Talk:Sectopod - Revision history

Bomb Bloke: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */

2010-01-28T07:34:06Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 28 January 2010
Line 153:		Line 153:
	:::I also ignore the damage caused when an IN round misses, because it's a bug/exploit. In fact, it's likely that the IN damage mechanics, as far as we understand them, are a bug. Seb76's loader has a fix for the presumed bug, though it's difficult to 'fix' it and keep the IN weapons balanced. In general, my view is that using AC-IN in combination with the bug/exploit is unbalanced. It quite possibly is highly effective against Sectopods, and other tough enemies, but I personally wouldn't use it, as it's based on a bug/exploit. So I wouldn't go along with the point about attacks from soldiers who can't even see the target, or who fire at a tree, are who are sitting in the Skyranger, etc - that's just cheating!		:::I also ignore the damage caused when an IN round misses, because it's a bug/exploit. In fact, it's likely that the IN damage mechanics, as far as we understand them, are a bug. Seb76's loader has a fix for the presumed bug, though it's difficult to 'fix' it and keep the IN weapons balanced. In general, my view is that using AC-IN in combination with the bug/exploit is unbalanced. It quite possibly is highly effective against Sectopods, and other tough enemies, but I personally wouldn't use it, as it's based on a bug/exploit. So I wouldn't go along with the point about attacks from soldiers who can't even see the target, or who fire at a tree, are who are sitting in the Skyranger, etc - that's just cheating!
	:::As noted above there is a lot of uncertainty about the IN damage mechanics still, in particular how the damage level is generated, whether it varies based on tile characteristics, how random it really is, etc. There was also a lot of uncertainty over whether IN damage actually does damage 4 squares of a large unit or not. There's a discussion in [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units]] and [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_Research]]. From my testing I was getting the impression it only damaged the unit once, not 4 times. Looks like you have some hard data showing each hit taking health off all 4 parts of the Sectopod? That's very valuable data, it resolves an open question. I'm not sure how you got that data though? I was only able to see a total health for the Sectopod, not individual health levels for each part. So how did you get your 4 damage numbers per shot? Sounds like you have a cool tool there. Please contribute to the discussion in Talk:Incendiary! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:19, 27 January 2010 (EST)		:::As noted above there is a lot of uncertainty about the IN damage mechanics still, in particular how the damage level is generated, whether it varies based on tile characteristics, how random it really is, etc. There was also a lot of uncertainty over whether IN damage actually does damage 4 squares of a large unit or not. There's a discussion in [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units]] and [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_Research]]. From my testing I was getting the impression it only damaged the unit once, not 4 times. Looks like you have some hard data showing each hit taking health off all 4 parts of the Sectopod? That's very valuable data, it resolves an open question. I'm not sure how you got that data though? I was only able to see a total health for the Sectopod, not individual health levels for each part. So how did you get your 4 damage numbers per shot? Sounds like you have a cool tool there. Please contribute to the discussion in Talk:Incendiary! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:19, 27 January 2010 (EST)
			::Sylph, what's all this "lucky-miss" stuff? Where's the documentation/discussion on it? Could you please provide some links on the subject? I've performed [[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke:Firing_Accuracy\|thousands of in-game tests]], and fully believe it never rolls to see if a shot will "hit" - merely to see how far the angle of the shot will deviate from the angle required to hit the dead center of the target. However, I'm not able to read the game's machine code, nor can I work out a practical way to perform 1.5 million tests without dedicating a computer to the cause for months on end... - [[User:Bomb Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] 02:34, 28 January 2010 (EST)

	=== Sectopods from behind ===		=== Sectopods from behind ===

Spike: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */ rebased Sylph's figure for FA=50

2010-01-28T00:23:05Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings: rebased Sylph's figure for FA=50

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 28 January 2010
Line 148:		Line 148:
	:: [[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)		:: [[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)
	::: Fair point about the ranking value. Yes, first time out I didn't include any of the IN weapons because of the uncertainties in modelling them, and most of my other rankings tables around the site omit IN weapons. In general these weapon rankings are not intended to be per-turn rates, they are per TU rates over a short period of time. They also ignore running out of ammo, and reloading, because that is not constant, it varies hugely with the TUs of the soldier. If I only show one table, it tends to have these assumptions. I should make them explicit though!		::: Fair point about the ranking value. Yes, first time out I didn't include any of the IN weapons because of the uncertainties in modelling them, and most of my other rankings tables around the site omit IN weapons. In general these weapon rankings are not intended to be per-turn rates, they are per TU rates over a short period of time. They also ignore running out of ammo, and reloading, because that is not constant, it varies hugely with the TUs of the soldier. If I only show one table, it tends to have these assumptions. I should make them explicit though!
	::: So I'm in no way suggesting you can simplistically divide by 38% and get nearly 3 kills per turn. Though since it only takes you 66% TUs to Launch the blaster, you can do other stuff as well as killing the Sectopod. Like moving out of cover and back into cover. :) But probably I should not report less TUs to kill the Sectopod than it takes to fire the weapon, fair point! This must be one of my earlier weapon ranking tables because in later versions of the underlying spreadsheet I eliminate 'overkill' from my calculations, i.e. you can't kill a target more than 1.0 times per shot! (I also give options to check the actual fire rate per entire turn, and/or limit the fire rate per turn to the magazine capacity of the weapon). Eliminating 'overkill', a better value for the Blaster Launcher ranking would be 66%TUs / 96.5% kill probability = 68% TUs/kill. Your testing puts the AC-IN pretty conclusively at around 130% TUs/kill, which is definitely ahead of my score for the Stun Bomb (and I probably made the same questionable assumptions with the Stun Bomb as I did with the Blaster).		::: So I'm in no way suggesting you can simplistically divide by 38% and get nearly 3 kills per turn. Though since it only takes you 66% TUs to Launch the blaster, you can do other stuff as well as killing the Sectopod. Like moving out of cover and back into cover. :) But probably I should not report less TUs to kill the Sectopod than it takes to fire the weapon, fair point! This must be one of my earlier weapon ranking tables because in later versions of the underlying spreadsheet I eliminate 'overkill' from my calculations, i.e. you can't kill a target more than 1.0 times per shot! (I also give options to check the actual fire rate per entire turn, and/or limit the fire rate per turn to the magazine capacity of the weapon). Eliminating 'overkill', a better value for the Blaster Launcher ranking would be 66%TUs / 96.5% kill probability = 68% TUs/kill. Your testing puts the AC-IN pretty conclusively at around 130% TUs/kill at FA=63, corresponding to about 161% TUs/kill at FA=50, which is definitely ahead of my score for the Stun Bomb (and I probably made the same questionable assumptions with the Stun Bomb as I did with the Blaster).
	:::My weapon rankings in general also ignore near miss for area effect weapons and auto weapons because it's extremely hard to model, we don't know how the accuracy function works. Even if we did, there are a huge number of variables due to terrain, range, target size and shape. You could take a featureless terrain as a limiting case (best case), totally blocked terrain as another limiting case (worst case), but even then, how do you interpolate, what is a 'typical' tactical situation? And if you are modelling the positive effects of misses, you should also model the negative effects, i.e. friendly fire and loot damage. I just ignore both.		:::My weapon rankings in general also ignore near miss for area effect weapons and auto weapons because it's extremely hard to model, we don't know how the accuracy function works. Even if we did, there are a huge number of variables due to terrain, range, target size and shape. You could take a featureless terrain as a limiting case (best case), totally blocked terrain as another limiting case (worst case), but even then, how do you interpolate, what is a 'typical' tactical situation? And if you are modelling the positive effects of misses, you should also model the negative effects, i.e. friendly fire and loot damage. I just ignore both.
	:::My numbers are not just per hit or per shot, but are calculated as damage done per TU expended. So I also include weapon accuracy and rate of fire, taking a base Firing Accuracy of 50. If your soldiers have better accuracy you can just scale the values linearly.		:::My numbers are not just per hit or per shot, but are calculated as damage done per TU expended. So I also include weapon accuracy and rate of fire, taking a base Firing Accuracy of 50. If your soldiers have better accuracy you can just scale the values linearly.

Spike: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */ basis of rankings, discussion of IN bugs and mechanics research

2010-01-28T00:19:47Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings: basis of rankings, discussion of IN bugs and mechanics research

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 28 January 2010
Line 147:		Line 147:
	:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.		:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.
	:: [[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)		:: [[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)
			::: Fair point about the ranking value. Yes, first time out I didn't include any of the IN weapons because of the uncertainties in modelling them, and most of my other rankings tables around the site omit IN weapons. In general these weapon rankings are not intended to be per-turn rates, they are per TU rates over a short period of time. They also ignore running out of ammo, and reloading, because that is not constant, it varies hugely with the TUs of the soldier. If I only show one table, it tends to have these assumptions. I should make them explicit though!
			::: So I'm in no way suggesting you can simplistically divide by 38% and get nearly 3 kills per turn. Though since it only takes you 66% TUs to Launch the blaster, you can do other stuff as well as killing the Sectopod. Like moving out of cover and back into cover. :) But probably I should not report less TUs to kill the Sectopod than it takes to fire the weapon, fair point! This must be one of my earlier weapon ranking tables because in later versions of the underlying spreadsheet I eliminate 'overkill' from my calculations, i.e. you can't kill a target more than 1.0 times per shot! (I also give options to check the actual fire rate per entire turn, and/or limit the fire rate per turn to the magazine capacity of the weapon). Eliminating 'overkill', a better value for the Blaster Launcher ranking would be 66%TUs / 96.5% kill probability = 68% TUs/kill. Your testing puts the AC-IN pretty conclusively at around 130% TUs/kill, which is definitely ahead of my score for the Stun Bomb (and I probably made the same questionable assumptions with the Stun Bomb as I did with the Blaster).
			:::My weapon rankings in general also ignore near miss for area effect weapons and auto weapons because it's extremely hard to model, we don't know how the accuracy function works. Even if we did, there are a huge number of variables due to terrain, range, target size and shape. You could take a featureless terrain as a limiting case (best case), totally blocked terrain as another limiting case (worst case), but even then, how do you interpolate, what is a 'typical' tactical situation? And if you are modelling the positive effects of misses, you should also model the negative effects, i.e. friendly fire and loot damage. I just ignore both.
			:::My numbers are not just per hit or per shot, but are calculated as damage done per TU expended. So I also include weapon accuracy and rate of fire, taking a base Firing Accuracy of 50. If your soldiers have better accuracy you can just scale the values linearly.
			:::I also ignore the damage caused when an IN round misses, because it's a bug/exploit. In fact, it's likely that the IN damage mechanics, as far as we understand them, are a bug. Seb76's loader has a fix for the presumed bug, though it's difficult to 'fix' it and keep the IN weapons balanced. In general, my view is that using AC-IN in combination with the bug/exploit is unbalanced. It quite possibly is highly effective against Sectopods, and other tough enemies, but I personally wouldn't use it, as it's based on a bug/exploit. So I wouldn't go along with the point about attacks from soldiers who can't even see the target, or who fire at a tree, are who are sitting in the Skyranger, etc - that's just cheating!
			:::As noted above there is a lot of uncertainty about the IN damage mechanics still, in particular how the damage level is generated, whether it varies based on tile characteristics, how random it really is, etc. There was also a lot of uncertainty over whether IN damage actually does damage 4 squares of a large unit or not. There's a discussion in [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units]] and [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_Research]]. From my testing I was getting the impression it only damaged the unit once, not 4 times. Looks like you have some hard data showing each hit taking health off all 4 parts of the Sectopod? That's very valuable data, it resolves an open question. I'm not sure how you got that data though? I was only able to see a total health for the Sectopod, not individual health levels for each part. So how did you get your 4 damage numbers per shot? Sounds like you have a cool tool there. Please contribute to the discussion in Talk:Incendiary! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 19:19, 27 January 2010 (EST)

	=== Sectopods from behind ===		=== Sectopods from behind ===

Sylph: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */

2010-01-25T12:44:49Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 25 January 2010
Line 126:		Line 126:
	::		::
	:: shot result damage total		:: shot result damage total
	:: 1 miss		:: 01 miss:
	:: 2 ~~hit~~: 5+11+ 9+10=30dmg 30		:: 02 hits: 05+11+09+10=30dmg 030
	:: 3 ~~autohit~~: 7+10+ 5+ 0=22dmg 52		:: 03 auto: 07+10+05+00=22dmg 052
	:: 4 ~~hit~~: 5+ 6+ 6+ 6=23dmg 75		:: 04 hits: 05+06+06+06=23dmg 075
	:: 5 ~~autohit~~: 9+ 9+ 7+ 9=34dmg 109 (1 dead sectopod)		:: 05 auto: 09+09+07+09=34dmg 109 (1 dead sectopod)
	:: 6 ~~luckymiss~~: 0+ 7+ 5+10=22dmg 22		:: 06 luck: 00+07+05+10=22dmg 022
	:: 7 ~~hit~~: 7+ 6+ 9+ 0=22dmg 44		:: 07 hits: 07+06+09+00=22dmg 044
	:: 8 ~~hit~~: 5+10+ 8+ 7=30dmg 74		:: 08 hits: 05+10+08+07=30dmg 074
	:: 9 ~~autohit~~: 5+ 9+ 8+11=33dmg 107 (2 dead sectopods)		:: 09 auto: 05+09+08+11=33dmg 107 (2 dead sectopods)
	:: 10 miss:		:: 10 miss:
	:: 11 ~~luckymiss~~:10+ 5+ 0+ 6=21dmg 21		:: 11 luck: 10+05+00+06=21dmg 021
	:: 12 ~~autohit~~: 9+ 5+ 10=24dmg 45		:: 12 auto: 09+05+__+10=24dmg 045
	::		::
	:: (note - 'luckymiss' is a shot that rolled a 'miss', but whose random trajectory was plotted through the target, resulting in a hit! 'Autohit' is a shot that misses, but since the target is already set on fire, the resulting incendiary explosion stills deals it's damage. Note that shot 12's autohit only effected 3 squares, because only 3 squares caught fire from shot 11)		:: (note - 'luckymiss' is a shot that rolled a 'miss', but whose random trajectory was plotted through the target, resulting in a hit! 'Autohit' is a shot that misses, but since the target is already set on fire, the resulting incendiary explosion stills deals it's damage. Note that shot 12's autohit only effected 3 squares, because only 3 squares caught fire from shot 11)
	::		::

Sylph: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */

2010-01-25T12:38:22Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 25 January 2010
Line 146:		Line 146:
	:: Given these numbers, I can only imagine that your calculations did not take into account the possibility of 'luckymiss' and 'autohit'. When these are factored in, the incendiary autocannon is far superior to the blaster launcher for sectopod hunting, and far and away the best weapon for the job.		:: Given these numbers, I can only imagine that your calculations did not take into account the possibility of 'luckymiss' and 'autohit'. When these are factored in, the incendiary autocannon is far superior to the blaster launcher for sectopod hunting, and far and away the best weapon for the job.
	:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.		:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.
	[[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)		:: [[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)

	=== Sectopods from behind ===		=== Sectopods from behind ===

Sylph: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */

2010-01-25T12:37:59Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 25 January 2010
Line 146:		Line 146:
	:: Given these numbers, I can only imagine that your calculations did not take into account the possibility of 'luckymiss' and 'autohit'. When these are factored in, the incendiary autocannon is far superior to the blaster launcher for sectopod hunting, and far and away the best weapon for the job.		:: Given these numbers, I can only imagine that your calculations did not take into account the possibility of 'luckymiss' and 'autohit'. When these are factored in, the incendiary autocannon is far superior to the blaster launcher for sectopod hunting, and far and away the best weapon for the job.
	:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.		:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.
			[[User:Sylph\|Sylph]] 12:37, 25 January 2010 (CDT)

	=== Sectopods from behind ===		=== Sectopods from behind ===

Sylph: /* Incendiary Weapon Rankings */

2010-01-25T12:37:02Z

Incendiary Weapon Rankings

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 25 January 2010
Line 118:		Line 118:
	: It looks like, if you include "being on fire" damage, the effectiveness goes UP... I estimate under 200% TU for the AC-IN. That pushes them up 1 rank... [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 01:31, 10 March 2009 (CDT)		: It looks like, if you include "being on fire" damage, the effectiveness goes UP... I estimate under 200% TU for the AC-IN. That pushes them up 1 rank... [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 01:31, 10 March 2009 (CDT)

			:: I can't really agree with your weapon rankings Spike, particularly the incendiary autocannon coming third, compared with the blaster launcher at first. I can only assume that you didn't factor in the possibility for an incendiary autocannon to deal damage despite rolling a 'miss' (either because the 'miss' trajectory was plotted through the target, or because the target is already on fire), and the blaster launcher's figure is misleading.
			:: A blaster launcher can't be fired more than once per turn, so stating that it takes 38% of a turn's TU's is highly misleading. Overkill doesn't count for anything in ufo, so it takes a full turn, minimum.
			:: Using up a full turn firing a blaster launcher will kill about 0.97 sectopods on average. Your figure suggests nearly 3 per turn! If we assume a gauranteed hit, then it's a simple matter of damage vs 'under' armour and resistance.
			:: 90 'under' armour, and 20% resistance to high explosive, means that a pretty average blasterbomb hit of 200dmg will be reduced to 160 by resistance, then down to 70dmg after armour is considered. Obviously it hits 4 times per shot, so that's an average of 280dmg vs the 96 health of a sectopod... With 280 as our 'average' damage per shot, and a pretty pointy bell-curve going from 0 to 600, there is about a 3.5% chance for a sectopod to survive a blaster bomb. Of course, such a wounded target is pretty much gauranteed to be killed next turn...
			:: Regardless of whether you want to call it 0.97 or 1 kill per turn, we can compare it's results to the incendiary autocannon:
			:: (Taking some real examples as I type:)
			::
			:: shot result damage total
			:: 1 miss
			:: 2 hit: 5+11+ 9+10=30dmg 30
			:: 3 autohit: 7+10+ 5+ 0=22dmg 52
			:: 4 hit: 5+ 6+ 6+ 6=23dmg 75
			:: 5 autohit: 9+ 9+ 7+ 9=34dmg 109 (1 dead sectopod)
			:: 6 luckymiss: 0+ 7+ 5+10=22dmg 22
			:: 7 hit: 7+ 6+ 9+ 0=22dmg 44
			:: 8 hit: 5+10+ 8+ 7=30dmg 74
			:: 9 autohit: 5+ 9+ 8+11=33dmg 107 (2 dead sectopods)
			:: 10 miss:
			:: 11 luckymiss:10+ 5+ 0+ 6=21dmg 21
			:: 12 autohit: 9+ 5+ 10=24dmg 45
			::
			:: (note - 'luckymiss' is a shot that rolled a 'miss', but whose random trajectory was plotted through the target, resulting in a hit! 'Autohit' is a shot that misses, but since the target is already set on fire, the resulting incendiary explosion stills deals it's damage. Note that shot 12's autohit only effected 3 squares, because only 3 squares caught fire from shot 11)
			::
			:: When we continue these calculations over a 1.5 million(!) shots, a firing accuracy: 63 soldier (pretty average) manages to kill 321,084 sectopods in this test. Since he fires 6 shots per turn, this translates to 250,000 turns, and a final average of 1.28 sectopods killed per turn.
			:: This is without taking into account end-of-turn burning damage from being on fire, because, typically, you want to kill a sectopod before he tears your team apart.
			:: A second test yields 320,014 kills, again 1.28 kills per turn...
			:: Given these numbers, I can only imagine that your calculations did not take into account the possibility of 'luckymiss' and 'autohit'. When these are factored in, the incendiary autocannon is far superior to the blaster launcher for sectopod hunting, and far and away the best weapon for the job.
			:: When you think about the other advantages of the incendiary autocannon - not provoking reaction shots, being able to attack using any soldier, whether they can see the sectopod or not, etc, it's even more potent.

	=== Sectopods from behind ===		=== Sectopods from behind ===

NKF: /* Fanfiction autopsy? */

2010-01-15T04:52:32Z

Fanfiction autopsy?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:52, 15 January 2010
Line 144:		Line 144:

	P.S. "5 to 10, to even 20 times as powerful as standard Earth processors" is actually quite low given Moore's law. That would mean the aliens aren't too advanced... [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 17:07, 14 January 2010 (EST)		P.S. "5 to 10, to even 20 times as powerful as standard Earth processors" is actually quite low given Moore's law. That would mean the aliens aren't too advanced... [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 17:07, 14 January 2010 (EST)

			: I don't remember the source for those descriptions, but it might have been an attempt at making the official entry sound more original. Either way, the official entries should stick to the in-game text so that was a good decision. Our own descriptions on the other hand allow some artistic license to the prose as long as we don't go adding more than what was there. Say the Sectopods run specifically with Microsoft CP/M as their OS on a Commodore or Apple IIe! Then again, I wouldn't be overly surprised if they did. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]]

Cesium: /* Fanfiction autopsy? */ Clarify

2010-01-14T22:29:28Z

Fanfiction autopsy?: Clarify

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 14 January 2010
Line 141:		Line 141:

	== Fanfiction autopsy? ==		== Fanfiction autopsy? ==
	I erased some parts in the 'Autopsy' not appearing in the in-game Ufopedia. Were these fanfiction or from another source? If fanfiction, I can readd this in another header or another page... (I actually would like some fanfiction here, as long as its clearly separated from the 'real' in-game data). If not, would anyone please mention the source?		I erased some parts in the 'Autopsy' not appearing in the in-game Ufopedia and replaced them with the original text. Were these fanfiction or from another source? If fanfiction, I can readd this in another header or another page... (I actually would like some fanfiction here, as long as its clearly separated from the 'real' in-game data). If not, would anyone please mention the source so I can readd these to the autopsy header?

	P.S. "5 to 10, to even 20 times as powerful as standard Earth processors" is actually quite low given Moore's law. That would mean the aliens aren't too advanced... [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 17:07, 14 January 2010 (EST)		P.S. "5 to 10, to even 20 times as powerful as standard Earth processors" is actually quite low given Moore's law. That would mean the aliens aren't too advanced... [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 17:07, 14 January 2010 (EST)

Cesium: Fanfiction?

2010-01-14T22:07:09Z

Fanfiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 14 January 2010
Line 139:		Line 139:

	[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 16:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)		[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 16:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

			== Fanfiction autopsy? ==
			I erased some parts in the 'Autopsy' not appearing in the in-game Ufopedia. Were these fanfiction or from another source? If fanfiction, I can readd this in another header or another page... (I actually would like some fanfiction here, as long as its clearly separated from the 'real' in-game data). If not, would anyone please mention the source?

			P.S. "5 to 10, to even 20 times as powerful as standard Earth processors" is actually quite low given Moore's law. That would mean the aliens aren't too advanced... [[User:Cesium\|Cesium]] 17:07, 14 January 2010 (EST)