Talk: Fallout 3 weapons

Archives:

Ash's numbers, and rewriting the page

Well, what needs to happen is we need to get numbers in the DPS column that are as accurate as possible. I have the data that Ash had finished before leaving. I just don't know how to share it... Additionally, the column headers need to be cleaned up, as the table for unarmed weapons shouldn't refer to reloading. Finally, after that's done we would need to update the individual pages, and remove the sections saying we're working on this. Technically, nobody's working on it now, since I haven't had time...Fiddlesoup 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can send me the data and I will do it!R0ND0 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've got the Data from Fiddlesoup (thank you for that), but it's incomplete. Especially the crit. chance is not calculated in 98% of the weapons. So give me a little bit time and I try to get it done.R0ND0 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I knew it was incomplete, Ash kinda left while we were still collecting the data. If you need any help with that, I could provide that this week. I'm out of class for Spring Break.Fiddlesoup 03:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

V:W Column Usefulness

• Actually I don't think W:V columns belong here. There should be a specific page for all items in the game as to what is worth looting. The problem with using weapons, is their varying condition, and also I can't think of any vendor in the game, (my games at least), who could afford to buy a mini gun in 100% condition, unless you have very low barter skills. Maybe if you invested heavily in the trade caravans that might happen, but so far, on average I get about 500 caps per regular trader. Once all you consider is the weapons cap value, it becomes the same as a carton of cigarettes. Since you are not considering it's attributes as a weapon, but as a saleable item, therefore that information probably shouldn't be on this page.
  • I think it's safe to say that V:W is more useful than just the VALUE, but I see your point and am myself fuzzy on the need for any economic information on this page. I won't object if someone suggests nixing all value-related info from this page, but I also won't do it myself as I'm pretty sure there would be objections from other players who value having that information here. Servius 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the cap value isn't much use either, since we aren't primarily interested in that, just how much damage the weapon can do. I'm surprised people can't work out that carrying an assault rifle worth 100 caps is less cost effective than carrying around 2 cartons of cigarettes. That's why I suggested a separate page for the cap value of all items, (of course chems, pre-war money and ammo would win since they are weightless). Adding too many columns just clutters it up. Selling weapons isn't an efficient way to make money in this game. It can come into it's own later on when you have some repair skills, but chances are by that time you have enough caps anyway, (and what is there to spend it on anyway?). If you have gone the gun route, your probably not that interested in bartering. - Don't mind me, I am just a bit bored. I don't need a chart to tell me which gun works best for me in the game. I've never found money, weapons, ammo or rads much of a problem beyond the first few xp levels, (even on the hardest level), and they go by pretty quickly.

I agree. The condition of weapons vary too greatly for the V:W column to be of any use. If several weapons have are in very similar condition then which are more worthwhile hanging onto can be determined from the list, however, actual value and weight of the items are given in the game anyway, and unless you're a complete dunce, some simple, approximate arithmetic will suffice as there aren't any weapons I can think of that don't have a simple weight, such as 8 or 30, and 18 can be rounded off to 20. And lets not forget that zero-value broken weapons, or other weapons of very low condition can be very valuable when used to repair.

I'm not suggesting that we bring back the "Value" column but I don't think V:W is of enough use to bother with.

dude your right.

It's especially unhelpful because the column is currently unexplained anywhere on the page! CHA1N5 17:15 CST, 29 January 2009

The biggest reason V:W is unhelpful is because weapons (regardless of condition) are already the best value to weight ratio of any item type, and people know it after just a few hours of gameplay. AshRandom (Talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking on behalf of users of the page: without a definition for the column it conveys zero information, rather than the marginally useful information you describe. CHA1N5 15:19 CST, 1 February 2009

yeah I came to this discussion page looking for info about the meaning of the V:W column. Indeed it sucks that it isn't explained anywhere on the page. I don't mind having that extra piece of information (the value of the weapon? Oh right, that's the Value-to-Weight ratio lol). I suggest to scrap the V:W column and replace it by a V column. As the WG column is besides it, no need for a redundant V:W column once the V column is in place. Quintal 78.114.174.21 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

fVATSCriticalChanceBonus

Formula page says vats default is +15% after the fact (outside of the parenthesis). Now is that referring to default weapon bonus or is that a default character bonus? AshRandom (Talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a flat 15% bonus added near the end of the equation. I didn't include that (and noted as much in the definition) because some people don't use VATS. The equation I used is a 'worst case scenario' that doesn't include perks, VATS, or a luck over 5. If people want to figure out their exact crit chance based on their own stats, they can check out the GECK wiki, find the equation, and do the math themselves.  :-) There are just too many different factors to make a column for each possibility. Servius 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry so much Servius, I'm not thinking of changing this page, I just wanted verification. AshRandom (Talk) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GECK DPS Calculation Errors

Okay, well, your comments prove to me that my experience isn't anomalous, I'm clearly not the only one getting rapid fire out of the plasma rifle. Tell me, in about how many seconds can you unload all 12 shots? AshRandom (Talk) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that fire rate for energy weapons can vary quite a bit; they have a bit of a "sticky" trigger. Most of the time, the plasma rifle will dole it out quickly, while other times, it can pause quite a bit between shots. The GECK says it can do four shots per second. Also, the "semi-automatic fire delay max" for it is 2. In comparison, it's 1 on the 10mm pistol. I think the delay min and delay max are the factors in the "sticky trigger" phenomenon. --MadCat221 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the fastest you've ever unloaded 12 rnds? I manage it in 3sec just about every time. My suspicion is that the GECK's DPS for everything other than fully automatic weapons, is, quite frankly, utterly worthless. If it can't correctly factor in the animation delay, then it isn't calculating honest numbers. AshRandom (Talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just did a test: I could indeed belt off four rounds per second. After eight shots, the trigger got "sticky" because of the trigger delay max dealie, and then the remaining four shots went off in a second's time. I've noticed this "sticky trigger" thing on other energy weapons, most notably the laser pistol.

Excellent, some verification. Which system are you on again? AshRandom (Talk) 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PC, maxed settings. --MadCat221 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that clinches it for me. Same effects on PC and Xbox360. We can't trust GECK DPS for anything aside from fully automatic weapons. As I've suspected since the beginning, the GECK just plain fails to calculate DPS correctly for a number of semi-automatic weapons. We either need to pull the base ROF out and use that to create DPS, or just abandon the column entirely. I'm going to move this discussion to the weapons page and annoy Servius with it. AshRandom (Talk) 01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that, for semi-auto weapons, we put "shots per second", and then the max semi-auto fire delay. 1.0 would be normal, anything higher would be "sticky" or something along that line. There is a shots/sec calculator in the weapon object window as well, in the second tab section. --MadCat221 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how we can get an exact DPS out of it, if the initial so many shots are at full ROF and then there's a weird delay, and back into the full ROF again how the hell do we average that out? Take the plasma rifle, it sure as hell isn't getting 0.94 ROF as we're listing it now, and its not really getting 4.0 ROF either because of the weird delay factor.... AshRandom (Talk) 03:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And annoy me you have. Grrr... I'm starting to feel as grumpy has Harold. Guys, the DPS appears to be a very complicated equation. For example, it takes things like clip size and reload animation time into account. My bet is you two weren't considering that. If you can find the GECK's DPS calculation somewhere and can prove that it's got some kind of fatal flaw, then maybe we can take the DPS and MDPS columns out. But for now, it's the best thing we have that is calculated in a consistent way for every weapon in the game. Servius 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The DPS has to be considered garbage at this point no matter what other crap they're taking into account, its just plain bullshit, the plasma rifle reloads super-fast, and its ROF is super-fast... how the hell is it doing so little DPS? There's no way in hell any amount of additional factors could reliably add up to less than 1 shot a second, the damn Blackhawk takes forever to reload, only has 6 shots and is listed as doing more than twice as much DPS, which CAN'T be the case... it just can't, the plasma does nearly the same damage and has a larger clipsize... AshRandom (Talk) 03:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A3-21's Plasma Rifle does the same DPS as the XAR and Wanda, which makes sense. It does more DPS than the sniper rifle and just under the Minigun. The thing that seems off are the scoped .44s. As I said, if you can prove that the DPS calc is broken somehow, then we can reassess whether we want to keep using it. You haven't done that yet. Servius 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to consider keeping the DPS column, we need to scrap what the GECK says on DPS, and just use the ROF to get DPS. It might not be perfect but at least it'll be consistently wrong, which oddly enough would make it a more reliable number than the GECK's calculated DPS which has proven to be inconsistently wrong..... Example: 4x45=180DPS for plasma (currently 42), 4x50=200 for A3-21 (currently 47).... Its off by so damn much (425%) it's laughable, you'd need a hematoma to miss how dishonest the GECK's numbers are. AshRandom (Talk) 04:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ash, you seem very passionate about this. Instead of posting tirades here about how messed up you think the GECK's data is, you should instead prove your hypothesis. And by prove, I mean you should get the actual GECK DPS equation and make a logical argument about where/how the equation is broken. Alternatively, you could start a forum thread and get dev to say the GECK's DPS calc is flawed. Another option would be (since you have the Xbox version) to get someone else to make a mod that would stand up static targets with known HP and DR and see how long it takes to kill them. Since we don't have multiplayer, that person would have to code NPCs to stay still while being attacked. They'd also want to mix in other NPCs with different HP and DR to verify their initial findings. Until you can prove that there's something wrong with the GECK's DPS calc, you should leave the main page alone. Servius 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten 2nd party verification (thank you MadCat221) on a 2nd system (PC) to prove my intuition and show that my experiences aren't anomalous or specific to the Xbox360. The plasma rifle is a 12 rnd weapon, and the full clip fires in 3-4 seconds, not 12.8 seconds as the GECK's DPS might lead us to believe. That's all the proof needed to make a judgment call on the veracity of GECK "Damage Per Second" calculations. It's discordant. Even if you take other factors into account, reload, clipsize, etc, it just becomes more obvious that it doesn't correlate, even to other weapons calculated through the GECK.

So where does that leave us? We've discovered that there's a major miscalculation in how the GECK determines semi-automatic DPS, seemingly as a result of the unexplained "semi-automatic fire delay max" factor. It's been verified that both plasma weapons are off by over 425% compared to the in-game experience. And we know the Rock-It Launcher was off by 400%. Knowing what we do now, there's no reason to trust any of it. You've proven your willingness to blindly trust the data, and the source of your data has proven itself to be erroneous. So, if anyone needs to show proof, it's you Serivus, because you're not wiggling around inside of a probabilistic 5% error margin here, you're off by a factor of four.

DPS, MDPS Removal

It is not The Vault's function to grossly misinform the entire world. The DPS/MDPS data needs to be removed. "In-game DAM" and ROF will have to suffice. AshRandom (Talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose AshRandom's opinion and recommendation, at least given the lack of proof he has provided to date. I have asked him several times to prove the GECK's DPS calc is wrong by actually finding the calc, posting it for all to see, and showing where the calculation is wrong. I also suggested he could get a dev to state that the GECK's DPS calc is inaccurate. A third option would be to perform and record in-game tests and post them to YouTube or something. He has consistently refused to put forth any real proof that the calc is wrong and instead merely continues to post annecdotal "evidence" from his and one other player's experience, and based solely on that, believes that the DPS and MDPS info is wrong and should be removed. His alternative is to return to the DAM stat (which we have already agreed is an inaccurate way of comparing weapon damage). Given how much time I and others have put into getting the weapons page to its current state, I obviously have a personal stake in not seeing all that work undone based on a shoddy argument. However, given that my opinion is biased, I defer to Ausir or Mirar to make a decision on how high the bars should be to prove that the current data is wrong and what changes, if any, should be made to the data on this page. I suggest that, until they weight in, no changes should be made to the main page. Servius 15:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The the Semi-Automatic Fire Delay Min/Max isn't even defined on the GECK website aside from a note explaining that it doesn't take effect until after you close the window.[1]

  # Semi-Automatic Fire Delay Max:
   * This allows semi-auto weapons to have a "sticky trigger" effect. 
  This variable affects the GECK-calculated DPS stat. 
  However, the affect only appears after you click OK and close the Weapon window.

You clearly don't understand it and haven't applied it correctly or the DPS wouldn't be so ridiculously far off. And as far as unarmed weapons go, jesus, the GECK website just says: [2]

  Unarmed Damage = Formula unknown at this time.

here's another note from the GECK website: [3]

  # Fire rate: Number of shots per second. This is only valid for automatic weapons. 
  Single shot weapons are restricted by their attack animation. 
  Their "rate of fire" can be altered by changing the Attack Multiplier in the Animation group.
  * As mentioned above, this variable only affects the GECK's DPS calculation if the "Automatic" box is checked.

ROF is only valid for automatic weapons? And we know for a fact we aren't applying the animation delay correctly because it doesn't appear until after you click OK? WTF? This editor was thrown together after the fact and it shows, I don't see how its estimated DPS can be trusted. Especially when the way you're using it has it telling us the strongest weapons in the game (plasma rifles) are weak, and that the rock-it launcher does 666 DPS, the poor deathclaw gauntlet only does 10 DPS yet you can kill a behemoth with it? Get real. This data is garbage. AshRandom (Talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plasma Rifle

Well, in the GECK, the things that effect a gun's RoF are

1.Fire Rate (1.0000 for PR)

2.Whether or not it’s automatic (it isn’t)

3.Min/Max. Semi-Auto Fire Delay (Min: 0.100, Max:2.0000)

4.The models and animations chosen for the gun.

That’s what I know. The number “Attack Shots/Sec” on the Plasma Rifle is listed as 4. There are modifiers applied directly to the Shots/Sec afterward, but I don't know what they do to modify it. In this case, an Attack multiplier of 2 takes the Shots/Sec from 2, to the listed value of 4. The number .94 probably came from the fact that 42 (GECK's DPS value) is 93~94% of 45 (the listed damage). Anyway, I've got to go now, but I'll find out what those multipliers mean when I get back. Fiddlesoup 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I got ROF. Let me know what you figure out, at this point I'm somewhat convinced it's DPS is wrong, as I can unload the entire 12 rnd clip in about 4 seconds (not 12.8 sec)... AshRandom (Talk)

Sorry I took so long. This was on my to do list, but got buried underneath learning the workings of the GECK.

Anyway, the Attack Multiplier modifies the shots/sec by altering how long the attack animation is (the anim of your character bracing against recoil).

It's not a straight relationship: The PR's default AM setting of 2 takes the S/s setting from 2 to 4, but in order to make it go up again, you need to change the multiplier to 5, which changes S/s to 5. It's difficult to get an exact reading, without making it automatic, which causes other problems (see below).

However, I think it'd be safe to say that 4 S/s is an "ideal" number, in that, with perfect reflexes you could shoot 4 per second.

As for the DPS, I'm not sure why it gives that reading. It's affected by several different variables, but I don't know the equation. It's possible that it's an error. The DPS on the RIL also exhibits unusual readings.

I forgot to mention, the S/s is the same on A3-21's, just the damage and other stats were changed.

On a side note, the problem I mentioned with automatics... After increasing the RoF to 5, I tried making it auto. Well, when I fired, the animation played... somewhat spastically, but no plasma came out (unless I fired semi-auto). Also, the GECK records a RoF for Col. Autumn's Laser Pistol of 12 shots/sec. Using a stopwatch, I timed it in-game at 5 shots/sec (it also appears to "stutter" a bit, rather than smoothly shooting all rounds). I'm adding this here, because I'm not sure if this is an issue with the game engine, or my computer.Fiddlesoup 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is most definitely an issue with the GECK editor, I've been digging into it as well and even according to the GECK website they know they're not showing DPS correctly, in fact there's even a note about how it won't factor in animation correctly until after closing the window....??!!!! At this point I've reached the highest level of frustration I can possibly get to without actually screaming and yelling about it. I'm going to move this to the weapons discussion page, you're now my 2nd source of proof that we need to abandon the semi-automatic weapons data gathered from this editor, it simply isn't giving us honest numbers. AshRandom (Talk) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Okay folks we've figured most of it out already. The "Semi-Automatic Fire Delay Max" works as follows: Using the plasma rifle as an example you can think of it this way: It has an attack speed of 4/second with a max fire delay of 2, so in the first 2 seconds you can get off 8 shots, then there's a 1 sec pause, then in the 4th second you can fire off the remaining 4 shots left in the weapon. So it takes 4 seconds to fire off a full clip of 12. In reality this pause is often unseen, blending itself in with the weapon, however there are times when it amounts to a blatant pause or apparent trigger stickiness. Regardless, because it takes 3 seconds of real shooting with a 1 second pause averaged in we end up with an effective ROF of 3/sec, giving it a damage per second total of 135 (DPS). Expect to see new DPS numbers as well as columns for reload times, and ROF soon. I apologize to the world on behalf of The Vault, I'm sorry that we're currently so very wrong about DPS numbers, it wasn't anyone's fault for trusting in the GECK editor, it seemed legit. For now questionable DPS numbers need to be taken down, but, it's just too time consuming, there are way too many pages and I'm not going to go through them all until me and Fiddlesoup have finished collating the data (by hand as apparently the GECK can't do it correctly). AshRandom (Talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Numbers

The data is going live this week, as the unarmed and explosives lists were completed first they're the first to be seen. These fall under the DPS↓Reloads and ROF↓Reloads categories, per-clip DPS/ROF wasn't listed because they both amount to 1-shot weapons - instead their times are averaged. We do have DPS and ROF numbers on a per-clip basis for everything outside of 1-shot and hth weapons, so expect to see that too. (ROF, DPS, MDPS chart, so far) lists both hand calculations and stopwatch time-trials - still a work in progress (it's set to global view, but, you may need to contact me for gmail shared-sheet permissions, sorry). AshRandom (Talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer PC players questions ahead of time ROF (and therefore DPS) is based on the Xbox360 and PS3 fps target of 30 (frames per second). So obviously these numbers are most helpful to console players. PC users who may see FPS anywhere from single digits to over 60 FPS will see a proportional ratio to them. The reason for the disparity is many fold. First of all video cards without good vsync will see an average FPS rate which drops off sharply at times giving high-action encounters a slow-down effect. PC users graphical experience changes depending on their total ram and the combined power of their video cards and CPUs. These variables all changes yet again depending on resolution, video settings, options, etc. So you can see the problems that arise and why we choose to base ROF on console averages. Hope that helps ;) AshRandom (Talk) 04:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance, but IF I had a powerful PC that can run FO3 smoothly (it should be under 60 fps constantly I suppose?), will the ROFs of PC be the same on consoles with 30 fps or double? One more question, how many values from GECK weapons are misleading? We already know about DPS, does anything related to "Fire Rate" value have errors? --NovaRain 05:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll try to answer. At 60FPS the damage you could do in a single second would be greater. It's not a direct ratio, in other words I don't think you'd see double the ROF, but it is somewhat faster especially for weapons with big animations. Other question, I was worried about that myself but no, GECK's base-item-data seems fine, it's just the big equation that's inconsistent. You can find your PC's fps using Fraps, or possibly through the game itself which would be preferable, I have no idea (I don't have it for the PC). AshRandom (Talk) 07:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if we had time trials confirmed at 60FPS then we could determine the ratio -- I'd like to know what the exact difference is myself, I don't even know if it's a consistent difference, it might very well be more drastic for some weapons. Without the numbers we can only make guesses. We noticed there was a difference when we saw (about a two tenths of a second) difference between a pc clocked at 45 FPS (Fiddlesoup's PC) and what both of us were getting out of our consoles. If anyone feels like putting the time in to collect further data I wouldn't complain ;) AshRandom (Talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly though you shouldn't worry too much about it, the point of this project was to obtain calculations that at very least APPROACHED REALITY so we could finally see which ones do the most damage for *real*. My point being that even if your PC runs faster or slower the comparison between weapons should still hold firm. You're not going to be walking around with a plasma rifle that suddenly does less damage than the blackhawk because of your FPS (yeah that's right I said it, the blackhawk does less damage; in real DPS the blackhawk is 109/clip, 53w/reloads -- basic plasma rifle is 136/clip, 78w/reloads). AshRandom (Talk) 08:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DPS Numbers

These DPS numbers are assuming the weapon is at 100% condition, right? As the condition of a weapon drops, so does the damage. Since every shot lowers the condition, I think it is safe to say that the damage from the first shot of a full clip or mag is not the same as the damage from the last shot of that same clip or mag, depending on how fast the weapon degrades and the size of the clip or mag. Also, since every weapon has a different health value and degrades at a different rate, two different weapons with identical damage at 100% condition could have drastically different damage after each one is fired the same number of times.

I'll use two imaginary weapons as an example, for the sake of simplicity (meaning I don't want to do any math). Weapon A has 100 HP and does 50 damage per shot. Weapon B has 300 HP and does 40 damage per shot. Each weapon has the same rate of fire at 1 shot per second, and each shot degrades the weapon by 1 HP.

After 60 shots, weapon A now has 40 HP and weapon B has 240 HP. Weapon A is now operating at 40% efficiency, lowering the damage to 35. Weapon B is now operating at 80% efficiency, lowering the damage to 36. (Note: These new damage numbers are based on the calculation found here.) As you can see, weapon A's DPS is now behind weapon B's DPS. After 40 more shots, weapon A will need to be repaired or replaced, while weapon B is still operational, making the DPS value over the life of weapon B even higher.

I based my example on the Blackhawk vs Plasma Rifle above, since I saw that the Plasma Rifle has almost 3 times as much HP as the Blackhawk. This doesn't change what AshRandom said and actually reinforces it. Over time, low HP, fast degrading weapons will see a lower DPS potential over high HP, slow degrading weapons, even though the low HP weapons might have higher initial damage. --MadDawg2552 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wish I could have stopped you before you bothered writing all of that out. These tests were rate of fire tests measured in shots/second. Since they're not damage tests, and we used fully repaired weapons, you shouldn't worry. Also please note that we have both reload and reload+jam times. This data will be forthcoming, (as soon as I finish adding item HP to all of the armor pages). Also, note that %CND for ranged weapons only slows down a weapon's average rate of fire when the weapon becomes broken enough to start jamming. This is a rather obvious indicator and as we never went below 75% CND on any of the 90sec stopwatch tests I can assure you it wasn't factored in. AshRandom (Talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bare Hands

Nowhere on the wiki do I see any information regarding attacks using no weapons at all, using just bare hands. How much AP does it use? What is the critical bonus? Multiplier? Base damage? Nowhere to be found. This is a surprising oversight. (A Wanderer) 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's mostly because there's no readily apparent way of accessing this information. There IS a weapon in the GECK called "bare fists" or something, but it's unused and doesn't appear to be connected to in-game unarmed damage. But, since you've mentioned it, I'll put it on my to-do list (which is currently taken up by school, then adding Ash's DPS data, etc.)Fiddlesoup 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look under Unarmed skill

There's nothing there about it. That said, I finally got around to getting that info. My most consistent in-game testing data was:

• no SPECIAL stat has any impact on unarmed damage (unlike melee damage; just confirming what I already knew)
• With Unarmed at 0 (possible using the console command "player.forceav unarmed [integer]"), pure unarmed damage against an unarmored opponent (raider stripped of his armor) was 1.5 hp/strike
• With Unarmed at 100, pure unarmed damage against the same target (using either the command "resethealth" on the raider, or loading a pretest save) dealt 6.5 hp/strike.
• Neither power strikes (charged attacks, where you hold down the button) nor critical strikes (if that's possible) were counted.
• Each point in the Unarmed skill bestowed an additional 0.05 hp/strike.

This puts the equation at BaseUnarmedDamage = 1.5 + (0.05xUnarmedSkill). Not sure if I've missed anything, but there it is.Fiddlesoup 04:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rate of Fire and V:W

The page describes a column for Rate Of Fire, yet this column is missing for almost all of the weapons. And what the hell is v:w???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.244.244 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Moved from Special:ProblemReports/18824. // Porter21 ^{U | T} 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rate of Fire column is missing because the user who was managing the overhaul of this page left the wiki over a dispute while the overhaul was taking place. This is mentioned in passing in the article (specifically, the part about Vault administration replacing data with calculations based on in-game tests). To the second question, I'm not 100% certain, since I didn't create that value, but it is my understanding that V:W is a Value:Weight ratio showing you how many caps you get for an item in relation to the space it takes in your inventory. Hope that's helpful, if this person ever returns, or for anyone else with similar questions.Fiddlesoup 04:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kneecapper can do criticals

Just wanted to point out that The Kneecapper actually can score critical hits, both normal and sneak attack ones. Someone with G.E.C.K. (or something) might want to look up how much damage critical hits from this weapon do.--Mehbah 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Autoaxe DPS?

How is this calculated? I ask because it's the same as damage per hit for the autoaxe and ripper. But they definitely hit more than once per second. Am I missing something here?

Xbox 360

So, all of these weapon statistics come from a PC game editor.. If you have the Xbox 360 version, there is absolutely no way to find out this information.. Its not in the manual.. My point is, why didnt Bethesda just include all of this useful information in the game manual? I never buy strategy guides, but I assume they saved this info for the strategy guide so they could wring some extra dollars out of consumers? Hmm. At what point did the industry standard become to offer a game manual with insufficient information to play the game in order to make money off of strategy guides? And, more importantly, which game design company will be the one to question the propriety of this standard, reverse this trend, and reclaim their integrity? 67.172.16.255 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)