Okay, fallacy is probably a bit strong but it sounded so good I couldn't resist. Not unlike 'The raehl Solution' 'The Brockdorff Fallacy' does have some merit and deserves consideration as a viable option in the quest to preserve the game and reduce costs (and produce better players in greater abundance.) On that score I think Nick's idea for reduced ROF is more widely applicable than raehl's restricted paint. Some of you may recall the PSP briefly attempted--a couple three years ago--to tier their ROF by divisions and that VFTD supported that effort. You may also recall that it was the teams that got them to reverse that policy after a year as well. (Which was when standard ROF went to 12.5 bps.)
Since I'm going to shorthand the argument--again--if you'd like more details look here & (particularly) here for a pair of old VFTD posts from 2008 that speak to the issue at hand. Or visit the link given in yesterday's post, 'The raehl Solution.'
The issue, as it was with restricted paint, is balanced game play. The current ROF limits reflect, more or less, the upper limits. Given the present playing environment ROF provides/creates a challenge for the very best players--and as a result can be overwhelming for less able players. The answer isn't to dumb down play for everyone; it's to balance ROF versus ability to move. (The links are particularly helpful in defining what movement as a game function is, too.)
Last season the PSP lengthened their field by 20 feet as part of an effort to provide a more "friendly" playing environment for a potentially more diverse player base. What I tended to call an invitation to the old, fat & slow. While the measure of that success is debatable what isn't is that the longer field increased paint use and produced slower points as a significant percentage of matches went to time rather than score.
The flipside of that decision was the one taken by the Millennium in their field designs last season which tended to compress the playing area further in an effort, at least in part, to encourage more aggressive play. Different layouts met with greater or lesser success but all of them, overtly or more subtly, also altered the priorities of the skills in play--just like the changes the PSP made even if the results were different.
The point, once again, is that what may seem like simple changes will almost certainly have unintended consequences, game changing consequences and should only be undertaken after the results are known and understood. Unlike with restricted paint however the relationship between ROF (and to a degree velocity) and Movement does allow for perhaps greater flexibility than other sorts of changes might. It is readily apparent that many, if not most, lower level competitive players struggle to move against the current ROF. A reduced ROF will, at some point, balance out against the limited skill of the lower level players. And that would be a very good thing as it would both encourage more movement, allow a larger pool of lower ability players to enjoy all aspects of the game and incidentally passively develop superior gun skills.
But as with restricted paint at some point the skill level of the players overwhelms the lessened ROF and you have to make other alterations to restore balance--and the challenge for the very best players.
In one sense reduced ROF if tiered for the skill level of the players will allow for a game that is, in every other respect, universal. It's just that the ROF itself can't have a universal value.
And if you'd like to dig a little deeper into what sort of changes might prove both workable without drastically altering the game take a look here. The only problem left is convincing the next generation of aspiring players that they would be better served and ultimately enjoy the game more (and probably longer) if they don't jump into the deep end of competitive play right away.