Forums: Index War Room Change to COD: Damage
Forum logo.png
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

I was recently reminded of the COD: Damage guidline as to why we only put the Maximum and Minimum damages for weapons, even in Advanced Warfare. However, I find that the second damage profile of a weapon is significant in its effect on said weapon. I think, in the case of Advanced Warfare, that the COD: Damage guideline should be changed as allow this. Some of you might say that BO2 should be included as well, since it has the same/similar non-linear damage drop that AW has. I would agree with you normally, but BO2 weapons have anywhere from 2-5 damage values (most have 5). So I think you could see how that might crowd up the info-box a bit. AW on the other hand, for all weapons, has 3 damage values (with the exception of explosives which use a linear drop). So, TL;DR: I think Advanced Warfare should get special treatment when it comes to this guideline, since the 2nd damage profile of a weapon is actually significant (especially if you take into account weapon variants with differing damage profiles). Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  06:03, March 11, 2015 (UTC)


It might end up making articles longer, but if we really wanted to make it great we could make small damage falloff charts/graphs for each weapon like you see on other sites.  That might make it more informative and potentially less confusing than just listing several damage values.

07:14, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it to be that much longer. Usually this is just a change of the damage infobox. For example, the Atlas 45: COD: Damage states that you must only list the maximum and minimum damage values of the vanilla weapon, so, it looks like: 52-25. However, the proposal points towards it looking like this: 52-34-25. All weapons only have 3 damage values in Advanced Warfare.
However, a problem is with the shotguns, where there'd still remain 2 numbers. Shotguns do have a D3 damage (minimum damage), but that is applied when the hitscans cease to work, meaning that they're never in effect (for example, on the Tac-19, the damage profile would be 50-30-10. 10 isn't used.). Therefore, we have an exception in shotguns. As well, Sniper Rifles lack damage drop-off, meaning there's only 1 value to list (98 for the MORS and Atlas 20mm [IIRC], 70 for the Lynx, and 35 for the NA-45 bullet).
I'm not sure if these really count as obstacles to the proposal, but simple things that I thought needed to be pointed out. Didikins (talk) 19:26, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
They're as much of an obstacle as they were in past games (so, not at all). For shotguns, I think it's just best to list the effective damages (D1 and D2) or note in the articles that the third damage value isn't used. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  04:05, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
It'd probably be best just to list the effective damage and ignore the damage that can never be accomplished with shotguns. And I don't see how the sniper rifle thing is relevant, if it's fine under the current way, wouldn't it remain the same under the proposed way? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 04:21, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was saying. When it comes to snipers, it wouldn't be any different in the first place. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  05:28, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Vote of Change

I think it's just best to get this done with quickly, since it's something that can be done relatively easy if the change is put into effect. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  18:49, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Change COD: Damage

  1. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  18:59, March 14, 2015 (UTC)
  2. I don't see why it shouldn't be. Showing all values can be significant on many weapons. Talk 03:56, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
  3. I was previously iffy about adding the mid-range damage, but now I guess it's needed. At least in the supply drop stats tables (instead of having longer statements such as "Medium damage decreased", etc.). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:00, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
  4. The medium range damage is directly from the game code, so there is no way it can be "misleading" as I saw stated a few times below. Even if we were to introduce range charts similar to previous games, it would show nothing different than the three values.  16:55, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Although initially being against the idea, I feel that doing this will make it easier to understand the damage output, as it goes perfectly in hand with the range values upon further evaluation. Didikins (talk) 17:34, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Keep COD: Damage

  1. There's just far too many sides to look at, and future games will probably keep the linear drop-off. I'm not really on board. Didikins (talk) 19:02, March 14, 2015 (UTC)


I'm only sort of following the change. Can an example be provided?

09:14, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

It's just changing the damage values in the infoboxes of our AW weapons from something like '40-25' to '40-33-25'. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  15:07, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

To further add on to my statement, we can just use range charts to denote damage drops (once they're available for Advanced Warfare weaponry). So we technically already have that problem covered in the form of a visual aid. Didikins (talk) 18:24, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

That requires someone to make them. In the past, we usually got them from Den Kirson (who isn't around to make those charts anymore) or Symthic (who doesn't seem to be making charts). Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  18:58, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
A visual aid is much better. Especially if the damage drops are instantaneous, otherwise stating the damage is between so man values is incorrect as it would be a set amount of damages, not a range. 10:04, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
We have the range values on the pages. For example, let's say a weapon does 3-2-1 damage and has a range of 200-400 (5 to 10 meters). This means it does 3 damage up to 200 units, and 2 damage afterwards up to 400 units, and then 1 damage afterwards at all ranges past 400 units. A range chart wouldn't do anything better than that other than making it look pretty, unless it had actual in-game visual representation of those ranges (which is quite hard to do). Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  20:30, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Surely that would mean the high-low range covers it. Since saying it does between 3-1 damage would cover the fact that a median damage of 2 is there. If we wanted to list the individual damages then it be better to use a graph or list all the damages and ranges as a list. 04:36, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
It covers that fact in that one specific case, and more so because it's pretty obvious. You wouldn't be able to know what the D2 value of a weapon was if a page said it did 40-24, unless the article stated it. And for the most part, at least in my knowledge of the pages in their current states, I'm pretty sure that almost all of the pages don't state the damage profile in the actual article. That's what the infobox is there for in the first place. This change to COD: Damage would cover that. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  09:20, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
I also just remembered something: the ASM1. The ASM1 damage profile right now would be 35-18. So you'd normally think "Oh, 3-6 hit kill". However, the ASM1 damage profile is 35-20-18. There is no four shot kill, which can make the weapon stats shown right now somewhat misleading (unless you were to go to another source to find this out, which people may or may not know about). Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  22:20, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
But, it still is a 3-6 shot kill. So the information is no less misleading now as it would be. Also I'm now confused how the damage in AW works. Is it a graph that depletes over range, or set damage at different ranges? 09:35, March 27, 2015 (UTC)
Set damages at different ranges. It works exactly how it did in Black Ops 2, with a non-linear damage drop (So a gun will do x damage out to y range, then x2 damage out to y2 range, then x3 damage for all ranges past that). Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  10:31, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In that case shouldn't we use static numbers and not damage ranges? Right now stating Max-Min is correct as it covers any static damages between those two points. But stating it as max-mid-min would be more confusing as there are no in-game values between the numbers given.

10:17, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

I was only stating how the damage system in this game works, I wasn't saying that's how we should state the damages as in the infobox. We already have the range values on the pages which describe the ranges of the maximum and medium damages, so that's covered. I don't see how it's confusing at all. At one range it's the maximum damage, the next range is the medium damage, then after that it's the minimum. And as I have pointed out in my OP, the second damage value is significant to the performance on many of the guns. And this is a new damage system as well, that works very differently to the linear damage drop that past games had. You can't do what I'm proposing with a linear system since there's technically an unlimited amount of numbers between the two max and min values. That's not the case for this game, and it should be stated as such. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  00:01, April 2, 2015 (UTC)


I think this forum should be closed and the change put into effect, considering that it's been open for about a month now and there's more people showing support for the change (even if we were to count in Sam as opposing), unless there's more to be said. Personal MLGisNot4Me Dragonborn.pngDremYolLok  23:45, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Closed- Forum passes in favor of the proposal; AW's weapon stats will now list all three damage values for weapons. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 19:53, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

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