Post by general on Nov 12, 2009 18:01:19 GMT 8
I am a firm believer mid-range FPS limits. Personally, I believe the legal FPS limit should have been set at 450FPS for fully-automatic AEGs instead of 550FPS, with the 550FPS limit being reserved for bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles only.
True story: At a certain jungle gamesite with explicitly stated 450FPS limits, a visiting team had their guns chronoed . . . their guns passed the FPS limit. About 3 games into the day, game play had to be stopped twice due to injuries due to high powered hits. During the next game, play had to be suspended again due to another injury. At this point, the marshall halted all play and assembled all players and forced an FPS check of all guns. The visiting team had 5 of their 8 guns clocking in at over 500FPS (high of 520FPS), with the remainder clocking at an average of 460FPS. They had switched guns mid-play without telling anyone because of the environment.
My personal rule of thumb is this: Sure, I'll let you play with or against me, but only if you're willing to take the 'T-shirt test'. If you're willing to get shot in the back with your own AEG at 20 feet wearing only a T-shirt, then let's play. I've challenged other people to do so when I've suspected that they're fielding a hot AEG . . . not one has accepted the challenge. They usually get a different gun and have it chronoed to prove to everyone that it's under the FPS limit. I wonder why? A couple of times I've had to take the challenge myself. I know my guns and will and have gladly passed the test.
Granted there are certain situations where a high FPS is desireable; most will involve the target being at range, often while under cover. A high FPS combined with accuracy can defeat the threat. In situations like this, a Designated Marksman or Sniper is more desireable than an assaulter. For squads that do not have a DM, they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way: smart movement and effective fire. And guess what? Any DM or Sniper worth their salt will prefer semi-auto anyway.
Now, given that situations which require a high FPS do exist . . . which happens more, encounters at danger-close or at range? Please don't bring up the abused excuse that field envirnments require higher FPS guns. Like I mentioned before, smart movement and effective fire can and will defeat a determined opponent.
General observation: most veterans will strive for a balance between accuracy, rate of fire, and FPS . . . with the main focus on accuracy. Noobs will go for the higher FPS, opting for the range. This is because most veterans will, in a split second, factor in windage, target lead, and ballistics. They're comfortable with the guns that they've had for years and can reasonably predict whether a shot is doable or not. Contrary to popular belief, spray and pray is not applicable in a lot of situations. Veterans with high FPS guns usually have a very specific reason why they have that particular setup.
"Mataas FPS ko para umamin." Please, recall to memory all the airsoft players you know. Now, how many of those players are unashamedly Zombies. I'm guessing that those will definitely be in a very small minority. Kapag high FPS, umaamin ang player dahil sobrang sakit, hindi dahil hit siya. There's a difference. It's supposed to be a gentleman's game, right? If your opponent can't or won't be a gentleman by admitting the hit, or, maybe, fail to admit the hit because they didn't hear the hit on their armor, then won't you be the better player either by giving them the benefit of the doubt or maneuvering further for the undeniable hit? I've walked out of gamesites because of a living dead epidemic. So can you. Are you playing the game to hurt people? I'm not.
I have marshalled games with only a few (less than 50) players with the following conditions: Semi-auto or short bursts only. People have come up to me afterwards with comments, and none of them have been negative. Most have commented how it changed the gameplay dynamic from a waiting game to a tactical game. I noticed this: high FPS and high accuracy shooters will hang back to snipe and countersnipe, while the majority of their teammates move forward, communicating to each other the entire time, identifying threats and bypassing or eliminating them. Now, given that the great majority of game scenarios is the ever-basic skirmish, don't you think that this is a better form of teamwork than what usually occurs? (Which is rush forward until contact, then take shots from cover at targets of opportunity. Flanking optional.)
High FPS guns have their place in our beloved game. The trick is knowing when and where that particular place is.
From
A FRIEND VENGER
True story: At a certain jungle gamesite with explicitly stated 450FPS limits, a visiting team had their guns chronoed . . . their guns passed the FPS limit. About 3 games into the day, game play had to be stopped twice due to injuries due to high powered hits. During the next game, play had to be suspended again due to another injury. At this point, the marshall halted all play and assembled all players and forced an FPS check of all guns. The visiting team had 5 of their 8 guns clocking in at over 500FPS (high of 520FPS), with the remainder clocking at an average of 460FPS. They had switched guns mid-play without telling anyone because of the environment.
My personal rule of thumb is this: Sure, I'll let you play with or against me, but only if you're willing to take the 'T-shirt test'. If you're willing to get shot in the back with your own AEG at 20 feet wearing only a T-shirt, then let's play. I've challenged other people to do so when I've suspected that they're fielding a hot AEG . . . not one has accepted the challenge. They usually get a different gun and have it chronoed to prove to everyone that it's under the FPS limit. I wonder why? A couple of times I've had to take the challenge myself. I know my guns and will and have gladly passed the test.
Granted there are certain situations where a high FPS is desireable; most will involve the target being at range, often while under cover. A high FPS combined with accuracy can defeat the threat. In situations like this, a Designated Marksman or Sniper is more desireable than an assaulter. For squads that do not have a DM, they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way: smart movement and effective fire. And guess what? Any DM or Sniper worth their salt will prefer semi-auto anyway.
Now, given that situations which require a high FPS do exist . . . which happens more, encounters at danger-close or at range? Please don't bring up the abused excuse that field envirnments require higher FPS guns. Like I mentioned before, smart movement and effective fire can and will defeat a determined opponent.
General observation: most veterans will strive for a balance between accuracy, rate of fire, and FPS . . . with the main focus on accuracy. Noobs will go for the higher FPS, opting for the range. This is because most veterans will, in a split second, factor in windage, target lead, and ballistics. They're comfortable with the guns that they've had for years and can reasonably predict whether a shot is doable or not. Contrary to popular belief, spray and pray is not applicable in a lot of situations. Veterans with high FPS guns usually have a very specific reason why they have that particular setup.
"Mataas FPS ko para umamin." Please, recall to memory all the airsoft players you know. Now, how many of those players are unashamedly Zombies. I'm guessing that those will definitely be in a very small minority. Kapag high FPS, umaamin ang player dahil sobrang sakit, hindi dahil hit siya. There's a difference. It's supposed to be a gentleman's game, right? If your opponent can't or won't be a gentleman by admitting the hit, or, maybe, fail to admit the hit because they didn't hear the hit on their armor, then won't you be the better player either by giving them the benefit of the doubt or maneuvering further for the undeniable hit? I've walked out of gamesites because of a living dead epidemic. So can you. Are you playing the game to hurt people? I'm not.
I have marshalled games with only a few (less than 50) players with the following conditions: Semi-auto or short bursts only. People have come up to me afterwards with comments, and none of them have been negative. Most have commented how it changed the gameplay dynamic from a waiting game to a tactical game. I noticed this: high FPS and high accuracy shooters will hang back to snipe and countersnipe, while the majority of their teammates move forward, communicating to each other the entire time, identifying threats and bypassing or eliminating them. Now, given that the great majority of game scenarios is the ever-basic skirmish, don't you think that this is a better form of teamwork than what usually occurs? (Which is rush forward until contact, then take shots from cover at targets of opportunity. Flanking optional.)
High FPS guns have their place in our beloved game. The trick is knowing when and where that particular place is.
From
A FRIEND VENGER
Ang mga Sadista, INDI PAGPA-INTRAHON!!! ;D ;D ;D
