Adjusting the iSoaker.com Rating System

[isoaker]

The current system used at iSoaker.com is rates four attributes of water blasters, namely:
Power
Burden/ Encumbrance
Capacity
Overall

The system is ok, but is somewhat confusing to some, especially the Burden/Encumbrance rating (is 100 mean it's heavy or does 100 mean it's the best blaster in that capacity).

To hopefully help clarify things, I plan on replacing the Burden/Encumbrance rating with a "Mobility" rating. Heavier or unwieldy blasters will be given lower Mobility ratings while lighter or better balanced blasters will be rated higher. That would make that stat fall in line with the others in that a rating of "100" means the best rating, not the worst, for the category.

The bigger change I'm considering (haven't decided yet) is whether to change the Power and Capacity ratings to numbers based on ALL blasters, not just blasters of a similar size. While this means that small blasters will end up with significantly lower numbers for Power ratings, the problem with the current rating system is that, well, blasters of similar sizes tend to perform generally similarly and that there ends up not being much of a ratings difference, but it becomes somewhat misleading if someone is looking at a CPS1000 with a current Power rating of 90 and thinking, "Hey, that's only 10 points better than the Water Warriors Viper (Power rating: 80)". In a new system, the Water Warriors Viper's Power rating would end up being ~20 or 25 (depending on the other numbers I see for various blasters) while the CPS1000 would probably be tweaked to 80. I should be careful, though, with my own terminology since iSoaker.com does provide a computed "Power Rating" beside nozzle stats that is calculated based on actual measured outputs and ranges. The iSoaker.com Power Rating subjective stat would be based on the calculated one, but tweaked a bit since few blasters have calculated Power Ratings over 40 due to the sheer power of the CPS 2000 (that's given a Power Rating of 100). Most here would probably already be quite happy with blasters performing like CPS1500s that get power ratings of 29 and 22.5 for its two nozzles.

Of course, the problem with rating based on all blasters is that all small blasters end up with rather low iSoaker.com Power Ratings. That said, I am less concerned about this since, well, smaller blasters do tend to have lower outputs and I'll be leaving the Overall rating to take into consideration the blaster's size. Sure, the power on a small blaster may be low, but for its size, it may still overall be a good blaster.

I'm also considering adding in a new rating: "Flexibility" or "Versatility". The idea behind that rating is how adaptive or flexible is a blaster to meet different roles. Does a blaster make a good back-up, but a poor choice for a primary or might is be able to function well in many roles. As with other ratings, this would be a rather subjective rating, but might offer some value to visitors.

Granted, making the above changes to the rating system would take awhile to implement, but I think they'd offer an improvement over the current system.

[the oncoming storm]

I think that Power should be measured as output and range relative to empty weight of the blaster, Mobility should be measured by how much speed it takes off of your unarmed top speed running when around your house.

[isoaker]

I think that Power should be measured as output and range relative to empty weight of the blaster, Mobility should be measured by how much speed it takes off of your unarmed top speed running when around your house.

Relating output and range to weight makes me think more of Relative Power. The idea behind just talking about "Power" is to denote raw strength regardless of blaster size. Doing so makes it easier to compare blasters of different sizes even if one does not know at first whether a blaster is physically larger than another. Current way Power is rated is more along the lines of output and range relative to blaster size/weight.

As for mobility, I have no plans on doing personal speed tests of me running around a house and seeing how long it takes with different blaster models. While I'd probably get a heck-of-a-lot healthier from all that running, I may also pass out from sheer exhaustion due to all the blasters I'd need to test! On a more serious note, I also plan to factor in aspects of a blaster's balance and ergonomics into the Mobility rating.

[marauder]

I think that mobility is a much better description than weight or encumberance. I may even borrow that for my site as well. I am all about overall ratings rather than "in class" ratings. It is often very difficult to determine what is within a blaster's class. For instance, is an SS 30 a large pistol and thus in a different category than an XP 15, or do people just think of them as pistols and thus lump them together? I don't know... so I just use overall ratings. With capacity I think "field life" or how many seconds of shot time a gun has, is the best way to determine a rating. A CPS 2000 may hold ~20 more oz of water than a Gorgon, but the Gorgon has over 100 more seconds worth of shot time over the CPS 2000... which I think is the more important stat. Of course, then again, maybe that should be referred to as "field life" instead of capacity.

Flexibility or Versatility is an awesome idea.

What we're seeing here is a focus away from the more obvious ratings (which are just stats put on a scale) to a more practical and realistic way of evaluating the ability of a particular blaster. Love it.

[isoaker]

I was mulling over the idea of "Field Life", but am opting against it at the moment since field life depends just as much on the user's habits as it does on the capabilities of the blaster. Other things like Power, Flexibility, etc. are more inherent properties of the blaster and not tied to its use as much.

As you noted correctly, though, definitely pushing the ratings system more towards the practical side of the water blaster since the objective stats tell the other half of the story already.

[DX]

Flexibility isn't tied to its use as much as being an inherent property? CPS 4100 vs CPS 1200. The 4100 has 4 nozzles, you can conserve or soak. It's not really that large or heavy. The 1200 has one nozzle and is definitely a lighter CPS. But, I'd pick the 1200 over the 4100 for every single gametype that I can think of. The next person might have a totally different preference. How the user wields the soaker definitely impacts its flexibility more than how heavy it is, how many nozzles it has, etc. The even more obvious example is the CPS 2000, which I've turned into a 1st choice for almost everything. OHK? Sure. OHS under 30 min? Sure. Soakfest? Yep. CTF? Yeah. Hold the Line? that too. But, in the hard stats, the 2000 has no business being such a versatile gun.

Obviously, field life is a very subjective stat that varies based on how briefly you can tap a trigger and how often. But, it is still more objective than how many ways and situations you can use your soaker.

[isoaker]

Flexibility isn't tied to its use as much as being an inherent property? CPS 4100 vs CPS 1200. The 4100 has 4 nozzles, you can conserve or soak. It's not really that large or heavy. The 1200 has one nozzle and is definitely a lighter CPS. But, I'd pick the 1200 over the 4100 for every single gametype that I can think of. The next person might have a totally different preference. How the user wields the soaker definitely impacts its flexibility more than how heavy it is, how many nozzles it has, etc. The even more obvious example is the CPS 2000, which I've turned into a 1st choice for almost everything. OHK? Sure. OHS under 30 min? Sure. Soakfest? Yep. CTF? Yeah. Hold the Line? that too. But, in the hard stats, the 2000 has no business being such a versatile gun.

As with everything, there are always outliers and reasons why going for "average" is not a great idea. At the same time, without attempting to predict what the average person would be capable of doing, we would be missing out on providing some useful, albeit subjective information. In this case, DX, using your strengths and capabilities as a water warrior to rate a blaster would severely skew things. When it comes to flexibility, my own water warfare skills probably fall closer to "average" than yours, M4's, or SEAL's. Moreover, while you may choose one particular model over another for a variety of game types, this fact alone does not make the less-chosen blaster less flexible. It just means that you prefer one over another due to a combination of factors that go beyond the inherent flexibility of a blaster. While you may choose a CPS2000 over the others for a particular game doesn't mean that the other blasters can't be used for the same game. They may not perform as well (as would be reflected by Power and Overall ratings), but their inherent flexibility remains there.

I should note that I haven't 100% settled on adding in Flexibility, but the above summarizes my current thoughts on how I'd plan to implement it if I do.

[Poseidon2000]

Everything should be in a general rating system, who cares if a XP 15 gets 15 percent power. It's reality! Try to make everything be in a GENERAL way. Things like versatility and field life vary too much.

iSoaker, like you said, you can't make everyone happy... Muahahahaha!

[Fishfan]

Could you add slightly angled range for the range tests? Maybe like 10 degrees?

[Poseidon2000]

One Question: WHY?

[Fishfan]

Actually, scratch that, what I'm more interested in is how many pumps it take to completely fill the PC, (for CPS) or for air pressure chambers, until it get hard to pump, and also how many full shots it takes to empty the reservoir.

[Poseidon2000]

Hmm....Well, that's a good explanation. :p I have nothin to do w/ iSoak's site, so I can't tell you if it'd good or not. in REALITY, it is, as everyone does that in a sense.

[Andrew]

Actually, scratch that, what I'm more interested in is how many pumps it take to completely fill the PC, (for CPS) or for air pressure chambers, until it get hard to pump, and also how many full shots it takes to empty the reservoir.

You can just divide the PC capacity by the pump volume (I think that works for AP too, as I believe iSoaker measures usable PC capacity, rather than actual volume).

[marauder]

What Andrew said is correct, although sometimes there is a difference with AP guns because they often work best prepumped with air. Even so, that difference is generally not very much. I list pumps til full on my reviews, listed as "pumps til 100%."

[soakinader]

How about continuing with your planned 1-100 power rating system, but having an "Average power rating" note next to the Power rating that denotes what power level should be expected for a water gun that size. Have a line or a second superseding/subseding bar that marks what the average is for it's category, and another that denotes that particular blaster's power. So, looking at a CPS 2000 MK1, giving it a "100" score, and then giving the Monster X an "80", and having the average for that size category fall around 85, which denotes that the Monster X, while quite powerful, is not as powerful as similar sized soakers. And I would guess the CPS 2500 would be around 90. (This is all for example). Another example could be the WW Sphinx, which could rate as 30 (compare to 100 for a CPS 2000MK1) on a size scale where the average is 20. I don't know quite how you categorize your soakers, but I am sure you get the idea.
As far as capacity goes.... Well, water is water, and that might just have to reflective of the truth that more capacity=more size=more weight. So if the SS10 rates as 3 on the scale, so be it. Would that make the CPS 3000/3200 a "100" rating for capacity? Also, I think that you should be careful about rating backpack blasters like normal ones. I find I have more mobility with 4L in a CPS 3000 backpack, than a CPS 2500 with 3L in my hands/over my shoulder. I think that the raw weight of the water should go towards calculating overall weight and mobility, but a scale factor (1/2 or 3/8) for the backpack weight should produce an additional stat for comparing it to other backpack blasters/ relative mobility comparing to similar blasters (like CPS 3000 VS 2500).

[isoaker]

After more thinking and considering various great points and ideas noted above, I think I'm going to ditch "Mobility" and rate things simply in terms of "Portability", the ease at which a water blaster is carried and/or moved around with. The word, "mobility", seems to have a little more nuanced meaning tied to it and is detracting from the simpler idea of whether or not a blaster should be considered as heavy. For blasters that have backpacks, the fact that weight is distributed a little differently will be taken into account, but at the same time, sheer overall weight of a filled backpack will definitely play into reducing the average portability of a given blaster.

As for Power and Capacity ratings being scaled so that any blaster can be compared, I'm definitely leaning towards that, but would provide an approximate expected number for a few rough blaster size classes (pistol/one-handed blasters, mid-sized (XP270 to CPS2100) class, and large (CPS1000/1200 or larger) water blasters. In some ways, might be easier to divide blaster sizes up by dry weight, but I need to look at the stats a little more to really decide on things.

Overall, though, this depth of stat overhaul will take awhile, but I hope to have things done in time for capturing info on the upcoming 2013 stock water blasters.

[Fishfan]

I like soakinader's idea of a power rating there. I think maybe, if possible you could do range tests of approx. 10 degrees. You don't have to, just a suggestion, cause I'd like to know.

[soakinader]

As for Power and Capacity ratings being scaled so that any blaster can be compared, I'm definitely leaning towards that, but would provide an approximate expected number for a few rough blaster size classes (pistol/one-handed blasters, mid-sized (XP270 to CPS2100) class, and large (CPS1000/1200 or larger) water blasters. In some ways, might be easier to divide blaster sizes up by dry weight, but I need to look at the stats a little more to really decide on things.

You mean un-scaling? So having the WW Viper with 25 Power instead of 80, right? I support that.
If the CPS 2000 is a strong outlier on your statistics, maybe you should take the second-highest blaster as your 100 and make the CPS 2000 have 130 or something. XD

As far as "Portability" goes, I see mobility as a more important factor. I am pretty sure my CPS 2500 is the same weight as my Monster (or lighter), but the Monster is a foot shorter. I wouldn't give the CPS 2500 a higher (better) rating when I have to be so careful just to not bang it against the walls and doorways when I am taking it outside. Yes, this is dry weight though...
Then let's look at the CPS 2700. Is it that much bigger than a CPS 1500? No. Does it weigh a lot more when it is full? Definitely. ... I think I may have lost my point.
I guess the issue for me is, how do you measure "Portability/Mobility"? Which is better (full reservoir), a CPS 2500 or 2700?
Part of me says that the CPS 2700 is more Portable because it is more compact, and the other side of me says the 2500 is more Mobile because it weighs less and you can move faster.
Problem is, someone could probably replace "Portable" and "Mobile" with each other and agree with me. I think we need more definitive terms.
What's more "portable/mobile", a bowling ball or a long glass tube? (that can't be held vertically)?
I think I would rather measure Weight and Size as statistics (Like Power and Capacity). You are going to scale Capacity too, right? Having a Vaporizer (1L) with capacity 80 compared to a CPS 1000 (2.3L) with capacity 80 or to an SS10 (0.056L) with capacity 80 doesn't make much sense. Unless, don't tell me, you do it by % of weight or volume. That would make sense, but like scaling power, it really gives no indication of it's stats outside of it's size group.

[isoaker]

At present, the iSoaker.com Rating system is based on relative blaster size. This explains why blasters of rather different power levels or capacities end up getting similar scores. Opting to just stick with an overall rating regardless of size will allow for easier comparisons between blasters of different sizes.

As for the whole Mobility vs Portability, since I want this rating to reflect both the ease of carrying as well as the ease of aiming/adjusting aim/dodging with, etc., "Mobility" seems to be the better term since "Portability", upon further thought, refers more to how well something can be carried/shipped, but not necessarily used, especially in terms of water combat. As for how the rating is determine, being an "iSoaker.com Rating", it is more subjective in nature, based on my overall experience with a rather wide range and variety of water blasters. Where these ratings will not fare as well is for veteran members who find fondness in particular blasters or blaster models and have adapted their personal skills to make use of those blaster's features. Sheer weight, of course, would push a mobility rating down, but lack of balance, excess length or width, etc. would also contribute to the reduction of a mobility rating. Being tethered (such as the hose-mounted Water Warriors Armordillo) would also make for a lower mobility rating. Mobility ratings also would primarily be reflective of a fully-loaded water blaster as well since a loaded blaster is what a user should be using in the field (an empty water blaster doesn't have much soaking potential ). That said, to me, the more unwieldy blasters that come to mind are the original Monster XL and the CPS2700. Now, no blaster so far on iSoaker.com would receive a rating of "0" since "0" mobility would mean the user cannot move at all. I'm still debating what I would consider as the lowest reasonable number and why (I'm torn between 10 and 20. 10 would offer more room for varied ratings while 20 seems closer to my effective percent mobility when trying to move around with a Monster XL versus how much I can move around and aim when wielding something like an XP215; I can probably re-position my XP215 5x as quickly as I can re-aim my Monster XL).

[the oncoming storm]

You see this is why you test mobility by running with it and seeing how much speed it takes off, It factors balance, weight distribution, Weight, and blaster length in quite simply and unbiasedly.