother****er! and get's one-for-oned.

Marshall was wrong here, there was no reason for pushing him like he did, hell i would have said the same thing as ryan greenspan did.(in dutch ofcourse)

Tubbie

Originally posted by XtremeNRW
I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong.... I#m a marshall of that Evil Field and was right next to my teammate, that made the decision of given the 1-4-1... Ryan was shot, he was watching who shots him, the marshall took off his armband and was just touching his shoulder and telling him to leave the field quickly... Ryan was so angry, he was saying (originally) "don't ****ing touch me" and he throws his arm in the marshall's direction.... that's why he got the 1-4-1 ... I was just standing 5 meters away from that situation, everybody who says something else ist absolutely wrong, no spectator was so near like we marshalls... after the game, Ryan was sorry about the situation, we have spoken to him, and he knewed, that he will see us in the finals once again....

bouncing: the marshall who gave the 1-4-1 was also the "technical judge" of Evil Field and in the Finals on the Draxxus Field... he had the magical touch... we (him and me) found so many guns with bounce, most of them were Angels, Shockers03, Impulse (most of them were TonTon Guns) and Eblades... some of the guns had a little bouncing, but there were some guns with really hardcore-bounce... after a couple of minutes testing, the ultimate judges came over and were saying: let them all on the field and play... I don't know why, but other Ultimates would have sayed: no way dude, you won't play with this gun!

But don't think that it was only Dynasty that had Gun probs.... ask the TonTons.... I think at least, they played with just 2 of their guns, and the other 5 guns weren't of them, they got them from other players from other temas, they played with Angels and Shockers too.... I don't know if there are pica availlable, but it was very funny....

Also: Arseanl has had bouncing guns in the finals too.... everybody was saying "crazy" or "that's no marshall nor he's from this world, incredible"..... all the spectators saw the magical touch of technical judge, some people were saying: why does he try to bounce an Angel, an Angel will not bounce.... the spectators were wrong, the Angel was nearly Full Auto!

right...
you know the pro players...
always the want to walk slowly about the field...
kommunicate with her teammates... things like this...

and me and and the other marshalls didn't accept this on our field..

and the 1-4-1 was for the ****er!!! the second time!!
dynasty got a warning for bad language just before the game starts in the base..

>>> the 1-4-1 was correct!

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
1--Yes. I'm trying to increase my knowledge in this area but what I gathered during this tournament was that perhaps a distinction should be made between a gun that can be artificially made to bounce using means that would never realistically be employed during a game and guns that don't just bounce once or twice under such tests but ramp 'n rip giving the player clear advantages over legal guns. Perhaps the robot will solve much of this when we get it.

2--Everyone involved on the staff side agreed that the rules and procedures need to be sorted before the next tournament. We're not looking to be "letter of the law" people in every single case but we're trying to be fair and develop our rules and routines.

3--Yes. If we can catch guns because they are artificially induced to bounce once and still let guns that really rip get by then something is fundamentally wrong.

4--While we're here, routines are going to be firmed up regarding how much time the teams have to get their guns adjusted before the game starts. That is very difficult during our best-of-three games on the last day of the tournament. The rules say teams have a minimum of 40 minutes between the end of a game and the start of the next. But obviously we try to turn around those games as quickly as possible. We have to establish clear rules and routines for that or we will have the finals running into the following morning.

5--Unfortunately we had guns that passed the standard tests on other fields flippin' out on other fields.

1--I was under the impression there were "rules" or at least something like a standardized procedure for testing markers for bounce. If so the only bounce those procedures are gonna catch are guns intentionally set-up to induce some helpful bounce. The more sophisticated and programmed cheats you ain't gonna catch testing triggers and neither is the robot.
2--if the rule exists it needs to be enforced uniformly. You can't have your officials deciding willy-nilly what they think somebody intended in this instance and that. That is what isn't fair.
3--there's nothing "artificial" about it. The guns are designed to bounce under the guise of debouncing them and up til recently nobody worried about it much. Nor is there anything "fundamentally" wrong in the sense that just because you're able to discover one cheat and not another. A bouncing gun is just as illegal as any other cheat. The only distinction is one you can catch and the other you're unlikely to, at the moment.
4--seems the real problem here is teams trying desperately to stay on the edge of legality. If the only issue with the bouncing guns was induced bounce that can be handled in anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes, tops.
5--Gee, I wonder why.

 

[shamu]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
A Tonton's gun started showing some very suspicious symptoms leading ... We booted the player for the tourrnament and Tontons had to give the max to the other team.

Bravo! Just out of curiosity, did the Ton Tons have to play a man down for the rest of the event?

We went through six Dynasty guns with no problem. The D guys even joked, "Don't check THAT gun!". The head judge/scrutineer encountered bounce/ramping in the last gun... We didn't suspend the player because the head field judge gave the benefit of the doubt about iill intent to the player.

Good job on checking and catching them. Personally I would have applied the same penalty as for the TTs - ejection from the tournament for that player. If they're making comments about a particular gun, they probably knew it wasn't going to pass. to me, that's intent simply from bringing it on the field. (unless I misunderstood how the joking was done)

I think it was a good start for the first event. At least it sends the signal that cheating guns are unwelcome and will be penalized.

The problem of illegal guns seems to have only got worse during the off-season.

Ain't that the truth?

 

[noop]

Robbo, my argument was really directed to those wondering where it would stop. Someone mentioned people shooting 50-60 bps, and it is with numbers that high that was I using the argument of reloading, because frankly, with numbers that high, it does matter. If your Halo holds 180, and you are shooting 40 bps, you aren't even going to last half of your crucial first ten seconds.

While the amount of paint in the air certainly increases the probability of hitting your target, I don't think it is a strictly linear relationship. Shooting 3 balls instead of 1 may yield 3 times the probability of hitting your target. But if you already have a 70% chance of hitting someone at 20 bps, you surely aren't going to get the same increase in probability shooting 60 bps.

Players can wipe, play on, shoot hot, have bouncing triggers, illegal guns, and ramping dwell. The only thing we can really control is how much paint is brought onto the field or on gun, and that's pretty sad, because I don't think anyone playing really wants that controlled.

 

[manike]

Originally posted by noop
While the amount of paint in the air certainly increases the probability of hitting your target, I don't think it is a strictly linear relationship. Shooting 3 balls instead of 1 may yield 3 times the probability of hitting your target. But if you already have a 70% chance of hitting someone at 20 bps, you surely aren't going to get the same increase in probability shooting 60 bps.

I'm not sure about the exact relationship but 'accuracy by volume' is absolutely correct when it comes to paintball and pushing spheres through our atmosphere.

Higher rof definitely increases the statistics of hitting what you are shooting for. Obviously %'s will depend on range and consistency and many other factors.

Saw a great set of data from Tom Kaye confirming this showing this when he was pointing out why paintballs will never be more accurate than they are. Very geeky (so sue me) but interesting stuff.

ROF is a significant advantage.

I think rof will increase slightly, honestly right now many people are not shooting as fast "consistently" as they think they are, I think guns will get smaller and lighter, and loaders will get larger capacities...

As long as we keep some level of control on 'cheater' boards I don't think sustainable (and that's the key) rof will get much higher, but max rof (say between two shots) will get faster and faster.