Ramping

[Nick Brockdorff]

Let's try again..... this time without the accusations and caracter deformations (thank you very much).

I have spent the last few days thinking about this issue - and not least tried to come up with an analogy that would fit the situation.

People have tried coming up with one - but none of the examples really fit, be they from boxing, golf, football, road speed limits or whatever.

This is what I came up with:

- I like using either Formula 1 racing or fencing as my sources whenever I look for analogies for paintball.... the first because it is a highly technological sport in a controlled environment which is structured much the same way as paintball..... the other because it is also all about "marking" an opponent by using a tool that is traditíonally a weapon.

In this instance, Formula 1 applies best:

When Formula 1 allowed the use of semi-automatic transmissions, there was an outcry, because a lot of people said the ability to shift gears smoothly while operating a clutch, was a central skill for a racecar driver.

Despite the outcry, Formula 1 went ahead and allowed it.

- Now, I grant you, that there is a different mentality to Formula 1, because it basically functions as a testing ground for new technologies, that later find their way into "consumer cars"... and as such the thought proces behind allowing a new technology is different than paintball, because the argument can be made that it will ultimately benefit the regular car buyer...... whereas in paintball, the gear used by "professionals" and the regular consumer, is the same.

BUT... in terms of the consequences for the sport... there is no real difference, and that should be what we focus on here.

Obviously, nobody can say with any degree of certainty what WOULD have happened, if semi-automatic transmissions had NOT been allowed in Formula 1.... but what IS clear, is that the same drivers and the same racing teams still won the same races, after the introduction of the semi-automatic transmission.

As such, the argument could be made that it had no significant impact on the sport at all.

PERHAPS - being able to shift gears manually was NOT such a central skill afterall, that it changed the outcome of the races?

I maintain the same is the case for ramping in paintball.

Despite how we may feel about it morally - or what our "feelings" say.... I honestly don't think ramping will have a serious impact on who wins or loses paintball tournaments.

Sure... right now we are in a transition period, where the odd freak result occurs.... but before the season is over, everyone will have adjusted to the new environment nicely, and we will be back to the same old pecking order.

Now, if people agree with the argument I am putting on the table here... then the debate about ramping should exclude "the effects to the sport"... and solely be based on the moral and legal ramifications.

Perhaps the debate would be a little easier, if we could all agree that we are either against ramping for moral reasons (which cannot really be debated, as that is a matter of personal beliefs) or for legal reasons (be that in terms of law, or in terms of having the best possible set of rules governing paintball events and the means to enforce them).

Nick

 

[Chicago]

I think your formula one analogy is equally bad.

You can't argue that adding autoshifting to Formula 1 didn't affect that sport so ramping won't effect paintball. How much better does a car with autoshifting perform than a car with a fully manual transmission? Does it perform bettter at all? I know autoshifting technology in consumer cars now is much, much worse than shifting manually. Maybe it's better in race cars, and you can accelerate from 0 to 100 in 6.4 seconds instead of 6.5 seconds.

With ramping, we're talking about letting people who can normally shoot 10 balls per second shoot 15. That's like accelerating 0 to 100 in 4.2 seconds instead of 6.4 seconds.

There's another key point you're missing that makes this analogy no good:

In formula one, was manual shifting a differentiator between drivers? And the answer is no - if you were to look at any formula 1 driver, they pretty much all could shift equally well - ability to shift fast wasn't a skill that significantly differentiated the performance of one driver vs. another. The question isn't whether or not shifting manually was a skill, the question is whether shifting manually was a skill that AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF RACES. Obviously it wasn't, or at least, to such a small degree that it was far less significant than other racing skills.

The same can't be said for trigger skills. 10 bps to 15 bps has a SIGNIFICANT impact on the outcome of paintball games, in fact, the very way paintball games are played. You can't play the game the same way when people are shooting semi auto at 8-10 bps sustained as you can when people are all shooting 15 bps - even sideways hanging out of a 2' tall bunker.


So I don't think we can agree that we're either against ramping for moral reasons or legal reasons - some of us are still against ramping either because it is a legitimate skill that diferentiates playes a the top level, or because it's a technology that has a significant, and negative, effect on the way the game plays. Letting drivers shift faster so they can accelrate faster is good for racing. Letting players shoot faster so it's harder to move is bad for paintball.

 

[Robbo]

Nick, your basic premise is that you minimize the significance of being able to fire fast and thus reduce what you see as the main points to that of moral and legal dilemmas.
No problem as long as I accept your Formula One analogy which I must admit has some credibility.

Ramping has introduced two important new considerations, artificially high rates of fire and the negation of a skill (if in fact firing fast is one).

I would contend the latter is a skill and one I know the guys on Nexus were continually practicing and whilst the F1 analogy works at a basic level, it falls down (in my opinion) when you scratch the surface a little more.
I believe this because left handed shooting becomes a whole lot easier as does attaining and maintaining 15 bps.

The changing of a gear in F1 is an integral part of driving but I would argue not as integral as the ability to put paintballs in the air.
If you look at the relative chains of operation and end results, the consequent increase in number of paintballs (because of ramping) is much more relevant to the end result than gear changing.
Once you accept this, the debate then comes straight back into the lap of relative skill assessment.
It would seem (in this context of this thread at least) as though this whole debate could well hinge upon the differing ideas we all have on what is a skill and what isn’t, and even if we do acknowledge it is a skill (as we do in F1) then we still have to make a judgment as to how significant that skill is.

It may be a case where we have to agree to disagree but there is a light on the horizon, I had some talks with some people yesterday and I believe we may be in a position to put this one to bed.
For various reasons I can’t say much more than this but suffice to say, and if what I am hearing from most is correct in that we generally want to go back to pre ramp days as long as we have some form of effective policing, then I think a potential solution is not far away.
But it was a good debate apart from a few hiccups, I’m just glad raehl and Tyger didn’t get involved, mind you, I woulda been quite interested to hear what Tyger had to say as long as he could do it without automatically maligning tourney ballers

EDIT : Dammit Chi Town - you just put that post up as I was writing mine and made some of the points I just have, anyway, it must mean great minds think alike

 

[Liz]

My first foray into the ramping/no ramping debate - mainly because I'm pretty neutral on the whole subject!
But I'm afraid your F1 analogy is flawed in other ways Nick. OK, you looked at manual vs semi-auto gear boxes, but what about some of the other technological changes that were introduced into F1? I can't even remember all the ones they do & don't allow these days, but all on my list were debated whether they should be allowed or not, and if so to what degree. Traction control, turbo chargers, ground effect bodywork, flying wings, refuelling, tyre changes, the ability to change between tyre compounds during a weekend, engine changes between qualifying and the race, the number of spare cars a team could take, the number of cars a team could enter. The rules on some of these have been decided on safety grounds, some on whether they make the race more exciting, and some apparently on the whim of Bernie Ecclestone. Some it was even decided to ban because it was moving the ability to win away from driver skill and into the field of technology advances, giving the richer teams a greater advantage! But most of them altered the relevance of some driver skills in one way or another.
You've picked out one technilogy change in F1 that wasn't significantly affected by driver skills, but there's a much longer list of those that have affected the skill set.

 

[Fat-Frank]

Sooo...
Basicly most of us don`t want ramping!

But, since there has been no way of stopping the cheater boards, and as we speak don`t is, (i`m waiting/ hoping for Robbo`s surprice here ) people are going to accept it, just to equalize with the cheaters

 

[Sherman]

Results wise I don't think ramping has caused any major changes. There were couple of new teams on the podium in Paris but americans still won it. The new comers were top amateurs in the last seasons and the difference between top ams and pros in Europe isn't that big.

Ramping has been the only effective way to control cheating and therefore I'm all for it unless there are proven and reliable ways to enforce semi only markers.

Especially I'm interested how they are going single out and catch cheaters at break outs (game starts). Even in the days of "semi only" and VL hoppers it was almost impossible to catch couple of full autos in a bunch of five shooters. And everyone knows the importance of break outs.

Semi only and bigger fields please. Never before has pro paintball been as boring to watch as this season.

 

[Juho]

I think the main point on this issue still is, that rules must be written the way that we can enforce them.

It's another thing if a team can get advantage over the other by having equipment that is within the rules, just because they or the industry has some new innovation, than the situation where teams don't start from the same line, because the other has equipment which is breaking the rules but we have no way to test, find that out or prove it.

So, I'm all for true semi, if we can go back that way.

BUT the most important thing is to create equal opporuinies for both teams on the field. And from that point of wiew I think this year rules have been better than last year.

 

[Robbo]

If we assume that most people don't want ramping and if we also assume that effective policing is possible (by whatever means) then it would just remain for the respective leagues to adopt whatever changes make this possible.

Since I believe we already have two out of three of the above then it just remains for the effective policing to be made avalailable which I aslo believe is soon to come in terms of announcing it.
Time scales from then on are dependant upon you lot and the leagues determination to adopt it, as long as whatever it is would be available.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Hmm

Obviously this should not turn into a debate about whether my analogy is correct - but a few comments:

Robbo and Chicago (both saying pretty much the same):

The changing of a gear in F1 is an integral part of driving but I would argue not as integral as the ability to put paintballs in the air.

Ah... but the very most important part of semi-automatic transmissions, is at the start of the race, where missing a shift by even a couple of 100th of a second, will cost the driver a position.... just as ramping is really only very important in the breakout phase of a game..... I think the analogy holds water

Liz:

None of those other changes you mention, has taken away a physical skill from the driver... I think the anology holds water

Robbo:

I'm most curious about this solution... please call

Nick

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
None of those other changes you mention, has taken away a physical skill from the driver... I think the anology holds water
Nick

Like a bucket...with no bottom