Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:19 am
by isoaker
One of the classical questions when it comes to soaking. All else being equal (size, weight, capacity, cost), which would be more important to you: Range or Soakage/Output?
Vote above and push comments below.
Side note: please avoid considering extreme examples. No point in having a soaker that has huge output but only shot 1 inch or having a soaker that fires for 100+ feet but only delivers a simple droplet of water. For sake of argument, we'll set the lower limit of range at 30' and output at least equivalent to an XP270 (gotta be at least ~1x). Of course, it's a little more complex than that since small streams just cannot physically be pushed farther distances due to wind, stream turblence, air-resistance, etc. and certain outputs cannot be achieved reasonably without potentially doing damage to the soaker-user.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 am
by hunter
Equally important. If you had a gun with a 1oz./sec output but huge range youre screwed, and if you had a gun a riot blast but tiny range your screwed.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:28 am
by Adrian
I voted range. I guess I lean towards the rifleman mentality of old. I'd prefer to nail somebody from 75 feet out, since I know they probably can't hit me from that distance, and I can drench them and be gone by the time they get in close.
Adrian
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:43 am
by isoaker
Me: I'm still a soakage/output fan. While Power (range AND output) rules, so long as a soaker achieves 20'-30', since I tend to do hit'n'runs, greater output ends up working in my favour. Of course, out-ranging someone is nice, but major torso blasts are better IMO.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:38 pm
by soakerman
Power/Output. Just because I am very manuvreable and basically everybody I fight has a gun with a longer range, so I just get in close and drench them.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:06 pm
by isoaker
^ For sake of consistency, try not to mix the terms of Power and Output. Output is just raw volume per second. Power factors in how far the stream actually goes together with the blaster's Output. Thus, if one has high Range but low Output, the effective Power can be equal to a low Range, but high Output soaker. Soakers with both high range and high output would receive a higher Power rating. I do what I can to keep the terms Power and Output distinct. Soakage, on the other hand, seems to be more related to Output from my understanding of how that term came about.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:31 pm
by ANNIHILATOR 2
I'm a soakage(output) dude. Streams from far away can easyly be blocked or dodged, so distance meant squat to me before retiring from water battles. Personaly, I consider sniping or 1Hk games are meant for 40 meters(100+ feet) and up distances. Not a water gun's strength.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:02 pm
by soakerman
For sake of consistency, try not to mix the terms of Power and Output.
Okay, Then I would vote for Output
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:19 pm
by NiborDude
I think both of them are equally important. I find that having decent output can add in a small fear factor. Range can intimidate you as well. I am increasingly moving away from the performance of soakers and more along the lines of how the user uses his weapon.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:18 pm
by perilous
They are both equally important unless if your are playing one hit kills, or you are a sniper, or some other condition like that. Then range is more important. But if you are fighting in closequarters, then soakage/output is more important.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:48 pm
by marauder
I voted range from a personal perspective, but if I was voting as to what's best for a team I would say they are equal. I have the perfect example as I just purchased the Helix and Vaporizer. The Helix can really soak you. At it's acurate range it covers 3.5-8 feet with water. That's awesome. On the other hand the Vaporizer fires a 1x stream up to 37 feet. Do you chose the vaporizer or helix?
Just a few notes here, I find it funny that the vaporizer is designed to be a kid's gun (from the smaller grip, lower price, etc.) yet it's twice as hard to pump as the Helix. When I didn't put much force into pumping it it's range wasn't impressive. On the other hand, when I put my arms into it the vaporizer has great range. In some ways I think it's much more of a veteran's weapon. I don't think I'll have enough CPS weapons (but I'll have a bunch) so I'll give the Vaporizer to someone in the tree fort, probably someone strong. I think it would be pretty devastating. Speaking of devastating if you get within the Helix's range it's pretty much impossible to dodge. You just have to know how to use it right. In last year's Vermin War this guy charged me with one and I was using a CPS 4100. I soaked him before he even got close enough to take a shot at me. My friend's spending the night tommorow and he's bringing his CPS 2000 over. We're gonna have a night battle (my brother and maybe someone else is playing too) and I hope to test out these guns in combat. Expect reviews to follow shortly.
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:50 am
by MilkMan
I voted both equally important. The point of the battle is to soak your opponent(s) as much as possible which makes soakage important but if you have bad range then the other person can soak you while you can't reach them.
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:00 pm
by DX
I voted range. I guess I lean towards the rifleman mentality of old. I'd prefer to nail somebody from 75 feet out, since I know they probably can't hit me from that distance, and I can drench them and be gone by the time they get in close.
My feelings exactly! In today's battle, superior range helped take a fort and 2 hills as well as defend a fort and 2 hills. Superior output only helped after the battle ended, the part when we all soak each other until the guns are empty. But it really depends on what type of wars you have and how well you use your gun. High output is not intimidating when the enemy knows you are wasting water and moves back. However, high range will force them to halt an attack and take cover while you remain out of their range. A skillful user could find ways to work around range disadvantage though, and anyone could find ways to deal with higher output.
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:11 pm
by marauder
Soakage could be more important in ambushes though...
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:56 pm
by cooldood31
From my experience: range beats soakage, water balloons beat range (do to being able to outrange any soaker), and soakage beats water balloons (trying to ward off heavy gunners while only using water balloons doesn't work).
Edited By cooldood31 on 1114556199
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:46 pm
by LtDan64
....crap, now I forget what I voted. 
That probably means I voted "equally important."
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:41 am
by Spinner
cooldood31 wrote:From my experience: range beats soakage, water balloons beat range (do to being able to outrange any soaker), and soakage beats water balloons (trying to ward off heavy gunners while only using water balloons doesn't work).
Sounds like a manual to some RTS game like RoN...but yeah, I agree in the main with that, although there are always exceptions. 
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:46 am
by marauder
Spinner wrote:cooldood31 wrote:From my experience: range beats soakage, water balloons beat range (do to being able to outrange any soaker), and soakage beats water balloons (trying to ward off heavy gunners while only using water balloons doesn't work).
Sounds like a manual to some RTS game like RoN...but yeah, I agree in the main with that, although there are always exceptions.
It sounds like Paper Rock Scissors 
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:52 pm
by Falcon
I personally think range is more important. While a balance between both range and soakage is always crucial, I would choose a 5x blast with a long range over a 10x blast with average range. Any less than about 5x, however, and it becomes too prone stream scattering, being blown off course, etc. So technically what I like in a soaker is a balance between output and range, but I tend to lean towards soakers with range rather than output.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:07 pm
by emperor_james
Well, if you have noticed, the guns from 2003 through the present don't suck because their range is bad, quite the opposite. They suck because they shoot pathetic streams of water. While perhaps there is still some griping, in general the ranges are about the same if not better than the old CPS guns, partially due to the innovation of the Max-D trigger valve. But it is still agreed that these guns are crap because they simply can't deliver enough water quickly. In a 1HK, of course, range might be more important, but IMHO 1HK games are useless anyway because you might as well play Airsoft or Paintball instead, which I do.