Forum:Representing damage where one value is duplicate + Range display re-work

I've made this forum after having discussion today with some users on the wiki over the MK14's damage representation, which has been inconclusive. As COD:DAMAGE has been changed recently, it mandates that, for Advanced Warfare, all three damage values are represented as such:

(maximum damage value)-(medium damage value)-(minimum damage value), with exceptions made for Sniper Rifles and Shotguns, as Sniper Rifles use only one damage value in Advanced Warfare, and the third damage value on Shotguns is never used, thus leaving only two damage values to represent.

Now, I bring to you guys today what I believe to be a new exception: duplicate damage values. In the cases of the MK14, Pytaek, Ameli, Ohm and the XMG, their damage values are 34-33-33, 35-35-33 (for both the Pytaek, Ohm, and Ameli), and 25-20-20, respectfully. Notice that the medium damage value for these four weapons is always a duplicate number of either the maximum or minimum damage value. This is where I believe an exception should be made for COD:DAMAGE in Advanced Warfare. It is pointless to display the medium damage value in both cases, as either the maximum damage value or minimum damage value represents the same number. I believe this should be done, as the same is done for the EPM3, where the damage values are 34-34-34, but the page for it just simply says 34 over 34-34-34.

For these four weapons only, I propose that the damage for these two weapons be displayed as follows:

(maximum damage value)-(minimum damage value), just like we've done before.

Effects on displaying range values
With this change, I've also wanted to bring up an alternate way to display range numbers across all weapons. This is a proposition brought up by Sam, and I just find it simply genius. Basically, we combine the range and damage tables into one. This is what will happen, in order to prevent confusion with the change, using the Ameli's 35-33 damage output as example:

35(0-1700 inches)-33(1700+ inches)

This method, made by Sam, completely eliminates the need for the range section in weapon tables, and makes it easier to determine the range when the damage drop-off occurs, while still not conflicting with two damage values over three. This makes determining the damage at ranges exceptionally easy, and I think it should be applied to not only the four weapon articles already posted, but for all weapon articles in Advanced Warfare which use multiple damage values, and not just one damage value.

What is the community's thought of this change? Discuss this first, and let's not jump into a voting-based system until given the go-ahead by superiors. Didikins (talk) 22:47, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Well its better to have continuity and likeness over the damage values for that game. Changing the rules for, albeit small, things doesn't really need to happen. Keeping it as it is is much likely better as thats how all the guns in AW operate when looking at the damage values on the wikia. 22:51, May 15, 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that this happens on four different weapons is what I feel makes this change have relevance, and that what I've said is already in effect on the EPM3 page. Why not have it on all pages where it'd apply, instead of just applying it to one weapon? Didikins (talk) 22:56, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * You pointed out one reason above as to why this won't work; you'd need to change the range values to avoid confusion as to which range refers to what damage value (which I still don't see how you'd be able to do it). The EPM3 damage figures were actually changed before the the COD:Damage forum even went up. Not only that, but we also have variants of these guns that have decreases/increases in damage that change one or more of the damage figures. It'd be extremely confusing looking at, say, the Ameli which has a profile of 35-32, then go down and see that the Subverter has a damage value of 49-35-35. Then there's also what I said on your talk page: at any time, these weapons are subject to change by SHG (as is the case with the all of the weapons you've use as examples, which have all had changes to their damage profile). 23:46, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * If a variant has a changed damage output value, display the range of the new D2 in the notes section on the table. And if it's changed to where it doesn't fall under this ruling, then it simply doesn't fall under its ruling. Didikins (talk) 23:52, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what happened before the COD: Damage change happened. We couldn't put in the extra damage value, so it needed to be put into the notes instead. This just makes everything confusing. 00:12, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * Read up the proposition Sam made. It fixes the problem near-entirely. Didikins (talk) 00:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is a change that is completely unnecessary right now. If we do it for these four guns, it wouldn't make sense but to do it for the other guns as well. Again, it's a change that is completely unnecessary right now. It'd also be changing something else: this isn't how these stats are represented in the game files. When we have the damage of the MK14 as 34-33-33, that's how the game files show it. Redundant? Maybe. But it's accurate.
 * 12:04, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using it for just 4 guns. We should be using it for every weapon that has static damage values. 12:26, May 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is, again, as of right now, unnecessary. We don't need to do this at all, unless Didi's change was put into place.  12:42, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

If we changed the values to show only two it'd make differentiating min, med, and max values from each other: ie. the MK-14's values are 34-33-33 and the Pytaek's are 35-35-33. If we changed that to 34-33 and 35-33 viewers wouldn't be able to see where the drop-off starts, and the Pytaek might be mistaken for a 35-33-33 or jointly the MK14 34-34-33. Basically the way it is now is best for clarity's sake. 23:38, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is where Sam's range proposition comes into play: display the range that the damage is applied right next to the number (for example, 35(0-1700 inches)-33(1700+ inches). This eliminates said confusion. Didikins (talk) 23:52, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to use static figures in the case of games where the damage is set. Per example:

Damage: 50 (0-350 meters), 45, (351-500 meters), 40 (500+ meters).

I know we have both a damage and range section in the info box, but those were made for when the damage was a range and not static, so it made sense to have them separate, but if we're using static figures we should represent the information as static numbers, not in a value range. So if we get weapons that have only 2 damage numbers then it can just be a case of Damage 1 (0-whatever meters), Damage 2 (whatever+ meters). It's far simpler system, and much easier to read. 23:41, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you want the range values to be displayed in meters over inches? Didikins (talk) 23:52, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * I just used meters because that's what came to mind when I was talking about range. We should still stick to whatever measurement we're currently using, just represent like I did above. With each number a static number with what ranges it does that damage following it. It also makes it easier because we're using a system that shows all the static numbers, but the range section still just shows max range-min range. 23:54, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to add the measurements alongside the values, would we also be adding them to weapons outside of AW? 00:04, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * No, for those are either linear damage drop-offs, as in the case of every other Call of Duty game bar Black Ops II and Advanced Warfare, or possess multiple stair-based damage drop-offs, for Black Ops 2. It would be virtually impossible for weapons with linear-based drop-offs. Sam, I find your idea extremely effective, and I've re-vised the range proposition as such. Didikins (talk) 00:13, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

'''NOTE: After having read Sam's idea, I've re-vised the article. Take the time to re-read it.''' Didikins (talk) 00:13, May 16, 2015 (UTC)