Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-1585211-20130823175832/@comment-14761947-20130831105628

JetCell wrote: King-Charles wrote: JetCell wrote: Sniperskull wrote: what is with the new review design? relaibility is 1-10, not yes or no. and not pass or fail, 1-10. I appreciate the removal of ROF. only complaint is reliability. it really doesn't jam often, and jams are easy to fix. sorry about the kudosing. THe review is an opinionated section for this blaster, because there seems too be an INCREDIBLE amount of variation in centurions. To address your reliability complaint, I'd like to ask how exactly you think we could score reliability. Each blaster may have different problems (or no problems at all), so it's hard to have a set scoring rule for reliability that goes between 1 and 10. A simple "yes" or "no" works just fine and gets the point across.

I understand that there's variation between Centurions. This is actually a problem I've thought of a lot: how to discuss blaster performance variations within reviews. Stating all sides of the spectrum is important, yes, but which do you use for the review? There are blasters with no jamming problems at all, which is great to hear, but then there's blasters that do have jamming problems, and this is a problem that needs addressing within a review. Same goes for the blaster's accuracy. Why did you put a big FAIL on the end score? That's the end verdict for the new reviewing system. As far as the current review goes, the blaster has reliability problems and also has a small dart capacity. Yes, the Centurion has an incredible firing range (when its accuracy doesn't affect it), but you have to take everything about the blaster into consideration. I agree with you.