36 replies to this topic

[Dastardly]

As I'm new, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I wasn't able to find where it was codified in any way, so I figured it couldn't hurt to throw this idea out there. Of course, I know there are a few people who are as receptive to new ideas as they would be to a pine cone suppository...

Over my months of observation (such is the validation wait), I keep seeing the topic of escalation come up--feeling blasters are getting too powerful, pot-shot rounds, ammo concerns, you name it. The overarching idea is that people (whatever their opinions) want to avoid taking the fun out of it, but overall want to avoid banning things unnecessarily, or arbitrarily.

So, I'm not a modder, per se. I follow the great guides on here and enjoy my guns, but I doubt my contribution to this forum will ever be a new, original modification. Ideas, rubrics, that kinda crap, I can do. A dime a dozen, yes, but I figured it's a better first post than "Wch gun best 4 lewzering?"

What I've put together is a numerical system, very easy-to-use, for classifying various blasters based on maximum level range, rate of fire, ammo capacity, and any integrations included. The actual USE of these ratings is up to the person running the event--use it to categorize rounds, use it to ban blasters of certain classes, use the point value to limit overall loadout but still allow flexibility, whatever.


**The System**:

Classification Levels:

Class A: 0 points - 25 points
Class B: 30 points - 45 points
Class C: 50 points - 65 points
Class D: 70 points - 90 points
Class E: 95 points - 115 points
Class F: 120+ points

Each weapon is assessed according to the following traits: Maximum Level Range, Rate of Fire, Ammo Capacity, and Integrations (the physical attachment of another weapon). It is important to know that integrated weapons are still classed as separate weapons, but there is an additional point cost for the convenience of having it integrated as well.

Maximum Level Range
Melee - 10 ft: 5 points
11 ft - 25 ft: 10 points
26 ft - 35 ft: 15 points
36 ft - 50 ft: 20 points
51 ft - 70 ft: 30 points
71 ft - 90 ft: 45 points
91 ft - 110ft: 65 points
110 ft+ : 80 points

Rate of Fire:
Single: 5 points
Clip-Fed Single: 10 points
Turreted Single: 15 points (refers to self-rotating turrets)
Shotgun Fire: 15 points
Semi-Auto: 25 points
Full-Auto: 35 points

Ammo Capacity:
Single: 5 points
2 - 8 darts : 10 points
9 - 16 darts : 15 points
17 - 25 darts: 20 points
26+ : 30 points
(Additional Clips/Belts/Drums: 5 points each)

Integrations*:

Add 5 points for each Classification Level of the integrated weapon. (ex. integrating a Class C weapon would add 15 points)

*For the purposes of this system, an integration is defined as "Two or more physically-attached weapons with separate firing mechanisms." This includes weapons with linked TRIGGERS, but separate plungers/springs/etc. This does not include weapons with integrated parts (ex. A maverick with additional cylinders integrated would have a higher CAPACITY, but not be considered an integration because there is only one firing mechanism.)


*USES:*

1. ...to expressly limit gun types for a particular activity. (ex. having a Class-B round)

2. ...to shape the TOTAL equipment for each player. (ex. You are alotted X points, however you should choose to use them.)

3. ...to provide limitations for any "squads" you may have organized for some games. (ex. "No more than 1 Class C weapon," or "Total points less than X," etc)

*The KISS Doctrine (Keep It Simple, Stupid):*

While this explanation may be somewhat long and complicated, it's only because I'm introducing a new system AND all the ways it could be used.


*EXAMPLE:*

Let's say I'd like to use the following weapons, and I need to know how they're classified:

1) Longshot with Raider Drum and Brass Breech System, w/ Integrated Front Gun
2) Nerf Eliminator with AR Removal/Brass Barrel
3) Stock Maverick

Modded Longshot:
Max. Level Range: 95 (60 points)
Rate of Fire: Clip-Fed Single (10 points)
Ammo Cap.: 35 darts (30 points)
Integrations: Integ. Class A (5 points)
TOTAL: 105 points - Class E weapon

LS Front Gun:
Max. Level Range: 30 (15 points)
RoF: Single (5)
Ammo Cap.: Single (5)
Integ.: None
TOTAL: 25 points - Class A weapon

Eliminator:
Max. Level Range: 30 (15 points)
Rate of Fire: Single (5 points)
Ammo Cap.: Single (5 points)
Integrations: none (0 points)
TOTAL: 25 points - Class A weapon

Stock Maverick:
Max. Level Range: 25 (10 points)
Rate of Fire: Turreted Single (15 points)
Ammo Cap.: 6 (10 points)
Integ.: none (0 points)
TOTAL: 35 points - Class B Weapon

At the start of the day, I register these weapons when I sign up, so that GMs know what I can use at any given time.

So, let's say our GM set a limit for the first game at 60 points. The longshot is out, but I can take the Maverick AND the Eliminator. I can't run around at all times loaded for bear.

Now, the next game, the cap is raised to 130 points. Now I bust out my Longshot/FG, which rests at a total of 130 points.... but I REALLY want to bring my Maverick, too. So, I can instead agree not to load the Front Gun, making the Longshot only 100 points (subtracting the integration) and allowing me to bring the Maverick. I put a piece of orange tape over the FG barrel to signify it's out-of-play for now.

Another way I could lower the point value of my Longshot is to just change out the Drum Clip for a standard 6-round magazine, with a spare in the stock. That'll bring the total down 15 points.

**BUT WHAT ABOUT AMMO?**

Safety concerns should always be at the discretion of the game moderators. Other ammo concerns are already accounted for above (for instance, in weapon range categories). If you use stefans or CDTs or stock ammo or marshmellow Peeps, their impact is accounted for in the above categories. However, if you're of the camp that feels slingshot ammo is too dangerous or painful, you can outright ban it without banning particular blasters or mods.

Questions or adjustments to numbers are perfectly welcome. Again, this is just a proposed idea for helping keep things objective when determining what fits in what round, or what isn't welcome at a particular event. People can prepare beforehand, and make adjustments to bring their favorite blasters in-line with requirements (or get another they KNOW will fit).

Edited by Dastardly, 19 February 2010 - 09:31 AM.

[nerfdartsmith21]

This is actually pretty cool and useful, nice work.

[pinz321]

Cool. As well as slingshot darts, this'll take a long time to be adapted into nerf. Only problem is it can be sort of annoying due to it being so technical.

[VACC]

GMs know what I can use at any given time.

I was gonna make a case that you kinda made for me. If we were playing AD&D, this would be an great solution.

In a nerf war setting, however, it doesn't strike me as very useful. For one, the gun is only half the equation, as a plusbow in one nerfer's hand is much different, in terms of effectiveness, than it is in another nerfer's hands. Second, we generally object to the idea of overkill weapons on the basis of safety and enjoyment, not on the basis of it's impact on a team. What does it mean to a nerfer who is seriously outgunned and quickly dispatched by a disproportionately good nerf gun that somewhere on his team the points level out?

Applying statistics to nerf wars, while interesting, rarely makes them more enjoyable. Rather, it complicates organizing the war and can reduce actual play time significantly as we hit our calculators to balance teams between rounds. When you are actually nerfing with someone, you can tell if their nerf gun is simply really good, or flat out unfair to some nerfers. Balancing those nerfers/nerf guns between teams is important, but it can be done very effectively by knowing the nerfers and the rounds you're running.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try this out. It's an interesting and creative solution to a problem that has been bought up here more and more frequently. It just seems like you created this solution without actually experiencing many nerf wars.

Prove me wrong.

[pjotrkuh]

Too much work for the GM, people will argue about their level of points and other's level of points, hereby I think it won't be implemented............nice try though...........

Darn VACC types faster...

Edited by pjotrkuh, 17 February 2010 - 08:32 AM.

[Dastardly]

VACC:

Objections totally understood, though I think you're misinterpreting my purpose with this.

Sorting teams is ONE application (which is more useful in small, familiar group events). Another is just saying "Hey, this round, only Class B." And since people should have known beforehand what that meant, it's just a matter of putting down one gun and picking up another. No need to calculate, or do more than an eyeballing of what doesn't seem to fit. But when someone gets uppety, there's an objective measure available.

How it's applied depends on the people, the size of the event, the games going on, any number of things. In a SMALL group setting, you can tinker more with it because folks all know each other and probably communicate enough between events to minimize downtime at the event itself. In a large group setting, it's much more a "Class D round, get your big guns!" or "Class A, midget pistol round!"

Again, HOW the system is used is wide open. My goal wasn't to enforce a particular way of sorting events or judging a PERSON'S ability. The goal is to have a way to compare "apples to other apples to oranges."

Also, ideally, all of this would be handled in the PLANNING stages of the event. You post your advertisement, you let folks know what's what, and they send their RSVP maybe with a list of what they're bringing. When you're there, it's business as usual... but with a little less room for arguing this or that blaster is or isn't too much for this particular game, because everyone knew beforehand AND had a standardized measurement to go by.

Let's say you have no speedometer, and there's no posted speed limit, and a cop pulls you over and says "You were going to fast." And you were pretty much keeping pace with the people around you. Ignoring the illegality of no speedometer or laws regarding assumed speed limits, it would seem like the cop is just being a dick. Yeah, he's got the power to be the dick, but that doesn't make it more palatable.

Just trying to provide a working speedometer. And hosts can decide their own posted speed limits.

[Buffdaddy]

I especially like VACC's first statement, this certainly pleases the D&D side of me.

In all reality, this could be useful. Assuming this is the system, all you'd have to do is take a Sharpie to the butt of your guns and write a letter on it while you're at home. That's all it would take, and then you can swap out guns at the war as needed.

And it's a "speed limit", just an upper boundary. If it's a class A round and you decide "Screw these +bows, I'm going to rush people with my Motorized Ballzooka", that's your call. You might not survive long, but raining balls is damn fun regardless. After all, at the end of the day, isn't Nerf just about having fun?

[Dastardly]

Yup, that's more what I'm after. Fun!


I know, I know. Numbers aren't fun. They aren't for me, either... but they are part of my day job, so I can't help but see the utility.


Part of the fun is having a balanced round where everyone feels they've got a shot at winning, rather than anyone feeling far outclassed by the equipment available. (Being outclassed by a player, there's no cure for that)

But part of the fun is ALSO not having arguments about what should go where... or having to tell someone "My way or the highway" when they TRY to argue the point... or any other sort of drama that comes with subjective measurements of fairness and balance.


I'd love to see both. Boom! Round is balanced because of a Class C cap. Boom! Drama and arguments are avoided because the numbers were made clear beforehand, and all the bitching was taken care of BEFORE the event, so that day-of can be as drama free as is possible in a hobby with this many "alpha males" on the field.

[nerfer9]

I really like this idea. It deals with all the "how powerful is your (insert name of gun here)" questions. Oh, and you need to add speedloaders to the "rate of fire" section.

[billyblue888]

I think that this will work. It also helps if you have a larger group of people(10+) that you don't know that well. So you would normally have to check about one third of everyone's blaster for range but with this you could just say "lets do a B round" and then you wouldn't have to worry.

[veginator]

I really like this idea of putting blasters into specific classes but I do see 2 problems with the system.

1. Not all people may have a specific blaster for each class. This would be especially a problem where I nerf as many of us don't even have a proper pistol.

2. You're rate of fire measuring system doesn't take into account air vs. springer. I personally am working on a clip fed shotgun ,but the pumping would make the actual rate of fire slower than most singled springers.

Again, I am not bashing the idea but suggesting a couple refinements that would help to convince others to use the system.

[Dastardly]

I really like this idea. It deals with all the "how powerful is your (insert name of gun here)" questions. Oh, and you need to add speedloaders to the "rate of fire" section.

By speedloader, do you mean things like extra pre-loading Maverick cylinders? If that's the case, the speed of reloading is dependent on the player, not necessarily the equipment. The extra cylinder would fall under "ammo capacity," but the rate of fire is the same (one prime, one shot).

I really like this idea of putting blasters into specific classes but I do see 2 problems with the system.

1. Not all people may have a specific blaster for each class. This would be especially a problem where I nerf as many of us don't even have a proper pistol.

That can be tricky, yes... but no trickier than games where they hold a "pistol round." You could ask to borrow one from someone else, or bring a Class B gun to a Class C fight and see what you can do under that limitation. I wouldn't in any way stipulate that a player has to have something from every class--for instance, I have no desire to ever own a Doomsayer.

2. You're rate of fire measuring system doesn't take into account air vs. springer. I personally am working on a clip fed shotgun ,but the pumping would make the actual rate of fire slower than most singled springers.

You're right that it doesn't include that distinction. Mostly, this is because it drastically reduces the simplicity of the system without really increasing its usefulness to match. I consider pumping air to be part of the RELOADING process, which again doesn't factor into this system. After all, some people have the bike pump that fills them up in half a twitch, while others work with stock pumps that take a gajillion. I decided to intentionally leave that out of the system, as one place where players can use their own skill to tip the balance--reload time.

Again, I am not bashing the idea but suggesting a couple refinements that would help to convince others to use the system.

But certainly never apologize for a valid critique! While I've got my reasons for doing what I did, that doesn't mean in any way that your thoughts are invalid, or that I'd feel "attacked" because you disagree. You were direct, specific, and it is a reasonable critique. My choice on it has simply boiled down to personal taste on the reloading issue.

[guardian21]

its a good system but it needs to be simplified by alot. you need more vague catagories for it to be practical.

range:
close
mid
long


rate of fire:
single
multi
shotgun
alternate ammo (rockets, megas ect)



thats really all you need. it would also make it easier if you gave stock guns base values to build off of.

[catmods]

I crunched some numbers, and my Giygas with integrated splash pumper gets 330 points. Would that mean its banned from any of your wars?

Angels Doomsayer gets 105 points. I guess this proves overkill with integrations making a heavier weapon is useful. Still, Angel is highly likely to be a better nerfer. Still, I think you need to balace this list out more. I mean, you just have single pump guns and spring guns sharing the same section.

Edited by catmods, 17 February 2010 - 11:31 AM.

[jaybo1996]

I really like this idea. It deals with all the "how powerful is your (insert name of gun here)" questions. Oh, and you need to add speedloaders to the "rate of fire" section.

By speedloader, do you mean things like extra pre-loading Maverick cylinders? If that's the case, the speed of reloading is dependent on the player, not necessarily the equipment. The extra cylinder would fall under "ammo capacity," but the rate of fire is the same (one prime, one shot).

Speedloaders are when you have several detachable barrels hotglued, e-taped or by some other form attached. They cut down reload times to about an eigth of the regular time. After firing, instead of grabbing another dart from your pocket, you just yank the barrel off and put on a different one. (There all preloaded)

Edited by jaybo1996, 17 February 2010 - 12:07 PM.

[yoda]

I think this is a great idea. This should help a lot for hvz. I don't think this will get used during many other rounds though.

[VACC]

Well, if you want to run with it, those numbers probably won't work all that well.

For starters, you're charging more for a "turreted single" than for a clip fed blaster. Most turrets, when modded for distance, are manually rotated, which would be less advantagious than a clip fed system (purely in terms of rof). If they are automatic, I still fail to see how that is any better than a clip (which can be removed and swapped with greater ease than reloading a turret). Also, the difference between rear loading and ramrodding 12" barrels is certainly larger than the rate of fire difference between clips and turrets. You might want to add rear loading as a variable.

Let's see, I've never, ever been hit by a shotgunned blaster, and the dart consumption makes them incredibly ineffeicient. Not to mention that once you shoot the blaster (which, despite the number of darts fired, can only score one hit per target) you're left with a considerable reload time. Why that would cost more than clips or as much as turrets I'm not sure.

Rapid fire is a DECIDED disadvantage in the majority of NIC style wars where we pause between hits. A functioning true-semi-auto blaster is, on average, far superior in terms of accuracy, ammo consumption, and utility.

The difference between an air powered blaster and a springer (all other things equal) is a lot larger than you'd imagine given the quicker, more reliable, and much less time sensitive (most air tanks slowly lose pressure if you prime them well before taking your shot) nature of a spring blaster. Most of the time these blasters make up for this with range, but we're considering that factor seperately.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why do you apply a base cost for single shot weapons and minimum ammo. Wouldn't it be easier and more representative to build these costs into the base range cost?

Anyway, these are just a few considerations for your system. There are just so many different ways to modify nerf blasters, and the effects of these modifications are difficult to quantify unless you actually nerf with or against them.

[Zack the Mack]

This sounds too complicated to implement at a real war. It's too difficult to measure range on the field, and many players only have one primary. At a highly structured Nerf war (Oxymoron!), this could work, I suppose. Some suggestions:

- Range penalties should use a logarithmic scale. The difference between 30 and 50 feet is negligible, but the difference between 80 and 100 feet is game-breaking.

- Players should only be ranked by their highest-point-value blaster. From what I've seen, it's prohibitively difficult to carry more than one primary, and merely switching between a primary and a sidearm is borderline impossible. The power difference between a player with two +Bows and a player with one +Bow is probably nonexistent.

Moral of the story: Play the Shields game type!

Edited by Zack the Mack, 17 February 2010 - 12:24 PM.

[Dastardly]

I crunched some numbers, and my Giygas with integrated splash pumper gets 330 points. Would that mean its banned from any of your wars?

Only not allowed in some rounds. What's wrong with having a free-for-all at some point during the day for everyone to show off the bigg'ns?

Speedloaders are when you have several detachable barrels hotglued, e-taped or by some other form attached. They cut down reload times to about an eigth of the regular time. After firing, instead of grabbing another dart from your pocket, you just yank the barrel off and put on a different one. (There all preloaded)

Ah, I gotcha. I'd still consider it single shot, unless it's the flip-style double barrel (where the other pre-loaded barrel is right there on the weapon already). That I'd count has having 2 loaded.

Well, if you want to run with it, those numbers probably won't work all that well.

Totally understandable. I don't deal with nerfers who are at the EXTREMES of modding, so I figured these numbers wouldn't be perfect as-is.

For starters, you're charging more for a "turreted single" than for a clip fed blaster. Most turrets, when modded for distance, are manually rotated, which would be less advantagious than a clip fed system (purely in terms of rof).

I suppose that's my fault for not being clear. I'm refering to the sort of turrets that rotate themselves. If you have to manually rotate the turret, it only fires one. It cuts down your reload time, but does increase the capacity of the weapon. I think that brings these more in balance.

Also, the difference between rear loading and ramrodding 12" barrels is certainly larger than the rate of fire difference between clips and turrets. You might want to add rear loading as a variable.

I might. But the biggest misunderstanding is my fault, with the use of the term "rate of fire." I mean the gun's rate of fire, minus the variable of the player or reloading style. I guess I just can't think of a more accurate term for it--even rear-loading, that weapon only has a rate of fire of "one prime, one dart out." If you could help me with a more accurate term, I'd appreciate it, I'm just at a loss...

Let's see, I've never, ever been hit by a shotgunned blaster, and the dart consumption makes them incredibly ineffeicient. Not to mention that once you shoot the blaster (which, despite the number of darts fired, can only score one hit per target) you're left with a considerable reload time. Why that would cost more than clips or as much as turrets I'm not sure.

An excellent reason not to use them as outdoor primaries. Or hell, even as indoor primaries. But up close, it's like having an instant high-ROF. A burst, yes, but for that moment it's a very high-ROF. I wouldn't object to lowering the value of it, though, if enough people are using shotgunned primaries. Again, I'm not judging the efficiency of the blaster (which largely comes back to the player, their skill, and how/when they use a particular blaster).

Rapid fire is a DECIDED disadvantage in the majority of NIC style wars where we pause between hits. A functioning true-semi-auto blaster is, on average, far superior in terms of accuracy, ammo consumption, and utility.

Scaling those numbers up wouldn't be a problem. Most of us that I play with only use stock rapid-fire blasters, usually as novelty items, so there was no need to have the numbers all that high. A good change to make.

The difference between an air powered blaster and a springer (all other things equal) is a lot larger than you'd imagine given the quicker, more reliable, and much less time sensitive (most air tanks slowly lose pressure if you prime them well before taking your shot) nature of a spring blaster. Most of the time these blasters make up for this with range, but we're considering that factor seperately.

Yes, and by considering it separately, the points even out in the end. If we find they don't, we tweak the numbers. Only by more and broader experience can we get a sample size large enough to fix the numbers.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, why do you apply a base cost for single shot weapons and minimum ammo. Wouldn't it be easier and more representative to build these costs into the base range cost?

Simply for uniformity. It could just as easily be done like you said.

Anyway, these are just a few considerations for your system. There are just so many different ways to modify nerf blasters, and the effects of these modifications are difficult to quantify unless you actually nerf with or against them.

Always in motion is the future. I totally agree. The numbers can be tweaked as needed.

I just want to avoid including any more criteria, or cross-wiring too many bits in the criteria, or trying to account for too much of the human factor (otherwise, one person who can really use the SHIT out of a class B blaster would get it bumped up to class D, which wouldn't be fair to the less-adept players that want to use it). That's why I keep reload rate/method out of it. Let that be a matter of personal taste and a display of personal skill (either in modding or in use of the blaster).

Edited by Dastardly, 17 February 2010 - 07:54 PM.

[polycarb]

One more problem I see is the darts you use. With slug darts, a +bow's value drops severely. The dart weight is something that has to put into the equation. My +bow only hits 100; I use slug darts. This could let people with guns that are too powerful take advantage, and test their blasters with slug darts, then use slingshot weights for the war.

[Dastardly]

Ammo bans aren't uncommon, it seems, and that's an issue per event. Changing ammo changes the range, and thus the rating of the hole right.

And does anyone know why quotes in my above post won't work right? I'm a bit of an idiot when it comes to that... but I think I closed all my tags.

[Dastardly]

This sounds too complicated to implement at a real war. It's too difficult to measure range on the field, and many players only have one primary. At a highly structured Nerf war (Oxymoron!), this could work, I suppose.

Eh, just get there early, set up a range marked off in a few key places, and have people test it if something needs verified.

Some suggestions:

- Range penalties should use a logarithmic scale. The difference between 30 and 50 feet is negligible, but the difference between 80 and 100 feet is game-breaking.

While this can depend on the context and the players involved, a bit more tinkering would be fine. You'll probably notice I did try to keep a bit of a curve to the numbers. The categories could use some re-tooling, I'm sure--as I said, I don't nerf with too many folks at the most extreme ends. My first mod was an Angel Breech, and that's as "advanced" as we get in my crowd.

- Players should only be ranked by their highest-point-value blaster. From what I've seen, it's prohibitively difficult to carry more than one primary, and merely switching between a primary and a sidearm is borderline impossible. The power difference between a player with two +Bows and a player with one +Bow is probably nonexistent.

A valid point. I'd leave that decision to individual events, though. Remember that having a secondary really pays off when your primary is empty. Your PERSONAL ammo capacity increases. But you might be right that counting them as TOTAL weapons is a bit misleading.

[jaybo1996]

Speedloaders are when you have several detachable barrels hotglued, e-taped or by some other form attached. They cut down reload times to about an eigth of the regular time. After firing, instead of grabbing another dart from your pocket, you just yank the barrel off and put on a different one. (There all preloaded)

Ah, I gotcha. I'd still consider it single shot, unless it's the flip-style double barrel (where the other pre-loaded barrel is right there on the weapon already). That I'd count has having 2 loaded.

That's exactly what they are, but they have more than 2, usually between 4 and 6.

[Hi Yah]

What about RSCB's? Would they get rof points of a single barrel, but get the dart capacity of 2-8? And what if you have a turreted gun with inline clipped barrels?

[Ubermensch]

I agree, it would definitely be useful to add point values for rscb/hopper/inline clips, since they're used so often nowadays.