Talk: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer/Character Customization

Gear bonuses

Is it too early to list the bonuses to the Gear section of the equipment? --GodzillaMaster 14:22, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be? They are out are they not? Lancer1289 19:05, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Some of the gear bonus' are wrong, I can't confirm this for all pieces of gear, but the lvl 2 Sniper Rifle Damage gear increases it by 7.5%. Also the Vulnerability VI does not increase "hit accuracy" but increases headshot damage, those values are also wrong. At lvl 2 is increases headshot damage by 11%. Correct values can be found here Results: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&biw=1366&bih=625&sclient=psy-ab&q=krysae&oq=krysae&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...19366.20445.0.21121.6.6.0.0.0.0.344.1270.0j3j2j1.6.0...0.0.oylUCtca3AY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=edee43f1655d1fb9 Xero Macharius 10:59, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

I just corrected the values as far as I can confirm them. Would you mind putting that link inside single brackets like this: [URL link text] so that it doesn't trail off the page? Also, it only leads to a Google search for "Krysae" for me...was it one of the resulting pages that you meant? Trandra 11:16, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Avatars

Could we add the character avatars from the Multiplayer Manifest [1] to here? The characters could use it and saving them works fine. --Dragonzzilla 00:01, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

There is a project proposal in the forums that addresses this here: Forum:MP Class pages. Please check it out and put in your comments or vote. Trandra 00:13, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Gear Rarity

So apparently some gear is rare and some is uncommon. Where should we list that? - von Boomslang 15:06, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Rarity of Promotions Weapons

Should we lump the N7 weapons with the ultra-rare weapons? N7 weapons are not rare in the same sense that ultra-rare weapons are; there is a guaranteed chance of getting an N7 weapon with each weekend event, while ultra-rare weapons are subject to chance. Even though a new category might seem out of place with one weapon in each section, at the very least, it is not misleading with regards to rarity. Lksdjf

The problem with that is that the ME3 multiplayer manifest lists them as "Promotional". So therefore it is appropriate and it will stay that way until that changes. If there are any other inconsistencies with that table, then they should be corrected to match it. Lancer1289 12:53, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. Doesn't that make the case for a new category called "Promotional"? I don't think that you made a case for these weapons being ultra-rare. Lksdjf

And what are you saying because you aren't making much sense. Lancer1289 01:04, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Edited for grammar. Even with the verb missing, I'm pretty sure that my message could have been understood. Lksdjf

Player Notes proposal: Weapon Layout

Should we consider adding a recommended weapon layout subsection to the player notes section on the individual class pages. Right now, the player notes section is almost exclusively dedicated to powers. Usually, when recommended weapon layout is mentioned, it is only when recommending light weapons (for max power recharge) or recommending a layout for geth characters (because they have Networked AI).ShermTank7272 00:50, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too dependent on what each individual player has, other than generalities, like "use a light loadout for powers-oriented classes." For the geth, for instance, all the geth weapons have gold-level rarity, so depending on luck of the draw, a character might end up having them only at very low upgrade levels (making them inferior to non-geth options), or not even have them at all. Diyartifact 17:39, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

clear contradiction

in the equipment section it says that

"Each of the Ammo, Weapon, and Armor Bonuses have three levels of strength, distributed in next order: Recruit Pack contains items of level I with a small chance for level II or higher; Veteran Pack only contains items of level II with a small chance for level III or higher; Spectre Pack only contains items of level III, with a small chance for level IV; and the Jumbo Equipment Pack randomly contains items of any level (I, II, III, IV)."

it says that there are "three levels of strength". but then it says that "Spectre Pack only contains items of level III, with a small chance for level IV". what the hell is the "level IV?" i've never found any equipment at level IV, and in the page, where it describes the equipents, it only describes the "first" three levels. i think that the "level IV" part should be canceled.

We've had reports of Level IV items and there are a few topics on BSN about them. Lancer1289 21:25, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I've seen other players using level IV equipment items, though I don't think I've found any myself. Diyartifact 17:32, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Level IV equipment is classified as Rare (Gold), and drops more often once you unlocked most of the characters (and their respective customizations). I currently have all characters unlocked, and whenever I buy Spectre or Premium Spectre Packs I always get at least two Level IV equipments. --- Reply by Bingbangpoe, December 22, 2012.

Stockpiling

Any word on how much you can stockpile of the Weapon, Armor & Ammo bonuses? Is it 255 for each level or something? You can hold 255 of the ML, Med packs, op packs & ammo packs so I'm curious. Hefe 17:49, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Particle Rifle

The Prothean Particle Rifle is now available in MP. It's Ultra-Rare (Black, N7, whatever). Reference: https://twitter.com/BioEvilChris/status/222698637761855488 Hefe 16:18, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

I added the information 1 minute before you posted this. :) Trandra 16:21, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

I seen that. I was in the process of posting when it happened! XD Hefe 17:15, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Consumables cap limit

In a recent post here http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/324/index/13058167&lf=8 BW confirmed that the cap on Medi-gel is currently 5 (potentially 6 after the weekend challenge) and not 10. Is this enough confirmation to change the outdated limits of 10 each? Jm2207 (talk) 20:59, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

So what? This specifically states it for Medi-Gel, not anything else. The article will reflect the medi-gel change, but not anything else. And before anyone starts with the "implies", either get a source that states five (5), or the article will only reflect this. This is for medi-gel and cannot be used to update anything else. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:05, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Direct links to character/class pages

Would it be preferable to add links to character subsections on the character customization page rather than linking to the race page. For example, currently looking at the Class and Race section, the field where the Salarian Engineer exists only displays Salarian and takes you to this page: Salarian. Instead, I think it would be more beneficial if it took you to this section: Salarian Engineer.

Thoughts? --Pho Kadat (talk) 10:35, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestion would be infinitely more useful than the generic links that exist now. ---- AnotherRho (talk) 00:05, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was already like the way you're suggesting. Good catch. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 00:09, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made an attempt to fix this but my changes were instantly reverted by an Admin. I thought I was doing the right thing by asking about making changes here first, after all, is that not the intent of the Talk page? If there was a discrepancy in site policy, that would have been nice to know in advance. --Pho Kadat (talk) 22:00, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

You were doing the right thing, but you made no mention of following through with a talk page discussion in your edit summary. The onus is on the initial editor to provide some kind of justification for their edits (either a source included in the edit to the article or an explanation for the edit in the edit summary). If you done that, I may have let the edit stand, although I'm on the fence about the necessity of changing the purpose of those links. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:26, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've become rather lax in my editing practices; however I believe the necessity is very clear once you consider the intended audience. A user who is actively perusing the multiplayer section is highly likely wishing to find information about multiplayer elements and not higher level background descriptions. Furthermore, a highlighted link to N7 Fury, for example. is misleading as it takes you to the N7 page instead. It is equivalent to clicking a hyperlink to a soccer team's home page, but being directed to the league's page instead. All I'm trying to do is save the typical user a few extra clicks. --Pho Kadat (talk) 23:33, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pho Kadat's reasoning, so I'm going to change the links since a few others agreed as well. What we as regular users/editors of the wiki see as enough linkage might not be clear to a very casual user. Trandra (talk) 00:12, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

Consumables Level IV

Since I've maxed out on all gold rare weapons and only have the N7 classes left, I thought it'd make it easier to find N7 classes and black ultra rares; instead I'm finding level IV Warp Ammo and Cyclonic Modulator. Which gets me wondering, how come we don't have the level IV bonuses listed at all? --GodzillaMaster (talk) 17:01, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I believe the I-III bonuses were data mined, but the IV level amps are stored server-side, so the exact numbers can't be found the same way. We would need a developer to specify what they are.

Also, I'm in the same boat, only I have everything maxed out except the Gear and Ultra Rare weapons. The Gear seems to be as "Ultra Rare" as the weapons, despite being classified Gold and Silver. Trandra (talk) 17:04, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Proposition about Tips and Tricks Section

I have a proposal to add, separate from the main multiplayer page, a page of tips and tricks that relate to the classes/races, strategies for maps, factions, and difficulties, and weapon tips. Aye or nay? --TheIMightyJelly 22:11, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

We already have pages for the multiplayer classes, maps, enemies, and weapons that contain sections where player notes can be added. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:26, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Any tips that you are proposing should go on those respective pages. We don't need a separate page for that. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:58, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Equipment Cap

Got a question about the one-time use equipment: is there a limit to how many of each one you can carry, or does it keep going up? Where does it finally stop? Tahaneira (talk) 20:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the limit for the First aid etc is 255, so I would assume the same for the bullets etc. -Reply By Jarno Mikkola

Yes, the limit for all 4 consumables (Medi-Gel, Cobra Missile Launcher, Ops Survival Pack and Thermal Clip Pack) is 255. After that I think they stop dropping when you buy packs, but I'm not entirely sure. --- Reply by Bingbangpoe

Tabview for class pages?

Does anyone else think that it would be a good idea to implement tabview on the class pages to help cut down the length? Would it be possible to have them all viewable on here by having a tabview of the kits within a tabview of the classes? 109.144.246.230 23:16, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

No because there would be way to many tabs. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:32, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Hirm, I guess so, it would be 6 tabs for the first row, which with most screens should be fine, but what 9(?) for the second. That would certainly be too much. Oh well. 109.144.246.230 00:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Discussed First

Ok. I worked for about 2 1/2 hours to organize some of the information on this page into a chart: here The info was then reverted because "a change this significant should be discussed first." Yes, the kb size of the significant change was significant. Yes, the appearance change was significant, but the information itself has not changed at all. The chart is just a reorganization, a beautification of the information on the page. So, lets discuss. SinisterSamurai (talk) 20:30, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

• The change is already in the wings waiting to be re-reverted. Can anyone think of any reason why the change was bad? Why a chart is a worse way to display the information than an uneven list? SinisterSamurai (talk) 20:30, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

I cannot even remotely say that I agree with the proposed change. It does not look pretty, it adds a huge amount of unnecessary things into the article, the formatting is inconsistent with other pages, and it creates a massive issue with new additions because people don't know how to do it. I have to say these changes are not good for the article for aforementioned reasons. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:51, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Odd. Most would consider aligning and arranging things to be prettier than a haphazard organization, like the previous list. This is why lawn services make so much money. And why you are generally more impressed by a clean house than a dirty one. Though asymmetry has a place in actual beauty and art, it doesn't benefit information arrangements, other than to catch attention. You say the formatting is inconsistent with other pages on the wiki, but the formatting is ripped directly from Powers (Mass Effect 3)'s charts, Copypasta'd, with only the cell contents altered. So where is the inconstancy? I understand that new people may be confused by all finer points of editing, but the simple copypasta process shouldn't be over any useful editor's heads. Users who are unable to understand copypasta are likely to make editing mistakes anyway. And if it is too difficult, I'll maintain the page for one year, should Multiplayer receive any new DLC. SinisterSamurai (talk) 21:20, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

• The only other change was the removal of the footnote listing requirements needed for the Battlefield 3 soldier, as there are no longer any requirements. If one wants to note that at one time, the BF3 soldier needed special circumstances, that'd be trivia for the BF3 page or the Multiplayer default page's trivia section. That info doesn't need to be in the customization page, because it serves no purpose. If you feel that little footnote is important, feel free to say why.SinisterSamurai (talk) 20:30, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First do not modify my comments again. Second, I could care less what you do. The fact you are bringing this tells me a whole lot, and none of it good. I cannot and will not support these changes. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:24, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Bringing what? And it tells you what? My edit took 2 and a half hours to achieve, so if you think that my intention was anything other than making the site easier to read, I ask you to again look over the changes. You say I can do as I like: does that mean I can replace the Powers table that was reverted for discussion? Also, I am genuinely confused and asking for an explanation of the hidden policy variables at play, here: If the table is unacceptable on this page, what makes it acceptable several times on Powers (Mass Effect 3)? What do I have to change to make sure my table meets the same standards as the existing tables? I am honestly missing the difference, Lancer, but your comments indicate that you see some alteration that defies existing precedent in a way that seems to be inciting an emotional response. I ask that you again review the edits, not the editor (I get it. You don't like me). SinisterSamurai (talk) 21:45, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who has now made this personal. I said I cannot support the edits for various reasons. You are the one who keeps telling me to review the edits not the editor. However, contrary to what you believe I did review the edits and I cannot support that. So stop with the personal comments. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:53, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

I also don't like the chart, it's bulky both visually and markup-wise, and having the icons next to each and every power makes the whole thing very crowded. The current format doesn't have those issues. That said, I think it's time the Powers section was removed anyway. This page's format was designed before we had individual multiplayer class pages, and now that we have those pages, that's where the particulars of multiplayer class info should be displayed. I'm proposing a content cleanup/merger below. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:44, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

• Do you guys even read your own wiki? The chart, again, was copy-pasta'd directly from Powers (Mass Effect 3)#Squadmates. The formatting is literally identical, except the icons are a visible 30px instead of a squintandyoustillcantseeit 20px. To condemn my chart as too bulky or too crowded is to condemn other parts of the wiki, as well. Unless you are saying that the chart would be acceptable if the icons were 20px. Or you are saying that the Squad Powers table needs to be removed from the Powers page.

  And before you suggest it: I've already tried adding this table to the Powers (ME3) page under a new Multiplayer Section. It seemed like a good idea to have all the powers on one page for anyone interested in what's possible within Mass Effect Lore. However, it was removed because that page was SP only, apparently. Eventually a disclaimer and link was added to the top of the page to drive that point home. However, it'd still be a great place for a single table if you really do plan on splitting the Kit page up into six different kit pages. SinisterSamurai (talk) 17:30, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

  • So I logged out, and saw how jumbled the table was on Wikia's crappy default skin (Which is obviously the skin of choice on here, based on how busted your monobook toolbox is). No wonder you said it didn't look better. It's so much cleaner on monobook, mainly because 1/3 of the screen isn't dedicated to ad-space or empty space. It still matches the other large tables found on the wiki, though. Any suggestions on how to scale it down for Wikia's terribad format? SinisterSamurai (talk) 21:08, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I've realized that some of the information in this article has become redundant with the content of the separate multiplayer class articles. The current format, which lists each character's Dodge Maneuvers, Heavy Melee attacks, Defense stats, and Powers was designed before the mp class articles were implemented; now, the mp class articles already list Powers and Defense stats in a clearer format, and I believe they would be a more appropriate location to detail the dodges and melee attacks as well.
So, I propose removing the Dodge Maneuvers, Heavy Melee, Defenses, and Powers sections from this article, and incorporating the relevant dodge and melee info into the mp class articles. This will collect all of the multiplayer class stats and abilities under those guide pages (instead of scrolling through four or five different sections here to see a character's stats, readers can click on the specific character they want to see in the Class and Race chart, and immediately have access to all of that character's info in one place), and reduce the increasingly unwieldy size of this article. Thoughts? -- Commdor (Talk) 20:44, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

If you mean having individual pages for each Multiplayer Character I couldn't agree more. That would allow further notes and organization on specific strategies and overrall class/character information. --Bingbangpoe (talk) 20:59, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

No. That is just a bad idea. We don't need a separate page for the Shadow, Phoenix Adept, Human Male Infiltrator as we have pages already for each class and that is enough. What we need is a clean up of this page, not what that is. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:04, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) No, I'm talking about moving the info into the six existing mp character guide pages. The community already decided against separate pages for each mp character, it would have been a nightmare to implement and maintain separate guides for 30+ characters. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:05, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, is there a better way that we can implement the gear and consumable bonuses? I find it to be visually confusing with each of those percentage signs in such close proximity to each other. Perhaps we could implement a table similar to what we have done with the weapons, where each column heading represents the level of the bonus, and where each row heading has the name of the particular bonus.

Oh, and I am behind Commdor's idea. Lksdjf (talk) 22:22, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

I believe Trandra was working on a new way to organize the Equipment items here (I think aside from a cleaner layout using the tables from Weapon Mods, there was also some discussion about splitting Equipment off into its own page), but that's a separate matter. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:33, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

• This seems like a bad idea. Instead of using one hub to compare the abilities of different kits you feel that players should use six different pages. If I'm on a mobile device, and I want to see what advantages a Krogan Vanguard has over a Krogan Shaman, I need to navigate to the customization/Adept page scroll with 20 finger swipes and stare at the krogan shaman section, then navigate back to the customization base, and locate the Vanguard subpage, and then find and stare at krogan vanguards. I'd rather have one large, broad page where I can see all of the multiplayer kits at a glance. Maybe Powers (Mass Effect 3), in a section that is explicitly marked as Multiplayer so that people don't get confused and think they can use them in SP. Your current plan is going to require changes to that page anyway. If you're breaking up the powers, you'll need 6 disambig links at the top instead of one.

Gear, though, does need it's own page. I was under the impression that one of the patches or the DLC added gear equipment to SP.SinisterSamurai (talk) 17:30, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Power Points Per Level

I propose adding a chart detailing the number of points an MP character has at each level. While this isn't crucial information, it is the sort of basic data that I would have expected to be in an impressively complete wiki such as this. I've collated the numbers already, so if you all agree, I can (attempt to) add it. Cubsquared (talk) 11:37, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a use for it. People are working towards level 20, not any of the intermediate levels. Trying to plan a 2/2/2/2/2 or 5/0/0/0/5 build just isn't very practical. Lksdjf (talk) 12:29, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in including it, just for completeness (I don't care if that's a word or not). I'm certain that there is a points-per-level table for single-player, anyway. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 12:56, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

It is completely unneeded and unnecessary. And there isn't one for SP either. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:43, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

There is a points gained per level chart on the Powers (Mass Effect 3) page. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:38, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Gear Table

I thought that the design was pretty good, though I would have liked to see the names of the type of bonus granted on one line, as opposed to two or three. Lksdjf (talk) 23:57, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

We have a redesign project by Trandra still in the works that appears to have stalled. Before we pursue any other changes, I'd like to see if this project can be revived first. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:07, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the stall. Lksdjf, any suggestions you have are welcome, either here or on the project's forum page. Trandra (talk) 08:10, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

While Trandra's design is nice, it is frustrating to see my work reverted simply because there is another change partly complete—even if Trandra's is deemed to be superior, is my table design not superior to the un-tabled mess that preceded it? I'd appreciate it being kept, even only as an intermediary edit, if only because it's so much more readable than what it preceded: frustration with the unreadability of that mess was what provoked me to edit here. We can always overwrite it with something better later, or improve elements incrementally in the normal wiki way. If there's a desire for consistency, I'm willing to make similar changes to other sections so that they see the same readability improvements as well. Nihiltres (talk) 11:38, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

this wiki likes to deliberate things slowly and bureaucratically in case you haven't noticed. trandra's design will still have to be put up for a 7-day vote to give others the chance for suggestions/comments/violent reactions. if you're thinking of putting up your design in the interim, don't. breaks procedure that it itself should be undergoing.

you can, however, experiment on new page designs by making them in your own userspace (aka sandboxing). they in turn will need to be reviewed by the community for a 7-day period before it goes into the articles. slow process, but at least orderly. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 11:52, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

The ME3 MP Resource Library

There is a main topic on BSN that covers more precise information than what is currently on this wiki such as numbered weapon stats, hidden power attributes, and other gameplay mechanics revealed by Devs and data miners. the specific topic is in the Subject/headline can someone add the link?Wrath425 (talk) 21:44, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

The information that has been mentioned by devs is spread in various places on the wiki--the applicable weapons, power pages, etc. The data-mined and memory-scraped test results are not considered by the powers-that-be to be a valid source, unfortunately (a decision made way before I got to this wiki). Trandra (talk) 00:12, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

I find it silly, because some things that are put in and removed are only done so with knowledge of the underlying mechanisms, which come from datamining. Lksdjf (talk) 02:27, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Then how would anyone find out that the Level 1 Javelin does 9.7 less damage than the level 10 Widow? It doesn't make sense to use a stupid bar graph and guess inaccurately about how much damage a gun does compared to another.Wrath425 (talk) 00:55, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

New character pages

The new multiplayer character pages have been created and can be found here: Category:Multiplayer Characters. The remaining steps include:

(1) turning the class articles into disambiguation pages

(2) adjusting pages that link to the old class pages

Many links to the general class pages can now point to specific character articles instead. Lists of pages with links that may need adjusting can be found here:

• Pages linking to .../Adept
• Pages linking to .../Engineer
• Pages linking to .../Infiltrator
• Pages linking to .../Sentinel
• Pages linking to .../Soldier
• Pages linking to .../Vanguard

(3) improving the character articles themselves

Some of the notes are redundant especially with the new melee/movement table, but many of them need corrections and cleaning up regardless.

Some other disambiguations, redirects and misc adjustments will probably also be needed, but it's almost dawn so I will go AFK for a bit. Any help with the above points is welcome. Elseweyr ^{talk • stalk} April 25, 2014, 02:12:19 (UTC)

Oh, btw -- the image issues are Wikia-wide and being worked on. Elseweyr ^{talk • stalk} April 25, 2014, 02:16:45 (UTC)

I'm a little on the slow side but I'll try to get to a few of the Infiltrator links before I leave for the night.--YamiX0 (talk) 02:19, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Found a +2 Supply card in a Jumbo pack

Just noting this here, but I was able to find a +2 Medi-Gel card in a Jumbo equipment pack, separate from the 4 +5 Supply cards they usually have. Since I'm not sure of the exact conditions for why that dropped, I won't add it to the page. Neo89515 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Has definitely happened more than once, not a fluke; the conditions appear to be you can get a +2 supply card if: (1) you're still lacking supplies of one type after opening the Jumbo Pack AND (2) you were maxed out of another supply type BEFORE opening the pack. E.g. you're at 240 each of Missiles, Medi-Gel, and Ops Packs but 255 Thermal Clip Packs, opening the Jumbo Pack will get you +5 each of the 3 types you're missing, but since you didn't need any Clip Packs, being maxed, that instead becomes a roll for +2 of any of the other 3 supply types you still aren't maxed with. This would make sense, since the Jumbo Pack is aimed at refilling your supplies moreso than any other type of Pack. Neo89515 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)