We expect too much from soakers now!

[cooldood31]

This is something I've been meaning to bring up for quite some time. Everyone is in this rush for power, because they don't have the skill to win any other way. After the firepower reaches a certain level, the fun leaves (along with whatever trace of skill there was left), and it all becomes a game of 'who can pull the trigger first. The same issue can be seen elsewhere: the BPS issue in paintball, and the range issue in Nerf. I've started using smaller soakers, and putting power caps on some battles (nothing rated over 150 mLs per second) and it's been a lot more fun. More running, more crazy stunts, and more skill involved.

As for saying the '05 guns suck, they only suck if you don't have the skill to use them. And have you guys been looking anywhere but hasbro? Buzz Bee has been making great stuff for a while now. Comparing something like the Argon to something like a cps2000, sure the cps is gonna be more powerfull, but the Argon is a much nicer gun (lighter, smoother pump stroke, MORE CONSTANT STREAM). It's like comparing a Spyder to a KP2.

If you don't like what the companies are making, you have 3 choices
1. go cry to all the other people on a forum and degrade the level of conversation (seems to be what's been happening around here recently)
2. Get some SKILL and just use them (in case you've forgotten what skill is, you can find the definition in a dictionary)
3. Get up spend a bit of time and make one. Than you can make a soaker that you acually have enough skill to wield well.

[SSCBen]

I don't see any value in the argument that people are in a "rush for power, because they don't have the skill to win any other way", at least at this forum. That's quite a generalization there, though I would say that it's true for the vast majority of water gun users. You fail to realize however that everyone here is from the most dedicated to water gunning that there are. With dedication usually comes ability and skill.

Something that also doesn't make sense to me is how smaller guns require more skill. If anything, smaller guns should require less skill. They are lighter, which essentially means that you have to carry less. They are slower to fire, which would give your opponents more response time. There's some sense in the argument that less range requires one to get closer to an opponent to fire, but that's all relative - if the range for all guns was extended then it would be essentially the same situation.

Also, guns that fire faster and get better range require your opponents to do much more moving and dodging. Dodging a stream of 3X output or less is far easier than dodging a larger stream traveling faster! This is simple, which is why I don't see any merit in your argument.

There are many great smaller water guns, though nothing could compare to what could be obtained in all water guns and will be eventually obtained in homemade water guns. The main thing that makes all water guns equal essentially is reload time - the time between shots and the time your are replenishing your water reservoir. This makes water fights a constant game of fire and retreat, hit and run! Larger guns have their disadvantages and so do smaller guns. We're all vulnurable between shots and everyone takes advantage of that.

I will agree with you on one thing though - I don't have any respect for those who complain but don't do anything about it. Things don't always get better by themselves, so you have to try at least to make a change.

[DX]

Wow, I missed a lot when I was in Maine. I don't know where to begin, so I'll summarize and make a longer post tomorrow.

I think we do not expect too much, it is you whom are willing to accept too little.

We have the power to take matters into our own hands. For me, modding and building has nothing to do with greed for power or lack of skill.

Everyone is in this rush for power, because they don't have the skill to win any other way. After the firepower reaches a certain level, the fun leaves (along with whatever trace of skill there was left), and it all becomes a game of 'who can pull the trigger first.

I really beg to differ. A n00b with a powerful gun will get swept aside. A veteran with a powerful gun will rule the field. You MUST have skill to use your power effectively. If you still doubt me, I'm available for a duel 7 days a week. :laugh:

More powerful guns create the need for more advanced tactics. As the engagement distance becomes greater, it becomes harder to score kills. You have to be creative, make something up on the spot, create ways to use long range/ output to your advantage or make your enemy's superior firepower backfire for them via other tactics.

Poorly written, but I have to go now, I've got much more to say later when I have time.



Edited By Duxburian on 1129029889

[marauder]

Comparing something like the Argon to something like a cps2000, sure the cps is gonna be more powerfull, but the Argon is a much nicer gun (lighter, smoother pump stroke, MORE CONSTANT STREAM)

That's almost laughable. The CPS 2000 OWNS. Unless you're a complete greeny the CPS 2000 is obviously the better choice. The argon might be lighter, but I seriously don't see how anyone older than 15 would have any problem running with a CPS 2000. I think the CPS 2000 is pretty light. I have no problem running a mile with it. I do agree the Argon has a smooth pump, but the CPS 2000 has a smooth pump too, have you ever used it? As for your last remark "More constant stream", where in the world have you been? The CPS 2000 has a great constant stream.

I really beg to differ. A n00b with a powerful gun will get swept aside. A veteran with a powerful gun will rule the field. You MUST have skill to use your power effectively. If you still doubt me, I'm available for a duel 7 days a week. :laugh:

Wow, I've really believed this all along. It feels so good to hear someone agree with me. You can give an XP 70 to a ten year old, and a CPS 3200 to a ten year old and the XP 70 user will own the battlefield. However, if you give those guns to adults or teenagers the CPS 3200 will more than likely annihilate his opponent unless they are a complete n00b. There are certain guns that n00bs should use, and certain guns they should not use. If someone comes to a war without a gun and doesn't have any experience I usually give them something like a Supercharger, or XP. One funny thing I noted this year was how n00bs and younger kids aren't very effective when given a Vaporizer, while veterans can be fairly deadly when using one (at least at 25-35 feet). I find that funny because the gun costs under $5, so you'd think that it would be a gun for little kids, but I have found they don't have the arm strength required to use the gun properly.



Edited By marauder_4 on 1129039472

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

Everyone is in this rush for power, because they don't have the skill to win any other way.

That was the point i was trying to make earlier, if were good we could win with a weaker gun.

A n00b with a powerful gun will get swept aside.

I have heard this "a veteran with a weak gun can beat a n00b with a strong gun" stuff before. That may be true in 1hk, but not in soakfests.



Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1129922042

[Some Guy]

I have heard this "a veteran with a weak gun can beat a n00b with a strong gun" stuff before. That may be true in 1hk, but not in soakfests since they don't require advanced tactics.

I've had a soakfest fight between me with a Liquidator and a n00b with a 2100 and I won easily. He had no concept of pumping, then shooting and used it as a piston. I just stood out of range and fired from there.

Everyone is in this rush for power, because they don't have the skill to win any other way. After the firepower reaches a certain level, the fun leaves (along with whatever trace of skill there was left), and it all becomes a game of 'who can pull the trigger first.

Then it becomes even harder tactically. You would have to figure out how to avoid being in a position to be shot at, while luring the enemy into a place where you have the element of surprise, so you can shoot first. If you were playing someone good, they'd be doing the same.



Edited By Some Guy on 1129071529

[DX]

That may be true in 1hk, but not in soakfests since they don't require advanced tactics.

That ^ statement was a 180 degree turn from your prior stance on Soakfests. I remember things like that.
Anyway,

I'll repeat my earlier point: We do not expect too much, it is you whom are willing to accept too little.

Companies can't and won't put in the power, range, output, and other stats that we should be able to have. They are severely limited by a huge variety of factors and restrictions, resulting in often severely scaled back and dumbed down water guns. If you want the quality we deserve, don't look at the companies for that. The power is completely in your hands. Whether you decide to use it or not is your personal choice. If not, then you have no right to complain. You have done nothing about it.

At the present moment, I still prefer modding to homemades, and only because it takes more time, money and energy to build than mod. Also, you can still get more power and range by modding for the purposes of battle practicality. I have no battle-practical homemades that can reach the ranges that my Integration modded guns have the potential to reach. Of course, I am deeply embedded in both forms of Tech and would rather not be stuck with stock guns in a fight.

Anyway, I really prefer fighting from long range, which gives a more challenging and authentic serious 1HK war. Engaging from like 30ft or less feels very n00bish to me, unless it is necessary based on tactics or the current situation. While I don't expect stock guns to shoot 70, I do expect to be able to mod to 70 and beyond. An experienced commander with speed, fast reflexes, a fairly small and light gun that can shoot over 60ft at double the normal stream speed, and sharp tactical sense is someone to be feared. Why settle for less, when you can be even more effective with more? A veteran with a weak gun can win, but he must struggle every inch of the way and fight the odds as well as the enemy. With a stronger gun, you can take the initiative, crucial to winning the battle, and gain momentum early and hold it for longer. This is mainly a factor against another veteran enemy or team. Tech can make the difference between victory or defeat in such a situation. Basically, putting more power in your gun can help your influence on the mechanics of a war if you already have the skill to execute the enhanced abilities that gun makes available.

And for the millionth time, safety in water wars is disgustingly overhyped. I've had a trigger valve blow out on me, and the worst that happened was a bit of a soaking through the holes. Even modded nozzles don't hurt that much, even at point blank. It isn't like a normal stream, but it isn't dangerous either. Any stream can do eye damage, so that is not a valid point. A head shot with a modded gun is the same as with a stock gun if it hits your eyes.

The vast majority of those who complain about modded/homemade safety and or "unfairness" or "greed" have never actually built or modded, or don't want to. For those of you who hate Tech, well it's not going anywhere anytime soon. The frontiers will pass you by, and stock models will continue to be judged weaker as modifieds and homemades get stronger and better stats are achieved. Innovation will always continue, improvements will always be found/discovered, regardless of what the big companies decide. We as individuals are not enslaved to those decisions. But it sure seems like it from what I've seen so far.

[cooldood31]

I guess it all comes down to the catagories of skill and preference. Having the skill to use a 'weapon' properly, and the preference of type/size of 'weapon'. The problem is, that often times those who have little skill, choose to use heavier 'weapons' for the handicap of their soaking ability. Also, the 2000 may be a powerful longrange 'gun', but also features low shot time and lessened mobility, two features which I rate very highly when choosing a 'weapon', thus, the argon is the more obvious choice for me. On a more basic level, IN MY OPINION, the Argon is more fun to use.

Another idea brought up is that "a veteran with a powerful gun will rule the field". But as Doom has said, both types of guns (large and small) have their own advantages and dissadvantages, which in essance makes the two classes equal. If this is true, if you gave two equally skilled veterans soakers with equal yet opposite statistics, the outcome of a battle between the two would logically be a tie.

The key point of this disscussion, is that people should quit whining, and find an alternate solution to the "problem" of large soakers no longer being produced.

[marauder]

Anyway, I really prefer fighting from long range, which gives a more challenging and authentic serious 1HK war. Engaging from like 30ft or less feels very n00bish to me, unless it is necessary based on tactics or the current situation. While I don't expect stock guns to shoot 70, I do expect to be able to mod to 70 and beyond. An experienced commander with speed, fast reflexes, a fairly small and light gun that can shoot over 60ft at double the normal stream speed, and sharp tactical sense is someone to be feared. Why settle for less, when you can be even more effective with more? A veteran with a weak gun can win, but he must struggle every inch of the way and fight the odds as well as the enemy. With a stronger gun, you can take the initiative, crucial to winning the battle, and gain momentum early and hold it for longer. This is mainly a factor against another veteran enemy or team. Tech can make the difference between victory or defeat in such a situation. Basically, putting more power in your gun can help your influence on the mechanics of a war if you already have the skill to execute the enhanced abilities that gun makes available.

I agree with everything you said on veterans/n00bs and different types of guns, so I'm not going to get into that. I do however, dissagree with you on the whole battling within 30 feet statement that you made. It takes skill to get in close without being seen. I'm not talking about running around already detected at 30 feet, I'm talking about ambushes. When the Vermin Wars were based off of the poitns system (2 for a kill, -1 for a loss, 10 for a flag capture...) we had a special type of kill called the close quarter. If you were able to sneak up to someone and stick your nozzle on their back without them seeing you there then you eliminated them and got 50 points for your team. Only one person was ever able to do this, and he is in Marine Bootcamp right now. That is not n00bish at all. What about night battles? Two and a half years ago for my 16th birthday two of my best friends, my brother, and I had some killer night battles. There was no moon out, and in one battle I called it off after an hour and a half because it was dragging out so much. Apparently we were within 15 feet of eachother when I did this, we had heard eachother, but we weren't quite sure we were there because we had hidden so well. That's not very n00bish evither.

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

The vast majority of those who complain about modded/homemade safety and or "unfairness" or "greed" have never actually built or modded, or don't want to.

I once was one of those people who would complain and do nothing. But then i finaly overcame my fear of breaking guns while modding. That fear was what kept me from modding before.

Getting back on topic though, it takes more skill to win with a gun with less range than a gun with more range. If anything more range means it takes less skill to win.





Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1129921866

[Some Guy]

I've decided that the two oponions are both right in one way or another. It all just depends on your definitions of "skills".

If by skill you mean tactics, then yes longer range means that you will need more of it. You will not be able to depend on you seeing the opponent, or them seeing you in order to fire. Maneuvers from both sides are more necessary and less obvious on both sides. And finally yo ujust need more organization.

If by skill you mean personal variables such as strength, speed, dodging, stealth, etc. then 30- engagements would need more of that. Since everyone can return fire, and have good aim, then you need to dodge, and outrun the opponenets. Since they can see what you're doing tactics will not really be necessary, so victory may depend on who can pressurize their gun the fastest, or who can be hit the least.

I'm not saying that you don't need the other emphasis in either (as in no 2nd definition skills in longrange), just that depending on the game style it is more emphasized on the other.

I do prefer longrange though because it puts more emphasis on tech and tactics. Formations, flanking, and modding are just really what I find more enjoyable.



Edited By Some Guy on 1129218007

[cooldood31]

I dissagree with what's being said about less need for tactics in close range battles. It often takes more than raw speed and agility to get in close.

[DX]

Sorry for the lack of clarity, but when I meant getting in close felt n00bish, I meant the typical "just stand there and shoot from close range." Close quarters ambushing and other stealthy kills from point-blank range are very advanced.

And I still think that long range fighting requires more tactics. You need to manuever and use the whole battlefield against your enemy, whether it be by turning the distances, defensive positions, or bottleneck spots into advantages for your side. Long range fighting opens up both the long and short range strategies, as you can go either way when you're out long. In short range fighting, your only choice is more short range fighting unless you are willing to disengage, retreat, etc. Long range also puts more emphasis on how you get on the scoreboard rather than just the final result. 5-2, for example, is a huge lead if all fighting is done from long distance. 5-2 is a fair lead if it's all close quarters. Close quarters often produces more kills in a shorter amount of time, which can be a good thing or a bad thing. You could rack up several kills in rapid succession, or vice versa.

Long range also requires a bit more endurance. You may have to travel upwards of a mile [sometimes running the whole way] in order to execute or setup one manuever.

Anyway,

If this is true, if you gave two equally skilled veterans soakers with equal yet opposite statistics, the outcome of a battle between the two would logically be a tie.

And so upping the caliber of your arsenal can present you with an edge. You do not automatically get the boost. You still have to know how to use an advantage effectively. Every offensive or defensive move has an effective counter. Each counter has a counter, and so on. A vet fighting another vet whom has a better gun will lose probably 7 out of every 10 times.

[isoaker]

IMO, it all ends up coming down to what type of gameplay each eprson does which reflects on he type of soakers and soaker-characteristics one desires.

That said, I'm sort of wondering whether defining types of games and placing more specific rules will help newcomers identify what type of soakers they'd prefer. I'd like to think of it akin to differentiating badminton from tennis. Both sports use racquets on a court hitting the bird/ball across the net, but since certain aspects are fixed, it forces the players to improve their skill as their equipment ends up more restricted (does that make any sense?).

Of course, many want flexibility in what type of water war games they play. However, this 'argument' is actually more moot than anything since opinions are really based on style of play and definitions of ideal battles.

[Ultor_Solis]

I want to say that it's okay to be dissatisfied with the current soakers on the market; but the only thing that's going to help it it taking action. I'm not saying that it's going to change the world, but anything's better than just complaining.

[cooldood31]

"And so upping the caliber of your arsenal can present you with an edge" WTF? That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that a vet with a decent light soaker has the same chance of winning as a vet with a heavy soaker if the two were to duel. (if you don't like my theorie, try and prove me wrong)

"a better gun" It's all perspective. Does having more soaking power make a better soaker, or does being light, and compact? I like my splashzooka and my argon more than my 2100 and MX, does that make them better 'guns'?

"Sorry for the lack of clarity, but when I meant getting in close felt n00bish, I meant the typical "just stand there and shoot from close range." Close quarters ambushing and other stealthy kills from point-blank range are very advanced." And what about dodging large cps streams at close range while trying to get in the shot at less than 30 feet? Do you honestly think people with a fire power dissadvantage would just stand there? It's practically suicide. "Short range" isn't always synonymous (spelling?) with "sitting duck".



Edited By cooldood31 on 1129240004

[DX]

I'm saying that a vet with a decent light soaker has the same chance of winning as a vet with a heavy soaker if the two were to duel. (if you don't like my theorie, try and prove me wrong)

When skill is equal, the more powerful gun would win most of the time. That has come out in many of my wars.

"a better gun" It's all perspective. Does having more soaking power make a better soaker, or does being light, and compact? I like my splashzooka and my argon more than my 2100 and MX, does that make them better 'guns'?

You know what I mean when I say "better gun." Whatever gun has the advantage for that specific situation.

"Sorry for the lack of clarity, but when I meant getting in close felt n00bish, I meant the typical "just stand there and shoot from close range." Close quarters ambushing and other stealthy kills from point-blank range are very advanced." And what about dodging large cps streams at close range while trying to get in the shot at less than 30 feet? Do you honestly think people with a fire power dissadvantage would just stand there? It's practically suicide. "Short range" isn't always synonymous (spelling?) with "sitting duck".

Yet they often do just stand there! I wouldn't mention it if it didn't happen. And, IMO, it is pretty easy to dodge a CPS stream, even at close range. Stock streams travel very slowly and you can dodge and return fire in one motion.

[cooldood31]

"Yet they often do just stand there!" Wow. The people you play with must be fairly stupid.

"When skill is equal, the more powerful gun would win most of the time. That has come out in many of my wars." on the basis that light and heavy soakers are equal with different weaknesses and strengths, in your wars the skills of the players must not be equal (probably has something to do with them standing there like you said they do).

[Some Guy]

"And so upping the caliber of your arsenal can present you with an edge" WTF? That's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that a vet with a decent light soaker has the same chance of winning as a vet with a heavy soaker if the two were to duel. (if you don't like my theorie, try and prove me wrong)

Okay, let's put it this way, if one cannot fire and hit he/she will lose. If the person with the heavy soaker is smart he/she will not allow the person with the light one to be in range of him. This however, does not mean that the person with the heavy soaker is out of range to fire at the one with the light.

And since this post was so havily edited the post below came up after it, but what I am about say (about it) doesn't really need a new post.

And probably me, too. I like to know abit about who I'm posting about before I post.



Edited By Some Guy on 1129252639

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

Wow. The people you play with must be fairly stupid.

They're not stupid! The people he plays with have more skill and battle experience than both you and me combined.