User talk:NOhara24


 * talk archive


 * Look through pages in  Cleanup for SSCC.


 * Look through pages in  Stubs to help ol' NOhara.

Firehawk's "x6 proc"
I'm curious. Why did you revert the edit that corrected wrong information in Firehawk article? Where does this x6 proc misconception come from? WillowTree, GearCalc, in-game debuginfo, basic understanding of Borderlands' game mechanics and empirical testing will all prove it doesn't exist. Please, feel free to check it out yourself. - 91.153.22.204 07:49, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Don't talk down to me. First, I'm entirely aware that nothing proves that the gun procs up to x6. But considering that there are occasions where it's DOT is FAR beyond that of a normal x4, saying that the gun can go up to x6 is the best way to portray the extra DOT. The effect is mechanically correct with a x6 proc, and just like the game says, it will only indicate x4.

Also, you're not the only one here who has access to all the resources you mentioned. We have people that are far more experienced than you and I that have let that fact stand for YEARS. The game has been out since 2009, I think it's safe to say that we know what all the guns in the game do. 15:13, September 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, no ad hominems and contradictions if possible. Without going into details, you seem to acknowledge that it really isn't a x6 proc, but it's "the best way" to portray the weapon's stats? No, just no. Elemental multiplier != damage multiplier.


 * I'd say facts would be better than trying to represent weapon stats with an inexact, made-up system. Many of the elemental weapon articles on this wiki have imprecise, misleading information. I could start rewriting them (mostly adding elemental effect details on the mechanics section and clarifying what the flavor text actually does) if factual accuracy is preferred. - 91.153.22.204 16:11, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * ( The Evil Dr. F's note - the flavor text, in fact, does nothing)


 * I am not liking your tone, at all, dottwozerofour. Like Dr.F said, the flavor text does nothing. And yes, making a note of the extra damage with a "x6 proc", IS the best way to portray the missing link between the firehawk's massive DoT and lesser fire rate. (Because as I'm sure you know, incendiary damage stacks with every sucessful shot.)


 * Facts pertaining to a misleading system aren't really facts if they're wrong, are they? Noting the firehawk as x4 would be correct as far as in-game laws go. But considering that the firehawk does much more damage than every other gun that has x4 proc capability, it needs to be noted. And noting that it has the ability to proc to x6 is the best way to do that. It's more specific, and provides more information to those who choose to look into the issue. As opposed to just noting it as "increased elemental damage" or somesuch.


 * The mechanics sections are fine, as are the flavor text in all the articles. We don't need everyone chiming in with their own interpretations of the mechanincs/red text sections. Thank you. If you want to start making major changes to the wiki, I suggest doing the following, in the order specified.


 * 1. Watch your tone with me, and all other users on the wiki. "No, just no." and "Please, feel free to check it out yourself" after citing information that proves your being correct is NOT something I take kindly to. I told you to stop talking down to me, and you continued to do so. The next step is me ignoring you and undoing every change you make as a UC.
 * ( Dr. F's note - not required for editors/editing)


 * 2. Actually register as member of the wiki. Being a UC lends you ZERO credibility, as most times when someone is referred to by their IP, they are more than likely a nuisance that warrants the ban hammer.
 * ( Dr. F's note - not required for editors/editing)


 * 3. Make a forum page detailing all the changes that you would like to make to the articles on the wiki. Let the rest of the community chime in. At least that way, if the community approves, you can make your changes largely uncontested.
 * ( Dr. F's note - this would be nice. while not actually a "social network", wikia is a community and maybe not as learned as the sycophantic zealots of the gbxforums, though we do try.)


 * Do not make any more posts on my talk page until you've done so. Nohai.png 16:44, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * ( Dr. F's note - not required for editors/editing. think of this as a request.)


 * Also, the explanation to your problem had already been posted to the firehawk's talk page. But in case you come back to my talk page, please look here and here. Nohai.png 17:28, September 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * "Unlike revolvers, the Firehawk cannot do x2, x3, and x4 procs; it either hits for its normal bullet damage, or procs for x6. ... Every shot has a chance to proc for max elemental damage. In this case, max elemental damage is an extraordinary x6 (which, for fire, is 4.8x normal damage...)"  05:40, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I must apologize since I seem to have seriously offended you. Sorry. That was not my intention. I thought you might want to test it yourself since usually the word of an IP doesn't weight much on wikis. I hope we can get along. And thank you for your advice! However, I still prefer to remain anonymous behind proxy IPs. I did open a forum topic as you adviced, but at a quick glance, the forum seems to be full of gameplay-related posts, not of wiki changes...
 * The often quoted forum posts you link are original research and contain blatantly false information (Like nagy's quote here - revolvers and firehawk can both proc x1-x4. Again, damage multiplier is a variable. You can tell procs of different levels apart from their AoE size.) - 91.153.22.204 18:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ninety-one, there was some name-calling early in the exchange that led to NOhara's nose getting out of joint, and I can't say that I blame him. You can certainly remain anonymous behind proxy IPs while creating an account. ("Twilight" is certainly not my given name.) I personally would love to see new original research and clarification, though I personally am not inclined to repeat Scottes' work. Dämmerung 18:39, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Questioning original research in an attempt to prove your point without bringing up your own information proves nothing. Nagy's quote is the only thing, aside from the links that I posted from the talk page, that have the slightest semblance of actual research. Your claims have been so far, entirely unsubstantiated. Besides, the issue has been settled anyway. It's simply done with. Thank you very much to everyone who has weighed in. 19:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Please bear with me a while longer. Like I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, we have tools available that use the game data directly: In-game debuginfo, WillowTree and GearCalc. My claims come from these, and are verifiable in-game. Most of the in-game original research correlates with them, but research often gets the details wrong, like assuming elemental multiplier = damage multiplier. Doing original research before understanding game mechanics is the reason we have these old misconceptions such as firehawk's case. I'm not saying original research is wrong or bad, I'm just saying that a wiki should document facts taken directly from game data instead of approximations based on old original research. - 91.153.22.204 19:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Gearcalc and Willowtree do not use game data directly. They are original research, and they are neither exhaustive nor infallible.  We already use both extensively, though (as you have observed) not infallibly....   Dämmerung 19:40, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm happy to share the Gearcalc source datafiles with anybody who wants them. I haven't looked at WT in a long time-- got sidetracked on other projects-- but I still have the GC guts from back when I was going to hack a WTish thing.  Dämmerung 19:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

We get it. There is info that says X4. Wonderful. The research says it's equivalent to a x6, if it existed. Both points are on the page itself. And old research is still valid considering it's an old game. End of discussion. Thanks for making that point, Daem. 19:47, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding revision
Good day sir! I am curious to why you revised my revision to Roland's trivia page? Just some background why I changed it, on my last convoy my TC was an E-3 and before that an E-4, which is why I changed it to ranking persons. HyperMetal3000 12:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * fair point. E-4 can be either NCO or not.  E-5 and above who can be troubled to mobilize being in short supply.   16:52, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of simplicity and to have the sentence read better. Ultimately it's inconsequential either way, one way is more specific than they other, but largely both ways establish the same meaning. Thank you for being civil in your inquiry. 22:00, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I left citations for every one of my posts. The little edits I made were just grammatical corrections. I really only posted that Maya wasn't a phasewalker, and I updated Eridium and Vehicles. I provided citations for each. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.

~!24.145.8.47MielikkisChosen

See the tags I left on the page. Those had no citation. 21:38, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dahl page
I tyred "undoing" an edit made by the user TheApatheistic1 on the DAHL page and i dont think it worked. When i hit undo at the top of the page, it said one or more edits could not be undone. The user took the Logo pic out and replaced it with useless letters "&nbsp". I left a warning on his/her page. Im not entirely sure how to report vandalism. Just figured i would let someone know. 20:50, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

No worries, a warning would have sufficed in that situation. "&nbsp" is something that sometimes gets left over in wikia code as far as I've noticed. I'll have a look, thanks Lynne. 22:23, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Dr.F already took care of it. 22:24, September 13, 2011 (UTC)\

Ohh i thought it was some random letters they typed!! LOL Either way the pic didnt need to be removed. And thanks for telling me about the "warn" template, ill have to remember that and use it next time. :) 23:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

'&amp;nbsp;' is the HTML entity for non-breaking space. It is usually used to add spaces between text elements that would normally have only one space in between them. In HTML code, it doesn't matter how many spaces you put between two words, it always shows up as a single space when rendered. Adding '&amp;nbsp;' will cause more spaces to show up when rendered. Logisim 01:00, September 15, 2011 (UTC)