WaterWar.net

This topic comes up every now and then, but haven't revisited it for awhile. I'm curious what the current membership thinks in general regarding the ol' skill versus tech debate. Of course, the importance of skill and/or tech is also likely affected by the game type being played. For sake of argument, let's stick to discussing two general game types when it comes to skill vs tech: (1) the soakfest and (2) the OHK game.

In a soakfest, a blaster with larger range and output has a more significant tech advantage in terms of getting an opponent wetter, faster, from a further distance than a less potent blaster. However, skill at dodging and pacing can effectively reduce this advantage, but to what degree?

For OHK games, range is more valuable than output as most decent-sized blasters can fairly quickly create a qualified soak. However, stealth, positioning, and other skills often play just as important or even more so. Do OHK games virtually eliminate any tech advantage or do superior blasters still yield superior results?

Ideas, thoughts, and opinions desired.

I think skill, technology, and the circumstances are all even. I voted that I'm afraid of iSoaker_com.

Edit: I'll give more of a response after some sort of discussion starts... I'm unpacking and don't have much time.

For 1HK games, its all range, speed, and stealth, while for soakfests, other factors such as shot time and output go into how well one can surpress. The SC Power Pak will likely do better than a 12k in a soakfest, and obviously, the 12k will do better than the Power Pak in a 1HK.

Both elements are essential. Someone with an automatic, lightweight, 2-mile range, low recoil, self loading and pressurizing 76mm WBL that shoots 50 balloons per second won't get very far if he/she can't even aim. On the other hand, even Master Chief would have a little trouble getting soaks if he had only a straw and a water bottle. (If he has his suit on, that would count as tech. =p)

But this topic is about which one is more important, not whether you need one or both. In this case, I still stand with skill slightly above tech since the skill part means one will know how to counter tech. Master Chief can get the soak-kills by using cover and keeping enemies in close range, and a skilled team could find a way to sneak up and charge in on the 76mm gunner who doesn't have a clue on how to use cover nor dodge shots. (and who probably can't even redirect the WBL shots to follow those charging in)

Somewhat extreme examples there... 0_o

I don't exactly think of it as a preference of skill or tech. While I do believe that skill is more useful, in my opinion, always go for the best tech possible, even if it means sacrificing your skill, but you'll eventually get used to it. So I did vote for "Need decent tech, but better skills are more important", because it's the closest option to my opinion, but I would prefer something like "Need great tech, and better skill will come with practice".

Interesting opinions thusfar. In terms of options, I would believe that most here would feel that someone armed with great skill and great tech would have the advantage over anyone with only either great skill or great tech, but not both.

Better skills can come with practice, but that's a given.

As well, who ends up succeeding in a water fight ends up on many more factors than beyond skill and tech alone. It also depends on environment, ally (if applicable) tech+skill+coordination, opponent(s) tech+skill+coordination, and good ol' luck, even. The question of this thread is meant to ask whether a realistic individual gains more advantage by developing either their skills or tech a little more than the other since one offers more value for the energy spent.

Put in another way, imagine your idea of a great water warrior with a respectable water blaster (Player Skill) going up against a good water warrior with a great water blaster (Player Tech). While specific scenarios can end up having one win over the other, does one player have a more general advantage and probability of being victor over the other or do you really think it'd be more or less a tie overall?

I voted "Need decent skill, but better tech is more important."

In my opinion, you can be the greatest fighter to ever live, but if you're stuck with a squirt pistol, you're just a sponge--plain and simple. On the other side of things, you can be the worst fighter ever, but as long as you got a good gun, if can make up for that; you could much more easily get someone else wet because your gun can more easily get someone wet! I'm not saying you can't have fun with squirt pistols (Assassins, anyone?); I'm just saying in a typical "tournament-style" war both matter, and I believe that the gun matters slightly more than the user.

I'm thinking sorta about a scale. The scale measures a player's current ability to get other players wet. Let's say you, as a player, have 50 points for skill and your gun has 50 points. That means you have 100 points overall. But let's say that your gun breaks and you have to use a backup worth 10 points. Your total is now 60 points, so you are much less able to make someone else wet. The gun can make or break you; skill comes from experience and takes a long time to develop, but fortunately enough can't change in a second. Your gun can, however, change in a second, so you need a good one to make you better overall. It's simply the easiest thing you can do to improve your ability to soak other people at a whim.

Considering this issue for awhile now, I've come to the following thoughts:

In the absolute overall ideal world, I still believe perfect skill with imperfect tech beats perfect tech with imperfect skill. However, being human, no one is capable of either achieving perfect skill or building perfect tech, thus it's a moot point for now.

In the more realistic realm, the importance of skill versus tech really depends on the game. For free-for-all type soakfests, while skill and aptitude are important, one can often get away with less skill, but better tech in order to achieve more successful soaking. If you have lousy skill or lousy tech, you're likely bound to get hosed no matter what. However, IMO, a decent player with above average tech will gain a soaking advantage versus an above average skilled player with decent tech. If your blaster can push more water out farther per second, even if you miss a little more often, each hit just scores more points which makes it harder for a lesser blaster user to catch up in the long run.

As for OHK/OHS-type games, skill ends up coming out on top just a bit more often than tech. This is simply since a blaster's output and range advantage is reduced or even negated since the game is about the single hit, not overall soakage. So long as a player is using decent equipment, a more skilled player would be better at avoiding being hit by a less skilled one even if the less skilled player had above average performing water blasters. As it only takes a single hit to gain a point, having above average range, output, or capacity does not matter as much as having better aim to score the hit in the first place.

Of course, the environment also plays a role, too.

In open fields with minimal to no cover, better tech generally has the advantage. With nowhere to hide, better performing blasters will show their strength and score more points thanks to better output and range. It would require significantly more skill to outpace an average user using a decent blaster than it would require better tech to make the playing field more level.

However, throw in some trees, bushes, walls, or other places in which one can hide from the onslaught of an incoming stream and tech advantages get notably reduced.

While developing both skill and improving one's tech is always the best option, depending on what type of game one usually is involved in, one might consider developing one slightly more than the other to maximize end results on the field.