Talk: Weapon Damage Formula

Hey Christina here.

The ME2 damage formula is pretty complicated. As noted in the quote below, we had very precise rules for how damage should work, but those rules were probably not 100% accurately implemented in the shipping game. 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.

What I can tell you:

• The formula guessed at here seems fairly accurate, it's not exactly what I intended but it seems fairly close
• I can't tell you exactly what the damage formula is in the shipped copies of ME2, I'd have to do an awful lot of testing to nail down exactly what it was. The approach I used for acceptance was not to reverse engineer what programming implemented, it was to test edge cases and file any major discrepancies I noticed.
• Philosophically the intended approach of our damage formula was lots of linear bonuses that stack, and few multiplicative bonuses that exponentially stack. For example, if you have a passive class skill that gives you 10% bonus damage, and you also get 30% from tech upgrades, your total bonus will be +40% not 43%. Examples of multiplicative bonuses that stack are: headshot damage, summed total of bonus damage, and range bonus.
• 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.

I do understand why some fans would find a damage formula useful, the value to a more analytical player is understanding exactly what the benefits will be of investing in one bonus line over another.

Hopefully, this is helpful!

Christinanorman 20:12, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say here agrees with the tests i've run. The influence of range made testing the other weapons much more difficult, but the sniper rifles were perfect for testing as they are not effected by range. Using the formula for sniper rifles i've managed to gain some insight about the other weapon systems - not the precise formula, but the limits of the range bonus (point blank range and far far away). In between linear interpolation is used . I would like to thank you here aswell for taking the time to review my work Peddroelm 07:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

In order to get accurate results i had to access game runtime data. The general purpose windows debugger(windbg) was my starting point. Windbg its a powerfull application(its purpose its debugging windows applications not hacking games)and while i have little doubt that in the hands of a proffessional it would have been enough i needed more help.. So i searched for a more specialized tool for the task at hand ( mainly finding/displaing/editing memory locations for variables such as Armor hit points, shield hit points, hit points and such.

"MHS is a utility for searching, viewing, and modifying the RAM of other processes, and for disassembling and debugging other processes.
MHS sports the fastest and most efficient searches available, an advanced, colorful, and easy-to-use real-time Hex Editor, a Debugger with unique features, a Disassembler, and an extensive scripting language (L. Spiro Script) yielding unlimited potential. The array of tools offered in MHS can make hacking any game easy." Quote from the application help file introduction.
Having 0 experience with MHS(memory hacking sofware :) ) and Mass Effect 2 internal workings intial progress was slow. I can now find the memory locations for shield, armor and health of an YMIR mech in under a minute because now i know they are floats and their starting values (2150/2150/500). Address for shep shields, ammo in gun and so on ...
So i load a map, kill the lesser enemies, damage the YMIR to find out his addresses and then i'm ready for testing. I choosed YMIR becase the procedure i was first using to find the address consited in damaging it a bit checking witch memory values decreased , damaging some more and so on.. Initial number of search results can be very high but MHS has tools to automatise the process(finding unknown values). YMIR's had high enough hitpoint not to die while i was
reducing the number of hits to 1.
Level scaling doesn't alter monsters hitpoints (YMIR will have 2150 shields all the time) but the damage you do to them. Must be some multiplier that i would calculate based on how much damage a melee hit would do to them. (For example at Shep lvl 2 a 125 melee hit does 69.62 damage meaning all damage is multiplied by 0.56 ( 69.62/125 ) at that lvl.
- testing with carniflex and revenant the damage was not consistent. Could random be involved? that would really end attempts(debbuging the code to find the actual damage formula is way beyond my ability). But when i tried the viper damage was repetable with many zecimals. So i remembered something about sniper rifles not getting damage bonus for range. Next tests would be done with sniper rifles.
- new game was perfect to establish baseline. 0 skills, 0 damage from equip, 0 research. So a shot from Mantis vs shield should do exacly mantis base damage.
Measured value(new game mantis shot vs shield) = 146,536 damage. 146.536 * (125/ 69.62) = 263.1 (Base Damage of mantis in weapons table BINGO).
After that i simply started to add various bonuses and see what worked ...Peddroelm 10:17, June 11, 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.

- Christina"

Wow, that would look almost valid if you weren't the only one to have edited the page. *eyeroll* Bastian964 00:58, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Christina Norman (the bioware dev) in an email to review the formula. That what she answered but unfortunatly she did not edit this page she replied to the email. So i copy pasted from the email ...Peddroelm 04:31, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

And we have just your word on that, which isn't enough. I tend to agree with Commdor here, and I also question the validity of that statment. I agree with Bastian964 that since you were the only one who edited this page, you could have just wrote that. Lancer1289 04:34, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Send me an email from the wiki and i will forward back the email from Christina ..it can be edited i know but its the best I can do .. If more proof is necesary i guess i'll have to send her another email asking her nicely to validate my claims on this page - but there is no guaranty she'll oblige ...Peddroelm 05:31, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Like it says in the deletion template, I just don't see why a page entirely about weapon damage calculations should be here. The game does these calculations automatically and much, much faster than anyone playing the game could, and I can't envision a situation where having these calculations available will help players at all. Maybe it could all be split up and added to the appropriate weapon articles, but I feel a subject of such obscurity and limited usefulness like this doesn't deserve it's own article. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:05, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

You might ask yourself what drove me to dig so deep and find those formulas. I was trying to compare squadmate effectivness (this is from an older email i've send to somebody asking about enemies stats

(" I intend to use the standard unupgraded melee attack (125 damage point vs everything) to measure stats(shield//armor//health of various enemies) (rounded) around the 125 value ... Is there a level scalling ? Will see (i'll test against YMIR at lvl 2 and at lvl 30) ...Using those stats i hope to be able to calculate the weapon singleshot(snipers, pistols) damage formula taking into account factors such as class passive damage bonus, ammo powers, various research , miranda....
Would be nice to be able to calculate what skill levels , upgrades and ammo powers u need to be able to one shot standard mooks without cloak or Adrenaline rush. How many head shots will a max level Legion need to drop Harbinger .. How much of the geth are shields and how much is health ?... How much barrier damage would a full clip of a maxed out tempest do ...? How many mantis shots would Zaeed need on Horizon (3/5,AP,headshot sniper upgrades) to drop a scion with squad incendiary ammo ? Can Legion ever dream of one shoting standard mooks ? .... Power and weapon combinations to "insta" drop guardian and assasin barriers .. And so on and so on .. :) . .. In order to compare their effectiviness with powers and weapons: damage formulas would be required. (power damage is simple to calculate / single shot weapon considering all research bonuses is not figuring NPC rate on fire vs their cast rate would have to come latter.. ) Another factor for figuring their effectiviness is of course various enemy HP(at different Shepard levels) (would the area version of this power take down protections in one shot ? would you need the heavy version ?). Hit point values at this point will also help me figure out weapon singleshot damage formula.). How do you choose between diffrent pieces of equipment to wear ? "

Of course knowing the weapon damage formulas is just half of the deal. Enemies stats also must be known in order to make those kinds of calculations. What i know so far about Mass effect 2 level scaling is that is a function of Shepard level , curent difficulty level and current game progress. Enemies stats do not change during the game - level scaling is acomplished by reducing the damage they take ( all attacks will do less and less damage and you need upgrades, skills and equipment to keep up).

---

LVL 2 YMIR freedom progress (no research)(insanity) :

Base Health 500

Base Shields&Armor 2150

Damage From un upgrated melee attack(125) to either health/shield/armor: 69.620239. So each form of attack(weapons, melee, heavy weapons, powers) will have its damage reduced by 69.620239/125 =0.556961

Or the equivalent scaled up YMIR stats are

ScaledHealth 897.73 ScaledShields&Armor 3860.22

---

LVL 4 YMIR recruit convict

Base Health 500

Base Shields&Armor 2150

Damage From un upgrated melee attack(125) to either health/shield/armor: 63.291016. So each form of attack(weapons, melee, heavy weapons, powers) will have its damage reduced by 63.291016/125 =0.50632..

Or the equivalent scaled up YMIR stats are

ScaledHealth 987.5 ScaledShields&Armor 4246.26

---

LVL 30 YMIR save the crates normal game(no NG+)

Base Health 500

Base Shields&Armor 2000 ( the YMIRs on this map have diffrent base stats they could be diffrent monsters ..should test this map on a new game at low lvl)

Damage From double upgrated melee attack(125*1.25*1.25) to either health/shield/armor: 59.335. So each form of attack(weapons, melee, heavy weapons, powers) will have its damage reduced by 59.335/(125*1.25*1.25) =0.3037952

Or the equivalent scaled up YMIR stats are

ScaledHealth 1645.85 ScaledShields&Armor 6583.38

---

LVL 30 YMIR NG + freedom progress

Base Health 500

Base Shields&Armor 2150

Damage From un upgrated melee attack(125) to either health/shield/armor: 43.67. So each form of attack(weapons, melee, heavy weapons, powers) will have its damage reduced by 43.67/125 =0.34936

Or the equivalent scaled up YMIR stats are

ScaledHealth 1431.19 ScaledShields&Armor 6154.11

---

I was hoping since this game is made with the unreal engine some tools would exist to dump the base enemies stats from the game resurce files, only work remaining to be done beeing to figuring up the formulas for level scaling....

Peddroelm 06:54, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lancer and Commdor on this one. This page seems (to me at least) overly long, and overly technical. I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff, I play the game to play the game, not to formulate what does how much damage, when, and when used by whom. As for the whole, 'google searches for this will bring people here' line of reasoning, this site is already #5 on google when you search for Mass Effect, and #3 when you search for Mass Effect 2, behind only the official BioWare page and the wikipedia page. If people are looking up anything about Mass Effect online, they find us, regardless. So yeah, I have to vote in favor of deletion. This would be good stuff for the forum, but I don't think it needs an article here. SpartHawg948 07:46, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

". If people are looking up anything about Mass Effect online, they find us, regardless. So yeah, I have to vote in favor of deletion" so by invalidating one of my arguments you invalidate all ? :( Peddroelm 08:12, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I never said any such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth. SpartHawg948 08:18, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Even though I stated above, I throw my vote here too. This article is overly long, technical, and I also could care less about this stuff. We are an encyclopedia of the ME universe, not an excel spreadsheet of damage indicatators. I agree that this article needs to go as well. Maybe the forums are a good place, but not a main article. Lancer1289 07:52, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

" ..I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff // I also could care less about this stuff .." this wiki is not only for you two people. Some people outhere might care about this sort of stuff - why deny them the chance without them having any say so ? And i still think this wiki would be the best place to present it. We are an encyclopedia of the ME universe: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field". I would think this covers the weapon damage formula too, even if say 80% of the game players "couldn't care less about this sort of stuff" ..

" article is overly long, technical" it deals with technical stuff .. Help me(find someone willing to) find a better way to pesent this information ...Peddroelm 08:12, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

And this wiki is also not just for you. When things come up for deletion, people get to vote. And when they vote, they often express why they feel the way they do. You can argue the logic, but please don't try and belittle people for feeling the way they do, along the lines of 'this wiki isn't just for you'. If there are others out there who want this to stay, they have a week to say so here. We take into consideration differing views without just dismissing them, saying 'this wiki isn't just for you'. As for your second point, I already did when I recommended putting it in the Forum, a more appropriate venue for this stuff. SpartHawg948 08:18, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

• I must say, as well, after looking over the article, I'm not sold on the sourcing. If you'll note, one of the two sources (and arguably the more significant of the two), the 'Raw Weapon Data', features a DISCLAIMER at the bottom that reads "Most data obtained and interpreted from PC version files." (emphasis in original) So, this data is based in large part, or at least appears to be based off of, interpretations of in-game data. And that to me smacks of opinion. And where does opinionated 'fact' belong? The forum! That is, after all, why the class builds were moved there. They too are interpretations of in-game data. SpartHawg948 09:23, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
• Arrr :). All i used from that table were the base damage values for weapons. Even if those values were diffrent on other gaming platforms ( highly highly unlikely) the damage formulas would still work the same. Peddroelm 09:30, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I thin you're missing my point. I'm not concerned that it's PC version only. I'm concerned that the info on there is an interpretation of the data. Interpretation meaning it's not 100% fact, but rather, what someone thinks may be true based on what they see. Factual and technical articles of this nature cannot be based upon interpretations, as interpretations are a matter of opinion. SpartHawg948 09:34, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

===Norman, Christina=== to me

show details 7:06 PM (17 hours ago)

Hey there,
I'm honestly not 100% sure. I know how I intended the damage formula to work, and there were several iterations with programmer to get the damage formula working as closely as possible to the intended forumula.
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.
- Christina

I will never be able to prove to any of you this information is rock solid. It works on my copy of the game, i'm confident it would work mostly the same on other copies(add a disclaimer to this extent). At this point i belive is pretty clear we're not gonna get a more accurate formula so if its perfection you're asking for I cannot give you that. There are however instances of data presented on this wiki witch i know to be wrong, so aparrently divine perfection must not be target. Peddroelm 09:47, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever you just tried to post didn't appear correctly. Again, you can say Christina Norman emailed you, but that doesn't prove anything. Though, given the fact that she flat-out says in the purported email that your data is not accurate (that would be the "The formula you've listed looks reasonable but is not exactly the intended damage formula" portion) I can't see what you would stand to gain by fabricating this. And again, you have stated that there is inaccurate data in other parts of the wiki. If this is the case, please let me know what the inaccurate data is and present proof (solid, documented proof, not original research). Again, if your formula is basPeddroelm 10:26, June 12, 2010 (UTC)ed on interpretations of in-game data, it can't be taken as factual, which is another strong point in favor of deletion. SpartHawg948 09:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

The question you shoud be asking yourself is what would i stand to gain by fabricating any of this? The data is solid and can be tested to various extents ingame if you were so inclined(i guess i could go make a guide about things "easy" to test ingame). More confirmation from the devs on the matter won't arrive. As to pointing out innacuracies on the other pages they will only start this disscution all over again. Maintain innacurate data on other parts of the forums(shoud i go to the respective pages and question every number they have there, traceble back to the word of a bioware dev ? triple signed and revisioned like you do to me here ? ) but delete my accurate data ?.

I realize at this time(never ) that you don't have accurate data to judge either way considering all the facts. Its time to make a judgement call. I brought my data to this wiki, for sharing it to the world, you can leave the other articles with confliting data unchanged - leave to visitors decide. You mean to tell me all the lore that you have here is from accurate bioware sources(word for word) ?. But what's fairness and accuratness got to do with all of this ? The image you(this wiki) is projecting is that accuracy of information is second grade.

So in short: You tell me my information is a).wrong and b). irrelavant. I tell you its relevant in its own right and on top of that its relevant because it can be used to clean up many other innacuracies troughtout the wiki. You're not gonna test this, not give it a second chance, you're gonna burry it in 7 days. Wiki policies - go fight it off against the wind mills :) Peddroelm 10:26, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Why would I ask myself what you would stand to gain by fabricating this? I already admitted that you stand to gain nothing, and that, as such, your claim about the email from Christina Norman should be taken at face value. "Though, given the fact that she flat-out says in the purported email that your data is not accurate (that would be the "The formula you've listed looks reasonable but is not exactly the intended damage formula" portion) I can't see what you would stand to gain by fabricating this." So, no, I don't think I'll ask myself a question I already answered, thank you very much! :)

Now, as to the claims of inaccuracy. I asked for instances of inaccuracy in the articles, and you declined to provide any. Generally, when someone says 'they exist but I'm not going to list them because ___', it means they don't really exist. I'm not saying that is the case this time, but your response does give that impression. As for inaccuracies in the forums, all I have to say is "Well of course there are inaccuracies in the forums! They're the forums, after all, not the articles!" I myself told you that the forums are a place where opinionated info is acceptable, as opposed to the articles, which are reserved for facts! Question all the data you like in the forums. It's what they exist for!

Finally, you ask me to make a judgment call. My problem is that you say I can leave the other articles with their conflicting data unchanged. What articles? I've asked several times for you to give examples of articles that are inaccurate. You have yet to do so. As for your question, yes, all the lore contained on this site (in the encyclopedic portion of the site, that is), is accurate to the BioWare source. In fact, thanks to developer contributions, some of our info is more accurate than the in-game info. Again, we'll see what the community consensus is before deciding this pages fate, although right now it's 3-1 in favor of deletion. Last, but certianly not least, the correct phrase is 'tilting at windmills', or, if you want present tense, tell someone to go 'tilt at windmills'. Let's do Cervantes the justice of getting it right, shall we? He deserves at least that much respect. SpartHawg948 10:42, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Weaponry_Comparison
about this weapon damage comparison - the upgrated DPS values are wrong

leaving out other factors (ammo powers, passive skill damage, equip bonus damage ...)
Example for the mantis sniper rifle vs armor

if we consider torso shots vs armor
unupgrated mantis sniper rifle rifle vs armor(body shot) = base *1.5(mantis vs armor modifier) = 1.5 *base
fully upgrated mantis sniper rifle vs armor (body shot) = base * [1+0.5(Sniper Rifle Damage 1 - 5 (Scram Pulsar))] *[1.5(mantis vs armor modifier)*1.5(sniper rifle AP upgrade)]= 3.750 * base
(diffrence between 0 upgrate and full upgrates is bigger than double) .

if we consider headshots vs armor
unupgrated mantis sniper rifle vs armor(head shot) = base *[1+ 0+0.5(headshot modifier)]*1.5 = 2.25 *base
fully upgrated mantis sniper rifle vs armor (head shot = base * [1+0.5(Sniper Rifle Damage 1 - 5 (Scram Pulsar))+1(upgrated headshot modfier 0.5 +0.5) ] *[1.5(mantis vs armod mod)*1.5(sniper rifle ap upgrade)]= 5.625 * base
(diffrence between 0 upgrate and full upgrates is again bigger than double) .

If the damage diffrence between 0 and full upgrade is more than double for single shot it must also be so when

considering DPS.

DPS for any weapons diffrent from Sniper rifles must take into consideration range to target, because damage from those weapons ist not consistant. So you must specify at what range from target you calculate DPS for. (point blank, "long range" , ..? )

About assault rifles:
One of the assault rifles upgrades alters Base weapon damage(50% damage bonus). It will somewhat compensate for

this by reducing the damage bonus received because of range to target...

NONE OF THIS MAKE ANY SENSE WITHOUT A WEAPONDAMAGE FORMULA PAGE TO REFERENCE BACK TO

--------------------------

Also about the upgrades pages:
lets pick sniper rifles:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Sniper_Rifles#Upgrades

AP Sniper Rifle : Sniper rifles deal +50% bonus damage vs armor.
Sniper Headshot Damage: Sniper rifles deal +50% head shot damage.
Sniper Rifle Damage 1 - 5 (Scram Pulsar): Provides +10% sniper rifle damage.
First upgade alters sniper rifle (modifier_vs_armor by *1.5 .
The headshot upgrade alters the (headshot_modfier by +0.5) .

Those upgrades alter diffrent parameters inside the damage formula and thus have various effects.

The weapon damage formula could be used to explain the effect of damage boosting abilities such as Asasination cloak, Adrenaline rush.

You think Adrenaline rush doubles weapon damage like the description says? It doesn't. The weapon damage formula explains exactly how much damage adrenaline rush adds depending of the various other upgrades and equipment used. It adds 100%/140% base weapon damage(more damage bonuses might be in effect and they are all summed toghther) and this value is multiplied by the modifier vs the curent resitance. That modifier is also not set in stone is modified by the piercing/penetration upgrades ...

Wow missed an argument here, however as it was 03:00, I needed to get some sleep. I still agree with Spart and Commdor because this page seems to be just your page and you are treating it like that. On a wiki, every page is the property of everybody and treating a page like it is your own, like you seem to be doing, isn't allowed. This is a wiki and whatever the commmunity says, if in this case deletion, then the article will be deleted. These formulas, as Spart has said, aren't accurate, but you have also seem to be taking this way to personally. Articles have been created and deleted in the past, and whenever someone takes it personally, it always turns out badly. You were asked to provide inaccurate pages and you still have yet to do so. The information on all the upgrades, damage multipliers,etc are taken directly from in-game sources, and do we really need a page for a reference on possible data, in my opinion no. This information is an interpertation of the data, not hardcode fact, which is speculation under our rules. That belongs in the forums and not in a main article. So far the vote for deletion is 3-1 and if it remains unchanged this article will be deleted in 6 days on the 18th. If other people want to comment and vote then that is their decision but since you opened a forum, and keep posting reasons for us to keep the page, you seem to be taking this way too personally. This is a community decision and if it is deleted, then will be deleted. Lancer1289 17:51, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Those formulas are 100% accurate in case of sniper rifles. In the case of other weapons the range to target bonus complicates things. You ask me to pick one innacurate page -> the data about the upgrated sniperrifles DPS in the weaponry comparison page is wrong. I've pointed it out like 5 times already. My formulas could help you guys make that table closer to reality. Anyway this is hopeless, apparently none of you guys is willing to consider those formuals might be the real deal. A bit of open mindeness can go along way. I wonder of all the people who voted here for deletion, how many actually took the time to read the page. It seems long and convoluted because i'm not any good at formating and presentig information. That's why i've been asking you guys for your help to clean it up and make it easier to read and understand. For a moment there i thought i was getting trough to SpartHawg948, he really made an effort, however he's not big on numbers. Don't you guys have someone you trust and also is genuinely intrested in how the game works on this wiki?. The way i see it the weaponry comparison page, power/damage boosting pieces of equipment, weapon upgrade guides, passive damage boosting abilities, active damage boosting abilities they could all be linked back to the weapon damage formula as it can accuratele show each of those factors influence on the final damage weapon. Anyway i'll be out of town for about a week, when i'll be back this page will have been erased and that will be that :). I do think you guys are have been doing (mostly) a great job with this wiki.. Peddroelm 18:33, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. You say I am not being open-minded, and that I'm not willing to consider that your formulas might be the real deal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am willing to consider it, and I have no doubt that you believe them to be the real deal. However, the sourcing upon which your formulas are based is not a legitimate source, at least not for the purposes of an article. Blogs and forum posts are not considered valid sources for encyclopedic articles, especially not forum posts where the data is an interpretation of the original info. In order for an article like this to stand on its own two feet, it needs valid sourcing, and this article just doesn't have it. Come up with sources other than blogs and forum posts, something official that can't be edited or fudged with by any Joe off the street, and I'll be much more willing to consider the formulas legitimate. SpartHawg948 20:04, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Blogs&Forum Posts as the source for my formulas? Read the top of this discussion page (before deletion) as it explains pretty much how i obtained my formulas - i've used ingame testing for my experiments using runtime game data.(I would shoot YMIR mechs, using diffrent upgrades and equipment and record the damage done with many decimals. Using this data i reverse engineered the damage formulas.Wtich i then tested rather extensively - I could send you the worksheet with all the gory recorded values but what would that acomplish ? ). As for the table from gamefaqs it has the weapons base stats extracted directly from the game config file coalesced.ini (the weaponry comparison page also lists this table as a source). The forum posts you might be refering to is a series of posts i made on gamefaqs forums before realizeing the wiki would be a better place for this formula. About the open mindness thing you should not feel offended, of all the wiki contributors you are the one maintaining a dialog and making pretty reasonable demands. Thing is untill the bioware dev comes and posts on this thread(if she ever chooses to do so) its not much more i can do(say) to establish more credibility Peddroelm 23:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

No, blogs and forums as the source for the data your formulas are based upon. I've already pointed out to you exactly what I mean and what I am referring to, and you seemed to acknowledge it. Once again, I am referring to the 'Raw weapon data' forum post you have in your sources section, which features a disclaimer at the bottom informing the reader that most of the data is nothing more than an interpretation of in-game data. SpartHawg948 00:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Check out this wiki's page references http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Weaponry_Comparison it has exactly the same file listed . From that table i only used the weapon base damage colum and i could have obtained that data directly from the game config files. That table is just convenient for being easily linkable and displaing the data in an easy to read manner. You are not disputing the weapons base damage(witch is really accesible for anyone to read int he game config file coalesced.ini like i said) with me are you ? Peddroelm 00:20, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are doing, or if it is even intentional, but every time you post it adds all sorts of extra spaces, and it also adds extra indentations onto my posts. I indent my posts exactly as much as I want them indented, so if you could please stop adding extra indents with your posts, it would be greatly appreciated. The formatting of this page is already horrendous, I see no need to make it even worse. SpartHawg948 00:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Now both articles which are based on inaccurate information are up for deletion and a move to the forum. Pointing out two articles that are both based on faulty info isn't justification for keeping either. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. SpartHawg948 00:33, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

• Dude I could remove that referal and link back each individual weapon page from this very wiki for base weapon damage(are you gonna delete them too ?!) , what will that acomplsih ? 20+ referals instead 1 nicely convenient formatated table. Hell base weapon damage is not even a part of the formulas - change it and the formuals would still work ...Peddroelm 00:41, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

So... no idea why all the extra spaces and indents are being added every time you post? It's getting really aggravating having to go back and reset all the indents for all my posts every single time you post. For... what, the fifth? sixth? time now, I don't want to get rid of this stuff entirely, just move it to the forums, where it belongs. It's based on opinion, not fact. An interpretation of data gleaned from game files is not fact, it's opinion due to interpretation. And any, ad I mean any data that is based even in part on that opinion is itself therefor not completely factual. And that includes your formula, as you use data from the forum in question. Again though, it's not just up to me or you. It's up to the community, and last I checked, it's either 5-1 or 6-1 in favor of deletion (I'll need to go back and look, it's hard to keep track with this formatting nightmare). SpartHawg948 00:56, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there. I took the liberty of editing all the extra indents. I hope nobody would mind that. Anyway. I am probably as curious as Peddroelm about what goes under the hood. But I need facts. If Peddroelm cannot prove that his formula IS in fact a fact, that could prove disastrous to readers trying to find suitable tactics for their gameplay. Let's take an example. I found the formula for "backstab"--an obscure attack in DA:O. By having the formula verified, the article helped me formulate a tactical approach for my rogue. I still suck at playing rogue, but I got better gameplay experience from verifying particular aspects of backstabbing. Can you, or can you not, Peddroelm, confirm beyond reasonable doubts that the formula of yours is in fact THE formula? If not, I favor deletion or a move to the forum. Braveangel 04:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

more arguments for keeping the page

1. Ex :

On the Zaeed page it is said that his +50% Mercenary commander to damage brings his Assault rifle damage on par with Shepard's. Because they way of the damage formula operates this affirmation is false in over 90% of situations. The NPC weapon damage nerf is global while the bonus damage from skills is additive with other damage bonuses. I could go that page and edit and start an "edit war" or i could just point the original poster towards the damage formula page, let him do the math and hopefully alter the statement himself.

There are other such innacurate informations on this wiki (mainly the upgated DPS comparison page). Again people will not concede to change their hard work without a referenceable page(idealy backed up by a bioware dev) showing how diffrent weapon upgrades influence the overal damage of the weapon ..

2. I would harzard to guess that the hosting resurces this page consumes (HDD space) are ridiculosly small - irrelevant. As long as this page indexed by google brings people serching for weapon damage formulas to this wiki (and hopefully even get some of them intrested enough to contribute, or just check the content on other pages) and not to some forum where this data will end up if removed from wiki, it has served it purpose ...

Its content might not seem intresting to you (one man, i'm sure there are more that share your opinion on this subject) but consider this (anoher quote from one of my emails)

"I have more of an RPG background(Baldur's Gate,Fallout series, Might and Magic ) and Turn Based Strategy (stats, numbers :) ) and was initially pissed at bioware for hiding all the numbers in this game. My first post on this forums was about it (this gun upgrades that gun - but in testing them they proved to be diffrent animals, like comparing apples to oranges - and all you had to work on was this gun upgrates that gun .. If at least they would have allowed you to actually test weapons in that huge armory... "

there might be more people out there intrested about those "numbers" and how they work , even thow i would grant you this: they might not be from the intended "game target audience". Why not help make the game more fun for a broader audience ? The extra data would not be forced on those you have no need for it but it would be accessible for those who want it ...

And with this i rest my case so to speak :) ..Peddroelm 07:42, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

even more "desperate :)" arguments to keeping the page

I don't belive it is right for people to vote out information from the wiki just because they don't find it intresting.

A better criteria would be if there are at least some people intrested - the information should stay. If you go ahead and censor it before it gets a chance to reach out its intended target (people whoa re intrested on this kind of stuff) it down't seem fair

Yes its overly long and technical : it deals with technical stuff - you could help me cosmetize but the heart of the article will always remain technical..

You are saing this wiki doen't not to cover all aspects of Mass effect 2 ? (including technical stuff ) but only lore ? Peddroelm 08:22, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

...sigh. For the third time, this stuff would be great material for the Forum, which is, last I checked, part of this wiki, and is where the more technical stuff such as class builds are stored. I'm trying to help here, but it's hard when my suggestions are consistently ignored. As for not liking that people vote on deleting articles, if you don't like it, propose a change to the rules, and the community can vote on whether or not to give up the right to vote on content. SpartHawg948 08:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all the talk page regarding the deletion so I may say something that was already pointed out or asked/pointed and answered. I personally don't see the forums as a place for this information. I don't see that this article is much different from Weaponry Comparison article, all of the infoboxes on weapon pages, or any other "guide" page - all of them supply technical information (or personal for the guide articles) that for most, is useless. I think this may or may not belong in the forums (I need to 'really' read the entire thing before really committing to a decision) if at all, but I don't really believe that an article like this belong there just because the approach in writing the article is technical or "not that interesting". I may be totally of base in this reply, for I did not really read the entire talk page (it's way, way too long) and only glanced at the article itself, so I only commented on the idea behind it and not the execution. I apologies if I insulted or dismissed anything or anyone in my comment.

Yeah, I would recommend going back and trying to wade through all this. It's long and poorly formatted and whatnot, but there are other underlying issues besides it being overly technical. Those were just two snippets that the user who created the page singled out of responses, not the entire responses. And since then it has come to light that the information contained within this page is based upon sources which are not really up-to-snuff (that is, forum posts that don't even claim to themselves be concrete fact, but rather interpretations of game data). And that more than anything else would seem to suggest that this info go to the forums, rather than be treated as fact here, when it isn't. SpartHawg948 21:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it for me. When I have some time I'll read the entire page. If the information don't come from or supported by a developer (at least by hinting that it has some solid ground) then I agree that the best place for the topic is in the forum as a speculated behavior (it can always be moved back here after some solid fact checking and some rewriting). --silverstrike 22:21, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

about the wiki forum

I've searched various info about mass effect 2 since i've started playng it.
I found intresting stuff on the bioware forums. I found intesting stuff on the wiki. On the gamefaqs forums.

Not once do i remember the wiki forums poping out. So they must not be getting the same visibility as the main wiki pages. It took me days to find it even after registering on the wiki. So thats why moving the stuff to the wiki forum seems like puting it to deep storage :) ..

Please answer me this one question - why is this wiki against technical stuff ?

Peddroelm 08:35, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Our forums are fairly accessible. Go to the toolbar on the side of the page, go to 'Community', and the drop-down menu will have a link right to the forum. So yeah, it has pretty much the same visibility and accessibility as the rest of the pages. In fact, one could argue it has more visibility, since the vast majority of the articles are not worthy of the sidebar. As for your question, ask the community. The community consistently votes to delete overly technical stuff like this, which is why this wiki is 'against' this stuff. Now, if I may ask a question in return, is it really necessary to start a new thread every time, as opposed to just continuing on an existing one? SpartHawg948 08:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I do it out if ignorance not of ill will -> the succesive edits on existing post seemed hard to fallow for me so it seemed more natural to me to just add new coments down the page not randomly troughout the page. I will try to caontain myself to this body of text :).

About the forum visibility issue you seem to have missundertood me (english not beeing my forte an all). Its not like the forums are under lock and key (they are fairly easy to access once you find out they even exist :) ) . But if I were to search for various Mass effect 2 related stuff on say google -> content from the wiki forums will not be on the first page (i might be wrong here but i doubt it becase i have done plenty of mass effect 2 googling).

Third issue: i've noticed it is possible to HIDE/SHOW parts of the wiki pages. Present some general plain info on top level and if the visitor is intrested to know more -> push the SHOW button -> allow the user to control just how technical he wants to get ? Maybe we could change the weapon damage formula like that, alowing the visitor to get more technical details if he so chosees either by expanding hidden text or giving him a link towards the forums .

And i also forget to sign :( Peddroelm 08:53, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what you're asking. Do hide/show for this entire page? That hardly seems practical. Again, I'm all for putting this in the forums, but be advised that we aren't in the habit of putting links to the forum in the articles. Now, if you wanted to provide a link to the info here, in other talk pages, and on your user page, that'd be fine. SpartHawg948 08:56, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i understand your dillema. How much of it could be worth the right to stay on top (first visible) level ? Maybe just the two lines with the formula. Maybe few lines explaining the two main terms and genneraly what affects them? Factor definitions would be hidden by default and the effect of various upgrades. This hide show system could be worked in more pages to allow for more technical content without "polluting" the first level of data . More like a show spoiler system

I would have created the page like that in the first page sadly i didn't know how .

Peddroelm 09:04, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... I'm still not buying into it. Firstly, I don't like the idea of it being on top of anything. Stuff like that, tailored to a very small and specific audience, shouldn't be given top billing. Second, it isn't really solving anything, as this doesn't address many of the issues raised. It just diffuses the problem, and puts it in more locations. I'd still have to say I'm in favor of moving all this to the forum and then deleting the article. It's consistent with site policy, and as of now seems to be the way the community is leaning. SpartHawg948 09:09, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, its impossible to say just how small and speciffic that audience will be without giving a chance(its small to nonexistant among wiki contributors aparently :) ) . If you know how this hide/ show system works please teach me and give me another go at presenting the page (hopeffuly in a less offending manner). And then give it some time(30 days ? 60 ?) out in the wild. I assume this site has powerfull tools to measure amount of visitors on any given page. This should also be considered(IMHO) before removing content. Am I beeing unresonable ? Peddroelm 09:21, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well, from what we've seen so far, the audience is pretty small. After all, it's currently 3-1 in favor of removing this. And you admit that the audience is small to nonexistent among wiki contributors, which is the group that matters here. And no, I don't know the hide/show system. I'm fairly computer illiterate, and focus more on managing content here. As for giving you 30 or 60 days, I am also known for enforcing rules to the letter, no exceptions. And the rule is, once it's nominated for deletion, a page has 7 days. If within that time the people who want it kept can't convince enough people it should stay, it gets deleted. Again, if you'd like to see this changed, propose a change to the rules, and the community can vote on it. Finally, I have some new concerns about this article, concerned mainly with the sourcing. Please refer to my last post in the 'Deletion' thread for more. SpartHawg948 09:28, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I am also for deletion. If this is found to be 100% accurate it should go into the weapon comparison article (but considerably smaller). As it is now this information shouldn't even go into that article. Bastian964 20:21, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well I vote for deletion, mostly because it uses to much technical stuff that most people would not want to read. This should go somewhere, but simpler and eaiser to unserstand. But from what I have read, it seems to complicated to make simpler.MEffect Fan 20:52, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's the latest...

So, everybody's favorite developer, Christina Norman, stopped by (and let me say again, I love the BioWare devs! How cool is it to have them post here?) and commented. And she said that the formulas on this page are close to right. Once again, that's close to right. This further reinforces the motion to delete the article and move the information on over to the forums. And as of now, the count is 5-1 in favor of doing just that. And there's two days left for this proposal to wind down. So we'll see what Friday brings us! :) SpartHawg948 07:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's actually been ten days now, and it's pretty overwhelming. I believe it's 5-1 in favor of deletion. SpartHawg948 06:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)