Den doesn't have the game and is leaving it up to the rest of us. He just put up the board as a courtesy because he's a cool guy.
Also as Hobbert said it is kinda pointless. The graphs are used for CoD because damage varies over distance for most weapons in the game. As far as I know there is no similar damage drop over distance in Reach. Distance merely makes it harder to hit your targets.
I would still like to see damage, shots to drop shields and kill, and TTK in a succinct presentable chart, but I don't see much point to using graphs.
About the only thing that would be relevant over distance would be weapon accuracy and bloom effects on accuracy. Hmmm... It could be quite difficult to really do anything that actually gives insight into the game rather than just being some random data.
TLDR: Sounds like a doo-doo-ton of work, and probably not worth the trouble. ;p
I suppose we could do some interesting things if the hud bloom display is truly accurate, though. Like showing the effect of bloom over time. Different weapons bloom out to different levels and reset at different rates. You could chart bloom size over time and compare weapons that way. Even then it'd be purely a relative thing unless you did some pretty complicated math to convert pixel based sizes into degrees since the screen is a projection on a flat plane. I'm not sure if it would be better to compare diameter or radius, either. And I'm only assuming that bloom in Reach is always circular in nature.
If you wanted to actually turn that into accuracy values over distance things get MUCH more complicated as you'll have to project the bloom cone to a circle at the target's distance and compare the area of the circle to the area of the geometrically more complicated target as viewed from the shooter's perspective. Obviously you'd have to do some generalizations. It could be done, though.
One way to generalize the area of a given target would be to simply take a screenshot of someone from far away. Actually I'd do one for standing and one for crouching, both looking right at the "shooter". Cut out the background completely and paint in the target's head with one color and the rest of their body another color. (Granted you want to be painting the hitboxes, or as close an approximation of them as you can come up with. I have no idea if Reach uses per poly hit detection or generalized hitboxes, that's a technical issue that would have to be addressed.) Anyway the point is you just need to count the pixels after that to know what the area of the head and rest of the body are in pixels. Count the pixel height and compare to a known figure of player height and you'll know what the target area's are in more units than pixels which could be used to compare to weapon accuracy at range and derive hit percentages, ect.
Even this is a generalization which reduces the player model to a flat projection of it-self but it should be fairly accurate at long distance. In close range it would grow less and less accurate as the shooter's view is approximately head hight and that means that the head of the target gets disproportionately larger than the rest of the body at closer range, thus the 2D area model will break down in CQC, but that's not all that important. If one were really keen to account for it images could be taken at close quarters as well and the pixels counted. One could then interpolate the varying area values between the two ranges mathmatically.
Sounds interesting to me, but I'm not volunteering. Then again I don't have Reach anyway.
Mannon, you think too much . But agreed: no damage over range variation means no graphs needed. I do believe there's info on here already for most of the guns and how many shots it takes to drop shields and kill, it's just sprinkled around the threads on this board. I would surely hope that Bungie isn't trying to play us by bloom actually being a cosmetic deal on the HUD... I think it's safe to assume that your shots get less accurate as the bloom increases and bullets land somewhere inside the designated bloom shown at the time.