Ramping

[Markie X]

The F1 anology is interesting but leaves out one important point.
F1 over the years went through many ''driver aids'' and eradicated
much of those within the same year.
Ramping in my opinion is one of those ''driver aids'' and should
be without argument classified as one.
This does not mean that there is no place for ramping in modern
competition paintball, for me personally i would leave it up to player
skill but that's personal.

In my personal role as chairman of our league i decided against
allowing ramping as it doesn't solve anything.
It's hard to understand for some but if you can't regulate software
i don't see allowing a bit more official cheating as a solution.

We still use uncapped semi as a rule but we retain the right to pull
any marker which is shaky and we do one thing more; we film
breakouts and players.
We don't record them so they can dwell in everlasting glory we film
them to study them.
This filming/recording works as a countermeasure, think of it >
no anonymous 3 second split to do whatever you want, we got it
on tape, study it and get your ass when we are sure about it.
Untill now things are pretty relaxed on our competition days and
most players don't even know we are monitoring them, even so
it illustrates a countermeasure i'm not seeing or hearing on this board.

Peope talk about rules, tackling stuff at once and all sorts of things.
Most of you must agree that illegal breakoutmodes influence the
games the most at the moment.
Film/record those guys, be sure and pull their ass next game.
What do you think will happen in a few games time, think the cheating
will drop ?
On a bigger scale video capturing players is doable, in the end it's even
a great deterrence unless you have the will to act and pull their asses.
Guess then we will be stuck with rules like; oh please behave or else...

p.s. PACT timers are great, have a look at this site, $125,- a unit.
Our own little black box > shame it only works on capped bps.
I believe even though technology creates the problem, in the
end it also will provide the solution.

 

[z00l]

Originally posted by Chicago
Convince? Who is going to convince? Force. As for "fastest eye logic", huh? Ball there, fire. Ball not there, don't fire. Don't buy the marketing hype.

Let me make an example.
The conditions:
The Jetsons are going to get a visit from the Andersons. It's imperative that the Andersons are kept waiting at the door for a minimum time as it's raining and there's no doorbell to ring.
In which situation do you think they'll get the least amount of wait time, if:
A) Every 2 mins mr Jetson goes to check if they've arrived.
B) Mr Jetson stands inside the door constantly looking through the peephole checking for when they arrive.

See... both are plausible sollutions in terms of programming.
scheduled checks, or interrupts.
So there really is an difference in how software handles things...

Screw over the very manufacturers responsible for creating the cheating problem in the first place? The horror! If I had my way, we'd put them in prison too. They made a bunch of money by creating the problem, no reason fixing the problem shouldn't annihilate them.

See... not all of them are responsible for the situation we're in now..
Sure some of them capitalized on a bad situation making it worse. But some of them haven't issued the cheating type of boards to date.

And what part of that is simple? How are you going to accomodate various voltage levelsof te signals? How are you going to accomodate switch bounce being filtered by software on the board? How are you going to make the monitoring device and the board agree on what is and isn't switch bounce? how are you gong to make sure their clocks are synced up? How are you going to make the monitoring device fit inthe grip frame, which probably doesn' thave any extra space inside?

From what I recall from school
a simple counter logic capable of
doing what I'm proposing would
if surfacemounted take about the space
of around 1x1 cm perhaps 1x2cm tops
with a small battery it'll be about half a cm thick.... most grips could accomodate that I'm sure.
As far as different voltages goes...
well... any spike in voltage on the solenoid is most likely a shot.
Not much goin on there except that.
And for trigger switch bounce, so what.
If there's bounce being filtered away atleast there's no ramping going on is
there?
ofcourse my plan isn't without flaws,
but I still say generic boards is a sollution no better than the disease
as major interest groups would try to make sure the 'generic' board for their marker had the edge in 'their' series.

And how are you going to make these devices less expensive than $35 boards? I can't imagine stamping monitoring device boards is any less expensive that gun boards. Or are you just going to "share' them and force everyone to open up their grip frame, install it, close the frame, play the game, then open up the frame again to take it out? Hardly simple, and if that's the case, how are yu goign to pay for the 50% attirtion rate every event of the things "walking off"?

I'm betting they can be made for quite a bit under $35, I'd guess more in the $10 range.
Plus how are you going to make lcd fitted boards with all the fancy stuff some markers have for $35?
See... if person X pays for marker Y that has features like lcd, ir port, game timer, vibration... <whatever> he aint gonna like having to pay $35 to loose them. but perhaps he wouldn't mind paying a few $'s to proove he's still not cheating even with all them goodies.

Or you could just put a board in there once that guarantees everything is legal and can be checked by plugging into the gun's read/write port.

You mean they've all got to mill an access port into the frame too? That'll be cheap I bet.
If I'm misunderstanding and you're suggesting opening grip up to verify..
what's faster about plugging in something to verify than just checking the diode?
And how are you to be certain that the boards are equal?
What's stopping company X from paying someone making the boards for making sure their marker gets a little extra love?


Not saying your way is totaly undoable.
Just that I know I'd be frikken pissed if someone demanded I trade my board in for something they handed me to pay for, but if someone told me I had to buy a generic control chip to verify me not cheating then I'd be totaly fine with it.
But that's just me perhaps the million others out there aren't as anal as me.

 

[Missy Q]

Chicago my dear. You know there are differing, even adjustable, eye logic equations.
I do think you are right on the money about the kids that are playing NXL without ever having to develop the previously essential skill of firing fast, particularly while running or shooting lefty.

Darling Loco,
Re. your theory that differing product capabilities negate/dilute skill levels; to quote Nicks hopelessly inadequate F1 analogy:

In F1 there are rules in force to make sure that teams don't cheat. These rules are enforced and very rarely broken, but they do not restrict the manfacturers ability to use innovative technology to make thier car faster within the rules. Hence you see teams like Ferrari spending millions to advance their own technology so their drivers can win races. Through this research we all benefit, as innovations filter down into mainstream road-use.
My point being that by restricting rate of fire we are restricting technology and making further research into legitimately improved rate of fire redundant. in the last 5 years we have seen massive advances in the quality and performance of markers. I would argue that if ramping and caps are allowed to become the norm then very soon we will see all the guns costing $199 and firing 15bps after the 3rd shot. You may see this as a good thing. But these markers will be made in Asia. The profits will remain there, and thus the growth we have seen in recent years, which has been propogated by investment from US and European companies trying to gain market share, be it in Event management or marker manufacture, will be curtailed.

Sure, you could say that this is an extremist, even alarmist statement, but as this is currently what is happening anyway, I believe this will be accellerated once the need for technological advancement is removed, and replaced solely with the need for lower price-points.

At least now you can't claim to me the only person to have addressed this point.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

In F1 there are rules in force to make sure that teams don't cheat. These rules are enforced and very rarely broken, but they do not restrict the manfacturers ability to use innovative technology to make thier car faster within the rules. Hence you see teams like Ferrari spending millions to advance their own technology so their drivers can win races. Through this research we all benefit, as innovations filter down into mainstream road-use.
My point being that by restricting rate of fire we are restricting technology and making further research into legitimately improved rate of fire redundant. in the last 5 years we have seen massive advances in the quality and performance of markers. I would argue that if ramping and caps are allowed to become the norm then very soon we will see all the guns costing $199 and firing 15bps after the 3rd shot. You may see this as a good thing. But these markers will be made in Asia. The profits will remain there, and thus the growth we have seen in recent years, which has been propogated by investment from US and European companies trying to gain market share, be it in Event management or marker manufacture, will be curtailed.

Hmm.... I would think that innovation would just take another direction than rate of fire - and be re-focussed to other areas, such as accuracy, user compatability, longevity, being easy on paint, efficiency, and so on.

It's not like R&D stops, just because one avenue of development is blocked?

Nick

 

[Missy Q]

if markers were being bought on the characteristics you mention, sure Nick, you have a point.

However, the majority markers are being bought on Speed, cheatability and price. I do concede that sooner or later this would have to change though.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Missy Q
Darling Loco,

1. Re. your theory that differing product capabilities negate/dilute skill levels; to quote Nicks hopelessly inadequate F1 analogy:

2. In F1 there are rules in force to make sure that teams don't cheat. These rules are enforced and very rarely broken, but they do not restrict the manfacturers ability to use innovative technology to make thier car faster within the rules. Hence you see teams like Ferrari spending millions to advance their own technology so their drivers can win races. Through this research we all benefit, as innovations filter down into mainstream road-use.

3. My point being that by restricting rate of fire we are restricting technology and making further research into legitimately improved rate of fire redundant. in the last 5 years we have seen massive advances in the quality and performance of markers. I would argue that if ramping and caps are allowed to become the norm then very soon we will see all the guns costing $199 and firing 15bps after the 3rd shot. You may see this as a good thing. But these markers will be made in Asia.

4. The profits will remain there, and thus the growth we have seen in recent years, which has been propogated by investment from US and European companies trying to gain market share, be it in Event management or marker manufacture, will be curtailed.

5. Sure, you could say that this is an extremist, even alarmist statement, but as this is currently what is happening anyway, I believe this will be accellerated once the need for technological advancement is removed, and replaced solely with the need for lower price-points.

6. At least now you can't claim to me the only person to have addressed this point.

Sorry 'bout bustin' out the numbers on ya but--

1. you seem to have missed my concern completely because, as you have noted in your response to Chicago, eye logic programming varies as does the programming for marker operation. A standardized tourney board for all markers would then, seems to me, offer only a vanilla "solution" that may or may not effect the practical functioning of some manufacturers markers.

2. Yes actually they do--the rules that is, restrict lots of elements of going faster like engine displacement, method of hp generation and so on. And the vast majority of tech innovation in recent years has been in weight saving, tire compounds and so on.
Which is neither here nor there as you aren't addressing the real issue which is how or if the rules (or lack of rules) alter or impact the play of the game.

3. Are you advocating using the rules of the game to protect the manufacturer's status quo?

4. Would that make Nike, for example, an Asian company whose products and markets only benefit the lands where the products are manufactured?

5. That really isn't the concern, even if it were true, of the players or of compeitive paintball as a developing sport, now is it? I can understand why it might seem that way to you but it looks to me like a prime example of the sorts of conflicts of interest that constantly arise when the differet facets of pball are controlled by the same people. What is deemed good for business isn't necessarily what's good for Sport.

6. Actually I can because the part I was referring to related to how one values the skill of fast shooting in a competitive situation and you haven't addressed that at all--only that you advocate an industry view that the manufacturers ROF wars should continue for the "good" of everyone.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Different markers operate on different programming solutions regardless of the mode so either this universal board will have to accomodate those differences or else the universal board's basic programming is likely to favor one marker or another in practical application.
For example, in Tampa we used non-stock boards of a different manufacture because it made our guns both faster in semi-auto mode and more efficient. In every other respect the markers were unaltered so it's clear the software was the difference.

That being the case one problem that arises is:
A) functional--the impact on some brands of markers is likely to be adverse relative to their own software, and
B) political--in that all the major series have controlling elements tied directly to the manufacture of markers so in effect it would seem all that's changed is the battlefield. More potentially disturbing would be the thought that some manufacturers could influence which universal board was the league accepted product and thereby assure its superior function in their product or perhaps its less than stellar performance in a competitor's marker.

Unrelated directly but part and parcel of this whole semi vs. ramping debate is the fact the universal board, regardless of how well it works, fails to fully address the neutrality of equipment issue which strikes me as central to any notion of fast-shooting as an important skill to preserve--which is the core argument of most of the anti-ramping peeps.
If differences in equipment provide for on field differences (Angel vs. Impy or Timmy vs. Tippmann, for example) then you cannot claim, however loudly you wish to shout about it, that a viable skill is on display. You can only do that when the equipment isn't part of the equation and nobody (except me) has addressed this element of the issue. [I will accept that in pay-to-play pball it doesn't matter all that much if the players themselves don't care but in a world of actual professional pball it does matter if this so-called fast shooting is to be a skill of any real value.]

I'll go in reverese order.

First, there is nothing wrong with technology providing an advantage in sport. There is simply just no way you can have a sport with equipment and not have technology play a role. And I'm not offering up certified boards to remove the effect of technology on the game - that's not the problem I'm trying to solve. The problem I'm trying to solve is peopl ebeing able to VIOLATE THE RULES WITHOUT BEING DETECTED. Presently, this is most visible in ramping, but it's just as important with shot velocity.

Now, for everything else, I think you are confused. i'm not suggesting that we adopt a UNIVERSAL board. I'm suggesting that we adopt CERTIFIED boards. There's no reason that the softare for one marker can't be different than the software for another marker, as long as a few conditions are met:

- The entire software and data space of the board needs to be readable
- All chips shoud be the same to make it easy ot check the software/data on the board
- The software needs to be approved in advance
- It needs to be HARD to change board settings (hard as in, it's blatantly obvious if you attempt to do it on the field).

We're not talking about lockin ginto one manufacturer of boards - we're talking about commoditizing them by providing a software package and letting ANYONE make them as long as they meet the standard for certification.

Lastly, people like to pretend that there is some magic in board software. There isn't. It's trivial to write software that allows your marker to fire reliably once and only once every time the trigger is pressed. The only REAL magic on boards these days that differentiates them is how sneakily they add extra shots and what extra modes they have beyond sei-auto.

this whole "Well, some boads are better than others, so we can't make people use bad certified boards!" thing is stupid - why would we make the certified boards suck?

 

[Missy Q]

In response to Mr Loco,

1. Can't add anything to Chicago's answer. I have agreed with him from the start on this.

2. You missed my point on the F1 thing. They are allowed to drive at the highest speed they can within the rules. No-one tells them they can only do 150mph. Hence, as you mentioned other area's are explored in a search for the 'edge'. That is good for motoring.

3. Why is it that you always presume the most sinister? I see the industy heading in the way I stated, and I am not actually suggesting anything, merely discussing an area that the manufacturing part of the industry, which funds the vast majority of competitive paintball, is headed in if there is no point having R&D. Its valid and its accurate. The domino effect of this will effect everyone in the game. What would you do about it?
I see no status Quo. Its a jungle and the law of the jungle has never been more prevalent that it is right now in paintball. You have to have recognised that after recent events.

4. to use Nike as an example is naive. The paintball industry is not 'high street'. Nike is a small part of a gigantic leisure industry. They re-invest millions into the ir maket worldwide because they have to. The leisure industry is brand rather than price driven. There are another 50 reasons why it is not the same. In 5 years I think the entire worlds paintball products will be made in China. Do you not recognise the difference? I am sure you do, but perhaps accepting and acknowledging this goes against the grain a bit for you, or maybe your insight into our industry is not as good as I thought. Not trying to be antagonistic, but I am surprised at your analogy. You and Nick been hanging out?

5. Naive (very). I am not trying to make a point. Just point out a fact of life. Nor am I making a suggestion. I don't think there is anything anyone can do about it.

6. Not ROF wars Loco, but technological advancement rather than cost saving. Its 2 different ideologies. You see my post as being somewhat tainted with industry slant or personal bias. I don't think it is. Perhaps you do not see the industry picture, but it isn't great and its going to get worse. You don't see mergers and the like in a healthy industry, it simply isn't necessary. The largest paintball company in the world lost 30% last quarter, following a 30% drop the previous quarter. The 'tournament scene' you all write about is industry funded, like it of not, there will be a domino effect and it will effect your paintball team and the tournaments you play in. Hell, all of you posting on here better enjoy how good it all is right now.

'll spell it out for you:

Capped ROF - price wars due to all guns performing pretty much the same - asian companies allowed to dominate as they will be the manufacturers of said products - US companies earn less - US companies sponsor less - 2 series becomes one (if you're lucky, could be 0) as there is not enough sponsorship $$ to fund 2 - Sponsorships are cut - your dreams of a TV utopia with Pro players being paid falls apart - p8ntballer.com is not as interesting as there just isn't very much to talk about any more...

and to finish, who is saying firing fast is NOT a skill? Those people are crazy. Sorry, but they are.

Anyway, got to go. See you in Denver.



EG - in a merged PMI/National, which teams are kept. I assure you not all.
I know I am getting off-topic here, but are you blissfully unaware of all this?

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Missy Q
In response to Mr Loco,

1. Can't add anything to Chicago's answer. I have agreed with him from the start on this.

2. You missed my point on the F1 thing. They are allowed to drive at the highest speed they can within the rules. No-one tells them they can only do 150mph. Hence, as you mentioned other area's are explored in a search for the 'edge'. That is good for motoring.

3. Why is it that you always presume the most sinister? I see the industy heading in the way I stated, and I am not actually suggesting anything, merely discussing an area that the manufacturing part of the industry, which funds the vast majority of competitive paintball, is headed in if there is no point having R&D. Its valid and its accurate. The domino effect of this will effect everyone in the game. What would you do about it?
I see no status Quo. Its a jungle and the law of the jungle has never been more prevalent that it is right now in paintball. You have to have recognised that after recent events.

4. to use Nike as an example is naive. The paintball industry is not 'high street'. Nike is a small part of a gigantic leisure industry. They re-invest millions into the ir maket worldwide because they have to. The leisure industry is brand rather than price driven. There are another 50 reasons why it is not the same. In 5 years I think the entire worlds paintball products will be made in China. Do you not recognise the difference? I am sure you do, but perhaps accepting and acknowledging this goes against the grain a bit for you, or maybe your insight into our industry is not as good as I thought. Not trying to be antagonistic, but I am surprised at your analogy. You and Nick been hanging out?

5. Naive (very). I am not trying to make a point. Just point out a fact of life. Nor am I making a suggestion. I don't think there is anything anyone can do about it.

6. Not ROF wars Loco, but technological advancement rather than cost saving. Its 2 different ideologies. You see my post as being somewhat tainted with industry slant or personal bias. I don't think it is. Perhaps you do not see the industry picture, but it isn't great and its going to get worse. You don't see mergers and the like in a healthy industry, it simply isn't necessary. The largest paintball company in the world lost 30% last quarter, following a 30% drop the previous quarter. The 'tournament scene' you all write about is industry funded, like it of not, there will be a domino effect and it will effect your paintball team and the tournaments you play in. Hell, all of you posting on here better enjoy how good it all is right now.

'll spell it out for you:

Capped ROF - price wars due to all guns performing pretty much the same - asian companies allowed to dominate as they will be the manufacturers of said products - US companies earn less - US companies sponsor less - 2 series becomes one (if you're lucky, could be 0) as there is not enough sponsorship $$ to fund 2 - Sponsorships are cut - your dreams of a TV utopia with Pro players being paid falls apart - p8ntballer.com is not as interesting as there just isn't very much to talk about any more...

and to finish, who is saying firing fast is NOT a skill? Those people are crazy. Sorry, but they are.

Anyway, got to go. See you in Denver.



EG - in a merged PMI/National, which teams are kept. I assure you not all.
I know I am getting off-topic here, but are you blissfully unaware of all this?

1. That just makes both of you wrong.
2. D'oh! The point is the F1 rules are comprehensive and do in fact limit speed while the brief history of pball has modest rules at best which have routinely been ignored and/or circumvented. Rules by their nature proscribe things so as soon as pball has actual rules that must be adherred to there will naturally follow some set of limitations.
3. nothing sinister about it. Just a simple question which you, I note, failed to answer.
As to what may happen, things change--not always for the better or the way we would like. Deal. That's what the pball companies are gonna have to do. Just because things work a certain way now doesn't mean they will or should work the same way forever and that applies top to bottom.
4. my point was and is that place of origin is less important than control and movement of capitol but we're getting mighty far afield since the subject is/was ramping.
5. See numbers 3
6. I believe I said a version of that nearly 2 years ago but from the players pov. I recognize what you are saying and while I acknowledge it could mean signifcant upheaval of the order of the pball universe (since you don't like status quo) I still am not persauded it is, by definition, a bad thing--though it surely will be for some folks in varying measures.

"I'll spell it out for you"--and I'll ask if Dye is an Asian company or are any of the others who have product manufactured in Asia.
Then I'll ask why is it the current crop of companies sponsor events, etc. in this country? If it is because this is the primary market and it is in their interest to do so why would that reasoning change just becasue the manufacturers changed?

Fast shooting--is not a valuable skill unless the competitive environment neutralises the impact of the equipment which simply means everyone competing is playing on a rules-determined level playing field. It's very simple really. Just something that has never existed in pball.

EG--nope, seen it coming. Expected it a bit sooner actually though given the nature of corporate accounting the signs may be visible a ways back, just not public. I simply don't have the same investment in the (uh-oh) status quo that others do.
And as your take on ramping seems to be, given these last couple of posts, that ramping is bad cus only unfettered development can save the present pball industry and without the industry in its' present arrangement pball will collapse into chaos and everybody loses, I think your pov is pretty clear.
As to the future, if the present version of big time ball has been built on a sufficiently flimsy and centralized foundation that it collapses like a house of cards I certainly won't be happy about it--but I won't be surprised either, unfortunately. (And it isn't like I haven't at different times and in different ways advocated changing the way things have been done...)

 

[Missy Q]

I love the way you live up to your new sig. Bravo!

You're wrong, of course, but thats not important. Point is, you don't believe that you are wrong, and so arguing is pointless.

We should have a drink in Denver so I can inroduce you to reality without getting writers cramp.

EDIT ADDED: As long as I can bring a chaperone, you're on. TFP