Difference between revisions of "Talk:GTM Tsunami"
From FreeSpace Wiki
(New page: Are you sure the GTM Tsunami does 3000 damage? My FS1 tables say 2000. ~~~) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==Damage Ratings== | ||
Are you sure the GTM Tsunami does 3000 damage? My FS1 tables say 2000. [[User:Mustang19|Mustang19]] | Are you sure the GTM Tsunami does 3000 damage? My FS1 tables say 2000. [[User:Mustang19|Mustang19]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | $Damage: 1500 | ||
| + | $Armor Factor: 1.0 | ||
| + | $Shield Factor: 0.02 | ||
| + | $Subsystem Factor: 2.0 | ||
| + | :Hmm.. 1500 x 2 = 3000. In any case, I scaled all the damage values 'as if' the highest factor would have been 1. So basically Tsunami ended up with 3000. Values were taken from ST tables.. However if you spot any difference between ST tables and FS1 please report it. I uploaded the table i used [http://koti.mbnet.fi/vekkup/FS2/Oldtables/FS1/weapons.tbl here]. - [[User:Wanderer|Wanderer]] 15:39, 24 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Well, mine's at home. FS1, not ST. But IMO we should put the base damage, not the highest possible value. Was this done for all the weapons tables? Either way, I say your value, 1500. I'm probably remembering wrong. [[User:Mustang19|Mustang19]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::With some weapons the actual value in the damage line is rather meaningless as none of the factors are 1. I thought of putting numerical values (either factors or then calculated damage values) into the weapon pages but decided against it as descriptive values IMHO fitted better into such surroundings. Accurate calculated values can be viewed in the [[Weapon_Comparison_(FS1)|comparison table]] page. - [[User:Wanderer|Wanderer]] 15:53, 24 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:53, 24 July 2007
Damage Ratings
Are you sure the GTM Tsunami does 3000 damage? My FS1 tables say 2000. Mustang19
$Damage: 1500 $Armor Factor: 1.0 $Shield Factor: 0.02 $Subsystem Factor: 2.0
- Hmm.. 1500 x 2 = 3000. In any case, I scaled all the damage values 'as if' the highest factor would have been 1. So basically Tsunami ended up with 3000. Values were taken from ST tables.. However if you spot any difference between ST tables and FS1 please report it. I uploaded the table i used here. - Wanderer 15:39, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
- Well, mine's at home. FS1, not ST. But IMO we should put the base damage, not the highest possible value. Was this done for all the weapons tables? Either way, I say your value, 1500. I'm probably remembering wrong. Mustang19
- With some weapons the actual value in the damage line is rather meaningless as none of the factors are 1. I thought of putting numerical values (either factors or then calculated damage values) into the weapon pages but decided against it as descriptive values IMHO fitted better into such surroundings. Accurate calculated values can be viewed in the comparison table page. - Wanderer 15:53, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
