Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-1585211-20130823175832/@comment-5013815-20130902233223

THE MAGSTRIKE GUY wrote:

Imjustoverthere wrote:

THE MAGSTRIKE GUY wrote:

Imjustoverthere wrote:

Imjustoverthere wrote: JetCell wrote:

Sniperskull wrote: I understand your point about reliability. here is an example of what makes sense to me

Reliability 6-9/10, to account for the uper and lower ends.

What is with the fail? can we use numbers? Removing scores from reviews will make it less likely for people to want to change the review. At the moment, many people edit the review solely to change a number one up or down (ie: 8 to 9, 6 to 5, etc).

Imjustoverthere wrote: the centurion is the only reveiw to have a fail on it, (they fixed the rapidstrike review making this gun the only one to have that review format) When more blasters have the new review system in place, there will be more blasters that have a "fail" verdict. Seriously, (example) What if someone absolutley loves the centurion and then finds a BIG RED FAIL on the review, that would make them a bit angry and a bit sad because it looks like someone is hating on it. The detailed review with the numbers was so much more in-depth than a FAIL/PASS. What if someone is looking to buy a blaster and wants a good review? A fail/pass will not serve the purpose as well as an in depth review with a 1-10/10 score. Just my oppinion. also, a big red fail will make people want to change it even more So you want us to do a biased review in favor of the centurion, just because someone likes it? no, i am just suggesting we go back to the numbers system

I'm okay with any system, the pass and fail is more to the point, but the old system is more in depth. i agree with the pass and fail is to the point and the old one is more in depth but i prefer the old one with the numbers