Talk:Demolition charge

I don't know why this page is up for deletion, I would like to know more about this weapon. It seems to just be a weaker frag mine, but maybe it has different functions.

Another location
I found another location in Puesta del Sol South. On the local map, if you go south of the ruined building and through gas onto a makeshift stairwell, on the 3rd level, just before you go outside a hole in the wall, it will be on a stool. It's near the pool table.--Accipe Hoc 14:16, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense
What fool would put a proximity trigger on a demolition charge used for civilian applications? How did they set them off before the war, throw rocks at them? Zac hemker 17:41, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the vending machines can construct upgrades for the holorifle, something that didn't exist until Elijah showed up, it's not much of a stretch to think that the demolition charges' design were altered at some point to have a proximity trigger. Dr. Lobotomy 17:26, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

What does this line mean?
Under notes it says: "Due to lack of material inside the Villa the amount of charges to construct is limited." Demo Charges are purchased from the vending machines or found lying around, is this a misplaced reference to gas bombs? Zac hemker 22:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and changed it. Hope nobody minds. Zac hemker 02:06, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

The page is littered with grammar mistakes. Would fix, but don't want to step on toes.67.142.173.27 11:35, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Placed Explosives
There was some wildly inaccurate information on this page. First, the listed explosion damage was 70. This is false. It uses the exact same 100 damage explosion as a Frag Mine, but with 1 higher base damage (so the explosion is identical and it does 1 more damage if you throw it into a target). Second, there was a claim that Demolition Expert did not affect Demolition Charges. This is also false.

I assume this false information came from someone testing the Demo Charge on himself, which is a problem because placed explosives act differently toward the Courier. If you get caught in a blast from a placed explosive, regardless of how it was triggered (hitting it produces the same effect as an enemy triggering it), the damage you take will be determined by the projectile's destruction data explosion, rather than its normal explosion. Destruction data explosions aren't considered to originate from you, so this is why the damage ignores your Explosives skill and Demolition Expert.

For some examples:
 * Demolition Charge uses MineFragExplosion for its normal attack. This does 100 damage (and again, this originates from you, so it's affected by Explosives and Demolition Expert as normal). However, within its destruction data, it uses MediumExplosion, which is slightly larger but does only 75 damage.
 * C-4 is relatively safe to use on yourself. C4Explosion does 250 damage in a large range, but it still uses the same MediumExplosion most others use for its destruction damage.
 * Be very careful with Plasma Mines: MinePlasmaExplosion's damage is 150, but they use GrenadePlasmaExplosion in their destruction data, which does 225 damage with almost four times the explosion range! You would need to have 88 Explosives and Demolition Expert 3 before the base explosion would cause more damage than the destruction data explosion.

Again: the destruction data explosion only ever applies to the Courier, much as the normal explosion only ever applies to everything else. The amount of damage listed in your Pip-Boy is the actual damage you do to everyone else; it just won't apply at all to you.--SushiSquid 21:14, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Edit reverts
As requested in the History, a discussion topic.

I made my apparently contentious edit for the reasons given. To restate and add:
 * Layout to guidelines.
 * Removed duplicated and irrelevant links.
 * Removed repeated information.
 * Removed speculation.
 * General clean up.

Yukichigai seemed to take offence at this, but rather than taking the time to actually edit the page simply reverted it to the previous version, and seems intent to carry on doing so. I don't see how this is helping anything.

"Poor grammar, missing information, difficult to read, and lacking context." are hard to defend when an example of how to do it better was not given, replaced instead by a frankly lazy drive-by revert. Pages can only be improved by actually writing on them.

Anyway, with that passive-aggressive rant over with I'll wait for comments before editing the page again.

-- FourWayDiablo (talk) 21:38, November 15, 2011 (UTC)