Wouldn't that just fall into the the "clip" category?
I agree, it would definitely be useful to add point values for rscb/hopper/inline clips, since they're used so often nowadays.
Blaster Classification/rating System
Posted 18 February 2010 - 04:24 AM
Posted 18 February 2010 - 07:02 AM
But remember, as was asked above, MANUALLY-turned turrets aren't counted as "turrets" for rate of fire purposes. They're considered single-shot, but with higher capacity. For the most part, anything that's done MANUALLY isn't accounted for by this, as it's a BLASTER rating system.
Posted 19 February 2010 - 09:40 AM
Range (higher end scaled up)
Rate of fire (higher end scaled up)
Baseline weapons, for comparison:
Stock Nightfinder: 20 points, Class A
Range Boosted (54 feet): 40 points, Class B
Range Boosted, Couplered with speedloader: 45 points, still Class B
(only gets into class C if you break 70 feet)
Stock Longshot: 35 points, Class B
Clip-compatible Breech replacement (say 80 feet): 65 points, Class C
Singled (say 100 feet): 75 points, Class D
Brass Breech with Raider Drum (say 90 feet): 85 points, Class D
GOOD Angel Breech with Raider Drum: 105, Class E
Stock Vulcan: 70 points, Class D. Class C if used semi-auto.
Stock RF20: 65 points, Class C
Range Boosted (50 feet): 75 points, Class D
Eyes of Fire: 95 points, Class E
Doomsayer: 110 points, Class E
Nope, no one's into Class F yet, but that was intentional. I'm sure we'll have one someday, so let's leave room...
Also, ranges vary depending on use of stock ammo, CDTs, or stefans of differing sizes and weights. I just threw some average ranges in there--in case it seems I'm low-balling some of the ranges, that's why.
Posted 19 February 2010 - 03:26 PM
Posted 22 February 2010 - 09:47 AM
Point 1 - no one said anything about LARP. I'm not into it. This is about a way to categorize blasters fairly and objectively, so that folks can sort rules for a wide variety of games to ensure balance and fairness.
Point 2 - plenty of people on these forums have been debating which blasters are too powerful or which aren't. This is an attempt to address that in an objective way - nothing needs to be banned, everything can be allowed within the category that is most appropriate.
Point 3 - You could use it for LARP, I'm sure. You could use it for a lot of things, because it's just a yardstick, not a ruleset.
If you've got anything useful to contribute, I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be). Otherwise, I'll just PM you if I want one of my blasters painted black so the cops can shoot at me.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 03:28 PM
Because at 165 posts, you're such a seasoned vet. Got any war stories, Grampa? How'd you lose that leg again?
You have 11 posts. The irony is hysterical.
I think this classification might better serve as a way to tell how extensively a gun has been modded such as the crossbow thread does. The only way you're going to get this to work is if you test it out.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:03 PM
I've always been a math guy, interested in finding out once and for all what's better than what, making everything definitive, and so on. But some of this stuff you're ignoring is gonna make a difference. A single shot, 15 inch ramrodding blaster in which the ramrod is stored in your pocket, takes maybe twenty or twenty-five seconds to load. A sliding brass breech, of the other hand, with ammo holders on the side of the gun, take less than five seconds to reload. Yet these are classified as the same.
And why are turrets ranked ahead of clips? Clips can be swapped out but turrets must be manually loaded. Both are one-prime-one-shot, and a turret has no advantage over a clip other than looking like Hades' most badass weapon of mass destruction evar.
And this is what a speedloader looks like:
According to your mom, size matters. My blaster is four feet long. What about yours?
I measured mine and I got about 11 inches.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 04:31 PM
A far superior system to a convoluted "let's try and shoehorn things into classifications that probably don't fit and I haven't ever been to a war" would be to use a simple formula that outputs data as dart-ft/s, a unit of Zorn's creation a while back in the #nerfhaven IRC.
Score = [(number darts loaded)/(time from fully loaded, unprimed to completely cycled)] * (maximal range) |Score| = dart*ft/s = d*ft/s for convention
I was debating whether or not to use dart*ft/s^2 and make the second half a velocity input but going with maximal range is just as effective and far easier to measure on the fly basically anywhere without anything other than a measuring system.
Here are some samples:
Score (Hopper Clip +bow) = [(7 darts)/(7 seconds)] * (150 ft) Score (HC +bow) = 150 d*ft/s Score (+bow) = [(two dart speedloader)/(four seconds)] * (150 ft) Score (+bow) = 75 d*ft/s Score (Coupler NF) = [(two dart speedloader)/(four seconds)] * (70 ft) Please note I use a generic, non crazy NF here. Score (CNF) = 35 d*ft/s Score (RF20) = [(20 darts)/(15 seconds)] * (50 ft) Score (RF20) = 66 + 2/3 d*ft/s
These are all good sample setups. I will now use the Guru Mk. III for a sample integration. I decided to use a multiplicand to the maximum range on the gun (the Crossbow) of n/(n-1), where n is the total number of barrels on the gun and n ≥ 2, which yields less return over more barrels because it gets increasingly annoying to reload.
Score (Guru Mk. III) = [(three darts)/(four seconds)] * ((3/2) * 120 ft) Score (Guru Mk. III) = 135 d*ft/s
This is a much simpler system to calculate on the fly at the field without having to rely on some almost arbitrary scorecard. It also allows to set round maximums (pistol round defined by guns having less than or equal to 35 d*ft/s, or whatevs) without complaint.
Again, I want to emphasize that no one should use this system unless they REALLY want to be annoying. I just made this to show that it could be done more simply and properly than the way you did it.
A paintball chronograph would greatly simplify the quantization of the relative power blasters. The current method of measuring ranges is subject to great error, and as such is not very useful for quantitative measurements such as these.
Yo Beaver, definitely not spending seventy plus shipping to do this. At a war it's a seriously low measure of time to verify ranges.
Edited by Ice Nine, 22 February 2010 - 05:58 PM.
Unholy Three: DUPLUM SCRTA, DUPLUM PROBLEMA (2009)
But Zeke guns tend to be like proofs by contradiction
Theoretically solid but actually non-constructive
Posted 22 February 2010 - 05:38 PM
The funny thing is, this guy is actually smart. Unlike Lion, who has 150-odd more posts than him yet fails to see the logic behind this system or the strong concept it was built on (even if the system itself needs some tweaks)
I never once called into question intelligence. It's obvious who is smarter. Lion is has obviously been here longer, and yet dastardly insults his seniority dispite having a mere 11 posts.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 06:16 PM
The funny thing is, this guy is actually smart.
I think you give too much credit to somebody who implies post count means anything.
Posted 22 February 2010 - 10:20 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users