So a guy comes to the field with a Qloaded pneumag. Then you're going to say "okay, no pneumatic triggers" or "okay, no spring-loaded hoppers". Do we really need page after page of equipment limitations?

My point was that you stated in your post that the goal of making the rules "battery free" was to limit the ROF. But "battery free" will not achieve that goal, and I've shown a couple examples of how that plays out. My RT video showed an effectively "battery free" setup shooting 20.5 BPS in a game, and it was purely by accident.

Why make rules for a desired goal with the knowledge that there are loopholes that people can and will exploit? Just say that the game will have a limited ROF and be done with it.

Of course if you've now changed your tune, and instead are wanting to make these rules to encourage mechanical innovation, then I'll point out that it's not necessary to set some people up for failure in an actual game. Just post a contest to see it happen. That way the people who use a shake & bake with a blowback Tippmann don't get pasted and leave feeling like they got cheated. See below...

Quote Originally Posted by skipdogg
I think your overthinking this. On a national scale then points made on this post may be valid. however, for a local field to do this whether its a tournament or open game, you are going to get 90% tippmanns and spyder/pirahna's. So most of the technicalities debated here on ROF are irrelevant.
So you're okay with that remaining 10% having a huge, game-changing advantage? That's not a level playing field, that's a setup for a slaughter.

Anyone can say "if you think it's dumb then don't play", but how far do you take it? If people are informed ahead of time to expect that a certain number of people on the field will have a huge firepower advantage due to their ability to legally exploit the rules, you can rest assured that the interest level will drop dramatically.

Quote Originally Posted by Shane-O-Mac
OR a game where everyone uses a rental gun, that is actually fun!
This would actually work. Instead of making vague limitations on equipment that fail assure an even playing field... just issue standardized equipment in the first place.


But nobody who is proposing the "mech only" rules as a way to limit the ROF has even addressed my point: Why not just have a simple rule limiting ROF if that's the actual goal? If 12.5 bps PSP ramping is too much, make the limit 8 bps semi-only. Any other set of rules that is proposed to achieve that goal, without actually setting the ROF limit, just leads to exploitation based upon the known ambiguity.