Talk:M-15 Vindicator

Rate of Fire
It fires 3 round bursts, at an RPM of 900, with a 0.625s refire delay between each burst. So that's 0.2s to fire three rounds, with a 0.625 delay between bursts, and 0.825s for the whole cycle. Roughly 72.72 repeating. That seems slow, but it really is "variable" in speed, since each burst is in 0.2s and in that burst it's at 900 RPM. -DarkJeff 22:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction in the interest of accuracy
Just a quick note, as stated above, in the interest of accuracy. In an edit I just made, I changed "single mode" to semiautomatic, with an edit summary stating that in gun terminology, when a firearm fires once per pull of the trigger, it's called semiautomatic. This is, of course, only half true. Semiautomatic is when a gun which automatically reloads fires only one shot per pull of the trigger, which distinguishes semiautomatics from, say, bolt-action rifles or muzzle-loaders. And there you have it! SpartHawg948 12:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Battle Rifles
Alrighty so here's the thing - assault rifles and battle rifles pretty well do the same job, they're just different sizes. Assault Rifles came about because Battle Rifles were too powerful and not fully effective in the close-range fighting of World War 2, hence the development of the smaller Assault Rifles. Captain Ovbious 08:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is the thing. The BR is a longer range weapon, not suited for close-range combat. If the AR and BR both did the same job, why would many military branches around the world have both ARs and BRs, and use them in different situations? SpartHawg948 08:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a historical thing mainly. Look the USA used the M-14 battle rifle (7.62mm) in the main infantyr role (replacing the M-1 Garand battle rifle) until it was replaced with the M-16 Assault Rifle. The very reason Assault Rifles exist is because in World War 2, research found that the extra range of the battle rifles wasn't being used. Therefore they came up with a lighter round that would still be effective in combat, but would also allow the infantry to carry more ammunition. The battle rifle wasn't completely done away with because, as yo unote, it does have the advantage of increased range, hence its use by designated marksmen. Captain Ovbious 08:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Stating that they both 'pretty well do the same job' is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If they both did the same job pretty well, then why is it that pretty much every nation on earth phased out battle rifles as their front-line weapons, replacing them with assault rifles? I mean, if they both do the same job pretty well, then the deciding factor would seem to be ammo, right? Larger caliber = greater stopping power. If they both do the job well, everyone would still use battle rifles. But they don't do the same job. ARs are much better close-in, where most combat post WWI was fought, which is why battle rifles were largely replaced by ARs post WWII. SpartHawg948 08:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait. Now you go from saying they 'pretty well do the same job' to acknowledging that they are, in fact, suited for different tasks, which also means it isn't a historical thing. It's a tactical thing. ARs are much better suited to the types of combat first encountered in WWII, as opposed to long-range combat that was prevalent up until WWI. This is why BRs were largely phased out in favor of ARs. And if, as even you appear to acknowledge, BRs and ARs have fundamentally different strengths, purposes, and tasks, the current trivia bit is A-OK the way it is. SpartHawg948 08:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys could've totally avoided this by saying "no gun nerd shit here plz". That's my rule on stuff like this, anyways. :p Darkman 4 09:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but I do think that the Battle Rifle designation is worthy of a little bit of explanation, given that it's a term that is unfamiliar to most people, as this thread, and the concurrent discussions elsewhere, demonstrated. SpartHawg948 09:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The things you miss when you go to sleep and your internet cuts out just before you do. I really hate when I miss things like this but here is just my say. I am not in the military, like Spart is, but I do know quite a bit about military technologly and AR's and BR's are two different types of weapon systems. While a bad example, take the AR and BR from Halo 3, the two are completley different and serve differnt roles. The AR is bad at range, while the BR is bad at close quarters, except for melee attacks. The two are compeletly different. Also Spart, could you take a look at a new edit, I fixed a link but I was wondering if that was ok or not, becuase it looks good. Lancer1289 13:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * "So wait. Now you go from saying they 'pretty well do the same job' to acknowledging that they are, in fact, suited for different tasks". Both actually. Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles were both designed to be the main infantry (rifleman/GI) weapon. However once tactical lessons (historical) proved that the large, heavy round wasn't needed, Assault Rifles came to the fore. Battle Rifles were then retained, but adapted for a different purpose - to provide support to infantry squads as a designated marksman weapon (tactical). Both this and the reduced ammunition argument are backed by the modern SCAR system (Mk16 and Mk17 rifles), whereby the SCAR-L is the main rifle replacing carbines and CQB rifles; whereas the SCAR-H with reduced mag capacity is replacing the marksman rifles.


 * Also using the SCAR-L/SCAR-H comparison, we see that the SCAR-L is much better suited to close-in fighting, whereas the SCAR-H has greater range, accuracy, and power, but has deminished rate of fire and ammo capacity both in mag size and total ammo carried by a soldier. Funnily enough, these are exactly the differences between the Avenger and Vindicator in ME2. Captain Obvious au 14:14, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on tactical considerations. In mountainous areas such as Afghanistan, or desert like Iraq, BR takes precedence. But when it comes to raiding urban areas, AR will be superior. Special units, which relies on surprise and stealth before engaging on CQB will use SMGs. The police force, which depends on stopping people short, would carry shotguns. Technicalities would only go so far. Real life application of weaponry is dictated by the objectives of a particular operation. So, each type of weapons serves a particular task in the concerto of a battle plan.

The same applies in ME. You would have Garrus or Thane hang back with SR. Have Grunt cover the point blank range with shotgun. That leaves you: would you be a marksman with Vindicator, or help by spraying bullets with GPR or Revenant? --Braveangel 15:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and great point Braveangel, there are way to many differences between AR's and BR's to put the Vindicator and the Avenger in the same category. Ammo isn't the only difference, there are many others. They are different and just like in real life, have different uses. You would use AR's in the city, while you use BR's in the countryside or when the distance is longer. Actually using that, BR's could be used in cities, mainly ones with skyscrapers. Anyway, AR's are completely different from BR's, and that's that. Lancer1289 15:28, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the arguments are staying varied and interesting. First there was the 'no, they don't use battle rifles at mid to long distance, they use Designated Marksmen'. Then, when I pointed out that many of the weapons used by Designated Marksmen throughout the world are battle rifles, that stopped. Then it became a matter of ammo. First it was that "Battle rifle = 7.62mm, Assault Rifle = 5.56mm". I then pointed out several battle rifles that use ammo other than 7.62mm (I don't want to go into them all right now, but the FM57 is a decent example). As for ARs, don't get me started. What is the most common and mass produced AR in history? The AK-47. Well then, by the above logic, since it's an AR, it must be 5.56mm, right? Wrong. AK-47s fire 7.62mm ammo. And their replacement, the AK-74, fires 5.45mm. Then, for some reason, it became an issue of magazine size. Battle rifles were stated to have "smaller ammunition capacity than an Assault Rifle." (in real life, not in-game). This is also not true. There are all sorts of different magazines for both ARs and BRs. There are 5, 10, and 20 round mags for ARs, and 100 round drums for BRs. Now we seem to be on some sort of 'separate but equal' thing, which must still be legal in Australia, though it isn't here in the good 'ol US of A! :P Now, it is acknowledged that they have different tasks (although he still also says they have the same tasks... confusing, eh?), which would seem to render his edits to the trivia section needless, but I guess not for some reason. Maybe the whole separate but equal thing? If so, I'm calling shenanigans! Wikia is an American company, which means that we fall under US Law, and the US Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that separate but equal is wrong! :P SpartHawg948 17:30, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not base the definition of AR/BR on magazine capacity or calibre. There are too many variations to make any sweeping generalisations. The only two criteria that can make up a battle rifle is its role (i.e. medium range combat) and its effective range (i.e. retaining enough stopping power 300-600m away), which is influenced by the cartridge's power and (essentially) the barrel length. Note the key word is influenced, it does not define it. Even the Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle - Heavy (aka the SCAR-H 'battle rifle') will challenge this definition because it is (to quote the wikipedia article) "Both are available in Long Barrel and Close Quarters Combat variants." Also, is Wikia just hosted in the UK, because I get a British flag on my flagfox? Dch2404 18:24, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. All I know is that Wikia is headquartered in San Mateo, California, not too far from where I am. Although, while making an inquiry on an unrelated subject, a wikia staffer was nice enough to inform me that wikia, while based out of the US (and the West Coast, in particular), has many servers worldwide. This may be why you see the Union Jack. And you are correct about ARs and BRs. It isn't based on ammo or magazine size, which is why I was rather bemused when those arguments were trotted out. It's about their role. And they are, generally speaking, mutually exclusive roles, which is why many armed forces (such as the US Army and Marine Corps) have specialized personnel trained in and equipped with Battle Rifles who operate alongside their Assault Rifle-toting brothers. SpartHawg948 18:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer - see the thing is, in World War 2, Battle Rifles WERE used in cities, they were used in fact for all situations in which Assault Rifles are now used. Tactics and research change, hell there's more ambiguity now with the advent of the 6.8mm rough, halfway between the 7.62 and 5.56.
 * Spart - seriously, starting to get sick of the attitude. I stated quite clearly that battle rifles are used by designated marksmen. Secondly, the AK-47 fires a different round to weapons such as the G3, FAL, SCAR-H etc. Those weapons fire the NATO 7.62 x 51mm, the AK-47 fires the 7.62 x 39mm short. The wikipedia article also clearly states that this is one weapon where it could potentially fir into either category. I also stated that Battle Rifles GENERALLY have a smaller magazine capacity. Let's see
 * Assault Rifles: M-16 = 30 round. SCAR-L = 30 round. G36 = 30 round. On the other hand-


 * Battle Rifles: M-14 = 20 round. FAL 20 or 30 round. G3 = 20 round. SCAR-H = 20 round.


 * Seeing a pattern here yet? Captain Obvious au 06:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know quite a lot about WWII and YES I do know that BRs were used in cities. They were used because ARs weren't around yet and they had no better weapons. Also this disussion is getting pointless becuase you insist in pressing the matter. Lancer1289 06:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)Spart - oh please, let's actually look at standard weapon loadouts shall we? As for cherry picking, go ahead, prove me wrong. Let's have a look at a bigger list:
 * I know quite a lot about WWII and YES I do know that BRs were used in cities. They were used because ARs weren't around yet and they had no better weapons. Also this disussion is getting pointless becuase you insist in pressing the matter. Lancer1289 06:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)Spart - oh please, let's actually look at standard weapon loadouts shall we? As for cherry picking, go ahead, prove me wrong. Let's have a look at a bigger list:

M-16 (AR) = 30 rounds

SCAR-L (AR) = 30 rounds

HK416 = 30 rounds

G36 (AR) = 30 rounds

F2000 (AR) = 30 rounds

FAMAS (AR) = 25 or 30 rounds

SA80 (AR) = 30 rounds

FN FAL (BR) = 20 or 30 rounds

SCAR-H (BR) = 20 rounds

G3 (BR) = 20 rounds

HK417 (BR) = 10 or 20 rounds

I mean really, how much of a list do you want? I have proven my point about BR's having a smaller standard mag capacity, and will be inserting it into the article. As for the marksman question let's be perfectly clear here - Battle Rifles were used in EXACTLY the same role as Assault Rifles are now before the newer weapons were invented. Afterwards, they are generally used by designated marksmen to cover the range difference between the Assault Rifle-weilding riflemen and the Sniper.

With the AK-47, serious, forget about it. Not taking the AK-47 into account, it is quite clear what the differences are between Assault and Battle Rifles. Including the AK, the big thing here is the ammo type. The 7.62 x 39mm short is less powerful than the NATO 7.62 x 51mm cartridge, but more powerful than the NATO 5.56 x 45mm cartridge. Therefore, it doesn't really sit comfortably into either category. Captain Obvious au 12:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are cherry-picking! You attempt to conceal this by using a 'bigger list' but conspicuously absent from the list is the fact that you are not using all the data, even for your cherry-picked weapons. I already pointed out the problem with saying the M-16 fires from a 30 round magazine- this is only the case when you use the 30 round magazine! I've never used a 30 round mag. Every time I've used an M-16 has been with the 20 round box mag. Ditto for the HK417. Despite my already demonstrating that it can carry a 100 round drum, you list every ammo config except... the 100 round drum. Talk about disingenuous! As for the AK, it sure does sit comfortably in one category. It's an assault rifle. Plain and simple. In fact, it's the assault rifle! It's the single most numerous AR in the world. And I wasn't just speaking of the model 47. The entire AK line defies your 'BRs use 7.62mm, ARs use 5.56mm ammo' logic, as the model 74 uses 5.45mm. But again, magazine size does not matter! It doesn't! Nor is it ammo! It's the function! The intended range! You go on and on like some sort of expert, but this is beginners stuff you are disputing here! You yourself have acknowledged that ARs and BRs have different intended uses- your assertion that BRs were used for exactly the same role as ARs is only true in one respect- they were the primary infantry weapons of the forces using them. However, by this same logic, ARs and SMGs must be the same, right? ARs, after all, were used in exactly the same role as SMGs, especially in Germany and the USSR. ARs are weapons to bridge the gap between SMGs and BRs. They are used in many of the same roles as both those weapons, but are not the same as either. SpartHawg948 17:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's look at those numbers again. The M-16 actually can use 5, 10, 20, or 30 round magazines. Let's be honest, shall we? Not just cherry-pick? Sure, some battle rifles (again, cherry-picked) use 20 round mags. What of it? Some Battle Rifles don't even use magazines. Some use stripper clips. And others use much larger magazines than ARs use. The H&K HK 417 can use a 50 round drum. The Mondragón could use a 100 round drum. Many other BRs use 30 round mags. Many ARs use 20 and 25 round mags. Magazine size does not differentiate between the two, nor is there a generalization to be made. As for attitudes, I'm getting a little sick of yours as well. For starters, you removed the but about Battle Rifles being used between the ranges of ARs and SRs, saying that 'no, this is done by designated marksmen' (paraphrasing). Hardly stating quite clearly that battle rifles are used by designated marksmen. Second, so what if AK-47s fire a different 7.62 then NATO BRs? I never said they used the same round. I just pointed out that pretty much the entire AK line shoots your 'types are differentiated by ammo' theory. Third, again, there are too many rifles with too many feed systems and ammo types to draw anything other than a hasty generalization, and hasty generalizations are, of course, logical fallacies. SpartHawg948 06:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer - so you're accepting that Battle Rifles did the exact same job as Assault Rifles, but you don't want to accept that Battle Rifles did the same job as Assault Rifles? Little confused here. Yes, they do pretty much different roles NOW, but before the advent of the Assault Rifle, the Battle Rifle served as the primary infantry weapon.
 * You're forgetting to define job in your arguments guys, we have CQB which is, let's say, less than 10 metres, then there's short range up to 300 metres, then mid-range 300-600 metres, then long range at 600 metres plus. A weapon can be used to cover more than one "job". Of course both an assault rifle and battle rifle can cover short range up to 300 metres, but a battle rifle is cumbersome for CQB and an assault rifle is not as effective at 300+ metres. Kind of accurately reflects the way the M-8 and M-15 work in ME2 if you ask me. Dch2404 15:44, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly are the points being argued at the moment and what relevance are they to ME2 ? Dch2404 16:09, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * The points being argued is that Captain Ovbious is arguing over the defination of battle rifles and how they relate to assault rifles. This discussion was started by Spart to explain the difference, and Captain decided to make an issue out of it. Both Spart an myself agree, at least I think, that BRs and ARs are completely different weapons and used in different cirsumstatnces. The Vindicator is a BR and the Aveger is an Assault Rifle. Captain just kees arguing the point and how is just annoying beceuase he can't admit when he is wrong. Spart is actually in the military, and I know a lot about military hardware, and no matter what we say, he just insists on arguing. In reality it has no relevance bt Ovbious can't just seem to let it go. We did define job on the main article page as the M-15 being a mid range weapon, and that is true as it is of most battle rifles. Also as a side note, I do acknowledge that BRs did the same jobs as ARs in WWII but ONLY becuase ARs weren't around yet. Your question Ovious is mute becuase I accept that BRs did that job becuase no ARs exited so what are you really asking? Lancer1289 16:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I re-read some things and I see that Captain Obvious seems to deliberately twist things just to continue arguing. E.g. Lancer, you said: "You would use AR's in the city, while you use BR's in the countryside..." Obviously I know you are talking about modern warfare but the argument gets prolonged by talking about WW2 when neither battle rifles nor assault rifles as classifications really existed, it was just "rifle" back then as far as I can tell, the terms were applied retrospectively. Yeah, this argument is getting nowhere, I'm out... :p Dch2404 16:31, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conclict) Indeed I am and you make a great point that rifle was used until the advnet of modern assault rifles. Ovbious going back to WWII was just to prolong the argument and he still hasn't made a point. Lancer1289 16:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

False/innacurate weapons info
"Point-Blank: x2.0 " innacurate

Because the way the game calculates distances no weapon in the game will ever do x2 damage at point blank range (you could ask Christina Norman about that - she already mentioned on the talk page of weapon damage formula). So if you wanna mantain standards across all wiki pages you should remove this attribute from weapons description as its never the same and can never reach the EXACT maximum value. Some will get close but not quite. Thats why my weapon formula was not 100% exact in the case of weapons other than sniper rifles.

Vs big monsters (YMIRS ...) the actual bonus is quite far from the x2 value. In the case of assault rifles with the penetration upgrade research the actual damage forumula changes and the point blank damage bonus is reduced significantly. This is somewhat compensated by a 50% bonus to the base damage ....

Another point the x2 damage bonus can be misleading - you could belive reading this that by getting close to your target your damage will get doubled - with is again very far from the truth, as soon as you consider any other damage bonuses (equipment, abilities, upgrades ..). With enough of those in play the pointblank damage bonus could end up to be only about 20(arbitraty number)% of the damage done at long range. This point also applies to ablilities shuch as adrenaline rush, assassination cloak...

I would go so far as to say that the description of ALL damage affecting equipment,abilities and upgrades posted on this wiki are innacurate:

this ability gives 50% bonus to weapon damage vs armor ?

this equipment gives 3% bonus to weapon damage ?

this upgrade gives 50% bonus to headshot damage. What is headshot damage ? how does the game add 50% more damage to it ? And what happens if i throw a damage bonus from some piece of equipment ?

I belive a case could be made to remove most numbers in weapon,equipment and abilities description on this wiki because without the precise damage formula none of those numbers have any meaning. 3% of what ? 50% of that? ...How do you combine 3% of that with 50% of what ? ...

213.233.68.143 15:46, June 22, 2010 (UTC)Peddroelm 15:47, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Let it go, man. The percentages given in the weapons articles are from the game text. If you think they're inaccurate, take it up with the game developers. PhoenixBlue 16:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you, as i have tested it ingame no weapon will do precisely x2 damage at pointblank


 * Here's what the gamedev had to say about it


 * "It's very hard to figure out our damage formula in part because range is such a huge factor. Most weapons do more damage up close, and less damage when you're far, and we make this calculation with a huge amount of precision. So if you shoot someone with a heavy pistol from 7 meters, you will do more damage than someone who shoots someone wiht a heavy pistol at 7.01 meters. Not much more, but you will do more. The issue here is it makes it extrordinarily difficult to do meaningful trials. We did do some trials in development, but that was entirely done in specially constructed test areas where we could rigorously control the range between enemies. This process sucked we'll need to improve it for ME3. "


 * Peddroelm 16:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * ... The point of taking it up with the game developers being to have the in-game descriptions changed to reflect the damage variance. If the in-game description for point-blank damage were "x~2.0," you can bet that's how it would appear in this wiki. Since it's "x2.0," that's what you see here.


 * Personally, I don't care the first thing about exactly how many hitpoints of damage I'm causing with a particular weapon because I use a weapon for effect: sniper rifles for long-range, one-shot-one-kill situations, shotguns for up-close-and-personal combat (think Vanguards), pistols for short- and medium-range accuracy and assault rifles for suppressive fire. If you ever talk to people who have actually fired any of the aforementioned weapons, you might discover that they think along similar tactical lines.


 * TL;DR -- I'm not going to pull out a slide rule in the middle of a firefight. I'm going to use the weapon that's most likely to take my target down quickly and efficiently. PhoenixBlue 16:22, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are going a bit off topic but i'll bite: Weapon damage//effectivnes varies wildly according do the skills, research and equipment. In the same tactical situation having the right upgrade researched for one weapon or another will make one weapon more effective that another. Weapon ranges overlap and chossing the optimal one for the situation depends on other factors not only on range. And considering i finished the game 6 times on insanity i think i also did a bit of actually firing the weapons Peddroelm 16:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about firing real weapons, not repeatedly clicking a button on a gamepad or a mouse. Yes, the weapons are more effective the more research that's put into them, but frankly, the exact numbers are irrelevant. PhoenixBlue 16:45, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what's firing real wepons got to do with mass effect 2 wiki ?! Peddroelm 16:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'd have to agree with PhoenixBlue here, let it go. Those stats are pullled from the game text, which is more accurate then the formulas on either page. You have said that it is close, and if we put the exact values, then it would be changed every time someone pulled the trigger. The numbers are averages, rounded numbers, etc because they aren't the exact numbers. The numbers are averages and as are the mineral mined from planets. If exact nubmers were there, then they would also be changed every 10 seconds. Let it go already.
 * Also I think you are angry over your page getting deleted just let it go. This isn't the place to debate these kind of things either, take it up with the game developers. Lancer1289 16:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because some value is on the game .ini files doesn't mean it will do what you expect//suppose//want it to do. That value is not used directly as you seem to think, its an upper limit on an interpolation function that its never reached - posting this limit value that will never be reached ingame is innacurate information -> innacurate information has no place on this wiki (or so i was lead to belive). Who decides what is accurate or not, thats a diffrent matter :). And yeah i am a bit pissed about the deletion of that page :). Peddroelm 16:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) The numbers are averages, not actual numbers. The military uses averages to describe most of the things about range, firepower, and most other features. No two rifles are the same, and no two situations are the same. The numbers are averages, which are good enough for this site. If you want to point out every inconsistency, then all you will accomplish is causing long discussions where you will get the same results. We use aveages, not actual numbers because they would be changed every ten seconds. This discussion is pointless as you are arguing simantics, which is already shaky ground for an argument. Drop it before you cause a long discussion that doesn't go anywhere, like the one above about the M-15 being a battle rifle. Lancer1289 16:50, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now to respond. You are again arguing simantics, which is again shakey ground. The numbers are again averages, while you may condier that inaccurate informtion, it is valid becuase if we used actual numbers, they would be changed every time someone pulled the trigger. Also again, the military uses averages, and if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. Drop the matter becuase if you are going to argue over simantics and our use of averages, which is valid becuase it varies, then you will get nowhere. We use averages on the planet scanning, so if you are going to point out every inconsistency here, then argue over using averages there as well. Averages are good enough for the military, so they are good enough for us. Also get over "your" page getting deleted, the commuinty though it should go, so it did. It was a community decision. Lancer1289 16:54, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * A wiki's dutty is to present all relevant information as accurately as possible. Its hard to do that when u use arbitrary standards to measure what gets in and what goes out. I'm not doing this for me anymore, but for the next hapless dude tring to bring you some valuable information that will get the same treatment... Peddroelm 17:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We allow changes, but when they are relevant. We use averages because they are more accurate than using actual numbers. If we changed the X2 to say X1.9, then when someone comes up with X1.94, then that information is incorrect. We use averages because they are more accurate in they take a series of numbers and get the average of them. Averages seem to be acceptable for other wikis, so why are you so against using them here. Averages are acceptable for scientific papers, the military, businesses, and that list can go on, so we use them here because they are accepted because they are more accurate than using numbers that change every time the trigger is pulled. I am still trying to figure out what you have against using an accepted practice for reporting information. Also you are doing this for you because "your" page got deleted with the "Correct" information on it. Again you need to get over that because it is clouding your judgment in continuing this pointless discussion. Averages are perfectly acceptable, and just because you think they aren't, and especially for this purpose, which seems to be enough for the military, an organization where this ACTUALLY MATTERS, then it is good enough for us here.
 * If you want to continue then please give a reason why you think we shouldn't use averages when it is called for. As you have stated the situation changes every time you pull the trigger, so any information apart from averages is inaccurate the second it is posted. Whereas an average, is accurate because it deals with a range of numbers. Averages are perfectly acceptable here as I go back to the planet scanning. If I scan a planet, then someone else does, and I have my exact number, like 6,254 platinum, and they pull 6,854 platinum from the same planet, then both are wrong. While if we say that the approximate/average number pulled is around 6,500 platinum, is accurate because it deals with a range of numbers, not exact. Again if you want to continue this argument, then please give a reason why averages are so bad to be used, when they are CALLED for. Lancer1289 17:18, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on how the community defines "valuable." Given the vote in favor of deleting the weapons comparison page, it clearly wasn't. Bellyaching isn't going to change that. PhoenixBlue 17:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) To answer the question about what firing real weapons has to do with the MEWiki -- what I'm talking about is how real weapons work, and that's something that's not easy to understand if you've never learned about one, put your hands on it and sent rounds downrange. If you could tell me how many points of damage an M-16 inflicts on a Taliban insurgent versus an AK-47 at 50, 100 and 300 meters, then you might get me to care about the numbers in ME2, but until then, I'm going to go with the best weapon I have for the situation. So if you're playing ME2 for the mathematics, you're missing the point: Mass Effect is about the story, not about min/maxing. PhoenixBlue 17:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Also, to piggyback on Lancer's point about accuracy -- the term for what he's describing is known as significant digits. For example, it's reasonably accurate to say that the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. That's a mean distance, meaning the Earth is rarely, if ever, exactly 93,000,000 miles from the sun -- but when you're talking about 93 million miles, a few tens of thousands of miles on either side doesn't really matter. Coming back to this example, it's reasonably accurate to say the Vindicator Battle Rifle does twice as much damage up close as it does at a distance -- it might never be exactly x2.0, but a few fractions of a point don't really matter. PhoenixBlue 17:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to add in a couple of cents here. You say you are doing this for the next hapless dude who tries to bring valuable info here. Well, as long as that dude brings info that is based on facts, not on impressions, he should be fine. And if he decides not to present as evidence for his claims developer comments which actually contradict his claims, he should also be fine. SpartHawg948 17:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * (et conflict) I completly agree, and sorry for the edit conflict. If you are goingo to continue aguing over the math, then you are missing the whole point. THe numbers are provided for reference purposes and are again AVERAGES, which you don't seen to grasp. ME is about the story, not about the math. The numbers are averages, for reference purposes, and this is about the story not about the math. I fyou are goint to argue over again a completly acceptable way to report a wide range of numbers, then you are arguing over symantics, and missing the point of this wiki entriely. Lancer1289 17:31, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lancer I have nothing against using averages on any wiki. In fact i don't belive i've ever even mentioned averages.
 * @Phoenix Everyone gets a diffrent experience from a game. For you the story might be more rewarding. Plaing the game at low difficulty setting just to enjoy the story, all weapons will be effective,it will make little diffrence witchever weapon you use (use the one gets you the shooting talibans feeling), math irrelevant - i have no problem with that. Thats why they have diffrent diffiulty settings - whaterver makes you enjoy the game(thats the end goal to enjoy the game).


 * If however you play the game for the challlange, ramp up the difficulty meter all the way, it becomes a diffrent game in with math matters. It would be a game you might not enjoy but the setting is there for the ones that do.


 * @SpartHawg948 everything Christina said was 100% in accordance with what i've said where did you see the contradiction ? Peddroelm 17:32, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * "The formula guessed at here seems fairly accurate, it's not exactly what I intended but it seems fairly close". Notice how she says it's fairly close to right. Fairly close and right are not the same. Fairly accurate and 100% accurate are not the same. And 'not what I intended' means IT ISN'T RIGHT!!! Ignoring the contradiction won't make it go away. SpartHawg948 17:39, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * "the formula you've listed looks reasonable but is not exactly the intended damage formula, however I can't say with a high degree of confidence that the damage at retail was exactly what I intended... The reality of game dev is sometimes things don't get done absolutely perfectly, and in the case of damage formulas what we ended up with was close enough to what I intended that I was comfortable shipping it. "
 * My formula its not exaclty what she intended because, exaclty what she intended isn't in the game. Peddroelm 17:44, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, she says she isn't sure it made it into the game. And regardless, your formula and hers don't mesh. If you can't respond to the bits I highlighted above, don't bother answering. Tap-dancing does not become you. SpartHawg948 17:52, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just love when someone tap-dances around an issue. I am still trying to figure out how many arguments you put down to keep "your" page up. The bottom line wea the community voted to delete it and you are angry over that. As to your responce at me, well you want ot put accurate numbers in, which as you have states many times now, the game changes every time you play it and everytime you pull the trigger. EIf you put up those numbers, then they would have to be changed every tiem they were posted because while I hmay have a damage at point blank of 1.98, Spart may have 1.94, so who is wrong? I ask you to answer that question and Spart's questions about teh forumula not being accurate in your response. Otherwise you are still dancing around the issue and you won't addreess the questions you have been asked to answer. Lancer1289 17:59, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * a.They had a formula lets call it ideal formula
 * b.The game shipped with a formula that "was close enough to what I intended that I was comfortable shipping it"
 * c. my determined formulas "seems fairly accurate, it's not exactly what I intended but it seems fairly close"
 * now this doen't mean b=c nor b<>c, however Cristina cannot make the call as she doesn't have the programming data - so what se says is "THIS MIGHT VERY WELL BE THE INGAME FORMULA, HOWEVER FOR 100% certanty we'll have to ask the programmers who int he meantime moved on to other projects..." She not saing it 100%, she also not pointing anything wrong with it ... And while we're discussing perfection



"Point-Blank: x2.0 " innacurate

Because the way the game calculates distances no weapon in the game will ever do x2 damage at point blank range (you could ask Christina Norman about that - she already mentioned on the talk page of weapon damage formula). So if you wanna mantain standards across all wiki pages you should remove this attribute from weapons description as its never the same and can never reach the EXACT maximum value. Peddroelm 18:05, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * You just don't know when to call it quits do you. You have just stated that Ms. Norman said the formula was 100% accurate, and she doesn't know what was shipped, so both formula pages are speuclation and you can't seem to get past that. The X2.0 is an average, and I am still trying to figure out why you have a problem with this. We use averages and you want YOUR numbers to be the ones we use. You STILL can't get over the fact your page was deleted, even though it was innaccurate. None of the forumlas here, for our purposes, can be accurate. You keep asking us to go back to the page, probably because you want it resurected because it was "your" page, and look at her comments. Well we did and she said that it wasn't acccurate, so it is wrong and you still can't accept that as fact. The numbers are averages and you seem to be the only person with a problem with them. Lancer1289 18:15, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the numbers. I have a problem when sometimes "close enough" is enough and sometimes its "not enough"Peddroelm 18:18, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also on this particular example u cannot use average x2 (average will always be < 2) u can use upper limit x2.
 * Really, because you are arguing over simantics, which is loose ground for arguing a point. Your "close enough" differes from mine, Spart's, Phoenix's, and well everybody else. That is what we call an opinion. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with ath the communiity accepted as the numbers we use. You want ot impose your opinions on the wiki, and by extension your will. We, the community of the Mass Effect Wiki that is, have accepted these numbers, and you are arguing that we should use YOUR definition of close enough, which is YOUR opinion, for the numbers, which is again by extension, imposing YOUR will on the wiki. Lancer1289 18:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The wiki community is not fail proof. Some of your numbers are wrong. You can try to find out witch and correct them(sensible attitude) or you can do what you do and not give a damn :). Less headakes i guess Peddroelm 18:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that we are all stupid and don't care bout this wiki? We make every attempt to make sure our information is accurate, up to date, and then present it as best as we can. We have to make guesses and estimates here and there, but when we come across information that complety contradicts what we have, we change it because it was wrong. So far you have wanted us to change our information to fit YOUR standards, YOUR opinions, and do things YOUR way. We do our very best to present the info as best as we can, fix it when necessary, even cut out swaths of info if they are wrong, but again you want us to conform to YOUR standards, which is imposing YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR WILL. Lancer1289 18:41, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to think really :). You guys don't make sense to me. Had someone presented me the data when i fist started the game i would have been ecstatic - let me go and test it out... I honestly though you will welcome new data that will shed light on so many aspects of the game. Maybe is me, my aproach was wrong? - i know i made some really good friends out of you (Lancer,Phoenix) :P, maybe its you guys just against new ideeas ; anyway this is just not working out like it should. :) Peddroelm 18:51, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't against new ideas, in fact we do welcome them, but we are against when someone wants to impose THEIR will and opinions on the wiki, which is exactly what you are trying to do. The new data you presented says the same thing as our current data and you are trying to change something to fit YOUR opinions and what YOU want to see. Ms. Norman said that the formula wan't 100% accurate, and is therefore an opinion and speculation. We are in the process of deleting the other page and moving it to the forums where stuff like that belongs. You are still angry over "YOUR" page getting deleted when the community said that is was better suited for the forums and then deleted. We are moving the other page there soon. You are arguing over a number that doesn't meet YOUR standards and has been that way since the table was put up. The opinion of the community is that the number is accurate enough to where no one has challenged it in 3 months, and the only reason you are challenging it, is becuase it doesn't meet YOUR standards. Lancer1289 19:03, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it. Has to be. Everyone but you is closed-minded and opposed to new ideas. Because that makes sense. After all, we're the ones who just plain refuse to discuss evidence that we present that, as it turns out, contradicts our own points. Oh, wait a tick, no. That was you. You claim that this new and wonderful info sheds light on so many aspects of the game. What aspects, precisely? Remember, it's 'so many aspects', so it has to be at least five or ten unrelated topics. Your attempting to paint others as 'against new ideas' is a blatant attempt to mischaracterize them, and frankly, to demonize them. When did anyone, and I mean ANYONE, suggest deleting the information entirely? Everyone who you accuse of being opposed to new ideas supports keeping the info, but moving it to the forum. Why? Because your info is not fact-based. It's based off raw data that is stated to be an interpretation of in-game info, not actual factual info. And developer comments demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your formula is not accurate. It may be nearly accurate, but nearly accurate is not 100% accurate, which means it is, by definition, inaccurate. Please, do everyone a favor. Grow up. Stop trying to paint this as 'everyone else is trying to suppress your awesome new info because everyone but you is opposed to new ideas'. It's dishonest, disingenuous, and disgusting. SpartHawg948 21:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * All this talk about "moving it to the forum" but when it camed down to it you outright deleted itPeddroelm 03:41, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to place the information in the forum, then by all means, put it there! You have the backing of pretty much everyone involved in this discussion. PhoenixBlue 03:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I deleted it. I stated from the get-go I was going to delete it. It's not the responsibility of those who think the stuff needs to be deleted to move it to an appropriate location. It's the responsibility of the person who wants to preserve it. That would be you, for those keeping score at home. If you are upset and looking to blame someone because the info didn't get moved to the forum, I'd go and find a mirror, as it's nobodies fault but your own. SpartHawg948 03:47, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have mentioned someting about this before deleting it, keep in mind i'm new to this community and had no ideea you were just gonna delete instead of moving. Peddroelm 04:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because all the times I said it needed to be deleted, and the fact that much of the conversation took place under the heading 'Deletion' weren't enough of an indicator? Not once did I or anyone else say that we were going to move it for you, and I had assumed it went without saying that if only one person wants to save the data, it's up to that one person to actually save it. Additionally, you could have... ASKED. Either myself or another user would have been happy to answer. Something like: 'You keep talking about moving it to the forum. Is that something you will do, or should I do it?' Pleading ignorance is no excuse when the means to achieve your goal were there the whole time. SpartHawg948 04:37, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people?
Can we please discuss this 4 rounds vs 5 rounds thing here like civilized beings, instead of waging an edit war? I'm not trying to 'harass' anyone, just asking that people act like adults. If this can't be resolved civilly (or if it proves impossible for the involved parties to even attempt to resolve it civilly) by going through proper channels (i.e. this talk page), I'll have to start doing more than just harassing people. And I'd rather not ban any users today. SpartHawg948 01:48, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am more than willing to talk civily as you well know, so I am open to a conversation. Lancer1289 01:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)