Adjusting the iSoaker.com Rating System

[isoaker]

You see this is why you test mobility by running with it and seeing how much speed it takes off, It factors balance, weight distribution, Weight, and blaster length in quite simply and unbiasedly.

Running would help for some of the rating, but would also need to do running while aiming, hitting multiple targets in rapid succession, testing full, half, and low reservoir levels, etc. Once all those tests are done, I bet there would still be various disagreements on the numbers assigned. That and the thought of needing to run around with 250+ blasters doing time trials to try to subjectively assign one number doesn't seem worth it to me. In the end, I'm going to be going by my own sense and experience in assigning "Mobility" ratings and leave true measurement of stats of things that can be more objectively measured.

[marauder]

hahaha that sounds like something out of Deadliest Warrior or Future Weapons or something.

Mobility ratings aren't going to be purely scientific no matter how you do it. While I completely endorse practical testing through battle, it's not always possible, and even if it is, you can only speak for yourself and others like you. For instance, a body builder's "mobility" with a 2700 would be completely different from a 10 year old's.

[DX]

Running with soakers is still going to produce very subjective mobility results. Every player is different, generates different amounts of power and speed, and is affected by weight differently. Your potential power output also can change from one day to another, see V02 Max, resistence training, and energy systems. Running with a loaded soaker is essentially a form of resistence training that hits every energy system and major muscle group.

10 and 20 both seem very low for the bottom end. I know it's all relative, but it's like saying you can move around 5 to 10 times faster with a 215 than an MXL. Even with a novice runner, the difference should be less than triple. For anyone in remotely decent shape, it might not even approach double (depends on the distance). The time difference should also narrow when side-to-side and stop-and-go mobility is factored in. It is much easier to handle a heavy object in smaller, shorter motions than running straight and hard. Compare dodging and re-aiming with an MXL to doing a 100m dash with it.

Ultimately though, I really don't care what the parameters are so long as the rating makes sense.

[marauder]

You could do it this way... if you receive a 5 you are in the bottom 5%, if you receive a 95% you are in the top 95% for that stat. That's how I do my bar scale (I use bars cuz I'm a visual learner) on Hydrowar.

[isoaker]

10 and 20 both seem very low for the bottom end. I know it's all relative, but it's like saying you can move around 5 to 10 times faster with a 215 than an MXL. Even with a novice runner, the difference should be less than triple. For anyone in remotely decent shape, it might not even approach double (depends on the distance). The time difference should also narrow when side-to-side and stop-and-go mobility is factored in. It is much easier to handle a heavy object in smaller, shorter motions than running straight and hard. Compare dodging and re-aiming with an MXL to doing a 100m dash with it.

Oh, I wasn't referring to my overall running speed which you correctly suggest shouldn't really vary that much. When I was talking about moving 5 to 10 times faster, I am referring to how quickly I can change the direction a blaster's nozzle is facing. Longer or heavier blasters take more time and effort to accurately change direction on versus the small, light ones. I'm fairly sure I could target someone in front of me and behind me up to 10 times quicker using my XP215 than if I had to wield a loaded Monster XL.

[soakinader]

Yeah, it's hard to be objective when it comes to the human element. I think a body builder could maneuver a Monster XL with ease; while a 9 year old would struggle to carry a CPS 1000. I would suggest that you look up average adult statistics (on hand size, arm length, carrying ability) and try to get a sense of where you lie in the demographic, and then keep that in mind when you assess a water blaster. Most water guns have a well-sized grip, for example, but certain guns (Cough cough Tiger Shark) have restrictive hand and/or trigger finger space. So knowing that the majority of people would find a gun comfortable to hold, but people with larger hands (including you, for example) might find it a bit small, is a good objective measurement.

Also, as far as I understand, the MXL is on a whole new scale of ridiculously-oversized-monstrousity. Where do you feel the next- lowest gun lies in comparison? (EG a CPS 2700?)

Here is what I am seeing. A person has a minimum load (carrying very little weight) and has maximum speed(100%). Then there is a point where where a person is so loaded up with weight that they cannot move(0%). In between those points where a person is carrying 50% of their maximum weight their speed is LESS THAN 50%. Why? Because this relationship is not linear. Generally, these water guns fall at points on the graph where it hasn't started to sharply curve yet. Thus people can accelerate and move fairly quickly. However, the Monster XL weighs almost 8KG fully loaded. My estimate would put a person carrying a loaded MXL at 15-50% of their maximum speed. Most people, who aren't carrying 8KG around with them every day, would fall in the lower percentage.

My physics-brain want you to find the centre of gravity of each gun and start calculating torques, quarks and other forcs. I would, however, truly recommend that you scale the weight by the length (between your two hands on the blaster) to get a better idea of the force required to aim and turn. A bowling ball is a lot easier to turn than a 2X4.

[DX]

The problem with a scale based on speed reduction is that the effort to achieve speed is not linear, either. To fall from 100% to 50% of your maximum speed takes very little weight, but to fall from 50% to 0% takes so much weight that it could never happen with water wars. An MXL only weighs 17 lbs loaded...people weaker than me can hit more than a quarter of their max speed while towing 135lbs on a sled using a harness. It takes a huge amount of weight, like 315+ lbs on your back, in order to reduce your rate below 1 MPH. Remember that I am weak and skinny, the average person will be capable of even higher weight. For a more direct comparison, take a 45lb plate in your hands and see how fast you can run with it. You should be able to hit a jog pace, faster than with the 17lb MXL too, as the weight is more concentrated and compact, easy to swing around, no jiggle. Yet more variables (this is why I want my guns to be compact, it makes them easier to handle).

To be reduced to 15% is like saying you can't walk with an MXL, because that's within many peoples' walking speeds, within 5 MPH. If you can jog with an MXL, you're already at about a third of your max speed. This kind of depends on what kind of playing area it is too, because thick woods will cut top speed down significantly, while an open field will free you up and a hard trail even more. It also still depends on time, too. People wear out faster or slower than others after carrying an MXL around. A short time span will bias towards people with strong anaerobic alactic systems, while a long time span will bias towards people with strong aerobic systems.

This is why it has to be a simpler, yet solid, rating. There are too many possible variables.

[isoaker]

This is why it has to be a simpler, yet solid, rating. There are too many possible variables.

In light of the various pushback against this likely over-subjective, yet potentially being confused as more objective, "mobility" rating, it's probably best to ditch it and, instead, give ratings on things like overall blaster ergonomics (still subjective, but a little easier to digest) and offer more ratio ratings (e.g. filled capacity to dry weight rating).

[marauder]

I still like the term "encumberance." In regards to my agility/speed with certain blasters, I have yet to find a gun which is so heavy that it decreases my top speed by more than ~10%. I may be slightly faster with an XP 65 than with a Monster XL, but the real difference is in quickness and agility. I had absolutely no issue running with the SS 300 in Hydropocalypse, but I found it quite difficult to dodge.

This definitely was a factor in why I was hit so frequently. In fact, I can dodge easier with my MXL than I can with my 300, something about the weight on the back. Conversely, fighting with the MXL ends up building up a lot of lactic acid in my arms, leading to fatigue. I find it more of a workout than the 300, even though I can dodge better with the MXL. This is due to my arms having to do most of the work (and more pumping too) vs my back with the 300, which is definitely stronger.

It might sound odd, but it's actually one reason I love using my MXL in soakfests - especially outnumbered. It's a big physical challenge, but there's also big payoff in terms of the amount of water I can release on my enemies. Some of my favorite battles have been soakfests such as: me with the MXL vs 2 Arctic Blasts and a MD Secret Strike, or me with the MXL + my brother with the SC 600 vs XP 150, Ultimate Explorer, XP 70, & XP 75 + XP 65. Constant running and fighting, which is how I like it.

[soakinader]

While I would be very interested in dry-full weight ratios for water guns, I don't know what kind of information that would tell us....

I think that running around with water blasters is both, to paraphrase isoaker, "Ridiculous" and with the relatively low weight of water guns, wouldn't tell us very much.
I would rather base Mobility on the physical size (mostly length) and subjective views about balance, etc, with regards to weight on blasters that are heavy enough.

There are some facts that only a human can realize about a water gun-by actually using it. Rate Mobility as you see fit.

Or, have a Size stat instead. Don't rate it out of 100, just have a bar that goes from 0-MXL.

[Poseidon2000]

[isoaker]

More thinking, I'm leaning towards the following rating categories:
Power - a reflection of output and range capability
Range - a sense of relative effective range of a blaster given all its available settings
Burden / Encumbrance - a gauge of the size and weight of a blaster
Ergonomics - how well a blaster is balanced; ease and comfort of use
Capacity - relative amount of total water capacity a blaster has (given its standard options i.e. not including additional optional reservoirs that are purchased separately)
Overall - size-relative rating of how a blaster performance and feels as a whole; the overall rating will be the only size-dependent stat. All other stats will be based on the full variety of water blasters in the iSoaker.com database.

[Poseidon2000]

Pretty balanced, and you wouldn't have to work *too* much, even though there's over 400 items there, subtract all the accessories, still over 400.

[isoaker]

Pretty balanced, and you wouldn't have to work *too* much, even though there's over 400 items there, subtract all the accessories, still over 400.

At least it's not over 9000! ..er...

[soakinader]

More thinking, I'm leaning towards the following rating categories:
Power - a reflection of output and range capability
Range - a sense of relative effective range of a blaster given all its available settings
Burden / Encumbrance - a gauge of the size and weight of a blaster
Ergonomics - how well a blaster is balanced; ease and comfort of use
Capacity - relative amount of total water capacity a blaster has (given its standard options i.e. not including additional optional reservoirs that are purchased separately)
Overall - size-relative rating of how a blaster performance and feels as a whole; the overall rating will be the only size-dependent stat. All other stats will be based on the full variety of water blasters in the iSoaker.com database.

I like the Power, Range, Capacity, and Ergonomics categories, and I also value the Burden/Encumbrance category; Although would that be like the old rating system, or reversed? -- I liked the sound of Mobility, despite it's possible connotation.
Would it be possible to just have Size and (dry) Weight as two categories?

And I applaud the Overall rating.

[Poseidon2000]

It's already changing, not yet rated, but the areas and titles for range and ergonomics is there.

[isoaker]

For those who haven't noticed, the new ratings got pushed up over the weekend on iSoaker.com. I haven't posted a news update about it yet since I'm still tweaking some numbers around. However, for the most part, the update is complete. I even added in the ability to sort of the Product listing page by Overall Rating. I may add in a few other rating options, but don't think I'll be adding in all the rating categories as a potential search criteria since one can already sort by some true, measured statistics as opposed to these more subjective/scaled ratings.

[soakinader]

It looks pretty great!
I really like how encumbrance and ergonomics are seperate. Makes a big difference on some guns. Having capacity ratings as well is just candy for the eyes. O_O ^_^

Although, I have one question about that. For the CPS 2700, for example, the sheer weight of the reservoir makes it quite cumbersome, and I get that. But the handle, trigger, and all of the grips are well moulded and comfortable to hold. I wouldn't put the Ergo. rating of the 2700 that far behind the 1500. (your rating is 55 VS 80) If you have Encumbrance to factor in the weight, shouldn't Ergonomics be more about how the design makes the blaster comfortable/easy to use?

Also could you put the relative power rating (based on size class) back up in addition to the new power rating? I mean, at this point, you might as well...

Call it- Power:Size OR Power Ratio , eg.

On my browser, it looks like this:
Power .............. Range .............. Encumbrance .............. Egonomics .............. Capacity
||| ................. ||||||||||||| ... |||| ........................ ||||||||| .............. |||
Overall
||||||||

Can you make it like this?
Power .............. Range .............. Encumbrance .............. Egonomics .............. Capacity
||| ................. ||||||||||||| ... |||| ........................ ||||||||| .............. |||
Power:Size ........ Overall
||||||||| ........ ||||||||

*The coding seems to ignore my spacing, so I replaced it with .....'s

PS, excuse me if I have mentioned this before, but the Evolution trees are my go-to pages for any references and research on water guns. Do you think you could add links to those on the footer, or at least on every page? I know that is asking a lot... but it's just so useful. ^_^

PPS: It still states that the statistics are "Based on relative blaster size" under notes. This should only apply to the old power rating/ Power Ratio, right? Or is Capacity scaled somehow? Like is 1.5L considered to be a 100 for capacity?

PP-oh forget it, I have always wondered- why do some review pages have the nozzle information section covered until you roll over one of the buttons above the review?
That's a lot of questions, I know.

[marauder]

I like the search by overall rating function.

[isoaker]

Although, I have one question about that. For the CPS 2700, for example, the sheer weight of the reservoir makes it quite cumbersome, and I get that. But the handle, trigger, and all of the grips are well moulded and comfortable to hold. I wouldn't put the Ergo. rating of the 2700 that far behind the 1500. (your rating is 55 VS 80) If you have Encumbrance to factor in the weight, shouldn't Ergonomics be more about how the design makes the blaster comfortable/easy to use?

The Ergonomics rating is semi-subjective (since it is based on how comfortable it is for *me* to be using a particular blaster). I try to extrapolate a bit, but the rating still is biased towards my thoughts on a well-balanced, easy-to-use blaster. For me, the CPS 2700 may have well-molded grips and such, but I found that particular CPS blaster rather awkward to use when filled. Weight does play a part in ergonomics since the heavier a filled blaster is, the more important its weight distribution becomes. The fact that the CPS 2700 has such a great capacity also leads to its reduction in the ergonomics rating - it is simply less comfortable to use a heavy blaster with the weight pushed mostly on arms and single shoulder as opposed to having a large reservoir weight put into a backpack. Beyond that, somehow I never quite liked the angle the pump has to the trigger area as well as the height of the blaster below my firing arm. Perhaps 55 is a little too low, but to me, the 2700, due to its size and weight, is not an easy blaster for most to use, thus deserving a low Ergonomics rating.

Also could you put the relative power rating (based on size class) back up in addition to the new power rating? I mean, at this point, you might as well...Call it- Power:Size OR Power Ratio , eg.

Nope, that stat is gone, especially with varying opinions on size class. I do mean to put up some general average numbers for certain weight groups, but want to look at the numbers a little more.

On my browser, it looks like this:
Power .............. Range .............. Encumbrance .............. Egonomics .............. Capacity
||| ................. ||||||||||||| ... |||| ........................ ||||||||| .............. |||
Overall
||||||||

Can you make it like this?
Power .............. Range .............. Encumbrance .............. Egonomics .............. Capacity
||| ................. ||||||||||||| ... |||| ........................ ||||||||| .............. |||
Power:Size ........ Overall
||||||||| ........ ||||||||

*The coding seems to ignore my spacing, so I replaced it with .....'s

iSoaker.com is tested for Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. All ratings should be on the same line. Internet Explorer mostly works, but seems unable to format CSS-pages properly - to fix it would break the other browsers. I may try to tweak the code a bit, but I've already spent a lot of time trying and failing to make it work nicely for IE without ruining the look for other browsers.

PS, excuse me if I have mentioned this before, but the Evolution trees are my go-to pages for any references and research on water guns. Do you think you could add links to those on the footer, or at least on every page? I know that is asking a lot... but it's just so useful. ^_^

Evolution links are provided on all review pages and on the main page. They don't make sense to put on *every* page of the site. Considering the main page one click away from any page, evolution trees are 2 clicks.

PPS: It still states that the statistics are "Based on relative blaster size" under notes. This should only apply to the old power rating/ Power Ratio, right? Or is Capacity scaled somehow? Like is 1.5L considered to be a 100 for capacity?

That needs to be edited.

PP-oh forget it, I have always wondered- why do some review pages have the nozzle information section covered until you roll over one of the buttons above the review?
That's a lot of questions, I know.

That must be a problem also with IE. Try a different browser that is more web-standard compliant.