Template talk:Infobox weapon gamebryo

Field names
Perhaps "Cost" should be changed to "Value". Also this block should probably show the weapon's stats at 100% condition. Mwalk10 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FormID might be a little bit more appropriate than "Additem code". --67.205.244.211 07:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe even Base ID, to keep it same as with NPC box. Reference ID would be almost useless for most weapons though, except those that exists in game in limited amount. --Rowaasr13 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both Value and Base ID... also, could we put in a |230px or something in the image, so larger images can be used and scaled properly?
 * -- Mirar 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ausir 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the width too. I'm not entirely sure right now if it makes pages better or worse. Opinions? :p (I think it might be better, more uniform. Smaller pictures aren't enlargened, and bigger pictures fit the intended table better.) Mirar 19:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific Clarification
Well its already started, random anonymous people are editing the DPS column thinking they're helping because they see a difference between their In-Game DAM: and what we've got listed in the top slot. Its worse than the "bloody mess" issue. I think we can solve this problem by making the "damage" line say: "in-game" DAM. Listing it first should also help, anything to ward off all the unhelpful editors. And now that the chart's a lot smaller I'd say we have more than enough room to fit the new DMG/Shot column, so I'm going to add it too. It'll help having all three forms of dmg displayed on the weapon, not 2 forms on the specific page and another on the weapons page (which is now minus "in-game" DAM, as of the other day, despite all of my protests, and people are already messing with the DMG/Shot column since its now first on the left...sigh...). --AshRandom 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical damage field
I think this should be added, as it is nearly as important as the weapon's base damage. --Macros 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think ammo usage per shot should also be added. Since we're at it, "DPS↓reloads" and "ROF↓reloads" should be removed in my opinion, there's no formula to calculate these values anywhere that I have seen. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it, I hope I didn't screw anything up. I'll start updating the weapons tomorrow once the the cache catches up and I get some sleep. --Macros 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After editing a ton of these weapons, I've come to the realization. What's the point of the "damagetype" field? Most of the articles currently have the skill (Unarmed, Small Guns, etc.) in it, which is redundant. I've been putting the "resist" stat from the GECK in it, of which the vast majority is "normal". Only energy weapons use "energy" and the flamers have "fire." Since all of that is blindingly obvious, I'm going to remove the damagetype field too. Which means re-editing all the pages I've currently done... --Macros 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I basically overhauled the entire template. I realize that changing a lot of things in a template that is used on 9001 pages is bad idea, but given the sorry state they're already in, I believe the ends justify the means. --Macros 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Finished all the weapons for the main game. Tomorrow, I'll do the DLC weapons. --Macros 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Damage
, this will cause havok. I have 2 different readings in game for the same gun depending on the perk. When you click on the link it isn't too obvious there either. What should we do here. I need some sort of ground work so when it gets changed I can say, hey this is the reading because of x or because of y. Thanks.--Kingclyde 05:42, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * damage    =damage displayed in game (in the Pip-Boy)

Rework
Following up on the discussion started by Kingclyde and P22, I'd suggest:
 * Addition of attack shots/sec as required value for all weapons
 * Have the template calculate DPS based on dmg/shot and attack shots/sec and use that as the damage rating.
 * I would rather have it marked as DPS (or Calculated DPS), not damage rating, to prevent confusion P22 06:29, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Does attack shots/sec need to be substituted with rof for automatic guns?
 * I think either way works. Both values are identical for automatic weapons. P22 06:29, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of this is that we'll have a reliable damage rating (DPS) calculated from GECK values which are easily verifiable and which is not influenced by perks. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:44, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a question of weapons with only single shot per magazine. For them, Attack Shots/Second is not enough to get proper DPS rating. You would get how quickly weapon fires, but not how long it takes to next shot, due to reload (note: GECK reload times are not used by game). P22 06:29, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Your own last comment illustrates why this is hard to factor in; there's no reliable GECK value for it. Plus it does not affect only single shot weapons, it just has more of an effect for them. Personally, I think it can be neglected. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:04, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I only added it to note that calculated DPS for such weapons could be very misleading. For most of others, having calculated DPS based on single clip is pretty much OK, for common use (usually you go to cover for reload, right?). Maybe those weapons could get asterisk near their Attack Shot/Value, nothing that such value is theoretical for them, due to reload needed per every shot. P22 10:59, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I think we should simply make DPS (and other values in the template) link to a page (or section of a page) which explains what it means and what the potential downfalls are. I'd rather not insert asterisks etc, it'd make using the template quite a bit harder if you want it to calculate the values automatically (you'd need extra parameters etc). -- Porter21 (talk) 09:27, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. P22 14:22, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, thanks to a friend who figured it out, I now know why the DPS calculation is screwed up. Stay tuned for the explanation. Ausir(talk) 14:32, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, sorry for the lack of reply - there's a lot of things going on at the moment. I hope I'll have the chance to start reworking the template later today. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:34, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * First version of new template up at Template:Weapon gamebryo/sandbox. Feel free to play around with the examples on Template:Weapon gamebryo/sandbox2 to see whether everything works correctly.


 * There are a few things I'm not sure about, maybe you know more than me and can help me.
 * Do effects stack? I.e. if a weapon confers an effect of x damage for 5 secs and you hit an enemy again after 2 seconds while the effect is still active, does the effect simply get prolonged (i.e. the timer is reset to 5 secs) or is (in the example) then a damage of 2*x applied for 3 seconds? Just a minor thing (affects only the display of effect damage in the DPS row) but I guess if we do it, we might as well do it right. Currently the template assumes that effects do not stack.
 * Does displaying DPS for mines and grenades make sense?
 * Does displaying attackshots/sec for mines and grenades make sense?
 * -- Porter21 (talk) 14:41, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

About critical multiplier (from my talk page), my idea was to prevent confusion, when some users list crit mult. from GECK, while others try to list actual final mutilpler (when geck value is divided by firerate). Maybe something like "x0.125 (x1)", with actual calculated value used by game at front (with tooltip explaining how it's calculated, and that other value is from geck. Another benefit is that that way editors don't need to do calculation themself. Just enter, for example, x1 and template makes from it x0.125 (x1), if it's rilfe with firerate of 8. P22 06:16, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll think about it. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:55, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. I would make dmg/projectile hidden, if projectile value is 1. Keeps things from getting cluttered. P22 06:21, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the way I originally had it. It seemed a bit confusing when comparing guns which only had one projectile with guns which have multiples, which is why I changed it to always display for guns. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:00, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... firerate for autoweapons seems to be divided by 2 and as such displayed as attack/secshot. For example, that rilfe in sandbox shows 4, instead of 8. This also propagates to DSP calculation, making it just 48. Not to be confused with geck dps rating (also 48) which is actually damage per half second. P22 06:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's intended. If you check the GECK wiki, it states that firerate is "the number of shots the weapon can fire per 2 seconds". To make both the "attacks/sec" and "DPS" values for automatic weapons comparable with the other weapons, you have to divide it by 2 - both values are "per second". -- Porter21 (talk) 08:55, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * That weird. I'm pretty sure that assault rifle does more then 4 shots per second. In fact ,I'm positive that 8 shots is correct value. A basic laser rifle does 2 shots per second! And is much slower. Still it's worth noting that DPS value from GECK is supposed to be damage per 1/2 second. Maybe that were whole confusion started. To make such value correct you need to take 1/2 firepower and multiply with base damage. Also, for auto weapons Attack Shots stat is equal to firepower, not halved (check Art & Sounds tab). P22 10:24, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Please verify that what the GECK wiki states is incorrect then (ingame) and I'll change it. I don't know why the GECK wiki states what it states but unless it is verified to be incorrect, I'll stick to what it tells me. Plus if for automatic weapons "fire rate" (the GECK value) is always equal to "attackshots/sec", I don't see what we need the template parameter "firerate" for. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:53, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure I fired up game and did some assault weapon use. It surely isn't 4 rounds per second, 8 rounds seems accurate, and corresponds to other weapons and their attack shot/sec ratings.


 * As for firerate, I guess we really don't need it, although crit. multiplier for automatic weapons is divided by that stat. Anyway the only real difference between there two stats is that firerate is acurate fire rate of rifles and other automatics, while attack shot/sec is "potential" fire rate for other weapons (if you tap mouse button fast enough). Matter of semantics. ;) P22 11:11, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for me it's simply a matter of making the template easy to use. If attackshots/sec=firerate for automatic weapons, we can simply remove the latter. Simply mathematics, if a = b then you can substitute b for a. Whether the value "attackshots/sec" itself is more accurate for automatic weapons is more a matter of the value itself, not what the parameter is called ;) I'll change the template accordingly when I get the time. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:23, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes made: "firerate" removed (replaced with "attackshots/sec" for automatic weapons), removed division by 2 for automatic weapons. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Once we get how we are going to calculate the damage etc. we need to write down a formula and post it on the weapons page and damage page so we can point people to it when incorrect information is reverted. Should I continue my in-game pipboy damage information gathering? I am currently getting readings with 100 skill, 100 repair condition and 10 in SPECIAL's.--Kingclyde 19:09, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the formula is pretty simple, we're just discussing a couple of details for specific weapon types. I'll post all the formulas on the template documentation page once the template goes live, you can then repost it wherever you like. Not sure about the pip-boy damage, seems we have different opinions here. Personally I wouldn't consider it absolutely necessary but I guess we can at the very least use it to compare the template output against it. Guess we should get a few more opinions on whether ingame image should be added to the template as well; I'm just wary of including too many damage values, I think it might confuse people more than it helps. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:36, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Advantage of having PipBoy value is ability to compare weapon that is damaged and used by player with lower gun skill with what it is supposed to be at perfect condition. So if I have Minigun that says it does 96 damage, and I now that perfect PipBoy value is 128, then I could also now what weapon does exactly 75% of full damage. So 8dmg bulled would do 6dmg, and that DPS in this case would be 120 (compared to full 160).


 * In practice, only automatic weapons have values that are way of normal single shot damage. Maybe limit this value for those weapons only? P22 21:54, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, our "ingame" value does not take perks into account, so it'll likely not match the displayed value at maximum condition for an individual player anyway. I understand your argument but to be honest I think any sort of "ingame damage" value just encourages less experienced editors to go in and change it to what they see in their game. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:39, September 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the problem we are having currently. If we placed a link to the definition then it would make sense. We have all kinds of people making damage changes. Honestly I don't think it will ever end. In-game damage if defined with no perks, full repair and 100 skill would at least give people a base line value.--Kingclyde 17:50, September 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the current "damage per attack" value (which is calculated from the GECK stats) is essentially the raw weapon damage if all projectiles hit - without perk, skill or condition modifiers. "Without modifiers" also means that no negative modifiers are applied for having less than 100 skill, and it means that the damage rating is not influenced by Strength for Melee Weapons. Essentially it results in a damage rating which is comparable across all weapon types and which is not influenced by any kind of external influences like perks, skill or condition. In addition, all entered values can easily be obtained from and double-checked against the GECK. I'm not quite sure what additional use another rating is supposed to have.


 * If your goal is to have a "real" (the calculated value is at least as precise as the ingame one, which is why I'm using quotation marks) rating which people can compare theirs against, I'm not sure how you want to accomplish it. People will have perks, people will have Strength values influencing their melee weapons etc - next to nobody's actual ingame damage is going to match the values you put anyway. You take all perks into account - the number does not match for those who do not have all of them. You don't take perks into account - the number does not match for the players who have them, etc etc etc.


 * You make assumptions when looking up your ingame values (Strength of 5, no perks, skill of 100, condition of 100) - it's just a different set of assumptions than the one used by the calculated value (no Strength influence, no perks, skill of 100, condition of 100), and it's not even that different as you can see. So I don't quite see the use in having two values. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:47, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to say I agree with Porter here - the current version is less confusing than if we used some version of in-game damage. Ausir(talk) 15:53, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Finished?
Any changes to Template:Weapon gamebryo/sandbox required at this point? Otherwise we could switch over as far as I'm concerned. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:43, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm liking it! Spoon Leave me a freakin' message 17:51, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems as fine as it can get. P22 06:00, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll work on the documentation a bit more tomorrow, afterwards we can start switching the pages over. We're looking at roughly 170 pages to adapt. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:30, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * "Form ID" in GECK ("Game Data" tab). Where is that? I don't see anything like that on the game data tab.--Kingclyde 05:47, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's a copy/paste error I made. The Form ID can be found in the "Object Window" by either hovering the mouse over the item in question or expanding the column between "Editor ID" and "Count" in the list view. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:02, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Kingclyde 17:30, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Finished.
I've completed the template documentation. The old/current template was moved to "Template:Weapon gamebryo old" and the new one can now be found at Template:Infobox weapon gamebryo. My bot has renamed the template calls in all pages to "Weapon gamebryo old"; this way, the weapon pages shouldn't break and we can clearly see which pages have been switched to the new template. "All" that's left to do now is replacing the old template with the new one in articles. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:55, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * As test, I switched .32 Pistol to new template. There is one difficulty though. Several attributes got their name changed (although they use same values as before), making manual transition a bit tedious.


 * critmult became crit%mult, ammousage became ammouse, maxammo became cliprounds, sprd became minspread. ROF is removed, attackshots/sec is added. P22 10:32, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also,  needs to be removed from skill attribute, otherwise it's shown in the article. P22 10:55, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the substantial amount of required changes is why I didn't simply replace the old one (you forgot to replace "games=Fallout 3" with "game=FO3" btw - just as a sidenote). I could handle the renamed attributes by bot but that would break the infobox until someone gets around to fully switch to the new template.


 * Overall I think it'd be best to do the switch manually and double-check the existing data with the GECK; the damage entry will not correspond to the GECK's (base) damage in a lot of cases, plus effects need to be added properly with their new parameters (currently they are crammed into the damage parameter). The easiest way probably is to use the copy/paste templates, copy the values from the old template over and then add the missing ones. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:27, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I think I converted all Fallout 3 weapons to new template, exempt those that have multiple damage values listed, due to perks. P22 23:26, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work :) According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Weapon_gamebryo_old you indeed got almost all non-perk-affected weapons; I think only .44 Magnum Revolver is missing. I hope we can reach a decision on the perk weapons by the weekend so we can do the remaining ones. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Conversion complete. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:03, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Explosion object effect

 * No no change - Porter21

By the way, I noticed one very small issue. Tesla Cannon secondary damage effect (electric damage that lasts a few rounds) is applied through its explosion AoE. If I set it as secondary effect through this template, it will be shown as part part of weapons base attack, while in fact anybody in explosion radius suffers from it, not only those directly hit. Correct way would be to have it listed in explosion damage line. Anyway, not a big deal. Tesla Cannon is only weapon with such ability. That's also a reason why secondary effect description is not shown in Pip-Boy in the game (since weapon itself doesn't have an effect, it's part of explosion). P22 18:36, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in reality you'd need another parameter ("explosioneffect" or something like that). I understand the issue you're describing; basically it's an object effect that's attached to the projectile rather than the gun itself. Not sure though what you mean with "explosion damage line", all damage stats are displayed in one line ("damage" + "explosion" + "effect" "for" "effectduration") - and I'm not really sure how I could display a projectile object effect in a different way than a weapon object effect without confusing people. Wonder whether one weapon is worth the trouble overall. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:33, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * What I ment is having it shown in same entry as explosion damage, instead of weapon damage. But yeah, it's probably nor worth the effort. P22 06:08, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Weapon-specific perks

 * Yes added - Porter21

I found another issue. Some weapons in old template had multiple values in damage section. For example "20 (30)". with note at the end of table that other value is for when having that and that perk. In new template, having anything similar leads to an error, since new template expects just a single number with no extras. Is there any way possible to preserve those additional values? P22 16:21, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's mostly the weapons affected by Pyromaniac, isn't it? Other perk damages aren't really worth preserving in my opinion since they usually apply to a lot of weapons. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:29, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Pyromaniac and Xenotech Expert are two common ones. Firelance has both of them too. P22 11:57, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, adding a field for a perk modifier is not a problem. The question rather is, why selectively add perk damages for a few perks? The basic premise of our weapon damages is "damage not modified by perks". If we add Pyromaniac and Xenotech Expert, why not add Demolition Expert or Bloody Mess? It's a bit of a can of worms. -- Porter21 (talk) 02:07, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I never though having the extra damage listed for those two was a good idea. If we do 2 perks, why not all of them right? No.--Kingclyde 04:40, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, those two are things that players that like those weapons will take as soon as possible. Also, it's not small, but big mod in damage, which greatly affects just those weapons when comparing to others (unlike Bloody Mess, for example). As for Demolition Expert, there is no point comparing explosives to anything else, so it it's not really necessary. P22 06:14, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost forgot. There is Auto Axpert perk too. P22 09:34, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still undecided on this issue. On the one hand, including Pyromaniac seems useful since some flamers are affected by it and others aren't, making it somewhat necessary for a useful comparison. On the other hand, it seems inconsistent to me to selectively include a few perks and exclude others. For me, this means either showing all weapon-group specific perks (Auto Axpert, Xenotech Expert, Demolition Expert) or none at all. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a forum post to see whether we can gather some additional opinions. Feel free to voice your opinion there. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:44, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to add a couple of new fields to keep the display of modified damage. What I'm not particularly fond of is the number of fields I'll have to add but I guess that can't be helped. In principle, there are two alternatives for introducing the perk damages to the template:
 * Add 2 fields per multiplier (one for the multiplier itself and one for the perk name); make seperate fields for perks which affect the "normal" and perks which affect the explosion damage. At the very minimum (i.e. just to be able to cover the Firelance), that'd mean adding 8 new parameters; if we'd also like to account for flat increases (even if we don't need it currently), we're already at 16, and if we'd like to have 3 of each we're at a whooping 24 parameters. That is, if we want to keep the same style of display as the Firelance page has, with seperate displays for the various perks.
 * The alternative is to simply add only one field for damage multiplier, one for damage addition, one for explosion multiplier and one for explosion addition. We'd lose the intermediate displays and the user would have to add the multipliers him-/herself if there are multiple perks, but it seems more practicable to me in terms of keeping the template usable and the displayed information clear.
 * Currently I'm leaning towards alternative 2. Making the template overly complicated because of basically one weapon seems a bit overkill. -- Porter21 (talk) 01:34, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * So... how would exactly look Firelance template with option 2? P22 08:03, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finally got around to modifying the template. Sorry for the delay, I kept putting this off because the template is getting very complicated and changes require quite a bit of concentration.


 * Anyway, the altered template is at User:Porter21/sandbox4 with a list of added parameters and User:Porter21/sandbox5 has the Firelance as an example. I've opted to take a different approach than the ones I mentioned above. The template allows for displaying three perks, with each of these modifying damage and/or explosiondamage by a set amount of damage points and/or a multiplier.


 * I hope I didn't break anything but I have not thoroughly tested it yet - it seems to be working for the example though. Feel free to play around with the example. I'd also appreciate it if it could be tested whether the altered template returns different values than the current one for non-perk-affected weapons. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:47, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it looks pretty good if you ask me. I see explosion damage modifier too. Great for Demolition Expert line of perks. P22 07:04, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Glad to hear it. I'll make a few last adjustments to the display of attackshots/sec and crit chance (so it shows both the unmodified and modified values) this afternoon, afterwards I'll update Infobox weapon gamebryo. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:07, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes all done, template updated. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:49, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Damage & projectiles

 * Yes fixed - Porter21

Something is wrong with shotgun weapons (projectiles>1). Look Metal Blaster I updated (I did same for Protectron's Gaze and Tri-Beam Laser Rifle). Damage from GECK (55) is supposed to be damage per attack, while projectile damage is supposed to be GECK damage divided by number of projectiles. Not other way around.


 * Well, the GECK wiki wasn't very specific on that point so I simply assumed it was per projectile. My gut feeling says 55 is a bit low for all projectiles added together; however, it's just that, a feeling. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "gut feeling" is not really wrong. Full critical hit damage is calculated per projectile outside VATS, so potential damage of multi-projectile weapons can be pretty significant, since every pellet can do critical with full critical damage bonus, adding greatly to average damage. 9 pellet weapon will on average crit. at least once with proper perks, for example. Note that this only applies out of VATS. In VATS, critical damage is added just once per VATS shot. Still, normal damage per projective is fraction of GECK value. P22 12:36, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Will be changed. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be fixed. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:14, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Some brainstorming on DPS value

 * Yes changed - Porter21

As noted in previous discussion, new calculation doesn't take into account magazine size of weapons, giving unrealistically high DPS values for single shot per clip weapons, like missiles and such.

Now, is it possible to cap DPS value, based on calculated "shots/reload" stat (cliprounds/ammouse)? If "attackshots/sec" is higher then "shots/reload", use "shots/reload" for DPS calculation. That way, you'll get slightly more realistic DPS value. Missile weapon with 1.7 "attackshots/sec" value won't have 70% higher DPS, which is never possible due to realod (while it is possible to get 1 attack in second). Or having .32 revolver with 5rounds barrel, with DPS based of 6 attacks, which also are not possible, since after 5 there must be reload.

In short, have DPS based on clip size. That's, in theory, fastest the weapon can fire (if clip is full). Although average on long ran will be lower, due to duration of reloads themselves. So, it can fire that many bullets in some seconds, but not in all seconds.

I know this is a bit circumstantial, or maybe even confusing, or even not worth the effort. But values will be more closer to reality in the game. P22 10:45, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it only makes DPS for weapons with "attackshots/sec > shots/reload" slightly more accurate. I'm saying "slightly" because it still doesn't take reload time into account. In addition, the set of conditions is very specific; for example, if a single-shot weapon has a RoF of 0.5, your alteration doesn't make any difference, even though it's just as much affected by reloading after each shot as the missile launcher in your example (i.e. the DPS won't be 50% lower than if it had a RoF of 1). That said, I'll think about it; I'm a bit in a hurry right now, I'll reply in more detail later. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:17, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know, it doesn't change much for ROF<1 weapons. Still, it does help a bit for other weapons.Anyway, it is brainstorming. Throwing around ideas that could or could not be useful. P22 12:31, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to. I'm not shooting it down as such; the issue you mentioned and the one I brought up are obvious ones which can easily be fixed. I just don't want to make the formula too complicated. ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 15:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I'll implement your suggestion; not sure whether I'll also add a fix for what I brought up.


 * On the one hand, taking "attackshots/sec" out of the equation for one-shot-weapons seems logically correct to me; especially when comparing these weapons among each other it doesn't really matter whether one has an as/s of 2 and another one an as/s of 0.5 (RoF only matters if there are at least 2 shots fired, which doesn't happen here due to reload). On the other hand, it'll likely increase the DPS for one-shot-weapons which might hurt (further) the comparability of one-shot and other weapons. Yet again, a comparison based on values which have no effect is not really that helpful either. -- Porter21 (talk) 01:40, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * The template found at User:Porter21/sandbox2 has the DPS formula altered to incorporate these two points. For single-shot weapons "attackshots/sec" is ignored (set to 1) and for weapons with ("attackshots/sec" > ("ammouse"/"cliprounds")) it is replaced by "ammouse"/"cliprounds". -- Porter21 (talk) 19:09, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...that sandbox is empty. P22 07:07, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. It's actually sandbox4. It passed all my examples properly (see history), including ammouse weapons like double barrel shotgun. Works fine, as far as I see. P22 07:21, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to post here. I merged it with the perk damage example at sandbox4 after testing. Glad you found it. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:30, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Template updated with the changes. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:49, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Explosivedamage & projectiles

 * No no change - Porter21

Another thing. If multi-projectile weapon has explosives attacked, like Experimental MIRV, then full explosive damage is per each projectile, unlike base damage. P22 13:57, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Will be fixed. I'll go over the required changes on the weekend. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't need to be changed as the explosiondamage is already multiplied with projectiles. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:14, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. P22 23:22, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Rock-It Launcher

 * Yes fixed - Porter21

New issue. It has set ammunition as unlimited, leading to error in calculated "shots/reload" column. See: Rock-It Launcher. It could be good if it is possible to disable "shots/reload" column with an optional flag, or something. Come to think about it, something similar could be done for DPS column, to make it not show for one-shot/reload weapons, or some other weapon manually. P22 10:12, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll make the template accept "nolimit" as a value for clipsize. Not a fan of selectively disabling certain fields, I'd prefer a uniform appearance (even if the DPS number is off for a handful of weapons; it's really not that much of an issue). -- Porter21 (talk) 15:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just changed it to nolimit (Rock-It Launcher). P22 16:22, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the template. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:45, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Projectiles, or just one

 * Yes changed - Porter21

I'm thinking, what about simplifying weapon info boxes for guns that only have one projectile per shot?

Something like, if projectiles value from template is 1, then hide both # of projectiles and dmg/projectile lines from info box. P22 15:46, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure you already suggested this further up. Well, my opinion hasn't changed. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:56, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * To explain it a bit more, I think the confusion this causes for the average reader outweighs the potential benefit in saving space. If something's displayed for some guns but not for others, people are left wondering whether this simply means that somebody forgot to add it. Between different types of weapons it's a different matter; but within one weapon group I'd rather not do it. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:48, October 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind, the field is now hidden if not needed. With the additional row(s) for related perks the template was getting a bit large. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:49, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Burst rounds in VATS
I think we should add information about how many rounds are fired during the attack in VATS, especially for automatic weapons. Rzeźnik 07:59, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

It appears 0.43 seconds' worth of rounds are fired (fVATSShotBurstTime) for New Vegas. --Evil4Zerggin 19:04, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Scope magnification
I think adding scope/iron sights magnification data would be nice. Notes:


 * Field of view (listed in degrees in GECK) controls magnification. Default field of view is 75 degrees; the magnification and field of view are related by
 * $$\begin{align}

\text{magnification} &= \frac{\tan\left(\frac{75^\circ}{2}\right)}{\tan\left(\frac{\text{field of view}}{2}\right)} \\ \text{field of view} &= 2\ \text{arctan} \left( \frac{\tan\left(\frac{75^\circ}{2}\right)}{\text{magnification}} \right) \end{align} $$
 * Field of view is measured from the left edge to the right edge of the screen. Scope textures may reduce the actual visible field, but magnification still follows the above formula using the listed field of view.
 * Mods reduce the field of view by the first listed value. For example, the Hunting rifle (Fallout: New Vegas) has a default FoV of 38 degrees; the scope mod reduces this by 13 degrees, to 25 degrees.

--Evil4Zerggin 18:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Better criticals perk multiplier
Is it possible to get a Better Criticals multiplier for the perk tabs? Shadowrunner(stuff) 23:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)