55 replies to this topic

[Doom]

Doom I agree this data is not 100% accurate, but at least we can draw some conclusions from it.

Unfortunately I think you're getting the wrong impression of my position. I do not doubt the accuracy of the data. The data seem reasonable. I doubt a few (but not all) of the conclusions. Sorry if that was unclear. I agree that no blasters should be banned, but I disagree that some styles of darts should be banned.

I mentioned a potential bias as an example of an advantage of an objective test. As I said then, slingshot ammo should hurt more than others for the same velocity as it is heavier. Your conclusion there is sound. However, I fear similar "tests" would and do reveal biases, and I mentioned this to motivate use of a objective test.

Banning some styles of darts is a simple "solution." I put solution in quotes because it avoids the true nature of the problem. Perfectly acceptable combinations are banned while some painful combinations are still allowed this way.

As far as I'm concerned, KED is the simplest solution as it is only a single rule that does not require revision in the future unless different KED values are determined to be okay. But, I know some people can't do math and do not own the required equipment. This is an unfortunate fact, but I do not feel it should get in the way of safety. Anyone interested in safety in this hobby should own both a chronometer and a scale that measures mass to the tenth of a gram.

If anything is still unclear, let me know.

Edit: I have a tendency to go nuts in threads about banning blasters or darts. I hope no one takes it personally. This is simply something most people get wrong and I'm rather annoyed by it.

Edit #2: Of course, anyone can run their wars how they want. If they choose to arbitrarily ban something that's where I feel the need to criticize that decision.

Edited by Doom, 21 November 2009 - 09:25 AM.

[KingBouyah]

Thank you for helping me with my statistics assignment. I needed some data to analyze. Here's a graphical interpretation for you.

SBB=single BB, W/F=washer and felt, CBB=copper BB, 4=1/4 slingshot ammo

Different darts in the NF,

The bars not really overlapping shows significance between the different dart types.

Different darts in the 3K

The only significant difference here is the 1/4" slingshot ammo.

Different darts in the +bow

Same as before. The only significant difference is the 1/4" slingshot ammo.

So I'd say that your decision to ban slingshot ammo makes sense, as all the others are essentially the same in the higher powered blasters. What I think is interesting is that in the higher powered blasters the slug darts are more consistent whereas in the NF they are less consistent. That could be due to small sample size, but I'm not going to harp on you for that. I'm impressed at what you were able to get. Now if someone with a chronograph would do the same... we might get this KED thing figured out.

[z80]

Ban slingshot ammo? What are you, insane? I see what you're trying to do, but instituting a hard to police rule just because guns are shooting too far is a bit ridiculous.

Also, I would make slug darts if they didn't fall apart like motherfuckers. Like every game I've been to, I'll pick up slug darts, and the foam will have fallen off, making it impossible for me to use.

Yeah, it's super hard to police whether or not the darts have felt or hot glue tips. It's not like it takes significant effort to figure out which is which. Unless you're implying that people can add weights under the washer and felt, which I have seen people do, it really is not hard to check. I'd like to think I can trust the people I work with.

I meant police weight bans, not bans on glue based darts in general. Obviously banning all glue based darts would be possible, but I believe would be overkill.
Also if we're trying to make darts not go as far and hurt less, why don't we just all use megas? They don't go as far and have higher surface area.

Edited by z80, 19 November 2009 - 06:41 PM.

[Daniel Beaver]

Also if we're trying to make darts not go as far and hurt less, why don't we just all use megas? They don't go as far and have higher surface area.

Megas can't be used in many turrets. Besides, everyone's blasters are already fitted with micro-shooting barrels. To force everyone to change that is an unworkable solution.

[z80]

Also if we're trying to make darts not go as far and hurt less, why don't we just all use megas? They don't go as far and have higher surface area.

Megas can't be used in many turrets. Besides, everyone's blasters are already fitted with micro-shooting barrels. To force everyone to change that is an unworkable solution.

Tru dat. I'm really the only one that still uses megas.

[1337]

Where are 3/0 fishing weights in all of this? They're a commonly used weight being overlooked in your tests.

[diamondbacknf1626]

Where are 3/0 fishing weights in all of this? They're a commonly used weight being overlooked in your tests.

If I am correct, they're similar to 1/4" slingshot amo in weight.

Great work Ryan, again. However, and this may just be the fact that I just recieved 500 3/0 Fishing weight darts with hotglue tips speaking, but for those like me, who have a large amount of darts prepared for use, may have issues with aquiring materials to make and then making new ones. Now I know your goal is to not make this universal, but maybe it can be taken from the standpoint of guns that are more powerful like your 3k, +bow, and my 3k (and possibly all the guns of you guys in the mid-west) using Slug darts, while others could use Fishing weights (my SNAP, as an example).

Now again, this is great data to see written up, but because of my personal circumstances, I'm not really liking where this is going. However, again, I do realize that it's probably just under these circumstances that I have a problem with it all. Otherwise, it's a great idea, much, much better than gun restrictions based upon range.

[TantumBull]

3/0 weights are actually quite a bit lighter, and won't go as far in high powered guns.

[Ice Nine]

...[B]ut maybe it can be taken from the standpoint of guns that are more powerful like your 3k, +bow, and my 3k (and possibly all the guns of you guys in the mid-west) using Slug darts, while others could use Fishing weights (my SNAP, as an example).

Oh! Awesome! Let's create and navigate a list of exceptions! Because that's totally conducive to a non-argumentative and tasteful environment. No one will get angry over THAT, that's for sure!

[Fredo]

To touch on the pain factor, I'm aware that how heavy your dart is does play a large part in this, but I know that the hard hot glue dome also adds to this. Instead of making a glue dome, couldn't you just use a felt disc as a dart head. I know it would cushion the blow a lot more, while maintaining range. I believe it was nerkum that did this with converted darts. Just thought I'd bring that up to see others opinions.

EDIT: I believe this would also be a substitue for those who want to use Slug Darts due to the ease of their making in Angel Breeched Longshot, because I have heard from some that the washer couldn't make it pass the tightening rings.

EDIT 2: Nevermind, I'm retarded and can't read. Thanks Tantum.

Edited by Fredo, 21 November 2009 - 09:37 AM.

[TantumBull]

To touch on the pain factor, I'm aware that how heavy your dart is does play a large part in this, but I know that the hard hot glue dome also adds to this. Instead of making a glue dome, couldn't you just use a felt disc as a dart head. I know it would cushion the blow a lot more, while maintaining range. I believe it was nerkum that did this with converted darts. Just thought I'd bring that up to see others opinions.

EDIT: I believe this would also be a substitue for those who want to use Slug Darts due to the ease of their making in Angel Breeched Longshot, because I have heard from some that the washer couldn't make it pass the tightening rings.

Go read Doom's posts.

[faddle]

3/0 weights are actually quite a bit lighter, and won't go as far in high powered guns.

I agree they are a bit lighter and wont go as far in high powered guns.

Edited by faddle, 23 November 2009 - 06:08 PM.

[Equilox]

I've been watching this discussion on the Midwest Nerf site for a while. I'm one of the Nerfers who has loved the steady increase of the ranges of Nerf guns. The big appeal for Nerf where I live is that it is more accurate than Air soft and has less range than paint ball. There appear to be three things that people have problems with, I would like to present a counter argument for each.

1) Ranges: why would there be a problem with ranges? There are reasons I can see for people disliking increased ranges: pain at close range, many guns don't get the far ranges of the +bow or overhauled at3k, or they cant hit anyone at the far ranges that these guns fire at. You can stand further apart when you shoot, you don't have to be 50ft apart when you shoot. If you can't hit someone from that range either you can accept that or work to improve your aim. It appears we are working to address concerns about the +bow by decreasing the range of high powered Nerf Guns. If we are fighting to keep the +bow fair maybe we need to take a look at the +bow again.

2) Pain/safety: as I said before, you can stand further apart. If you choose to get in close you choose to accept the pain of getting shot. How many people here have played paint ball? The paint balls will leave bruises through sweatshirts and will make you bleed if it hits bare skin. Nerf even at point blank isn't that powerful.

3) The +bow: If all we are trying to do is make it so the +bow doesn't smear the competition, then we need to adjust the +bow not the darts. Not all of us like or have a +bow. I prefer weak close range guns as opposed to the sn!ping weapons we appear to be capping the rages of. I have no issues with the +bow, you wanna use it have fun with it.

I understand that we all have a right to Nerf as we please and this is a place that we can discuss our views. If you wanna ban the slingshot weighted darts that is your decision, I will allow all ammo types at my wars, if there are problems with safety then I will ban the guns not the darts. In summary:

I am opposed to any dart ban.

[fallinouttadabox]

I've been watching this discussion on the Midwest Nerf site for a while. I'm one of the Nerfers who has loved the steady increase of the ranges of Nerf guns. The big appeal for Nerf where I live is that it is more accurate than Air soft and has less range than paint ball. There appear to be three things that people have problems with, I would like to present a counter argument for each.

1) Ranges: why would there be a problem with ranges? There are reasons I can see for people disliking increased ranges: pain at close range, many guns don't get the far ranges of the +bow or overhauled at3k, or they cant hit anyone at the far ranges that these guns fire at. You can stand further apart when you shoot, you don't have to be 50ft apart when you shoot. If you can't hit someone from that range either you can accept that or work to improve your aim. It appears we are working to address concerns about the +bow by decreasing the range of high powered Nerf Guns. If we are fighting to keep the +bow fair maybe we need to take a look at the +bow again.

2) Pain/safety: as I said before, you can stand further apart. If you choose to get in close you choose to accept the pain of getting shot. How many people here have played paint ball? The paint balls will leave bruises through sweatshirts and will make you bleed if it hits bare skin. Nerf even at point blank isn't that powerful.

3) The +bow: If all we are trying to do is make it so the +bow doesn't smear the competition, then we need to adjust the +bow not the darts. Not all of us like or have a +bow. I prefer weak close range guns as opposed to the sn!ping weapons we appear to be capping the rages of. I have no issues with the +bow, you wanna use it have fun with it.

I understand that we all have a right to Nerf as we please and this is a place that we can discuss our views. If you wanna ban the slingshot weighted darts that is your decision, I will allow all ammo types at my wars, if there are problems with safety then I will ban the guns not the darts. In summary:

I am opposed to any dart ban.

2) Although nerf at long range isn't that powerful, at point blank range, there are plenty of guns which can break skin.

3) You're suggesting a ban on guns or mods to guns. This limits progress. If someone can make a gun that shoots further and faster than other guns (within reason), more power to them. The dart ban would allow these guns to come into play without jeopardizing the safety of players, encouraging others to find new ways to give their guns more power.

[Ice Nine]

- I've been watching this discussion on the Midwest Nerf site for a while. I'm one of the Nerfers who has loved the steady increase of the ranges of Nerf guns. The big appeal for Nerf where I live is that it is more accurate than Air soft and has less range than paint ball. [...] I prefer weak close range guns as opposed to the sn!ping weapons we appear to be capping the rages of. I have no issues with the +bow, you wanna use it have fun with it.

- I am opposed to any dart ban.

That, uh, seems rather contradictory. Are you saying you enjoy spectating the power creep? Because this ban benefits you as a close-range player the most.

You're opposed to any dart ban for stupid reasons. Yes, paintball guns hurt more, but if we wanted to play paintball, we'd be fucking playing paintball.

Shooting people from farther away is also stupid as fuck. I'm not going to stop in the middle of a round, and take a few steps back out of consideration, because I know the other person won't. That's a terrible way to argue in support of slingshot weights.

Making the +bow worse is also a shitty way to get what you want. For every +bow you make worse, there's the fifteen dollar Big Blast with a five dollar replaced pump that shoots just as hard if the person pumps it sufficiently. You can overhaul an AT3K for under fifty. You can get any number of guns that rival the +bow in overall performance for a fraction of the price, and you feel like punishing only the +bow users. That's retarded. Either nerf the rest of the guns (with dart bans), or disallow them. There's nothing special about the +bow.

[bigred1rifleman]

I'm really the only one that still uses megas.

WWWWWhat?!?!?!

[Equilox]

@Fallin:

1)On second thought you are right about the skin break, My bad I'll admit i was wrong.

2) I don't want to stop progress at all, the only guns I ever want to see banned are the Singled Titan and the Singled Plugged Big Blast ect. I was merely speaking to those in support of gun bans more so than dart bans. Never do I want to see the progress of homemades or powerful mod creativity to be hampered. I think that it is contradictory to the purpose of the hobby.
@Ice

Woah! did not mean to get personal. I know if we wanted to play paint ball we would be:

"I understand that we all have a right to Nerf as we please and this is a place that we can discuss our views"

I added this so people would know I am not telling them how to Nerf but merely presenting a secondary argument.

As a short range player, one WOULD think that the power creep would bother me. It doesn't, I think that if a Nerfer can out do me in distance, (Which is why I am a close range player, I do ROF mods better than distance mods) then he should be allowed his advantage just as I am allowed mine.

I said that overhauled at3k's were among the more powerful guns, I said more guns than the +bow. I mentioned it specifically because it is a hot topic of discussion, not because I think it is unfair. I LIKE THEM!! They add a different element to a war, I just don't like to use them. They are not my style. Keep them as powerful as you want. Bring it on in fact. All it means is that I have to be more creative in the way I play.

I didn't say that you had to back up, I was referring to those who want to charge at someone and then get pissed that they get shot at close range. What I meant was if you don't want to get shot at close range, stay away from those you don't want to get shot by. I understand that may mean the your opponent is out of range or your weapon but each is entitled to his own style of play.

"You can get any number of guns that rival the +bow in overall performance for a fraction of the price"

And as a side note, no where did I mention that only those with money own a +bow, I just said not everyone.

In short I see no real safety issues that are not equivocal to those seen in paintball, air soft, or other shooting related sports that say slingshot weighted darts are a danger to Nerfers. Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to step on any toes by not understanding.

[Split]

As a short range player, one WOULD think that the power creep would bother me. It doesn't, I think that if a Nerfer can out do me in distance, (Which is why I am a close range player, I do ROF mods better than distance mods) then he should be allowed his advantage just as I am allowed mine.

I like your arguing style. You distort the situation just enough to make your argument seem reasonable, without going too far to induce too much scrutiny on your basic assumptions.

What you're assuming in your last post is that either A) Long LONG range, single shot, slow reload time or B ) High rate of fire, are the only possibilities. And then the obvious implication there is that the high ROF would be at the non-long range part.

But what we really know is that that is not exactly the case. Notice how I said "non-long range". That encompasses mid-range - what we consider to be from say, 50 to 80 or so feet.
Yet the fully automatics and clipped blasters, as well as many turreted blasters (save our shining examples of late), are actually of almost no range at all (or, of course, no durability at all - again, exceptions.). Meaning nerfers who use things like RF20's, Recons or the like have to play within say... <30'? At best.

Beyond that range, and people are left to using the same high powered blasters - why would you take the rof loss without maximizing on the range increase? It's only logical to jump to the 100'+ once you leave those categories.

So as it stands right now, there is no "mid-range," and the gap from high range to low range is far too big (About five times the distance, in fact).

So what we want is just to shift the energy maximum from darts going 150' flat to substantially lower, thus making it easier to use those Wildfires and Vulcans, while keeping the dynamic of high range and low rof to low range and high rof, and making the game more varied, versatile and enjoyable.



Personally, I don't give a shit about getting shot from really close with whatever. I'm not going to expect that of everyone else. I don't know how anyone can. Who are we to really say that kids who don't want bruises and welts "aren't man enough" and expect them to not mind taking those hits? I think it is absurd to even bring it up as an argument against what are effectively just range limits.



Since you're on the Midwest forums, I'm assuming here that you're at least somewhat tolerable, so I feel it's alright to address your expressed views here.

What I meant was if you don't want to get shot at close range, stay away from those you don't want to get shot by. I understand that may mean the your opponent is out of range or your weapon but each is entitled to his own style of play.

A quick note on the words here - you are equating not wanting to get hit (or hit others!) from painfully short distances with play styles; this is of course very far from the reality.



A quick P.S.: I somehow got flak for not saying this to you directly before in a different topic, Slug, but there is in fact a marked difference in range from a flat tip to a domed one - measured, not just theorized.

Edit: Quick text turned a bullet point into an emoticon.

Edited by Split, 24 November 2009 - 12:54 AM.

[Equilox]

I agree with your range comments and you assume correctly when you say that I didn't recognize the midrange guns before.

I too could care less if I got shot at close range, but then again that is just me.

A quick note on the words here - you are equating not wanting to get hit (or hit others!) from painfully short distances with play styles; this is of course very far from the reality.

I can see your point, I guess it's just me that sees them as one concept.

[Homestarune]

I have to agree with Split and Ice9. though I know where Equilox is coming from. The Effeminateenter of this "problem" is Chicago. I've seen what's coming out of there, and it's completely different than the wars Equilox and I have been at. The farthest shooting gun here is my crossbow.

People have used magstrikes and the like here and have been (for the most part) able to play on the same level as everyone else. Our arenas have always been conducive towards a balance between low, medium, and high rate-of-fire weaponry. As Split pointed out, that's not the case in other regions. As is, things are evenly balanced here, and I don't see the need to change the status quo. If the situation changes here where people start to use longer range high rate-of-fire blasters, then we'll do something about it. In other places, (namely Chicago) this is exactly what is needed.

Edited by Homestarune, 24 November 2009 - 11:17 AM.

[Goggles]

I'm glad to see this data, and read this discussion, because safety should definitely be more important to us than the size of our dicks ranges we can fire our primaries.


Something that hasn't been brought up in this thread, or in Ryan####'s thread about blasters becoming too powerful, but walks hand in hand with both of these issues, is proper eye protection.

If you're imposing a ban on slingshot weighted ammo for safety reasons, then you should probably adopt some sort of realistic expectation for the eye protection of people that come to your wars as well. I've seen too many people wearing just their normal glasses or sunglasses, neither of which are designed to take an impact from any sort of projectile, and would probably shatter from a close range hit from even just a re-barrelled Nitefinder. Even Slug darts at close ranges could ruin your day/life by blasting through your sunglasses and making friends with your eye, not to mention driving shards of your now shattered glasses into your eye as well.

Why take one step to promote safety, but not take the next logical one after that?

I'm not suggesting that we require participants at our respective wars to purchase and wear paintball or airsoft goggles, just that they are actually wearing something designed as safety glasses. When you're expecting people to show up with high powered blasters, it's simply irresponsible to not require real protective eye wear, even if you're banning heavier darts to limit power, and especially if you're not banning slingshot weighted darts.

Safety glasses aren't very expensive either, and can be obtained at the same places that everyone goes to get modding supplies, so there's not really a good excuse for someone to not have a real pair of safety glasses.

[Ice Nine]

For the record, Dart Tag glasses don't shatter from slingshot weighted darts out of a Big Blast at point blank.

[Draconis]

A quick P.S.: I somehow got flak for not saying this to you directly before in a different topic, Slug, but there is in fact a marked difference in range from a flat tip to a domed one - measured, not just theorized.

And not just flat either. I made some flat tipped hot glue darts, and they easily lose 5-10% range. The felt tip is even worse, at 10-15%. My fuzzy darts are worse yet at upwards of 40% range loss.

[Goggles]

For the record, Dart Tag glasses don't shatter from slingshot weighted darts out of a Big Blast at point blank.

That was another thing I was concerned about. I suppose Nerf has to make those extra strong for liability's sake.

[z80]

Yeah those goggles are pretty much indestructable. Havent had one so much as crack on me. I actually wear em sometimes, and I have a big assed head.