Bad math with E-clips

[flatline]

E-clips are described as having a 20 shot nominal capacity. Long e-clips are described as having a 30 shot nominal capacity. We've also been told that North American e-clips, unless otherwise stated, are interchangeable. What does this mean? Well, if a particular weapon can use both standard e-clips and long e-clips, then if it gets C shots out of a standard e-clip, then it should get Cx1.5 shots out of a long e-clip.

Here are some example pairs (C, Cx1.5):
(2, 3)
(4, 6)
(8, 12)
(10, 15)
(20, 30)
(30, 45)
(40, 60)

Yet flipping through the GMG, there are lots of weapons where the authors screwed up this simple math:
Bandit IP-10 (GMG p119): (10, 20) instead of (10, 15)
Bandit LPI (GMG p119): (20, 40) instead of (20, 30)
Q1-02 (GMG p130): (12, 24) instead of (12, 18)
JA-9 (GMG p144): (10, 30) instead of (10, 15)
JA-11 (GMG p144): (10, 30) instead of (10, 15)
JA-12 (GMG p145): (10, 30) instead of (10, 15)
L-20 (GMG p150): (40, 50) instead of (40, 60)
M-160 (GMG p156): (30, 55) instead of (30, 45)
NG-56 (GMG p157): (6, 12) instead of (6,9)
NG-57 (GMG p157): (10, 18) instead of (10, 15)
NG-L5 (GMG p157): (10, 20) instead of (10, 15)
NG-LG6 (GMG p157): (10, 20) instead of (10, 15)
NG-E4 (GMG p158): (6, 12) instead of (6, 9)
NG-E12 (GMG p158): (4, 8) instead of (4, 6)
NG-IP7 (GMG p158): (18, 30) instead of (18, 27)
NG-P7 (GMG p158): (6, 10) instead of (6, 9)
Wilk's 320 (GMG p175): (20, 40) instead of (20, 30)
Wilk's 330 (GMG p175): (12, 24) instead of (12, 18)
Wilk's 237 (GMG p175): (8, 16) instead of (8, 12)
Wilk's-Remi 130 (GMG p176): (20, 40) instead of (20, 30)
Wilk's-Remi 136 (GMG p176): (15, 30) instead of (15, 22 or 23) depending on how round (I would round down)
Wilk's-Remi 137 (GMG p176): (8, 16) instead of (8, 12)

I skipped over any make if I wasn't confident that it was a NA make (or derived from the same design like the New Navy). I think Japan uses the same design, but I skipped it just in case it wasn't. Curiously, the CS weapons were all correct if you round down for the guns that get 21 off a short e-clip (I swear I remember having to correct some CS guns way back...guess I remember wrong).

Anyways, as you can see, even though the math is simple, lots of mistakes were made. I suspect that there was confusion between different authors as to whether the ratio was supposed to be 2:3 or 1:2, but that doesn't explain all of them. I'm inclined to think the M-160 was just a typo ("55" instead of "45"). Maybe the L-20 was also a typo ("50" instead of "60").

We always corrected the long e-clip capacity if it didn't have the proper 2:3 ratio with the short e-clip. I'm just curious what other have done.

--flatline

[drewkitty ~..~]

"What error? Rifts books are perfectly written" *said with such enthusiasm it seams like what was said is exactly not what was meant.*

[Giant2005]

The poll is corrupted with bias, there needs to be an option: "Recognize the properties as justified and play it as written"

[flatline]

The poll is corrupted with bias, there needs to be an option: "Recognize the properties as justified and play it as written"

Convince me.

I can think of no way to justify the numbers as written when they do not at least approximate the 2:3 ratio established in GMG p111.

--flatline

[MikelAmroni]

Simply put, not all manufacturing process are created equal. Just because there is a standard does not mean that all weapons will actually meet said standard. Wilks should tend to be MORE efficient, while Northern Gun, the height of durability is a bit less efficient. Granted I always just accepted this on a very general it makes sense, but putting the numbers up like you have, you begin to see why some weapons cost more.

edit: That said, I should note that if I was going to change it at all, I'd actually convert a E-Clip into a good amount of MD damage, and mark off that amount from the clip (that's how I'd do it for a video game). But as for why they are different, simply put that passage was written AFTER the stats for those others were done, and aside from some tweaks, left them alone.

[Giant2005]

The poll is corrupted with bias, there needs to be an option: "Recognize the properties as justified and play it as written"

Convince me.

I can think of no way to justify the numbers as written when they do not at least approximate the 2:3 ratio established in GMG p111.

--flatline

Other than size, we don't know what the differences between a regular E-Clip and a smaller one are. The larger clips could come equipped with superior heat-sinks or something to reduce the loss of energy. Some weapons are designed to better capitalize on whatever that technology is than others, so they get more mileage out of the same energy by losing less of it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

[Icefalcon]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

I agree. Out of all the things in the rules that need to be fixed, this is one of those that can be played as is with no problems.

[flatline]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

So if a short e-clip has 1000 units of stored energy, it doesn't bother you that a particular long e-clip has 1500 units when used in gun A but 3000 units when used in gun B?

--flatline

[flatline]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

I agree. Out of all the things in the rules that need to be fixed, this is one of those that can be played as is with no problems.

True, but out of all the things that need to be fixed, this is one of the few that can be fixed for almost zero effort and no risk of unwanted ripple effects though the setting.

--flatline

[Mack]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

Spot on. In the RMB the ratios vary from 2:3, 1:2, and 1:3.

[flatline]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

Spot on. In the RMB the ratios vary from 2:3, 1:2, and 1:3.

True, but we are given the explicit nominal capacities of each type of e-clip in the GMG. Any weapon listing that is inconsistent with that should be considered a mistake. If a gun consumes X units of energy per shot and the clip has Y units of stored energy, the number of shots for that gun per clip is X/Y. X will not vary if Y changes.

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

So if a short e-clip has 1000 units of stored energy, it doesn't bother you that a particular long e-clip has 1500 units when used in gun A but 3000 units when used in gun B?

--flatline

Nope, not at all. I just assume different guns consume different numbers of units and let it go at that.

[tmikesecrist3]

Me I always thought that the defines had to do with some weapons drawing more power form the e-clip for greater range/damage, and some weapons not being as efficient with the power trainfer or the use of power form the e-clip. that being said I would think that weapon pay loads would be able to give you a full sets of birsts... ie if you weapoin has a 3 round birst... then it should give you enough ammo to fire off the whole magazen in bursts and not have on or 2 shots left over

[sirkermittsg]

looking at real world guns.... there are many many different versions of guns and bullets even within the same calliber. there are many different loads for different purposes.

likewise in the laser world lots of different things effect. better quality crystals, more focused crystals, ranges are different also.

personaly I play most of the books as written. I find that trying to "balance" the game ends up with the group spending more time tweaking the game then actually playing it. At a certian point we are here to have fun, not agrue endlessly about damage ratings, energy ratings, and all that other stuff.

[flatline]

You guys are missing the point of my complaint. I'm not complaining that different guns get different amounts of shots out of an e-clip. I'm complaining that the ratio of shots from a short clip vs a long clip should be constant across all guns that use the same e-clips.

Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's assume that a short e-clip holds 1000 units of energy.

The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 20 shots off of a short e-clip, so the amount of energy consumed in each shot is 1000/20 = 50 units of energy. The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 30 shots off of a long e-clip, so since we know it consumes 50 units of energy per shot, the long e-clip must hold 30 * 50= 1500 units of energy.

Now let's take those exact same e-clips out of the C-10 and put them in a JA-9 Juicer Assassin Variable Laser Rifle. Since the JA-9 gets 10 shots from the short e-clip, we know it consumes 1000/10 = 100 units of energy per shot. Since the JA-9 get 30 shots from a long e-clip, that means the long e-clip must contain 30 * 100 = 3000 units of energy.

But wait! Isn't this the exact same long e-clip that only contained 1500 units of energy when used with the C-10?

Yes, yes it is! Somehow the long e-clip has twice the energy storage capacity when it's used with the JA-9 than when it's used with the C-10 even though it's the exact same e-clip!

This is my complaint.

One ridiculous way to interpret this is that you can empty a long e-clip in a C-10, put it in a JA-9 without recharging it, and still get 15 more shots out of it since it still has 1500 units of energy left in it from the JA-9's perspective.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

More sophisticated weapons use less of a charge than others. This is an intentional design ascetic. Likewise, long E-clips are not X% better or have exactly X capacity which can be drawn from. Like with most batteries it greatly depends on the machine utilizing it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

You guys are missing the point of my complaint. I'm not complaining that different guns get different amounts of shots out of an e-clip. I'm complaining that the ratio of shots from a short clip vs a long clip should be constant across all guns that use the same e-clips.

Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's assume that a short e-clip holds 1000 units of energy.

The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 20 shots off of a short e-clip, so the amount of energy consumed in each shot is 1000/20 = 50 units of energy. The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 30 shots off of a long e-clip, so since we know it consumes 50 units of energy per shot, the long e-clip must hold 30 * 50= 1500 units of energy.

Now let's take those exact same e-clips out of the C-10 and put them in a JA-9 Juicer Assassin Variable Laser Rifle. Since the JA-9 gets 10 shots from the short e-clip, we know it consumes 1000/10 = 100 units of energy per shot. Since the JA-9 get 30 shots from a long e-clip, that means the long e-clip must contain 30 * 100 = 3000 units of energy.

But wait! Isn't this the exact same long e-clip that only contained 1500 units of energy when used with the C-10?

Yes, yes it is! Somehow the long e-clip has twice the energy storage capacity when it's used with the JA-9 than when it's used with the C-10 even though it's the exact same e-clip!

This is my complaint.

One ridiculous way to interpret this is that you can empty a long e-clip in a C-10, put it in a JA-9 without recharging it, and still get 15 more shots out of it since it still has 1500 units of energy left in it from the JA-9's perspective.

--flatline

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistant dosn't bother me at all.

[flatline]

You guys are missing the point of my complaint. I'm not complaining that different guns get different amounts of shots out of an e-clip. I'm complaining that the ratio of shots from a short clip vs a long clip should be constant across all guns that use the same e-clips.

Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's assume that a short e-clip holds 1000 units of energy.

The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 20 shots off of a short e-clip, so the amount of energy consumed in each shot is 1000/20 = 50 units of energy. The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 30 shots off of a long e-clip, so since we know it consumes 50 units of energy per shot, the long e-clip must hold 30 * 50= 1500 units of energy.

Now let's take those exact same e-clips out of the C-10 and put them in a JA-9 Juicer Assassin Variable Laser Rifle. Since the JA-9 gets 10 shots from the short e-clip, we know it consumes 1000/10 = 100 units of energy per shot. Since the JA-9 get 30 shots from a long e-clip, that means the long e-clip must contain 30 * 100 = 3000 units of energy.

But wait! Isn't this the exact same long e-clip that only contained 1500 units of energy when used with the C-10?

Yes, yes it is! Somehow the long e-clip has twice the energy storage capacity when it's used with the JA-9 than when it's used with the C-10 even though it's the exact same e-clip!

This is my complaint.

One ridiculous way to interpret this is that you can empty a long e-clip in a C-10, put it in a JA-9 without recharging it, and still get 15 more shots out of it since it still has 1500 units of energy left in it from the JA-9's perspective.

--flatline

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistent doesn't bother me at all.

So what do you tell your players when they ask about it?

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

You guys are missing the point of my complaint. I'm not complaining that different guns get different amounts of shots out of an e-clip. I'm complaining that the ratio of shots from a short clip vs a long clip should be constant across all guns that use the same e-clips.

Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's assume that a short e-clip holds 1000 units of energy.

The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 20 shots off of a short e-clip, so the amount of energy consumed in each shot is 1000/20 = 50 units of energy. The C-10 Light Assault Laser Rifle gets 30 shots off of a long e-clip, so since we know it consumes 50 units of energy per shot, the long e-clip must hold 30 * 50= 1500 units of energy.

Now let's take those exact same e-clips out of the C-10 and put them in a JA-9 Juicer Assassin Variable Laser Rifle. Since the JA-9 gets 10 shots from the short e-clip, we know it consumes 1000/10 = 100 units of energy per shot. Since the JA-9 get 30 shots from a long e-clip, that means the long e-clip must contain 30 * 100 = 3000 units of energy.

But wait! Isn't this the exact same long e-clip that only contained 1500 units of energy when used with the C-10?

Yes, yes it is! Somehow the long e-clip has twice the energy storage capacity when it's used with the JA-9 than when it's used with the C-10 even though it's the exact same e-clip!

This is my complaint.

One ridiculous way to interpret this is that you can empty a long e-clip in a C-10, put it in a JA-9 without recharging it, and still get 15 more shots out of it since it still has 1500 units of energy left in it from the JA-9's perspective.

--flatline

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistent doesn't bother me at all.

So what do you tell your players when they ask about it?

--flatline

Havn't actually had a player ask about it to date. if they did, I'd say "Just use the listed values and don't worry about it"

[flatline]

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistent doesn't bother me at all.

So what do you tell your players when they ask about it?

--flatline

Havn't actually had a player ask about it to date. if they did, I'd say "Just use the listed values and don't worry about it"

Okay, so if all shots are treated as equal, do you allow sub-particle acceleration to recharge a short e-clip in a NG-P7 100% in a single casting since the short e-clip only has a 6-shot capacity in that weapon?

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistent doesn't bother me at all.

So what do you tell your players when they ask about it?

--flatline

Havn't actually had a player ask about it to date. if they did, I'd say "Just use the listed values and don't worry about it"

Okay, so if all shots are treated as equal, do you allow sub-particle acceleration to recharge a short e-clip in a NG-P7 100% in a single casting since the short e-clip only has a 6-shot capacity in that weapon?

--flatline

Of course. It recharges one-eclip. Why wouldn't it work? the actual capacities of the e-clips dont' change, only the shots each weapon can get from them.

[flatline]

No, that's exactly the point I thought you were making, I'm just saying the fact that it's so inconsistent doesn't bother me at all.

So what do you tell your players when they ask about it?

--flatline

Havn't actually had a player ask about it to date. if they did, I'd say "Just use the listed values and don't worry about it"

Okay, so if all shots are treated as equal, do you allow sub-particle acceleration to recharge a short e-clip in a NG-P7 100% in a single casting since the short e-clip only has a 6-shot capacity in that weapon?

--flatline

Of course. It recharges one-eclip. Why wouldn't it work? the actual capacities of the e-clips dont' change, only the shots each weapon can get from them.

Let me try again: Sub-particle acceleration can be used to recharge 6 shots in an e-clip. The NG-P7 only gets 6 shots from an e-clip, so if you treat all "shots" equally, then it only takes one casting sub-particle acceleration to fully charge a short e-clip in a NG-P7. Yet the exact same short e-clip in a L-20 requires 6 castings of sub-particle acceleration to charge the same short e-clip to 90% (and you'd stop there because the 7th casting would cause the e-clip to explode).

If this is the way you handle things, then the players should charge the e-clip in the NG-P7, and then transfer it to the L-20 so that the L-20 can have a 100% fully charged e-clip with only a single casting of sub-particle acceleration.

Does that make sense?

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

Okay, so if all shots are treated as equal, do you allow sub-particle acceleration to recharge a short e-clip in a NG-P7 100% in a single casting since the short e-clip only has a 6-shot capacity in that weapon?

--flatline

Of course. It recharges one-eclip. Why wouldn't it work? the actual capacities of the e-clips dont' change, only the shots each weapon can get from them.

Let me try again: Sub-particle acceleration can be used to recharge 6 shots in an e-clip. The NG-P7 only gets 6 shots from an e-clip, so if you treat all "shots" equally, then it only takes one casting sub-particle acceleration to fully charge a short e-clip in a NG-P7. Yet the exact same short e-clip in a L-20 requires 6 castings of sub-particle acceleration to charge the same short e-clip to 90% (and you'd stop there because the 7th casting would cause the e-clip to explode).

If this is the way you handle things, then the players should charge the e-clip in the NG-P7, and then transfer it to the L-20 so that the L-20 can have a 100% fully charged e-clip with only a single casting of sub-particle acceleration.

Does that make sense?

--flatline

Ahh. I see what you did there. i've never actually seen that done. an interesting exploit. of course, i've never been in a situation where the players had to recharge e-clips on the fly, and whenever it was done it was during during a period of downtime where the exact number of castings wasn't important.

an amusing exploit. i'd probablly laugh and pat the player on the back for being a bit too clever for his own good, and mentally put him on my "Keep a close eye on" list when awarding future spells/items/abilities. Granted, that's ONLY because of how my games tend to be structured, with long periods of downtime being common, so issues like recharging are rarely important enough to keep track of.

IF I was playing a more adventure focused game as I keep meaning to do, where resource management is important, I would likely put a hard clamp down on it for balance issues.

but in my last game, exactly one player even had an energy clip, and during the entire run of the game emptied exactly one, total.

The power of various spells/exploits depend a lot on the style of game being run.

[flatline]

Okay, so if all shots are treated as equal, do you allow sub-particle acceleration to recharge a short e-clip in a NG-P7 100% in a single casting since the short e-clip only has a 6-shot capacity in that weapon?

--flatline

Of course. It recharges one-eclip. Why wouldn't it work? the actual capacities of the e-clips dont' change, only the shots each weapon can get from them.

Let me try again: Sub-particle acceleration can be used to recharge 6 shots in an e-clip. The NG-P7 only gets 6 shots from an e-clip, so if you treat all "shots" equally, then it only takes one casting sub-particle acceleration to fully charge a short e-clip in a NG-P7. Yet the exact same short e-clip in a L-20 requires 6 castings of sub-particle acceleration to charge the same short e-clip to 90% (and you'd stop there because the 7th casting would cause the e-clip to explode).

If this is the way you handle things, then the players should charge the e-clip in the NG-P7, and then transfer it to the L-20 so that the L-20 can have a 100% fully charged e-clip with only a single casting of sub-particle acceleration.

Does that make sense?

--flatline

Ahh. I see what you did there. i've never actually seen that done. an interesting exploit. of course, i've never been in a situation where the players had to recharge e-clips on the fly, and whenever it was done it was during during a period of downtime where the exact number of castings wasn't important.

an amusing exploit. i'd probablly laugh and pat the player on the back for being a bit too clever for his own good, and mentally put him on my "Keep a close eye on" list when awarding future spells/items/abilities. Granted, that's ONLY because of how my games tend to be structured, with long periods of downtime being common, so issues like recharging are rarely important enough to keep track of.

IF I was playing a more adventure focused game as I keep meaning to do, where resource management is important, I would likely put a hard clamp down on it for balance issues.

but in my last game, exactly one player even had an energy clip, and during the entire run of the game emptied exactly one, total.

The power of various spells/exploits depend a lot on the style of game being run.

I'm envious. Combat (and all things related) are my least favorite elements of the game. I'd love to play in a campaign with little to no combat in it.

As to the "exploit" I suggested above, I've never seen a GM who would have let it fly. Every GM I've known does exactly the same thing: sub-particle acceleration can recharge 30% of a short e-clip or 20% of a long clip (6 nominal shots in both cases). So in a NG-P7, a single casting would give you just shy of 2 shots worth of energy.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

Of course it works, its magic. It also pisses off scientists the world over because it makes no sense to them.

I'd let it fly. Also, youve been playing in the wrong games if all you have is combats. All of the best scenes in my games have been people overcoming natural disasters and working together or fun role playing encounters. Fighting happens as necessary but it is never the focus.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

So if a short e-clip has 1000 units of stored energy, it doesn't bother you that a particular long e-clip has 1500 units when used in gun A but 3000 units when used in gun B?

--flatline

That isn't my first problem with E-clips by a long shot.

The patently absurd idea that they are universal, when in the illustrations different weapons have different styles, sizes, locations, etc for Eclips that would prevent them from being so infuriates me.

The inequities of their capacities always came in second, since, if they werent "universal" you'd have to be using a long-e-clip for THAT gun, and maybe THAT long Eclip is bigger/has more shots - it wouldnt matter. If Eclips were weapon specific, the number of shots would just be what it is.

But given that they ARE universal, yes, it bothers me.

[flatline]

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Even in the main book, the guns did not even come close to adhereing that standard. This was never really fixed. And I'm not sure it really needs to be.

I just use whatever amount for shot/long clips are under each gun and don't worry about it.

So if a short e-clip has 1000 units of stored energy, it doesn't bother you that a particular long e-clip has 1500 units when used in gun A but 3000 units when used in gun B?

--flatline

That isn't my first problem with E-clips by a long shot.

The patently absurd idea that they are universal, when in the illustrations different weapons have different styles, sizes, locations, etc for Eclips that would prevent them from being so infuriates me.

The inequities of their capacities always came in second, since, if they werent "universal" you'd have to be using a long-e-clip for THAT gun, and maybe THAT long Eclip is bigger/has more shots - it wouldnt matter. If Eclips were weapon specific, the number of shots would just be what it is.

But given that they ARE universal, yes, it bothers me.

I do not disagree with this. My inclination has always been to make e-clips manufacturer specific (and then offer adapters for sale that lets you use one manufacturer's e-clip in another manufacturer's weapon).

--flatline

[MikelAmroni]

Hey, if you want to start with E-Clip inconsistencies, how about the Canister E-Clip that is supposedly so much more than a long e-clip and yet on the C-12 it has EXACTLY the same amount of shots as the long e-clip. Despite this, the C-27 cannot use Long-Clips. Now they fixed it for the CP-40 (canister provides 60 shots, as it should have). I have made this change for my own games, but seriously!

And I do see your point now about the inconsistency. Two ways to handle this: Ignore what every entry says about long e-clips and have it be based on a multiplier of the amount from a short e-clip, or ignore the inconsistency entirely (as Nekira suggested). Both are equally valid, and as long as you remain consistent about it, who cares.

Incidentally, I don't have them called short and long e-clips, except in shorthand. I have them called pistol and rifle e-clips. And I seriously considered not letting them interchange at all, but decided against it.

[DhAkael]

I don't give a flying wet-one and refuse to vote at all.
Seriously, so what if the math is wrong *shrug*
Not all guns are created equal. Or any other electricty-using device.
Real-world examplea;
*A Blackberry Pearl (tm) can be recharged hundreds of times and still maintain an optimal charge with rigerous NORMAL use (no stream vids) of around 5 to 6 hours.
*An iPhone (tm, cr, cp, pcp), will start to lose battery charge capacity and longevity after the 10th recharge cycle, to the point of where a full recahrge of 4 hours will last you MAYBE 2 hours under regular use.

BOTH devices use roughly the same voltage and battery size.

So again; who cares if the math doesn't add up?
Play the game, or modify as you, the INDIVIDUAL Gm, choose.
Simple.
Easy.
No need for histeronics or debate.

[Jay05]

I don't give a flying wet-one and refuse to vote at all.
Seriously, so what if the math is wrong *shrug*
Not all guns are created equal. Or any other electricty-using device.
Real-world examplea;
*A Blackberry Pearl (tm) can be recharged hundreds of times and still maintain an optimal charge with rigerous NORMAL use (no stream vids) of around 5 to 6 hours.
*An iPhone (tm, cr, cp, pcp), will start to lose battery charge capacity and longevity after the 10th recharge cycle, to the point of where a full recahrge of 4 hours will last you MAYBE 2 hours under regular use.

BOTH devices use roughly the same voltage and battery size.

So again; who cares if the math doesn't add up?
Play the game, or modify as you, the INDIVIDUAL Gm, choose.
Simple.
Easy.
No need for histeronics or debate.

+1

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I don't give a flying wet-one and refuse to vote at all.
Seriously, so what if the math is wrong *shrug*
Not all guns are created equal. Or any other electricty-using device.
Real-world examplea;
*A Blackberry Pearl (tm) can be recharged hundreds of times and still maintain an optimal charge with rigerous NORMAL use (no stream vids) of around 5 to 6 hours.
*An iPhone (tm, cr, cp, pcp), will start to lose battery charge capacity and longevity after the 10th recharge cycle, to the point of where a full recahrge of 4 hours will last you MAYBE 2 hours under regular use.

BOTH devices use roughly the same voltage and battery size.

So again; who cares if the math doesn't add up?
Play the game, or modify as you, the INDIVIDUAL Gm, choose.
Simple.
Easy.
No need for histeronics or debate.

Huh, and here my wife's 3+ year old 3GS still gets a full-day charge after almost 200 charge cycles. Bad information is bad.