WaterWar.net

Over the past few months I was able to test out A LOT of guns and was even able to battle using a few of them. With this current acquisition, along with the coming of the new year and new guns, I am faced with the task of writing up my reviews. I love writing reviews but I'm also conscientious about the needs of the community. To put it more plainly, I don't want to spend time writing reviews that the community won't find useful. Also, since you can find all my reviews on one page on my site I want to keep the page easy to browse and free of clutter (eg guns that don't matter).

So my question to you is, what matters? What would you visit my site to get an opinion on?


To start with I think I am going to review only guns that come with a pump. No piston soakers. No battery powered soakers. Would this have a positive or negative effect on your reading experience?

Small guns. Sometimes I think the SS 10 link is just clogging up space. Does anyone really come to Hydrowar if they want to find out information on the SS 10 or XP 215? I got the XP 215 as a parting gift from Soakologist. What about the Point Break? I haven't written a review yet, but I really believe the Point Break is superior to the 10 or the 215, which of course is not saying much... but still. I am not bothered by having a review up for the Goblin, because, although its small it has been used by many of us ever since Downpour 2011.

I think every site should have its own niche, not only providing a different perspective on the most common themes of waterwarfare but also specializing in something. I like to think that I'm specializing in the actual combat aspect and everything else is centered around that. As such, I try to tailor my content to meet that end. What do you think?

I think that the general field consensus has settled on longer range, higher power guns because of the play style. While I'm personally a fan of the smaller guns, I know that generally those are uncommonly used in the community. So I think reviews of water guns that are most likely to support the more direct, head-to-head battle styles out there now might be the most useful. Since people generally don't need to worry about running with them, or being far from a water source, the tactical considerations that might make smaller weapons more prominent are just not a concern right now.

So basically, I think you have a good point, and I think that in-depth reviews on a few guns would probably work out the best.

You should review everything!
I think that detail reviews are good, imo. I also think that the reviews from hasbro stuff isn't the most useful, like the FF, Artic shock and blast, because I am never going to get those. And I don't think reviewing and Nerf SS is really useful at all, except maybe the HC. I would like to see reviews on the XXP 275 and XP 250, I do want to get those, but I'm not sure. By the way, I think those two [The 275 and 250] you should keep for an arsenal yourself, because based on my knowledge on them, they are very good AP soakers. I would like to see more tactics, and maybe a little light color scheme (The dark color wears out my eyes a lot) I like pictures, lots of those. And maybe more reviews on XPs, and I heard you had a Powerpak, a review on that would be nice.

I have taken stats on the 250, 275, and Power Pak. Just gotta put it into review form. I have been thought about redoing the design for a while as well. Currently I have my monitor on my dresser, facing my bed. I often sit up in bed and work on the computer. It's a bit tiresome on the eyes.

Don't worry, I have A LOT of content to put up. That's one reason I'm trying to sell all these guns now, so I don't have to worry about it later. I like to complete projects and helping me complete them, eg selling off all these smaller guns, will make it easier for me to finish other projects such as the website later because I won't be multitasking.

Any advice on the design? It would be a lot of work to reconfigure, but if enough people think I should then I will.

Well clearly the 300 , I wouldn't review anything you wouldn't use in serious war as either a backup, or primary. Done and done.

Also, review the stuff that you said you were going to review on the front page, but I wouldn't bother with the point break or scatterblast, unless you want to show haw terrible they are.
EDIT: I would also like a review on that shield blaster thing, Just because I would like to know what it's like from a seasoned water warrior.

The Point Break is equal in performance to the old SS 25 I had, but superior in design. I haven't reviewed the SS 25 though. I am currently messing with lighter designs.

Maybe you could only feature reviews for battle-worthy guns on Hydrowar, and submit reviews of less-capable guns to isoaker.com. It might seem kind of pointless to write reviews on blasters like the Thunderstorm or whatever, but I think it's good to have stats and (at least a little bit of) information on as many blasters as possible, so that people looking into getting a blaster will know which ones are keepers and which ones should be treated like the plague.

You have to review the Splashzooka.

Well, if there's a disclaimer up front that the reviewed guns were selected for usefulness, it wouldn't be necessary to ever review guns that should be avoided like the plague.

I agree with firebird.

I like the website, and don't really think it takes up too much extra space to leave the old reviews up, but think in the future you should probably stick to decent blasters that are nice, IE. Pump and trigger, like a 105, or a collosos, or if somehow there's a new CPS style blaster. In the meantime during winter downtime before you ship off blasters if you have any primary worthy blasters review them.

Edit: I looked through your site just now for a specific blaster, and accidentally clicked on the image which brings you to a direct link of the thumbnail. I feel like a good improvement would be re-linking the picture to the page itself anyway. Also such as on http://www.hydrowar.com/sc600.html There's some problems where you can't view the picture.

Also, if Isoaker is reading this, there's a lot of bugs in your site. For example, clicking armory and then air pressure will break it.

Neptune wrote:Also, if Isoaker is reading this, there's a lot of bugs in your site. For example, clicking armory and then air pressure will break it.

That's what the iSoaker.com feedback thread is for. Sometimes, there be the odd bug that crops up. that bug is now fixed, but if you know of other glitches, let me know.

As for Hydrowar, I'd say review blasters that appeal the most to you. I wouldn't put a full moratorium on any future piston-based blaster, but since the site focuses on more battle-worthy blasters, pick and choose based on your feel for what looks like it would make for a good water blaster. Of course, I'd still say the odd "bad" blaster should be reviewed as well to keep things in perspective. Once upon a time, I thought I was only going to review CPS-class blasters and forget about anything less. However, trying out more air-pressure-based blasters gave me better perspective on the good and bad things of the generally larger CPS-blasters of that time.