I think, the point is that this is a very quick way of grouping blasters. With any type of system a little common sense needs to be used (see Lightning Storm). This is just a good, quick way of grouping guns out there.
This is also why it's good that we have several active sites again, you can get multiple perspectives and multiple ways of viewing things.
Stock water blaster weight-class grouping
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster weight-class grouping
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Re: Stock water blaster weight-class grouping
Exactly. One could also group blasters by pressurization system, then do additional comparisons. Or by color (for some reason) and see if blue blasters may perform better than green ones.marauder wrote:I think, the point is that this is a very quick way of grouping blasters. With any type of system a little common sense needs to be used (see Lightning Storm). This is just a good, quick way of grouping guns out there.
Multiple perspectives are great to have access to.Getting more opinions and taking into account how those opinions were formed help one decide on whether a blaster one hasn't used is more likely right for you.marauder wrote:This is also why it's good that we have several active sites again, you can get multiple perspectives and multiple ways of viewing things.
That said, at least for iSoaker.com, I'll be using dry weight as a general grouping upon which some ratings will be based. A blaster in the light class (<400g) will end up with some expected rating as an average while heavy weight (>1000g) will end up with some other average rating while midweight (400g-1000g) will be expected to have some middle-level rating for some properties (e.g. expect output/power, capacity, etc.). Other blaster properties (e.g. ergonomics or overall rating) will be less weight-dependent. Some blasters near the division marks may be nudged into the adjacent weight category, though, due to size factors, but the dry weight system seems to be a good starting point for comparison, at least IMO.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:10 pm
- Location: Surrey, BC, Canada
Re: Stock water blaster weight-class grouping
Yeah, well basing it off of dry weight is a good start, and in reality it works pretty well. I just imagine there being a 399 g blaster with a 3L reservoir that outperforms a CPS 1000. I just my own personal preference to compare guns with the same reservoir sizes.
My friends call me Nader. My foes just run.
Photos relocated to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151868511 ... 8741427445
I find 'em, I fix 'em.
Photos relocated to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151868511 ... 8741427445
I find 'em, I fix 'em.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests