Forum talk:Weaponry Comparison

The content of this article should be separated into the relevant weapon articles (alternatively, to the Combat article). --silverstrike 19:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

It is also possible to rename this article to Weapon system comparison (or something to that affect) and include relevant information from both ME and ME2. --silverstrike 19:03, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to, one way or another, maintain all the DPS stats on the same page, as I feel the advantage of breaking things down to DPS is to be able to compare one weapon to another, even across weapon types. I'm fine if this data is copied to the individual pages as well, but I think players would find it most useful if you could compare the DPS stats of all these weapons on a single page (rather than having to flip back and forth between several pages to do the comparisons). Servius 01:21, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case, we have a two options:
 * Change the name of the article to a name that describes the content better (without acronyms).
 * Integrate the content into Weapons or Combat under a new subheading.
 * --silverstrike 02:02, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the quickest fix is to just change the name of this article, and doing so doesn't prevent later integration elsewhere. What do you suggest for a new name? Servius 08:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The best name that I can think of is "Weapon System Comparison". --silverstrike 14:28, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think keeping "DPS" in the title is important, since it's such a ubiquitous term and is what players will search for. How about "Weapon DPS Comparison"? Servius 15:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't use acronyms in article title - not everyone knows what DPS means, or think about searching based on this term. I think most will search based on "weapon(s)" or "Weapon Damage" rather than "Weapon DPS". We just need to add the for template at the top of the Weapons (and perhaps, Combat) article. In any case, the wiki search engine will show results based on articles content rather then its title, so as long as you use the term DPS in the article content, then there is nothing to worry about. --silverstrike 15:26, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's go with "Weapon Damage Comparison". We can put links to this page at Weapons and Combat and maybe other places. Now, tell me about this template. I'm not familiar with that. What will that do? Servius 15:31, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The template will show the link to this article:
 * --silverstrike 15:37, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the term "DPS" came from MMOs, I had no idea that the acronym DPS (and others such as CC) existed until people kept using it in reference to Dragon Age. Anyway, the most important words to include in the title are WEAPON and COMPARISON. So Weapon Damage Comparison sounds good, or maybe Weapons Damage Comparison - plural form of weapon. - Unregistered.

I think I'm fine with what's been said here. I'm find with renaming this article to "Weapon Damage Comparison" and am fine with people putting links to this article in other articles. I'll leave the linking to others, since I'm somewhat new to this community and don't want to mess up existing customs, formats, etc. I also don't know how to change the name of this article. If it's something I have to do (because I created it), just let me know what to do to change the name. Servius 20:25, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed the name to Weaponry Comparison. I think that this article should include not only the difference between the various weapons in Mass Effect 2, but the difference between the way weapons work across the Mass Effect game franchise (I'm sure there will be a change in Mass Effect 3, as well). --silverstrike 22:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies
There are a few discrepancies that I've noticed, mostly to do with the rate of fire. The M-920 Cain has a charge up time of 4 seconds, therefore if this weapon were theoretically fully-automatic, that's 15 RPM, yet the chart says it fires at 30 RPM, i.e. every 2 seconds. Not that DPS really matters for the Cain, but I'd still like an explanation for the discrepancy. Also, for the Katana, Carnifex and Predator the values for rate of fire on the BioWare website are different from those extracted, which do you consider is canonically correct? Dch2404 12:10, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good questions. The short answer is that the equation is sound for what's in it, but if the raw data is either wrong (as it sounds like it may be with the Katana, Carnifex, and Predator), or incomplete (as it sounds like it may be with the Cain) then I just need more accurate data and I can adjust the data used in the equation and change the resulting DPS stats. You say that BioWare has also published raw weapon data? Can you give me the link so I can go check it out? I'd defer to BioWare in lieu of being able to dig into the game files myself. Please also point me to where it is writen that the Cain has a 4 second warm-up time (or at least 4 seconds to fully charge). I don't doubt that you're right, I'd just prefer documents (preferably from BioWare) that say this stuff. Servius 14:09, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cain might be explained by a single-charge, multiple shot principle that somebody noted on the Heavy Weapons page when they tested out firing two shots in a row (don't think BioWare really intended for anybody to fire two shots of the Cain in a row but with 7 ammo upgrades it is possible). As for other weapons, http://masseffect.bioware.com/universe/arsenal/weapons/ So far the entire list of weapons that don't match seem to be: M-92, M-100, M-23, M-3, (M-6 is off the list). Dch2404 19:47, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

For the Cain, I will add a note that other factors and variables may be involved that would make the stats shown inaccurate, so the stats shown should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, I think you're right that its a glitch that allows it to fire more than twice (I think 2x was intended, if you get all the ammo capacity upgrades), so I don't want to tweak the calculation to account for glitching. It may also be moot. I mean, I think the point of the Cain is a 1-shot = kill weapon, no matter the target. It's a mini nuke. No one should expect anything (except a Reaver) to withstand more than 1 hit.

For the other four weapons, I'm a little nervous using the webpage you linked as a source. I have no idea how long it's been since BW updated that page. They could have posted that info earlier in the development stage, changed the ROF during balancing, and just never bothered to update the ROF on that page. It's clear the point of that page is not to give any info on actual damage, which makes me think it's liklier the ROF stat may be out of date. I'd love a dev post listing the current stats but I don't know if they've posted them (or ever plan to). The best source would be the actual game files, but I'm not sure how to dig into them to find this info.

Looking through that page, it seems it may also be the source of your concern with the Cain. I will probably just leave all the stats alone for now until I can find a dev post or the actual data that refutes what's currently up. Do you know how to find the actual data in the game files? Servius 22:35, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

The data for the viper sniper rifle and the grenade launcher are miscalculated. The grenade launcher should have a much higher DPS, it deals more damage per shot and has a higher rof than the missile launcher, so it should be impossible for its dps value to be lower. The viper actually fires much faster than the raw values suggest. If the fire button is held down, it fires at .65 rounds/second resulting in all 12 shots fired in around 8 seconds. If the fire button is feathered, it fires at the full 240 rounds/min and empties the 12 rounds in 3 seconds. Either way, it appears that you have combined both delays resulting in a misleadingly low dps value. Nematoady 05:02, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Grenade Launcher, just link me to a more valid data set (perhaps one posted by a dev) or tell me how to dig into the actual game files. Short of that, I don't want to make any changes based on anecdotal evidence. For the Viper, one of the things I had to hold constant in the equation is that you don't feather the trigger to reduce the delay between shots. You can do that with some SMGs and assault rifles too, but since there's no hard data yet available (at least none that I've seen) that says what the modified ROF is when you do that, I had to leave it out. Same as with the GL, if you can point me to a dev post or tell me how to find the data in the game files, I'd be happy to add a note for each of the weapons you can tweak like this to show what their maximum DPS is if fired just right. The data I'm currently using can be found in the links on the main page. If you can point me to a more definitive source I'll be happy to update the variables I've been using from the linked page. Servius 13:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Something is really wrong with the grenade launcher numbers, it can't have a rate of fire of 100 RPM and a refire of 1 second, can it? If you can fire it every second, then it really ought to be 60 RPM. No idea how to extract numbers, I guess Arthellinus is the person to ask that. Dch2404 20:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, my continuous stance is that I'm happy to change the data listed on the main page if someone can point me at alternative information from a reliable source (preferably a dev or the actual game files). I'm even fine if we learn my equation is wrong. I care more about getting useful data up for players to use than to have my initial ideas defended. Specifically on the GL, the effective ROF is actually 1.6 seconds per shot. The ROF of 100 means there's 0.6 seconds between each shot (were it fully automatic) and then there's the refire pause of 1.0 seconds. Servius 23:05, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Took me ages to comprehend the "equations steps" in order to turn it into a proper mathematical equation and I do think it's right too. Anyway, keep an eye out for more info on that M-100, it is strange that the ML-77 with its ROF of 80 RPM (i.e. 1 missile every 0.75 seconds) does more damage than the grenade launcher, I'm thinking it's not supposed to have the refire pause of 1.0 seconds. Dch2404 00:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Servius: I think I may re-insert the original way I wrote out the equation steps because, as you said, the mathmatical equation is pretty complex. I think players may find it useful to see it in both formats. Servius 15:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual data can be found in coalesced.ini, the weapon data starts at around line 7043. The problem with the viper sniper rifle is that it is single shot weapon with a burst refire time. What happens in game as far as I can tell is that the rof represents the pause between shots in a burst, and the burst refire is the time between two bursts. So what happens when you have a burst of 1 shot? It doesn't need to count down the pause to the next shot so the delay is just the burst refire time. You can try this out yourself in game, with the button held down, it does not take the viper .9 seconds to fire a second shot. The same principle applies for the grenade launcher, if you hold the button down, only the burst refire applies and it fires ever second, not every 1.6 seconds, while you get the true ROF of 100rpm if you mash the button. Nematoady 05:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Servius: Ooo! Thanks! I saw a vid with some guy showing how he tweaked the stats on an Xbox 360 save file, and it looked like I might need the Roseta Stone to figure it out. I'll at least take a look and see if I can make sense of it. The fact that it has a Refire (burst) pause means that technicaly it's semi-automatic. You're right about the difference between the ROF and the Refire, but I'm not sure you're right about the idea that a semi-automatic weapon can ignore the ROF. Feathering reduces/eliminates the Refire delay (most noticable with SMGs) but I don't think it does anything to reduce the ROF. The Viper has a 0.3 second delay between shots PLUS a 0.9 second Refire delay. Servius 15:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to agree that the "feathering" principle should be taken into account. Nobody in their right mind would hold down the trigger on a semi-automatic sniper rifle or a semi-automatic grenade launcher if they were trying to increase their DPS, which is one of the main reasons for the table, for people wishing to increase their damage potential. Dch2404 11:23, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Servius: I agree with this in principle, it's just impossible to implement right now until we get some hard data on the degree to which you can reduce/eliminate the refire pause, and if Nematoady is right, perhaps also speed up the base ROF. Once we know that, we can go back in and either put a note saying something like 'You can increase the DPS to x if you feather the trigger.' or 'Feathering allows up to an x% increase in DPS due to an increased effective ROF.' The equation is what it is right now because we currently don't have that level of info yet, so I've done the best I can for now which is to note the limitation in the methodology. In the spreadsheet I have, I've built in toggle switches that allow me to see what the DPS would be with every combination of upgrades too. If I could (not sure if wiki has tool that would allow this) I would build in this feature too so that players could click on a dropdown menu to select different upgrade configurations and the DPS values would automatically update. All this is to say, I think what's on the main page is the best it can be given the data we have access to right now. I'll go check into the file Nematoady mentioned to see if I can pull out any new data on feathering and compare the existing stats I've been using, but it may be such a jumble that I can't make any sense of it. Servius 15:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tested the firing rates on the viper and the grenade launcher. Being single shot weapons, it's fairly easy to just use stopwatch to time how long it takes to empty a magazine. The effects of feathering are harder to determine on weapons with actual burst values like the vindicator and the shuriken, but it's pretty obvious on single shot burst weapons like the viper and the grenade launcher. You can time it yourself and check the results. Nematoady 17:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, put back the equation steps in addition to the mathematical equation. I would argue that both are ridiculously hard to comprehend, the latter just makes it easier to insert into Excel. Having both is probably the best option. Dch2404 19:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Utterly Useless
In what sense does a chart the eliminates every aspect of a weapon's damage other than the raw damage value in any way useful? Hitbox multipliers, range multipliers, 'feathering' effects, and upgrades all vary widly between weapons to an extent great enough to make the comparison in this article completely meaningless. Pretty much the only thing that the chart is good for is comparing the differences between weapons of the same type against one another. That, however, is a job already done on the individual weapon pages. Tetracycloide 17:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think you understand what's on the page. It's not the raw damage value at all. You can find that on BioWare's website, but it's useless because without the other info you can't compare one weapon's damage over time to another, even within the same family.


 * Second, by leveling the playing field by holding so many variables constant, you can compare an SMG to an assault rifle, so it's not just between weapons of the same type. Also, much of the data that's now on the other weapon pages talking about DPS came from this page. Before this page was made, the only damage variables on the other pages were the damage per shot and the mag sizes.


 * Third, I'm sorry you feel this information is useless. Obviously, I disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent so much time on it. If it's useless to you, then don't trouble yourself by coming to this page. It's been useful info to me, but of course I have the Excel file with all this info it, so I can access it whenever I want. My reason for creating this page was that there's the chance someone else might find the info useful too, and I saw no harm in sharing it. For those who find it useless, they need not come here. But for those that do find it useful, I'm happy it's here for them. If wiki had more controls that would enable drop-down menus and such, I could have also built in the ability to compare any of these weapons with any set of upgrades. I've done that in the Excel file I have, but I don't think this format supports that. However, by at least having this data here, I've made it easier for others to figure out how the Shuriken with 2 damage upgrades would compare to the Avenger with 3 damage upgrades. That part is relatively easy compared to figuring out the DPS equation. Servius 01:28, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * All it is is raw DPS with no damage modifications from range, hitbox, or upgrades. Sure, it's slightly better than a 'damage per shot' value but not by much. Please refrain from implying I'm stupid, it makes your arguments look weak. Furthermore even as a raw DPS value the numbers presented don't reflect the DPS during play since feathering isn't employed.


 * Removing all the modifiers to damage doesn't 'level the playing field.' Quite the opposite, it's biased towards weapons with low hitbox multipliers and research upgrades that focus on accuracy and magazine capacity (since more of their damage will be front loaded into the base DPS). A level playing field would be one where each weapon's DPS is compared after it's been fully upgraded, assumes the best possible hitbox multiplier for each weapon type, and is then charted across different ranges. What could be more apt in a min/max comparison than to assume the player is going to maximize their damage output via upgrading as much as possible and pointing the weapon at the right part of the target's body?


 * It's only useless in the present form. It's certainly a good base from which a more reasonable weapon comparison could be formed. Try not to take this personally though. The page may have been created by you but you don't own it and an attack on the merits of the page itself is not, in any way, an attack on you.Tetracycloide 04:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Constructive criticism is fine, and I know I don't own this page, but the majority of the content on it came from me, so you can understand the reaction when you say it's utterly useless, especially when it's just your opinion of its utility to you stated as its general utility to anyone. If you feel it would be more useful to show the DPS values of fully upgraded weapons, I can do that. Someone did something with the columns that made them skinnier so there's room for that info. Toggle boxes would be best, but like I said, I don't think wiki has that kind of functionality. The thing about the assumptions is that they just have to be fair across all weapons and clearly explained to readers. So, how does this sound: Servius 15:24, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I should't say anything about accuracy because that will vary widely. The safest thing to do is just say every shot hits the body. Otherwise, if I start assuming a certain miss rate, players may come on here saying it's utterly useless because they're way more accurate than that. :-)
 * I can apply all damage upgrades to each weapon, as well as the other upgrades (like SMG Shield Piercing) that affect damage against certain types of targets. I'll only assume the 5th assault rifle damage upgrade, since the 6th is only available if you leave the refinery workers to burn during Zaeed's loyalty mission.
 * I probably shouldn't assume headshot multipliers because no one is going to land every single shot in the face for every weapon they might use.
 * I can assume a certain range and use it's multiplier. Which should I use? I assume I should use Medium range for all except maybe short range for shotguns? Sniper rifles get no damage bonus for any range. Of course, that will also require a special note that "short" range for shotguns is half of what's considered "short" for all other weapons, but that the Eviscerator doesn't follow that rule. These kinds of exceptions to exceptions skews the result and makes them less generally applicable, which is why I don't like using them. For now, I won't assume any damage bonuses due to range.
 * I can't assume feathering only because I don't have access to any game data yet that says what the maximum impact you can get from feathering is. For example, if somewhere in the game files it said 'If you were a robot with perfect response time, it would be possible to increase variable x by y% through feathering of the trigger.' then I could work that into the equation. So far, I don't think that bit of info has been found in the game files or explained by a dev.
 * I could also assume the player is using the Heavy version of the most effective kind of special ammo, but I don't know if that would be fair as only Soldiers have access to all of them. That's why I've left them out so far.

I'm affraid I liked the table better before the DPS/all upgrade DPS change ... it was easier to compare the weapons at one glance. Maybe it would be better to make 6 columns for the stats, 3 for the base value and another 3 for the upgraded value? CyberSynthetics 17:38, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also liked the table before, but I don't really have a solution to offer. My main concern, however, is that the dps values for upgraded SMG's and shotguns are twice as high vs. armor as health. There are no upgrades which increase SMG or shotgun damage vs. armor - this can't be correct. Ev0lve 19:53, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this table better than the original but would also echo the sentiment that 6 columns, 3 base then 3 upgraded, would be better.


 * The assumptions look good to me. I only mentioned accuracy because a weapon with an accuracy upgrade is, more than likely, balanced to be more DPS but less accurate at the beginning of the game. Put another way, the devs have assumed assault rifles are going to miss often enough to need an upgrade to their accuracy so it's a safe assumption that they also assumed a high miss rate when balancing the damage values against the other weapons. So without upgrades included it's like the assault rifle already has one of their unlocked upgrades installed because it's an improvement to a factor the table already assumed would be maximized.


 * Even though there are 6 upgrades for assault rifles available I'm fairly certain that the 6th one doesn't improve damage at all and still reads in the upgrade log as '5/5 50% damage with and without it.' If there's some testing or data mining that proves that wrong I'd love to see it. So leaving it off the final comparison is a good assumption I think.


 * I think landing every sniper rifle shot to the face isn't a bad assumption to make. Every heavy pistol shot wouldn't be too far off the mark either. They're both variants of single shot weapons that have fairly low spread margins when used at the proper ranges. If the player is using them under the right circumstances 90%+ headshots is pretty much the norm. I'm not a particularly good shot in most games and I knocked the headshot achievement out a few kills into my first mission after the tutorial area.


 * Range multiplier could be included as just a simple column with the point blank multiplier or even just a 'yes'/'no' field for if they get a point blank bonus or not. All the point blank multipliers are 2.0 where they exist right? Basically just an easy way to tell, at a glance, that my tempest is a far better point blank weapon than, say, my widow. Tetracycloide 20:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

So, can anyone explain why the SMG and scimitar shotgun dps are twice as high vs. armor as health? There are no upgrades or modifiers that give these weapons bonus damage on armor. Ev0lve 23:35, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion, but I think the calculations have gone too far. The table used to be good for comparison with just the base DPS and DPS vs protections (as a couple of others have previously said) and now it has the confusing 'upgraded DPS'. But why arbitrarily decide to stop there? Why not continue to factor in every range bonus and headshot bonus? Why not factor in partial ammo damage bonuses between 10% and 40%, and then in combination with the S- or X- upgrades? Why not factor in the Heavy Pistol critical (when known)? The simple fact is that there is too much information and the table will get ridiculously bloated (it's already starting). I can tell you like mathematics but the table should stop expanding IMHO. Dch2404 21:26, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

This should be Weaponry Comparison Guide
I'm getting a bit dismayed by the emergence of so many "comparison articles". This is stuff better suited to a forum, or merged into the Mass Effect 2 Guide. If we must keep this, it should be Weaponry Comparison Guide, to fit with the others. --Tullis 18:47, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Upgraded Damage Numbers
While I'm not in favour of increasing the amount of numbers in the table, I would like to know how bonuses stack. I'm not seeing how the X-8e Avenger's damage vs shields should arrive at 225. There are three ways of doing this: Obviously the current table reflects the third way of stacking bonuses but I would like to see the source that this is the way it is done. Dch2404 11:52, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The first is to keep multiplying cumulatively
 * e.g. 100*1.5*1.25*1.25=234
 * The second is to add the bonuses as percentages and then apply it to the base:
 * e.g. (50%+25%+25%)=100% bonus. i.e. 2*100=200
 * The third is to mix it up. Add the two bonuses vs shields together to get a 50% bonus and then cumulatively multiply that to the Kinetic Pulsar bonus.
 * e.g. 100*1.5*(25%+25%)=225

Dch2404, I need to run to a meeting soon, but I will take a look at your post above when I get back. If it's true that the upgraded dps numbers are wrong, one of us can go back and take them out, but for now, I'd prefer to leave them in (per other users desires expressed above) until we're sure they're wrong. Servius 16:28, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if other people are in favour of keeping these numbers, then that's fine, but we also have to sort out the naming convention in addition to the calculation method. Maybe I'm being pedantic but it's not appropriate to have the upgraded value numbers for the M-8 Avenger, technically the upgraded numbers are for the X-8e Avenger. And basically the question I am posing is why is it option 3 of the calculation methods that is chosen when the other 2 options could be equally valid? Dch2404 17:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. DPS stats for weapons with all upgrades was added in response to Tetracycloide's argument about that the info previously available on this page was utterly useless because all the things held constant made the numbers shown far different from the effective values most players would actually experience in-game. After working down the list of all the constants, the one about upgrades was the only one where we had the data to say what the other end of the spectrum would look like and where doing so would not add a rediculous number of additional columns or whatnot. We still can't talk about feathering because player skill affects it and we don't have a max value to use from the game files. Player skill variability is also the reason why we can't say more about accuracy, etc.

On the naming convention, I see what you're saying, since the game actually changes the prefix designation based on the level of upgrade. It seems the easiest thing to do would be to remove the prefix and just say "Avenger" or "Tempest". The next easiest alternative would probably be to double the number of columns, put the prefixes in sub-headers, and put only one DPS stat in each box. I wanted to do that in the first place but I don't know how to make sub-headers. I'm fine with either way, but I only know how to do the former option myself.

On the DPS calculation issue, the 225 DPS for the Avenger was arrived at like this...
 * Base DPS vs Health = 100 * 1.5 (for the 5 10% damage increasing upgrades) = 150 DPS vs Health
 * ARs do 25% more damage vs Armor, Barriers, and Shields than vs Health but with the Assault Rifle Penetration upgrade, it does another 25% against all three, so 50% more than vs HP. Thus...
 * 150 DPS vs Health * 1.5 = 225 vs Armor, Barriers, and Shields

I think the equation is properly structured in this way because the 5 general damage upgrades affect dmg vs Health, whereas the Penetration upgrade is applied to the vs Heath amount. Do you think it should be calculated another way? If so, why?

Servius 21:28, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well see, I don't actually know how the game calculates the bonuses and the game does not reveal its secrets. You've offered an opinion on how it should be done (yes I've understood you, it is the same as option 3 that I mentioned before) and I've offered three (~six including the ones in my head). The only bit I don't agree on is ARD only affecting health in that way, I'd say that ARD affects base damage. And base damage is not synonymous with damage vs health, it just happens to be a x1 multiplier but again that is an opinion and more a point of semantics. If we want to be completely true to every word that's come from BioWare's mouth then we have to look at where they say a bonus is additive (+50% Damage from Kinetic Pulsar (ARD), and +25% from ARP for total of 75%) or multiplicative (x1.25 bonus vs shields/armor/barriers). Now if we do this then we have 100 base, with 75% (from KP and ARP) = 175, then *1.25 (innate multiplier) = 219*. For some reason, I don't think this is even the way the game handles calculations (I actually reckon it is option 2 from before but there's no proof). Anyway the point is just foor for thought, that the current method of calculation may not be the right one. If this was the case all along (that it may be right), maybe there should also be an explanation of this as a footnote for the table and that it is best to look at the numbers comparatively than absolutely. Dch2404 22:46, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *sorry my mistake.