Talk: Powers

Kasumi's power

Kasumi's power, Flashbang Grenade, needs to get added to the table. I would do it, but I would prefer to have it done after we get an image of the power set up and linked and ready to go. The other question is which catagory it falls under. It could easily be argued as either Tech, as she is a tech specialist, or Combat, as it is a grenade. Skelethin 04:57, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Talent Reset?

I hear it's possible to reset talent/power points in-game, but I can't find an article about it. Is it also possible to reset them with the console on the PC? 12.29.228.138 22:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

After a certain point(Horizon, I believe) you gain the 'Retrain Powers' as a research option. This is a repeatable option, and should be included somewhere in this article near the beginning. Skelethin 04:53, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

The wiki right now talks about the bonus power being available after Horizon, but in my current game that is available as soon as I get Mordin Solus from Omega. Can someone clarify this? Looks like there is confusion between the bonus power and the opportunity to re-spec. Grail Quest (talk) 08:08, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

I thought the initial bonus power was offered when I rolled up my character at the very beginning of the game. And then the respec option comes after Horizon. Don't remember Mordin-retrieval being involved. 76.100.199.47 14:05, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Just thought I'd post a notice here to remind any PC players that once the game comes out it would be great if they could get proper, consistent quality/size versions of the icons on this page. Look at the Talents page to see what I mean. It would be best if you simply went to the image page and clicked 'Upload a new version of this file'. Once again, this isn't until the game comes out, obviously. Cheers. JakePT 07:01, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Well the game's out, so if any PC players are reading, grabbing the icons for the powers would be much appreciated. Look a the Talents page to see what I mean. Thanks. JakePT 02:59, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

• or �

User Commdor recently changed the bullet icon to the dagger icon. That's fine, but I did want to start a discussion on it.

Personally I favour the • simply because it is significantly different to the tick. It makes the difference between default powers and unlockable powers much easier to notice, and I feel the dagger looks much too prominent for unlockable powers, which probably have less importance than default ones. Also, I assume that when ME2 comes out it will turn out that a lot of powers will be unlockable, meaning we're going to have a hell of a lot more of whatever icon we choose all over the page. For this reason I think the bullet is better because it is less intrusive and a lot of them will look less messy than a lot of daggers.

Thoughts?

Well, as the one who changed it to begin with, I did so mainly because the dot is harder to see than the dagger; the first time I saw the row with Slam, I didn't notice the dot. Whatever symbols are used, they should be large and easy to distinguish. I thought daggers fit the bill, but doubtless there are alternatives that make everyone happy. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:45, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea using the dagger, the problem is it's generally reserved for footnotes rather than a companion to a tick in a table. The dot is fairly noticeable, I admit it looks a bit bland, but it does get the message across. On that note, does anyone have a citation for where the ability 'Slam' is mentioned? Phylarion 10:41, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Sentinel vid. JakePT 10:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

The dagger doesn't render for me. As for Slam... I say let's remove it until we know more about it. My guess is that it's a bonus power unlocked by loyalitizing a teammate. - 83.13.234.242 22:21, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. In the Xfire demo with Christina Norman the other day you could see that Slam was Miranda's unique power. Jacob had Barrier, which is interesting considering what we know about how barrier now works in ME2. Matt 2108 06:15, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Unlockable Powers Chart

Why are there two charts? It seems completely unnecessary when we can just have the one chart with both. JakePT 01:50, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Catagories

In light of the information from Eric Fagnan here, the catagories are wrong. There appears to be, in general, three four catagories of powers - Biotics, Tech, Combat, and Ammo. Bonuses to Tech doesn't affect ammo, and so on. --DarkJeff 06:01, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Everything on the page is already organized into those four groups, and exactly as listed in the BioWare post to boot. I don't see anything to correct. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:55, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

A Home for Tech and Biotic Upgrades Sections

Similar to the ME2 armour and weapons pages each having a section about their respective upgrades, are there any objections to having the tech and biotic upgrades here as well? Dch2404 20:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ammo Powers Explained

The Devs recently clarified how the damage bonuses of ammo powers work, here. A summary:

1) The damage bonus on ammo powers is negated completely if used against the wrong defense, regardless of how weak that defense is. For example, against an enemy with both shields and armor (e.g. a YMIR Mech), removing its shields with AP ammo will cause none of the AP damage bonus for that shot to carry through to the Mech's armor, even if the Mech only had 1 point of shields remaining.

2) Defenses must be completely removed before secondary effects can be applied, e.g. Disruptor Ammo's overheat and Cryo Ammo's freeze. Combined with the first point, that means that damage to a shielded enemy will never apply these secondary effects, even if the damage is high enough to affect red health.

Summary confirmed by devs here.

I think this is useful info for the wiki, but I'm not sure where it belongs. Optimystic8 18:06, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well that doesn't belong anywhere right now because the summary you described comes form a user, and while confirmed by the dev, it isn't enough for us. If you can provide the link to where Eric Fagnan said he "posted some information in the gameplay data thread that should clear things up. I've also included the new information below". If you could provide that link, since the above comment is taken from a user not a dev, then we could look at that. However this just isn't enough because he Eric Fagnan said he would post the information, that will be more acceptable. I'd rather have the whole thing over a user generated summary. Lancer1289 19:54, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

That would be here. (Note the "modified" date.) Optimystic8 19:30, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Now that is what we needed. As to where it could go in, because it mentions three specific powers, Disruptor, Incendiary, and Warp so the specific information about them should go in the player's notes section at the bottom. As to the general information, I think a seperate section on this page is good, as I can't think of where else to put it. The section should either go between the Powers Chart and the Class Powers section, or between the Class Powers Section and the Upgrades Section. I would prefer the former, but giving all the options helps. Lancer1289 19:42, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Recharge times

While poking through all of the individual Power pages, I noticed that the powers which have different recharge times for Shepard and squadmates have several different presentations. I'd like to change them all to one uniform style, any opinions as to which it should be? Some current descriptions are:

Recharge Time: X seconds (Shepard) Y seconds (squadmate name)

Recharge Time: X seconds (Y seconds for Shepard)

Recharge Time: Xs (Shepard); Ys (Others)

Personally, I'd be inclined toward stating Shepard's recharge time first, followed by the second time for Squadmates since no two with the same skills have different times from one another. So, example:

Recharge Time: 3.00 seconds (Shepard); 6.00 seconds (Squadmates)

Thoughts? Ev0lve 00:29, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, going to go ahead with it for now. Uniformity incoming. Ev0lve 01:03, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

And when did anyone else agree to this, because I didn't even look at this page. If you are proposing something like this, it is usually a very good idea to wait to see if anyone responds first as we might be doing other things. As it is I still have reservations about number three and I'd like this to be discussed first before making unilateral changes without any discussion first. Lancer1289 01:07, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "number three," and it's simple enough to revert if you'd like. Just tidiness and uniformity between similar articles. Ev0lve 01:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

That was supposed to say something else, not sure why I typed that. Anyway thinks like this, where something is being proposed to be across multiple articles, needs to be discussed beforehand before implantation, and a half hour waiting for comments isn't long enough to wait. People like to have a say in what happens in things like this and such a short time frame doesn't allow for a proper discussion nor for any feedback to be presented, especially when unilateral changes are made with no comments or discussion what so ever. We usually have a seven day period for discussing things when making decisions and while that may be a long period of time in some cases, it provides time to allow for adjustments before anything gets implemented.

Being as it is, consistency is nice, but I have a problem with replacing it (Squadmate) especially if they are the only other squadmate that can use it, mainly with Loyalty powers. I see no reason what so ever to put (Squadmate) when powers can only be used by one other squadmate, such as Miranda being the only other squadmate able to use Slam. However something that does need to be address is that since the game uses "seconds" not "s." to describe recharge time, that does need to be fixed as those pages are supposed to be direct copies word for word and no abbreviations. Lancer1289 01:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for the format I chose is fairly straightforward. I listed Shepard first, as all skills are usable by the player and it is the most likely the number people will be looking for. I prefer 'seconds' over 's' as it is easier to read, as well as how it is listed in game. The decision for 'squadmates' over 'others' or 'name' was a little more difficult. First, 'others' might also be interpreted as NPC enemies, which we do not have the data for. A specific name could make sense, though that is already listed under 'Availability,' and that is subject to change - better to keep the format identical (Singularity, for example, only belonged to Shep before LotSB). Additionally, non-loyalty powers with different recharge times for squadmates... would each name be listed, or 'squadmates,' or 'others' (bad for previously stated reason). Hence why I felt that using 'squadmates' for all of them would be a better standard.Ev0lve 01:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

However what about loyalty powers that can only be used by Shepard and one other person. Putting (Squadmates) there is also misleading becuase people may think that others can use it when they can't. As to cooldown times, power cooldown times are univeral among the squad so for powers like Overload, having squadmates is fine for those. However for powers like Slam and Reave, I have to say put it like "__ seconds (Shepard) __ seconds (Name of Squadmate)", rather than just (Squadmates), that just doesn't work when only Shepard and one other squadmate can use it. As to the situation with singularity, we can update it as we go depending on what happens, but I am against putting (Squadmates) when only two can use the power. Lancer1289 02:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I would have assumed that the specific names already listed under 'Availability' would have been clear enough. As for Singularity at present, then, you would use Liara's name specifically as with the loyalty powers? Ev0lve 02:23, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, not everyone reads that far down so mentioning specific names where applicable is appropriate. As to singularity, yes because only Shepard and Liara can use it. Lancer1289 02:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Modifiers

I know that will sound really stupid but i was wondering, are ammo powers affected by power damage modifiers? 166.82.245.89 05:37, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not really a stupid question. AFAIK, it's not answered in this (or any) article. Something to think about. To answer your question: It depends. Ammo powers are in their own category of powers, which aren't affected by Tech or Biotic upgrades. But they do benefit from "+Power" bonuses. Source: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/261/index/1143264, Third post (by Eric Fagnan) right at the top. -- Dammej (talk) 14:51, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks!:) 166.82.245.89 17:33, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

New Page Formatting

Ok first I want to state that I'm currently mad beyond belief that my concerns on the Forum:New Powers Page were completely ignored, let alone not even responded to. I said there if my concerns aren't addressed, then I will take it up here, and I intend to until every one of my concerns are addressed, and I will argue for a revision in the forums if I have to. I'm complete against this "revision" that has turned this page into, IMO, a piece of junk. Jake didn't even respond to my final concerns and I frankly want them to be addressed. Actually, I get the feeling that they were completely ignored, since voting closed before he even responded to them.

This new formatting turns what was once a very nice page, into a complete eyesore, piece of junk (yes that is an opinion but a very honest one), makes the page harder to follow, and is just now a waste of space. I don't like the fact that Jake just didn't even respond to any of my concerns for whatever reason, and I still don't like what this page has become. This page just threw out some very high standards in favor of something that is, IMO, a dumbed down version of something much better. This page is now about 300x harder to follow and I am still completely 1000% against the now "new and better" formatting. This page needs to be revised again, and I would like to see Jake address my concerns as again I feel they were ignored.

If this sounds agitated, well yes I am in the fact that nothing I said in my concerns were addressed, and frankly I felt that I was ignored for whatever reason. Lancer1289 14:46, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

For once, I completely agree with you. When was this changed? It looks terrible now. Tali's no.1 fan 14:48, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Last night is when the bottom fell out of this page. Lancer1289 14:53, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments about what a disaster this page has become? I plan to go to the forums soon with my revamped version of this which puts back the tables. Lancer1289 18:05, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that, were I around whenever the voting was put up for this 'disaster', I would have voted yes. Just sayin'. Very nice IMO. -- Dammej (talk) 04:50, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Just because you didn't like my response doesn't mean I didn't respond. In case you didn't notice the vote was taken, under the rules, and you were the only one to vote no. I'm not going to hold off a passing vote just to satisfy your ego.

In case your mistaking your opinions for objective truth, I'm sorry to break it to you, but they're not. I read your concerns, said I disagreed and proposed my version. My version won the vote and the page was changed.

Contrary to your behavior, not every edit or proposal has to meet your demands. There is no rule that you have to sign off on every change, even if you act like there is. I made a proposal, the vote passed. You don't like it. Too damn bad. Suck it up. JakePT 09:37, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

You do know there is absolutely no need for the attitude right, and frankly I'm sick of it from you. What I didn't like was the fact that my last comment went completely unaddressed for over a month for whatever reason. You outright ignored it as a matter of fact, and the fact you just blasted me instead of responding proves that. I'm not arguing with the change, it was passed and there's nothing I can do about it, and the fact that you bring up that "every edit or proposal has to meet your demands" proves you outright hostility to me. I know that, but the fact you bring it up proves that you only ignored my concerns for whatever reason. The forum page was left for over a month and nothing happened, no comments, no responses, and no attempt to talk things out, so I took it here. Since I still completely disagree with the horrid formatting of this page, I plan to bring up another proposal for this page. I merely asked that you respond, but instead you berate me and blast me because my concerns about this page went completely unaddressed for over a month. That is just rude. Lancer1289 14:45, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, Lancer, you're being a hypocrite. Your comment was just as "rude" as JakePT's, but the only difference is that you addressed your agitated state within your comment. However, that doesn't make you exempt from the same judgment you're now passing on JakePT. SlayerEGO1342 15:34, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

I find it once again very curious that you show up right now, but that's another issue. While my comment was I admit more hostile than I would have liked, the fact remains that some of his comments were completely uncalled for, and not appropriate for an admin to make. Also what I was pointing out as rude, was the fact my concerns went ignored for over a month, and nothing was done to address them. Lancer1289 15:48, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think his comments were wholly called-for, given the tone with which you instigated his response. SlayerEGO1342 15:58, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

"I find it once again very curious that you show up right now": your insinuation here is very clear, lancer, and it betrays an unhealthy paranoia. You guys need to settle your issues...-- Dammej (talk) 23:21, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent)I put both versions side by side (huzzah for dual monitors!) and have to say that I like the new version better. The information is more consistent, and I'm able to see my squadmates info more easily. The only complaint I have is actually a complaint I've had with the entire site all along. The symbol being used (✓) does not appear on my screen except as a little box with numbers in it (Firefox) or an empty box (Internet Explorer). Since this issue exists all over the site (I can never see the numbers in the circles on planet pages, for example), I assume it's a standard, but I just wanted to mention that not all browsers see it the same. I assume this is probably due to some language pack that I don't have installed on my secondary computer, as my gaming machine sees the checkmark (and circled numbers) just fine. (Although, UGH, I didn't realize how much of the page was spammed by ads. Adblock is a wonderful thing). --Snicker 00:02, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I still think this page looked better before. Tali's no.1 fan 20:57, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Further explanation of "Squad Ammo" powers?

I can't find anything that specifies whether an ammo type activated by a "Squad Ammo" power (ex: Squad Cryo) lasts until the squad member who activated the power chooses another ammo type, or until the squad member using the weapon with the "Squad Ammo" activated ammo (but not the one who activated it initially) chooses another ammo type. eg: If Shepherd activates "Squad Cryo", but then switches to "Tungsten Ammo", does Mordin keep the Cryo Ammo activated? The presence of the white-coloured holograms that usually accompany Cryo Ammo seem to suggest so, but I don't know if that's a graphical glitch or not.

I realize I'm skirting the line of what's acceptable for Talk pages by talking more about the game than the article itself, I'm just trying to create an example so at least one person knows what I'm talking about. predcon 23:08, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

From experience in both ME2 and 3, despite this not being the page, it seems to be that when a squad power is activated, all members receive it. If any of the squad activates another ammo power, it deactivates the one previously applied to them and swaps it. In the example, Mordin still is using the cryo. I originally came to this talk to ask where I should ask where to edit a player note that if multiple members have the squad bonus in either game, activating ammo powers can become complicated. Ie, ME3, Garrus/Liara warp/amourpeircing confusion, since the second applied swaps out the others. Since each power has its own page, I didn't want to edit them all if the edit is unwarranted.138.251.243.239 15:52, April 25, 2013 (UTC)