Talk:Fallout 3 weapons/Archive 2

Liberty Prime
Codes for his weapons?
 * Don't see it.
 * Firelance 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the weapon data from the GECK. I didn't bother adding the code to the Liberty Laser page, and didn't want to add another page for the football-esque nuke bombs he throws. I think it's silly to list either weapon on this page, but since there was already an entry, I just updated the other fields. Servius 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Energy Weapons vs. Small Guns
PLEASE CHIME IN

Am I missing something, or are Small Guns always better than Energy Weapons? Firelance and Alien Blaster excepted. It seems like, when you compare similar weapons in each class, the Small Guns weapon always does more damage. Not only that, but the Small Guns weapons are more prevalent, which means it's easier to keep yours repaired. Small Guns ammo also seems more prevalent, and cheaper to buy from merchants if needs be. Lastly, there is no risk of setting yourself on fire when you use a Small Guns weapon.

This is what I'm comparing...
 * Laser Pistol to 10mm Pistol
 * Plasma Pistol to Scoped .44 Magnum
 * Laser Rifle to Assault Rifle
 * Plasma Rifle to Chinese Assault Rifle

Are these fair comparisons? If this is true, it just seems wrong. Why bother inventing Energy Weapons unless they're better than the ones you already have? Are there some advantages to Energy Weapons that I'm unaware of? Someone once said that Energy Weapons were more accurate by default and required fewer APs per shot in VATS, but I compared a Laser Pistol and a 10mm Pistol and they had the same accuracy and required the same number of APs in VATS per shot. Servius 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read on some forums that there are 2 advantages to Energy Weapons: 1) they have a large magazine capacity and 2) they are 100% accurate outside of VATS. Since DMG = DPS and Energy Weapons have a higher rate of fire, I don't think the magazine size is really any kind of advantage, esp since ammo cost-per-shot is 3-4 times higher than for Small Arms weapons. The 100% accuracy outside of VATS (so, if your sight is on a target, you WILL hit it) could make Energy Weapons excellent for real-time sniping. I haven't tested this yet, but I know that Sniper Rifles are not 100% accurate, since I've shot at things in the sights and somehow missed.
 * Energy weapons are NOT 100% accurate outside of VATS. I have tested, and disproved, this at length. The deviation may be less than for Small Guns but it is not the case that they are 100% accurate. Trithemius 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also read that it's a critical hit with Energy Weapons that turns targets to ash. If that's true, then it means you can kill someone with 1 hit if you crit them.
 * This is true -- Yesod 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I tested these hypothosis this morning and the results are disappointing. Servius 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC). Here are my findings after several tests run this morning...


 * You can crit with an Energy Weapon and not instantly turn your target to ash/goo. I tested this several times this morning with A3-22's Plasma Rifle and a Laser Rifle on the Super Mutants at the Jefferson Memorial.  With the Laser Rifle, you can get an automatic crit off a [HIDDEN] attack, and you will not automatically kill your target by turning it to ash.
 * The ash effect is also not automatic with each kill, as I killed several Super Mutants with the Laser Rifle without turning them to ash. The ash effect seems to only appear for what would be a kill shot anyway, and only occurs even then if the kill shot does significant damage.  So, if you whittle your target down to 2 bars of health, you won't get the ash effect.  It may also be that, if the kill shot is a critical shot, regardless of how much health the target has left, the target will turn to ash.
 * The Plasma Rifle appears easily detectable when you fire it. So detectable, in fact, that even if you take your first shot while [HIDDEN], the target will see the weapon discharge before the shot lands, and this will pop your [HIDDEN] status before the plasma bolt reaches him, which prevents the shot from auto-criting.
 * A critical hit that kills a target seems to always turn the target to ash. This is more likely when hiding since it is automatically a critical and it also seems to do more damage than a normal critical. The Better Criticals perk combined with a high Luck and the Finesse perk results in quite a lot of ashed targets; combine this in turn with a high Sneak and sniping tactics and you can turn a lot of targets to ash - a rough estimate for my current sneaky laser-wielding character is about 66%-75% of all targets engaged. Trithemius 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trithemius about kill shots that were criticals turn the target to ash/goo. The thing I didn't understand at the beginning was that the effect was just for show.  What I had hoped was that, if you could get a critical shot on your first shot, regardless of the HP of the target or the power of your Energy Weapon, the crit would turn the target to ash in 1 shot.  This is not the case.  You can crit on your first shot, but if the power of that crit is not enough to kill the target outright, they will not instantly turn to ash/goo.

Servius 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also heard that Energy Weapons may have some kind of damage reduction vs. robots. After this morning's tests though, I'm even more sure that Energy Weapons are inferior in all ways to Small Guns, so I didn't even bother to test the dmg vs. robots.
 * I heard the opposite: i.e. that lasers are more effective against robots! Trithemius 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they're more effective against Mirelurks at least. Or so it seems, anyways. --DarkJeff 18:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A3-21's plasma rifle has higher DPS than all small guns, and from big guns; flamer (even with pyromaniac), Burnmaster, gatling laser, minigun and even Eugene. It's disadvantage is the slow projectile, but it's hardly weak. I'm getting the numbers from NMA, by the way, found [] I don't know how they get their damage numbers for automatics, but RoF is accurate (you can check this by timing how long it takes to empty a clip expend all rounds in the cell). 124.188.178.133 10:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Energy weapons are quite usefull. As mentioned above Plasma Weapons in general have high DMG per shot. The biggest advantage of Laser Weapons is their low AP cost. With the right equipment, you can get up to 8 shots with a Laser Rifle in VATS. R0ND0 11:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I can determine based on the GECK values and GECK readmes and what I've seen in the game, Energy Weapons are actually better, but the advantage seems to lie in effects outside of the simple DMG figure. First, the firing rate of the semi automatic weapons seems to be based on animation length, and the plasma rifles and laser rifles allow up to 4 and 2 shots per second respectively, compared to say 0.75 for a hunting rifle or 1.5 for a combat shotgun. If a chinese assault rifle does its DMG with 6 shots, then that's effectively doing it's DMG stat at a rate of 1.33 attacks per second. So energy weapons fire much faster. The other effect is Crit multipliers greater than one: this multiplies the player's normal crit rate. The combat shotgun, hunting rifle and chinese assault rifles have crit multipliers of 1. The laser rifle has a crit multiplier of 1.5, the plasma rifle has a crit multiplier of 2, while the unique plasma rifle goes as high as 2.5. So with 10 luck and finesse, all the normal small arms get a 15% crit chance, whereas a normal plasma rifle has a 30% crit chance. Add better criticals on top of that, and the extra damage is very respectible. Interestingly, the Railway Rifle is the exception; it has a crit multiplier of 3. 121.45.59.228 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Energy Weapons compare to the Hunting Rifle. The Laser Rifle seems most similar to the Assault Rifle and the Plasma Rifle to the CAR. The Energy weapons have much better accuracy outside of VATS, and do more damage per individual shot. However, do they have much better accuracy inside VATS? Do they have better DPS? According to the GECK...

Energy weapons do a different type of damage than ballistic weaponry. PlasmaFox 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you can say...
 * The Assault Rifle/Chinese Assault Rifle have better DPS.
 * The Laser Rifle/Plasma Rifle are more accurate outside of VATS.
 * You can get more shots off in VATS with the Assault Rifle/Chinese Assault Rifle
 * The LR costs 17 AP, the AR and CR cost 23 AP, the PR costs 25 AP. But the AR and CAR fire 3 bullets in each VATS attack, so it actually costs only ~7 AP per shot.
 * You will Crit 2x+ more often with the Assault Rifle/Chinese Assault Rifle.
 * Individual Crit Hits will do more damage with the Laser Rifle/Plasma Rifle.

We also know that Energy Weapons and their ammo are more expensive.

Without duel-based research, with two guys with identical stats/gear firing at each other with different weapons, it seems difficult to determine which weapon is better. Based on the data above, it seems too close to call. And that was my point, that it's just plain silly that there should be any question about which is better. Energy Weapons should be significally better than conventional weapons. Otherwise, what's the point in making them? Servius 14:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing 3 important facts:
 * Assault weapons shoot 3 times in VATS, that means the ammo cost is the same. (1x Microfusion Cell = 3 Caps = 3x 5.56mm)
 * Energy weapons damage per Action point is ~30% higher. (Laser Rifle 23 / 17 = 1.35; Assault Rifle 8 * 3 / 23 = 1.04)
 * Even if you will Crit 2x+ more often with Assault Weapons, the over all critical damage from an Energy Weapon will still be higher (2 crits from an Assault Rifle = 16 dmg; 1 crit from a Laser Rifle = 22 dmg) R0ND0 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is one additional fact: This makes them the perfect choice for players that prefer V.A.T.S. R0ND0 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Engery Weapons have higher HP, DMG/AP and CRIT % MULT than their Small Weapon counter part.

Damage per action point
It could make sense to create an extra column for damage per action point, because there is a big difference between the AP cost and the delay between shots. For someone who is using the VATS very often, the DPS is quite misleading. R0ND0 16:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll trade you 1 AP column for a Dmg / AP column. Worth the trade?  Servius 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps? I think DPA is stronger than plain AP Cost. But perhaps we should wait for a third opinion ;) R0ND0 16:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent time going through and updating the template and all the individual weapon pages with AP. So we can take it off of this page. I favor a Dmg / AP column over plain AP, though, the AP column is tiny, we could just squeeze in Dmg / AP column in next to it. Either way, I'd like to see a Dmg / AP column, I've already got some ratios written down, but, the formatting isn't right for this page its just No.Shots / 140 AP (far as I know 140 is the most base you can squeeze out of any character build, speaking of AP, I updated the action points page with a bonus table).
 * Well, that's another YES vote and still no NO votes yet. I'll wait a few more days before making this change.  Servius 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We should axe the V:W ratio column before we go taking out a major base stat like Action Points.

Colonel Autumn's Laser Pistol
I don't know who changed this custom Laser Pistol to show 12 damage, but when created using the console, it has 44 damage. It also can only be obtained on Col Autumn's corpse after the final fight. Making it impossible to gain for use in the wasteland without console cheats.
 * If you read the top of the main page, it says that we have recently changed the way we're displaying damage. Instead of using the DAM stat shown in the in-game interface, we're using the Damage (per shot/hit) and DPS stats from the GECK as they provide more useful information for comparing different weapons.  For example, Dmg/Shot is very useful for slower but harder-hitting weapons like rifles or the sledgehammer.  DPS is very useful for faster weapons like assault rifles and knives.  It is also a simple common basis of measure (1 second) that everyone understands, as opposed to the unknown basis the game uses to calculate the DAM stat.  Anyway, the GECK says this pistol does x damage per shot, but it's automatic and fires more tha one shot per second, so it does do considerable damage.  Regardless, the Dmg/Shot variable is correct (unless it's been changed again) and we're no longer reporting the DAM stat from the interface for the above reasons.  Servius 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Weight, Value, and V:W Columns
A few days ago I added a V:W column to help players make some decisions about which weapons are worth looting for resale (those with high Value-to-Weight ratios). IMO, the V:W ratio contains the use of the Value column and adds more utility. Thus, I think we can get rid of the Value column altogether. Before I do that, I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections. Servius 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now that we have V:W that frees us up to swap either value, or weight for the new Dmg/AP column, without having to get rid of AP. The more I think about it, the more I realize that we can't just get rid of the AP column. The weapons list is supposed to show the major "weapon attributes" not just a bunch of comparison ratios. --AshRandom 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think what we're trying to do is make the info we show more useful. For example, DPS is more useful than DAM (since we have no idea what it's based on) and made the RoF column unnecessary.  While I think there's a case for keeping the weight column (Because the weight of the weapon may affect whether players with low Strength want it), I think the Value column is only useful in an economic sense, and if that's the case, then the V:W column makes the Value column redundant as you don't only ask the total value of something when you're deciding whether to lug it back to town, you actually care about the V:W ratio when making that decision to take it or leave it.  I can see some merit to leaving the AP column in there because, as with the Weight column, the pure AP column does let some people who know exactly how much AP they have make some decisions about whether it's worth it.  So, I agree that we should keep the AP column but nix the Value column.  Servius 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, and I must say you've brought a lot of great stat information to this page already. DMG/AP is great, its key to determining which weapons really perform best in VATS. --AshRandom 01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'll get to work replacing the Value column with DMG/AP.  I'll start with the single-shot/hit weapons (like rifles ane melee stuff) and hold off a bit on automatic weapons as it gets trickier with them.  Servius 14:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you'd have to use the "in-game DAM" for burst weapons and just pretend that all of the shots are going to hit. --AshRandom 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I used the GECK's Damage / attack stat divided by the AP.  I got them all except for Colonel Autumn's Laser Pistol because it's automatic so we'd need to know how many laser bolts it fires per VATS attack to determine the DMG / AP.  Servius 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Skill level / SPECIAL attributes.
It might be worth making it clear in the intro paragraph, (or over each table), what skill level and SPECIAL attributes are used to measure the damage of these weapons. Since you mention strength and melee weapons, what about endurance, agility and perception? How does an increase in the SPECIAL attribute level affect damage of each related weapon type. I couldn't see that information if it is there.
 * Added some additional language to the top of the page stating that melee weapons are the only ones affected by your SPECIAL stats. All ranged weapons (including explosives) only consider the weapon condition and your skill to determine their damage stats (we don't include the effects of things like Psycho or Bloody Mess here, even though we do talk about Pyromaniac and the perk that boosts explosive damage).  Servius 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? When I use an item to reduce my perception, my energy weapon skills go down, and so does the damage I can do with that weapon. You still don't say at what skill level the damage stated on the charts is achieved.

Merge
I like it, are you going to group the energy weapons too? --AshRandom 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can merge the Energy Weapons this evening. Servius 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I merged Energy Weapons together in one edit, and then merged them with the Small Guns in a separate edit. That way you can undo the merging of the different skill lines if you didn't want to merge that far. I've been looking at adding the Big Guns to the list, but 2 issues present themselves: I won't do anything to the Big Guns for a day or so, hoping for suggestions/guidance from other users. Servius 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll have to add another column to note which skill line each weapon belongs to. Right now you can easily tell by the ammo type, but Big Guns include the minigun (which uses conventional gunpowder ammo) and the gatling laser (which uses energy-based ammo.
 * The AoE Big Guns still won't fit well in such a merge. Right now I favor merging the direct fire Big Guns with the Small Guns and Energy Weapons list but leaving the AoE Big Guns in their own separate list.


 * If we keep each table to one skill set, its probably for the best. --AshRandom 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For tonight, I'm done making changes :-) IMO, I think Small Guns and Energy Weapons aren't so bad merged because they fill the same role, just with different tech.  I do want to be able to sort a list by DPS and see how Small Guns Rifles and Energy Weapon Rifles match up.  Servius 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a good point. --AshRandom 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the merge. Each skill set should remain under a separate heading. Maybe create another page with all weapons in one table, linked from this one? Ausir 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GECK Question
Has anyone found a line describing an item's total hitpoints, or durability, or a durability factor, or anything? I wish we had some hard data. --AshRandom 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is such a variable, it's called Health. Perhaps, after the merge, I can add that in.  In the interest of space, since a merged list will have only one header row, I can make it 2 lines high, thereby making some columns narrower, creating space for the new HP column.  Servius 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * YAY! --AshRandom 02:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

HP Values Mean nothing unless we know how much hp is lost per shot. What use is twice the hp if it also takes twice the hp per shot.79.72.213.220 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally understand what you were saying, how much does each shot cost the gun... I was thinking you meant actually being hit by enemy fire... Yeah that's a good question, but, on the plus side regardless of how much each shot costs the weapon, we can still compare guns in the same category *at the very least*. Like: Sniper Rifle 100HP, Reservists Rifle 150HP, Victory Rifle 300HP. --AshRandom 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find the equations relating to the Health stat on the GECK Wiki, so I can't answer the questions of A) how many bullets can you shoot into an NPC's sniper rifle until it breaks/gets blown out of their hands or B) how much damage does firing 1 bullet do to a weapon's Health. My best guess is that firing 1 round causes a fixed amount of damage to every weapon (perhaps 1 HP, but I'm just guessing).  I also believe that weapons are unarmored targets, so if a weapon has 80 health, and you crit it with a sniper shot that does 40+40, you'll break the weapon.  And even though we don't yet have the equation for weapon decay, you can clearly see why the Silenced 10mm Pistol and Sniper Rifle seem to break down so easily relative to other weapons.  Servius 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Item HP
Hey Servius, thanks for the info, I've updated the weapon template and distributed the item HP data you provided for all Small Guns and Energy Weapons. We're going to do unarmed, melee, etc yeah? AshRandom (Talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I have to? :-) I never use them, so my desire to mine the GECK for the data and add it here lessens as I get away from things that chuck bolts.  It seems only fair though.  I'll get on it now.  Give me a few...  Servius 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Attaboy! Hehehe! You know I agree with you, I don't use hand to hand much either, I think its just perfectionism that makes me want uniformity enough to put in the effort. ;D [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ball's rolling now. I'm gonna take a crack at the Explosives now.  Wouldn't you know the DMG / Hit is way higher than the reported DAM.  I really wish I knew what the equation was for the in-game interface's DAM stat.  Oh well...  Servius
 * I'm following up behind you, I've got unarmed, melee and big guns done. And yeah, the "in-game DAM" is beyond annoying. We need to display it to keep all the anons from screwing up our pages every hour on the hour, but, it really has no realistic bearing on the kind of punishment it does in game. By the numbers the reservists rifle was being shown to be significantly under powered and the Lincoln appeared to do similar damage to the Blackhawk when its in fact drastically weaker (37DPS vs 100DPS). [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of effecting a real number, we should consider factoring in critical multipliers. We could assume 5 luck, like with 5 strength for melee, or show the max and min 1%-15% to give consideration to finesse. "Crit-Modified-DPS" = (DPS + ((Crit%Mult * LUCK) * DPS)). At the very least it would prove-out how much more damaging: stabhappy, the deathclaw, the sniper rifle, etc are than they currently appear to be. [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Testqaitems
I've been hearing about this for a while,but don't know how to get to it,im playing the PC version so can someone tell me the console command to get in and out of it

Suggestion to show a modified DPS that accounts for Critical Hits
AshRandom has suggested either adding to the existing GECK-generated DPS value or adding a new column variable, that reflects the impact critical hits have on long-term DPS. I think it's a neat idea and am happy to start tinkering in Excel to built a calc that we can use for all the weapons. Since, in my own odd way, I get kinda jazzed about doing this kind of stuff, I'll go ahead and start on building the calcuation. Before we add another column of data, I wanted to open the suggestion up for comment. And actually, yet another alternative would be to replace the 2 Crit-related columns we currently have with this Crit-based DPS-modifier. Anyway, I'll get started on the calc and users can chime in about what they think about this idea. Servius 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A critical point: god that was a horrible pun -- lol -- "Crit-Modified-DPS" = (DPS + ((Crit%Mult * LUCK) * DPS)) doesn't take into account weapons that have specifically higher crit bonuses (more than the normal +1*DPS). Since these are in dmg/shot format we can just take the ratio of the bonus vs the base dmg and add that bonus % in (keeping the number in DPS format without having to express it in Dmg/shot terms). Could also use that approach to express the extra damage from better criticals & ninja perks.[[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've submitted a request to the GECK wiki people to see if the GECK-calculated DPS stat already takes critical hits into account or not. In case it doesn't, I'll keep on the equation, but just keep in mind it may already account for that.  Actually, it looks like it may.  For example, the Sniper Rifle has a DMG / SHOT of 40 but a DPS of 42.  The only way that's possible, without taking crits into account, is if you could fire a bullet and reload another in under 1 second.  Since I'm nearly certain the RoF isn't that fast, especially for the sniper rifle, it is looking more likely that the GECK's DPS already takes critical hit data into account.Servius 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have the calculation ready, but I'll wait to see what we hear about whether the GECK's DPS stat already takes critical hit data into account or not. Servius 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its good to check. I mean we've all played fallout so much we have a good feel for the game right? I mean, the blackhawk does 55 and fires about 2/sec, hence 100 DPS seems about right. But then, the GECK might know something we don't - the exact reload time of each weapon, they could have an equation that factors it in.... Speaking of reload time, god I would love to know reload times, in vats and real time. Is it the same across all weapons, is a vats reload really nearly instantaneous, does the minigun really take forever to reload or does it just feel that way? [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The GECK Wiki folks say that the GECK-calculated DPS value does not include critical hit info. If that's the case, here's the crit DPS calc I came up with. I'll show the steps, the equation in text, then the equation using a Sniper Rifle, Finesse, and a Luck of 5.
 * First, you have to figure out a true rate of fire...
 * Base Damage per Second / Base Damage per Shot = Shots per Second (hereafter, SPS)
 * 42 / 40 = 1.05
 * Second, you have to figure out your crit. chance with the weapon...
 * ((Luck / 100) + any bonus to your crit chance from Perks) * Weapon Crit. Chance Multiplier = Mofified Crit. Chance (hereafter, MCC)
 * ((5 / 100) + (5% from Finesse)) = 10% * 5 = 50%
 * Third, you have to figure out the additional damage per shot...
 * Weapon's Crit. Damage Add * MCC = Additional Damage per Shot (hereafter, ADPShot)
 * 40 * 50% = 20
 * Fourth, you have to figure out the modified damage per shot...
 * Base Damage per Shot + ADPShot = Modified Damage per Shot (hereafter, MDPShot)
 * 40 + 20 = 60
 * Finally, you have to figure out the modified damage per second...
 * MDPShot * SPS = Modified Damage per Second (hereafter, MDPS)
 * 60 * 1.05 = 63

So, if you have a Luck of 5, 100 Small Guns, and a fully repaired Sniper Rifle, your modified DPS is 63 instead of 42. Now, if this equation is sound, it's still a different question about whether this info is useful enough to warrant inclusion in the table. Personally, I'd rather know the MDPS than the DPS, since the MDPS more accurately reflects the average amount of damage I'll be able to deal. However, that opinion may not be shared by most users. Let's see who chimes in and what they think. Servius 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How does finesse fit into all this? It should, I'm fairly sure, go into the MCC number but how does it stack? Is it "((Luck / 100) +5%) * Weapon Crit. Chance Multiplier = Mofified Crit. Chance" in this case 50%? Or is it "(Luck / 100) * Weapon Crit. Chance Multiplier + 5% = Mofified Crit. Chance" in this case 30%? As is obvious, this really makes a difference in the viability of this perk for characters using a weapon with a high Weapon Crit. Chance Multiplier. I would test it myself, but am on a console. 24.178.188.157 Daniel
 * Ah, good catch. Finesse works like 5 extra points of Luck, which is to say it adds 5% to your crit chance.  I'm not yet sure when the extra 5% is added though.  For example, is it added to your base, which then gets multiplied by the weapon, or is it added at the end, and thus is not multiplied by the weapon.  I'll dig into the GECK and try to find the answer.  For now I'll assume it's added to the base and modify the calc above to reflect that.  Servius 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Golden! Now which display is more prudent: DPS next to MDPS showing an average base of 5 luck, or the max/min luck 1%-15% (making the real avg 7.5%)? Or....
 * 2) Maybe it makes the most sense to replace the old DPS column with (min) 1%MDPS, and add a (max) 15%MDPS column next to it. Then when a player is looking at the sniper rifle chart, they'll see minimum MDPS (44), then the maximum MDPS (73). Showing the full range would invariably help people realize how much luck factors into the game, which will help them make better character choices, especially when they realize they could be doing nearly double damage. [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the Critical hit chance calculation over in the GECK wiki, but I have to get ready for a meeting. I'll work in the GECK calc to my DPS calc when I get home and update this then. Servius 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I guess while we're at it, it would be nice to know where the bonus from the wasteland survival guide fits in. If both it and finesse are inside the parentheses, a character with 10 luck, finesse and the best wasteland survival crit bonus would be doing (10+5+3)*5=90% crits. In the same vein, I am fairly sure that both the crit bonus from the Ninja perk and from attacking in V.A.T.S are added after the bonus -- because characters that should be getting to 100+% crits if they were stacking inside the parentheses are not. (see http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/fallout3/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-47377733&pid=918428) 24.178.188.157 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Daniel


 * You know what would suck, if it turns out there's a 95% cap on critical% like with VATS shots [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Findings
Okay all, after digging through the GECK wiki, talk pages, etc. I can say that...
 * The calculation for determining your crit chance has many more variables than I thought
 * However, most of them have a default value which means they're not really variables
 * So basically we had it right
 * And yes, bonuses to your crit chance from Perks are added to your base crit chance from Luck before it is multiplied by the weapon's crit chance multiplier.

So, I have the equation here on an Excel file. The variables are all available on the current page (except things like Luck, perks, etc. that we'll just have to assume). I can start generating a modified DPS for every weapon (that excludes the impact of perks). I'll go ahead and do this now with Small Guns and see what the comments are. Since it's time consuming, I'd rather do it in chuncks if people like it. Servius 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Can we do it (1%MDPS, 18%MDPS) for ranged, and (1%MDPS, 33%MDPS) for melee? Regular DPS isn't worth posting, is it, nobody can go lower than 1%MDPS... [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, can't do that, at least not in a static spreadsheet without adding a new column for every one of those percentages. If we took a poll or something and decided that 95% of players would get Finesse, then I could just assume that in the calculation and update the info accordingly.  Small Guns MDPS data is in though.  The assumptions it's based on are listed at the top of the page in the definition for MDPS.  Servius 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I read it. But, it would only add one column, if we replaced the DPS column with the 1%MDPS. But still, as I suggested initially even assuming avg luck gives more of a consistent clue to a weapon's real damage than ignoring the crit%mult. I'm happy we're doing this. Well, you are, hehe, thanks Servius, you rock :) AshRandom (Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also important to note how little difference there is between the DPS and MDPS for most weapons. You only see a big difference when there is a big Crit % Mult involved AND a big DMG / Shot (like with the sniper rifles).  Lets see if Mirar or Ausir want to chime in.  Servius 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're getting closer to the precise average dmg of these weapons, all factors included. [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 13:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Autumn's Gun and V.A.T.S.
Col. Autumn's Laser Pistol fires two shots per round in V.A.T.S. Do with that information what you will.Fiddlesoup 03:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On it, thanks! Servius 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Flamers in VATS
They actually fire 3-round bursts rather than 4 in VATS. I think the number of rounds in VATS burst mode is calculated with: Fire Rate x fVATSShotBurstTime(0.43) than rounded down to integer.

Ex1: Assault Rifles & Flamers: 8rd/sec * 0.43 = 3.44 -> 3

Ex2: Miniguns & Gatling Lasers: 20rd/sec * 0.43 = 8.6 -> 8

--203.67.20.211 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock-It Launcher
AshRandom recently posted damage data for the Rock-It Launcher that seemed very surprising. The most surprising bit being that it had a higher DPS than Vengeance. Before we post that info to the main page, I thought we should give space for a full explanation of the calculations that lead to that conclusion. Please post the data here regarding the Rock-It Launcher's damage. Servius 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that DPS alone doesn't exactly make it better than Vengeance, the Rock-It Launcher is easily the hardest ranged weapon to aim freehand. There are notes on the Talk:Rock-It Launcher page. AshRandom (Talk) 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't find 166 DPS to be that surprising. 666 yes. Now that I've spent weeks using it as my main weapon, I think I have a pretty good feel for it. It does Blackhawk damage and it feels like it fires at least 50% faster, which would put it in the 3shots/sec range. GECK's saying 3.33/s and I'm perfectly willing to accept it. As far as the dmg based on weight thing goes, its been proven to be a myth, damage is consistent with all items, even zero weight paper-money. [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could accept a higher DPS than Vengeance if it was basically like a shotgun, but that role is sorta filled by the Flamer/Burnmaster. I'll have to try to dig into this more.  I read the talk pages for the Rock-It Launcher and believe that a) the schematics don't affect damage directly (they do indirectly, since they affect initial condition) and b) that the weight doesn't affect damage.  I can see the weight either way, but will give the benefit of the doubt to folks who say it doesn't matter.  If we can rely on the GECK's Damage/Shot amount of 50, then we basically just need a true rate of fire.  I'm pretty sure it's not an automatic weapon, which means the Fire Rate stat mean's nothing and that the animation actually drives the fire rate.  What I don't know is if the info on the Animation page is the ONLY thing that affects the RoF.  For example, there are the semi-automatic fire delay stats on that first tab.  I'll dig around the GECK and the GECK wiki this afternoon and see if we can nail this thing down.  Servius 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great :) If you can verify ROF we should be in the clear. I'm already of the opinion that at this point we need to start asking where all the assumptions and rumors came from. Schematics total never had anything to do with damage, weight never had anything to do with damage, maxed skill never had anything to do with making light-weight items do full damage, all myths. Did any of them come from in-game material? Did it all come from the GECK's calculation errors? Either way I can still see Bethesda originally intending to take advantage of their physics engine and make damage based on weight only to cut it out after game-testing, (akin to the shiskebab and ripper not requiring ammo, but appearing to have slots for it). Personally I'm glad it got simplified assuming that is what happened, using lightweight items without penalty allows room for loot. Anyway, after extensive testing none of the myths have any validity on Xbox360, with identical results reported on the PC (tested by: Fiddlesoup). [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Weapon HP loss per shot
Servius, remember this question? It may be relatively easy to calculate.

GECK WIKI: The Damage to Weapon Multiplier overrides the multiplier that determines the amount of damage the weapon will take. (0.0 causes the weapon to take no damage. Greater than 1.0 causes the weapon to take more damage than it delivers).
 * Multiplying this factor by dmg/shot should allow us to determine exactly how much weapon health is deducted per shot. Question is, is it a factor that's already listed for each weapon, or is this just an option box for modders? (I'm starting to realize that I need to buy a PC version of fallout just so I can use the GECK myself...) [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 20:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like there's a default calculation that bases wear on damage dealt, as well as a way to overide that default calc for one specific to a particular weapon. If we knew the default multiplier, we could work out the wear per shot.  To me, I tend to find enough spare weapons to scrap for parts that the deterioration rate is not important to me (except for the sniper rifles which wear out too fast and are harder to find spare parts for).  This is one of those things that may be interesting to some, but not interesting enough to me to warrant the time it would take me to do the work.  If you wanted to take it on, I suggest replacing the existing HP column with one that shows how many shots you can get off before the weapon breaks.  No one really cares about the HP, they only care about it as an indicator of how long the weapon will last.  Servius 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, it's an "option". There are two override check boxes. One of them changes the number AP required for one round of VATS, the other changes damage to a weapon. It's used 8 times, the three MQ weapons (CG BB gun, TL Rolling Pin, Slasher Knife) have it at 0, the Ripper and Flamer (and their unique variants) have it at 0.005, and the Rock-It Launcher has it at 0.01. All the other weapons use the default calculation, whatever that is.Fiddlesoup 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MDPS
Servius, you're going to need to edit your %5MDPS calculations for the firelance and alien blaster. They're already at 100% critical rate and as logic would indicate you can't critical more often than all-of-the-time. AshRandom (Talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. Thanks again for all your hard work on the MDPS numbers Servius :)

Anchorage Weapons
Why does it say that the weapons will have limited use? It's been confirmed through numerous interviews with Bethesda that you will be able to use everything in Operation Anchorage in the main game. I don't know exactly how that will work with things like the Hei Gui Stealth Suit, but that's what the interviews say. --151.201.130.15 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More compact, please
Seriously, this page is supposed to contain a brief list of all the weapons, but there's still way too much information about every weapon; especially lists of how to get schematics and similar things filling up way too many rows. This should be moved to the weapon's individual pages (and/or possible pages like "schematics"). Mirar (Talk) 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * YES! Cutting the notes alone would shrink the page tremendously. I'll double check the notes to the individual pages so we don't lose any info. But should we take out the whole "note" column or just minimize notes so they don't run longer than a single line? --AshRandom 15:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Servius 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We should start stripping out certain columns too. That, and reducing some of the stuff in the NOTES column, would shorten the page considerably.  If we can take out enough columns, we could split the page in half (vertically), which would make the page half as long.  Whatever columns we remove from here, we could just add them to the individual weapon's page.  I think we should...
 * Remove the HAND column for shotguns
 * Replace the DMG score with the DPS score from the GECK. This also makes the RoF column unnecessary.
 * Remove the WG, VAL, AMMO, MAGAZINE, and CODE columns
 * Remove the CODE column
 * Removing the DMG column is a bad idea, too many weapons are single-shot. --AshRandom 16:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For that matter, why remove columns, that won't reduce the length of the page anyway....

I've worked down to Big Guns so far. I'm shrinking all note lines down to a single line where I can. --AshRandom 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First, the DMG stat is not very useful because it's not actually a reflection of the damage of a single shot. There is some other calc going on that determines the DMG stat (it may be DMG per x frames). DMG / shot could be useful, but then you'd all the automatic weapons would have a DMG of 8 or so. DPS is a better stat and removes the need for the RoF column. We could also just display 2 numbers in the same box (DMG / individual round and DPS.

Second, removing columns is useful because it allows the NOTES column to be wider, which allows the NOTES column to also be thinner, which makes the page shorter.

Third, you can shorten the NOTES text, but trying to make it 1 line high may not be possible because some of the width of the columns is determined by the width of your browser. It won't hurt to shorten them though. We should also remove all acquisition/location stuff. Crafted weapon schematic locations are already on the weapon's page. Every other weapon appears at random, based on level/loot tables, etc. There's no need to list every location of a Hunting Rifle. I tried to do some of this already.


 * I've already addressed the locations issue on most of the page, nearly finished. And you're wrong about Damage, there are many weapons which 1-shot kill and we should not remove the DMG column, regardless, DPS is a rate calculation, people don't need to be doing the math backwards to figure out what a single shot amounts to. --AshRandom 17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * -) Ash, I agree that there is merit to keeping a DMG stat that reflects the full damage of a single shot, precisely for the reason you state. However, the DMG stat shown in the interface does not always match DMG of a single shot.  For example, it's usually 4x the DMG of a single shot from an assault rifle and it's actually a bit lower than the DMG of a single Plasma Rifle shot.  Since the interface DMG stat also does not match the GECK's DPS stat, the DMG stat in the interface is being calculated some other way.  Regardless, I agree that knowing the DMG of a single shot is useful, but since we shouldn't force people to do math for the relative damage of assault weapons and such, a DPS value would be useful.  Servius 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like to see a DPS column, especially for the full-auto weapons where it makes the most sense. We could swap-out the ROF column.
 * What do you guys think? I've chopped down ALL rows to singles where possible. The pyro and demolitions perks used up tons of room, so did the caveats at the bottom of each chart. Looks like the page length has gone down by about 50%. I also removed the entire ammunition section, as its utterly redundant with the ammo column itself. --AshRandom 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

56,769 bytes down to 43,343 bytes
I've hacked at it for most of the morning, and the page is much more compact now.
 * But, I think the only way we're going to get it down to 32k is to completely remove the least useful column (the item-code column, forcing people to go to the page to find it), and move the, custom-built, cheat-only and DLC-only charts to their own pages, and just put (See:RefferencePage) links under their headings. --AshRandom 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41,789 bytes... its bare-bones now, so lets figure out what has to happen to the real data.

If we can agree that the primary purpose of the page is to show people the relative combat power of one weapon vs. another, then certain columns become much less useful. IMO, columns we could delete or move to the individual weapon's page include: We could also remove the CRIT DMG column and simply add a statement saying that, in general, the CRIT DMG = the flat addition of per-round DMG that ignores damage resistance. For most ranged weapons, those changes would remoe 6 columns. We can also replace the RoF column with a DPS column. Servius 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AMMO
 * MAG
 * CODE
 * WG
 * VAL
 * I disagree, the ammo caliber is very important and should definitely stay. And I wouldn't be that concernet with the 32k requirement. It's an old carryover from Wikipedia, back from when browsers who had problems with long pages were common. I don't think it's much of a problem to anyone now. Ausir 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work converting the RoF column to a DPS column and will place it next to the DMG column. I will also update the DMG column to a DMG / shot column.  Servius 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't like the idea of removing the in-game displayed damage, its going to confuse the hell out of people... then they're going to start randomly editing the per-shot values and we'll be constantly chasing after them... I don't want the per/shot column removed its an excellent data column, so lets swap out the still-useless-except-to-cheaters-and-hackers item code column and replace the old in-game damage column on the far left. --AshRandom 09:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We could just add it back to the full-auto guns, they're the only ones that change anyway, we could be specific and call the column "Burst Damage"
 * I'll add a note at the top of the page explaining the difference between the DMG stat in the interface, DMG / SHOT, and DPS to hopefully reduce the chance of misunderstandings and unnecessary edits. We can also add the DMG stat from the interface to the NOTES section.  It doesn't necessarily need it's own column, especially if it's mostly only for automatic weapons. Servius 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Down to 29,468 bytes (from 51,229) now, unnecessary markup adds up ;-) // Porter21 U 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You rock Porter ;) --AshRandom 23:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking good
Looking very nice now. I poked at the table layout - I made a CSS class for tables, so I'm putting that in - and added nowrap to the headlines, since big fat headlines were taking up a lot of space and now the columns are few enough. Great job everyone! Mirar (Talk) 11:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was also pondering if there should be a page with all the weapons in one table and all interesting values for people to sort and play at. What do you think? Mirar (Talk) 11:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I really like the new template/format thing. It allows us to fit more info in a smaller space, which addresses the core issue we've been having. Nice work. Servius 14:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some color please, doesn't look very nice anymore --AshRandom 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw someone had started bolding the names of the unique weapons and putting a note of what they were a unique version of. I have continued that with the rest of the ranged weapons, but as you can see is has made the NOTES column several rows longer again. I think we should allow wrapping on some column headers (esp. when the name is much wider than the stats) and remove the CODE column to make space. I'll leave that to others though. For now, I'm going to start adding a DPS column to the melee weapons. Servius 15:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I bolded them, but I didn't start the notes. (I ran a macro bolding the weapons that had an "unique" stamp.) I think it's fine keeping them bold removing what they are an unique version of (you can always click to check). Or italics. Or a funny colour. [[Image:User-Mirar_pawprint14.png‎]]Mirar (Talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Made them a funny colour now (span class=fallout-table-special, green - needs to be a css class due to the linky). [[Image:User-Mirar_pawprint14.png‎]]Mirar (Talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I removed them. And do we really need to tell people its unique? I mean, can't they tell by the odd names? --AshRandom 15:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Nice colors :) --AshRandom 15:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you must have had the old css running, and now your cache expired. I see :) Was a bit worried there... [[Image:User-Mirar_pawprint14.png‎]]Mirar (Talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So that's what happened! Came up clear when I first hit the page, all white. --AshRandom 15:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice work folks! I never could have found the time to copy DPS from GECK. Bravo to whomever did that in particular, and all of you in general. It's also nice to see folks are centering things in general, hopefully using style="text-align:center" and changing where appropriate. Some tiny comments:
 * Might put the Code column to farthest right (past Notes). Although it's important to have, it's the least used column. (Somebody will make a Blackhawk for themself once a game.) Keep more regularly-used info closer to the item name so as to reduce eye travel.
 * (Aside: Why does everyone on the wiki state all the leading zeroes in Codes. Are there times when it's not an eight digit hexadecimal? If not, let's reduce column width.)
 * Beats me. To me it's about as odd as writing that something's value is 00000050 caps. ;) Ñothing seems to be over 5 digits anyway. (ff00xxxx is temporary ref id's, it seems.) [[Image:User-Mirar_pawprint14.png‎]]Mirar (Talk) 12:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The links to other equally important pages at the bottom of the page, like Armor, have disappeared. A temporary thing, surely.
 * I don't suppose there's any way to have things sort across the various weapon types? I once asked about being able to upload e.g. Excel or Access files and got no real reply. This seems mired in the opportunity/problem that the site does not make users register (therefore, such files are not allowed, because anything with macros could be a bad thing).
 * Suggest renaming DLC to Downloadable Content, so it shows up as such directly on the page menu. It toots BGs horn a little more to have it totally clear instead of users saying "wth is DLC ... ah ok now I see, now that I scrolled down". As opposed to "BG has downloadable weapons? Rock! What are they!"
 * Excellent rewrite, folks. Consider the above points and use or abuse them.
 * Great game, great wiki, great writers -RedKnight7 08:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To whoever was super happy about the DPS thing, I'm the troll who dug it out of the GECK and put it here. On another point, I think Mirar and others have spoken about the desire to be able to have a single, undivided list of weapons that you could sort any way you like.  IMO, we could do that, but we should add a column that states the kind of weapon (Small Gun Pistol, SMG, Energy Weapon Rifle, etc.) so that, if folks wanted, they could still sort the list by type.  Having those tags in there is also important because they explain which SPECIAL stats, skills, and perks affect which weapons (Commando vs. Gunslinger, etc.).  Somewhat echoing previous comments, I think we could sacrifice the CODE column, replacing it with the weapon type.  That way the column spam would stay the same.  Plus, I think CODE is the least used information, it's something you never sort by, it has no effect on combat, and it's something that is listed on each individual weapon's page.  I'll hold off for a few days so see if there's any uproar to this suggestion.  If I see none, I'll start the replacement.  Once the change is made, we can wait a few more day and see if anyone goes nuts then.  If not, then I can start stripping out the dividers and merging all the separate lists.  Servius 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this change (replace CODE column with weapon type column and merging all weapon groups into a single list in the next few days unless I hear some objections. Actually, I have a small objection.  :-)  If we merge them all, then every time someone wants to change any little thing, they have to load the entire data set, which takes time.  Also, if we get rid of the small groups, we'll have to rely on good summary notes for changes as it will no longer give us the sub-group name to make finding the changes easier.  Perhaps I'll start by merging weapons by skill type (so, merging all Small Guns weapons togteher) and see how that works.  Servius 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to start merging the Small Guns together now. I'll do it in one single go so that it can all be undone if anyone really hates it.  Servius 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Satcom launcher
In my opinion, the "Satcom Launcher" (which is listed as a cheat-only weapon) is not really a weapon but a script item used to produce the "satellite strike" at SatCom Array NW-05a. // Porter21 U 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the player cannot equip it and fire it, it shouldn't be on the weapons page.  Currently, the page says the ammo is a Nuclear Missile which you cannot (to my knowledge) obtain in game.  If you can't obtain ammo then you can't fire it, so it shouldn't be on the list.  Servius 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a new section (even if the guys trying to shorten the article are probably going to kill me for it ;-) ). "Weapons" like Liberty Prime's laser or the Satcom Launcher which primarily exist for technical reasons (engine needs weapon to fire projectile) are simply not the same as cut content like Wanda or Law Dog. // Porter21 U 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No Way
How exactly does the rock it launcher have 666 max DPS? I have maxed bigguns skill and V3 schematic and I've never come close to feeling like I'm doing 666 DPS (six times better DPS than the Blackhawk...?)
 * The 666 DPS stat is what the GECK says. As explained at the top of the main page, DPS is a GECK-calculated stat based on all sorts of variables.  The Rock-It Launcher is odd in that it's damage isn't determined by the weapon but by the ammo.  Thus, it is likely that the 666 DPS is just a placeholder max DPS cap and not something actually achievable.  Unfortunately, the only way to get an accurate DPS would be to know the GECK's equation, as well as accurate Rate-of-Fire info (the Fire Rate stat is not actually shots/second) and the damage/shot info for every kind of junk you can load or ammo.  An alternative would be to remove all damage info from the Rock-It Launcher's entry and just add a note saying damage is determined by the ammo.  Please write back and let me know if this is preferable. Servius 14:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we accept that the max ammo damage is 50 per shot, and that the rate of fire is quite clearly not 13 shots per second then we can only conclude that 666 DPS is inaccurate. And by inaccurate I mean total garbage, and likely a programmer's typo. The weapon doesn't shoot anywhere near that fast, I could see 66-DPS or even 100, as it gets close to 2 shots per second, but 666? That's just ridiculous. --AshRandom 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I agree the 666 is not possible, and I said that it is likely a cap, just like the 50 / shot is probably just a cap and may also not be achievable. As said else where, the DPS is a GECK-calculated number, not something hard-coded.  You can change several other variables that will in turn fiddle with the DPS.  Regardless, none of the damage stats related to the Rock-It Launcher mean anything, since the amount of damage is actually determined by the ammo and not the weapon.  I think I'll just remove both figures and insert a note saying that the damage varies based on the junk you use.  Servius 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock-It Launcher
AshRandom recently posted damage data for the Rock-It Launcher that seemed very surprising. The most surprising bit being that it had a higher DPS than Vengeance. Before we post that info to the main page, I thought we should give space for a full explanation of the calculations that lead to that conclusion. Please post the data here regarding the Rock-It Launcher's damage. Servius 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that DPS alone doesn't exactly make it better than Vengeance, the Rock-It Launcher is easily the hardest ranged weapon to aim freehand. There are notes on the Talk:Rock-It Launcher page. AshRandom (Talk) 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't find 166 DPS to be that surprising. 666 yes. Now that I've spent weeks using it as my main weapon, I think I have a pretty good feel for it. It does Blackhawk damage and it feels like it fires at least 50% faster, which would put it in the 3shots/sec range. GECK's saying 3.33/s and I'm perfectly willing to accept it. As far as the dmg based on weight thing goes, its been proven to be a myth, damage is consistent with all items, even zero weight paper-money. [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could accept a higher DPS than Vengeance if it was basically like a shotgun, but that role is sorta filled by the Flamer/Burnmaster. I'll have to try to dig into this more.  I read the talk pages for the Rock-It Launcher and believe that a) the schematics don't affect damage directly (they do indirectly, since they affect initial condition) and b) that the weight doesn't affect damage.  I can see the weight either way, but will give the benefit of the doubt to folks who say it doesn't matter.  If we can rely on the GECK's Damage/Shot amount of 50, then we basically just need a true rate of fire.  I'm pretty sure it's not an automatic weapon, which means the Fire Rate stat mean's nothing and that the animation actually drives the fire rate.  What I don't know is if the info on the Animation page is the ONLY thing that affects the RoF.  For example, there are the semi-automatic fire delay stats on that first tab.  I'll dig around the GECK and the GECK wiki this afternoon and see if we can nail this thing down.  Servius 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great :) If you can verify ROF we should be in the clear. I'm already of the opinion that at this point we need to start asking where all the assumptions and rumors came from. Schematics total never had anything to do with damage, weight never had anything to do with damage, maxed skill never had anything to do with making light-weight items do full damage, all myths. Did any of them come from in-game material? Did it all come from the GECK's calculation errors? Either way I can still see Bethesda originally intending to take advantage of their physics engine and make damage based on weight only to cut it out after game-testing, (akin to the shiskebab and ripper not requiring ammo, but appearing to have slots for it). Personally I'm glad it got simplified assuming that is what happened, using lightweight items without penalty allows room for loot. Anyway, after extensive testing none of the myths have any validity on Xbox360, with identical results reported on the PC (tested by: Fiddlesoup). [[Image:Ash_Nuke.jpg]] AshRandom (Talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)