[drg]

o-baller, on 17 October 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You took my post out of context. My point was that any pump is inferior to any electro in terms of capability.

It's in the context you provided. Still depends on the pump, the electro and the capability. Of course what a gun can and can't do often has little to do with its valuation.

This post has been edited by drg: 18 October 2012 - 01:50 AM

[Pump Player]

o-baller, on 17 October 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You took my post out of context. My point was that any pump is inferior to any electro in terms of capability.

actually thats not completely true, a broken electric that is leaking isnt superior to a ccm

[asthmaticrhino]

drg, on 16 October 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

o-baller, on 15 October 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

No... its not. For that matter, no pump is, being that they are inferior to electros in every measurable feature.

Well that's not true at all.

Technically and objectively it is. Pumps can't fire as fast, don,t have a board or eyes, the trigger is harder to pull, and as far as maintenance both are pretty idiot proof.
How a pump feels and how it makes u feel, I think all of us can agree, is better than any electro out there.

[drg]

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

drg, on 16 October 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

o-baller, on 15 October 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

No... its not. For that matter, no pump is, being that they are inferior to electros in every measurable feature.

Well that's not true at all.

Technically and objectively it is. Pumps can't fire as fast, don,t have a board or eyes, the trigger is harder to pull, and as far as maintenance both are pretty idiot proof.
How a pump feels and how it makes u feel, I think all of us can agree, is better than any electro out there.

Again, depends on the pump and the electro, but also several, if not all of those things are of little relation to value. Draguns had boards. And speak for yourself that pump triggers are harder to pull -- not that it matters. I beg to differ very strongly that electro maintenance is anywhere near as idiotproof as mechanical pumps.

[asthmaticrhino]

drg, on 20 October 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

drg, on 16 October 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

o-baller, on 15 October 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

No... its not. For that matter, no pump is, being that they are inferior to electros in every measurable feature.

Well that's not true at all.

Technically and objectively it is. Pumps can't fire as fast, don,t have a board or eyes, the trigger is harder to pull, and as far as maintenance both are pretty idiot proof.
How a pump feels and how it makes u feel, I think all of us can agree, is better than any electro out there.

Again, depends on the pump and the electro, but also several, if not all of those things are of little relation to value. Draguns had boards. And speak for yourself that pump triggers are harder to pull -- not that it matters. I beg to differ very strongly that electro maintenance is anywhere near as idiotproof as mechanical pumps.

True. The main point the person above and I were making is there is no particular advantage over using a pump vs an electro in terms of accuracy range, and certainlying not fire rate. The thing that makes a pump worth 600 dollars is how Fun it is to play with. The technology is very basic, certainly not 600$ of tech in a ccm or the cci revolution

This post has been edited by asthmaticrhino: 20 October 2012 - 03:38 PM

[drg]

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

True. The main point the person above and I were making is there is no particular advantage over using a pump vs an electro in terms of accuracy range, and certainlying not fire rate. The thing that makes a pump worth 600 dollars is how Fun it is to play with. The technology is very basic, certainly not 600$ of tech in a ccm or the cci revolution

Technology does not inherently have value, in many instances a lower-tech thing or process costs more than a high-tech process. One of the things about technology is that it can make things cheaper.
As for paintball guns specifically, quality of manufacture is a huge value point. For example the aforementioned Dragun vs CCM.

[o-baller]

drg, on 20 October 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

True. The main point the person above and I were making is there is no particular advantage over using a pump vs an electro in terms of accuracy range, and certainlying not fire rate. The thing that makes a pump worth 600 dollars is how Fun it is to play with. The technology is very basic, certainly not 600$ of tech in a ccm or the cci revolution

Technology does not inherently have value, in many instances a lower-tech thing or process costs more than a high-tech process. One of the things about technology is that it can make things cheaper.
As for paintball guns specifically, quality of manufacture is a huge value point. For example the aforementioned Dragun vs CCM.

My point is that a good player with an electro beats an equivalent player using a pump (barring mechanical failure) due to simple technological advantage (otherwise the army would still use muskets). The value of a pump marker is in the eyes of the beholder. And something that you glossed over is that CCM is overkill in terms of manufacturing quality... guns 1/3 of its price and of much lower quality perform equally as well. So I must ask why manufacturing quality is such a large issue to some?

anyhow, the main matter of this thread has been lost...

[drg]

o-baller, on 23 October 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

drg, on 20 October 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

True. The main point the person above and I were making is there is no particular advantage over using a pump vs an electro in terms of accuracy range, and certainlying not fire rate. The thing that makes a pump worth 600 dollars is how Fun it is to play with. The technology is very basic, certainly not 600$ of tech in a ccm or the cci revolution

Technology does not inherently have value, in many instances a lower-tech thing or process costs more than a high-tech process. One of the things about technology is that it can make things cheaper.
As for paintball guns specifically, quality of manufacture is a huge value point. For example the aforementioned Dragun vs CCM.

My point is that a good player with an electro beats an equivalent player using a pump (barring mechanical failure) due to simple technological advantage (otherwise the army would still use muskets). The value of a pump marker is in the eyes of the beholder. And something that you glossed over is that CCM is overkill in terms of manufacturing quality... guns 1/3 of its price and of much lower quality perform equally as well. So I must ask why manufacturing quality is such a large issue to some?

anyhow, the main matter of this thread has been lost...

You are trying to make the case that certain aspects of a marker's operation are the only thing that affects its monetary value. That's not true. Whether it is an "issue" to anyone is irrelevant.

Oh and by the way, the army makes plenty of use of pump and bolt-action weapons today.

This post has been edited by drg: 23 October 2012 - 03:12 AM

[o-baller]

drg, on 23 October 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

o-baller, on 23 October 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

drg, on 20 October 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

asthmaticrhino, on 20 October 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

True. The main point the person above and I were making is there is no particular advantage over using a pump vs an electro in terms of accuracy range, and certainlying not fire rate. The thing that makes a pump worth 600 dollars is how Fun it is to play with. The technology is very basic, certainly not 600$ of tech in a ccm or the cci revolution

Technology does not inherently have value, in many instances a lower-tech thing or process costs more than a high-tech process. One of the things about technology is that it can make things cheaper.
As for paintball guns specifically, quality of manufacture is a huge value point. For example the aforementioned Dragun vs CCM.

My point is that a good player with an electro beats an equivalent player using a pump (barring mechanical failure) due to simple technological advantage (otherwise the army would still use muskets). The value of a pump marker is in the eyes of the beholder. And something that you glossed over is that CCM is overkill in terms of manufacturing quality... guns 1/3 of its price and of much lower quality perform equally as well. So I must ask why manufacturing quality is such a large issue to some?

anyhow, the main matter of this thread has been lost...

You are trying to make the case that certain aspects of a marker's operation are the only thing that affects its monetary value. That's not true. Whether it is an "issue" to anyone is irrelevant.

Oh and by the way, the army makes plenty of use of pump and bolt-action weapons today.

You just said exactly what I did... I'm saying that a pump is worth it to anyone who values features other than technology and ROF. But when considering how good a gun is a pump could never be considered good due to it being outclassed in all meaningful categories.

And to say that the bolt-actions that the army uses are equivalent to a pump in paintball is silly. They have range and accuracy advantage over normal guns, something a pump in paintball does not.

[The-Phantom]

The fact of the matter is that nothing really valid is coming out of either side of this argument for a few reasons

Paintball, being related to military or real fire arms should never be compared as far as style of weapons.. other then the fact that people call them "guns" which many paintballers are adament against doing anyways by calling them "markers" which, as a history lesson, they started out as. Markers, for marking things, not guns... now it is a competitive sport, and people will call them what ever they want~still, whether it be a musket, or bolt actions (or dare I even MENTION the word sniper) paintball guns in no way, shape or form can be fairly, or relevantly or accurately compared to true fire arms used by "the military" and other entities. End of story, so using that as any means for your side of this 'disagreement' are fairly irrelevant.

From what I understand, after reading through the entire thread, is this. There is a Disagreement on the value of markers (originating with the CCI Phantom Revolution and later expanding to include CCM models, and other expensive/$500+ pumps).

The first key point I noticed was O-Baller stated:

o-baller, on 15 October 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

smoke14, on 01 October 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

The-Phantom, on 30 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

smoke14, on 30 September 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Not trying to hate, but is there anything new on the Revolution compared to the Phantom, besides the mini pump handle and new valve system? I know it comes with barrel sizers and a hopper adapter but honestly I don't see anything worth justifying $650+ on it. Is there something I'm missing or is all the rest of the money spent on it just for the looks?

erm... that's kind of a major change... That's similar to asking:

"so like whats the difference between like, a phantom and sniper other than that whole valve thing?"

Sure it's different, but what I'm trying to get at is that a new valve system, pump handle and barrel sizers are going to automatically throw $300 onto it?

No... its not. For that matter, no pump is, being that they are inferior to electros in every measurable feature. Its only worth it if you want it to be.

In context, I'd say it's fair to say this is the post that started this 'off topic' discussion within this thread, so stay with me now

It is an opinion, That can in no way be proven scientifically what is "better" for paintball

On a vice, all of the guns do indeed shoot the same accuracy. Semi's (being referred to as electros) will indeed shoot the same spread as pumps if they are both properly cleaned and maintained, and use same paint.

In doing this the 'electros' will shoot faster...

all of these things can be taken and accepted as nearly factual data... bryce and cockerpunk have empirically tested this to a great extent and found it to be true several times over

Now that is about as far as the "facts" for lack of a better or more accurate term (best known theory technically) go...

The rest of this discussion is merely an opinion. Using hypothetical examples that can and never will happen**, and out of context quotes, along with strictly opinion isn't going to advance anyone's knowledge on what the topic is... which is news about the phantom revolution. nearly all of this either has nothing to do with the topic, or is so loosely hanging on to some idea from the first page or so of the thread, it's became little more then bickering back and fourth, and more of a pissing match or ego driven battle of keyboard warriors.

If you want to continue to duke it out, feel free to, have PM's back and fourth til your hands cramp up from rage typing than that's your prerogative. But I think at this point it is fairly clear that none of the three parties (O-Baller, DRG, and AsthmaticRhino) are going to have their OPINIONS changed by some "argument" or nearly insulting posts to their knowledge on a subject.

** Suggesting things such as "A Player of "EQUAL SKILL" (or any interchangeable way of saying same talent in paintball level) who is using an electro (or any semi for that matter, anything superior in fire rate to a pump) Versus, A Player of the "SAME SKILL LEVEL" who is using a pump, than the player using the electro will win every time" or will 'generally win' or any of those statements is completely unscientific. Due to the fact, to my knowledge we are unable to have clones of people that are exactly even, because this would be scientifically the only true representation of "equal or same skill level". If there were equal skill people out there, which I believe it is impossible to say, because there are too many factors that go into evaluating ones skill as a paintball player, than if those two people played 100 times with semi's, one would win exactly 50, and the other would win exactly 50. Or they would be on a team and get the same number of eliminations each game. It is too much of an unpredictable fast paced sport that only takes 1 shot in most styles of play to earn an elimination. So the fact is, I or you could be way better than someone, but sometimes we'll have a bad game, and get shot out by them, or lose one on one to them by "fluke" or "luck" or we have a "bad game/bad day/off day" and they have a "good game/good day/on game". The same applies for if we are on the same team or against each other. Naturally one player is going to get more eliminations than another, or survive longer, or grab more flags, and this will vary greatly the more games played. It is an unfair and completely non-scientific statement to make arguments using terms like the ones outlined in purple. And I see this used a lot... I'm sure if you dig into the depths of my posts, I've probably stated it some where along the lines in the past possibly before this realization came to me, but I feel that not only (O-Baller) I'm not trying to pick on you, or any of you three, but many people use this and find it as a good reason or argument for why things are "better" when it is truly an unfair comparison or reasoning in general for anything

TL:DR? well f#@% it at least I tried.

PS: I'm surprised no one said "pumps are lighter" in counter to the fact that they are inferior in every single way... but that's just more fuel to a fire I'd like to see no longer burning up a perfectly decent and legitimate thread

This post has been edited by The-Phantom: 23 October 2012 - 06:09 PM

[drg]

Actually it is a fact that the monetary value of a marker can be driven by factors other than what o-baller mentioned. That's my point and it's not an opinion. It's basic economics.

[The-Phantom]

drg, on 23 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Actually it is a fact that the monetary value of a marker can be driven by factors other than what o-baller mentioned. That's my point and it's not an opinion. It's basic economics.

are you referring to build quality of a product (something of the likes of CCM and others) or build materials? such as Palmers stuff, because brass costs a bit more then aluminum, or different alloys commonly used (seen in guns like CCM's, MVP's, Revolutions, Gargs, Ducks, Carters etc)

[drg]

The-Phantom, on 24 October 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

drg, on 23 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Actually it is a fact that the monetary value of a marker can be driven by factors other than what o-baller mentioned. That's my point and it's not an opinion. It's basic economics.

are you referring to build quality of a product (something of the likes of CCM and others) or build materials? such as Palmers stuff, because brass costs a bit more then aluminum, or different alloys commonly used (seen in guns like CCM's, MVP's, Revolutions, Gargs, Ducks, Carters etc)

All of the above and more. A lot goes into the pricing of any given product, that's the point. People are trying to say that specific aspects of function should determine price, and we all know (well all mature people know) that product pricing is far more complicated than that.

[o-baller]

drg, on 24 October 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

The-Phantom, on 24 October 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

drg, on 23 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Actually it is a fact that the monetary value of a marker can be driven by factors other than what o-baller mentioned. That's my point and it's not an opinion. It's basic economics.

are you referring to build quality of a product (something of the likes of CCM and others) or build materials? such as Palmers stuff, because brass costs a bit more then aluminum, or different alloys commonly used (seen in guns like CCM's, MVP's, Revolutions, Gargs, Ducks, Carters etc)

All of the above and more. A lot goes into the pricing of any given product, that's the point. People are trying to say that specific aspects of function should determine price, and we all know (well all mature people know) that product pricing is far more complicated than that.

Which is not what I was arguing at all. I simply said that they are not worth being made as well as they are because they are already outdated and for 500 bucks you can get a very good e-gun that in most measurable categories is better. However, I will agree that some pumps do cost that much to make. And of course making something out of titanium would make it more costly than cast iron. I just assumed that was an extremely obvious point and bypassed it... either way, it is unimportant

BTW, I own a Grey Ghost and do like pumps... Just in case anyone thought I was bashing pumps. And as far as I read, there was no flaming going on. At least none was intended on my part.

This post has been edited by o-baller: 25 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

[Corysllw]

So...much...scrolling

[drg]

o-baller, on 25 October 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Which is not what I was arguing at all. I simply said that they are not worth being made as well as they are because they are already outdated and for 500 bucks you can get a very good e-gun that in most measurable categories is better.

You say that's not what you were arguing then argue it in the next sentence. There are even aspects that have nothing to do with the physical production of the gun that drive price.

The MVP is one of the most modern pump guns on the market today and it is still being produced, it's literally as far away from outdated as can possibly be. CCMs similarly are quite modern despite being based on classic designs.

There is one really important category that no semi will ever match up to any pump gun in -- the "is it a pump gun?" category. And there is a really important category that no e-gun will ever match up to a mechanical gun in -- the "is it a mech gun?" category. E-semis have zero value in either of those categories.

This post has been edited by drg: 25 October 2012 - 11:08 PM

[o-baller]

drg, on 25 October 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

o-baller, on 25 October 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Which is not what I was arguing at all. I simply said that they are not worth being made as well as they are because they are already outdated and for 500 bucks you can get a very good e-gun that in most measurable categories is better.

You say that's not what you were arguing then argue it in the next sentence. There are even aspects that have nothing to do with the physical production of the gun that drive price.

The MVP is one of the most modern pump guns on the market today and it is still being produced, it's literally as far away from outdated as can possibly be. CCMs similarly are quite modern despite being based on classic designs.

There is one really important category that no semi will ever match up to any pump gun in -- the "is it a pump gun?" category. And there is a really important category that no e-gun will ever match up to a mechanical gun in -- the "is it a mech gun?" category. E-semis have zero value in either of those categories.

I realize that there are many factors that drive cost. You aren't the only one that understands Econ 101... And once again I said that while a pump guns cost of production might be as high as they are priced to produce, they are outdated in the fact that you have to Pump them to shoot. Just because the MVP has a new valve system doesn't mean it is modern technology. It is outdated by the simple matter that you must pump it to shoot. So yes, it might cost $650 to make an MVP, but it performs much worse than you're run of the mill $250 electro.

So I say again, a $600 dollar pump is only worth buying if you like playing pump and want an extremely well made gun (this is important to my point). One of the earlier post had asked if it was worth buying a revolution if it cost $600. My argument is that if you have to ask that question, then it isn't worth buying that particular gun to you. I said nothing about manufacturing cost of a pump being lower than an electro... which is what I assume you think I said

And what were you talking about with the categories? That makes no sense... that's like saying a car won't be a truck because it's a car...

Anyways, I'm annoying others on this forum, so I'll just stop. This argument has moved nowhere anyways

This post has been edited by o-baller: 26 October 2012 - 04:05 PM

[drg]

o-baller, on 26 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

they are outdated in the fact that you have to Pump them to shoot.

Completely false premise, your argument goes off the rails there and never comes back.

o-baller, on 26 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

And what were you talking about with the categories? That makes no sense... that's like saying a car won't be a truck because it's a car...

Yes, that's exactly the point. Have you never bought a vehicle before? If you are in the market for a truck, the fastest, most modern, most powerful car in the world is meaningless.

[DamianE]

I can sum up what drg is saying as well:

I have $600 dollars saved up because I want a pump gun. Am I going to buy the first awesome deal, on an e-gun model that I like? No, because at the moment, a $600 dollar pump gun has higher value to me.

The value of a pump gun is so high because of many potential reasons, Maybe because it's a niche market; Maybe because high-end pumps are made with tighter tolerances....

Or maybe It's because the PB community is willing to pay that price, and therefore, that is what its worth.


Look at it this way:

If I buy a house for 150K and its tax value is at 175K, then I am sure as shit going to the comptroller's office and saying: "This house is not worth 175K because I just bought it for 150K"

After a few weeks of waiting the house is now oficially worth 150K.

Value is not something that can be applied solely on the factors of complexity or practicality.

[o-baller]

drg, on 26 October 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

o-baller, on 26 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

they are outdated in the fact that you have to Pump them to shoot.

Completely false premise, your argument goes off the rails there and never comes back.

o-baller, on 26 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

And what were you talking about with the categories? That makes no sense... that's like saying a car won't be a truck because it's a car...

Yes, that's exactly the point. Have you never bought a vehicle before? If you are in the market for a truck, the fastest, most modern, most powerful car in the world is meaningless.

Which is where the original context of my first post comes in. The guy asked if all the changes in the CCI Revolution were worth the money. I said that it is not if you are looking for performance. It is if you are looking for a high end pump. Usually when someone asks if a pump is worth the money, they are new to pump, looking for the highest performing gun, and don't understand the point of playing with a pump. If you have to ask if they are worth it, then they probably aren't worth it to you.

And how is saying a pump is outdated a false premise. Last I checked, a pump has no performance advantage but lots of disadvantages. Which is the reason we use them after all.

This post has been edited by o-baller: 26 October 2012 - 11:06 PM