Talk: Thelee

DPS[]

I appreciate your work and all, but perhaps it can be incorporated in an article after being condensed? I don't think it's entirely necessary for a new page. As for deletion issues, talk it over with Kingclyde. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 20:23, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I like the work you did in it, but I think its more strategy than an actual listed game mecahnic. The Wasteland Surivival guide wiki is big on the strategy side of things, whereas we kinda limit outselves to plain facts here... It might fit better over there (or have a chat with Ramallah if you see him around as I think that's his baby). Agent c 20:27, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

The template was added (by Agent c). Then Clyde deleted it. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 20:31, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_weapons#Legend%7CF:NV weapons list now, and whilst it does mention DPS, it seems to be a derivative of DAM - so not a game mechanic per se, just the way that two other game mechanics (the unlisted Attack speed and DAM) interact. It sums it up in a single line which I think is adequate for non strategy purposes - DAM x Attacks per second. Explaining it further to me seems more like strategy, which when present shouldn't overwelm the main article. Agent c 20:42, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

The difference for me there is DR and DT are "primary" statistics for armour - whereas DPS isn't. Its good to see you're passionate about it though... I think my first page creation was nominated for deletion too come to think of it, so I know how you feel - its nothing personal, you seem to be a good writer.. Agent c 20:51, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

(Cross posting myself from my talk page in response to Skail suggesting posting it in your sanbox...) Seems fair enough - the sanbox and the blogs are your place to just create stuff without most of the usual rules, so by all means feel free there... Agent c 21:10, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the page the first time as it was marked for deletion and it is an article that has in the past been deemed unnecessary as it is really just a calculation derived from the GECK. The article was deleted for that reason. Also the page seemed more strategy based. The whole of DPS can be explained as a calculation based on the GECK. That simple. It does not need a separate page. I don't feel the deletions were aggressive at all as both times there was a nomination for deletion template present. Also after a page is discussed and then deleted by an admin, recreating the page only begins edit wars and in of itself is "aggressive editing". --Kingclyde 00:02, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Critical chance[]

For your sake, I'd recommend you doing your edits all in one or two instances. Also, it'd be appreciated if you stopped using "horribly" in your edit summaries. This is absolutely unnecessary. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 20:49, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

F:NV skills[]

You added a delete template. That would mean to delete the entire page. You could just consult an admin for that. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 15:07, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Maybe there isn't. Anyway, speak to an admin about this. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 15:14, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Computer whiz[]

Hey there, I've noticed you've just made 4 seperate edits to the Computer Whiz page, try to keep that in one edit, as some may see that as boosting.-- 06:42, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh didn't catch that, never mind then:p

Max Skills[]

I've always wondered why that section wasn't deleted a long time ago. I copied the deleted content to the talk page so it isn't completely lost, and removed the video too. --jimnms 09:27, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Reverted removal of maxed skills[]

Sorry for not replying to your message earlier. I forgot about it. I don't agree with that removal. I understand the reasoning for it (strategy), but this information is just too much of interest for readers. The section may be a bit messy, so you can take a shot at rewriting it for clarity if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, it stays. Jspoel 09:45, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

MFC cluster[]

Good catch on that explosion damage. I checked the GECK and it is set at 75 explosion damage. The Gunny 01:10, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Games[]

Looks like we've got a gambler eh?;) Thanks for your work on those pages, however, like I said before, try to keep them all in as few edits as possible.-- 22:23, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Life Giver[]

Was just looking through my talk-page and I saw your comment to me. I might have been a little hasty removing that information at first, mostly due to how it was originally written. I have read it over though and I see now that it is note-worthy. Thanks for bringing that to my attention and re-writing it. ^Skål! 19:24, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Twisted Hairs[]

Ausir did not believe in fan-fic. All of his work was unbiased with some sort of reference. (Maybe it was accidentally removed.) I'm going to re-add his work for now and send him an e-mail later to find out where he got that information from. For now, I'm going to trust his judgment in adding that background history. ^Skål! 20:19, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Hecate[]

Heheh, I understand your concerns perfectly. I've doubted quite a bit of Ausir's before also, in the past. He always had something to back him up though so I've learned to trust anything that he has contributed here. My guess is that this information came from an interview that might have been on a site that was taken down. (I've seen this happen a couple times and then people will remove the now bad-link) If it will make you feel better, I will be sending him an e-mail and leaving a message for him on The Vault. Hopefully he will be able to rectify this situation. ^Skål! 20:31, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thrown explosives[]

I suggest you actually make the thrown explosives page first, then add links. Those red links are very obnoxious. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 23:16, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Initiative[]

Don't take it that way, someone else can make the page if you don't have the time. Personally, I think this is something that's needed to be done and I'm surprised it already hasn't. Also, we're not going to revert your edits or block you for something so silly. ^Skål! 23:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh no no no. You're doing us a great favour here: adding detail. There is no "punishment" needed. You left a note in the summary about setting up the page, I'm sure no one will revert them. If you want to just make a substantial "Thrown explosives" page, then work on that, just so the links are fixed, that'll be great. Thanks! -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 23:25, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Great work, that's some good content. A friendly tip: the title of the page in the lead section is bolded, not italicised. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 23:51, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thrown explosive[]

That's some decent content in the thrown explosive page. Where did you get the information? Jspoel 00:59, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Good info. I'm a little confused about the first sentence in the Fallout 3 and New Vegas section, as it implies that dynamite and plastic explosives are in Fallout 3. Also, you don't happen to be a Mud Hens fan, do you? The Gunny 01:09, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Interesting. It's good to have a man onboard who's digging deeper into the game. Jspoel 01:23, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Very nice page. You've been doing some good work on lots of pages. <everyone checks the activity logs :)> So now you know what a Mud Hen is. I thought I might know you, and the person I thought you might be would know what that meant. The Gunny 01:32, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Thrown explosives[]

I've been thinking about naming these categories. Think it's better to name them Fallout: New Vegas thrown explosives, Fallout thrown explosives and so on, instead capitalizing Thrown, Explosive and adding weapons behind it. Jspoel 01:39, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

VATS bug[]

Hi! Thanks for the work in the VATS page. But please remember that you cannot verify your own entry (adding the platform tag). When adding a new bug you have to leave it for others to tag it (or, if you want to make my job easier, place the {{verify|~~~~~}} tag after it :D ) Toodles~ Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 02:50, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and BTW thanks for using the edit summary, it really makes patrolling easier :) Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

No problems, that's actually the right way to go, you should always be bold when editing. Even if you make a mistake there will be somebody to clean up and point the right way ;)

PS: Apologies accepted lol Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 06:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Thrown explosives[]

Hi there, your newer and I can see you've been doing some good work. However, the category you made is unecessary. Explosives are fine. Besides, every thrown weapon in every game is too broad. It is fine to add to the Thrown explosive page. -- 04:59, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen that you've made one for several of the games. After some reconsideration, this isn't a bad idea. I'll restore your page.

Yes, his work is pretty good so far. I have no qualms with him continuing. ^Skål! 05:03, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Re: Revert[]

There's a 5 quote limit on notable quotes sections. ^Message 03:24, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Kas[]

I'd advise you to discuss the issue with Kastera rather than deliver an ultimatum straight off; that'll help no-one in the long run. κηδεμόνας ^[~μιλώ~] 23:09, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

That's the spirit :D. A wise choice to leave that last message, and I agree that it can be hard to convey your intentions through text, that's why I find that the 'faces' you can make with text come in handy for once ;). κηδεμόνας ^[~μιλώ~] 23:15, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ghost people[]

Don't worry, you didn't come out as overly aggressive, just assertive. My main problem with your edit was in the edit summary: the lower-level ones may need verification..., which led me to think that the whole edit was unreliable. I would rather have the real values from the GECK instead of a player memorizing stats; human error and all that. Do you have access to the GECK? --Kastera ^(talk) 01:11, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if nothing else, you can use the GECK on Bethesda's site. I'm not sure when/if they update it, so I feel a PC accessed GECK may be more reliable. I noticed Gunny left you message below; you could ask him to find XP values on ghost people. --Kastera ^(talk) 03:12, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Do what needs to be done. --Kastera ^(talk) 02:50, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

GECK checker[]

Hey, Thelee, I reverted your edit on the protonic inversal axe. I double checked the GECK and 2x damage was correct. When I added the rest of the special attack info, I checked all the existing notes against the GECK, so they're all good. If you ever need someone to check the GECK, I'd be more than happy to. Just leave me a message. The Gunny 01:40, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you so late. I looked in the GECK a bit last night, and found a few things. I've never looked for experience point reward info before, so I wasn't sure where to look. I found the global game settings for XP rewards and found that marked men are in the creature category. I need to read a little on the GECK site to make sure I'm looking at the right stuff, but it doesn't look to me like you can get XP rewards anywhere close to 550 for even a level 50 marked man. I'll check some more tonight and get back to you when I have something concrete. The Gunny 01:51, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Those are the settings I saw in the GECK. It would seem that the max XP for killing any marked man would be 50XP, since NV did away with the difficulty setting XP modifiers from FO3. The Gunny 02:44, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

God Stuff![]

You've done some great work around here. I hope you keep it up! The Australian Kiwi 19:25, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Steady[]

Could you look at my response about Steady? Talk:Steady ---- Galileo Galilei (talk) 17:01, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Creation template[]

I've rename your weapon template. It's now called Template:Infobox weapon creation. Jspoel 17:26, November 24, 2015 (UTC)

Variables and PIs[]

Heya :) Since you seemed to be concerned about variables at {{infobox weapon creation/doc}}, I thought you should know that at {{infobox weapon gamebryo}} the former variable setup was retained and piped through the current PI code. In other words, the variable extension and PI code are compatible. And the variables in the earlier gameboyo template do seem to have all the different damage types that you mentioned — fire, radiation, electricity and all that.

That said, understand that the only aspect of Fallout I play is Fallout Shelter, and I don't really care to do any damage calculations when I play other games. The math of video games is largely a killjoy to me. So take what I say with a mountain of salt. Still, I thought you might find it interesting to take a gander at how variables and auto calculations can successfully flow through current PI code.

Oh, and thanks very much for building {{infobox weapon creation}} as a PI!
czechout ☎ ✍  20:14: Thu 10 Dec 2015

Hey, sorry, I actually have no idea what you mean by "PI" :(. I'm also a bit unclear what you're saying. When I looked at the gamebryo template, it had to specifically enumerate each damage type it cared about (normal, explosive, effect) and do it 9 times, for each modifier variable (e.g. perk1-9). Adding radiation to that (which I did) was exceedingly tedious - something like tens of variables had to be added, and tens of calculations, and it was extremely bug-prone (if among a thousand characters added a single bracket was missed, every template on the site would break). I didn't see anything about fire, electricity/energy or multi-damage-type variables in there. Also all the calculations also build in an assumption that every weapon in the game has to do some amount of normal damage, which doesn't work anymore for Fallout 4. (Thelee (talk) 22:07, December 10, 2015 (UTC))

Perk[]

Comparing the Perk's effectiveness early on vs end game to me is a strategy, which we don't add t pages. That is why I reverted the edits.Xa3talkContributions 17:56, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

There's more than 1 definition for every word in the dictionary, the definition I used came from the Merriam-webster dictionary. Plus Semi literally means halfXa3talkContributions 20:55, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Effect[]

If i remember right, that was an effect that only applied to that weapon. I'll take a gander in the geck when i get home later today. The Gunny   11:25, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Pyromaniac[]

I checked the GECK to see how Pyromaniac was defined. It holds a list of weapons that are affected by the perk. The list is as follows:

• Incinerator
• Heavy incinerator
• Incendiary grenade
• Flamer
• Shishkebab

That's all of them. It looks like they forgot to update the list when they added the DLC.
- FDekker ^talk 16:42, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

The script you mentioned is run continuously as long as the Happy Trails Expedition quest is active. At one point in the script it runs the command `AddFormToFormList PerkPyromaniacWeapons NVDLC02WeapFireBomb`, thereby adding the fire bomb to the list of weapons affected by the Pyromaniac perk. It doesn't add any other weapons though.
- FDekker ^talk 16:50, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, for GRA, a script is run that adds Cleansing Flame and Gehenna. The script looks like it should work, so if you don't see any changes in damage while using those weapons that is very strange indeed.
Additionally, I am able to recreate the bonus damage applied to these weapons.
- FDekker ^talk 17:22, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

You readded the note about burning damage, but I'm not sure if that's a bug. The in-game description of the perk is "With the Pyromaniac perk, you do +50% damage with fire-based weapons", but this doesn't specify what part of the damage it modifies. For that reason I think it shouldn't be listed as a bug, but should be part of the perk's description.
- FDekker ^talk 18:22, October 24, 2017 (UTC)