Mech only games

[Lohman446]

Yeah sure, let's do that. If you want a game that has a limited rate of fire, then just make a rule limiting the rate of fire. Anyone shooting more than X bps is cheating. It's quite simple and doesn't lead to loopholes. Sounds pretty valid to me. I haven't heard of any ways to exploit the rules to gain a legal advantage. You got anything?

How do you enforce a ROF cap on a mechanical marker? Just because player A can get it to do 15BPS does not mean player B or the ref has a chance. I think this is a major flaw in your reasoning

[Justus]

How do you enforce a ROF cap on a mechanical marker? Just because player A can get it to do 15BPS does not mean player B or the ref has a chance. I think this is a major flaw in your reasoning

Yeah, enforcement of the rule is an issue that would need to be hammered out. How do they enforce the ROF cap in PSP tournaments? I'd say start there, and work something out.

But the issue of enforcement isn't a major flaw in my reasoning, because it's already being done (see the aforementioned PSP tournament example). A flaw in the reasoning would have to be something that a player could legally exploit to gain an advantage.

[Justus]

wow
[IMG]X[/IMG]

Yeah man. I feel ya.

[Freedy500]

wow. And I thought my rants could get long. Sorry I am just giving up on this thread. To much to read and I am very lazy

[Lohman446]

Yeah, enforcement of the rule is an issue that would need to be hammered out. How do they enforce the ROF cap in PSP tournaments? I'd say start there, and work something out.

But the issue of enforcement isn't a major flaw in my reasoning, because it's already being done (see the aforementioned PSP tournament example). A flaw in the reasoning would have to be something that a player could legally exploit to gain an advantage.

The major difference is that legally set PSP ramping markers the ROF can be attained by virtually anyone. So a ref can readily check it. In a mech there is no software limiting it so a player may attain ROF a ref is not able to duplicate. Or a piano playing ref might disqualify every marker handed him.

[Shane-O-Mac]

In NPPL back when the RT came out, they used adjustable tank regs and NPPL limited them to 600psi input. That pretty much took care of crazy RT bounce.

[Justus]

The major difference is that legally set PSP ramping markers the ROF can be attained by virtually anyone. So a ref can readily check it. In a mech there is no software limiting it so a player may attain ROF a ref is not able to duplicate. Or a piano playing ref might disqualify every marker handed him.

Yeah, but I said to just make a rule limiting ROF, not make a mech-only rule. Maybe this means that mechs aren't allowed since there's no way of limiting the ROF?

Or, because there's no way of limiting the ROF on a mech, go ahead and allow it but disallow trigger bounce and also require mechs to have a certain trigger pull weight to be classified as legal. It's not a perfect rule, but probably better than eliminating all mech-only markers.

Any time the goal is to limit ROF, there's going to need to be multiple rules to achieve that and still allow the widest array of equipment choices. And this enforcement problem actually illustrates my point better, too - if the goal is to limit the ROF, then eliminating electros from participation is wholly unnecessary because it's actually easier to limit the ROF on an electro than it is a mech.

[OPBN]

In NPPL back when the RT came out, they used adjustable tank regs and NPPL limited them to 600psi input. That pretty much took care of crazy RT bounce.

And probably most Automags. None of my Mags will even operate that low.

[Lohman446]

Yeah, but I said to just make a rule limiting ROF, not make a mech-only rule. Maybe this means that mechs aren't allowed since there's no way of limiting the ROF?

Or, because there's no way of limiting the ROF on a mech, go ahead and allow it but disallow trigger bounce and also require mechs to have a certain trigger pull weight to be classified as legal. It's not a perfect rule, but probably better than eliminating all mech-only markers.

Any time the goal is to limit ROF, there's going to need to be multiple rules to achieve that and still allow the widest array of equipment choices. And this enforcement problem actually illustrates my point better, too - if the goal is to limit the ROF, then eliminating electros from participation is wholly unnecessary because it's actually easier to limit the ROF on an electro than it is a mech.

Haven't you just effectively "created" the tournaments that are readily available then?

If I want to go to an electro ROF limited tournament there are a tremendous amount to pick from.

I'm now lost to what your point was

[Justus]

Haven't you just effectively "created" the tournaments that are readily available then?

If I want to go to an electro ROF limited tournament there are a tremendous amount to pick from.

I'm now lost to what your point was

My point was that the idea of going "mech only" as a way to really limit down the ROF is seriously flawed. A simply "mech only" rule will not work to limit the ROF. If you want to honestly limit the ROF, then it's actually much easier to do with electros.

As for the ample amounts of tournaments that are already available, I was thinking that the goal was to get the ROF down lower than 12.5 bps with ramping. Make the rule 8 bps, no ramping. Make it whatever you want. Just don't think that having a "mech only" rule will solve the problem of ROF.

I guess when you get down to it, my point was to not have a silver bullet answer; it was to point out the problem with the "mech only" proposition. I have never been a proponent of anything other than saying "that (mech only) won't work to meet the goal (lower ROF)."

-------------------------
EDIT: When looking back over the thread, here's where I think it started:

What would mech only games do? They would be somewhere between "open pump" and "open". I doubt anyone would notice the difference in game play or format. We would play the exact same game with different equipment. Same tactics, same strategies, just different markers.

What are my thoughts on this matter? Limit paint by... *gasp* limiting paint.

My response: "Yeah, I agree"

I do not believe in a paint limit; if someone wants to strap 2 cases onto their back, then by all means let them. The amount of paint someone is carrying has never concerned me, only the effective ROF he can achieve. Mech-only *will* limit this.

My response: "No, it won't"

[Bear_Claw]

Honestly i think this is a lot easier to solve than you all make it out to be. Eliminate ramping. electro mech makes no difference one pull one fire. I have no issue with high rates of fire as long as it is accomplished by player skill not the programing on the guns bored. And pretty much all electros have a uncapped or capped semi auto mode.

The ideal of limited ammo i feel is intriguing as well hopper ball would offer a very different style/tactics of play.

And i also understand the premis of a all mech game for pure nostalgia point. But with guns like the newly coming GOG Enmey, and Tippmans Crossover (without a batt in mech mode), or the Tippmann Phenom i think you would not see the nostalgia you looking for. A best bet would be a limit on year of manufacture.

Another game i would love to see is just a big game cocker vs mag game.


I still play pump almost every time i play regardless who i playing against and what they shooting. I get shot out more than some but i still get out get a few eliminations and have a blast.

[Lohman446]

My point was that the idea of going "mech only" as a way to really limit down the ROF is seriously flawed. A simply "mech only" rule will not work to limit the ROF. If you want to honestly limit the ROF, then it's actually much easier to do with electros.

As for the ample amounts of tournaments that are already available, I was thinking that the goal was to get the ROF down lower than 12.5 bps with ramping. Make the rule 8 bps, no ramping. Make it whatever you want. Just don't think that having a "mech only" rule will solve the problem of ROF.

I guess when you get down to it, my point was to not have a silver bullet answer; it was to point out the problem with the "mech only" proposition. I have never been a proponent of anything other than saying "that (mech only) won't work to meet the goal (lower ROF)."

I think we just got turned around somewhere in the discussion. I think if we are attempting to limit paint instituting a paint limit (per player, per team, per tournament, per game, whatever) would be a lot easier (especially to enforce) then instituting a ROF cap.

[Justus]

I think we just got turned around somewhere in the discussion. I think if we are attempting to limit paint instituting a paint limit (per player, per team, per tournament, per game, whatever) would be a lot easier (especially to enforce) then instituting a ROF cap.

That's very true and I agree it would be much easier. It would probably even have the total effect of toning down the overall ROF on each game, as teams have to deal with the strategy of making most of their shots count for something. Of course, that's just a nice byproduct and not necessarily a goal, which makes the enforcement issue (when it comes to ROF) go away.

What would it take to get the gameplay level changed? An average of 200 rounds per player, distributed among a team however they feel necessary? That would be like a souped-up version of hopperball.

[Lohman446]

That's very true and I agree it would be much easier. It would probably even have the total effect of toning down the overall ROF on each game, as teams have to deal with the strategy of making most of their shots count for something. Of course, that's just a nice byproduct and not necessarily a goal, which makes the enforcement issue (when it comes to ROF) go away.

What would it take to get the gameplay level changed? An average of 200 rounds per player, distributed among a team however they feel necessary? That would be like a souped-up version of hopperball.

200, 400, 600? I'm not sure. I don't think we have to go down to the point of a single hoppers worth per player (be interesting though to see teams exploit that by giving the front guys 20 rounds or something freeing up a pod for the back players).

I don't know at what number it would start to influence game play but it would be something worth toying with. When I used to play tournaments I shot very little paint compared to others but going out with less than two pods made me feel like I was going to run out at any moment (though I seldom used the second one). This was in the era of a 15BPS ROF cap. Some of my back players would carry a case or very close to it.

[Justus]

200, 400, 600? I'm not sure. I don't think we have to go down to the point of a single hoppers worth per player (be interesting though to see teams exploit that by giving the front guys 20 rounds or something freeing up a pod for the back players).

I don't know at what number it would start to influence game play but it would be something worth toying with. When I used to play tournaments I shot very little paint compared to others but going out with less than two pods made me feel like I was going to run out at any moment (though I seldom used the second one). This was in the era of a 15BPS ROF cap. Some of my back players would carry a case or very close to it.

I played in a 3-man benefit tourney a few weeks back, using a high-cap Rotor and carrying 4 pods. After the first game I shucked the pods and just went out with a full hopper each time. Never ran out of paint. But, I didn't sit in back holding a lane the whole time either, I pushed up and only shot when attempting to get an elimination or keep a head down for movement.

It's an interesting concept. And I'd bet it works a whole lot differently in a woodsball game (which is 95% what I play). As a matter of fact, if it were in a woodsball game I'd be tempted to just go mag-fed with my TPX and let teammates provide the suppressive fire.