How much water made these splotches?

[isoaker]

If you've been following the Standardizing the "Hit" thread, then these images will be familiar to you. Unlike the "Hit" Test polls, this one is a general poll to see how well members gauge volumes.

In these first three images, how much water do you think was used to make the smallest of the circled splotches? This poll will be open until the end of Sept., 2011. I'll reveal the answer on Oct. 1, 2011. You only get one, non-changeable vote. Make it count!





Be sure to also vote in the first three "Hit" tests if you haven't already:
Hit Test 01
Hit Test 02
Hit Test 03

[cantab]

I voted no idea, but truly, I don't care. I don't see volume as a relevant measure. Area soaked is what counts.

[HBWW]

Test #: A, B, C
Test 1: 25, 30, 45
Test 2: 30, 25, 25, 35
Test 3: 25, 25, 30, 25

Perhaps doing estimations for streams and/or larger volumes of water would be more practical perhaps? The idea is to estimate the amount of water that hits you, as opposed to only visually inspecting a spot. In any case, an estimation made during a war will only be accurate up to 20-50mL.

Best test is to get a group together and make consistent tap shots at them at a certain range perhaps?

[isoaker]

Area is related to volume; while I wouldn't expect Players to want and/or to need to accurately determine how much volume they got soaked with, I'm curious what members' estimates are based on splotches on a standard type of material that a Player would wear to a water war.

Volumes end up becoming more important not in terms of measuring the amount hit, but rather what water blasters are capable to creating a "hit" and how much of a shot from various blasters must actually make contact to result in a large enough area covered for most Players to agree that a "hit" actually occurred. Does one need to strike for a full second if using a 1x-class nozzle or would a glancing blow yield enough of a strike?

[mr. dude]

I don't see volume as a relevant measure. Area soaked is what counts.

This.
Flash Floods are a prime example, they get people dripping wet far more quickly than a normal stream of similar output. Even a mist shot can do a resonable job soaking (granted I've only tried them on walls and fences).
So basically, yeah, I agree very much with Cantab.

Volumes end up becoming more important not in terms of measuring the amount hit, but rather what water blasters are capable to creating a "hit" and how much of a shot from various blasters must actually make contact to result in a large enough area covered for most Players to agree that a "hit" actually occurred. Does one need to strike for a full second if using a 1x-class nozzle or would a glancing blow yield enough of a strike?

It may contradict what we're trying to achieve, but I don't think we can be too objective about this point. To answer your example with my ideals, does this 1x stream cause an obvious impact? If it's a glancing hit that just does a bit of sprinkling to the side of the receiver's shirt, it shouldn't count, and the same concept applies whether it's a 0.5x or a 30x. It still doesn't work on an already wet user, but that is the core of how I feel the game should be played.

[HBWW]

One of the main issues here is stream lamination. Volume only matters with concentration, and when streams become turbulent, hits can become vague and unclear yet a hit needs to remain the same regardless of how the player is hit with a solid stream or a ton of droplets. (Given same volume and soakage.)