Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-45526953-20200708215649/@comment-27306930-20200726042722

Well, here's my 2¢ for what it's worth. Using the Firestrike performance page as an example, start by getting rid of the ✗ and replacing it with N/A. The ✗ is ambiguous and confusing.

Unless we're listing "Modified firing capacity", then "Stock firing capacity" should just be labeled "Firing Capacity". Likewise "Stock storage capacity" should be labeled "Storage Capacity". It's kinda assumed we're talking about stock blasters.

Keep the "Compatible ammunition" to a minimum. List the darts the blaster came with. If a blaster is not compatible with any currently available ammo, make a note of it. Listing "+variants" is ambiguous and unnecessary, just like listing suction, waffle head, and glow-in-the-dark.

Get rid of the unlabeled section between Features and Internals. Most of the features and functions listed in this section are already on the main page. Plus, the list is arbitrary and subjective, and most of these "features" don't actually affect performance.

The label "Average firing range" should be changed to "Approximate firing range". If the height and firing angles aren't known, then there's no way to compute an average. At best it's just an estimate. At worst it's totally erroneous.

Rate of fire should be in DPS (Darts per second). Saying "1 dart per 2 seconds" is weird. By contrast, you wouldn't list the dart velocity as 50 feet per 2 seconds. All measurements should be in DPS, so that one blaster can be directly compared to any other blaster.

Likewise, "Recommended" Average rate of fire is weird. If anything, it should be "Typical" Average rate of fire. Because I recommend firing any blaster "as fast as friggin' possible". Or slightly faster 😉 And more importantly, who is recommending the average ROF ???

The Notes section is a free-for-all. The Maverick says it "prone to jamming". The Firestrike says it has "no performance notes". Seriously, the Mav is prone to jamming ??? Exactly when did that happen ? This is literally the epitome of subjective.

So yeah, my point is "performance" should be totally objective - listed in quantifiable numbers using standard frames of reference. And in a perfect world any objective measurement should be sourced. If we're saying a Firestrike's average firing range is 300 feet, then we should be citing a source. Right ???

Bottom line, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm just saying let's be logical. Estimates aren't averages. Guesses aren't maximums. Rates should be measured in seconds. Extraordinary sources should be cited. And being objective shouldn't be subjective.