WHAT?!?!

Discussion of other water gun websites.
User avatar
MilkMan
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:00 pm

Post by MilkMan » Sun May 02, 2004 1:59 am

According to isoaker helix is just as good as the CPS 2000!
"Anything with a nozzle and a pump is good enough for me." <--------------- Same lying signature 3 years and counting!

User avatar
Monsoon
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 2:14 pm

Post by Monsoon » Sun May 02, 2004 2:06 am

The CPS 2000 is the epitome of all soakers. The Helix is almost the opposite. I also read the Helix review multiple times and never found it saying that the gun is equal to the CPS 2000. If you know how to make a link, show us the page that says this.




EDIT-content (as usual)
Do not underestimate the power of stupidity in large groups

User avatar
SSCBen
Posts: 6449
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:00 pm

Post by SSCBen » Sun May 02, 2004 2:12 am

I don't see where it says that, I checked the review, it didn't say anything like that. It just said it was a good powersoaker.

User avatar
RacerSoaker445
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:27 pm

Post by RacerSoaker445 » Sun May 02, 2004 2:12 am

hmm....
I don't check this forum anymore.

Jangadance
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:46 am

Post by Jangadance » Sun May 02, 2004 8:22 am

Here is where the confusion is.
Originally posted by "isoaker review index"
CPS 2000
iSoaker.com Ratings:
Power: 100 | Weight: 100 | Capacity: 70 | Overall: 80

Helix
iSoaker.com Ratings:
Power: 80 | Weight: 50 | Capacity: 70 | Overall: 80
I'm not quite sure how he does his ratings exactly, but you should probably pay attention to the fine print, like anything in life. Here is what it says underneath each of those. Note: Ratings based on relative blaster size. This means they are both B rating soakers for their size class.

User avatar
SSCBen
Posts: 6449
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:00 pm

Post by SSCBen » Sun May 02, 2004 12:23 pm

Weird, I personally think overall should reflect more mathematically the power, weight and capacity, but that's just me. The numbers don't add up, CPS 2000's average is 90 and the Helix's is 66.67. That's a big difference.

User avatar
MilkMan
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:00 pm

Post by MilkMan » Sun May 02, 2004 1:17 pm

I mean they both got 80's as their score
"Anything with a nozzle and a pump is good enough for me." <--------------- Same lying signature 3 years and counting!

User avatar
Monsoon
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 2:14 pm

Post by Monsoon » Sun May 02, 2004 1:27 pm

That's strange.....very strange indeed..............................
Do not underestimate the power of stupidity in large groups

User avatar
Jadefalcon09
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 12:00 pm

Post by Jadefalcon09 » Sun May 02, 2004 4:59 pm

Note: Ratings based on relative blaster size.
Thats exactly why he put it there, to eliminate confusion.

User avatar
MilkMan
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:00 pm

Post by MilkMan » Sun May 02, 2004 7:55 pm

Still, it doesn't deserve even that.(In my opinion...) <_<
"Anything with a nozzle and a pump is good enough for me." <--------------- Same lying signature 3 years and counting!

Jangadance
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:46 am

Post by Jangadance » Sun May 02, 2004 9:36 pm

Originally posted by DoomSoaker@May 2 2004, 07:23 AM
CPS 2000's average is 90 and the Helix's is 66.67. That's a big difference.
For the averages of the scores (which doesn't always mean what the final score is) I got:

CPS 2000: 87.5
Helix: 70

I agree that it might be more helpful if the scores were all compatible, but unfortunately he decided to do it by size class. It would seem that he did it to be fair to each blaster, which is commendable. I still don't understand how the weight rating is given... is heavier better or worse? Because the CPS2000 got a 100 weight rating and the Helix got a 50, while the CPS2000 is much more cumbersome.

superstormer
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:00 pm

Post by superstormer » Sun May 02, 2004 9:38 pm

Originally posted by Mdriver@May 2 2004, 02:55 PM
Still, it doesn't deserve even that.(In my opinion...) <_<
Well, its not your opinion is it? It's iSoakers'.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Socrates)</div><div class='quotemain'>I drank what?!</div>

User avatar
SSCBen
Posts: 6449
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:00 pm

Post by SSCBen » Sun May 02, 2004 9:52 pm

I guess the weight is based on size, but I don't know what he did. I really don't like reviews much at all other than a short paragraph about the gun to get you the big picture, and then a full page of stats to go along with it. I like stats better because I can see the real world data.

uman
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:42 pm

Post by uman » Sun May 02, 2004 10:46 pm

Originally posted by superstormer+May 2 2004, 04:38 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(superstormer @ May 2 2004, 04:38 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mdriver@May 2 2004, 02:55 PM
Still, it doesn't deserve even that.(In my opinion...) <_<
Well, its not your opinion is it? It's iSoakers'. [/b][/quote]
I was going to say just that :)
я люблю воду!

Xray
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:10 pm

Post by Xray » Sun May 02, 2004 11:25 pm

I had been looking at isoaker for ahwile, reading the reviews and just checking it out for ahwile... but then I came across their/his 2004 soaker reviews... every review there is good! Just for that I dislike iSoaker, it made me feel as if he/she is getting paid by hasbro. You don't just give a review to praise a soaker, you give a review to tell others how it stacks up against other items on the market.

I can't find one bad thing said about any of the soakers reviewed on there - I mean, give me a break, not all the SS products are a marvelous toys! marvelous - thats what I get out of each & every iSoaker review...

90% of the 2004 line is garbage, I mean they Don't even have triggers for *omit word* sake! Yet they all get good reviews from iSoaker im going to email them about that.

-blake

Locked