Imagine how great it would be...

[ElPanda]

Shooting fast and accurately is a skill. Ramping makes it easier. Get rid of ramping - period.

.

honestly I hope that this is true

because then Ill legitimately be able to use a nice mag in a game without being goffed at

[MAGslinger]

Wow, looks like I'll be able to use my classic mag against speedball pro's afterall!

[Hilltop Customs]

TK is right, change the game not the guns.....get rid of the back standups, or at least make them small so back players have less cover and do not have a firing height advantage on the rest of the field. With that simple change theres no place to stand and dump paint like no tomorrow.....movement opens up some.....more movement means players wont have to carry and shoot through cases of paint per game.

At least that is ideally, players may end up sitting still and laning the whole game since they have no protection from the back players anymore.



wasnt there a guy on the old classic mag video who shot 9bps with a single trigger classic mag?!?!

[BigEvil]

.

honestly I hope that this is true

because then Ill legitimately be able to use a nice mag in a game without being goffed at

I have been told; that what the pro's do trickle down to all levels of the game. A move to get rid of ramping would theoretically be a step in the right direction.

However, a 'ramping gun' in itself is not the root of the debate or problem. There is still a player pulling the trigger of that gun, and there is a field owner that is allowing him to.

I am amazed at how many fields do not have a clear (or any) policy regarding modes and ROF. If this sort of thing wasnt allowed on the fields to begin with, there wouldn't be half as many problems.

[Chaos_Theory!]

The whole BPS situation has gotten out of control. I understand wanting to limit the rof but 8-12bps? Really? Just make it uncapped semi and problem solved.

[garbageman705]

wasnt there a guy on the old classic mag video who shot 9bps with a single trigger classic mag?!?!

Actually he was shooting 7, the said he can shoot 9 though.

[Spider-TW]

I am amazed at how many fields do not have a clear (or any) policy regarding modes and ROF. If this sort of thing wasnt allowed on the fields to begin with, there wouldn't be half as many problems.

Every field rule for rof I have heard was blamed on an insurance liability policy, regardless if they made sense or not. That may not be completely correct, but the lowest common denominator in insurance policies will need to be satisfied to get consistency on field rules. At least, I mean, that is one thing that will need to happen.

[BigEvil]

The whole BPS situation has gotten out of control. I understand wanting to limit the rof but 8-12bps? Really? Just make it uncapped semi and problem solved.

Well, kinda. There are ways around it that most players can figure out. Hell, the pros get custom boards with cheater modes, but its not to tough to make a semi bounce enough to get more than one-shot per pull.

[punkncat]

I see problems with the idea of getting rid of back standups. There was an article I read recently that discussed this very similar subject.

This game is already very elitist. By eliminating the big back bunkers then you are telling every big, slow, tall guy that he is not welcome to play in the sport. Myself included. I cannot get down on one knee quick enough to be able to make a low bunker. I cannot run fast enough to get upfield into a big bunker, if they existed. You would be isolating and eliminating a whole group of people by making a change like that. At this time in the sport the LAST thing that needs to happen is to ostracise anyone. If anything changes need to be made that will make the game more inclusive to all body types and physical abilities.

Sounds good in theory from one side of the coin, but flip it over and the idea pretty much sucks.

The other, about increasing the cap to some ungodly number, is not only unsafe, but cost prohibative as well. The only people winning games would be those that could afford to buy it.

Honestly, I am suprized to hear such an idea come from you Tom. Perhaps there are aspects of the thought process behind these ideas that could shed some light on how it would be advantageous?

[BigEvil]

Good point Punkncat. Us slow/big/tall/fat guys need bunkers too

[tech-chan]

Mech and semi elec markers are only capped by what their owner can shoot.

Rampers are capped at 13.

Impose a paint limit. 3 pods and a shake and bake hopper/revvy.

Dont kill the big back boys, just limit the paint they can sling at you.

And by the way, this is the way I play every time.

[Lohman446]

I see problems with the idea of getting rid of back standups. There was an article I read recently that discussed this very similar subject.

This game is already very elitist. By eliminating the big back bunkers then you are telling every big, slow, tall guy that he is not welcome to play in the sport. Myself included. I cannot get down on one knee quick enough to be able to make a low bunker. I cannot run fast enough to get upfield into a big bunker, if they existed. You would be isolating and eliminating a whole group of people by making a change like that. At this time in the sport the LAST thing that needs to happen is to ostracise anyone. If anything changes need to be made that will make the game more inclusive to all body types and physical abilities.

Sounds good in theory from one side of the coin, but flip it over and the idea pretty much sucks.

The other, about increasing the cap to some ungodly number, is not only unsafe, but cost prohibative as well. The only people winning games would be those that could afford to buy it.

Honestly, I am suprized to hear such an idea come from you Tom. Perhaps there are aspects of the thought process behind these ideas that could shed some light on how it would be advantageous?

I think we should have the back stand ups there. However, with limited paint it would not be a "who can afford to buy it". Much different if we used a reasonable number for the limit (of paint, not of BPS) more people would be able to afford to play competetively.

[punkncat]

I am going to comment on this other aspect.

What advantage do you see to the players, when you tell paint suppliers and promoters that you are going to cut their profit substancially by limiting paint?

We have already seen what a very small cut in cap did for paint price. Then you cut that number down even more?

I see higher prices for paint, and another way to push people out of the game in general.

My thoughts are that if the ramping, high ROF games are a problem for so many, and if limited paint is such a good idea...where is the series that supports it?

I have seen two recent series fail. One was limited tech, which allowed only mech markers, and the other was a limited paint series. No one showed up to play them, and they fell flat on their face.

I see once again a prime example of people talking about things that sound nice in theory, but simply not knowing what they really want, and proving it through lack of support.

We are not ever going to be able to go back to the way things were. Fast markers are here. The face of the game has been changed forever. We can all sit and look through our rose colored glasses and wish wish wish for things to be like they were in the golden days, and watch that green grass grow......

[Lohman446]

Actually you have a bit of a point. Its not the tech or the paint that have pushed myself (and others like me?) out of the game (for instance). Its the seeming pointlessness with the rampant cheating. We might as well give the spectators markers and just see who the ref "calls" out first and make the game about wiping. Limited paint or not doesn't seem to matter.

IT seems to me that people select bunkers and moves based at least partially on if they can make them "clean" or be clean by the time they get there. Of the great challenges facing paintball the amount of paint in the air might not be first.

I still really like the idea of limited paint though.

[punkncat]

If we are going to change something, how about we make the technology work for the game, and not against it.

So what if a series came out, or a rule put in place that took advantage of bluetooth technology.

Let us say there was a secure encrypted frequency that the markers worked on for each individual player on the field.

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that there were enough refs, or some other way to watch each individual player, or to be able to tell proof positive that they had in fact been hit and marked with paint. No, I do not have the answer for that, but work with me here.

So let us suppose that we knew for fact, w/o even having to question that player 2 on side B had been hit and through the bluetooth the marker in his hand was turned off.

Now obviously there would be a bit of thought and planning in how to implement such an idea, but the technology is there. It is absolutely possible to make it happen. Can't cheat if you can't fire any more.