User talk:JDB3326

Nerfmaster8, I see what you are getting at. I think it's safe to post the photos then because they're already on the wiki under the photos. if we keep making a big deal about the stryfe on user chat, Hasbro will become suspicious. But, about the elite barrel break, what other gun do you think it could be? It has to be an upgraded version of a previous nerf gun, and 2 shots, and the reverse plunger on the barrel break, what other gun could it be? BTW why would they spell the name like that? JDB3326 (talk) 22:36, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Older Nerf Wikis
Uploading images can be done here. However, since you are looking to upload images of older blasters, please do not use images from Orange's Nerf Page. He has requested that other sites not use his images. Jet [ Talk • Contributions ] 23:09, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Hey, welcome to the wiki! Glad to see a new face around here! In a response to your previous message to Jet, if you could upload some pictures of older blasters, that'd be great! nerf.wikia.com/wiki/Special:MultipleUpload is a good place to upload multiple photos and save a lot of time. See you around, Ga  ge  23:30, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Reviews
Scores will be based off of the blaster's internals (air-powered, plunger, etc). We originally had it based off of size, but things like firing speed and ranges are based more off internals than size. But with something like capacity, that is generally based more on size than blaster type... So this is a problem.

Affordability is something that would be difficult to factor in. How exactly would we score the price of the blaster?

Capacity would have its own category, since it's a buying factor for people. The problem with mentioning that a blaster is clip-fed is that people might assume that something like a Recon would immediately have a 10/10 just because you can stick a thirty-five dart drum in it if you had one.

Size/weight wouldn't have its own category. Something like that would be merged with reliability.

Also, something to mention about rate of fire is that people like to point at the blaster's max rate of fire. With something like a Rapid Fire 20 or Pyragon, that's fine. But with something like a Recon or Maverick, firing it as fast as possible leads to jams and whatnot. For blasters with a recommended firing speed, I'm thinking that we should score the blaster's rate of fire on that instead of its max. However, people might get upset with that... but I'm really more worried about a reliable review rather than people who are crying because their favorite blaster doesn't have a perfect score.

I'm happy to see you have ideas for the new reviewing system. I actually looked at it last night and thought that I should finally go and redo it sometime soon. If you'd like to help with making decisions for it, that'd be great, as I could really use more opinions for this.