Super Soaker Central forums

isoaker_com · 07-23-2007, 01:31 PM

In light of a recent discussion at WWc, it got me thinking about tech in water wars. Anyone here attempt to keep water blasters used in battles of roughly equal power/caliber? I understand if most tend to use whatever is available, but if there is more choice, do you actually bother to try to keep blaster power/performance roughly equivalent or think such a thing is unnecessary in practice?

Ben · 07-23-2007, 02:17 PM

Again, to reiterate much of what I said elsewhere about the notion of "power capping":

The reasoning behind power capping is a logical fallacy. This argument makes the faulty generalization that powerful water guns are significantly better than less powerful ones. That is not necessarily true as we all know. This is the nail in the coffin for the entire "power capping" argument as far as I am concerned.

Why cap power when you can focus on water guns that are truly unfair? Are there even any water guns that are truly unfair? I believe water guns with excessive shot time are unfair to a certain extent. That would make sense banning, but a straight power-ban is a generalization. Specific "unfair" properties need to be identify and there are more of them than power. There is a LOT more to what makes a water gun good than power. You don't see me using Supercannon II in a battle.

Power in fact has significant disadvantages, namely in the increased water usage and weight. For these reasons, more powerful water guns are not always better than less powerful ones as we all know. More water usage means more pumps, harder pumps, less shot time, and so one. Power is not a straight advantage as some believe.

iSoaker initially brought this up because he felt "newbies" would be turned off by repeated defeats from "veterans" with more powerful water guns. This again has several errors, namely assumptions. I have fought with the most powerful water guns around, homemade water guns, without any complaint from those I fight with. Some of these people were "newbies" in the sense that they were younger, had less powerful water guns, and much less experience than myself. Because there are more factors to making good water guns than power, there was no problem of anything being unfair.

With that being said, how do "newbies" truly feel about more powerful water guns? They love them! In fact, my use of homemade water guns only resulted in people being more interested in water guns. Even iSoaker's fears are unfounded.

The idea of limiting power to a certain range also brings up problems in execution. Testing must be done. "Cheating" may become a problem. How will people feel to come to a battle and learn that the water gun they brought isn't allowed? And the real problem are "legal" but high performing water guns. A very high efficiency water gun can exist that can shoot 60 feet without output over 15X. This water gun would be "legal" in most any battle, but would have relatively good shot put, extremely high range, and still good output.

This would suggest that some sort of objective blaster score should be made to measure all things that make water guns good. Banning guns off such a score would be good, if such a score existed or could exist. I think any such score wouldn't really make sense in the end. Blaster choice is a matter of opinion.

isoaker_com · 07-23-2007, 03:19 PM

Though I understand why Ben considers this thread was meant to continue an argument, it really was not. I am really simply curious on whether, if any, member has set up their local games trying to balance power/caliber of soakers used in the fight.

Drenchenator · 07-23-2007, 03:23 PM

At this time, a power cap is not necessary. Homemades especially have enough problems to provide a "balance of power." Excellent statistics do help but do not make a gun insanely battle practical. I have yet to see anyone other than myself come out with even remotely ergonomic or practical designs.

I have fought Ben's original APH a number of times. Clearly its statistics are off the charts compared to today's guns. However, I had no problem getting him wet when I wanted to with my "lowly" CPS 1200. His gun just took way too many pumps (he later built a single chamber variety to fix this problem). More powerful guns have a major Achilles heel: practicality.

isoaker_com · 07-23-2007, 04:01 PM

@Drenchenator: hehe! Man, I would have loved to watch you guys battle it out!

That said, though I understand the source of the misperception, please don't think of this thread as a place where pro- and con- arguments against "power capping" or "power moderating" was intended. I would not wish to insist every water battle should be capped for, as Ben had noted in various places, it does take a lot of skill and knowledge to know what blaster works best for oneself.

Perhaps I should have asked whether any member has ever had/organized a water fight using only squirt pistols or only XP-class-blasters-only or even longer-range mega-cannons-only.

Drenchenator · 07-23-2007, 06:20 PM

I suppose, in the end, the best method would be gun-by-gun approval at the beginning of the battle. If other people don't want to battle it, they can reject it in the beginning. Though, I would be mad if a homemade gun I worked hard on was rejected in the beginning, but that's just me.

Other things could also be considered. Water-caps could be implemented. Each person is given a certain amount of water; how they use it is their choice.

Silence · 07-23-2007, 06:55 PM

In my informal water gun fights, we tend to lean towards a more balanced distribution of water guns. Part of it is because the relative heavy-hitters (the APH and the 4100) aren't very practical, as the former has various problems I'd like to fix and the latter needs a trigger repair (still).

Do I understand what Ben is saying? Of course. I've had wars in which things have been a good bit unbalanced, but nobody has cared. That said, we're not very keen on going hardcore or with using better water guns, and the wars are low-competition and friendly, so we tend to stick to balancing performance. We'd probably all switch to slightly more powerful water guns if they can be made available.

I guess the decision regarding whether or not to limit water gun performance lies with what you're trying to do with the war. I would not impose a limit, as having a rule defeats the purpose of being friendly and using more "fair" water guns anyway. If I were to go to a tournament or to a "ranked" water fight, I would certainly drop my normal attitude and pick up a better water gun.

Spinner · 07-24-2007, 05:01 AM

My most common water fight configuration — 1v1 — normally involves agreeing on which blasters each person will use beforehand. Part of the interest is seeing how similarly-sized blasters fare in battle, or even whether a Storm 500 can hold up against a CPS 1700. Some surprising results have been uncovered in such battles.

mutuhaha · 07-29-2007, 10:50 AM

In our wars, soakers are a scarcity and often power balancing is not an issue, since most use water bombs, save a few who have guns. As such, when ever guns come by, they're offered a chance to be in the game, so long as there are no safety concerns.

Any powerful equipment such as APHs and WBLs are under our jurisdiction since only the small group of more enthusiastic people produce them. The more casual participants of course, cannot use this equipment due to scarcity, though we hope to change that with the mass production of a simple but more powerful-than-stock APH model.

The response to powerful weapons in the field has been greeted with mostly interest. Some of our juniors may be developing or buying their own "better" weapons, I'd like to think that the reason being because they saw our equipment. Also, when people work hard to make a good gun, or save enough money to buy one, I feel they deserve to use it. As such this tends my opinion toward a power-cap less system.

However, with the mass armament in and over a few years, I understand the need to be watchful over the power balance situation. While good guns now may have a positive effect, I cannot assume that it will always stay so. Isoaker's reasoning is also logical and may be a significant possibility to which we will enact proper action if signs show. For now, we will opt to keep in touch with the opinions of the casual players on the issue.

StormGlorious · 02-19-2008, 05:46 PM

I believe that if every gun were the same roughly then battles would end up being standoffs.
This is because due to the very limited range and the very nature of how water guns fire, that nobody will be willing to get close enough to hit the opposition.
However if there a variety of guns then the ranges will vary and one must choose whether or not to engage with an opposition, not based on pure skill but it brings the other factor in who has the most power.
On the other hand I still firmly believe that a skilled us er with a weak gun like a flash flood could defeat a noob with a 1700.

WaterWolf · 02-20-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormGlorious

On the other hand I still firmly believe that a skilled us er with a weak gun like a flash flood could defeat a noob with a 1700.

I actually observed exactly this in one of my team's Autumn meetings last year.
My brother (Flash-Flood) fought and defeated one of our other fighters who was armed with a CPS 1500.

I think that I'd also agree with StormGlorious, that if the guns in a battle were all of equal power, you'd end up with more stand-off situations.

07-23-2007, 01:31 PM	#1
isoaker_com Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Somewhere Posts: 247 UserID: 301	Balance of power? In light of a recent discussion at WWc, it got me thinking about tech in water wars. Anyone here attempt to keep water blasters used in battles of roughly equal power/caliber? I understand if most tend to use whatever is available, but if there is more choice, do you actually bother to try to keep blaster power/performance roughly equivalent or think such a thing is unnecessary in practice? __________________ :: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com ::

07-23-2007, 02:17 PM	#2
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 5,955 UserID: 1	Again, to reiterate much of what I said elsewhere about the notion of "power capping": The reasoning behind power capping is a logical fallacy. This argument makes the faulty generalization that powerful water guns are significantly better than less powerful ones. That is not necessarily true as we all know. This is the nail in the coffin for the entire "power capping" argument as far as I am concerned. Why cap power when you can focus on water guns that are truly unfair? Are there even any water guns that are truly unfair? I believe water guns with excessive shot time are unfair to a certain extent. That would make sense banning, but a straight power-ban is a generalization. Specific "unfair" properties need to be identify and there are more of them than power. There is a LOT more to what makes a water gun good than power. You don't see me using Supercannon II in a battle. Power in fact has significant disadvantages, namely in the increased water usage and weight. For these reasons, more powerful water guns are not always better than less powerful ones as we all know. More water usage means more pumps, harder pumps, less shot time, and so one. Power is not a straight advantage as some believe. iSoaker initially brought this up because he felt "newbies" would be turned off by repeated defeats from "veterans" with more powerful water guns. This again has several errors, namely assumptions. I have fought with the most powerful water guns around, homemade water guns, without any complaint from those I fight with. Some of these people were "newbies" in the sense that they were younger, had less powerful water guns, and much less experience than myself. Because there are more factors to making good water guns than power, there was no problem of anything being unfair. With that being said, how do "newbies" truly feel about more powerful water guns? They love them! In fact, my use of homemade water guns only resulted in people being more interested in water guns. Even iSoaker's fears are unfounded. The idea of limiting power to a certain range also brings up problems in execution. Testing must be done. "Cheating" may become a problem. How will people feel to come to a battle and learn that the water gun they brought isn't allowed? And the real problem are "legal" but high performing water guns. A very high efficiency water gun can exist that can shoot 60 feet without output over 15X. This water gun would be "legal" in most any battle, but would have relatively good shot put, extremely high range, and still good output. This would suggest that some sort of objective blaster score should be made to measure all things that make water guns good. Banning guns off such a score would be good, if such a score existed or could exist. I think any such score wouldn't really make sense in the end. Blaster choice is a matter of opinion. __________________ email: ben at sscentral dot org / Forum rules Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums so others could offer their take. Do not send me a PM or email about reading a certain post unless it's been a few days since you've posted. I try to read every post.

07-23-2007, 03:19 PM	#3
isoaker_com Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Somewhere Posts: 247 UserID: 301	Though I understand why Ben considers this thread was meant to continue an argument, it really was not. I am really simply curious on whether, if any, member has set up their local games trying to balance power/caliber of soakers used in the fight. __________________ :: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com ::

07-23-2007, 03:23 PM	#4
Drenchenator Administrator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 710 UserID: 320	At this time, a power cap is not necessary. Homemades especially have enough problems to provide a "balance of power." Excellent statistics do help but do not make a gun insanely battle practical. I have yet to see anyone other than myself come out with even remotely ergonomic or practical designs. I have fought Ben's original APH a number of times. Clearly its statistics are off the charts compared to today's guns. However, I had no problem getting him wet when I wanted to with my "lowly" CPS 1200. His gun just took way too many pumps (he later built a single chamber variety to fix this problem). More powerful guns have a major Achilles heel: practicality. __________________ The Drenchenator, also known as Lt. Col. Drench.

07-23-2007, 04:01 PM	#5
isoaker_com Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Somewhere Posts: 247 UserID: 301	@Drenchenator: hehe! Man, I would have loved to watch you guys battle it out! That said, though I understand the source of the misperception, please don't think of this thread as a place where pro- and con- arguments against "power capping" or "power moderating" was intended. I would not wish to insist every water battle should be capped for, as Ben had noted in various places, it does take a lot of skill and knowledge to know what blaster works best for oneself. Perhaps I should have asked whether any member has ever had/organized a water fight using only squirt pistols or only XP-class-blasters-only or even longer-range mega-cannons-only. __________________ :: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com ::

07-23-2007, 06:20 PM	#6
Drenchenator Administrator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 710 UserID: 320	I suppose, in the end, the best method would be gun-by-gun approval at the beginning of the battle. If other people don't want to battle it, they can reject it in the beginning. Though, I would be mad if a homemade gun I worked hard on was rejected in the beginning, but that's just me. Other things could also be considered. Water-caps could be implemented. Each person is given a certain amount of water; how they use it is their choice. __________________ The Drenchenator, also known as Lt. Col. Drench.

07-23-2007, 06:55 PM	#7
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,244 UserID: 576	In my informal water gun fights, we tend to lean towards a more balanced distribution of water guns. Part of it is because the relative heavy-hitters (the APH and the 4100) aren't very practical, as the former has various problems I'd like to fix and the latter needs a trigger repair (still). Do I understand what Ben is saying? Of course. I've had wars in which things have been a good bit unbalanced, but nobody has cared. That said, we're not very keen on going hardcore or with using better water guns, and the wars are low-competition and friendly, so we tend to stick to balancing performance. We'd probably all switch to slightly more powerful water guns if they can be made available. I guess the decision regarding whether or not to limit water gun performance lies with what you're trying to do with the war. I would not impose a limit, as having a rule defeats the purpose of being friendly and using more "fair" water guns anyway. If I were to go to a tournament or to a "ranked" water fight, I would certainly drop my normal attitude and pick up a better water gun. __________________ Forum Rules

07-24-2007, 05:01 AM	#8
Spinner Administrator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,321 UserID: 77	My most common water fight configuration — 1v1 — normally involves agreeing on which blasters each person will use beforehand. Part of the interest is seeing how similarly-sized blasters fare in battle, or even whether a Storm 500 can hold up against a CPS 1700. Some surprising results have been uncovered in such battles. __________________ ISS: Soaker Sagas Submit your saga and see it up with other titans of water warfare.

07-29-2007, 10:50 AM	#9
mutuhaha Junior member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 14 UserID: 540	In our wars, soakers are a scarcity and often power balancing is not an issue, since most use water bombs, save a few who have guns. As such, when ever guns come by, they're offered a chance to be in the game, so long as there are no safety concerns. Any powerful equipment such as APHs and WBLs are under our jurisdiction since only the small group of more enthusiastic people produce them. The more casual participants of course, cannot use this equipment due to scarcity, though we hope to change that with the mass production of a simple but more powerful-than-stock APH model. The response to powerful weapons in the field has been greeted with mostly interest. Some of our juniors may be developing or buying their own "better" weapons, I'd like to think that the reason being because they saw our equipment. Also, when people work hard to make a good gun, or save enough money to buy one, I feel they deserve to use it. As such this tends my opinion toward a power-cap less system. However, with the mass armament in and over a few years, I understand the need to be watchful over the power balance situation. While good guns now may have a positive effect, I cannot assume that it will always stay so. Isoaker's reasoning is also logical and may be a significant possibility to which we will enact proper action if signs show. For now, we will opt to keep in touch with the opinions of the casual players on the issue.

02-19-2008, 05:46 PM	#10
StormGlorious ThunderWars Representative Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 144 UserID: 1431	Re: Balance of power? I believe that if every gun were the same roughly then battles would end up being standoffs. This is because due to the very limited range and the very nature of how water guns fire, that nobody will be willing to get close enough to hit the opposition. However if there a variety of guns then the ranges will vary and one must choose whether or not to engage with an opposition, not based on pure skill but it brings the other factor in who has the most power. On the other hand I still firmly believe that a skilled us er with a weak gun like a flash flood could defeat a noob with a 1700.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)