This is the talk page for Weapon Upgrades.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Stacking Upgrades Edit

Does anyone know if the weapon upgrades stack on each other for the top-end Spectre weapons? For example, if I have 2 Rail Extension VII's then is the damage stacked to give me +66% (129% x 129% = 166%)? And would my Heat Absorption be -36% (80% x 80% = 64%)? (anonymous)

  • The Shotgun Guide seems to imply that like upgrades do indeed stack for those weapons capable of taking two weapon upgrades. I'm playing as if they do. My favored weapon is a HMWSR X (sniper rifle) with two Scram Rail X and High Explosive Rounds X. It still takes multiple shots to kill the big stuff (rachni warriors, juggernauts, krogan, etc.), but typically anything I hit is either knocked down and back, or in some cases is blasted extremely high into the air... BuddyPharaoh 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

17:08, August 27, 2012‎ Lancer1289 (Talk | contribs)‎ >Undo. Massive changes on this scale require discussion FIRST not after the fact

Is there any real reason to revert the changes except that I didn't ask for permissiion from our respectful Lancer1289? This revert stuff makes a lot of people disinclined from doing any commitments in wiki projects because they're "not relative" or "too important".UbiSergei (talk) 08:03, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

If someone is doing research into this, I would like to pose a related question: Is recovery from overheating a fixed value no matter how much heat is generated? In BuddyPharoah's example, therefore, you can stack whatever you like on a Sniper Rifle since the damage bonus far exceeds the cost in cooldown when you look at long-term DPS. Grail Quest (talk) 19:28, February 21, 2014 (UTC)


Currently I am attempting to expand and correct the following information that I have diligently researched. Thus far I have experimented with the suggested errors and found I was indeed wrong about a few points but I have included the corrected materials in the updates. Namely clarifications about weapon accuracy and weapon stability. I also reorganized the page in alphabetical order without changing the rest of the information other then to change the upgrade titles to conform to one overall format which is defined by what they do.

If members of the Wiki do not wish people to improve this information it should not be a Wiki. There is incorrect and out of date information on the original version.

From FAQ = Quote "I spotted a mistake! Can someone please change it?

Anyone is welcome to edit an article--if you see mistakes, please correct them! : ) The more editors we have, the stronger the wiki becomes."

I intend to see this page updated correctly, I welcome information and am open minded. Please read the changes before doing a blanket revert. TellNo1 (talk) 01:27, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Users are more than welcome to improve this page and ensure it contains accurate information, but the issue here is that multiple users have reverted most of the changes you advocate on they grounds they are inaccurate or incorrect. Since the changes are thus disputed, they cannot be re-added to the article until such time as other users have examined them and confirmed that they are correct in this discussion. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:28, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

And I invite them to do so but you are asking the mass anonymity of cyber space to do what they have failed to do since 2007. So who will verify this information? As I stated on your comment page "I have researched this information to separate myth from fact." I have performed time trials and crunched the numbers. I seriously doubt anyone is going to further find them in error should they try it themselves. And should they suggest something I have yet attempted I assure you I will experiment again.
Also you cannot deny the page is poorly organized. There is nothing called a Cooling Upgrade in Mass Effect. You either define it by what it is or what it does. Preferably in alphabetical order.
If you are serious about having other posters reporting on this page to verify my findings, I have many friends who would happily shower the forum with posts to support me and honestly if you want to waste the time that is your choice.
Thus far 2 fans have argued my findings, hardly what could be consider a majority. By LilyheartsLiara comments when she reverted my corrections, the information is missing from the Stabilization and in review she is not entirely correct about it. I verified that she was almost right thus I updated the information to fact. That is the point of a Wiki. Again if you are going to debate points in my revisions it should be with the points you have issues with. Doing a blanket revert is poor etiquette from any administer. I am sorry I am not trying to be rude but this is unprofessional. TellNo1 (talk) 02:41, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore: as you see, they don't care to weigh in on the talk page. Rather then correcting the information or debating it, their first reaction is simply revert it? TellNo1 (talk) 02:54, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

w/e. i'm currently testing 2x combat optics X vs 2x kinetic coil X on HMWA X / HMWSR X. i'm too lazy to do true indepth testing so i'm just gonna bulletpoint what i see.

  • the bit about accuracy controlling the size of the targeting reticle is correct. the bit about stabilize time, however, is unverifiable with present weapons. the circle shrinks equally fast on both counts.
  • kickback on both sets of mods? negligible difference. or maybe it's just because of the weapons.
  • combat optics does appear to prevent the targeting circle from enlarging when running, kinetic coil doesn't.

the meat of the matter appears to have been lost due to the simultaneous page restructuring. that counts as a major change and warrants some discussion beforehand.

to the issue regarding that, i always thought the previous structure confusing, not even in alpha order (or any sort of ordering i can see). change supported.

side note: it doesn't matter if you have 6 billion friends willing to back you on the numbers, get them to register on this wiki and say you're correct on all counts. that's how it's always been. if those "friends" came from the same sets of IP addresses, however, that's more than likely grounds for blocking for sockpuppetry. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 02:58, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

LOL Thanks for weighting in. I honestly did not expect that.
The Stabilization Time differential is only about 1 second. To make it more visible you need low accuracy weapons, Preferably less then 20. We did our test on a 55 inch screen display making the borders of the HUD with tape and taking time trials to determine how long it took for the HUD to max out with various upgrades accuracy-stability-rate of fire and so on. Then we compared these results vs being damaged, movement, and Zooming on all 4 weapons types & low/med/high levels.
Our result is that by using 2x Kinetic Coils X, it extended the time to reach the Max HUD size by roughly one second. This is very hard to detect on High Accuracy weapons.
Objectively Combat Optics reduced the max HUD size thus providing an overall better benefit to high level weapons, where as many medium to low weapons simply overheated before reaching their max HUD dimension.
Result = Stabilization does not improve accuracy, and comparative damage upgrade far exceed what is provided by either Stabilization or Heat Dampening weapons upgrades.TellNo1 (talk) 03:19, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

1. I can tell you that TellNo1 is right about the stabilization vs accuracy because I have tested it as well. I also did research online and couldn't find any decent info on it which prompted testing it in game and observing the result. I believe that the Game itself (Mass Effect) is a valid source not requiring external sourcing. ( Information Sourcing)

2. I also find the page a bit confusing and liked the more organized alphabetical version I briefly saw posted up. I, however, did not find it so great a difference as to warrant a discussion in the Projects Forum or to need a mock-up to be voted on by everyone as someone suggested. Major Change

3. A comment on the talk page about reorganization beforehand would not have been out of order however blank reverts to major and minor changes seems harsh and counter productive. The harder you make participation, the less participation you will have. I have never had this kind of difficulty posting on the Elder Scrolls Wikia. I don't have a large number of posts because I only post when I am absolutely sure something is correct, is valuable information that other may need, and worth my time to post. The accuracy vs stabilization information is both correct and needed. Most info I found from my search were questions posted on forums, lots of the same question and very few good guesses let alone real answers. However if Mass Effect Wikia is so unappreciative of editors to revert changes before establishing merit even when that merit is questioned, it is probably not worth my time or effort. Micromanaging posts (both major and minor) is not an effective way to encourage contributions. Maya Roses (talk) 04:01, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

now since we already had the definition of what accuracy is (it's not in the upgrades page but in here, which probably helped the confusion: Weapons#Weapon_Attributes) i took the time to find out for myself what stability actually means. didn't use to bother me much since i spend most of ME toting the spectre master gear stuff and spamming talents whenever/wherever.

  • soldier shep with only +1 in assault rifles
  • avenger VII
  • 2x combat optics X
  • 2x kinetic coil X
  • presidium flag for target practice (in the bar where nassana dantius is)
2x kinetic coil
zoomed in
~4 secs to max targeting circle size
~5 secs to shrink back
min circle size is the absolute zoom minimum (well within presidium circle of flag)
max circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star

2x combat optics
zoomed in
~2 secs to max circle size
~5 secs to shrink back
min circle size is the absolute zoom minimum (well within presidium circle of flag)
max circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star

coil + optics
zoomed in
~3 secs to max circle size
~5 secs to shrink back
min circle size is the absolute zoom minimum (well within presidium circle of flag)
max circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star

no mods
zoomed in
~2 secs to max targeting circle size
~5 secs to shrink back
min circle size is the absolute zoom minimum (well within presidium circle of flag)
max circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star

2x kinetic coil zoomed out ~2 secs to max targeting circle size ~3 secs to shrink back min circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star max circle size edges the fabric of citadel flag

2x combat optics zoomed out ~2 secs to max circle size ~4 secs to shrink back min circle size engulfs about half the arm lengths of citadel flag max circle size edges the fabric of citadel flag

coil + optics zoomed out ~2 secs to max circle size ~4 secs to shrink back min circle size somewhere in between the two above max circle size edges the fabric of citadel flag

no mods zoomed out ~2 secs to max targeting circle size ~3 secs to shrink back min circle size edges the Y section of the citadel inverted star max circle size edges the fabric of citadel flag

  1. zoomed in or zoomed out max circle size is the same across both groups
  2. stability mods are more noticeable when zoomed in, accuracy mods are more noticeable when not zoomed
  3. faster shrink-backs just mean that the targeting circle was large before.
  4. stability controls the length of time targeting circle expands to full size during continuous fire, accuracy just controls the initial targeting circle size.
  5. the combo optics predictably fall somewhere in between.
  6. instability is laughably irrelevant even with crap assault rifles (tested some crap sniper rifles off the record, found no real difference in the mod configurations when it comes to the swaying)

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i'm too lazy for real indepth testing, hence approximations.

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:48, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Yah you are welcome for that. Like I said these pages are missing a great deal of information. I added the Weapons#Weapon_Attributes. At least I did not get nerfed for that one. Connor did changed the sentence fluff that I left in the section when revising it, because I deemed it harmless. AKA not in-factual or uninformative.
Again thank you for verifying this. I hope it is not simply because I indicated that no one would and I retain that for the most part, this process would only discourage people from adding information. I agree with Maya Roses third point, however I do enjoy a good debated with knowledgeable people.
Rebuttal conclusion 2 :Still I would not say that stability is more noticeable when zoomed in other then you are slightly effecting the HUD size due to your new perspective. Plus it only applies to pistols, which have the smallest HUD size in the game. Note I consider Sniper rifles to have Cross-hairs not a HUD while Zooming. Being that Pistols have a very small HUD to start with, accuracy is less noticeable but it does effect the max expansion size of the HUD when moving or rapid fire. Provided you use weapons that can reach their max size prior to overheating.
Rebuttal conclusion 4: "Accuracy just controls the initial targeting circle size." - This depends on the perspective of what your trying to say. The fact is that accuracy also effects the max circle size. Much like stability is subtle, so too is the difference in the max size. It is clearest when comparing a High level, high accuracy weapon with accuracy upgrades, to a low level weapon with heat dampening.
Your numbers are a little high but not that far off. All in all, I believe we can agree, that the effect of Stability is so miniscule that the average gamer would not even notice it compared to the obvious effects of increased accuracy.
Motion Between the posters in this talk page - I consider this more then enough rebuttal to authorize my suggested changes, and move that it be reverted to the format that I posted. From there we can adjust information as needed to be factual. So what say you Connor? Is this enough to merit the pound of flesh? No insult intended but I have spent more effort defending this (minor) change then anyone should ever have to.
I do not agree with milling over countless edits to end up at the same result. As you put it TempEdit "Take it slow." I have corrected a lot and am being kind by debating the merits of my edit. Not the facts which I openly welcome but the merit of having it reverted. Based on the information I gave - there was grounds for a "major" (and I laugh at the use of that word) reorganization,the removal of nonfactual information in place of informative facts. This is an information page, and thus should be treated as such. User:TellNo1|TellNo1]] (talk) 11:55, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Actually you have half of what you were proposing. You confirmed that there are several issues with some of the information, which is ok to correct, but you do not have authroity to reorganize the page. That was never discussed or agreed upon. Now I am undoing the edits, and the changes for the data can be readded, but not the reorganization. That was never agreed on nor was it discussed. Large reorganizational edits require discussion, not proposal and nothing else. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:18, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.