Thread:MVP EdwardJ/@comment-16505228-20130827013958/@comment-4539185-20130903044727

We keep defining ammo based on its actual definition, not some far-fetched hypothesized assumption based on game's coding. I understand how it's coded, but that is not a valid justification. The aforementioned bullets that deal the so called "damage" are coded to subtract a certain unit from the value corresponding to health. But you do not see people going around and saying "I subtracted 32 units from his health value". We just accept this "coding" and call it based on what it is in life; we instead use "damaged". Also, no one even slightly educated says "I shot someone with a grande". That is ridiculous. I might not be a very active player, but I have been here since pretty much the beta to have been exposed to all sorts of lingo in one form or another and that one in particular never came up.

Also, going by your logic of "since melee items have a "Shots Fired" stat, then they expand ammo and since you can use melee endlessly, then it stands to reason that melee items have infinite ammo", the following statement is then acceptable: "I shot someone with my knife". But it most certainly is not; it is absolutely absurd. Instead we use the word "knifed". (I hope I will not see anyone trying to dispute this particular claim, because it takes a certain kind of intellect to rationalize the above as a valid statement, one which I hope no one possesses.) On a side note, let's not compare to other games where the knives can be thrown and claim that as a justification of calling knife kills as shots.

Also, last I checked, in the game there is no indication of ammo on any melee weapons (only damage and portability). Ergo, any attempt to bring up an "ammo" stat for melee items is unofficial info and thus not a fact, but a mere conjecture (and this in itself is looking past the whole absurd nature of assuming the presence of ammo for weapons which in no way are capable of expanding it as logical).

Once again, to reiterate, how the game is coded is not a viable justification for attempting to make absurd statements into acceptable ones.