Weapon infobox errors

Forum page

24,181pages on
this wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Weapon infobox errors
 This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Compare the infoboxes of That Gun and Mysterious Magnum, for example. Why the < and > expression errors in That Gun's infobox and no such errors for the magnum? Anyone got an idea. The errors are not uncommon on our weapons pages.--Gothemasticator 22:38, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid template issues like this are going to be hard to fix without Porter :(. Ausir(talk) 22:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Simple answer: It's because the parameter "attackshots/sec" is set to an empty value for That Gun. It's used in the DPS calculation and the formula for "attacks/sec" as it essentially represents the base value for the rate of fire. The math functions do not like being given non-number values (such as nothing at all). -- Porter21 (talk) 22:47, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I just asked JE Sawyer and he confirmed that the DPS display in FNV has been fixed, so we don't need to use these calculations anymore. Maybe it would make sense to have separate weapons templates for FO3 in FNV, then? Ausir(talk) 22:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It'd probably be best to move Template:Infobox weapon gamebryo to "Template:Infobox weapon FO3" and make a separate template (without all the calculations) for FNV. Most of the calcs are based on FO3's inner workings and may no longer apply to FNV anyway. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I guess it'd be better to keep the convo in one place :P -- Porter21 (talk) 22:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
K, I'll make the template ASAP. Can someone with FNV and the GECK look it up and see if there are any other additions or changes that we need to make to the template? Ausir(talk) 22:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to add a box with the skill requirements; e.g. 25 explosives and 2(I think) strength for Thump-Thump. It mainly struck me on that page because the main advantage over the regular grenade rifle is a much lower explosives requirement.Schwal 03:00, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly add DPS with reload into the infoboxes? Base DPS from GECK is causing very unreal numbers for slow reloading weapons and throwing people off. I have added a small text to the YCS explaining it's true DPS versus the 'fake' one for now. The DPS (Full clip + reload) in the GECK is wrong for guns that use multiple rounds per shot aswell. GECK believes YCS can fire 4 times instead of realising it blows all 4 ammo away in 1 shot when calculating DPS. --PvtNiss 00:04, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

TemplateEdit

Alright, I create "Template:Infobox weapon FNV", with the "dps" parameter, which should now be based on the GECK DPS. Doesn't take any perks etc. into account for now, because the syntax is too hard to figure out for me quickly - can be added later, though. Let me know if I should add any other FNV-specific parameters too. And now please help me edit all FNV weapon pages to use {{Infobox weapon FNV}} instead of {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}} and to add the "dps=" parameter, preferrably just below "damage=". Ausir(talk) 23:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wish I'd read this page before reverting a weapon infobox change! Doh! I'm back with the program, guys. New templates, etc.--Gothemasticator 01:54, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Guns and energy weapons are done, please help with the rest. Ausir(talk) 02:56, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
I've been calculating DPS by hand still since I've found that the GECK DPS still isn't always accurate. It works for some like the Gobi Campaign scout rifle (and even that one's off by a negligible amount) but others are way off. --Kris 00:55, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
Are the numbers returned by {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}} more accurate? -- Porter21 (talk) 00:50, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it calculates it the same way I do (attackshots/sec * damage/shot), but I'm not so sure anymore that the GECK is inaccurate. It's probably just rounded to the nearest whole number. However, I do a lot of my editing relying on FNVedit which is a smaller utility, loads a lot quicker but doesn't show the DPS so in those cases I still have to calculate it by hand. --Kris 02:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Side note, "Template:Infobox weapon FNV" is not showing the damage with all related perks on the DPS as well Avatar 22:02, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at that in the next days. -- Porter21 (talk) 00:05, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Moving forwardEdit

Addressing the issues mentioned, I see basically two alternatives at this point:

1. We go back to using {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}} and add "Strength" and "Skill" as FNV-only parameters. The DPS formula used by this template might be more accurate than the GECK display (see "Template:Infobox weapon FO3#Formulas"), and it will fix the issues with perk display. I don't see any inherent disadvantage to this method; it requires an editor to use the GECK to get the values in either case.
2. Patch up {{Infobox weapon FNV}} to re-add the perk display and use the GECK's DPS value.

I'm holding off on making any changes to the template until we can reach a decision. Pick your poison ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 14:52, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, I have patched {{Infobox weapon FNV}} to now show the affects of related perks on the GECK's DPS value. Its not a great patch, but it works as long as there is a DPS value entered, otherwise it gets a unexpected error. ☣Avatar☣ 23:03, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Having looked into the matter in a bit more detail, I believe merging the two templates is the better course of action. The "old" FO3 one seems more accurate in some cases I looked at, and we'd only have to maintain one "crazy weapon template" (to quote Ausir) this way. Thoughts? -- Porter21 (talk) 22:15, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody seems to care, I'll just go ahead with whatever I feel like :) -- Porter21 (talk) 23:59, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I honestly didn't realize that we had two different weapon infoboxes. :/ Nitty Tok. 00:04, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Hey.... I care =P I just wasn't here for FO3, so I really have no idea the pros/cons (or if it really makes any differance at all) faced in regards to combination of the 2, as opposed to keeping them separate, hence the reserved position and no comment defaulting to your choice. ☣Avatar☣ 00:34, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Essentially, the differences between the two currently are:
• The FNV template relies on the DPS displayed in the GECK, while the FO3 one calculates DPS with our own formula from the GECK values "damage/attack" and "attackshots/sec", with a few additional adjustments made e.g. for single-shot weapons (weapons which can only fire one shot before reloading) and weapons which a lower clipsize than their (theoretical) "attackshots/sec".
• The FO3 template already has the perk damage displays working which you were trying to rebuild for the FNV one.
Otherwise, they are identical; the FNV template was originally a copy of the FO3 one with the DPS calculation removed (and the perk display was removed along with that). The reason why we decided to do our own DPS calculation for FO3 weapons is that the DPS displayed in the FO3 GECK is rather inaccurate; this was supposedly fixed for the FNV GECK, but I've found some instances where using the FO3 template seems to produce more accurate results still. Try e.g. exchanging the infobox on Missile launcher (Fallout: New Vegas) - the GECK DPS (125) is clearly based directly on attackshots/sec (1.25), although the weapon can never do more than one attack per second due to having to reload after each shot. The DPS calculated by the FO3 template is 100 as it adjusts the attackshots/sec accordingly (down to 1).
Using the FO3 one for both games doesn't make any changes necessary as the parameter names are identical; all we'd have to do is remove the "dps" one which can be done by bot. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:15, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realized that the FO3 calculated the DPS independently from that displayed in the GECK, while FNV takes its data straight from the GECK. What I meant by not being here for FO3, is that I am not aware of the issues relating to the figures displayed in the GECK for FO3, how it was considered to be incorrect, what was it based against to determine the difference in the variable displayed. How that correct variable was backwards engineered to determine the equation for calculating the DPS, what other variables where taken into account, and what corrections where made and so forth. But I assume all this would have all been discussed during the creation of the equation that was implanted into the infobox at the time. So I see no need to go over things that have already most likely been discussed, defaulting to your (and those involved at the time) judgement on what is best. Hence the abstaining from any comment on the matter. But I will say on a side note, as a reader of the Wiki for a long time before contributing, I did not realize that this was the case for the figures displayed in the info box, so there might be improvement need on how this is imparted to the casual reader. ☣Avatar☣ 20:58, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Well, how we (I) arrived at the formula for the FO3 template is pretty simple: It's basic math. There are two relevant values in the GECK, "damage per attack" and "attackshots per sec". "Attack" and "attackshots" are the same thing, i.e. in math terms you get:

$\frac{damage}{attack} * \frac{attack}{second} = \frac{damage}{second}$

To that we added adjustments for a few special case scenarios (I think most of the discussion can be found on Template talk:Infobox weapon gamebryo).

Thing is, I'm fine with using the GECK DPS for FNV if it is deemed more accurate. So far it seems to me that the FNV GECK does the same calculation (if you look at the missile launcher page I linked above, "damage/attack" = 100, "attackshots/sec" = 1.25 and (GECK) "DPS" = 125) but does not do our special case adjustments. That's just anecdotal evidence so far though, but if that's how it works, I don't see much benefit in having (and maintaining) different templates - which would mean defaulting back to the FO3 template's method as the FO3 GECK's DPS is unreliable. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:54, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

OK am I missing something or just being dumb here? I took a look at Missile launcher (Fallout 3) and did the same kind of checks (this time on a 60 second burst in game, to confirm the GECKs fire rate and reload times data). According to the GECK data I should be able to achieve 12.9 shots excluding delays in between shots caused by human reaction, in reality I managed 12 and was half way through reloading. Now with reloading and using the GECK data, I came out with a DPS of 36.690497 and the FO3 GECK reports the DPS as 36, yet the page states it to be 170 0.o Reading the template talk I saw someone state that the reload times in game do not match the GECKS data, yet in the case of the Missile launcher I have found them to be accurate. ☣Avatar☣ 00:37, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. If the GECK data entered is not accurate, that naturally invalidates my observations - I simply assumed that it was accurate.
Truth be told, I've relied mostly on what other people told me when creating this template, so I can't really tell you how they arrived at these conclusions. I suppose if there's a place to find out here on the wiki, it'd be somewhere in the archives of Talk:Fallout 3 weapons, but that's a lot of text to wade through.
At this point, I think the way forward would be to extend the kind of testing you have done to one weapon from each principal weapon group (gun, automatic gun, melee weapon, unarmed weapon) for either game and see whether the GECK DPS is indeed inaccurate or whether that's just an urban legend. It'd be great if you'd be up for doing this :)
Just as a footnote, the DPS number when taking reload time into account is naturally going to be much lower than the one calculated by the FO3 template, as the latter is just raw DPS with no reloading factored in. -- Porter21 (talk) 03:29, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
That is something I am planning on doing, as reading through that whole convo in the template talk page, I noticed a few things. Like someone mentioning that the GECK wiki states that DPS is based on 2 seconds, now the GECK wiki has been updated to show damage per 1 second, only in the case of full auto otherwise there is a animation multiplier that is applied (this was the actual item in contention in the talk page). Also most the conversation was based around the factors of attack shot/sec and reload time, this proved to be incorrect when tested in game and was scrapped. The issue I have found from a quick look, is that these are not the only factors involved as mentioned above there are modifiers to these times. Basically I think from a primarily look, there might be a re-work needed for FO3 DPS when I get around to check those as well. But in most cases I have checked so far for FNV, the GECK is correct for the DPS values shown. Also nicely they also shown a DPS value for full clip + reload time, that is something that might be considered for FNV pages. The only case I have found to wrong so far is the Gauss Rifles, I think the issue with the GECK is that the DPS value is based of the use of 1 cell used per shot (5 cels per clip), where it is actually using 5 cells or a full clip per shot. ☣Avatar☣ 20:23, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

TestingEdit

Well I am going to go through the weapons this week and log down the results in this section. ☣Avatar☣ 18:33, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

FNV
Conclusion
DPS, also shown as (full clip, no reload) under the DPS Info tab

The DPS figures shown at present all seem to be correct, however the figure presented is inconsistent in what it reflects. In most cases it shows the theoretical DPS of continued shooting without the need for reloading. But in the case of the missile launcher which is a one shot weapon, the figure for no reload and + reload are both the same. Seems the GECK is taking into consideration that the theoretical is not possibale for single shot single ammo use weapons and calculating in the reload time animation as well into the theoretical DPS to display DPS + reload. However this figure does not take into account "ammo use" per shot for other single shot weapons, so weapons that are single shot but have a clip size larger than one (example Tesla cannon), indeed show the theoretical DPS and do not take into account that this is not possible.

Does not take into account those weapons that reload 1 shell at a time, instead of reloading with a mag or clip, so this figure it not accurate. Also does not even use the the "ammo use" figure in the calculations and so weapons like the plasma pistol, Tri-Beam laser rifle, Tesla cannon etc are completely wrong

Guns

All the in game testing seems to support the GECK figures for animation times. As for the GECK calculations, they are at most only out by 1 point, in most cases it is just a few decimal places. As for the in game testing there where some inconstancy with the figures, however these where marginal, only changing a few points on the DPS and can be placed down to human reaction time since in most cases this only happened with single shot weapons where a player has to click for each shot. A additional note, surprisingly the mini-gun DPS seems to take into account the spin up time before firing, as this was one of the most accurate figures I got with in game testing.

Exceptions found

Energy

All the in game testing seems to support the GECK figures for animation times. Now for the GECK, the main DPS figure show all seem to add up, but it is worth noting that weapon that have a clip size larger than 1 but are only one shot (e.g. Gauss rifle and Telsa cannon) do not take into account reload times like the missile launcher.

Explosives

As suspected the explosive projectile weapons follow all the same rules and exceptions as the above categories, single shot weapons DPS include reload time into the DPS, and all animation times stated in the GECK are correct.

As for the rest of the weapons, I couldn't get any really accurate in-game timing due to the speed of attacks and no reference point to count (e.g. reloading) and work the calculations backwards from. So those are going to have to be taken in good faith, especially since I have not found any attack animations times to be incorrect or having any exceptions.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm still following this topic so you don't get the impression that nobody's reading :) I'll wait for your final results for both FO3 and FNV before making a decision on how to proceed with the templates. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:06, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Figured as much, at the moment I am pretty much using it as a notepad for my finding as I go along. But something has struck me while doing this. The original findings may have been based of a older version of the GECK. ☣Avatar☣ 09:41, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
That's possible, although there was only one update for the FO3 GECK (and none for the FNV one as far as I'm aware), and there's nothing in the patch notes which looks related. Not that this means much though; Bethesda's patch notes are notoriously incomplete :) -- Porter21 (talk) 10:16, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it, it seems the GECK is correct in the figures shown, with the exception of single shot weapons. These are the only things that we need to account for in FNV template. For single shot single mag weapons we might want to change "DPS" to say "DPS + reload". For single shot 1+ ammo use weapons, those figures can either be done manually or put in a crazy formula, that I leave up to you. ☣Avatar☣ 22:51, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
Alright, the current plan is as follows:
• I'll (re-)merge {{Infobox weapon FO3}} and {{Infobox weapon FNV}} into {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}}.
• {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}} will do the manual calculations for FO3 and simply rely on the "dps" value for FNV (at least until the accuracy of the FO3 GECK DPS figures has been investigated).
• I think it's better to make any necessary adjustments to the FNV values by formula as it makes it easier to check the accuracy of the entered values with the GECK. I'll post the formula for the FNV adjustments here once I start working on it (should be tomorrow; not much time left today).
• I'll also make a few bug fixes to the explosion damage display I've noticed.
If anybody has any problems with this, let me know here or forever remain silent :P -- Porter21 (talk) 15:19, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Template mergedEdit

The new (merged) version is up at {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}}. Changes are basically listed above, except for:

• I have also rewritten the template to use the VariablesExtension.
• DPS adjustments for FNV are not included yet either - if you have suggestions for a formula (or formulas), feel free to edit my sandbox (simply look for {{#vardefine:DPS) - otherwise I might leave it as it is.
• Increased number of supported perks to 5.

The new version can easily be tested in articles by simply changing the template call from "Infobox weapon FO3" (etc) to "Infobox weapon gamebryo" and previewing; the parameters are largely the same (except for "skill req" and "strength req" which are not used in any calculations). -- Porter21 (talk) 20:18, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Unless bugs are found which I didn't catch, I'll go ahead with redirecting {{Infobox weapon FO3}} & {{Infobox weapon FNV}} and updating the template calls this evening. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:07, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
New template is now live, old templates have been replaced in pages. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:21, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

DPS formula discussionEdit

One suggestion for adjusting FNV DPS:

if ("ammouse" > 1 and "shots/reload" < "attackshots/sec")
then "newDPS" = ("DPS" / "attackshots/sec") * "shots/reload"

I think this should go some way towards making the number for weapons like the Tesla cannon more accurate. What do you think? -- Porter21 (talk) 09:42, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Thats kinda a funky formula, personally I would go with
if# "ammouse" > 1 & "ammouse"/"cliprounds" = 1
As for the new DPS figure, that works out the Gauss riffle to be 120, when in fact it is 45. The one thing we need to really workout the true DPS figure is reload time, something that has not been added to the weapons infobox. 16:57, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure how the GECK arrives at a DPS (without reloads) of 45 for clipsize=1 and ammouse=1 when the weapon damage is 120. Same for the returned value of 80 if clipsize=2.
The reason why I did not limit the formula to single-shot weapons is that, since obviously the GECK does not take ammouse into account at all, the DPS figures for all weapons with an ammouse higher than 1 are inaccurate. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:27, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
P.S. the figure of 45 for DPS + reload on the Gauss rifle, is what I worked out manually taking into account ammouse, the GECK actually displays it as 360 DPS + no reload and 150 DPS + reload
You can also get the DPS of 45 in the GECK if you set clipsize to 1, so it seems your calculations correspond to the GECK's ;) Your theory does seem to be largely right; however, after playing around a bit with the GECK I think that it's "if (clipsize < attackshots/sec) then (DPS + reload) else (DPS - reload)". If you change the Gauss rifle's clipsize to 2, you still get the "DPS - reload" = "DPS + reload" mechanic; when you change it to 3, it stops doing that (it should be noted that changing the animation multiplier/attack multiplier does not have an effect on this though, so these are obviously not being taken into account). -- Porter21 (talk) 22:54, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are right, it seems it works out the main DPS to be DPS + reload on clip size of 1 and 2. I surmise this is to also cover most of the shotguns. However changing the animations times does have a affect on the DPS, but in a really funky kind of way. Example changing the animation time on the Gauss rifle by a factor of 10, only increases the DPS from 45 to 50, but if you click on any other tab it changes to 5. Decreasing it by a factor of 10 changes it from 45 to 35, then click of the tab and back, revert the animation time back to 1 and it displays a DPS of 211. Some there may be some merit to clipsize < attackshots/sec. However, we can be sure that the GECK is pretty much incorrect in these cases (whoever coded it should be shot). What we need to decide is how we are going to display DPS in the info box and how we work out these figures. 01:12, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

These seem to be the formulas used:

$DPS_{noreload} = \frac{Damage * ClipRounds}{ClipRounds / AttackshotsSec}$
$DPS_{reload} = \frac{Damage * ClipRounds}{(ClipRounds / AttackshotsSec) + ReloadTime}$

As such, we'd have to do the following to convert DPSnoreload to DPSreload:

$DPS_{noreload} = DPS_{reload} + \frac{DPS_{reload} * ReloadTime * AttackshotsSec}{ClipRounds}$

The problem is that the GECK rounds down the results of its DPS formulas to the nearest integer - which invariably introduces inaccuracies when doing calculations based on these numbers. Plus we'd still not have accounted for "ammouse".

I think the best solution would be to add a "reload time" parameter, doing the calculations in the template and displaying both DPSreload and DPSnoreload for guns (maybe explosives as well? not sure). That way we get consistency for both FO3 and FNV plus we can make adjustments as we see fit. Those adjustments would be:

• Substitute "clip rounds" with "shots per reload"
• Replace "attackshots/sec" with "shots per reload" if (attackshots/sec > clip rounds).

In the Gauss rifle example, this would put DPSreload at 36 and DPSnoreload at 120.

Consequently, we'd only have to alter the formulas above to use "shots per reload" rather than "clip rounds". For the template, this would mean we remove the "dps" parameters from the FNV pages and add a "reload time" one for both FO3 and FNV pages. DPS would be calculated with the same formula for both games (the modified FNV GECK one), and we'd display both DPSreload and DPSnoreload. How does that sound? -- Porter21 (talk) 16:33, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
If you are willing to add the "reload time" parameter, I am more than happy to add it to each weapon for both FNV and FO3 (shouldn't take me to long) and you are right about taking the "shots per reload" out of the formula. For the DPS no reload it should be a simple "Damage" x "shots per second". For DPS reload, this is the formula I used.
$\text{DPS + reload}=\frac{\text{Damage}*\frac{\text{Clip rounds}}{\text{Ammo use}}}{\frac{1}{\text{Attack shots sec}}*\frac{\text{Clip rounds}}{\text{Ammo use}}+\text{Reload time}}$
The only thing is in regards to hand loaded weapons like the .357 magnum, which reloads a single bullet at a time. Might want to add another parameter for reload type either being clip/mag or handload. In the case of handload of handload it would change the formula to
$\text{DPS + reload}=\frac{\text{Damage}*\frac{\text{Clip rounds}}{\text{Ammo use}}}{\frac{1}{\text{Attack shots sec}}*\frac{\text{Clip rounds}}{\text{Ammo use}}+(\text{Reload time}*\text{Clip rounds})}$
The top half of each formula simple works out the damage inflicted for a full clip, the bottom half works out the time it takes to unload a full clip and reload. 22:05, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the formula I posted above for DPSnoreload is basically the same as "damage" * "attackshots/sec"; I merely denoted it this way so it was easier to see the difference to the other formula. The formula you used for DPSreload looks pretty much like the one I had in mind. I'll also add a "gunhandload" option for the "type" parameter - I think there's no need for a separate parameter, seeing as there's already a "gunautomatic" option.
I'll start working on it when I'm back home next week. One little request - could you check whether "reload time" is factored into the formula for explosives (grenades etc) and melee weapons? I don't see why it'd have any effect on the latter, but you never know... -- Porter21 (talk) 23:21, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Not to derail the conversation, but since there's talk about a reload time parameter do you think we should take into account if the player has Rapid Reload like with damage were we take into account if the player has Cowboy or Bloody Mess. Shadowrunner(stuff) 03:21, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:13, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

New versionEdit

I've finished a first version of the template with altered calculations. It can be found at User:Porter21/sandbox2.

Changes:

• Implemented DPS and DPSreload as discussed above; removed dps parameter for FNV, calculations now identical for both games.
• The only difference between the formulas above and the formulas used by the template is that the DPSreload formula for the "gunhandload" option uses "shots per reload" instead of "clip rounds" in the "reload time * clip rounds" bit of the denominator.
• Added "gunhandload" option for type parameter.
• Added reloadtime parameter.
• Added perk1reloadmult - perk5reloadmult parameters, with which effects of perks on the reload time can be included in the calculations. These parameters represent a reduction multiplier, i.e. if a perk reduces reload time by 25%, enter "0.25".

I haven't been able to do much testing yet; any help would be appreciated :) -- Porter21 (talk) 19:46, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

"gunhandload" dosnt seem to have any effect on the DPS + reload calculations, see here. 21:06, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Should be fixed. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:55, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Just a FYI, if you are checking the other tests I have on the page, there is a issue with having so many info boxes on the page. You will see as a example of this in the Gauss rifle test, with it adding explosive damage and asking for perk 3. To view it correctly as it would normally be presented, simply edit and preview. 23:07, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also just noticed that there's a third perk being displayed in the section you linked despite not having been set in the template call. I'll take a look at that tomorrow; I think I know what it's caused by, it should only happen if you have multiple calls to the template on the same page.
We'll also have to test the calculations for the non-gun types - I've rewritten most of the calculations, so they might have been affected as well. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:12, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, what you mentioned is due to the same thing as the third perk being displayed. Basically, the variables are being carried over from the previous template call(s) unless overwritten. I simply need to make sure they're being reset each time the template is called. Still getting used to the VariablesExtension :) -- Porter21 (talk) 23:12, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I am going to go check them all, as I have noticed since doing the testing that some of the other weapons are false on the dps. For example the GECK states that the DPS for the throwing knife is 192, when it is actually 32.1 based on the GECK animation times and some in game testing 0.o ... Oh and of course the reload time perk on modified DPS. If there is any other options that you think need testing, just let me know. 23:30, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
The new template should return 192 for throwing knife DPS as well - it's due to its "attackshots/sec" of 12.8. Not sure how to fix that though. In other news, the variables bug should be fixed now. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:57, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Heh, the attackshots/sec in Throwing knife (Fallout: New Vegas) is simply wrong. If you insert the correct value (2.1429) into the new template, you get the correct DPS of 32.1 :) -- Porter21 (talk) 00:01, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
Yep, the GECK is way off on that figure, seems this new template is going to be a lot more beneficial than what we thought in reporting correct figures. I found the culprit in this instance, its down to AttackThrow8 animation, the GECK simply does not like it when calculating the DPS. I did some in-game testing and the 2.1429 figure reported by the GECK for the attack animation seems to be accurate, although it is hard to get a accurate figure for something so quick. 00:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

:) *hopes he'll finally be done with the template* -- Porter21 (talk) 12:34, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
Lol, almost. Just been checking the perks effects on DPS. Now there is a small issue with the reload perk, because the perk effects are rounded to a single decimal point, it is effecting the DPS output. Now this is only marginal in most cases, except in the case of gunhandload type, where the marginal amount is them multiplied by the clip size. It might be an idea to change this perks effects to 4 decimal places, since that's how many places the original figure in-putted from the GECK is. 21:36, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I had hoped the rounding effects wouldn't be too noticable. Oh well... Rounding is now applied only after all calculations have been done; this should hopefully fix any and all inaccuracies. The downside is that the displayed numbers may not add up (completely) for readers, but I guess that's better than having inaccuracies in the calculations themselves. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:02, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
I've started updating the template documentation - is there any way you can tell "gunhandload" weapons from others in the GECK? Also, is there anything left you'd like to test or can the template go live? -- Porter21 (talk) 14:47, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well the only solution I can think of is creating two variables from the "reloadtime" parameter, one formatted and used only to be displayed in the related perk section of the infobox. The other being the raw data and used as a background variable to process the DPS and not actually displayed in the infobox. That would allow the best of both.

With the "gunhandload" type there is nothing I can see in the GECK. The only way I can think around this is to identify the animation type used by "gunhandload" weapons, as I believe this is actually tied into the animation and not the geck stats and therefore should affect all the weapons that use that animation type.

And I have just realised, since we are adding the reload perk, should we not also add in the perks like Fast Shot and Loose Cannon which increase the rate of fire? These should affect both DPS and "DPS + reload". 21:05, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

The changes I made this morning have basically the same effect as creating a second variable - all calculations are now done with non-rounded values, and the rounding is only done for the displayed values.
"Values potentially not adding up for the reader" means the following: Say you have 3 perks, each of which adds 0.333 damage, and all values are rounded to the second decimal place. If you do the rounding before adding up the values (as the template did previously), 0.33 damage is displayed for each perk and a total perk damage of 0.99 (3 * 0.33). If you do the rounding after adding up the values (as the template does now), you get a total perk damage of 1 displayed (3* 0.333 = 0.999, rounded to 2 decimals) - which is what I meant: The perk damages do not add up to the total visually (3* 0.33 != 1). It's not major, but it's bound to happen.
Regarding the RoF perks, not sure. It's certainly more consistent to list all perks which affect damage, but I'm a bit concerned we might end up with too much stuff in the infobox. How many perks in total could potentially affect a single weapon if the RoF perks are added?
Either way, I seriously hope we'll finally be done with this template soon. I'd like to move on to my other projects. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:59, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Looking around the two listed above seem to be the only ones that affect rate of fire, since they affect different weapon types you are looking at only a single line added to the infobox.
And now I get what you are talking about, yeah it is annoying but the lesser of two evils in my book since we are talking about decimal place inconsistencies in the outputted figure compared to integers.
Other than that, I think we are done with the weapons infobox, I really cant think of any other eventualities that may arise in its use. 22:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
I'll add parameters for modifying RoF then. Do I have to add perk6 or would the current number of perks be sufficient? I.e. are there any weapons which would be affected by more than 5 perks in total if the RoF ones are added? -- Porter21 (talk) 23:23, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
None that I know of, there will be a few that will max at 5, but none I know that will need more at present. 23:32, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
I've added the parameters perk1attsecmult - perk5attsecmult and integrated them into the calculations. I did some quick testing on your sandbox page (hope you don't mind), seems to be working :)
I've also rearranged some rows and sections; all those "related perks"-titled rows were getting a bit confusing. I suppose we could make the template somewhat more compact if we used {{tl|datarow double}} for some of the entries; however, I'm going to postpone that until the new infobox template is finished (which I'll resume working on once we're done with weapon infobox), which will make that kind of stuff easier.
I won't be around on the weekend and would like to get this live before I leave, so unless there's something which still needs fixing, I'm going to update the actual template with my sandbox version at around 19:00 UTC tonight. Should I have my bot remove the "dps" parameters and add "reloadtime" ones (where appropriate)? -- Porter21 (talk) 14:38, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
No worrys using the sand box, that is what it is there for. It all seems to be working fine with the fire rate perks. Just one little adjustment is needed, the adjusted damage for "dmg/proj" with multiple shot weapons needs formatting to the correct colour as it is showing in white.

With the bot, that's down to you. But I will most likely be going through the entire weapon pages adding the reload times, adjusting for "gunhandload" and adding perks etc. 16:39, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the "dmg/proj" display, {{Infobox weapon gamebryo}} has been updated. The bot is currently removing the "dps" parameters and adding empty "reloadtime" ones - mundane tasks like that is what it's there for after all ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 19:39, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Bot run finished. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:38, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Time to get to work adding the values. 20:45, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering on the "gunhandload" type, the reload time displays the reload per shell. Would it be wise to either adjust this to the total time (eg "reload time" x "clip size") and therefore have consistency of what this value represents across all weapon infoboxes. Or add a tooltip etc for this. 22:12, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
I've added a tooltip with an explanation of the value, I think that's sufficient. Adjusting the value to the reload time for a full clip might be more confusing than helpful in my opinion. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:25, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, now I have come across weapon types I didn't consider before, weapons like the Recharger pistol and Euclid's C-Finder where reloading doesn't happen in the traditional sense. Since both work in a unique way and the formulas to work out anything other than theatrical DPS would be stupidly long, maybe a type is needed that doesn't display DPS + reload or should we just leave it as is. My head hurts =( 00:55, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
You can leave as it is, doesn't seem like that big of a problem.
Also, can you find out what the rate of attack for grenades are because I was adding "attsecmult" to all the thrown weapons for the Loose Cannon trait and I got to the grenades and none of them have the parameter filled. Shadowrunner(stuff) 21:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Grenades don't show a "DPS" or "attacks/sec" value when the type is set to grenade, even if those values are filled in. I believe the reason to most likely be the fact that this weapon type attacks vary, due to how long the mouse is held down to adjust the strength at which the grenade is thrown. Since that variable is not a constant, it would be impossible to determine any kind of DPS value, other than a DPS which reflect essentially dropping the grenade at your feet. To me that is kinda a pointless value since it is unlikely to kill anyone except yourself. 03:30, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just wondering.
Also, since Fast Shot is having it's increased fire rate benefit added to gun pages do you think we should add a parameter for the decreased AP cost it gives and for the other perks, Math Wrath and Plasma Spaz, that decrease AP? Shadowrunner(stuff) 03:54, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
At the moment perks only relate to damage adjustments, even Fast Shots AP reduction isn't applied to the info box. If you start adding in perks that affect other areas of the info box, then by all rights have to add them for others e.g. Trigger Discipline for spread, The Professional, Elijah's Ramblings and Better Criticals for crit damage, Finesse, Set Lasers for Fun and Ninja for crit chance, Pack Rat and Heavyweight for weight. To me that's information overload and to unwieldy a infobox to get across the pertinent information that most readers are looking for. I guess it down to what others think on the subject. 04:36, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Well alrighty then :P. Yeah, I definitely see what you mean with having too much in the infobox, just thought AP cost reduction should be added since it's the other benefit of Fast Shot. Shadowrunner(stuff) 05:49, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the reasoning for not displaying DPS for explosives was along the lines of what GA brought up - we simply felt it wasn't a very useful value for grenades and mines. If people feel it'd be useful to have, it can be brought back (not really hard to do) - fine to me either way.

For the recharger pistol (etc), I think we can simply leave it as it is, simply due to rarity of this kind of weapon.

As for perks, I actually did consider adding all of them when I added the reload time-affecting perks, but dropped it for the reasons GA brought up, i.e. information overload :) I think it'd be worth considering once we have an infobox template which supports collapsible sections (so all the perk info could initially be hidden and only be shown to readers who are interested), but currently it'd be too much in my opinion. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:22, March 21, 2011 (UTC)