Cheater Boards (How to Stop Them)

[SlartyBartFast]

Well, it's been raised that at least one cheater board has surfaced. I figure that the fact it's a WAS board is only coincidence. As I've said in other threads, it's so easy to reprogram or modify a microcontroller controlled board it's rediculous. All you need is a little patience to set yourself up with the required knowledge and equipemnt and the motivation to learn.

How can paintball tournaments stop and detect cheater boards? Considering factory teams are as likely to cheat as the next guys, requiring factory only boards isn't going to help. The factory just needs to produce some special boards for the tournament.

Testing is virtually imposible as well. After all, any number of secret codes could be employed to enable and disable the cheat modes.

The way I see it there's only one way to do it. Electronic markers need to be built with removable chips that can be replaced by tournament supervisors and identified with anti-tamper devices.

Additionally, source code would need to be released to a governing body that would analyse it to ensure it was legal and didn't hide any dubious functionality.

To ensure approved software is used, the guns would have to use a limited number of microprocessors. Blank chips could then be kept and flashed for the make and model of gun before being inserted and made tamper-proof.

[AGD]

Formula one with their millions of dollars couldn't stop cheater software for race cars, I doubt we will be able to do better.

AGD

[RRfireblade]

You can't stop it,it's simply not cost effective to even try.

The only thing that can be done to limit ROF is by mandating mechanical only hoppers.And that's not gonna happen until manufacturers start LOSING money on the sale of paint.

Jay.

[shartley]

[Tyril]

I have to agree with AGD on this one.


No matter what you do, once the standards are released, people will find ways around them.

All this talk of more and more stringent guidelines will only make it increasingly expensive for the weekend tourny'er to play. All those chips, guides, modes you speak of? Who's going to foot the bill? I, for one, doubt NPPL'll fork over the required cash. And with today's ridiculous rate of fire, the issue of 'trigger bounce' differs from ref to ref, from gun to gun. One ref might find my emag bouncy, while they might allow my friend's timmy. And what about being able to adjust debounce settings on the fly? That's another can of worms open right there. We truely are on the verge of a great deal of change.

For as the way the future will go?

I, for one, hope that the idea of a mech-only tourament grows. While I doubt this will ever make major headlines, as pump-only tourneys are a rarity today, I just prefer the feel of a mech trigger.

For electros, I wish that the semi-only rule would be repealed. I'm all for a 13 bps full auto cap. Such would be very easy to test and program, and would pretty much avoid all of today's controversey. I think that a 13 bps cap would actually be safer than today's ridiculously fast bouncy-walking triggers.


Will it go that way? I doubt it. Manufactuers sell by promoting the newest and best, and such a static cap will probably discourage sales. Then the only improvements would be in ball-loading and consistency.

Imagine one going on to the field with a single-trigger Angel LED with ZIP chip (and some sort of eye). 1999 technology being competitive again. Where's the desire to improve?

Oh well, just my thoughts on the subject.

-mike

[lopxtc]

As bad as it may sound, ultimately the decision to stop/limit electros or to even make mechanical only tourneys may not come till someone is severly injured or killed. We all know that the goggles we use are limited to the number of times repeat impacts can occur within a given span of time, and honestly I have been on the receiving end of bursts that have hit my lenses 3-4 times. How long do you think it will be till someone takes enough hits to finally go beyond the stress limit on lenses ...

Ultimately like many things it will not be something good that changes the sport, it will be something bad. I for one do believe that in the current state of escilation that there will be a on-field death or serious injury within a couple years ...

Aaron

[RRfireblade]

Originally posted by lopxtc
We all know that the goggles we use are limited to the number of times repeat impacts can occur within a given span of time, and honestly I have been on the receiving end of bursts that have hit my lenses 3-4 times. How long do you think it will be till someone takes enough hits to finally go beyond the stress limit on lenses ...


Aaron

I don't know if anyone else has tried this but for fun we set up an old mask(low end VForce I think it was)just see if we could break it.After 2 hoppers I gave up on wasting paint as it still didn't break.Maybe a fluke and I definately wouldn't recommend that abuse for any "real" situation,but I was surprised.

Anyway,
Cheaters will be cheaters,it's as simple as that.If something is to be gained,even a shallow victory,there are those that will try.Not much you could do besides starting your own league and mandating your own rules and guidelines.......sucks I know.

Something interesting that seems to work in some other sports is a claiming rule.Some motorsports have a claiming rule meaning you can run whatever you want but there is a max value your allowed to have invested in your equiptment.At any time the sanctioning body can write you a check for said value and claim your equiptment,usually only ever excersized in cases of presumed cheating.It keeps a more even playing field and limits the "rare" and "excessively custom" equiptment to a minimum.For instance,what would you take to a Tourny if the "claiming" rule was $300 max?

Just a crazy thought.(also wouldn't ever happen )

Jay.

[cledford]

Cheater boards let you do what? When you shoot a none cheater board (say something like the old Shocker 4x4) you are already pulling at a ROF exceeds the cyclic rate of an M16. What is the next logical step? To instead of having to actually pull 13-14bps, you have a full-auto marker that with one trigger pull continuously pumps out paint that fast. Some people want to call it bounce, but it is basically full-auto with a nice name and that is what these cheater boards allow.

I say allow full-auto and the problem goes away. Let's face it the ASTM regulation against full-auto is stupid - if you are pull 13-14bps and there are an number of balls in-route to a target (some opposing players head) and his mask comes off, is the fact that you are actually fanning that mouse-click trigger going to save his sight? I say allow full-auto, cap it at 10-15 rounds (to avoid runaway guns) and the problem is solved. For what it's worth, many in the industry are concern about pissing the ASTM off. I'd bet there are plenty of other sports out there on the "edge" that didn't cave and in haven't died. I know insurance issues govern a lot, but let's remember, paintball is big and getting bigger, these insurance companies aren't going to kill a cash cow just because they don't like full-auto.

On the other hand the manufacturers have a lot to worry about with regard to johny at home or in the yard, but hasn't that danger (some dumb kid shooting out some other kids eye) always existed? I realize that what they're trying to prevent is the "life altering" event of loosing ALL sight by have both eyes shot out - but I submit that you can't worry about everything. This is going to sound totally unrelated, but consider peanuts. My favorite restaurant (Lone Star Steakhouse) used to serve buckets of peanuts as appetizers and you could just dump the shells right on the floor. I've heard 2 different stories on why they stopped, one was that someone slipped on the shells and the other was that someone with peanut allergies got sick. Whatever the case, Lone star stopped serving peanuts (I'm certain) due to insurance pressure. Logan's now serves the peanuts and they seem to have no problem getting insurance or customers.

-Calvin

[Barfly]

kill someone with a paintball gun, very hard. Even if you get shot in the eye at point blank range, it doesn't mean you will lose your eye. In fact about 5 years ago, I guy my friends reffered to as Crack baby, decided his gun wasn't working, so he looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger. Pow right in the eye and his eye was fine after much cussing and screaming.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by AGD
Formula one with their millions of dollars couldn't stop cheater software for race cars, I doubt we will be able to do better.

AGD

Rubbish. F1 cars cost millions and are incredibly complex and far use more powerful computers. Also, the complexity of the programming means that it is VERY important your algorithms don't fall into the hands of you opponents. Paintball markers are simplistic by comparison.

How many PIC/EEPROMs are being used in the market today to control the various boards? There's a very limited pin-out configuration.

Also, a generic piece of software could control every current marker and probably many conceivable markers. Perhaps that's the solution if manufacturers really think their software is so proprietary. Isn't that the reason Morlock boards etc work in numerous markers?

But seeing as you've already proposed Shartley's solution, I guess that will be the only way to kill electro-cheaters.

Full-auto with a ROF cap as suggested by some won't help. How do you monitor the ROF? Perhaps someone could develop a barrel mounted Radar-Chron that could be monitored realtime.

[shartley]

[cledford]

Originally posted by shartley
I strongly disagree with simply allowing FA. While cheater boards enhance a players abilities to shoot fast, they still require SOME finger skills. I can see it now, everybody simply hosing the field with NO trigger skills needed.

Wrong. It would require the developement of a new skill, that being the rationing of paint. The team walks on with X amount, can share as they like, but when it gone, it's gone. I bed you'd see a lot control, espcially of the amount of paint carried was limited. And it is a whole lot easier to mashall.

-Calvin

[cledford]

Originally posted by lopxtc
We all know that the goggles we use are limited to the number of times repeat impacts can occur within a given span of time, and honestly I have been on the receiving end of bursts that have hit my lenses 3-4 times. How long do you think it will be till someone takes enough hits to finally go beyond the stress limit on lenses ...
Aaron

So why not make new goggles? Back in the day, when hopper couldn't keep up with emerging ROF, no one said "well, let's limit the ROF due to a technical difficulty." Instead someone sat down and figured out a solution, improve equipment. I realize that there is a safety issue here - but still, why shouldn't goggle systems continue to improve? Everything else has. Goggles in comparison really haven't gotten better since the upgrade from the UVEX.

One simple solution exists for the "goggles falling off in the middle of a game" issue. Add a second strap - problem solved.

-Calvin

[shartley]

Originally posted by cledford
Wrong. It would require the developement of a new skill, that being the rationing of paint. The team walks on with X amount, can share as they like, but when it gone, it's gone. I bed you'd see a lot control, espcially of the amount of paint carried was limited. And it is a whole lot easier to mashall.

-Calvin

[RRfireblade]

Originally posted by shartley
I strongly disagree with simply allowing FA. While cheater boards enhance a players abilities to shoot fast, they still require SOME finger skills. I can see it now, everybody simply hosing the field with NO trigger skills needed.

I totally agree,NO WAY FA. Try walking 15bps,while running on the break or snap shooting.FA would allow that WAY to easily and you still couldn't stop "cheaters" that go over the "Cap" based on programming.

I think the whole issue is still not "an issue".From high ROF to really high ROF is not a critical difference in most cases.Just not that big a deal.

Jay.
Long live gravity only hoppers!!