That calculator isn't accounting for much but the direct input. It doesn't "understand" how the things are being added. Refer to Wolfram Alpha here (you aren't likely to find a better calculator anywhere on the planet). Through direct addition of percentage points, we get 70%. Through a relative percent increase (which is what this is), we get 60%. Through a compounded interest calculation (which this definitely is not), we get 80%. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%25%2B20%25

I don't think it's an issue of the calculator being wrong, and I'm almost certain that us being wrong is not the issue. I think you're just misunderstanding what exactly the game is doing, and I think you need to brush up on how percentages actually work and what they mean.

Unless I'm looking at the wrong Wiki page, it doesn't go into any detail about the calculations. In either case, I take the Wiki pages with a grain of salt. They're usually pretty accurate, but they're not official by any means.

The sneak multiplier is a total mess, that's absolutely true. That's quite a bit different though. Taken directly according to what the perks say and how they add or multiply the bonus, it's completely mathematically valid, when taken as a series of small gains, as opposed to a cumulative gain. I posted a thread about it a while back and actually worked out how the 6.3x sneak attack multiplier works. I worked out the other possible combinations (there are 9), but didn't take the time to type them all out. They're mathematically valid when taken as single discrete calculations that occur one at a time. They're not really mathematically valid when viewed as a single calculation though.

A single word can make all the difference. Philosophers have spent centuries ironing out the finer points of the difference that one word can make in if/then statements.

That's been one of my favorite little logic puzzles for a really long time. I remember in 6th grade my math teacher asked us that as an extra credit question on a test or a quiz. I was the only one who got the right answer. I've since gotten into actual debates with people who are just absolutely convinced that it's a paradox and that mathematics just utterly breaks down with it. I've tried breaking down the entire scenario for them and showing them, mathematically, that there is no missing dollar, but some people just seem to have minds that don't work that way.

Be that as it may. At least it's entertaining!

Hold it. "Right way to math"? What? The question is addition or multiplication and off of what so that's a number of variables already. I think that another poster stated it perfectly by pointing out the difference between the 2 words "Additional" and "Better". Those two words determine how it is calculated.

I think when your that close to something its not so much "lining up" as much as just "aiming towards". But then again I've never shot anything in real life....

I am not going to explain a lot... but

VATS has maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany points.

Actually that's not completely inaccurate. Up close gunwork, especially with a long barrel weapon is not really about aiming (other than in the general direction). Me, I just hit 'em. Works fine for me. Don't want all that gunpowder on the front of my armor.

And no. I can't believe how you still don't understand. Read the post again. Use that calculator and do precisely what I'm saying: 50% + 20% That means put 50 then press the percent + then 20 then the percent button and select equal.

Maybe if you paid attention to my comment you'd realize I WASN'T the one who initially said it was 60%. Look at the quote I submitted on my previous comment.

All I did was use that calculator pressed the numbers and percent button and got 0.6 which = 60% THAT'S IT. Which would back up what that poster said about 60% to begin with but several people here seem to think I was saying this was actual legit fact when i stated 4 FREAKING times that it's "not foolproof and likely to be wrong" to which I also stated "we need PC players to look in the coding to see how the percentages are being calculated in VATS" because between that comment i quoted and what the thread creator stated seems to match.

Now can we stop attacking me and calling me stupid for something I never claimed was fact. Oh and calling me a troll doesn't help any arguments here, I didn't post on this thread to make a silly comment and intentionally wanting to see people take that bait and retaliate with an argument.

Which is what a troll is:

"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

Can we drop this whole thing now? I think we've determined that it all comes down to "Additional" and "Better". Addition or multiplication. That's all.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so regularly posting information that is completely wrong by accident. You're either worse than a crow at doing math or a jerk, I'm going to be optimistic and think that you couldn't be that dumb.

I like the gunpowder line.

I just keep shooting/head shotting. With the pistol and rifle perks my gunshots are so much more powerful than melee, its just not worth it. Is there a perk that builds up "rifle butt" strength. Maybe than I'd switch...

one thing I don't see mentioned here, OP said he was doing a headshot in VATS at close range, when your modding weapons it specifically mentions that long barreled weapons take accuracy penalties at close range.

Of course I'm basically VATS only player, I didn't realize you could melee in VATS until recently, the slow mo VATS replays are a lot of fun for Melee.

PS (Spoiler) If you enjoy Melee, the Swan Monster in the middle of Swan lake in Boston has a sweet sweet melee weapon.

Can't get on to check, but I think you want 'gun fu'

Yep, long barrel. Overseers guardian: calibrated powerful, long ported, reflex circle, recoil compensating, large quick eject, and either a compensator or muzzle break.


Curious now as to what the exact formula would be? And what's the base, accuracy on the weapon itself I would imagine. To the googler

Who are you directing that to?

In the end, what is the hit chance for? You either hit and kill the target, or you don't and die.

If they are close enough to be considered "point blank range", then just shoot them in the face, no vats.

IIRC, it's a unarmed weapon, not a melee weapon.

I'm not sure what it is, but it's not Gun Fu. It's something on the strength side of the chart. ETA: It's Basher.

lol not you, stealthblade. I may disagree with some of your opinions but you don't spread misinformation.

Whew! I was worried. I'm crotchity and easily offended, but I worry so much what other people think of me.

IIRC, it's a unarmed weapon, not a melee weapon.

Good point, I couldn't remember the name, "unarmed" so I just said Melee. I guess I meant that if you like close combat in general, than its a great weapon. It is a bummer though that you can't use it in Power Armor, but perhaps power armor punches are equally powerful.

I never said you were the one that initially said it was 60%. I am ALSO saying that it's 60%. You're referring to a simple basic online calculator. I linked you to an INCREDIBLY complex calculator that is used by mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, and anyone else that needs to perform incredibly complex calculations. Wolfram Alpha is basically never wrong. Ever. It is a standard tool used all across the scientific community. As it shows in the link I posted, there are three different interpretations of that expression.

That's a single function calculator that doesn't allow the input of strings. You can't enter "50%+20%" into the calculator. You have to press 50, which is then entered as a base value. Than you hit the +20, which is interpreted as a percentage added onto a base value.

The formula that I've posted several times is the correct formula. x+.20x=total damage. Plain and simple. That is the formula. This is the way that it's interpreting your input into that calculator as well.

What I'm saying, is that the formula is not "50%+20%=.6 which 'rounds' to 60%". I'm saying that the actual formula is x+.20x=damage. Again, this is exactly how your calculator is interpreting it, even if your input looks different than the expression that I've written.

For example (again) -

If x=damage=50%

Then,

total damage=x+.20x

total damage=50%+.20(50%)

total damage= *drumroll*..........................60%!!!!!!

Now how do you think the calculator came up with the .60 (60%)? Was it using some weird mystical mathematical hoodoo? Or does it seem more plausible that it's using literally the exact formula that I've described? Again...keep in mind. I'm a physicist with degrees in both math and physics. I literally make my living doing math. I'm not trying to pull authority here, but that's kind of how the cards are arranged at the moment.

You'd think so.

I don't use VATS and i had a situation the other day that had me perplexed.

A gunner was doing that shooting from behind cover thing, crouched down but they were a body length away from their cover, (a pile of sandbags.) so actually way out in the open.

I fired several shots at their head with an explosive sniper for zero damage.

Yet when i took two steps to the left my shots hit the mark.

It had me wondering.