A CHEEZY ATTEMPT AT SELF-PROMOTION
December 26, 2007
Sometime during the next day or so I’m going to post a blog on the subject of the PSP and the lowering of the legal RPS rate.
I’m not going to be nice.
BOTH the PSP AND the teams that play in it are going to come under the gun (with an unlimited ROF), so tell your friends to check back here soon and often.
I’m heading out to see a man about a payloader. There’s just no way possible to shovel PSP shit manually…
Entry Filed under: paintball. .
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
T-Square | December 28, 2007 at 1:20 am
You have my attention…!
2.
Furby | December 29, 2007 at 3:15 am
Raehl will just LOVE this…he’s been having a ball on another forums site trying to smooth it over. From what I understand, it’s not official yet…I suspect they’re trying to trial balloon the idea before enacting it.
Raehl will come and tell me I’m wrong, I’m sure.
3.
raehl | December 29, 2007 at 4:00 am
What do you mean, “smooth over”? I think you mean, absolutely support the reduced rate of fire. I have NEVER liked 15 bps. In an ideal world, we’d have certified, software-readable, semi-auto only boards. But since we can’t have that, ramping is the only thing that’s fair. But 15.4 bps is too fast. I’d like 10. I’ll take 13.
The reasons a lower rate of fire are better are simple.
The more paint in the air, the slower the game gets.
And the more 15.4 bps guns we put out there, the more kids who are not willing or able to control their guns shoot up other kids, turning people off to the sport.
Other side effects of the change include reduced paint bills for teams, being able to open up the field more, and a bit of an easier time for the refs.
The one downside to the change is people who have boards that don’t have adjustable rates of fire will need to have a free software upgrade flashed onto the boards. And of course, some people just LIKE to shoot faster, but both teams shot 15.4 before and both teams will shoot 13.33 now, so that washes out.
So there you have it, from Chris Raehl, the good and bad things about the rate of fire change.
Anyone want to guess whether the gnome talks about any of the reasons a rate of fire reduction might be a good thing?
4.
gnomedplume | December 29, 2007 at 11:56 am
Chris Raehl?
5.
gnomedplume | December 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Just kidding with the previous comment. Everyone knows who the guy is – and lots of parents of college students would like to talk to him.
Chris – I write what I want to write – not what someone requests I write.
I said PSP and ROF – NOT NCPA and ROF.
But thanks for reminding me about the college league. I’ll be happy to jot a few comments on that subject.
Your points about slower play are nothing new. Why players would want slower play is the real question. They’ve been screaming for faster faster faster (actually, the hand up their backs that works their mouths, the one that’s attached to a paint manufacturers’ arm is saying faster faster).
My point in the article – which hasn’t even been posted yet (what, are you taking pre-emptive strike lessons from Georgie?) was going to be about how the AMA and ASTM were ignored by PSP and used as a way to try and get a leg up on the NPPL – meanwhile putting thousands of players at risk or serious injury – all in the name of profit.
And it was going to mention the fact that only now that PSP is having real issues in the marketplace are they changing it to encourage teams to keep on attending by offering lower costs. No mention of safety, no mention of their blatant disregard of the insurance standards.
And I’d like to know what they’re going to do about the non-electronic systems and players that can legitimately shoot faster than 13.3 bps. Are they going to just ban them or are they going to sponsor a steroids-outing campaign like MLB?
LET IT ALSO BE KNOWN: My teaser and cheezy self-promotions attempts should be considered successful. They drew Chris in, didn’t they? (You should see the graph…)
6.
raehl | December 29, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Actually, Dale drew me in, so thank him.
I don’t think 15.4 bps is unsafe. If I did, I would have been screaming about that for two years too. And you can’t think 15.4 bps is unsafe either – because if you did, you’d be screaming about all the injuries players should be getting in uncapped semi-auto leagues, where you seem to think there are people shooting 13.3 bps and higher in uncapped semi-auto. (There are people shooting faster than 13.3 bps, but virtually none of them are doing it with true semi-auto boards.)
I don’t want to say PSP didn’t make the change for profit. I run a non-profit league, and everything I do is based on profit (or at least, not losing money.) But happy players are profitable, and so you can make a lot of changes that are good for the players, good for competition, and profitable at the same time. That’s called smart business. There’s nothing cynical about running a business that keeps customers happy AND makes enough money to not go bankrupt. There are not many happy customers of bankrupt businesses.
You should understand that PSP did not create ramping. Some unethical industry folks provided ramping boards to their teams, and some unethical aftermarket board manufacturers provided ramping to the masses. Have you forgotten the $200 boards with the hidden cheat modes and 6-step secret codes that were being sold? They’re still out there – they’re just useless in PSP, thanks to the rule change.
The cheaters were already ramping, and there was no good way to stop it. So instead of letting the cheaters get away with ramping, PSP made ramping legal for everyone, taking away the advantage the cheaters had. Profitable? Yes. Good for the players and competition? Absolutely. The only problem is they chose the wrong number – 15.4 bps is too high. And not because it’s unsafe; just because too much paint in the air has negative side effects as I mentioned in my previous reply.
I’m also not sure what you mean by ‘real issues in the marketplace’. Just shy of 10,000 people played PSP last year. More than in 2003, 2004, 2005, and a hair shy of 2006 when they had 6 events instead of 5. PSP also apparently made money for the first time – something it’s been years since a national league last did.
Now, if you meant EVERYONE is having real issues in the marketplace, then you might have something – the sponsorship sponge that finances a lot of national-level play is drying up, and maybe this is PSP’s attempt at being proactive about addressing that. I don’t know. There are lots of reasons to lower the rate of fire, and I don’t know which ones factored into PSP’s decision.
But, before you go and blast PSP for ’safety issues’, remember that all guns in PSP shoot SLOWER than many guns in leagues with uncapped semi-auto. I don’t think guns in either place are unsafe, but if you think PSP ROF is unsafe, then every non-stock league and every non-pump gun made is unsafe, and I have to wonder why you’re singling out PSP, when PSP is the ONLY entity in paintball that has put a limit on bps.
PSP: bps limit
Manufacturers: no bps limit
Uncapped semi auto leagues: no bps limit
Seems pretty silly to blast PSP for being unsafe at 15.4 bps, then turn around and blast PSP for preventing people from shooting faster than 13.3 bps. Can’t have it both ways.