Forums: Index War Room Representing damage where one value is duplicate + Range display re-work
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet 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'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 five 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 all 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 five 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 valuesEdit

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)


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. 132527029757.gifArgorrath おしゃべり%E7%95%B0%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A.jpg22:51, 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). Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  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. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  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.
 Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  12:04, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
(Reset indent) 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. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  12:42, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, for Sam's idea for merging the range and damage numbers into one, it'd apply to all weapons with multiple damage values. Didikins (talk) 18:44, 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. TLfINDf.gif This username better work TLfINDf.gif 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? TLfINDf.gif This username better work TLfINDf.gif 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)

I have no problems with the revised version, but we'll have to decide on a measurement -- you used inches in the example but I think meters is clearer and more widely used seeing as only the US uses inches. TLfINDf.gif This username better work TLfINDf.gif 17:15, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

We have to display what the in-game codes use, and since it's made by United States-based companies, they display range measurements via inches over meters. Certainly the metric system is preferred over the imperial system, but we have to go by how the game displays them - in the imperial system. Didikins (talk) 18:44, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
If we have to display what the in-game code uses, then you wouldn't be having an issue with how we display two similar damage figures. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  19:01, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
I do have an issue with unnecessarily listing a third, identical damage figure. It's unnecessary, and can be easily removed with compromise. Didikins (talk) 19:31, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
What is unnecessary is changing everything on the count of 3 guns having two damage values that are the same. Seriously, what's the actual problem right now with that? There's nothing confusing about it if you understand how AW's range/damage works. It defeats the purpose of the COD:Damage change, which was to display the information more accurately. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  20:07, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Well clearly, if there's an issue like this cropping up, it shows the last change was not able to display the information any more accurately than it was. That is why I put forward my suggestion of leaving the values static, with ranges values following it. Also, as your comment states, the current system only works if you know how the AW damage system works. But if you didn't then you mistake something like "50-45-40" for "damage anywhere between 50 and 40, with 45 being the median value". I gave you this idea when you contacted me about CoD:Damage, and you didn't implement it in to the forum, so that is why I'm bringing up here to try and replace the current system. 20:48, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
You'd need to understand how the system of linear damage drop to make sense of the numbers as well. That system only works if you understand it. That's almost kind of the point. If you didn't understand it, it'd just be gibberish in the first place. So the argument of "you'd need to understand it" doesn't work, because the same exact thing can be said for any other system currently in place or being proposed here right now. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  21:02, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
The fact that this issue pops up for six separate weapons, and that only one weapon is exempt from the COD:DAMAGE change, exceptions should be made for these five weapons as well. Didikins (talk) 21:33, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
I honestly didn't notice how the EPM3 page displayed this information until this forum was made. It wasn't an "exception". It was just unnoticed or no thought really given to it. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  21:57, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
It was, as the only exceptions to COD:DAMAGE were to be the sniper rifles and the shotguns. Somebody decided to treat the EPM3's damage profile akin to a sniper rifle. Didikins (talk) 22:06, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
Did you miss the part above where I pointed out that damage figure was put in before even my COD: Damage forum existed? Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  22:12, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because before your forum, it didn't deal a consistent 34 damage. Didikins (talk) 22:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Which is besides the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say that someone, after the change was made, thought it made more sense to out the EPM3 damage profile as just one figure instead of the full thing. Which I pointed out was wrong in the first place. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  23:13, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Right, just to make it a bit easier to get across my idea. I've made a sandbox with examples comparing the two systems. The current one, and the one I'd like to implement. seen here. As can be seen from the example, it allows the infoboxes to be cleaner, s it limits how may values we need to put in, makes it far easier to read since the range matches the damage, instead of the range value only matching the median damage stat (or so I assume it does). As well as showing how it can be easily incorporated on to every weapon that uses static damage values. 01:40, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not as bad as I thought it was. But I still don't think it's necessary. If every other resource for weapon stats (from Den Kirson to various YouTube channels that do weapon reviews) display the stats the same way we currently do, and if they are accurate to how they are presented in the game files, then I still see no reason to change it. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  11:57, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
How is it unnecessary to use a cleaner system? We should showcase the information the best way we can, and the example I am showing is clean and easy to read. It doesn't matter how other sites may be displaying information, it matters how we choose to display that information. I don't believe just because other sites showcase information in one way makes it unnecessary for us to display it in a different, more efficient way. 12:11, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Except those sites are our sources (specifically Den Kirson), and we've displayed the stats on this site the exact same way that these sites do them. Also a quick read through COD:NOT shows that nothing there pertains to this situation. You could try saying that you meant other wikis, but it's quite clear that refers to the wikis on Wikia itself. So while the Wiki may not be the Den Kirson forums, or a YouTube channel that does weapon reviews, it is still a large database from which the weapon stats for each individual weapon in the game can be obtained and for the most part follows in fashion how this information is displayed. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  14:30, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What makes us have to display our source's information in the exact way it gives them to us? Almost every time I revise the Multiplayer section of a weapon, I convert the range from inches to meters (not in the weapon table, but for the weapon's Multiplayer section) in the main body of the article (when I'm talking about range), so more viewers can visualize its range, due to it being in the more widely recognized metrical system over the Imperial system, only used dominantly in the United States, Burma, and Liberia. Same information, but just in a different representation. Didikins (talk) 15:46, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

COD:NOT still refers to websites aside from the Wikia network (Because we're not other websites). So there's no need for us to copy sources verbatim from other sites, when we can display the same information in a cleaner fashion. I mean, we've used sources many times before on pages for information, but they've often been reworded for greater clarity, or for greater ease of readature. Point being, sticking to "This is how X does it, which is our source so changing is unnecassary" doesn't work. In fact, if by the logic that our information has to be the same as our source, then every news blog we have would exactly like the ones CharlieIntel do since we often use the same sources. 17:15, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Also, in response to your comment about YouTube channels, if my memory serves me correctly, XboxAhoy used to say "This weapon does X damage out to Y range", very similar to the system I'd like to implement. 17:17, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen a video from him that says so. He might say something like 'medium' or 'long' range, but never the actual ranges. And I don't see how that information is any different from how we have it right now. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  19:25, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Because one indicates the ranges needed for each damage value, while our current one only shows the range of the middle value. And in the case of 1 or 2 damage values, then there is no "middle value" for it to show. Unless we start using double numbers to showcase this. The system above gets rid of this issue by showing every damage value the weapon has and it's ranges, thus removing double values, and making it easy for the user to read. 19:49, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the new range display seen in the "Example 2" in Sam's range test page is practical; it's surely nonstandard anyway. And regarding the current system, putting only two values (e.g. 34-33) does not make it clear whether the mid-range damage is 34 or 33, like TUBW said previously. That's why I prefer to keep it as e.g. 34-33-33. Regarding the EPM3, I thought at first that we could simply put 34 since it only has one damage value like sniper rifles. Kilo 141 Beta menu icon MW Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 23:38, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Which is why you add in the range to these two numbers; therefore, the middle number is unnecessary and need not be used. Didikins (talk) 04:48, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
And then it becomes innacurate to the game stats. The game files themselves show 34-33-33. We should be just as accurate in the way we show our stats. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  12:55, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
So by displaying the same data, but in a different manner makes the data wrong? Also, I'd like to see a screenshot of the data itself showing it displayed like that. 23:46, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
You would have to ask Marvel4 or someone else on the DenKirson forums. I would just look at the AW spreadsheet that Marvel4 has up right now, but I'm locked out from seeing it for some reason. Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  23:56, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
(Reset indent) That spreadsheet is just as user created as our info boxes, and in no way reflects what the code looks like. I mean for one, there's no way the game would be able to reckonise "34-33-33" as a script. It would have to read 3 different values in order to function properly. So that spreadsheet is just the DK's version of displaying the data, and us doing it differently makes the data no less accurate. 06:33, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
The part of the spreadsheet I'm talking about is the the 'Raw' section. This is all raw data without being organized, besides being configured for use in a spreadsheet.  Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  00:22, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
Whoch is exactly the same information we'll be displaying. We're not changing any values, we're just changing how they're displayed to readers. 04:47, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

i think this is a good idea. i dont think we need to have 3 different values if 2 are the same. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 00:16, June 4, 2015 (UTC)


I think it's time we move this to vote. 08:42, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  1. Keep the system as is. Ex: 35-35-30
  2. Change system to remove duplicate values. Ex: 35-30
  3. Change system to damage with range values accompanying it. Ex: 35 (X-Y), 30 (Y+).

Option 1Edit

  1. Per my previous reasoning. Kilo 141 Beta menu icon MW Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 09:16, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per the sneaky ninja. Capt. MillerTalk 10:01, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per my previous reasonings and Ninja's Personal MLGisNot4Me DragonbornDremYolLok  11:42, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
    I understand this may sound bias coming from me, but I feel I need to contest this. Ninja's only reasoning to not use a different system is that it is "non-standard". So if everyone is going "Per Ninja", everyone is more or less just stating "I don't like other ideas because they're different". I'm fine with Ninja sticking to his own reasoning, but with everyone "Per"ing him it sort of makes this section of the vote look a bit weakened, since the reasoning isn't all that strong. If people do want to vote here, and do actually agree with this method that's fine, I'm just asking some thought be put in to the votes, because as I've said, right now it just looks like everyone is voting based on the reason the other options are different. 17:07, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Option 2Edit

  1. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — I know this isn't how the multiple-choice votes work, but this removes information. Let's avoid this one at all costs...  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  01:14, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
    Stop breaking everything Tavi. 08:09, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Option 3Edit

  1. As the person that proposed this. I also think it looks the most aesthetically pleasing. 08:42, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  2. I think this one displays the information much more clearly.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  01:14, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Obviously the best choice. TLfINDf.gif This username better work TLfINDf.gif 01:28, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Easier to understand as it puts both damage and range in the same area while showing how they relate to each other. Also this would be the best when duplicate damage values come up, as two values could be combined into one damage/range. 4XBy83R.pngAntiScootaTwotalk  14:53, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  5. this sounds good. War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army RisingSun2020 Personal RisingSun2013 2000px-Flag of JSDF.svg (RisingSun's Talk Page Blog Posts Contributions) 00:28, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per all E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 20:31, July 9, 2015 (UTC)


This might've been answered above but then whats the point of the range part of the tab if we are moving for the 3rd option? 132527029757.gifArgorrath おしゃべり%E7%95%B0%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A.jpg05:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the game. Since the range tab was made for games with a variable value like CoD 4 or something, then no change is needed. But for a game with static values then it won't really be needed. 08:07, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, mainly as having value ranges of the damage being: 3-50-70 could be represented by using the range bar as well. Seems like it would unclutter the damage bar but keep the info needed to help.132527029757.gifArgorrath おしゃべり%E7%95%B0%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A.jpg17:20, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
It could be kept if there was a reason to keep it. But for static values then one can leave it redundant by having "70 0-X), 50 (X-Y), 3 (Y+)" Or whichever way round you mean, given the higher value is normally first for damage. 18:05, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
Closed - Option 3 will be implemented on all pages with static damage numbers. 15:41, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.