What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by the oncoming storm » Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:47 pm

Duelfest back in 2013 had some interesting results that still haven’t been looked at as deeply as is possible. The results to which I an referring are those of the modern AP guns that were tested, Namely the Gorgon, Colossus, and Colossus 2. Here are their results against each other.

Colossus 2 (0-1)
Colossus 2 loses to Colossus, 1 to 2

Colossus (1-1)
Colossus defeats Colossus 2, 2 to 1
Colossus loses to Gorgon, 1 to 6

Gorgon (1-0)
Gorgon defeats Colossus, 6 to 1

The fact that M4 and DX didn’t run the Colossus 2 vs Gorgon is weird, but seeing what is did to the Colossus and what the Colossus did to the Colossus 2 it’s safe to say it would have won soundly.

The question is why?

The shelf space argument which claims restricted internal space is the issue doesn’t work. This is evidenced by the fact that the Gorgon while being the tallest and widest in the list, only used that to have gobs of unused internal space. And it soundly defeated it’s AP competitors.

A prevailing theory at the time assumed that pump volumes had a large part in it. However all Water Warriors pumps have remained at 5/8″ ever since the Krypton Mk1’s pump was criticized as difficult in 2005. making marginal length differences the only possible reason for pump volume differences

I will now offer a few of my own to try and explain why the Colossus and Colossus 2 didn't hold up to the Gorgon in practice.

Chamber size in the Colossus is 6% larger than in the Gorgon so it was hardly a factor against each other, however the 47% smaller chamber on the Colossus 2 compared to the Colossus could have been a considerable factor by allowing the Colossus to maintain acquit pressure longer than the Colossus 2 on the same nozzle and so effectively out-range it after the prolonged firing generally needed to counter an aggressive move.

Now to try explaining why the Gorgon outfought the Colossus in a fight where field life was not a factor. Output. This theory was mentioned by M4 when we were trying to make sense of the numbers at the time and frankly I agree. Comparing the 2012 Gorgon’s nozzles to those on the Colossus the 2012 Gorgon’s largest is estimated to be a 3-4x nozzle compared to a 2x nozzle on a stock Colossus. Furthermore M4's Gorgon had it’s smallest nozzle drilled out to a 10x. The larger stream head making it harder to dodge and is less effected by any wind.

I therefore offer the following solutions to BBT to improve future pressurized water blasters in general. 1 Increase chamber size to permit longer effective firing durations. 2. Increases the size and number of nozzles on blasters. I would recommend having 1, 3, 5, 10x nozzles and typhoon (N9) settings on the flagship blaster.


(FYI originally posted on Isoaker.net 1 week ago but re-posted here so it will at least get discussed by the community.)
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by DX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:29 am

Two of the nozzles on that Gorgon are drilled. The middle one is around 6-7x I think. At Duelfest, I mainly used that and the quad nozzle, the 10x was only used for a couple close-ins. That said, the 10x does travel about 37ft, the reason not to use it is primarily the low shot time. Output is almost entirely the advantage here. The 10x is the Gorgon's most turbulent nozzle, but there is so much water that it will still hit a Colossus user. Meanwhile, a stock Colossus cannot deliver enough water, even in its quad burst, to make hits at its max range.

More nozzles isn't the answer, more optimized nozzle selection is. I only use one nozzle setting on a stock Gorgon, the quad burst. All the rest are too small and too closely grouped in output. A soaker with multiple nozzles should have a fairly wide range of sizes and ones that are actually useful. The CPS 2500 comes to mind here. While I obviously don't expect a 20x on a medium or 10x on a light primary, there should be greater spread than 4x in 4 nozzles. 3 nozzles is probably best, mainly for memorization. Put the "best" highest range nozzle in the center, so you know to turn left for conservation and turn right for soaking. It would also be great if BBT better standardized its "N#" nozzle system, with each number corresponding to an output in oz, mL, whatever.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

marauder
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Charleston
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by marauder » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:19 am

There is definitely something to be said for output, which I think is the main (that and high pump volume) the 275 performed so well despite not shooting as far as the other blasters. With a larger nozzle, or with 2 nozzles like the 275 has, you may not be able to get many shots off, but when you do actually get into range you are much more likely to get a hit.

A big factor in all of this was time. We could only test so many guns, and honestly I think we could have done more on the final day, but I got panicky about not getting reaccepted to school after being deployed, which turned out to be an easy fix, but we could have fought for another few hours. Note, we only tested the Colossus 2 once where as with most other guns we fought with them multiple times. I'm sure the outcome would have been the same, as evidenced by MOAB and other wars, but still it would have been good to test out. I really like the handling of the Colossus 2 and think that with a pump replacement and a nozzle replacement on the smallest nozzle it could be awesome. I get that that doesn't replace the smaller PC capacity, but I think the biggest issue is pumps per tap shots or tap shots per pump, which factors in output, pump volume, and pc capacity or how quickly power dies down. The 150 excels at this category, and has another intangible factor which is its quick trigger speed, which helps it out a lot.

I'd really like to do another one of these. Not just for testing, but it was really fun actually.

Other tests I want to do:
Blazer vs SC 600
Blazer vs Colossus 2
Blazer vs Colossus
Blazer vs XP 150
Blazer vs XP Pool Pumper Blaster (stock)
XP Pool Pumper Blaster vs Gorgon
XP Pool Pumper Blaster vs XP 250 (if fixed)
XP Pool Pumper Blaster vs XXP 275 (if we can get one)

there's so many more... you can see how this would take a long time. I got my XP Pool Pump Blaster working and it is awesome. I'm actually kind of partial to using the stock nozzle, which is somewhere between 2x and 4x, I think it has a 2.4mm diameter which is usually a 2.5x nozzle, but it's so powerful that the output may be more like 3-4x.
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.

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by the oncoming storm » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:16 pm

Having read them I agree totally with DXs views on nozzle optimization and standardization. Looking at this from a historical standpoint the CPS 4100 comes to mind as an example of optimization of a medium primary offering a good mix of conservation, all around, and drenching nozzles with its 2.5x 4x and 8.5x nozzles. While we as a community would prefer to see the CPS 2700's options on any new medium sized flagship blaster.

For Light blasters I would prefer to see something like the Lightning MK2s options of 1, 2, and 4x as it provides that same mix of raw power and versatility for a smaller capacity blaster.

I acknowledge that in combat a larger PC does not fully compensate for a smaller pump diameter, but within the target audience dictated by the present market pump diameters are currently maxed out and so chamber volume must be used to compensate.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

jja
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by jja » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:18 pm

My preference for nozzle selections:

the main setting optimized for maximum possible range

if the main range setting has short shot (less than 5s) time a more water conserving setting with longer shot time and still good range (95% of main nozzle)

if the main range has longer shot time (greater than 10s) then i would want a thicker more drenching stream with a shot time of say 2s+ and at least 95% the range of the main nozzle

if the main setting has shot time between these value (5-10s) perhaps both a more drenching stream and a more water conserving one would be useful

i also like a nozzle option that provides more area coverage or spread whist still providing decent range (again 80% of the main nozzle) so NOT a fan blast. The N9 setting on the colossus 2 is a good example as it still gets good range. The burst option could also serve as the more drenching option I mentioned earlier.

in general i would like only three settings, any more than that seems unnecessary.

i don't like riot blasts on primaries as they can leave you somewhat defenseless (great for specialized secondaries, but that is beside the point)

i have little personal battle experience with blasters with nozzle selectors but i have fought against a few examples on many occasions. As such i don't know how realistic my ideas are.

EDIT removed value of 80% and changed it to 95% (see next two posts)
Last edited by jja on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
the oncoming storm
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Knoxville Tn
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by the oncoming storm » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:11 pm

JJA it is interesting to hear a novice's thoughts on the matter but I think that the 80% rule is garbage. For example 80% of 40' is a mere 32' a factor which in most of our battles makes it almost impossible to get close enough to bring it to bear. In league combat a blaster with a max range under 90% of a competitor is generally ineffective (source duelfest XP 150 vs Gorgon. and XXP 275 vs Gorgon) and the only notable exception being M4 XXP 275 vs Chief and Firebird with CPS 2000/ 2500's
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity. :oo:

jja
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by jja » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:41 am

I see your point, countering 12m/40' with only 9.7m/32' yourself is indeed ridiculous. I have mentioned in previous threads how a two meter range gap is incredibly hard to counter,so i was not applying my own logic, I just picked 80% plus as it seemed right. On further analysis it is indeed Garbage!

Although the XP 150 only gets 9m of range according to isoaker (i've never used or seen one) but i guess that is competitive despite its mediocre range due to its 70ml pump. I recall it defeating the Colossus 2 at Duelfest with only 75% of the C2s max range, because it pumped faster so could shoot at a higher rate.

i mentioned the N9 burst setting on the colossus 2 as a good example of a burst option, this gets 95.8% of the main nozzles range (12m main 11.5 burst) the C2s thinner stream gets 91.6'% range. In my battles the colossus 2 armed players are often able to hold/stalemate me with my CPS 1000, but i can't recall them doing so with the thinner stream. Only the main stream and occasionally the burst (i think the wind was in their favor during that encounter).

thinking again i feel 95% is a much more practical value. Although i don't know how plausible this from a manufacturing standpoint.
Last edited by jja on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

marauder
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: Charleston
WWN League Team: Havoc
Contact:

Re: What make one AP WW flagship blaster inferior to another?

Post by marauder » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:49 am

Good discussion. Output and shot time do make up for range, but only so much; with output being more important in my opinion. Let's see... that reminds me, why haven't we tested out an SC 600 mk2 in duels? It has a good max range of 37 ft and excellent shot time, not to mention constant pressure. I bested an Explorer with a max range of 39-40 ft with the 600 and think it could hold its own vs several other popular guns. Obviously, the 1000, 1200, 2100, vindicator, gorgon? remains the gold standard, but those blasters aren't always available.


Jja let me introduce you... https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/ and https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/xp150/

iSoaker does off the range in meters, which unfortunately I don't have up; but most of my reviews have stats that are the average of multiple guns. For instance, I've tested 7 XP 150s to get the stats you see on my review.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests