Jump to content


Photo

Dart Weight Regulations/range Testing

Slingshot ammo banned!

55 replies to this topic

#51 Daniel Beaver

Daniel Beaver

    HQRSE CQCK

  • Moderators
  • 2,074 posts
  • NerfHaven Subscription Supporter
  • Location:Minneapolis
  • State:Minnesota
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 November 2009 - 02:26 PM

Good point about sunglasses: they are not impact resistant (although they're better than nothing). A good alternative is shooting glasses, which is what I use. And if you don't care about shades, just use some cheap safety glasses from the hardware store.
  • 0

#52 Coop

Coop

    #sogoodmuchtacticswowinit2winit360noscopehax0rleetbeastmodeactiv

  • Members
  • 775 posts
  • Location:Narnia
  • State:Florida
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:47 AM

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.

Considering I wore sunglasses at the last war, I assume I was part of the reason you wrote this.

The problem for me isn't that "glasses look dumb" or anything stupid like that, it's that I fog up nearly anything that goes over my eyes. My sunglasses are the only thing I've been able to wear while sweating that doesn't get covered in fog leading me to throwing them off. I'm against a mandatory eye-wear rule that applies to everyone. I would rather have the sun blocked from my eyes and have some protection over my eyes rather than fogging up some cheap safety glasses in the first 5 minutes of a round and throwing them off leaving my eyes vulnerable.

I mean, I'll look into getting some glasses that won't fog or something, but I'm not about to spend $20 on glasses to please the host when I feel my sunglasses work fine. And yes, I'm aware they may shatter/break at point blank from a powerful blaster. But, I'm a little wimp, so I'm rarely within 50' of someone in the primary rounds anyways...
  • 0

On the other hand, the guy who posted before me used the word 'fuck' a lot so he probably knows what he's talking about.


#53 Goggles

Goggles

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Fort Collins, CO

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:15 PM

Considering I wore sunglasses at the last war, I assume I was part of the reason you wrote this.


Actually, I wasn't thinking about that, but I do remember you doing that now.

You're old enough that I don't mind shooting you're eye out Coop, it's the 13-16 age group that I don't particularly want to blind. :)

Safety glasses generally only cost $5-10, and even "anti-fog treated" lenses can be acquired within that price range.

Ultimately, no one's going to be happy with saying, "if you want to come to my war, you have to have eye protection that meets _______ regulation," and If you're willing to trust your eyes to your normal sunglasses, I don't particularly want to be too paternalistic about it and demand that you find something else, but we should all keep in mind that our cheapo sunglasses probably aren't that safe.

The difference between dart types and eye protection, however, is that it's (eye protection) a personal choice. Me wearing flimsy sunglasses doesn't really affect other people, while my choice of dart weight can affect others, which is why I would support, and I think most others would support, some sort of dart weight limitation at their local wars, but not generally be too supportive of eye protection standards other than "you have to wear eye protection."

Edited by Goggles, 25 November 2009 - 06:17 PM.

  • 0
QUOTE(KatanasPWN @ Nov 27 2010, 04:53 PM) View Post

...just keep a careful watch on some of the newbs and people with stupid names (ie. anything with knex, lego, etc)

#54 Prince Valor

Prince Valor

    Member

  • Members
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Columbus, Ohio

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:20 PM

If we are so worried about the pain of some darts and the range of some guns than the only way to solve this problem is to ban all homemade darts. This will cut down on the "injuries" all most down to none. We all know that stock darts have shit ranges and only hurt very little (if at all) so lets use them. Yeah right! Like anyone really wants to use stock darts. Well there are some consequences to the homemade darts deal with it. Stop complaining about having a tiny little bruise for a couple of days. I have been shot in almost every place you don't want to get shot (ex: forehead, temple, throat, groin, eye, teeth) and I am not complaining about it, I just say "nice shot" and keep going.

As for ranges, each person has their own particular style (ex: long range shooters[LRS], gun-slinger, berserker). LRS are a big part of war and because of them, foot soldiers have had to adapt and change their strategy. Also because LRS have a long range (by name) it typically means that they have a slow RoF giving the close range guys(ex: gun-slingers, beserkers) time to sneak up and kill them. These actually balance every thing and don't give the advantage to anyone.

We as players just have to adjust our strategies in war and learn new things.

Edited by Prince Valor, 26 November 2009 - 08:53 PM.

  • 0
QUOTE(Mr BadWrench @ Apr 18 2010, 05:44 AM) View Post
quote of the year

Camo: OUCH, WHAT WAS THAT!?
Prince Valor: That, Was a HIT!!
IRC
QUOTE
21:36 Talio: However Vacc and I have consensual sexual activity on a regular basis

#55 Goggles

Goggles

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Location:Fort Collins, CO

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:36 PM

LRS have a long range (by name) it typically means that they have a slow RoF


You're overlooking the fact that most of these recent discussions have been spawned by the fact that rate of fire is no longer a limitation, even for high powered guns, with the refinement in modding techniques, RSCB and hopper clips, you can fire your +bow just as fast, if not faster than, someone with a lower powered blaster, and still shoot farther than most of the other people on the field.
  • 0
QUOTE(KatanasPWN @ Nov 27 2010, 04:53 PM) View Post

...just keep a careful watch on some of the newbs and people with stupid names (ie. anything with knex, lego, etc)

#56 Zorns Lemma

Zorns Lemma

    Sir Scrt

  • Moderators
  • 1,277 posts
  • Location:Dulles International Airport
  • State:Virginia
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:27 AM

Stop complaining about having a tiny little bruise for a couple of days. I have been shot in almost every place you don't want to get shot (ex: forehead, temple, throat, groin, eye, teeth) and I am not complaining about it, I just say "nice shot" and keep going.


With single-bb dome darts I've put holes - not figurative holes, but actually dimples of pierced skin that bleed profusely - in people with blasters that aren't even at the peak of current blaster performance (i.e. range + rof).

Also because LRS have a long range (by name) it typically means that they have a slow RoF giving the close range guys(ex: gun-slingers, beserkers) time to sneak up and kill them.


You play too many video games where a sníper rifle takes longer to reload. In actual nerf technology, we've reached the point where we can get 100+ shots out just as fast as you can reprime a maverick. The only blasters with higher ROF are the automatics, with their rather pathetic "I could dodge all your nice and lofty shots and rush in and barrel tap you at this distance" ranges.

Edited by Zorn's Lemma, 27 November 2009 - 03:28 AM.

  • 0
"In short, the same knowledge that underlies the ability to produce correct judgement is also the knowledge that underlies the ability to recognize correct judgement. To lack the former is to be deficient in the latter."
Kruger and Dunning (1999)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users