Fair comparisons? - ^
In light of a recent discussion at WWc, it got me thinking about tech in water wars. Anyone here attempt to keep water blasters used in battles of roughly equal power/caliber? I understand if most use whatever is available, but if one had more soakers at one's disposal, would you care if some players has significantly more or less powerful soakers than others?
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Yes we did. We'd have pistol-only fights or rifle-only fights. XP or equivalent fights were popular too. Storm or equivalent fights were lots of fun.
I will say that it is approximately 0 fun when you're the only guy on the battlefield with an SC600, and everyone else has something from the Monster Line. That is just no fun.
Adrian
I will say that it is approximately 0 fun when you're the only guy on the battlefield with an SC600, and everyone else has something from the Monster Line. That is just no fun.
Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.
-
Aqua_Flash
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:37 am
To be honest recently the change has been made so everyone uses the exact same soaker for our battles. I only have CPS 1500's and plan to buy a 1700 or two soon depending on price .etc. It works really well when using the same evenly matched guns for me, the 1500/1700 is my favourite gun and offers a great balance of power, soakage, good looks as well as being able to be very mobile with. Besides, the people I battle with love the CPS 1500 because of the features mentioned above which has made battles here the best yet.
Call it boring using the exact same guns, but it works for me and it works for everyone else here. Its just based on style and preference I guess.
Call it boring using the exact same guns, but it works for me and it works for everyone else here. Its just based on style and preference I guess.
I'm curious about those who also add in homemade or modified soakers into the mix. I've used a modded CPS4100 in a battle with other Monster(2001)s and such, but have no first hand experience with homemades.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
cobralex297
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 6:29 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
When I have fights with my friends, we do our best to keep the weapons on a similar level, in terms of power. It just seems to make it more fair that way, so that wins are derived from the skill of the user, not from the power of their gun.
I always supply the weapons for the fights that we have, simply because nobody near me really has any.
I know that if I kept my CPS 2000 or 2500, and then proceeded to set everyone else up with weapons on par with a CPS 1200 or something, there would be much discontent.
We also do have 'heavy fights', 'small(er) arms fights', and 'pistol fights'.
Edited By cobralex297 on 1185206909
I always supply the weapons for the fights that we have, simply because nobody near me really has any.
I know that if I kept my CPS 2000 or 2500, and then proceeded to set everyone else up with weapons on par with a CPS 1200 or something, there would be much discontent.
We also do have 'heavy fights', 'small(er) arms fights', and 'pistol fights'.
Edited By cobralex297 on 1185206909
My homemades have never gotten dominance on the field. I have a WBL that hasn't been really used yet (at least effectively) and a CPH that first lacked a backpack, and now we just aren't bothering with it. For modding, I did a 15-balloon k-mod on my 1000 and 25 balloons on my 1200, plus some random nozzle drills on other guns and that's about as far as it goes. The field also contains pistols, XPish guns, WW's, and other light stream weapons, and there isn't too much of an issue since one can pick up muiltiple blasters easily. As long as the field isn't too open, range balancing isn't terribly much of an issue either unless a player is already really good and wields a high-range gun.
Overall, I've got a flexible battlefield. There have been weapon complaints before, but overall, I feel that it works out most of the time, at least when there's not as many people, which is when everyone can wield something that shoots at least 50ft. Output, drenching, and capacity have become less of an issue ever since we started doing 1HK games, and many (including myself) prefer a 10k or 12k over a 2700. This also makes the FF a slight bit obselete, but at least I've done nozzle drills on all of mine.
Overall, I've got a flexible battlefield. There have been weapon complaints before, but overall, I feel that it works out most of the time, at least when there's not as many people, which is when everyone can wield something that shoots at least 50ft. Output, drenching, and capacity have become less of an issue ever since we started doing 1HK games, and many (including myself) prefer a 10k or 12k over a 2700. This also makes the FF a slight bit obselete, but at least I've done nozzle drills on all of mine.
iSoaker, I find your thread is biased in it's aims and it is doing more to convince people that power differences are unfair than let people express their opinions. Your forum, as the haven for stock water gun people, wouldn't be a completely impartial place to pose this question either.
Anyway, I HAVE had battles with homemade water guns before and quite a wide range of power (WW Lighting all the way up to an APH). No one complained of anything being unfair and the battle wasn't one-sided. In fact, it was a challenging battle from start to finish. This is because what makes a water gun good is not pure power. There are great low power water guns as well as great high power water guns. I'm generally impressed by the Lightning's ability to last in a water fight and I will say even with a backpack I was refilling faster than they were simply due to my homemade water gun's apetite for water. There are advantages and disadvantages to each design, and there ARE big disadvantages to higher power water guns, namely water consumption.
If I knew any water gun that was unfair, I would be interested in it, but I haven't really seen any unfair design as of yet. My larger goal as a builder is to make better water guns as a whole, but it is hard to defeat the simple range vs. output relationship, so all more powerful water guns will have a higher water consumption, reducing their effectiveness.
This entire "fairness" campaign you are heading iSoaker doesn't make sense. It is based upon logical fallacies, namely faulty generalizations. High powered water guns are not necessarily good, and low powered water guns aren't necessarily bad. I'd take an XP 150 into most any battle just like I'd take an APH. Now, I prefer to really soak people, so I use the APH, but there are great water guns of all calibers.
Again, the only way to ensure complete "skill" based competition is to not only make sure everyone uses the same, equal performing water gun, with the same amount of water, but also to equalize peoples' physical ability. I think I could own most 40 year olds due to my athleticism. Is that fair? Beats me.
If someone thinks their use of a less powerful water gun is unfair, they know what to do. They could either use that water guns' strengths or get a more powerful one.
I can only see attempts to limit power to a more narrow range resulting in frustration, problems implementing such a system, and "cheating" both in the literal sense as well as the sense of "cheating" the system. For example, let's say a power-range was put into place. I could relatively easily make a water gun that shoots about 10X to 15X with 60 feet of range that would in fact be less "powerful" in iSoaker's definition of the word. This water gun would be a better choice to use overall because it would have more shot time than the 20X or 30X water guns such as the CPS 2500 and CPS 2000. A more efficient water gun breaks the current definition of power.
The best way to measure "unfairness" would be some objective blaster score that takes more than power into account, something I have not seen yet. This objective measurement would need to take not only blaster performance statistics, but also ergonomic statistics into account based upon the "average" user's ergonomic needs.
In other sports, no one tries to "equalize opportunity" by banning equipment. You don't see professional athletes using anything less than the best equipment usually. Is this unfair? Not really. Paintball fields ban guns not because they are unfair, but because they're too powerful as to be dangerous. No water guns are dangerous even on the level of a more basic paintball gun, even Supercannon II.
Again, I think the entire idea of limiting power to a more narrow range is more trouble than good. I doubt the effectiveness of such a system to create fairness because there are more factors than power in how good a water gun is.
Anyway, I HAVE had battles with homemade water guns before and quite a wide range of power (WW Lighting all the way up to an APH). No one complained of anything being unfair and the battle wasn't one-sided. In fact, it was a challenging battle from start to finish. This is because what makes a water gun good is not pure power. There are great low power water guns as well as great high power water guns. I'm generally impressed by the Lightning's ability to last in a water fight and I will say even with a backpack I was refilling faster than they were simply due to my homemade water gun's apetite for water. There are advantages and disadvantages to each design, and there ARE big disadvantages to higher power water guns, namely water consumption.
If I knew any water gun that was unfair, I would be interested in it, but I haven't really seen any unfair design as of yet. My larger goal as a builder is to make better water guns as a whole, but it is hard to defeat the simple range vs. output relationship, so all more powerful water guns will have a higher water consumption, reducing their effectiveness.
This entire "fairness" campaign you are heading iSoaker doesn't make sense. It is based upon logical fallacies, namely faulty generalizations. High powered water guns are not necessarily good, and low powered water guns aren't necessarily bad. I'd take an XP 150 into most any battle just like I'd take an APH. Now, I prefer to really soak people, so I use the APH, but there are great water guns of all calibers.
Again, the only way to ensure complete "skill" based competition is to not only make sure everyone uses the same, equal performing water gun, with the same amount of water, but also to equalize peoples' physical ability. I think I could own most 40 year olds due to my athleticism. Is that fair? Beats me.
If someone thinks their use of a less powerful water gun is unfair, they know what to do. They could either use that water guns' strengths or get a more powerful one.
I can only see attempts to limit power to a more narrow range resulting in frustration, problems implementing such a system, and "cheating" both in the literal sense as well as the sense of "cheating" the system. For example, let's say a power-range was put into place. I could relatively easily make a water gun that shoots about 10X to 15X with 60 feet of range that would in fact be less "powerful" in iSoaker's definition of the word. This water gun would be a better choice to use overall because it would have more shot time than the 20X or 30X water guns such as the CPS 2500 and CPS 2000. A more efficient water gun breaks the current definition of power.
The best way to measure "unfairness" would be some objective blaster score that takes more than power into account, something I have not seen yet. This objective measurement would need to take not only blaster performance statistics, but also ergonomic statistics into account based upon the "average" user's ergonomic needs.
In other sports, no one tries to "equalize opportunity" by banning equipment. You don't see professional athletes using anything less than the best equipment usually. Is this unfair? Not really. Paintball fields ban guns not because they are unfair, but because they're too powerful as to be dangerous. No water guns are dangerous even on the level of a more basic paintball gun, even Supercannon II.
Again, I think the entire idea of limiting power to a more narrow range is more trouble than good. I doubt the effectiveness of such a system to create fairness because there are more factors than power in how good a water gun is.
-
cobralex297
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 6:29 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
@Ben_:
I may be missing something, however I thought that isoaker started this thread out of curiosity, just having an interest in how people felt about the differences and balance in the power of the weapons that they use.
Again I'll say, I haven't read every single post or thread, but I like to think that I'm at least keeping up with new activity,
...
What is this 'fairness campaign' that you're talking about, Ben_?
This is just being inquisitive, I think, about how people feel about power.
Also, from my experience, or rather, from what I've read and seen displayed on the site, isoaker knows better than most that power isn't everything, I mean, look at the soakers that he uses and talks about keeping out regularly: XP220s, XP215s, blasters like that, these seem to be the ones that he talks about using the most.
Slanted towards extreme stock soaker power? Not in my book...
I may be missing something, however I thought that isoaker started this thread out of curiosity, just having an interest in how people felt about the differences and balance in the power of the weapons that they use.
Again I'll say, I haven't read every single post or thread, but I like to think that I'm at least keeping up with new activity,
...
What is this 'fairness campaign' that you're talking about, Ben_?
This is just being inquisitive, I think, about how people feel about power.
Also, from my experience, or rather, from what I've read and seen displayed on the site, isoaker knows better than most that power isn't everything, I mean, look at the soakers that he uses and talks about keeping out regularly: XP220s, XP215s, blasters like that, these seem to be the ones that he talks about using the most.
Slanted towards extreme stock soaker power? Not in my book...
@cobralex297: don't mind Ben. He's thinking I'm going to use replies by members here as a verification that some think trying to level out tech in a water fight is something worth striving for in a game. I'm actually more curious and I consider the thread at the other forum pretty much dead in terms of that part of the discussion.
@Ben:
Baseball bans corked bats since it makes it much easier to hit a homerun. Also, one can't put other substances onto the baseball as this makes it easier to throw trick pitches. A lot of professional sports also have really specific requirements for things from how many stitches a ball can have to how heavy something can be to qualify for a certain division. In Olympic Sports, everything from the size and weight of a shotput to the length and material a javelin or hurdle height is very specific. In racing, Formula F1 car races don't mix in stock cars or funny cars. In boxing, boxers are split into different divisions based on their overall weight. There are a lot of rules out there that really define what can or cannot be used in various competitive sports.
I had opted to not even bring up potential dangers if a blaster happened to be really powerful and I really don't care whether a blaster brought to a water game is homemade, modded, or stock. In a game where most were using XP110-type blasters, I wouldn't want to include a user armed with a CPS2500. If I were in a game giving everyone small squirt pistols, even an XP110 user would be overkill. I'd also be weary if a blaster held significantly more water than the average in use.
Sidenote: I've read some paintball fields ban fully automatic paintball guns for some or even all of their games while others ban things like paintball flame throwers and paintball mines.
Perhaps I should also ask this question at SSC. I'm mostly curious to see if others have tried what I have done. As for the League, with the notion of "power capping", I leave it to the majority of the rule creators to decide whether or not an option would be included in the rule book. I had and have no intention of bringing up this topic in the League discussion forum again.
@Ben:
In other sports, no one tries to "equalize opportunity" by banning equipment. You don't see professional athletes using anything less than the best equipment usually. Is this unfair? Not really.
Baseball bans corked bats since it makes it much easier to hit a homerun. Also, one can't put other substances onto the baseball as this makes it easier to throw trick pitches. A lot of professional sports also have really specific requirements for things from how many stitches a ball can have to how heavy something can be to qualify for a certain division. In Olympic Sports, everything from the size and weight of a shotput to the length and material a javelin or hurdle height is very specific. In racing, Formula F1 car races don't mix in stock cars or funny cars. In boxing, boxers are split into different divisions based on their overall weight. There are a lot of rules out there that really define what can or cannot be used in various competitive sports.
Paintball fields ban guns not because they are unfair, but because they're too powerful as to be dangerous. No water guns are dangerous even on the level of a more basic paintball gun, even Supercannon II.
I had opted to not even bring up potential dangers if a blaster happened to be really powerful and I really don't care whether a blaster brought to a water game is homemade, modded, or stock. In a game where most were using XP110-type blasters, I wouldn't want to include a user armed with a CPS2500. If I were in a game giving everyone small squirt pistols, even an XP110 user would be overkill. I'd also be weary if a blaster held significantly more water than the average in use.
Sidenote: I've read some paintball fields ban fully automatic paintball guns for some or even all of their games while others ban things like paintball flame throwers and paintball mines.
Perhaps I should also ask this question at SSC. I'm mostly curious to see if others have tried what I have done. As for the League, with the notion of "power capping", I leave it to the majority of the rule creators to decide whether or not an option would be included in the rule book. I had and have no intention of bringing up this topic in the League discussion forum again.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Cobralex, I would suggest reading this recent thread at WWN for background: http://waterwarfare.com/forums/index.ph ... =229&st=25
Perhaps I came across too negatively, but I know for a fact that he wasn't "just wondering." It came from earlier discussion.
I know that he knows that power isn't everything. However, what he wants to ban as "unfair" only are more powerful water guns. I've brought this up time after time and I haven't even seen a decent reply to this point. Why not ban GOOD OVERALL water guns instead of only powerful water guns? As I said at WWC, a ban of mainly powerful water guns through a "power cap" is particularly targeted.
As for iSoaker being "Slanted towards extreme stock soaker power," I don't think saying that would be an exageration judging by what he has said. I don't think he'll deny it either.
Comparing use of more powerful water guns to corked bats, faster cars, lighter shotputs, weight classes for boxing, steroids, or whatever you want to compare them to is ignorant. The difference is FAR less than that. Is an extra 10 feet of range a serious advantage? The answer is no.
Anyway, I do want to say that "harder" things change the variables a lot. One of my good friends is a state champion discus and shotput thrower. He's different than most throwers though. He's not huge and ripped like most are. He has a lot of power as in ability to exert a lot of force in a short period of time. He's been planning ahead and he needs to do a lot more weight lifting to perform as well in college. Some throwers don't do too good in high school but perform great in college simply becasue the college shot is heavier. It's the combination of strength and power that matters, and the college shot changes the entire game up. I think water guns are a lot like this because you need to have different strengths to use more powerful water guns more effectively.
And to answer something I forgot to before, I am not against power capping because it would affect my water gun choices. I am against power capping by principle. I would argue against power capping regardless of what my choices would be. The thought that more powerful water guns are unfair is simply ignorant to what really makes water guns good. You don't see me using my Supercannon II in battle. I would get perhaps two big shots out and then I'd have to RUN. Many factors aside from power contribute a lot to make a good water gun.
Perhaps I came across too negatively, but I know for a fact that he wasn't "just wondering." It came from earlier discussion.
Also, from my experience, or rather, from what I've read and seen displayed on the site, isoaker knows better than most that power isn't everything, I mean, look at the soakers that he uses and talks about keeping out regularly: XP220s, XP215s, blasters like that, these seem to be the ones that he talks about using the most.
I know that he knows that power isn't everything. However, what he wants to ban as "unfair" only are more powerful water guns. I've brought this up time after time and I haven't even seen a decent reply to this point. Why not ban GOOD OVERALL water guns instead of only powerful water guns? As I said at WWC, a ban of mainly powerful water guns through a "power cap" is particularly targeted.
As for iSoaker being "Slanted towards extreme stock soaker power," I don't think saying that would be an exageration judging by what he has said. I don't think he'll deny it either.
Baseball bans corked bats since it makes it much easier to hit a homerun. Also, one can't put other substances onto the baseball as this makes it easier to throw trick pitches. A lot of professional sports also have really specific requirements for things from how many stitches a ball can have to how heavy something can be to qualify for a certain division. In Olympic Sports, everything from the size and weight of a shotput to the length and material a javelin or hurdle height is very specific. In racing, Formula F1 car races don't mix in stock cars or funny cars. In boxing, boxers are split into different divisions based on their overall weight. There are a lot of rules out there that really define what can or cannot be used in various competitive sports.
Comparing use of more powerful water guns to corked bats, faster cars, lighter shotputs, weight classes for boxing, steroids, or whatever you want to compare them to is ignorant. The difference is FAR less than that. Is an extra 10 feet of range a serious advantage? The answer is no.
Anyway, I do want to say that "harder" things change the variables a lot. One of my good friends is a state champion discus and shotput thrower. He's different than most throwers though. He's not huge and ripped like most are. He has a lot of power as in ability to exert a lot of force in a short period of time. He's been planning ahead and he needs to do a lot more weight lifting to perform as well in college. Some throwers don't do too good in high school but perform great in college simply becasue the college shot is heavier. It's the combination of strength and power that matters, and the college shot changes the entire game up. I think water guns are a lot like this because you need to have different strengths to use more powerful water guns more effectively.
And to answer something I forgot to before, I am not against power capping because it would affect my water gun choices. I am against power capping by principle. I would argue against power capping regardless of what my choices would be. The thought that more powerful water guns are unfair is simply ignorant to what really makes water guns good. You don't see me using my Supercannon II in battle. I would get perhaps two big shots out and then I'd have to RUN. Many factors aside from power contribute a lot to make a good water gun.
However, what he wants to ban as "unfair" only are more powerful water guns.
Only from certain games, not all.
As I noted before, pistol-only games, XP-caliber games, CPS-based games are game types I've enjoyed. I can't set-up an XP-caliber game without banning squirt pistols and CPS-caliber soaker users from joining. I have not and would never argue for a permanent ban against any uber-powerful soaker (particularly if I got to use the uber-powerful soaker
).However, that said, I have also enjoyed plenty of games with more closely balanced blasters as opposed to simply anything goes. I should hope that seeing if others enjoy such games, too, is okay.
Edit: I should say the part of the point of capping *IS* to affect someone's choice of blaster. It is meant also to perhaps get someone to use something either less or more powerful than they may typically use or prefer.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
I've seen wars and skirmishes with guns as varied as balloons-only, hoses, XP 220, Monster XL, APR 3000, and the Furry 21K across 3/4 of battlefield types and across all four game families. My findings on fairness are similar to Ben's, however, often for different reasons.
In the Battle of the Four Corners, Waterbridge had the best stock/modded mix they've ever fielded, against an outnumbered RM with the usual stock/modded mix. Did this cause a more fair fight? No way in hell. Waterbridge never led the war and only managed the tie because we made mistakes.
In the Battle of the Fallen Limbs, the RM had a severe tech advantage and an extra person. Did we get the corresponding victory? No way in hell. That war was a fiercely fought 2-3 loss, actually one of the most even wars we've had.
In more casual early skirmishes, before these teams, I was always outclassed. Why complain when you can use an MD 6000 better than a neighbor can use their CPS 1700?
My team has access to the most powerful water guns on earth if we choose. But we don't use homemades in wars. We flock to mid-size K-modded guns for the power-to-size ratio. That is more important in our fighting style than power itself. A homemade may one day return to the hardcore battlefield, but so far I'd still choose my 12K. The strengths of a homemade are output, capacity, pc shot time, and sometimes range. The strengths of a modded gun are range, stream speed, conservation, and versatility. Homemades are natural soaking weapons, but modded guns are natural killing weapons. In a soakfest, I wouldn't reach for my 12k since its strengths are not optimal for that game.
What does all this add up to in terms of power-ranges? I am not fond of the idea of a power-range or cap, but I don't have the right to impose my view upon someone else who may like them. There's a difference between persuading, arguing, asserting, and imposing. Imposing a view, whether in the physical realm or mental realm, is a step down a very dark and dangerous road. I'd also still attend a war with a range/cap, since I am a warrior first and techie second. Fighting is still the aspect of water warfare that I am here for. If you think I'm less dangerous with a stock gun, think again! :p
Honestly, I'm sick of all this. You're [both Ben and iSoaker] alienating the rest of the community, which does not want to see this argument. They come here to talk about water gun wars. They do not understand this argument fully and do not wish to see it continue.
In the Battle of the Four Corners, Waterbridge had the best stock/modded mix they've ever fielded, against an outnumbered RM with the usual stock/modded mix. Did this cause a more fair fight? No way in hell. Waterbridge never led the war and only managed the tie because we made mistakes.
In the Battle of the Fallen Limbs, the RM had a severe tech advantage and an extra person. Did we get the corresponding victory? No way in hell. That war was a fiercely fought 2-3 loss, actually one of the most even wars we've had.
In more casual early skirmishes, before these teams, I was always outclassed. Why complain when you can use an MD 6000 better than a neighbor can use their CPS 1700?
My team has access to the most powerful water guns on earth if we choose. But we don't use homemades in wars. We flock to mid-size K-modded guns for the power-to-size ratio. That is more important in our fighting style than power itself. A homemade may one day return to the hardcore battlefield, but so far I'd still choose my 12K. The strengths of a homemade are output, capacity, pc shot time, and sometimes range. The strengths of a modded gun are range, stream speed, conservation, and versatility. Homemades are natural soaking weapons, but modded guns are natural killing weapons. In a soakfest, I wouldn't reach for my 12k since its strengths are not optimal for that game.
What does all this add up to in terms of power-ranges? I am not fond of the idea of a power-range or cap, but I don't have the right to impose my view upon someone else who may like them. There's a difference between persuading, arguing, asserting, and imposing. Imposing a view, whether in the physical realm or mental realm, is a step down a very dark and dangerous road. I'd also still attend a war with a range/cap, since I am a warrior first and techie second. Fighting is still the aspect of water warfare that I am here for. If you think I'm less dangerous with a stock gun, think again! :p
Honestly, I'm sick of all this. You're [both Ben and iSoaker] alienating the rest of the community, which does not want to see this argument. They come here to talk about water gun wars. They do not understand this argument fully and do not wish to see it continue.
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
I have only been replying to whatever iSoaker posts. I definitely agree with you DX that this has gone on for too long. At this point, I am only reiterating points I made earlier. In fact, I had no intention to post further aside from a reply at SSC.
iSoaker, if you truly think power bans in some games are fair, I can't stop you. I'm not here to impose anything on anyway. I'm only here to explain why I'm opposed. Here's my final question for you: Why not focus on more than power?
iSoaker, if you truly think power bans in some games are fair, I can't stop you. I'm not here to impose anything on anyway. I'm only here to explain why I'm opposed. Here's my final question for you: Why not focus on more than power?
@DX and Ben: the WWc "discussion" left me wondering whether I may be the only crazy one out there who routinely employs a form of power capping/moderating in a water war. Thus, I was curious whether others even considered such a thing, thus made this thread.
This thread was just to get members' feedback on whether or not they have ever used some sort of scheme that limits or affects the choices of blasters participants can use. As a person, it's nice to know that some others share a similar opinion when setting up their own games.
That said, this thread was NOT created to build an argument for use at WWc (though I do understand where the misconception may lie). The responses also should not affect those who do not wish to use such capping in their own games, feeling that the terrain or blaster capabilities, themselves, serve as a natural cap, per se. Responses here should have no bearing on whatever the League wishes to set up in its own guidelines.
I am sad to see the argument come here, but I was more curious about other members' thoughts. There really should be no argument in this thread as we should simply talking about how people organize their own games, not whether one method is better or worse than the other.
As for alienating the community, I should hope the community is not so easily turned away.
@Ben: in terms of focussing on more than power, I also noted total blaster capacity in an earlier post as another soaker attribute I keep an eye on. I'd consider potentially seeing how a "weight when full" limit works out in a game as opposed to a power cap as this would see whether people could use and/or build more powerful soakers with less excess weight while needing to leave enough allowance for the capacity. Other game types I've used are also fixed-amount-of-water (i.e. everyone gets access to 10L or so). I had attempted to set-up a game of soakers that fired roughly equal in range, but dealing primarily with stock soakers, most of the blasters used tended to fire within a 5' difference of the next.
This thread was just to get members' feedback on whether or not they have ever used some sort of scheme that limits or affects the choices of blasters participants can use. As a person, it's nice to know that some others share a similar opinion when setting up their own games.
That said, this thread was NOT created to build an argument for use at WWc (though I do understand where the misconception may lie). The responses also should not affect those who do not wish to use such capping in their own games, feeling that the terrain or blaster capabilities, themselves, serve as a natural cap, per se. Responses here should have no bearing on whatever the League wishes to set up in its own guidelines.
I am sad to see the argument come here, but I was more curious about other members' thoughts. There really should be no argument in this thread as we should simply talking about how people organize their own games, not whether one method is better or worse than the other.
As for alienating the community, I should hope the community is not so easily turned away.
@Ben: in terms of focussing on more than power, I also noted total blaster capacity in an earlier post as another soaker attribute I keep an eye on. I'd consider potentially seeing how a "weight when full" limit works out in a game as opposed to a power cap as this would see whether people could use and/or build more powerful soakers with less excess weight while needing to leave enough allowance for the capacity. Other game types I've used are also fixed-amount-of-water (i.e. everyone gets access to 10L or so). I had attempted to set-up a game of soakers that fired roughly equal in range, but dealing primarily with stock soakers, most of the blasters used tended to fire within a 5' difference of the next.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 52 guests